Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Discussion of images for this article can be found at Talk:Breast/sandbox. We want to have images that add quality to the article, and not have a collection of random images. Please do not add or remove images from this article without discussion with the other contributing editors of the article.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Lcture should be removed unless someone can get the female to verify her age in writing. So 65.34.119.91 has a point. I hope this clears matters up, and I will personally write a letter to wikipedia in regards to this article, or request ISP's banning this article. --78.86.117.16417:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Luckily the law does not forbid the depiction of breasts. Pornography is a different story. According to Princeton, pornography is defined as "creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire". None of the pictures on this page fit that description. All of the pictures are there for educational purposes.--71.3.64.7203:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. To my mind, this page is just a poorly veiled excuse to show pictures of nude women. If that were not the case, the page would not have needed to show said pictures, since the article can be complete without any of them. 68.122.222.231 (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages's policies don't say to only use images when strictly necessary, or when the article is incomplete without them. According to Misplaced Pages:images, "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be significant relative to the article's topic." Pictures of breasts are undoubtedly relevant to an article about breasts. I highly doubt that wikipedia users are laboring over this article for the sole purpose of showing pictures of nude women, especially considering that this is an article about a well-known and commonly discussed piece of human anatomy. Misplaced Pages is not censored, and my understanding is that generally, a high-quality, informative image is vastly preferred over no image at all. Ketsuekigata (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
This has to be the most hilarious discussion ever. "boooo, it's illegal !" Sorry guys, but showing a picture of breast is not illegal, or a lot of biology books or even magazines would be illegal. And I advise you to look at the definition of the word "pornography", it means graphic depictions of sexual matter. So, big news, guys, theses pictures are anything but sexual, can you believe it ? Nope, a nude breast is not necessarily sexual, it can be nothing else but an anatomic part of the body. Seriously, guys, if you feel sexually excited by theses pictures, maybe you should consider to meet a real woman from time to time. Kaolol 20:36, 6 Aprile 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.53.96.18 (talk)
I agree that this article should be in Misplaced Pages. I agree it should have photos of female breasts. But flashing? If this is of a clinical nature and therefore not of a pornographic nature, then why include photos of societal constructs such as flashing? Also, if this is "clinical", those "Gallery Shots" of women with mastectomies and breast cancer should be part of the story, covering diseases and conditions of the breast as well. As for the above argument, scaring people about the validity of law is not the issue. Prove to us that a online picture of a naked female breast absent of any context is against the law. I want to see the USC section and Paragraph that says in no uncertain terms "No naked breasts anywhere online, period, regardless of context." If you can prove that, then you've made a point. If you can't, then where is this law you keep conjuring up? Any line regarding "children view this site" is a moral argument best answered by this: know your children, and if you don't want them to see this, block it. CyberPatrol, CyberSitter, and Net Nanny are all great services to accomplish this. If you don't want to pay for them, use the Content Advisor on Internet Explorer. Misplaced Pages is rated by the FOSI (http://checked.icra.org/), the former RSACi operators, so that all web-browsers that support FOSI will block responsible websites that contain parentally-objectionale material. The bigger problem that is being fostered by the internet, radio, television and film is the objectification of women, that parts of women are sexually motivated when seen naked. Women are human beings, just like men, neither goddesses or animals, equally as mortal and fallible. And that these are just parts. Nothing more superior than the woman herself as a whole. Promoting unnecessary special treatment of such matters is akin to something worse than pornography. Women and men do deserve to protect their decency, however, they deserve to know what the part is and what function it serves. (A similar argument can be made for the Primary Sex Organs as well.) An article should exist to inform in a mature and necessary manner (including pictures, otherwise, it's a Church Mandated Sex Education class where imagination is more important than facts) specifically WHAT a breast is for anyone wanting to read or see it.66.215.153.240 (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Porn stars almost always have surgical modifications done to their breasts, so they would not be representative of breasts in their natural state. Asarelah01:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
sooo true, Asarelah, porn stars use plastic surgery, which makes it fake and false. Whereas natural should be shown because it's real and natural. =]
You's guys are weird, a boob is a boob, whether it's real or fake. You're too far up ur own buttholes; who's gonna care who owns the breast or if it's fake or not??? Nobody, that's who!! You actually think that soemone is gonna complain or moan about the picture? If so, then, my friends, you need to get a life!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.152.249.123 (talk) 01:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that breast fetishism, mammary intercourse, and breast bondage are appropriate links for this article. These links seem to focus on prurient interests which do not serve to further understanding of the topic. They do relate to the issue of breasts, but not in a way that adds anything useful to an encyclopedic article. 71.244.215.105 (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
It's my understanding that articles relating to the the issue in question are exactly what should appear in the See Also section of an encyclopedia.--70.168.88.158 (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Any information linking to sexual acts involving the breast other than standard intercourse is not relevant to this topic if it's truly 'clinical' in nature. This isn't a Kama Sutra, or a medical reference either: not everything has to be covered. I'd hate to say it, but what's the notability of this? It can't be a lot. 66.215.153.240 (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Which only matters in regard to Women's Clothing, where you can read all about bust sizes. The size of a breast doesn't alter their physiology. 66.215.153.240 (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Leading image (1)
The current main photo seems really inappropriate. It is more an artistic photograph than one which properly depicts breasts. It's shot from a side angle so as to really only show one breast; the other breast is barely seen and blurry. Overall it is not the best choice. A better photo would be directly forward, showcasing both breasts in a more clinical sense. TheGoonSquad (talk) 04:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
We have images like that already in the article, and the lead picture doesn't nessicarly need to depict the image in a clinical fashion; also, finding good images for this article isn't exactly easy, you can see if you can't find a good image, and then we'll discuss it, but tbh, the lead is probably one of the better images in the article.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam19:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the lead picture ought to depict the image in clinical fashion. Its an encyclopedia article, it ought to take a clinical approach. Asarelah (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
So you stated, above me. But what exactly, do you mean by 'clinical fashion'? a Mammogram? a diagram with a cut away? Both yours and TGS's statements are extremely vague, other then you want a picture showing them from the front, in a supposed 'clinical sense'. Please propose an image or two so that they can be discussed.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam15:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
By "clinical", I mean displaying the subject in a manner that depicts it very clear, educational way. A mammogram or diagram can be "clinical", of course, but I just had a more clear photograph in mind, one where both breasts are clearly visible on the chest. A blurry picture of only one side of the subject isn't very helpful. Asarelah (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Honeymane. Find a better picture that suits your aesthetics and put it in. As it stands, the current picture may not conform to some notions of "clinical" (whatever that is), but it clearly depicts a single breast. The lack of depth of field helps focus the composition, so in my opinion, it serves a practical and not an artistic purpose. Mattnad (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Human Female breasts are a very wonderful thing, but we need to show at least one male breast. Maybe in a comparison between natural male and female breasts? Even though it's common knowledge, this entry is incomplete without a picture of male breasts. I also think wikipedia users should use pictures of their breasts in order to confirm and shut up anymore idiots that come here claiming that a picture uses an underage subject, and that picture is more porn than educational related. I thinkwe should also have black/african/african-american/jamaican or just plain dark breasts here to show differences between white and black breasts and just to keep it diverse. The article is lacking color, males, and maybe something about bra's and the positive and negative effects that they have on breasts.76.112.167.230 (talk) 06:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)srkelley76.112.167.230 (talk) 06:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
"Male Breast" is mentioned in lead and that's probably all we need. Generally, "Breasts" are a considered a female feature that has key reproductive functions. While men have chests, and some have enough fat to have a fuller breast shape, men do not have milk producing ducts. Similarly, they are not generally considered a "sexual feature" for men. It's a fine point on emphasis I'll agree. Perhaps we can create a concise subsection in this article? Probably doesn't warrant a photo of a male breast, but it would hurt to offer a bit more detail. I'm all for increasing the racial diversity of images. If we can find an appropriate image with a non-white person, let's get in here - perhaps as a substitute for the main image which seems to attract speculation and concerns about the subjects age. Mattnad (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Since female breasts and nipples come in many shapes, colours and sizes this picture does not even come close to providing a clear representation of what a female breast looks like. Moreover the guidelines in the Breast/sandbox clearly state that "Artwork is preferred over photographs". Pictures of a young woman's breasts add nothing useful to wikipedia.195.195.166.31 (talk) 10:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Bede
What guidelines are you talking about? I've never read anything on Misplaced Pages anywhere that said that art work is preferable over photographs. May I see a link please? Asarelah (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Line-drawing gallery of all most common breast shapes.
A dingbat font called "Mannequin" contains all the most common breast shapes and sizes. The black-and-white vector drawings are anatomically accurate, but much less provocative than photos would be.
The images are available online for free preview, and I (as the author of the font) can give permission for their use on wikipedia pages.
Its really funny that this Article have an female's breast picture. Did anybody think that nobody knows how an females breast looks like?? ;D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.76.49.26 (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The cat article has an image, but I'm sure that the people who added it didn't think that nobody knows what cats look like. When there is a useful, informative image pertaining to an article's subject, its inclusion is often appropriate for Misplaced Pages. Please remember that the talk page is an area for discussion of how to improve an article, not for general commentary. Ketsuekigata (talk) 03:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I feel that this image (Closeup of female breast.jpg) should be replaced in the article. The image has a visible line, which some say is a breast augmentation scar and others say is an indentation left by a bra. I personally think that it's probably an indentation, but in either case, it's a misleading mark and I think it would be better to use a picture of a typical breast without such a visible mark. I feel that the first picture in an encyclopedia article should depict the relevant object as accurately as possible and with as few misleading features as possible. Most of the time, for the majority of the human populace, such (indentation) marks are not typical features of human breasts.
86.56.40.172 (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Just let me download it first! Actually, I have no constructive commentary, other to say that while I am typically against the genital exhibitionists that try and put their pics up here, I personally have no problem with this image and find it to value. How can it be inaccurate, are you claiming that it is in fact not a breast? If anything I think it does exemplify the average breast. Tolstoy143 - "Quos vult perdere dementat" (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism still here
I still see the "Boobies are the best!" thing at the top of the page, but according to the page history and vandal's talk page, it has been reverted. Why is this happening? 71.186.198.238 (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
It's possible that you're looking at a previous version of the page, or that you need to reload. It's also possible that the vandalism was added again sometime between when you looked at the history and when you looked at the article again. Ketsuekigata (talk) 03:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Terminology
I have been looking for the non-vulgar term for a human female breast. "Breast" is not really adequate, because it can also refer to a part of the male body. Same with "bosom." "Mammary" seems only to apply to the milk producing gland within the female breast. Does such a word exist? Are the male and female breasts are too homologous to justify a separate word? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostoner (talk • contribs) 23:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The article is primarily about the humanmammary gland, which is only rudimentary in males. It would be very difficult to show a picture of a male mammary gland as most males have relatively large pectoral muscles and, with age, fat deposits combined with almost non-existent mammary tissue, so all you'd have would be a picture of a rudimentary nipple and an area of skin covering mostly non-glandular tissue and bone. But if you can find a good picture or diagram of male human breasts, go for it. Search Commons and make some suggestions. --Doug.23:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Is this article supposed to be about the human mammary gland? it's titled "breast". And mammary gland has it's own article. I agree that there should be some address of the breast in males, but more importantly beyond the female human. Perhaps this article could be renamed, but right now it is too narrow a discussion of breasts.Temporary Sanity (talk) 04:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the labels are desirable for the lede image, they're more appropriate for one in the anatomy or other section. Ciotog (talk) 06:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Ciotog. Labels clutter up the lead. In addition, the first image is of a pregnant female and thus given that breasts are for feeding young, this photo for the lead seems particularly apt. Gillyweed (talk) 06:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand that you are satisfied with the picture that is there, but you haven't addressed any of the valid points that I've brought up (such as the blurryness and the angle), nor offered your opinion on the two images that I've offered as possible alternatives. Asarelah (talk) 05:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I have no objections to a lead photo being artistic and therefore the blurryness and angle do not matter. The breast itself is not blurry and the angle is one that would be seen by a baby! The other two photos are taken for particular purposes, viz, illustrating the changes to breasts during pregnancy and thus are appropriate for such a specific purpose. The current photo is fine for the lead. There, now I have addressed your other points. Cheers! Gillyweed (talk) 05:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Asarelah has brought up this topic in a previous thread and the consensus then was keep the current photo unless a better one can be produced. So far, the one we have is the best but I'm open to another. Keep at it and perhaps we'll find a winner in the process. Mattnad (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
That one is better. I also disagree with Gillyweed on his point that a picture of a pregnant woman's breasts is better because breasts are used to feed young. That is all well and good, but the fact of the matter is, women aren't always pregnant. The picture should reflect how a woman's breasts usually look, not just how they look under a certain circumstance. Asarelah (talk) 01:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The current image has too many signs which distract from the idea of straightforwardness and neutrality. The angle of the model's body, her raised blouse, the mark on the skin, the ambiguous situation regarding her state (natural, natural and pregnant, augmented, pregnant and augmented), the ambiguous room temperature (is she cold?), the natural lighting, the yellow object, the minimal depth of field, the close proximity of the lens to the subject, the tightness of the focal point in relation to its distance from the top edge of the picture frame. The new image should reflect a general appearance, almost clinical, with a collection of average and plain signs. This image (of all the images at wikimedia) appears the most suitable to me, although the model appears to be standing in her garden, and the photographer seems slightly unaware of the breasts in the context of the body. Redblueball (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. It just isn't a suitable picture for our purposes, and its nice to have someone who actually knows about photography explain why. I'm going to list this into requests for comment so that we can get an outside opinion, as other editors have been rather insistent upon keeping it. Asarelah (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the present picture, largely because of the angle, is inappropriate and should be changed to one with a more neutral angle and showing the breast in the context of the chest as a whole. Jjshapiro (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
hmmm... there are about 50 billion pictures of breasts on the internet, so this shouldn't be that difficult. but let me make an alternate suggestion that might solve a lot of quibbling. why not use a breast cancer ribbon rather than a breast? it's highly recognizable as related to breasts, and no one's likely to object to it on moral grounds... --Ludwigs203:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
The article is about 'Breast' -- not 'Breast Cancer' which is why there should be a picture of a breast, and not a pink ribbon. And, why would anyone have moreal objects to a picture of a breast? Is human anatomy somehow morally repugnant? Improving the lead image shold be the focus, not censorhsip to not offend the minority. Also shouldn't there be a picture of male breasts? Atom (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
don't take the 'moral objection' phrase too strongly - the objections to the current picture are partly artistic (fuzziness and etc) and partly moral (odd posture, and etc). I've got nothing against any particular aspect of human anatomy; just trying to help out. it might be worth your time to go check out the offerings on deviantArt. you'd have to ask use permission from the artists (though I think any of them would be tickled to donate a pic to Misplaced Pages for this article), but they have a broad selection of decent quality images. three examples (you'll have to be a registered member to view these, because they are labelled as mature content, but basic registration is free): --Ludwigs215:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't taking a picture from DeviantArt just compound the supposed issue that the image shouldn't be artistic in any manner? The first two have color filters applied, and in the last one, you only see one breast, which is what people where complaining about above! The picture we have is fine.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam06:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The idea of displaying a "breast cancer ribbon" is far too symbolic, and not universal enough (it's time and culture specific) in my opinion. Perhaps, the answer is to request an image with an agreed set of parameters - i.e a formal image of a naked female from the waist up, in an environment of a comfortable temperature, standing, with her arms at her side or behind her back, relaxed, in front of a neutral background, comprehensively lit, and facing the viewer(s)/photographer. Redblueball (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I've replaced the image that contained the errors (for the reasons already mentioned - the awkward angle of the model's body, the shallow depth of field ("fuzziness"), and the mark on the model's breast). The new image is matter of fact, uniformly lit, shot against a neutral background, and the breast is unambiguously natural and unmarked. I've also retitled and numbered the discussions that cover the leading image. Redblueball (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I have to say, I'm trying to have an open mind about it, but the new image doesn't look very good. It looks flat and two-dimensional. I would prefer something that looks realistic, say from the front. Atom (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree. There is a perfectly good full frontal shot in the gallery, its the first one in there. Why not use that instead? Asarelah (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
separate issue - just because I answered the RfC and happened to notice - why are the only facts under the first picture its latin name and its major artery and vein? that just seems like a bizarre contraposition of facts. isn't there anything more productive you can say than that? :-) --Ludwigs221:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Good point. A caption provides the context of the image: details that are otherwise invisible or ambiguous. But what is the context and description of the Closeup_of_female_breast image when put in a caption?... "Image of a post-pubescent and pre-menopausal caucasian female displaying her breasts to her partner. Females in the western world often request that their breasts are recorded during the day in a still image captured by a high resolution digital camera set to automatic mode. On this occasion, the image was taken within minutes of the removal of the females bra, as signified by the mark on the left breast." The basic erros in the image point to too much ambiguous context for it to be taken seriously, but I like the idea of using an image with a history and context - the painting Gabrielle d'Estrées et une de ses soeurs has such a thing, and the notability also provides sound reason for its use. I've also made a request at wikimedia for a new image of a naked female similar to this ("full frontal") as you both - Atom and Asarelah mentioned. Redblueball (talk) 11:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
No offense, but I don't really see a consensus here, ether to change the image or which image to change it to. And to be perfectly clear, I'm one of the 'don't change' group, not one of the 'change it' group; my last post's point about taking the image from deviantArt was more or less "What's the point?" it's been argued over and over on whether or not the picture should be replaced because it's to artistic, and to me, suggesting that we replace it with another admittedly artistic image seems rather...circular in reasoning.
Further more, I fail to see the logic in using a painting as the lead, when we have a perfectly good, real life, photograph to use. And what is this nonsense about 'ambiguous context'? I dare say the photograph you replaced the lead with was rather ambiguous, as was the frontal view that replaced that.
I'm really trying to be civil here, but this never ending debate over a picture is really grinding down my patience; the fact is is that their is no consensus in any of these debates about this picture, and there isn't even a consensus on what could possibly replace it. I know I, as have others, have asked time and time again for a photograph that is equal or greater then that of the current lead picture and time and time again no picture has been put forward that does just that. The lead picture is like a the opening sentience of an essay; it's extremely important but means nothing; in the same vein, the lead picture is important, but means nothing, that is to say, it's important to the look and feel of the article but isn't educationally important, or, in other words, it doesn't need to show both breast equally, it doesn't need to be a diagram or have lines drawn all over it pointing out important parts, because all that stuff will happen in the correct sections. The only reason we don't use more pictures like the current lead is because such images don't grow on trees.
Frankly, I'm rather concerned that so much time and effort and debate has been put into this image, when, as Ludwigs2 points out, we could be improving the infoboxes and the content in the article that is the soul of this encyclopedic effort.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam07:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The visual representation of things is far from trivial, some even say that a picture is worth a thousand words... I also don't need to remind you that Misplaced Pages encourages change and improvements to all its content, and that includes the improvement of images. While there is a degree of visual naivete and apathy among some editors of this article for images and image making, a reason exists to employ that encouragement, make edits, and argue the cases for change. So, there appears to be a consensus for changing the lead image, or no consensus for keeping the lead image, or at least a consensus for substituting the lead image on the condition that the replacement is of better quality. Unambiguously, I've uploaded three new images, and propose that we vote on which image in the array (consisting of the new images, the current image, and the images that also appeared on the article this week) is preferred for the lead. Redblueball (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
No, What others and I have proposed is, in the unlikely event that we should find a free-to-use, well put together picture, that perhaps we would reopen the discussion, and see if the new image would make a better lead. After months of debate and discussion, no consensus has been reached, and it always ends up in the same way; we always end up going to trying to 'vote' and see if there is one image everyone likes and wants to become the lead image, and again and again we never reach any sort of answers other then 'lets keep the image' we have a whole sandbox of images for this article! And we still ended up at the same conclusion.
First of all, the only picture of any merit in the 6 you suggested is the lead and image number four, number 5 is far too dark and 6 is poorly contrasted between the breast and the rest of her body. Secondly, and more importantly, the pictures you just uploaded are all under review because their licenses from the website you took them from is incompatible with the creative commons license you uploaded them under, and maybe deleted, so until we can be certain of it's copyright status, we can't use them. --HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam21:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The style of "image 2" is not bad (I'd accept it), "Weibliche-brust.jpg" is a bit pixellated... I think we need to outsource to raise the surface quality? Redblueball (talk) 13:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Honeymane, indeed they have gone, but I'm perplexed by your rejection of "image 5" and "6", can you provide a link to an example image (of whatever copyright status) that you'd accept as replacement? Redblueball (talk) 13:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
But see, here's the problem; I don't feel the lead image needs to be replaced, I think the current image is one of the better lead images on Misplaced Pages. It would have to be an extremely good image to impress me and make me change my opinion on the matter, and frankly, I don't see the point in me searching through pages of google/deviantart/English Misplaced Pages/other wikipedias to find an image that we may or may not have the freedom to use. --HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam03:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
The principle of changing the image is absolutely acceptable at Misplaced Pages (in our case if it leads to an improvement). But, if editors who wish to implement an improvement (in our case - because the image contains errors - disagreement self-evidently showing that the image is imperfect) are left in the dark regarding the qualities to which the current image was measured against, then how can the principle be realised? Redblueball (talk) 12:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Disagreement isn't showing the picture is imperfect and must be changed, if that was the case, then we'd have started censoring Misplaced Pages's images long ago, what with the amount of traffic we get from people coming here and demanding that we removing the immoral images from our articles. All this disagreement is showing is that some users are unwilling to let it go and realize that they haven't the consensus to make the changes they want to make. I'm fully aware of Misplaced Pages's ideals that we should revise, revise, revise, but I'm also equally aware that Misplaced Pages wants revisions that improve the article, and major revisions like changing the lead image requires consensus to do so. Further more I am fully aware of the history of this image, and the many, many nonsensical arguments that have been put forward for why we should change the lead image, everything from the breasts being implants (It took something like 6 months to get it into the heads of these people making the claim that the mark wasn't a scar, but from a recently removed, too tight, bra) to 'oh no it's too sexually explicit, it could turn people on'. You Yourself seem to claim that this mark makes the image 'ambiguous', although you never cared to explain exactly what you meant by that.
On Misplaced Pages, one of the most important principles is the idea that we should assume good faith for all actions taken by users, we should assume that every edit was by someone trying to improve the article, and every deletion request made under the context of perhaps they really don't feel that the subject is (for whatever reason given, perhaps not notable) correct for wikipedia, and we should realize that, even if we disagree and/or have to revise the edit or such. HOWEVER, there has been times, I'm sorry to say, in which some users will keep making the same edit over and over again, even if it's be revised, or continually nominates and article for deletion, even if the answer has been, for the last 10 times, 'keep'. At some point these edits stop being done in good faith and become bad faith edits. As much as I'd hate to say it, I can't help but feel that the continuing arguments and discussions are being made somewhat in bad faith. As Gillyweed points out above, Asarelah already started a discussion elsewhere, on the same matter, and got nowhere. To me that smells of bad faith.
Now, as I and others have said, time and time again, the lead photograph is fine, and one of the better lead images on wikipedia, but we have also said, time and time again, that, should a good image comes forward, and we agree that it's better then the current image, then it would be replaced. We are not unmovable statues, who never change our opinions. But we are also not going to start changing the lead image every time someone complains on the talk page about the flaws. --HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam18:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I would like to propose as lead image as appropriate for the article and not having many of the problems that have been identified with previously suggested images. Autrecourt (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Please excuse me, but as a relative newbie I can't figure out how to reference this image without displaying it! Autrecourt (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
How about we just stick image 2 in the lead section for now until we get a better image? I'm just so sick of looking at the current picture. Asarelah (talk) 04:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
If "Autrecourt" could provide a higher resolution of the image?... Isn't there some kind of "in house" procedure (other than long debates) we could follow to reach a conclusion? Redblueball (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, won't be able to get a high resolution image till August. Best I can do right now is an alternate image, , some may not think it's any better. Autrecourt (talk) 13:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
See, here's the problem, you don't have a consensus to change the picture, just like Gillyweed (I believe) pointed up near the beginning of this section, you've championed this subject before, and it was shot down. This discussions have been going on for as long as that picture has been the lead, and the consensus has been reached, over and over again that the lead is fine, and will remain so until, and only until, a image can be brought forward that, when discussed, brings about a consensus that the new comer image would make a better lead image then the current image. And, as of today, no picture has been suggested that does just that. I mean, you haven't even really be trying with these last few images, they all look the same, like you took a bunch of pictures from a line up of women, who where all the same build, and had all the same breast size, and had all had the same pregnancy history, and took a bunch of photographs of varying degrees of resolution, then cropped them so close that was in the image was the chest, and nothing more, all foreground, no background, etc. --HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam18:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I apologize. I jumped the gun in putting in another picture, and I'm sorry. Anyway, the last group of images I proposed were not poor for a lack of trying, they were poor because they were the only pictures of pregnant women's breasts I could find on the Wikimedia commons, and Gillyweed said that he thought a picture of a pregnant woman's breasts would be best. I don't know where to get public domain pictures of women's breasts, and I'm far too modest to take a picture of my own (although I'm very nearly tempted to do so out of frustration at this point!). It is my opinion that virtually any image on here would be better than the lead. I don't think that we'll ever get one that's totally perfect, so we should just pick the best one we can from the commons and put it up until one of superior quality can be produced. Asarelah (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
No one is asking you to do anything that you'd be uncomfortable with. The problem is, the picture we have IS of a pregnant woman, and people like Gillyweed and I feel this (the current photo) is the best, which is what we've been trying to get across all these years; if a superior photo can be produced, then we'd use it, but none of these image are superior to it.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam23:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
(outdent):I was actually being facetious when I mentioned the idea of photographing myself. Anyway, I will keep an eye on the commons if anyone uploads a superior picture, and I will suggest them here if anything pops up. Asarelah (talk) 00:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd hardly call "number seven" a sharp picture, and it's obvious the nipples have been tampered with. You can see the round scars around the Areola. Inferiz (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
The current photo seems fine for the lead. There are many different types of women, and different types of breasts; one has to be chosen, why not this?. This is a well framed artistic picture, which shows the breast perfectly well (it's main purpose), and could never be confused to be porn, so i consider it safe for work. Also, its artistic merit makes it interesting to look at even for those of us who have no interest in breasts.Yobmod (talk) 09:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
All the alternate offering are photographically very ugly. Science doesn't have to be devoid of artistic merit.Yobmod (talk) 09:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Think of it this way...if you wanted a picture of eyes for the Eye article, would you want a picture of someone looking directly into the camera, or someone with their head tilted with one eye visible and the other one blurry? Asarelah (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
That's a silly and inconsistent argument, because I don't see you complaining about the lead picture of Ear. Or Arm. Why should it be a problem that one one of two gets depicted and that the rest of the photo is blurry? Inferiz (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I haven't bothered with the ear or arm articles because this article is the one that I'm currently trying to improve. In the case of breasts, seeing them in context of the chest and the body is important. There is no reference point in the photograph for perspective. I also don't appreciate you calling my arguements "silly". Asarelah (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
The fact that you're only trying to "improve" this article doesn't change the fact that the argument you provide is inconsistent. Almost none of the dual body part articles (ear, arm, leg, eye, ...) do not feature a photograph that provide a reference point for the article at hand. And even if one would follow your points, one could say that the images you provide don't provide a good reference point for perspective either: you'd need a full body shot for that. So your point is a bit moot, I guess. Inferiz (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
the current lead image is not appropriate for the top of the article. A better image would either be an illustrated frontal view or the first image from the gallery section which is already up for the position. Yami (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
How did you guys on this article allow the current lead image to be in the first place. Somewhere someone must have added it and that wasn't controversial yet switching it out is? You'd think with so many editors trying to keep the article pure and encyclopedic they would have kept the lead image to retain a medical kind of tone. a Girls Gone wild, or a girlfriend showing her man the goods tone is not appropriate for the article. Yami (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Culteral differences regarding breasts in Euorpe and Africa.
This article lacks any discussion as to the fact that Europe and Africa have different views on the bare female breast then the U.S., Asia, South America, etc. Europeans allow bare breasts in mainstream TV, magazines, etc. where the U.S. for example would not as well as toplessness at public beaches. African tribal societies have a even more relaxed view of the breasts then Europeans with female toplessness common in some African tribal groups. Probably something that should be added to the article. --Cab88 (talk) 01:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Not just that, but all the women that are shown - or the vast majority of them - are Caucasian. Some more diversity would not hurt this article.UberCryxic (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The lead image in the article eye IS a single blurry eye! In that case the blurry pic is the scientific one, and the clearer pic of an eye (with make-up?) is not. But i'm sure they don't have the same discusions about it - i wonder why? ;-)Yobmod (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Let's talk this over, you say that not all cultures are exicted by female breasts, but it isn't about culture but biology. The breasts evolved to that size for sexual arousal. Also not all culture allow womanto walk topless shall we get rid of the image of the topless African? Bobisbob (talk) 02:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
But why include a picture of a woman's breasts in the section when we already have multiple pics of breasts? There is nothing remarkable about her breasts in the picture that has anything to do with female sexual arousal, whereas an African woman in traditional clothing has plenty to do with cultural attitudes regarding toplessness. Furthermore, if you're arguing that woman's breasts evolved to be fairly large for male sexual arousal, please include a citation, as it was my impression that they evolved to their size for lactation. Asarelah (talk) 02:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Small point here, but the humans are the only primates with significant breast size before pregnancy. There is a visual function for human female breasts that's separate from feeding babies. I'm sure we can find a reliable source to support this theory. I also agree that it's much better to show women from other cultures. Mattnad (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I think Busty needs to be moved to Wiktionary rather then redirect to breasts. Busty means big breasted. Im not sure I see where this is explained in the article Im just checking. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 02:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to guess that Jimbo Wales signature is faked by Pontorg but in case it wasn't. I don't care if you are the founder of wikipedia you should not use such hateful wording with people, just because in your opinion it is "dumb" why not just simply say your opinion without insults and leave it at that? The argument that Busty means big busted and not breast is a valid argument, a man who is flat chested and works out to develop muscles can be busty without breasts. And the response "I disagree" is a non-satisfactory response which holds no reference or scientific reasoning. The reason I believe the Jimbo sig was faked is because it was added by Pontorg, and because Jimbo has said "Here, we are polite, thoughtful, smart, geeky people, trying only to do something which is undoubtably 'good' in the world: write and give away a 💕." and to be a smart polite person you do not use such hateful language. 71.113.75.227 (talk) 10:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Moral Ethical explanations
There needs to be added a detailed scientific study of how or why female breasts are socially seen as a rude, improper or shameful act to be seen in public. A boy hits puberty, and by some unknown means he develops gynecomastia and now has mammary glands and large breasts.. it is legal for him to go without a shirt and people do not talk about him going without a shirt except only to tease him. Some say they find topless men sexy, so what is the scientific reason that it is legal and female breasts in public are not, why is it not talked about when a flat chested male goes topless on film or on the beach but if a female does so it is all over the news? There is nothing nasty, or immoral or weird or sexual about a female chest, or rather, there are equal portions of all that as there are with male chests weather he has gynecomastia or does not.
Basically what I am saying is that it is a natural work of art so why don't people just grow up out of their socially brainwashed mind sets and learn to think logically and for them self. It's just skin, Why the discriminative sexism? people need to open their minds, step outside the brainwashing and look at the bigger picture or at least present a scientifically evident reason for this social behavior.
no one I know can come up with logical or scientific or moral reasons why it is wrong for a female to bare their chest for fun, comfort or breastfeeding a child, and why it is right for a male to bare theirs? and why is it such a big deal that they (males) develop gynecomastia to the point that they must get teased? is it not just an insane opinion of social brainwashing which holds no substance or reason just like racism? And should those who oppose females or males who wish to go topless be charged with hate crimes? 71.113.75.227 (talk) 09:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
This is a talk page on how to improve the article, not a general forum on the subject of breasts. Please keep it on topic. If you can find citations from articles about cultural views towards toplessness and/or scientific reasons you are quite free to put them in. Asarelah (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
many of the gallery images are not needed
the first image from the gallery fits the top of the article better or a illustration of breasts for the top image. Many f the other gallery images are not needed and are just miscellaneous. Yami (talk) 04:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
that still doesn't explain undoing the other edit to the Gallery. The images i removed are miscellaneous and are no benefit to the article.Yami (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
You might see no benefit, but others will disagree. If you want to make significant changes, bring your concerns here first. Asher196 (talk) 04:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
a nude beach photo does not give me anymore of an idea of what breast look, feel, smell or heir purpose then the text of the article and the photos outside of the gallery.Yami (talk) 04:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I left that so cultural stuff would be covered. As for the porn star with big implants and a few other images that are just pointless they shouldn't be included.Yami (talk) 04:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The porn star's implants are important as they demonstrate a very specific type of implant and how it effects the human breast. I'm certainly with you on the need to change the lead image to this article, however, although my arguements were rejected by my fellow editors in the sections above. Asarelah (talk) 04:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I have informed a mod about your actions and we'll see where this goes. And that is a warning so that you don't revert anymore edits and retaliating by posting on my talk page is not appropriate conduct neither is removing the warning from your talk page and calling me a troll. Yami (talk) 05:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The Gallery Needs to be cleaned up. There are many images that are not educational. The bondage image is not needed, or at least not in this article. There isn't a picture of Feet in bondage on the Foot article why should there be a breast bondage photo on this article?
The show girl with the stars is not needed, the porn star with big implants is half and half, and if we need an image of a cultural view of breast the Himba women are enough.
The nude beach photo does not have the proper public domain stuff and other things. It doesn't even say rather the user the uploaded it was given permission by the women in the photo to use it. Neither does it say rather or not that they know they were photographed.
the pictures "Normal variation in shape", "Woman in brassiere showing cleavage" and "Woman wearing pasties" is a little miscellaneous. the picture of pierced nipples should be under the modification section of the article like circumcision is on the penis article.Yami (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Image_use_policy#Photo_galleries: I think this gallery is too big and should be cropped out entirely; it does not add anything to the article ; bloating the article with lots of images in a gallery is not good and must not substitute with a commonscat template, commons categories are much more appropriate than galleries ; besides, the article is much longer to download with that lot of images. — STAR TREKMan22:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I agree with Star Trek Man. This gallery should clearly be moved to commons. Misplaced Pages is not a repository for images (see WP:NOT.) siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 05:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Asher, I don't like it either (too much images in that article and not enough texts). I don't understand what you mean by reverting: your changes or removing the entire gallery? Cheers. — STAR TREKMan13:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to reverting my hiding of the gallery, but it looks like consensus is heading toward removing the gallery altogether. Asher196 (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Nope. All of these images have nothing to do here: they have all their distinctive, dedicated, and specialized articles: Mammography, Gynecomastia, Inflammatory breast cancer, breast implant, Polypropylene breast implants, Breast cancer, Cleavage (breasts) , pasties, Breast bondage, breastfeeding, Breast pump, etc. (what a mess here!?) This article is centered on human anatomy first, or, what is important in first knowing and finding in a Breast article of an encyclopedia). All subsequent sections (Function, Cultural status and Health) are secondary important. Let's go back centering on the first goal of the article. Thank you for your understanding. — STAR TREKMan20:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Can't we at least keep the diagrams and the example of shape variation? If we can't have a gallery could I at least work them into the article itself? Asarelah (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
One diagram is enough in that article (please, no redundancy). The one from the anatomy section is better than the others in the gallery, these lasts are mono-colored with less details. For the Normal variation in shape image, it could illustrate Ptosis (breasts) but it would be better/indicated to show there a breast chart like that; or you could construct one with real photos (why not?), no faces to show (the breast is the anatomical subject); or as a temporary solution again, there, in the ptosis article, you could do it with a gallery (not in this Breast article, please! Or include it here with a finally constructed image and please: with standard thumbs); or fill in the subsection Shape and support here in the article, but the text should be harmoniously balanced with images: no bloat, no surcharge. You could engross the subsection with encyclopedic text to make right the balancing. IMHO. Ok, Im not sure if I explained myself well, let me know about it. So now, what about removing the gallery? ;-) — STAR TREKMan22:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
That isn't Ptosis, its just a normal shape varation, albeit in an older woman. And I also don't have the pictures available to make such a chart. Asarelah (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I know, but please look in the chart showing the normal state, it is after all the reference starting point. If it isn't ptosis, what is the point, then? You see: what is a normal shape regarding... what other shapes? What defines normal variation? I don't get it. And you don't mean average size but shape. What? On commons, we don't have that number of images? ;-) — STAR TREKMan23:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I never said there was a single "normal" shape. I said that there are variations in shape which are perfectly normal, and that the article should reflect that, especially given how insecure people are about their bodies. We don't have a lot of variety in shapes on the commons, and that was the only available one that stood out from the others. Asarelah (talk) 00:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
WP is not a wikibook howto know your body but provides encyclopedic knowledge and known facts. Please, give reference sources(?). — STAR TREKMan08:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Are you telling me that we can only have a picture displaying a variance in shape if there is a source stating that women's breasts vary in shape? I think that's rather absurd. Asarelah (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Just tell me what is a normal variation in shape between all this pictures. The majority of these women are normal. Just explain what is a normal variation in shape. Now, my point: you cannot tell or you must precise the context each time. But the context (pregnant, non-pregnant, old, young, big breast or small, etc.) is so plural that you won't be able to tell. Breasts are so diverse and... alive in way. Finally, what is the point in mentioning it? The lead image already gives us an indication of a normal variation of shape. It is more interesting of indicating anomalies or what is abnormal. — STAR TREKMan16:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The only images we need in the gallery are: Image:95C.jpg|Front view of woman's breasts, Image:Breastfeeding-icon-med.svg|International breastfeeding symbol, Image:449px-Manual Breast Pump 2005 SeanMcClean.jpg|Breast pump, Image:Breast self exam 1.jpg|Breast self exam, Image:Mammogram.jpg|Woman undergoing mammogram, and Image:Mammo breast cancer.jpg|Mammography pictures, normal (left) and cancerous (right)
I wanted very much to put the frontal view of a woman's breasts picture in as the lead picture, but my fellow editors where very, very adamant on keeping the blurry side-view picture that we currently have. I don't know where else the frontal view could really go other than in the lead or in a gallery.00:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I disagree. I like the large gallery showing a variety of intresting images. It gives the impression that there is a large variation. LAo, there are some good medical images there. Maybe a little clean-up, okay, but we should leave most of the images. Atom (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
well i tried to leave the medical images before but Asher reverted it saying it was to much of a change and of need of consensus. 50% of the medical images at the bottom need to be removed just to save space. Yami (talk) 01:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok everyone give me an idea of what you want
Gallery removed 100% (after all there is no gallery for the penis article or related anatomy)
I sufficiently expressed my views here which reflect a known policy here on WP. All of these images have nothing to do here and go in their main articles. Gallery to be removed. 100%. Or they agreement the texts (into sections, not in a gallery). Peer reviewers will give you the same advice or recommendation. — STAR TREKMan08:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that we have too many pictures, but I also understand the need to show the various shapes of breasts, and medical images of them; I'd suggest that we remove all the others.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam08:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I returned the gallery again. Apparently someone put it under a link. We don't censor images on Misplaced Pages, which is one reason we don't hide them under links. I can see that some people have a perspective, different from mine, that no images, or less images are better. I can agree that too many images is not meaningful or beneficial. Hiding all of the images, or removing all of the gallery images isn't acceptable.
I've been monitoring this and a large number of other sexology and sexuality articles for several years. The Gallery has been fine, and no problem, with no controversy for all of that time. Now, all of a sudden someone wants to make a change. But a sudden change by a couple of editors harms the long standing consensus. If some editor wants to make a radical change then we have to go through a process of building a consensus. The changes need to be communicated on the talk page, discussed, and then made based on the consensus. In the mean time, I would appreciate it if people would leave the gallery alone.
My opinion, as I said before, is that the gallery full of images does no harm. As it has gathered a number of images, it is probably quite likely that it has more images than it really needs to be encylopedic. We aren't at this time anyway, working to build the article to GA or FA status. That means that we need no sudden changes, but small gradual changes that will improve tha article. The number and type of images will be only one factor omong many in improving the article to reacg GA status. The focus of attention, primarily by one editor, on removing images from sexuality articles does not, in my mind, improve the quality of the articles. The rationale for that editor was once that he did not like them, and that we did not want children to see them, and that they were not appropriate, or that they were offensive. Based on rationale to sustain the images by other editors, he has changed his tactics to be more in line with Misplaced Pages policies, and the stated reasons lately have been that there are too many images, and that an article only needs a few images. The end result is the same. The reason that we have a group of people on Misplaced Pages who fight against censorship (see Wikipedians against censorship) is because too many new editors don't understand the policies of wikipedia, and think anything involving nudity should be offensive, or other reasons.
SO, in summary, let's discuss how we can improve this article. This includes adding and editing TEXT of the article, as well as paring to make sure that each image is constructive and offers useful information in some way. If eventually we maintain a gallery, it should be of images that add useful secondary images and examples of things discussed in the article. We should, in my opinion, err on the side of too many images, over too few images. Atom (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You took this debate by the wrong side: it's not about censorship but about right editing lines. Im against censorship, FYI. I say it again: too much images in the end of this article breaks it from its encyclopedic goal. See Commons project for an image repository. Or text here on WP is meaningless? Think of it: what is more important here on WP? Texts or images? The gallery is really too big (: same size as the text if you count your screen downscrolling. And without counting the other included images in sections, it makes less text again.) and there are sufficient other main articles to include them. So, removing the gallery should bring back more encyclopedic text contents into that article (in first place, images are secondary concerns, really! They are NOT to substitute to the text, ever. Or we change WP's goal). And we should tend to FA or GA this way imho. — STAR TREKMan14:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
If you look at my edits, I am all for editing on the basis of improving the article. Certainly this article could use improvement. My opinion is that constructive edits would be adding more material pertinent to the topic, supported by some of the images in the gallery. The focus of a few editors is on the images though, not on improving the article. Removing the gallery isn't acceptable. I don't agree that remocvng the material makes the article more encylopedic since there is useful and instructive material in the Gallery. Yes, the gallery is to big, and needs to be pared. Our focus should be one improving that as one of many improvements in the article. See the discussion in the next section on what gallery images are beneficial and which ones are not.
I am not claiming that you as an editor are trying to censor. There is another editor whose primary focus is removing images, under the guise of improving the article. Images are not secondary concerns, but incorporated as part of the article. The lede image is one of the most important pieces of GA. Yes, it suppplements the article, bnut is very important. So, it makes no difference if text should predominate. I think we agree that we need more text that constructively adds to the article. Consider some of the images I mentioned in the Gallery section below, they are interesting, but do not fit in any currently existing section in the article. This begs for someone to add a section that discusses the topic, and uses that image to support it. Editors should focus on that type of contribution, not trying to contribute by removing images. That's my opinion. Atom (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Hiding the Gallery is not censorship. It is a tool to use for people's convince. Who wants their browser window to just keep stretching and stretching until everything loads?
Just like if i was to put the hide code on the talk page it would be just to allow easier navigation so people can see the part they want to see without having to scroll for five minutes to get to where they need.
Use your common sense please, I don't mean to offend but come on It was already explained why the gallery was hidden. Removing it would be censorship in a way but hiding it is only meant as a tool to improve.
We did the same thing in the Kanto (pokemon) talk page because it got so long it took to long to find where the discussion left off. Please do not undo the hide, and it is not a link. Links take you from the current page. Also we only need maybe 4-6 medical images of the cell pictures. I say 2 blue ones and two red ones and/or purple ones. We don't need 18 of them.Yami (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Gallery
This is a discussion of the images in the gallery. WHat images in the gallery could be moved into the article, and where? Which images are useful in the gallery as additional examples supporting text in the main article, but not right for that section? Which images are useful, and offering interesting examples of the topic, and which are redundant?
Frankly, looking through the gallery images, I can see very few that are not worth keeping. I can see a number of images that we should write sections of the article for, and include one or more images. That would include Image:ImmodestyBlaizeMEW2007Topless.jpg, Image:Himba ladies.jpg, Image:Nipples after.jpg, Image:Intricate rope breast bondage.jpg, Image:449px-Manual Breast Pump 2005 SeanMcClean.jpg, Image:449px-Manual Breast Pump 2005 SeanMcClean.jpg, and Image:MaxiMounds.jpg, Image:Inflammatory breast cancer.jpg, Image:Mastectomie 02.jpg and possibly others. The histopathology sections are interesting, but there are too many for the article section, maybe choosing one good one for that section would do. Atom (talk) 13:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
If we remove the gallery, that is fine including new sections with these images. Provided the fact these sections do not rivalise in size with their main articles as I suggested before: they will introduce by 3 or 4 sentences the main article, and that, is the best way to FA. Still imho. ;-) — STAR TREKMan15:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the hiding of the Gallery was reverted with a "return gallery -- can't see it under the link -- we don't link images -- Misplaced Pages is not censored)" The gallery wasn't put in a link, it was just hidden. You simply had to click "show" to unhide the gallery. Asher196 (talk) 04:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I checked the Finger page. I didn't see a gallery of fingers of different types, or diseases of fingers. I didn't find a gallery under Buttocks, Toe, Arm, or Chin either. I suspect I could do this with just about any body part with the same result. I wasn't opposed to the gallery before, but now I'm rethinking that position. Asher196 (talk) 04:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) Actually the old image show/hide template was deleted on WP:NOT#CENSORED grounds. I'm not sure I agree with the decision, but whatever. Anyway, so the community consensus is — or at least was — that hiding images, and galleries by extension, is tantamount to censorship. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 04:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
This isn;t the finger article. For a variety of reasons, our perception of the breast are uniquely different than the finger. Tjere was not a previous discussion to find consensus on maintaining a Gallery in the finger article, or anyone who felt necessary to make one. There were both in the breast article. Atom (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
There have been a recent discussion here and Skeezix1000 is tending to my point of view in rightly balancing text and images. As a result, they took away the gallery in William Lyon Mackenzie King. In fr:, some admins are currently discussing of the possibility of making commons galleries attractive in designing a new template. This could be added in text sections:
I'd like to discuss what improvements other editors feel can be made to the Gallery images. The consensus has been, in the past, to have a Gallery in this article. Recently a few editors feel that there are more images than necessary. At a glance, I agree that thre are lots of images there, so let's discuss the individual images. Suggestions to "Just remove the whole Gallery" are lazy in my opinion. CLearly there are a number of great images in the Gallery, some of which I mentioned earlier.
Are there images in the Gallery that do not seem to add anything unique?
Are there images that clearly cry out for having a section on the topic, yet not discussed, in the article?
On Misplaced Pages, we first fix the problems in article. Then we (re)construct. These articles are public, don't you know? The gallery is wrong. Now. So, let's remove it. Now. You could discuss whatever you want after and prepare in a subpage (or in your user space) whatever changes you want for this article. That is the way it is. On WP. — STAR TREKMan14:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Or such is your opinion. You should build your articles that way. Another view might be that some Wikipedians specilaize in finding interesting images (or producing them) and other people like to revert vandalism, and yet others add on topic text to articles. Some may find images to supplement text sections that have no illustrative images, and some may prefer to generate text sections based on great images other people provide. It takes all kinds.
In this case I thin kthe breast article cries out for a sub-section under cultural status entitled breast modifcation, tattooing and piercing. Also under cultural could mention sub cultures and fetish interests in breasts such as mammary intercourse, breastsfeeding and bondage and other paraphilias. Brief mention and an image can redirecto to the more detailed articles on those topics. Someone has provided images for those already. Do we mention topfreedom in the article? (I can't recall -- we should)
You have a view. You have a right you your view of how an article ought to be built or managed. I respect that. Consider that other people have differing views. Misplaced Pages Policy allwos for a range of methods for getting things done, it doesn't have a one true path philosophy.
We need to respect the integrity of the article and the method, and precedence pursued by previous editors. We need to have a shared goal of improving the article. This is done by contribution and constructive critical review, not by descronstructing and removal of beneficial elements. The article needs work. It will be a work in progress for a long time. That is tha nature of Misplaced Pages. One must consider, would removing all of the Gallery items constructively add to producing a GA eventually, or does it inhibit that? If we were close to GA (we aren't) and trying to do last minute fine tuning changes to get it there, maybe removing the few images left in the gallery (by then) would be constructive. See the kind of work being done on the Saint Paul Minnesota article. But, at this stage, we need to trim the gallery of images that do not contribute, and add text section for images that offer information, but no text yet exists. Additionally, adding important aspects of the topic to the article, and finding new images to supplement those needs to be done. Removal of the Gallery at this stage hampers improvement, and at the same time removes images that offer valuable information for some readers. That is how I see it. Atom (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
If you could contribute to the discussion on what images in the gallery you feel are valuable, and why, and which ones are redundant, and why, that would be constuctive. Repeated calls to wipe out the whole Gallery are not seen (by me anyway) as constructive, but destructive and as an attempt at censorship under the guise of editorial oversight. Atom (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Hiding the Gallery is not censorship. It is a tool to use for people's convince. Who wants their browser window to just keep stretching and stretching until everything loads?
Just like if i was to put the hide code on the talk page it would be just to allow easier navigation so people can see the part they want to see without having to scroll for five minutes to get to where they need.
Use your common sense please, I don't mean to offend but come on It was already explained why the gallery was hidden. Removing it would be censorship in a way but hiding it is only meant as a tool to improve.
We did the same thing in the Kanto (pokemon) talk page because it got so long it took to long to find where the discussion left off. Please do not undo the hide, and it is not a link. Links take you from the current page. Also we only need maybe 4-6 medical images of the cell pictures. I say 2 blue ones and two red ones and/or purple ones. We don't need 18 of them.Yami (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Yami: I left a message on your talk page. My apologies (again) for stepping on your toes. This section is for discussing what to do with which images. Removal of a bulk of the images, what I just reverted, without us working it out first is not polite. Discuss first, let's find a consensus and then act. There is no race, no hurry no urgent need to remove the images.
Putting the image behind a link is, regardless of your opinion, often considered to be a form of censorship. I am not asking you to change your opinion, only to respect the opinions of others. I know your desire is to improve the article, and you feel that hiding the images from view is an improvement. I am assuring you that not everyone, and perhaps few people see it that way. I offer to invite other editors to come take a look and comment if you like.
We are, in this section, currently trying to discuss each of the images, which ones we might remove, which ones to add to sections, where we might create a new section because the topic of an interesting image may not be covered and the like. Removing the images en masse, as you just did (and I reverted) and hiding images behind a link is considered to be a disruption to us trying to go through that process. Please stop, and instead discuss your opinions in each of the images with the other editors. Atom (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Menus are hidden (collapsed) in Misplaced Pages all the time, and this isn't considered censorship. What is the difference? Asher196 (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
"Putting the image behind a link is, regardless of your opinion, often considered to be a form of censorship. I am not asking you to change your opinion, only to respect the opinions of others. "
What others? you're the only one to say its censorship, that is your opinion. It is not censorship like Asher said. You are taking the "Misplaced Pages does not censor" thing out of context.
Also many of those images are in their own articles. Anything that is in its own article should be removed.
I was for keeping those Himba women in but they are in their own article We can add text that talks about them but a image here and an image in their article is overkill.
We don't need three images to try and show the differences in breast shape. 1 is a medical tone image while the others are magazine article tone and i don't mean a pornographic magazine so don't take that out of context.
The Illustration of saggital section of a human breast image seems a little random so i say get rid of that or put it on the saggital article.
The Diagram showing inframammary fold also seems random and the only reason it shows the inframammary fold it seems is because the person that made it put the word inframammary Fold in bold. Also the arrow looks like it was drawn in MS paint.
The picture of the bra is ok i guess but could be moved into the main article.
Woman wearing pasties is just miscellaneous and doesn't really add to the article. It just seemed to be put there just for the fact it got breast in it, not really to add value to the article about breast. a link to Pasties could be put in the main article but having a picture is a little miscellaneous as i have said. Maybe we could put it in a new section that speaks about accessories or something but right now the image is yeah miscellaneous.
We need a modification or alteration section where we could put the nipple that are pierced. The penis has Circumcision in that section on that article so i'd say this article needs something like that as well.
The breast Shields are miscellaneous.
The breast bondage is in its own article so its overkill to have it in multiple articles like that. We already have a link to breast bondage so no harm no in 86ing it.
Breast feeding symbol needs to be moved to breast feeding section.
Diagram of dissected lactating breast is questionable. I see no lactation (maybe its worded wrong) and it does no good to number stuff if you don't have what the numbers indicate in the article. If it was to be utilized to its fullest then it should be moved to the lactation article or breast feeding article.
Wax cast of a lactating human breast is just miscellaneous. If it was to be utilized to its fullest then it should be moved to the lactation article or breast feeding article.
Breast pump image is 50-50 remove 100% or move to main.
the breast of a pregnant woman is ok i say keep it or if its deemed to fit the article itself more then move it to the article out of the gallery.
15th century torture instrument designed to rip off breasts image is questionable. There is no citation or article that says rather that is what it is. To me it looks like some kind of Fireplace accessory or something used to pick up stuff.
Diagrams of cross sections of breast implants, subglandular (left) and submuscular (right) for me would have to be placed under the cosmetic and alteration section out of the gallery.
The implants i don't know about. There should be a breast implant article. I mean if bondage of the breast has its own article then the artificial growing of them does as well.
The porn star is miscellaneous and she has her own article. Maube mention her but a image isn't really that educational.
The common inferior pedicle breast reduction procedure with final result (red indicates incision lines) should stay with its own article. That whole overkill thing. besides it looks like something doodled in MS paint and not a serious medical illustration. I believe i'll just go ahead and remove that image from this article for now. I'll check into the credibility and other things that makes this notable.
the male with enlarged breast are ok i guess. Hate to say it but when i think breast i think women but they're all technically breast. I think that guy has bigger breast then the chick flashing the camera in the lead image.
Mammogram things i have nothing wrong with, Breast prostheses used by some mastectomy patients though i'm 50-50 on.
Drawing of inflammatory breast cancer is A OK! Maybe i could edit it and make both sides like the unswollen side and we can use that as the lead image. If both sides were the same that would be the kind of tone appropriate for the lead image.
I'll leave you to decide which of the cell stains should go but i say 50% at least 18 is a little much. Yami (talk) 23:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Gallery Image Discussion 2
The following images were recently removed the article without consensus. I am trying to be constructive in discussing the topic as it is irritating to be in the middle of working on discussing the topic, and then have someone remove them without discussion.
Anyway, the following images weere recently removed, and returned again. I can asusme that the editor who removed them did not feel that he liked those images. Let discuss those images then.
Please add your opinion on the following images.
Image:Julie Winchester 1.JPG|Normal variation in shape
Maybe for lede. I think this image is shows a variation of normal. I like it. I don't see anything particularly notable about it though. It could serve as an excellent lede candidate to introduce the article, in fact I like it better than the current lede image. Atom (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Should stay. This might be good for the brassiere article. It could be used in this article if we had a section on garments or support for breasts, or someting like that. I think that is not a far stretch, and could be a good topic. Atom (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
This is a very nice image and the only one of its kind in the article. We are planning on adding a section for this image, probably it would cover breast bondage, and redirect to that article, and perhaps paraphilia. Must stay. Atom (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Must stay. Unique image and applies to one of the existing topics. We should incoorporate this into the article rather than having it in the gallery. If it does not go in the section on plastic surgery, then under body modification or paraphilia.Atom (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Image:Breastreduction.PNG|The common inferior pedicle breast reduction procedure with final result (red indicates incision lines)
The common inferior pedicle breast reduction procedure with final result (red indicates incision lines)
Image:Breast invasive scirrhous carcinoma histopathology (1).jpg|Histopathology of invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast representing a scirrhous growth. Core needle biopsy. Hematoxylin and eosin stain.
Histopathology of invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast representing a scirrhous growth. Core needle biopsy. Hematoxylin and eosin stain.
Image:Breast invasive scirrhous carcinoma histopathology (2) HER2 expression.JPG|Histopathology of invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast representing a scirrhous growth. Core needle biopsy. HER-2/neu oncoprotein expression by Ventana immunostaining system.
Image:Intraductal papilloma histopathology (3) p63.JPG|Histopathology of intraductal papilloma of the breast by excisional biopsy. Immunostaining for p63 protein.
Image:Intraductal papilloma histopathology (1).jpg|Histopathology of intraductal papilloma of the breast by excisional biopsy. Hematoxylin and eosin stain.
Histopathology of intraductal papilloma of the breast by excisional biopsy. Hematoxylin and eosin stain.
Image:Intraductal papilloma histopathology (2) smooth muscle actin.JPG|Histopathology of intraductal papilloma of the breast by excisional biopsy. Immunostaining for alpha-smooth muscle actin.
Histopathology of intraductal papilloma of the breast by excisional biopsy. Immunostaining for alpha-smooth muscle actin.
Image:Intraductal papilloma histopathology (3) p63.JPG|Histopathology of intraductal papilloma of the breast by excisional biopsy. Immunostaining for p63 protein.
Histopathology of intraductal papilloma of the breast by excisional biopsy. Immunostaining for p63 protein.
Many of those images are in their own articles. Anything that is in its own article should be removed.
I was for keeping those Himba women in but they are in their own article We can add text that talks about them but a image here and an image in their article is overkill.
We don't need three images to try and show the differences in breast shape. 1 is a medical tone image while the others are magazine article tone and i don't mean a pornographic magazine so don't take that out of context.
The Illustration of saggital section of a human breast image seems a little random so i say get rid of that or put it on the saggital article.
The Diagram showing inframammary fold also seems random and the only reason it shows the inframammary fold it seems is because the person that made it put the word inframammary Fold in bold. Also the arrow looks like it was drawn in MS paint.
The picture of the bra is ok i guess but could be moved into the main article.
Woman wearing pasties is just miscellaneous and doesn't really add to the article. It just seemed to be put there just for the fact it got breast in it, not really to add value to the article about breast. a link to Pasties could be put in the main article but having a picture is a little miscellaneous as i have said. Maybe we could put it in a new section that speaks about accessories or something but right now the image is yeah miscellaneous.
We need a modification or alteration section where we could put the nipple that are pierced. The penis has Circumcision in that section on that article so i'd say this article needs something like that as well.
The breast Shields are miscellaneous.
The breast bondage is in its own article so its overkill to have it in multiple articles like that. We already have a link to breast bondage so no harm no in 86ing it.
Breast feeding symbol needs to be moved to breast feeding section.
Diagram of dissected lactating breast is questionable. I see no lactation (maybe its worded wrong) and it does no good to number stuff if you don't have what the numbers indicate in the article. If it was to be utilized to its fullest then it should be moved to the lactation article or breast feeding article.
Wax cast of a lactating human breast is just miscellaneous. If it was to be utilized to its fullest then it should be moved to the lactation article or breast feeding article.
Breast pump image is 50-50 remove 100% or move to main.
the breast of a pregnant woman is ok i say keep it or if its deemed to fit the article itself more then move it to the article out of the gallery.
15th century torture instrument designed to rip off breasts image is questionable. There is no citation or article that says rather that is what it is. To me it looks like some kind of Fireplace accessory or something used to pick up stuff.
Diagrams of cross sections of breast implants, subglandular (left) and submuscular (right) for me would have to be placed under the cosmetic and alteration section out of the gallery.
The implants i don't know about. There should be a breast implant article. I mean if bondage of the breast has its own article then the artificial growing of them does as well.
The porn star is miscellaneous and she has her own article. Maube mention her but a image isn't really that educational.
The common inferior pedicle breast reduction procedure with final result (red indicates incision lines) should stay with its own article. That whole overkill thing. besides it looks like something doodled in MS paint and not a serious medical illustration. I believe i'll just go ahead and remove that image from this article for now. I'll check into the credibility and other things that makes this notable.
the male with enlarged breast are ok i guess. Hate to say it but when i think breast i think women but they're all technically breast. I think that guy has bigger breast then the chick flashing the camera in the lead image.
Mammogram things i have nothing wrong with, Breast prostheses used by some mastectomy patients though i'm 50-50 on.
Drawing of inflammatory breast cancer is A OK! Maybe i could edit it and make both sides like the unswollen side and we can use that as the lead image. If both sides were the same that would be the kind of tone appropriate for the lead image.
I'll leave you to decide which of the cell stains should go but i say 50% at least 18 is a little much. Also two of the stairs are the same one but different image. Yami (talk) 23:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
You can add your comments in-line with the images, as I have, and that way everyone who participates will keep their comments organizae don an image by image basis. Atom (talk) 01:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I finished reading your comments, and I see we are in agreement on a number of things. I will take a look again later, focusing on the ones that suggest changes in the article. Those would be easy to focus on right off the bat. I hope that we can get some other people to offer their opinions also. Atom (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Cool. Great image -- nice find. It has possibilities. The only downside I see is that, of course, we prefer an image of a real person over an illustration. We should add this image to the Gallery for future use. Do we have any existing images that are comparable??
It5s in the gallery and i tried that image and it got removed because it was part of the consensus but i don't remember any rule against using a image that wasn't in the original consensus ats a upgrade so i went and added this one. Its not really a find just a edit of another image where one side showed the breast swollen from cancer. Yami (talk) 01:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
We've been over this again and again, the previous discussion has established that the current image is fine, and that we're not going to use a drawn image when we have access to photographs; further more, we're established that the current image is better then 95c.jpg. --HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam02:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Although I like other images (such as 95C.JPG), I agree that the existing one is fine. If others don't want to change it, I can live with that. Atom (talk) 03:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see where consensus on the current image being used has been made. That image is unencyclopedic Yami (talk) 02:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The consensus has been established numerous times, both on this current talk page and it's archives. This has been discussed over and over. As for it being unencyclopedic, I don't know what you mean by that. You'll have to explain.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam02:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree with in being unencyclopedic. I think it looks fine. It is just not from a medical text -- n reason it needs to be. Atom (talk) 03:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Only 1 person said any such thing about 95c not beign as good as the "pregnant" woman image. Lots of articles have illustrations. Take a look at MasturbationAutofellatioanal sex al have illustrations few actually have lead images so using a illustration is fine for the time being. A illustration is very encyclopedic and 95C is also encyclopedic and has a medical tone which is what this article deserves. The pose and way the subject of the current lead image carries herself is not a proper image for the article. They're a nice pair of tits but not something you'd see in an encyclopedia.Yami (talk) 02:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The inclusion or exclusion of images from other articles is not an argument against including it or excluding it in this article. It is merely your opinion that a photograph, this photograph, is unencyclopedic. Nor is Misplaced Pages Censored. This article isn't about a Medicine, so why do you demand a medical tone to it, as you have done on Talk:Ejaculation? --HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam02:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I would prefer to change the masturbation to a real peson, rather than a drawing. s I recall there was a long discussion about that previously too. Also, the image on the anus article has been well discussed. But, Honeymane is right that what is or has been done on another article is not relevant. What is the best image toillustrate the topic on this article? Atom (talk) 03:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
1. you used the wrong image
2. i'm not censoring
3. there are many other images that fit the article more
4. medical tone pictures are rule of thumb encyclopedic. People come here for information that should be quick reliable and text book or in this case encyclopedia worthy. When was the last time you opened a encyclopedia and looked up breast and saw girls from Mardi Gras saying "This is what breast looks like" and the image is taken upclose or at a angle or by a obsolete or poor source such as a 1999 image that has film scratches or a 2005 image taken on a cellphone.
4. What citation have you for this rule of thumb? People come to Misplaced Pages because wikipedia is not a paper Encyclopedia, because we offer information on topics normally not covered in paper encyclopedias, in detail not offered by paper encyclopedias. If people are coming to an article on Breasts, and are offended by a picture of one, they probably shouldn't have been searching for this article.
The current lead image is the proper image for this article, and you've offered nothing to the contrary, other then your claims that it's not 'proper' for the article and questioning whether or not the women in the image is really pregnant. --HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam03:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
two images are at the top of this discussion.
how is it censorship explain the logic of it being censorship. It should be common sense that medical tone images are best. Yami (talk) 03:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
"
Lots of articles have illustrations. Take a look at MasturbationAutofellatioanal sex al have illustrations few actually have lead images so using a illustration is fine for the time being.
"
Autofellatio has a photograph, thus my point.
This is really starting to get foolish, You've replaced the lead image before, got shot down, engaged in a edit war with another user, and then made threats that you'll be reporting them to an administrator for calling you a troll. Then, when you manage to get a discussion about the gallery going, you decide to replace the lead image again, again ignoring the former discussion. IF you want to engage in a discussion about the lead image, do so, but you'd better have better reasons then 'it should have a medical tone'.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam03:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
That was taken care of by a admin, and they started the edit war. you are not providing any better reason to why the current lead should stay other then its there and been there for a while. time for a upgrade. and what does the gallery have to do with the lead being replaced? stop jumping between debates. Yami (talk) 03:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Also you guys stopped discussing the lead image so i say that means its free to replace since no one is discussing it in the lead image 3 section. ive found a better image then what is there so i'm being bold and upgrading the article. Yami (talk) 03:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
No, Yami, you started it by ignoring the discussion on the talk page. Your image is not an upgrade, it's a downgrade as it has been discussed before. The lead image has been discussed numerous times and the results have always been to keep it, unless a better image comes a long; but your images, both of them, are not better images, and no matter how much you insist they are, they're not going to suddenly become such.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam04:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
that is your opinion and i didn't ignore anything. you guys dropped the lead image discussion its right up there lead image 3 Yami (talk) 04:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
And We're not going to keep talking for the rest of our lives about the lead image once we've ready reached consensus (or lack of), but that doesn't make it a freebie. And learn to format your messages correctly.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam04:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Your tone is not appreciated and if you don't want to talk about the lead then it is free to edit. Yami (talk) 04:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
that image isn't poorly drawn and the photo is not that bad either. Also i don't see where consensus was made on the current lead there. just someone giving up and saying its over because he said so. Yami (talk) 04:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
if you guys won't discuss it up there i'll bring it down here
"the current lead image is not appropriate for the top of the article. A better image would either be an illustrated frontal view or the first image from the gallery section which is already up for the position. Yami (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
How did you guys on this article allow the current lead image to be in the first place. Somewhere someone must have added it and that wasn't controversial yet switching it out is? You'd think with so many editors trying to keep the article pure and encyclopedic they would have kept the lead image to retain a medical kind of tone. a Girls Gone wild, or a girlfriend showing her man the goods tone is not appropriate for the article." Yami (talk) 04:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Because it's (not indenting) annoying and makes posts difficult to read? I do not claim ownership to this article, but when the issue has been discussed many times, and you know altering the lead image of this article is the type of thing you should discuss on the talk page, especially when someone reverts your edit and says take it to the talk page, you should do so, not engage in disruptive edits..--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam04:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The lead image is inappropriate for the article i don't care how many times you guys act like it's been decided you guys decided wrong. I think the problem here is to many editors reign over the article to long. How about we just get ride of the lead image and end the entire debate? Yami (talk) 04:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Yami, I'm glad you mentioned those policies, as I was about to mention one of them myself (wp:civil). Please read them before you quote them though.
Here is the deal Yami. Honeymane is right in that there was a recent discussion about the lede image. The discussion essentially resolved to make a consensus. We began discussing a potential change in the lede image here in the past day. That is legitimate. If we want to change thye lede, we need to cmplete the discussion. Other people, such as Honeymane, may have chimed in and opposed the change in the lede image. But -- you did not give him or others a chance. You changed the image before letting others respond. If four or five others had jumped in saying that your graphic was a great idea, or that Image95 was their preference, we might have had a consensus that any one editor might have had a hard time with.
I think, perhaps, that part of the issue is that you want to make rapid changes to an article instead of having patience. It could take a number of weeks to propose a change in the lede, and then wait for dicusssion, and then make the change. If you make that change and get away with it on a small article with few interested editors, then your "being bold" works. If it is a hotly contested article, like this one, then it takes more time and patience. Consider that the circumcision article and the female genital cutting article are ten times as hot as this one when it comes to changes.
In the fermale genital cutting article, one editor wantged to change the name of the article, and proposed that on 14 July move. I opposed that change, and there was substantial discussion. Ten different editors discussed and offered their view as supporting or opposing the change. On 31 july an admin closed the survey and move request, judging it as non consensus for changing the article title. The tally was four supporting the name change and six opposing the name change. This was a fairly quick process compared to some.
If you are sincere about changing the lede image in this article, I will start a survey (for you), and we can keep it open for two weeks (or longer if you wish) and you can propose your preference for lede, discuss why you feel that it is the best choice, and try and convince others of that. In the end, we (myself, Honeymane, and everyone else that has been discussing here) will almost certainly support any consensus coming from that survey. Keep in mind it is not a vote. A Consensus is needed. Without a consensus, a number of editors will probably object to a change in the lede image. Let me know how you want to proceed. Atom (talk) 04:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes i want a speedy change because the longer bad info stays the longer people want it to stay. the longer bad info stays the more it hurts the article. Also the discussion was still going on when I came in and you guys wouldn't answer a simple question as to why you guys let that image on here in the first place.
A full frontal view be it real or illustrated is more encyclopedic then a side view of a woman's blurry scared breast where her shirt is lifted up with trees visible in the backdrop and a caption that says she is pregnant yet you see only the breast and not much stomach.
The image should be replaced with a crisp clear picture that is fully in focus and provides a full frontal view. if 95c is not that image then the breast image i provided should be more then enough. The lead image represents the article, what kind of representing is the current lead doing? Yami (talk) 04:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Yami, I answered your first questions a couple of times. That image entered because it was considered to be the best available choice at the time. I think it looks fine, that is just my perspective. I see no need for a speedy change. Is there something life threatening about the image?
Could you answer me as to if you want to take a survey to gain consensus for your desire to change the lede image? If we have a survey, will you respect the opinions of the people who reply? If there is no conseus for change, would you respect that?
And what were the images that it beat? I respect people opinions but there is no need for people like you to keep on saying i think this and that is porno graphic and that i want to censor a article on tits by replacing it with tits. Yami (talk) 05:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
So, I am suggesting a Survey, where you can express your view as much as you like, and gain consensus. Some of your points have merit, as I have said before. If you want to change the existing consensus, then a survey may be your best bet. Atom (talk) 05:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
i noticed you are avoiding the subject of you accusing me of censorship and falsely accusing others of it.
I don't feel i can trust you editors in this, you say one thing do another. If you want the best for this article then you should hand the torch over to someone new.
you mentioned 7 years or so well i say its time for new air in this article because its not going grow with the same editor(s) always hanging over head and wanting consensus for something as small as a period. Yami (talk) 05:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I looked, and found: the image was added on June 6, 2006 after a Discussion. It replaced nothing, because we had no lead image at the time, but I looked back further, and found the image you are suggesting (the drawn one) has already been the lead image, but it was removed.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam05:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
If you are talking to me, I have been refactoring this talk page all night to make it readable. Posting enormous images throughout the text is confusing. Also I have been fixing indents to promote clarity. Asher196 (talk) 05:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Also i never agreed to this survey i migth post in it but i didn't agree and you are still avoiding the subject of you accusing me of censorship. Yami (talk) 05:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The survey is, nevertheless, under way to see if there is a consensus for change. At the end you may do as you wish. But -- it will leave a pretty clear record of what editors think. If there is no consensus for change, anyone will have a hard time trying to change the lede image anytime soon. If your prose convinces others, and there is a consensus for change, then you will get what you asked for. Either way, I know I am moving onward without wasting much more time arguing on the talk page. You may not understand it, but I've treated you fairly and given you the best shot for what you asked for. Atom (talk) 06:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I might have uploaded it under a old name but that image is bran new its a edit of the swollen breast picture in the gallery. i photoshoped it today. Yami (talk) 05:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
An editor has suggested a change in the lede image. For various reasons he does not find the current image, File:Closeup of female breast.jpg to be appropriate. I am starting this survey on his behalf to discuss opinions on whether the lede should be used, or another image. If you feel that another image is better, if you could give which lede image you prefer, and explain why.
Oppose Although I do like the Image:95C.jpg as it is a frontal view, there seems to be an existing consensus for the current image, and it is nearly as good as the one I suggested. Atom (talk) 05:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose As per everything I've said before, many times; it's a good image, it's okay for an image to be somewhat artistic if it's the lead, we don't have a better one to replace it with, etc.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam05:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Support the current image is blurry and does not show the subject matter to the fullest. I favor either Image:95C.jpg or Image:Breast Image 289.jpg or a better image to replace the current lead image. The current image has the wrong pose, and is not encyclopedic. Yami (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Gallery: King of pop
.jpg)
.jpg|Histopathology){kind=link}
_HER2_expression.JPG)
_HER2_expression.JPG){kind=link}
_p63.JPG)
_p63.JPG|Histopathology_of_intradu){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg|Histopathologic_image_of_breast_fibroadenoma._C){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg|Histopathologic_image_of_breast_fibroadenoma._C){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg|Histopathology_of_intraductal){kind=link}
_smooth_muscle_actin.JPG)
_smooth_muscle_actin.JPG|Histopath){kind=link}
_p63.JPG|Histopathology_of_intradu-1){kind=link}
