Forum:CT:Breast/Legends main image change

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Breast/Legends main image change
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was support proposal. Tommy-Macaroni 09:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Throughout the history of Wookieepedia, the debate around the main image on the Breast article has not been one of our prouder moments. There have been numerous votes regarding deletion of the breast article itself, and a Consensus Track thread which resulted in the main image of Aayla Secura's breasts being kept in place, by a 36 to 1 vote. I'll also note that the main image originated from a non canon source, and for that reason does not belong in the main infobox. We have always preferred a live action image to an illustration, where possible.

I know we have come a long way since that vote, and I believe we all see the harm this has caused over the years, not only to the larger Star Wars community, but to our reputation as an unbiased encyclopedia as well. We are all committed to fostering a more welcoming and inclusive environment, which is why after much discussion with numerous members of our community, and our Admin team, I am proposing the following;

The current main image of Aayla Secura's breasts be changed to the image of Anakin Skywalker currently used later in the article, with the image of Aayla's breasts being removed from the article entirely.

I'd considered nominating the article itself for deletion; however with considerable cleanup, it could document the in universe biological differences between species, in an unbiased and neutral manner. Please keep any discussions on this civil and respectful.

Voting

Support

  1. As nominator. Supreme Emperor (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  2. Here we go again! But in all seriousness, this is a much needed change that has been a long time coming Editoronthewiki (talk) 01:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  3. Lewisr (talk) 02:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  4. This is long overdue. This image has been a stain on this community for many years, even to this very day. I'm proudly throwing in my support to change this image as soon as this passes. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 02:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  5. SE approached me prior to posting this, and as I told him then, I am in full support. JediMasterMacaroniAdmiral Ackbar RH(Talk) 02:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  6. If it's not even an official image, there's no excuse for it being there. SilverSunbird (talk) 02:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  7. IFYLOFD (Talk) 02:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  8. This should've been removed long ago. Erebus Chronus (Talk) 02:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  9. Had to think about this for a bit. I want to be clear that I have no problem with the image itself, it is a licensed artistic expression that is only different from many other classical art pieces because of its audience. The stain is not on it but on the way our community has reacted to it with severe immaturity and hostility in the past. It's only because of this unjustified usage that I'm voting support, and I'm glad we have an environment where our community priorities can reflect that now. Back in the old votes the philosophy of the community was basically "You made enemies for standing up for something, Good" and I think that was even quoted on an admin's userpage. That's just not an adequate philosophy for an inclusive and welcoming environment for all Star Wars fans we want to create. I think compromising and removing this image is only going to benefit our reputation as a whole and show that things are changing. Commander Code-8 Hello There! 02:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  10. Well said, Commander Code-8. Biggestleo MonMothmaSymbol-RebelDossier 02:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    Long time coming. Thanks for moving on this Supreme Emperor. Trayus(Academy) 02:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC) Struck by myself for violating voting policy (Dark Lord Trayus)
  11. Full support DarthRuiz30 (talk) 02:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  12. DwartiiDelver (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  13. Although I shared with SE my concerns about how this vote might go, I'm glad to support it. I wasn't here during the peak of... things... but reading over them, I was horrified at the toxic environment that existed and persisted. I believe it has yet to be really confronted and healed since some people who raised concerns were dismissed, bullied, and/or blocked. It put into perspective why I'm one of the few active female editors and why I can name off the top of my head all the women I'm aware of here. I'm willing to tackle the article itself, and have begun some research towards that. I appreciate the move towards a more inclusive and welcoming Wookieepedia. Immi Thrax RainbowRebellion2 (talk) 03:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  14. I was initially unsure, but Code-8 managed to sum up my feelings on this nicely. There's nothing wrong with the image itself, but how we've chosen to display it in the past was wrong, and the responses on those deletion/removal threads are profoundly insensetive, immature, and unproffessional. Frankly I'm not someone who agrees with "woke" rhetoric, as it seems to be called these days, but this isn't "wokeness" or "political correctness" or anything like that. Removing it is professionalism and basic decency, which are cornerstones of modern Wookieepedia. Fan26 (Talk) 03:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  15. This image is a stain on our community. It is crass and has turned many readers and potential editors away over the years At the same time, it provides no benefit to us. It's embarrassing that this image still appears on our site. VergenceScatter (talk) 03:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  16. Definitely for the best. KingWookiee (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  17. Agree with the points above. I understand the above article and image has caused a lot of hurt and unnecessary friction. I am open to the idea of rearranging the images and maybe putting the Aayla Secura image elsewhere but not at the top of the article. Still, it will be a good opportunity to rectify a past wrong and reset our relationship with the wider Star Wars fan community. Andykatib 04:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  18. Wookieepedia formed an identity around keeping this image. I've met people in real life who's only idea of this site is as "those weirdos with the breast pictures." It's time to grow up and stop being petty. In addition to removing this image, I expect this CT to also remove the incredibly embarassing headers on the article's talk page. If anyone unfamiliar with the history of this image thinks that sticking up for it is about the noble cause of truth, just look at this page to see how immaturely we've handled this issue to this day. RattsT (talk) 04:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  19. There's absolutely no reason to keep the Aayla image. It's from a non-canonical source and therefore should never have been put as the header for the article in the first place. Mr Star Wars AminoRepublic (talk) 06:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  20. Absolutely agreed. The attitude around that image in the previous votes (and in those talk page notices, which should definitely go, as mentioned above) was incredibly unprofessional. There's no reason to keep such an image that has had a problematic history and turned people away from the site, particularly when there are suitable alternatives available. It's good to see that the site has progressed to an environment where discussion like this is possible. We should always strive to be an inclusive community, and this is another step in that direction. Zed42 (talk) 05:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  21. 100% support. Wookieepedia is for all Star Wars fans, and the controversy this image has proved a number of times to be detrimental to that, no matter the technical arguments that may be posed by those who defend it. Although a younger, edgier me might have snickered at this image's existence, I have learned over the past couple years why it has been more damaging than good and it brings joy to me to see the image getting voted out. I look forward to a bright future for Wookieepedia, thank you SE :_) Braha'tok enthusiast (Hello there) 06:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  22. There's nothing I would say that hasn't already been incredibly well said. ThatNerdWhoEditsWikis[talk] 07:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  23. I admit I've found the image's inclusion on the article rather humorous at best, but in a serious manner I believe it does damage to the tone of the Wook as a whole and what we're meant to do. Additionally, Star Wars is, at the end of the day, a franchise meant for children. Whether we like it or not, children are browsing Wookieepedia. Having this provocative and NSFW image on a mainspace article is a detriment to Wookieepedia's dignity and our courtesy to our readers. I don't advocate deleting the image as a whole, as it is still an official image even if non-canon. But it has no place on any mainspace article. DFaceG (talk) 07:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  24. Seems like all the good points have already been made while I was asleep! But this is definitely the right choice, primarily because as an ambiguously canon illustration its usage isn't even consistent with our usual criteria for an infobox image. However, this is also important because it has clearly come to represent a darker, more toxic side of our community. I say this not to criticise any individual, I myself was amongst those who originally voted for its use, but hopefully to encourage others to consider what this image has come to symbolise to many and how as a community I believe we have, and need to continue to, move beyond that. Ayrehead02 (talk) 07:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  25. I'm glad we've grown enough as a community that this can be addressed. Any criticism regarding this in the past was quickly shut down, in manners that didn't reflect our values as an encyclopedia. Regarding the image itself, I've nothing against it, but it's clearly not adapted to the infobox for several reasons already exposed by my fellow voters. My concern her is really our own rapport with the fandom. I do Twitter monitoring for Wookieepedia, and this article is brought up all the time, and not just by a certain subset of the community. I don't expect discussion about the article to completely go away (as people wont necessary understand that there is some encyclopedic value in it), but at least we're reacting to criticism, internal and external, in an more appropriate way than before. Also... for the love of Yaddle, please, remove that rude note next to the image. I don't know how it even manage to trigger a vandalism editing block, but it should go as soon as possible. --NanoLuukeCloning facility 09:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  26. I'm so glad that as a community we've reached the point where we even feel comfortable having this conversation, let alone have so much support for it. Everyone else seems to have eloquently detailed the rationale for doing this, but to briefly put my opinion in: the removal of this is twofold. Indeed, we prefer film images. That's pretty much always been the way we've done things, and this should be no exception. But the primary reason I'm voting support is more than that. This image has been our unofficial logo for years. Our reputation entirely consists of, for many people, our response to the use of this image. Yes, the image itself was once harmless art, but from years of fighting over it, it has become something else entirely. It now represents an air of toxicity once present in this community. This image has tarnished our reputation and has turned many potential editors away. Enough is enough. Even if you see no issue with the image yourself, it's time to move past turning a blind eye to it and realise the damage this image is doing to others in the community. In a choice between this image and us improving our reputation, listening to our readers, and not forcing away potential editors, the decision really isn't hard. Tommy-Macaroni 09:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  27. While I see both sides of the argument I think it is best to have this image replaced but I also support Tomotron's idea in the discussion.--Liverpool92Ackbar HS 11:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  28. 01miki10 Open comlink 11:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  29. grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 11:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  30. AmazinglyCool CIS roundel (talk) 11:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  31. RogueWhistler (talk) 12:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  32. Per above. Ramsay Sanders (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  33. JediVahGilns Yoda cartoon (talk) 12:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  34. Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 12:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  35. Regardless of canonicity, replacing the image is in the best interests of both the Wookieepedian community and Wookieepedia's presence as an online encyclopedia. OOM 224 ༼༽talk༼༽ 13:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  36. Per all of the above. (And honestly, I think the entire article could go, too.) - Cwedin(talk) 15:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  37. Per above. Needed to be done sooner, in my opinion. Jedi Order ImpacticForce (Talk) 15:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  38. I'm pretty new as an editor, but back when I first found out about this article, it was a big sign of "oh, yeah, this wiki isn't written for me." It's a beautiful image, and in the context of the book it's from isn't singling out just women (from what I hear), but this wiki doesn't exist in a vacuum. At the head of this article, with only the context of a canon that itself has had a tendency towards objectifying women (including Aayla)? It felt bad. (It does not help paired with the framing and the level of detail here, I'll admit, especially compared to other articles about body parts that frequently vary between species: Eye/Legends is less detailed, Ear/Legends and Nose/Legends are stubs, and off the top of my head I could probably add something to Brain/Legends). As editors, I believe we have to balance documenting detail accurately with minding the impact on real readers, and the image change would at least start to steer this in a less exploitative direction. (I don't think the image needs to stay that way forever; we may well find something fits better in the future, if and when rewrites start to happen, but as the article stands it's not working). Minnabird (talk) 06:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  39. Live action is preferred over illustration. There's nothing wrong with the current image per se, and it can be used elsewhere if appropriate. 1358 (Talk) 16:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  40. It's high time to move one. Lelal Mekha The Uprising crest (Audience Room) 16:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  41. Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 17:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  42. I'm supporting this because I believve we can accurately document the subject without the image, and also because this CT does not call for the deletion of the image. I also like Immi's suggestion below of having the development of each painting detailed in the article for the book itself, which would allow us to keep the image on the Wook. I think we owe it to the artist to still showcase their beautiful artwork, and we also owe it to our audience to be mindful of the topic and our past reactions to it. I think having the image covered in the book's article is the best compromise. MasterFredCommerce Guild(talk) 17:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Just to be clear, my suggestion doesn't include keeping the image; my suggestion is only to discuss it re: development of the painting, and if pictured, with only a cropped section at most. I believe if we're removing the image on the article, finding another way to keep it in use would undermine the spirit of the vote and draw further criticism, though I understand the proposal being voted on doesn't specify deleting it site-wide. However, we can still describe the development of the book and that painting without using the entire image. I've archived the Facebook making-of posts so they don't disappear. I hope you still like my suggestion with that clarification! Immi Thrax RainbowRebellion2 (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    Support. The image is unnecessary, it's weird, and it's non-canon. It's included so readers can ogle at the female body, which seems inappropriate for a Star Wars wiki. (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC) (Vote struck, reason: Per policy: General rules, item 3 -- Tommy-Macaroni 19:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC))

Oppose

  1. The more things change, the more they stay the same: [Redacted by administration] Adamwankenobi (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Since a few have already supported with the justification that the image isn't even canon, going through Category:Images from Star Wars Art: Visions there's quite a few from it that are also used in mainspace articles, so we need to be much more consistent in how those are used and at least investigate if there's anything officially stated about its canon status, which I believe SE is on to. But that's another discussion. Commander Code-8 Hello There! 02:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Absolutely. Consistency is essential—I certainly don't think this being done here, but we can't just use the argument of "that image isn't canon" and fail to evaluate the canonicity of other images from the same source (and remove them if necessary). DwartiiDelver (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
      • I agree. I don't recall the exact specifics from that book offhand aside from this image being non canon, and I'd fully support us taking a closer look into it as a whole. Supreme Emperor (talk) 03:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
        • Instead of deleting the image, we can move Secura's breasts to the behind the scenes section and mention the controversy. This compromise solution would fit with the Wookieepedia is not censored policy. —Tomotron Revanchist Sith (Star Forge) 03:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
          • I interpret the censorship policy as saying that we shouldn't remove something just because outside groups want us to, not that we should never decide that there is something that we do not want on the site. VergenceScatter (talk) 03:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
          • ^ Precisely. I would not like it if other online communities made demands of the Wook, but there is nothing wrong with observing how certain things are affecting others and considering changing those practices. Fan26 (Talk) 03:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
          • Agree with Tomotron's point about having a behind the scenes section mentioning the controversy for the historical record given the debate it has generated within fan circles. Even Echkharts Ladder has devoted a video to that issue. However, it will is still need to abide by Wookieepedia policy on neutrality and receive approval from the rest of the community. Some of us understandably will be uncomfortable with raising controversial matters from the past. Andykatib 04:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
            • I understand where you're coming from. Personally, though, I think that it's best to remove it entirely. Yes, the picture is less obvious if it's in the BTS section, but I still think that it will turn some people off, and I think it is really just better for everyone not to have it on the page. VergenceScatter (talk) 04:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
              • I would say that that isn't neccesary at all, yeah. Ontop of not wanting to open old wounds, Wookieepedia's purpose is to cover Star Wars. Wookieepedia's purpose is not to cover Wookieepedia. Fan26 (Talk) 04:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
                • "Wookieepedia's purpose is not to cover Wookieepedia." Well said! Documenting it on the BTS of the article would no longer be behind the scenes of Star Wars. As an alternative for those interested, I would suggest Fanlore as an option for documenting fandom history, keeping in mind they also have a "plural point of view" policy, but don't have Wikipedia's idea of notability. I don't believe our censorship policy requires us to maintain content that is deemed harmful in some way to the site. And we're not a fine art gallery or an art history wiki; we're an encyclopedia. That said, if the image was addressed in some way, maybe it would fit on Star Wars Art: Visions if that article covered the process behind various pieces of art in that collection. From the artist's Facebook, that painting had quite a process (like creating a headpiece for the model and using the same makeup as AOTC), However, if this vote passes, I'd suggest anything further about the painting only use cropped images of the details or making-of images; the vote does say the full image will be removed, and I think going around that to reuse it elsewhere would be against the spirit of the vote. Immi Thrax RainbowRebellion2 (talk) 04:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC) (ETA: whoops, I was remembering a prior draft and misread the final, which doesn't say what I thought it said)
                  • Thanks for your feedback, everyone who's replied to my post. After reading the points you have raised, I agree that it's best to move on and "let the past die" in this case. Mentioning it in the BTS section may reopen old wounds. This will be a good opportunity to make amends for past wrongs as a community. Andykatib 07:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • May I ask what official source has labeled this book, and more specifically, this image as non-(legends)canon? Yes, some of the artistic images from the book are non-canon, but not the entire book and not every image. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 04:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    • To my understanding, it's a collection of commissioned artwork inspired by Star Wars. I don't know about official labeling, but we've had some TCs for articles that spun "Unidentified individual X" out of subjects in the paintings. This one is at least an existing character rather than one invented just for a painting, but it's also essentially the artist taking a Star Wars character and inserting her into an existing series of his paintings; the series depicts women half-naked in kimono while asleep and not knowing the viewer is voyeuristically viewing them. Immi Thrax RainbowRebellion2 (talk) 04:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Yes. Key word is "commissioned artwork" all of which was hand-picked by George Lucas. Therefore, if it is artwork commissioned by Lucasfilm/George Lucas and it isn't a clear contradiction to canon (now legends) material, then the image is Legends-level canon. I'm not speaking to use of this image and this CT specifically. I don't really care one way or the other, though I agree with Andykatib, that it should be relocated and not necessarily removed. But I do take issue with the image being removed as being non-canon, which it is not. And I don't want this to cause a mass removal of other images from the book that likewise should not be treated as non-canon. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 04:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
        • I think we can probably agree two of the non-canons are The Mos Eisley Cantina with George Lucas as the Bartender by Paul Oxborough and Jabba the Hutt: High School Reunion by C.F Payne. ... Probably. ;) But here's some further context from the author's behind-the-scenes: "Back in 2010, I got a call from Lucas Films (of Star Wars fame), asking me if I would be interested in being part of a proposed book of artists doing their own interpretations of anything to do with Star Wars. At first, I wasn't very interested, and then after speaking with my wife and two sons, the decision was kind of made for me. "A once in a lifetime opportunity" they said. So, thinking about what would interest me enough to want to do it, I started a search for a kind of humanoid female figure. Something that had a relatively human appearance, with a few things extra. I quickly found a character from one of the later movies called Aayla Secura. She was most popular in the comics of Star Wars. She became so popular that they decided to feature her in "Attack of the Clones." Unfortunately, she was killed in the movie, but my subject was born!"1/5 BTS "Some of America's most celebrated artists are included, all with a different outlook on what Star Wars means to them. I was honored to be a part. As an added bonus, George Lucas purchased my painting! My guess is that one day, when he opens the Star Wars museum, you might see my "Aayla Sleeping," along with others!"5/5 BTS I think this suggests that this image and possibly other images in the book are non-canon unless established otherwise by other sources, just done to represent the artists' particular interests. Immi Thrax RainbowRebellion2 (talk) 05:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)