Talk:Warren Cuccurullo

Warren Cuccurullo was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 2, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Musicians

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.

Frank Zappa (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Frank Zappa, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Frank ZappaWikipedia:WikiProject Frank ZappaTemplate:WikiProject Frank ZappaFrank Zappa articles

Untitled

For old talk see Warren Cuccurullo/Archive 1.

NPOV

The section of this bio "recent activities" is heavily peppered with a POV, praising his skill etc... It formerly was phrased to be far more factual and blunt about Cuccurullo's foray into pornography, which despite his musical fan's denial, has been his biggest claim to fame in the past four years. (Note the phrasing of the "rock rod" as an "adult toy" when it was, in fact, a dildo replication of his own penis.) This needs to be revised to be factual and non NPOV. Pacian 06:21, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's funny how someone edited in that his work was all heterosexual. Except for the fact that he appeared nude in a gay magazine. Except for the fact that he filmed a video of himself pleasuring himself anally with a dildo. Except for the fact that in an interview he admitted to orally servicing other men. Except for.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.93.65.83 (talk) 02:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The new additions are work in progress, and the editor in question is a WC expert and new to Wikipedia -- give it a little time and we'll smooth out the point-of-view issues. Catherine\^talk 17:54, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Have done, thanks for pointing it out. --CucFan | talk 13:12, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Joe Travers link

I removed the link on Joe Travers' name because it linked to the wrong person. -- CucFan

Regarding nude photo of Warren

I recently reverted an edit that included a nude photo of Warren, commenting:

"rv: A nude photo of him doesn't improve the article in any way".

The photo was then put back in place with the following comment:

"Image illustrates aspect of Cuccurullo's career that was already discussed in article. Wikipedia is NOT a censor: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not."

I totally agree with the "Wikipedia is not censored" principle. The discussion I'm trying to have is about the relevance of this particular photo to this particular article, and not to nude photos of any kind (I have no problem ith those). I, however, believe that this particular image does not *add any information to the article (for example, we already have a picture of Warren in the top, so we already know who he is).

The point that he is known by some as a porn star is not a reason, IMHO, for the image, as most porn stars' pages on Wikipedia don't contain a full nude picture. The fact that it "illustrates" an aspect of Cuccurullo's career sounds strange, as the image *and* its caption, as a group, contain less information than the corresponding phrase on the article and it's not merely decorative. The fact that Cuccurullo is known by most as a musician (Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention and Duran Duran are pretty popular bands - His name is even spoken on Zappa's song "Catholic Girls", on the "Joe's Garage" album), although not a reason for removing anything per se, should set the focus of the article.

In respect to 207.200.116.133, the image won't be removed again by me without further discussion. MauricioC 02:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose this is in the eye of the beholder. To make the case that the picture does indeed illustrate the article, we can look at the "Recent Activities" (the section the picture illustrates) and see that it consists of four paragraphs, two of which refer to his work as a nude model. The first paragraph refers to him posing nude for a magazine; the second paragraph refers to the dildo modeled after his penis. That is, two of the four paragraphs in the "Recent Activities" section refer to his nude body; so I think it is on topic to have a photograph of his nude body. And depiction of the nude male body is not uncommon on Wikipedia. Check out the page for penis and erection. -- 207.200.116.202 03:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think having a picture of a penis in the penis article and having a picture of an erection in the erection article is unreasonable (and I don't see how anyone could find that unreasonable, either). Half of the Recent Activities page is not a large portion of the article: Check out, say, Peter North or Asia Carrera (or even John Holmes, who, as the article says, "is best known for his large penis") pages on Wikipedia, for example. They are pornstars, and even then the focus on those articles is entirely on their lives.

But, if we can't agree on this, I have a suggestion: Why not illustrate this section of the article with a photo of the rock rod, his sex toy? It would make the point, and would broaden the audience of this article which, IMHO, is reduced by this picture. MauricioC 10:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this article's audience is reduced by that picture because I don't think this article has much of an audience to begin with. Warren Cuccurullo is a name hardly anyone has heard of, unless they are Duran Duran fans. He is not really that famous of a musician.

Bottom line is that the picture illustrates the text, and the only complain you are resting on is obviously your own moral perspective that you for some reason oppose the depiction of what this man did in his career. And about the idea of having a picture of the "Rock Cock," I believe there was a picture of that Rock Cock at some point, and someone else had a problem with that.

If your concern were founded on something more tangible, such as perhaps a picture that didn't correspond to the text or that was inauthentic, or an image whose origins were uncertain, then I could understand why you want it removed. But we know where this picture came from; we know it is real, and it corresponds to text that was written before the picture was included. So, the only thing your concern is founded upon is that you don't like the depiction of the nude male form. I don't think that's grounds for argument to have the picture removed.

Here's a suggestion: if you don't like seeing something, don't look at it. But trying to have something removed simply because you don't like it, that sounds like censorship. Body Acceptance 23:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. I seriously don't believe this should be taken personally: I found out about Warren through Frank Zappa's Joe's Garage, which I guess is not the kind of album people concerned with strong morality listen to. Anyway, this is getting larger than it should given it's low proeminence on the page, and the last thing I want is to get in a bigger discussion about this. MauricioC 03:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's certainly not a major issue. Body Acceptance 03:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is not to say your and 207.200.116.133's points are unreasonable. On the contrary, stepping outside the unfortunate "I'm going to defend my argument because it's mine" (not intentional) reasoning that we all tend to make sometimes, I think you two are right on this one. Sorry about the inconvenience. MauricioC 03:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well now that the nude photo was removed over 10 years ago (which is fine, right?), there is no mention here at all of his pornographic endeavors. That seems like a thing people should know about the man. Whether or not he's proud of it or would rather everyone forget about the whole thing is beside the point, it's a biographical fact that should not be omitted here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.186.18.129 (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Failing

Please provide references. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources. H ig hway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 15:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References for which facts? Most of the basic facts are from phone interviews directly from Warren. --Cucfan, Aug. 31, 2006

Wikipedia has two policies that apply here, Cyndi -- Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipedia, like all encyclopedias, is a tertiary source which is supposed to summarize information already published elsewhere. Since your phone interviews aren't verifiable by any third party, they're not the best choice here. However, if the information has been published on his website, fanzine, newspapers or magazines, Notorious, or any other reliable source, you can use that as a reference in footnotes -- I'll be happy to help get you started. — Catherine\^talk 19:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've added a few to the text, as an example -- see the footnotes page if you need more help. I'm sure you have more and better sources you can add, especially magazine and newspaper articles -- don't worry too much about the exact syntax/format, as someone else can tidy that up if you're providing the basic information. (Do be careful to close your "ref" tags, though -- an unclosed reference can cause the rest of the article to seem to disappear... speaking from experience here!)

Not every single fact has to have a reference, obviously, but anything that someone is likely to question, or likely to want to learn more about, is a good candidate for adding a footnote. See Duran Duran for some other examples of how it can be done. Hope that helps! — Catherine\^talk 20:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photo?

Cyndi, are there any photos Warren would be willing to let us use here - perhaps one from the early days of his career, and one recent one? We can use press release photos under fair use, but we would much prefer to have something available under a free license like GFDL or Creative Commons, so that people that wish to re-use our content can do so without copyright issues. See Wikipedia:Example requests for permission and Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#For_image_creators for some important issues you'd need to explain to him. Thanks! — Catherine\^talk 20:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cult Status??

RE: "Cuccurullo is held in cult-status in the alternative rock/synth-pop world." --- Who added this? Source? Very cool, but it'd be nice to have proof. -- CucFan 9-28-06.

Today's edits

I added in some family information to clarify things for fans who aren't clear on his girlfriend & son and whether he's married, etc. The Missing Persons section has been redone a bit as well since I rewrote the same information a few days ago on the Missing Persons entry. Also, since someone added information about the vegan/spiritual issues and the fan followings, I edited & clarified some of that. ;) -- CucFan, 9-28-06.

In the lyrics of the song "Catholic Girls" by Frank Zappa, his name is mentioned in the female dialogue who says "Warren Cuccarullo, kinda young, kinda wild." Perhaps this is what gave him "Cult status"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.17.150.48 (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture at top of article

I don't know how to change pictures -- shouldn't this be a more current photo? I believe the one displayed is from 1993. -- CucFan 9-29-06.

We need to find an image that fits Wikipedia's licensing requirements -- please read Wikipedia:Image use policy, as this is a really important policy if you want to work with photos here. We can't use pictures scanned from other publications, since they're under copyright. Screenshots are dubious; the current picture of Warren is used under a somewhat shaky "fair use" rationale. Photos released in a press kit would give us a better fair use claim. But ideally, we would like to have a photo that the copyright owner (either Warren or the person who took the photograph) is willing to make free for Wikipedia and others to copy and use, either by giving it a free license (we prefer GFDL or Creative Commons licenses), or by releasing it into the public domain. You can see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and Wikipedia:Example requests for permission for an explanation of some of the important issues here. If you can help us get permissions for a better photo, that'd be great! Just ask me for more guidance if you need it -- image use here can be pretty tricky.

By the way, you can sign your posts easily by typing four tildes, like this: "~~~~" Thanks for all the work you're putting in here! — Catherine\^talk 20:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed Warren to ask permission to use photos for this & attached my two choices, and he may come up with newer ones (these are the newest ones he's had taken, from the N'Liten Up recording sessions in 2004). CucFan 20:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What was his trademark guitar?

I think it would be nice to include the name of the guitar he used on most of Spring Session M and nearly all Missing Persons music videos, what was its name? Skraelinger 13:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a new link mentioning an alledged collaborator named eric axlendrakis. But the ref link makes no mention of this person. It is likely a hoax/vanity claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.32.74.176 (talk) 23:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit dispute concerning the Eric Alexandrakis, Warren Cuccurullo, Steve Ferrone, Anthony J. Resta collaboration

The added information to the Solo and collaborative work section was drawn from a Modern Drummer web update that appeared online in late September 2010. The collaboration is a fact. The edit was sourced from a reputable third party source, and I referenced the source properly. It is apparent that Modern Drummer revises the information in their online news column without revising the URL for the column. The information is not available currently from that URL. I have talked to an administrator, and I am in the process of adding an additional third party reference to support the information I posted. I will also contact Modern Drummer to see if they can provide me with another link to the information they published in late September. I have also found an additional source to support the existence of the collaboration. As immediate proof of the collaboration's existence, their web site is: www.alexandrakiscuccurulloferroneresta.com (redirects to their facebook page). The edit that I made is not an unsubstantiated vanity claim by a fan, nor is it vandalism or a hoax. Thank you for the alert concerning the information not being currently available from that URL. I removed the director to the web site from my reference annotations on both the Steve Ferrone page and this page as a temporary measure to solve the issue so that others will not be confused. Doc2234 (talk) 02:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]