text:
Talk:Book of Mormon

NPOV tag
I've placed an {npov} tag because this article does not clearly present the mainstream view of the Book of Mormon, beginning with what it is and who wrote it. It should say that the Book of Mormon was written by Joseph Smith in the early 19th century. Instead, that fact is quite buried, in the line Even that sentence is inappropriately qualified ... "leading naturalistic interpretations" is the mainstream view, also known as "the truth." "Joseph Smith authored the Book of Mormon" should be in the lead, and it should be the first view given in the "Origins" section. Before I go about rewriting it, does anybody disagree with this? Levivich (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Switched the order of the lede's first two sentences.  starship .paint  (RUN) 13:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed, NPOV is non-negotiable and we should not be presenting fringe views as superior to or the equal of normal ones. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * When you categorize a religious belief held by millions of people as "fringe", and your own beliefs as "normal", I would argue that you are not on NPOV ground. Any belief held by millions of people is notable enough for an encyclopedia, even if it is not factual.
 * But I honestly think this article's bigger problem is that it spends far too many words on the question of historicity, especially in the introduction. Contrast, for example, the article on the Torah, another religious text that most scholars do not regard as a historically accurate document, but which many Jews and Christians regard as historical anyway. The Torah article spends virtually no time debating evidence for or against its historical correctness! Instead, its sections are primarily focused on the themes, symbolism, and religious significance of the book.
 * Right now, most of the Book of Mormon article's introduction, as well as two major sections ("Origins" and "Views on Historical Authenticity") focus heavily on historicity. That seems excessive to me. I think one section and 2-3 sentences in the introduction would be sufficient. The more space we spend on the historicity issues debate, the greater the temptation for people to insert non-NPOV language.
 * TLDR: Religion is not fringe, but I agree this article has problems, and I might have used a Debate or Review cleanup tag instead of NPOV. Statesman 88 (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Fringe doesn't mean people don't believe it, it means that qualified experts don't believe it. Something can be believed by the majority of people on the planet and still be fringe as wikipedia considers it (take for instance LGBTQ medical issues where the medical consensus is at odds with most of the world's opinions). Not everything religious is fringe, but much that is fringe is religious. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ,, or ? Levivich (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed on the need for NPOV tag, and on Starship.paint's sentence switch. However I'm struggling to see how "it is patently obvious..." can be considered NPOV, it's a mocking tone rather than "nonjudgmental" and "impartial". It's also inaccurate: if it was "patently obvious that Smith had authored the Book by himself" then neither the plagiarism hypotheses nor the rumours about Smith having help from a third party would ever have gained traction. Pastychomper (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. I just switched out "patently obvious" for "more widely accepted view", aiming for NPOV. I hope people like that language, but I'm open to continued revision. Statesman 88 (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

 * It looks like someone spent a lot of time scrubbing this article of anything that wasn’t LDS approved. :( 2600:1700:F90:6950:ACF9:19B6:8CC1:724B (talk) 01:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

 * I'd like to move we remove this POV tag now. All the directly POV phrasing has been scrubbed that I can see. Also, I've spent some time breaking out the subsections on Historicity and hopefully making it crystal clear what the mainstream consensus is. Also by increasing its length and relative prominence, that should help with issues of imbalance. That said, since this is an article about a fundamentally religious topic, I think it's perfectly appropriate (and NPOV) for other sections to have a more religious bent, discussing religious significance, content, etc. Trevdna (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I placed the NPOV tag but have not had a chance to review the article lately, though I am aware that there's been a lot of editing to fix the NPOV concerns. So if other editors who have reviewed the article think the NPOV concerns have been taken care of and the tag is no longer necessary then there's no objection to removing it from me. If I see issues in the future I'm happy to bring them up again, in the meantime I don't want to hold anything up due to my lack of time. Levivich (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I would support removing the tag, though I grant I'm also someone who contributed to some of the recent revision (not as much as Trevdna; I just found an academic source for the sentence about there being no samples of reformed Egyptian). I think Trevdna did a good job with the views on historicity section. I remember overhauling the section a couple years ago after an editor tried to add a bunch of citations to apologetics. That entailed changing what was a bullet pointed list of anachronisms into body text paragraphs summarizing the mainstream assessment, adding the Isaiah intertext matter, etc. Trevdna meanwhile has taken the section across a finish line by taking the long paragraphs I left and organizing them into more legible subsections. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll remove it for now, but @Levivich, if upon further review you believe your concerns have not been fully addressed, feel free to put it back and let us know why. Thanks all. Trevdna (talk) 16:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Weird sentence removed
"The book is also a critique of Western society, condemning immorality, individualism, social inequality, ethnic injustice, nationalism, and the rejection of God, revelation, and miraculous religion."

I don't see a clear explanation that everyone agrees this claim is true. How does it critique "Western society"? How does it condemn "immorality", "social inequality", "ethnic injustice", and "nationalism" (and how does it define these)? Where is "atheism" mentioned in the Book of Mormon? In short, this sentence is just a Mormon POV. A reading of the book does not lead to these conclusions unless you're in the cult, I suspect. jps (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Strike your last sentence, which violates the BLP policy in the way it describes Nathan O. Hatch, Jonathan Sudholt, Charles L. Cohen, and Richard Bushman—the scholars whose work to which that content, summarized in the lead, is cited to in the body—and all living persons.
 * If you read the article, you will notice that that sentence of the lead summarizes Book_of_Mormon, cited to content published in journals (including The American Historical Review The Journal of American History), a university press book (from Yale University Press), and a book published by a respected mainstream publisher (Alfred A. Knopf). Only Bushman is a Latter-day Saint, and he's also Gouverneur Morris Professor Emeritus of History at Columbia University, and unless you have evidence he (along with Hatch, Sudholt, and Cohen) has hoodwinked Columbia University, Alfred A. Knopf, and The American Historical Review The Journal of American History, saying that these readings are impossible for someone who isn't a 'cultist' constitutes unsourced contentious material about living persons.
 * You should also revert your last edit to Book of Mormon, as you are violating WP:NPOV by substituting your personal interpretation of the topic over and against academic sources.
 * Finally, your edit summary—accusing me of writing an Unintelligible edit summary—is a personal attack. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is all personalizing and is very silly. Stop being silly. There is a simple point which is the Book of Mormon is not inarguably "a critique of Western society, condemning immorality, individualism, social inequality, ethnic injustice, nationalism, and the rejection of God, revelation, and miraculous religion." Some people may think that is what it is doing, but Wikipedia should not be WP:ASSERTing that is what it is doing when, in fact, it is just 19th century religious fan fiction. jps (talk) 01:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Stop being silly: Policy recommends telling letting another editor know how their edit made you feel, so I will let you know that your decision to diminish my concerns about policy and guideline breaches, and to accuse me of being the one personalizing things when you have called my contribution "unintelligble", makes me feel hurt and diminished. I invite you to be more civil.I also invite you to consider that your personal interpretation of the Book of Mormon may well vary from the way religious studies scholars, historians, and other trained academics in the humanities assess it and its context. Calling the Book of Mormon fan fiction is a popular joke about it, but Wikipedia favors the WP:BESTSOURCES for topics, particularly academic sources. When historian Nathan O. Hatch, in The Democratization of American Christianity (called by Gordon S. Wood "the best book on religion in the early Republic that has ever been written"), calls the Book of Mormon "a document of profound social protest" (116) against American society, that is a much more reliable and consensus assessment than descriptions of the topic circulated in Reddit threads and social media posts. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You haven't responded to the substance of my complaint still. jps (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have; see the paragraph starting I also invite you to consider, which addresses the substance of your complaint by pointing out that the sentence you call weird summarizes assessments from academic sources. Meanwhile, you haven't responded to my concerns about incivility and contentious content about living persons in comments you have posted other than dismissing them as silly. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My complaint was not over whether the sentence "summarized assessments". Try again. jps (talk) 18:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * How do we get from a social protest against American society (what is apparently in the source) to a critique of Western society (what was written in the article)? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's helpful to point out. The expansion from American society to Western society may have been prompted by "What's New in Mormon History" (cited in Book of Mormon), an article from The Journal of American History (vol. 94, no. 2, September 2007), which states the Book of Mormon was thundering no to the state of the world in Joseph Smith's time and that it condemned social inequalities, moral abominations, rejection of revelations and miracles, disrespect for Israel (including the Jews), subjection of the Indians, and the abuse of the continent by interloping European migrants . However, while this may imply "Western society", it's probably simpler, more focused on the topic's immediate context, and more consensus (matching Nathan O. Hatch's assessment of the book as well) to summarize it as having been at the time of publication a critique of simply American society. Thanks for pointing this out, Horse Eye's Back. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Given the context of that particular article it should likely be attributed to Bushman, the full name is "What's New in Mormon History: A Response to Jan Shipps" and is a response to a review of his book Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling in that same journal by Shipps. I don't have access to that source on this device, can you pull larger quotes for some more context? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think the idea that the Book of Mormon is "critiquing" anything is all that important a point. Others don't seem too taken with such points. Why are we letting our own article become so obsessed with this kind of inside baseball minutiae? jps (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Who are these 'others'? There seem to be you and an IP (174.212.225.61). Meanwhile, User:ChristensenMJ restored the sentence, as did I. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to sources that discuss the ontology of the Book of Mormon. Few seem to categorize it as a "critique" of anything. Most classify it either as a religious treatise or a "forgery" in a more old-fashioned sense of the term. jps (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You seem to imply these genres are somehow mutually exclusive. A religious treatise that depicts an invented history of Indigenous America can also criticize the society in which it's published. Several academic sources call the book a critique:
 * Nathan O. Hatch, The Democratization of American Christianity (Yale University Press, 1989): The Book of Mormon is a document of profound social protest, an impassioned manifesto by a hostile outsider against the smug complacency of those in power and the reality of social distinctions based on wealth, class, and education. In attempting to define his alienation from the world around him, Smith attempted resorted to a biblical frame of reference (page 116)
 * Richard Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling: Joseph Smith (Alfred A. Knopf, 2005): The book sacralized the land but condemned the people. The Indians were the chosen ones, not the European interlopers. The Book of Mormon was the seminal text, not the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. The gathering of lost Israel, not the establishment of liberty, was the great work. In the Book of Mormon, the biblical overwhelms the national. Taken as a whole, the Book of Mormon can be read as a "document of profound social protest" against the dominant culture of Joseph Smith's time.
 * Richard Bushman, "What's New in Mormon History? A Response to Jan Shipps", Journal of American History 94, no. 2 (September 2007): the Book of Mormon appears as a deep critique of American culture, including its religious culture (page 520)
 * Elizabeth Fenton, "Open Canons: Sacred History and American History in The Book of Mormon", J19: The Journal of Nineteenth-century Americanists 1, no. 2 (Fall 2013): The Book of Mormon offers a radical revision of American history that presents both documania and the Puritan errand as dead ends. and it establishes a narrative precedent for the critique of US Protestantism that would come to form the backbone of early Mormonism (page 349)
 * Jared Hickman, "The Book of Mormon as Amerindian Apocalypse", American Literature 86, no. 3 (2014): A vicious circle developed: antebellum American readers predisposed by their sociocultural location to racism were authorized under the reigning hermeneutic to read that racism into a text that had been elevated to the status of literal word of God [the Bible], thereby making their racism appear to originate from a source not only other but higher than themselves. White domination acquired the sheen of incontestable divine decree. The Book of Mormon severs this vicious circle by simultaneously negating the authority deposited by literalist hermeneuts in "the Bible alone" and diametrically opposing another vision of racial apocalypse.
 * Jonathan Sudholt, "Unreadability is the Reader’s Problem: The Book of Mormon’s Critique of the Antebellum US Public Sphere", Radical Americas 2 (2017): the text’s cultural critique, a critique that is so intense that The Book of Mormon stages the annihilation of America not once, but twice, before its fury is used up. and The Book of Mormon, published in a nation that prided itself on a guarantee of free speech that would allow dissent, presents a nation that absolutely refuses to entertain the slightest dissent. It gives the impression that what this allowance for dissent is all about is to deny people any grounds on which they might dissent, for what country could be less deserving of criticism than that in which one is allowed to point out its failures, its hypocrisies, and its contradictions? Thus, it is designed not so much to be the land of freedom and equality it says it is, as to preempt the very criticism it claims to embrace. So, at least, Smith suggests.
 * Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You completely missed my point. None of these sources identify the genre as "critique" in the main. jps (talk) 12:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To the extent you think I missed your point, you may be missing mine. The article doesn't categorize the topic's genre in, say, an infobox as 'critique'; it uses the religious text infobox. The aspects of the topic that are a critique are summarized in a subsection of the historical context section (and previously summarized fairly far down in the lead, which is meant to summarize the article), as the book's interaction with the culture around it is part of how relevant scholarship historically contextualizes the topic. My point is that the topic's main genre being a religious treatise doesn't mean it can't also be historical contextualized as expressing a critique of the society in which it's published. (For instance, as Hatch expresses, the criticism of the United States is core to the book's religious message.) Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 15:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hatch does not say that criticism of the United States is core to the book's religious message. This is the problem with your approach. You are impugning importance to simple observation. The Book of Mormon is not at its core a protest. jps (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We somehow have pretty different impressions of Hatch (1989). The monograph seems clear about how important the theme is to the topic of the Book of Mormon. In addition to the quotation cited further up in the thread:
 * This "Gospel" was a radically reconstituted history of the New World, a drama indicting America's churches as lifeless shells, blind and deaf to the real meaning of their own history and to the divine intent for the latter days (115)
 * The single most striking theme of the Book of Mormon is that it is the rich, the proud, and the learned who find themselves in the hands of an angry God (117)
 * The interlocking themes of pride, wealth, learning, fine clothing, and oppression of the poor reappear throughout the Book of Mormon (119)
 * The vision of Joseph Smith [as expressed in the Book of Mormon, as is clear in the context of this paragraph coming on the heels of four pages about the book and the rest of the page continuing in that vein] is intensely populist in its rejection of the religious conventions of his day and in its hostility to the orthodox clergy (120)
 * If I may suggest a possible problem with your approach: you seem to have personal conclusions about the topic and what the article should say about it (e. g. in fact, it is just 19th century religious fan fiction), rather than letting the article's content be guided by the best sources, including academic scholarship. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is a longer quotation from "What's New in Mormon History":
 * Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling was slated for publication by Alfred A. Knopf. I was much more aware of writing for a general audience, so the intramural debates between apologists and critics of Mormonism seemed less relevant. General readers, I thought, would want to get a taste of these controversies but not to become mired in them. They would be more interested, I presumed, in what the Book of Mormon meant to Joseph Smith and to his readers than in the apologists’ attempts to defend the book. My aim was to situate the book in its American environment—not to identify its sources, but to explain its interaction with American culture. In this more recent version, the Book of Mormon appears as a deep critique of American culture, including its religious culture. (520) Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I do not think these instances identify the genre of the Book of Mormon as one of "critique". To be sure, I am confident that there is a reading of almost any popular text you care to name that identifies it as critiquing something or other, but our job as an encyclopedia should not be to identify every popular text as a critique which would be the logical conclusion of the practice we are talking about here. jps (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Our job as an encyclopedia is to summarize what reliable secondary sources (with WP:SCHOLARSHIP being the gold standard) say about a text. If relevant scholarship identifies a text's critical aspects as meaningful and relevant, then that's part of the findings we summarize. If relevant secondary sources don't do that, then we don't summarize it. In this case, they do. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You have not demonstrated that a primary means of identifying the Book of Mormon is as a critique or in that kind of genre. Novel readings by prominent scholars can be discussed, but it should not be forced into Wikipedia's voice per WP:ASSERT. jps (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree that this is merely a Novel reading; it's a reading that's been affirmed and reaffirmed by relevant scholarship for more than three decades. And I disagree that its relevance for describing the topic in its historical context hasn't been demonstrated. Multiple high-quality sources, including two monographs considered authoritative, have been cited. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Since there are no reviews of the literature that I have seen which deal with the question, it is a matter of original research to declare whether the view has been systematically "affirmed and reaffirmed" or not. As it is, I see almost nothing to indicate that this is a major lens by which the book is studied. It seems a view that is held by a small group. jps (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok so in context its more a statement about the Book of Mormon in Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling than the Book of Mormon in general. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

 * I'm struggling to see that reading. "What's New" is not saying that Rough Stone Rolling is a critique of the United States, but that the Book of Mormon is. It does also address that that's the assessment of Bushman settled on when he wrote Rough Stone Rolling, but I don't think that makes it so nothing in the claim is about the Book of Mormon itself. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "What's New" is saying that in Rough Stone Rolling The Book of Mormon appears as a critique of the United States. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for worst sentence
"Meanwhile, some Americans thought antebellum disestablishment and denominational proliferation undermined religious authority through ubiquity, producing sectarian confusion that only obfuscated the path to spiritual security."

You've got to be kidding me. Anyone think this is a reasonable sentence?

jps (talk) 01:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

 * What is unreasonable about the sentence? It is meant to summarize Charles L. Cohen's description of the Antebellum religious context of Joseph Smith. From his article: states cast off their establishments (except in Puritanism's ancient bastions), revivals fired up, and preachers—whether belonging to a denomination or proclaiming their own singular gospels—proliferated. This homiletic hubbub was good news if you were Thomas Jefferson, for it evinced the flourishing of religious liberty based on the rights of individuals to worship as their conscidneces alone dictated, but bad news if you were a young man sifting the ashes of a burned-over district for the gold of absolute truth resulting in a situation that opened a spiritual abyss under someone who would take the welter of contesting doctrines as evidence not that all churches offered a version of the gospel, but that they afforded none at all. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think if a person already knows all those words, then it's sensible and accurate, but it's not fun to read. I don't think it's a great sentence for an encyclopedia that's trying to be inclusive of all readers, including ones that come to English from other languages. A more accessible sentence, something like "Meanwhile, the rapidly growing number of religious denominations and sects in the young nation seemed to offer too many religious choices, leaving some Americans with the impression that no legitimate path to salvation existed at all", might be more appropriate. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 07:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Indignant Flamingo I think that's a fine edit and would support it as a replacement. jps (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yup. Long words bad. Short words good. AndyTheGrump (talk)
 * A thank you to Indignant Flamingo for this constructive, civil, and collaborative approach to improving the page. I agree that the revision simplifies and improves the language. Since multiple editors support it, I've replaced the sentence with Indignant Flamingo's revision. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Overreliance on Bushman
Hey, I get it. There is this approach going around in the Book of Mormon obsessed world that tries to read a lot of context into the work. That's cool and interesting, but we aren't here to go out on limbs. So I removed a paragraph that is cited almost entirely to one interesting but parochial source (and the text is not properly attributed to the authors though it should have been).

Predictably, it was reinserted for... less than edifying reasons, AFAIC.

jps (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

 * What is parochial about content published in The Journal of American History and by Alfred A. Knopf? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

 * How many citations does this work have? What is its impact factor? jps (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A GoogleScholar search indicates the Knopf-published book, Rough Stone Rolling, has been cited 787 times. At the January 2011 annual meeting of the American Historical Association, Laurie Maffly-Kipp (the Archer Alexander Distinguished Professor at Washington University in St. Louis), called the book clearly the work of a judicious and seasoned scholar who has a thorough command of his sources and an encyclopedic knowledge of his subject. I can’t begin to count the number of times in the last five years that I have returned to consult Rough Stone Rolling as the definitive account. (text of her full AHA remarks printed pages 29–36, quotation here is 29, of Dialogue vol. 44, no. 3 [Fall 2011]).As for "What's New in Mormon History", GoogleScholar indicates 21 citations. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC) Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not too thrilled with the walled garden nature of those citations (and, let's be honest, none of the first 20 references to the book was talking about the content of this paragraph). Impact factor is pretty low from what I'm seeing. Doesn't look like it deserves this kind of emphasis. jps (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What is the "walled garden" you refer to? Do you mean to consider the American Historical Association a walled garden? Or Harvard University Press, Palgrave Macmillan, Columbia University Press, and Princeton University Press, the publishers of the four first results I see? (I'm not 100% sure if we'll see identical results or if they're somehow tailored algorithmically}
 * I'll add that Jan Shipps's review in The Journal of American History (September 2007) called Rough Stone Rolling ' s treatment of the topic a brilliant explication of the Book of Mormon, which challenges Terryl Givens' study of the Mormon scripture as the best currently in print.
 * Are there sources about and assessments of the topic with superior impact factors that establish your interpretations, stated on this page, as academically consensus? When I searched "Book of Mormon" AND "fanfiction", the first hit was a Reddit thread. On GoogleScholar, the hits were studies of fanfiction about conventional media written by Mormons. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean there seems to be strong citogenesis to these ideas among a small group. Some of that is inevitable when dealing with a niche field, but it can cause weird obsessions in the literature to form that do not necessarily reflect a "general understanding". And there isn't a strong case being made here this paragraph represents a fair appraisal of what the general understanding of BoM is supposed to be. jps (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My impression is that Wikipedia by design is biased in favor of academic understandings of topics. We want to summarize a general understanding of the topic in the relevant scholarship, which isn't necessarily the same as what the hypothetical average opinion across humanity would be. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia by design is WP:NPOV which sometimes is academic understanding, but unless there is a clear exposition of what that "academic understanding" is, we are not equipped to declare what it is. In the case of literary investigations of sacred texts, Wikipedia is not supposed to adopt, uncritically, every novel argument found in the academic literature. jps (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Considering this merely one among many novel argument[s] in literature about the topic seems to disregard that it's an assessment that's been affirmed and reaffirmed in relevant scholarship for more than three decades. You use the term citogenesis—a phrase I'm more accustomed to seeing used when Wikipedia circularly cites itself via another source—but what's going on seems more like WP:USEBYOTHERS.As for understanding what an academic understanding is, guidelines indicate that academic understandings of a topic are found in academic secondary sources: works written by professional historians with university postings, and/or published by university presses and peer-reviewed journals. These are the kinds of sources to which the content is cited. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What you are describing as secondary sources are actually primary sources inasmuch as they are offering novel arguments. Find a source which talks about the ubiquity or lack thereof. Then you'll have a secondary source for our purposes. jps (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You seem to be invoking an understanding of primary sources that applies to hard sciences, in which academic journals publish raw data generated by experimentation. Such articles report on and primary experimental data and so they're primary sources, so for topics in hard sciences—especially those that fall under WP:MEDRS—review essays are appropriately expected.
 * In humanities disciplines like history and religious studies, however, primary sources are the corpus of texts that provide data: archival collections, historical newspapers, diaries and journals, etc. Secondary sources which interpret those primary sources are published as monographs but also as journal articles, as these fields' journals don't generally publish experimental data (experimentation being not really a thing history can do—the past is past).
 * An academically published explanation and verification of this can be found on pages 59–60 of Eugene V. Gallagher and Joanne Maguire, The Religious Studies Skills Book: Close Reading, Critical Thinking, and Comparison (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2019). For the sake of accessibility, there's also an adequate explanation in Amy Guptill, Writing in College: From Competence to Excellence (Open SUNY Textbooks, 2016). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you think my take on what a primary source versus a secondary source is problematic, maybe you should open a query at WP:RSN or start a WP:RfC. I am pretty sure I'm not out on a limb here. jps (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear you think a noticeboard is necessary and that we can't resolve this by discussion on this talk page, but on your suggestion, I've started a thread at RSN. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that we have an overreliance on Bushman... And the walled garden in general as it were. But I think we should be looking more broadly at the sourcing, for example we probably shouldn't be using BYU Studies Quarterly in this context and I'm not sure what use Sudholt is to us either as it seems to be pretty out there in the opposite direction from the walled garden "This article reads The Book of Mormon as an attack on the incoherence of American nationalism – as, specifically, a book about the inevitability of its own irrelevance." and is unless I'm missing something more thought expiriment than historical exercise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've revised the Historical context section such that it no longer cites the BYUSQ source, though I'm struggling to see what was so at issue with it. It wasn't even written by a Latter-day Saint. Was there something unacceptable about the claim it was cited for, that the rapidly growing number of religious denominations and sects in the young nation seemed to offer too many religious choices, leaving some Americans with the impression that no legitimate path to salvation existed at all? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * BYU Studies Quarterly is only marginally reliable, editorially they take an apologist line (they are after all "Scholarship Aligned with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.") As for the text itself I don't think its actually an excellent summary of the souce... But thats not really my bag with it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There is this approach going around in the Book of Mormon obsessed world that tries to read a lot of context into the work.: By way of clarity, OP writes "Book of Mormon obsessed world". From what I can tell, the claims to which he objects are ones cited to sources published by journals or presses in the secular academic fields of religious studies, history, and the humanities. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Just as a statistic on the overeliance... From their back and forth we can see that Bushman considers Shipps to be as good or better than he is as a historian of the Mormon tradition, Shipps appears to think more or less the same of Bushman. One is the "historian for the house" and one is the outside expert so to speak (Shipps is not LDS). This suggests that in a properly weighted article we would cite Bushman and Shipps about the same amount... But we don't appear to cite Shipps once and we cite Bushman ~25 times. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Book of Mormon


text:
Breast

The breast is one of two prominences located on the upper ventral region of the torso among humans and other primates. Both sexes develop breasts from the same embryological tissues. The relative size and development of the breasts is a major secondary sex distinction between males and females.

In females, it serves as the mammary gland, which produces and secretes milk to feed infants. Subcutaneous fat covers and envelops a network of ducts that converge on the nipple, and these tissues give the breast its distinct size and globular shape. At the ends of the ducts are lobules, or clusters of alveoli, where milk is produced and stored in response to hormonal signals. During pregnancy, the breast responds to a complex interaction of hormones, including estrogens, progesterone, and prolactin, that mediate the completion of its development, namely lobuloalveolar maturation, in preparation of lactation and breastfeeding.

Humans are the only mammals which permanently develop breasts in females at puberty; all other mammals develop their mammary tissue during the latter period of pregnancy. At puberty, estrogens, in conjunction with growth hormone, cause permanent breast growth in female humans. Along with their major function in providing nutrition for infants, several cultures ascribe social and sexual characteristics to female breasts and may regard bare breasts in public as immodest or indecent. Breasts have been featured in ancient and modern sculpture, art, and photography. They can figure prominently in the perception of a woman's body and sexual attractiveness. Breasts, especially the nipples, can be an erogenous zone.

Etymology and terminology
The English word breast derives from the Old English word brēost ('breast, bosom') from Proto-Germanic breustam (breast), from the Proto-Indo-European base  (to swell, to sprout). The breast spelling conforms to the Scottish and North English dialectal pronunciations. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary states that "Middle English brest, [comes] from Old English brēost; akin to Old High German brust..., Old Irish brú [belly], [and] Russian bryukho"; the first known usage of the term was before the 12th century.

"Breasts" is often used to refer to female breasts in particular, though the stricter anatomical term refers to the same region on members of either sex. Male breasts are sometimes referred to in the singular to mean the collective upper chest area, whereas female breasts are referred to in the plural unless speaking of a specific left or right breast.

A large number of colloquial terms for female breasts are used in English, ranging from fairly polite terms to vulgar or slang. Some vulgar slang expressions may be considered to be derogatory or sexist to women.

Evolutionary development
Humans are the only mammals whose breasts become permanently enlarged after sexual maturity (known in humans as puberty). The reason for this evolutionary change is unknown. Several hypotheses have been put forward:

A link has been proposed to processes for synthesizing the endogenous steroid hormone precursor dehydroepiandrosterone which takes place in fat rich regions of the body like the buttocks and breasts. These contributed to human brain development and played a part in increasing brain size. Breast enlargement may for this purpose have occurred as early as Homo ergaster (1.7–1.4 MYA). Other breast formation hypotheses may have then taken over as principal drivers.

It has been suggested by zoologists Avishag and Amotz Zahavi that the size of the human breasts can be explained by the handicap theory of sexual dimorphism. This would see the explanation for larger breasts as them being an honest display of the women's health and ability to grow and carry them in her life. Prospective mates can then evaluate the genes of a potential mate for their ability to sustain her health even with the additional energy demanding burden she is carrying.

The zoologist Desmond Morris describes a sociobiological approach in his science book The Naked Ape. He suggests, by making comparisons with the other primates, that breasts evolved to replace swelling buttocks as a sex signal of ovulation. He notes how humans have, relatively speaking, large penises as well as large breasts. Furthermore, early humans adopted bipedalism and face-to-face coitus. He therefore suggested enlarged sexual signals helped maintain the bond between a mated male and female even though they performed different duties and therefore were separated for lengths of time.

A 2001 study proposed that the rounded shape of a woman's breast evolved to prevent the sucking infant offspring from suffocating while feeding at the teat; that is, because of the human infant's small jaw, which did not project from the face to reach the nipple, they might block the nostrils against the mother's breast if it were of a flatter form (compare with the common chimpanzee). Theoretically, as the human jaw receded into the face, the woman's body compensated with round breasts.

Ashley Montague (1965) proposed that breasts came about as an adaptation for infant feeding for a different reason, as early human ancestors adopted bipedalism and the loss of body hair. Human upright stance meant infants must be carried at the hip or shoulder instead of on the back as in the apes. This gives the infant less opportunity to find the nipple or the purchase to cling on to the mother's body hair. The mobility of the nipple on a large breast in most human females gives the infant more ability to find it, grasp it and feed.

Other suggestions include simply that permanent breasts attracted mates, that "pendulous" breasts gave infants something to cling to, or that permanent breasts shared the function of a camel's hump, to store fat as an energy reserve.

Structure
Breast anatomy normal scheme.png. 1. Chest wall

2. Pectoralis muscles

3. Lobules

4. Nipple

5. Areola

6. Milk duct

7. Fatty tissue

8. Skin]]

In women, the breasts overlie the pectoralis major muscles and extend on average from the level of the second rib to the level of the sixth rib in the front of the rib cage; thus, the breasts cover much of the chest area and the chest walls. At the front of the chest, the breast tissue can extend from the clavicle (collarbone) to the middle of the sternum (breastbone). At the sides of the chest, the breast tissue can extend into the axilla (armpit), and can reach as far to the back as the latissimus dorsi muscle, extending from the lower back to the humerus bone (the bone of the upper arm). As a mammary gland, the breast is composed of differing layers of tissue, predominantly two types: adipose tissue; and glandular tissue, which affects the lactation functions of the breasts.

Morphologically, the breast is tear-shaped. The superficial tissue layer (superficial fascia) is separated from the skin by 0.5–2.5 cm of subcutaneous fat (adipose tissue). The suspensory Cooper's ligaments are fibrous-tissue prolongations that radiate from the superficial fascia to the skin envelope. The female adult breast contains 14–18 irregular lactiferous lobes that converge at the nipple. The 2.0–4.5 mm milk ducts are immediately surrounded with dense connective tissue that support the glands. Milk exits the breast through the nipple, which is surrounded by a pigmented area of skin called the areola. The size of the areola can vary widely among women. The areola contains modified sweat glands known as Montgomery's glands. These glands secrete oily fluid that lubricate and protect the nipple during breastfeeding. Volatile compounds in these secretions may also serve as an olfactory stimulus for the newborn's appetite.

The dimensions and weight of the breast vary widely among women. A small-to-medium-sized breast weighs 500 grams (1.1 pounds) or less, and a large breast can weigh approximately 750 to 1,000 grams (1.7 to 2.2 pounds) or more. In terms of composition, the breasts are about 80 to 90% stromal tissue (fat and connective tissue), while epithelial or glandular tissue only accounts for about 10 to 20% of the volume of the breasts. The tissue composition ratios of the breast also vary among women. Some women's breasts have a higher proportion of glandular tissue than of adipose or connective tissues. The fat-to-connective-tissue ratio determines the density or firmness of the breast. During a woman's life, her breasts change size, shape, and weight due to hormonal changes during puberty, the menstrual cycle, pregnancy, breastfeeding, and menopause.

Glandular structure

The breast is an apocrine gland that produces the milk used to feed an infant. The nipple of the breast is surrounded by the areola (nipple-areola complex). The areola has many sebaceous glands, and the skin color varies from pink to dark brown. The basic units of the breast are the terminal duct lobular units (TDLUs), which produce the fatty breast milk. They give the breast its offspring-feeding functions as a mammary gland. They are distributed throughout the body of the breast. Approximately two-thirds of the lactiferous tissue is within 30 mm of the base of the nipple. The terminal lactiferous ducts drain the milk from TDLUs into 4–18 lactiferous ducts, which drain to the nipple. The milk-glands-to-fat ratio is 2:1 in a lactating woman, and 1:1 in a non-lactating woman. In addition to the milk glands, the breast is also composed of connective tissues (collagen, elastin), white fat, and the suspensory Cooper's ligaments. Sensation in the breast is provided by the peripheral nervous system innervation by means of the front (anterior) and side (lateral) cutaneous branches of the fourth-, fifth-, and sixth intercostal nerves. The T-4 nerve (Thoracic spinal nerve 4), which innervates the dermatomic area, supplies sensation to the nipple-areola complex.

Lymphatic drainage
Approximately 75% of the lymph from the breast travels to the axillary lymph nodes on the same side of the body, whilst 25% of the lymph travels to the parasternal nodes (beside the sternum bone). A small amount of remaining lymph travels to the other breast and to the abdominal lymph nodes. The subareolar region has a lymphatic plexus known as the "subareolar plexus of Sappey". The axillary lymph nodes include the pectoral (chest), subscapular (under the scapula), and humeral (humerus-bone area) lymph-node groups, which drain to the central axillary lymph nodes and to the apical axillary lymph nodes. The lymphatic drainage of the breasts is especially relevant to oncology because breast cancer is common to the mammary gland, and cancer cells can metastasize (break away) from a tumour and be dispersed to other parts of the body by means of the lymphatic system.

Shape, texture, and support
The morphologic variations in the size, shape, volume, tissue density, pectoral locale, and spacing of the breasts determine their natural shape, appearance, and position on a woman's chest. Breast size and other characteristics do not predict the fat-to-milk-gland ratio or the potential for the woman to nurse an infant. The size and the shape of the breasts are influenced by normal-life hormonal changes (thelarche, menstruation, pregnancy, menopause) and medical conditions (e.g. virginal breast hypertrophy). The shape of the breasts is naturally determined by the support of the suspensory Cooper's ligaments, the underlying muscle and bone structures of the chest, and by the skin envelope. The suspensory ligaments sustain the breast from the clavicle (collarbone) and the clavico-pectoral fascia (collarbone and chest) by traversing and encompassing the fat and milk-gland tissues. The breast is positioned, affixed to, and supported upon the chest wall, while its shape is established and maintained by the skin envelope. In most women, one breast is slightly larger than the other. More obvious and persistent asymmetry in breast size occurs in up to 25% of women.

While it is a common belief that breastfeeding causes breasts to sag, researchers have found that a woman's breasts sag due to four key factors: cigarette smoking, number of pregnancies, gravity, and weight loss or gain.

The base of each breast is attached to the chest by the deep fascia over the pectoralis major muscles. The space between the breast and the pectoralis major muscle, called retromammary space, gives mobility to the breast. The chest (thoracic cavity) progressively slopes outwards from the thoracic inlet (atop the breastbone) and above to the lowest ribs that support the breasts. The inframammary fold, where the lower portion of the breast meets the chest, is an anatomic feature created by the adherence of the breast skin and the underlying connective tissues of the chest; the IMF is the lower-most extent of the anatomic breast. Normal breast tissue typically has a texture that feels nodular or granular, to an extent that varies considerably from woman to woman.

Development
The breasts are principally composed of adipose, glandular, and connective tissues. Because these tissues have hormone receptors, their sizes and volumes fluctuate according to the hormonal changes particular to thelarche (sprouting of breasts), menstruation (egg production), pregnancy (reproduction), lactation (feeding of offspring), and menopause (end of menstruation).

Puberty

The morphological structure of the human breast is identical in males and females until puberty. For pubescent girls in thelarche (the breast-development stage), the female sex hormones (principally estrogens) in conjunction with growth hormone promote the sprouting, growth, and development of the breasts. During this time, the mammary glands grow in size and volume and begin resting on the chest. These development stages of secondary sex characteristics (breasts, pubic hair, etc.) are illustrated in the five-stage Tanner scale.

During thelarche, the developing breasts are sometimes of unequal size, and usually the left breast is slightly larger. This condition of asymmetry is transitory and statistically normal in female physical and sexual development. Medical conditions can cause overdevelopment (e.g., virginal breast hypertrophy, macromastia) or underdevelopment (e.g., tuberous breast deformity, micromastia) in girls and women.

Approximately two years after the onset of puberty (a girl's first menstrual cycle), estrogen and growth hormone stimulate the development and growth of the glandular fat and suspensory tissues that compose the breast. This continues for approximately four years until the final shape of the breast (size, volume, density) is established at about the age of 21. Mammoplasia (breast enlargement) in girls begins at puberty, unlike all other primates in which breasts enlarge only during lactation.

Changes during the menstrual cycle
During the menstrual cycle, the breasts are enlarged by premenstrual water retention and temporary growth.

Pregnancy and breastfeeding
The breasts reach full maturity only when a woman's first pregnancy occurs. Changes to the breasts are among the first signs of pregnancy. The breasts become larger, the nipple-areola complex becomes larger and darker, the Montgomery's glands enlarge, and veins sometimes become more visible. Breast tenderness during pregnancy is common, especially during the first trimester. By mid-pregnancy, the breast is physiologically capable of lactation and some women can express colostrum, a form of breast milk.

Pregnancy causes elevated levels of the hormone prolactin, which has a key role in the production of milk. However, milk production is blocked by the hormones progesterone and estrogen until after delivery, when progesterone and estrogen levels plummet.

Menopause

At menopause, breast atrophy occurs. The breasts can decrease in size when the levels of circulating estrogen decline. The adipose tissue and milk glands also begin to wither. The breasts can also become enlarged from adverse side effects of combined oral contraceptive pills. The size of the breasts can also increase and decrease in response to weight fluctuations. Physical changes to the breasts are often recorded in the stretch marks of the skin envelope; they can serve as historical indicators of the increments and the decrements of the size and volume of a woman's breasts throughout the course of her life.

Breastfeeding

The primary function of the breasts, as mammary glands, is the nourishing of an infant with breast milk. Milk is produced in milk-secreting cells in the alveoli. When the breasts are stimulated by the suckling of her baby, the mother's brain secretes oxytocin. High levels of oxytocin trigger the contraction of muscle cells surrounding the alveoli, causing milk to flow along the ducts that connect the alveoli to the nipple.

Full-term newborns have an instinct and a need to suck on a nipple, and breastfed babies nurse for both nutrition and for comfort. Breast milk provides all necessary nutrients for the first six months of life, and then remains an important source of nutrition, alongside solid foods, until at least one or two years of age.

Clinical significance
The breast is susceptible to numerous benign and malignant conditions. The most frequent benign conditions are puerperal mastitis, fibrocystic breast changes and mastalgia.

Lactation unrelated to pregnancy is known as galactorrhea. It can be caused by certain drugs (such as antipsychotic medications), extreme physical stress, or endocrine disorders. Lactation in newborns is caused by hormones from the mother that crossed into the baby's bloodstream during pregnancy.

Breast cancer
Breast cancer is the most common cause of cancer death among women and it is one of the leading causes of death among women. Factors that appear to be implicated in decreasing the risk of breast cancer are regular breast examinations by health care professionals, regular mammograms, self-examination of breasts, healthy diet, exercise to decrease excess body fat, and breastfeeding.

Male breasts
Both females and males develop breasts from the same embryological tissues. Anatomically, male breasts do not normally contain lobules and acini that are present in females. In rare instances, it is possible for very few lobules to be present, this makes it possible for some men to develop lobular carcinoma of the breast. Normally, males produce lower levels of estrogens and higher levels of androgens, namely testosterone, which suppress the effects of estrogens in developing excessive breast tissue. In boys and men, abnormal breast development is manifested as gynecomastia, the consequence of a biochemical imbalance between the normal levels of estrogen and testosterone in the male body. Around 70% of boys temporarily develop breast tissue during adolescence. The condition usually resolves by itself within two years. When male lactation occurs, it is considered a symptom of a disorder of the pituitary gland.

Plastic surgery

Plastic surgery can be performed to augment or reduce the size of breasts, or reconstruct the breast in cases of deformative disease, such as breast cancer. Breast augmentation and breast lift (mastopexy) procedures are done only for cosmetic reasons, whereas breast reduction is sometimes medically indicated. In cases where a woman's breasts are severely asymmetrical, surgery can be performed to either enlarge the smaller breast, reduce the size of the larger breast, or both.

Breast augmentation surgery generally does not interfere with future ability to breastfeed. Breast reduction surgery more frequently leads to decreased sensation in the nipple-areola complex, and to low milk supply in women who choose to breastfeed. Implants can interfere with mammography (breast x-rays images).

General
In Christian iconography, some works of art depict women with their breasts in their hands or on a platter, signifying that they died as a martyr by having their breasts severed; one example of this is Saint Agatha of Sicily.

Femen is a feminist activist group which uses topless protests as part of their campaigns against sex tourism religious institutions, sexism, and homophobia. Femen activists have been regularly detained by police in response to their protests.

There is a long history of female breasts being used by comedians as a subject for comedy fodder (e.g., British comic Benny Hill's burlesque/slapstick routines).

Art history
In European pre-historic societies, sculptures of female figures with pronounced or highly exaggerated breasts were common. A typical example is the so-called Venus of Willendorf, one of many Paleolithic Venus figurines with ample hips and bosom. Artifacts such as bowls, rock carvings and sacred statues with breasts have been recorded from 15,000 BC up to late antiquity all across Europe, North Africa and the Middle East.

Many female deities representing love and fertility were associated with breasts and breast milk. Figures of the Phoenician goddess Astarte were represented as pillars studded with breasts. Isis, an Egyptian goddess who represented, among many other things, ideal motherhood, was often portrayed as suckling pharaohs, thereby confirming their divine status as rulers. Even certain male deities representing regeneration and fertility were occasionally depicted with breast-like appendices, such as the river god Hapy who was considered to be responsible for the annual overflowing of the Nile.

Female breasts were also prominent in Minoan art in the form of the famous Snake Goddess statuettes, and a few other pieces, though most female breasts are covered. In Ancient Greece there were several cults worshipping the "Kourotrophos", the suckling mother, represented by goddesses such as Gaia, Hera and Artemis. The worship of deities symbolized by the female breast in Greece became less common during the first millennium. The popular adoration of female goddesses decreased significantly during the rise of the Greek city states, a legacy which was passed on to the later Roman Empire.

During the middle of the first millennium BC, Greek culture experienced a gradual change in the perception of female breasts. Women in art were covered in clothing from the neck down, including female goddesses like Athena, the patron of Athens who represented heroic endeavor. There were exceptions: Aphrodite, the goddess of love, was more frequently portrayed fully nude, though in postures that were intended to portray shyness or modesty, a portrayal that has been compared to modern pin ups by historian Marilyn Yalom. Although nude men were depicted standing upright, most depictions of female nudity in Greek art occurred "usually with drapery near at hand and with a forward-bending, self-protecting posture". A popular legend at the time was of the Amazons, a tribe of fierce female warriors who socialized with men only for procreation and even removed one breast to become better warriors (the idea being that the right breast would interfere with the operation of a bow and arrow). The legend was a popular motif in art during Greek and Roman antiquity and served as an antithetical cautionary tale.

Body image
Many women regard their breasts as important to their sexual attractiveness, as a sign of femininity that is important to their sense of self. A woman with smaller breasts may regard her breasts as less attractive.

Clothing

Because breasts are mostly fatty tissue, their shape can—within limits—be molded by clothing, such as foundation garments. Bras are commonly worn by about 90% of Western women,  and are often worn for support. The social norm in most Western cultures is to cover breasts in public, though the extent of coverage varies depending on the social context. Some religions ascribe a special status to the female breast, either in formal teachings or through symbolism. Islam forbids free women from exposing their breasts in public.

Many cultures, including Western cultures in North America, associate breasts with sexuality and tend to regard bare breasts as immodest or indecent. In some cultures, like the Himba in northern Namibia, bare-breasted women are normal. In some African cultures, for example, the thigh is regarded as highly sexualised and never exposed in public, but breast exposure is not taboo. In a few Western countries and regions female toplessness at a beach is acceptable, although it may not be acceptable in the town center.

Social attitudes and laws regarding breastfeeding in public vary widely. In many countries, breastfeeding in public is common, legally protected, and generally not regarded as an issue. However, even though the practice may be legal or socially accepted, some mothers may nevertheless be reluctant to expose a breast in public to breastfeed due to actual or potential objections by other people, negative comments, or harassment. It is estimated that around 63% of mothers across the world have publicly breast-fed. Bare-breasted women are legal and culturally acceptable at public beaches in Australia and much of Europe. Filmmaker Lina Esco made a film entitled Free the Nipple, which is about "...laws against female toplessness or restrictions on images of female, but not male, nipples", which Esco states is an example of sexism in society.

Sexual characteristic
In some cultures, breasts play a role in human sexual activity. Breasts and especially the nipples are among the various human erogenous zones. They are sensitive to the touch as they have many nerve endings; and it is common to press or massage them with hands or orally before or during sexual activity. During sexual arousal, breast size increases, venous patterns across the breasts become more visible, and nipples harden. Compared to other primates, human breasts are proportionately large throughout adult females' lives. Some writers have suggested that they may have evolved as a visual signal of sexual maturity and fertility. In Patterns of Sexual Behavior, a 1951 analysis of 191 traditional cultures, the researchers noted that stimulation of the female breast by a male sexual partner "seemed absent in all subhuman forms, although it is common among the members of many different human societies."

Many people regard bare female breasts to be aesthetically pleasing or erotic, and they can elicit heightened sexual desires in men in many cultures. In the ancient Indian work the Kama Sutra, light scratching of the breasts with nails and biting with teeth are considered erotic. Some people show a sexual interest in female breasts distinct from that of the person, which may be regarded as a breast fetish. A number of Western fashions include clothing which accentuate the breasts, such as the use of push-up bras and decollete (plunging neckline) gowns and blouses which show cleavage. While U.S. culture prefers breasts that are youthful and upright, some cultures venerate women with drooping breasts, indicating mothering and the wisdom of experience.

Research conducted at the Victoria University of Wellington showed that breasts are often the first thing men look at, and for a longer time than other body parts. The writers of the study had initially speculated that the reason for this is due to endocrinology with larger breasts indicating higher levels of estrogen and a sign of greater fertility, but the researchers said that "Men may be looking more often at the breasts because they are simply aesthetically pleasing, regardless of the size."

Some women report achieving an orgasm from nipple stimulation, but this is rare. Research suggests that the orgasms are genital orgasms, and may also be directly linked to "the genital area of the brain". In these cases, it seems that sensation from the nipples travels to the same part of the brain as sensations from the vagina, clitoris and cervix. Nipple stimulation may trigger uterine contractions, which then produce a sensation in the genital area of the brain.

Anthropomorphic geography
There are many mountains named after the breast because they resemble it in appearance and so are objects of religious and ancestral veneration as a fertility symbol and of well-being. In Asia, there was "Breast Mountain", which had a cave where the Buddhist monk Bodhidharma (Da Mo) spent much time in meditation. Other such breast mountains are Mount Elgon on the Uganda–Kenya border; Beinn Chìochan and the Maiden Paps in Scotland; the Bundok ng Susong Dalaga ('Maiden's breast mountains') in Talim Island, Philippines, the twin hills known as the Paps of Anu (Dá Chích Anann or 'the breasts of Anu'), near Killarney in Ireland; the 2,086 m high Tetica de Bacares or La Tetica in the Sierra de Los Filabres, Spain; Khao Nom Sao in Thailand, Cerro Las Tetas in Puerto Rico; and the Breasts of Aphrodite in Mykonos, among many others. In the United States, the Teton Range is named after the French word for 'nipple'.

Measurement
The maturation and size of the breasts can be measured by a variety of different methods. These include Tanner staging, bra cup size, breast volume, breast–chest difference, the breast unit, breast hemicircumference, and breast circumference, among other measures.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Breast


text:
Talk:Breast

Terminology
In the section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast#Puberty i suggest the terms 'girl' and 'woman' be replaced by 'female' because 1) biology. 2) trans people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euph0riccall (talk • contribs) 23:17, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources use all three terms. See this community consensus for more. Crossroads -talk- 05:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The regulars at the manual of style for biomedical articles are planning to propose some formal guidelines around gender-specific and gender-neutral terminology in the new year. Everyone is welcome to watch that page and join in the conversation. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Men's breasts
The article starts by telling that both, males and females, have breasts. The next paragraph tells the function of female breasts, but then there's no mention of male breasts. The anatomy chapter again explains the female breasts anatomy, but there's no mention of male. And same with the chapter about development. I would say the article is seriously lacking. Yes, men's breasts are simpler but they exist. 82.13.36.209 (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And what "function of male breasts" do you think there is? Did you not read the part about why males have nipples? GBFEE (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems this information is missing from the article and needs to be in the evolutionary development section, but with better resources. GBFEE (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Request for nonhuman anatomy section
This page is linked to from pages discussing breasts in nonhuman animals, and it would be good to have some relevant information together in a section, instead of a few sentences scattered throughout. --Amorilinguae (talk) 01:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't they link to Thorax ? --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 13:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Sexual Characteristic Section
The "sexual characteristic" section should be reworked. It is under "Society and Culture" and begins with the premise that the section applies only "in some cultures," but has a significant chunk of content describing biological characteristics that are not particular to any culture. No sources are cited for the proposition that there are cultures where breasts never play a role in sexual activity, but that seems to be implied by the section, which is bewildering when it also talks about biology.

I would suggest splitting the discussion on the biological relationship with arousal and sex from cultural attitudes towards breasts and sexuality to avoid the strange, unsourced implication that the biological link is only particular to some cultures. 98.231.197.100 (talk) 04:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Heteronormative (and incorrect) phrasing
"Many people regard bare female breasts to be aesthetically pleasing or erotic, and they can elicit heightened sexual desires in men in many cultures."

Two issues with this, some men are gay and couldn't care less about breasts and also queer women can be attracted to breasts. I would suggest rephrasing this. Flaming Hot Mess of Confusion (talk) 05:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Breast