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 Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) at 21:06, 4 September 2017 (→‎Assessment - September 2017). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Peer Review

Group 1:

  1. Under the clothing section, religious piece is not cited
  2. You may wish to consider adding a recent paper by Jan Havlicek (2016, Evolution and Human Behavior) for a perspective on mate choice and the evolution of breasts as sexual ornaments
  3. This page only focuses on human breasts. Consider renaming?
  4. Under clinical significance, breast cancer as a killer is referred to. Please cite
  5. Citations begin at number 2, rather than number 1
  6. That being said, we thought this page was of an excellent quality, and with a lovely layout Nmuggleton (talk) 11:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Group 2:

  1. Please cite the diagram (cross-section of breast)
  2. Please cite in introduction paragraph (re. androgens)
  3. Pictures correspond nicely with the article
  4. It'd be good if you could flesh out the symbolism section (towards the bottom)
  5. Overall, not much to add. This is a high quality page Nmuggleton (talk) 11:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Group 3:

  1. It'd be good to add some more detail on breast cancer, including male breast cancer
  2. Cultural movements re., 'free the nipple', bra burning, and other feminist movements
  3. The page initially talks about male and female breasts, but continues to focus on only female breasts. Either rename the page, or include a section on male breasts
  4. Re. the photograph of a pregnant woman's breasts - this photograph should be explained (e.g., how they differ to non-pregnant women's breasts), or removed
  5. The 'symbolism' section only covers one example. Either rename or expand beyond Christian symbolism
  6. Re. reference 58: Havelicek et al. (2016) found that a preference for youthful, upright breasts is universal. Consider balancing the argument
  7. Despite the comments above, we thought that this was an excellent contribution. There are some great scientific articles, a clear introduction and structured layout 137.205.219.74 (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Breast size increment.

I want to make certain that any child I bear would have a sufficiency in lactation at least for that time it requires for the child to be able to whine for the refrigerator door to be opened, which takes a while.

What are my breast size increments, if the child grows and continues suckling, the lactation incrementing accorded it´s needs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.37.158.149 (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Breast. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for removal of Offensive image

This image given in article is offensive. As per [1] this pic should be removed, becoz the educational addition to article it brings is too less compared to its offensiveness. And yes, Wikipedia is not meant for children but this doesnt mean we should include any offensive content in the name of broad-mindedness or in the name of educating people. This picture appears without giving any graphic warning and can disturb even adult users. Topazemerald (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Topazemerald: I don't see how this image is any more offensive than the other pictures in the article. If anything, the caption might need expanded to tie in with text already present in the article about mastectomy. —C.Fred (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is already an article on it- Mastectomy. I see no reason why this image showing removed breast is necessary to keep on a page on breasts. It's like showing a pic of a man whose penis has been cut on an article on penis. As far as C.Fred not finding it offensive enough, well I would like to disagree. How many times do you come across such images in real life? And if you do come across a woman with removed breasts, wouldn't you get disturbed by it? Let us hear the views of more people on this issue. By the way, let me disclose hear that this is the first time I have made a Wiki account, and I made it just for starting this topic.Topazemerald (talk) 22:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Topazemerald: Wikipedia is not censored. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Topazemerald: Curious that you figured out the {{Restricted use}} template on your first account. —C.Fred (talk) 22:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@C.Fred: I never said that I havent ever made edits in past. So ofcourse I was aware of this page. I just never had an account in past- never felt its need.

Anyways, plz see this- Wikipedia:Offensive_material#.22Not_censored.22_does_not_give_special_favor_to_offensive_content Topazemerald (talk) 22:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image is informative and is directly relevant to the article. Labeling this offensive doesn't diminish that, and imparting information is the primary goal here. This article provides information about breasts, including the real-life fact that breasts get removed sometimes. Grayfell (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This content is informative "for the real world" and is not offensive just to be offensive, which is meant to discourage. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hope in future Wiki admins would agree with my view and remove this image. Please don't delete this debate.Topazemerald (talk) 08:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add or switch for the actual scientific article in (currently) reference 67

The reference used to illustrate the article which "showed that breasts are often the first thing men look at, and for a longer time than other body parts" directs to an article in the Daily Telegraph which neither give the names of the authors nor the name of the actual paper.

Acknowledging that such a exposition of what the article is about can be beneficial for the readers, I think a link to the original article, titled Eye-tracking of men's preferences for waist-to-hip ratio and breast size of women. should be added as well. It can be accessed for free on ResearchGate.

The recommanded citation is "Dixson, B.J., Grimshaw, G.M., Linklater, W.L. et al. Arch Sex Behav (2011) 40: 43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-009-9523-5".

--Lboukoko (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lboukoko, I have made the change you requested. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment - September 2017

Obviously a lot of work has gone into this article by some intelligent people. But I believe the current version has some major problems in terms of completeness and neutral point of view.

Approximately three quarters of the words in this article are about the appearance, size, and shape of breasts. Plastic surgery is given around 600 words, which is more than the number of words on puberty, female sexual pleasure, cancer, and breastfeeding combined. From my perspective as a female reader, these ratios are plainly ludicrous. To make a more conventional Wikipedia argument, the article’s emphasis on breast size and shape, and on cosmetic surgery, is way out of line with how high-quality secondary and tertiary sources on breast health and sex education discuss the subject.

Consider, for example, the WebMD article on breast changes in menopause. It lists three types of changes: 1. Tenderness or pain, 2. Changes in breast size and shape, and 3. Lumps in the breast. The Wikipedia article mentions menopause four times. Every single one of those four mentions relates menopause to changes in breast size and/or shape, and to nothing else. And this example is not an isolated problem.

I would expect a general article on this subject to talk a lot more about breast physiology, about sensations in the breast that are experienced by women and girls, about the health concerns that owners of breasts have (girls and women worry about their breasts a lot), and about the significance of the subject to infants. Some particulars I’d like to see are:

  • Expand discussion of breast changes during puberty. Eleven-year-olds are routinely taught a lot more than what's currently in this article.
  • Expand discussion of breast changes during the menstrual cycle, pregnancy, and menopause.
  • Describe where and how colostrum, and then mature milk, are produced within the breast. A good online source about the physiological basis of breastfeeding is here, from the WHO: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK148970/
  • Describe the hormonal and physical processes that cause ejection of milk
  • Mention that breastfed infants and toddlers nurse for comfort and bonding as well as for nutrition
  • Describe signs of breast cancer, and detection methods.

(In case this needs needs to be said - editors of all genders can write well about this stuff.)


The long sections on asymmetry and ptosis could be condensed to a few sentences each - these aspects are covered in far more detail than is necessary for a general article.

This article has an emphasis on plastic surgery that fills up most of four sections. The section on body image gives no alternatives to "a woman [who] considers her breasts deficient in some respect" except surgery and hormonal treatments. The idea of coming to accept one's body as it is is not mentioned. Given the limited extent to which the topic of plastic surgery is brought up in secondary and tertiary sources that discuss breast health for general readers, I think it warrants one section. In this, we should:

  • Briefly describe some conditions for which plastic surgery is performed
  • Mention that surgery for breast reduction can be medically necessary (e.g. to reduce strain on the woman’s back and shoulders)
  • Describe the risks associated with surgery and breast implants
  • Present a range of viewpoints on body image and cosmetic breast surgery, including views that are critical of the cosmetic surgery industry (e.g. http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/health-info/facts-about-breast-implants/ )

Currently our table of contents for the biomedical aspects of the breast is:

  1. Etymology and terminology
  2. Anatomy
    1. Glandular structure
    2. Lymphatic drainage
    3. Shape and support
    4. Asymmetry
  3. Development
  4. Physiology
  5. Aging
  6. Clinical significance

with a section of "Body image" further down

A more balanced and less-repetitious article could be arranged something like this:

  1. Etymology and terminology
  2. Anatomy
    1. Glandular structure
    2. Lymphatic drainage
    3. Shape and support
  3. Endocrinology
  4. Development
    1. Puberty
    2. Pregnancy
    3. Menopause and aging
  5. Breastfeeding
  6. Clinical significance
    1. Breast cancer
    2. Male breasts and lactation
    3. Plastic surgery (include relevant info from the Body image section and delete the Body image section)

Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging user:checkingfax.who asked to be notified. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC) Also pinging user:FloNight and user:SandyGeorgia - we have not previously discussed this article, but I'm interested in your opinions. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sensible proposal that should lead to a much improved article delivering considerably more value to women and girls. I'd add that the section on clinical significance in particular seems far too short at 1.5% of overall article length (it's even dwarfed by the material on plastic surgery). Compare, say, the prostate article, where the section on clinical significance represents about 50% of the overall article. Andreas JN466 14:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear that you are focused on the biomedical aspects, but let's keep the "Society and culture" section ind mind as well. Right now, the "Body image" subsection is a part of that section, and I see it as more relevant to that section than to the Clinical significance section. Of course, the Clinical significance section should mention breast surgery as well. As for "male breasts," human male lactation is not well-documented and has been met with much skepticism.
I'll alert WP:Anatomy and WP:Med to this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Breast&oldid=798964706"