Peter Isotalo (talk | contribs) →Lead image: reply to Matt |
|||
Line 137: | Line 137: | ||
::::::OK. I get it. You don't like Black and White photos. But you did very much prefer a very dark, and poorly lit color photo of a dated bra on a mannequin prior to Kafka Liz's change. I think [[User:Kafka Liz]] described your preferred bra pic as "what they wore in the late 50s". So in your view, if I have this right, is a vintage bra style in a bad color photo is better than a modern bra in a professional quality black and white photo. And strangely, you proposed for consideration at the start of this section a vintage black and white drawing of a fully clothed woman which is completely contrary to your current protestations. It's not really a strong argument IMHO, and you've helped to drive away a contributing female editor [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABra&type=revision&diff=694062153&oldid=694055346 based her edit summary of regret for getting involved here]).[[User:Mattnad|Mattnad]] ([[User talk:Mattnad|talk]]) 23:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC) |
::::::OK. I get it. You don't like Black and White photos. But you did very much prefer a very dark, and poorly lit color photo of a dated bra on a mannequin prior to Kafka Liz's change. I think [[User:Kafka Liz]] described your preferred bra pic as "what they wore in the late 50s". So in your view, if I have this right, is a vintage bra style in a bad color photo is better than a modern bra in a professional quality black and white photo. And strangely, you proposed for consideration at the start of this section a vintage black and white drawing of a fully clothed woman which is completely contrary to your current protestations. It's not really a strong argument IMHO, and you've helped to drive away a contributing female editor [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABra&type=revision&diff=694062153&oldid=694055346 based her edit summary of regret for getting involved here]).[[User:Mattnad|Mattnad]] ([[User talk:Mattnad|talk]]) 23:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC) |
||
:::::::And where, in any of wikipedia's guidelines on photos, do we disqualify a photo because it's black and white and well shot (or even too glamorous)? Your comment about the uncropped photo is irrelevant by the way. As cropped, the reader doesn't see any of that.[[User:Mattnad|Mattnad]] ([[User talk:Mattnad|talk]]) |
:::::::And where, in any of wikipedia's guidelines on photos, do we disqualify a photo because it's black and white and well shot (or even too glamorous)? Your comment about the uncropped photo is irrelevant by the way. As cropped, the reader doesn't see any of that.[[User:Mattnad|Mattnad]] ([[User talk:Mattnad|talk]]) |
||
::::::::Okay, just stop it, Matt. You are pulling stuff out of your ass in every other post directed at me. You warp an example of an obviously "sexed up" image as an issue with black and white photos, you conflate my views Huldra's to make me seem inconsistent, you imply I suggested all five at the to of the post even though I clearly put them up as examples of what had been used so far, and you accuse me of scaring off editors by referring to comments that are unrelated to me. |
|||
::::::::I don't view this as constructive discussion. |
|||
::::::::[[User:Peter Isotalo|Peter]] <sup>[[User talk:Peter Isotalo|Isotalo]]</sup> 00:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== No bra == |
== No bra == |
Revision as of 00:03, 9 December 2015
Bra has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Choice of images
I removed the photo entitled "Scarlett self photo30E.jpg" as an example of correct bra fit as it is clearly not. The model is clearly wearing too small a cup size and her nipples are almost popping out. The band is cutting into her back. It is an example of atrocious fit. DBrabazon (talk) 05:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I removed the image next to this post from the article because it's very unclear what it's supposed to illustrate. Brwa types are already depicted under "Types of bras". It's clearly a glamour-thype photo of a non-notable model with no special significance to the article. The pose is heavily stylized and focus is by no means on the bra. Adding random images of women in underwear to an article like this serves no encyclopedic purpose.
Peter Isotalo 20:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Where's another image illustrating the demi-cup style? --NeilN talk to me 21:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sure there are hundreds of other bra styles not illustrated in the article. The word "demi-cup" is mentioned exactly once in the article (and once in the image caption), so it's not like it has major significance. This is an issue of weighing the need for specific illustrations against the quality or appropriateness of the images themselves.
- Glamour shots like these detract from encyclopedic tone in the same way as bad prose. Articles like these should be illustrated with a minimum of tact given the potential for sexual objectification.
- Peter Isotalo 21:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree, and don't really see much encyclopedic value to having it there. It's not even a good shot, given its soft focus and resolution. It also appears on List of brassiere designs so is largely redundant anyways - Alison ❤ 21:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- I completely agree. Remove the picture: it adds basically nothing. Huldra (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- I've given up on this article, but I will say it's nonsense to excise any images of women in bras that may be considered even remotely sexual. Bras are more than functional as demonstrated by the wide range in fashion choices available to them. And per Uplift: the Bra In America, this is not a new thing. For instance during the sexual revolution: "Some women expressed their sexuality more openly, wearing provacative apperal and "underfashions." Balie and Hollywood Vassarette showcase lacy brassieres that maximized cleavage and made "sure you're seen in the right places"". Given the demonstrable connection between bras, fashion, and dare I say it, symbols of feminine sexuality, removing the photograph is an act of censorship that would fit well in an orthodox religious community that keeps women in their chaste and modest places.Mattnad (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- It's not so much the boogeyman of 'censorship', as that it's just a poor quality image that adds little or nothing to the article. As I pointed out, there's another article documenting bra styles and the picture is in that, where it's marginally useful - Alison ❤ 02:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- You obviously are not a photographer. The use of soft focus is a very common technique, particularly for portraiture. And the original reason for removing the photo was sexual objectification of women, not composition. That's censorship for moralistic reasons and contrary to Wikipedia policy.
- It's not so much the boogeyman of 'censorship', as that it's just a poor quality image that adds little or nothing to the article. As I pointed out, there's another article documenting bra styles and the picture is in that, where it's marginally useful - Alison ❤ 02:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- I've given up on this article, but I will say it's nonsense to excise any images of women in bras that may be considered even remotely sexual. Bras are more than functional as demonstrated by the wide range in fashion choices available to them. And per Uplift: the Bra In America, this is not a new thing. For instance during the sexual revolution: "Some women expressed their sexuality more openly, wearing provacative apperal and "underfashions." Balie and Hollywood Vassarette showcase lacy brassieres that maximized cleavage and made "sure you're seen in the right places"". Given the demonstrable connection between bras, fashion, and dare I say it, symbols of feminine sexuality, removing the photograph is an act of censorship that would fit well in an orthodox religious community that keeps women in their chaste and modest places.Mattnad (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- I completely agree. Remove the picture: it adds basically nothing. Huldra (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree, and don't really see much encyclopedic value to having it there. It's not even a good shot, given its soft focus and resolution. It also appears on List of brassiere designs so is largely redundant anyways - Alison ❤ 21:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Your current arguments are convenient shift from that editors stance, but inconsistent considering other photographs in the article. For instance, the lede photograph is poorly lit, very poorly composed, and yet it survives. I'll add that outside of a single line in the lede, there's very little indication in this article that bras have any role as a popular expression of female sexuality. That defies reliable sources and common understanding of the garment.
- That photo was less about a bra style, than a modern illustration of the bra as fashion and its common use by women for sex appeal. Showing the woman and the garments best achieved that purpose, and that was exactly the reason it was removed. That photograph, or an equivalent, should be in the article since there is none.Mattnad (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- Mattnad, if you're concerned about the lead pic, why don't you find one that is better? And by better I mean one that doesn't feature a woman in a seductive pose, shot in mood lighting with that fuzzy-dreamy quality to it. It's the kind of picture I'd expect to see in someone's private photo album, not in an encyclopedia. This article isn't about portraiture, but clothing. If you want to illustrate how people take photos, there are other articles.
- And as for censorship, compare with the image next to this post. If this was about censorship, we'd be calling for that one to be removed as well.
- Peter Isotalo 12:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- "It's the kind of picture I'd expect to see in someone's private photo album," ergo proof of censorship. As for the other photo that dares to show a bra on a woman, that used to show the woman's face too. Decapitating that woman and only showing her breasts was done on behalf of those who argued we should only be focusing on the bras. Her face was just too much for the censor warriors. This article, as it now stands, is disconnected from how bras are not just there to support breast, and how women do wear them to look and feel sexy. Yes SEXY (did I dare to say that - OMG). Most of this article, outside of the practical usage and history section, is all about how bras are bad, and oppressive of women etc. It's pretty skewed and doesn't represent fully the fashion aspects and how women make bra choices for their aesthetics and beauty. The photo that so concerns your sensibilities does that, which is really why you want it removed.Mattnad (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- No, Matt. The image equivalent of copyediting is not censorship. Just let it go. The majority of all bra use is obviously not about sexuality and a bra is really nothing but a piece of clothing. The problem is that you're assuming that a sensual or sexualized image of someone wearing a bra is neutral.
- Peter Isotalo 15:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- "It's the kind of picture I'd expect to see in someone's private photo album," ergo proof of censorship. As for the other photo that dares to show a bra on a woman, that used to show the woman's face too. Decapitating that woman and only showing her breasts was done on behalf of those who argued we should only be focusing on the bras. Her face was just too much for the censor warriors. This article, as it now stands, is disconnected from how bras are not just there to support breast, and how women do wear them to look and feel sexy. Yes SEXY (did I dare to say that - OMG). Most of this article, outside of the practical usage and history section, is all about how bras are bad, and oppressive of women etc. It's pretty skewed and doesn't represent fully the fashion aspects and how women make bra choices for their aesthetics and beauty. The photo that so concerns your sensibilities does that, which is really why you want it removed.Mattnad (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Summary/Introduction section changes
The introduction to this article doesn't seem written for the purpose of explaining what a bra actually is. There's a ton of information that doesn't have a neutral prospective with uncited claims that, even if they are accurate and can be sourced, belong within a section of the article. More specifically:
This first paragraph should belong in a criticism section or something similar. "Women commonly wear bras to conform to social norms such as a dress code, or because they believe bras prevent breasts from sagging, a fact that even bra makers do not support. In western cultures, about 10-25% of women do not wear a bra, either as a matter of preference or sometimes for health or comfort reasons. Some garments, such as camisoles, tank tops and backless dresses, have built-in breast support, alleviating the need to wear a separate bra."
And this could belong in a section that describes a bras makeup and/or sizing. Changing social trends and novel materials have increased the variety of available designs, and allowed manufacturers to make bras that in some instances are more fashionable than functional. Bras are a complex garment made of many parts, and manufacturers' standards and sizes vary widely worldwide, making it difficult for women to find a bra that fits them correctly. Even methods of bra-measurement vary, such that even professional fitters can disagree on the correct size for the same woman. As a result, 75–85% of women wear a bra of an incorrect size.[1]"
This section should describe what a bra is all on its own and details like these should belong deeper in the article with a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Construct21 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with anything you've written. This article has been mangled a few times by POV pushing.Mattnad (talk) 10:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- While the article specifically includes the technical details of what a bra is and the function it performs, the article of clothing also has significant social and economic implications. I think the lead is trying to address both. I believe the details you cited from the lead are a summary of content supported by references in the body of the article. If you just moved those items out of the lead to the relevant section, the lead would then fail to summarize the overall article. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 16:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Trivia
Why, oh why are some editors set of filling this article with total trivia? Frankly, you could remove that second half of the article and no real knowledge would be lost. Like the "Prison security" and "Transportation security"etc. Utter trivia, Huldra (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Shutter bra
Waerloeg, I can find only two sources for a "Shutter Bra": one was an advertisement and the other is in a very brief mention in a book referring to the same brand, using initial caps, as used when referring to a brand. Bra styles, as in "nursing bra" or "athletic bra" are not referred to using initial caps. The Shutter Bra was very briefly a brand on sale, never a style that was widely adapted. I think the image of the Shutter Bra doesn't belong as a single style by itself and should be removed, unless you can provide additional evidence that it was a mainstream bra style that is comparable in usage to, for example, athletic bra or strapless bra. This also applies to its usage on List of brassiere designs. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 23:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC) — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 23:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Lead image
Lead image has switched between five different pics recently (see gallery). Out of these, I prefer "modern-day #2" because it looks reasonably "average". It's naturally relevant for the image to display function, but the photo itself should be appropriate. In my view "modern-day #1" and "modern-day #3" are not appropriate photos. The former is a black-and-white glamour shot of rather fancy silk bra, and the latter pretty much reveals more breasts than it displays clothing.
Thoughts?
Peter Isotalo 11:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
-
A full-cup bra
-
Drawing
-
A modern-day bra (1)
-
A modern-day bra (2)
-
A modern-day bra (3)
Most of the images on this page are obscene and sexist.
- I'm good with "modern day number two". While not a very elegant pic, it does show the garment in full and also illustrates the support aspect. Thanks for hearing me out on this. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- I will say, though, that myself and many women I know favour the type of bra shown in "modern day one", even if what we have doesn't look precisely the same. So I disagree that the image is merely a glamour shot, but I am willing to compromise. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Modern Day 1 is the best quality pic. It's well lit, shows the bra clearly with good contrast and symmetry. Wikipedia does aspire to higher quality photographs, and of the series presented, this is the best. Yes, it's more expensive garment than most women use on a day to day basis, but it's still a fairly common design and color (much more so than the corseted, fully clothed Victorian woman). As for it being a glamour shot, that's more about the original source photo than this cropped version.Mattnad (talk) 13:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Stating my support for MD no.1, in case that wasn't clear. I'm open to compromise but also have preferences. Kafka Liz (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- I support the old picture: A full-cup bra. Is this an article for women searching for info about a (much needed) garment, or is this an article for ogling males...? Huldra (talk)
- I'm not an ogling male, and I see nothing wrong with an image depicting bras that girls and women wear today, as opposed to what they wore in the late 50s. The article can be accurate without being puritanical. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Among those with larger cup-sizes those full-sized cups are the only ones which works. (But yeah, I would love to see a "newer" look). Here is apparently the worlds best selling bra...the one they never advertise.......it only sells....and sells...and sells. You see why: e.g.. the straps are where they should be: in the middle, straight over the nipples. And there is that significant band just under the cups, for support.
- Btw, I found this NYtimes article interesting. Huldra (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- My beef with "Modern bra #1" is not puritanical. The subtle sepia tone and the seductively placed hand strike me as unencyclopedic. Yes, it's of relatively high photographic quality, but the image is very obviously focused on bras as decoration, not as a functional, everyday garment.
- Peter Isotalo 23:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Peter, your original complaint was that it showed too much of the breast (which I think is really your objection). Now that a woman has proposed it, you can't say it's men pushing the photo, so you've shifted your argument that the photo is black and white (it not at all a sepia tone) as if black and white photography is somehow seductive. That's just bizarre. Bras are decorative and functional. The image depicts one that is both. That design is used when women want support and also want to show some cleavage. Yes.... women do that, and shaming them about it doesn't change that fashion choice.Mattnad (talk) 00:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- There was no "original complaint". I commented that "modern-day #3" was basically see-through.
- You are the only one here who is trying to make this into some type of debate on morality. Focus on the article issues and don't make false claims about my argumentation or motivations.
- Peter Isotalo 12:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- So you didn't write this with your edit summary, "black-and-white glamor pic of porn star in a silk half-cup is not representative", and "the latter pretty much reveals more breasts than it displays clothing." and Huldra didn't write, "Is this an article for women searching for info about a (much needed) garment, or is this an article for ogling males...?". No value judgements there? I'm tired of this kind of misogyny. There's is nothing wrong with the female breast, even larger ones in black and white, and this is an article about bras, not about conforming to to puritanical sensibilities of what women should do for a living, or the kinds of bras they wear.Mattnad (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Peter, your original complaint was that it showed too much of the breast (which I think is really your objection). Now that a woman has proposed it, you can't say it's men pushing the photo, so you've shifted your argument that the photo is black and white (it not at all a sepia tone) as if black and white photography is somehow seductive. That's just bizarre. Bras are decorative and functional. The image depicts one that is both. That design is used when women want support and also want to show some cleavage. Yes.... women do that, and shaming them about it doesn't change that fashion choice.Mattnad (talk) 00:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not an ogling male, and I see nothing wrong with an image depicting bras that girls and women wear today, as opposed to what they wore in the late 50s. The article can be accurate without being puritanical. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- I support the old picture: A full-cup bra. Is this an article for women searching for info about a (much needed) garment, or is this an article for ogling males...? Huldra (talk)
- Stating my support for MD no.1, in case that wasn't clear. I'm open to compromise but also have preferences. Kafka Liz (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Modern Day 1 is the best quality pic. It's well lit, shows the bra clearly with good contrast and symmetry. Wikipedia does aspire to higher quality photographs, and of the series presented, this is the best. Yes, it's more expensive garment than most women use on a day to day basis, but it's still a fairly common design and color (much more so than the corseted, fully clothed Victorian woman). As for it being a glamour shot, that's more about the original source photo than this cropped version.Mattnad (talk) 13:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- I will say, though, that myself and many women I know favour the type of bra shown in "modern day one", even if what we have doesn't look precisely the same. So I disagree that the image is merely a glamour shot, but I am willing to compromise. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- "The latter" refers to the latter image mentioned in the previous sentence ("In my view "modern-day #1" and "modern-day #3" are not appropriate photos.") Huldra's comment is for Huldra to comment on. Don't conflate it with my views.
- As for your complaints, they appear very off-topic, especially the accusation of misogyny. Again, focus on content issues, not your views about other editors.
- Peter Isotalo 16:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Prefer A modern-day bra (1). As for the rest of the thread, you're not being misogynistic, but you are being tendentious. Your nitpicking about the B&W photo is, pardon my French, bull-crap. It's a great pic, and a lot better than the others. Who cares if the original model does porn, or that her
breasts are large. They are sufficiently covered, and the bra is very clear and prominent. It's also a good looking, high quality bra. As for Huldra, this is an article about bras, not a how to on how to find a "much needed garment" (which is really debatable - I only wear one when jogging).146.1.1.1 (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)- I have made exactly zero complaints about breast size or exposure. You're citing Mattnad's egregious reinterpretation of my posts. Since I have been very clear about my motivations, I'll consider your posts to be a personal attack.
- Peter Isotalo 19:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Fine, I'll take back the breast size, and focus on the subtle "sepia" tone, the bra quality, and your comments about her visible fingers to make my point.146.1.1.1 (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- What you mention are exactly the qualities that makes photos look more like snazzy fashion shoot or outright glamor pics. That's not what I'd expect in the lead illustration of an encyclopedic article about a garment. To me it's just as inappropriate as flowery, subjective language. I'm critical of this type of imagery for the same reason I'd be critical if we used the image to the right as the lead illustration for jeans.
- And do we really need to argue the oddity a contemporary black-and-white photo that is clearly sepia-toned to establish... I dunno... mood? Just look at the uncropped version.[1]
- Peter Isotalo 22:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- OK. I get it. You don't like Black and White photos. But you did very much prefer a very dark, and poorly lit color photo of a dated bra on a mannequin prior to Kafka Liz's change. I think User:Kafka Liz described your preferred bra pic as "what they wore in the late 50s". So in your view, if I have this right, is a vintage bra style in a bad color photo is better than a modern bra in a professional quality black and white photo. And strangely, you proposed for consideration at the start of this section a vintage black and white drawing of a fully clothed woman which is completely contrary to your current protestations. It's not really a strong argument IMHO, and you've helped to drive away a contributing female editor [based her edit summary of regret for getting involved here).Mattnad (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- And where, in any of wikipedia's guidelines on photos, do we disqualify a photo because it's black and white and well shot (or even too glamorous)? Your comment about the uncropped photo is irrelevant by the way. As cropped, the reader doesn't see any of that.Mattnad (talk)
- Okay, just stop it, Matt. You are pulling stuff out of your ass in every other post directed at me. You warp an example of an obviously "sexed up" image as an issue with black and white photos, you conflate my views Huldra's to make me seem inconsistent, you imply I suggested all five at the to of the post even though I clearly put them up as examples of what had been used so far, and you accuse me of scaring off editors by referring to comments that are unrelated to me.
- I don't view this as constructive discussion.
- Peter Isotalo 00:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- And where, in any of wikipedia's guidelines on photos, do we disqualify a photo because it's black and white and well shot (or even too glamorous)? Your comment about the uncropped photo is irrelevant by the way. As cropped, the reader doesn't see any of that.Mattnad (talk)
- OK. I get it. You don't like Black and White photos. But you did very much prefer a very dark, and poorly lit color photo of a dated bra on a mannequin prior to Kafka Liz's change. I think User:Kafka Liz described your preferred bra pic as "what they wore in the late 50s". So in your view, if I have this right, is a vintage bra style in a bad color photo is better than a modern bra in a professional quality black and white photo. And strangely, you proposed for consideration at the start of this section a vintage black and white drawing of a fully clothed woman which is completely contrary to your current protestations. It's not really a strong argument IMHO, and you've helped to drive away a contributing female editor [based her edit summary of regret for getting involved here).Mattnad (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Fine, I'll take back the breast size, and focus on the subtle "sepia" tone, the bra quality, and your comments about her visible fingers to make my point.146.1.1.1 (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Prefer A modern-day bra (1). As for the rest of the thread, you're not being misogynistic, but you are being tendentious. Your nitpicking about the B&W photo is, pardon my French, bull-crap. It's a great pic, and a lot better than the others. Who cares if the original model does porn, or that her
No bra
At the moment, wearing no bras have the following number of references:
- ”How to Dress With No Bra". Wikihow. Retrieved 22 August 2013.
- ”Going bra-less in vogue again for celebs". 4 November 2013. Retrieved 15 October 2015.
- ”Yes, It's Okay to Go Braless". LingerieAddict. Retrieved 30 July 2013.
- Brenoff, Ann (9 July 2012). "No Bra Day: I Spent My 20s Braless". Huffington Post. Retrieved 29 November 2012.
- Erin Donnelly. "Trend Test Drive: Going Braless". Lemondrop.
- Mejia, Lisette. "Guide to Going Braless". Women's Health Mag. Retrieved 31 July 2013.
- How to Dress With No Bra". Retrieved 21 August 2013.
- National No Bra Day". Retrieved 18 October 2015.
- Frej, Willa (13 October 2015). "Why 'No Bra Day' Is So Problematic, As Explained By Twitter". Huffington Post. Retrieved 19 October 2015.
- Derla, Katherine (14 October 2015). "#NoBraDay Wants To Raise Breast Cancer Awareness But Critics Say Event Is Purely Sexual". Retrieved 19 October 2015.
- Saxena, Jaya. "The 5 types of reactions on Twitter about #NoBraDay". Retrieved 19 October 2015.
- Weiss, Piper. "Today is National No Bra Day. But Why?". Yahoo News. Retrieved 18 October 2015.
- ”National No Bra Day". Awareness Days. Retrieved 19 October 2015.
- "National No Bra Day". Archived from the original on 10 August 2011. Retrieved 19 October 2015.
- Barnes, Lauren. "International No Bra Day". Retrieved 19 October 2015.
- ”July 9, 2012 is the Second Annual 'National No Bra Day'". 9 July 2012. Retrieved 14 September 2012.
- Gray, Emma (9 July 2012). "No Bra Day: Women Tweet About The Merits Of Not Wearing Lingerie". Huffington Post. Retrieved 14 September 2012.
- ”National No Bra Day gains support, boosts spirits". Archived from the original on 15 July 2012. Retrieved 14 September 2012.
….I might have missed some. This is hugely overdone. The part on going bra-less should fill an A-cup, not a JJ-cup! A reduction operation is desperately needed. (All this, while the world most-selling bra does not get a mention) Huldra (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yep.146.1.1.1 (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- I feel like removing each and every one of those "references". If women want to go without bras: fine! ...but many (most?) do not have the option. And, females, (at least) coming to this article expects to find information about...bras...not about going bra less. Take it to a new article called National No Bra Day, or whatever, if you like. Presently it is massively WP:UNDUE in an article, supposedly about bras. We need to get the very unsexy, but very relevant stories, (like the above mentioned "Doreen" bra) into the article instead. Huldra (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'm all for some major condensing of the content currently under the headings "Bralessness", "No Bra Day", "Opposition to bras" and "Miss America protest". Feel free to get in on the slashing, Huldra.
- Peter Isotalo 21:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- For a start, I´m for removing the whole No Bra Day -paragraph. Just the start: "A "No Bra Day" has been observed in United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom since 2011"...it makes it sound as if it is the 4th of July, when in effect, it is almost unknown, (And what does "attended by 44,000 men and women, according to the official Facebook page" actually mean? "Attended", in what way?) Huldra (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Just a comment on "most women do not have the option". That's a little strong. There are many reasons women wear bras, but there are certainly alternatives to bras when women feel immodest or pressured to contain their breast, and there's not necessarily a medical requirement. I've known women who prefer bras, and some who don't. It's optional in most cases and the article should reflect that. What is true is that there have been some social pressures in the past for women to contain their breasts, and some now, depending. But that's a little different from "not an option".Mattnad (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- For a start, I´m for removing the whole No Bra Day -paragraph. Just the start: "A "No Bra Day" has been observed in United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom since 2011"...it makes it sound as if it is the 4th of July, when in effect, it is almost unknown, (And what does "attended by 44,000 men and women, according to the official Facebook page" actually mean? "Attended", in what way?) Huldra (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- I feel like removing each and every one of those "references". If women want to go without bras: fine! ...but many (most?) do not have the option. And, females, (at least) coming to this article expects to find information about...bras...not about going bra less. Take it to a new article called National No Bra Day, or whatever, if you like. Presently it is massively WP:UNDUE in an article, supposedly about bras. We need to get the very unsexy, but very relevant stories, (like the above mentioned "Doreen" bra) into the article instead. Huldra (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yep.146.1.1.1 (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)