Jump to content

Talk:Breast

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 78.152.249.123 (talk) at 01:11, 7 April 2008 (→Better Pics). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Sexology-project-guidelines-notify

Child Pornography Vilolation

Legally in the United States Child Pornograpy is ILLEGAL and needs to be removed and by US law u have to have a disclaimer before showing pornography who ever posted picture could face legal action may or may not and i am requesting that this article be looked into by wikipedia's legal team.

Without Prejustice, 65.34.119.91 22:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well, Wikipedia does have a disclaimer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer) And, unless you can prove that the image in question is A) pornography, and B) underage, you have no footing in court.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 01:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honeymane, whether or not Wikipedia has a disclaimer does not relieve it from following the law. If the wikipedia disclaimer said "vandals are liable to be executed" that would not make such executions legal. Thus if wikipedia is hosting child pornographic or copyright material in the United States it is legally liable for it. That said the burden of proof is on the accuser not the accused. One must prove the young lady's breasts are aged below the vintage of consent to have a valid accusation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anilsachs (talk • contribs) 23:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC) Haha, those crazy Americans. I see no violations here. --Mathew Williams 21:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing people forget, is that the law is always above any disclaimers or company policy's. E.g. if a shop says we do not take goods back, but the law states they have to then the shop is in the wrong and you can pursue the matter further; or if a shop says our policy is to sell cigarettes to over 12's, but the law states 18, once again the business is in the wrong and action can be taken. No company or business can surpass the law, no matter what. They can write all they want, but if it is not in harmony with the law, it is dismissed without a second look in court or legal disputes. So it doesn't matter what wikipedia has written in their disclaimer, if it is against the law, the matter can be pursued. And yes, Wikipedia cannot verify the age of the female in the picture, and bearing in mind in Europe and the US to upload or allow nude pictures without the personal verification of the subjects age is illegal and against the law, the picture should be removed unless someone can get the female to verify her age in writing. So 65.34.119.91 has a point. I hope this clears matters up, and I will personally write a letter to wikipedia in regards to this article, or request ISP's banning this article. --78.86.117.164 17:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily the law does not forbid the depiction of breasts. Pornography is a different story. According to Princeton, pornography is defined as "creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire". None of the pictures on this page fit that description. All of the pictures are there for educational purposes.--71.3.64.72 03:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree. To my mind, this page is just a poorly veiled excuse to show pictures of nude women. If that were not the case, the page would not have needed to show said pictures, since the article can be complete without any of them. 68.122.222.231 (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's policies don't say to only use images when strictly necessary, or when the article is incomplete without them. According to Wikipedia:images, "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be significant relative to the article's topic." Pictures of breasts are undoubtedly relevant to an article about breasts. I highly doubt that wikipedia users are laboring over this article for the sole purpose of showing pictures of nude women, especially considering that this is an article about a well-known and commonly discussed piece of human anatomy. Wikipedia is not censored, and my understanding is that generally, a high-quality, informative image is vastly preferred over no image at all. Ketsuekigata (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This has to be the most hilarious discussion ever. "boooo, it's illegal !" Sorry guys, but showing a picture of breast is not illegal, or a lot of biology books or even magazines would be illegal. And I advise you to look at the definition of the word "pornography", it means graphic depictions of sexual matter. So, big news, guys, theses pictures are anything but sexual, can you believe it ? Nope, a nude breast is not necessarily sexual, it can be nothing else but an anatomic part of the body. Seriously, guys, if you feel sexually excited by theses pictures, maybe you should consider to meet a real woman from time to time. Kaolol 20:36, 6 Aprile 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.53.96.18 (talk)

Better Pics

I think this page needs to get better pictures of breasts like from porn stars —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.161.193.61 (talk) 04:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um. No. I doubt that would happen--$UIT 04:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why from porn stars? I think more representative pictures are always better for encyclopedias... Have a look at the Danish Danish Wikipedia. --84.161.203.227 19:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Porn stars almost always have surgical modifications done to their breasts, so they would not be representative of breasts in their natural state. Asarelah 01:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sooo true, Asarelah, porn stars use plastic surgery, which makes it fake and false. Whereas natural should be shown because it's real and natural. =]
Well, we can have pictures of pornstars with natural breasts — pornstars with really nice breasts, like Jeannine Oldfield. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumarine (talk • contribs) 07:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

or a type of comparing thing- normal versus plastic surgery--76.252.42.191 (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreadstar (talk • contribs) [reply]

You's guys are weird, a boob is a boob, whether it's real or fake. You're too far up ur own buttholes; who's gonna care who owns the breast or if it's fake or not??? Nobody, that's who!! You actually think that soemone is gonna complain or moan about the picture? If so, then, my friends, you need to get a life!!

See Also Section

I'm not sure that breast fetishism, mammary intercourse, and breast bondage are appropriate links for this article. These links seem to focus on prurient interests which do not serve to further understanding of the topic. They do relate to the issue of breasts, but not in a way that adds anything useful to an encyclopedic article. 71.244.215.105 (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Size

There seems me that there is absolutely nothing about the sizes of breasts.1 wit da force (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)1 with da force[reply]

Current main photo

The current main photo seems really inappropriate. It is more an artistic photograph than one which properly depicts breasts. It's shot from a side angle so as to really only show one breast; the other breast is barely seen and blurry. Overall it is not the best choice. A better photo would be directly forward, showcasing both breasts in a more clinical sense. TheGoonSquad (talk) 04:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a reasonable proposal to me. Asarelah (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have images like that already in the article, and the lead picture doesn't nessicarly need to depict the image in a clinical fashion; also, finding good images for this article isn't exactly easy, you can see if you can't find a good image, and then we'll discuss it, but tbh, the lead is probably one of the better images in the article.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 19:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lead picture ought to depict the image in clinical fashion. Its an encyclopedia article, it ought to take a clinical approach. Asarelah (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you stated, above me. But what exactly, do you mean by 'clinical fashion'? a Mammogram? a diagram with a cut away? Both yours and TGS's statements are extremely vague, other then you want a picture showing them from the front, in a supposed 'clinical sense'. Please propose an image or two so that they can be discussed.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 15:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By "clinical", I mean displaying the subject in a manner that depicts it very clear, educational way. A mammogram or diagram can be "clinical", of course, but I just had a more clear photograph in mind, one where both breasts are clearly visible on the chest. A blurry picture of only one side of the subject isn't very helpful. Asarelah (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Honeymane. Find a better picture that suits your aesthetics and put it in. As it stands, the current picture may not conform to some notions of "clinical" (whatever that is), but it clearly depicts a single breast. The lack of depth of field helps focus the composition, so in my opinion, it serves a practical and not an artistic purpose. Mattnad (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Human Female breasts are a very wonderful thing, but we need to show at least one male breast. Maybe in a comparison between natural male and female breasts? Even though it's common knowledge, this entry is incomplete without a picture of male breasts. I also think wikipedia users should use pictures of their breasts in order to confirm and shut up anymore idiots that come here claiming that a picture uses an underage subject, and that picture is more porn than educational related. I thinkwe should also have black/african/african-american/jamaican or just plain dark breasts here to show differences between white and black breasts and just to keep it diverse. The article is lacking color, males, and maybe something about bra's and the positive and negative effects that they have on breasts.76.112.167.230 (talk) 06:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)srkelley76.112.167.230 (talk) 06:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Male Breast" is mentioned in lead and that's probably all we need. Generally, "Breasts" are a considered a female feature that has key reproductive functions. While men have chests, and some have enough fat to have a fuller breast shape, men do not have milk producing ducts. Similarly, they are not generally considered a "sexual feature" for men. It's a fine point on emphasis I'll agree. Perhaps we can create a concise subsection in this article? Probably doesn't warrant a photo of a male breast, but it would hurt to offer a bit more detail. I'm all for increasing the racial diversity of images. If we can find an appropriate image with a non-white person, let's get in here - perhaps as a substitute for the main image which seems to attract speculation and concerns about the subjects age. Mattnad (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since female breasts and nipples come in many shapes, colours and sizes this picture does not even come close to providing a clear representation of what a female breast looks like. Moreover the guidelines in the Breast/sandbox clearly state that "Artwork is preferred over photographs". Pictures of a young woman's breasts add nothing useful to wikipedia.195.195.166.31 (talk) 10:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Bede[reply]
What guidelines are you talking about? I've never read anything on Wikipedia anywhere that said that art work is preferable over photographs. May I see a link please? Asarelah (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would be the Breast Sandbox policy, but it really only applies on Beachipedia or Wikibeach, where you mold your own sculptures of article subjects. . Dreadstar † 02:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A dingbat font called "Mannequin" contains all the most common breast shapes and sizes. The black-and-white vector drawings are anatomically accurate, but much less provocative than photos would be.

The images are available online for free preview, and I (as the author of the font) can give permission for their use on wikipedia pages.

http://www.feelreal.org/fonticon/poster_cups.gif http://www.feelreal.org/fonticon/poster_cups_2.gif http://www.feelreal.org/fonticon/poster_weight.gif http://www.feelreal.org/fonticon/poster_pregnancy.gif —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oligopiste (talk • contribs) 16:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breast Picture

Its really funny that this Article have an female's breast picture. Did anybody think that nobody knows how an females breast looks like?? ;D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.76.49.26 (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cat article has an image, but I'm sure that the people who added it didn't think that nobody knows what cats look like. When there is a useful, informative image pertaining to an article's subject, its inclusion is often appropriate for Wikipedia. Please remember that the talk page is an area for discussion of how to improve an article, not for general commentary. Ketsuekigata (talk) 03:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the image "Closeup of female breast.jpg"

I feel that this image should be replaced in the article. The image has a visible line, which some say is a breast augmentation scar and others say is an indentation left by a bra. I personally think that it's probably an indentation, but in either case, it's a misleading mark and I think it would be better to use a picture of a typical breast without such a visible mark. I feel that the first picture in an encyclopedia article should depict the relevant object as accurately as possible and with as few misleading features as possible. Most of the time, for the majority of the human populace, such (indentation) marks are not typical features of human breasts. 86.56.40.172 (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just let me download it first! Actually, I have no constructive commentary, other to say that while I am typically against the genital exhibitionists that try and put their pics up here, I personally have no problem with this image and find it to value. How can it be inaccurate, are you claiming that it is in fact not a breast? If anything I think it does exemplify the average breast. Tolstoy143 - "Quos vult perdere dementat" (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism still here

I still see the "Boobies are the best!" thing at the top of the page, but according to the page history and vandal's talk page, it has been reverted. Why is this happening? 71.186.198.238 (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that you're looking at a previous version of the page, or that you need to reload. It's also possible that the vandalism was added again sometime between when you looked at the history and when you looked at the article again. Ketsuekigata (talk) 03:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology

I have been looking for the non-vulgar term for a human female breast. "Breast" is not really adequate, because it can also refer to a part of the male body. Same with "bosom." "Mammary" seems only to apply to the milk producing gland within the female breast. Does such a word exist? Are the male and female breasts are too homologous to justify a separate word? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostoner (talk • contribs) 23:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Male Breasts

Why arent their any pictures of male breasts? This isnt an article about female breasts but breats in general right?--76.173.255.40 (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is primarily about the human mammary gland, which is only rudimentary in males. It would be very difficult to show a picture of a male mammary gland as most males have relatively large pectoral muscles and, with age, fat deposits combined with almost non-existent mammary tissue, so all you'd have would be a picture of a rudimentary nipple and an area of skin covering mostly non-glandular tissue and bone. But if you can find a good picture or diagram of male human breasts, go for it. Search Commons and make some suggestions. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 23:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Breast&oldid=203882723"