Talk:Goatse.cx: Difference between revisions

Computing Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "Lazy Guide to Net Culture: NSFW". Scotsman.com. June 9, 2004.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: nomination withdrawn, 12 October 2007, see discussion. nomination withdrawn, 1 August 2007, see discussion. nomination withdrawn, 30 November 2006, see discussion. keep, 2006/10/23, see discussion.

Archives

May 2004 - May 2007

There was previously a section detailing that when the image first made its rounds on internet forums and chatrooms, many users coined nicknames for the man but it also contained information regarding his actual idetntiy. Where did it go? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.178.227 (talk) 03:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, there *was* an interview with him somewhere. He's a straight french man, I believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.190.190 (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The BMEzine interwiew you speak of was not the goatse man, just some anal stretcher that posted pictures on BME. You can find the article by clicking on the picture of Hello.jpg on www.goatse.cz, and scrolling down to the link on the bottom that says it's an interview with a practitioner of anal stretching. Xxiconoclast (talk) 00:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no definitive proof for this, but the man's true identitiy seems to be Kirk Johnson. Mind you, I'm simply going by what can be found in Google Images. Also, accoring to the official website's article on Goatse's history ( http://goatse.cz/goatse.htm ), it mentions Johnson as a possible suspect.

Kirk Johnson is a prolific video producer (as nasty as those videos are), and as mentioned by the content of the website cited above, " At this point it is considered vey likely that Kirk Johnson is the 'Goatse Man,'" and, " a rather simple analysis confirms this fact; it is unlikely that there is another practitioner of anal stretching with the exact same mole on the upper-left edge of his anus, and both the gap.zip (see below) pictures and Johnson's pictures show the same type of large yellow buttplug." There's no reason anyone ever should go trawling for Kirk Johnson's pictures and videos for scientific comparison to hello.jpg, but It is pretty obvious that it's the same guy. On xtube.com his username is kirkj.

Since goatse.cx is pronounced "goatsex" and is a clever leetspeak anal sex joke, and since abbreviating it goatse reflects an obvious misunderstanding of the joke, why doesn't the article state this? It's not goatse, that's not funny, it's goatse.cx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.107.130 (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you guys just stfu about "MUH IT'S ORIGINAL RESEARCH." Where are you going to find sources on Goatse that you can cite? Fuckin' idiots. 75.15.233.22 20:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you go kill yourself, so in the absence of sources you can write any junk you can think of? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.180.169 (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just browsing through one of the sites mirroring goatse.cx, and found this(safer for work). The image, which shows deformed version of hello.jpg, was placed in an article about captchas from the same site. It was the first time I saw goatse, and I haven't found that disturbing in any way. Maybe it's not a bad idea to put the image on instead of the real hello.jpg? I think this is mild enough. VoSS1979 14:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is that any safer for work? it's just distorted. It would be a bad idea to view that image at work. Hemidemisemiquaver 03:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's much smaller and disorted. Because of this I said it's SAFER, not safe. Also, I found that less disturbing, it would be better to put that on Wiki than the original image.VoSS1979 13:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against putting the original image onto this article. 20:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking at some of the previous comments on the article's talk page, people are arguing whether to add the hello.jpg image to the article or not. People were adding it, then it was removed as a copyvio and also shocking. But I have an idea. Why not get a print screen screenshot of the front page of the website with the images disabled (which can be done on firefox)? It won't be disturbing, and not really a copyvio, as it can be tagged with {{web-screenshot}}. What do you think? --AAA! (AAAA) 03:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• that would seeem to work, but personally i think we should just have it at the bottom of the page, its no more shocking than some images i have seen on wikipedia Pekaak 15:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd just include a screenshot featuring the image - but somewhere further down the page, as seems to be the consensus with other potentially 'offensive' images. Wikipedia is not censored, after all. --Kurt Shaped Box 17:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should be able to find an ASCII version with google. Dhimwit 22:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about a vector illustration? Would that count as "shocking"? --Willy888 05:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could add a little box that requires you to punch in your age before you could see the image. if you're not 18, you cannot see the image. it's not perfect, i know, but it would work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.243.50 (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of these ideas are worthy. I know and believe Wikipedia is not censored, but posting the actual image is not needed to achieve this goal. The best paths, in my opinion, are posting an ASCII version or a hand drawing. Both of these can be found readily. (I will place links to these versions when I find them. Feel free to do it for me.) -- Skwee (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or, the Finnish wikipedia had a photoshopped parody. The hands of Goatse Man are merged with the blue edges of the Wikimedia logo, and his hands stretch the red circle at the top. It's at http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goatse . Skwee (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just deleted the screenshot of goatse.cz. My reasons are:

1) It is grossly offensive and not suitable on those grounds alone. 2) It was displayed right at the top of the page such that even a casual reader would not be able to avoid seeing it. 3) Many readers of this article will be people who have heard of goatse and are curious to find out what it is without actually seeing it. 4) Those who do really want to see it can still find it without difficulty from information in the article. It is not necessary to include the actual image. 5) Those who do not want to see it WILL be seriously offended. 6) Incontrovertibly NSFW. 213.162.113.17 (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would the description of hello.jpg not be best suited in the normal wikipedia "spoliers start/end here" format. Would do it myself but don't really know how.

Hi, can this be updated by someone who knows how to recognise the addition of Goatse to BBC news by B3ta.

++++ It also appeared on a BBC program. Youtube has the video soewhere.

Where is the time logo? JeffBurdges 19:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• its in an external link Pekaak 12:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know when the site first appeared? The Internet Archive's Wayback Machine goes back to Oct 08, 1999. – gpvos (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: Yes, a time line of when the site appeared, when it was popular, etc, would be good to add 72.244.56.236 06:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Misty[reply]

I dont see how the dude was able to stretch his anus that wide open. Maybe it was a progressive thing, stretching little more by little more over a period of time? And why is the prostate so large?

--some dude

• How could you see the prostate? Just throwing that word around to sound smart or something? Sheesh. Anyway, he probably did take the stretching bit by bit. It's impossible to do it in one day.

Is there any evidence pointing towards the identity of "goatse-man"? --Willy888 05:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• yes, there is considerable evidence of his identity, but not enough for wikipedia81.140.120.191 18:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Goatse man is a guy called Kirk Johnson. He is a regular on a lot of anal news groups & anal websites.

Take a look here kirkjohnson692003
This is clear proof that Kirk Johnson is the Goatse Man --86.129.169.209 10:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://kecy.roumen.cz/roumingShow.php?file=iPod_skin.jpg

Kriplozoik

I recently uploaded a low resolution screenshot of the goatse.cx (well, actually it was a cap from the goatse.cz mirror) frontpage and inserted it into this article, using the {{linkimage}} template, so that those interested in viewing the image described at length in the text could choose to do so, whilst not 'goatseing' innocent civilians. Today, the image was deleted by an admin "on the basis of a long standing consensus that this is not an appropriate image to be included in Wikipedia" and (s)he suggested that I open a discussion here on the suitability of including the image in the article to determine if consensus has changed since the last discussion (which was about two years ago now).

As the image is not displayed inline, I cannot honestly understand what harm it would do to include a clickable image of a pop-culture/internet icon (which has had recent media exposure) for informational purposes. I notice that the general consensus on other articles (Penis and Anus, for example) is to include images that some people may find offensive, as per Wikipedia is not censored. I'm aware that vandals may find it amusing to add the picture to other articles, so I would certainly support adding it to MediaWiki:Bad image list to prevent this, if the image is restored.

In the grand scheme of things, I don't suppose that it really matters *that* much, so whatever the community decides is completely fine by me. So, anyway - opinions plz ppl. --Kurt Shaped Box 19:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said above, maybe you should get a screenshot with the images blocked. I'd do it, but I'm too nervous. --AAA! (AAAA) 03:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Put back the hidden screenshot image! wikipedia is not censored! 83.67.29.196 18:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the "Wikipedia is not censored" note also says "While obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately..."; the entry for shock site explicitly mentions goatse.cx as an example. Therefore it can - and should - be removed. Mr. Vernon 04:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Vernon, you miss the point. "such as an irrelevant link to a shock site". The policy is to prevent random goatsings on arbitrary articles. An image here is obviously relevant, look at the title of the article. 219.77.142.86 (talk) 11:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a penis and an anus are just a penis and an anus. Goatse's pretty twisted. Skwee 18:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From an article *about* goatse.cx? --Kurt Shaped Box 07:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Usually". In context, an image of Goatse will improve the article. Like the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article. Also, read WP:IAR - "if the rules prevent you from improving Wikipedia, ignore them." Will ^(talk) 15:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you 100%. Still, I do realize that this has been a touchy subject in the past, so I'll wait for more opinions... --Kurt Shaped Box 18:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

long long standing consensus is no. If you want technical reasons it is normaly deleted under G4 or copyvio.Geni 22:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish the US would ratify WP:NOT so we could edit objectively without fear of inprisonment :P. Jokes aside, if copyvio is a concern, then are there any lawyers here who could give an opinion on whether a screenshot of the website falls under fair use? I'd think it might be. Wiki should be uncensored as much as the law allows for. 219.77.142.86 (talk) 11:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not favoring censorship here, but when a man stretches his anus to abnormal proportions people need fair warning. Link the hell out of it, but don't include a picture with the article. --User:Tastywheat/sig 07:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If people really want to see the image they can easily find it based on the information in the article. The written description of the picture in question is sufficient for the majority of people viewing this article, especially given the graphic nature of the picture in question. 72.21.237.44 14:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with the original poster- the description on its left was fair enough warning, and they had the option as to whether or not to view the image. There should be a poll Pekaak 20:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should be clear an image ought to be included, this is an article about it after all. Mathmo ^Talk 21:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot should go in. The article is about goatse.cx, it should have an image of its subject. WP:NOT guys. I don't really want to look at it either, but much I'd prefer to see it than have a censored Wikipedia. 219.77.142.86 (talk) 11:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taken from a featured article of Zhou Tong (archer)'s history page while it was on display on the Main Page as vandalised by 64.148.181.254, it is here and here! Zoom out for a bigger better resolution if you dare! 15:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's also happened on this article as well. It's nothing special, really. --AAA! (AAAA) 00:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have found some evidence that the man is in fact Kirk Johnson. I typed his name in google (along with "goatse" so we can results of him and not the boxer) [1]. Most of the results say that the man is Kirk Johnson. Not only that, I viewed the HTML source of the goatse.cz mirror, and the keywords in the code contained "Kirk Johnson" in it. Here is the source:

<HTML><HEAD><!-- Start Quantcast tag -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://edge.quantserve.com/quant.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
_qacct="p-95ACIuCMJpQa2";quantserve();</script>
<noscript>
<img src="http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-95ACIuCMJpQa2.gif" style="display: none" height="1" width="1" alt="Quantcast"/></noscript>
<!-- End Quantcast tag -->
<TITLE>Goatse - the official site</TITLE>
<META NAME="Keywords" CONTENT="Goatse, Goatse.cz, Goatse.cx, Goatsecz, Goatsecx, Anal Stretching, Goatse Man, Kirk Johnson, 
Shock site, Tubgirl, the giver, the receiver">
<META NAME="Description" CONTENT="The official Goatse site at Goatse.cz. Visit us to find what you're looking for...">
<META NAME="Author" CONTENT="info@goatse.cz">
<META name="Rating" content="General">
<META name="Robots" content="All">
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<FONT SIZE="5" FACE="Helvetica, Arial, San Serif, Serif, Times"><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="+2">
<P>The goatse.cx lawyer has informed us that we need a warning! So.. if you are under the age of 18 or find this photograph offensive, please don't look at it. Thank you! </FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE><HR><P ALIGN="CENTER">
<a title="download picture" target="_blank" href="goatse.htm"><IMG SRC="http://www.goatse.cz/hello.jpg" WIDTH="480" HEIGHT="360" ALT="stinger" BORDER="0"></a> 
<BR></P><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="+3"><I><P>IMPORTANT NOTE: There are many merchandising attempts for goatse.cx 
around the web-- none of them are real, none of them are official. Do not buy this gimmick merchandise. 
The official goatse.cx merchandise is coming soon! </P></I></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P ALIGN="CENTER"><A HREF="giver.html" style="text-decoration: none"><font color="#000000">[ the giver ]</font></A> 
<A HREF="mail.html" style="text-decoration: none"><font color="#000000">[ feedback ]</font></A> 
<A HREF="contrib.html" style="text-decoration: none"><font color="#000000">[ contrib ]</font></A> </P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER"><br>*<a style="text-decoration: none" title="leaving this site..." href="http://goatse.unfg.org/whygoatse.htm"><font color="#000000">urinalpoop</font></a>* <br>*<a style="text-decoration: none" href="http://goatse.unfg.org/whygoatse.htm"><font color="#000000">dolphinsex</font></a>* </P><HR></FONT><script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript">

</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
_uacct = "UA-422197-6";
urchinTracker();</script>
</BODY></HTML>

Now, if you look on the line that says 'META NAME="Keywords"', you'll see Kirk Johnson's name in the list of keywords. Not only that, you can also see the alt attribute "stinger" in the source aswell, which was removed recently.

Also, on the goatse mirror, there is an information page that's a biography of goatse. They also mention the identity of him [2] (safe to view). It says he's a regular poster to the newsgroup "alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.male.anal". Since it's mentioning that Kirk Johnson is the goatse man and a regular contributor to an anal site of some sort, I don't think this is violating the WP:BLP policy. And to make things even better, the work on that site is licensed under the GFDL, just like Wikipedia.

Second, it also mentions the origin of the alt attribute "Stinger" of the #quake channel, and the origin of the word "goatse". Although it says some of it is from the Wikipedia article, notice how it says "some of it".

Now, I know this may not be sufficient evidence for the origin of the term "goatse" and the "stinger" alt, but I think it's sufficient evidence that the man is Kirk Johnson (The page source, the google results...). Any questions? --AAA! (AAAA) 09:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting... but when I first started reading your comment it appeared to be a heavy dose of original research, once I got to the end however and saw the source I can tell now it is ok. So I'll say this looks fine and you can add it in, so long as you carefully source it and do not add in any of your own extra original research. Mathmo ^Talk 21:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When people mention Kirk Johnson they say that he has posted various pictures here and there and give the the impression that he has generally been quite active on the internet, which suggests to me that it would not be so difficult to contact him – or at least at some time early on one was able to contact him if desired. I wonder then has anyone ever spoken to him or has there ever been any word from him? Also, from what period did Kirk Johnson post his pictures? Such things I do not want to search for myself at the risk of again seeing that horrible picture. --Frédéric Chopin 2027 09:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His email would apear to be kirkjohnson692003@yahoo.com from his latest postings in alt.binaries.erotica.fisting dated Nov 11th 2007. --86.158.74.167 16:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even though Kirk Johnson is probably Goatse man, any information on him should strictly adhere to this. Skwee (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should remove anything that doesn't pretty explicitly mention the site. Picking out various images that vaguely look similar to the image constitutes original research. -Chunky Rice 01:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The website section contains the line, "This is also a catch-22, as one cannot find the photograph offensive without having seen it first". I'm not convinced this is a catch-22 situation at all. — Metaprimer 08:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

as pedantic as this complaint sounds it is, in fact, correct. Strinctly speaking, a Catch-22 requires that all possible choices inevitably lead to the same (or a very similar) negative outcome. One could certainly choose not to view said photograph and not be offended. If the goal was to determine whether the photograph was offensive, the option exists never to look, thereby avoiding the question all-together. Speed8ump 01:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrneutron/sets/1568481/

http://www.the-elite.net/ClarkPage/Phases/

Should it go into the article?

As several links on this page go to sites containing hello.jpg, it wouldn't be an unreasonable idea to tag those specific links with NSFW- Not Safe For Work. This would probably save somebody a lot of trouble. Skwee 21:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:DISCLAIMER. And the goatse.cz link does say "viewer discretion advised". --AAA! (AAAA) 23:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps... but who would Wikipedia "Goatse" and start perusing various links and assume that they wouldn´t end up on a site that´s NSFW? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.121.15.221 (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the reference (5) in the "Identity of the Goatse Man" section, meant to lead a picture of a gentleman with 2 fish up his bottom? Ryan4314 20:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a citation and link and everything :) VTNC 06:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that those links are against some rule of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xparasite9 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the article start with the section "The site goes offline"? Nobody expects articles to be strictly chronological, but this should surely be near the end. I guess if anybody finds out any of the history of the site they could change the section name to "History" and keep it at the start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.11.134 (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As of January 14, 2004, the domain goatse.cx was taken offline due to a complaint from one Rhonda Clarke
What? The site shocked thousands if not millions of viewers, and one person's complaint took the site down? That sounds weird, possibly fishy. -Rolypolyman 17:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Goatse picture is actually just a still from a video. I saw the video about a year ago. Why doesn't the article bring that up? --The monkeyhate 21:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia forgot to include a passage about how you saw the video last year? An incredible oversight. On behalf of Wikipedia, I offer you my deepest regrets. It is also Wikipedia's fault you did not edit the article and add information on this supposed video. Again, another massive failure on our part. How will we ever redeem ourselves now? -Unsigned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.70.154.193 (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a journalist seeking an anon interview with the man known as Goatse.cx. If anyone knows him, could they please contact me at matchinggardenclogs@hotmail.com My purposes are non-commercial and I am trying to document an interview with him. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.202.82 (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His email would apear to be kirkjohnson692003@yahoo.com from his latest postings in alt.binaries.erotica.fisting --86.145.52.91 (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made some toned down pics of hello.jpg. I am not a photoshop expert, so someone should make their own version and upload it, the pics are here as samples/inspiration for others. I think they are much less graphic, since you realize what it going on, but it doesn't look human or organic or disgusting anymore, it looks like a cartoon, or a comic. Your imagination will give a more disgusting image than these. NSFW warning. Color reduction to 3 + greyscale [3], threshold adjust [4], and my recommendation of inverted (most detail for least "human body" ness) [5]. 64.252.1.10 (talk) 07:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is not okay to directly post the image on the Wikipedia page. While Wikipedia is not censored, the policy does state obviously inappropriate content, such as those from a shock site, will be removed. I believe this page is best used for information of the shock site, and if someone ever wants to view this (disgusting) image, they can search for the link, or maybe click on one of the links in the references. I'm not sure, though, about direct external links with warnings. I know those were here before, but they have been removed. --GVOLTT ^{How's my editing?}\_{My contribs} 18:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don´t get it. Either Wikipedia is censored, or it´s not. As long as a picture in question illustrates the subject matter, why shouldn´t it be used? Here´s the policy you´re referring to:

While obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately, or content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy can be removed, some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the articles about the penis and pornography) and do not violate any of our existing policies (especially neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are hosted.

It doesn´t say that "obviously inappropriate content, such as those from a shock site, will be removed", to the contrary actually. I guess it´s a question of what "text, images, or links relevant to the content" means, because I´ve seen plenty of examples where a good picture illustrating a porn/human-anatomy/whatever-related article has been deleted in favor of a "cleaner" image.--Threedots dead (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be disgusting. We don't want people to vomit when they go to the article. Wanting to put the image on the article is like forcing news channels to cut out of something interesting for a car chase. Frankly, the minds of innocent people will be raped. 76.238.154.101 (talk) 02:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A major concern previously with including this sort of picture on Wikipedia is that it will encourage trolls to use this site as a shock site -- in other words, setting up redirects or tricking people into landing on that image. Making it easy to use Wikipedia to piss people off is not in the project's interest. My vote's against including the image ... even if it weren't a copyvio. :) --FOo (talk) 10:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the reference 27 has porn banners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.122.51.49 (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://x01.xtube.com/community/profile.php?user=KirkJ

There's his xtube profile, which is still pretty active. I know it's him, I'd recognize that anus everywhere.

  -talley.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.207.186 (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

lol, just took a look at this... I like the vid where Kirk sticks a grapefruit up his anus.

--213.120.146.163 (talk) 13:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is pronounced like this: goat-es-ii dot see ecks. Dagoth Ur, Mad God (talk) 03:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've always pronounced it as 'goat-see dot see ecks'. Not that I know that this is the correct pronunciation... :) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 11:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I propose that this article is primarily about an image, so we should show that image in the article.

I realise this has been discussed before, but I feel that times change, and a fresh consensus should be reached.

Comments from all are, of course, welcome.

My vote is 'yes'.

--  Chzz  ►  04:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been bold and uploaded the screenshot. I suggest anyone against it reads Wikipedia:Options to not see an image. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 01:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support the addition of a screenshot from the site. Good job, Meaty. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 01:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, reverted addition of image as it was an edit made by a blocked/banned user. Revert if necessary. Seraphim♥Whipp 20:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a new proposal, and I don't see how anything has fundamentally changed since the last (archived) vote. The former opinion that was overwhelmingly opposed to the image stands - the fundamental reason being that the image is easily and widely available, and a large number of readers would like to learn of goatse without seeing it. As such, the presence of the image conflicts with the primary goal of being an encyclopedia article. Stop fighting this revert war.--Fangz (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To expand, that wikipedia is not censored is policy that by default, questionable material does not have to be deleted. However, the converse of the statement is not true - offensive images do not have to be included, just because deleting them is 'censorship'. Wikipedia:Profanity is better as guideline here.

Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if they are informative, relevant and accurate, and should be avoided when they serve no other purpose than to shock the reader. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not.

The argument was that it was possible to provide information about goatse without the image, and that including the image when a perfectly good text description exists together with links etc serves only to shock the reader. Ergo, the image should not be displayed inline.--Fangz (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how such a small image can be such a shock to the reader; I also find it ridiculous that a purportedly uncensored encyclopaedia would have an article about an image, but not show the image. If you try to imagine a similar topic which has a non-shocking image, would you be asking that it be removed? My point is, according to WP policy, the nature of the image should not affect the decision to include it. Wikipedia policy is to be 100 percent objective, therefore 'we' (WP) should not make judgement calls about what is and is not offensive. Of course shocking images should not be used where they are not directly related to the subject matter, but in the case of goatse there is no possible argument - it is absolutely relevent.

I have no plans to revert the image again, as I am keen not to engage in an edit-war.

I would politely request that no-one else performs a revert - in either direction (ie if someone else *does* put the image back, don't revert it again; let's not fan the flames)

I hope that we will be able to come to an agreement in this discussion platform.

--  Chzz  ►  21:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to spark off a debate about principles. My argument is absolutely pragmatic: a large number of people coming to this page do not intend ever to see goatse, thumbnail or not. If they see the thumbnail. they would rapidly shut off the tab or whatever, or anyways would not keep on reading as they would otherwise have. Hence, the presence of the image, however well intentioned, does not provide additional information that the reader wants that, for example, an external link does not provide and actively prevents the reader from what they do want. (The distinction here with the muslim cartoons thing was that readers in general can be presumed to want to see the cartoon. Even in the case of fundamentalist muslims, it is the production of the images that is offensive, not that they can see it.)

Certainly, we should try to be objective... But within the bounds of reason. Goatse is an image designed and used to be offensive and shocking. Only in the most technical sense can one argue that deciding that it is actually offensive is unobjective. And in any case, while in terms of content and stance we are compelled by policy to be objective, in terms of stylistic decisions there is really no alternative but to be subjective in deciding how best to present an article. I make a subjective decision, for example, by deleting an animated GIF for example from some physics article. Deleting the goatse image has a similar stylistic role.

If you want to get more opinions on this, there's Wikipedia:Third Opinion, and Wikipedia:Village Pump to talk to. That's probably likely to get a more representative and varied group of views that random users looking on the talkpage.--Fangz (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply, following edit conflict) In my view, the presence of the image in question here is most definitely informative, relevant and accurate when taken in context of the article - it's a cliche, but sometimes a picture really *does* speak a thousand words in aiding the understanding of a topic. The act performed by the Goatse Man is a physically improbable one, as I'm sure that many would agree and the sort of thing that (IMO) needs to be seen to be believed and understood. We, as an encyclopedia should be as comprehensive as possible, whenever possible. Why should readers be forced to go somewhere else to see something that we are more than capable of showing for ourselves in an encyclopedic context? Besides, is a picture of Goatse in an article about Goatse even 'shocking' at all? The shock value of Goatse comes from being unexpectedly 'Goatsed' (i.e. being tricked into loading the image when one is unprepared) - not from seeing Goatse (lo-res, I might add) in a place where one might fully expect to see Goatse.

There may be a case for including the image further down the page (as I believe has been suggested before), or perhaps lowering the resolution even further - but that is an entirely different matter. I believe that the image (in some capacity or other) has a perfectly legitimate use here.

Yes, the consensus in the past was not to use the image - but consensus can change over time. There certainly does seem to be a much wider use of potentially-offensive images in various articles (human anatomy-related in particular) now than there was at this time last year. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. One of the main reasons someone might seek out an article on goatse is because one wishes to know what goatse is, before seeing the image. Asking a non-net savvy person about goatse would bring up a blank look, and perhaps an inclination to go to wikipedia to find out. This person will certainly not appreciate having the goatse image be present there (and I suspect this is the cause of a great number of the anonymous editors removing the image!), and will certainly not expect it to be present. (Compare the various anatomy related articles - their names typically describe what they contain. If the article's title was man with anus pointed at camera, then things would be different). As for a picture saying a thousand words, the exact same words can be also said via an external link. The question is what having an inline image adds to the article - I don't think it balances out what it takes away.--Fangz (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this situation is markedly different from say, for example, Penis. There are many, many, many people who view the article and are shocked to see images of real (as opposed to diagrammatic) penises within. Many attempts are made to remove the images, which are usually restored after much discussion, per WP:NOTCENSORED and the 'informative, relevant and accurate' clauses at Wikipedia:Profanity. As to the 'people might view it without knowing what it is' argument, I present the presence of images in Ampallang, Lorum, Prince Albert piercing as a counterargument. The naming of these articles gives no clue (to a non-body piercing person) as to what they may find on first view, yet the pics are kept, as it is argued they are in important aide in illustrating the concept of 'wearing jewelry through your cock'. Personally, I think that the integrity of WP as an informative, illustrated encyclopaedia is more important than what *some* people *may* be grossed out by. Still, mine is but one opinion. There will be no more reverts from me until a consensus is reached. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps those other ones should be changed - though an argument can be made that these images are not generally available on the net, so there's actually a stronger censorship issue since we have a dichotomy between being able to see photographs and not. In the end, the situation I see is this:

Advantages: People who do want to see the image will be spared one mouse click.

Disadvantages: People who want to know what goatse is without seeing the image would be unable to use the article, and the images form a distraction, and there's going to be a nigh-on-constant revert war with newcomers to the page removing the image. Can be used by some to block wikipedia (though ok, that'd be rather hypocritical).

The disadvantages clearly outweigh the advantages to me.--Fangz (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think the image should not be in the article for the same reasons you mentioned (I'm not really good at these kinds of discussions, just so you know). --AAA! (AAAA) 13:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• yes. In the recent comments above, it's easy to loose track of the fact that only 1 person directly objected, and 3 spoke out in favor. Older discussions may have had different results, but WP:CCC. An editor was WP:BOLD and added the image; it was stable for a short time, then has been reverted (back and forth); at present, any attempts to put the picture on are being instantly reverted and described as vandalism. I cannot see any case for vandalism; I cannot see a clear consensus against the image; I welcome all input. Surely it goes without saying that WP is WP:NOTCENSORED - so any discussions of that nature should be irrelevent. The question is, is the image useful to comprehension of the article, and is it's use justified (for copyright reasons). I think that it is totally appropriate to an article on this subject to show a screenshot, and justifiable under fair use. Some counter-arguments were;

• The wikipedia image could become the target of attempts to trick users into seeing this 'shocking image' - I find this very unlikely, given the quality and size of the screenshot; a simple google search will provide much more 'shocking' versions of the image for users wishing to trick others.
• Users reading the page will not want to see the image, just read about it - this doesn't seem to apply to any other topic than this; I think this argument is covered by WP:NOTCENSORED - we are not in a position to decide what is and is not shocking, we are trying to provide information.
• From previous argument - "'people might view it without knowing what it is" - other examples were given, Ampallang, Lorum, Prince Albert piercing - as other articles that do immediately show images that some might find 'shocking'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.242.32.12 (talk) 11:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: "we are not in a position to decide what is and is not shocking, we are trying to provide information." It is stated in the article: "was an Internet shock site", "had four sections, two of which had images intended to shock the viewer". You could use such a shitty argument in the articles you mentioned but since it is acknowledged in the article that the site in question served the purpose to shock the viewers (obviously), you sound like a hypocrite. Theundertaker1 (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. If someone wants to, they can look at the URL. But let's not discourage people from going to the page. Seeing goatse should be a choice; putting it in the article will force it on people who just want to read about it. ImpIn | (t - c) 09:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• no, of course not. What kind of sadism is that? Shinobu (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. I'm glad I saw this popping up in the RFC list. Thanks for the heads-up, I'm glad I got to know beforehand that said Wikipedia article is not safe. By the way, would it be possible to ban people who insert the image in articles? Shinobu (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be very improper to ban people for making good faith edits, even if you disagree strongly with them. Unless you mean inserting on other article pages.--Fangz (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• no Ever heard of that thing called common sense? Mentioning WP:NOTCENSORED or giving examples from other articles is like answering to a question with "Because I can." This article is about a shock site and such an image would have really no other purpose than to disgust people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theundertaker1 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• no I came here from the RFC page, and absolutely second the previous sentiment. You can certainly link to a clearly-marked screenshot, but displaying it inline would make the wikipedia article a meta-goatse all over again, something people could send others a link to as a gotcha. Eeblet (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• no (responding to RfC). Link to a screenshot, but don't provide it in the article itself. The image is so jarring, that having it in the article would be a violation of WP:UNDUE, all by itself. --Elonka 02:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - if we can include way more objectionable images, we should include Goatse. Sceptre ^(talk) 06:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Could you stop with such arguments already? That and other articles with potentially offensive images don't have the purpose of shock value like this obviously has and you can argue they have the purpose to inform while this article covers a shock/gay porn site that gained it's notoriety just by shocking people and being appreciated by homosexuals. And just like everyone who wants the image inserted in the article, you fail to provide a reason, even if other articles would have shocking irrelevant images, why do you want to include one here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.180.164 (talk) 15:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The image is fine because of context. Goatse on George W. Bush is inappropriate. Goatse on an article about the image is fine. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This should be deleted, some of the references: Tribute to Goatse.cx, blogs, digg, CollegeHumor, links containing that crap all over while in other articles, relevant links with a lot less shock value aren't allowed. Most of the editors of this junk and most people who post in this talk page enjoy staring at a gay's bleeding ass, what more can you say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.180.169 (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do all sex positions have some lame drawings, in fact show me a single photographic image that can turn a man on in any article. All this while it's alright to have explicit content in articles such as Micropenis, Autofellatio, Gangrene and people here are begging to add a temporary impotence and vomit inducing crap potentially exposing anyone who clicks on "Random article". Also why is it allowed to share links to gay porn sites like in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Goatse.cx#Xtube_Profile and comment how funny it is to "stick a grapefruit up his anus" while adding links to normal porn in the talk pages of any articles, relevant or not, would be reverted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.181.177 (talk) 07:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this question would be more appropriate at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous? bsrboy (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone else bothered by the fact that an overused neologism is being used in an encyclopedic article? Neologisms make good wikipedia entries, but they do not belong in articles. They require time to settle. As well, there are words that can be overused without even being neologisms, which would be the case for meme, were it a standard English word. For example, if semiotics were as vogue as Dawkins, we might start every wikipedia entry with "X is a signifier for the referent Y." While true in the model it assumes, it is biased in style and approach. Meme suffers similar overkill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.249.102.31 (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that it's back up(though not in its original form), should we take it out of the category "Defunct Websites"?- 66.33.236.19 (talk) 01:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea Towel401 (talk) 15:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just asked because I can't do it. Do you need to be an admin? 208.111.193.62 (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. You need to have an account that was created atleast four days ago. Usually you don't need an account to edit articles, but sometimes articles get protected if people without accounts vandalise it too much. Hope that helps. bsrboy (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]