File talk:Virgin Killer.jpg/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Cropped?

Hey. Any objection if I upload a new version that crops out the bottom part, as in this news article? I'll cite WP:Undue weight, because I think we're giving undue weight to graphic material that can instead be described just fine using words (and imagination). Including the bottom part of the image will be distracting for many people, and will detract from the more encyclopedic content of the article. The bottom part of the image is intended for little else than shock and titillation, and words will suffice to describe it. The free speech battle has already been won here; we can choose to do whatever we think is proper. Let's not do something improper merely because we can.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The only thing that is proper and appropriate here is WP:NOTCENSORED. A cropped image is simply caving in to the censors and the whiners, and will do nothing but detract and cheapen the article. Not going to happen. Tarc (talk) 03:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTCENSORED: "Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the U.S. state of Florida where Wikipedia's servers are hosted, will also be removed." As far as I know, there is not a Wikipedia policy to always do the opposite of what censors and whiners say. On the other hand, there is a Wikipedia policy against undue weight. Has anyone in this long-drawn-out matter suggested cropping out the bottom? If not, then why not take a fresh look at the matter?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

There is not BLP violation, this flimsy charge was turned aside with ease in the discussions here last month. There is no undue weight in including the album art in the article about the, y'know, album. Every single musical album article on the Wikipedia includes, or should include, album art, an issue that has been covered extensively in WP:NONFREE discussions. Singling this one out because of the controversial nature of the cover itself is the epitome of censorship. It also does not violate the law in Florida or in any other state, as it has never been deemed obscene by any court of law. These concerns are wholly without merit. Tarc (talk) 04:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

There are so many erroneous statements there that I'll take it by the numbers. (1) I never suggested that this is a BLP violation. (2) You know very well that you would object to some types of album art if it's obscene and/or grotesque enough, so clearly being album art does not ipso facto make it suitable for Wikipedia. (3) I'm singling this out because of undue weight, and would do so whether there's a controversy or not. (4) WP:NOTCENSORED clearly contemplates removal of some material that violates no law whatsoever, such as material that violates WP:Undue weight. BTW, nothing against the Scorps here. I think they're great.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not Tarc, but if something's obscene and/or grotesque enough for me to object, the creator's probably sitting in jail somewhere, and it's illegal for the image to be posted on Wikipedia. --Carnildo (talk) 04:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the Florida legislature is saying that we ought to do whatever falls short of a criminal offense. Legality seems like an awfully low threshold for Wikipedia content.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm against the cropping, and I'm not sure that wikipedia rules allow this kind of editing of copyrighted works either. Verbal chat 09:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a no to the cropping from me. I don't see how we can possibly be giving WP:Undue weight to the image. Undue weight to the album's cover which is the most significant aspect of the subject? To do anything but display the image in full would in my view be to not represent the facts of this issue properly to our readers so that they can come to their own conclusions. WP:UNDUE states that an article "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject", it seems obvious that the album cover is a very significant aspect of this subject and so should be treated appropriately, not unnecessarily cropped to benefit the minority who are going to be upset by it. So I disagree completely that we are giving it undue weight and so WP:NOTCENSORED remains an important consideration here. Adambro (talk) 09:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

UNDO would best apply if we cropped the image to show only the naughty bits. Anything short of that - and undo just doesn't apply. Rklawton (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Ferrylodge. 1) You were quoting a part of WP:NOTCENSORED regarding BLP. 2) It is quite doubtful that any such image exists, as such a thing would have been deemed obscene in a court of law and not allowed to be used, so that is moot. 3) You are singling it out because you don't like it, there is no other reason. 4) Undue weight simply has no application here. To have an article about an album but censor the album art is just patently ridiculous in any case. But in this one, the opposition to it, the IWF fiasco, etc...has actually done more to cement the necessity of its inclusion than anything else, as it has now become a focus of such controversy. Every call for its removal or alteration, such as this, only further solidifies its need. Tarc (talk) 14:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I also oppose the obviously ridiculous idea of cropping the image. There's not a glimmer of undue weight here. In case anyone has missed it, I'll point out what's obviously going on. A few of the people who don't like this image are determined to come back every month or two for another bite at the apple, unsupported by any policy or facts, on some absurdly thin excuse to finally succeed in attacking this image. Obviously, responsible editors will have to keep this image on their watchlists. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent)I didn't know about this image until yesterday (from the Signpost), and I don't intend to come back in the future to discuss it. The consensus is not to crop, so we won't crop. But I would like to say that this is a very unusual case where there are two different album covers for the same album, and showing one full album cover in this case seems like plenty to me. If we were following reliable sources like The Guardian then we would crop. I don't think this is a BLP violation, and I only mentioned BLP because it's part of the whole policy that I quoted from WP:NOTCENSORED. What I think this is is undue weight, because the vast majority of reliable sources describe "Virgin Killer" without feeling the need to republish the entire controversial album cover. Again Tarc, Wikipedia does not have a policy to always do the opposite of what whiners and/or censors prefer, and it seems kind of reactionary to take such a stance. Free speech is a right to say all kinds of ridiculous things, not an obligation to do so.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps there's a 5% or so part of me that loves thumbing my nose at prudes and hand-wringers, sure. But the other 95% simply wants it kept, unaltered, because it is significant and relevant to the article. More so than many if not all other album articles, given the notability that it has achieved. only couldn't honestly discuss the subject at hand without seeing, fully, what all the hubbub was about, any more than you could discuss Piss Christ without seeing the infamous crucifix floating in a jar of piss. The Wikipedia should be free of the traditional confines of the mainstream media, and should not follow when they fear to tread. Tarc (talk) 16:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If we drop a cover, it should be the boring one, not the notably controversial one.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of this discussion, community consensus to keep the image basically means consensus to keep it unaltered (given the nature of the debate). Protonk (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No we should certainly not crop it. Not only is it censorship, but it would misrepresent what the cover is and thus be unencyclopedic. Chillum 14:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Privacy

I am sort of wondering, since this is so old, the person on the cover is probably an adult by now, maybe there are media statements from her regarding if she likes it? Tyciol (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

In a band interview, a band member said they'd spoken to her 15 years after the photo was taken and she had no problem with it then. Also, she doesn't seem to have made any comment during the recent uproar over the image. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed comments

Some comments have been removed as they breach several of our guidelines on editor conduct, most notably WP:FORUM, WP:TALK and WP:BLP (due to the accusations made against living people). Verbal chat 08:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)