Talk:Bra

Lead picture

The lead image, as it currently stands, isn't the best image for a lead and should be changed if a better one can be found. Per WP:LEADIMAGE, "Lead images should be ... appropriate visual representations of the topic; they not only should be illustrating the topic specifically, but should also be the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works". The current lead image shows a woman pushing her breasts together with her upper arms while wearing a bra. It doesn't show how a bra itself changes breast shape (e.g., lifts, creates cleavage, supports, etc.) or illustrate the "anatomy" of a bra. An image that performs one of those two functions would be preferable over the current one. I'm going to see if I can hunt one down over at the Commons' category of images related to brassieres. Happy editing! — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 17:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't feel like searching through commons to find one, but if you can find one, I think we should replace it. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

possible image? is one possibility; it is licensed appropriately, we could crop and just show the bra part of the image if necessary. other pics are available on flickr, I didn't find any in commons that were better yet.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Something like this or this might be more suitable/illustrative - Alison ^❤ 20:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we should shy away from showing a real model, but it should not be a sexualized or glamorous image. Check out Flickr maybe you will find something better - unfortunately for us, most high quality images of women in bras are selling sexiness.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Citation

I would like to see a citation for "In western cultures, about 10–25% of women do not wear a bra, either as a matter of preference or sometimes for health or comfort reasons." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.187.55.243 (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I've just gone ahead and removed that paragraph; it's fine for some unsourced material to be tagged, but that claim is so specific, it needs a source before it can stay. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Cultural differences

I think this article would be really enhanced by a consideration on wearing bras or going braless in different cultures. I'm sure it signals different cultural signs in countries in Asia, Africa, North America, South America or Europe. Going braless in France is probably more acceptable than in a more conservative country like Singapore. I don't think every country needs to be represented, just a sampling of the variety of social norms in different cultures. Newjerseyliz (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Health information: serious problems

This article has a serious problem in its reporting of biomedical information in a way which is seriously out-of-alignment with WP:MEDRS giving a skewed, and likely non-neutral and bogus impression of some the health impacts of bra wearing. I have tagged the article accordingly and will make some attempt to clean up. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI}

 Done ... which I have now done. There was a strange focus on pain supporting by a large number of completely inappropriate publications and sites. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow, you just eviscerated a substantial portion of the article without any discussion or participation by other editors. Having never edited this article, with no background in it, you summarily removed 21% of the content. In your edit summary supporting removing some content, you refer to "content obsessing about pain". I believe one of the findings is that a lot of women do experience pain from wearing a bra. While you note that some of the content fails WP:MEDRS, some of the info you removed contained references to journals, which you noted as "unreliably-sourced". There isn't a lot of research on this topic, so requiring all sources to be less than 5 years old is inappropriate for this article.

Your behavior is inconsiderate of the considerable effort others including myself have put into creating an article that passed muster as a Good Article. You do understand that WP is having a hard time attracting individuals willing to spend time creating content, right? You can refer to WP guidelines -- and they are guidelines, not RULES -- if you want. But when you fail to include others in such a substantive edit, your WikiDragon behavior alienates and discourages others from making ongoing contributions. Over the next few days I am going to revert some of your edits. If you don't agree, please follow up with a discussion here so that others can contribute. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 19:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

In my view, this article was an embarrassment to Wikipedia (as has been noted outside Wikipedia, FWIW). Any editor wishing to reinstate content against the grain of WP guidelines will need, of course, to make a convincing argument for why there is an exceptional case. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I was not aware of the scathing criticism of the article. The critic suggests this article should include references to articles about how happy women are wearing their bras. Give me a break. They don't like the images? Finding appropriate images is difficult. Maybe the critic would like to model? In any case, it is a reasonable courtesy to discuss proposed massive edits beforehand. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 19:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

My particular concern is that the article is not bloated with poorly sourced (and so likely bogus) health information. The true "courtesy" would be not to insert that in the first place. Anyway, this being the Talk page, is any alteration to the text being proposed? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely concur that this article was an 'embarrassment to Wikipedia' and is highly skewed with an anti-bra POV. Why, I don't know. Just checking that one Greenbaum reference shows that the sample used suffers from confirmation bias as the 103 women chosen for the study were *all* referred for reduction mammoplasty. Just for starters. And now Btphelps is reverting to have that re-inserted? I disagree in the strongest terms - Alison ^❤ 19:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Completely agree with Alison and Alexbrn. Needs to be rewritten (or merged) and the boob pics reduced. How many pictures of white women in bras is needed to make the point? Seems like a Victoria's Secret advert that's been plastered with bra pics. Soranoch (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

@ btphelps "I believe one of the findings is that a lot of women do experience pain from wearing a bra." No, there was no such credible finding. Breast weight is the principal factor in pain, not the bra. Some women find a bra restrictive, but there is no study here to support any of that. Bielle (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

^ this - Alison ^❤ 20:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that these edits were long overdue and I applaud the boldness of the cleanup. Thanks Alexbrn.Mattnad (talk) 23:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Whilst WP:MEDRS is a guideline and not a rule as suggested above, we should not be making health claims based on poor sources, especially ones that relate to supposed positive and negative health effects of wearing such common garments. I still think the image in the lead is unnecessarily sexualized as the individual seems to me to be pushing breasts together to give a greater cleavage effect. Would be just as suitable to have a picture of a bra on a shop mannequin? Lesion (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the clean up of the article and the removal of the dubious and poorly or erroneously-cited material. Cla68 (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

More agreement here; the removed material was of very poor quality. Alexbrn has done a good job with these changes. — Scott • talk 14:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

WT:MED

FYI, I have raised a query about this article at WT:MED. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Bravo User:Alison for great article improvement!

Much more appropriate pic for lede pic. Sets better tone for all the rest of the article. (claps hands). Soranoch (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. I would also like to see this illustration in the article. At present it is only in the Brassiere measurement-article. But it is one of the most informative illustrations we have on bras (IMO), so I think it should also go into the "main" article. Huldra (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

IMHO it's a very particular, detailed chart for F cup sizes, which represent a small minority of women. Better for the measurement article which is more specific than the general article.Mattnad (talk)

Well, actually no: it is also for the 38C woman (which is quite common). And that is what is so informative about it: not everybody knows how the cup-size varies according the body-size. Huldra (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Japanese girl in a white E70 bra is unnecessarily sexualized

Even after cropping, so please will the people stop adding it back.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.140.42 (talk) 12:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Alternative

I would propose the photo below as an alternative:

The current photograph is low quality and has a price tag on it etc. etc. Mattnad (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Current lead picture is excellent. Desexualizes, illustrates exactly what the topic of the article is, avoids this panting man-boy stuff.Dan Murphy (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

You suggested a Wonderbra advert as an alternative to unnecessary sexualized imagery? Did you even read what this thread is about?