Talk:Primal Scream (Harvard)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Untitled[edit]

Primal Scream (Harvard) is a stub, to be sure, but it is encyclopedic. It talks about what the event is and the history of it.Briancua 13:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge Suggestion[edit]

I have suggested that Primal Scream (Harvard) be merged into the Harvard University article because a) it's a stub and there isn't much that could be added with it anyway, b) it's not notable enough for a stand alone article, c) I don't want 100+ stubs of college pre/post exam celebration practices, d) other colleges also use the term "Primal Scream". If it is to be a stand alone article, it should be an article about pre/post exam practices at colleges, encompassing all of the inumerable campuses, to avoid the aforesaid problems. 66.229.160.94 05:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep in present form :this a widely known, highly notable event, known nationwide. it is not simply your typical pre exam practice. also, specifically notable because the insitutiton in question is arguably the most notable university in the US, and probably the world. Interestingstuffadder 22:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose merge I think this is notable enough in itself, but if it were to be merged with something I think an article about pre exam rituals at all colleges would be more appropriate than into the main harvard article.

I oppose this merge, not necessarily because of this event's notability in its own right, but because merging it into the main article for the university in question is a terrible, terrible, terrible idea. --Cyde Weys 14:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll also oppose the merge. I think this is more appropriate as the basis for a potential piece on primal scream rituals at colleges in general. As a 1987 grad (i.e., pre-streaking), I can tell you that the scream was exceptionally mild fun of no particular note at the time; more exciting was the traditional playing of Vivaldi's "Four Seasons" out dorm windows on the first day of spring. Or whenever it was. Pity we didn't think of adding streaking to that.

While we're here, the bit about Charles Adams, though cheery, is completely irrelevant to a primal scream entry. - Corporal Tunnel 16:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This is unrelated to the merge. Can we get rid of those grotty photos? Unpleasant stuff.

photos[edit]

there are some highly inappropriate and offensive photos on this page. who is in charge of loading them, and can they be removed? Sweetyseal 20:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

What you consider to be inappropriate and offensive, others may see as informative. As per Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia is not censored, Wikipedia:Profanity):
"Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available."
You may argue that the images are not informative, relevant, or accurate. If so, please seek discussion here, instead of unilaterally removing content. -- Ec5618 22:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


Illuminato and Kukini, stop putting pictures from Primal Scream up. Whoever puts up naked pictures online without the consent of the people in the picture, aka you, is a complete sicko/pervert. Just stop. How would you like it if it were a picture of you? Think about it. It's a complete waste of time for me to keep taking down the picture and you putting it right back up. Just stop.

Should we blur the faces of the people in the images?[edit]

Some of the people in the pictures may object to being displayed like this. Partially for this reason, I have just removed the descriptions from the images. Including the names of the people in the pictures serves no encyclopedic purpose.

The relevance and informative value of the images that remain is debatable too. Should we consider blurring the faces of the people in the images? -- Ec5618 20:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to start a discussion, but since that time two editors have restored a specific photo without bothering to see Talk. Let's try this again. Should we consider blurring the faces of the people in the images? -- Ec5618 06:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Those editors are sockpuppets. The only contributions they have made have been to remove that photo. Plus, I imagine its this girl in the photo doing the deleting as thats the only photo that is ever removed. If you ask me, painting your entire body silver and then running naked in public precludes any future request for privacy. Since she refuses to come to Talk, and no one forced her to strip off her clothes and run through a crowd of hundreds, I say keep it up there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.205.163 (talkcontribs)

Regardless of the intentions or abilities of other editors, can we make a valid case for keeping the images? What value does showing the faces have, for example? What relevant information did the addition of the names add? -- Ec5618 13:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the absolute minimum is for the faces to be blurred: The inclusion of these photos is obviously partly in order to embarrass the participants, as suggests the spitefulness of 141.154.205.163's last comment. The participants do not run "naked in public", they run around the private grounds of their university. Moreover, I seriously doubt that they gave their agreement to being photographed. We are on rather thin ice as it is, so either we blur or we remove entirely. Yandman 13:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I am no sock puppet, I'm just inarticulate. Could we leave my friend's picture off until we get this issue resolved? It was funny for the picture to go up in the first place, but it's long since ceased to be fun, and has instead become a problem. Why are we so insistent on leaving a picture available if the person is made upset by it? Who has personal stake in having one extra picture of people being naked? If the change harms no one, and betters the life of one other person, what reason have we to keep it? If it is by similar sentiments of 141.154.205.163, then is our motivation not to punish someone for five minutes of indiscretion (Is it even indiscretion when it is private grounds?)? That seems contrary to what Wikipedia is about. If we just want more pictures of people participating in this tradition (streaking), I'll put one of me up in its place. Although a picture of a guy streaking is not as neat as that a girl. But if this is the problem preventing us from taking it down, then I'd say it's not a legitimate excuse for leaving it. I see no reason to have a picture of a person who does not want it to be there, especially when it is in our control to remove it. Rendence
OK, if you are so noble, lets see you put your own photo up. Then its a 1 for 1 trade and that should be the end of it. If you have in fact participated then you should know how big the crowds are and you wouldn't call it anything but public. Just because its a private university doesn't mean its not public space. Just look at the hordes of tourists that go through every day. Also, when you strip down, have someone paint you silver and then jog around campus, thats hardly just five minutes of indiscretion. Thats not something you do on a whim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.138.88.68 (talkcontribs)
This is irrelevant. Can we make a valid case for keeping the images? What value does showing the faces have, for example? What relevant information did the addition of the names add? At this point, I've nt seen any valid argument in favour of keeping the images. -- Ec5618 18:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I must concur - there seems to be no valid argument to keep the disputed images or prevent pixilation of the faces of any individual participant. I see no reason why the images should identify the individual when the individual in the picture is not a part of the article. The topic of the article is perfectly conveyed with the individual faces pixilated or removed altogether. Wikipedia is not used as a forum to perpetuate public humiliation when the contribution is irrelevant. If the reverting person has an issue with the subject in the material, they should not use Wikipedia as the media to perpetuate it.Jgassens 20:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, from a legal point of view, if these folks were in a place where they had no reasonable expectation of privacy (and it appears that's the case, they're outside in a public square), then there's no legal obligation to obtain their specific permission to publish their pictures. On the other hand, I'm not sure that these pictures really serve to illustrate the article at hand -- they're really just here to tittilate. There's nothing special about these pictures that show they're at Harvard, nothing special to illustrate the evening; anyone curious about the phenomena can look at Streaker. Personally I think these pictures should be nominated for deletion at WP:IFD -- not because they're wrong, illegal, bad or anything else, but simply because they're sort of superfluous. — ripley/talk 20:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


Illuminato and Kukini, stop putting pictures from Primal Scream up. Whoever puts up naked pictures online without the consent of the people in the picture, aka you, is a complete sicko/pervert. Just stop. How would you like it if it were a picture of you? Think about it. It's a complete waste of time for me to keep taking down the picture and you putting it right back up. Just stop.

Images[edit]

Illuminato, stop putting pictures from Primal Scream up. Whoever puts up naked pictures online without the consent of the people in the picture, aka you, is a complete sicko/pervert. Just stop. How would you like it if it were a picture of you? Think about it. It's a complete waste of time for me to keep taking down the picture and you putting it right back up. Just stop.


I've just deleted all the images that were uploaded for this article. They are entirely unencyclopedic, and there is absolutely no indication that there is any consent from those pictured in them. It's hard to see how insisting on their inclusion is much more than wilful vandalism; there really doesn't seem to be any valid case for including them. "Consensus" does not trump common sense. Please do not attempt to add them again. Shimgray | talk | 22:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to push WP:Point, but are you, or any of the others who are concerned with permission from the people depicted going to go through everything on the wikipedia nudity portal and delet all the pictures contained in articles listed there that do not have the explicit permission of the subjects? I'm not saying these photos of primal scream should have stayed, but if this is the "common sense" trump card, we can expect that action from you and the others, right?--Vidkun 01:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
When I am kicked into action by someone complaining about those photographs, then yes, I may do that. Until then, it sits in the long long list marked "better things to do". Shimgray | talk | 01:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm complaining about all of them.--Vidkun 16:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Very funny. Shimgray | talk | 02:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not laughing. I'm complaining about every single photograph that does not have the expilicit permission of the subject, to be posted here.--Vidkun 15:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
WP:POINT. — ripley/talk 15:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
You know what? I just looked at that, and here's the first thing that struck me Discussion, rather than unilateral action, is the preferred means of changing policies, and the preferred mechanism for demonstrating the problem with policies. This was unilateral action. If it's justified in this case, it's justified in the cases I was suggesting. note, I haven't gone and changed ANYTHING in wikipedia, based on this issue of which photographs should be left alone, and which shouldn't. If the concern is for the privacy of the subject of the photo, then the concern SHOULD be there for the subject of all of these sort of photos, not just one special case.--Vidkun 15:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe, but this isn't really the place to raise it. This has gone beyond any relevancy to this particular article. Try the village pump. — ripley/talk 16:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

While it was probab not a good idea for this girl to streak if she didn't want the moment to be captured forever on the internet, there is no reason to punish her for it. If she doesn't want it online, we should remove it just out of common decency. There is nothing that says we must use every photo. However, Wikipedia's Image Use Policy is clear that the rights to images reside with the photographer, not with the subject. You do not need the subject's consent. They cannot be, as they were, unilateraly deleted. --Briancua 13:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyrights aside, legally there are situations where photographers must have consent in order to publish photographs that could identify someone (i.e. their face). But if the photographer was standing on public property, or if the person was in an area where they had no reasonable expectation of privacy (as is the case here, technically a university is private property but they were in a public square), then there's no need for consent. Yes, in the Internet age these folks should've realized that pictures of themselves nude in public could end up somewhere they don't want them to be. But these pictures were so irrelevant to the article that if someone in real life is bothered by them, there's no reason why we should keep them, particularly on a Web site of Wikipedia's popularity. I'm glad Shimgray was bold and deleted them. — ripley/talk 13:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, they can be unilaterally deleted. Uploading an image to a Wikimedia server does not, and never has, mean that we have to keep it published until we've jumped through seventeen hoops and ticked all the right boxes. Merely having the rights to an image does not in any way mean we, as Wikipedia, have a duty to publish it or host it. Process is a tool, not an end in itself. Shimgray | talk | 15:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Your right, process is not an end in itself, however it exists for a reason. The photos could have been removed from the article without having been deleted from the server. This is, I might add, exactly what the image policy says to do. We don't need to publish every photo ever taken of the event, especially if the person in it doesn't want it up there, but a few would not hurt.
There was at one time a photo of two students with funny hats who were clearly walking, not running, and smiling directly into the camera. This photo I don't think served to titilate, but to illistrate something already mentioned in the text. --Briancua 15:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


Not to raise a dead issue, but I came across this image while browsing for Primal Scream http://forum.oneclickchicks.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=532486. Are these the girls that have raised the great debate in previous posts. If so, this is not the only location that their pictures have been seen; just something to be aware of. Secondly, I thought it represented a good depiction of what takes place during the event and the crowds/people that choose to get involved. Again, can anyone verify if these are even the same girl(s)? They aren't wearing hats but maybe they are annual contributors....http://forum.oneclickchicks.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=532486 Ncrew 19:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)ncrew

I can verify that one of the girls in the two most recently added picture really does not want these pictures up. She never consented to the pictures being taken. I can also identify the guy in the top photo. He doesn't mind his picture being posted. Leave the top picture of the guy as the representative picture for primal scream, if we need a representative picture. Please do not recycle the old pictures of a girl who would rather not be seen nekked by all who care to see. -rendence

Rendence is correct. A consensus was reached several months ago and we decided to delete the pictures of the girls who were posted against their wishes. Please respect that decision. -niph

Walking around nude in public isn't a good way to indicate you don't want people to see you nude. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but there is a difference between being ok with people "seeing you nude" as part of a huge naked run with doszens of other students, and being ok with having nude pictures of yourself posted (at one point with names) on one of the most popular websites on the 'net. -N

Deleted again. Please have some common sense, people. Shimgray | talk | 15:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

A bit of a legal clarification here: these photos were taken on private property, not public property. Harvard Yard is privately owned land, and there are several times during the year (such as Head of the Charles weekend, and Harvard's commencement) when access is greatly restricted. The participants were running on their own private property and therefore, in my opinion, have a partial expectation to privacy that includes refraining from posting full photographs of them online. 140.247.249.200 22:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted these photographs again now (twice) after OTRS complaints. We cannot verify who own the copyright. We do not know where they were taken (assertions are no good). We do not know the context, permission of subjects etc. The photographs merely show naked people running - which doesn't add much to the article. They are not encyclopaedic. And, for the avoidance of doubt, I will block anyone who uploads them again. These will not be used on this article.--Docg 22:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is appropriate to be mentioning names of people who streaked, even in the talk section, so I'm removing this. There seems to be no need for this whatsoever. 140.247.42.22 (talk) 08:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)