Talk:Virgin Killer/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

On

For the version of this article that was nominated for VFD (by

FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK

) 06:39, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

IcycleMort 19:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Nudity ≠ pornography. Suppose the band released a nearly identical cover where the only difference was the age of the girl shown. A picture of a nude 22-year-old girl in the exact same pose as the 12-year-old one would not be considered pornographic at all. It would be mere "nudity" and there would have been no controversy. To suggest that particular pose may or may not be a "pornographic pose" (depending solely on the age of the individual posing) is facetious.
Conversely, it is possible for images to be pornographic without showing any private parts (leaving them acceptable for network television broadcast even—see Paris Hilton).
If I remember correctly:

the cover was not banned in the traditional sense, as it was never declared illegal. It was in fact released, uncensored (as shown in Virgin Killer.jpg), only to be recalled from distribution after numerous complaints and at least one incident of mass vandalism of on-shelf albums by a customer. Then it was re-released with a different cover.

I'll try to cite sources on all this before adding this information to the article.

—

FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK

) 06:30, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, Nudity ≠ pornography. I do not consider the image offensive. But I do know, that it would be illegal to display/own/whatever that kind of image in many countries(legislation can be very strange). I am concerned legally not morally. I've searched Wikipedia, but the only legal issues adressed are copyright issues. So I am just trying to find out if somebody has more of a clue regarding the legal situation in countries we'd be concerned about (probably mostly regarding server-location). Do you know somebody who could answer those questions? IcycleMort | Talk 08:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Glad that we can agree that

Kim Phuc Phan Thi

(third from left, nude).

400px

(© 1972, Huynh Cong "Nick" Ut, Associated Press.)

Some might find this to be a tasteless comparison, but it begs the question of whether:

• fear of censorship laws is more dangerous than the laws themselves, or
• context really does make all the difference.

I don't speak often, but guess I'm long-winded when I do.

—

FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK

) 09:36, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Convinced. IcycleMort | Talk 17:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the comments above, the original "Virgin Killer" cover was withdrawn by RCA in the US, due to a somewhat negative reaction to it's contents. It was never officially banned by the Government or anything like that. In most other countries (UK, Europe, Japan etc), it did not attract the same level of controversy, and was used as the cover for many years. During this time it sold many copies (it was a very popular album) and has been widely disseminated, both as an original cover and as a web image. To my knowledge, it has never faced any legal challenges, despite numerous inclusions on other "international" sites such as "EBay" etc. There was a similar controversy regarding the "Blind Faith" album cover which featured a girl of similar age in a state of undress, and holding a remarkably phallic model of a futuristic aeroplane. That one is already featured on Wiki! Paulzon (Museum Of Bad Album Covers)

Based on my understanding of the federal law regarding child pornography this picture of the album cover is not illegal. Here is why:

• Nudity in and of itself involving a minor is not illegal unless it depicts "lascivious exhibition of the genitals".
• As the album cover does not, based on my understanding of concept, depict "lascivious exhibition of the genitals", (the genitals being obscured by the crack in the glass), I do not believe it would be illegal. Had the genitals not been obscered then the picture might be said to fall into a gray area.
• While the picture is almost certainly illegal in some countries outside the US, the Wikipedia servers reside in the US and thus we only need to worry about US law.

--Cab88 21:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you think about moving one of the two covers of the album to the alternate cover section in the infobox as for the In Trance album ? It should be great to have the same layout for two albums of the same band with a similar "censored" cover issue. --ZeFredz 11:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Has the girl on the album cover been identified? Photouploaded (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm tired of the bullshit, I just learned about this image today. I can't believe this is on wikipedia, I mean I'm all in favor of freedom of speech but child porn is where I draw the line. First off, it doesn't matter whether or not it wasn't "declared illegal" in the US, apparently when controversy brought itself about the image was replaced, making it a moot point to declare it illegal. Second, you damn well know people are beating off to this like it is child porn, need I say more. The countries you list as accepting of this image are different cultures and in the UK, age of consent is 16 where "nationally" in the US it is 18. There are "legal pornographic" images in UK newspapers that would be considered child porn in the US. Third, the album is called "Virgin Killers", I mean hello? Are you retarded? It has a title that alludes to slaying virgins and a picture of a obviously underage girl on the cover. The band is from Germany, once again anywhere in Europe has an Age of Consent under 18. Fourth, don't try to compare this to the Napalm burned girl picture. That was in a war zone showing a girl burned from the ravages of war running away from horrors she was innocent to in the heat of the moment, not staged. This image in question was a girl who was underage by US standards, posing in a studio, for the cover of a heavy metal album, the title of which alludes to her sexuality. Legal reasons 100% trump ANY educational value this image could possibly have. IE "Oh, that's what a naked underage girl looks like I had no idea."

Some answers

1. Sign your posts.
2. "I'm all in favor of freedom of speech but". This means you don't know what freedom of speech is, or don't want it.
3. "you damn well know people are beating off to this". There are a lot of pictures in wikipedia that people beat off to. There are for example pictures of two dogs making out, or pictures of an anus. I think it would be nice if people could have their sexual fantasies without you having to decide if they are sick or not.
4. First you say it doesn't matter if it was declared legal or not, then you start to talk about if it's legal in UK or germany. Your arguments might make more sense if you decide.
5. The album title indicates that the girl in the picture is a virgin, that's correct. I don't think they killed her. Queen made an album called Live Killers, I don't think they killed anyone either.
6. You seem to argue that pictures of nude children taken without consent and without any way for the children to protect themselves are fine to publish and to show everyone, but a staged picture is not. I don't agree.
7. The legality of a picture has nothing to do with it being taken in a studio or being used as an album cover, as you can clearly read from others on this talk page.

Pipatron (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any specific reason why this article should be disbanded or refurbished. While I understand that Wikipedia should adopt a policy that curtails, rather than facilitates, illegal acivities I do not see this entry as a potential source of such conflict. If your conscern is that someone is "beating off" to this then they could just as easilly use any given anatomy textbook, wherin depictions of undressed children exist - quite intentionally on behalf of the publishers. More information should be procured prior to any more significant action being taken here. As it stands it seems impossible to determine the authenticity of the picture utilize for thet album cover - it could have easilly been fabricated. If however, evience were to point to such a picture as having constituted legitimate underrage pornography (as a result of how the picture came into existence in the first place) then it would definitely need to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.253.36.46 (talk) 08:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"I'm also quite sure that people are beating off to the napalm-girl as well, and as far as I know, it's much more likely that she's also dead." No, I'm pleased to say she's alive and well (relatively-speaking): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Th%E1%BB%8B_Kim_Ph%C3%BAc Al, UK

I do not see what the big deal is. the girl is pretty hot looking and I would probably want to do her. But it is obvious that her tits have been airbrushed off, thereby making her look younger than what she really is. And the bottom line is, no one forced her to get naked and be on an album over 30 years ago! So who cares? I surely don't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.243.4.2 (talk) 12:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just been bold and taken it out. There's not a strong reason to keep it in with the little amount of prose on it at the moment. That and I've never been a fan of having two non-free images of album covers, which are used to represent the same thing. Of course, anyone is welcome to revert me. Seraphim♥Whipp 13:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

When (if?) I find sources documenting the cover art controversy, I'll probably add it back in. I'm at work right now, so it'll probably be a while.-Wafulz (talk) 13:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Though I will give further explanation as to my removal. Yes, at present there is a lack of critical analysis but I also thought the present prose justified removal of the image. The text conveys the value of the image quite well; "Band member Klaus Meine acknowledged that he was shocked when he saw the original album cover, but was pressed by the record company to do something controversial". I would prefer if the image were not used, but that is just my personal opinion and I acknowledge that it is an opinion based on my own sensibilities. So I have set that aside for objective reasoning which I have given above, though once again, my opinion could be disputed :). Seraphim♥Whipp 13:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I would ask that the image remain out of the article. It is a decent thing to do considering it is a child and it was withdrawn by the label/artist. -JodyB _talk 14:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Per the 2005 conversation about the image, above, the cover was not withdrawn in most of the world; only in the USA. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've put the image back in. Not directing this at anyone, esp, those who may have removed it, but I believe

WP:CENSOR should apply here, just as it does in the debate over images of Muhammad. Let's not get wound up just because the likes of [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=63722 worldnetdaily] is making hay over a thirty-two year old album cover. As for the rationale of scant coverage/discussion in the article, I'd say the aforementioned WND link, and others that can probably be easily found, would be enough to justify a "Controversy" section of this article. Tarc (talk

) 16:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

When

Dorling Kindersley published their "100 Best Album Covers: The Stories Behind the Sleeves" They included Blind Faith (album)

which is the other cover with simular issues.

• suggestions: perhaps the positions should be reversed, and the revised cover put at the top, changing the labels appropriately. This would keep the pictures. The discussion of the controversy back then could also be expanded and sourced, and this would certainly be a full justification for the use of the image. If, as suggested earlier, it is in fact an airbushed older model, and that can be sourced, it would be an interesting addition to the artice. We must maintain the principle of not censored, and the way to do it is to use every image necessary or appropriate according to our own judgment, but discreetly. Making that change also can show that we did in fact pay some attention to the outside criticism and took note of the issue. And of course, perhaps the criticism of our use of the picture would be appropriate in the article. Being flamboyant about problem images instead of discreet tends to give the impression of being deliberately provocative. DGG (talk) 17:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think that's a reasonable solution. It won't placate the WND crowd, but it will substantively mean that a first glance at the article won't throw the photo in someone's face, which is a legitimate concern. And yes, there should be some discussion of *why* there are two album covers, and the controversy that arose over it.
    talk
    ) 17:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure about flipping the images. Isn't the one with the girl the original, and the band photo the alternate? If that is the case, then flipping them would be kinda contrary to...reality, for lack of a better word. Tarc (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

think of it as we are first, illustrating the album, and second, discussing the controversy. DGG (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I'm terribly convinced of that line of reason, but in the grand scheme of keeping vs. removal, I wouldn't contest via revert or anything an image swap.

We also no have someone trying to tack

WP:BLP to this issue, which I find to be fairly bogus, and have reverted those edits. This all is probably going to get worse before it gets better, to borrow a phrase. Tarc (talk

) 19:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I will restore the BLP as living people are mentioned int he article. I have al;so ifd'd the image, the community certainly needs to opine on whether we want such an image. Thanks,

SqueakBox

19:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If the FBI are investigating then it will not matter about what we say this will be coming down, the servers are in florida. I actually believe this clear child porn image should come down as it is of no educational purpose, we don't have pictures of naked children on the pedophila article so there is no place for it on a album article. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 19:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, age of consent in the US is not 18 years old universally, in fact, in many states it's 17, in some as low as 16, and many states have age-gap provisions. But what do I know? - AB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.211.41 (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Over-sensitivity, seems an odd and rather poor faith comment, I see no evidence to back up such an assertion either; claims to not cnesor do not cover child pornography even from a supposedly artistic motivation. Thanks,

SqueakBox

23:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Do infant penises offend, too? Where's the IfD debate for Image:NirvanaNevermindalbumcover.jpg? Tarc (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Its sexualised images of minors that are the problem, can you really not see that? Thanks,

SqueakBox

23:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

yes, lets not be naïve altogether. The entire point of this cover was for it to be a highly sexualized and provocative picture. But come to think of it, who would be likely to come to this article who didnt know about the picture? DGG (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It is sexualized and it is provocative. And, people who didn't know about the image are still likely to come here, for the same reason anyone visits an article about a band's album. Yes it is a borderline case and questionable, but I think in the end it should stay. It informs readers about the controversy. Without the image, the article would suffer. If I read an article about a controversial photo, I would be annoyed that I couldn't see immediately what the controversy regarded, and would go looking elsewhere for the image. I shouldn't have to do that on a supposedly uncensored site. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess only fans of European 70s heavy metal music. Thanks,

SqueakBox

02:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe the picture, whatever its degree of tastelesness or appropriateness, meets the legal definition of child pornography in any state.

• There is no sexual activity depicted. The pose alone is not sufficiently titilating to meet the definition.
• There are no genitalia depicted, given the crack placement.

Honestly, I'd say absent the album title, that the picture wouldn't have aroused (sorry... No, I'm lying) any controversy. So take it out because it's tasteless or on the advice of counsel, not on the basis of non-law-enforcement officers pronouncing it child porn, because it's not. Jclemens (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It not being child porn is your personal opinion but that does not make what you say true. I believe your sweeping statement that no country would consider this to be child porn to be plain wrong. Thanks,

SqueakBox

02:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Some countries banned the

talk

) 03:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

While I actually do not feel able to answer that question (I know nothing on the subject) at least Mohamed is not alive whereas that poor child may be an adult who feels violated by this picture of her being seen by people, and as a living person she is certainly covered by our BLP policy. And I say this because one of the things that makes child porn so horrific is that the child is not only being abused but being abused in public. Most of us do not want to be seen, let alone by strangers, making love and this visibility just compounds the original abuse. Thanks,

SqueakBox

03:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Professional opinion, but yes, I am not an attorney. I said "state," not country, which is a good bit less sweeping. My experience is limited to U.S. law, which is the extent of our collective concern. It's already been established by the lack of action over its publication in Europe that it does not violate any laws in the country of origin. Jclemens (talk) 03:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No, US law is not the extent of our collective concerns. We are an international encyclopedia, many of us have no experience of the US and its laws. This article is about a German band. Thanks,

SqueakBox

03:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

So, if not U.S. law, what law are we concerned about having violated? It was my impression the contention was about U.S. legalities, hence my reply on that front. See the discussion of images of Mohammed, above. Jclemens (talk) 03:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The US laws are one concern on the ifd and I am not so much saying US law does not matter as I am saying that its not the only law that matters. Generally I would say as editors we need to obey the laws of the country in which we are located, also those of another country if we are citizens of or resident in that country. Thanks,

SqueakBox

03:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Florida law is decisive in what gets removed, as noted in

WP:NOTCENSORED. Considering a significant number of countries outlaw pornography, blasphemy and the like, that's understandable. --AnotherSolipsist (talk

) 03:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I oppose the move of the original cover to the Alternate cover section. I don't think we should sacrifice accuracy for the sake of prudery. Anyway, it wouldn't satisfy virtually any of the complaints voiced against the image. The concern seems to be that someone who *wants* to see it for the wrong reasons might (but enforcing morality violates NPOV, so that's a weak argument). At Autofellatio, consensus apparently left the image immediantly visible. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 03:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we should remove the image on BLP grounds until we can get specific permission from the girl in the picture. The auto-fellatio guy is much less likely to evoke such BLP concerns because he was an adult when the pic was taken whereas the girl was clearly a minor. Thanks,

SqueakBox

03:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This petty

civilized Wikipedians. Thank you. Nufy8 (talk

) 04:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I find the BLP reasoning specious at best. The model is named nowhere in any of the articles--absent a name, or any details of this model's life, how can anything be considered biographical? The real issue is prepubescent nudity and whether or not it's child porn, period. Let's not introduce trivial objections to cloud the matter, please. Jclemens (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Leave it up. People "whack off" to little girls in underwear catalogues. That is a spurious argument at best. The ability to arouse people sexually knows no bounds. If that is a criteria for prohibition then we may as well all wear burkas. But then agaain there are probably those who are aroused by burkas. The photo may be shocking but it is about the loss of innocence not about killing virgins. Have you been to the beach lately. little girls wear bathing suits that reveal almost as much. Should outlaw bathing suits for girls?

"...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!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Commentaria (talk • contribs) 14:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Rfc

• I see the beginnings of an edit war about this so I've created a
  request for comment on it. There is a current IfD on the image here and it seems people are removing the image unilaterally without any consensus to do so. So, I'm requesting comment from the community to find out what the community wide consensus on this is. I would suggest that everyone should stop removing the image unilaterally until a decision has been made. Removing the image from the article would not solve the FBI issue, if there is an issue here. I personally am neutral leaning to keep at this time. Redfarmer (talk
  ) 19:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that wikipedia cannot maintain public credibility while persisting in publishing such material as the cover originally banned in the US. It is not a matter of prudery. Pedophilia and child pornography are criminal offenses in most civilized western countries, and this is an issue of law. The first action that will be taken is that institutions wholesale will put porn blockers on wikipedia, placing all of the valuable content of this project out of reach of those who could benefit from it. Clearly in this case criminal action was taken by the editor(s) in question simply to provoke those seen as "prudes" in the USA. This kind of thing has no place in a public document that will be used by school children. Finally, any reference to Mohammed is completely off base. There is nothing criminal about publishing a picture of Mohammed. The only problem is that some Muslims will be offended, even though some Muslim originally created this portrait. Succumbing to threats from terrorists is not the same as refusing to engage in promoting child porn.~~Doktorschley —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doktorschley (talk • contribs) 04:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Except that there's no evidence that this is child pornography. Nudity, yes. But that's not illegal. Distasteful? Sure. That's why it was pulled and replaced, in some places. There's actually no evidence that this cover was ever banned - we have no sources to support that. The sources seem to say that the record company was responsible for changing the cover.

talk

) 06:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

There is also no evidence that the cover was "banned" in the USA - withdrawn by the record company is not the same as banned. DuncanHill (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• This is child porn, and when the FBI steps in and does something about it, and schools across the USA block out wikipedia on this account, our work will all be worth sh*t. The claim that there is no evidence that the cover was ever banned is simply an admission that the person making the claim did not find that evidence. Civilized persons make civilized choices. Even though the Scorpions were a great band, and I have their music, that does not mean that everything they did needs to be posted on wikipedia for the world to read and see. We have a greater commitment to maintaining the integrity of the work as a whole. Note that Brittannica, long the gold standard of encyclopedias, provides less and less quality information, and thinner and thinner articles that increasingly lack substance, while wikipedia articles steadily improve as to content, references, and the conscientious editing. In many of our articles we offer not only more information, but more precise, better-documented and better-argued articles than Brittannica has since its vaunted third edition, when world-class scholars wrote many of the key articles. We are doing ourselves--and those who are coming to depend on our contributions--a disservice by permitting our site to become a vehicle for the dissemination of the lowest cultural impulses, and putting our work at risk accordingly.~~Doktorschley
  • What evidence do you have that this is considered child porn aside from you yourself declaring it is, or that the FBI is actually investigating (WND doesn't exactly have the most credibility in the world; they just settled a libel law suit for making false accusations against an Al Gore fundraiser that he was a drug dealer and interfering in an investigation). Besides, even if the FBI were to step in and "do something about it," where does your logic come in that this would cause schools to block Wikipedia? This is hardly the only nude picture on Wikipedia. Redfarmer (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Virgin Killer/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following

Last edited at 02:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)