From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Request for removal of Offensive image[edit]

Mastectomy Procedures.jpg

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)

@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)

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)

@Topazemerald: Wikipedia is not censored. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
@Topazemerald: Curious that you figured out the {{Restricted use}} template on your first account. —C.Fred (talk) 22:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
@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)

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)
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)

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)

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

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.".

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

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

Assessment - September 2017[edit]

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:
  • 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. )

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
    1. Lymphatic drainage
    2. Shape and support

# Endocrinology

  1. Development
    1. Puberty
    2. Pregnancy
    3. Menopause and aging
  2. Breastfeeding
  3. Clinical significance
    1. Breast cancer
    2. Male breastsand 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)

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)
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)
It's clear that you are focused on the biomedical aspects, but let's keep the "Society and culture" section in 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)
Sure, a section on body image would be good to have. It would need a complete rewrite from what's currently there. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I think that this is an excellent analysis that provides a road map for improving the article. I will look more deeply into the points you have made. Thank you, Clayoquot. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Cullen328 and support your great analysis, Clayoquot. Article structure tends to reflect the existing content of articles, so is usually a symptom (rather than a cause) of the problem, and is best relieved with a good health dose of editing and article expansion. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Tom (LT), what about the suggestion to place a "Male breasts and lactation" section under the "Breastfeeding" "Clinical significance" heading? The section should include gynecomastia material, but human male breastfeeding is not a significant thing. See the Male lactation article and other sources on the matter. Also, body image material is significantly relevant to "society and culture." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I crossed out part of my above comment because I read part of the proposed layout wrong. I'm fine with a "Male breasts" heading, but I don't think we need "male lactation" as part of it. Male lactation can have a brief mention in the section, but I don't see that there's so much to state about it that it needs to be represented in the heading. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Another thing I should have mentioned is that it's not typical to use the "Anatomy" heading in our anatomy articles since all of it is anatomy. We go by a WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy setup. That stated, we don't always follow the entire setup. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm inclined to move the proposed ==Endocrinology== section lower in the outline (it's more technical + less interesting to most readers), but otherwise, I think this is a good approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Sure. I was thinking that it might be efficient to have an early introduction to how various hormones affect the breast, but after looking into this more I don't think it's necessary. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
would agree w/ WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Let's do it! Right now, here is where the article stands: Prose size (text only): 30821 characters (4852 words) of "readable prose size". I have already dug in on minor trimming, minor expanding, and minor refining. This is a large article and a formidable project. I am excited by the rally and proposals above! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 12:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks everyone! I'm stoked too. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Clayoquot, I see that you struck out "and lactation" in your proposed layout above. Thanks for that. I want to reiterate that I'm not stating that we shouldn't include a little on it. Just that it's not significant enough to have much space in the article and therefore not in a heading either. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Content cut from the article, as discussed in September 2017 assessment[edit]

Extended content

Shape and support[edit]

Some breasts are mounted high upon the chest wall, are of rounded shape, and project almost horizontally from the chest. These features are common to girls and women in the early stages of thelarchic development (the sprouting of the breasts). In the high-breast configuration, the dome-shaped and the cone-shaped breast is affixed to the chest at the base, and weight is evenly distributed over the base area. In the low-breast configuration, a proportion of the breast weight is supported by the chest, against which rests the lower surface of the breast, thus is formed the inframammary fold (IMF). Because the base is deeply affixed to the chest, the weight of the breast is distributed over a greater area. This reduces the weight-bearing strain upon the chest, shoulder, and back muscles that bear the weight of the bust.[citation needed]

In the course of thelarche, some girls develop breasts the lower skin-envelope of which touches the chest below the IMF, and some girls do not; both breast anatomies are statistically normal morphologic variations of the size and shape of women's breasts.[1]


The seven stages of breast ptosis

Breast ptosis, or sagging of the breasts, is a normal consequence of aging[2] where the breast tissue droops lower on the chest and the nipple points downward.[3] Researchers have found that ptosis is influenced by several key factors: greater age, higher body mass index, larger bra cup size, history of significant weight loss (>50 lbs or 25 kg), number of pregnancies, and history of cigarette smoking.[4] [5][6] It is not caused, as commonly believed by many women and medical practitioners, by breastfeeding.[7]

Plastic surgeons categorize ptosis by evaluating the position of the nipple relative to the inframammary crease (where the underside of the breast meets the chest wall). This is determined by measuring from the center of the nipple to the sternal notch (at the top of the breast bone) to gauge how far the nipple has fallen. The standard anthropometric measurement for young women is 21 centimetres (8.3 in). This measurement is used to assess both breast ptosis and breast symmetry. The surgeon will assess the breast's angle of projection. The apex of the breast, which includes the nipple, can have a flat angle of projection (180 degrees) or acute angle of projection (greater than 180 degrees). The apex rarely has an angle greater than 60 degrees. The angle of the breast apex is partly determined by the tautness of the suspensory Cooper's ligaments. For example, when a woman lies on her back, the angle of the breast apex becomes a flat, obtuse angle (less than 180 degrees) while the base-to-length ratio of the breast ranges from 0.5 to 1.0.[2]

Plastic surgery[edit]

After mastectomy, the reconstruction of the breast or breasts is done with breast implants or autologous tissue transfer, using fat and tissues from the abdomen, which is performed with a TRAM flap or with a back (latissiumus muscle flap). Breast reduction surgery is a procedure that involves removing excess breast tissue, fat, and skin, and the repositioning of the nipple-areola complex.

, breast augmentation with implants, and combination procedures; the two types of available breast implants are models filled with silicone gel, and models filled with saline solution. These types of breast surgery can also repair inverted nipples by releasing milk duct tissues that have become tethered. Furthermore, in the case of the obese woman, a breast lift (mastopexy) procedure, with or without a breast volume reduction, can be part of an upper-body lift and contouring for the woman who has undergone massive body weight loss.[citation needed]

Other potential means of breast enlargement also exist, such as hormonal breast enhancement.[8][9]


  1. ^ Boutros S, Kattash M, Wienfeld A, Yuksel E, Baer S, Shenaq S (September 1998). "The Intradermal Anatomy of the Inframammary Fold". Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 102 (4): 1030–1033. doi:10.1097/00006534-199809040-00017. PMID 9734420. 
  2. ^ a b "Breast Lift Procedure". Ricardo L. Rodriguez, MD. Retrieved 29 January 2012. 
  3. ^ Younai, S. Sean. "Breast Sagging – Ptosis". Retrieved 26 January 2012. 
  4. ^ Rinker, B; Veneracion, M; Walsh, C (2008). "The Effect of Breastfeeding on Breast Aesthetics". Aesthetic Surgery Journal. 28 (5): 534–7. doi:10.1016/j.asj.2008.07.004. PMID 19083576. Lay summaryLiveScience (2 November 2007). 
  5. ^ Rinker B, Veneracion M, Walsh CP (2010). "Breast ptosis: causes and cure". Ann Plast Surg. 64 (5): 579–84. doi:10.1097/SAP.0b013e3181c39377. PMID 20354434. 
  6. ^ Campolongo, Marianne (5 December 2007). "What Causes Sagging Breasts?". Retrieved 26 January 2012. 
  7. ^ Lauersen, Niels H.; Stukane, Eileen (1998). The Complete Book of Breast Care (1st Trade Paperback ed.). New York: Fawcett Columbine/Ballantine. ISBN 978-0-449-91241-6. ...there is no medical reason to wear a bra, so the decision is yours, based on your own personal comfort and aesthetics. Whether you have always worn a bra or always gone braless, age and breastfeeding will naturally fcause your breasts to sag. 
  8. ^ R.E. Mansel; Oystein Fodstad; Wen G. Jiang (14 June 2007). Metastasis of Breast Cancer. Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 217–. ISBN 978-1-4020-5866-0. 
  9. ^ Hartmann BW, Laml T, Kirchengast S, Albrecht AE, Huber JC (1998). "Hormonal breast augmentation: prognostic relevance of insulin-like growth factor-I". Gynecol. Endocrinol. 12 (2): 123–7. doi:10.3109/09513599809024960. PMID 9610425. 

Clayoquot, personally, regarding the asymmetry material, I would not have split the content off to create the Breast asymmetry article. When it comes to WP:Med and WP:Anatomy, we merge a lot of content and this is something I would have considered merging if seeing it separated from this article. I often consider WP:HASTE and WP:No split, and am only open to splitting when I think it's necessary. If it's content composed of a few or several paragraphs, I usually don't consider that worth splitting. Either way, for now, breast asymmetry should be covered in this article and we should point readers to the Breast asymmetry article for further detail. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

And I see that you did that with this and this edit, although it's currently a brief mention. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I'm open to alternatives. How many sentences/paragraphs do you think the Breast article should have on breast asymmetry? And what should we do with the leftover content? One issue is that much of the content from the "Breast asymmetry" section is based on primary sources, i.e. sources that are not WP:MEDRS compliant. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
How many paragraphs? I think it should get as many paragraphs as it needs to summarize the topic. Right now, the Breast asymmetry article is only four paragraphs long, which is why I questioned the split. The content being built on primary sources is another concern of mine, but we can replace primary sources (well, often enough for medical/anatomy topics). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Also, keep in mind that WP:MEDRS does allow primary sources in certain cases. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
OK. My hunch is that one paragraph will be enough for a summary. I plan to visit the library for sources later this week and will come back to this issue. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
👍 Like like your work. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I added another sentence on asymmetry to the Shape and support section, added a sentence to the Body image section, and redirected the Breast asymmetry article back to the Breast From what I've seen in some secondary sources on breast anatomy and breast health, that's a reasonable summary. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Before-and-after surgery pictures[edit]

Pre-operative (top left) and post-operative (top right) aspects of cosmetic surgery procedures: reduction mammoplasty, breast lift (center left & right), breast augmentation with breast implants (bottom left & right).

Hi everyone. I'm planning to remove this set of pictures, for the following reasons:

  • The pictures add little encyclopedic value beyond what the text says. There are no scars, no imperfections. In comparison, the photographs at, say, Cleft lip and cleft palate are valuable because without them, it would be difficult to visualize what the results of surgery can be.
  • Surgeons and their marketing departments create galleries like this to show ideal results, not typical results, and to advance a pro-surgery point of view. The photos are contributed by a Wikipedia user who was banned for using Wikipedia to promote his business. This is advertising. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I remember Otto Placik (talk · contribs). See Talk:Labiaplasty/Archive 1#Before after image. He definitely used his images to advertise, but as that discussion shows, we didn't all feel that his images weren't helpful. I think that Doc James was okay with some of his images. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: And we use his images at the Breast implant article because they are helpful. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Interesting. Thanks Flyer22 Reborn. It looks as if Otto Placik's pictures have been replaced in the Labiaplasty article. In articles that focus on surgery, I can understand why we'd consider them useful. For this article, we should also look at the question of how many surgery-related pictures to include, as opposed to other aspects of breasts. If we count each before-and-after-surgery pair as one picture, we'd have a total of five images related to plastic surgery (including the masectomy pictures that we already include). For comparison, we currently have one picture on breastfeeding and two on breasts in art. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I am okay with the position that this image is undue weight here and belongs on the subpage on breast augmentation surgery. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)