Talk:List of controversial album art
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of controversial album art article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 14 September 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
I think CKY's Volume 1 should be changed from the "violence" category to the "decency and cultural offense" category. The Budd Dwyer cover does not show anything graphic in nature, the problem is that the reference the illustration is making is controversial for having insensitive undertones to it, which is a decency issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.181.226.155 (talk) 02:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Mayhem edit
Dawn of the black hearts much?! I mean that article even links to this very page! add it
Beatles "dead babies" cover of Yesterday and Today? Surely the most tasteless album cover by a topnotch band. I thought this would be among the first mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.254.120 (talk) 09:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Untitled edit
What about Led Zepplin's "Houses of the Holy?" I have heard it has drawn some criticism for portraying naked children climbing around on some rocks. Seems like a perfect candidate for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.242.137.73 (talk • contribs)
- As the introduction suggests, this article is really for album art which has had some notable impact. The Houses of the Holy article doesn't seem to indicate any kind of controversy over the art so this probably doesn't meet the requirements for inclusion here. D4g0thur 16:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- more precisely, until we do find controversy, and include that source in the main article, it cant be on this list. just because the main article doesnt reference controversy, doesnt mean it doesnt exist. remember, ultimately we cant use WP as a reliable source for information!Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Hendrix edit
I was under the impression that Hendrix wanted an entirely different album cover for Electric Ladyland (which has never been produced), that was a photo, taken by Linda McCartney, of Hendrix with school children, posing on a statue of Alice in Wonderland. He was infuriated by the 'nudes' cover, and demanded a new one be produced, as the cover, already disliked by Hendrix, himself, was stirring up controversy. They then produced a photo of the 3-piece band for a UK cover, and Karl Ferris' orange/red/yellow close-up of Hendrix in concert was used elsewhere, and has since become the international artwork. I'm not 100% on all of this, which is why I did not fix the page myself. DPowers87 (talk) 01:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- You're close, and the true story is out there and takes but 5 minutes to research, but it's not at Wikipedia. The cover photo was in fact made and can easily be found. Hendrix had more requests than the cover, and facsimiles of his notes, written on stationery from a Denver hotel, are also online. Hendrix was not 'infuriated' with the UK cover, but rather felt it would backfire, and it was not what he had asked for. Neither of the published covers were high on his list. What of course would be cool would be getting Macca to release the Linda M cover for commercial use. That cover hints at the childlike atmosphere of the album which is only partially conveyed by the UK cover and totally demolished by the Ferris atrocity. Finally: the UK cover wasn't controversial save for in the US (natch) and a few banana republics. Currently there's an editing war going on at the other article, so...
I would think the back cover would have caused some controversy. image is featured in the article. This should be added to the list, once a source is found for controversy.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Reggae edit
No reggae albums? I remember early Bob Marley and the Wailers albums showing the band as gun-toting rebels, and one cover with a young black woman carrying a machine gun and showing off one naked breast. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- See Soul Revolution Part II and Soul Rebels. I might have mixed up the part of the breast, though. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
A very strange cover.... edit
Years ago, i recall seeing an album cover listed in a similar list on wikipedia. I remeber it being a drawing of a girl tied up and gagged, surrounded by sex toys. Does anyone know what this is?Jasper420 04:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Prince???? edit
Prince's Lovesexy album could also be added to the list Signothetymes (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Possible Addition edit
What about the band Anal Cunt. All of the albums covers they have are controversial. Pathora (talk) 00:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Roger Waters - The Pros and Cons of Hitch Hiking edit
The album The Pros and Cons of Hitch Hiking has a picture of a naked women from behind, and was censored in some areas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.100.252.244 (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned references in List of controversial album art edit
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of controversial album art's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Independent":
- From Suede (album): Leith, William. "Now you see them". The Independent. 21 March 1993. Retrieved on 3 September 2009.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
The Crass: Stations of the Crass edit
Concerning the controversy of this album cover, I would like to ask how this somehow unidentified woman could be so controversial, since it's a black/white version of Ingres' famous painting "Grande Odalisque". Proof: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Ingre,_Grande_Odalisque.jpg&filetimestamp=20050505135302 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.83.252.26 (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Criteria edit
What are the criteria for "controversial" and thus for inclusion in this article? Should at least one external source be given to show that controversy exists? Or are editors free to add whatever they feel is unusual, rude or risqué? Other articles, such as this one, have suffered because of a lack of agreed criteria. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- In each section, I have added the hidden note about users adding an album cover that's considered "controversial" without a source. 198.94.221.66 (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Animated? edit
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. --anon 71.183.133.71 (talk) 05:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Adding albums without sources edit
Many of the albums added here don't have a source, such as Nirvana's Nevermind, Dead Kennedys' Frankenchrist and Green Day's Dookie. From now on, let's add an album that has a "controversial" cover with a source. 198.94.221.66 (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. Most of these covers are "controversial" only in the mind of those posting them on here. sixtynine • spill it • 04:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Guns 'n' roses edit
Absolutely nobody remembers the original artwork of Guns 'n' roses' Appetite for destruction-album? A woman lying on the ground against a wooden fence with her underwear pulled down to her knees... Clearly raped by the monster that jumps over the fence. It's animated, but still... And what about the original cover of the Yesterday & today-album by the beatles? You saw the 4 members of the group dressed like butchers with torn-apart dolls and pieces of meat around them, this cover was replaced by one where they were sitting on suit-cases. Oxygene7-13 (talk) 13:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- If you have a source for those, they'd be a great addition to the list. Willondon (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- That's the biggest issue with me. I'm restricted by a white-list, (for reasons I don't like to explain) so I don't have the possibility to look up anything at all! My question is: would anybody who reads this, be so kind to take the effort? The only thing I can do is get it under attention of others. Oxygene7-13 (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Oxygene7-13 and Willondon:
Done - copied from Appetite for Destruction and Yesterday and Today and trimmed. GoingBatty (talk) 06:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Oxygene7-13 and Willondon:
- That's the biggest issue with me. I'm restricted by a white-list, (for reasons I don't like to explain) so I don't have the possibility to look up anything at all! My question is: would anybody who reads this, be so kind to take the effort? The only thing I can do is get it under attention of others. Oxygene7-13 (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of controversial album art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930235524/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=59883 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=59883
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://search.japantimes.co.jp/member/member.html?mode=getarticle
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on List of controversial album art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120125054719/http://www.mtv.com/photos/warning-these-album-covers-may-contain-explicit-content/1572579/2643346/photo.jhtml to http://www.mtv.com/photos/warning-these-album-covers-may-contain-explicit-content/1572579/2643346/photo.jhtml
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070409185000/http://beautifulsouth.org/tbs/articles/1995_03_01_archive.shtml to http://www.beautifulsouth.org/tbs/articles/1995_03_01_archive.shtml
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050527022404/http://www.gigwise.com/news.asp?contentid=5778 to http://www.gigwise.com/news.asp?contentid=5778
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100324063743/http://asthmatickitty.com/news.php?newsID=23 to http://asthmatickitty.com/news.php?newsID=23
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://search.japantimes.co.jp/member/member.html?mode=getarticle&file=fa20090320a1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on List of controversial album art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211002806/http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_UK_Censors_Wikipedia_Article_with_Nude_Girl_Album_Cover_30919.html to http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_UK_Censors_Wikipedia_Article_with_Nude_Girl_Album_Cover_30919.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100817010302/http://www.musicstack.com/articles/historic-controversial-album-covers-part-two to http://www.musicstack.com/articles/historic-controversial-album-covers-part-two
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130417154126/http://chicagoist.com/2005/07/05/not_so_fast_there_superman.php to http://chicagoist.com/2005/07/05/not_so_fast_there_superman.php
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150815113325/http://www.glenwexlerstudio.com/files/Resource_Balance.pdf to http://www.glenwexlerstudio.com/files/Resource_Balance.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
What constitutes controversial? edit
It has been asked before and with little feedback. What makes these albums controversial if so many are unsupported with references? I propose that if an album is unsupported with a citation and there is no mention of the controversy on the albums Wikipedia page (also sourced) it gets removed. Happy to do that unless there are objections? Robvanvee 12:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Include cover pictures edit
Is there a specific reason why controversial covers are described in detail but not shown as images (if available under Fair Use terms). — Christoph Päper 22:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Jane's Addiction edit
I was surprised that Jane's Addiction wasn't on this list yet. At least two of their album covers have been very controversial:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual_de_lo_habitual#Packaging
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing%27s_Shocking#Packaging — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.69.134.125 (talk) 04:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Pissgrave edit
Very surprised to see that neither of Pissgrave's albums are on this list. Both are real photos of gore/murder. 69.140.17.254 (talk) 05:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Coral Fang by the Distillers edit
While I don't know if there was any specific outrage of the original cover of Coral Fang, the album did end up having an alternate cover variant, in which said copies also include a note reading "This is not the original artwork: [sic] It was deemed too explicit for your local retail store." [1], and I think that would make it eligible for this list. Plus the album was released on a major label, which makes the default artwork arguably even more of a risky move. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.199.81 (talk) 06:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
There is a Kerrang article about the cover and (seemingly fairly minor) controversy here. Hatman31 (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
:format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(90)/discogs-images/R-10330922-1495463998-7604.png.jpg){kind=link}
Meet the Residents copyright edit
While I initially thought it would be easy to add Meet the Residents to this list due to the fact the cover is a defaced version of Meet the Beatles!, and the fact that Capitol Records seemed to purportedly object to this, about the only decent source I can find myself quickly online is a 1990 Washington Post article[1] that only briefly touches on it. I'm also uncertain as to whether it could even be considered controversial, while The Res themselves call the cover art infamous ([2]) there seems to be no actual proof about it and outside of a potential, unproven objection from the label nothing concrete seems to have been taken, aside from certain select reissues getting a different cover. Still, anyone more willing to go digging in this rabbithole than I am, or at least anyone who feels that they can spin the information here into enough of a point to put in the article, go ahead.
Sidenote, the early Res album Baby Sex features... erhm... well, it'd be perfect for the list if it actually registered on any reputable source's radar. Despite doing a lot of controversial stuff, the band never really actually seemed to get much controversy, though I figure they shouldn't be the hardest to find at least something for if again anyone wants to go digging. Lllogan (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Just remembered that The Third Reich 'n Roll exists, which would be the easiest to include here I reckon. I might get around to that myself if I have the time and find the sources, and no doubt there's many other things in their discography that I'm just forgetting too. Lllogan (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion edit
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Welcome to the Beautiful South edit
The page for Welcome to the Beautiful South by the Beautiful South mentions that the album cover was changed in canada and was changed to not have a woman shooting herself. should this be included? 172.56.12.156 (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Sgt. Pepper edit
Given that the Copyright Infringement section includes covers which were never actually released, what about including Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band in that section, as an American actor name Leo Gorcey was in the original photo, but was removed after his agent demanded a $400 fee? (HA! Given that no one knows who that guy is any more, I hope he fired that agent???). Just a thought... FillsHerTease (talk) 11:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Alphabetic vs Chronological edit
Wouldn't it make more sense to list these albums chronologically, so as to place them in cultural context with the changing social mores which declare a work "controversial"? Walkersam (talk) 06:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
CKY's Volume 1 edit
I think CKY's Volume 1 should be moved from the "Violence" category to the "Decency and Cultural Offense" category. The original cover art does not show anything inherently graphic in nature, the problem with it lies in the fact that its sentiment could be deemed as insensitive, which would be a decency issue. 66.181.226.155 (talk) 03:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC)