Forum:TC:Breast-related articles

In case some of you don't know, April Fools' this year was quite eventful. We had a modified version of the article "breast" showcased on the Main Page. Not only was it distasteful, offensive and sexist, it understandably also stirred controversy among the fandom, notably on Twitter and the Jedi Council Forums, to the best of my knowledge.

The controversy, damaging as it was to our reputation, had a positive effect, however, which was to question even why we have articles on breasts and brassieres (!) at all. Wookieepedia is a Star Wars encyclopedia. We do not have articles on feet, elbows or chins. Why are breasts so essential to be kept? This has been a contentious issue in the past (this is the second nomination for deletion), which attests to the dubious decision to have articles on female sexuality on a, let me repeat, Star Wars wiki.

We cannot take back what was said, but we can make an effort to show both the Star Wars fandom and Lucasfilm that not all of us agree with what has been done. To be noted, there was no formal process of voting or prior discussion on the matter. Some users took it upon themselves to alter the Main Page of a highly visited website, without regards to what the rest of the community thought. Same with the "press release", that, even though makes it clear it's only one administrator's opinion, was tweeted by Wookieepedia's official Twitter account, effectively endorsing it (again, without any discussion on the wiki).

Let this serve both as an user's sincere apologies to our readers, but also the nomination for deletion of an article that should have been eliminated way back in 2007. In lieu of these recent events, I feel compelled to speak out and have it on record that not all Wookieepedians are supportive what has been said and done in the past few days.

Breast (talk - history - links - logs - delete - protect)

Nipples are uneventful. Just go away.

Keep

1. No, just no. We have a canon image for it, numerous references in sources, and reasons for why it's not just a dictionary entry. <-Omicron^{(Leave a message at the BEEP!)} 02:27, April 5, 2014 (UTC)

   Brilliant idea! None of those articles are even remotely worthy of note.;→ Koschei: : Life. But not as we know it. 10:36, April 5, 2014 (UTC)

2. No. OLIOSTER ^(talk) 02:30, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
3. It's already been established that the AFD joke was in poor taste. This is a step too far. Cade Calrayn 02:31, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
4. All the controversy aside, the breast article demonstrates significant in-universe uniqueness, which has always been the basis for us determining whether or not to keep an article. We have Askajians with six breasts, Grans with three, and a sentient plant species with breasts. The breast is a bodily organ, and we fairly document it as an encyclopedia. Is Wikipedia being sexist or misogynist because they, too, document breasts? If the only reason you can come up with for deleting this article is to appease people whom we offended with our poor-taste joke, I will strongly vote keep. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 02:40, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
5. Nope. And keep in mind that 55 eligible users (see productivity requirement, single-issue voter policy) will have to vote on this for it to count, per the consensus policy (renewed discussion of the issue with participation equal to or greater than the original discussion), due to the level of participation in the previous attempt at this. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 02:50, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
6. Entirely per Tope.

   Master Jonathan		Council Chambers
   02:53 UTC Sat		April 5, 2014

7. This has been voted on numerous times over the years, and each time it has been kept. Stay, it will. Supreme Emperor (talk) 03:00, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
8. Per Tope. DarthRevan1173 (Long live Lord Revan) 03:04, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
9. JangFett ^(Talk) 03:40, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
10. I understand this may be "uneventful" to some but that remains a minority. People will just have to accept that the majority doesn't approve of excluding this theme, also presenting due justification. Winterz (talk) 03:51, April 5, 2014 (UTC)

    Keep 'em. Rarity7Best (talk) 04:00, April 5, 2014 (UTC) (Vote struck per policy: Fewer than 50 mainspace edits -- Master Jonathan 04:04, April 5, 2014 (UTC))

11. As long as other anatomy-related articles stay (limb, eye, nose, bone, tooth, etc.), this should stay too.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 04:08, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
12. Per Tope. Adamwankenobi (talk) 04:13, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
13. Very weak keep. I don't think this article is worth the trouble, but we should stay consistent with our other anatomy articles. IFYLOFD ^{(Enter the Floydome)} 04:22, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
14. Voting only to be involved in the issue. This is really pointless. MasterFred^(Whatever) 04:44, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
15. I'm a woman and I don't find it offensive. And even if the joke was bordering on bad taste, I actually found it funny because I knew how much argument there has been over this article in the past. And for the record: if it could be written as a real status article, I wouldn't object to it being put on the main page.--Dionne Jinn (Something to say?) 05:09, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
16. The article deserves its place on Wookieepedia. The attitude that misused it does not. Bella'Mia (talk) 05:16, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
17. This shouldn't be deleted! Lord Dreist (talk) 07:10, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
18. Hyperinclusionist Riff is hyperinclusionist. No need to delete an effective article normally written in a NPOV. Also per Bella. -- Riffsyphon1024 09:52, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
19. IU, live with it! We can't dictate which IU articles we keep. Otherwise I would know quite a lot of stuff that could be deleted. Clone Commander Lee ^Talk 10:27, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
20. Canon = keep. 501st dogma^(talk) 14:09, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
21. Definitely. Corellian Premier^{The Force will be with you always} 21:36, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
22. I have given this some serious thought, and overall, per Winterz. I can go on all day going in detail about why I believe the way I do, but I shall try to keep it short. The simplified version: If you don't want to see breasts, don't type "breasts." Do like I do. If you have a problem with the article/picture, don't look at it. If it shows up in Recent Changes, don't click on it. If it comes up in a Google search, don't ctrl+click it. Basically, use some self control. This whole thing seems to be in response to the AFD prank. I shall refrain from giving my personal thoughts on the joke in general, since I was not involved in that one at all. However, everyone needs to realize that the date today is April 5th, 2014. It's not April Fools' Day anymore. It's over. Done. Finished. So, it would be greatly appreciated if people stopped comparing this issue with what happened on AFD. If you have a problem with what happened on AFD, there are other ways to deal with them. The TC is for official use only, and the official use it is for at the moment is to decide the fate of these articles. Nothing else. Wookieepedia is indeed the best wiki in the world, and we are that because we do things by the book. We don't allow our personal emotions to get in the way of actual business. Does "breast" deserve an article on Wookieepedia? The emotional answer would be a resounding "no." I will admit. However, the practical, official, and professional answer would be a positive, absolute, without-a-doubt "yes." If you have a problem with that picture or subject, I kindly refer you to the author/artist that brought that into the Star Wars universe in the first place. It's our job to catalog it; not decide what we like and do not like. So, in closing, maybe you should try doing this: if you don't want to see blue breasts (or any other kind), don't go near them. It's how I handle it.—Cal Jedi ^{(Personal Comm Channel)} 23:35, April 5, 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. Kill it. Stake black ^msg 02:21, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
2. Wookieepedia does not exist in a vacuum. If policy as currently implemented causes this wiki to do something counterproductive, like keep an article that annoys or appears hostile to a large segment of the outside fandom, the policy should be changed. As for this article, there's no information that couldn't be just as well covered under milk, Askajian, etc. —Silly Dan _(talk) 03:56, April 5, 2014 (UTC)

   Get rid of it. It was grossly inappropriate in 2007, and it's even more so now. ;→ Koschei: : Life. But not as we know it. 10:30, April 5, 2014 (UTC) (struck as per Wookieepedia:Single-issue voters. 1358 ^(Talk) 10:35, April 5, 2014 (UTC))

   3. Commander Slime: I think that this article should be deleted. My reason is if you go to the Star Wars wiki to look up "breasts," no offense, but you have some weird hobbies. You also have to look at it from a parent's point of view. I am now in the 9th grade and have looked at this website ever since I was in 4th grade. If one of my parents saw me looking at an article labeled "breasts" on a STAR WARS wikipedia of all things they wouldn't only stop me from going to this site but ban me from liking this amazing Sci-Fi universe completely. I hope that you will all think of what Yoda would do on this matter and not choose the dark or else forever will it consume you. At least get rid of the picture. Please consider my argument. —Unsigned comment by Commander Slime (talk • contribs). (Vote struck in accordance with Wookieepedia:Single-issue voters. 1358 ^(Talk) 21:53, April 5, 2014 (UTC))

   If this argument is kept you may as well make an article on the male sexual organ and how Darman used it to impregnate Etain in the "STAR WARS Republic Commando" book series. —Unsigned comment by Commander Slime (talk • contribs).

Brassiere (talk - history - links - logs - delete - protect)

Absolutely un-notable. Metallic bras are not unique.

Keep

1. If you're going to get rid of this, then get rid of tunic, pants, hat, boot, glove, etc etc etc. <-Omicron^{(Leave a message at the BEEP!)} 02:30, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
   1. That's a brilliant idea: none of those articles are in any way! ;→ Koschei: : Life. But not as we know it. 10:34, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
2. Per Omicron. Cade Calrayn 02:31, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
3. No. OLIOSTER ^(talk) 02:40, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
4. Per Omicron. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 02:47, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
5. Your argument is invalid, your logic is unsound, and this whole vote is pointless. Have a nice day. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 02:50, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
6. Per Omicron.

   Master Jonathan		Council Chambers
   02:53 UTC Sat		April 5, 2014

7. Per above. Supreme Emperor (talk) 03:02, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
8. DarthRevan1173 (Long live Lord Revan) 03:04, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
9. JangFett ^(Talk) 03:41, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
10. Per Olioster. Winterz (talk) 03:53, April 5, 2014 (UTC)

    I vote for keep. Rarity7Best (talk) 04:01, April 5, 2014 (UTC) (Vote struck per policy: Fewer than 50 mainspace edits -- Master Jonathan 04:04, April 5, 2014 (UTC))

11. Per Omicron.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 04:08, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
12. Adamwankenobi (talk) 04:13, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
13. We are an encyclopedia, You know, the good kind. Not the one that pretends things don't exist simply because some people don't like them. MasterFred^(Whatever) 04:45, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
14. The article should be kept and improved. In its current state it is a stub.--Dionne Jinn (Something to say?) 05:12, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
15. Bella'Mia (talk) 05:16, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
16. Lord Dreist (talk) 07:14, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
17. Per Dionne. Riffsyphon1024 09:52, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
18. Clone Commander Lee ^Talk 10:28, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
19. Again. Canon = keep. 501st dogma^(talk) 14:11, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
20. Definitely. Although I would probably be okay with merging it. Corellian Premier^{The Force will be with you always} 21:36, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
21. Per what I said above.—Cal Jedi ^{(Personal Comm Channel)} 23:36, April 5, 2014 (UTC)

Redirect to clothing

1. Stake black ^msg 02:21, April 5, 2014 (UTC)

General discussion

This is a highly sensitive topic. Please be civil and don't insult your colleagues. If you're feeling hot-headed, take a walk and come back later. Stake black ^msg 02:21, April 5, 2014 (UTC)

• Certainly not an "active" user, but far be it from me to ignore an invitation to express opinions. I thought it belonged in a general "anatomy"-type article back in 2007, and I still think so, but I really do think it's unfair to single this one article out for deletion when there are so many other articles (limb, eye, hair, etc) that are equally unnecessary on their own. It's my opinion that a new notability guideline should be established that folds body parts into the existing infrastructure somehow, lest we end up with articles for irony, or the color green, or sleep--oh gord lord, there's already an article about sleep... Coop 03:48, April 5, 2014 (UTC)

  • If you're going to contribute, then please find a better way to do so. Derailing this TC with your petty remarks does absolutely nothing. I know how TFN feels about these articles. JangFett ^(Talk) 03:52, April 5, 2014 (UTC)

    • Jang, chill. He has a right to say his piece. IFYLOFD ^{(Enter the Floydome)} 03:54, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Jang, that is a perfectly valid comment regarding the notability of these articles and whether they belong on this wiki, which is exactly what this TC thread is all about. In no way does Coop's comment "derail" this thread, and calling it "petty" borders on a WP:CIVIL violation. Please retract your response.

      Master Jonathan		Council Chambers
      03:56 UTC Sat		April 5, 2014

      03:56, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
      • Thank you.

        Master Jonathan		Council Chambers
        04:01 UTC Sat		April 5, 2014

        04:01, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
• I'm just going to leave here this article by NaruHina explaining this whole mess. He's more eloquent than me, I think. Stake black ^msg 04:06, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Stake. I'm glad this came to a vote, even if it seems like we're going to double down even though literally the rest of the fandom is now telling us what they think, and they don't want it. This is not 36-to-1 anymore, people. (I, for the record, cannot vote because of the {{User left}} tag on my page.) NaruHina ^Talk 04:11, April 5, 2014 (UTC)

• I have one more thing to say. I actually cut it from my article because it was clear to me that people outside of Wookieepedia wouldn't understand it. You cannot use the fact that we have articles on other real-world objects to justify keeping this one. Doing so fits with the mentality that we should include everything that we can that's in Star Wars. I get that. I created 39 nameless planet articles based on a non-specific reference to their existence and tried to bring them to status because I get that, and actually support that mentality (Not to that extreme anymore). But there are limits to all causes. We said that we would only keep real world articles if and only if the subject had some tidbit that is unique from the real world. That means you are keeping this article, in the face of all of the very public outcry and to the detriment of Wookieepedia's reputation because non-mammalian species had breasts. Cats have more than two breasts; many animals do. Nanny droids administered breast milk to infants? Real world nannies do that; the only distinction is that the distributor is a robot. Aayla used her breasts in a sexual way once? Are you going to pretend that never happens? Please think about this. NaruHina ^Talk 04:23, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
  • Alright, one more thing. I want to bring it to your attention that Culator put the link to the article I wrote in response to this in the spam filter and threatened Stake Black with a block over the matter. You may take that as you will. My article was neither an "insult to Wookieepedia" nor "political attacks." It was my opinion, stated from my tiny soapbox, about an issue that matters to me and a lot of other people. Considering that Culator decided to comment on the article and compared it to Charlie Brown's teacher talking, I do not see why it should even make a difference in his mind. Dunc linked to my article from the Club Jade article, and I invite you to read it if you have not. My real name is Mike Overby. NaruHina ^Talk 05:47, April 5, 2014 (UTC)

• I think the problem is that the joke was too much of an in-joke. Basically, there has long been an in-site controversy over a non-sexual nude image, so a certain administrator decided to respond to the controversy by turning the dial up to 11 on April Fool's Day. This bit of humor was unfortunately lost on the community at large. Adamwankenobi (talk) 04:36, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
• I feel the need to point out, the article doesn't exist just "because". Breasts have been portrayed in a unique manner in universe, and have been known to vary between species. As such, is it not our duty to document it? This article doesn't exist to offend people. Supreme Emperor (talk) 04:38, April 5, 2014 (UTC)

Here's the thing: April Fools fucked us big time. No sooner do we win a battle against Wikia and the prudish masses for the right to have an article on Breasts and display the image that was fought for on the grounds of being a tasteful, artistic nude that best represented the subject matter in a way that was entirely consistent with encyclopedic standards...we turn around and play the giggling ten-year-old card, using everything we'd fought for in good faith to make a "Teehee, boobies!" joke on the front page, playing it up with every crass slang term that could be thought of, and to top it off, we invented quotes for the article and the Quote of the Day to accentuate this asinine idea. Now, as the official site response to this entire fiasco rightly states: We Screwed Up. We, as a community, have screwed up. Because, let's face it, we're kind of a major player in the Star Wars fan community. Wookieepedia is considered to be one of the most professional and prolific fiction-based Wikis currently in existence. Our name is known throughout the Star Wars fandom, we are referenced in media, and even the official site tells people to come to us for the story when they want to know what's what. We have an image, and we have a degree of respect and trust that hard work and cool heads have earned us over the years. With this stunt we have abused that trust, and we have needlessly lost the respect of a portion of the community.

Now, I continue to stand by our decision to host the breast article, and I stand by our decision to feature Evan Wilson's beautiful artwork as the main image. I likewise stand by our brassiere article. Per Toprawa and Omicron, these subjects have notable in-universe merit. Deleting either article is not going to erase what's already been done, and it's not going to make Wookieepedia a better place for their absence. Breasts exist. Brassieres exist. In the Star Wars universe they have biological and societal attributes that are worth documenting. Targeting neutral, encyclopedic articles does little to win back faith, and I will be voting Keep. What does not need to exist here on Wookieepedia is the juvenile attitude that led to this April Fools stunt in the first place. What we need to do is ensure that actions such as these do not happen again. We cannot make a grand joke of the female body when half of the fan community—half of our readers and our contributors—are female. We cannot have members talking shit on Twitter in response to legitimate criticism as though they speak for this entire community; we cannot obliquely endorse those members from the official account. We cannot make the people who are legitimately offended—not by the article's existence, but our blatantly offensive use of the article—the bad guys in all of this. Toprawa has already made an excellent showing of this with the site's official statement, taking responsibility for what we let happen, apologizing sincerely, and promising to do better in the future. This is the right path. We need to be attacking attitudes, not articles. Bella'Mia (talk) 05:16, April 5, 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Bella'Mia here. For the record, the decision to place an immature and obscene version of the breast article on the Main Page was not part of our main gig, which was introducing Wookieepedia Pro, a subscription service. That said, the breast article should never have made it to the Main Page, and even when it did, it should've been removed. I'm guilty of this as much as anyone — I saw the article but made the call not to remove it, and I regret that. But what's been done can't be undone.
  Likewise, I agree with Bella that removing the breast article solves nothing. The legitimate version of the article is written in a mature and encyclopedic tone, and it documents breasts due to their in-universe uniqueness. We have tons of anatomy-related articles — this is simply how Wookieepedia operates presently. We try to document all aspects of the GFFA. If we want to delete or merge the Breast article, there needs to be a proper TC vote. This TC strikes me more as a reaction to the recent controversy, and I'm not sure this will help anyone. Decision making on this site is done through consensus, not through pressure from third parties. This TC seems like one huge personal attack against each other; this is not beneficial to the site, its editors, its readers.
  Finally, an administrative warning: Remember that this page exists to discuss the future of the Breast article and nothing else. Your personal issues with other users or ex-users of this site do not belong here. Please do not derail this TC thread into a discussion of the AFD controversy. That can be done elsewhere. Personal attacks and incivility will not be tolerated, not from either party. Thank you for your cooperation. 1358 ^(Talk) 09:11, April 5, 2014 (UTC)

As a mostly unrelated observer and administrator of the German Jedipedia.net, I also want to give my two cents to this discussion. Thinking about what to say on the matter and what I already discussed with Jang on the IRC last night, I cannot think of something else to say than what Bella'Mia and Xd have said above. It's the best way to deal with the matter. While I try to understand both sides of the argument and actually happen to get both sides - we at Jedipedia.net don't allow such specific articles about anatomy (covered in species articles) or everyday stuff (like spoons or toilet paper) - I have to agree that with the widely known attitude and ambition and goal of Wookieepedia to cover anything in the GFFA (per above posts) with unique in-universe value there's nothing wrong with the article itself just with the more or less immature and worn out way it is displayed almost every year as one of the AFD pranks.
Please stay civil in this discussion which will hopefully lead to a better understanding between fans eventually. Best, Tyber ^{J. Kenobi's Droid} 10:07, April 5, 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and have filed an official complaint, as I should have done in the first place. My apologies for stating the issue here. NaruHina ^Talk 17:15, April 5, 2014 (UTC)

• Alright, I'll just leave my input here. Personally, I feel some people have been disregarding Wookieepedia's recent efforts not only to expand but to please the outer community by developing and upkeeping several means of media. This alone should put down statements that the Wook or its administration doesn't care about our public image since that's a lie and all active members know (or at least should) of these new measures meant to satisfy readers. I understand the issue about Aayla's image and/or the modifications that it suffered during AFD but I just think is overreacting. Clearly, it's not about one or other person's actions in said joyful day but about the whole "kids shouldn't have to see a naked Aayla or read such terms in a website that tries to be professional" bitchin' (pardon my wording) from some people that take offense out of anything. IMHO, AFD jokes are meant to be just that jokes, and on that day users on the Wook tend to receive some sort of freedom to break a few minor rules here and there in order to cool off the serious and professional work we do here for free the remaining 364 days of the year. The fact that some people would be very shocked about the Breasts and comedy-intending (regardless how immature) wording in the Main Page yet not a word about the whole paid-subscription fiasco that it would be if truthful, that ought to say enough about some people's real issue. And this real issue has been discussed over and over and decided by a considerable majority as acceptable under our standards, so it's about time some specific x people recognized that if a majority constantly opposes them on the matter, then perhaps these "x people" are in the wrong. With all this said, I strongly disagree that admins should present any apology for the actions done here during April Fools Day, though perhaps some statement later pointing out that is how we operate during AFD could probably be of use. If the breast's article ever reaches a FA status are we really forbiding it to appear on the Main Page because some people disagree with its content? We just can't please everyone (specially if they're a minority) and anyone who thinks we should, or otherwise be considered as "unprofessional" and immature in the process then I honestly think they're just acting naive. You'd be surprised by how many people actually oppose most of our rules and policies yet that is no reason for us to abolish them. Ultimately, we're one of the most professional and organized Wikias around and our actions on one special day should not be used to diminish that feat. bai Winterz (talk) 17:38, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
  • I condemn this comment for almost making me picture a naked Luis Ayala. Watch the spelling, bulldog. IFYLOFD ^{(Enter the Floydome)} 18:59, April 5, 2014 (UTC)