Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tameing a Shrew; or, Petruchio's Patent Family Bedstead, Gags & Thumscrews

Tameing a Shrew; or, Petruchio's Patent Family Bedstead, Gags & Thumscrews

Original - "Tameing a Shrew; or, Petruchio's Patent Family Bedstead, Gags & Thumscrews", an 1815 cartoon by "Williams", which shows a horrific incident of spousal rape, based on an exaggeration of The Taming of the Shrew. The sign above the bed reads "Love, Honour, and OBEY".

JPG version - not for voting.

Reason: I find this picture deeply disturbing, particularly that it was meant to be funny. However, I think that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and such views should be exposed and pointed out as awful. It also has uses in textual criticism of the play it's based on, as the article has lengthy discussion of the disturbing side of the Kate/Petruchio relationship.
Articles this image appears in: Spousal rape, The Taming of the Shrew, and a previous low-res version was in use at Bondage bed, which I replaced with this.
Creator: "Williams"

Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, some aspects of your handling of this leave something to be desired. First, since PNG thumbnailing on Wikimedia software pretty much sucks, substituting a PNG for the original JPEG on article "Bondage bed" pretty much does nothing except significantly increase image download time for those reading the article (your "low-res" snobbery is rather out of place here, since the JPEG's alleged "low-res"ness is not visible in an article thumbnail, while the suckiness of PNG thumbnailing will be evident to anyone who doesn't have a broadband connection). Furthermore, I wonder why you replaced the reasonably accurate contextual-historical comments on File:Taming-shrew-1815.jpg with your own personal inaccurate guessing -- such as that it depicts an incident of "rape", when in fact no act of rape is shown as taking place or proximately alluded to. In any case, a husband had a pretty much unquestioned right to sex with his wife according to the Common Law of 1815, and husbands really didn't need any bondage equipment whatsoever to perform spousal rape. Also, the bed itself does not particularly appear to be constructed to facilitate rape, but instead is similar to the traditional stocks that people in 1815 would have been rather familiar with. Furthermore, if you think that the main intended reaction among those who viewed the caricature in 1815 was loud haw-haw guffawing, then I would doubt whether you really have much understanding of it. AnonMoos (talk) 02:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the caption you supplied to this image on article Domestic violence was seriously inaccurate, and actually missed the whole main point -- which is that "Petrucchio" here is a coldly calculating type who has been plotting systematic methods to get absolute obedience from his wife that will probably involve less violence than the typical louts who pound on their wives in fits of drunken rage. AnonMoos (talk) 02:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone actually agree with this person? "Threatening someone with thumbscrews isn't domestic violence! Nothing sexual about strapping your wife to your bed against her will!"

Oh, and let's not forget "Higher resolution is bad, and a good reason to remove images." Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There may be arguments against this, such as worry that someone might think it was a good idea, and act on it. But to say that it's not abuse, that it's not sexual, and so on... What the hell? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you had no real idea what this originally meant to people in 1815, and instead basically made stuff up about what it might should could ought to have meant. I didn't say it wasn't domestic abuse; however, your assertions on the image description page, and in captions to the image when included in articles, were almost entirely wrong. Furthermore, high image resolution may be useful for storing faithful archive versions of an historic picture (assuming that the higher resolution actually captures meaningful detail present in the original), but high resolution actually has very little to do with how useful an image is when displayed as a thumbnail in an article. Usefulness as archival copy and usefulness as article thumbnail can actually be two quite different things, which need to be considered and judged separately. AnonMoos (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me, I have a book describing it as misogynist. Where are your claims coming from? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really, what book is that? In any case, misogyny does not necessarily translate into "advocacy of spousal rape"... AnonMoos (talk) 00:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, I suggest both of you calm down a little, I can see exasperated tempers flaring on both sides. Neither of you are above reproach in this situation. Firstly, the question of image format and resolution: the JPG version (File:Taming-shrew-1815.jpg) is not "alleged" to be lower res than the PNG (File:Tameing a Shrew; or, Petruchio's Patent Family Bedstead, Gags & Thumscrews.png) - 1,024 × 1,477 pixels is a lower number than 2,436 × 3,440 pixels, therefore the JPG is lower resolution. Resolution is not a qualitative property, there can be no debate over it in this situation.

Secondly, the image format itself. Consensus has shown that images such as this would be better stored on Wikipedia as JPG, not PNG - partially because of the thumbnailing, but also because JPG is a more appropriate format - PNG should only really be used for diagrams and files which need lossless compression or transparent backgrounds without being SVG. However, in this case the PNG version of this image is indeed higher resolution and has a much better constructed image page. All one needs to do (and what I might do in a minute) is to convert the PNG to JPG, edit it for colour (neither have a perfect white balance for example), upload it to Commons and then merge the information from both of the existing image pages.

Thirdly, there is the issue of the 'rape' accusations and captioning. At the moment, the caption's description of 'horrific rape' is simply POV. Try more neutral synonyms such as severe. In addition, AnonMoos has a point here - the image does not specifically show any sexual act. It could be construed that the man is about to rape his wife, but that is an assumption for the viewer to make which we cannot promote lest we fall foul of WP:OR. It seems supposed to make the viewer give a wry smile about the different interpretations of the story about 'taming a woman'. By all means show commentary on the reaction the piece elicited, but don't force the view that something horrible and inhumane is about to happen - this was originally meant to be humorous, even if it falls short of that mark for us today.

Finally, I suggest you both cool it - AnonMoos with your borderline uncivil tone in criticising Shoemaker originally, and Shoemaker with your sarcastic rebuttals. This image can go through the normal FPC process and has, I believe, a good chance. Let's leave it to consensus. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 12:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite true that the 1815 caricature author -- and most of the caricature's original viewers -- would have shared in a basic assumption that, overall and in general, wifely obedience is a good thing in most circumstances. However, just about everything else that Shoemaker's Holiday asserted about the meaning of this image in its original context was quite wrong. Some men would have sniggered at the caricature on first seeing it, but the main purpose of the caricature was to hold up a kind of distorted mirror to the society of its time (like most caricatures), and not to directly advocate for or endorse domestic violence or spousal rape. There was a lot of spousal abuse going on in England in 1815, but a large majority of it was inebriated louts crudely pounding on their wives in a fit of drunken rage, as opposed to the coolly calculating discipline practices depicted in the caricature. Gazing on the caricature for a while might have raised some uncomfortable questions, such that as most husbands in 1815 would never do what "Petruchio" in the caricature did, but if they've slapped their wife around a little when enraged, are they in fact any better than "Petruchio"? It's by no means as simplistic as one might assume based on 2009 sensibilities. The fact that in many past cultures very few questioned basic assumptions of male dominance doesn't mean that everybody always wished women to be unthinkingly obedient Stepford wives, or approved of everything that men did to enforce such obedience -- already in Chaucer, the whole Griselda thing was a little too extreme to take take too seriously, and had to be "balanced" by the Wife of Bath's tale... AnonMoos (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off: PNG is the only lossless format supported by commons. Serious restoration work requires PNG. JPG is not preferred by any serious resorationist, as it creates artefacts where none existed before. When you've worked very hard to create an image that looks good at 200% resolution, there's no point in saying Hmm, looks good, but whatit really needs is JPEG artefacts." Secondly, uou can increase the blue content until the paper is white, but paper ages yellow, and this image is nearly 200 years old. I've reduced the yellowing until it still showed some signs of age, but did not affect the image's colours.

Thirdly, oh, screw it, I don't want to deal with any of this right now. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need a cup of tea. Please consider taking a short break, it doesn't help anyone editing while you're distressed. Bear in mind we're not trying to create a perfect archive of historical documents here - just an encyclopaedia. We're not proposing to delete the PNG or anything like that - just that the best version to be featured should be a more accessible one. The PNG can stay on Commons and there will always be a link to the LoC's source page with the 35MB TIFF. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 16:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I spent 4 hours removing dirt from the image, which you are throwing out in favour of working from the original tiff again. I would be happy to upload the cleaned version, but now there's three versions on commons, only one of which has been cleaned, and no indication that one has had hundreds of time more work put into preparing it.

...I'm sorry, but it's very clear that this whole thing just shows that noone cares about getting a good image of this. It's completely disrespectful to restorationists to complain about the resolution, to complain about them using a lossless medium to upload their work, and to have the ONLY reaction to their work be lengthy public sniping and attacks. Perhaps you'll understand, then, why I was so upset.

I spent hours working on something, and got nothing back but lengthy attacks, having my much better version replaced with a low-res one, because of arbitrary dislike of PNGs and so on. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd be willing to resave your restored version as a high quality JPG - a 100% quality setting is completely fine - then just upload over my one, please. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 09:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As part of making my JPEG, I generated a 2450x3399 pixel 17 megabyte PNG file, which is still present on my hard drive. The reason I haven't upload it at that resolution is that I wasn't too sure that I was really capturing any great amount of meaninful detail from the original caricature (as opposed to paper imperfections and ink imperfections), and the reason why I uploaded a JPEG (instead of a PNG) was that a JPEG would be more useful in thumbnails displayed in articles (since the file sizes of JPEG thumbnails would be much smaller than those of PNG thumbnails), while the additional details in a PNG would not be too relevant for that purpose (as opposed to archival image conservation/storage). I'm sorry if I betrayed excessive annoyance, but your comments in edits connected with your image upload combined ignorance about what the caricature actually meant to people in 1815, together with a drive-by-sneer at my JPEG, as if I never thought about the issues of resolution, PNG vs. JPEG etc. (when in fact I had). AnonMoos (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support -GerardM (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC) When you are consider restorations, JPG is actually not appropriate. The problem is that JPG brings artefacts into the picture that destroy the value of the restoration for others. Given that Commons is also the home for the best practices of restorationists, the current notion against PNG needs to be reassessed. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support PNG Great job. One day Wikipedia will handle PNGs wonderfully, but a JPEG is going to be lower quality forever. Chillum 15:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request please correct for the staining at the upper right corner and sharpen. This file was scanned from a slide film copy of the original artwork, and like a number of others of its type it's slightly out of focus. Durova^Charge! 05:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Concur with Durova. Great image but its a bit out of focus. Synergy 00:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded a new version per concerns. As the edits are fairly minor, I just uploaded over. I just gave it a light sharpen, as it's so easy to over-sharpen if you're not careful, and tweaked the black point up which makes it look sharper anyway. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Much better. I love the image. Synergy 23:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggesting new edit? Durova^Charge! 23:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've had to undo your edit, because the PNG and JPEG being the same is currently used in the bug report on the problem with PNG display - evidently JPEGs get an extra sharpening that PNGs don't. But it's really going to confuse the issue if the Bug report says to compare these thumbnails of identical images, when the images are not, in fact, identical.

Durova edit (alt 1) as JPEG which (for the moment, but I am told not for much longer) are sharpened more than PNGs when thumbnailing.

That said, I honestly can't see any difference between your version and mine, even when rapidly flicking between them. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - This is a surprise. But I have placed an alternative restoration up for consideration at this nomination and it has been from the page, not by me. Perhaps there was some miscommunication. Shoemaker, if you wish to rename a file then do so. Please restore my work so the other reviewers can evaluate it. Durova^Charge! 05:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Durova, I'm happy to have your version up, but if I upload it, it gets credited to me, not you. This is why I specifically told you that that wasn't a good place to upload it, because the thumbnail of that image is being used in a bug report, and asked you to upload it elsewhere. I'm sorry that you made an incorrect assumption about the JPEG, but you having done so, there's very little I can do that maintains the chain of credit, other than ask you to upload it again, under a file name that is not in active use, and that will not cause confusion by having multiple restorations using the same filename except extention. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's the work that matters more than the credit. You did most of this anyway and deserve sole credit if it gets promoted. Please put the alternate version back up for review. Durova^Charge! 15:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Uploaded. However, looking at it again (I think that the cache hadn't cleared when I looked at it last, hence why I said it looked identical) I don't like the very, very white paper replacing the yellowed original - it just seems a bit too much. It's something I consciously rejected in my restoration. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no shortage of filenames folks. Chillum 15:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Support So I'm probably going to start a small war with this comment, but when I looked at the original and the Jpeg version image pages, the Jpeg was much sharper, so I would have voted for that. But then when I clicked on the full resolution link they looked the same. Now I know we vote on things at full resolution, but I would have thought that using the image that looks sharper on the image page in the articles would be sensible, but assume that that's not necessarily the case. I think using a caricature in the spousal rape article is probably downplaying the seriousness of the act and I would remove it if it were up to me. I read the picture along the lines of the medieval devices reputedly used to stop wives nagging and so on, and in no way sexual.Terri G (talk) 17:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been assured the PNGs-looking-blurrier problem will be fixed within a day or two. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Tameing a Shrew; or, Petruchio's Patent Family Bedstead, Gags & Thumscrews.png MER-C 09:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]