File talk:Janet Jackson & Justin Timberlake's wardrobe malfunction.jpg

Looks like there's some disagreement about which version of this photo should be used. I have a suggestion: use the one showing most of Jackson's naked breast on Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy, and the one with her covering it on Janet Jackson. The article about Jackson is supposed to be a biography of her entire life; an image that gives a sense of the event is plenty, and there is no need to visually describe, in explicit detail, exactly what happened. For the article about the controversy, however, the exact nature of the event is much more relevant, and the reader is much more likely to be seeking detailed information. Thoughts? -Pete (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what article its used on, the fact remains its still Janet's bare breast and that is a violation of basic human dignity. She can't avoid having it on Tivo or having people replicate the image and spreading it all over the net, but mainstream media (such as EW - the source of the current image) always use an after shot and frankly so should we. And just so anyone reading this is absolutely clear, I am willing to fight tooth and nail with every editor and administrator on wikipedia to prevent Janet Jackson's bare breast from being used as tabloid spectacle. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  19:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm willing to work hard to build a good encyclopedia too, so I'm glad we have that in common. I find your reasoning interesting, if puzzling. Janet Jackson put on a decorative Nipple shield (jewelry), then put on a piece of clothing with a removable breast cover. She then performed a routine that required a great deal of rehearsal, and to the viewer was executed flawlessly; there was no evident confusion that might accompany an "accident." So I find it hard to imagine that there was anything accidental about this, especially on Jackson's part. She chose to (and I'll use your terms) give up her dignity -- the choice has already been made, there is nothing that Wikipedia can do to influence that one way or another.
 * For what it's worth, I don't buy that exposing one's body parts, in an intentional way, is in any way undignified. I think there are countless entertainers who would argue otherwise.
 * I really don't see any reason to have her uncovered breast on the Janet Jackson article, but it does seem to have pretty strong encyclopedic value on the article about the "controversy." And I don't see how it violates anybody's dignity. -Pete (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Its no secret Janet is into S&M, which is a category I would assume nipple shields fall under - so I don't believe that's any indications she actually wanted everyone to see her breast. How many women wear decorative lingerie beneath their day to day outfits and have no intention of flashing the general public? Do I personally believe the incident was on purpose? No. I don't. Taking Jackson's own words into consideration, yes - there was supposed to be a reveal, however, the red-lace bra was supposed to be intact after the removal of the breastplate. However flawless the routine may have been, the reveal itself was a split second motion. And regardless of whether or not the baring of her breast as an accident or intentional, that doesn't mean wikipedia is required to capitalize on it. Printed encyclopedias/books don't even use the bare image, so why should we? It is not artistic or bold in the same way her cover on Rolling Stone magazine is, or the numerous men and women who serve as nude models for art students such as myself in fine art and animation classes across the world. My stance is that its only serves as tabloid journalism. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  21:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You draw some pretty strange conclusions about the motivations of your fellow editors -- that Wikipedia is seeking to "capitalize" on a photo (whatever that means -- there is no capital involved in the distribution of Wikipedia's content) -- and I'm not sure what you mean about "tabloid" journalism. My interest here is to present the best encyclopedic content -- and I have no doubt that's the same for most others working here, including yourself.
 * That said, I'm entirely willing to accept that my familiarity with the situation may not be sufficient to draw the kinds of conclusions I was drawing. I was just going on what I had seen; though I find the idea that the reveal was unintended pretty tough to believe, I definitely can't prove it wrong. I'm happy to accept your analysis, as you have clearly followed the issue more closely than me and your logic is definitely plausible. I'm fine with leaving it as is. -Pete (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My concern is that like most mainstream media today, a lot of editors are more concerned with up-to-date tabloid journalism (BREAKING NEWS! -Insert celebrity here- has just -insert useless trivia here-!!). And yes, I have run into quite a few editors who don't give a fuck about building a comprehensive encyclopedia, so my concerns are well grounded in reality. See Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and Given the level of dysfunction that has come to prevail on Wikipedia, the most appropriate course for a principled scientist is to withdraw from the project to get an idea of just how ridiculous wikipedians can be. In Janet's case, people are very quick to forget the isn't just some abstract phenomenon, but that there is a real human being involved in this mess, with real feelings and insecurities who doesn't necessarily want to be reminded of one mistake she made every time she has to log online or read a report about herself (take a quick glance at Britney_spears). Of course, a lot of people would respond by saying "tough shit" and in your own words: "She chose to... give up her dignity -- the choice has already been made, there is nothing that Wikipedia can do to influence that one way or another." I say the exact opposite: that wikipedia, as community, has not only a right, but an obligation to protect the dignity of article subjects by discriminating what information and imagery is absolutely necessary and what we can choose (simply out of compassion over anything else) to avoid. Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy and wardrobe malfunction, just like Janet Jackson, can easily become articles that represent wikipedia's finest work without displaying Janet Jackson's bare breast along with image of complete shock and fear on her face that accompanies it, so why not do without it?
 * And Pete, while I believe you do want to build a comprehensive encyclopedia, take a moment to ask yourself "If my bare penis were exposed on national television, would I really want every media outlet on earth using that particular image of my penis in every article they produce about the subject? And more importantly, would I want a random reporter or thousands - possibly millions - of people speculating: "[well, I] chose to... give up my dignity -- the choice has already been made"? The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  01:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever. Happy editing. -Pete (talk)