Talk:Virgin Killer/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Quick failed GA. Article is insufficiently stable due to current controversy AND is fully protected to boot. Assuming this wasn't just a WP:POINT nom, please renominate after there have been no substantial editing controversies, while this page is unprotected, for a full week. Jclemens (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I am, I believe, somewhat older than others commenting here, 62 years old. As a result, this whole controversy seems a bit silly to me. It was the 70's - every band that could was creating "controversial" album covers. Roxy Music, another UK band, was eventually destroyed by the budding feminist movement as it responded to the band's album covers. Every cover depicted a woman in a state of undress, or very sexually dressed, and bound in some way, with the ravishment just on the verge... The album names usually related to the photograph. The critical opinion of these covers started as "high art" and ended as "total trash". I have to think the creator of the Virgin Killer cover was simply joining that particular conga line. There is a tv show - Life on Mars; it is now an import to the US. The protagonist or hero of this show finds himself suddenly thrust into the 70's. He doesn't understand the world he is in because so many of our norms and social mores have so totally changed. The commentary here regarding the Virgin Killer cover is in the same vein. It is simply impossible to understand the mindset that created this cover, now, in this time. The emotional and social pressures that made an artist think that cover was a good idea are beyond present day generations imagination. Certainly there was no implication of adult/child sex - it was an image, attempting to wed a dreadful idea - killing - with the essence of innocence, and most truly a virgin, this prepubescent child. The ideas were supposed to clash. We now live in a world of literalism. Symbolism falls flat. So, a younger generation looks at this cover and sees some of what the artist intended, but not the context. The result - BAN THE COVER, BAN THE ARTICLE, DESTROY WIKIPEDIA - as if any of that will result in the non-being of the album cover. It already happened. As one commenter indicates, the original cover is still available if you have a taste for going through vinyl bins. When will this world realize the only that idea that harms is the idea to censor ideas???E2verne (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Agree w/ the quickfail. I'd fail it on WP:LEAD alone at this point, even w/o being fully protected. c'mon guys. Protonk (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Good call on the quick-fail, this is too unstable. Personally, I'd love to see this become a featured article as part of a featured topic on controversial album covers. This will require a lot of work but it's doable. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)