Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/KateWinsletTitanic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the image below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP

moved from main page for reasons of clarity Thryduulf 14:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • It seems image deletion votes are very frequently moved, often by partisans who have already voted in one way or another. Moving votes around discourages participation in those votes. I don't think it makes the votes "clearer" in any way, and it creates confusion about the motives of those who move them. I think it should be avoided in the future. - Nunh-huh 19:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I moved it because after less than 48 hours it was already larger than the combined entries for three days. I left a very prominent note on the IfD page stating exactly where the discussion was now, and made the edit summaries very clear, and stated my reasons for doing so. I don't understand how this discourages partcipation. Thryduulf 20:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not blaming you for moving it: image deletion discussions have frequently been moved, somewhat randomly, between pages. I'm suggesting that moving votes from their established position while voting is in progress is a bad idea, like moving the polling place in the middle of a vote. It certainly makes it harder to find the vote, and makes it more likely that smaller numbers of voters will find the proper place to express their opinions, and I'm suggesting that it should not be done in the future, for that reason. - Nunh-huh 21:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Delete Image:KateWinsletTitanic.jpg-- I've got nothing against nudity or explicitness in an encyclopedic context (see e.g. my vote to keep the autofellatio pic), but this picture should be deleted for the same reason as the Charlotte Ross one. It's not encyclopedic--doesn't contribute anything to the article that we couldn't get from a different, less potentially controversial image. Meelar (talk) 00:13, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC) Please note: nominator is an agnostic social libertarian MoveOn member who voted to keep Image:Autofellatio2.jpg. All accusations of Christian conservatism are highly misplaced.

Contents

[edit] Vote Count

  • Keep: 23
  • Delete:17

[edit] 12 April 2005

    • Keep for now. The edit history of the article appears to show an agreement to keep it in there, but there doesn't appear to have been any arguments for or against placed on the talk page. This should not be deleted until those involved with the article have had chance to have their say. Thryduulf 01:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep as I see it as a key part in their growing relationship. No, I didn't upload the image but certainly think it's exclusion should be considered censoring (Meeler is not the first to want to get rid of it). That said, I fail to see how this image WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not censored is satisfied to delete this image: no violated policies come to mind, it's not obviously inappropriate, and was released in a motion picture (meaning I can't fathom how it would violate FL laws). I think it merits inclusion and doesn't stand against policies to merit deletion. Cburnett 02:54, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. This is an encyclopedia, not a kiddie book. RickK 02:56, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. This is an encyclopedia, not a book for drooling adolescents. How very peculiar that of some 280,000 frames that might be selected to represent this film, the Wikipedia editorial process has led us to assert, apparently with straight faces, that the one with titties in it is the one that is most important. - Nunh-huh 03:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • One user chose this one frame of 280,000. That leaves you with 279,999 other frames to choose from if you want to upload another screenshot. I'm also not sure the "drooling adolescents" quip was necessary considering that there are 16.2 million hits and 1.5 million images hits for "porn" on google. This image is *much* closer to art than pornography. Cburnett 03:46, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
        • You shouldn't take "drooling adolescents" personally: however, it's an apt description for those who "happened" to choose the tittie pic as an illustration of the Titanic movie. The frame has been implicitly "defended" as a wise choice by all who vote to retain it, so it's not a case of it being the "judgment" of just one user. - Nunh-huh 04:50, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • You seem to be saying that anybody who might be of the opinion that this an attractive picture of a very moving, significant and memorable scene in the movie is a "drooling adolescent". Don't you consider it possible that grown-ups might like looking at pictures of beautiful half-naked women? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Why not try reading what I am saying, and not reacting to what I "seem" to be saying? Yes, of course it's possible that grownups might like looking at pictures of half-naked women. Or fully naked women. Or fully naked men. Or naked children. But your (possible) desire to look at any of them is not a reason to have it in Wikipedia, and none of them are appropriate choices for illustrating this article. - Nunh-huh 17:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • I believe the article is about titanic and this is a very good still from Titanic, it illustrates a pivotal scene in the movie, and it's also a very pretty picture precisely because it shows a charming half-naked woman. So why do you continue to pretend that those who want to keep it are drooling imbeciles? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • It's not a pretense, and "imbecile" is your word, not mine. I understand that you'd prefer to respond to what I didn't say, but you really should stop. - Nunh-huh 22:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
              • You're not using the word imbecile, but you are acting as if those who want this picture in the article only want it there because it has nudity. In other words, you're acting as if those who disagree with you are imbeciles. Moreover, when this is pointed out to you, you act in a very trollish manner. I think it is time that *you* stopped. Address the subject and stop insulting people. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
                • I've addressed the subject, though I've displeased you with an answer that disagrees with your opinion, and in return you've suggested I'm a troll. I don't think I'm the one who's doing the insulting here, Tony. - Nunh-huh 22:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
                • You've "addressed the subject" by describing those who like the picture in various insulting ways and steadfastly refusing to respond to suggestions that the image depicts a pivotal scene in the movie (the drawing is recovered from SS Titanic in the movie and kicks off the story), instead preferring to bang away on your highly personalized accusations against those who defend the picture. Enough! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:50, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
                  • If you disagree with me, that's fine. But I will continue to voice my opinions, whether you want to hear them or not. And when you try to "spin" my opinions as insults, I will continue to counter your mischaracterization. It's clear you'd like more breasts and blow-jobs in Wikipedia. I don't particularly think we need to have them in articles where they are irrelevant. - Nunh-huh 22:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
                  • You just can't help yourself, can you? You deny that you're insulting anyone, but you just can't resist one more dig, one more bit of slimy innuendo. This isn't about a disagreement, it's about your use of inappropriate language, and your continual attempts to deflect criticism for it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:35, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 12 April 2005 (continued)

    • Keep. No grounds for deletion. --Carnildo 03:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep The scene is a very memorable one in the movie (the drawing is referenced, for instance, in Finding Nemo) It's also a very pretty picture. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to delete this image. Rama 13:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. Part because it's a beautiful, artistic image, and part because this type of rabid pro-cencorship (on the grounds of a blurry tit, no less) is starting to piss me off more and more for every time they strike. A boob never killed anyone, children included! --TVPR 16:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep on the grounds that this is artistic and that it adds to the Titanic (1997 movie) article. I don't think this image is pornographic (nudity is not necessarily pornography), and it adds to the content of the article. It is also a fairly important part of the movie plot. --Deathphoenix 16:17, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • KEEP It's a bit different than a shot of guy blowing himself (even though it was artistically lit). Gzuckier 17:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete -- For the same reasons Nunh-huh mentions above. I think a mixture of people who have kneejerk reactions to anything they can falsely label censorship and juvenile droolers who are supporting a rather poor quality image that does absolutely nothing for the article that a non-nude image would do. I mean, come on, why have an image like this when there many, many others more representative for the topic? DreamGuy 18:07, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete -- For the same reason as Nunh-huh and DreamGuy. This adds nothing to the article except controversy. So the only reason to keep it in the article is to reduce WikiLove, and to increase Wikistress. I hate all these stupid debates about nudity. We exists to be an encyclopedia not a bastion of freedom of speech. We are here to provide information NOT to make political statements about censorship. Having nude and/or sexually explicit pictures in our encyclopedia upsets enough people that it detracts significantly from the task of making an encylopedia and that is reason enough to delete this picture (and others like it). There is an definite agenda by the nude-picture-pushers here and it has nothing to do with creating an NPOV encyclopedia. Kevin Rector (talk) 22:04, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
      • Quick note: Voting delete is making a political statement about censorship. --Mrfixter 23:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Quick note backatcha: I voted delete for disrupting Wikipedia, not to censor the picture which I don't personally find offensive. Kevin Rector (talk) 00:41, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
          • A nude picture does not "disrupt" wikipedia. --Mrfixter 00:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • That is your opinion. Mine is that images that may offend are potentially disruptive if they are not reasonably predictable content for the article in which they appear. A reader coming to the Titanic article is unlikely to expect to see nudity—an imagery that most of us appear to recognise as being offensive to a significant constituency. Recognising this is not tantamount to being a member of that constituency. I agree with those that claim this to be a pleasant and rewarding image. My pleasure in it does not make it an appropriate illustration of a review of the movie in which it appears, however. --Theo (Talk) 00:59, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
              • It is also NOT offensive to a significant non-prudish constituency. Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of peoples tightassedness (do not take this as a criticism of tight asses, in the right context of course). Recognising a constituency is one thing, being an aplogist for their agenda is another. You made the choice. --Mrfixter 01:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
                • Deferring to the "prudes" of society is sometime called being civil, maybe we could call it being polite, heck let's just call it being nice. By that same token it would be nice if you would keep your langauge a bit more civil and polite. Kevin Rector (talk) 01:42, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
                  • Letting all the mini-John Ashcrofts censor WP for the sake of a breast (and their prudish over-reaction to a breast) is ludicrous. I like being nice to people, but hey, lets build an encyclopedia first and lets worry about nannying censorship another time. PS I am not in synagogue, my language is fine and dandy, boy howdy! --Mrfixter 10:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
                    • What the heck is a "mini-John Ashcroft"? Why is it so hard for you to understand that we ought not to have a nude image when a non-nude would suffice. Why do you not see that this is valuable for the sake of esprit de corp and community building? And your language is crude and rude, regardless of your setting. Kevin Rector (talk) 13:38, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
                      • Should've said "wannabe John Ashcroft", meaning is clearer. Letting the nannying instincts, the schoolmarms censoring should be allowed to build a community? I thought WP was trying to be an encyclopedia first and foremost! Just because its nudity is not an argument for deletion, cuz this be the wikipedia, not prudishnannyingchristianright-bowdlerize-o-pedia. And my language is not crude or rude, from where I come from anyhow! The Moral Majority is neither... --Mrfixter 14:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
                        • Ok, I'm done with you. Thank God I'm not where you're from. Kevin Rector (talk) 15:02, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
                          • Go in peace. --Mrfixter 15:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's a fine screenshot. —Markaci 2005-04-12 T 22:41 Z
    • Delete because the image is copyright, wilfully controversial, and is not the most significant scene of the film. I find it hard to justify fair use of this image as the only illustration of an article on the film unless it is fundamentally pivotal, which it appears not to be. I believe that Jack's dissuasion of Rose from suicide, the iceberg collision and the splitting vessel are more significant. --Theo (Talk) 22:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete - This image is copyrighted and while it may be fair-use it isn't essential to the article. — マイケル ₪ 22:54, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. WP will not crumble because of this beautiful, encyclopedic image. The nannying Christian Right will not inherit Wikipedia. Go make Censorpedia somewhere else. P.S. Thanks for spamming the mailing list. --Mrfixter 23:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. Copyright image, not encyclopedic. No reason for a nude pic unless the subject or article specificially calls for it. This subject does not. A clothed pic will do. Gamaliel 23:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 13 April 2005

    • Delete. Wikipedia seems to be turning into a place where people are more interested in pursuing political statements than an encyclopedia: at least, that's how this picture's inclusion appears to me. There is no reason apparent to me that justifies going out of our way to include this picture of a partially nude woman in the context of a popular movie--all of the whining about censorship and how it isn't "naughty" to enjoy looking at a nude woman ignores the central fact that this picture (and the others that are apparently slowly cropping up here) is not intended to edify or inform (something the autofellatio pic at least had going for it). It's intended to shove it in the faces of those of us who are apparently too "conservative" or "prudish" for the more enlightened Wikipedians' tastes. If not wanting this picture in the Titanic article is a sign that I am in the "Censorpedia" crowd, then perhaps you are right, and I will spend no more of my energy or talent contributing here. Jwrosenzweig 00:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete, image content deliberately chosen to cause controversy. silsor 00:13, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. Gratuitous in the Titanic article, and should be removed from that article, then removed as an orphan. It it hard to believe that this photo wasn't uploaded and inserted into the Wikipedia article in order to make a point or cause controversy. --BM 00:31, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I find it curious that there are no delete votes that cite any policy. In fact, the most invoked reason (loosely stated) is that it doesn't belong based on the nudity, which no matter which way you justify it...it is censorship. WP policy makes it clear that WP does not censor. If you intend on changing WP's no-censorship policy, then this is not the forum to make it. Cburnett 00:27, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
I apologize for not making it clear. An article or image created with the intent to disrupt Wikipedia is, in fact, covered by the deletion policy, and that is what I contend this is. Also, so that I can read it and consider it, please point me to the policy page that declares that Wikipedia disavows censorship? I tried Wikipedia:Censorship and Wikipedia:No censorship to no avail. Jwrosenzweig 00:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A policy implicit in my vote is Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. --Theo (Talk) 00:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I will note further that Wikipedia:Profanity and its talk page suggest strongly to me that the bulk of this community at one time agreed that foul language, potentially offensive images, etc., ought to be avoided except in cases where they are clearly warranted--I would suggest that this also is a point to consider concerning this image (although I admit that WP:Profanity is semi-policy, for reasons I cannot fully understand). Jwrosenzweig 00:38, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not censored. Curious though, you must not read others' opinions because it's linked in my original response. Cburnett 00:40, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for providing the link again--I apologize for missing its original placement earlier. I disagree with how you are reading that page (the very same page notes that Wikipedia is not a forum for unfettered free speech). I grant that the issue is a tricky one, however, and as noted above, perhaps the answer is simply that my goals and this project's goals have drifted too far apart. Thank you for being so kind as to help me, both with the link, and with the effort to help me be a more careful reader of others' opinions. Jwrosenzweig 00:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
On the same page we see that Wikipedia is not a battleground. Yet images like this turn it into one. Kevin Rector (talk) 00:46, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
So does Jesus and Adolf Hitler. Cburnett 00:48, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
I'm also curious to read this "disrupt wikipedia" as grounds for deletion. Should we delete Jesus or any of the other number of pages that certainly disrupt WP for constant vandalism, protection, arguing, revert warring, etc.? But what's most interesting is that this image has been on there fore more than a month and is just not getting WP:IFD'd. Hardly a disruption if you ask me. Cburnett 00:46, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
This is the kind of response that makes me wonder if there can be any real dialogue here. You obviously feel that you are making a reasonable comparison. It is my feeling that a comparison of this sort is a blatant distortion designed for the winning of an argument, something along the lines of Godwin's law, although less severe. I see a very major difference between a controversial topic, which Wikipedia must of course cover, and an image which is controversial only by its inclusion in a particular article. Is this distinction not clear to you? Jwrosenzweig 00:50, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, that comes off too rude--by the final sentence, I'm not asking if you can understand what I am saying, since I am sure that you do. What I am asking is whether or not you agree that Wikipedia can theoretically react differently to controversial topics than it does to controversial images. Jwrosenzweig 00:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(This was written the same time as Jwrosenzweig's response above) You're making a false comparison when you compare any highly notable yet controversial article and a controversial image that is entirely ancilliary to an article. When you say that it isn't disruptive because it's been a month is not true either because it became disruptive when it came to light and the general populace became aware of it. Kevin Rector (talk) 00:53, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
I let you decide for yourself if I'm playing devil's advocate and giving you a hard run for your money...or not. That said, so far, I only see censorship happening here. Controversial images and controversial topics, not sure I see that they are really all that different. It just so happens that the bulk of people find the controversy of Adolf Hitler or Jesus more tolerable than nudity. Even ruling it out on grounds that nudity is only valid in nudity related topics, nevermind that it's actually in the movie. Now uploading a nude picture of Kate Winslet on some beach is an entirely different scenario: more than likely, Kate didn't authorize that picture unlike the scene in Titanic.
If my memory serves me right, was there not some controversey surrounding Titanic because of the nude scene in question (or was it the sex in the car scene)? Cburnett 01:00, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete: I would agree that in the context of the movie, the scene where this shot is from is entirely appropriate, and there are certainly reasons why a still like this could be used in Wikipedia. If you were going to illustrate, say Showgirls, a still featuring nudity might be highly appropriate, as the movie was about women who get their gear off for a living. If, for some reason, there was an extended discussion of the scene in question in the Titanic article, a still of the scene would make sense. However, given that the image is used as a general illustration from the movie, and the scene in question is hardly the best-known one (the shot of Winslet on the bow of the boat is much more famous), I see no reason to use a shot featuring nudity when there are many others of just as much or more encyclopedic value that could be used. --Robert Merkel 05:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. no big deal. — Davenbelle 05:51, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I echo the above comments. Burgundavia 07:03, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • As an attempt at compromise I've uploaded Image:Titanic Movie Leo Kate Kiss.jpg which is another screenshot from the movie that shows their relationship building without potentially offending a significant portion of our audience.Kevin Rector (talk)
  • Delete. While I am not opposed the nudity itself, the image has little place in the article. The subtitle claims that it is indicative of their 'growing relationship', but that isn't what this image depicts. An image of them dancing together, or embracing/kissing would be better suited for the job. I would clasify this image as a shock/controversy generator rather than a meaningful addition to the article. TheDaveRoss 14:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Let me be the first to welcome you to Wikipedia! Even tho' this is your fourth edit in total, I am sure you know your way around already! --Mrfixter 14:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • keep I agree with Burgundavia. SchmuckyTheCat 15:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I would like to register a particular objection against the argument that this image (or any other, really) "disrupts Wikipedia" and should be removed on that ground. That interpretation of the "disruption" policy would permit those who dislike any piece of content to accuse it of "disrupting Wikipedia" merely because it offends them and incites them to raise a fuss. For instance, I am offended by Communist propaganda. However, it would be wrong of me to claim that someone who uploads images of Communist propaganda is therefore disrupting Wikipedia by offending me, and that such images should be deleted on that ground. Instead of accusing others' work of offending or inciting us, we need to take responsibility for our own reactions and not be disrupted by that which offends us. The disruption policy is there to inhibit trolling; it is not a backhanded excuse for censorship. --FOo 15:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • keep I am all for taste and decency, but I do not see this image as indecent. I think this scene is a main part of the film. The way Rose was introduced into the film was through the finding of her sketch in the safe. I thought the nude scene was an important part of the love story. CiaraBeth 22:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete until someone can do a better screencap. The quality of this image is abominable. —Stormie 22:41, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 14 April 2005

  • Keep Anybody who doesn't want to see nudity on Wikipedia can go blow themselves. - TigerShark 00:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is degenerating into a dumpground for images that are sensitive to many readers. That is not censorship but responsibility. JFW | T@lk 00:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. That is a well-known scene from the movie. Being offensive to some puritan readers is not a reason. The same readers would probably object the images from the article of Woman, too. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 13:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Breasts, as we all known, are primarily used for feeding babies. It's no big deal. (Privately, let me add, if we are going to censor woman's breasts because it offends some Fundamentalist Americans, we as well might censor woman's faces, as those offends some Fundamentalists Iranians. [I took both Iran and USA both as an examples of Religious State. I hope nobody will be offended, and if so, I apologize.]). Przepla 19:10, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -Frazzydee|✍ 20:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 15 April 2005

  • Delete - not fair use, but disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Not the first breasts on film, not a key scene from the film or the story of the Titanic, just a few children having a snigger, and some absolutist anti-censors who would rather spoil the project by turning it into a hard and soft pornography gallery than make it useful. If you want to see breasts, look at Category:Images containing nudity. --Audiovideo 00:18, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • That may be your opinion and you are entitled to your vote, but why did you then go straight to the article page and change the image yourself? TigerShark 00:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • He commented on the talk page, as you did when you reverted. --Henrygb 01:06, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a picture of a human, and a very nice one at that. Wikipedia should not be dictated to by those unlucky enough to be afflicted by psychological problems that cause them to find the human body offensive, or who seek to prevent children from seeing it in the mistaken belief that it will harm them. — Trilobite (Talk) 01:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I haven't watched Titanic since about the time it came out in 1997. The movie was rated PG-13. I'm surprised it actually showed a female breast. I did a quick search on it and found out the screen capture is real. Anyways, this is a Hollywood copyrighted image in addition it shows some female skin which of course cause some uproar in some demographics. Not everybody has the same ideals of nudity. --Anonymous Cow 01:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, unless there are copyright problems. I see no problem with the content.-gadfium 02:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a copyright violation, and a poor quality image. Jonathunder 15:30, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

[edit] 18 April 2005

  • Keep The nudity is no big deal, but it was a subject of major discussion when the movie was released. It has merit. The croped version of the image is censorship in that it is a less accurate depiction of the scene (a reader who'd heard of the debates around the release of the movie would be confused by the image) and because the change supports the viewpoint that we consider nudity to be wrong. The director would have been furious if theaters had decided to crop the frames themselves, so we shouldn't do it either. (and moving the vote off the page is a sneaky way to avoid participation) --Gmaxwell 16:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 19 April 2005

  • Delete It's an atrociously poor screen-cap, it's intended to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, and it's not terribly illustrative to the article at hand. That being said, I steadfastly oppose any motions to delete based on the content of the image, which is inoffensive to anyone who has the capacity for rational thought. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:11, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise image

A small number of users are claiming that a "consensus" has been reached on the article's discussion page, to replace this image (and have actioned this). This seems to be completely ignoring the debate here. TigerShark 00:01, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, the debate here seems, quite frankly, less relevant now--most or all of these votes were made before User:Kevin Rector uploaded the compromise attempt at Image:KateWinsletTitanic2. Most of the discussion since then, on Talk:Titanic (1997 movie), seems to indicate a preference for that issue, by people on both sides of the issue. Meelar (talk) 00:04, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
I see your point Meelar. But I thought that this should be raised on this page too, so that anybody who is only following the debate here could have their say. Cheers. TigerShark 00:09, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indeed...IfD seems entirely the wrong venue for an article content discussion. Now that there is a choice among images, it's something that should be hashed out on the article talk page. If no satisfactory resolution can be achieved there, then list the article on RfC. Once a decision is made about which image to use, then we can come back here and delete the orphaned image.

For the record, I like the new image because it is technically and aesthetically superior. I have no objection on general principles to Winslet's breasts. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:08, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship or selection

I can see Mrfixter's point about those of us who recommend deletion being apologists for the prudes. I am not yet sure that I accept it (I am still processing) but it is significantly more constructive than some of the allegations that are flying about. Acknowledging that this might be an apology for prudery, my stance is that I want this to be an encyclopdia that will be consulted by as many people as possible. This does not mean that I seek the omission or elimination of all controversial material but it does mean that I adopt a principle of 'least surprise'. I see this as an extension of the respect that I hope others will afford me. Avoiding unecessary offence seems courteous to me; avoiding all offence seems irresponsible. So, for me, the issue is about where we draw the line: And I think that 'least surprise' is my best guide to that line. Two analogies: I own a games shop that has an adults-only games section. If anyone complains about the nature of anything in that section, we explain what 'adults-only' means and suggest that they avoid those shelves. We do not put games involving drinking or sexual matters outside that section. Similarly, I once owned a models distributor that included a dozen pornographic metal figurines amongst its range of 20,000 items. We listed them in the catalogue but did not illustrate that section. In both cases, mixing the potentially offensive material in with the rest would lose us more customers that we would gain. This may be censorship but it is not censorious. --Theo (Talk) 15:32, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trend toward titties

I can see it now: in their drive to purge Wikipedia of all "censorship", the titty inclusionists will wind up hurting the very people they say they want to help: all those poor, ignorant people in the third world and the masses of languishing political prisoners suffering in dictatorships.

There is no quicker way to get an Internet filter set up against Wikipedia (or an import ban on DVD 1.0) than to insist on including sexy pictures.

Personally, I think the autofellatio images suck: they literally bite the big one, and there's been a collossal circle jerk about including them.

What a childish game. First, you give people grounds to attack you; then, you complain about how they aren't nice to you.

(On the other hand, if someone were actually to describe the scene where Jack draws his the rich guy's fiancee naked, and expresses how this scene relates to the rest of the movie or how it impacted on the film's MPAA rating, then maybe a frame of Kate Winslet's blurry left teat would be justified. But if your real motivation is just to show some forbidden flesh - and we can guess that by checking the history of whether the image came before the text it illustrates - then you're putting the cart before the horse.) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:37, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Actually some time prior to your edit here I did exactly that. Of course it's all in the movie anyway.
I didn't discuss how the scene "impacted on the film's MPAA rating" because the movie got an absurdly lenient MPAA rating. Despite extremely horrifying scenes of mass death by drowning and one particularly harrowing scene of a frozen baby in a life jacket, the movie passed with a PG13 under MPAA. This means that it is suitable for children under 13 but parents are strongly cautioned about some content that may be unsuitable. In the UK, the movie got a 12, which means that nobody under 12 could legally see it at all unless accompanied by an adult, and nobody under 12 can legally buy or rent the video or DVD. Believe me, that rating had very little to do with "titties". Nudity was classed by BBFC as "infrequent, moderate" Incidentally, iidb says that Cameron drew the portrait, and his hands can be seen sketching on camera in the scene.
But seriously, what's the fuss about the boobs? This is a pivotal scene in the movie, the one scene that contains the portrait and the Heart of the Ocean, which together unify the past and present scenes, with Rose and Jack. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Incidentally, Ed, none of what you have said seems to have any evidential basis at all. Your depiction of those who don't agree with you as being involved in a 'drive to purge Wikipedia of all "censorship"' is a falsehood, your very strange statement that voting not to delete this picture from Wikipedia will hurt "poor, ignorant people in the third world and the masses of languishing political prisoners suffering in dictatorships" is, well, very silly. Your implication that anyone involved in this vote is by doing so insisting on including sexy pictures in Wikipedia 1.0 is false. Indeed, it appears to me that everything in your edit that isn't simply an expression of your opinion is a falsehood. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I must have missed a point here: How does showing nudity on WP hurt political prisoners in dictatorships? I just don't see the connection here. -- AlexR 23:35, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
They will be so crushed when they find out that their champions in the free world are titty-inclusionists, that they will die of shame.</heavy sarcasm> --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I know what I am about to say is not strictly encyclopedic but LOL. WTF have political prisoners got to do with Kate Winslets left breast? If it was her right breast, would that satisfy the global censorship brigade?
In fact, the attempt to censor is not to stop WP being filtered (evolution did that already, eh?) or DVD import restrictions (LOL!!!) but to assuage some sorry ass prudes. To quote from a marvellous post on the mailing list:
"I suggest that it is a much better rule that people who are easily offended should instead take responsibility for their own exposure to the kinds of material that they know offend them. They should be expected to know themselves -- Gnothi seauton -- and conduct themselves in a manner that does not lead to them disrupting the encyclopedia project.
It seems to me that if anyone here is in the habit of "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point" it is those who persist in calling for the deletion of images on no other grounds but their own personal dislike. - Karl A. Krueger"'' --Mrfixter 00:31, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
On VP, I argued that some editors make up some fictional 9 year old kids looking at WP without supervision in order to promote their censorship ideas. More generally, some editors make up some unpleasant situations that could possibly happen, and they make them appear as some clear and present danger.
First, I've asked around, and so far we have received a very low number of email complaints from normal users (I'm not counting editors) because of nudity: 2. Both were not related to normal Wikipedia content, but to vandalism, such as vandals sticking pictures of penises or goatse everywhere. Perhaps there were more and they went unnoticed, but I think that we may safely say that we in any case get a minimal amount of complaints about nudity, while being, according to Alexa, the 62nd most viewed Web English-speaking site in the world.
Furthermore, I contend that before libraries, governments etc. consider censoring us because of nudity, they would perhaps consider writing us some kind of official email. So far, nothing has happened.
Now back to the problem of little kids. Seriously, we have a number of articles whose content, though not related to sex, is probably unsuitable for little children. We have articles with details about torture, grisly crimes, etc. I also doubt a little child would appreciate the sight of the naked fleeing little girl who was nearly napalmed to death.
On the Titanic picture: I note that a number of major museums around the world display considerable amounts of "classical" paintings that contain a lot of gratuitous nudity (I mean, all those Greek goddesses and nymphs...). These museums are visited by school groups. Thus, it seems that "artistic" nudity is acceptable. Here, we have a picture of somebody painting a nude... David.Monniaux 16:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Decision to keep

This has been listed for more than the requisite seven days and looks like a strong keeper. I'll leave this discussion up for twenty-four hours and then archive it on the image talk page. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:34, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify, a lack of a consensus to delete is not the same as a consensus to keep. But, in a vote for deletion, the burden of consensus is on the deletionists. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:39, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Whatever. This is one of the strongest keepers I've seen on IfD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)