Talk:Cleavage (breasts)/Archive 1

Untitled discussion
Hi there, I made some formating changes, because there was very little under some of the headings, and replaced the original picture, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0, which, I think is freer than the coverpage. I left the SI picture in though, since I don't think there is a compelling reason not to include it, simply that the old one should not be replaced, since I think it is preferable. Hope that's ok, Trollderella 16:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I canged the picture back. The one you changed it to is really not a good picture, though I would not be against changing the magazine cover for a better one if you find one.  But the sharealike one is too close, and hardly indicitive of cleavage, as you can barely see any. AriGold 17:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

''Always use a more free alternative if one is available. Such images can often be used more readily outside the US. If you see a fair use image and know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it, so the Wikipedia can become as free as possible.''

You also changed all of the formatting changes back, I'm not sure whether that is deliberate. Frankly, I preffer the original picture, but the point is that it is more free in terms of licensing. I did not remove the magazine cover, and would appreciate having both the pictures on the page. I gives downstream users an option in terms of a free image which they can use that the magazine cover does not. For that reason I think it should stay. Trollderella 17:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I apologize, I was using two screens to compare and must've messed up. Agaian, sorry. I put both pics back up, resized them as they were bigger than the article itself and swapped the better pic for the one of the girl taking the picture of herself.  AriGold 17:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

No problem - philosophically, even if the magazine covers are fair use, I feel we should not use them in preference to genuinely free pictures. Trollderella 17:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I would agree if the "genuinely free pictures" were of decent quality and not like the one on this page. AriGold 17:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The heart wants what it wants, I suppose. I really like the original, it is somewhat artistic, showing cleavage 'in the wild'! Trollderella 17:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Right, but it's not centered, and the informational point in question is barely there visually as there is nothing underneath it to frame the area we are trying to describe, she is wearing black with a black backgound and her breasts have little definition or contour as to show what we are trying to describe. I mean honestly, it looks like a butt-crack with a head above it. You may "like" the original, but we are trying to add some form of information here in the form of a visual aide, not pick the picture we simply "like" more. Anyway, I hope it looks ok now. AriGold 17:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, it seems clear to me, the image seems to draw attention to the feature in question, as opposed to the magazine cover, which draws attention to the face and is muddled. We're also trying to provide a free information resource, but yes, it looks ok now. Trollderella 18:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Using a copyrighted magazine cover to illustrate something for which there are free alternatives available -- and are quite easy to create -- is not fair use. Poking around for a minute on Commons, I found a far better picture than both of those with a free license. --Fastfission 16:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Types of cleavage
I am unable to find the terms used in this article to distinguish the various ways of exposing parts of the breasts ("cleavage décolleté," "cleavage centros," "cleavage côté," "cleavage underside," "cleavage cleavy") anywhere else on the Web except Wikipedia mirrors and Bikini Science. Are they truly "recognized in the fashion industry," or simply neoboobisms? I hope someone can cite authentic sources for these terms, or at least provide numerous photographs illustrating them from all angles. ➥the Epopt 21:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It sounds to me like original research from "Bikini Science" and should probably be excised. --Cyde Weys 04:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks that way to me, too. Can't find these terms anywhere except for Bikini Science, mirrors of this article, and a couple of blogs discussing this article.  I have removed them.  Equalpants 03:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merger
Oppose merger. --Arcadian 13:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? —Keenan Pepper 14:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * We don't have separate articles for, say, Axilla and Underarm. Why should this be an exception? —Keenan Pepper 20:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose merger. The two terms are very different. Intermammary cleft, like inframammary cleft, is an anaatomical term used to describe the dimensions around the breasts. Cleavage is about the area of breast that shows outside the clothes. Cleavage can be reshaped by clothes, body position or gravity. Ghosts&amp;empties 00:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The current article gives the same definition for both, so they ought to be merged. Howdybob 20:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ghosts&empties, please don't edit my comments. It's considered vandalism, and I take it seriously. —Keenan Pepper 01:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

To my mind intermammary sulcus is the purely scientific term and, although arguably synonymous with cleavage, I think cleavage is a more social / fashionable term as denoted by the history of it (as lightly touched upon in the article, but could be expanded). That said, the intermammary sulcus article is rather short and if there really is nothing in it to be expanded on then probs worth deleting. Mmm, where does this leave me? 'Weak don't merge' Iancaddy 17:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Why should it be deleted instead of merged? Think about it. Suppose someone hears the phrase intermammary sulcus and decides to look it up on Wikipedia. If it's deleted, they get a long list of vaguely related stuff from the search engine, and think "hmm, maybe Wikipedia isn't all it's cracked up to be". If it redirects to Cleavage (breasts), they immediately find out what it is. —Keenan Pepper 22:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems Ghosts&empties took it upon himself/herself to remove the merge templates without doing anything about it. It seems to me there are only two possibilities: Either they are the same thing, and should be merged, or they are different things, and someone should explain how they're different. Intermammary sulcus still says "commonly referred to as cleavage", and yet they are not merged. This is not a satisfactory situation. —Keenan Pepper 21:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Free images are prefered to copyvios
I rolled back the image change; we prefer to use free images over copyright violations. ➥the Epopt 16:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Plus Aria Giovanni looks better. —Keenan Pepper 17:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this the same thing as intermammary sulcus or not?
This is getting ridiculous. If someone doesn't explain how these are different within a couple of days, I'm merging them. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and should not have multiple entries for synonyms. —Keenan Pepper 23:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The current definition in the Cleavage article is as follows: "Cleavage is the partial exposure of a woman's breasts, and/or the cleft between them." In other words: "X = Y, and/or Z". The intermammary sulcus is Z. X != Z. However, perhaps the Cleavage article is incorrect, and if you can find a credible, external source that asserts that the terms are synonyms, I would have no objection to the merger. --Arcadian 01:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Look, it doesn't even matter if they're not exactly the same thing, nothing more, nothing less. From Merging and moving pages under good reasons to merge a page:


 * There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there doesn't need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability.


 * As for a "credible, external source", how about the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, which defines cleavage as "the hollow between a woman's breasts, esp. as exposed by a low-cut garment"? —Keenan Pepper 01:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Good enough for me -- I remove my objection to the merge, but I ask that when you merge, you remove the "and/or" portion of the definition of cleavage (since the OED supports the "Z" definition but not the "Y" definition). --Arcadian 01:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Keenan - per your merger today from intermammary sulcus - I agree that the definition you've provided above is a synonym, so the merger would be appropriate. However, as I've mentioned above, the existing definition on the article page was not a synonym (because of the "and/or"). If you really want these pages merged, then we have to hold this page to the same rigor as we would other anatomical structures. Therefore, I have edited the page to align the definitions. --Arcadian 16:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Great. That's what I've always thought — it's not cleavage unless the breasts actually touch each other and form a visible line. —Keenan Pepper 00:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use is never, under any conditions, preferable to free
Let me attempt to clarify why I will continue to revert all attempts to add copyrighted images to this page: because they are copyrighted, and your fair use defense of your copyright violation is invalid unless you are discussing the image itself. For a magazine cover, you have to discuss that particular magazine's use of that particular image. You cannot use it to illustrate an article that has nothing to do with the image except that the woman in the image has an intermammary sulcus.

Yes, this means that the overwhelmingly vast majority of images that claim to be fair use are in fact indefensible copyright violations and should be summarily deleted. ➥the Epopt 16:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As a solution to copyright issues, on May 31 I editted the article to include a link to Liv Lindeland. I agree that the free image (Aria Giovanni) is preferable to a copyrighted one and have left that image at the top of the article. However the image of Liv Lindeland is still necessary to illustrate the concept of Australian cleavage (a technical term of art). I believe there is clear legal precedent Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation and Perfect 10 v. Google, Inc. that linking to an image is fair use. The image in the article on Liv Lindeland is fair use because the article critiques the image itself (as well as others of her) in addition to the image being used to identify her. (This same image of Liv Lindeland with a completely blank background is available elsewhere on the web if this is preferable to linking to another WP article.) Is there any reason why linking to an image as descibed would be a copyright violation? Ghosts&amp;empties 13:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hearing no objection, I've reverted to the link from May 31.


 * One problem with the link to Liv Lindeland is that it assumes the article will remain the same (someone might replace or remove those images), and it's not entirely clear which picture is being referred to. (Well, until you look at each one for signs of cleavage, but I assume you see what I mean.) &mdash;tregoweth (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

alternate image suggestion
thumb

What do you folks think? The model is my wife, the picture is legal and public domain so no worries there. I took the picture for the downblouse article but they would look nice here too, and take care of any fair use worries. HighInBC 05:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Image:AriaGiovanni.jpg better illustrates the phenomenon, a narrow cleft formed where the breasts touch each other. In your picture there's a pretty wide area between the breasts. —Keenan Pepper 15:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No ... I can't even think of a humorous caption for this.

Ok, it was made for the downblouse article so it is clearly not suited for this one. HighInBC 16:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Crude comment removed. HighInBC 19:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

would make sense to me to crop out the paper in the image... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.212.62 (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Failed GA
Failed article, for the following reasons: -Isopropyl 15:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Appears to have elements of original research
 * 2) Image is missing essential source information

Post Flapper fashion
Cleavage as defined is a partial revealing of the breast. How is it that cleavage came back with sweaters? This should be clarified. --Lelek 06:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Nix history
As noted in the comment above, the section on the history of cleavage is unclear and very vague. Cleavage was popular long before "the late fifteenth century". Doing a brief history of cleavage (even a recent history) would be roughly akin to a brief history of women's fashion. The history section appears to have been an attempt to make the article appear encyclopedic. However the number of articles linking here demonstrate its significance.

I also deleted the image "1200cc Breast Implants.jpg" as an illustration of Australian cleavage because it's a better image of scary/scarry implants. The link to the album cover is fair use of a copyright image and more illustrative. Ghosts&amp;empties 23:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Splitting up merged articles again
Mark my words: neither this article nor Intermammary sulcus will ever become a featured article or even a good article without including information that belongs at the other. Go ahead, try to make Intermammary sulcus a featured article without talking about cleavage. Prove me wrong; I'd be delighted. —Keenan Pepper 20:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I nominated this article for "good article" status pretty much as a joke (although it's one of my personal favorites). Like good décolletage, the content is pretty skimpy (but enough to warrant an article). I agree that intermammary sulcus is just an sterile synonym that's already fully covered in the cleavage article. Ghosts&amp;empties 13:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Australian cleavage?
As an Australian, I have never heard of the displaying of the underside of breasts being referred to as Australian cleavage. This term looks remarkably like an invention of a wikipedia author.

I have not tagged it yet but will do so unless someone can provide compelling evidence that the term exists outside a few wiki articles and copycat sites. If the term is unique to one country (eg the USA), it would be appropriate to say so in the article. --AliceJMarkham 04:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not surprising that Australian Cleavage is an unknown term in Australia. It would be confusing (all cleavage in Australia is Australian) and the term "Down under", the basis for the joke is seldom used there. I know that Australian cleavage has been used in shock radio shows. H Bruthzoo 18:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It violates WP:NEO. I removed it. CyberAnth 11:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Both terms are well established. While not the sort of neologism that William Safire covers, they are used by VH1 (here) and the aforementioned radio program, not to mention enumerable blogs and boards, which are a legitimate source of new language (but not in themselves a basis for WP articles). These terms are salient to the article to clarify that not all exposed breast is cleavage - the underside is Australian cleavage/neathage.[[User:H Bruthzoo|H Bruthzoo] 23:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Alice, I have heard it used in the USA, UK, and Japan. It probably isn't used in Australia because it relies upon the the assumption that "Australia is upside down" which is something you (at least last I heard) mostly reserved for tourists and not for everyday life. - 24.23.37.62 (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

push up bras
what is the purpose of the removeable pads in push up bras? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.212.149.192 (talk) 07:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC).
 * I don't have a source for this, but they're probably so the bra can convert from pushing up the breasts and looking sexy to flattening them more and looking more professional. Philwelch 04:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say it's the opposite. It takes up more space in the bra, thus pushing more breast up and out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.142.179 (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC).


 * The pads push the breasts together and up, but not "out". They might look a bit more "out", but that's padding, not breast. Removing the pads makes the bra appropriate to wear to work, school, church, etc., and often makes the bra more comfortable. Having the chest squished around for long periods of time is not exactly relaxing. I dont think "personal experience" and "chatting with friends" are considered very good sources on my part, though. --64.180.207.196 (talk) 03:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Cleavage in the past
During the 16th century some fashion had women's dresses with necklines that went down to the navel. Also in 18th century France cleavage was very popular, even as the expose the nipples. During the late Renaissance some dress even exposed the both breast of the women. All this applied to women of all classes. This page would look great with a historical section, and more images. --Margrave1206 21:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This article had a "Cleavage through the ages" section, but it was woefully unsourced. If you have a good source or two, go for it. H Bruthzoo 23:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Breasts as false indicator of consequence-free sex
I'm removing this for the moment, as it doesn't seem like an especially notable theory. It's just published on a blog, and it seems at odds with other attraction data pointing strongly to indicators of fertility and non-pregnancy, such as youthfulness and an hour glass figure.--Ty580 16:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Science writer Burton MacKenzie speculates that mature female breasts were selected for because they were a false indicator of pregnancy and thus of "consequence free sex".

Desmond Morris

 * Six of one, half a dozen of another. From wikipedia's page on Desmond Morris, Since their publication, some of Morris' theories explaining elements of human behaviour via a zoological lens, in particular via natural evolutionary mechanisms, have been attacked as incomplete, incorrect, or overly simplistic. Some explanations have also been criticised for being male-centred or supporting a sexist view of sexual behaviour. Some contend that his comments are often untestable, and as a result unscientific.  24.78.106.209 10:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If the point of adding this is that criticisms of evolutionary psychology should be included, that is an appropriate point, but the criticisms in the above quote all need attributions.--Ty580 21:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yet another image suggestion
I humbly suggest - it's an equally free image, and simply displays more cleavage than. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * How about this? Videmus Omnia Talk  16:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hard to beat that, clearly the focus of the picture. We'll leave the other one for when the article has a decolletage section. :-). --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The best image will probably be one that portrays cleavage as it most frequently appears in society, so the unusually revealing clothing and unusually very large breasts seen in the Louise Glover and Gianna Michaels pics wouldn't be representative of the article topic. The Aria Giovanni pic portrays breasts that should be large enough for the topic.--Ty580 21:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. -- Infrogmation 22:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I really disagree. Why "one that portrays cleavage as it most frequently appears in society"? For demonstrative purposes, Image:AN Gianna Michaels 1.jpg is clearly the better image. The subject of this articel is clearly and purposefully the focus of the picture. --Evb-wiki 02:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * More than 1 image in an article is allowed! I would second a normal sized breast in this article. But i fail to see reason for removal of pixel size saying that it is deprecated. Lara_bran 03:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to look through User:Videmus Omnia/Free Images. I seem to have accumulated a lot of cleavage pictures. Videmus Omnia Talk  04:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * How'bout a gallery of cleavages in the article? Lara_bran 04:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * A gallery currently with 137 images can already be seen in the Commons Category:Decolleté linked here. Any other free images of relevence not in that category yet can be added. -- Infrogmation 09:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the substitution of Image:Densie Milani in pink.jpg for the lead image. Certainly enormous breasts nearly falling out of a skimpy top are eye-catching, but I don't think that's a better illustration of the subject of the article. Other thoughts? -- Infrogmation 20:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * We clearly need multiple sections; for cleavage as commonly seen in society, and extreme cleavage... :-) ... --AnonEMouse (squeak) 02:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

In the best faith, I rather boldly changed the lead image to this:     for the following reasons: (a) It is a specific close-up, illustrative of the topic, (b) it portrays a "standard" display of cleavage (i.e. not involving unusually revealing clothing or abnormally large breasts; note the comment above by Ty580), and (c) it is in the public domain. I think the first two of the above criteria make it more suitable for an encyclopaedic entry, the third particularly suitable for Wikipedia. I think it is a vast improvement on the previous images suggested. If you do revert, I won't hold anything against you, provided that you have and appropriate reasons, and explain them clearly on this discussion page. --Dune911 (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't reverted the image change, as I don't see a problem with the image per se. I have, however, formatted the image in accordance with The section of Wikipedia's manual of style relating to images by removing the fixed pixel size. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks... I wasn't sure abut the formatting issue, thanks for pointing it out, I now know for future edits. --Dune911 (talk) 12:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * i think that there should be a picture demonstrating neathage, i'd take one myself but i don't exactly have boobs...im male —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.73.26.8 (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've changed it to the Louise Glover pic, on purely subjective, aesthetic grounds. It's just a more attractive shot.  --Trovatore (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought the one from Dune911 (talk) was very good. And if not that, then I think http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:And_shes_very_Intelligent,_too_(5505844).jpg is better than the Louise Glover pic, on purely OBbjective, aesthetic grounds: the Louise Glover pic has some jewellery right at the inflection point, which blocks one's view. --130.13.18.143 (talk) 01:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't like that one because it's too purely a "parts" picture. This isn't an anatomy article, after all; it's about a cultural phenomenon.  As for objectivity, that's out the window.  There isn't going to be any "objective" right answer to this, and I'd appreciate it if everyone would quit pretending otherwise. --Trovatore (talk) 04:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Cleave
So the word cleave is one of those self-antonyms -- it can mean either "cling to" or "split from". And it seems that either of the two meanings could be relevant here. So which is it? Is it where the breasts cling together, or where they're split apart? --67.116.236.81 (talk) 09:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Merger from Cleavage (buttocks), Toe cleavage and Whale tail
These terms are not notable on their own and should be merged with this article. This article should then be moved (or in this case, redirected) to Cleavage (anatomy) to better clarify the topic. I would appreciate input from other editors and if there's no opposition to the merger, it will be done in 48 hours. Otherwise, please leave your comments here. Thanks, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Sources provided establish independent notability. Alansohn (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * See my comments on the other talk pages for my response. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose There are various different types of cleavage. Lumping them all into one article serves no purpose.  I think WP:PAPER covers this. --  JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's the same phenomena in each of the articles, they all describe the same concept as the others, and Cleavage (buttocks) and Toe cleavage don't have enough sources to stand on their own. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: For an article that has existed for almost 3 years, 48 hours is inappropriately short. One week should be the minimum. --Gronky (talk) 09:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant that only if there was no opposition. I meant it only as a time frame for the move, not a deadline for discussion. I don't intend to move this page now unless consensus here establishes it, which it looks like this is going to fail. My apologies. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose. I believe that, while an article at Cleavage (anatomy) may well be justified, this article should remain separate, being referenced with a main link. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 02:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose A cleavage or Décolleté is primarily a subject that concerns the breast, the butt cleavage is a different concept altogether, while there are other (mostly fringe) concepts of the cleavage existing. Therefore, it is easy to assume that we can has three decent articles here - Cleavage (breasts), Cleavage (buttock) and Cleavage (anatomy). We may make ample use of the disambiguation page (Cleavage). That's one of the reasons the disambiguation pages exist (to serve as a navigation dashboard for multiple overlapping concepts). And finally, the central page - Cleavage (anatomy) - may well have a little on all types of cleavages (with "main" links to bigger articles, house the smaller articles like cleavage (toe) and give an overview of the anatomical cleavage (currently that part remain mighty poor). Aditya (talk • contribs) 02:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I will withdraw this request and nominate Cleavage (anatomy) for speedy deletion. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Article quality
The only halfway sensible section of this article is the second paragraph and even that has a silly title. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The author seems to be preoccupied with breasts. My dictionary, Websters, says it has considerably less to do with boobs and much more to do with the style of the dress. An example of the correct usage is, ". . . her sister sat opposite him in a dress . . . with a particularly low, square-cut decolletage showing her white bosom." Anna Karenina, Leo Tolstoy. It's the dress, not the anatomy, I believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.135.99 (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * May have been originally, but modern usage seems to be more about the breasts. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Can we please keep the Porn Stars and Pin-ups du jours off this page? You people are so obviously porn smeg-heads. You shoot yourself in the foot. If you keep associating cleavage with porn, most people will eschew it. Leave it as a people's natural thing and stop pornographing it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by True wiki guru (talk • contribs)


 * I agree. Indeed. Cleavages are rather a sociological than an 'erotic' or 'pornographic' phenomenon, although the motivation for them is (almost) always the latter one, even subconsciously. But why two equal pictures in the same article? Please add an appropriate caption to the one that is left. If it's the case, add another image, different from the first one. --Algorithme (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, I removed the bit about: "Theories of cleavage." This business has no place in an Encyclopedia; it isn't even correct. It is opinion and opinion only, being touted as fact. Frankly, none of this article has a place in an encyclopedia but it seems that we cannot keep the 10,000 monkeys away from the keyboard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by True wiki guru (talk • contribs) 14:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * While the image thing can be discussed, it is not acceptable at all that you are removing sourced information arbitrarily. Discuss what you don't like, and if there's a consensus, remove. Aditya (talk • contribs) 16:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I am sorry for having not perceived the exclusion of the Theories. The zoological, psychological content (although they look merely an opinion) is, in fact, indispensable. Nice organization.--Algorithme (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Recent changes look to me to have improved the article significantly. Well done. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I mean this from a encyclopedic standpoint, of course, when I say that the photos in this article are lacking. Does anyone know where better ones could be found? Fedordostoy (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Question
Isn't cleavage the cleft between the bossoms? The article's first sentence makes it seem like it has to do with neckline of the shirt. But with without a shirt, there is still cleavage is there not? Do we need to consult an expert? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Audio file dates to the future
I couldn't find a way to determine the real date the audio file was created but it's clearly not 2010-06-07 as stated on the wiki article. Better remove the date and state something like "older version of the article and doesn't..." than having a future date standing there? --Jan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.54.85.183 (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Turns out the file was supposed to be dated to the 6th of January 2010.  Sometimes the article history (and the file's own data) will help.  It wasn't vandalism (I checked many back versions) but rather apparently a simple typo/error made by the person who posted it. Centerone (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Starting over
I'm attempting to reboot the discussion so we get focused on content.

The article is now locked down for a week. So we have over two dozen edits reverted. Among them are fairly uncontroversial edits like these. We need cogent discussion about why edits like these need to be reverted. Can those who reverted please explain themselves in more detail?

Peter Isotalo 12:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Just go through them one by one. There is no point is rebooting in this manner: experience tells me that it will achieve little. That's why I started the discussion about the table above. - Sitush (talk) 13:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * If anyone wants to go through edits one by one, they're free to do that. The point is that those who have reverted need to explain why they reverted. This is about more than removals of pics and tables.
 * Peter Isotalo 14:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You took this issue to my talk page, where I responded with this. Stop drawing up battle-lines with whoever reverted those edits and instead try to move forward. - Sitush (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, having first tried to delete my 13:51 reply above, you have now attempted to delete this entire thread. You've been here since 2005 and are unfamiliar with WP:TPG? If you want to close this thread (and I have no objection to that) then use the templates that are at your disposal. - Sitush (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why this thread should be closed. Peter has identified a series of uncontroversial edits. Can we at least get agreement on these? --Neil N  talk to me 14:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've no idea if those edits are controversial or not. I really couldn't care less what headings are used: it is petty stuff and I'll just go with the flow. But Peter's point was much broader than those three diffs: he wanted the reverter(s) to explain their every rationale in one single thread. It isn't going to work because it will generate a host of sub-discussions, with people talking at cross-purposes etc. - Sitush (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We can start with the three small ones and go from there (gotta start somewhere). Larger changes can have their own threads. --Neil N  talk to me 14:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sitush replies is exactly why I closed the thread. It has become a meta-discussion without content relevance. Can we please move on?
 * Peter Isotalo 14:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Shrug, okay, your call. I'd prefer if you use the archive rather than the hat tags, though. --Neil N  talk to me 14:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Redirect?
Any idea why Decolletage (note no accent) redirects to this article instead of Décolletage (with accent)?--Theodore Kloba (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point, see merger discussion below. — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 20:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Since redirected to Décolletage. — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 22:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Merger with Décolletage
The two articles are describing two aspects of the same thing: the Décolletage, which is the neckline, and the cleavage created by that neckline.

Fully a third of the body of the article on Décolletage is largely unsourced original research and ought to be removed. Both articles have a section on history. The well-sourced section of Décolletage has a decent section on the history of low necklines and cleavage. This article on cleavage covers that same subject: "Décolletage, which is the form of the neckline, is an aspect of woman's fashion. As such, popular necklines change over time and for different occasions."

Both articles refer to the bare-breasted Décolleté styles of the 17th and 18th century, to the fashions of Greece, how "In aristocratic and upper-class circles the display of breasts was at times regarded as a status symbol," the Renaissance, and the change when the Victorian era changed fashions. The only paragraph in the history section of cleavage that's not discussed in Décolletage is the paragraph beginning, "During the French Enlightenment, there was a debate as..."

So the history sections overlap considerably. Both will be enhanced when they are merged. — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 20:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I support a merger. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not support a merger. Though it is true that the materials presently overlap, and some may be better placed in the other article, décolletage is the neckline, which need not have anything to do with cleavage. Perhaps someone could work on that aspect of the article - ie on changes to neckline styles. Enthusiast (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Cleavage is body, décollete is clothing. Their social history is significantly distinct. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose, Agreed with Andy above. They aren't the same thing. Zach 04:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Pretty hard to see the cleavage without the décolletage. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you can have a neckline which does not expose cleavage. Enthusiast (talk) 05:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Since the term décolletage is "is most commonly applied to a neckline that reveals or emphasizes cleavage" (in fact, that is its only popular and colloquial use), the two are intimately linked together, which is why I support a merger. We can leave behind a more general article on "necklines" and move the material on necklines which allow the presentation of cleavage into this article.  That makes much more sense to me than an artificial division between the two. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So WP:RS has now gone in favour of "popular and colloquial"?  I make costumes. I care about this stuff. Maybe that's not a popular requirement – most are indeed coincidental, but it's still a correct distinction, with a clearly recorded history. Décolletage often de-emphasises cleavage, if you're looking at a style that is low-cut, but without uplift. It's not all just beershelves. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Beershelves"? I'd like to see some references on that concept. — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 22:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Neutral - the definition includes exposure from the waist to the neck. It is possible to combine these two subjects, since both have the same relation to body and garments. Decolletage is not a common term, so someone will have to explain how a possible merge could take place. Lucy346 (talk) 05:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Separate, though obviously related, topics.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for everyone's input! If anyone wants to take a whack at improving the separation between these two articles, it'd be a big step forward. — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 22:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Questions and discussion
How could such a merger have worked? Lucy346 (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Dispute over an image
The Sargent MadameX image is relevant "only" if the caption checks out. So far no citation has been provided to support the claim that - "This portrait by John Singer Sargent of Virginie Amélie Avegno Gautreau depicting her cleavage caused considerable controversy when it was displayed at the 1884 Salon in Paris". I have no clue why the "citation needed" tag was removed without providing a citation.

Even if it checks out, the image looks more appropriate for the "controversies" section than the "history" section, as it is about a controversy, and not historical evolution of the subject. Aditya (talk • contribs) 09:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Merge with Décolletage
The two articles are about the same thing, no matter how carefully crafted the intros are in a vein attempt to make them look like two separate subjects. No need to keep to separate articles. Aditya (talk • contribs) 09:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you notice the pre-existing discussion from just a few months ago? Centerone (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed the merge tage, since this was just discussed recently. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I did notice the discussion. And the only significant argument there is - "Cleavage is body, décollete is clothing." But, that isn't really the only perspective. Both cleavage and décollete are fashion. Oxford Dictionary defines décolletage as "a woman’s cleavage as revealed by a low neckline on a dress or top" and cleavage as "the hollow between a woman’s breasts when supported, especially as exposed by a low-cut garment". Essentially décolletage is cleavage revealing and the cleavage is the part revealed by décolletage. They are different subjects only in technicalities (what's next? two separate articles on left foot and right foot, because they are not the same? - joking). Sub-sections within the same article should be sufficient to cover the difference here. Notice that even in the earlier discussion the opposing views has explicitly mentioned that the two subjects are clearly overlapping and closely related.

I believe the discussion was closed without ample argument. While technically a rough consensus was reached, I'd like to invoke WP:CCC here and reopen the discussion (with probably more participation, if possible). Aditya (talk • contribs) 04:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The two articles are both well developed and talk about different subjects. Cleavage is "is the space between a woman's breasts", which can be shown off by clothing. Decolletage is not the same thing. <font color="##990000" face="geneva" size="3"> static shakedown ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ 13:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Lead image
While the lead image shows ample cleavage, it has two clear flaws - (1) it is a top angle shot and therefore fails to capture a cleavage from vantage point of a regular decollete; and (2) it strongly depicts a downblouse, a voyeuristic aspect of a woman's cleavage as against a more social depiction of the subject.

Can it be replaced by any of the images on the right, or a similarly appropriate image? There are so many cleavage images in the commons that this should not be difficult at all. And, finally, I believe, a celebrity image from a public event or a mainstream published work has less personality right implications. Aditya (talk • contribs) 15:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It does, however, have the advantage of centering and highlighting the topic. If either of your examples were to be used, they would need to be similarly cropped to remove extraneous features such as faces.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I fully believe that the current image is adequate; it demonstrates full heartedly that Cleavage is the space between the breasts, and with a good amount of space and unambiguity that that entails. The fact that it's a 'downblouse' I don't think is a concern, because an image like it in an encyclopedic manner explaining what a cleavage is is not 'voyeuristic', it's plainly encyclopedic for the reader to see exactly an unambiguous image of what a 'cleavage' is. The other two images have the flaw of showing people's faces, and may distract from the full view of what a cleavage is. I think that the current image is fine in that regard. The other flaw is that plainly, we know who they are. Paris Hilton and Nathalia Department. It may be a BLP violation to include any lead image in which the people are plainly recognizable, just imagine it, 'Holy crap, Wikipedia put -MY BREASTS- on the page about Cleavage? Really?!' . Looking at the history of the page, it's been stable with this lead image for quite some time. I don't see any pressing need to replace it with other images which clearly have downsides. Tutelary (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Cleavage (breasts)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Cleavage (breasts)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Goo":<ul> <li>From Underwire bra: </li> <li>From Brassiere: </li> </ul>

Reference named "post":<ul> <li>From Brassiere: </li> <li>From Underwire bra: </li> <li>From Oslo Opera House: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Done. Aditya  (talk • contribs) 06:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting material
This book has lots of stuff on augmentation. This site has stuff on Dutch cleavage paintings. Aditya (talk • contribs) 13:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent content removal by User:Ewawer
I noticed that you have removed the entire pathology section (here) with an edit summary that says - "section on pathology is not a cleavage issue, but a general breast issue". There is a little problem with that removal and the rationale provided. I am sure that you have noticed it was a section on ailments that affect the cleavage, some were unique to the cleavage (cleavage wrinkle), some were not unique to the cleavage of breasts (Prurigo pigmentosa) and some were not limited to the cleavage area only (Poikiloderma of Civatte). How do you propose that they are not cleavage issues? Please notice, being comprehensive is a serious requirement.

I am reverting your edit. Please, discuss and try to build toward a consensus. If two involved editors can't solve an issue by mutual discussion then it is always possible to get other editors involved. Aditya (talk • contribs) 04:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:FAC is a guideline for a nominating procedure. It has no bearing on notability or relevance.
 * I'm pretty skeptical to the whole concept of building up sections like "Pathology" or "Anatomy". What's relevant here is whether physicians actually refer to medical issues with the cleavage or if they treat it as dermatologists or whatever. Cleavage is primarily a visual concept, not a body part per se, so treating it as though it was a body part is specious.
 * As for wrinkles, they have absolutely nothing to do with "pathology". Wrinkles are not harmful or dangerous, but merely a sign of ageing. Resorting to plastic surgery is not a "treatment", but simply a way to adapt to standards of physical attractiveness for women. That this is the only one of the "ailments that affect the cleavage" is pretty telling.
 * Peter Isotalo 04:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The removal harmed the article. Such information is fantastic here. It is relevant. It should, of course, be in the other article as well.Cptnono (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Removal improved the article. It's overly long, rambling and full of coatrack, and the formatting is terrible.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 20:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * All removals have been clearly motivated in edit summaries. A lot of them are based on unreliable sources, plenty of them either self-published or irrelevant to the topic. And most of them over-interpreted.
 * Cptnono, you have to motivate yourself with more than just "Removal harmed the article".
 * Peter Isotalo 20:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * EvergreenFir said the formatting is terrible, using that as one of the justifications for removal. It isn't: just fix the dodgy formatting. - Sitush (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Those fixes got reverted...  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 21:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * They did? I can't spot that in your list of diffs in the section below. It might help to give the diff: I can certainly see some problems with the article. - Sitush (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Every single one, Sitush. Even the uncontroversial copyedits.
 * Peter Isotalo 22:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Your diff returns "No difference". This is very confusing. - Sitush (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I was stressing that every single edit we made over the past few days has been undone.
 * Peter Isotalo 12:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

COATRACK
I have removed some sections, specifically the tables, that suffered from WP:COATRACKing. The topics were either tangential or too specific for the article. The bra info belongs in the cleavage enhancement article, if anywhere.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 05:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you provide some diffs and wikilinks? Is there even a cleavage enhancement article? From a brief glance, it appeared to be relevent here even if it could be used somewhere else.Cptnono (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please take the time to read the edits and the article. I did not make these changes hastily. And yes, as I mentioned in edit summary, Cleavage (breasts) as a Main at the top linking to Cleavage enhancement.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 20:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

As requested by, here's explanations of my edits To be most honest, it seems you reverted just because you saw a lot of edits, but didn't actually investigate the edits in depth.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 20:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In this edit:
 * I added dead link
 * I removed the "bottom cleavage" section as it fails all verification. That term is not used by any RS to refer to breasts.
 * In this edit:
 * I removed the downblouse section as it's WP:COATRACK and WP:OR. It's not about cleavage, it's about a sexual fetish. Also fails WP:V (no mention of cleavage, no mention of cleavage, no mention of cleavage related to downblouse).
 * In this edit:
 * Entire thing is COATRACK; it's about bras more than cleavage. Belongs in Cleavage enhancement.
 * - Come join the fun! :D  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 20:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it should be discussed first is all, has a consensus formed yet on the issue? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The blanket revert really isn't helping, though. There's a whole series of edits that are clearly motivated per WP:RS and WP:COATRACK. It's not like content has been blanket-zapped so I have trouble seeing why all of it is being reverted.
 * For crying out loud, you even reverted moving info on wrinkles from "Pathology". There needs to be some reciprocity in effort here.
 * Peter Isotalo 21:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Discussion is fine (and it's not exactly happening much, but I'm trying to be patient). But all edits were clearly explained. Just a bit annoying when edits are reverted just because there's a lot of change and a user assumes bad faith. There's no huge rush some I'm trying to be patient, but this thing's a mess.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 21:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, if nobody objects in an hour's time feel free to revert back, I know this issue has been taken to ANI though. I agree some of the edits are no brainers but it is disputed so that means picking apart the edit and finding out what is contested and what isn't. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's on ANI? Wish I had been notified.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 21:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm the only one named. It's a pretty specious listing, though.
 * Peter Isotalo 21:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I like the physiological and historical sections but the portion on bras and underwear is ridiculous. There are articles on bras and this material should be moved there. The rest of the "cleavage enhancement" can go to that article. This article is unnecessarily long and should not stand as a tribute to the glory of cleavage. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 22:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The tables for bras etc are out of place in this article, ie: undue. It would be appropriate to have a section of text, with maybe just one image, that explained how the physiology can be impacted by the garments. It might also be appropriate to have a sentence or two about the opposite, which I think is called binding? In any event, a link to a more focussed article would be at the core of what we would say. FWIW, there are also numerous errors in the text of the table, mostly of the WP:OVERLINK, grammatical and repetitive variety. - Sitush (talk) 00:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

- you appear to have reverted for reverting's sake. There are multiple editors discussing this and other issues with the article and none seem to have a problem with the edits. The editor who did has not commented since the ANI was filed. Please consider reverting your edit. As and  said at the ANI, the bold edit is the restoration of that material, not its removal.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 04:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Ummmm...no. I'm reverting because I don't believe that edit-warring is the way to win content disputes. If these changes truly have merit, then editors should be able to obtain consensus on the article talk page.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's been nearly a day since the edits with nearly a dozen editors didn't actually count, but more than a few commenting on this talk page. There's been an ANI (Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents) where editors expressed support for the edits. There's no edit war. There's one editor who say large changes, assumed bad faith, and reverted them multiple times.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 05:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A Quest For Knowledge, in all honesty, it's you who appears to be trying to incite an edit war here. Multiple policy based and explained changes were made, but you just reversed it all in one swoop with no explanation beyond "stable". I agree with Evergreen, your mass revert was disruptive and should be reverted.  If you have policy based changes you'd like to make to some of it, please do so with explanations on talk page (or at a minimum in edit summary)--BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, how does one incite an edit war that was already in progress? I'm not a time-traveler. And if I was a time-traveler, I could think of million things I'd rather be doing that editing this stupid article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * By undoing the work of multiple editors in one swoop with no explanation given beyond "stable". That's not reasonable or fair to those who put substantial effort into improving this article.  You'd have to expect that would be objected to.  If you disagree with the changes made please state why as you change them back (or change them to something else) and do it in smaller steps. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is one slow "edit war" then... but I admit I've seen slower.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 05:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * - There is no edit war, just ppl reverting for the sake of it. Lots of conversation on talk page, no one actually against edits, just apparently against reverts. Did you see the ANI, the dozen or so editors that are okay with the edits and not just reverting to "status quo" despite all the discussion here and on ANI?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 07:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What? Of course there was an edit war, and of course some people thought that the initial revert was ok per BRD. I am getting a bit fed up of people selectively summarising discussions, policy etc here, as at ANI, seemingly just to suit their POV. - Sitush (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine, there's no content dispute. This is just bureaucratic reverting for the sake of reversion. The only one who reverted and actually discussed content a smidge was Cptnono. People are having an actual discussion about the image below... that's an actual content issue. But the other edits, no so much.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 07:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hyperbole again but, for the sake of clarity, I am going to copy a recent post into a new section and we can discuss it there. Myself and Liz were at least two people who commented. - Sitush (talk) 07:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * @EvergreenFir: Wow, "it's been nearly a day". So, are you claiming that if the community spends less than a day on a dispute, then consensus has been achieved?  You do realize that, for example, RfCs last for 30 days, right? "There's no edit war", I'm sorry but you must be trolling.  I'm not going to waste my time arguing against someone in the middle of a content dispute who claims that there is no content dispute. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, screw this:

In favour of the recent removals (all of them)

 * Johnbod (talk) 05:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Now that Mendaliv has made blanket reversal of multiple editors in the name of "status quo", instead of simply changing back content he disagreed with (and explaining what or why he disagrees), I'm changing my vote. Blanket reversals like that are disruptive. Let's leave all of the changes (which people were decent enough to actually explain in edit summaries and talk page) and then work from there with policy based or explained edits or reversals only.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 06:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 *  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 07:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * gobonobo + c 16:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I made a lot of the original edits, so... Peter Isotalo 16:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Something else
I would just prefer not to see the efforts of multiple editors reversed in one swoop with no explanation beyond, hey, let's go back to "stable". The point here is to improve the article. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 06:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's go through the stuff one item at a time. The edit warring was coming from both "sides" and this article appears to have attracted the interest of people who are heavily involved with the GGTF project, which (given it is a haunt of feminists who even manage to upset a fair few women) means we need to be seen to be approaching it with as clean a pair of hands as is possible in the circumstances. There is no deadline. - Sitush (talk) 07:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I make that 27 "items" (edits). The least one of the mass-reverters (or those acquiescing in this) could do is to set them up as a list here so we can discuss, if you really feel that necessary. Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyone could do that. Peter just kind of ham-fistedly went down that road. I've got to nip out to a job but if you check the archives and grab the two or three diffs Peter found that related to changed section headings then I'm pretty sure you will meet no opposition if you propose reinstatement of them in a section below. If we list every diff in one section, things will deteriorate rapidly. - Sitush (talk) 15:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyone could do that, but the ones who should do that are those who have so far just mass-reverted, or supported that, rather than doing the work of actually reading the article and making detailed edits to improve it. If they can't be bothered to do so, the appropriate conclusions can be drawn. Johnbod (talk) 15:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Avoid painting feminists, GGTF, and its members negatively. We already know your feelings on it. No need to suggest we cannot be good contributors.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 07:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't give people the ammunition is what I am saying, and I quite deliberately named no-one in particular. As a Talk:Thigh gap, you've missed the core point and have chosen instead to (fairly mildly) attack me personally without foundation. That is the sort of aggressive position that causes difficulties. Well, it would if it were not for the fact that I get rabidly attacked on most days here, so I really don't care what you think about me. - Sitush (talk) 07:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I saw your comments as a mild slight toward other users including myself. If I'm wrong, I apologize.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 07:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A lot of us seem pretty upset about this (including me), so I've tried to restart the discussion below to get it focused on content.
 * Peter Isotalo 12:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Table in Cleavage enhancement section
Copied from a thread above:"The tables for bras etc are out of place in this article, ie: undue. It would be appropriate to have a section of text, with maybe just one image, that explained how the physiology can be impacted by the garments. It might also be appropriate to have a sentence or two about the opposite, which I think is called binding? In any event, a link to a more focussed article would be at the core of what we would say. FWIW, there are also numerous errors in the text of the table, mostly of the WP:OVERLINK, grammatical and repetitive variety. - Sitush (talk) 00:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)"

Can we please have a discussion in this section just about the table and, preferably, just about whether it should exist at all in this article rather than about any alleged inaccuracies etc within it. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making this new section. It for lost in the other discussions. I agree with your suggestions and thing a sentence out two on cleavage minimization via binding or even sports bras is a great idea. If it's still not done, I'll try to look for sources tomorrow. I'm sure i can find some in relation to trans and queer fashion.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 07:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Here are a few things I found:
 * Article about a bigender person who talks about binding breasts as a way to reduce their prominence.
 * Article about creating cleavage for small breasted women.
 * Here's something about the effects of binding on cleavage, but it's one person's story.
 * Here's something about binding and cleavage, but not really talked about together.
 *  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 23:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Two observations:
 * Mirror may be not RS. This NY Mag article may be synth. This book is irrelevant. And, this book is hardly relevant.
 * Isn't binders a mean to suppress breast protrusion, and not cleavage, which is suppressed by covering the cleavage?
 * Please, shed some light on them. Aditya  (talk • contribs) 05:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you may be correct. Cleavage reduction is more a side effect of binders. Perhaps there's some other term to earch for on this. Just wanted to share what I found though.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 05:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Reverted edits in need of motivations
The recent blanket reverts contained a whole range of edits that haven't been discussed at all. I have only been able to identify one post that actually relates to content. Images and various WP:COATRACK-related concerns are already being above. However, there are a whole bunch of edits that don't have anything to do with this. Here's a list sorted by concern:


 * misrepresentation of sources,WP:SYNTH, etc:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * unsourced content, use of unreliable sources (self-published or irrelevant to the topic:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * copyediting and formatting
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * moving content
 * 
 * 
 * subjective language and terms
 * 
 * 
 * 

And I should stress that all of these are clearly explained in the edit summaries. Anyone who feels the current version should stand needs to explain why they see these particular edits as problematic.

Peter Isotalo 21:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You've done it again. How the heck is someone supposed to reply to this? I despair, I really do. - Sitush (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Sitush, ideally it seems a reply would involve targeting the specific objection(s), with some sort of rationale given for reason for objection. No one is suggesting reverting is off-limits or all changes must stand, but mass reverts absent any sort of explanation seems disruptive and also dismissive of the editors who put time and effort into improving article.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Which sources are being misrepresented/synth etc in [3]? - Sitush (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Which sources are being misrepresented/synth etc in [4], where the edit summary was "trends in breast implants have virtually nothing to do with evolutionary traits", which seems completely different to the grouped summary in the above listing. - Sitush (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * [5] shows a removal of content that certainly was a misrepresentation but it was one that could easily have been fixed. The source says "Even during the reign of Christianity, around 341 AD, when women were forced to wear shapeless fashions, art frequently portrayed women with one or more of their breasts exposed to signify fertility rather than sexuality." I suspect the real issue here is whether the source is reliable or not. - Sitush (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the real issue is that the content was GARBAGE. What was removed, with commentary in BLOCKS, was:

"In Europe during the Middle Ages WRONG PERIOD FOR SOURCE, when women wore shapeless clothing NO, art frequently portrayed women with one or more of their breasts exposed [NO, NOT either "around 341", or in the Middle Ages] to signify fertility rather than sexuality.[????]<re>Dr. Ava Cadell, "Why Men Are Fascinated with Big Breasts", Loveology University<ef> It was "easily fixed" by removing it. Quite a bit of the remaining "history of fashion" material is very poor, about 1/4 right.  Johnbod (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well no-one seems interested in defending this, so out it goes. Johnbod (talk) 18:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sitush, the diffs were given for the convenience of those who wish to specify doubts about reverted edits. If you think a diff has been described or grouped incorrectly, you're welcome to amend it.
 * Peter Isotalo 22:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
Regarding the discussion here about whether this page is sexist or a boon for pervs, I do not find the use of photos inappropriate when they are explanatory and an abundance of free photography is available. However, the "Cleavage enhancement" section sticks out to me.

First, this has a main article, but is not in short Summary Style and is only tangentially related to cleavage. Second, throughout the section it seems to make the assumption that bigger is better. It uses words like "enhancement" rather than "modification", whereas many women do in fact get breast reductions, which would also affect their cleavage. I wonder if there are even any reliable sources that discuss surgery in the context of cleavage that would verify the relevance. Is it common to get surgery specifically for the purpose of improving cleavage? CorporateM (Talk) 15:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I too am skeptical to the level of detail spent on details abut breast augmentation. The idea of separate treatment of breast augmentation and "cleavage enhancement" seems like taking it a bit too far. Do we really need a whole section elaborating on the undisputed connection between bigger breasts and more pronounced cleavage?
 * I'm also very unsure of the relevance of "Excercise". The entire section is based on beauty manuals, which doesn't strike me as a clear-cut reliable source. The whole idea of "enhancing" cleavage with anything other than clothing or augmenting breast size seems to me like fitness mumbo jumbo. I mean, this is what push-up bras and the like are for, right? It seems like it mostly boils down to choice of clothing, not by creating "the illusion of larger and firmer breasts" through exercise.
 * Peter Isotalo 13:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support summary style on cleavage enhancement, provided information is not thrown away but moves from one to the other. Wnt (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Bottom cleavage and downblouse
I removed the "bottom cleavage" section as it fails all verification. That term is not used by any RS to refer to breasts. I removed the downblouse section as it's WP:COATRACK and WP:OR. It's not about cleavage, it's about a sexual fetish. Also fails WP:V (no mention of cleavage, no mention of cleavage, no mention of cleavage related to downblouse).  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 04:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously considering 'downblouse' to having absolutely no mention of cleavage? Does that mean we remove sources from the Airplane article because they only have 'airline', and not 'airplane' in the sources? Tutelary (talk) 04:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesnt per sources given. Burden is on you to show it does. Even if related, UNDUE to put in table. Find a source and add a sentence. Please revert unless you can show otherwise per policy.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 04:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * PS - my edit wasn't bold. There was a week of discussion, no objection to its removal, WP:SILENCE, and i've cited policy. Again, please self-revert.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 04:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The 1st one does not mention breasts but it's very plainly obvious they are talking about downblouse in the conventional form, and the other two explicitly mention breasts. Is it not clear that WP:NOR can't be applied to a fault to remove content relating to 'cleavage' because it mentioned 'breasts' not cleavage in the explicit sense? Again relating to the airline thing, it's absurd and exactly the kind of thing WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY was made for. You also removed both sections, not just one. Tutelary (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This article is about cleavage. Feel free to add downblouse info to the breasts article. Adding it here is SYNTH. WP:BURDEN is on you to show it belongs here. And speaking of bureaucracy, I ask you again to self-revert as my edits were not bold and were per consensus.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 04:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll do that. Tutelary (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Frankly I don't think downblouse should be excluded from this article. And finding a source about it would be helpful. I still don't think it belongs in a table (hell... that table could be prose and it would look better, but I don't want to push my luck). Anyway, I hope you find something useful. (I tried the same thing for Sitush re: binders above, but honestly didn't have the best of luck).  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 04:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The section "Terminology" is formatted as a table, which is a very odd choice. The normal approach is always to render information like this in normal prose. The choice of layout in itself seems to be a way to fit as many cleavage shots as possible, including the questionable "bottom" cleavage pic. Except for being referred to (at times) with a term containing the word cleavage, it doesn't seem very relevant to cleavage at all. As far as I know, this is mostly known by the colloquial term "underboob".

Peter Isotalo 12:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you be fine with it if instead of a table, it has its own nifty subsection with maybe 2 sets of 2 images, side by side? Right now I believe you're having a problem with feeling that other than the lead, the 'terminology' is what readers are going to see most, and don't want them to be blindsighted with a bunch of cleavage shots with no particular context. Would moving it further into the article be a better choice? Tutelary (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue is primarily that too many images are being crammed in. I would have a problem with this in any article. The Paris Hilton photo doesn't really serve any purpose as décolletage is a pretty distinct separate topic that is about clothing, not women's chests. And per my comments below, "bottom cleavage" appears to be of pretty marginal relevance. The only ref that I have been able to check (the Guardian article) doesn't even use the term "bottom cleavage".
 * Peter Isotalo 15:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Peter, I agree with your compromise edit of removing the table and inserting the text via the prose. Tutelary (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's an interesting comparison of Google search results:
 * "bottom cleavage" - 11,000 hits
 * "underboob" - 788,000 hits
 * Most of the top hits for "bottom cleavage" have headings that focus on the term "underboob", and a lot of them are about buttock cleavage. It seems that among the slightly more reliable links (mostly UK newspapers), "bottom cleavage" refers primarily to the buttocks.
 * Peter Isotalo 12:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Removing downblouse info again... still SYNTH. The exact quote from Sex Slang regarding downblouse on p. 51 is:
 *  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 18:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Removed the bottom cleavage again too. The issues were still not addressed. A user, without discussion, re-added the table. Peter put the table into prose (which is good), but the material for "bottom cleavage" definitely doesn't belong and still need sources for downblouse.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 18:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Removed the bottom cleavage again too. The issues were still not addressed. A user, without discussion, re-added the table. Peter put the table into prose (which is good), but the material for "bottom cleavage" definitely doesn't belong and still need sources for downblouse.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 18:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * My issue with removing reference to "bottom cleavage" is not that is not "cleavage", which is the area between the breasts. If that were the case then side cleavage would also be out of place. The issue, as I see it, is that cleavage in common usage refers to clothing that exposes some part of the breasts. The article is about the cultural acceptance or otherwise of such exposure, and the same considerations apply irrespective of which part of the beasts (top, inside, side or bottom) is being considered. Enthusiast (talk) 01:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Peter changed the lead on us to denote clothing as necessary for something to be cleavage. But what about nudists? Do they not have any cleavage at all? Space between the breasts is cleavage, and doesn't need any clothing to denote such. So I've reverted Peter on that. Tutelary (talk) 02:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Peter that clothing is an essential aspect of a discussion of cleavage. Cleavage is not merely the area between the breasts, that is an anatomical issue; it is considered in the context of the clothing that is being worn, so that nudists do not display cleavage, they display an intermammary cleft. Enthusiast (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Note that underboob redirects to this article.
 * Peter Isotalo 13:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 00:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that the first three fashion choices, in which women expose various edges of the breasts, make an appropriate table. Linking these with "downblouse", which is a choice made by a photographer, is a mistake; they are all relevant but not to the same thing.  Of course, some better RS support to define and exemplify cleavage would stabilize affairs.  But in general, there's no reason not to illustrate this article well.  I see a lot of bad writing/bad organization that deserved a crusade against it, but not a censorship crusade.  The article will not seem demeaning once it is well written. Wnt (talk) 15:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * An image for about every 2 kB of prose is a good number for any article, even if you compare with GAs and FAs. And that's after we started pruning. It was twice that before that.
 * Peter Isotalo 22:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that average ratio is a function of how readily illustrations can be procured for a topic. Cleavage, being a readily visible feature for many women, is obviously easy to illustrate, and I don't think it's right to read anything untoward into that.  If the argument of moving every article to the average were applied rigorously, given that some articles have no available illustrations, the average would decrease until no article had any illustrations.
 * That said, I pretty much hate the very top cleavage photo ... it just doesn't seem professional somehow, mostly because the woman's head is cropped out I suppose. I'd rather see the article lead off with the top-side-bottom table from before (but no 'downblouse').  Also, we should add some sort of photo or table to illustrate the Islamic garments in the "modesty" section. Wnt (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Intermammary sulcus
I re-instated the relevant, sourced and cited material on the medical anatomical discussion of the subject. Which you reverted with an edit summary that said - the anatomical term is separate from cleavage. Can you, please, explain yourself? How is it different? Aditya (talk • contribs) 07:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This was removed before by Enthusiast since a separate article was created. This is clearly linked from the hatnote.
 * The entire article is focused exclusively on the social and cultural concept of cleavage which is something that only exists in the context of clothing. The only exception is the section which you re-added. As pointed out by Enthusiast above, "nudists do not display cleavage, they display an intermammary cleft". No one would refer to partially exposed breasts at a social gathering as an "intermammary sulcus/cleft" and I don't see any indication that it's a common synonym. I believe you need to motivate clearly the need to "anatomize" a topic that isn't about medicine.
 * Peter Isotalo 08:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You mean this article? Okay. Missed that one. The redirects need to use that one as target page. Fixing that. Aditya  (talk • contribs) 10:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Lead image 2
Is there not an alternate image available that is somewhat less voyeuristic than File:Cleavage of a woman.jpg? Or is it just me who thinks it is thus? - Sitush (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Retitled, as I see that this has been discussed before. Maybe I'm in the minority then. - Sitush (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I too think it needs changing. A disembodied bosom seems very voyeuristic. The title of the source image speaks volumes.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 22:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that the lead image is actually just fine. It's presenting cleavage, which is what this article is about. And what do you mean 'voyeuristic'? I don't want to present the everloving crap out of WP:NOTCENSORED, but I'm really not seeing a case for changing it other than subjective 'voyeurism'. It's a good presenting image of cleavage, and that's that. Tutelary (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Tutelary, this isn't about censorship as much as tone or style. We're still going to have an image of a cleavage, but we want one that is more encyclopedic.
 * I'm leaning towards having an image that is frontal rather than from above, if only because it's a far more normal view of cleavages. The only time you'd have this angle of a cleavage is if you were standing right next to someone and looking down. That's not particularly representative.
 * Peter Isotalo 22:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have an alternative image in mind? Tutelary (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly, Peter. I couldn't quite define it in my own mind but you are right: it is the perspective that really turns me against the existing image. Although if you were me, it probably is quite representative: I am quite tall. - Sitush (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with Sitush here. I think there's reason to believe that image was taken without the subject's consent (particularly when you see the larger image and the original filename at Flickr). At the very least, it gives the appearance of being a "downblouse" (cf. "upskirt") image... which I think is hardly keeping with the spirit of WP:TONE, which states in part that "Wikipedia articles, and other encyclopedic content, should be written in a formal tone" and "the English language should be used in a businesslike manner". I think we can be more businesslike by not leading off with an image that gives the appearance of a sneak-peek at the chest of a woman who is reading a newsletter (or handing out flyers?). —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 22:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Do any of these images work for y'all?
 * Seems fine to me, free photo of a cleavage. Govindaharihari (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

 Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 22:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The photo that is already in the article is already a very good cleavage photograph, this is just a WP:IDL issue - Govindaharihari (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's more of a tone issue with IDL tossed in.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 23:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

All of those above suggested alternative images work better than the current image, but I think my favorite is the forth image (the close up of Bette Midler).--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I think all of the suggested images are inferior to the current one. The purpose of the image is to illustrate cleavage, not faces, figures, or celebrities.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, so assuming the worst - ie: nothing suitable exists - what effort would it take for someone to produce a "head-on" view that omits the face and is of a nonentity in terms of celebrity etc? And which has the subject's permission. Surely it cannot be that difficult? I am absolutely useless with a camera but I might ask around in real life over the weekend. If needs be, the photographer could get someone else to upload it so that the subject is further anonymised. - Sitush (talk) 00:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason to believe that this picture was taken without permission. If anything, it's posed.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Which means nothing much in particular. I am not concerned about whether permission was obtained, although I realise that some are speculating about it. It just looks, well, wrong. I write as someone who has defended photographs of topless women at articles such as Nair, so I am not approaching this as some sort of entrenched prude. - Sitush (talk) 01:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't think you were. I truly don't understand the objections to this picture. It would appear to be posed, and it's at a fairly natural angle. I'm fairly short (168cm) and that's a pretty normal angle when I approach a seated woman. Nothing extreme about it.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that I don't see people making very many policy/guideline related arguments. 'It looks like voyeurism' or 'it looks wrong' or it's 'it's not representative'. The comparison of other images in itself is lacking. Tutelary (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Tutelary, I think someone has already explained that not everything is driven by policy. We caqn tie ourselves in knots when it comes to something like this, given the inherent problems with WP:CONSENSUS and "first mover advantage". This is about tone, gut feeling etc. I certainly do not think it is extreme, Kww. I am just a bit uncomfortable with it and was querying whether there might not be something slightly less, well, "in your face" that would serve the same purpose. - Sitush (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Mendaliv above regarding the current image having the look of "downblouse" and also with Peter that a frontal view seems more representative of cleavage than a view from above. I'm not sure I agree that the image has to be faceless.  Image 4 has cleavage centered and very prominent, so seems to address the concept well. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Only because you already know what you are illustrating. I could use picture four to illustrate "cleavage", "curly hair", "stole", "actress", or "gala". It just hasn't got enough of a centralized focus to be a useful illustration.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Then what about image #1?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 01:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * At first glance, I would think that was an illustration for brassiere.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Although I don't think it's necessary, it would probably be a simple enough matter to crop one of the Bette Midler images. They are both clear front views of cleavage that seem to illustrate the point.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I actually just switched the pic in downblouse for the lead pic here, because it was actually a more realistic voyeur view. The other one would have had the camera (or head) right in front of the model.
 * I'd say the downblouse parallel pretty much clinches it. We just can't have a pure male gaze image like this as the lead pic. It makes it seem as if the article is about men's views of tits rather than cleavage. You might as well start off the article with "Cleavage is the awesome space between the BEWBS that we all love to look at, dude."
 * Peter Isotalo 13:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As much as I would prefer to see an alternate image, yours is poor logic. You go put the current image at downblouse, seemingly without discussion, then come here and effectively say "it's great for downblouse and so it must be male gaze". That's like having your cake and eating it. - Sitush (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Considering I stated "I actually switched the pic", that's exactly what I didn't do. Are you here to discuss content or incite drama, Sitush?
 * Peter Isotalo 15:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with here, all of those images are inferiour to the present one... my reasons: #1 seems to me to illustrate a brassiere (and in general i think real pictures should be used instead of drawings), #2 is the best of the lot, but is less focused on cleavage and more on posture/person, #3,#4 are images of Bette Midler and thus takes away focus, #5 is a painting not particularly illustrative of a cleavage, nice painting but not as an illustration of cleavage. I hope that there are other alternatives, otherwise the present one is the best. --Kim D. Petersen 15:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have any objection to cropping pic 3 or 4 to the cleavage? That way we'd avoid the suggestion of downblouse  and have a more natural seeming frontal image of cleavage.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think the quality of pic 3 and 4 is good enough - lighting is horrible. --Kim D. Petersen 17:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Kim, the angle in the current pic is pretty bad. We need to consider both technical quality and tone.
 * Btw, what's so bad about #2 if we crop it to just the cleavage? I'm very skeptical about putting an image in the lead that makes someone, be they famous or not, the "face" of cleavages. I see no reason why we should treat this differently from arm or ear.
 * Peter Isotalo 18:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * How is that any different from the image we have now in terms of argument? It's cropped to the cleavage, and other than the skin color, there's no difference. It's even slightly lower quality too. The current image also has the benefits of being in the article for months without contest yet all of a sudden, people wanna change it because it's voyeurism. It's just plainly not. No change. Tutelary (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Tutelary, stick to the content discussion, please.
 * The difference in arrangement is obvious: it's a frontal shot from a distance. This could be a perfectly normal view for anyone. And I thought it might be good to have someone who isn't white. It was just a suggestion.
 * Peter Isotalo 18:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm unconvinced any images could be superior to the one we already have in the lead. It has the benefit of being stable, and adequately representing cleavage in the conventional sense. And I thought it might be good to have someone who isn't white. It was just a suggestion. And the fact that that is even a factor in this discussion is a problem. Tutelary (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Stable" is not an image quality. We don't grandfather content. No need to go down that road.
 * Most users commenting here have expressed negative views of an image that is taken from an angle that is clearly extraordinary. Most people simply would never see a cleavage from this perspective unless they were fooling around with a friend or partner, or were sneaking an up-close peak. It's in poor taste overall. Even if the photo itself is well-framed and of good quality (#2 is still of higher resolution), the angle really spoils it.
 * Peter Isotalo 19:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You never approach seated women? Stand while they are at a desk or a table? It's a perfectly normal view. It's the cropping that creates the level of focus that makes you uncomfortable, and it's that cropping that makes it illustrative of the topic.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We've been through this: it's not a normal angle. Inventing scenarios where it is technically possible doesn't change anything. As for cropping, it's an editing issue. We can crop any image we want to whatever format we want.
 * Peter Isotalo 08:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, we have been through this before, Peter, and it's unfortunate that you don't seem to be listening. Once the image is cropped to illustrate "cleavage", it's going to be an image of breasts focusing with an unnatural directness on the cleavage. If it isn't cropped and angled that way, it doesn't illustrate "cleavage", and if it is focused that way, it's going to raise objections. As for "inventing scenarios", I don't know what you do that you never encounter seated women.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So any photograph that wasn't deliberately shot at an angle pointing directly down a woman's blouse, when cropped, constitutes "unnatural directness" and doesn't illustrate cleavage? And someone is going to object about this?
 * Peter Isotalo 16:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A picture from breasts at eye-level is a more natural angle, Peter? You normally confront women, crouch down so your eyes are on a level with their breasts, and take pictures? That's the problem with your argument: any picture of cleavage that focuses on cleavage is, in some sense, an "unnatural angle". All the arguments raised about the current illustration are basically objections to a clear and unambiguous image of cleavage.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that even if you are a tall man, if you are viewing a woman's cleavage from any distance (as in not very close to her and looking down her shirt) you are going to see a more frontal image of cleavage. Also, considering that this is an article about women (as the people who actually have cleavage) it would seem reasonable to present a view of cleavage that a woman would see if looking in the mirror.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue with the frontal view is that when the face and waist are cropped out, you get an more unusual view of the cleavage than a view from above presents.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no problem at all with the free commons licensed photo that is included already - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleavage_%28breasts%29#mediaviewer/File:Cleavage_of_a_woman.jpg - some don't like it for whatever their personal biases - but the current photograph is simply a good commons licensed cleavage photo. - Govindaharihari (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes there is. The photo is a downblouse view and as such invokes the creepier end of the male gaze spectrum. #7 or a cropped version of #2 would be far better. Also let's please remember to assume good faith about other editors' intentions and whatever you might think their biases are. gobonobo  + c 15:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not see any issue at all with the down blouse claim and don't see anything creepy about it - as such - I can only be left with personal bias Govindaharihari (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

More candidates
Posted some more candidate pics above. And before anyone complains, yes, #8 is of Lisa Ann a porn star.

Peter Isotalo 18:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I vote for 7. It seems more typically representative of cleavage than the other two. Most women don't seem to do the squished and popping out type cleavage (#6) or the orangish self-tanned cleavage of (#8), although they are probably common enough, those examples just seem less representative than #7.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd go with #6 or #7.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 21:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Once more, i find the images inferior to the current one. #6 too bopped up, #7 too little, #8 looks fake. If we have to have an alternative, then it should be an actual picture of a cleavage, and not some cropped down picture of a celeb, where the light is awful or the surroundings look too fake. --Kim D. Petersen 22:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And, again, there's no reason to prefer any of those images to the current one.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No offense to anyone, but those three images above are terrible. Viriditas (talk) 05:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, well that's the general feeling from a lot of editors about the current image as well. Ignoring the concerns of others just because you don't approve doesn't make them less real. Try working for a compromise here.
 * Peter Isotalo 08:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Consensus is against you Peter. There are more editors who are in favor of keeping the lead image than changing it. The lead image is perfectly fine and any attempt to change it without consensus will be disruptive and could lead to sanctions. You haven't made your case to try to change this consensus and instead seek to say that we're ignoring the concerns of others when in reality, we just see absolutely no good reason to change the lead image. Tutelary (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, so far we have myself, Sitush, BoboMeowCat, Liz, Evergreen and Mendaliv that have expressed doubts about the current lead image. You (Tutelary), Kww, Kim and Govindaharihari disagree. Viriditas has pointed out that the last three suggestions are "terrible". We have 8 alternative suggestions so far and this isn't a battle over a single image. We all want to see good content, but we have different perspectives. Dismissing concerns by simply saying "there is no problem" is only going to result in pointless stalemates.
 * And we're still just having discussions. No one has touched the image so far and the article is locked down for (at least) a week. You're getting ahead of yourself with talk of sanctions.
 * Peter Isotalo 14:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Since my name was raised, I have no problem with the current image. There's a lot to said for one with no face. Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree that putting a "face" to cleavage is inappropriate. We can crop any image to exclude the face, though.
 * Peter Isotalo 15:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we don't need to make this more complicated than it needs to be. It seems it should be simple enough to find a frontal (ie not downblouse) image of cleavage and  crop it. Even among those who find the current image acceptable, it certainly isn't the  acceptable image.  I don't get the objection to using a pic taken from a more natural, less voyeuristic angle. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Because I find your objection without merit? It's not an unnatural or voyeuristic angle, and, by the time one crops one of these other images to focus on the cleavage it will have the exact same level of inappropriate focus but probably not be as clear. The picture does a good job of illustrating the subject.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * it certainly isn't the only acceptable image. I don't get the objection to using a pic taken from a more natural, less voyeuristic angle. I've said this before, 'voyeuristic' is subjective. Just because -you- find it voyeuristic does not mean that others see the same thing. This is similar to people trying to remove the images from the Fisting article because it's 'pornography'. No, it's not pornography, and the image is not voyeuristic. It's an encyclopedic image which accurately represents cleavage. In fact, if you even read the definition, a large amount of the photos that you guys propose would not even be considered cleavage as there is little space/no space between their breasts. Where cleavage ends and breasts begin is not exactly clear in the first place. This attempted replacement of the image is a solution in search of a problem. Tutelary (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether you see merit in my objection or not, it seems the stance downblouse image or nothing isn't particularly helpful. I'm far from the only editor who has objected to the current image, and now it seems no matter what alternative is presented (as so many alternatives have been presented) it's not acceptable. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's true that all the alternatives presented so far have been inferior. There may be a better one out there, but so far, it would appear that the motivation in selecting alternatives has been to find an image that doesn't focus as clearly on the subject. That's naturally going to lead to an inferior image.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have not provided any of the alternative suggestions, but it appears to me that the only motivation has been to find an image that is not downblouse. It seems to me that the image does not need to be downblouse, to clearly represent the subject of cleavage. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Let me suggest that we're making this too difficult. A picture need not speak for itself. See how it's handled in articles like Brachial plexus. In that case, the lead image might just as well represent the muscles of the arm, the clavicle, or a variety of other nerves. What makes that image of a variety of things useful to the article on the brachial plexus is a good caption. Any of the above images are okay provided they have a good caption. #2, #3, #4, #6, #7, #8 all work if you say something like "The cleavage, or gap between a woman's breasts, is sometimes visible or even accentuated by clothing." I understand that the objection based on downblouse gives some pause because it resembles a JDLI argument, but it's a different matter. JDLI-type arguments are objectionable when there is no objective or logical reason for supporting the argument—"I just don't like it because of my own subjective reasons, and I'm going to oppose it on that basis alone". Disliking or disfavoring something, and then making an argument that, for instance, it harms the credibility of the encyclopedia by presenting an image reminiscent of the male gaze and of downblouse images, is not a mere JDLI argument. If there is an argument that presenting a downblouse-type image as representative of the whole topic of cleavage is acceptable, then that argument should be affirmatively made, rather than taking potshots at the form of the counter-argument. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 20:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * But it is a JDLI argument. The angle of the picture is one of the few common angles that actually focuses on cleavage. The idea that we should provide an inferior illustration and compensate for it with a detailed caption makes no sense: since we have a good illustration, there's no reason to use a bad one and compensate. As for the "use a female view" argument, I don't see the merit there: my most common view of my penis takes place when I'm urinating, and I doubt anyone would argue that that being a common male view of the organ would make it more suitable as an illustration for penis. Indeed, I note that the image at penis is from an angle that I would never, under any circumstance, view a penis from. It seems to have been chosen for such reasons as proving a clear and direct image of the topic, which is what we should be focusing on here as well.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Kww, I think you're still focusing too much on yourself, personally, rather than taking social conventions into consideration.
 * I'm male myself, so I don't believe I'm making a "female view" argument. I'm saying that the situation shown in the lead pic seems slightly abnormal. A downblouse view of a cleavage of any kind is something I associate with a) mutual intimacy bordering on the sexual, b) unintended physical closeness (in a crowded situation), or c) outright voyeurism. From my experiences, this perspective on thing would be considered part of normal social etiquette in neutral or formal setting. Staring at a cleavage from a distance isn't exactly kosher, but looking directly down into a woman's blouse from about 0,5 m is something that I would interpret as offensive, if not outright creepy. Does any of this ring a bell for you? Do you see where I'm coming from on this?
 * Peter Isotalo 15:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it isn't an abnormal view: it's the view obtained when approaching a seated woman while standing. Your objection is as if this were an actual downblouse: an image of those moments when a woman in relatively modest closing bends over to get something out of a cart or to sign something on a low table, which sometimes results in more exposure than the woman would be comfortable with. Moments like that would be creepy and I would object to including them. This is a fairly common view and angle. I repeat my belief that it's the cropping of the image that makes you uncomfortable, and any correctly cropped view from a front angle (the equivalent of a standing woman approaching a seated man) would be equally creepy.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the original image. I don't see any substantive difference. And why are you trying to tell me what I'm "actually" uncomfortable with? Don't presume to interpret my views for me. It's all still bad because it simply represents the view of someone looking at a woman's partially revealed breasts from up close. It doesn't matter how many times per day someone gets close to seated women in a standing position, because it's still considered rude to stare at their cleavage. And it's still not nearly as common as simply viewing someone from upfront from a slighty distance. Which also happens to be a viewing position that isn't normally viewed as offensive.
 * Peter Isotalo 16:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Any image that adequately illustrates cleavage will be a view of "a woman's partially revealed breasts from up close". You seem to be saying that any illustration that focuses on the subject is unacceptable because it focuses on the subject. You propose replacing it with an image that doesn't focus on the subject, which is unreasonable.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, Kww. Any image can be cropped to focus. This has been proposed before. You're setting up completely arbitrary conditions for what should be considered focused enough. And you're doing it by simply ducking the abnormal aspects of a downblouse shot.
 * Peter Isotalo 08:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have ducked nothing, and set no arbitrary conditions. All the images that have been proposed are inferior in the task of illustrating cleavage, which is the primary criterion here. You've labeled this a downblouse image (which it actually isn't) and then objected to its use on the basis of it being one. An image of cleavage must focus on cleavage, but your objection is that the image is "a woman's partially revealed breasts from up close". You can't have a picture that focuses on cleavage without focusing on "a woman's partially revealed breasts from up close", because that's what focusing on cleavage is. Your objections are without merit.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not me. Aditya identified it as downblouse back in October. You didn't seem to object to it back then. It's very obviously a view down someone's blouse from an angle that is completely plausible in a real situation ("one of the few common angles" in your words) and a half dozen other editors appear to have agreed on this. Even Tutelary, who believes the pic should stay, has described it at downblouse (see below).
 * Peter Isotalo 18:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a "downblouse" shot in the sense of having been taken surreptitiously without the subjects consent, nor does it really simulate such a situation.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The reasoning behind it is I really can't argue with someone's subjective feelings. Again this is quite similar to people trying to remove Seedfeeder's sexual imagery because they say it's pornography. They say it's pornography, I say it's not, but they're set in their views. The primary difference here is that instead of 'it's pornography', the main argument is it harms the credibility of the encyclopedia by presenting an image reminiscent of the male gaze and of downblouse images, is not a mere JDLI argument.. And really, my only possible rebuttal to that is that does not do those things and that it's just an encyclopedic stable image that has been here for quite some time. While actually a fallacy if used by itself-- 'tradition' fallacy, here I'm using it to say that the article has been stable with this for quite some time with this image and would need more better reasoning to remove/replace it. That also means that the current consensus is that the image is fine. It's up to you guys to convince the editors of this article otherwise, not mine attempting to keep the status quo. The edit warring relating to the sections was also unfortunate and will probably resume when the article gets unprotected; as well as the image fights. I do however adore that you finally mention a Wikipedia policy: WP:DUE. I can very much argue policy and guidelines and regularly do. According to the 'culture' section, there are at least 4 types of cleavage and downblouse is certainly one of them. Iff we do that because of those types of concerns, then #1 would be the winner. And is it really so much undue weight or is that image--while downblouse, show the clearest amount of cleavage. It is the space between the breasts and that shows a large amount of cleavage if that's the case, the image currently in the article is the winner. Tutelary (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If you were concerned about being polite, you would choose a lead image that presents a view from the front, and have it be either a line drawing, an oil painting from the days when women wore elegant clothing with very low necks, or a photo of a well-known public personality such as the photo of Bette Midler. The current lead image, a view from above, would go down below the first screen. That way, people who opened up this article at work, such as a second language speaker, or a reader who was actually looking for cleavage patterns in rocks and minerals, would be fine if one of their co-workers came along. However, I have noticed that making any effort to be polite to each other or our readers, especially if it involves being polite to women, is something that many editors here appear to oppose on general principle. This makes it difficult to attract and retain volunteers.
 * Another way to look at this is that an image that conveys the message "let's assess this prospective current candidate for a heterosexual encounter that won't require birth control ..." may be unwelcome for those who are not in the mood, whereas an image that conveys "wasn't she something back in the day!" is more likely to be considered flattering and polite. --Djembayz (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Cleavage (breasts). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090819072126/http://www.accessmylibrary.com:80/coms2/summary_0286-33410288_ITM to http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-33410288_ITM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 08:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Cleavage (breasts). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927075821/http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/secondary_characteristics.html to http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/secondary_characteristics.html
 * Added tag to http://www.wonderbra.co.za/nationalcleavageday.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100601211316/http://www.hsl.virginia.edu/historical/artifacts/caricatures/fr6-wetnursing.cfm to http://www.hsl.virginia.edu/historical/artifacts/caricatures/fr6-wetnursing.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100104085440/http://sixtiescity.com/Fashion/Fashion.shtm to http://www.sixtiescity.com/Fashion/Fashion.shtm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)