Talk:Handbra

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Sexuality (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Nudity (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nudity, which collaborates on articles related to nudity and naturism topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Untitled[edit]

So does this cover all such scenarios (IE if a woman is turned away from the camera so that her nipples are obscured by the rest of her body or some foreign object), or just hands specifically? Does it apply to genitals too? Not a lot of info here.

Also, fixed a broken {{fact}} tag. 75.153.221.227 05:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a bit thin, isn't it. I have changed the first sentence to emphasize that both nipples and areolae are covered, as the latter refers only to the pigmented skin surrounding the nipple. Vitally important for Wikipedia to get these things right, I think. Should there be a separate article for handkini, where one arm covers the breasts while the other arm's hand forms the gusset of an imaginary bikini bottom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KD Tries Again (talkcontribs)

Methinks that shades away from conscientious, into obsession. Or perhaps original research. It was hard enough getting a reference for handbra. WLU 20:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hours of original research, yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KD Tries Again (talkcontribs)

Ha! WLU

This text of this article demonstrates that this is a common, high profile phenomena. The reference documents that "handbra" is the industry jargon. Source tags are not the place to voice your dissatisfaction that this article was voted a keeper. H Bruthzoo

  • Until you can find sources for the statements made in the article, this is still unsourced. Valrith 21:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Everything looks obvious to me. Which statements seem dubious to you?H Bruthzoo 21:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


What about [1]? It's widely used.—Preceding unsigned comment added by KD Tries Again (talkcontribs)
Urban dictionary is out - it's an anon-editable site like wikipedia that doesn't meet WP:RS WLU 16:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion discussion[edit]

  • probable keep if I find the time to source it. I suggest we need someway of dealing with phenomena that are clearly notable, and that can be shown to be notable--and, yes, pictures are evidence as well as words--but do not really have a fixed name. I continue to think it odd that we both focus on contemporary non-print culture, and rely on traditional print media, or their exact electronic equivalents-- to document them. WP, the last old fashioned encyclopedia. (smile) DGG 06:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd also like to point out that what Sarah Michelle Gellar is doing in the photo has no direct relevance to the term. Deb 16:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and the Janet Jackson Rolling Stone cover does not even match the description in the article, let alone being a prime example! Deb 16:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention the pure POV of "gained iconic status". Valrith 14:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Abstain Keep I'd say the Guardian counts as the bare minimum of sources required to consider it referenced.--WLU 17:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment SMG is demonstrating the handbra from what I can see, it's 100% relevant, though Deb's comment about JJ is pretty much spot on - could be considered a modified handbra. How did this survive the last AFD? I think it's absolutely on the cusp of delete/keep, and can't really decide where to put my vote. --WLU 17:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep : It's a notable phenomenon by Wiki's low standards. Any internet search will give you countless consistent examples of usage. Just because editors haven't found better cites yet. What about use on non-anonymous photography sites. Plenty of those out there.KD Tries Again 19:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)KD
Here's one - editor of Zoo magazine quoted in the Guardian newspaper: "The cover model's breast is partially concealed by her cupped hand. 'We call that shot "hand-bra",' says Paul Merrill, launch editor of Zoo and now in charge of international editions, 'We use that a lot.'"[2]KD Tries Again 19:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)KD
Comment The article isn't about pictures of people covering their breasts and nipples, it's the use of the term 'handbra' to describe the action. Plus, photo sites don't count as RS, and would probably be primary rather than the preferred secondary sources. However, the reference has convinced me to change my vote. WLU 01:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Further comment: I agree with the above (though I won't be changing my vote). From what I can see, the Guardian article refers to this usage very much as a photographic technique that has little to do with what the woman is actually doing. The article as it stands doesn't reflect this. If it did, I suspect we would be seeing it in context as a technical term of minor importance. Deb 15:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Kind of puzzled by the comments. The handbra is a pose the model assumes in order to be photographed: "The cover model's breast is partially concealed by her cupped hand. 'We call that shot "hand-bra",' says Paul Merrill, launch editor of Zoo and now in charge of international editions, 'We use that a lot.' He flicks to a cover showing a model whose hair extensions cover her nipples: 'This is hair-bra,' he says." It's a modelling technique, not a photographic technique, but it is a modelling technique used for photos (or film). Seems pretty clear. Hey, anyone up for a 'hairbra' article on wiki?KD Tries Again 14:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)KD

Holding Your Boobs screen capture image[edit]

Until a couple weeks ago this article included a series of low res screen capture images from the advertisement for Holding Your Boobs Magazine on Saturday Night Live. The image was formerly in Parody advertisement as well. I don't know the rationale for why the image was deleted. Are screen capture images fair use in this instance? My interpretation is that it is, but with fair use I'm perpetually bewildered. Can this image be saved? H Bruthzoo 16:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Janet Jackson[edit]

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet". Its not original research to call Janet Jackson's cover shot for Rolling Stone a "handbra". If I see an article in the New York Times on the "Conflict in Iraq", I can use it as a source for the Wikipedia article "War in Iraq". If historians change the name of the war later, such as they did for WWI, its still the same war, that is not original research, its reproducible research from primary sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 14:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The Rolling Stone cover makes no use of the term. It is irrelevant to this article. Valrith 21:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Reread above. You are confusing a dictionary with an encyclopedia. A dictionary defines words, an encyclopedia describes concepts. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The definition of the word or the use of it is not the most important factor, it's the fact that no claim to fair use can be made for why this Rolling Stone cover needs to be used. The most clear section of fair use is broken when one asks "can a free replacement be easily obtained?" Yes, definitely, find a willing female to have her breasts "handbra'd" and take the picture. There's no reason to use the copyrighted work of another. Leebo T/C 01:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the iconic picture that defined "handbra", it cannot be replaced. It represents an moment in time that can not be replicated or recaptured. It in no way is being used "only to illustrate the person or concept". It is an iconic moment defining the concept. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's "iconic." It's mentioned in the article, and you could provide a link to it on Rolling Stone's website, no? I disagree that it constitutes fair use. You can take a different picture of a handbra and mention the Rolling Stone one with no lost understanding. Leebo T/C 03:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, I want to note that you say "restoring full rationalized image," but the image has no fair use rationale, even for the other articles its used in. It needs to have a rationale for each article, especially for something indirect like this. Leebo T/C 03:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability[edit]

I have added new links from Zoo from their daily picture, and daily video sections showing the use of the term for verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Neither of your links pass WP:V, however because of WP:3RR I won't attempt to remove them any further. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • "Neither of your links pass WP:V". Let's see; WP:V states that "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source.". I'll accept this challenge. Easy: 1) Go to article. 2) Click on sources. 3) Verify that they exist. Try it. Alansohn (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Thumbnail galleries are not references since there is no citeable material on the page. These references therefore cannot support their statements and should be removed. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • What thumbnail gallery are you referring to? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The citation for "Nuts sexiest pictures" and "Handbra:Tired of the Wonderbra?" are both thumbnail galleries and neither include any citeable information. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • If these concerns are not addressed, I will remove those references from the article. Cumulus Clouds 00:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I humbly disagree. A photo is just as valid as text. And a text caption accompanying a photo is just as valid. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Photographs fail WP:V. Thumbnail gallery posts are an especially glaring contradiction to that policy. Aside from being unencyclopedic, nothing can be cited on the page, making the referenced statement synthesis. Cumulus Clouds 05:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Please stop cutting and pasting WP:V in every argument. Cite the exact sentence of policy you are referring to. Don't say "its in the Bible", give me a chapter and verse.
  • The burden of proof is not on the editor removing the content, but rather on the editor who is trying to maintain it. This is clearly outlined in WP:V. The exact sentence you asked for is found in WP:RS and reads as follows:
"Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources."
A thumbnail gallery fails that policy. Do not readd it or any others like it. If you add any other questionable sources, the burden falls on you to justify their inclusion. Cumulus Clouds 01:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Every single time you claim that the sources are in violation of WP:V, you have been referred to the article itself. All of the sources are not only quoted within the references, but are available as links. If you question any source, you can click on the link provided and verify that the source exists and that it supports the specific claim made in the article. While you seem to have been repeatedly confused by the pictures in some of the sources (I am willing to explain some of the details in these pictures, if you are unfamiliar with human anatomy), it is the text included in each source that constitutes the required reference. Above and beyond the fact that the article has already reached consensus as a keep on two separate occasions, the disruptive efforts to remove the sources that you insist do not exist comes off as being in exceedingly bad faith. Alansohn 02:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Verifying that a source exists is not a part of WP:V. That a source exists does not in itself pass WP:V. I'm not sure that policy is fully understood by all parties, which is why I keep referring back to it. Since thumbnail galleries do not directly and explicitly state anything, they fail the sentence that I've cited above. The gallery of pictures of women's breasts does not, in itself, directly and explicity support the statement given. Claiming that it does so by providing examples of the statement fails WP:SYN and WP:NEO, which state that a source must be about a subject, rather than use it.
Past AfDs have no bearing on the present AfD. They also have no bearing on the usage of those references. You have refused to acknowledge any argument opposing the inclusion of any material in this article, and doing so has damaged it in a way that will make improvements difficult or impossible. This leaves deletion as one of the only alternatives remaining. If instead you wish to improve this article to bring it in line with all of Wikipedia's protocols, I would encourage you to stop reverting any edits that aren't made by you or Richard Arthur Norton. Cumulus Clouds 03:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, your argument is not very cogent. I still haven't a clue how using the quotation is original research, its cut and paste. Original research comes from my brain, like me writing a memoir, or writing about my theory that other colors exist beyond human detection (one is called yurple). Where is the original research? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • You cannot justify the inclusion of the link from funniestgadgets.com because there is no citeable information. You have previously attempted to insert it by saying "a picture is worth a thousand words." This does not meet the burdens of the WP:V, which I will no longer belabor since I don't think anybody is reading them. When previous editors have raised concerns about individual sources you have previously tried to redirect that criticism by falling back on the one sourced statement from The Guardian. Doing so does not address problems inherent to the citation under discussion. The link from funniestgadgets.com contains no citeable information and cannot be used as a source. Please address this concern (and only this one) before attempting to reinsert that source. Cumulus Clouds 04:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • There are two definitions for the term out there: The primary definition is the use of actual hands to cover ones breasts. There is also a product that spoofs this action, which uses the same name. The reference to the product is included for completeness. Now that this source has been addressed, you'll have to explain why each of the dozen other sources are not verifiable, despite the inclusion of an external link to each reference. Feel free to push your unjustifiable nonsense at the AfD. Removing sources used to demonstrate notability so that you can falsely claim that they don't exist is extremely disruptive. Alansohn 08:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • "Including for completeness" is not a reason. Try again. Cumulus Clouds 17:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Zoo Gallery[edit]

  • You said "Since thumbnail galleries do not directly and explicitly state anything, they fail the sentence that I've cited above. The gallery of pictures of women's breasts does not, in itself, directly and explicity support the statement given. Claiming that it does so by providing examples of the statement fails WP:SYN and WP:NEO, which state that a source must be about a subject, rather than use it." Is this the quote you are talking about that "fails WP:SYN and WP:NEO"? It came from the caption to a photo in the "Zoo gallery". Instead of pointing me to WP:SYN and WP:NEO, quote me a specific sentence there. I still am not following your logic. I can't think of any clearer definition than this, and there is a photo just in case the words don't sink in. Is it the photo that is bothering you or the caption to the photo? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The quote from the Zoo Gallery is: "What's a hand-bra then? Well, the clue is in the name - it's a lady brassiere, formed by the hands of the lady in question because she just doesn't seem to have an actual bra to hand."

  • Using that same logic, the reference to funniestgadgets.com should be removed. Alansohn has suggested that it is "included for completeness" but neither WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NEO, WP:OR or WP:SYN have any exceptions in them that allow statements to be referenced by thumbnail galleries "for completeness." I'd like a better explanation on this point. Cumulus Clouds 18:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • "Same logic"? What logic? Sigh, there you go with telling me its in the Bible again, its very frustrating. Show me the sentence that excludes the use of a photo caption as a source. You wouldn't expect to go to court and say its in "housing code", or it was a "supreme court decision", you have to provide quotes of the relevant text. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I sometimes get tired of typing the same things over and over again so to save myself time I refer to earlier arguments I've made on the page. The only caption for the funniestgadgets.com link is "A picture is worth a thousand words..." This does not support the statement it is referencing, nor any other statement. There is no citeable content on the page. WP:CITE and WP:V say that "Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is policy, says that attribution is required for "direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged."" I have previously and do now challenge that statement. WP:V says that "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made." The source is inappropriate to the claim made and lacks a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. It needs to be removed. Since any of my edits to this page are immediately reverted by you or Alansohn, I'll ask for another editor to perform the necessary action.
Once again, the burden for including a source does not fall on the editor removing the content. You and Alansohn have previously requested direct citations from policy about the edits you've been making so that you can combat the individual arguments being made and you have done so in contravention to the spirit of those guidelines. This is unacceptable. Because the both of you resist change to this article in any form (as seen in your edits restoring unencylopedic information removed weeks ago, the removal of tags and others), this article cannot improve. I would suggest you open yourselves and this article to constructive criticism from other editors. Cumulus Clouds 20:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I wholeheartedly agree that "the burden for including a source does not fall on the editor removing the content". The problem is that this article provides sources for every statement contained therein. Multiple sources are provided to define the term, the most contentious issue at hand. Despite the fact that every single one of these sources is easily verifiable, you have repeatedly removed sources under the guise that they violate WP:V. Alternatively, your excuse has been that the presence of pictures negates the source, when in fact each source references specific cited text that is included as part of the reference and can be reviewed and confirmed at the link provided. Given that any and all sourcing obligations have been satisfied, the burden falls squarely on the individual removing sourced content to provide a valid justification for its removal, yet you have repeatedly failed to do so. This is unacceptable. The article cannot improve if the very sources being added to demonstrate notability are being removed. Alansohn 12:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • You still haven't answered concerns about th source to funniestgadgets.com. There is no citeable text on that page. Why have you not removed this source, given that you have not provided an adequate justification for including it? Cumulus Clouds 16:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I already did. See here for our most recent discussion on the subject. Above and beyond the thoroughly documented primary definition of the use of actual hands, the product is an alternative definition of the same term. Alansohn 16:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • "Including for completeness" does not justify inserting a source with no citeable information. It is not a source and therefore cannot be used to reference the statement. The statement therefore cannot be referenced and should be removed. Cumulus Clouds 18:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • There is an alternative, and related, use of the term. The source provides the required details. 18:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alansohn (talkcontribs)
  • The source does not provide any citeable text. It provides no details and therefore fails the requirements of a reliable source. You seem to believe that because a statement exists, you need to make a reference for it. The opposite is true, since a statement exists because there is a source for it. There is no source for the statement so the statement must be removed. Cumulus Clouds 22:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Isn't a picture = 1,000 words, or are you telling I have to add the photo to the article. Thats a good idea, let me add it to the article, rather than have it as text. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It cannot be used as a source for that statement because there is no citeable text. Using a cliche does not justify citing the statement. If you upload it to Wikipedia or Commons, I will nominate it for deletion. Cumulus Clouds 02:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Rolling Stone cover award[edit]

Where is everyone quoting that information getting that from? THE evil fluffyface (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

cruddy iphone app[edit]

An iPhone application "Boobs in Hand Bras" showcases various photos of hand bras on women.[11] this looks alot like advertisment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.76.53.158 (talk) 05:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Almost a year later, but I agree. Yoink. - JeffJonez (talk) 03:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Merger to Glamour photography[edit]

This term is not necessarily notable on its own, but the information in this article may be condensed and moved to Glamour photography. This would enhance the master article and attract more edits and readers to the information if it were merged. With no opposition, this will be done in 48 hours, otherwise please leave your remarks here. Thanks, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong Oppose the issue of standalone notability has been discussed at AfD on three separate occasions, and settled in the affirmative each time. I see no reason that the issue of standalone notability for this article is not abundantly settled. I agree that the technique should be listed at Glamour photography, but see no reason that the article in its entirety should be plopped in to the proposed target article. Backlinks from Glamour photography will ensure that access is available to the complete article. Alansohn (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't feel like there's enough information in this article to warrant it's own entry. There's a sentence about what it is, followed by all the times it was used. Much of this information is duplicated at Glamor photography (specifically the sections surrounding usage), so it could easily be merged back in. Whether it's a notable term isn't especially relevant to the merge, since the topic would still be discussed within Glamour photography. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
It might be OK to merge it somewhere, but "Glamour photography" doesn't seem to be the right place, since not all such photographs are intended to be glamorous by any means... AnonMoos (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Expand[edit]

Just a few friendly suggestions on how one can expand this article further:

  • What was the reaction to these depictions of the handbra? Has there been any criticism or controversy relating to them?
  • What are the reasons or motivations that a person might have to be depicted in a handbra? Interviews with Demi Moore or Janet Jackson concerning their famous handbra images might be useful here. --Bardin (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

in the media[edit]

The article starts

The handbra motif is an uncommon and unnecessary pose in early 20th century European and American pinup postcard media because toplessness and nudity were common. In America, after bare breasts become repressed in mainstream media circa 1930, the handbra became an increasingly durable pose, especially as more widespread American pinup literature emerges in the 1950s. Once bare breasts became a common occurrence in pinup literature, after the early 1960s, the handbra pose acquires less necessity in pinup media.

The language is very weird. I could propose a rewrite...

The handbra motif was uncommonly used by the early 20th century European and American pinup postcard media because toplessness and nudity were common. In America, after bare breasts was repressed in mainstream media circa 1930, the handbra became an increasingly durable pose, especially as more widespread American pinup literature emerged in the 1950s. Once bare breasts became a common occurrence in pinup literature, after the early 1960s; the handbra pose again lost popularity in pinup media.

...but not sure it's worth it, as it's completely unsourced and probably OR anyway? CapnZapp (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)