Talk:Resting bitch face

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, 27 April 2016, see discussion.
Delete, 30 July 2013, see discussion.

Resting murder face

Bitch face is used for women, I've known the term resting murder face used in general for both men and women with this symptom. Can someone add this term into this article?

I have also heard it described as looking like one is "chewing a wasp". It definitely refers to the same concept. EditorPerson53 (talk) 09:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it definitely doesn't. "Face like a bulldog chewing a wasp" was coined to describe an ugly face. Don't morph/break things by mis-using and mis-attributing them, please. Do more research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:A480:4C20:2DB4:7021:7CB2:30F7 (talk) 01:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More images?

I know this could be a magnet for Original Research, but would be be able to include this (free) image of Kristen Stewart, for example? It does seem to have the "tightening around the eyes, and a little bit of raising of the corners of the lips - but not into a smile," that is suggested here as a physiological definition. St Anselm (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
300px

Sexist bullshit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

To me these women's facial expressions are just neutral / serioius / confident, and to me this is more attractive than an artificial smirk. Seems someone invented a defamatory expression to push that the only acccepted face a woman should be that of a ten-year-old girl on sherbet powder. This should not be in Wikipedia. --91.34.149.6 (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is total bullshit, and so is this "article." Women aren't put on this earth to entertain men and "smile" at them. The article should be deleted. It is unscientific and sounds like evo psych bullshit.

I find it hard to believe that professional psychologists actually use this term which seems to me to be pejorative and sexist. If this is a recognised phenomena which has a neutral objective name then I think the name of the article should be changed, otherwise perhaps it is just slander against people whose face some one does not like in which case the article should be deleted?Billlion (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the article facial expression could have a short section on the phenomena of a non-neutral expression in resting face and the issues that may arise from this? In this section the "media" use of this rather offensive phrase could be mentioned as an aside? Billlion (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think 91.34.149.6's opinion here shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the wikipedia's core policies, particularly WP:NPOV. One common newbie misconception, that, sadly, even some very experienced contributors fail to lose, is that certain TOPICS are inherently biased, sexist, racist, whatever. Topics can't be biased, only how they are represented.
Our articles are supposed to be written from a neutral point of view. In my experience, when good faith contributors work together collegially, to cover a topic that has some valid reliable sources, they can cover that topic adequately, no matter how controversial the topic is.
Was the previous government of South Africa's policy of Apartheit racist? Practically everyone would agree it was. Suppose that regime was still in power? Then the policy might be quite controversial. However, good faith contributors, working together, could cover it, by sticking to the advice in NPOV and other wikidocuments. Make sure statements are properly attributed, to RS. Use RS across the spectrum of opinions. Easy-peazy.
His or her final sentence --"This should not be in Wikipedia" -- couldn't be more wrong. This meme is VERY highly covered in RS, which makes a strong candidate for its own article. This opinion sounds like an instance of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
PS. I just checked 91.34.149.6's Contributions. An SPA account, possible sockpuppet. Geo Swan (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia covers a wide range of subjects, some of which readers find offensive or sexist (for example, misandrist terms like "mansplaining" / "manspreading" etc). The subjects get included in Wikipedia because they have some presence in society, and because Wikipedia attempts to describe them in neutral terms without bias, including various views on the subjects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.41.79.9 (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: is the title suitable?

There is consensus that this title should be kept as-is, primarily as per WP:COMMONNAME. This close is without prejudice for an AfD nomination; discussion regarding deletion should not be discussed at this venue without an appropriate deletion discussion notice. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 03:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is it appropriate for an encyclopedia article to have a pejorative (and possibly misogynist) title? No doubt it is true some people's resting face is non-neutral but the name of this article could be seen as supporting a judgemental attitude specifically to women with a resting face that seems unhappy. Billlion (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, the title certainly caught my attention when I saw it in the RfC notice, which is what brought me here. It seems to me that, per WP:NOTCENSORED, the title is acceptable so long as that is the WP:COMMONNAME for the phenomenon, as described in reliable sources. However, I have some doubts as to whether this page, fairly recently created, would survive WP:AfD, as it seems to be based on a meme, with some of the content coatracked onto it. Even if the subject is notable, I wonder whether a more careful review of source material would reveal a more scholarly name, whereas the name used here may have been a pop culture neologism pasted onto something that might have already existed in the psychological literature. In that case, a page rename would be appropriate. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd file this under "meme". A sexist one full of garbage science and misogyny, but a notable one nonetheless. Tryptofish is right that we need to be very careful about the content on the page however. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the subject is probably notable. And that more careful exploration of the source material, and maybe additional source material is likely to be beneficial. I have already added the caveat that BRF was found equally in male and female faces.
I doubt that the usage is misogynist in the current sense of the word, as most of those cited are women.
We should be aware of facies (medical), although this is not claimed to be such an epiphenomenon. There may be links to be explored here to social identity theory, stereotyping and self-stereotyping.
Google trends.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - The article and several of its sources state that the term can be applied to both men and women. I just edited the article to state that the original comedy video which brought RBF/BRF to wider attention (subsequent to the phrase being extant since at least 2003 according to one of the sources) features both male and female "sufferers". The video portrays people's attitudes towards the faces of the subjects as the problem, not the subjects themselves. Mungefuddler123 (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is definitely notable, especially within pop culture and social media. The term applies to both men and women, and is a product of the current millennial generation. Additional sources will be worthwhile. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 00:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We might be stuck with the title if that's the common name. If it's controversial, that can be discussed in the article. Google News shows some discussion of the topic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If this is indeed a meme, then the article needs urgent copy editing to reflect that, as it currently tries to explain this from a psychological angle and I highly doubt any psychologist would use this term. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 12:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the current title. I don't see anything misogynistic here. The article is about the phenomenon of people, mostly women, whose neutral facial expressions tend to be perceived by some observers as portraying negative emotions; it's not criticizing people for looking a certain way. While the title isn't ideal, the concept is commonly referred to by as such. Rebb ing (not ashamed of her RBF) 22:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: Highly misogynistic. This is a neologism at best, a short-lived cultural meme, and it should be deleted, the title salted and the content merged with some existing article about all the other misogynistic terms out there. I also think all the photos in it should be removed, they are OR. Montanabw ^(talk) 17:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mutation of the name

The Broken People video prominently calls it "Bitchy Resting Face", and the initial wave of media attention used that phrase. The video described the male version as "Resting Asshole Face", and for some reason that formulation - "resting X face" - now seems to be the default. What happened? Did the term predate Broken People's treatment of the concept? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 12:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article gives a source claiming that the term goes back about 10 years. Google Trends shows how one term dominated the other - what happened, but not why.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Why oh why oh why do people insist on using the version "resting bitch face"? It's not the face of a "resting bitch" fgs! It's a "resting face" (i.e. a face in the rest position, when not expressing a specific emotion) that's bitchy! 212.88.248.136 (talk) 05:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

I'm WP:INVOLVED so anyone can revert this closure, but this has obviously failed (WP:SNOW failed, even). (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 05:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just proposed this article be merged to facial expression. Discussion best be consolidated in one place, so putting it here. Support as nom, per many of the reasons in above discussion. Montanabw ^(talk) 17:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge per all the older threads above. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything encyclopedic that can be salvaged from resting bitch face in to facial expression, I would also support a motion to delete but that is not what this debate is about.Billlion (talk) 09:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (preferably delete) "Jessica Bennett described the phenomenon in an August 1, 2015 article in the New York Times." ...and was no doubt paid handsomely for doing so. Its not exactly journalism though is it? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: A quick unscientific google search suggests that the topic is independently notable per WP:GNG. It seems the main opposition against the article's existence stems from POV notions of appropriateness or sexism.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Agree with TriiipleThreat about POV-pushing by those arguing for deletion-and-salting, merger, etc. RossPatterson (talk) 04:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: It is unfortunate that this phenomenon has a potentially offensive title, but as Tryptofish and Rebbing pointed out in discussions above, that is the WP:COMMONNAME for the phenomenon, as described in reliable sources, and as others have pointed out, Wikipedia is supposed to be WP:NOTCENSORED. It meets all the criteria for independent notability, and is linked from several other articles. Mungefuddler123 (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Too much tabloid-like obsession on celebrities with this facial expression. All encyclopedic information that actually summarizes this specific expression can fit in Facial expression, with context. Esquivalience ^t 02:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: independently notable and the subject of scientific research. St Anselm (talk) 03:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge as notable, but an unnecessary fork. Notability is not the only determination in what should get its own page. ~ Rob^Talk 04:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge - Subject is independently notable and covered extensively in reliable sources. A merge would require us to condense the page, which would not be constructive. Meatsgains (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Article is worthy of its own article. It has independent secondary reliable sources which gives it notability. Z105space (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This passes WP:GNG, it is notable enough and has reliable sources. JAGUAR 17:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This appears to have enough notability to keep on it's own merits. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This putrid and sexist "facial expression" has gained enough notability and reliable sources to stay in its own article. Sadly there is no ideal way of disposing and salting it per Wikipedia policies despite its neologistic nature. WP:NOTCENSORED. Furthermore, we do not need trivia in the facial expressions article. Ceosad (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Title: correct version of the phrase

Surely this is about a "resting face" (i.e. a face in the rest position, when not expressing a specific emotion) that makes a person look bitchy, not about the face of a "resting bitch". Then why do we use the incorrect version of the phrase as the title? 212.88.248.136 (talk) 05:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I interpret the meaning as being a "bitch face" produced when the face is in the resting position. The earlier term "Bitchy resting face" (as used in the Broken People parody) is more clearly descriptive, but as shown by others in other discussions above, the RBF term is now much more widely used than the BRF term. Mungefuddler123 (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Er... surely no-one of any discernment or individuality or character gives two shits about what's "more widely used". If prevalence were any indication of merit, then insects would rule the planet (or rats or birds). Whoever created this item has a very good point, and I agree with them. Whoever replied does not, and I do not. FWIW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:A480:4C20:2DB4:7021:7CB2:30F7 (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures - BLP violations

@StAnselm: First, I'd like to request that you revert yourself, as per WP:BLPRESTORE, which states "If [disputed content] is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first."

I removed the pictures of living people from the article. Identifying specific living people as having "bitch face", which contains an offensive term, should be done with great care. In particular, it requires incredible sourcing to link a specific person to such a term. If a few writers called a politician a "bitch", it would not be appropriate to write in Wikipedia's voice that "Politician X has been described as a bitch." Similarly, it is not appropriate to write in Wikipedia's voice that "Politician X has been described as having 'resting bitch face'." We would need incredible and widespread sourcing to say that.

I can, however, see an exception where the person in question has specifically acknowledged the phenomenon and/or associated themselves with it. For that reason, I do not oppose the picture of Jessica Bennett being removed. The pictures of Stewart and West should go, though. ~ Rob^Talk 04:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, there is a thread at the top of this page, which I started when the photo was first added. In fact, it was a different photo, but there were some changes made, and what we have is the established, consensus version. The phrase contains an offensive term, but there is no indication that the phrase itself is offensive, and thus the likelihood of a BLP violation. Finally, we do, in fact, have the extraordinary source required in the reporting of the work of Rogers and Macbeth. St Anselm (talk) 04:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it's this very same picture of West that was used by Rogers and Macbeth. St Anselm (talk) 04:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have a single person (you) posting a section with zero responses. That does not make a consensus. I don't have any problems with discussing the research in the article and citing these two as examples, but placing their pictures here as literally the poster children of resting bitch face is highly questionable. I'd welcome an RfC on the subject, but I encourage you to revert as required by WP:BLPRESTORE in the meantime. ~ Rob^Talk 04:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@StAnselm: I appreciate the removal. If you'd like, I'll draft a neutral RfC to address this topic. I think this is a situation/article where it would be extremely helpful to get responses from editors who may never have heard this term before. ~ Rob^Talk 04:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that's a good idea. Per WP:BLPRESTORE, it doesn't matter what the previous consensus was. St Anselm (talk) 04:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Someone removed the image of Jessica Bennett, with the edit summary "Remove non-free image with improper non-free use reationale", I restored it. Geo Swan (talk) 02:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: *shrug* Okay. It will just be removed again in a few hours once the non-free image is deleted. The fact that the subject wants us to use the image is irrelevant because the copyright holder has not released it under a free license. ~ Rob^Talk 03:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments

The community has rejected the use of any living person who has not very explicitly consented to this use as an image example for this article due to BLP concerns. Additionally, there is a lack of free files that would not be original research. While an illustration would benefit the article, the BLP concerns outweigh this benefit by a lot. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should we include pictures of Kristen Stewart and Kanye West as examples of people with resting bitch face? ~ Rob^Talk 04:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes

Include Kanye West. This was the very same picture that Rogers and Macbeth used in their widely-reported technical analysis. The picture could have a neutral caption explaining that they used this picture. St Anselm (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No

No, we should not include pictures of Kristen Stewart or Kanye West as examples of resting bitch face. While some sources have quoted them as examples, applying a term like "bitch" to a living person is a BLP violation any way you slice it. I could support referencing them in the article with lots of qualifications (specifically saying X source notes them as examples, rather than using Wikipedia's voice), but it's impossible to display pictures of them as literal poster children for resting bitch face without doing so in Wikipedia's voice. Saying this in Wikipedia's voice is an obvious BLP violation. ~ Rob^Talk 04:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No - Summoned by bot. We should not include any examples of RBF because as noted above, it would be a BLP violation. Meatsgains (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No Clear BLP violation. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No - The photo up there now of Bennett should also be removed. No living person should have their photo used to plaster over every encyclopedia in the world unless they have specifically given their permission to do so. Bette Davis and Vivien Leigh have been talked of having this characteristic. Find a legitimate source that talks about them with regards to RBF and then use a public domain pic. Or even a public domain drawing would work. If Jessica Bennett wants this negative notoriety, write to her and have her release a pd photo. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No per above and possibly WP:OR. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 12:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Comment - What about the person already up there? Jessica Bennett? I assume that face should be removed as well so as not to play favorites? Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Fyunck(click): Originally, Stewart and Kanye were both up there as well, which is why this RfC is here. I view Bennett as a bit different because she wrote an extensive article citing herself as an example of resting bitch face. When a subject talks non-jokingly about themselves in that way, I think it's okay to include their picture (assuming the caption is appropriate, of course). See here for the background. ~ Rob^Talk 14:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not so sure about this. Stewart has talked about it too though not in the same way as Bennett did. The thing is, it's one thing to talk about it and it's quite another to use someone's face as the posterchild of RBF here on wikipedia. Just because Bennett hates her face doesn't give us the right to use her pic in a less-than-flattering way. It's not an image she released to the public domain for us to use...I'm not sure this is really a legal pic for us to use. It almost seems to me that if we are going to use a real face in the article (as opposed to an anatomical drawing) it should at least be of a deceased person. Because the arguments you are all making for taking down Stewart and Kanye apply to Bennett also. You could use almost any pic of Bette Davis (such as "Bette Davis in All About Eve trailer.jpg") to show an example. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hold on a second. You wrote, elsewhere, that you privately corresponded with Ms Bennett. Did she actually tell you that she "hates her face"? If so, did she tell you that it was okay for you to publicly out her as someone who "hates her face"? I googled her, and looked at other images of her. This captured screenshot was the least flattering online image of her. She is an attractive young woman, from her online CBC interview she seemed to have a happy confident persona, so I am amazed that she would tell you she "hates her face". I certainly don't remember any sign of her saying anything like that in any of the coverage of her connection with RBF.
      As to her rights, much as she seems a likeable person, if there were no discussion over IP rights issues, and the question was whether to comply with her second thoughts over drawing the image to the public's attention -- I'd argue we ignore her second thoughts, because of the image being widely republished, and since she is a TV personality, she is a public person.
      As to whether to use a free image of someone like Betty Davis to illustrate RBF -- well have any RS identified an image of Bette Davis as one that shows RBF where we had that particular image at the commons? I think that should be the bar an image of Bette Davis or any other deceased celebrity would have to pass, if it were to illustrate this article. Note: that illustration would be completely worthless at illustrating Ms Bennett's notable surprise at recognizing her screenshot illustrated RBF. Her NYTimes article triggered a wider recognition of the meme, and was widely republished. That is the reason I added it, and I remain convinced no free image is a substitute for this encyclopedic usage. Geo Swan (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - First I meant hates that she has RBF... not her complete face. She didn't post it because she was happy about it. That's what I meant. Second, I talked to her after I wrote that. I figured someone might want to see if she'd release a PD photo. She wouldn't. I believe we could find PD photos of Bette Davis and other dead celebs where RS talked of them having RBF. Obviously the celeb would never have talked about it because it's a new term. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is not one central person associated with this expression, there is zero allowance to use any non-free media of a celebrity to demonstrate this. Any Wikipedia or a friend under consent can make this face and have their photo taken to be uploaded as a free image and sufficiently document this article. --MASEM (t) 19:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I see the photo has been labeled as such for removal. I suggest we remove it from this article and replace it with a public domain Bette Davis (or other PD pic) until such time as we have a wikipedian donate their own pic. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it. I didn't realize it was non-free, and it is a clear copyright violation to use a picture of resting bitch face when there are obvious free alternatives (a picture of literally anyone else who has it). I don't think we should use Bette Davis; same issues as the others really, unless she talked about herself having it. ~ Rob^Talk 21:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it's not that easy to find one. Who in the world is going to want to give up a public domain picture of themselves so that they can forever be labeled as RBF? Sort of a "don't let this happen to you" type of photo. Not many I would think. Remember it's not just making the face... it's a person who normally at rest tends to make that face. Bette Davis did and I think we might be able to document it and use it as an example. But it would also be nice to have an anatomical drawing and a generic nobody as the main images. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record Masem's repeat of the suggestion that we could replace the non-free Jessica Bennett RBF image, or some other non-free RBF image, with a new picture one of us took, would not comply with WP:no original research. If an WP:RS says a particular image illustrates RBF, we can use that image. However, every such image I found in the hours I worked on this topic has been a non-free image. Geo Swan (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not really true. What is considered an RBF expression is readily defined, so any user that creates their own image purposely to fall in line with that expression is acceptable without violating NOR policy. It might be a problem to grab any random free image where the person pictured was not necessarily purposely making the RBF expression and then calling that an example of it. But a Wikipedian taking the picture of themselves conscientiously doing the expression and offering that as a free image would not be a problem. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:NOR#Original images says: "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments." Okay, if I took an image of you, with a blank expression, or you took an image of me, with a blank expression, and the two of us were agreed those images matched the one or several of the published descriptions of RBF, wouldn't the idea that your image matched that description be an "unpublished idea", since no RS ever made the judgment call that that image of you, or I matched the published description? Geo Swan (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, not really. The "novel" idea is what RBF expression is. Considering whether a self-taken photo is one or not is not an issue. --MASEM (t) 19:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I was really surprised, fifteen years or so ago, before broadband was widespread, when I sat in an internet cafe, and was inundated by the insults these teenage boys playing a shoot-em-up game with one another were yelling at one another. The most frequent insult the biggest bulliest teenage boy kept yelling at his friends/victims was that they were all "so gay". I'd missed out on gay becoming this kind of insult.
        Okay, suppose instead of "resting bitch face", the term the "so-gay face" had become a widely used phrase? Suppose it had the same kind of constellation of somewhat contradictory half definitions, but in a plethora of RS. Suppose, just like RBF, those RS had offered many images of celebrities, who they characterized as manifesting the "so-gay face". Just like with RBF, all the instances named in RS would be proprietary non-free images.
        All right, do you get to pose for a photo, doing your best to emulate some of those imprecise descriptions of the "so-gay face"? I'd say "no", as the novel thing would be that you, Masem were illustrating a recognizably "so-gay face".
        Many years ago there was a contributor here named The undertow. In January 2008 he uploaded an image of a large tattoo, that said "Orange County". The day he uploaded this image he added it to our article on gang signals. For many years that image illustrated our coverage of gang tattoos.
        Fast forward a bunch of years. He'd been entrusted with administrator authority, twice, under two separate IDs, and had been independently defrocked, each time, for abusing his administrator authority. After being defrocked, he abandoned the wikipedia and other WMF project, for years. Finally, in 2012, he returned to the commons, to try to claw back his image, because, he said, its use to illustrate articles on gangs put his life at risk, now that he was an under-cover law enforcement official(!)
        One of the disturbing things about his history was how a guy who didn't respect our projects could be entrusted with administrator authority twice.
        Another disturbing thing was how broadly copied his hoax image was, illustrating MSM articles, as an example of a gang-tattoo. Even some official DoJ and other US law enforcement sites used his widely republished image as an example of a gang tattoo. But my google search brought me a bunch of US law enforcement sites' images of actual gang members actual tattoos. When compared with actual gang tattoos his had nothing in common. His was intricate, and expertly done, with nothing vulgar or threatening. Actual gang members' tattoos were much more crudely rendered, vulgar, threatening. This guy's practical joke didn't only pollute all the WMF projects, for years, the wikipedia was trusted enough it polluted press coverage of gangs, and even some US law enforcement efforts.
        I suggest one lesson of this story is that we have to be very careful as to when we let WMF contributor's original photos illustrate topics that require some judgment and interpretation.
        Identifying RBF is not as serious a problem as identifying gang members by their gang tattoos. But the principle is the same. You Masem simply are not qualified to introduce the novel idea that the image of you, or your friend, should be added to the world of publicly identified images of RBF. Don't be offended, I am no more qualified than you are. Geo Swan (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        No, not the same type of example. What RBF is is well-defined by sources in this article, much as what "planking" is. There are variations, but the general idea is there. As long as other editors agree that a user-taken photo captures the essence of what RBF is according to sources, there's nothing else original to worry about. I use the example of planking because it too has many variations but what those are are well-defined in the sources, so a user-uploaded image that consensus agrees demonstrates planking can be used. Its very easy to determine in these cases if the images is properly depicting what it says it is, or not. Contrast to the Orange County tattoo, that was the claim that it was a proper gang sign by the uploader, but that was OR without a source to confirm or compare with. There doesn't appear to have been any such sources, so that image was outright wrong. --MASEM (t) 21:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Masem:What about a photographer that takes a photo of someone and labels his work as an example of RBF, and makes it public domain? Is that a no or a grey area? Otherwise we limit wikipedia to selfies. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Presuming that the person used in the photo was unaware of their image being used as such (though otherwise a legally-taken picture), that would be a problem in terms of NOR and potentially a BLP, implying said person was a "bitch". This is why I think we need full consent of the person whose image is being used to avoid that pitfall. --MASEM (t) 19:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fair and plain enough. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Two new creative commons pics

I found two photos on flickr where the photographers themselves called the shots "resting bitch face" and "bitchy resting face". I uploaded them with the correct licenses and plopped them on the article page. Keep them, remove them, alter them. At least I looked and found something that could work until you find something better. The files are RBF pic and BRF pic. Unless I made an error in labeling these photos (which happens) they should be good to go. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In both cases, the photographers were not the individuals depicted in the pictures. The emerging consensus in the section above seems to favor not using pictures as examples of resting bitch face when the individual being depicted hasn't acknowledged the term. I'm going to remove the pictures for now due to the BLP concerns, but I'm also searching Flickr for potential alternatives. ~ Rob^Talk 07:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware the authors of those previous photos released them specifically "as" RBF photos... as these authors have done. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

calling for discussion

BU Rob13 removed two images from this article, with an edit summary that says, in part, "remove files due to BLP concerns (see talk)" -- but BU Rob13 hasn't left an explanation here on the talk page. Please return here, and explain your reasoning.

Fyunck(click) had just added those images, from commons. I've said, elsewhere, that I think we shouldn't use randomly selected images, from the commons, as illustrations of RBF. There are individuals like Kristen Stewart, Anna Kendrick, or Kanye West, who are frequently characterized as showing RBF. But if those images weren't sourced to a WP:reliable source, which itself characterized them as showing RBF, then characterizing the image as illustrating RBF lapses from WP:no original research. Fyunck(click), I'd like to look at your candidates, on commons, but the links seems to be broken.

Frankly, I see the difficulty in finding an image of someone that a reliable source says was showing RBF, yet was released under a free license, is a strong disproof of Explicit's unexplained endorsement of the request to delete File:Non-free - Jessica Bennett described shock at recognizing this photo showed her 'resting bitch face' -b.jpg. The claim was that it was "replaceable by a free image". It isn't.

Over and above whether File:Non-free - Jessica Bennett described shock at recognizing this photo showed her 'resting bitch face' -b.jpg is a good illustration of the meme of RBF, I thought Jessica Bennett's explanation of how she came to write the NYTimes article that triggered the wide coverage of this meme was important. She explained how she watched a clip of herself, when she appeared on TV, and was shocked when she realized viewers would have viewed her as showing RBF. Many of the followup articles her NYTimes article triggered explicitly cited her, and either described, or even included, this iconic screenshot.

Other contributors may disagree with me, about the importance of Bennett's role, or the value of describing her recognition of her RBF, in the widely republished screenshot. Fine. Then we should have had a reasonable, civil, policy-based discussion of that editorial issue. We should have had that discussion here, on this talk page. In my opinion, the image should only have been deleted after that discussion had run its course, and a consensus had arisen that her role, her own recognition of her RBF, was not noteworthy. Geo Swan (talk) 13:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: See my comment in the section immediately above this one, which addresses why I removed the images. The RfC a few sections above is fairly clear that, at the very least, we shouldn't associate living people with this term using a picture in situations where those people have not attached themselves to the term in some way. The consensus on the use of Jessica Bennett was less clear, which is why I say "at the very least".

"Replaceable by a free image" does not mean a free image currently exists. It means a free image could exist. The exact text of WP:NFCC#1 is "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." The bolded bit is the part you're missing. For instance, it might be the case that there exists no free images of a living person, but it is against policy to use non-free images of living persons merely to show their general appearance, because a free image could exist if any individual took a picture of the living person. The whole premise of "resting bitch face" is that an individual displays a "bitchy face" by default, so by definition, it should be possible to take a free image of Jessica Bennett with her default facial expression. Ergo, replaceable.

I agree with you that Bennett's role was substantial, and I even supported the use of the image originally. Copyright violations must be removed, however. That's not negotiable. ~ Rob^Talk 13:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: the links to the photos are now back in place. They had been temporarily removed. However if neither are going to be used in this article, I will ask to have them removed from commons since they would have no real purpose for existing in our photo database. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fyunck(click): I nominated both images for deletion. That first image? It seemed to me it was a family photo, one of dozens, taken by an adoring grandpa, and that unless it is deleted, pronto, we risk humiliating grandpa, and considerably compromising, or possibly permanently ruining his relationship with his grand-daughter. Did you look at any other pictures he took of her? She seems to be in the 13-15 year old age range. It is a sensitive age. Yipes!
Did you see my reply, above, to the comment where you said Ms Bennett "hated her face"? Geo Swan (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a looksee above. And since they are not going to be used here I asked for the two photos to be deleted. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if you are satisfied they shouldn't be used after-all, would you consider applying a speedy of your own? Speedies from good faith uploader, who have second thoughts shortly after the upload are not apt to be challenged. {{speedy|pilot error -- on second thought I think these are private photos, and not in scope}} should work. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 10:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After I uploaded them I was in contact with an administrator. If they were not going to be used I would let him know and he'd delete them. Which I have done. So you can rest easily now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Louis XIV image?

I looked into some of the sources in the hopes of finding a suitable image. Citation 15 cites Louis XIV as a historical example of "bitchy resting face", specifically citing this portrait as an example. Louis XIV is long-deceased, so BLP doesn't apply. This portrait is also in the public domain, so there's no copyright concerns here. He's also been cited in a reliable source. What are your thoughts on using this image? Seems like this might be the best we're going to get. ~ Rob^Talk 00:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Louis XIV by Rigaud contains five different portraits. Chloe Hogg wrote: "Hyacinthe Rigaud's famous portrait of Louis XIV depicts the absolute monarch's absolute physiognomic control as part of the attributes of royalty-what I'm tempted to call, in contemporary emotional parlance, Louis XIV's "bitchy resting face". How do you know which one she meant? Geo Swan (talk) 01:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She referred to Figure 5 in the actual text of the article, which was this portrait. (Also, Rigaud's famous portrait of Louis XIV is unambiguously this one. It's his most famous work by far.) ~ Rob^Talk 01:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not a woman. A male has a different terminology... RAF. I think for deceased entities, Bette Davis or Vivien Leigh are much better choices. They have public domain pics too. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This term has been applied to men as well. Kanye West is often cited as an example, and a reliable source lists Louis XIV as another example. Which reliable source has applied the term to Bette Davis or Vivien Leigh? ~ Rob^Talk 03:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fyunck(click):, the funny or die parody PSA is the only place I remember an RS referring to an asshole face, and, IMO, their brief example showed a different sullen kind of face, not like Kanye West, the man most usually identified as a male with RBF. I think it is safe to leave asshole face out, or give it a mere passing mention, or confine it to a footnote.
One what?

The list at your link starts with Bette Davis -- you(?) mentioned using her, but this image is almost certainly proprietary;
The first male is George Washington, but he is a bad example because it is well known he wore primitive 18th century false teeth.
2nd male, Leo Decaprio -- also almost certainly proprietary, plus he is smirking, so not a good example of RBF;
3rd male, Kanye, very Kanye-like, but almost certainly proprietary;

Am I missing something? Why did you draw this list to our attention? Geo Swan (talk) 10:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because I was asked to show a source that Bette Davis had RBF. Nothing more. The rest of the list is useless. You know we don't have to use the exact pic shown if we know they have RBF. Also your constant challenges to me are starting to seem like you have a chip on your shoulder. Please assume good faith. I was asked to come here to try and help, nothing more. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem Geo Swan is point toward is that we kind of do need a source saying a specific photo is RBF, or we're making some type of editorial judgement saying that the expression in the photo is RBF. For instance, File:Bette_Davis_-_portrait.jpg is obviously not RBF. Do we put that in the article stating she has been noted to have RBF, unqualified? If not, why is it then appropriate to find another picture and decide that picture is resting bitch face. It does seem to have a touch of WP:OR to me. ~ Rob^Talk 05:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...I would disagree with that to a point. Certainly we could limit ourselves that way. But if we do that, then one or two sources that tell us a specific photo is a RBF example, would be just as useless because it's simply two opinions. We'd need many direct sources that tell us a single picture is RBF... and not just a repeat of the same research in different newspapers. Also, a person doing a selfie of RBF and making it public domain would be just as useless because who are they to say it's a real example of RBF? We are painting ourselves into a corner where no example will be good enough.

Now that's fine, we can certainly have the article with no examples. But if we can find several sources that say someone like Bette Davis or Vivian Leigh are examples of people with RBF, and we can find some PD shots of them with what appears to be RBF, it can be captioned something like, "Bette Davis is said to have had RBF." Word of mouth around the internet easily finds many people that say those two had it, but not reliable sources by any stretch. We'd need to find those reliable sources...many of them. The question is how high to set the bar? So high that no one could possibly match up? (and for a derogatory article that might be what we want). Or some flexibility with at least a PD deceased person? I'm not sure there's a good answer. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I originally considered that possibility (caption with something saying that "X was reported to have RBF" rather than "This is an example of RBF"), but I think there's still a strong assumption that the photo we place in the article shows RBF. I don't personally mind setting the bar so high that no images can be included; if there are no reliably sourced and publicly available images available, there should be no images. But I still think the Louis XIV image above is reliably sourced and a decent example, so that's an option still. ~ Rob^Talk 06:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the citation under 15, and how many sources name this portrait as an example of RBF? Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Things have since been moved around in the article. The citation is now cite 20 ("Subject of Passions" is in the title of the source, just for the sake of this discussion being intelligible in the future). As far as I know, that's the only source that calls the portrait RBF, but we don't need the same extraordinary sourcing required by BLP for this case because Louis XIV isn't alive. ~ Rob^Talk 07:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the term used in the source, but I wasn't thinking we needed extraordinary sourcing for dead people. But we certainly might need more than one person's opinion that Louis had BRF. And how do we know that's his resting face? It was agony to stand hour after hour for a portrait back in those days. I would think we would need a photograph to really capture the essence, rather than this painting. I'm guessing we may never find it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GregorB added it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 Reborn, I must say I had no prior knowledge of this discussion. The image is not ideal: 1) not being focused on the face, it is rather small, so the reader has to click on it to see the actual expression, and above all 2) I find the face in the painting kind of enlightened, even sympathetic, and I actually don't think it is a particularly fitting illustration of the subject, even if its inclusion may be lege artis. I wouldn't mind at all if it gets reverted. GregorB (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Qwantz, regarding this, see above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this an article?

This is more of a gag than a legitimate psychological phenomenon. Does it really deserve an article of its own? Akesgeroth (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the term should be clearly described as a meme only, not as some widely known 'facial expression'

I think this actually deserves an article, weirdly. It's a hugely well-known phenomenon. It's also important in the field of social interaction. EditorPerson53 (talk) 09:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image

Regarding this, I was going to ask Fyunck(click) why the image was removed since Stewart has identified herself as having a resting bitch face, but, after seeing the RfC above, I reverted myself. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was the reasoning behind my removal. It's kind of a tough subject since there are sources, but the RfC above made me think that it would be better to be removed. I thought I entered a summary but I guess not. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this real

I came across this article and...this was hilarious! But this...is just...how? How is this a real article? How is this of importance? In what situation would somebody be when they wonder "What is the history of Brie Larson's blank stare"? No, but, if anybody could, explain the reason for this article's existance?165.73.226.233 (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I searched for the term today. A YouTube video about communicating better said to avoid making the "RBF" and here I found the definition.

Maybe it would suit better The Urban Dictionary, but lack of usefulness is not a reason to remove, in my humble opinion.

PS: it is kind of sexist, though... 2804:1790:8344:2500:B5E7:7FED:FEDE:FD5A (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a topic in an "encyclopedia"?

How far we've fallen from actual encyclopedias if this is considered appropriate for an online one. SMH. 2601:600:A480:4C20:2DB4:7021:7CB2:30F7 (talk) 01:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in the bullshit allegation. It is conceptually false to think that topics aren't per se a vehicle to defamation. There were sciences on how different color of people causes different intelligence (which is plainly false) and how certain looks are to be described with certain insults (that is precisely given here). I deem it perfectly in line with wikipedia's ambition for inclusivity to have this article deleted at once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.17.92.45 (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is it is covered in Oxford Dictionary, Cambridge Dictionary, Washington Post, English Language and Usage encyclopedia, Collins dictionary, Business Insiders, etc... It's a term covered in many regularly used publications, so Wikipedia does too. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]