Talk:Breast hypertrophy

References

"There are too big differences between the opinion of cosmetic surgeons and the actual medical point of view" I'm not even sure what the first part of this sentence is supposed to mean. Perhaps someone could clear it up? Stuart McN 12:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

>>> The 2nd part of this sentence says what it mean. There are two ways of view about this condition: the real medical view and the view which plastic surgeons wants to tell us in TV and press, for getting more patients. It means that the medical view for "too large" begins with much bigger sizes than the aesthetical view for "too large". Please write it in a better english, so it will be more clearer what it is supposed to mean.Marbola 16:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

"the view which plastic surgeons wants to tell us in TV and press, for getting more patients" - this is obvious POV and OR. And I always thought that plastic surgeons were more into augmentations rather than reductions. Netrat_msk (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Images

I removed these remarks as they represent POV and don't address the subject of this article. Tell someone (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I also think that the current image is just of a small woman with very large breasts, not one with gigantomastia. If you look for any other images of the condition, it shows breast growth that is gnerally lopsided, with inflammation and sometimes infection. It is not sexy, in any way. I think that someone has posted this picture up here mischievously, particularly as the girl in the picture is quoted as being 15 years old. If that is true, and the image actually does not show gigantomastia, then it's flirting with the portrayal of a minor in a sexual manner, which is illegal in most jurisdictions. I'm happy for someone to correct me, but I'm very suspicious of that pic! User: JulesVerne (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2009 (GMT)

I'm no expert, but defer to the individual who posted the picture. Any 15 year old girl with enlarged breasts that size would likely be experiencing virginal breast hypertrophy. Per Wikipedia guidelines, assume good faith. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, I'm no expert, but I'm just trying to establish reasonable veracity for something that is quite controversial. Although it indeed is Wikipedia policy to assume good faith, there are caveats. If I took a photo of a rock from my yard, and then uploaded it to the Commons, telling people that it was a lump of moon rock, it would be ridiculous for people to assume that it was actually lunar rock unless I had exceptional reasons for having a piece. Likewise, posting a picture of an underage girl in an article which does not explicitly need it is somewhat mischievous in itself (this article is about gigantomastia specifically, not virginal breast hypertrophy). How do we establish if something is reasonable, if there is sufficient doubt, even acknowledging the need to assume good faith? My concern in this case is partly the alleged age of the patient being photographed, but mostly that the image in the picture does not correlate with any of the other pictures I have ever seen of gigantomastia; that the breasts are both of equal size, look healthy and have no other stress-related symptoms of the massive growth in a short time that gigantomastia entails. I'm not going to remove the pic, but I can't help the feeling that it's just not portraying what it claims to. User: JulesVerne (talk) 09:00, 29 October 2009 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.3.230.179 (talk)

Damn, I found that pic today at work and now wanted to go back to study it further.. and you removed it ! I think she was older than 15 by the way .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.215.69.198 (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't me - I didn't remove the picture, though it appears somebody else did. Btphelps is quite correct that we are not allowed to censor Wikipedia on the grounds of individual subjective moral values. I personally don't find the image offensive, but I think it is legally dubious. Although we do not censor, Wikipedia cannot (and does not) publish anything that is illegal in the state where the servers are based. For example, anything libellous will be swiftly removed, such as the infamous accusations that John Siegenethaler was connected to the assassination of JFK. Where I have a problem with that image is that although we must 'assume good faith' of the person who uploaded it, I find the physical depiction of that girl's breasts inconsistent with almost all other photgraphic representations of gigantomastia I see anywhere else on the internet. As I mentioned above, there is no evidence of scarring, bruising, redness, lopsidedness or anything else. That makes me suspicious.

If the girl is genuinely 15 years old, and the image does not portray gigantomastia, regardless of what we may subjectively think about the image or whether or not it should be on the page, it is dangerously close to breaking the law - period. The whole raison d'etre for the image being there would be false if that's just a picture of a normal topless 15 year old. This is about legality, not morality. Lots of handwringing about whether something is considered censorship or not does would not change things one iota if an image is genuinely not legal. User: JulesVerne (talk) 14:05, 13 November 2009 (GMT)

Based on the People magazine interview with Soleil Moon referenced in the article, who was a 38-DD at age 15 and was diagnosed as suffering from the disease, this image would appear to about match those dimensions. And while the other symptoms are not apparent in this image, that does not mean they did not exist (redness under the breasts, etc.). If someone can cite a law that's being broken, it ought to be removed. It seems much less potentially illegal than the Virgin Killer album cover. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The image was removed because it was sexually attractive. It makes no difference if the girl pictured was affected by the disorder. If the image plays grossly into sexual attractiveness people view it as pornographic and remove it immediately. In order for it to be viewed as medical it has to display unpleasant deformity (deformity can never be pleasant!).70.20.101.66 (talk) 00:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of arguing against myself, that is emphatically not a legitimate reason to remove an image from Wikipedia. The fact that you subjectively view it as being sexually attractive is completely irrelevant. Likewise, your argument that 'deformity can never be pleasant!' is also entirely subjective. I think that the image should stay down because if the girl was 15 as stated, it was bordering on illegality in some jurisdictions, but personal opinion really has nothing to do with it. User: JulesVerne (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2010 (GMT)

I think the current image does not show the severity and the possible side conditions of this disease. Does somebody have a picture with public rights like the following? There should be a picture like http://www2.ulg.ac.be/gynecobs/g9200.gif or http://img.springerimages.com/Images/Springer/PUB=Springer-Verlag-New_York/JOU=00266/VOL=2009.33/ISU=3/ART=2009_9316/MediaObjects/WATER_266_2009_9316_Fig2_HTML.jpg -- Rainbow5489208 (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge into DESTINATION PAGE. -- -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

---

There is not enough information to support two articles on a very closely related subject, Gigantomastia and Virginal breast hypertrophy, which are about the same disorder at different periods in a female's life. I recommend merging the two here. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)}

I agree with Phelps. Gigantomastia and virginal breast hypertrophy are two faces of the same phenomenon: macromastia. When it occurs in adult, non-pregnant women, in the medical literature it is generally called macromastia. When it occurs, as it usually does, in pubertal or prepubertal girls, it is called virginal breast hypertrophy or simply virginal hypertrophy. When it occurs, as it also does but less often, in adult pregnant women, we call it gigantomastia. This is simply a conveniency, an agreement on classification. Macromastia, the oversized growth of breasts, also occurs in men, be it very rare. This phenomenon is called gynecomastia. Hansung02 (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Positive social stuff?

Why there is no mention of women that take advantage of their large breasts, like "adult" dancers, sex-industry professionals, that one that breaks watermelons with her breasts etc, and of course those with less extreme cases of the condition showing off their assets under regular social situations for their benefit (getting in front of the line, getting hired for non-sex related jobs, attracting welcome attention etc) ? --TiagoTiago (talk) 01:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This article isn't just about large breasts, it's about a specific condition. So if you could find information from a qualified and reputable source about a woman with this specific condition who uses her breasts in the manner you describe, then go ahead and add it. Otherwise, if you find qualified source information about a woman who takes advantage of her generous endowment, perhaps showing off her cleavage, amplified by an appropriate push up bra, you might find a satisfactory place to add it to the article about breasts or perhaps the history of brassieres. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Largest recorded weight

"The largest recorded weight was 67 pounds (30 kg) per breast."

There are many internet sites copying/pasting this claim. I removed it, as I could not find any evidence in a reliable source. Please add a citation if there is one. -- Rainbow5489208 (talk) 10:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Breast hypertrophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091027085025/http://health.discovery.com/videos/plastic-surgery-before-after-breast-reduction.html to http://health.discovery.com/videos/plastic-surgery-before-after-breast-reduction.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Breast hypertrophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060502072110/http://www.obgyn.net/yw/yw.asp?page=%2Fyw%2Fpuberty_QnA to http://www.obgyn.net/yw/yw.asp?page=%2Fyw%2Fpuberty_QnA
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090813123633/http://www.med.yale.edu/library/historical/parker/lamqua16.html to http://www.med.yale.edu/library/historical/parker/lamqua16.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141012021223/http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x79i34_mexi-huge_people to http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x79i34_mexi-huge_people

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)