Talk:Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy article.
Article policies
This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on May 4, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Contents

[edit] Prince Not Sexually Suggestive?

How can we say that Prince was not sexually suggestive during the recent half-time show. I watched the show, and it was VERY sexually suggestive - including the classic "guitar as a penis" strutting.12.192.223.52

[edit] Movie Connections

Did you ever watch the 15th James Bond movie, The Living Daylights? I remember that there was a scene where Bond pulled off one the women's shirt. One of General Pushkin's allies...

[edit] International bemusement

Was the footage re-broadcast in America? Here in the UK Channel 4 news (as well as others) showed the incident (in slow motion afaik). Just wondered if it was worth mentioning the international reaction? -- Joolz 00:23, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I would say that the international reaction could be characterised as bemusement as to what the fuss was all about. This certainly belongs in the article. Jooler
In Australia is was also shown during news broadcasts. Most of the focus concerned the fuss and not the event.--Tancred 21:47, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
Same thing in Germany, and everyone laughed about the "moralist outrage" that took place in the U.S. after that incident that would have been called a minor one in Europe. Just for comparison, in a Tour de France broadcast some years ago an entirely naked man ran for about 100 meters along the track aside the cyclists. No one complained about that and on German TV the scene was re-broadcast in slow motion. So far as to the ridiculously exaggerated reaction to the Jackson incident in the U. S. -- anon
Similarly during the recent British heat for the Eurovision Song Contest 2005 the winner Javine Hylton had a wardrobe malfunction moment. This was of course splashed all over the tabloids the next day but did not register on anyone's outrage-ometer. In fact no-one has as yet bothered to even mention it in Wikipedia's article about her. Jooler 09:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yep only in the USA could they make a big fuss about it. Fining the TV channel for something they had no control over. Very smart.... Cls14 (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Actual picture of the event

I believe we should have one. Wikipedia does not have a rule against nudity in images, and it would add to the article. Andre (talk) 20:58, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Well it seems there was an image but something happen to it. What's the deal here, folks? Dec 3, 2006 Dark Rain


I re-added the picture, as I believe that it is not pornagraphic and is relevant to the article. If someone has an image of the event that is panned out and shows the entire screen, however, I believe it would be better suited. As this is the only image we have currently, I believe it should stay until it can be replaced. Naff89 07:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

After a long think that picture should stay but only because someone who is dubious enough to type in nipplegate or Superbowl XXXVIII scandal is going to run into a boob quickly anyway. This may be a problem in 5 years or so when people start forgeting but we can leave that picture up until then (it is bound to be replaced). One could say that picture is too extreme in a non-sexual way but that's weak. (MJW) April 5 2007

[edit] 2004 election flashpoint?

and also became a flashpoint in the 2004 Presidential Election in the United States

Unless this claim can be substantiated in the body of the article, it should be stripped. Andjam 03:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Other names of the incident

Other nicknames of the incident should also be noted, such as

nipplegate "tit for tat"
  • "The Super Bowl Bra-ha-ha", or just "Bra-ha-ha" /the former eliciting markedly less usage with 96 results — terms used:
"the super bowl bra-ha-ha" OR "the super bowl brahaha" OR "super bowl bra-ha-ha" OR "super bowl brahaha"
— with the latter yielding 351 results with the term nipplegate added in and 1570 results with terms
"bra-ha-ha" OR brahaha
— which also resulted in other search findings.
  • "Tempest In A D Cup: The Breast Is Yet To Come"' is unique to the source, so this one must probably be used as a quotation, with the relevant source and under the Fair Use statute. Perhaps I am just too oversealous on this right now.
Variants: "Tempest in a D Cup" just like that, "Tempest in a C Cup".
810 Google search results on terms
"tempest in a c cup" OR "tempest in a d cup" janet OR jackson OR justin OR timberlake
And 122 results on
"the breast is yet to come" janet OR jackson OR justin OR timberlake
Sometimes added terms
janet OR jackson OR justin OR timberlake
may override anticipated results and yield links to official information on both artists /record labels, artists' home pages, etc.
  • "Fleshdance 2004."

Source in Google Cache only showed the most concentration of these nicknames.

Just in case, To show that these references are commonplace /and not just words copied verbatim from an article cached by Google, I decided to complement the nicknames with relevant Google searches linking to such references of the incident, to prove that most of the nicknames and expressions used are not unique to just a few sources.

I have to go now, but I guess I'll edit my entry later on. Forgot to add a signature — -Mardus 11:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving the image to a new article or on top?

People keep pointing out that this article has set precedent that wikipedia does not need to put the image at the top. From what I can tell, this article is the exception rather than the rule so I ask if anyone would agree to either move the "wardrobe malfunction picture" up top or to create a new article like "Super Bowl wardrobe malfunction" with the picture prominently displayed on top. Hitokirishinji 19:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe that for this article it's debatable, because "nipplegate" was not the only issue. But it was the most significant. I think it should be up top.Wynler 19:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Looks like Getcrunk has gone ahead and bumped it up. And I for one have no problem with it at all. --Aaron 02:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dale Earnhardt Jr.

the section mentioning Dale Earnhardt Jr. has a quote: "It doesn't mean bleep" but if it was bleeped out there would have been no problem. I believe the original quote should be stated, and once I find that it was the original quote I will change it


Why does this article start rambling on about Nascar? It's fine to explain how it led to a crackdown by that sport (among others), but then the majority of the aftermath section is devoted to something that really isn't too relevant. 74.111.78.22 17:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aftermath Section

Look at the first sentence....nipple effect, heh. Nice editing.

[edit] Censorship within this article?

"Kevin Manion, used the S obscenity, which was heard on the Fox television broadcast" In the whole section about nascar, the only "obscenity" actually quoted is "shit". Everything else is put vaguely. I thought wikipedia is uncensored? If someone said "fuck" and got a fine for it then put it down. What the hell is the "S obscenity"??? It sounds very patronising to me. Lukas 07:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  • "S Obscenity" - Sandra Bernhardt? Steven Segal?

[edit] Riots in Aftermath

I removed the unsourced entry about "riots" showing up in the aftermath of 'nipplegate' -- a few minutes searching showed that this was completely false.--Grinning Fool 17:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unjustified Speculation

Saying that her songs and albums afterwards were less popular afterwards due to the incident needs proof. Her music style has become a lot more Pop and a lot less R&B over the years and that I believe is a bigger factor. I can't cite any proof for my opinion, but the article's theory is just as unsubstantiated and under the NPOV policy should be removed.

[edit] Impact on Janet's Career section added

In my opinion, Janet's music has gotten a lot more Urban than Pop, because she's still being played on Urban stations like BET and not on pop friendly stations like MTV and VH1. Her albums, Damita Jo and 20 Y.O., have suffered in sales because of the MTV and pop-radio ban. I pointed this out by providing a link to her discography. I also provided a link to the page of her highest charting post-superbowl single, call on me.

  • Didnt both of those albums still go Platinum? I doubt the Superbowl had that much of an impact on her career.LAUGH90 01:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


Exactly black and white it is not because her music has gotten more urban it is that the white people do not want to associate with her anymore although with Justin its more than an invite. But I do think it had an impact mainly in the public eye with people other than black. - Migospia 6:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black and White?

Although Justin pulled the piece of Jane ts clothing off, Janet got all the blame for it? Not only people made a big deal about nothig but the black women gets the blame and on top of that there was some award show when Janet was to be presenting they did not want her there but yet Justin got to go, I think that should be added and how there is still racism in the public view so strong like this - Migospia 12:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] International bemusement

Again... don't you think it should be mentionned that the rest of the world was downright shocked by... the FUSS that was made about this in America? Somewhere around the beginning of the article if we want this to be have a worldwide view. I'm putting in the banner right now. Jules.LT 18:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a reasonable application of the globalize template. Most Americans think that the French 35-hour workweek is silly and make fun of it, but that fact has rather little to do with the article. This is an article on an American cultural event; while adding more on International reaction might be nice, it'd be worthy of perhaps a sentence or two at most. That's not something you use a template for. The globalize template is for when something discusses something universal or at least spread all over the world (like, say, "labor union" or "architecture"), and does so in a fashion specific only to its usage in one place, and usually implies a significant rewrite or expansion is required. It would not be used for articles like Teapot Dome scandal, Stolen Generation, or Kalinga War because they don't include Chinese views on the subject. SnowFire 21:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, but because of the American world dominance, US incidents tend to be extensively covered in Europe - and also (I guess) much of the rest of the world. Then the outrage in Europe is over how dangerous the sight of a womans breast is in the US, as we wonder what you were drinking of as babys, huh. Also, someone might add questions why the americans blamed it on the woman, when it was a man who tore of her her clothes.Greswik 20:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
SnowFire makes absolutely no sense here, at least I can't see what he means. Of course international bemusement is relative, if it's not a minor thing and if it's properly sourced. And there was a fair share of bemusements expressed by american citizens as well, what the article lacks too. Same goes for the impact on satirical pop culture, like the Southpark episode "Fun with weapons", where the children violently nearly kill each other with dangerous ninja weapons, while the parents only focus on the question why cartman's wiener was exposed for a moment.92.226.151.80 (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
So my impression is more of the kind that the folks driving this article are some of those "severely outraged" ones, and that they can't stand being pointed at.

[edit] Citation format

Since the majority of the citations were done using the ref tag, and the three that did not use the ref tag were done improperly for how they are used, I changed all formats (meaning i changed those 3) to the refs.Daniel()Folsom |\T/|\C/|\U/|(Can you help me with my signature?) 16:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture Size

The article looks better with a larger pic - either that one or another - but it was way off visually before (perhaps it appeared to text-heavy)69.143.167.110 19:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The current one's blown up too much. It looks pixelized.--67.72.98.115 08:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Well than someone reduce the size rather than just delete the picture ... although I have to admit it did seem kind of text-heavy with the really small one ... danielfolsom © 14:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

LOL someone just cut it out! Well the article looks better this way because that breast was so creepy that it looked like vandalism. The simplest idea would be to revet the article. MJW Apirl 10 2007

I'll revert the cut-out - someone reduced the size before- and u can reduce the size too, but don't just take the pic out. Ahhh, classic stupidity from IP addresses #1012: Rather than reduce the size, we like to get really upset and take the entire pic out.danielfolsom © 11:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major Changes

I tried to clean up the first sections of the article a bit (like the first two). I made a bunch of changes, but possibly most importantly, I added a few sources, so please if you don't agree with the wording and you want to revert, make sure you can keep some of the sources. thanks.danielfolsom 22:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Span?

Is there a purpose to the "span" tag around the initial image? If not, I will delete it. TheHYPO 07:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Number of complaints to the FCC

I realize that they are citing two different sources, but can we pick an authoritative source and decide whether the number of complaints to the FCC was "200,000" (section 'The Incident') or "nearly 540,000" (section 'Public Reaction')? -- Pawl 18:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should we have the boob pic?

People are starting to forget and we now have a good pic. I really don't care because anyone searchs for this is going to run into explict material fast anyway and this is almost an "orphan" article. It is a bit tacky though and anyone who wants it can just GIS it. I just want to end this and move on. MJW October 10 2007.


[edit] image replacement

Can we replace both images with a scaled-down version of this? There is no need to have two photos, and the second one gives the false impression that her boob was blown up to the width of the screen. The photo I've linked to shows her nudity in context of the larger scene, which is what viewers saw as well. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nipplegate?

Is this really necessary? It doesn't seem to be encyclopedic language. I won't do something as extreme as (God forbid) EDIT IT MYSELF, because it would just be reverted by the revert monkeys (read:mods) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.55.229 (talk) 11:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)