Talk:Breast

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Women's health (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's health 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Sexuality (Rated B-class, Mid-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Anatomy (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article has been classified as relating to gross anatomy.
 
WikiProject Nudity (Rated B-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Preparation for GA nomination[edit]

I will be preparing this article for GA nomination over the next month and would accept any feedback. I invite other users to contribute and/or take the lead on this. Ping to Flyer22, what are your opinions about what needs to be done to get this to a satisfactory standard? Tasks: --LT910001 (talk) 04:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Add citations to unsourced areas
The ping didn't work, LT910001; but since I have this article WP:Watchlisted, it wasn't needed anyway. I see that you listed that the unsourced areas need citations; of course, I agree. What I first see as needing improvement when looking at this article is the lead; it doesn't do a good job at summarizing the article. But fixing up the lead can come after we fix up the rest of the article. The sourcing needs improvement. For example, look at the first two sources currently in the Shape and support section; those need to be replaced. Flyer22 (talk) 05:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Great. I tend to work in a time-scale that is a little slower than other users, so I will slowly add and replace citations over the next month. Am also looking to get Cervix to GA --LT910001 (talk) 05:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll help out with sourcing and some other matters concerning the Breast article as well. Flyer22 (talk) 05:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Btphelps, regarding this, this and this latest edit I made, and this and this latest edit you made, make sure that you are using WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. Generally try to stay away from WP:Primary sources. Also see WP:MEDDATE. Flyer22 (talk) 07:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Medgirl131 (talk · contribs), regarding expansions such as this... Per what I stated above to Btphelps (who thanked me via WP:Echo for that post), make sure that you are not using too many WP:Primary sources. Keep WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDDATE in mind. Also, take it easy on the excessive citing; see WP:Citation overkill. Flyer22 (talk) 09:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Where precisely?[edit]

'In Asia, there was "Breast Mountain,"...' Asia is a very big place. 109.149.208.19 (talk) 11:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit request Jul 18 2015: Aspect with regard to both sexes[edit]

This whole article is heavily weighted toward females, giving almost no consideration to male breasts.

Even the opening sentence gives the reader the immediate impression that only females have breasts.

The breast is one of two mammary glands on the upper ventral region of a female primate's torso ...

Why is a breast being defined as a female only anatomy part?

Please clean up this article or allow it to be edited so that it can be factually correct.

93.95.76.135 (talk) 02:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

See WP:Due weight. The article (its WP:Lead) is clear that the male chest also consists of breasts. But the male chest is usually not referred to as breasts, and the vast majority of sources on breasts refer to female breasts...not to male breasts (as any "breasts" Google search will show). Flyer22 (talk) 03:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
But even the sentence I pointed out is clearly misleading, and the opening of an article should act as a definition of sorts for defining what is being talked about. Breasts are not exclusive to women. The primary reason for my dismay is that I was recently involved in an online discussion with a number of people who refused to believe that male and female breasts are fundamentally the same thing, and I am having this wikipedia article shoved in my face as evidence to the contrary.
Even if you look at the wikipedia page for mammary glands, currently it also opens with a sentence leading the reader to believe that it is something exclusive to females.
I don't know how this is such a large misconception among the population, but it is, and I do not believe wikipedia should be re-inforcing misinformation, especially in a time when women are working to develop equal rights with men.
"In humans, there is one pair of mammary glands, also known as mammae, or breasts. They are rudimentary in both sexes until the age of puberty when, in response to ovarian hormones, they begin to develop in the female" --The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed.
93.95.76.135 (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
The WP:Lead sentence is not the end of the subject. We often give the primary definition of a topic in the lead sentence and move to other definitions after that (in other sentences and/or paragraphs). The people directing you to this Wikipedia article obviously didn't comprehend the lead well. If people don't read past the lead sentence and notice the other definitions, that is a problem with their comprehension skills. I did, however, tweak a part of the lead after your initial comment above. I'll contact WP:Anatomy about weighing in on this matter, see if they feel we should go with a different WP:Lead sentence. Flyer22 (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Alerted. On a side note: I added ": Aspect with regard to both sexes" to the heading of this section so that it is clearer as to what this section is about and will be easier to identify once archived. Flyer22 (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Flyer, and as long as male breasts are mentioned to exist in the lede and that male breast cancer is overlooked we don't need much more, simply because there isn't much more to say.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree the phrasing is not ideal. I find this a little confusing because it seems to contradict itself. That said like with many organs of the body I think most readers will have an idea of what the breast is before they read the article:

The breast is one of two mammary glands on the upper ventral region of a female primate's torso that can produce and secrete milk and feed infants.[2] Both males and females develop breasts from the same embryological tissues. At puberty, estrogens, in conjunction with growth hormone, causes breast development.

I guess my question is this. Are we conflating the mammary glands (which I have always presumed to be the glandular structures that secrete milk) and the breasts (ie the two prominences we see on males and females in surface anatomy, but with a lay meaning that includes the mammary glands)? --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Would something like this suffice?: "The breast is one of two prominence found on the upper ventral region of the torso of male and female primates. In females it serves as the mammary gland, which produces and secretes milk and feeds infants. Both males and females..." Open to changes/suggestions --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I have made this change, please feel free to comment below. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Waste of time really Sir ian guru (talk) 22:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Splitting the content into a Breast development article[edit]

Is everyone okay with this splitting of content by Medgirl131 (talk · contribs)? And, Medgirl131, why did you feel that the content needed splitting? I'm asking both questions because I don't see the need for the split. Medgirl131, I know you prefer not to communicate on talk pages, but maybe you wouldn't mind explaining why you split the content? As others have noted to you before, communication and collaboration are vital on Wikipedia. Did you split the content because you intend to keep adding more and more on that topic? Did you feel there was a WP:SIZE issue? Flyer22 (talk) 04:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: Medgirl131 did get back to me about this via email, and I read the email late (like a month or so late), but didn't get back to Medgirl131 on that email (I meant to, though). I think I eventually will. Medgirl131 was clear that she prefers not to respond on talk pages. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Only human breasts[edit]

This page is not about "breasts"... it is about female human breasts. All mammals have breasts; should we not link to the real "breasts" article? DouglasHeld (talk) 05:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

To which article do you refer? There is already a link in the lead to mammary gland. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I have read the Mammary gland article and it is a very good general breast article. I do think renaming "Mammary gland" to "Breast" would be sensible, and renaming the Breast page to "Breast (human anatomy)" would be sensible. The content of the Breast page is human-centric to a ridiculous degree. DouglasHeld (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

DouglasHeld, the term breast is usually used to refer to human females. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2016.01.009 is a recent review that focuses on male breast changes and when to suspect cancer. JFW | T@lk 23:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)