Wikipedia:Deletion review/Virgin Killer

File:Virgin Killer.jpg (talk|restore|cache|IfD)

The closing admin's reason was that the image failed WP:NFCC #8. Since all album covers are basically claimed under fair use already, there should be no reason to exclude this one from that rationale. There's even more reason to keep this under fair use due to the controversy it has stirred up in history. The article, Virgin Killer, is full-protected currently, but there is an abundance of material on the talk page that will be used to expand the controversy content, once it's unprotected. The ending tally was roughly 43 to 11, by my count, in favor of Keep. I feel the closing admin neglected to weigh the arguments given, and did not judge consensus, but rather made a decision based on his or her own opinion of the issue. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note - The image has already been restored by another admin, while the IfD remains closed. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• I stand by my reasoning in the original close. NFCC says what it says. There's no "album covers excepted" appears when I hover the mouse over the various sections. If enforcing the EDP means we delete a lot of eye-candy, that's what we have to do. The second step will be easier than the first one, and the third easier still. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Jargon translation: NFCC = Non-free content criteria (WP:NFCC), and EDP = Exemption Doctrine Policy (part of the WP:NFCC. Carcharoth (talk) 21:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• A weird case as another admin has already undeleted the image in question. The real issue is that the closing admin (Angus McLellan) closed per WP:NFCC whereas the preceding debate had to do with WP:NOTCENSORED. --mordicai. (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn/keep. To be clear as to my views on the subject.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mordicai (talk • contribs)

• Relist for discussion of WP:NFCC#8, as the original discussion did not cover this. The encyclopedic nature and appropriateness of the content of the image should also be discussed, but the issues do need to be either calmly discussed as a whole, or discussed separately. Carcharoth (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

  I think that discussion should take place on a more general page, like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums, because it applies more to most of our other album pages than Virgin Killer. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

  There is a need for both a specific discussion about this image, and a general discussion. Trying to manage such discussions is hellishly difficult though. They rapidly become sprawling messes. Carcharoth (talk) 22:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Relist per Carcharoth. Even if Angus's interpretation of WP:NFCC is correct (and it's defensible, although I think he'd find himself well out of step with much of the community on criterion 8), that's not a rationale for a speedy deletion without notice, which is what this deletion amounted to. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I should note, before anyone else does, that admins do have the lattitude to speedy delete any non-free image that has been tagged as disputed. See WP:CSD#I7. However, there is a clear process outlined there (48 hours to a week) that should have been followed to allow the article editor and the image uploader time to respond to the disputed non-free use tag. Carcharoth (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• I came here prepared to endorse the deletion, but on reflection, relist per Carcharoth. We need to build community consensus on this issue - both the ethical concern and the fair use concern - and another discussion is the only way to do that. If all parties are satisfied with that, I move for a speedy relist. Walton^One 21:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] break 1

• Relist - If we come to a community consensus that album covers are not acceptable free content, and delete all of them, that's a defensible decision. But that wasn't the issue and it wasn't the debate. Take two. FCYTravis (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think there's complete consensus on this point. Let's close the DRV and take it back to IfD. Walton^One 22:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not even sure IfD is the right place. We're talking about completely changing a long-standing point of allowed fair use. This has to be a very broad debate. FCYTravis (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
      • IfD would be the right place for any image-by-image debate. The history with album covers and book covers and logos is that they are (loosely) used as "identifying" images, to help the reader identify what the article is about. This is clearly needed for logos and works of art, and to a lesser degree for products that have "covers". The assumption (fiercely contested by some) is also that the copyright holders don't mind the images being used, and so the legal exposure is minimal compared to the visual trade-off. Some people claim that non-free content makes the free encyclopedia less free (the "vegan dinner" argument), but others claim that because it is marked as non-free, it is a discrete package that can be filtered out, and downstream users can still obtain a completely free-content encyclopedia if they want to (well, apart from the non-free quotes and text, of course). Having said that, individual images can still be disputed at any point. Here, it is clear that using the image in the album article will be fine. A better NFCC#8 debate would be whether a non-free use rationale could also be written for the image to be used in an article on censorship, for example. Carcharoth (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Deletion by virtue of WP:NFCC#8 is offside. There was no discussion at IfD on this point since the album cover is one of the most notable points of the album. The closing admin did not follow the consensus of the discussion whatsoever. If he had a point of view not mentioned in the discussion, he should have brought it up; not deleted it because his point of view is unique. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Relist. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not even sure if, should the decision be to generally disallow fair use rationale for album covers, that that would necessarily still mean the deletion of this image. This particular image's notability far exceeds merely being an album cover. Even if all others were deleted, there would still be reason to discuss this one further. Just thought I'd mention that. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn/keep The use of album covers as a visual aid in understanding the album is a common practice on Wikipedia, and is no different than the use of a company logo in said company's article. Such a ridiculously broad interpretation of NFCC#8 would literally require the deletion of thousands of images that are perfectly justifiable. I am going to assume that NFCC#8 wasn't invoked simply as an excuse to delete a controversial image, however relisting would be a waste of time. The consensus on the IfD was abundantly clear. As mentioned above, disallowing album covers and other similar images per NFCC#8 is a policy discussion, the scope of which lies well beyond this lone image. Keep this image, and if Angus wishes to open a discussion about the validity of NFCC for this class of images, I would suggest he take it to the appropriate venue. Resolute 22:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] break 2

• Relist. Overturn and keep. As a side note, some of the comments on the Ifd did mention fair use, mine included. I argued that fair use for album covers had long been accepted. Acer (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Personally I couldn't give less of a damn about the fair use issues; no one's realistically going to sue the WMF (a private charity with minimal financial resources) over an album cover. For me, the main issue with this image is the ethical problem of having nude pictures of underage kids on Wikipedia, which IMO is not acceptable under any circumstance. I hope that this isn't going to be forgotten in the midst of the fair use concerns; it is the most important issue of principle here. Walton^One 22:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Blame the guy who deleted it for that switch and bait tactic. Carcharoth (talk) 22:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, what Carcharoth said. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Iff we delete all album covers by the rationale that they don't meet our fair use criteria... I disagree with that stance, but it is a defensible and legitimate one per our policies. If they all go away, then so be it, of course this one will go. But you can't just delete one highly controversial image in the middle of a hotly contested debate, claim NFCC and walk away like it's all over. FCYTravis (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sites have been sent takedown notices over album covers in the past although I'm not as yet aware of any caselaw specific to album covers. At the moment the majority of our album cover images are in violation of our fair use policy (and depending on the judge copyright law). That said Virgin Killer is one of the cases where we probably can write something about the cover art the failer up to this point to do so to any extent simply shows how weak the case is for all those other covers.Geni 22:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong endorse per closure. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Undelete NFCC#8 may be satisfied by documenting the controversy using the following sources: anetode╦╩ 22:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn/keep The use of album covers as a visual aid in understanding the album is a common practice on Wikipedia, and is no different than the use of a company logo in said company's article. Such a ridiculously broad interpretation of NFCC#8 would literally require the deletion of thousands of images that are perfectly justifiable. I am going to assume that NFCC#8 wasn't invoked simply as an excuse to delete a controversial image, however relisting would be a waste of time. The consensus on the IfD was abundantly clear. As mentioned above, disallowing album covers and other similar images per NFCC#8 is a policy discussion, the scope of which lies well beyond this lone image. Keep this image, and if Angus wishes to open a discussion about the validity of NFCC for this class of images, I would suggest he take it to the appropriate venue. Resolute 22:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] break 3

• Keep I have fixed the rationale since no one else seemed to care. I suppose a case can be made to keep this but remember that we don't normally allow two fair use images in such a short article so you might want to consider if the other one is really needed. talk) 22:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Then delete the other one. This is the more notable one. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    • This is getting off topic, but I would argue that both images are useful and necessary in this article. The controversy of the first cover led to the creation of the second. Both used together serve to explain the results of the controversy better than text could. Resolute 22:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep this one, as it's the one discussed in the article. NOTCENSORED is a red herring here. — iridescent 22:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep or, at a minimum, relist. Fair use violation claims are not correct, the article itself specifically addresses the cover controversy, use of the album cover to illustrate the controversy is highly appropriate. Removal on some moral ground is unsustainable, until and unless Mike Godwin says otherwise. Corvus cornix_talk 22:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Erm, Mike Godwin's authority extends to our legal obligations, not our moral ones. I was not arguing that this image is necessarily illegal; I was arguing that it is unethical to allow such an image on Wikipedia, for reasons which I explained at length on the IfD. While legal concerns are a question for the Foundation, moral issues are par excellence a question for community resolution. Walton^One 22:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    • And I note that the community was overwhelmingly rejecting the moral panic concerns, by a 4-to-1 margin, at the time of the disputed closure. FCYTravis (talk) 22:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
      • True, I was only pointing out that Mike Godwin has nothing to do with it. (And labelling it as "moral panic" is somewhat partisan in this context. But we're already discussing that on your talk page.) Walton^One 23:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. The image certainly strikes me as meeting NFCC #8 (significance): according to the article, the image generated quite a controversy. --Carnildo (talk) 22:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• 'Strong endorse of closure per Walton and the admin who closed this.-PetraSchelm (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Just for the record, Walton voted to relist. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, but I do believe that the image should be deleted, for the reasons of fundamental ethics which I have explained here and elsewhere. I just don't think it will actually stay deleted unless we go through another IfD and get consensus for it. (Sorry if I'm confusing everyone, I tend to do that.) Walton^One 23:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
      • You think the image should be deleted, but you're resisting the urge to accept an improper closure regardless of the fact that it was in your favor. I understand perfectly -- you're being a mature adult :) Equazcion •✗/C • 23:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, thank you for that. It is most encouraging to see someone refusing the oh-so-tempting option of gaming the system. --Kizor 00:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] break 4

• Overturn – The closer’s argument might be a plausible reason for deleting the alternate cover, but this cover is notable in itself and significantly increase readers' understanding of the article’s commentary on this cover. —teb728 t c 23:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• List at WP:FUR, surely the proper place for this discussion now that the image has been restored. Polly (Parrot) 23:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Just as a general note on the legality - Amazon, who I'd venture to say have a rather bigger legal department than us, are perfectly happy to show the cover art for both iridescent 23:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Please see Wikipedia:Image content guidelines for an attempt to start a guideline to consolidate and improve our guidelines on image content on Wikipedia. Please discuss at the talk page and help improve this new guideline, which was inspired by this and other recent image discussion controversies. There is also a talk page subpage covering stuff moved from the Signpost tipline discussion page. Carcharoth (talk) 23:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: FWIW, conservapedia is trumpeting the WorldNetDaily propaganda on their front page: The FBI is investigating the image and the circumstances of its hosting. Wikipedia could now face prosecution for hosting child pornography., The lid has just blown off the scandal of pornography on Wikipedia. They not only have it on their site; they also celebrate editors who "make outstanding contributions" to this—er—area. Of course, the links they provide are to WND, not to any rational discussion on the subject. Corvus cornix_talk 23:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Reporters in all mediums are bottom-feeding bloodsuckers :) Whenever it's possible to profit off the badmouthing of others, someone will take advantage of the opportunity. Pay them no mind. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• overturn and keep No need to relist. Consensus was clear. The image meets our fair-use guidelines. Wikipedia is not censored. I find the image pretty disturbing but my personal views aren't relevant. If there's any legal concern the Foundation can deal with it and delete the image themselves. Barring that, there seems to be a clear consensus that this meets our fair use guidelines. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn & Keep, the image is of historical importance for someone wanting to understand what the controversy was all about, and to understand the history of cover art. We do not delete images that are of historical importance just because they are covered by copyright; we explain why they are important, and we reduce the resolution to avoid affecting the marketability of the high res version. That explanation has clearly been provided. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] break 5

• Overturn and keep - The job of the closing admin is to assess consensus, not to substitute his own judgment for that of the community. NFCC8, in particular is a bad rationale because of the very "moral panic" that he refered to. The controversy regarding the image is mentioned in the article, therefore, the actual image is exceedingly illustrative of that point. -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep - I see no utility in relisting so we can then debate the merits of keeping this when we can have the discussion right here and now. This was a pretty obvious misuse of admin tools to enforce what Angusmclellan readily admits is a novel and unusual interpretation of NFCC8 #8. There's clearly no legal issue here. If there were, User:Mike Godwin would have had it deleted as an office action long ago. The supposed ethical arguments don't amount to anything but an attempt to overrule WP:NOTCENSORED. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Which does not mean that they can't be in the right. After all, everything beyond the core principles of V/NPOV/RS are means, rather than ends. I've seen policies IAR:ed when the reasons were weighty enough.
  Not that I agree with deleting this image - just being fair. --Kizor 00:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and keep Most of my reasoning has already been made above: It's so notable that an NFCC8 deletion borders on bad faith, Wikipedia is not censored, this image has never been declared illegal in any jurisdiction that anyone has even tried to cite, and if you give the censors this they won't ever stop. Jclemens (talk) 00:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep It should not have been deleted for fair use problems, since we have zounds of album cover images used on the same way to illustrate cover albums. Also, Wikipedia is not censored, and the image is not illegal on Florida until the wikipedia legal advisor says so (barring the FBI publishing a notice that hosting this image on a web server is illegal on the US). Yes, it's a bad taste image, but that's not a valid deletion reason. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep. Ironically, if album covers were generally deleted under WP:NFCC, this is one that should be kept, because unlike most others, the article it illustrates in fact discusses it. As for the other issues, I think they were adequately aired in the IfD, which would undoubtedly have been closed as keep in the absence of the preemptive deletion, thus no reason to relist there. --MCB (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Relist (and I say this as someone who would be perfectly happy if no images appeared in WP at all). I don't think that Angus McLellan's closure was a gross violation of procedure—admins jump in all the time to speedy articles that are the subject of AfD discussions when they think a speedy criterion applies—but in this case the resulting drama seems to indicate that further discussion is warranted. Deor (talk) 00:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] break 6

• Relist It was deleted on ground of Fair Use? You've got to be kidding me. Was this an attempt by the closing admin to red herring a deletion, in hopes that it would be overturned and therefore kept? -Freekee (talk) 00:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Relist per Carcharoth. --Hojimachong^talk 00:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Relist or overturn and keep per Carcharoth. Garion96 (talk) 01:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep The current rules we are following are in the boilerplate {{Non-free album cover}} license terms. Consensus in original debate was to keep. Closure reason is against long term community consensus re use of album covers. Whether that should be changed or not is for another debate - not this one. --NrDg 01:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep Closing reason is against a long term consensus of how we deal with album covers. Other than that, there's really nothing to debate here, considering Wikipedia is not censored, so no reason to relist at AfD either. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep. Closing admin seriously misjudged consensus. While this is permissible if the item under discussion obviously violates policy, citing NFCC #8 in this case is ridiculous. First of all, because NFCC #8 requires interpretation -- it's not an objective criterion, but rather a subjective one upon which a consensus must be reached. No one user, admin or not, should be interpreting NFCC #8 unilaterally. Second of all, because this happens to be one of the more notable album covers in the history of album covers, and because a picture is worth at least a thousand words in this case (simply saying "a naked prepubescent girl with cracked glass covering her genitals" pales in comparison to displaying the actual image), I'm amazed that NFCC #8 was even considered. Powers ^T 01:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep No need to relist. Consensus was clear and there's nothing new here, it has been discussed in 2007 [6]. Are we going to celebrate an IfD each year? This time-waste drama sparked by an ultra-conservative lobby is a very bad precedent for wikipedia. Censorship templates like those on the Talk:Muhammad talk page should be added to warn future moral-dictator-wannabies Iunaw (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep. Spurious listing. NFCC is a separate, wider issue and needs discussion elsewhere. Not relevent to this case. For this case, consensus heavily agreed to WP:NOTCENSORED. Closing admin did not follow protocol; therefore any further request for delete should be relisted afresh to allow full consensus discussion. It's not illegal, therefore this specific disagreement is invalid. Relisting would vindicate the unilateral action taken by the closing admin. (IMHO, all due respect intended).--  Chzz  ►  02:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] break 7

• Overturn and keep. I've already made my opinion known several times, and I don't wish to rehash, but here are the core issues as I see them, and which I feel many others agree on:

1. Legality: A lot of concern has been raised over this topic. The laws governing content on Wikipedia are the laws of the United States and the state of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers reside. For better or worse, the laws of other states and countries do not apply and are not really pertinent to this discussion. The image has not been classified as child pornography under U.S. law, and it does not appear that any U.S. court has issued any order restricting the use of the image in the 32 years since its creation. Therefore it is legal to use the image at this time. In any case, legality is not an issue for editors to decide. It is up to the Wikimedia Foundation to make this decision and act on it, and barring any decision from the Foundation or a U.S. court it is premature and inappropriate for any editor to edit the article or image based on their interpretation or beliefs about the law.
2. Fair use: As with all non-free images, this image's use must pass Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. As an album cover, it is used in the article about that album in the context of critical commentary about the album itself. Further, there is specific referenced critical commentary about the controversy surrounding the album's cover art. The commentary appears to pass WP:V and WP:RS (ergo use of the image passes NFC as well). Based on the article's talk page, there seems to be additional referenced discussion that could be built up discussing the controversy not only of this image but the band's other album covers as well. Since the controversy over the cover art appears to be essential to the album's notability, use of the image significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. It therefore seems clear that use of the image is consistent with both the letter and spirit of Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines and constitutes valid fair use.
3. Offensiveness: Due to the nature of the image (an album cover depicting a nude prepubescent female with breasts exposed but genitalia not visible), concern is raised that many Wikipedia readers will find the image offensive and tasteless and therefore it should not be used. However, one of our other core policies is that Wikipedia is not censored to remove or hide content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Verbatim: "some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the articles about the penis and pornography) and do not violate any of our existing policies (especially neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are hosted." The content disclaimer makes this clear to readers, and readers have the option to configure Wikipedia to not show images they may find offensive or objectionable. Therefore the moral implications of showing such an image are irrelevant, and we as editors must not attempt to remove or block content simply because we believe it is immoral or offensive.

Finally, I would like to add that one of my favorite aspects of Wikipedia is that it is primarily an academic environment. We are writing an encyclopedia, after all. Therefore we must approach topics such as this with a certain degree of academic detachment and objectivity. This means not attempting to make judgement calls about whether the image is offensive or even illegal, regardless of our personal beliefs or opinions. It means explaining, from a neutral point of view, the historical and cultural significance of the image and the controversy surrounding it. There is clearly an encyclopedic story to be told about this image, and attempting to delete or hide it is contrary to our core mission of building an accurate and respectable encyclopedia. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• • I don't think those of us with moral objections are talking about mere "offensiveness" or "tastelessness"; this is a straw man argument. There are lots of tasteless sexual images on Wikipedia, and I don't argue for the deletion or removal of those. But it is fundamentally unethical to distribute nude images of children on a high-profile website. Yes, offended readers can use WP:NOIMAGE. But I'm more worried about those readers who want to see naked/sexualised images of prepubescent girls; we shouldn't make it easy for them to do so. Plus, it drags Wikipedia's name through the mud. Walton^One 08:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
    • But this particular image is freely available on other web sites with a similar level of searching required (i.e., very little). The only reason Wikipedia is attracting attention on this front is because our discussions about it are public. If WorldNetDaily sent a nasty e-mail to Amazon.com for displaying the image, they could discuss it internally and decide to do nothing about it and no one would ever know. That doesn't make good press for WND. Powers ^T 13:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Everyone's ethics are different, and from an academic standpoint (and NPOV) we should not let what some people feel is "unethical" affect our ability to write encyclopedic content. Is it unethical for us to show artistic images of Mohammed (to bring that comparison up for the 1,000th time), knowing full well that this will upset millions of Muslims? Possibly, but we do it anyway because it is less ethical for us to become censored. We are not "distribut[ing] nude images of children", we are showing and discussing a notable album cover from an encyclopedic standpoint with regards to its historical and cultural significance. For you, Walton, to suggest that this is anywhere near the same level as turning Wikipedia into some kind of kiddie porn site is ridiculous. Seeing this album cover on Wikipedia is no easier than typing the album title into a search engine, or seeing paintings of nude children in an art museum, or photos of them in a book on photography (or even in an anatomy book). To my mind it is less ethical for Wikipedia to cave to fears of what readers might see in the encyclopedia, or do with what they have seen. Doing so would erode Wikipedia's reputation as a good encyclopedia. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] break 8

• Overturn and keep, no relist necessary as the closing rationale is fundamentally flawed. It has long been accepted that album art used within the infobox in an article specifically about that album qualifies as fair use. One random admin cannot step out of bounds and overturn consensus reaches in many, varies discussions around here about fair use and non-free content. Even if we were to hold it to the higher standard proposed...which I stress is NOT required...then it would still pass easily as the album art itself is significant to the article. It was controversial 32 years ago, it has stirred controversy anew, and the image is now more relevant than ever to the article. Gotta love the irony here; the actions of passionate worldnetdaily censors wanting to get rid of this image may have just given an iron-clad justification for leaving it in. Tarc (talk) 03:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn as very blatantly contra-consensus. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Relist If the close was based on a fairuse argument, have that discussion. Frankly, I can't imagine how the image would not pass, as the image of the album cover itself is the whole point of contention; there is no way to understand the controversy without the image there. The other album cover arguably is arguably a less significant image to the page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep, no relist, consensus is quite clear in the IfD discussion and the closing admin readily admits the "moral panic" arguments would not have weighed heavily in a close one way or the other. That said, the idea that this album somehow violates fair use because it's not Abbey Road or Blind Faith strikes me as anglo-centric; yes, the band was a German metal band with a cult following but that does not make them any less notable, and the fact that the IfD brought up the controversy between the original and alternate album covers is enough to convince me the image is notable. If the admin wishes to change policy, I would suggest a more appropriate venue than piggy-backing it off an already heated IfD discussion. Redfarmer (talk) 05:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I can't help but notice that not one editor has found the reasons for the original ban of the album cover in the US. Was it a government act or 'self' censorship by the record company? was law enforcement involved? Since it's clear that morality arguments won't work until Wikipedia's freedom fighters reinvent the wheel, let's at least sort out the legal ramifications thoroughly. ThuranX (talk) 06:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. I've been searching for some info on this, but all I can find are sources saying, rather generally, that the original cover was "banned" in the U.S. They don't say anything about whether it was a government decision, a record label one, or if there was even a legal decision involved. Perplexing, indeed. Based on the lack of sources for this "ban" that happened over 30 years ago, I'm inclined to operate under the assumption that it was not a law-enforcement/court-ordered ban, unless someone provides evidence to the contrary. I do a lot of academic reading/study/writing about music history, and saying something was "banned" usually doesn't mean it was expressly prohibited by law. It usually just means there was a public outcry about it and that certain retailers refused to carry it. Anyway, it'd be wonderful if someone could dig up the facts about this ban. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting just how little I'm able to find on this. I've been searching for an hour, and all I keep seeing is "(banned in the US)". I did find one interesting tidbit: Uli Jon Roth that no longer exists online except in this archive.org link. It it, he states that Tipper Gore "brandished" the album cover on TV to complain about how offensive it was. Far-out. I can;t find a single shred of further information on this anywhere else though. I figured I'd post that here anyway in case it leads anyone else to find some further info. Also note that most reliable bios for the Scorpions don't mention the "banned" cover. Most of the sites that say it was "banned" are blogs etc, and don't say anything beyond that sentence fragment. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm having the same problem, which leads me to wonder if it wasn't the record company who self-censored themselves under pressure. Was there ever precedent in the '70s for banning an album cover outright in the states? Were any other controversial album covers banned, such as the infamous Blind Faith cover or the John Lennon/Yoko Ono album with the naked picture of them on the front? Redfarmer (talk) 08:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

There is an entire history of music censorship in America, not only of cover art but also lyrics, etc. For a good starting point I recommend Parental Advisory: Music Censorship in America by Eric Nuzum (2001). The thing is, until the Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC) was formed in the early 1980s (Tipper Gore was a central figure in forming the group), these were not normally legal issues. People had of course objected to "offensive" music & cover art, and it had been "banned" by certain retailers, radio stations, and even record labels on many occasions. But prior to the PMRC there were very few cases where an album or piece of music was brought before a body of government to determine a legal stance on the issue, or where the law had stepped in to make a determination on the matter. This is why I highly doubt that the Virgin Killer album cover was banned by law. And since no one's been able to prove that it was, I don't think we can operate under the assumption that it was ever deemed "illegal". --IllaZilla (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] break 9

• Endorse because WP:NFCC represents a foundation policy and a massively wider consensus than the pile-on WP:ILIKEIT and other arguments at IfD, which amount to keeping it just to prove we're not censored. Proving we're not censored is unlikely to stand up as a justification for unfree content if challenged in the courts. Guy (Help!) 07:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I have to ask: where do you get that any of us are arguing WP:ILIKEIT? In fact, I think most people who are arguing keep have said the same things: it's disgusting, in bad taste, tacky, and offensive, just not illegal. If anything, most of the people arguing delete were arguing WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Redfarmer (talk) 08:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This would be a valid argument if it wasn't for the fact that the image (now) fulfills every criteria in WP:NFCC. The "right" way to ignore consensus on the IfD would have been to speedy it as a violation of criteria 10 rather than 8. The lesson to be learned here is that if you're going to speedy against a massive consensus to keep you better be damn sure you do it the right way or you loose those on your side who think they are taking part in a consensus building debate rather than the pretext to a speedy. talk) 10:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Ignoring that fact that covers are used by many companies to illustrate products--see eBay, Amazon.com, LibraryThing, for three examples--and that Prosfilaes (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • If we ivoke NFCC8, that would argue for keeping this image and removing the other, final version of the cover. Obviously, it is of greater interest for an encyclopedia to document controversies like this than "just" show an album cover as an image for decoration, like all other album covers. --talk) 18:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - If anyone wants a good example of an article about a controversial image where the decision not to use the image is for reasons of morality and decency, rather than "not censored", then see Tomoko Uemura in Her Bath. That article does include an external link. Carcharoth (talk) 08:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I have two problems with this as an example: the photo was not included in the article because of the wishes of the copyright holder and there has not been significant discussion on the photo since it was included in a WP:DYK in 2006. If anything, you may have just opened a can of worms with that article. Redfarmer (talk) 08:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry. I was just trying to gather examples and help people see the variety of issues and contexts for such discussions. I don't think keeping quiet about some articles will help. Better to have a clear and present consensus (and I would oppose using that image in that article). Carcharoth (talk) 08:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) I think it is a relevant example. In that particular case, the wishes of the child's family (who are also the copyright holders) are clear, and it would be grossly unethical to ignore that and include it in the article. In this case, it is grossly unethical, full stop, to post a nude picture of a preteen girl in a Wikipedia article. In both cases, fundamental ethical standards overrule our usual approach. Walton^One 08:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Oh don't misinterpret me: I don't think you did anything wrong at all. If a discussion was brought up regarding that photo I would definitely oppose putting it in the article in question, but simply for the reason that the copyright holders have made it clear they do not want to see the photo reprinted. I feel that's a different sort of case from this one. Redfarmer (talk) 08:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
        • And another example is Image:TrangBang.jpg. Another naked prepubescent girl, but obviously in a very different context. Some may say the fact that that example is historic makes it clearer that this example is gratuitous, while others may say that the two photos should not be compared, as they are about different things. Carcharoth (talk) 08:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• overturn and keep No need to relist. Consensus was clear. The image meets our fair-use guidelines. WAS 4.250 (talk) 08:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] break 10

• Comment to all - I don't think those of us with moral objections are talking about mere "offensiveness" or "tastelessness"; this is a straw man argument. There are lots of tasteless sexual images on Wikipedia, and I don't argue for the deletion or removal of those. But it is fundamentally unethical to distribute nude images of children on a high-profile website. Yes, offended readers can use WP:NOIMAGE. But I'm more worried about those readers who want to see naked/sexualised images of prepubescent girls; we shouldn't make it easy for them to do so. Furthermore, it drags Wikipedia's name through the mud.
• I would also remark, to those who have said "Overturn and keep", that if it is kept it will be relisted at IfD before long. This needs to be discussed fully, for the full five-day period, in order to build consensus. I would much prefer the image to be deleted; that probably won't happen, and I am willing to abide by the outcome of an IfD, but we need to have one. Walton^One 08:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Saying it's "fundamentally unethical to distribute nude images of children on a high-profile website" is just another "offensive/tasteless" argument. You just don't find most of our other sexually-explicit photos offensive enough to remove. It's all the same argument. You really haven't presented any reason this image is special. Yes, it is of a child, but that still isn't a reason in and of itself. The fact that it depicts a child seems to simply be "too offensive" to you. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• saying it's fundamentally unethical is not necessarily personal taste, but could be a reflection of international laws. Many countries have strict regulation on images of naked children, much stricter than adults. Dan Beale-Cocks 15:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Saying something is fundamentally unethical is a moral objection, not a legal one. A law in a particular country doesn't determine whether or not it's fundamentally unethical. Governments don't decide whether or not something is ethical -- people do. As for the legal issue, not that Wikipedia's editors are required to decide such things, but we can't modify the rules of the site according to all international laws. There are mideastern countries where photos of women's uncovered faces are illegal -- but we're obviously not going to go removing all photos of women. If the laws in your country are strict enough as to prohibit you from browsing a web page where a nude child shows up, then it's up to you to be careful about the sites you visit, and you probably shouldn't be visiting sites that claim to be uncensored. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• The only laws that are relevant are the laws that apply to Florida, USA. These are the only laws that can be enforced by police power of the state and that is the ONLY reason even they matter. The picture is unquestionably legal where it matters because of a US Supreme court decision that made any law that would otherwise make this image illegal unconstitutional. In other words no US state can pass a law making this image illegal even when there is overwhelming popular support for such a law.--NrDg 16:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Walton, good point that the discussion was closed early after only just under 33 hours, that might be enough reason to relist by itself. Moving on from that, would you be able to comment on Image:TrangBang.jpg in light of your comment "it is fundamentally unethical to distribute nude images of children on a high-profile website"? Carcharoth (talk) 08:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• I have to admit, though I've disagreed with your reasoning regarding the image, I am afraid the reason the IfD was closed in the manner it was was to quietly attempt to sweep the matter under the rug after a user posted to WP:ANI requesting someone do something about the IfD because it was becoming, in their words, "out of control." I do have to wonder if the reasoning for deleting the image was just an excuse to try to quietly end things. Redfarmer (talk) 09:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm glad someone other than me said that first. Yes, you're not alone in getting that feeling. Someone posted at ANI that the IfD was "getting out of control", implying that there was something someone could do about that. Evidently, someone did. I have to wonder what exactly was so "out of control" about it -- the fact that lots of people were participating, or the fact that it seemed an image like this might actually be kept. It really bothers me when things like this happen. There seem to be certain things that people, even administrators, find simply too unacceptable to leave to a proper process, when things seem to be headed in the "wrong" direction. It really angers me to see people acting like this. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• That's just the one person. We keep him around because sometimes the blunt force of his approach is honestly necessary with problem users. --Kizor 09:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Eh I hate to sound conspiracy theorist-like but I don't really think the discussion was out of control. With the exception of the user who threatened to retire if the image was kept and a few other people on both sides of the debate who couldn't seem to keep a cool head, I thought the vast majority of us on both sides of the debate were, surprisingly, civil considering the divisive nature of the debate. It really is a lesson in good faith debates. Redfarmer (talk) 09:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• (ec)I'm not sure I agree that it's just the one person. This kind of thing is a little too common, when the cards are truly down. Not a discussion for now though. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to relist it. Once the invalid "OH NOES TEH PRONZ" arguments which fly in the face of NOT#CENSORED get thrown out, there's a clear and obvious consensus to keep. It's an album cover, and deleting it as an NFCC violation was an absolutely terrible idea, especially considering prior cases/precedent with album covers before. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Once the invalid "OH NOES TEH PRONZ" arguments which fly in the face of NOT#CENSORED get thrown out - It is debatable whether these arguments are "invalid", and I find your distortion of my argument, and implication that it lacks reasoning or intellectual value, somewhat offensive. We should not "throw out" these arguments. Sadly, you seem to be right that a consensus to keep the image was developing on the previous IfD, but I won't accept that conclusion unless and until we have a full 5-day deletion debate and a proper closure. So it emphatically does need to be relisted. Walton^One 11:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It might be unpleasant to accept, but per WP:SNOW it might warrant a keep anyway. Does anyone here actually think there's a realistic chance of consensus going the other way? It seems to me like relisting just delays the inevitable. I'd be okay with relisting it if people actually think it has a chance, but does anyone actually think that? I have doubts that you even think that, Walton, but correct me if I'm wrong. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it has a chance. The IfD was only open for a short period, and there wasn't full community participation. There were a lot of dubious !votes from IPs and new accounts. I have confidence that the community has a wide range of views on this matter, and I think that full community participation over a 5-day period may well produce a different result. There were enough Delete !votes (12, I believe) to prevent WP:SNOW from applying. Walton^One 12:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the snowball rule would not apply given the # of calls to delete. But even discounting one-time voters, the consensus was clearly to keep, and that is likely not going to change. Tarc (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... you say SNOW doesn't apply, but that consensus is still not likely to change? I'm not sure where that would leave us. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

If you say so. I would suggest a re-read of NOT#CENSORED and deletion policy. Arguments that fly in the face of policy ("Notability doesn't matter", "Doesn't need sources", "Image offends certain users") simply get discounted. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] break 11

• overturn and keep where it leaves us is with the consensus, which was to keep the image. DGG (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, this is saying there's a kind of situation where consensus can be decided in 33 hours, but where SNOW nevertheless doesn't apply. I'm not really sure if that makes sense. Should something really be closed this early if SNOW doesn't apply? Equazcion •✗/C • 14:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
    • While SNOW wouldn't apply, I think it is patently obvious that even if it ran the full time, the best case scenario for the anti-image people was a no-consensus close. Reality was likely going to be keep anyway. It is unfortunate that an invalid reason to speedy delete the image was used, I think relisting would amount to little more than process for the sake of process. Moral Panic is not a valid deletion argument. More to the point, if Angus really is interested in discussing how album covers fit into NFCC8, IfD is not the right forum. Discussion about the image can continue, if wanted, but relisting would be a waste of time. Resolute 15:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Lots on consensus, and too much on censorship, but neither is relevant. This is not an field where consensus is remotely relevant. Either the image meets all of the requirements of NFCC or it doesn't. I believe that it doesn't. The best way to show that it does, particularly in regard to 8, is, as geni said, to show that it was controversial and to source such claims. So far we have an interview and maybe a blog or two. Feeble stuff. "Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works." foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy at 3. Only Humpty-Dumpty could make those words mean that we can exempt images on the basis of a vote: "This policy may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects." It has been suggested arbitration committee could get the ball rolling on NFCC enforcement. That's an idea, but a request for comments at the Foundation wiki would also work. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Identifying protected works such as logos" seems to be the clause relevant to all album covers, doesn't it? I don't see what needs to be circumvented. Powers ^T 14:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Consensus is always relevant since that's how we make determinations such as whether or not NFCC is satisfied. If you feel everyone else is wrong and you're right, then yes, that's a reason to take this to ArbCom. But it's not a reason to make a closing at IfD that goes against consensus. There's a designated process for having ArbCom address an issue, and this isn't it. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, consensus is entirely relevant. That's how we determine whether or not the image meets the requirements. NFCC8 is not an objective criteria, it is a subjective one. You, as an admin, may have an opinion as to whether the image meets the criteria or not, but you are bound to act according to the community consensus as to whether the image meets NFCC, not your own personal judgment. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• overturn and keep to reflect the consensus that was on the IFD. We do things by consensus here, and all admins are tasked to respect and obey consensus unless when Foundational issues come into play, which have not here. Based on this, overturn and keep. Admins do not run Wikipedia nor have authority over it; their authority only come when people don't feel like challenging their actions for feeling they were good or right. In this case, it appears their actions do not have the support of their peers, so the admin have no right or authority in this case. Overturn. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• I agree completely with that as far as procedure goes, but are you happy for the image to be re-listed on IfD once the deletion is formally overturned? I don't think the IfD was open long enough to build a genuine consensus. Walton^One 16:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think that (and have never made a secret of this) that I think process or discussion for the sake of process or discussion is a total waste of everyone's time, consuming pointless cycles. To me, an overwhelming DRV is consensus enough in cases like this, and have said as much in the past--100 people sounding off in support or disapproval of something, regardless of the forum they do it in, counts for a lot. That said, I think the ifd would be a pointless procedural action that would end the same as the DRV, but if someone were to IFD it again after the DRV to be a process wonk, more power to them. :) Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• comment additionally, the "bad cover" itself has probably gotten enough press coverage through the decades to warrant its very own article at this point. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and Keep for several reasons that other editors have already noted.
  • WP Licensing policy EDP allows for identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. I don't think there is any dispute that this applies to album covers as can be seem by the vast array of album covers other than this one that are found on WP
  • Even if someone were to argue that the fact that it is an album cover illustrating the work in question in not sufficient, which would be a policy change requiring the removal of nearly all other album covers, this one in particular would still qualify to stay because of the notable historical controversy that has surrounded this album cover.
  • WP:NFCC#8 was not part of the IfD discussion so that policy implementation had no consensus
  • While I think the IfD as well as previous IfD shows that the consensus was to keep the image, I am not opposed to relisting to allow for a full 5 day review. Jeffreybh (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not censored - this is bollocks. If I call someone a cunt I get warned and my comments get removed, I insert copy-vio I get warned & my edit is reverted, I insert BLP vio I get warned & my edit is reverted, I write a shitty article I get templated & my edit is reverted. Plenty of stuff is removed from wikipedia every hour. The image adds no value to the encyclopedia, but does make editing troublesome for many people. Dan Beale-Cocks 15:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • If you can't see the difference betweeen making content descisions and censorship than you don't understand policy or the definition of "censorship" very much. For example, if Nature refuses to publish an uninteresting paper, that's not censorship. I'd also be curious as to why you think that the "image adds no value to the encyclopedia." JoshuaZ (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Thought re "legality" in some countries If this goes, how far behind is Image:TrangBang.jpg? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm for keeping, however that example is not even remotely comparable. One is a war photo and one is an album cover that was posed and designed to be provocative. If you want to make a point about other images I think this is the worst possible other image to point out. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Not really a bad example--I'm talking in terms of strict legality, as some have argued. If some nations say you can't have any photos of nude children, this would be an interesting line of discussion--if we took a strictly legal standpoint. Thats why any legal matters should be decided by Wikimedia HQ by Mike Godwin, our attorney, not by editors who are not empowered to act on legal decisions for this website. From a provocative (which is subjective) or sociological standpoint a better comparison would be if we had photos of nude children from some Amazonian or African tribe. I'm sure we do, but I wouldn't even know where to look. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• The war photo was also designed to be provocative as in provoked an emotion or reaction, just in a different way, that is why it won the Pulitzer prize. That is also why we can't have a hard rule that says all images of naked children are prohibited. And that is why we don't either in Wiki or in the US.--NrDg 16:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The total lack of intervention from Mike Godwin and the foundation should answer the legal questions. There's a difference between real lawyers and armchair lawyers, the former actual know what they are doing, the latter just want to soapbox about things they know nothing about. There, I said it out loud. EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• And lawyers can disagree. The lack of intervention by our legal eagle just means he thinks the risk to the foundation is minimal. And that includes cost of defending against a spurious lawsuit that we would eventually win. Besides this IS settled law as similar cases have been ruled on by the courts.--NrDg 16:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Ah yes, which returns us to the question asked by ThuranX above. Was the cover actually withdrawn following a court order or was it voluntarily withdrawn? EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Not relevant now. Supreme court invalidated any state law making this image illegal in 1989. What happened before 1989 doesn't matter now.--NrDg 16:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• So what exactly is the legal problem other than speculation by armchair lawyers? EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• None, apparently. I'm wondering if this all a knee-jerk since wingnut right-wing American Christian groups are going after WP over this image in the press.[9][10] Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• There is no legal issue. Lots of speculation by people who don't know what the law really is and don't understand the concepts of case law.--NrDg 16:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• People making legal comments are not armchair lawyers, what a strange comment, especially when ignorance is not a defence under law and as editors we eacha nd every one of us need to be cautious in what we write, in the manner of journalists not in the manner of schoolchildren writing essays. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Ignorance can be solved - I gave a link to the actual Supreme Courts case in the IfD discussion that would allow people to educate themselves on what the law actually is now and yet the arguments continues even after a, be definition, authoritative reference. --NrDg 16:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• I wish everyone would stop reeling off "wingnut right-wing American Christian groups" as if that label negated the genuine concerns which they raise. One does not have to be a right-wing Christian to believe that nude images of children have no place on any legitimate website - indeed, this is the consensus view of society as a whole. Acting as if it were only "right-wing Christians" who are concerned about this, and consequently treating the concerns as worthless, will not make the issue go away. Walton^One 16:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• My point was that until this media-savvy group began it's assault, fueled by World Net Daily, there was no controversy here over this image. We're knee-jerking now. Unless there are actual legal issues involved, we shouldn't be bowing to outside pressure or lobby groups on any matter, as a general principle that isn't specific to this case of an image of a nude child. Is this image even banned or illegal in the US? Is it a notable image? Is it obscene? By whos standards? Is it encyclopediac? Is it educational? It's clearly notable, given the media storm that has surrounded the image for what, 20+ years now? I'm honestly surprised we don't have an article on the image/album cover and it's controversy itself. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• It's the consensus view of society that an encyclopedia shouldn't show any images of young humans in their natural state? Given that I could see graphic drawings of naked girls of the same age in a book for sale at Wal-Mart, I don't buy it. But even though this book claimed to help get girls through puberty, it was really just to get pedophiles off, right?--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• By the way, you wrote, "nude images of children have no place on any legitimate website - indeed, this is the consensus view of society as a whole." So where does National Geographic or Time magazine fall under society when they post images in print or online of nude children? This area is a lot messier than the Conservatives or the free-speech advocates would have us believe. By your wording we'd be arresting National Geographic photographers and editors for selling kiddie smut. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Walton, you keep presuming to speak for all society. Why do you not answer a single user who brings up counter-instances to your argument that "nude images have no place in society?" Why do you not answer about National Geographic, Time magazine, the artistic photo works of Sally Mann (which show all three of her prepubescent children in varying states of undress), or the case of the infamous photo of a naked Vietnamese girl having just had her clothes burned off of her? Are you deliberately dodging these questions? I want to hear why, if society as a whole views child nudity as a whole, why these photographers are not in jail? Redfarmer (talk) 06:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Consensus views of society are subservient to the laws of society until the law get changed. In this case it would take a constitutional amendment to the US constitution for the consensus view to matter. Wikipedia also has a "constitution" as such and all our decisions are subservient to it until it too gets changed. --NrDg 16:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and keep; the standard interpretation of fair use on Wikipedia lets us use album covers. After we've removed all the album covers being used to illustrate the albums, then let's discuss those that are important in and of themselves. As for the nudity, what about Image:Bouguereau_first_kiss.jpg, and many, many friends? It's simple picture of a person in their birthday suit, nothing pornographic about it. People who want to sexualize little children should get over it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

  Good call on the Bouguereau. Ford MF (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and keep. Relisting unnecessary, as consensus was fairly unambiguous. If there is a brewing consensus that our unfree image policies are effed up, take it to Wikipedia:Image content guidelines WT:NFC. And as numerous people have noted here, this album cover would qualify under more stringent guidelines anyway, since the cover is clearly the focal point of most of the notable commentary on the album. Ford MF (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Correction - take general NFCC stuff to WT:NFC, not Wikipedia:Image content guidelines, which is something very new that I started, and is not intended for discussion of non-free images. Carcharoth (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
    • My bad. Thanks for catching that. Ford MF (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn, keep, and give it an article of its own. As this album cover has now attracted controvery back in 1976 [11] as well as now [12], it should almost be ready for an article of its own, right... --Reinoutr (talk) 18:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] break 12

• Overturn and Keep. Wikipedia is not censored, and never has alternate cover art caused this much controversy in the history of music - except for the cover of that Nirvana album, but I've never seen people complain about that in this sort of manner. Sure, Nevermind's album art in comparison to Virgin Killer is a lot more tame, but still - it passes NFCC8 with flying colors as it increases the reader's understanding - because in connection to the text, you think "oh look, now I see why they hated it so much." But still, I am a bit concerned - so let's use the Miller test.
  

The first part says, "Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest," yes with a reaction like that you know that it theoretically could pass #1 on US:OBCC (UnitedStates:Obscene content criteria...NFCC, get it?). Then, "Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law," okay, she's not excreting anything, and there is no sexual conduct occuring - though this is open for interpretation, so I'll call it a fail. Then "Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value". It's an album cover, you gotta get people's attention somehow. The music on an album at times can only be as good as the album art, though this is just my opinion too. When you see a boy skinny dipping on a defining Grunge album, are you expecting something different from your usual grunge? Yes. you are. Not obscene, in my interpretation - slightly legal. If you wanna block it, just use AdBlock or something, I don't care. ViperSnake151 20:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That Nirvana cover with a naked baby is a very good example, as is the earlier example someone provided of a 19th century artwork of naked cherubs kissing. The former is non-free and therefore is Wikipedia's responsibility. The latter is public domain and is therefore the responsibility of Commons (where it is hosted) and the responsibility of the projects that use it. The thing that really surprised me was that we have an article on the "Nirvana baby": Spencer Elden. Read what he says there, that it is "kind of creepy that that many people have seen me naked. [...] I feel like I'm the world's biggest porn star!". Incidentally, on a completely different but related topic, a photo of me (yes, me) as a child was once used in a poster campaign (not a very big one, and I wasn't naked), but that poster may be on the internet somewhere, along with another picture (actually a painting) of me as a child. It was indeed a rather strange and unexpected moment when I found that painting online. :-) One interesting scenario is if the person in that album cover (going back to the Virgin Killer one) is alive and is aware that they are the person in that picture, and requested the removal of the picture. What would we do then? That would seem to be a clear BLP issue. Carcharoth (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Ha! [13] My favorite part of that WND article is how they lump this image with others as "one of many hard-core pornographic images displayed on Wikipedia". They honestly think this is hard core porn. A young girl on an album cover (which qualifies as a piece of artwork and was released commercially in many countries) in a provocative pose with breasts exposed but no genitalia visible. There is not even a sexual act being performed (indeed there are no other persons or objects in the cover image), yet they lump it in with "hard-core" porn alongside "recordings of women experiencing orgasms" and "large-scale photos of men performing oral sex on one another (and performing oral sex on themselves)". Do we really need any further evidence that WND is a strictly conservative propaganda site, or at the very least a site with highly conservative views which views Wikipedia as some kind of porn playground? Furthermore, where are these other "hard core" media on Wikipedia? I've never come across any like the ones they describe, and I've followed discussions on WP:NOTCENSORED-related topics before. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"where are these other "hard core" media on Wikipedia" - have a look here for examples, based on the initial list provided by WND. Carcharoth (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• NFCC8 is not WP:BLP. This is far from the first time I've seen an admin unilaterally declare that an image does not meet NFCC8. This is an issue that should be discussed. Angusmclellan should be reprimanded for closing the debate as such. If he felt strongly enough that NFCC8 was not met, he should have gave his opinion on the matter within the discussion. --- RockMFR 21:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • ^Agreed on all counts. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Relist WP:IFD requires nominations being listed for 5 days before processing. This image was deleted in less than two. The image is way too controversial to qualify for speedy deletion. The discussion is about child pornography not non-free content criteria. Album covers have generally been considered significant in articles about the album just as movie posters are considered significant in articles about the movie and logos are considered significant in articles about the organization. -Nv8200p talk 01:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Admins are required to not delete an image earlier than five days (unless it's a candidate for speedy). Relisting to IfD would amount to procedure for procedure's sake, which seems a big fat waste of everyone's time, particularly as the image 1) has not actually been deleted, 2) taking this DRV as a continuation of the prior IfD debate, seems a pretty unambiguous "keep" on all counts. Ford MF (talk) 02:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    • But the DRV ought not to be seen as a continuation of the IfD. DRV is for discussing whether the close of an XfD was correct, not for re-hashing the arguments on the IfD. We are all (mostly) agreed that the close was inappropriate. However, I still personally feel that the image should be deleted, for the reasons I gave on the IfD; and I don't feel those reasons are being given adequate consideration here. Hence why I am happy with overturning the deletion, but want to have the image relisted. Walton^One 08:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Actually, you wanted a speedy relist. That it wasn't speedily relisted and instead turned into a defacto new IfD (with lots of "overturn and keep" comments) suggests that people are, in some cases, quite happy to turn DRV into an XfD discussion forum. Carcharoth (talk) 09:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes, but there are two separate issues. One is whether Angus Mclellan's close was appropriate; I agree that it was not, and there's a very clear consensus on that point. That is what this DRV ought to be resolving. The second issue is whether, for fundamental ethical reasons, the image ought to be deleted. I would argue that it should, for the reasons I have already stated. We shouldn't be conflating the two issues in one discussion. Walton^One 11:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Agreed. So are you waiting for a relist before answering the points people are making here against your arguments, or are you going to be answering them here? Carcharoth (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
          • There's no reason why one discussion can't discuss all the issues about an image, and you've helped it do so. Five days is important for minor articles, where frequently someone will pop up after four days and point out something both of the previous commentators missed; but we've throughly thrashed this out. I don't want to have to cut and paste my arguments onto the IfD page and watch you cut and paste your arguments onto the IfD page, and I see absolutely no evidence that it's going to change the results at all. The majority of people here have weighed your opinions about nudity, and found them insufficient to delete the article. A recount is reasonable; a revote is not.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
            • I agree. If this was relisted and closed as delete, it would just turn up again at DRV, where it would be overturned again. It seems to be the consensus at DRV that *none* of the arguments for deletion on the IfD were valid. So, it would be a waste of time to relist unless you can convince the people here at DRV by providing new arguments or explaining the old ones on a novel way for . --Enric Naval (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
            • Is there a reason why Walton's concerns can't be addressed through centralized discussion instead? It seems like he's concerned about these sorts of images in general, not just this one, and being a community member in good standing I think he's entitled to a debate about that. However, I don't think an IfD is the best place for that because regardless of the debate here it will just turn into a repeat of the last one. That really isn't in his own best interest because the IfD will turn off topic again. EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
            • This image is a test case. A generalized discussion would be arguing hypotheticals. A conclusion here would either reinforce existing overall policy and consensus or overturn it. Walton's goal is to overturn and as such he needs a good representative test case that is somewhat in the grey area, which this one is to some people. Angus McLellan has the same goal for using this as a test case but is using it to push a change in a different policy area. Those of us who like the existing explicit policies and defacto policies created by long term concensus are here more to defend them as opposed to the merits of this particular picture. --NrDg 14:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• keep-one, wikipedia is not censored. two, after doing a quick skim of the miller test myself, i don't think the image is obscene. oh, and three: its an album cover. it artwork: not porn, never marketed as porn. peace!Ryan shell (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)