File talk:Kate-winslet titanic movie pencil-drawing.jpg

Initial discussion
Regarding, see Offensive material. There is no need at all to go with the full nude image as opposed to the obscured one. Wikipedia:Offensive material states, "Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." Readers do not need to see the full nude image of Rose to understand that she is nude. The alternative is less offensive and is an equally suitable alternative. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's absurd to say that a pencil drawing of a woman's breast counts as obscene material. Absolutely ridiculous.  I'm asking for a third opinion on this one. ʤɛfiːpiː (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Replied below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not an official WP:3O, but I say that WP policy here is rather clear, WP:NOTCENSORED applies, and the material is used for a valid encyclopedic purpose (i.e. discussing, specifically, the nude scene...) so there's no grounds for removing it. However, if we turn the discussion away from the "offensive/not offensive" area, the "cut-down" version, for all its worth, actually is a clearer image while not taking away anything from the critical commentary. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, interesting point. What do you think of the zoomed-in version here: Kate-winslet_titanic_movie_pencil-drawing_-cropped-.jpg ʤɛfiːpiː (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is better. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Third opinion

 * I concur with Erpert's reasoning (this is a matter of a bare breast, not some pornographic monstrosity), and to the suggestion of reverting to the version they reference. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  22:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * JeffyP (ʤɛfiːpi), Erpert, and Orangemike, of course WP:Offensive material applies. I work on a number of sexual topics here at Wikipedia and I know that readers commonly object to images of bare breasts and images of genitals. Because of this, we consider WP:Offensive material and follow it at a number of our articles. If it's something like the Breast article, of course we are going to use an image of an actual breast. But at a lot of sexual topic articles, we use drawings or similar illustrations instead of real-life imagery because drawings or similar illustrations are less offensive to our readers, the real-life images tend to distract more and come across as pornographic rather than educational, and because the drawings or similar illustrations get the point across just as well as (sometimes better than) the real-life imagery. WP:Offensive material clearly states, "Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." Like I noted above, readers do not need to see the full nude image of Rose to understand that she is nude. The alternative is less offensive and is an equally suitable alternative. I personally have no problem with the image that JeffyP uploaded, but some of our readers will, and no one has given a valid reason for going with it over the cropped one I uploaded years ago. Citing WP:NOTCENSORED is not enough, as made clear by the WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:Offensive material pages. How does the full nude image significantly enhance readers understanding of the topic more so than the cropped image? There have also been concerns expressed at WP:WikiProject Feminism about unnecessary female nude imagery on Wikipedia. I have started an RfC below, and will alert Talk:Titanic (1997 film), WP:FILM and WP:Women to the topic. I ask that JeffyP stop edit warring over this and wait until the RfC is over. See WP:Status quo. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You seem to imply that the full image is either vulgar or obscene. I honestly can't imagine that anyone would feel that way for this image.  If you have no issue with the image yourself, you should vote for the full image, and let someone who is offended speak up for themselves.  Don't vote against it on a potentially offended person's behalf.  So far, 107.190.33.254,  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... &  Orange Mike  have each voiced their opinion that there is no issue with this image, and I encourage them to return and leave a message in the RfC.  But you took it upon yourself to ignore their opinions on the matter, and revert it back.  I'm not in the business of edit warring - I'd like to build a consensus as best as possible.  We disagree on this issue, and I'm happy to have others weigh in.  But you're not being fair by unilaterally reverting again.  In any case, the RfC should help decide this issue. ʤɛfiːpiː (talk) 02:45, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * JeffyP, I'm not implying it; I'm stating it, and only with regard to some readers. Again, experience tells me that there will be objections to the fully nude image. I like to avoid such conflict if I can. For years, no one had an issue with the cropped version until you came along. As for the others' opinions, I did not ignore them. I clearly responded to them and to you. I reverted on the basis of status quo and getting more opinions. For me to state more would be repeating myself. If consensus is for the fully nude image, I will adhere to that. And consensus for it here on this talk page will be something that I and others can point to when someone objects to the image on the basis of nudity. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Should we use the cropped version or the non-cropped version?
RfC withdrawn. Consensus for including full version of the image. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

There is disagreement on whether or not to use this image (which is cropped and does not show Rose fully nude) or this one (which does show her fully nude). One view is that we should go with the non-cropped version because of WP:NOTCENSORED. The other view is that WP:NOTCENSORED is tempered by Offensive material, and it guides editors to not unnecessarily include the more offensive image if an equally suitable alternative is available.

Survey

 * Cropped version. Above, I noted that I personally have no problem with the image that JeffyP uploaded, but some of our readers will, and no one has given a valid reason for going with it over the cropped one I uploaded years ago. I work on a number of sexual topics, and readers commonly object to images of bare breasts and images of genitals. The cropped image of the nude Rose is therefore the less offensive of the two options, and it has caused no issues while the one that JeffyP undoubtedly will. I know from experience that we will have readers and editors wanting to remove the fully nude image. And no one has given a valid reason as to why the fully nude image is better than the cropped image with regard to enhancing readers' understanding of the text. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Full version. The full image shows the drawing from a pivotal, memorable scene in the movie.  People associate that drawing with the movie, and vice versa.  The cropped version crops out most of the image to save the shock of a single nipple.  Let's be real here.  There's no genitalia visible.  A single breast is exposed in a pencil-sketch.  The value of the full image to show what was drawn in a famous movie scene outweighs the minor objections a few may have (if there even are any). ʤɛfiːpiː (talk) 02:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Full version. Sorry Flyer, I know I usually support you on the Titanic article but I think WP:NOTCENSORED trumps WP:Offensive material in this case. If the choice were between two equally valid images then I would agree with your argument, but what we have here is a choice between the full image as it appears in the film or a doctored version that does not appear. IMO the most encyclopedic approach is to present an image that is as close as possible to the version that appears in the film. The cropped image misrepresents the drawing as a face portrait rather than a nude which I think is an important distinction. Betty Logan (talk) 02:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Betty Logan, no problem. You've made good points and I will be fine with including the full version of the image. The only reason I didn't include it years ago (in 2010) is because of possible objections and because the full version did not seem necessary to me for readers to understand the text, just like showing Rose completely nude is not necessary in the versions that come on television and those versions obscure the drawing in some way. But those versions are censored, and Wikipedia obviously is not. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I also liked the close-up shot on the face, which is a shot that the film shows as well. I don't remember cropping the image; I think it came like that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk)


 * Full version - IMO, if the image is significant enough to include (such that discussion of the image is sufficient to reach our fair use criteria), I can't imagine how an altered version of what we are discussing would be appropriate. Further, if a chiseled marble penis isn't "offensive", I'm hard pressed to find a pencil sketch of a breast to be a problem. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Full version The nudity is the point. Have you not watched Titanic? If the nudity is the actual point of the work of art, then the nudity is not gratuitous. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Also: What if bumfuckistan.wikpedia.org wants to use a different crop than the one en.wikipedia.org ultimately chooses? Commons should host both files separately, instead of this warring between which crop of the one file to save. It's not my problem if the bumfuckistanians want to display a different crop than we use, but that requires Commons having two files. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That would be bumfuckistanis, not bumfuckistanians. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  08:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Full version - anything else is gratuitously timorous. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  08:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Full version - (I'll mention very quickly the fact that one is a policy and one is a guideline, hence not sharing the same weight in any discussion.) Having a guideline on "Offensive" material was just stupid. Would you take out LGBT material as that is offensive to some conservative or religious people? Would you delete the article about Jehovah, as the name is forbidden to be used by the Jewish religion? Or how about removing all images of Muhammad from Depictions of Muhammad and his own article? There are always going to be people who are offended by something, which is fine, but what is not fine, is for an Encyclopedia to censor itself for a specific group. Now regarding the issue of nudity and how it offends some people - please see the following articles which I'm sure will just drive them insane then - David (Michelangelo), The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife, La maja desnuda, Gustav Klimt, Venus of Urbino, Leda and the Swan and of course L'Origine du monde. --Gonnym (talk) 08:57, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Gonnym, regarding this, it does not seem that you've taken the time to read the WP:Offensive material guideline. For one, the guideline is mainly about images. The guideline does not support removing LGBT material because it is offensive to some conservative or religious people. It's not about that at all. The guideline isn't stupid in the least. If it were stupid, it would not be considered so often and would not be mentioned at the WP:NOTCENSORED section after all this time. Like the guideline states, "Per the Image use policy, the only reason for including any image in any article is 'to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter'. Any image that does not achieve this policy goal, or that violates other policies (e.g., by giving an undue or distorted idea of the subject), should not be used." It also states, "Per the Foundation, controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article." The guideline is not stating that we should never include offensive material, or that we often should not. It's noting that, under some circumstances, we do consider potential offensiveness when adding material, especially images. All that stated, I can see now that consensus is for including the full version of the image in question and that this case isn't as much of a WP:Offensive material case as I originally believed it to be. Therefore, I will withdraw the RfC. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The guideline clearly talks about everything, not just images. From the lead However, offensive words and offensive images should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner.; From the first sentence of the first subheader In original Wikipedia content, a vulgarity or obscenity should either appear in its full form or not at all; words should never be minced by replacing letters with dashes, asterisks, or other symbols. (also, LGBT subjects could also have images, not just words). I also don't agree with your conclusion that because its quoted in the policy its not stupid. WP:SMALLDETAILS, part of a policy, is itself idiotic and routinely ignored in WP:RM on almost a daily basis. Most of this things were written by a handful of editors and are now stuck with us. Changing them is such a nightmare that usually no one even tries. --Gonnym (talk) 09:53, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Gonnym, if you actually believe that the guideline is about everything in the sense that it supports removing LGBT material because it is offensive to some conservative or religious people, then do post at that talk page and/or the WP:NOTCENSORED talk page about it and see how wrong you are about that. The guideline focuses on images and words, from top to bottom. The guideline states, "Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." We do just that at many of our articles, especially our sexual topic articles and it's not going to change (for as long as I'm editing sexual topics on Wikipedia anyway). We are not going to use a real-life image of a sex act if we have an illustration of the sex act that demonstrates the topic just as well as the real-life image. At the Human body article, we will choose images that portray the human body in an unemotional, non-sexual standard anatomical position over more sexual images due to greater relevance to the subject. We don't include sexual images in that article and state "not censored." In articles about cars, we are not going to include images of vehicles with naked women posing near them, even though such images exist and "Wikipedia is not censored," due to concerns about relevance. Like the guideline states, "Wikipedia is not censored, but Wikipedia also does not favor offensive images over non-offensive images." That is why that guideline exists. Look at WP:Policies and guidelines. Policies and guidelines have been vetted by the community. WP:Offensive material is a guideline and it is followed. It cannot just be ignored because one wants to include some offensive image and state "not censored." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)