Talk:Virgin Killer

This article has been flagged as containing a potentially illegal image by the UK's Internet Watch Foundation

Virgin Killer and Image:Virgin Killer.jpg have been flagged as child pornography by the UK's Internet Watch Foundation. As a result of this, they are inaccessible through many major UK ISPs. The technical measures necessitated in order to put this sort of barrier in place have negatively impacted Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects by forcing all traffic from these ISPs through a handful of IP addresses, making it harder to deal with vandalism and causing problems for many legitimate users if the addresses are blocked. Attempts to access this article through these ISPs return blank pages, fake 404 errors, or something similar. More information may be found at WP:AN#Major UK ISPs reduced to using 2 IP addresses. -- I just noticed an article on BBC world(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7770456.stm) that not just a particular page which has caused offense but also wikipedia might face censorship in UK and it is being highly debated,I am a huge fan of wikipedia and use it a lot for reference and I believe the editors should remove the obscene image depicting child pornography from the page so that informational content should remain but not something which is illegal and wrong to depict,let the text remain but please remove the picture,I would be really dismayed to know that a reputed site like Wikipedia is banned from a large section of society because of one image,let all the editors also keep in mind to keep checking content and if they find something which depicts child pornography,remove it with a message that such a picture is not shown because it depicts child pornography and let the text/information remain.That is all I have to say.I came on this page to remove the picture but the entire page has been locked from editing which means the entire page will go,it's better the editors remove the picture now!

Gurch (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to support your suggestion that "This article has been flagged as child pornography by the UK's Internet Watch Foundation"? I've seen a lot of speculation but not many hard facts. I use a large UK ISP and aren't having any problems. Adambro (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews has always sources of its statements, and you can see the corresponding article here. Diti (talk to the penguin) 22:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the Wikinews article seems to fail to provide any real evidence. Adambro (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There's an article at http://community.zdnet.co.uk/blog/0,1000000567,10009938o-2000331777b,00.htm . And although I may not be a "reliable source", I can confirm that I get a 404 error when I try to access the page through Virgin Media (although note that the alternative URL http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Virgin_Killer is not blocked). Mdwh (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

n:British ISPs restrict access to Wikipedia amid child pornography allegations. Diti (talk to the penguin) 08:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If it shows up in reliable sourcing, it might be worth adding to the article, adding to the controversy section. Other than that, though, I don't think there's much to do about it. -Chunky Rice (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, anyone can walk into a record store and buy this image in the UK today: it's on the back of the deluxe boxed set. Seems like it's just a filtering cockup and not any genuine deceleration of "child porn" status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.150.202 (talk) 10:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"Unfortunately the Wikinews article seems to fail to provide any real evidence." - a complete lie. There is the link posted there that Demon users get, which is an IWF page saying the IWF found child porn, or (a0 link(s) to it. I've got that message, I'm a Demon user and a Wikipedia and Wikinews admin. Satisfied? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Define "real evidence"... There's a new Regster-Article out since today, [1]. I'd rather trust el reg. Private meta (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not just a filtering cockup. Look here for a full discussion. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 11:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the link, hope you don't mind. --Kizor 12:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely in place. I can access the page, but several people I know can't. It's all quite interesting, actually, because it appears to be inconsistent between ISPs as to whom is filtered. --82.44.42.102 (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes It's definitely in place. I'm with Be Unlimited in the UK and I can only access the article with the secure version of wikipedia, the normal version gives me a 404 Hamish (Talk) 23:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Good point. It's not like the Internet Watch Foundation has any standing to make such a declaration. Regarding the credibility of Internet censorship, the state-mandated system where I come from has blocked the W3C as child porn.

Lastly and most imprortantly,

I throw my hands in the air and yell "NOT AGAIN!" Some months back there was a massive flame war about this image - people making Declarations with Utmost Moral Authority and threatening to leave the project - that could have no productive result and wasted everyone's time. In any discussion that follows, please use the "save page" button's valuable advantage over real life and reflect on whether what you're about to say helps your cause. Confrontational language has been extensively shown to turn others against any opinion.

--Kizor 12:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It's just because it's a girl, they didn't flag the cover of Nevermind... :P --Trickstar (talk) 12:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not use the alternative album image, and avoid all this fuss? TheLogster (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Because that would not be representing the facts of the album, namely that this image was the primary album cover. Tarc (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Right, and half the article is about the controversy related to the image. I wouldn't have correctly understood that section without seeing it, I would have got a different and wrong impression. Also, as I mentioned above: the cover is still in use (it's on the rear of the deluxe boxed set, sold everywhere). --71.163.150.202 (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Relevant Slashdot article. --72.161.2.216 (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

This censorship is setting a very dangerous precedent. it must be stopped!84.70.80.219 (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by IWF: http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.249.htm --AlisonW (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thanks guys for protecting us from a "potentially illegal" image. What nonsense. Adambro (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The original album cover of Guns 'n Roses 'Appetite for Destruction' is shown in the lower 'alternate' album cover space of the infobox, so there is a precedent here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HappHazzard (talk • contribs) 02:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the relevance of your point, the IWF aren't going to take this off their list just because the image isn't at the top of the infobox. Adambro (talk) 09:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

it is beyond me that, seeing they object to the image, they blacklist the url of the article (as opposed to, like, just the url of the image itself). Just blacklisting the image wouldn't result in any noticeable collateral damage. --dab (𒁳) 09:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggested Action

I am placing the alternative cover in the main section of the infobox, and moving the main cover art into a picture on the right in the cover art section. That way we can keep the image, yet use it in a more glaringly obviously encyclopaedic way. \ / (⁂) 20:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I will revert such a change in a heartbeat, and likely many others would as well. The Wikipedia project should not cave to censorship hysteria. Tarc (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I did, and it was reverted. I still think that doing that is not caving to censorship hysteria, just using common sense. If the picture is causing that much trouble, we need to be sure we are using it in an academic way - just having it there 'because it is an album cover' might not show the reader why the image is useful. \ / (⁂) 20:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's useful even if only because it's an album cover. So what's the problem? --JensMueller (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The obvious encyclopedic use of the original cover image is at the top of the article. Other articles about music albums have the cover image at the top and I see no reason why this one should be any different and contain a substitute. Plus, the original album cover definitely has more encyclopedic relevance than the replacement. --Regani (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The location of the image doesn't matter; it's the fact that it's viewable on this page. Joshdboz (talk) 02:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Although I agree that we shouldn't really cave to 'censorship', the main purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information and knowledge. Sacrificing one image in this instance to allow (as sourced) 95% of the UK population access to information and knowledge on the actual album (Which you can do without the album art anyway) is well worth it within the exact specifics of what the Wikipedia project is. This is opposed to 'what we want to be after that' in real Wikipedia project aim terms. You could still have the art work of course - in the form of a link. Not every single album on Wikipedia has artwork visible anyway so linking to it is hardly anything classed as major, and certainly isn't bowing to 'censorship hysteria' because its a clear decision based on the access of content Agent Blightsoot 02:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC).

Yep, and as soon as that is done, the Islamic fundamentalists who have been trying for ages to get images of Muhammad removed from the article will finally have a precedent. I'd rather not hand them or any other deletionist a leg up in their crusades. The image stays, IMO. Tarc (talk) 02:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia already faced this ethical dilemma about if the principles of freedom and openness upon which was founded should be bent, if doing so for a basically insignificant percentage of articles would help a vast number of editors, when it decided that it would rather suffer the blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China rather than self-censor Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 and other content that the Chinese government considers undermining of its authority. Similarly, we can regret that the UK watchdog is blocking content on the judgment that it's "potentially illegal", and that it is being done in a way that results in preventing editing sitewide by large numbers of UK contributors who are not logged in. I have no doubt that the Foundation would immediately remove the image when and if there is an actual legal basis to do so. The wiki will survive in any case. - BanyanTree 05:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. No censorship, absolutly. But there is a problem here, though. We shouldn't give in to censorship, but on the other hand nor should we be advocating total ignorance of law (and possible personal offence). There's a huge difference between the views of a 'censor' in (say) Iran and the views of a censor in (say) the UK; the views of the latter are formed from within a liberal and democratic system, with great weight placed on freedom of expression and artistic licence. Within that system and it's norms (from which I think we would all agree Wikipedia broadly descends) matters such as child pornography are considered sufficient to limit personal and artistic freedom. 'No censorship' does not mean a 'free for all'. And being encyclopedic is not sufficient justification: our article on child pornography does not include (thankfully) images of actual (or potential) child pornography. On the other hand, the album artwork has not been banned in (for instance) the UK, so the views of the IWF are clearly not the consensus amongst the range of 'censors' in that country. There might be good reason for this: the censors of published hard-copy material such as magazines and albums can have greater control over the distribution and availability of such images, whereas the internet gives every person on earth the chance to catch sight of a 'potentially illegal image'. It is my view that there should be limits to freedom of expression on Wikipedia, but that these must be set well to the limits of legal permissibility in broadly free and liberal societies, though mindful of Wikipedia's status as an internet encyclopedia. This debate is testing those limits. Might we not chose compromise over censorship? If we place the alternate image on the main article (for which there is precedence), we could include the original and difficult image on a second article, perhaps entitled 'controversy' or 'original artwork' for which interested users would be able to access without 'stumbling' across the image in question? 90.193.97.230 (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, unacceptable. The simple fact of the matter is that it is the primary album cover, not the alternate one. As such, it should be first in the infobox. We aren't here to protect the squeamish from things that scare or upset them. Tarc (talk) 13:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

"the views of a censor in (say) the UK; the views of the latter are formed from within a liberal and democratic system, with great weight placed on freedom of expression and artistic licence." With all due respect, that's not the UK I live in and is a rather naive assessment IMHO. The current ruling polity is not at all liberal, and the IWF is not a democratically constituted or mandated body- it is a private censor set up in a panic by the industry after a scurrilous attack on ISPs as child pornographers in the MSM some years ago. And in general, it's worth remembering that the UK has traditionally been heavily censored compared to the rest of the western world. I saw somebody describe us as "The Iran Of Europe" once on the internets and that's not far off the mark. Wikipedia should not consider the UK's political class's views as representative of UK public opinion, nor cave in to the ignorant terrified prudery of a minority cabal.82.71.30.178 (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Page views go from under 1,000/day to 126,000+ on December 7, 2008

Thanks to the Streisand effect, page views for Virgin Killer went from less than 1,000 a day in early December to over 126,000 on December 7.

Scorpions (band) went from about 2,400 to about 13,800, a factor of less than 6. Child pornography saw a small bump.

By comparison, Pearl Harbor and Pearl Harbor Day went up by less than a factor of 4. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC) Update: Page views for Image:Virgin Killer.jpg went from under 1,000 to 66.6K. Now that's just evil :). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably not the best place to put this however I am in the UK and I can see the page and cover art fine. The article is wrong about the whole UK being blocked. - Andrew —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.56.12 (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Article currently states "significant portion"; which, if 95% is correct, is fair enough IMHO. Harami2000 (talk) 03:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

From the reports I'm seeing it isn't correct but the IWF thinks it is. All our sources go with the IWF so 95% it is.Geni 06:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

No Original Research, I know, but I'm on the UK's largest provider (BT) and I can see it.AndrewJDTALK -- 08:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm on BT, it was still visible to me when the story broke, now I get a phoney 404 (typing this on the secure wikipedia). 86.164.66.236 (talk) 03:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Same here but on a minor ISP, I'd like to point out i said this image violated these rules ages ago and said that it should be removed because this bad press was bound to happen. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 09:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

this isn't bad press, just press. Wikipedia is the underdog here, and should just stand by its "we're not censored" policy. It is ridiculous and hypocritical to clamp down on Wikipedia, while the same image is hosted on amazon.com and other commercial sites that sell you the actual album. The fight against internet child pornography is an important cause, but this is doing it a disservice. --dab (𒁳) 10:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

And page views for December 8 are over 370K, which is more than the combined total for the preceding year (including December 7). --98.169.251.247 (talk) 04:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

IWF "potentially illegal indecent image of a child hosted outside the UK" vs. "child sexual abuse images hosted outside the UK"

Would expect we'll need some semantics on this at some point, given http://www.iwf.org.uk/reporting.htm vs. http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.249.htm .
The former also has a "fuzzy" explanation on the IWF site defining "indecent images of children" to be clear ("it means any images of children, apparently under 18 years old, involved in sexual activity or posed to be sexually provocative") but that does not address the actual definition of "child sexual abuse". This fuzziness is deliberate, I suspect, but if the two definitions "child sexual abuse" and "sexually provocative" /are/ taken to be equivalent, roll on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houses_of_the_holy ... Regards, David. Harami2000 (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Far more likely they might target Blind Faith (album) next. RMHED (talk) 03:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Mhmm... will see. I've queried "Houses of the Holy" with the IWF, anyhow, but Blind Faith is also a good example since those /are/ photographs (see page 109 of http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/docs/82083-COI-SCG_final.pdf as appealed to in http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.249.htm ) to see what criteria they're using... not that I'm expecting feedback. By comparison, art such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganymede_(mythology) should manage to jump through the holes for the time being. Harami2000 (talk) 03:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Just a note the IWF has updated their statement and the correct link is now http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.250.htm(Dchrisd (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC))

Thank you

Back in May 2008, I noticed that this article was being protected amidst some wiki-controversy over the album cover. I thought the article was in rather poor shape and decided to expand it with the limited resources that I could find over the internet. What I wrote back then has remained largely untouched since then. I could not have imagined that within a few months there would be some sort of mass hysteria in the United Kingdom that would send this very article into the most viewed page on wikipedia, with accompanying news coverage from the BBC to the Sydney Morning Herald that I use as my internet browser home page. Looking back at the quality of the article before I made my contribution, I am ever so thankful that I did my part to create an "explanatory article text which described and contextualized the controversy surrounding the image, in a neutral and educational fashion," to use the words of the Wikimedia Foundation Q&A on this issue. I would also like to humbly thank the Internet Watch Foundation for leading over a hundred thousand people to bear witness to my fairly ordinary writing. Now if only some journalist could get an interview with the band members for their view on all this fuss, that would be fantastic. --Bardin (talk) 08:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree this article is very good, the picture is tatsteful and the inclusion on this page is justified. The actions of the IWF are disgusting, as are their excuses "we just make the list". I've had to get an account because of these idiots. "We asked the police" it's not the polices job to censor the internet. Haven't they noticed I can buy a CD box set in HMV with this picture on it?? Cretins.--SeminalPanic (talk) 08:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Bardin (and to The Wikimedia Foundation, reading the link to their response, below).

Unfortunately "all this fuss" is /not/ a trivial matter but a large-scale legal imposition setting a precedent for /potentially/ jailing anyone in possession of said album cover as there is now "no excuse" in the eyes of the law for possession of such if the IWF's "interpretation" of the law is correct, since it's going to be difficult to be "ignorant" of this matter now that this has made the press.

The IWF reaction is hardly "disgusting" since it is the UK mainstream political response and that is representative of the voting populace by definition.

(OT) On a personal level this is "nothing new", either, since I was one of the few who bothered to respond to the consultation on Extreme Pornography ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_pornography ) a few years ago and had OK'd my response for public release which it duly was, despite being carefully overlooked for content in the so-called "summary of responses" document. All fair and well until the "backlash" against the legislation /finally/ started up once it was realised what the scope this legislation actually impacted and my response was highlighted as "an extended and excellently argued piece". Within a short period of time after that, however, my response also vanished from the "responses" page on the Scottish Government's website http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Justice/criminal/17543/ExtremePornograhicMateria/Response where it had previously been (in England, individual replies were never made public, even where that had been OK'd). The .pdf with my response is still "hidden" behind the scenes if one knows exactly where to look (available via a precise Google search) and my name's still on the original word doc as having "agreed to publish response" but when it is decided to censor even /discussion/ of legislation by deliberate and belated removal of a link to that on a governmental level, the actions of the IWF as implicitly OK'd by the UK government should come as no surprise whatsoever. 02c/ymmv, but that's the way it goes... Regards, David. Harami2000 (talk) 10:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

WMF Press Release

The Wikimedia Foundation have made a press statement about the blocking of this page by UK ISPs at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Censorship_of_WP_in_the_UK_Dec_2008. --AlisonW (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

BBC Blog posted

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/ ^{(Hypnosadist)} 10:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks - this has been added to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/2008 IWF action#Press coverage. Pretzels^Talk! 11:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Taking 'that' image out

I believe that it would be best for the encyclopedia - I don't think having this 'non free' content in this context makes the article better enough to warrant the image's inclusion. I'd like to establish whether or not there is consensus for the image's inclusion, and will start by saying that I believe it should be removed. I'll only take it out the once, and would plead with everyone to stick to 1 revert per day. Thanks, Privatemusings (talk) 10:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the removal for the benifit of the encyclopedia and its UK based editors. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 10:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't benifit UK editors.Geni 10:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It would those who can't edit. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 10:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You would like to establish. Of course quite understandable. Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Virgin_Killer. I think that rather proves what the consensus (indeed strong consensus) is.Geni 10:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Consensus was reached before this page ment some british wikipedians could not edit wikipedia, that is serious damage. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 10:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. Why should we allow ourselves to be harassed into a decision which goes against logic, consensus, and everything this site has ever stood for? Wikipedia will never be censored. What next, should we start removing everything the Chinese have an issue with too? --137.73.160.27 (talk) 12:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

That is for the Wikimedia Foundation to handle, and it is clear that they /are/ taking action. Leave it to them, please. Harami2000 (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh... got there a minute before me, Geni, and I hit edit conflicts. Thank you. @Privatemusings "Prior discussion has determined by broad consensus that the Virgin Killer cover will not be removed". Harami2000 (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact that we're now being censored more or less makes it impossible for us to remove the image without encouraging further censorious acts. Given the Wikimedia Foundation's press release, it seems the Foundation will be handling this issue. I'd suggest we wait to see what action (if any) they advise taking, and not complicate the situation by knuckling under to the IWF. - Nunh-huh 10:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Nunh-huh - if the Foundation or Mike Godwin say take it down, then of course we take it down. If a court anywhere in the world says "take it down" or "it's illegal" then we should think aboout taking it down. Neither of these scenarios has yet occurred. DuncanHill (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW: how stupid is an organization (sorry, organisation) that—when it has a question about the legality of something—consults a policeman rather than a lawyer? - Nunh-huh 11:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - just posted this on the AN sub-page "I think it is interesting that the IWF do not appear (from what they have said publicly) to have taken legal advice about whether or not the content in question may be illegal. Police officers (they claim to have consulted one - we don't know who they were or what they said) are not qualified to offer legal advice. " DuncanHill (talk) 11:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

They may have consulted the Crown Prosecution Service. In house lawyers would cause issues of cost and potential legal issues.Geni 11:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

They do not claim to have consulted the CPS (and I am not sure that CPS provides such consultancy services). Acting following legal advice is a much better protection in law than acting without bothering to take legal advice. They wouldn't need an in-house lawyer - any lawyer is available to anyone who can pay their fees. DuncanHill (talk) 11:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

They said they consulted the "police". And of course, their action has raised legal issues. Consulting a lawyer when you need to may actually save money; failing to do so often costs money. As I think the IWF may learn from this episode. - Nunh-huh 11:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Showing anyone other than the police images you think may be child porn is potentialy problematical under UK law.Geni 11:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like UK law has a problem, if it prevents effective assistance of counsel. Perhaps your interpretation of the state of UK law isn't entirely correct. - Nunh-huh 11:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the situation here is rather weird. No one is being accused of breaking any law so assistance of counsel isn't relivant. The IWF have merely stated that they think the image is potentialy illegal. They do have an agreement which allows them to view illegal images but it is unlikely that agreement extends to the point of allowing them to let 3rd parties to view such images.Geni 11:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

So in the UK it falls to the police rather than lawyers to advise what is legal, and what is not? That's not only irrational, it's quite frightening. Personally, I think non-lawyers offering legal advice is rather problematic. Good luck to them, then. - Nunh-huh 11:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Normaly no. In this case? As I said the situation is rather odd from a wider legal prespective (the closest equiv would probably be the RSPCA but that is more clearly established).Geni 12:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The RSPCA don't offer legal advice - rather, they have certain statutory powers to enter premises, remove animals, and bring prosecutions (powers of police, if you will). DuncanHill (talk) 12:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

*points above to my own pre-emptive reply* "That is for the Wikimedia Foundation to handle". Agreed. Harami2000 (talk) 11:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI: http://www.amazon.com/Virgin-Killer-Scorpions/dp/B0000073NK It's on amazon as well and nobody's making a fuss over it.79.180.167.36 (talk) 11:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I am opposed to the removal of this image. I am a UK citizen but thankfully not effected by the recent IWF action. I don't think the image should be removed because I consider to do so would harm a readers understanding of the topics discussed in the article despite there being no clear evidence that the image is illegal in the UK, it is only suggested that it is "potentially illegal". As has been noted, this image can be viewed by UK citizens on Amazon for example. I suspect the IWF would be more hesitant to block an Amazon page because of the potential impact on that business but perhaps they don't see Wikipedia as much of a threat because we don't have millions to spend on lawyers like Amazon do. Adambro (talk) 11:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Also strongly opposed. If the CPS thought this image was illegal, they would/could and certainly should have taken the record label and distributors to court at some stage in the last 32 years. The IWF clearly doesn't have a leg to stand on. This is going to generate an awful lot of bad publicity for them until they reverse their decision. Thehalfone (talk) 11:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I think, we should block these compromising proxies entirely from Wikipedia access. A Wikipedia that cooperates with any censor in the world is nothing that I am willing to spend my time for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.234.116.163 (talk) 11:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want to help people edit you should be demanding that the IWF actually block the image rather than the article text. Right now nothing at upload.wikimedia.org is blocked at all. --Gmaxwell (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

If we're already there, make all video stores and IMDB erase Pretty Baby. Brooke Shields is 12 years old and nude there, see this image: http://hpicard.free.fr/Images/BROOKE_SHIELDS_PRETTY_BABY.JPG. For more articles the censors are too afraid to touch, read this: http://www.bluelineradio.com/pictorialhistory.html 79.180.167.36 (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Not a chance. Consensus is near overwhelming to keep it and the foundation has already asserted that it is not illegal under US law nor is it likely to be illegal under UK law. Protonk (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• • I suspect the foundation does not dictate US law and it is being blocked precisely because it is believed to be illegal under UK law, which has strict guidelines as to what constitutes 5 levels of child pornography, effectively meaning that one could go to jail were such an image to be found stored in a computer owned by one that is in the UK. Glib statements that it probably is not illegal in the UK are hardly helpful. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Tell that to the WMF. They released the statement to the press. This image isn't going to be removed. Protonk (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

In support of Wikipedia

I was looking through BBC News when this article was in the news about Wikipedia's image policy.

I am in favour of Wikipedia's policy because there are other images that i've found on Wikipedia that are contraversial but no one else complains about them so why should we start complaining about this album cover?

If the IWF try to sue Wikipedia, then i'd stand for Wikipedia and NOT for IWF =)

Go Wikipedia and all its Wikipedians on the Planet Wiki. DJ MeXsTa (talk) 12:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

(Edit) I'm in the UK and i use Virgin Media as my ISP and it's not covered up at all. I think we should make a petition against IWF.......anyone want to agree? DJ MeXsTa (talk) 12:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

(Edit) Virgin have blocked the page for me now. (I was at School earlier, thats why i could view it). This is all ridiculous and annoying because now, people are going to label Wikipedia as a Porn site or something. It's ridiculous. If i was the person who reported the page to the IWF, i'd shoot myself. DJ MeXsTa (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

My ISP is Virgin (how ironic), and the page is blocked. I can still view it on Proxify though. I find the image offensive, but I don't see why it should be censored if it is freely available to buy in the UK. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

That isn't irony. That's coincidence. Dismas|^(talk) 13:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Irony and coincidence are not mutually exclusive. Migdejong (talk) 14:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed?

The image was removed and the article is now fully protected. Why is that? Liransh Talk 14:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Regrettably, an over-eager admin reverted my revert of an image removal vandal and locked it. Hopefully this will be resolved shortly. Tarc (talk) 14:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Already raised on the ANI page. There is no consensus for removal (indeed there is a firm consensus that we are not going to be dictated to by IWF), and a number of removal attempts have been reverted.

To then have an admin come along, remove the image, and protect his favoured version is very, very wrong. I urge him to reconsider as a matter of urgency. Mayalld (talk) 14:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I am very suprised to see that full protection has been applied after a revert to the version without the "offending" image. m:The Wrong Version not withstanding this seems against the long running consensus. Pedro :  Chat  14:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Fish & Karate reverted back. Full protection I can support. Pedro :  Chat  14:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It's nice to see that some people are willing to correct their mistakes quickly. Perhaps the IWF is hiring? :) --Gmaxwell (talk) 14:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the kerfuffle - my fault entirely. I have left the page protected on what seems to be the consensus version. The page is now protected due to incessant edit-warring for three days, and I would hope that should there be a case for the image to be amended, removed, or retained (which seem to be the three options) it can be discussed here. fish&karate 14:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Reducing back to semiprotection?

The full protection should be removed as soon as possible. It can give the idea that we are undecided on the image, which is not true, and there was no actual edit war going on either; consensus is clear and this situation is identical to that of the Muhammad article. Whether done in good faith or not, image removals are reverted on sight and persistent offenders blocked. Prolog (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

If "we" (meaning, presumably, you) are decided on the image, why were many people removing it? There was edit-warring going on, and a few days of no edit-warring is preferable to admins having to block lots of people for edit warring. fish&karate 15:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Why are so many people removing images of Muhammad and penises? Why are they being warned and blocked, but the other side is not? Prolog (talk) 15:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You will have to ask the people who warn and block them. fish&karate 16:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Besides, this page is now being read by something like seven people per *second* [2]. It's currently the most viewed page on the project short of the main page. If it's unprotected and drive by users continue to revert at random we'll get random confused media reports that Wikipedia has removed the image, when we have a clear standing consensus not to do so. --Gmaxwell (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Gmaxwell, the protection is appropriate considering the edit warring. Clear consensus to keep this image has been demonstrated on a number of occasion. Of course ultimately, as a result of this nonsense, consensus might change if the IWF don't change their position but for now it makes sense to have a stable article. As long as the WMF are prepared to defend the community's use of this image, as they are doing currently, then we should retain it. Adambro (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

and the best part of all of this

take into account that:

1 - I have never heard of this album prior to today
2 - I never realized the scorpions started that early
3 - I don't usually see the 'front page' wiki as I enter search terms of whatever I was looking for
4 - I wouldn't have been looking for 'the scorpions'

OK so under no normal circumstances would I have had any cause to view 'the picture so offesive an entire country is forbidden to see it' (not that I have any qualms about it, other than maybe it was in poor taste back in '76 to have released it with this cover)... So now because it's all over the news, I have actively sought it out!!! If there weren't such a fuss about it, (like the obvious 'big brother is watching' having come out of the shadows of the UK) then the rest of the world WOULDN'T BE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING DEEMED TO BE CHILD PORN (albeit by some religious-right wingnut in the bible belt)...

So really, what has started is a large talk about the scorpions, some negative, some positive, all leading back to a 'censorship is bad' conclusion... and this is all sparked by 1 person?!! One "American" person has censored most of the UK and de-cloaked a huge censorship net all at the same time?!

Wow, I really can't believe this.

I wonder if album sales will start to climb now?
the dirtykid© (mj) (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, the Americans had nothing to do with it. The block is from the UK. Pedro :  Chat  14:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The Internet Watch Foundation didn't say from which country the complaint came, nor do they have to. So although the block is implemented in the UK we have no idea the source of the original complaint. EdH (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Streisand effect

Aye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.21.78.0 (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Prior discussion of image/notice at top of page

I have restored the notice about prior discussions of the image in question to the top of the page. I feel it is important that editors and readers have a readily accessible link to these discussions, and also that the link to enable users to suppress display of pictures is also useful and appropriate to have here. DuncanHill (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement of the writer of the Song Ulrich Roth to the picture with the nude girl an the breaked glass concentrated the viewers attention to the sexual organ of the girl in combination with the word virgin killer

I found an article about the verdict of the autor of the song virgin killer:

"Ulrich Roth, Songschreiber des Titelsongs „Virgin Killer“ und damals Lead-Gitarrist der Scorpions, sieht hingegen keinen Anlass mehr, das Nackt-Cover zu verteidigen. „Wenn ich heute das Bild betrachte, lässt es mich erschauern“, sagte Roth in einem Interview mit dem Magazin „Classic Rock Revisited“. Der Rockmusiker hält die Entscheidung für das 1976er-Cover für ein Zeichen der Unreife. Und er glaubt sich zu erinnern, dass die Idee seinerzeit von der Plattenfirma der Scorpions, RCA, kam." [3] Urich Roth was the writer of the song "Virgin Killer" and lead-guitarrist of the Scorpions at the time of the release of the album. He [in contrary of the rest of the band] sees no reason to defend the cover. "When I see the picture, it frightens me" says Roth in an interview with the magazin "Classic Rock Revisted". He sees the decision for the cover of 1976 as an indication of verdancy. ...

I like the Wikipedia as an empire of free speech and freedom of information. And I like the open minded acess to controversial lemmas, especially to sex subjects. But the picture may be art, but its child pornography too.

In Roths song time is the virgin killer, not a abuser of childs. So the cover was not a part of the message of the autor. An I think respect for the autor, who hates the decision, and for abused children, should take the wikipedia communitiy to the decision to renunciate the picture.

Like Roth picture the frightens me too. Claus Ableiter (talk) 02:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Name of the girl

Who is her? --Affman (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know if that question deserves an answer, but anyway. 1) It would be "Who is she?", if I'm not mistaken. 2) We don't know it from he available on-line source. 3) She could be credited on the original album, you would have to take a look at it yourself. 4) Even then, though, we should not give her full name in the article or here, since that old picture of her alone is already 'private' enough. Zara1709 (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, foreigner here. I'm just wandering if she can be located, give a word about the whole situation. Isn't her opinion sufficient to take off her childhood naked photo from Wikipedia? --Affman (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

What happens with the photo of the girl (woman) isn't for her to decide since it is likely that her, or someone acting on her behalf, would have signed a model release giving all rights to the record company. Adambro (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Take Down - Think about the poor children!

Please take the image down.

Of what use is that repellent picture? A caring mother 88.117.84.181 (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I want to add: The picture is not needed for the message of the article. It would be enough if it were just described. And think about the point that an important organization is considering it to be child pornography! (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC).

Which important organisation? Please don't confuse self-important with important. Mayalld (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

At least the Internet Watch Foundation is important enough for having an article on wiki.

"It works in partnership with the police, Government, the public, Internet service providers (ISPs) and the wider online industry. ::Originally formed to police child pornography online, the IWF's remit was later expanded to cover racist and criminally obscene ::material."

That seems rather important. On the other hand it is no government organization.

User9834 (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.117.86.230 (talk)

This page is devoted to improving the article, it is not a forum. Please restrict your comments to that. Thank you. Rama (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact that an "important organisation" has issues with the article has been raised. The question of how important that organisation is should be considered. Clearly User9834 doesn't understand the difference between Important and Notable. Mayalld (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on. Don't try to attack me on a personal level. How is it that you think I don't understand the difference between ::::notablity and importance? I rather think that you don't understand the difference between your opinion and facts. But lets put that ::::aside: It is fact that the IWF is an organization with influence: Many providers in the UK follow their guidelines:

"The IWF produces a blacklist of online content that it deems probably illegal. This list is used by many British ISPs, which ::::censor access to this content." Internet Watch Foundation User9834 (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

As with all albums, it is appropriate to have the first-edition cover or the most recognized cover for that album. You might have been able to make a case before 2008 that another cover was more recognized, but thanks to the controversy, this one wins the prize. I also think this was the first-edition cover. If true, then it should be the "album cover" used in this article. Unless removed by WP:OFFICE, all album articles should include album artwork if such artwork is available. Now, if a US court ruled this was child porn, then WP:OFFICE would order it removed. I don't see that happening in my lifetime, but anything is possible. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Concerned Women for America

Do we have proofs that these is a connection between the Concerned Women for America incident in may, and the present censorship attempt? If not, the paragraph should be removed, as it is off topic, and could be understood as suggesting that British ISPs acted upon commission by American conservative organisations and the FBI. Rama (talk) 16:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a connection is being made, only that it's describing another example of the cover's controversy that happens to be similar to the current one. I would suggest just placing it all in chronological order. Nufy8 (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Are there any admins who can fix this? Joshdboz (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Nufy8, I think that "following" could easily be understood as causal. Anyway, it is now in chronological order. Thank you. Rama (talk) 16:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Did IWF remove page from Blacklist?

I can access the page from a Sky connection and an Opal Telecom connection (TalkTalk) and I am no longer anonymous banned Gsp8181 17:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you confirm that you are using a residential connection and the same connection as when you were experiencing difficulties? Of course it remains to be seen whether everyone can now access this page. Adambro (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Residential and the same connection that was banned Gsp8181 18:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Cannot currently access it via Virgin Media. D.M.N. (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It is a trivial matter to get around the restrictions on a Virgin Media connection. --Deskana (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, this incident got me thinking that a country banning its citizens access to the Muhammad article might reduce the constant influx of complaints from Muslims who choose to be offended by images of historically significant artwork depicting Muhammad. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, definitively there is a potential precedent. I can imagine Wikipedia with millions images censored worldwide in near future, turning the encyclopedian illustration purpose almost inneficient. --Affman (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

At approx 17:15 I was able to access the page on Talktalk and assumed the block had been lifted, but it is now being blocked again. I may have used a different enough URL to not be affected. Thedarxide (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I could see it over my breakfast this morning (around 0800UTC) but now it's blocked. I'm on BT, so they've blocked it during the day clearly. I initially thought they had ignored the subject, but clearly not. AndrewJDTALK -- 20:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to say, I can corroborate Andrewjd's experience. (Also on BT, also been blocked during this evening.) Cormaggio ^{is learning} 00:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Some sort of "Warning Shield" as a compromise?

Maybe something that could be implemented: What about some sort of warning shield that there may be content on this page that is not appropriate for watching for certain persons? That would not be censorship (it is important to fight this). But it would be in my opinion a gesture of wikipedia to show that it cares more about the feelings of its readers. Or would such a move not be a good tactic of wiki at the moment? 91.113.91.223 (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Content disclaimers aren't used in articles. Please see Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles and Wikipedia:Content disclaimer for more information. Nufy8 (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Get the IWF to say that it would make a lick of difference... They don't block the image, they block the article so I can't see how making the image optional would change their position. I wish the internet standards groups would do something to make user-controlled browser based filtering a reality. Perhaps we could avoid some of this compulsory censorship.--Gmaxwell (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Add Wikinews to article?

Should this links to n:British ISPs restrict access to Wikipedia amid child pornography allegations and n:Wikimedia, IWF respond to block of Wikipedia over child pornography allegations be added to the "Internet censorship" section? The templates would be: {{Wikinewspar2|British ISPs restrict access to Wikipedia amid child pornography allegations|Wikimedia, IWF respond to block of Wikipedia over child pornography allegations}}. I say yes. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done Seems like a reasonable request. Adambro (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki

Add ru:, please Lvova Anastasiya (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done. If anyone else has interwikis and the page is still fullprotected, drop a {{editprotected}} to summon-ify an admin more speedily. --slakr^\ talk / 19:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. This page is being watched by many, many sleepless eyes now ;) Lvova Anastasiya (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Worldwide press coverage

Although I don't feel that the article warrants the entire list, for historical reference this is an index to the main reports about the blocking of the article by UK ISPs. (This is copied from my own blog entry where I created the list over the day) --AlisonW (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Mainstream Press Coverage:
Associated Press -- Wikipedia article blocked in UK over child photo
The Guardian -- Wikipedia falls foul of British censors and [http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2008/dec/08/internet Wikipedia page censored in the UK for 'child pornography'
BBC News Website -- Wikipedia child image censored
Daily Mail -- Wikipedia rock band article blocked over 'child porn photo'
BBC Radio 4's Today -- http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7770000/7770832.stm, includes short interview between Sarah Robertson of the IWF, and David Gerard from Wikipedia (transcript)
Blic (Serbia) -- http://www.blic.rs/svet.php?id=69041
Libération (France) -- Wikipedia, victime collatérale du filtrage d’Internet
Heise online (Germany) -- Britische Provider sperren Wikipedia-Artikel
Independent -- Wikipedia article blocked in UK over child photo
International Herald Tribune -- Wikipedia article blocked in UK over child photo
Chicago Tribune (USA) -- Wikipedia article blocked in UK over child pornography concerns, affecting site performance
Fox News (USA) -- Wikipedia article blocked in UK over child photo
USA Today -- Wikipedia article blocked in U.K. for nude photo of a girl
Sky News (UK) -- Wikipedia Ban Over Naked Girl Pic
Hamburger Arbendblatt (Germany) -- Briten sperren Wikipedia-Artikel
Sydney Morning Herald (Australia) -- Wikipedia added to child pornography blacklist
El Pais (Spain) -- Las operadoras británicas censuran un desnudo infantil en Wikipedia
Telegraph -- Wikipedia page on rock band the Scorpions blocked over child pornography concerns
Corriere della sera (Italy) -- Wikipedia censura la copertina degli Scorpions
Metro -- Net nannies break Wikipedia in album cover kerfuffle

Web coverage:
Slashdot -- http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/12/07/1253228
BBC Blog -- Wikipedia is censored
WikiNews -- British ISPs restrict access to Wikipedia amid child pornography allegations
ZDnet -- UK ISPs switch on mass Wikipedia censorship
The Register -- Brit ISPs censor Wikipedia over 'child porn' album cover
ISP Review -- Six UK ISPs Restrict Wikipedia Access Following Child Porn Blacklist
Focus (Germany) -- Kinderpornografie: Britische Provider filtern Wikipedia wegen Scorpions-Cover
Salon -- Wikipedia article blocked in UK over child photo
Netscape News -- Wikipedia article blocked in UK over child photo
CNet Taiwan -- UK ISPs Blocked Wikipedia
BoingBoing -- How the Great Firewall of Britain works
Guido Fawkes -- So It Begins : UK Authorities Censor Wikipedia
Computerworld -- Wikipedia article censored in UK for the first time
Computer Weekly -- UK Wikipedia users unhappy over Scorpions page block
IT Pro -- ISPs censor Wikipedia over child porn pic
Digi (Norway) -- Sensur av Wikipedia vekker oppsikt
Techno (France) -- Royaume-Uni: censure d'un article de Wikipedia
Web DE (Germany) -- Britische Provider sperren Wikipedia wegen Kinderpornografie-Verdacht
Open Rights Group -- IWF censors Wikipedia, chaos ensues
Information Week -- Wikipedia Censored In U.K. Over Nude Girl
Out Law -- Why the IWF was right to ban a Wikipedia page

Above list is by --AlisonW (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

224 more at Google News. BBC's "Wikipedia child image censored" and Information Week's "Wikipedia Censored In U.K. Over Nude Girl" were each on http://news.google.com's front page on Monday December 8, 2008. Streisand effect indeed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Allison, if you like you may also update Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/2008_IWF_action#Media_coverage. There is a nice list going there. Protonk (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is another one, in hebrew: [4]. Liransh Talk 20:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Strange. From the above listed mainstream media, only two show the original cover as an illustration of the (online) article about the blocking: El Pais (Spain) and Libération (France). Corriere della Sera (Italy) cuts the image but low enough as not to hide really anything (if there was anything to hide). The Guardian (UK) cuts it just under the neck. Telegraph (UK) shows the image entirely but pixeled, in a censor-like fashion. The rest choses another image or no image at all. Self-censoring? --Ilyacadiz (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Alternate reason for account blocking

The article currently states, "Under the Cleanfeed content blocking system, the block was accomplished by ISP proxy systems impersonating Wikipedia's servers, which had the side effects of degrading performance and left site administrators with little option but to block a significant portion of the UK from editing Wikipedia or creating accounts."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I witnessed the actual reason that "site administrators were left with little option to block" was because admins were handing out their usual account-and-IP blocks of vandals, and once those were blocked, it paved the way for countless "innocent" UK Wikipedians to be blocked from editing.

Is Wikipedia trying to whitewash the story with this "degrading performance" fib, rather than to admit it was because IP blocks are handed out on Wikipedia every hour of every day? -- Stating the Obvious (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. The routing by ISPs now makes all edits from the affected UK users appear to come from a very few IP addresses. Firstly, this means people cannot create accounts as a given IP address may only create a very limited number of accounts each day. Secondly, as you say, blocking of vandals can and does block all non logged-in users, but finally this putting all the UK traffic to Wikipedia through - effectively - a single router / server degrades the access for all UK users. --AlisonW (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. It's just that as it was unfolding, it was very clearly positioned as an "either / or" between giving up on blocking vandals (and hand-correcting their dirty work) or blocking much of the UK. I laughed, anyway. Say, haven't I read about you in a Wikipedia article once, long ago? And not about the Beautiful South vocalist, but rather about the famous British rights activist? -- Stating the Obvious (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Since Saturday evening, when it first became clear that this wasn't the technical issue we thought it had been up until that point but actually an intentional block placed upon us, there has been quite a bit of discussion about it all and some errors crept in to that with the speed of the to- and fro-. It now seems to be settling as to what has actually happened and what the future options might be, and we all repeat that the image is not and has not been found to be illegal, including by the IWF, they only state it may be "potentially illegal". Lots of things have 'potential'. Doesn't mean they happen though (just see which draft picks in your favourite sport actually make it!). And yes, Alison Wheeler was, once upon a time, for a few years about myself. Good memory! --AlisonW (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Appeal to the IWF?

Apologies if this has already been discussed. I sent an email to the IWF earlier regarding the suppression, and received the following response:

Thank you for your email regarding the Wikipedia webpage.

Any party responsible for the hosting or content of a URL within the Child Sexual Abuse Images and content (CAIC) list can complain, appeal or make representations about the accuracy of the content assessment and inclusion on the list.

We are cognisant of your observations, despite you not falling into a category above and are grateful for you taking the time to bring those concerns to our attention.

The IWF’s response to the Wikipedia issue is on our website and I have copied the link below for you to view.

http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.250.htm

Thank you

I wonder if anybody at Wikipedia has made an attempt to register an appeal with the IWF? Camason (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Rather than bother with the IWF, I hope that some of the affected editors are going straight to their ISPs. IWF doesn't stand to loose customers over this, the ISPs do. If I were an ISP I would want to have a policy to review and reverse such blocks rather than just blindly folliwng the IWF recommendation if some of my customers complained about the block. This whole thing reminds me of some of the pornography/obscenity controversies here in the US a couple of decades ago. The IWF doesn't seem to have any provisions for reviewing the context in which an image is used before deciding if it involves exploitation or not. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

If it affects 95% of UK based users it is unlikely that any of the ISP could lose money overt his as their are no other options other than going without the internet altogether. Perhaps wikipedia should be fixing the obvious damage that does not allow users to create new accounts or edit not using an account, but I suspect this case will cause a review of the whole IWF/ISP relationship and indeed the deeper issues of what ISPs should and should not be expected to do in terms of policing, whether its illegal downloads or child porn. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This overlooks the question of what to do if a country in one nation tries to impose their local laws on foreign online entities. Such as here, with a private organization like the IWF affecting an American service, Wikipedia. How would the British react if a private US organization stepped on their sovereign toes? Or if a Russian law or action impeded on the French? This is not an American or a Wikipedia issue; this is a British local issue. If the British people are unhappy with what the IWF is doing now that it's been heavily publicized because of what they've done with Wikipedia, and the British people decide to get rid of the IWF, that could happen. Or the IWF could stick by it's guns, and see if they can win against all the press that has been generally negative about their censorship actions. Either way, Wikipedia as an American site shouldn't budge, no more than a British website should budge if some American prudishness went after them. If the Virgin Killer image is found illegal by a court of law in either the UK or US--fine. Till then, no. It looks like it's the IWF versus the British people, at the moment. rootology (C)(T) 21:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the IWF does stand to lose customers over this, if you count ISPs as customers. If ISPs start saying "you have lousy quality control, maybe we should find someone else to do the job" or "we can do the job better ourselves" or "screw this, it's not worth the trouble" it could cost the IWF in reputation and possibly money. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

There were discussions, by telephone, on Sunday between the Foundation and the IWF, without a successful conclusion. --AlisonW (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the WMF should yield to a private foreign party unless legally obligated to. rootology (C)(T) 21:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Well in that case it is likely that the IWF will just keep doing what it is doing. Its the isps who are blocking the material and they are not foreign parties. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. They should yield to the mass uprising from within Great Britain. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The British people versus the IWF? What a piece of original research, and top be honest, what rubbish. The British people uprising to demand their right to view child pornography. Lol. The IWF do not have customers, they have partners. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't think that the Internet Watch Foundation is going to remove Wikipedia from their watch list (and this article from their black list) within the next few days. Not until they really lose a large ISP as customer about this. Currently the situation is just another power struggle. The first one to compromise or to take a step back loses. There is already a longer discussion about various aspects at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/2008 IWF action. The image itself is not pornography, just nudity. Honestly, most people will not get sexually aroused by looking at an image of a nude child (if you do, I would suggest that you consider seeking professional help) , although I would admit that people might find it confusing, especially in this case. But to provoke a reaction from the viewer is probably the main purpose of art, and considering that this is only an album cover it is probably one of the better artworks in that category.

What irritates me more are the details of the legislation against child pornography that has arisen in the last few years. A few people use pictures of naked children for sexual stimulation; Nobody questions that this is wrong, and the possession of images of children involved in sexual acts certainly needs to be punishable (or better, answered with a therapy programme). Of course, the creation of such images should accordinglybe punished to the full extend of the law . But with details the currently legislation, not only in Britain, parents can only be advised not to make pictures of their children playing on the beach, especially not if it's a nudist beach. The possession of such pictures could be considered a crime.

This case is somehow different because it's not a holiday picture, but an artwork (well, for some people). If this image is considered illegal, what about the covers of Nevermind or Blind Faith (album)? Or, moving into the actual art section: What about a whole list of Renaissance paintings and statues? This is not my usual field of expertise, but if I'd get started on a list that could go into the hundreds. Of course, it's not only the Renaissance artist, but they especially liked making artworks with nude people. And of course, most, if not all of these works, aren't pornography. (Anyone for a debate about The Birth of Venus (Botticelli)?)

The current legislation, as well as the policy of the Internet Watch Foundation, doesn't take this into account. Because a very few people find pictures of nude children sexually arousing, the whole population must be protected from viewing these pictures. This doesn't make any sense. As I have written, pictures of children actually engaged in sexual acts are different and their possession should, of course, be punishable. But some people apparently have the idea that there should not be images of nude children at all; at least not if the child is considered to be 'posing', which is totally subjective.

If Wikipedia doesn't give in on this (which I hope we don't) the Internet Watch Foundation and some other people will be forced to reconsider their policies on this. They are not going to make that step easily, so this issue will take some time. Zara1709 (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

two editprotected requests: See Also and remove toclimit

{{editprotected}} Add "See Also" section with

• List of controversial album art

{{editprotected}} Remove limit=2 from the table of contents.

Done. Nufy8 (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This is art

The album cover is art. Whether it's good, bad, or indifferent, art should not be censored. It's just that simple. A shame that some people do not get it. 76.104.45.99 (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I am not offended by it, in fact I think it's rather creative and tasteful. Reportedly, the model herself has no problem with it either.

Nobody is required to be offended by the picture. That some do choose to be offended, should be their problem because it's their choice. As is said repeatedly over on Talk:Muhammad when Muslims complain about images depicting Muhammad, Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any group. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we had an edit conflict here. As you can see, I just tried to say the same thing more elaborately above. Zara1709 (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Chilling effect - image removed from Amazon.com

Hi there, I can't see the image on Amazon.com any more. It's still on Amazon.co.jp however. 118.8.130.145 (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

An attempt at a serious discussion

I know this has already been discussed and rejected above, but it's worth reconsidering: should we be using this image in this article? The key question is not 'Is Wikipedia censored?', but 'Is keeping this image worth the trouble it's caused?'; and I think the answer is a definite No.

It appears that the IWF are not likely to back down over their classification of the image as child pornography. (At least, they have shown no sign of doing so thus far.) That means Wikipedia is likely to remain classified as a site potentially hosting child pornography in the UK, as long as we continue to host this image. That means, amongst other things, that as long as we keep hosting this image, anonymous editing will be effectively impossible for UK Wikipedians - contradicting one of the basic pillars of the project.

I speak as one of the editors affected by this, as I am from the UK and use Virgin Media, one of the many ISPs to have blocked the article. Personally, I don't particularly mind not being able to see the article or the image - I have no interest in either - but not being able to edit anonymously is a problem. If asked 'would you rather (i) be able to see the Virgin Killer image on Wikipedia, or (ii) be able to edit Wikipedia anonymously?', I, and probably most other British Wikipedia users, would happily choose the latter.

It's easy to try to avoid the issues here by simply saying 'WP:NOTCENSORED!', but that's missing the point: Wikipedia, at least to some extent, already is censored, insofar as any obviously objectionable image would, and does, get deleted. The problem with this image is that it's not obviously objectionable - some people find it highly offensive, and others think there's nothing wrong with it. Unfortunately, the former have rather more power than the latter...

Personally, I don't think the image constitutes child pornography - but it's clear that some people, notably including most British ISPs (and the websites which have removed the image over recent days), disagree. The question is not, 'Is this image child pornography?'. The question is, 'Should we even be having this discussion over an image on Wikipedia?'. Is it really worth keeping an image, if it means as a result we have to defend ourselves to media organisations over accusations that we are hosting child pornography?

Are there reasons to keep the image? Yes, of course: it adds value to the article, as the article itself refers to the controversy (or at least, it did last time I checked; obviously I can't view it at the moment), and it's helpful to see the controversial image for oneself. But they're not conclusive reasons: we could discuss the controversy without showing the image directly. Meanwhile, the arguments to delete the image seem to me much stronger: we don't get accused of hosting child pornography, and UK users are able to edit Wikipedia once again.

Some people feel that to remove the image at this point would be tantamount to giving in to censorship. I'm sceptical of how well our claims of 'freedom of speech' over this image will go down in the wider world; but in any case, we should not be seeing this as a battle between 'freedom of speech' and 'censorship' in the first place. We should be seeing it as a problem to be resolved. We have an image on this article which is highly controversial, and has produced a great deal of disruption; the British ISPs, amongst others, would rather we did not host it. Rather than trying to fight them, I think the practical thing to do is to accede to their requests, and remove the image.

Simply put, this image has caused far more trouble than it's worth. It should be removed. Terraxos (talk) 23:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely right. Right now this image is harming the project. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe the image should be removed - I don't think it serves sufficient encyclopedic purpose. Privatemusings (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)You, and anyone else in the UK, can view the article at the secure server. Most British ISPs have not stated any opinion on the legality or otherwise of the image - they are obliged by their membership of the Internet Watch Foundation to take its word at face value, and they are not allowed by their contracts to do otherwise. The IWF has not said that it is child pornography - they have said that they view it as "potentially illegal". I would add that to say "you are making life hard for us, so we'll do what you want" is a blanket charter for denial of service attacks in the future. DuncanHill (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Simply put, the image hasn't caused trouble: the IWF and the ISP monopoly in the UK has. In any case, the IWF is, if press reports are to be believed, reconsidering their action - depending on their wisdom, they'll either say "oops" or block Amazon as well, and the ISPs in question may well decide to implement the block more appropriately to avoid what the IWF has ever-so-genteelly called "collateral damage". So now is not the time to despair. If there are decisions to be made about inclusion of the picture, they shouldn't be made under threat of censorship: in fact the censorship makes it harder for us to justify removal. -Nunh-huh 23:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Amazon.co.uk has already removed the image (though other versions of Amazon haven't) and some UK retailers have followed suit. As for 'removing the image under threat of censorship': I agree, but we can't completely ignore the issue either. This image has raised problems before, and has been controversial as long as it's been on Wikipedia. The threat of censorship isn't the only reason to delete the image - but combined with the other reasons, I think it adds up to a pretty strong case. Terraxos (talk) 23:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Another basic pillar of the project though is that of neutrality and accuracy. This is a picture of the original album cover. It has never been banned and is not illegal. Even the IWF only say it might be. If one was to delete a perfectly valid image then one would be, logically, obliged to remove thousands of other images which people may complain about, including those of the Prophet Mohammed pbohn, various cartoons, etc. etc. Long and slippery slope that I, as a long-term editor and a UK user blocked by both my ISPs from direct access to this article, would not support in any manner. --AlisonW (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Just because somebody might choose to be offended, we must all kowtow to that choice? This problem will correct itself. Either the IWF will come to its senses, or not. If not, then customers for whom Wikipedia matters will move to ISPs that don't use IWF's services. Problem solved. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It is the image and not the ISPs or IWF who are to blame, and this image keeps bringing up problems, 7 months ago it was reported that the FBI were investigating it. Blaming others wont help solve wikipedia's problems here. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

And the FBI concluded there was no case to answer. As, indeed, I would suggest there is not this time either. --AlisonW (talk) 00:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "The image" hasn't done anything except exist for 32 years. If the FBI has can find nothing better to do than investigate three-decade-old European album covers, then perhaps they need to take a better look. If British censors don't know the difference between nudity and pornography, then perhaps they need to grab a dictionary. It is ironic that anonymous users may feel "censored" as a result of our keeping the article uncensored, but blaming the image itself for either variety of censorship is as ridiculous as blaming scantly-clad women for rape. Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

If we start deleting stuff simply because a group of people have their panties in a collective bunch over a cover from a 32-year old album, are we going to roll over any time anyone poiints at something and yells 'Eek!'? This is nothing more than 'flavor of the week' complaining; they're just soapboxing and using us as an 'example'. HalfShadow 00:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It would create a precedent for more important censorship. This reason alone is good enough. End of story, move on. 118.8.130.145 (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a note: I don't think the Images of Mohammed controversy is an entirely appropriate comparison here. As far as I remember, that issue never led to Wikipedia being blocked as hosting potentially illegal content. There's a difference between merely offensive, and potentially illegal. Terraxos (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Those images are illegal in some countries. 118.8.130.145 (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Correct. Besides, try publishing those cartoons in the UK and see how long it takes to end up in court unless you follow up publication with an immediate and grovelling apology. A rather appropriate comparison, to be honest, as even if the legal gurus declare /this/ article's original cover to be illegal within the UK there is still a serious question as to why that should change /anything/ from the Wikimedia Foundation's p.o.v. Harami2000 (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

refusing to differentiate between this image, and images of Mohammed is rather dim, I reckon, as is refusing to contemplate any nuance beyond screaming censorship - but then I'm advocating the image's removal on the basis that it just doesn't make sense to have a 'non free' image in this context contributing so little to the encyclopedia. Privatemusings (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The very fact that the image is the center of so much controversy and critical discussion pretty much makes meeting our fair use criteria a slam dunk. -Chunky Rice (talk)

@Terraxos. (fighting my way through edit conflicts again!). UK users are able to edit: they just need to be with an ISP that doesn't automatically follow the IWF (short-term fix) and/or can actively stick their head over the parapet to call for common-sense, non-fear-driven long-term resolutions on a legislative basis. Easy enough to "solve" for anyone who values the principles on which Wikipedia is built but not really the "issue" here with regards to this particular article/image. As has been pointed out, if the UK is automatically deemed a "lost cause", why bother elsewhere? Harami2000 (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

What the IWF and the UK ISPs do is their business. If they feel compelled to censor Wikipedia, there is little we can do to stop them. We should not, however, make content decisions based on their actions, any more than we should censor Wikipedia to make it acceptable to the Chinese government. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Within a few days the major harm to the project will be over. Well, I should say within a few days most ISPs will probably be providing X-Forwarded-For and all users will be able to edit as normal. They'll still be forced through filters, won't be able to see censored images and articles, may have performance issues, and may be afraid to use Wikipedia because they fear monitoring but those are the same issues faced by people editing from work and institutions every day.

No, don't back down for the sake of appeasement or paying the dane-geld. If things like this repeat often enough, it may be the grist for the political mill to change UK policy. DO take it off if the normal editors of that article agree that one of the other album covers better represents the album. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

What about this work of art?

Antonio da Correggio, Cupido, c. 1490

You probably overlooked this point of my argument above, so let me make it plain. Is it possible that the work on the right side would be considered child pornography by the IWF? (First one I could find; some people might be of the opinion that the person on the right is about to touch the penis of the child.) If so, and if the image becomes blacklisted, should Wikimedia Commons remove that picture? That aside, if Wikipedia would concede this attempt of censorship, should it concede other attempts of censorship, too, as in the political area?Zara1709 (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible that the work on the right side would be considered child pornography by the IWF? - No. Privatemusings (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Its totally different as are the 2 pics of children in nudity, as the problem with the Virgin killers image is that it is eroticised and it emphasises the genitals. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a photograph or pseudo-photograph so that'll head towards a "no" automatically: see also implicit note re. Ganymede, above. Nothing to stop all those kids in London wandering past Leda and the Swan along with their parents, either. (Yes, I know it doesn't "make sense" if comparing in terms of "influence" on an individual, but that's not the point... lines are drawn with no regard for how those might move over time). Harami2000 (talk) 00:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary: Bart Simpson, Lisa cartoon is ruled kid porn - Nunh-huh 00:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Correct and significant, yes, but NSW is not in the UK last time I checked. The question related to the IWF and legislation to which they were directly appealing (see above). Harami2000 (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You made a general statement about photographs and non-photographs, without qualification, and it was wrong. If you meant to say "in the UK, this week", I'm happy you clarified that. - Nunh-huh 02:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem on the clarification, but not wrong as I thought it was clear enough that the initial question to which I was responding was "Is it possible that the work on the right side would be considered child pornography by the IWF?". The precise reference above for the IWF's ruling is per "page 109 of http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/docs/82083-COI-SCG_final.pdf as appealed to in http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.249.htm ", which makes reference to photographs or pseudo-photographs rather than paintings (per image, right), animated cartoons, etc. Harami2000 (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok. So you're saying that if I put on Flickr a snapshot of mine naked when I was two months old, I'm doing child pornography ? Is that what you're saying ? Is the world spinning backward ?--Webwizard (talk) 09:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course, there's actually no way to know whether or not it would be considered child pornography by the IWF, because the IWF censors secretly, without informing the sites it blacklists, or informing the end user of the ISPs it does the blacklisting for. So your faith in the IWF may or may not be misplaced. You could report it to them as obscene and we can see what happens, as we now seem to have a means by which Wikipedia, at least, can monitor the IWF's actions :) - Nunh-huh 04:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

A somewhat "rough" measure of their activities, indeed! ;)

Much though some might wish to see the IWF make a mis-step to that degree to show how badly thought-out the system is, they're still obligated to follow existing UK legislation. Interpretation issues within content classes are a different ballgame to unilateral blacklisting of items in classes not covered by legislation. They /cannot/ decide Rembrandt's Ganymede is "child pornography" no matter how many thousand people might complain to them that it is "obscene" and encourages "wrong thoughts". Harami2000 (talk) 04:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderestimate (as it were) the ability of the four bureaucrats who oversee Internet access in the UK to "interpret" rules in devious ways. I agree with you that they are unlikely to make a controversial call immediately on the heels of their recent public relations disaster. - Nunh-huh 06:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Australia bans cartoons displaying child porn

For those who said "no" you might want to review the Australian court decision that declared a Simpsons parody cartoon to be "child porn" since it displayed genitals. The Simpsons are merely handdrawn caricatures, so no children were harmed, and yet the hand-drawn nudity was still declared illegal. IMHO this is getting ridiculous. ----- By the way the U.S. Supreme Court already decided that images depicting child sex, if those images do not involve actual children, are legal. So naked Simpsons is okay here. ---- Theaveng (talk) 11:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Where does a line get drawn?

To me it boils down to the question of which local advocacy groups, governments, and agencies should we acquiesce to? The IWF, which services the UK ISPs? The UK government? The Canadian government? Italian? Chinese? How about a majo religious group? If the Vatican insists we take down some content, do we in deference to the billions of Catholics out there? Legally, we only have to do such a thing if the United States government's laws or courts (or, potentially, our treaties with other nations) ask us to, but I'm not a lawyer. Even the girl that is the subject of the Virgin Killer album said once she had no problem with it, and the cover is has never been legally classified in any jurisdiction as illegal.

A self-appointed private group, the IWF, has now decided the image is porn. The UK ISPs are doing what this group says. That's fine, and that is their right. The same as the Australian government also now censors Internet content--their nation, their border, their right--but their local rights end where their legal jurisdiction, if they have such a thing, ends. This isn't the UK government. This is a case of private or publically owned UK businesses barring access to Wikipedia. Again, it's their traffic, their network on their end, and their right locally.

The IWF is a private company, yes, but one performing public functions. In this respect, it is no different than the Financial Services Authority. The difference is that it doesn't have legal powers, because it doesn't need any. The IWF was set up under the auspices of the UK Government who approve its directors etc. To say it's 'a self-appointed private group' is completely misleading - don't impose US classifications on the UK. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 06:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The only question is, should a foreign entity--Wikipedia--agree to their self-appointed moral choice of a classification of this image as "porn" and take action based on that? If so, where does the line end? If we offend the morals of another non-elected group somewhere else in the world with the power to cause as much immediate effect as the IWF, do we acquiesce to them too later? Where does a line become drawn? Should it be? rootology (C)(T) 00:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

slow down a bit root ;-) - A foundation in the UK has decided that an image of naked pre-pubescent girl with a sort of split glass effect around her genitals entitled 'Virgin Killer' is possibly illegal, and now there' a big bunfight.... I'd try not to get into a moral panic, it'll all be alright in the end.... Privatemusings (talk) 00:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)plus we should remove the image because it's rubbish, adds nothing, and isn't free content ;-)

No moral panic, I'd just as soon in theory see it gone so that people could edit again. At the same time, I don't think any US groups have any business sticking their nose in UK business, the same as I don't think UK groups have any business sticking their nose in US business. But it becomes a question of a lot of other factors, which is why I asked the questions I did. But ultimately (for better or worse) we're an American website. And we have that tiny little factor called "Freedom of Speech" that protects the arts here, that we won after a little war. Other nations don't have that, and I can respect their local laws. But if the UK private businesses wants to block access, unless we take down this image (or some other content) what then? If Germany labels some content obscene and blocks German access this way, do we do the same thing based on their local morality? Slippery slope, is all I'm saying--you give in to one, you'll end up giving in to them all. rootology (C)(T) 00:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

And you wonder why so many people think Americans are arrogant and ignorant of the rest of the world? We have 'freedom of speech' in the UK, guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights and incorporated in the UK by the Human Rights Act 1998. The argument is where the boundaries lie. There is no absolute 'freedom of speech' in the US, as you'd soon find if Wikipedia had an image considered child porn in Florida. The views of Americans on where the correct boundary lies are not the be-all and end-all on the subject. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 06:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

ah, well I doubt the various nation states and legislative bodies are really paying attention to how the WMF reacts in this case - nor will their future actions be based on it - I'd say it's most likely laws will get made as the sum of various agendas (public opinion, political benefits etc. etc.) rather than anything else - I think folk who genuinely feel that images such as the Coreggio above are under threat are being a little foolish here, and just as an aside, I'd also link you to the bit about 'wikipedia not being a free speech zone' for fun, but I can never remember my acronyms! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We absolutely have the right to host and display the image. I'm asking whether it's in the best interests of the project and our editors for us to do so - and I think not.Terraxos (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The other choice si that we do nothing and the block remains. Not a problem for those of us located outside the UK but those who are having problems editing will remain affected and will end up blaming wikipedia, I would imagine. The IWF have not affected any non UK based editor. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I am in the UK, and here I am viewing and editing, and doing so to say that Wikipedia should not cave into any perceived pressure to amend its pages. Standing up here for common sense and encyclopedic rigour in displaying the original art in the original art box is worth a thousand UK editors who can see the rest of Wiki fine. Just keep our heads, or soon we'll be taking down Blind Faith, Nevermind and Houses of the Holy. FreeMorpheme (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

How is displaying a child porn image common sense. Seems like the height of stupidity to me, and to some extent this or something similar was inevitable with this image. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You can call it child porn all you want, but the fact is that it is not considered such in the United States, or for that matter, even in the UK. -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

How about you cite a single legal source that calls the album cover child porn? If not, you should stop. Can you name a single legal decision or even a news source that says "this is kiddie porn"? If so, I'll nominate it for deletion myself. rootology (C)(T) 00:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is a reliable source [5] thta took me 5 seconds to find, there are clearly many more. And if nobody thought it was child porn this incident would not have happened. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course, what was asked for was a legal source, not a reliable source. And if you take more than 5 seconds and read your "source" more closely, you'll find it never terms the image child porn without a qualifier (sneer quotes, or "ostensible"). - Nunh-huh 00:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer soI wouldn't know what a leggal source is, and if I wanted tom know i would ask a lawyer. The title in this article also refers to child porn concerns. Which is why we are here. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You were asked if you could find an instance in which some legal authority had held this image to be "child porn", not for a web page that says there are "concerns" about it. - Nunh-huh 04:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The question is not "porn" or "not porn". Interpretation of legislation within the UK is also not /directly/ relevant as a be-all and end-all if taking "Wikimedia is a non-profit charitable corporation organized under the laws of Florida, USA" (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Frequently_Asked_Questions) at face value. Harami2000 (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Quite true. At this point, the question of whether the image is technically illegal or not in the UK is irrelevant. Those (like me) who wish to see it removed think that should happen even if it is actually legal, and to those who want to see it kept, even a conclusive judgement by a UK court that it is illegal wouldn't be enough to convince them to remove it. Terraxos (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

*nods*. Thank you for the honestly-stated p.o.v. and overarching analysis, Terraxos.

[I'd better wheel off again for a bit, given the easy/inevitable underlying topic drift!] Harami2000 (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

As you stipulated the line gets drawn by the local ISPs. They have the technical ability to correctly censor the image and leave the rest of the article and Wikipedia for that matter intact. It's not our job to "fix" the article because their initial attempts were clumsy, disproportionate and unequal. - RoyBoy 00:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Apparently my previous comments had a part in misleading the discussion, and I'm sorry about that. I was not primarily referring to the situation in the UK, but mainly to a similar debate that is taking place in Germany. I shouldn't have emphasized that strongly that the image is not pornography, I should have just said that this is a subjective question. On second look I don't consider it pornographic, but, as that list of bad reviews below, that should be added to the article, illustrates, many people do. But according to the one quote in the article the girl herself didn't consider making the shot wrong 15 years later, and I would say that the artist and photographer didn't either. And I seriously don't understand why the author of "the 15 worst album covers of all time" himself doesn't see that the image, although it might appear as such, was not intended to be pornographic. [6] Only that he adds that other image that is totally unrelated to the topic is obscene. I could go on about that review being a particularly bad joke, but I guess the whole argument would come down anyway to saying that the image needs to be included (uncensored) in the article so that every reader can decide for him- or herself whether he/she wants to consider the image to be child pornography or not. Zara1709 (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, this shouldn't be gauged on a scale of how "good" it is for Wikipedia. Hypothetical; think of the untold millions in revenue floating around just waiting to be snagged by advertising. Were Wikipedia to advertise we'd be able to ween ourselves off of donations no problem and probably even rake in a lot. Imagine the huge jump in quality that could come from having so much money to invest! We could buy dozens of new servers, employ a hundred more people, and the list goes on. However, even though it would obviously be better for Wikipedia, why don't we advertise? Because that would go against our core principles. I believe the same applies here. Even though removing the image would ease tension off of Wikipedia and appease many, we'd be going against the core belief that censorship is wrong. That just shouldn't happen. Case in point; image of Muhammed. Offended millions, yet it wasn't removed. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 01:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The whole "don't advertise" thing is actually very discouraging for me. I want this asset to be used for sustainable growth and development, which keeps pace with its size and popularity. Donations will not propel Wikipedia to the heights it is capable of. Is there a current or old page where this is being discussed? I see limited ads in highly trafficked pages as a form of bootstrapping, which is a core Wikipedia principle. - RoyBoy 05:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

How much is enough

For the folks above who agree that WP has the right to post this image (meaning that it isn't illegal in the US). How many sources need to discuss the image before it is enough that we should host the image? We all agree that this would be different if some yahoo uploaded a picture of a girl to commons. that would be taken down instantly. We wouldn't keep it up just to declare that we aren't censored. But in this case, how many sources need to discuss this image before it is necessary to have the image itself on wikipedia to accompany the summary of that criticism and controversy? Protonk (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

ok I am just some random joe, been reading this story for a while, and I hate censorship. now the image in question is not child porn. its a naked girl, it's art. but in context of the name of the album "virgin killers" and how it relates to the picture itself, it most definitely is child porn when in context. there's a crack of glass right at the little girls vagina, the name is virgin killers, so that's quite fucking obvious is that what it means is to rape that girl of her virginity. as i stated, the picture is art, but when used in the context of this album name, it's disgusting. it's the idea of raping a little girl. remove it. 75.75.29.254 (talk) 04:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

That is, um, a rather absurd piece of original research there. Go google for the lyrics of the song, or read Schenker's explanation of the meaning of the song and how the image relates to it in this very article. There is no meaning of raping or anything of the sort here. Tarc (talk) 04:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

ah, but don't shoot the messanger, Tarc - I think she or he was talking about the picture, not the song? - what's your take on the significance of the split glass effect and its location? Privatemusings (talk) 04:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Tarc, taking the virginity of such a young girl is by definition rape. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, Squeaky, that really has nothing to do with the album cover or the song, as neither has a thing to do with rape or taking anyone's virginity. Thanks, Tarc (talk) 04:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear God. Read the article. The band stated very explicitly what the intended symbolism was. It had nothing to do with rape. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

totally agree about the intended symbolism, josh - it's important to remember that there's also the apparent symbolism. I don't really think the anon chap above is twisting things too much, although the post is pretty forthright in language. Privatemusings (talk) 04:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

How does the title not have anything to do with the taking of virginity; without the pic it would imply seducing young but legal AoC virgins. Thanks,SqueakBox 05:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you could, you know, read the article we are talking about which discusses this? JoshuaZ (talk) 05:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

ah, but the article discusses the intentions of the song, and the artist etc. - I (think) we're discussing the comments from the IP chap/ess above? - I got the impression that Tarc, and maybe you, felt his interpretation was somehow unreasonable, and I wanted to pipe up that although he's expressed himself rather forcefully, the comment is reasonable in many ways... Privatemusings (talk) 05:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I did read the article, and I did read every last line of this discussion. The point remains that the album name is "virgin killers" and they used an obviously underage girl (what is she? 8?) to convey the message of killing the virginity of that girl. That's shown by the point of broken glass right over the girl's vagina. I am really starting to think that those who are opposed to the removal are sick people. I don't think people are being honest in why they want this to stay. I am as liberal as they come, I don't believe in censorship, but after reading the article and the discussion in it's entirety, then thinking about it all day, I just can't shake the idea that this little girl's picture and the way the crack of the glass is right at her vagina, that there was no other intention than to say "virgin killers" is a direct correlation to the image of taking that girl's virginity. 75.75.29.254 (talk) 05:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Except you know, it isn't and they said as much quite explicitly. And cracked glass is a classic artistic way of covering something. Would you be happier if there was no cracked class? JoshuaZ (talk) 05:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happier if they used a woman who appeared to be a virgin and did the same cracked glass. I'd be happier if they didn't exploit a child to further their profits. I would be happier if I had a million dollars. What does it matter what makes me happy? If you can't answer my question without resorting to that sort of childish refute, then don't reply at all. It's a child, her vagina is shattered, and the intended effect is definitely a correlation to the name of the album. I am done here. 75.75.29.254 (talk) 05:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a "childish refute" (I think in any event you mean "retort" or "refutation" (the first makes more sense than the second). The point I was making was that under your framework it seems like if they had not put the glass their you would argue it was more inappropriate. If they do have the glass you get to claim that it is obvious symbolism. The existence of that dilemma should suggest that there's a flaw in your logic. Oh and incidentally, what evidence is there that there was any exploitation of the child at all? No one has made that claim. The now grown lady in question has stated as such that she doesn't mind. And if exploitation is what matters I suppose we should remove pictures in Slavery too. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure anything those who produced or endorsed the image at the time have said after realising how controversial it was back then is reliable, your denials of the obvious seem as strange as there own. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? And they put the image on the cover why then? Of course they knew it was going to be controversial. And you get to therefore just ignore what anyone said who actually was in the band that doesn't support your viewpoint? Don't be ridiculous. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• We are veering off topic. I want to discuss specifically the claims that the fair use exemption for that image in this article. I feel that it is met completely, but I have heard statements to the contrary. Apart from the moral or (child porn) legal issues, do we agree that the image meets our fair use requirements? Protonk (talk) 05:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Rename article?

I propose that we rename the article to Virgin Killer (Album). The availability of the image is already in no way affected by the move from IWF, and the text is neutral. This way, we make clear that they are not going to censor us. What do people think. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

That sort of thing tends to be done for disambiguation purposes, e.g., if there were also a "Virgin Killer (movie)." I'm not aware of any alternative uses of the term. Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Against until or unless we need to per normal WP:DISAMBIGUATION rules. The project should not be dictated to by outside pressure except as required by law, it sets a bad precedent. Besides, what would it accomplish? Within hours, any rename would be blacklisted as well. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd advise against it; it might look sneaky, and we don't need to be sneaky, because we're not doing anything wrong. I note that apparently there are already lots of urls for the article that apparently aren't censored in the UK; I do wonder what the IWF would make of redirects, but only in a "I wonder" and not "I advise" sort of way. In any case, the disambiguator should be lowercase (i.e., (album)). - Nunh-huh 00:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No need to rename unless we can find some heretofore unknown more prominent meaning for "Virgin Killer". Protonk (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Now there's a point - what about a redirect? Presumably a redirect to this article wouldn't be blocked? (I realise that there are other URLs to get round it, but it might be nice and easier to have a URL in the more usual Wikipedia format.) I also disagree that this is sneaky - since we're not doing anything wrong, it doesn't count as sneaky. We have every right to continue doing what we like with articles on Wikipedia, whether it's to get round a block placed by the IWF, or not. It's also not clear to me that a new URL would be blacklisted - after all, the many alternatives that still show the image on Wikipedia (the alternative URLs, or links to the image directly) are well publicised, but have not been blacklisted, nor have any of the images on other mainstream websites. Mdwh (talk) 11:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Censored?

Not here in America but i wouldnt be surprised if it was in UK since the UK doesnt have Nudists colonies ChesterTheWorm (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC) ChesterTheWorm

Well, that's not quite true actually... but not entirely relevant to the point of this Talk page either. :) Terraxos (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my. Perhaps the U.S. should pass a law to make Brits wear clothes! :) - Nunh-huh 00:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but to be fair that's because most of them are hideously ugly. HalfShadow 02:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh you do know us Brits can still read the talk page :) Davewild (talk) 08:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

content addition request

I would like to request that the following text be added after the sentence "The cover generated controversy and was replaced in some countries with an alternate cover art depicting the band members.[4]", with the following existing text placed into a separate paragraph:

The cover is regularly named in various "worst album cover" lists. Cracked online magazine named it the #1 "worst album cover of all-time", while Gigwise.com lists it as #2 on its March 2008 "The 50 Most Controversial Album Covers Of All Time" list. Similarly, it was placed on the UGO Networks Weirdest & Worst Album Covers, and #6 on The All-Time Worst Album Covers list made by two.one.five magazine.

Thanks, BanyanTree 00:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. For future reference, please use the {{editprotected}} template to request changes. Nufy8 (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

...but since you're an admin, you probably already knew that :) Nufy8 (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever made an editprotected request, though I've responded to quite a few, and it totally slipped my mind. Bad admin!  ;) - BanyanTree 02:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

I'm an admin but I don't want to edit this myself. Cracked is an online humor magazine. I'm not comfortable citing it as a reliable source, even if it is compiling a list (As they are wont to do). I don't know what the feeling is about whether or not it belongs in that cluster of lists just included. Protonk (talk) 01:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, most of the sites I just added were pretty jocular in tone. I have no opinion either way, though. Nufy8 (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer that their credibility be qualified with "casually-created lists", "worst-of lists created for fun", or something similar rather than removal. The purpose of this content is to illustrate that many people, besides band members and censors, recognize that the album cover is lame/tasteless/controversial, so the "seriousness" of the source seems rather secondary. I would be surprised if "serious" media would even make these sorts of lists. - BanyanTree 02:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The reliability of a source depends on what you are using that source for. If you are using that source to say that people are publishing jokes about this album cover (which is what these lists really are) then an online humor magazine is as good a source as any. If you are using it for a source on a historical or scientific fact then it probably isn't. Rusty Cashman (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand that most of the lists like that are humorous, but citing cracked is like citing mad magazine. I'll withdraw the request and see how more ppl think about it. Protonk (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Stats for December - about 371.9K views on December 8, normal traffic under 700/day

This chart shows the viewing stats for December, 2008, with 623/day average through the 5th. Here's November with 449/day through 11/16 and a spike on the 16th-18th with 1103/day average for the 16th-30th. Here's October with 471/day average for comparison.

December breakdown through the 8th:

1. 504
2. 486
3. 915
4. 595
5. 616
6. 1.6k
7. 126.2k
8. 371.9k

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, major news organizations have picked up the story now. It's yet another example of an attempt at censorship backfiring on the censors. —Lowellian (reply) 01:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't you mean backfiring? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

personally, I'm not sure the inevitable extra attention actually plays to anyone's agenda - I think the longer it's in the news, the greater the potential harm to the project, to be honest. The IWF are tasked with forming an opinion about potential illegality, and have done so - I'd advise folk to hold their horses on how this will play mid-term (ie. this week) in the mass media - I think it's a shame that for various reasons the situation has escalated into two angry camps - or maybe one slightly bonkers camp, and one bemused and befuddled one. Folk genuinely after resolution would do well to try and calm the rhetoric, I'd say..... Privatemusings (talk) 01:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

PM, I don't see the angry rhetoric (I know it is out there). I see some vitriolic debate and some hurt feelings (Special:Contributions/Gurch hasn't come back since he was blocked over edit warring to keep the image out). But I don't think that we are really that broken. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/2008_IWF_action shows a relatively good public face, with relatively good press, given the accusation. We have a core policy (really two if you count NFC) and we are sticking to it. I don't see the trouble. I mean it looks bad on the WR thread, but c'mon, everything does there. Here we seem to have settled on a course and are moving along it. Protonk (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Do the figures include views through the secure server (I have only a slightly better knowledge than the IWF about how the internet works, so basically haven't much of a clue at all). DuncanHill (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, ask the author of the tool. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I have asked him, and will convey his answer here when he does (but he hasn't edited for a while, and is known to be busy with non-Wikipedia matters at the moment). DuncanHill (talk) 02:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

my guess is that it does - totally unreliable, but there you go :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Access some low traffic (i.e. non-existent) article some times through the secure server and look at its stats tomorrow. But I doubt they are included; even /enwiki/w/index.php?title= accesses don't seem to be counted (but variations in case like virgin killer are). --89.55.0.189 (talk) 07:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Question about the block

I'm not in the UK but a commenter on the BBC blog about this said this morning that the article was visible with the image via Google's cache. Now Google doesn't cache images, so doesn't this mean that the IWF botched this completely? They also said the article was visible just by reformulating the url a bit. Can anyone test, did they actually block the image on the upload.wikimedia.org servers, or only the article and image description page URLs linking to it?

It's a little pathetic if they forgot to block the actual image as it means that even using the encrypted server (which still sends images over regular HTTP) circumvents the block completely (not that the album wasn't already readily available everywhere else on the Web or to buy in record stores anyway). • Anakin ^(talk) 01:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Google does cache thumbnails of images in its image search. —Lowellian (reply) 03:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I should have looked at the admin's noticeboard page before posting. It's already well explained there. The IWF did botch the block. • Anakin ^(talk) 02:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

IWF block of Wikipedia link

Unless I'm missing something, IWF block of Wikipedia isn't yet linked to in this article. This doesn't seem like a controversial edit (the article doesn't look like it's set for delection), and I would leave it to the admin to decide where to fit this in. Thanks, Joshdboz (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

• done. Hatnote seemed best. Protonk (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

What's the point?

It is obviously a liability and the logical thing to do is to remove it. Somebody who wants to see the image can do a Google images search for <<Virgin Killer cover>> in just a few seconds and they'll find it on the first page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.183.20 (talk) 07:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

And making the world laugh, doing like Braghettone ?? If you let this pass, you'll never know where it will end. remember that the road to hell is paved with good intentions: I don't like people who wants to think in my behalf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webwizard (talk • contribs) 10:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No, the logical thing is to resist attempts by self-appointed censors to dictate content. If we roll over on this one, where do we stop. Wikipedia stood up to China over censorship, is it going to kowtow to the UK? Mayalld (talk) 07:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

That was a different situation. In this case it's just about the cover of an album and as I said it's no loss, copies of that image can be found in less than a minute with a google search. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.183.20 (talk) 07:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't censored. The album cover is the subject of multiple sources. It would be silly of us to summarize that coverage and then say "we are adult enough to discuss this but not adult enough to show it". Protonk (talk) 07:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

remove it. Somebody who wants to see ... can do a Google ... search. If we think so, then we can completely remove the entire wikipedia. After all, who want so see something can just do a Google search.
The decision about legality or illegality of such picture must be taken by a legal authority (i.e. a judge), not by a self-proclaimed censorship organisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.150.200.4 (talk) 10:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This Link allows me to see the Wikiarticle even though it is blocked by my server. So it not like we in the UK cannot see the article. Lucian Sunday (talk) 08:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm in the UK myself and I think giving in to the IWF would be absurd and outrageous - it would just encourage the IWF and other censors to think they can get their own way. Wikipedia has to stand firm against these people. I encourage everyone to write to the IWF, to the IWF board of directors, to MPs, MEPs (the IWF receives EU funding), ISPs to protest. -08:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.71.0 (talk)

"You can find it on google" is not the answer, because google.com will be the next ISP to be censored by the UK for displaying the Virgin Killer photo. Eventually the banning will touch every ISP, and you won't be able to see the image anywhere unless you leave the British isles. ---- Theaveng (talk) 11:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Complaints

The IWF's members include the BBC, Google UK, Yahoo, the Royal Mail, JANET ( http://www.iwf.org.uk/funding/page.64.htm ). IWF members pay a membership fee, so presumably the BBC spends public money on supporting the IWF's work. Google claims to do no evil, yet backs the IWF. The IWF also receives EU funds. Further, a list of IWF board members is on the IWF website - some of their email addresses are easy to find out via google. Let's complain to all these people about their appalling behaviour. -12:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)~