Talk:Virgin Killer/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Placement of the cover images

There has been a lot of back & forth in the last hour or so over the placement of the images. Some editors appear to prefer the "group shot" cover to be at the top of the infobox, and the more contentious "nude girl" cover at the bottom. I am well aware of the RfC/IfD and other ongoing issues surrounding the cover image, but I believe that this placement is a separate issue and is completely incorrect. The purpose of the "cover" field in the infobox is for the original cover of the album. See Template:Infobox Album#Cover: "An image of the official front cover of the original version of the album (or a reissue, if no original cover can be found) should be included at Cover." This is not a policy, but it is the intended purpose of the field. The purpose of the "alternate cover" field is for any alternate covers that were released after the original cover. It is precisely for cases like this album that the "alternate cover" field was created. Since the "nude girl" cover is the original, it belongs in the "cover" field while the "group shot" cover belongs in the "alternate cover" field. This is made even clearer by the file name of the "group shot" image: "Virgin Killer alternate cover.jpg" Placing the alternate cover at the top and the original at the bottom is blatantly incorrect, as the "nude girl" is not the "alternate cover", it is the original. This has nothing to do with the RfC or the status of the image, it is merely a matter of placing the images in the correct fields. What purpose is served by placing them incorrectly? It merely confuses readers and makes the field titles incorrect. I am well aware that the RfC/IfD is ongoing, and am a participant in it. However, I ask all editors to please leave the cover images in the correct fields as their placement is not the subject of the RfC and is a completely separate issue. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I see that PetraSchelm has moved the images back to her preferred placement again. Since we are both close to violating 3RR (if we haven't already) I will leave it be, but I again protest that this is blatantly incorrect. Would you place the band's name in the genre field and their genre in the name field? Of course not. So why are you so insistent on placing the original cover in the "alternate cover" field and the alternate cover in the "cover" field? I'm sorry I cannot think of a more polite way of phrasing this, but you are simply wrong. This has nothing to do with the IfD, as the placement of the images is not a topic in that discussion. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The "wrong" placement is an effort to be sensitive to concerns over the appropriateness of the image, and also to try and re-focus attention on the fact that this article isn't about a naked girl, but about a rock music album. And, actually, the placement isn't necessarily as wrong as you claim. The original cover may have been the girl, but that doesn't mean the image they switched to afterwards is the "alternate". I'd say the other way around -- the image was replaced. The original is actually the "alternate version" now. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree. I am off to change Catch a Fire right now. Thanks, SqueakBox 06:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the sarcasm, Squeak, but unfortunately I doubt many others will or that it will help this issue. Equazicon, no matter how many times the cover art is changed over the years the first released version is the "original". Unless I'm mistaken, that is one of the definitons of "original" ("first in a series"), while "alternate" is "a substitute; an alternative; one designated to take the place of another". The "group shot" cover was created specifically to replace the original "nude girl" cover, making it by definition the "alternate cover." This is a simple matter of correct definitions. Placing the images in the incorrect fields gives the erroneous impression that the "group shot" cover came first and the "nude girl" came later, which is obviously factually incorrect and which the text of the article clearly contradicts in discussing the controversy over the cover art. Moving the images around in order to cater to the concerns of those who think the original cover is inappropriate is contrary to Wikipedia's policy of neutral point of view. "Hiding" the image this way strikes me as rather weasely (as does your illogical response about the definitions of "original" & "alternate"). Moving the image 5 inches up or down does not make it any more or less controversial, it simply makes the infobox inaccurate and incorrect. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're arguing about the definition of "original". I agreed that the original was the first image (read over my comment again). If we're going by the wording in the album infobox template, the only semantic argument that can be made is for the word "alternate", as the word "original" makes no appearance. Which is the alternate version? Well, arguments can be made for both -- you say alternate is the opposite of original, but I say it can also be the opposite of current. These are petty concerns though, as the terminology used in template parameter names is hardly binding. The question is quite simply which order best serves the article, and that's probably going to come down to pure personal preference. I'd still make the argument that the current cover should come first, followed by the deprecated one, an accurate designation considering that the original is no longer in actual use. It's not the strongest argument, but I think the counter-arguments are at least equally weak. This may have to come down to a straw poll :) Equazcion •✗/C • 09:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Interjection: You are incorrect in implying that the term "original" cover does not apply. As I said in my initial post, the explanation of the cover field on the template page reads: "An image of the official front cover of the original version [my emphasis] of the album (or a reissue, if no original cover can be found) should be included at Cover." (See Template:Infobox Album#Cover). This makes the intended purpose of the field quite clear. "Original" is not the same as "most common" or "current". And even if the original cover is deprecated it is still the original. Again, the entire purpose behind adding an "alternate cover" field to the template was to allow for this kind of situation, where the original cover differs substantially from later covers. This is especially helpful in situations like this, where there is an encyclopedic story to be told about how a controversy over artwork led to a change from the original cover. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

So, will moving the controversial image to the "alternate" position satisfy the censors? No, only its removal will. Will it improve accuracy? No, that WAS the originally released cover. So why are we even approaching 3RR for a change that adds nothing? Jclemens (talk) 07:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The images should be left in the correct usual spots, the original goes at the top. Please discuss here before reverting as there seems to be no consensus for the change Acer (talk) 10:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I do believe we're trying to determine which should be considered the "correct" placement, if you'll kindly read above, rather than imposing your own opinions as final decisions, thanks much. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

By correct I meant usual, bad choice of words. My point is that we can certanly go with a non-standard placement but I want to see concesus formed first which it hasnt. I'm not imposing anything. Acer (talk) 10:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure y'are. We're having a discussion about what to do, whereas you went ahead and did it. That's not helpful. In fact it's contributing to an edit war. Everyone else stopped reverting and talked instead. "Instead" being the key word, rather than "in addition to" reverting the article yet again. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I simply restored the article to what it looked like before it was changed, peding consensus here. But honestly why are we arguing? Neither of us took part in the edit war. If you feel so strongly about this then you can go ahead an change it, I wont revert you though I would expect you to change it back if no consensus is reached Acer (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, one of us did take part in the edit war -- you, just now. I'm arguing about this because I'm annoyed that you did that while the rest of us were holding back and discussing the issue. "Restoring" the article to what it was before the edit war is irrelevant and not required or recommended when discussing a controversial issue. You reverted to the version you like better, instead of participating in the discussion. When waiting for consensus to develop, you simply wait. The state the article is in during that discussion is not anyone's concern. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

How about one of us started an edit war, you? I've already offered you a compromise, you ignored it. I'm not going to keep on arguing for the sake of it. I will not reply further here except for isues dealing directly with the article and would welcome the same action from you, lets end it here shall we? Acer (talk) 11:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't start an edit war. I made an edit that hadn't been made before, based on someone else's suggestion, which I thought seemed reasonable. This led to a revert war that I did not once participate in. Your "compromise" involved me reverting the article again. I'm not sure why you think I would do that when I've already stated how annoyed I am that you reverted it despite this discussion. If you want to compromise, undo your edit. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I saw today that the images had been swapped. I see no consensus here, and no clear, valid arguments as to why anything should be changed. I agree with the first comments by IllaZilla. The media report has no bearing on anything. Amazon.com are quite happy to sell the import version with the original cover. The article is confusing if the original is not in the top. Simple as that. --  Chzz  ►  17:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Amazon are a commercial organisation; we are an educational charity, so comparing us to Amazon is not as simp[le as all that. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Chzz, read the discussion above. There's no consensus for either way. Reverting to your preferred order is just... well, I'm going to try to hold back from saying something unkind, but it's getting difficult, with what I just went through in the previous argument. If you'd like to be constructive, you could undo your edit, rather than contributing yet again to the edit war. Otherwise you're just part of the problem. Thanks for everyone's continued cooperation here. This is just marvelous. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Since people don't seem to be able to read, I've requested temporary protection here. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to make sure we're on the same page here, in case there is no consensus it should go back to what it was before (ie: the original cover at the top). Agreed? Acer (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't see any grounds to say what the default placement should be. If there's no consensus, we may need to post an RfC, or even take a vote. It seems like a trivial thing to make such a big deal over, but people seem to feel strongly enough about it to edit war over it, so we need to do what's necessary to come to a decision. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This works for me too, I was just worried that in case there was no consensus some would use that to maintain the article in its current form. Good call on the poll btw - Acer (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I've fully protected it for a few days due to the revert warring of multiple users. Nufy8 (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the default placement should have the "replaced" cover further down in the infobox as "alternate". Generally speaking, the primary image in the infobox should be the cover most generally associated with the record, and anything else is an "alternate". Not "what came first". That's silly. Ford MF (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a very US-Centric viewpoint. On what do you base the presumption that the band picture is more clearly associated with the album than the girl? On the contrary, I would say that the controversy demonstrates that the girl picture is the more notable cover. Jclemens (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair rebuttal to make, except I don't think it's yet been convincingly demonstrated that the original cover continues to be the one used everywhere outside the United States. The only documented continued usage I've seen is in Japan, a country significantly smaller than the U.S. And although people have said Germany continues to use the original cover, Amazon.com Germany indicates otherwise. Ford MF (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED

This seems like a pretty clear case of "Wikipedia is not censored" to me. The cover may be controversial. The cover may offend you. The cover is clearly notable. In no way should it be deleted. The flip of the covers...eh. I'm actually okay with it as a compromise, but then, I don't know how strongly the infobox conventions are held to. --mordicai. (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I read on this page that the original (first) cover is still used everywhere but the US. Would that not make the original one the "main" cover and the newer a "US alternative". In that case I would see the order old-new as logical. 91.152.48.20 (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. As previously mentioned before, Amazon.com is happy to sell "import" versions of the disc, and display the cover art without censorship. Also, yeah, I don't know how WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't just end the argument, period. Ford MF (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Because child porn is not protected by the first amendment.-PetraSchelm (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Illegal child porn is not in the eye of Wikipedia editors. If the image was genuinely, unambiguously illegal, the Wikimedia Foundation would have long since deleted it. Ford MF (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not true; their only defense against liability is that they don't accept responsibility one way or the othor/can't control content. They may want the community to delete it but be unable to issue a statement saying so without incurring liability for all WP content.-PetraSchelm (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Then that's their problem. Again, legal concerns are not our concern. If they want something done but don't want to say it, we still don't need to do it, and it's not our job to try and read their minds. It's not the job of the editing body to provide plausible denial to the foundation. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I think it is our problem, if we care about the project. The consensus here of WP editors may not be a consensus that jibes with the real world WP readers, which we should be thinking about. According to the US DOJ, "Among the few distinguishing features of {child porn} offenders are that they are likely to be white, male, and between the ages of 26 and 40, and heavy Internet users to the extent that it interferes with other aspects of their lives." That demographic does describe the WP editor demographic better than it describes the rest of the world, so maybe we should think about possible systemic bias here and take the rest of the world into a little more consideration, for the good of the project.-PetraSchelm (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless you're a lawyer working for the Wikimedia Foundation, your interpretation of what the DOJ says is not relevant here. The Foundation has in the past been unhesitating with, for example, BLP concerns when illegality has been brought to their attention. Again, legal concerns are not the province of individual Wiki editors, unless it be blatant illegality (e.g. copyvio), a category that by virtue of the existence of this debate does not include this image. Ford MF (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Huh? Pointing out the similarites between the WP editor demographic and the child porn consumer demographic isn't a legal point, it's a point about possible systemic bias. Before we go overboard smugly congratulating ourselves for our "righteous stance against censorship," maybe we should think about how this sort of delsuion is not shared by most people, and that our readers--the people the project is for--form a different demographic.-PetraSchelm (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

There are 6 billion individuals on the planet, which ones are you suggesting we use as a moral guide to combat the obvious pedophilic bias of wikipedia? Acer (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

How about the vast majority of them.-PetraSchelm (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember voting for you as the speaker for mankind Acer (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

But the point is maybe we should be polling humankind, or paying attention to a larger segment of it, not just WP editors. Because it isn't about us, it's about the project. (Start with Gawker...)-PetraSchelm (talk) 20:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait, how did the use of racial profiling get brought up here? One moment I was reading a debate on the subject & then suddenly the "demographics" of Wikipedia are under discussion? I can't see how that is relevant to anything at all, besides as a set up for some ad hom or straw man arguments. Just a weird, non-applicable tangent. --mordicai. (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Personally I think gender, not race is the key here. (As well as internet overusage). But this is WP on systemic bias, verbatim: "Change the demographic of Wikipedia. Encourage friends and acquaintances that you know have interests that are not well-represented on Wikipedia to edit. If you are at a university, contact a professor in minority or women's studies, explain the problem, and ask if they would be willing to encourage students to write for Wikipedia."-PetraSchelm (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

  And this has to do with the issue at hand because ... ? Ford MF (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well...okay? I mean, I'm right there with you, agreeing that the WP contributer base should be as broad as possible. I...don't understand how that in any way shape or form whatsoever applies to the topic under discussion. (Which I apparently edit conflicted with FMF saying...) --mordicai. (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The photo isn't child porn. If it was, it would be illegal, and it's not. It's existed for 30 years and neither the producers nor people who own copies have been arrested. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• • As stated above repeatedly, I think we should be concerned about possible systemic bias here; the gap between WP editors and WP readers, for the good of the project (since we are writing the encyclopedia for readers, many of whom are kids, not to reinforce our own prejudices for fun, or to feel smug that we are "anticensorship," about something that is not worth defending).-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

See-- here is a major split in our perceptions of the event. Removing an image, choosing to censor it, is enforcing a prejudice. Keeping an image, & allowing others to have their own reactions to it, is the open path. I'd venture to say that is what lies at the heart of WP:NOTCENSORED. Neutering Wikipedia with the express intent to make it kid-friendly compromises the integrity of the project. Being "anti-censorship" means you don't pick & choose your battles based on what you feel is personally acceptable. So as to, as you say, stay clear of "systemic bias." --mordicai. (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

"Neuter" is an interesting choice of word; no comment. Anyway, it's gone now.-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Spoke to soon! She's back! & I'll not comment on you seeing connotations where they might not be there...sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. With the tip getting cut off! OH NO OH THE HORROR! --mordicai. (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

failure to enforce a law does not mean said law does not exist. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I notice Gawker didn't reproduce it in full. They're certainly happy to choose some worthy battles over "censorship"-- like refusing to bow down to Scientologists--but they didn't seem to think this pic was worth litigation, legal risk, or looking like creeps to the general public.-PetraSchelm (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to bring the photo to the foundation's attention. Perhaps start an arbitration case, even. But I doubt it'll be accepted, pending the IfD. Again, legality isn't our concern. If you're concerned about the reputation of the project, the IfD will determine the validity of that argument. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I hate to correct you Equazcion but the WP:NOTCENSORED people just dismiss out of hand the possible effects on the community, or the legal effects on people who work or just read wikipedia. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

What legal effects on people who read wikipedia? Ford MF (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

"NSFW"--not safe for work, for one thing.-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

So if you feel so strongly about that, advocate for a change to WP:NOTCENSORED. Jclemens (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

There have been claims (claims) that if you have "child pornography" in the cache of your internet browser that you "possess" child pornography. --mordicai. (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Because if you read the page then you will download the picture, and that picture may well be in classed as child porn in their country, so by having this picture wikipedia is making its readers violate the laws. And before you start giving the you can have image blocking, many people will not think "oh i'm going to look at a wikipage about an album so i better put image blocking on incase there is any child porn there". ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

And viewing of some of the articles on this site in some countries under Sharia law could lead to the death penalty. What's your point? 99.170.55.217 (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

If its in your cache then you do possess it under English law. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

As soon as this image is determined to be against any country's laws, that will be an issue. As of now, there is no place in which this image has been outlawed. Jclemens (talk) 22:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That will be determined by getting a wikipedian locked up, not the way to go in my book. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If you mean this will be determined in some legal fashion, then if it does, it will be in a legal decision by the foundation. If you mean someone will go to court, it will be the foundation. If you mean someone will go to prison, in all likelihood no one will, as the foundation will remove the image if a court of law determines it to be illegal. If you mean one or many of Wikipedia's registered users will face legal consequences, you're incorrect. No single user or even group of users is directly responsible for the image's existence or its storage on Wikipedia's servers. The foundation alone is responsible in legal matters, as they own the servers, and it is their responsibility to maintain them in accordance with Florida and US federal law. This is all moot, though, since your concern stems from the issue of child pornography, and this image, while depicting a nude child, has existed for 30 years and was produced by a record company that's still in existence. If the image were considered child pornography by law, the producers, photographer, and not to mention the model's parents would have been prosecuted a long time ago. Even if there is an FBI investigation into this image, which I doubt, our legal system would not imprison anyone for using a 30 year-old, published and mass-produced image that they could have no way of knowing would turn out to be illegal. And if this is a legitimate concern you have here, you should notify all of the thousands of other websites that post this picture as well. The fact that none of their lawyers have seen fit to remove it yet should likewise tell you something. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that this will be used as Yet Another stick to beat wikipedia with, we have enough enemies do we really need to create more just to post naked pictures of children? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 11:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

We don't remove things out of fear of making enemies. That would mean shying away from controversial material, and if we did that, this would be a very different place, and a good portion of our content would basically be gone. Enemies are a fundamental necessity when you participate in an uncensored medium. Anyone who's uncomfortable with that might want to reconsider their involvement here. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you read Not censored? in case you haven't heres an important bit "While obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately." What part of child porn is obviously inappropriate content are you having a problem with? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 11:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you read my paragraph above? This is not child porn. Calling it child porn does not make it child porn. Child porn is illegal, and any website displaying it would be shut down immediately. Again, the photo has existed for 30 years on a mass-produced album cover and not a single prosecution occurred as a result. Nudity does not equal pornography. Look it up. And while you're at it, do a google image search for "Virgin Killer" and count how many websites are displaying what you refer to as "child porn". Equazcion •✗/C • 11:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

So your a lawyer who is qualified to give legal opinions for the over 250 countries world wide?^{(Hypnosadist)} 11:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Are you? Wikipedia editors don't need to be concerned with legality. You're welcome to bring this to the attention of the foundation, since it's their decision, but I believe that's already been done. First you brought up the legal issue, then you said we're making enemies. Now you've brought the legal issue again. Shall we go back and forth on this again? I've addressed every one of your concerns. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You havn't addressed my concerns you've dismissed them, not the same thing at all. Editors and readers do have to be concerned with legalities when they are unwittingly forced to break the law in their country by wikipedia. As for the fact that you can buy it on Amazon as proof of legallity that is a completely flawed argument. You can buy books with bomb makeing instructions on amazon for which the possesion of in the UK can get you 7 Years in max security under anti-terrorism laws. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 11:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

← If caching a photo of a nude child is illegal in your country, it's up to you to choose which websites you visit. I believe in certain mid-eastern countries it's illegal to show the uncovered face of a woman, but that doesn't mean we must remove all photos of women from the site. Which legal concerns are valid is again up to the foundation. If they say something is okay legally, it's then up to us to determine whether or not it's in line with Wikipedia's policies. So that's where we stand at the moment. You said you're afraid of making enemies; Any uncensored medium will make enemies, so unless we plan to change our uncensored nature, that's not a reason to remove anything. If your rationale is that child nudity is "obviously inappropriate", then you're welcome to that opinion, but it looks like most people here disagree with you. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

← I'm pretty sure that in Saudi Arabia and Iran, you'd be thrown in prison or even executed for blasphemy for some of the stuff we have at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons and Depictions of Muhammad. Better take all of those down. And as Equazion said, watch out for those pictures of women's faces. Risque stuff, that. If there is truly a legal issue here, Mike Godwin will delete the image as being illegal, and that'll be the end of it. FCYTravis (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, and it seems on Wikipedia that you will be blocked for trying to create an article on Erik Moller. That's a good question for the wp:notcensored! crowd--how come you're not up in arms about the suppression of that story on-wiki? (I agree it doesn't belong--for the good of the encyclopedia; which is the same reason I don't think this pic belongs). but I have noted the disparity regarding what is deemed "censorship."-PetraSchelm (talk) 14:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Not censored" doesn't mean "we never remove anything". You have to read the policies in order to find out what they refer to, rather than just going by their titles. If you read WP:NOT, it explains what we mean by the phrase "Wikipedia is not censored". Equazcion •✗/C • 16:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Mmhmm. And I'll quote Hypnosadist above, who has already pointed out: 'While obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately.' What part of child porn is obviously inappropriate content are you having a problem with?" Notcensored doesn't mean we gratuitously include any and all inappropriate material. And what is your rationale again for being very pro this image and dead silent on Erik Moller????-PetraSchelm (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
      • It's child nudity, not child porn. We don't censor any type of nudity purely for being nudity, even in the case of children, and more generally we don't censor things purely for being offensive (that's what not being censored is about). There needs to be some other reason to remove it. And my rationale is that I don't involve myself in every single dispute that exists on Wikipedia. My rationale also includes the fact that I don't know who the fuck Erik Moller is, or for that matter why you expect me to be involved there just because I'm involved here. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
        • It's not "mere nudity." And the Erik Moller story is the other big news story about Wikipedia this week. Maybe you should Google it, since you have such a strong interest in censorship on Wikipedia.-PetraSchelm (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Thanks for the suggestion. As for the type of nudity it is and the reasons whatever it is is acceptable in this case, it's been discussed extensively already, but I suppose if you care to elaborate we can go through it all over again. Or you could just read the IfD and DrV discussions. Either way. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:STICKTheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

:) Equazcion •✗/C • 16:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

just my 2 cents... if you had this image (without "The Scorpions" or "Virgin Killer") on your computer and the feds/interpol/whoever raided your house - would they consider it child porn? yup. perhaps the girl in this particular photo was not exploited; however, i find it very difficult to understand how a girl that is this young is able to make a decision about appearing nude (and associated with theme "virgin killer") like this... did she really understand this image was forever and she was going to be putting herself out that way (and all the complex issues related to it)? has she been justly compensated for the photo and its reproductions? i looked at this photo and i am offended by it - but that's why i wouldn't ever buy something like this or want to see it... perhaps all the people who like the photo and are in such a rush to defend it like it for reasons beyond "freedom?"71.187.211.134 (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)concerned.

Possible new sources

I wanted to add the following from the Washington Post, but the article got protected just before. Editprotected?

The provocative covers and subsequent alternatives for the US market were continued with the later albums Lovedrive, Love at First Sting and Deadly Sting: The Mercury Years. Klaus Meine said in an interview at the time that "We like to go over the edge with this kind of artwork".

The stuff Commentaria found from http://www.annecarlini.com/ex_interviews.php?id=805 about the now adult girl being ok with the cover could also be added to the article following this controversy, though I don't know how notable that would be. --91.155.202.88 (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a very interesting link: "We met the girl some 15 years later and she never had a problem with it." Wow. This stuff should be added to the article. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The source is a blog, and even if it were used it would have to note that the band member claims the girl said that/it's not a quote from the girl.-PetraSchelm (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a legit journalist who does interviews regularly in the music scene. May need more opinions on that first though. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a legitimate claim by the band in their own defense, why not report it? Obviously, it should be in context of other research on the original controversy. Let's make lemonade here, folks! Jclemens (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedians have accepted Russell A. Trunk's interviews as references in other articles[1], so it should be fine here too if indeed the girl's second hand acceptance is notable in an article about the album. In addition to the quotes from the Washington Post already in the article, the full quote of the first part above is:

But their assimilation into American record stores wasn't without hitches. They continued to have trouble with album covers. It appeared that the amount of female flesh that was exposed in their lyrics wasn't going to make the transition onto the record racks quite so easily: Many retailers refused to stock subsequent Scorpions albums, including "Lovedrive" (1979) and "Love at First Sting" (1984). "We like to go over the edge with this kind of artwork, not to say, 'Hey, we want to offend some people or make the headlines,'" says Meine. "That would be stupid. And we still think to have a pretty girl on the cover is much nicer than having an ugly guy, right?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.155.202.88 (talk) 12:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, "secondhand acceptance"--that's what we call hearsay, and no it is not "secondhand acceptance"--it's an unsubstantiated claim by one person about another. And "legitimate claim by the band in their own defense"--it's a claim by one of the members of the band, whether or not is legitimate is dubious, as this girl has never been identified or spoken on the record. This quote would have to be very clearly attributed to the band member, and not represented as anything but his assertion/he cannot speak for her.-PetraSchelm (talk) 13:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

We don't have any rules forbidding hearsay. If it's said in a reliable source, we can say it, too. We'd probably just need to present it as such, eg, "band members said in an interview that years later they discussed the issue with the model and she told them she had no objection to the photo". Equazcion •✗/C • 13:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh, yes we do have rules about hearsay--it's called attribution. And it's band member not members. Also, he says he "ran into" her; discussed sounds a little bogusly formal.-PetraSchelm (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Notice the eg., which I had wrongly assumed you'd know meant not to take the wording too literally. And attribution isn't a policy or a guideline. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Per BLP it is--making controversial assertions about a living person.-PetraSchelm (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

We're allowed to make controversial statements about a living person. Just not unsourced ones that might be construed as disparaging. And I'm not sure how controversial this would be. It's reporting a quote that describes a conversation. There's no controversy about the quote -- we simply say that they said it. We leave it up to the reader to decide whether or not to believe them (the band members), not us. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• No one is saying otherwise--what I said is it has to be clearly attributed as a claim about the girl, not a claim made by the girl (nor can it imply that).-PetraSchelm (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Great. I didn't say anything contrary to that either. Were in agreement then. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Like in the Trunk interview of Rudolf Schenker, http://www.metal-rules.com/zine/content/view/791/ repeats the story on how the cover came to be, this time from Francis Buchholz. It also talks about the identity of the girl, and the designer and photographer are probably listed somewhere as well for connecting the dots, but I'm guessing that if she really wanted to be public about it, like Spencer Elden has been, her name and all would be known and we'd be quoting her interviews now. As it is, there aren't any and the people yelling abuse will just have to believe the sources closest to the original. Schenker repeats the history of the cover at http://www.bigmusicgeek.com/Scorpions_1.htm as well. Sources from before the Internet era would be nice though. Anyone have a good local library with music mag archives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.155.202.88 (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

add this to the article

"What was the bands thinking back in '76 when the 'Virgin Killer' album was released featuring a fully nude prepubescent girl on the cover? "I pushed the band to really stay behind it because it wasn't the idea of ours it was the idea of the record company and a journalist; who was a very good friend of ours. So, I told them it was the best way to push the press people into a position of having to really think about it. Because we found out that the people that were writing about the Scorpions in those days never went through the lyrics or whatever."

"Ulrich Roth composed the song 'Virgin Killer' ... and I remember when we did this session in our rehearsal studio in the basement of this school and Ulrich starting singing these high-pitched lyrics. I told him that what he was singing was great and that 'Virgin Killer' was a great title and that we have to use it! So, we used it and out of the lyrics came the line that time was a virgin killer. That means everybody comes in through life with a very naive, and a very great feeling to do something and time is killing your naivety, killing your emotions because you really have too many blocks to whatever you want to do."

"So, in this case when they came up with the cover - the record company and the guy - I said that it was a great thing. Because many people were not going through the lyrics they were only making some stupid kind of comments. But when you said to them have they looked at the lyrics as we're only using it as a symbol of the lyrics they started to think differently. So, hopefully then they go through it differently and then we get through the whole situation."

"So, of course it was planned to really get the people into this position. We met the girl some 15 years later and she never had a problem with it. So, in this case we didn't hurt anybody and more people went through the lyrics so we get more attention. And this album became the first gold album we ever had in Japan. Because the Japan people never have a problem with this kind of stuff!"

"And we would never do it today as today is a completely different time. You can see on the internet what they are doing with this kind of stuff, but in those days it was somehow on the border of being acceptable. We were also a rock 'n roll band, we were artists. We had everything on our side. We were young guys ... doing stupid things!""Russell A. Trunk interviewing Rudolf Schenker (rhythm guitars) WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

World Net Daily

A further article has appeared on World Net Daily, titled "Wikipedia debates kiddie porn action - Editors discuss whether to remove image, discovered by WND, investigated by FBI" at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63770. I think this matter should be added to wiki at some point, but perhaps in the Worldnetdaily article, under "Controversial articles". --  Chzz  ►  20:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It's been mentioned many times at the IfD. I'm not sure it belongs in articles, as it's merely a self-reference. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Most WND "articles" are controversial and funny. This Wikipedia-attack-article using a 30-year old anecdotical disc cover to seed moral panic does not belong to the TOP-10, but it has to be admitted that they are working hard Iunaw 23:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Image:Virgin Killer.jpg

In case anyone is interested/didn't know, a review of the closing decision of delete for the original album cover image can be found at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 9. All are welcome to weigh in. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Editprotected revert request

{{editprotected}}

Please revert to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgin_Killer&direction=prev&oldid=211303281

Consensus was reached here: WP:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_May_8#Image:Virgin_Killer.jpg

Justification:

• Ongoing debate about the image should not affect this decision.

• Whilst the various debates take place, over however many days, people who read about this will look on wikipedia and see that action has been taken. This suggests to the 'outside world' that wikipedia has not followed their own policies and procedures regarding decisions

• If the revert does not take place in the near future, then whenever protection is removed a user (such as myself) might quite legitimately revert the image order, because no concensus was reached to amend it. That action is likely to provoke a further unconstructive edit war. If the page is protected again, or if protection is extended for a longer period, this will just emphasise the effect described in my first point.

--  Chzz  ►  01:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I second this request per my comments above (see first comment under "Placement of the cover images"). --IllaZilla (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. See my comments above.-PetraSchelm (talk) 02:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support, the original cover should come first. The Voice Of Your Heart (talk) 02:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support, for many reasons enumerated elsewhere. Jclemens (talk) 02:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

N Not done – I don't see a consensus (yet) to carry out this action. Please get a consensus before requesting an editprotected. Nihiltres^{t.l} 02:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is amply demonstrate in WP:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_May_8#Image:Virgin_Killer.jpg. This is a time-critical matter, as current version does not reflect consensus. Do we all have to vote again? I hope admins will not be afraid of stepping into the controversy. Could you please explain why the consensus given is not sufficient? --  Chzz  ►  02:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

…and that IfD is being contested at deletion review. By the way, there are few things on Wikipedia that are "time-critical" – this is not one. PetraSchelm's oppose above indicates to me that an immediate editprotected is not the answer - an editprotected during a dispute, where one or more users immediately protest the suggestion, should clearly not be carried out. Nihiltres^{t.l} 04:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

...and that deletion review is pretty solidly that the image should be kept. Looking at the preponderence of votes to keep things "as is" in both the IfD and the subsequent DRV... are one or two opposed editors enough to really demonstrate a lack of consensus? I expect tomorrow there will be more discussion here and the consensus will be more obvious here as well. Jclemens (talk) 04:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

and, in the meantime, the outside worl will see that WP has bowed to the incoherent and unverifiable ramblings of an obscure publication. But I can't find any admins willing to stan up and say 'hey, this is wrong' - they're waiting for it to blow over. --  Chzz  ►  04:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Gawker is the manhattan media hipster blog, and they thought the pic was not ok. (Unlike WND, Gawker is an excellent barometer of the most permissive end of the spectrum of taste, so let's not pretend it's just some conservative wingnuts...)-PetraSchelm (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm really not sure you can say "Gawker thought the pic was not OK." There's a rather thoughtful discussion of this issue, and lots of people saying that it's perhaps inappropriate, or that they're uneasy about it. (Which makes sense. I'm sure uneasy about it. It's an extremely provocative, outré photograph.) But I don't see a pitchfork-and-torch brigade screaming that we must take it down or all be dragged off to prison as child-porn distributors. There's even an interesting argument made by someone who disapproves of the photo, but thinks it should remain as a historical artifact.

"But there's definitely an argument for "this happened, it was a part of the past, and hiding it away under the shame blanket isn't going to right any wrongs or do any real good." I guess I feel like this and the Carroll pictures fall into a very limited, specific category where they shouldn't just be suppressed at all costs. They shouldn't be popping up on your screen by accident when you were googling a quote from Alice, but blacking all of this out seems unfaithful to our blemished past... It just seems awfully black and white to me: "It's kiddy porn, destroy it" when obviously there's a bigger story there. It wasn't created just to be kiddy porn, however misguided, they were making some kind of artistic statement, and I get the queasy feeling saying, "What they chose was unacceptable." Bringing the merit of their artistic integrity or quality of music into it just makes me feel even more queasy. But I also feel queasy thinking about the photo shoot that produced the photo. Lots of queasiness in this one."

The discussion is far less black-and-white than you make it out to be. It's also tainted, of course, by the idea that the FBI is actually investigating this - which seriously needs a tag because aside from WND's sensationalism, there's no evidence to suggest that the FBI has any interest in this image. I mean, it's on Amazon.com right now. FCYTravis (talk) 05:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, the only arbiters of what does and does not appear in the Wikipedia is...the Wikipedia. Doesn't matter if its WND, Gawker, the Illuminati, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster; external organizations attempting to exert their POV to force change can go pound sand. Tarc (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, my point is we should be paying attention to the outside world because of our own possible systemic bias. Pointing out that Gawker refused to publish the pic without a giant teddy bear obscuring most of it says a lot (and should defuse the polarized us v. them viz WND drama-rama). On a completely unrelated note, my fave snarky comment from Gawker was "forget the picture, when are they going to start arresting the people who would buy such horrible music." :-) -PetraSchelm (talk) 05:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Editprotected request declined again. Editprotected requests are for minor changes or urgent changes. Neither criterion has been met here. m:The Wrong Version will simply have to stay for the time being. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Building toward a consensus

I've decided to present my analysis of the discussion as it relates to the placement of the two covers. The argument for the nude cover to appear on top seems rooted in the template guideline's suggestion that "an image of the official front cover of the original [my emphasis] version of the album" should be the "main" cover. The other side argues for a less narrow interpretation, suggesting that the most common or most prominent cover associated with the album should appear at the top, which they believe is the group photo. However, a similar line of reason can be applied to the nude cover – that the photo's controversy is itself indicative of prominence over the group shot.

The problem as I see it is that the idea of "most common" is an assertion that has not been verified by reliable sources; this goes for both covers. Amazon.com, though helpful, can by no means be considered an accurate determinant of each cover's prominence in a certain country. Ultimately, no concrete evidence has been presented to back up either claim – that the nude cover is most widely used or that the group shot is – so what other choice do we have but to be pedantic with the template's guidelines? If we place the group shot up top, it will be due to one reason thus far: it is the most common variant. However, as I've stated, this is an unverified statement. If we place the nude cover up top it will be for one of two reasons thus far: that it is the most common variant, which, again, is unverified. Or it can be placed on top because, as the guideline states, is the original, i.e., first cover. Since I don't believe anyone is arguing that the nude photo was not the first, I can only come to the conclusion based on this line of reasoning that, without sources to back up claims of prominence, the nude photo should be placed at the top. Even if we were to ignore all rules with the template guidelines, would not the article be best served using the verified fact that the nude cover is the original versus placing either cover based on unproven assertions?

I hope I haven't mischaracterized anyone's argument; my purpose is to move toward what I believe to be the most logical consensus, not to impose some rigid point of view. If there is another valid reason I missed or if there's evidence of prominence, I would appreciate someone bringing that to my attention. Thanks. Nufy8 (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Very well thought out and stated. However, I can think of one other reason to put the nude cover first: it is the more controversial of the two. Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Erudite, but irrelevant to the immediate issue, I think. A matter for a future debate. In the meantime, it's all so simple - the cover of the album that was sold should appear first. --  Chzz  ►  04:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well-explained, but I would like to add: the lower field is clearly labeled "alternate cover". The definition of alternate, as used here, is "a substitute; an alternative; one designated to take the place of another". The group shot cover was designed specifically to replace the original, controversial cover, as the referenced commentary in the article clearly describes. This makes the group shot unquestionably the alternate cover, even if it is more common/recent. The same goes for albums like Catch a Fire, Yesterday and Today, Ritual de lo Habitual, and The Offspring. So no matter whether we can assert/prove which version is more common, it is blatantly obvious which cover is the "alternate". Indeed, the controversy caused by the original cover, and the subsequent switch to the alternate, is the entire subject of the article's commentary. How there is even a question of which image belongs in which field is absolutely boggling to me. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Protected edit - links to discussions

I made a protected edit here to remove the link to the closed IfD debate, an edit that I hope was uncontroversial. Noting it here for review in case anyone objects. As I said in the edit summary, if a link to the DRV (see here) is needed, please add that in or ask for it to be added. Carcharoth (talk) 10:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Protected edit: Alternate --> original cover

I have made a protected edit to change the caption from "Alternate cover" to "Original cover" to correctly reflect the relationship between the two cover artworks. FCYTravis (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, but as I've explained in both the above discussion and the poll below, there is a broad precendent across WP in these cases for having the original (first pressing) cover be the top image, and any subsequent covers ("alternates") below, under "alternate cover". I don't see a need to make a special exception in this case, and I anticipate that the image positions and the field title will be changed back after the protection period is over (either by myself or another editor, based on the consensus that seems to be forming in the poll below). I am, however, happy that the caption above the image at least correctly identifies it as the original cover for the time being. This at least will be less confusing to readers. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The edit was made without prejudice toward any future decision about which cover goes above or below. It's simply to fix the incorrect and confusing title. FCYTravis (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Understood, and I thank you for doing it. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Coverage of this article on the internet

Well, the alarmists were half right: due to the WND story, bloggers are now blogging about this article and the FBI investigation which nobody can seem to substantiate. However, unlike the alarmists' fears, the bloggers seem to by and large be coming out in favour of Wikipedia. This is, indeed, encouraging to me.[2][3][4]

So far, I haven't found any mainstream news outlets who have picked up the story though. Redfarmer (talk) 08:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean the bloggers are coming out in favour of the pic? Or wikipedia processes? Your comment is not clear but you seem to imply wikipedia is in favour of the pic. Thanks, SqueakBox 12:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

He said in favor of Wikipedia -- meaning that while WND sought to disparage Wikipedia, the bloggers seem not to have given in to that. The point wasn't whether or not the bloggers support the image itself. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Though not mainstream for most of the people here, the "Finnish BBC" YLE has covered this based solely on WND and Wikipedia, reporting that the FBI is now investigating the cover because it's been published on Wikipedia.[5](in Finnish) The quality of journalism these days, seriously...

news coverage

Only reference to this album in uk news since 1991 that I can find is passing mention in The Sun in an article about The Museum Of Bad Album Covers website.Geni 11:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hanging out in record stores (in the UK) was what I did in 1976, frequently, and yet I never saw this record cover. Odd that. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

books

Sound of the beast: The Complete Headbanging History of Heavy Metal has a reference (it thinks the model is 14). Teenage prostitution and child pornography : hearings before the Subcommittee on Select Education of the Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Ninety-seventh Congress, second session, hearings held in Pittsburgh, Pa., April 23; and Washington, D.C., June 24, 1982. has a reference and thinks the model looks about 10. The Rough Guide to Rock has a brief reference but does little more than describe the cover as contriversal.

Geni 12:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Moving forward

Now that the extremely controversial edit protect request has correctly been rejected we need to find consensus on where to go next. There are 3 options that I can see

• we remove the cover from the article
• we keep the cover in its current lower position
• we putt he cover as the first, immediately visible cover

Personally I support the first option. Given the controversial child pornographic nature of the cover, and our ability to describe the image perfectly well without resorting to using it. It has no educational value and huge potential to bring the project into disrepute. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you want to rehash this for what, the third time, go for it. But you're not going to get a consensus to remove it. FCYTravis (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha. Okay, let's get something straight: The image would not have been kept had the article not required it. Removing the image shouldn't even be considered an option. The positioning of the two covers is a question, and there's a poll further up the page to determine it, so people should discuss there, I think. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I am looking for a consensus, which given the article lock we clearly do not have. And I have my opinions but whether my opinions hold sway or not is different from our need to gain consensus and thus avoid edit warring. The edit protection request was so much the wrong way to go about this, and indeed just sours things more, and I am looking for a better way. Equazcion, we will not gain a consensus unless all the options that are supported by one or more editors are included, otherwise consensus is negated and page protection would then need to continue to prevent more edit warring. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

We got consensus already. The IfD and DRV discussions both show that the image is necessary to this article. If you think the deletion discussions were just about whether or not the image should exist on Wikipedia, you're incorrect. It was directly regarding this article. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

We got an albeit messy consensus to keep the image on wikipedia, that is not the same thing as having consensus to keep it on this article page, we were not debating its inclusion here at ifd and drv. If we had consensus on this article it would not be locked, I am sure you realise that. And really, however you personally read the ifd/drv your claim that those pages reflect a consensus on whether and where the image should go in this article is demonstrably incorrect and therefore remains in the realm of personal opinion. Do you honestly believe edit warring would not re-erupt if the article were unlocked right now? Because I do not believe so. We cannot create consensus by suppressing debate on this subject, unless you are proposing we indef lock the page on its current version. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is protected because of warring over which image should come first, not over its inclusion altogether. My claim about the IfD and DRV discussions is based on the reasons it was kept. Again, it wouldn't have been kept had the article not required it. The image exists on Wikipedia because of fair-use rationale, which needs to be backed up by a specific requirement by an article. The only article in which it appears, and which the fair-use rationale claims, is this one. Otherwise, as I said, there would be no reason to keep it. It was kept specifically for this article. If anyone did remove the image from the article, pretty much everyone who voted to keep the image would protest, because this is the only reason it was kept. But you're free to disagree with me. I've said my piece. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I disagree, for all the reasons I stated above (and especially because wp:notcensored isn't a rationale for gratuitous child porn).-PetraSchelm (talk) 17:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is that the image doesn't constitute "gratuitous child porn" (or even non-gratuitous child porn). Equazcion •✗/C • 17:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, twice in the last three days, Wikipedians have rejected your arguments. I'm not quite sure why you or anyone else is expecting a different outcome this time. FCYTravis (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a broad consensus that the image is appropriate for use in this article. Therefore, your "option 1" is not an option. By overwhelming margins, twice in the last three days, Wikipedians have rejected World Net Daily's moral panic. You don't get to rerun this until you get an outcome you like. A poll is already ongoing for the question of whether to put it on the top or lower down. FCYTravis (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're welcome to disagree with the three editors here who disagree with you, but whether or not we disagree is self-evident. -PetraSchelm (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

On the point that placement in the article and keeping at IfD are mutually exclusive, I see only two people claiming that. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I thought that having the album cover in the article about that album was really the core reason for people wanting to keep it. After all, where else would it go? If it wasn't being used in this article, there wouldn't have been an IfD/DRV to begin with. Per NFCC #s 7 & 8 and WP:NFC#Images this seems like the only logical place it should go. I doubt that anyone wanting to keep the image on Wikipedia feels that the album cover does not belong in the article about the album itself (particularly because there is specific referenced critical commentary in this article about the controversial cover), and to me any thinking otherwise is rather ludicrous. As for the idea that it is child pornography, I won't rehash too much except to say that the idea of what is pornographic is largely subjective. Based on the IfD and DRV we have no evidence to suggest that any U.S. court of law ever legally deemed this image to be child pornogaphy. It is an album cover, which qualifies it as artwork, and it was released commerically in the U.S. and elsewhere to some controversy. The mere fact that it is an image of a child in the nude does not make it pornographic. Provocative, yes, and obviously intended to get a reaction from the public, but not necessarily pornographic. I guess I'm rehashing after all, so I'll wrap it up. I believe we should adopt option 3 above, based on my previous arguments: the image belongs in this article (and probably only in this article), it is the original album cover (which is the intended purpose of the field as described at Template:Infobox Album#Cover), and the "group shot" cover created to replace it makes the group shot the alternate cover (per the definition of "alternate" as used here and the intended purpose of the field). --IllaZilla (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Poll to determine ORDER OF PLACEMENT of the two album images

Vote below. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out to everyone that polling is not a substitute for discussion, and I personally see no reason for a straw poll when we can continue to build toward consensus via discussion. Nufy8 (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I resorted to this because the discussion didn't seem to be getting anywhere. I think it's understood that this isn't purely a vote, and that people are encouraged to present reasoning to back up their positions. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Original (nude girl) image placed first, band photo placed second

1. If it was any other cover this woulnd't even be an issue Acer (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
2. If we're going to be consistent with Template:Infobox Album#Cover, then this would be the correct option. Tarc (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
3. Accurate and Notable Jclemens (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
4. No valid reasons why not. --  Chzz  ►  20:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

   This is a choice between two possible options, so saying "no valid reason why not" here is like answering "yes" to "do you want fries or a salad". Just a heads-up, as this isn't merely a majority vote, as emphasized above -- valid reasoning to back up your vote is crucial. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

5. The original isn't the alternate cover, and anyway, it's the most notable aspect of this album. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
6. The purpose of the fields is clearly stated at Template:Infobox Album#Cover. The girl is the original cover, and the band photo was produced to replace it. Based on the dictionary definitions of "original" and "alternate", the correct placement is blatantly obvious. Placing the band photo cover first is patently incorrect and misleading as it contradicts the text in the article by implying that the nude girl was the "alternate" (aka "replacement") cover. "Original" does not mean the same thing as "current" or "most common", and "alternate" does not mean the same thing as "deprecated". --IllaZilla (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
7. The original is the cover the album is globally known with, not the generic alternative. If the intolerant U.S. market requires alternative covers made for them, then so be it, but that shouldn't affect an encyclopedia's documentation of the album. This is not a U.S. project. Wikipedia's false information on which is the alternative is already creating misunderstandings for the readers [6]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.155.202.88 (talk • contribs)

   I have corrected the image caption to reflect that the second, bottom cover is the original. FCYTravis (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

8. The earliest cover should go first. Also, the first cover is well-known, and the second cover only really known to those who own the album.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

   We're not here to drive controversy, and I wouldn't particularly call it "well-known." FCYTravis (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

9. This is 'the original' cover and by Wikipedia convention 'the original' is shown first. That 'the alternate' is more widely distributed, is not really a valid reason not to follow the guidelines here. WP:IAR is not applicable becuase the article is not in any way a demonstrably better product by having the alternate cover first. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
10. The same convention should be used for this album as is used for any other album on WP that has cover art that has changed over the original pressings. The Original should be first. Neither cover is currently in use within the US since it is currently not in print in the US. Both France (Axe Killer label) and 'Japan (BMG Japan label) have current pressings using the original artwork. However regardless of current usage, the purpose of the fields in the info box are to display original issued cover art in the top box and subsequently used cover art in the lower box. Heck, for many albums that have original cover art, the original art was never issued again after the first pressing. If we switch positions here, the precedent should apply to all albums with alternate covers especially if they were controversial. The Beatles Yesterday and Today comes to mind as just such an a cover. Jeffreybh (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
11. I have to agree with Acer...if this were any other cover, it would be a non-issue. Redfarmer (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
12. Original first as per Jeffreybh & IllaZilla. Tweaking templates and breaking conventions is certainly not the way to go. The band shot is an alternative cover that doesn't even appear on the official website [7] and Google lists the by-far-more common cover first [8] Iunaw 21:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
13. I can't see any reason for special exemption here for reasons stated by Acer Tcommbee (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: In fairness, the covers in Yesterday and Today were in the reverse order until I changed them yesterday, citing the template page as the reason. I did the same to The Offspring (album) and the Scorpions' own In Trance. However, no one has objected to those changes, as they seemed perfectly logical. I believe the only reason there is an issue with it in this case is that the original cover is somewhat controversial due to the age of the model. However, other examples such as Catch a Fire, Ritual de lo Habitual, Full Length LP, Oi to the World!, and the Scorpions' own The Best of Scorpions, Tokyo Tapes (album), Lovedrive, Love at First Sting, Pure Instinct, and Deadly Sting: The Mercury Years all follow the "cover of the original pressing first, subsequent covers second" guideline. So there is ample precedent for this being standard convention on WP. Noting other controversial nudity-related covers such as Unfinished Music No.1: Two Virgins and Houses of the Holy is probably also germaine to this discussion, particularly the latter example which involves nude children. There were no alternate covers for these, but they were often packaged in slipcovers for display on store shelves so that the full covers could not be seen, due to the nudity. Yet we do not show the "censored" versions with the slipcovers (which are not really alternate covers, merely the originals covered up), we show the original covers in full. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Replacement (band group photo) image placed first, nude girl photo placed second

1. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
2. Replacement cover more commonly associated with the album. Original, "alternate" art not shown to be in continued usage anywhere but in Japan. (Where else?) Ford MF (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
3. As per Ford MF; the current, most recognizable and most commonly used cover for the album is the band picture version. The "original" art should be placed in a secondary position. FCYTravis (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

   I feel I need to reiterate my point above: on what basis have you determined that the group shot is most recognizable and most commonly used? Would not the fact that the nude photo is highly controversial imply that it may be more recognizable? How can you be sure that the group shot is more common than the nude shot? I'm not seeing any sources that verify either claim, or even claims to the contrary – so I can't help but consider that a rather weak argument. Nufy8 (talk) 17:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

   The "original" cover hasn't been in widespread use, apparently, in at least the last 20 years. The "nude photo" is not really particularly "highly controversial" insofar as it was a point of controversy only twice - once when it was first released, and now thanks to World Net Daily. On the whole the album has more generally been produced under the band group shot.

   The irony that World Net Daily's "stunning expose" of this photo has made it all more the controversial and encyclopedic is not lost on me. FCYTravis (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

   As an anonymous user stated above, though, the "more generally produced" argument only works in the US. I don't have any strong feelings about which placement option to choose, but just saying, the global view should be considered. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

   No - if we look at Amazon.com for other countries, the album shows up with the US, "group shot" cover. It seems that it's currently produced only with the group shot cover, except in Japan. FCYTravis (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

   For example, here is the currently produced RCA Victor Europe version of the album, released in 1988. It uses the group shot cover. So at least since then, the group shot cover has been used outside the US. FCYTravis (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

   The album may have been produced under the second cover more, but I suspect that if you removed the title, a lot more people could tell you which album the first cover belonged to than could tell you which album had a generic picture of the band on it. I suspect six months ago, I could have photoshopped up a cover with Whitesnake on it, and replaced it, and it would never have been caught until this controversy came up and people started taking a good hard look at the article.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

   Outside the insular sphere of Wikipedia and the right-wing echo chamber of WND, the group shot has been the primarily used album cover for this album worldwide for at least the last 20 years, if not more, per available evidence from Amazon.com. What you may "suspect" is not really relevant, IMO. FCYTravis (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

   Most of the sales for the album happened long before Amazon.com existed. You can't pretend current sales by US based companies is evidence of any historical data. Views on decency have probably tightened around the world, but still we should be documenting history and not rewriting it through current anti-nudity glasses. According to the interviews, it was the record company who came up with the cover. Since new copies of the original are still being sold, the record company didn't exactly pull it from the markets 30 years ago, but just made an alternative cover available for the easily provoked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.155.202.88 (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

   The band shot is an alternative cover that doesn't even appear on the official website [9] and Google lists the by-far-more common cover first [10]. Iunaw (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

   Oh goody, THE SCORPIONS ARE CHILD PRONZ DISTRUBOTARS!! ARREST TEHM!!! Will that link finally settle the idea that this cover is not child porn? The band uses it, Amazon.com uses it, it's all over the Interwebs... yet somehow we're supposed to think the FBI is seriously "investigating" the image? Oh man. Good stuff. FCYTravis (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

   Explaining how these ultra-conservative lobbys work would be a very very large offtopic discussion. Just be happy you're not the one who picks up the phone at the FBI... Iunaw 22:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

   We clearly don't know how many were sold of each cover, nor when the changeover happened in most countries. What I do know is that this album cover has been appearing on websites of shocking album covers, so it's not been hidden for the last 20 years. As an aesthetic decision germane to the writing of an encyclopedia, I think it very relevant that the "naked girl" cover is shocking and likely to be remembered and associated with the album, and that the other cover is unoriginal and not likely to be remembered at all. --Prosfilaes (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

   I want to maintain NOT CENSORED as strongly as possible, and keep and use as fully as possible the policy that we DO includes images of sexual content or implication, when appropriate to the article. In order to do that it is necessary to use discretion and judgment in how these images are handled. One of the elements of this is placement in articles. an image that is or that may be considered particularly controversial should not be removed, but should be placed where it is not immediately conspicuous. That is not an example of censorship, it is an example of how to do things to avoid censorship. As a modification of the original proposal here, we could place the images side-by-side at the bottom of the article. DGG (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Not being censored means we also don't try to "hide" this kind of stuff through rather silly actions like sticking both images at the bottom of the article. Discretion and judgement are important, of course, as we are not trying to overtly offend people, but this takes a backseat to writing a good, informative article. The album cover is the most identifiable image to provide to associate with the album (which is the primary reason album covers are explicity allowed in articles about those albums per WP:NFC), ergo it belongs prominently in the infobox. In particular with this article, since the controversy surrounding the cover art is the central aspect of the album's notability, it would be inappropriate to hide the image like this. Switching the image positions, for example, is not going to make it any less visible to readers as it is a difference of 5 inches from the top of the article (more or less, depending on your screen & settings). And placing it or both at the bottom of the article is simply weasely. It's akin to saying "offensive images are OK, but only if you have to scroll down first before seeing them". Simply ridiculous IMHO. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Lets WP:FA it, and get it on the front page FTW! ^{this is a joke...I think..}.. --  Chzz  ►  23:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha! That'd be great, but I believe NFC "minimal use" prohibits non-free images from being used on the main page, even if the article is the featured article of the day. Like when Reign in Blood was the FA of the day in January, I seem to recall them using a free image of the band performing rather than the cover. So unfortunately I don't see that as being possible, though it certainly should be possible to get this article up to FA. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Unprotect?

{{editprotected}} Remove protection please.

I see no benefit in ths page remaining protected.

The ongoing afd over the image is not directly related to this; that will be resolved by due process.

Consensus was reached that the original cover should appear first; unfortunately it was protected with the m:The Wrong Version.

The 'original cover first' was the stable version of this article, so this should be unprotected and reverted to the 'original image first'.

Any further dispute as to which image should come first would be WP:SNOWBALL, as the majority view has been more than amply demonstrated.

--  Chzz  ►  01:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree on these points, however I'm not as vehement about removing the protection while some points are still being discussed. The IfD/DRV are over; the resulting decision was to keep the image. Most of us seem to agree that the image belongs in this article, appearing first in the infobox, but there are still discussions ongoing on this talk page about that. Is there already a set expiry date for the protection, or is it indefinite pending the resolution of these discussions? If it's the former then I'm perfectly content to let the protection run its course until expiring (even though I agree it's protected in the "wrong version"), but if it's the latter then I do believe there's been enough consensus built to remove the protection. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• I don't believe the IfD/DRV was related to the choice of image placement order. I thought the issues related to whether or not the image should be deleted.
• Even if that was the reason for the protect, it has now been resolved.
• Removing protection would allow the project to improve
• Further edit war/violation can be dealt with by WP:3RR etc, whereas protection is punitative to all users
• Furthermore, the current protection with the m:The Wrong Version is detrimental to the quality of the encyclopedia, without benefit

In summary, I have no idea why the image order is not as clearly desired by the vast majority, and hope this request will enable that to be rectified.

--  Chzz  ►  01:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

AgreeThe whole discussion -including IfD and DRV- has attracted a lot attention and further warring seems to be highly improbable Iunaw 02:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Protection will expire today at 18:22 UTC. Nufy8 (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected - no harm in saving a few hours. Good luck! Happy‑melon 14:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

...And in case anyone was wondering, I think the poll above shows consensus for the old image placement. I won't be the one to make the edit, but just saying. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There, it's done. Nufy8 (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed quote

I thought that quote about the general shockingness of the band's album covers was quite relevant. Just because it isn't solely regarding this specific album doesn't mean it isn't relevant. I think it's valuable in adding some explanation as to what the band thinks about their album covers' shock value, which this one is arguably the best example of. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Klaus Meine quote

The following remarks from Klaus Meine was added onto the article:

“ We like to go over the edge with this kind of artwork, not to say, "Hey, we want to offend some people or make the headlines". That would be stupid. And we still think to have a pretty girl on the cover is much nicer than having an ugly guy. ”

I have removed this quotation per WP:BLP because its inclusion in this article might be construed to suggest that Klaus Meine finds naked prepubescent girls to be "pretty" when there is no indication that this is the case. That is, there is no indication that Meine was referring to the cover art of this particular album when he made the above statements. He could very well be referring to any of the more overtly sexualised cover art from the band's later albums. --Bardin (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that rather odd remark too, until I realized it wasn't specifically regarding this album but it was rather a general comment on the shock value of the band's albums. Would it be alright with you if I added the quote back in, but made it clearer that it didn't regard this album specifically? Equazcion •✗/C • 16:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really convinced that the quote adds much to the article and if a choice has to be made between its inclusion and wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons, I have to defer to the latter naturally. I spent a while trying to think of a way to make the quotation clearer myself but I was not able to do so. If you think you can, then I suggest you do so here on the talk page first so that other editors like myself can take a look at it. Given the large amount of attention that has been drawn to this article over the past few days, I hope you can understand why I am quite wary of finding anything in this article that might remotely suggest that any of the band's members is somehow a pedophile. --Bardin (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

We could probably just end the quote at "...stupid" and leave out the "pretty girl" sentence. That sentence didn't have anything to do with this cover anyway, or at least, that's the assumption we should be making with regard to BLP. Without that sentence, this quote does seem pretty relevant here, doesn't it? Equazcion •✗/C • 17:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want to add the quote without the last sentence, I guess that would be alright. --Bardin (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I decided to add the quote back in myself without that last sentence, of course. --Bardin (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I see that, and I think you did a good job. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the quote is very relevant in saying that the cover was a deliberate choice by the members of the band, and not just packaging imposed around their musical work. In other (later?) interviews they have swiftly passed the baton to the record company, but here Meine stands up for their choices. That said, it's fine without the last bit too, but I think it should be more noticeable in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.155.202.88 (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Was the original cover ever banned?

A number of websites make the claim (which the WorldNetDaily articles repeat) that the original cover was banned in the United States. Is there any evidence from reliable sources that this is the case?--ragesoss (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

See the IfD and DRV discussions as well as the discussions above. The only sources we could find just generally say it was "banned in the U.S.", but no one has yet found a better source as to what that means (banned by certain retailers, radio stations, etc., or an actual legal ban?). We simply don't know, and no reliable sources to elucidate this have yet been presented here. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nope. I have been following this discussion since the beginning and not a shred of evidence was ever presented, most sites seem to be regurgitating the same information. More likely than not it was simply withdrawn by the publisher to avoid criticism Acer (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we should stick to words such as 'controversial' etc and avoid the word 'banned'. The fact that so many people have had a good look and not found evidence of any legal enforcement means it would be unprofessional to say 'banned'. Viz. WND. Lets stick to cited, well-sourced fact. We can show it was controversial with citations. (Applies to both covers, I believe).

Alternatively I suppose we could say "Certain internet sites claim the cover was banned, but no evidence can be uncovered." or somesuch (citing WND). And perhaps, "Retailers such as Amazon in the USA continue to stock imported copies with the original cover. (citing amazon product search for the japanese import).

Either could work...what do others think? And suggested wording? --  Chzz  ►  20:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Meh. I say just use terms like "controversial" and avoid "banned", and cite a few sources. The phrasing "certain internet sites..." etc. sounds very weasely and unprofessional, while citing amazon product searches really skirts the issue of reliable sources (as we should be relying on third-party sources that discuss the controversy rather than sources that are exclusively retailers). If we keep the wording in the article general, since the sources are kind of ambiguous, the reader can draw their own conclusions by reading the sources themselves. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I found a Village Voice article from 1999 describing the cover as being banned. It does not specify where it was banned but I think it is safe to assume that the writer was referring to the country of the writer, the newspaper and its readers: the United States. --Bardin (talk) 03:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting find, but I don't think we can use it. "Banned" in this context is meaningless; it could be one, single outlet objected to the cover. If it were legally blocked, evidence would be easy to obtain. All 3 albums mentioned as 'banned' are freely on sale in the US, and other countries. --  Chzz  ►  03:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The covers of those albums were banned according to the article; not the albums themselves which are indeed freely on sale. --Bardin (talk) 05:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The word "banned" shouldn't be used unless a source specifies what exactly it means by explaining the circumstances of the alleged banning. It's such a strong word with so many possible meanings. We don't need to quote sources word for word if they don't detail it further, no matter how many lazy journalists have repeated it. Lovedrive for example has an unsourced claim that the album was sold wrapped in paper. Similarly, a site says that Two Virgins was "Banned in many places, it was sold in a brown paper sleeve"[11]. Many sources probably call the cover banned in that case, as indeed that way it wasn't visible in those selected stores, but Wikipedia should describe it in other words to avoid the obvious misunderstandings. As far as we know, with the sources found so far, the cover was never pulled from the markets anywhere. Some stores may have refused to carry the album with the original cover visible, but that's quite a small unsubstantiated detail for an album with worldwide attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.155.202.88 (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is more serious than that -- I think the average reader associates the word "ban" with a legal action or ruling. Many of the blogs etc. that have mentioned this issue have people commenting that if something was "banned in the US" then why are we even allowed to show it? Well, the answer is that a "ban" often just means the company that produced the offending material are the only ones who designated the so-called "ban". In this particular case, I haven't actually seen anything that described what exactly constituted this supposed ban, and in fact, I don't think any reliable sources actually refer to it that way. Sure, there was controversy, and the cover was replaced by BMG -- but so far I see nothing reliable that points to the word "ban" being used in anything more than an overly-sensationalist fashion. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Equazcion in general-- and I suggest the neutral word with the closes meaning is "withdrawn". But "replaced" is OK also. DGG (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Controversial record sleeves

Does anyone agree it would be worth creating a new article about this subject? I'm not sure of a title; "Controversial album covers' perhaps - although that would exclude singles. I mention it here because the recent discussions have raised other examples. Certainly enough for an article. A bit of research, and I think it could make an interesting look back at censorship in the industry. Comments welcome; if there's a few folk think it worthwhile, lets create a stub and discuss it more fully on it's talk page? (But need to agree a title) --  Chzz  ►  21:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Already exists at History of controversial album art. Garion96 (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hidden page message

Please do not add that there is overwhelming consensus to keep this image. The afd resulted in delete and while there was a strong consensus to overturn the afd result based on improper closure the drv said nothing whatsoever about the rightness or not of keeping the image, therefore the claim is false and misleading, as well as being unnecessary, indeed it appears like trolling. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If the DRV closure didn't mean keep then the image would've been relisted. It wasn't, so the decision was keep. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox, there was indeed overwhelming consensus to keep the image in the IfD discussion, and it was only (wrongly) closed as a delete for a completely flawed non-free media rationale, which was itself overwhelmingly overturned at DRV. Honestly, you come across as having a serious case of sour grapes because your own point of view on this matter was soundly rejected. Please stop. Tarc (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. And if I might add, if there is any actual doubt in your mind about what the DRV closure meant, you could simply ask the closing admin what she intended with her overturn decision. User talk:Krimpet is the place to go. Practically everyone here disagrees with you (which should alone show you where consensus lies), so that's your only recourse at this point. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the cracks in the image

Are the cracks in the image actually part of the cover art, or are they an attempt to censore the image to some greater or lesser extent? I do not have opinion on the image or its use here, I merely ask out of curiousity. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It's part of the cover art. --Bardin (talk) 08:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the answer. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Not directly relevant, but...

Could the cover of Blind Faith (album) also be seen as having similar problems to the album cover here? Wikipedia may also want to look into this.--HutYo (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

that album cover is somewhat better know thus the various issues have mostly been settled.Geni 09:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

cover Fotos

My name is Michael von Gimbut and I did the shootings for the Virgin Killer Album. The modell came with her older sister and her mother to the shooting my wife and two female assitants were there as well. Everybody was relaxed and thought of no evel. The idea was and is to protect and not to abuse at that time! When we did the Fotos of the band, Scorpion was quite aware of the cover motiv and the band fotos were meant for the backside. The same happened when we did the "Taken by force" cover and the "In Trance cover". Later when Scorpions became mainstream someone tried to avoid possible trouble. That's Rock 'n Roll. Michael von Gimbut Berlin 10.6.2008 87.187.109.59 (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, statements like this in articles on the Wikipedia need to be sourced to something or some place verifiable, much in the same way a biographical book would have footnotes and a bibliography. Is there some source, preferably online, that you can povide to verify this? Tarc (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

To reiterate what I said on one of your IP's talk pages: we can't just take your word for it. Like Tarc pointed out, such an assertion needs to be verifiable through reliable sources for it to be acceptable. Nufy8 (talk) 17:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a verifiable source that the photography was done by Michael von Gimbut. I've never added a footnote citation to a page before though so I may need some help if I can't get it working correctly. But in any case the source is the liner notes to the French re-release as part of the "Back to Black Collection" which included the original cover embossed on the front of a hardcover book style CD case. Inside are two picture CDs, the first with the InTrance cover and the second with the original VIrgin Killer cover. Additionally inside is a 28 page mini booklet with a short history of the band up to that period in both english and french, lyrics, album notes and credits. There are separate credits for InTrance and Virgin Killer. For Virgin Killer Michael von Gimbut is credited with the photography and Stephan Bohle is credited with Art Direction and Design. This release is on the Axe Killer label under permission of BMG France, distributed by Wagram Music. Made in France UPC: 3 596971 564629 ref# 3056462 WAG 351 Jeffreybh (talk) 02:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, i took a stab at adding the footnote, I have the information there but I don't think I have it formatted correctly. Anyone better versed in Wiki markup and formatting proper footnotes avaialble to help lend a hand to clean it up? thanks Jeffreybh (talk) 02:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like Bardin cleaned things up. Thanks for providing the source. Nufy8 (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Bardin and all for your help. I took the liberty to add the link to the Amazon page for the CD to what appears to the the appropriate field in the footnote and then copied the footnote for use on the InTrance album page (Since it also applies to that album). Additionally I happen to own a copy of the 2001 reissue of Taken By Force from Japan and used Bardin's footnote template to craft the appropriate footnote on the Taken By Force album page. There is some other interesting information from the liner notes of the CDs that I could add if I get a chance. Jeffreybh (talk) 02:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)