Talk:Goatse.cx/Archive 4

10/01/10 removal
The points raised in the edit summary of the recent removal have already been adressed on this page, disregarding points does not mean they have not been made. It is standard practice to povide an image of an article's subject to aid understanding and so now that a rationale has been provided we'll go ahead and invoke all relevant rules and policies. Ludwig it is clear you don't like the image; I suggest you don't look at it.  raseaC talk to me 19:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I too will revert anyone removing the image until a consensus has been made amongst the community for its removal.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  19:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to further clarify (due to a recent edit) that the image is currently the correct size. Making it any smaller would be akin to removing it altogether as the detail of the image is lost.  raseaC talk to me 19:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Point of order too: IAR is not a reason, it's a method. If you have to cite IAR, you don't have a reason. Sceptre (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I encourage everyone who believes this image should be removed to go ahead and remove it under policy at wp:IAR. if sufficient numbers of people find this picture objectionable and remove it, it will force the proponents to demonstrate that the content has encyclopedic value, something they have been unwilling or unable to do to date (and, of course, if sufficient numbers of people are not willing to do so, the issue can safely be assumed to be resolved).  IAR is a perfectly valid reason to remove unencyclopedic content that is being maintained through a misapplication of policy, so don't be concerned about that; just be careful to limit your actions so you do not to violate wp:3rr.  in the meantime, hopefully, we'll have a productive discussion about why the image is needed in this article, rather then the current misdirection.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd think twice before deliberately trying to spark an edit war. Ludwig, consensus is against you.  Please accept that fact and move on. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, encouraging disruptive behaviour is very disappointing. The reasoning you have asked for has been provided again and again on this talk page and, as I've said, simply ignoring it does not mean it's not there. It is apparent that the majority of editors that care to voice an opinion are 'pro-image' and so it may be worth leaving the matter for now.  raseaC talk to me 22:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note that everything I have written above is perfectly within the boundaries of policy and common sense, and in no way can be construed as disruptive. If other editors support removing the image, they can remove it under IAR; if you and your cohort of supporters prefer to edit war to keep it in rather then provide some demonstration that this content is properly encyclopedic, that is entirely your business, but it won't survive a concerted effort by more reasonable editors.  You are the ones being aggressive without a reason, here; don't put your failing off on me.  Give a valid reason so that you can effectively use NOTCENSORED, otherwise the content is unencyclopedic. There aren't two ways about this -- Ludwigs 2  22:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ludwig, the reasons you've asked for have been provided time and time again. You are the one setting yourself up as some sort of messianic anti-goatse figure here.  Claiming malfeasance on our part will do you no good.  Please, give up the snark hunt.  Your tone and edits suggest that admin intervention may soon be required, and I would not like for it to go that far. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If valid reasons have been given, you can give them again here. just note that I reject 'visual identification' as a reason, since it is a meaningless phrase which  explains nothing.  Specific and unambiguous informational value is needed.


 * If you have further comments about me or my behavior that do not directly address the content of this article, please place them on my talk page where they belong. thanks. -- Ludwigs 2  00:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig, you will likely find that editors are not willing to do your research for you especially when one considers that reasons have been provided to you directly in above discussions and you just refuse to acknowledge them. A discussion comes to a natural end when one entire side (i.e. you) refuses to undertake serious discussion and so it would appear that, for the time being, the only thing to do is leave the matter (and revert any more disruptive changes you make to the article).  raseaC talk to me 00:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * so in other words, you have no reasons other than (the patently ridiculous) ones offered above, and you don't think enough of me or the other editors to engage in actual discussion of the matter. I will contact some of the other editors who expressed displeasure with this image above and see if I can muster up some collective action to remove the image - if the outcome of this is going to be decided by sheer unreasoning petulance, then I suspect the numerical advantage lies with the people who want it removed.  I just need to convince them to be as ridiculous about it as you four are being.  give me a few days and I'll see what I can arrange.  -- Ludwigs 2  01:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Forum shopping is a bad idea. You've been told many, many times why the image should stay.  WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is not a valid rebuttal.  Ludwig, your actions here are bordering on disruptive, and should you feel the need to forum shop and edit war, I'll have no choice but to bring the matter to AN/I.  We're already in the middle of an RfC.  Canvassing those who have held similar opinions to you to attempt to remove the image by edit warring and force of numbers is a very, very bad idea.  Let it drop. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Purely clustering up numbers won't help your case Ludwig as Wikipedia is not a democracy. Engaging more users is only helpful in that they might uncover new ground (although I sincerly doubt there's any left to be uncovered).  Jolly  Ω   Janner  02:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

let me state the obvious, and then I'll drop this conversation until someone has something sensible to say. It would be much easier all around if you engaged in civil conversation to resolve this issue. If you choose not to, however, I'm not going to argue with you about it. I'll just see if I can get other editors to help me fix the problem by brute force, over your objections. maybe once the picture is removed you'll feel a bit more like engaging in proper discussion and we can revisit the matter then. thanks, and have a nice evening. -- Ludwigs 2 04:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) if this picture has encyclopedic value in your eyes, you should explain what that is - if you convince me (which isn't impossible, but involves actual discussion of the matter) this problem goes away.
 * 2) If this picture does not have encyclopedic value, then I can only see you all as misusing policy to stick a offensive picture in wikipedia for no good reason (maybe because you all get a good thrill out of it?), in which case any methods I use to remove this picture are both appropriate and necessary.
 * You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel by citing IAR, though, as you miss the whole point of IAR. You don't say "I'm removing it because I'm ignoring rules", you say "I'm ignoring rules and removing it because...". Again, IAR is a method, not a reason, and the use of it as a reason means that you really don't have a reason (otherwise you would have used that reason). And, per our editing policy, we should preserve content before removing it, and only remove content if it's problematic. And, as the image seems to be, to most of the RfC, not a problem, there's a consensus that the image should stay, both implicit and explicit. Sceptre (talk) 06:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * logic, please: the primary reason to date for retaining this picture is NOTCENSORED; that is a misapplication of policy if the image has no encyclopedic value, therefore IAR is applied to remove that reason, which allows for removing the image as unencyclopedic. Editing policy only applies if (again) the content has encyclopedic value, which is exactly the point I'm disputing.  and last I checked (if this were a vote, which it isn't) the RfC was 9 to 6 in favor of removing, though some of the 6 in favor of keeping put a lot of effort into rationalizing that result away.
 * Repeating myself yet again: you are not going to win this debate by quoting policy at me, because I can quote policy just as well as you can (possibly better). you are not going to win this debate by using insulting terminology like 'scraping the bottom of the barrel'.  I know how to deal with pointless rhetorical snark, and it doesn't phase me in the least.  you are either going to have to give a reason explaining why this content is valuable - which would be the decent thing to do - or else you're all going to have to stick to the current practice of bullying and edit warring to keep the content in.  I'm happy to discuss the matter if you choose that route, I'm sanguine with (and capable of) refuting all of your policy misconstruals, and if you want to go the other path I'll see if I can get some other reasonable editors to come and help me remove it unreasonably.  I don't really care which way it goes; you should choose whichever makes you most comfortable.  -- Ludwigs 2  07:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ludwig, per NOTCENSORED, the image is being kept not because we don't censor things, but because it is central to the subject of the article, and we don't censor things like that. As for being rude, you're doing a much better job of that than anyone.  Tone down the edit summaries a bit. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Again:
 * I disagree with the idea that this image is central to of necessary for the article. I think a mere description is entirely adequate. If you'd like to discuss that, let's do so.
 * do NOT tell me that "the image is being kept not because we don't censor things", and then two paragraphs down tell another editor the reason "we do not collapse by default is that it amounts to censorship" and cite NOTCENSORED. There is no explanation and no excuse for that level of...  argh!
 * 2nd notice - place comments about me on my talk page, not here. if you persist in commenting on me rather than the topic I will take you to wikiquette and even ANI if I need to.  understood?  -- Ludwigs 2  09:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, this will be my only post on this topic, and you won't hear from me again for this article. I just want to say that as a casual reader who stumbled on this page, I can say that the image was a shock (and I know this is not being debated). While I'm no prude (and fortunately wasn't at work when it popped up), I cannot understand why we wouldn't default to a collapsed image - giving a reader the chance to look at it if they wish; not being bombarded with it straight away. How is it censorship if it is still available with a single click? Anyway, that's all - just wanted to give you guys a thought from a casual reader. Proceed Jwoodger (talk) 08:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason that we do not collapse by default is that it amounts to censorship. First we collapse Goatse, then Genital Warts, then Autofellatio, then Penis... If you make the argument that a picture that some people may find offensive should be hidden by default, then the logical conclusion is to hide all images that some people may find offensive.  That directly contradicts our purpose here.  The only alternative is to say we will collapse certain images that are likely to offend a given percentage of those who view it, but that too is problematic.  What's the cutoff? Who decides whose offense is legitimate and whose is not?  WP:NOTCENSORED is there for a reason, and that's to protect the integrity of the project. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This doesn't seem to be going anywhere. What's everyone's thoughts on asking an uninvolved admin to come in and take a look at things, do a little DR? Throwaway85 (talk) 10:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What is DR? Remco47 (talk) 11:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Dispute resolution. Nothing formal, just a request for an experienced admin to come in and mediate. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No objecion to DR from me.  raseaC talk to me 13:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * None from me either. -- Ludwigs 2  18:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  18:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright then, who should we ask? I'll propose rd232, because he did a fantastic job of mediating over at PIRA some months back.  I'm also open to other suggestions. Throwaway85 (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd just list it over at the Mediation Cabal. Anyone uninvolved, neutral, and and balanced would be fine, but advertising for one would probably be better than hand-picking one.  No offense, Throwaway, but I'm not sure I'd trust the neutrality of someone you specifically picked.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually suggested him because he's a great impartial mediator, but your suggestion works fine for me. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * well, let me take a look at his edits. -- Ludwigs 2  19:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * By all means. FYI, here is the beginning of his involvement in the PIRA dispute, which I primarily know him from. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * sigh... he seems to be quite reasonable and quite good as a mediator.  However, I am wrestling with the fact that I distrust you as an editor, Throwaway, (based on a number of fairly sketchy approaches I've seen you take here and elsewhere), and I have a nagging, unjustified doubt that you might be trying to push in a shill as a mediator.  my apologies, but that it my frank concern.  I am not sure how to resolve that doubt.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Then let's just use the cabal. (terrific name, is it not? ;) I have never been in a dispute, so I'll just sit back and see what happens. Remco47 (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with whoever, but please AGF a little ludwig, and stop throwing your baseless accusations around. I'm the patient type, but it's getting tiresome. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * hey, no offense - that is just the way I feel at the moment, and it explains why I am a bit resistant to your suggestion. that being said, I will go withwhatever people decide to do.  if we use rd and I start to think there's an issue, I'll just ask him to recuse himself and we'll get another mediator.
 * You guys want to start the process, or should I? -- Ludwigs 2  22:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Be my guest. Rd or the Cabal, either is fine by me. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I am generally against censorship, but this is just silly. I hardly think anyone can honestly say that any user would think this article is better because it contains an image of goatse. Is the purpose of Wikipedia not being useful to its users?

I would on the other hand be strongly against removing the picture from any of the other examples that have appeared in this discussion (Genital Warts, Autofellatio etc.). I would agree with replacing the image on Autofellatio with an equivalent cartoon of the concept. Pornography is a good example where less offensive images is preferred above more offensive ones.)

PS. Fun game: Find any other site in Category:Erotica and pornography websites or Category:Shock sites that contains a screenshot of the website. DS. --Anka.213 (talk) 01:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * YouPorn, although I don't think the screenshot used is really the home page and it's also in full resolution. In fact, I think I'll fix this myself.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  15:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant a screenshot, not just the "company logo". What is it that you will fix yourself? --Anka.213 (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * File:YouPorncom.png I've fixed it myself now. YouPorn uses a dotcom infobox, which has the screenshot hidden by default. Not sure why.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  18:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure why that image is displayed, as the frontpage is the age verification. Not that I would know from experience, or anything... Throwaway85 (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

mediation
I'm going to go make the mediation request now. -- Ludwigs 2 17:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

opened here: Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-01-12/Goatse.cx -- Ludwigs 2  17:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI: has (I think) agreed to take on the case. just waiting on him to confirm and set up what needs to be set up, and we can begin. -- Ludwigs 2 02:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow...just...wow.
What is the purpose of the image of the website? Actually...not even an image of the website, so much as an image of a mirror of the website.

What I mean is, the website is notoriously known as a shock site, I can understand the site's encyclopedic value as an example of an internet meme, as an example of a shock site, but I do not see how exactly an image of the website is necessary. I know it's mentioned elsewhere, but, as an example, the current youporn logo is preferable, overall, to the previous image for the youporn article. The latter adds nothing to the article as far as it's encyclopedic content. Just because wikipedia is not censored does not mean we are honour-bound to be as offensive and shocking as possible. It's about necessity, and I don't think there is any necessity, nor is there anything gained, by showing an image of the website in question, unless the whole purpose is to shock wikipedia users. I really cannot see anyone visiting the article and coming away thinking "Ah, so ~that~ is what goatse.cx is!". Curious parties who want to know what the website is can very easily follow the external links to view the site in question.

That's just my two cents, however. 75.156.128.251 (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You'll be happy to know that all of yor points are covered in great depth above and in the archives. There's strict rules against deleting discussions for the very reason that people are supposed to refer to them as necessary.  raseaC talk to me 17:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So just RTFM, huh. Thanks, appreciate the assistance. 75.156.128.251 (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Precisely. There's even an FAQ and archive search feature to make it easier for you (two things that only really appear if the same questions do get or are likely to be asked over and over and over and over and over and over...).  raseaC talk to me 17:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

RasceaC - this is an ongoing discussion, so please don't try to discourage people who disagree with you from weighing in. that smacks of wp:CANVAS
 * Ludwig, don't throw acusations around. My point is completely valid, there's even a warning at the top of this page asking people to use the archives and only start 'new topics'. You know that the points raised by the OP have been done to death, you've had them all explained to you too (although as I recall you refused to acknowledge them).  raseaC talk to me 18:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * so long as we understand each other... what's going on with the mediator, incidentally.  I haven't heard a peep about it.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sweet FA as far as I know. I've got it on my watchlist but nothing's popped up. I was planning on taking a backseat because I'm not too clued up on the process, Throwaway is probably the person to ask, they seem to have a better idea of what's going on.  raseaC talk to me 18:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? I'm in the exact same boat, I was just waiting for some action on the medcabal page.  I had planned to be fairly active, but I've never been involved in a formal mediation and so I'm completely unsure how it is supposed to proceed. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sysops are less likely to do a mediation for Goatse as it's such a controversial topic. We are just going to have wait, potentially a very long time.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  19:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Jolly, I'm not sure I follow you - I thought Wordsmith took the case, but nothing's happened with it. are you suggesting he's stalling, or that he's busy, or that he's recused himself, or what?  -- Ludwigs 2  20:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was saying the same as Wordsmith said. I didn't realise he had taken up the case. As he said, not many mediators will take it up. I'm glad Wordsmith is having a stab at it and am hopefull he will follow it through.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  20:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Whew... good luck with Goatse... it's gonna be a major pain in the ass.". Lol.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  20:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Haha. Win.  raseaC talk to me 20:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yay, we're problematic. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah. great to be a collective pimple on wikipedia's ass.    from a comment a little farther down, it looks like WS is just preparing himself (perhaps bracing is a better word) for the experience.  -- Ludwigs 2  22:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

FAQ
In the FAQ, the following sentence:

"The article is about a website displaying a man's anus. The image makes it easier to understand the text description of the site."

was changed to this:

"The fair-use rationale for its use is that the image is intangibly linked to the subject of this article, if not the subject of the article itself. This rationale relies on a precedent of use of images for visual identification in articles about both websites and images."

To me, this is not understandable English. What does it mean when an image is "intangibly linked"? The argument itself is also complicated. I think it goes something like this:


 * 1) Non-free images are only allowed on a page if they have a valid fair-use rationale for that page.
 * 2) A non-free image doesn't have a valid fair-use rationale if neither:
 * 3) the image is 'intangibly linked' to the subject of this article, nor
 * 4) the image is the subject of this article.
 * 5) This non-free image is allowed by law to be on this page.

Through the applying of logic you can conclude from those rules that either the image is 'intangibly linked' to the subject of the article, or the image is the subject of the article.

But, does that tell us why we show a picture of a man's anus? I think trying to tie the justification for the image's inclusion to the fair-use rationale, while logically sound, is too convoluted. I think it is easier to just state the reason for the inclusion of this image: why we think that it makes the article better.

I have taken another stab at it, including the "visual identification" bit. Remco47 (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 'Intangible' is really the wrong word. Goatse is hello.jpg.  That's it.  No ephemeral linking, the image is the phenomenon, period. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * throwaway, please don't present a contested argument as though it were fact. I disagree with your statement (think it's irrational and silly, if you want to know the truth).  -- Ludwigs 2  21:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * With full intent to keep everything civil here, I have to question what your experience actually is with the subject. Have you ever encountered it outside this article?  The claim I make, that goatse is hello.jpg, is self-evident to anyone who has encountered goatse in the wilds of the internet.  Hell, look it up on ED if you don't believe me. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not want to argue the issue here; we can bring it up in mediation if needed. all I am asking is that you refrain from using arguments that you know I disagree with until the mediation is resolved.  otherwise you're going to end up with disclaimers like the one I just gave which will will just confuse the issue.  ok?  -- Ludwigs 2  01:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't call my arguments "irrational and silly" when you've yet to demonstrate the slightest familiarity with the article's subject. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I calls 'em as I sees 'em. -- Ludwigs 2  03:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Then try a little more sees 'em and a little less calls 'em. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll try that. you try restraining yourself from using contested arguments until the mediation is done.  sound like a deal?
 * Sounds dandy. I would similarly ask that you stop portraying my position as morally vapid, especially in light of your continued apparent unfamiliarity with the subject. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * whatever. I'm not interested in smoothing ruffled feathers, and I just don't care if you took my comment about your statement as a comment about you.  That's your problem, not mine, so deal with it on your own time.  All I want is for you to stop using contested arguments of this type on the talk page, when you know it will just get us into these stupid arguments.  I am happy to discuss these matters ad nauseum on the mediation page when the time comes for that, but until that happens, tuck it in!
 * If you have any other page-irrelevent commentary to make, put it my talk page where it belongs. I have nothing more to say on this issue here.  -- Ludwigs 2  10:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh for fuck's sake. This is getting tiresome. This: "lol - the advocate for a picture of a distended anus wants the moral high ground... ROFLMFAO" is a comment about an editor, not a statement. If you'd like to engage in historical revisionism, might I suggest you do so in a forum where your comments are not preserved for posterity? Throwaway85 (talk) 10:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Image much too small
We need a larger image in order to be properly informative. The existing image is small and does not convey the appropriate impact —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.169.83.179 (talk) 06:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not about impact, it's about content. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The image is copyrighted. We cannot use full resolution.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  17:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is there no picture or mention of Kirk Johnson who is the man in the photograph ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.133.98 (talk) 08:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Find a reliable source that gives that name. ED is not reliable. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Domain Hack
Should we note that Goatse.cx is a domain hack, and it's intended pronunciation is Goatsex, not Goatse which is the most popular pronunciation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajfweb (talk • contribs) 16:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't know for sure that that was its intention, unless you have a reliable source for that information. It variation in pronounciations is listed a few words in from the start of the article.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  16:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Request
Please fix the protection template on this page to  Debresser (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not wish to cause any upset but...
Alright, so, last time I spoke here, I was talking like this: 'OMG THIS IS MANKY EWEWEW.' So, to be more mature about it, I feel we should just add a collapsible box defaulted to closed for the image. It will not affect Wikipedia's image, and no doubt it may look better. Remember, children as well as adults use this site, schools use this site. Can you imagine how horrifying it might be? It's just a suggestion, you may act upon it as you wish. Please don't go shouting at me, because frankly, that just makes me a better person for staying calm.-- Editor510  drop us a line, mate  20:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your concerns. At the top of the page, you will find a link to a Mediation Cabal case, which you are welcome to join as we attempt to find a solution for the problem image. In short, though, the collapsible box idea has been rejected because it interferes with screen readers and mobile browsers. The Wordsmith Communicate 20:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you sir for being so polite.-- Editor510  drop us a line, mate  20:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Another good reason NOT to support Wikipedia
This "non-censorship" policy is obviously an open gate to deviations of all kinds and an excuse to post explicit material on publicly open website. Pamejudd (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)pamejudd
 * If you want to understand the arguments from both sides you may be interested in this mediation.  raseaC talk to me 17:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this comment should have been posted on the policy's talk page, rather than on goatse.cx's.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  17:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * it may get there yet. I'd like to see this issue resolved permanently (well as permanently as anything is ever resolved on wikipedia), one way or another.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Heh. I find it amazing that the Goatse image is the page now. I remember reading here long ago people insisting that the picture must be included and I always thought that was funny, but never did I expect these people would get their way. I imagined they had 'trolling' motives in mind. Then I came here, just out of curiosity as to whether there were any developments in the story of this picture's history, and great horror! My head just automatically looked away, like putting my finger to a hot stovetop. While I find the history of the picture, and the possible identity of the figure, interesting, that picture absolutely repulses me, I tell you, and surely a vast number feel the same. It's something I try to avoid seeing.


 * I can understand non-censorship and so forth - I'm fine with nudity and pornography and a great many things - but this is a picture originally shared to shock and disgust. People share it, often by deceptive links, in an attempt to sicken others and now it's right here, the top of the page. It's an tough situation, whether to put the picture there or not, surely, but really... As I see it, it's like people saying, 'On the page for the Ebola virus we need to have the virus spray them in the face when they arrive, just right away, sprays out the top of the computer and into their face.'


 * For a great many people, I assure you, Goatse is something they wish they could unsee. For many the interest in looking it up here is not to actually see it and be disgusted by it but to understand what it is. Just the same as many people search for the Ebola virus not with the idea that they want to be infected but rather to understand what it is. Perhaps a better example is this: people look up certain notable computer viruses on here because they want to know the history of it, etc, they don't want the virus automatically downloaded to their computer. The situation on this page now with having the picture right there, it seems to me, is like if you went to one of those pages for viruses and it automatically installed the virus. --Breshkovsky (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Except that installing viruses onto a computer is illegal. Infecting people with Ebola is illegal. This picture is not. Sceptre (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It informs you via text and images. Hello.jpg is an image, hence why it is used. We're not a drug-testing facility.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  23:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be great if the Goatse.cx image didn't exist. It would be great if war and rape and paedophilia and murder and horrific car accidents and...well you get the point didn't exist but the fact of the matter is they do and as an encyclopedia it's WP's job to inform. Being protected from the horrors of the world is great and all but at the end of the day everyone needs to realise that, frankly, the world is fucking shit.  raseaC talk to me 23:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * oh, please... we have articles on war, rape, and pedophilia, but we don't distribute images of the latter two, and we don't engage in warfare (regardless of what some talk pages look like). You're right that there's not much we can do to protect people from the shite that happens in the world, but we should not be going out of our way to burst their bubble, either. If you feel a need to disillusion people, please do it on your own time.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a bit harsh Ludwigs. I don't think any of us are doing this to disillusion people. We do it in the interests of the encyclopedia. If you suspect someone isn't then please don't accuse people of doing such things, because you have no proof and it creates more arguements.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  01:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Forgetting arguments of legality and so forth, the comparison between computer viruses and spraying people in the face with the Ebola virus refers to what people visiting these pages are expecting and might be willing to entertain. Certain things, and I'd number Goatse among them, go beyond - far beyond, I'd say - what a person might reasonably expect to encounter on this site. Putting Goatse on the page, and the justification for it, seems to be of the same logic that might say, 'People interested in reading about the Ebola virus must also be interested in being infected with the Ebola virus as surely that is the clearest way to making them understand it...'


 * As to the argument that says there's horribleness in the world, of course there is. I'm not saying anything to the contrary and nor am I saying that people should be shielded from such things. If I was making such an argument I'd be calling for the page's removal, obviously. I'm all for this page. All I'm saying is that it is, to my mind, not necessary to have the 'Goatse' image on this page in order to understand what it is, just the same as it's not necessary to fill the Wiki page for 'Murder' with pictures of murder victims in order to understand what murder is. Adding to that, Goatse is a picture famous solely for being stomach-churning and so obviously there is something harmful to it and so it seems to me quite ridiculous to put it on the top page, to submit people to it, without any prompting.


 * To the argument that says it's not illegal, that's basically saying, 'If it's not illegal then we will allow it,' which certainly isn't Wikipedia's policy. Does the page for 'Scat' have a picture of someone in the middle of eating a piece of shit? Certainly it'd be illustrative, it would, as one person above says, "inform you via text and images," and yet there's no such inclusion on that page. The murder of Sharon Tate, there are picture of that widely available too, all legal, and yet even with a section for her death on her page some sort of 'magical sense,' let's call it, decides that for some reason it's not appropriate/necessary to include these pictures. --Breshkovsky (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Bring your thoughts to the mediation (Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-01-12/Goatse.cx) then. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * @ Jolly: I'm just responding to the last line in RasceaC's post, where he is clearly suggesting that people should just 'get used to it'. Take it up with him, not me.


 * @ Breshkovsky: I like that virus analogy - if you don't bring it over to the mediation page, I may steal it from you.   -- Ludwigs 2  02:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I like how everyone is replying to pamejudd when he is an obvious troll. 193.157.242.51 (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We're supposed to WP:AGF. Apparently.  raseaC talk to me 11:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, pamejudd, I agree...that First Amendment thing is a real pain. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Very informative
I for one am extremely glad that we have an image for this article. Now we have no discrimination filtering between those who are curious about the subject and those who have had it described to them and wish to see for themselves; they all get to see it regardless or not of whether they were expecting it. I highly suggest we do the same with the article about Encyclopedia Dramatica, by providing an image of their "offended" page, as it would much better illustrate the subject. We can therefore avoid the responsibility causing them to see for themselves and telling them "we told you so". 71.233.222.7 (talk) 03:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This proposal should be discussed at Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  14:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Per WP:DFTT, it really shouldn't be discussed at all. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Screenshot
Is that really necessary, people often visit Wikipedia to read into shock sites to spare themselves actually seeing the image. I believe that the image should be removed, there are already links to it I really don't think a screen shot is necessary. -Vcelloho (talk) 01:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There's an FAQ, archived discussions, policies and mediation adressing your conerns.  raseaC talk to me 23:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah I know there is but I question whether or not they justify shock images. I know Wikipedia isn't censored but I don't think that the image makes any real contribution to the article. -Vcelloho (talk) 01:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think what raseaC is trying to say is that there is a mild-mannered, small-scale war going on over the continued existence of this image on the page, of which your argument is already one salvo. being on the "let's nuke the damned thing" side myself, I'd encourage your to keep your eye open here and at the mediation page for the inevitable next RfC on the matter, and chime in then.  -- Ludwigs 2  02:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Edited through protection
Please note for the record I edited through protection here: to comment out a redlinked image (and the accompanying caption) which had been summarily deleted and is under discussion at. This was not an endorsement of anything whatsoever, nor do I take any position. If the image is restored, I (or any other administrator) will revert my edit. – xeno talk 01:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If someone would like to propose some other stylistic change please gather consensus and put an editprotected request. – xeno talk 01:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Why not just restore the image? The page should not be altered until the content dispute is resolved. Remco47 (talk) 02:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Because that wouldn't be a 'just'. Cenarium (talk) 03:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was attempting to gather consensus at ANI to restore the image (WP:ANI), but someone closed the ANI thread and sent it to DRV (Deletion review/Log/2010 March 22). So looks like there will be a 7 day delay before the image will be restored (or left deleted, and in that case I'm not sure what the next step in dispute resolution would be). – xeno talk  12:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You see up in the top left where it says 'Wikipedia'? That's why. Basically an admin decided not to play by the rules so, orcourse, the rules have been disregarded to make him right.  raseaC talk to me 10:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * [[Image:The Wrong Version.svg|thumb|right|300px|A helpful label for affixing to any articles you find locked at the Wrong Version. But you can't affix anything because it's locked. Ha.]]
 * Also: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Wrong_Version75.158.132.201 (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * well, I for one am glad you deleted the image. perhaps this will encourage the proponents of the image to actually make arguments about the issue rather than stonewall all discussions.  -- Ludwigs 2  16:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I for one am glad the image will be restored. perhaps this will encourage the opponents of the image to actually make arguments about the issue rather than stonewall all discussions. Sceptre (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have, repeatedly. You may not like them, but that doesn't mean you can claim they don't exist.  you, on the other hand, consistently refuse to address the issue (relying on a misreading of policy to speak for you).  so that comment earns you a piffle.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have, repeatedly. You may not like them, but that doesn't mean you can claim they don't exist.  you, on the other hand, consistently refuse to address the issue (relying on a misreading of policy to speak for you).  so that comment earns you a piffle. Sceptre (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Maturity Ho!!--There Is No Cabal (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * hey, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.   -- Ludwigs 2  21:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Image is at FFD, so I've reverted my edit as promised. – xeno talk 20:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Collapsible Screenshot
Why not compromise on the screen shot an make use of a collapsible screenshot section. This would allow users to only be graced by the image if they choose to uncollapse the box. An example of this can be found on the Wikia article. -Vcelloho (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed (a lot) and disregarded for a number of reasons, accessibility being a big one.  raseaC talk to me 22:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't it's use throughout Wikipedia be precedence enough for its use here.-Vcelloho (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Can also argue its not being used on pages like Virgin Killer is precedent and the Wikia page may need to be changed. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You make a fair point. I consider both screen shots of webpages and not album covers and feel that a similar treatment is warrented. I just think that this would be a good compromise.-Vcelloho (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That was the reason we included it hidden in the first place; a template was presented that was used in a similar way on other articles. However, we re-examined that a few months later: we decided to unhide it because the template used, {[tl|Infobox dotcom company}} was not as accurate as a more common template, Infobox website, which has screenshots unhidden by default, and hiding the screenshot presented web accessibility problems. Sceptre (talk) 05:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the settings for Infobox website allow for the image to be switched from the default to collapsed when the page is loaded. Couldn't this setting be used. -Vcelloho (talk) 06:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * These settings certainly could be used. I don't like it, because it is still censorship. Other justifications for not collapsing the image are: accessibility, difficult to print, and it hides information. I don't believe collapsible boxes should be used for any article content at all, precisely because of that last reason. The only use for them, as I see it, is for templates with huge amounts of links. Remco47 (talk) 13:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * All I'm saying is that a collapsed image is a good compromise between the two perspectives on this page. I don't expect that most people like it but it would be a fair compromise and a compromise is a solution that neither party is truly happy with. -Vcelloho (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I see lots of use for collapsible boxes - for instance detailed railway line templates where an article may have several such templates and, on some articles, a single template can easily be longer than the article itself. But I don't think hiding explicit images is a good reason, per WP:THINKOFTHECHILDREN. (edit: humm, that page doesn't exist. It should.) -mattbuck (Talk) 13:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Image deletion discussion
there is an ongoing discussion about the deletion of this image at. Interested editors should add their viewpoints there. -- Ludwigs 2 00:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP Violation
Isn't the unreferenced paragraph linking goatse to a living person a BLP violation which should immediately be removed? As far as I can tell, he is alive.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again


 * sofixit 20:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattbuck (talk • contribs)
 * Would no doubt be hard for KD to do that, as the article is fully protected. If consensus for this develops, please throw up an editprotected request... – xeno talk 20:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It was sourced to a whois lookup which was accessed in 2006. This is still technically verifiable but would require a subscription to a whois history service. – xeno talk 20:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Given WP:BURDEN, WP:PROVEIT and that this is a BLP issue, is that really enough? I have no idea if whois searches qualify as reliable sources.  If the article wasn't locked, I would have removed it already, as there's no indication of what the source might be.  I alerted BLP Noticeboard for what it's worth.KD Tries Again (talk) 04:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * I'm not sure either (on suitability of a whoislookup for a source). It looks like JzG took care of it. – xeno talk 20:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Mirror versus Internet Archive
Hello,

as discussed on the german discussion page of Goatse, a link to the Internet Archive would be better than to a external website, that does not guarantee neither authenticity, nor safety. See here for a early version of the website on archive.org. --Xeph (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. goatse.fr is outside of Wikipedia's control, and can't be trusted to remain an identical mirror to goatse.cx. The Internet Archive is a better-known entity. If everybody agrees, we can slap an editprotected template on this so that an admin can make this change. Remco47 (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Please substitute the link to www.goatse.fr by this link: http://web.archive.org/web/19991111060504/http://www.goatse.cx/ --Xeph (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Notability?
The led me actually to read the article. Has it survived previously notability challenges? It doesn't seem to meet the basic challenge of having "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" see WP:Notability. Most of the footnotes link to blogs, self-published websites or forums, and can therefore be discounted as reliable sources. Several footnotes (i.e. the BBC links) lead to apologies for inadvertent displays of the image - that can't count as "significant coverage" of the phenomenon. Am I missing something? Where are the multiple, objective, secondary sources?KD Tries Again (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * Expand the third box above to find links to the previous deletion discussions. Apparently there are plenty of things indicating notability, such as parodies in computer games, but that are not necessarily usable in the article. Also, while we don't normally go by page view statistics, 3000 hits on an average day is rather impressive. This is one of those topics that I feel we should cover per IAR, if we can't find a better reason. But of course this coverage only really makes sense if we do it without the picture. Readers who prefer it with pictures will be better served by the real thing. Hans Adler 18:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I hear you, but this kind of confirms that it doesn't meet WP:Notability but is here for other reasons. While I am here...KD Tries Again (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * If an obviously notable aspect of cyberculture such as this does not meet WP:Notability, then this is more of an argument to revise WP:Notability than it is to delete the article. 24.47.154.230 (talk) 05:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Under New Management?
From looking at http://www.goatse.cx/ itself, it looks like someone finally bought the site. Perhaps the article should reflect this?24.47.154.230 (talk) 05:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅. I'm probably opening up a whole new can of worms here - but should the infobox now include a screenshot of goatse.cx in its current state? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

BBC Image
recently removed the BBC image (text ) as a violation of NFCC8 with the rationale that if the original Goatse image fails this certainly does. I'm not so sure I agree. Does anyone have an opinion? -mattbuck (Talk) 01:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well this fails more so than the original, as it's less important to the core topic. My opinion is to have both, but if the consensus (was one last month I think) of Wikipedia is that such images should be removed then we should respect that.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  17:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What about a free image in the "parodies" section? Like this, this or this? Trycatch (talk) 23:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * They're still insignificant to the article, just like the original is. We must follow consensus, after all. Sceptre (talk) 23:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest the third one. The first one looks like it's made of shit. Strangely I find both that and the cake more objectionable than the original image. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In response to Spectre, "consensus" was that the image didn;'t significantly enhance a reader's understanding, and so was ineligible under NFCC. Free images do not need to significantly enhance a reader's understanding, heck they don't have to enhance understanding at all. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * They don't need to, but they should. And an image on this article of Goatse does not, apparently. Sceptre (talk) 01:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If we aren't going to include the original, informative image, we should at least include the third. It's a bit self-congratulatory, but we should have something. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Those free-use images can't be added, because they're not notable. The BBC one was added, because it was picked up on by third party sources and the hello.jpg was included, because it's what the article is about (further backed up by third party sources). We can't include images just because they look like hello.jpg. If they're needed that badly then we should include the actual image itself. Unfortunately consensus was against that being notable.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  14:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Since when have we required that pictures themselves be notable? -mattbuck (Talk) 14:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The way towards restoring the image
There is now discussion to remove all images from this article, since even the most significant image was thought to fail WP:NFCC #1 and #8. I think that's a shame, because Wikipedia is much more readable with images to support the text. Since the outcome of the was that there were no good counter-arguments given to assertions that it failed WP:NFCC, I think we should create those arguments now. All 10 points of the NFCC policy will need a thorough justification. Most importantly #1 and #8, because we failed those last time. And there should be no mention of Wikipedia being not censored. That's a red herring, which will only make people think that that's our main argument. Remco47 (talk) 10:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, the NFCC are:


 * 1) No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.)
 * 2) Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.
 * 3) Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.
 * 4) Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace.
 * 5) Previous publication. Non-free content must have been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia.
 * 6) Content. Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic.
 * 7) Media-specific policy. The material meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy. For example, images must meet Wikipedia:Image use policy.
 * 8) One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article.
 * 9) Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
 * 10) Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions. (To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add __NOGALLERY__ to it; images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.)
 * 11) Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following:
 * 12) Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder; this is to help determine the material's potential market value. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources#When uploading an image.
 * 13) A copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. For a list of image copyright tags, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content.
 * 14) The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use.
 * 1) The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use.


 * 2,3,4,6,7,9 and 10 shouldn't be problematic, so I think the crux of the issue is whether a free equivalent could be created, whether it meets content standards and whether it's contextually significant. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * A free equivalent cannot be created. You could try emailing the website for them to let us use the file, but I'm not sure if they even hold the rights to the image anyway.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  14:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You might be able to get away with de minimus (spelling) if you had a photograph of someone sat at a computer and then their face was in shock at seeing the image on their computer screen. Not sure if you'd be able to claim that the person is the subject of the image, as some copyright nazis might try and argue that the hello.jpg on the computer screen would be the subject.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  14:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If it qualifies for de minimis then by definition it is not the subject of the image, and I'd agree hello.jpg was an integral part of the image. As for being replaceable, you'd think not, but people did argue that it was. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Has anyone simply emailed Kirk Johnson and tried to get him to release it through OTRS? Seem that since he posted it publicly on usenet he wouldn't mind releasing it to the world. Gigs (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Goatse Security
I'm currently looking at the B1 page of the June 10th, 2010 Wall Street Journal, which has an article about a breach of AT&T's list of iPad owner email addresses by a nine-person group of computer experts calling themselves "Goatse Security". Is this in any way relevant to this article?

IsaacSapphire (talk) 10:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is. I'm adding it to the "Reception and parodies" section of this article.-Schnurrbart (talk) 02:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

citation cleanup
Citations rescued & standardized. Dates: full format, except archive & retrieval dates ISO formatted. Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If the link to the BBC copy of the image goes away, here's the WebCitation archive of it. --Lexein (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Latona newsletter
Emailed RickLatona.com, and a partner responded, who said he would look up the Oct 21 2009 domains newsletter. They aren't posted on the web page. So we'll assume good faith on the Latona claim until a definitive response is received. --Lexein (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Do not name
Per WP:Biographies of living persons, and per long-standing consensus in Talk, names of individuals in photos will not be listed in the article. In fact, they should really be deleted from all archives and edit histories, to be completely compliant with policy. --Lexein (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hot-link revenge is now supported
With one citation explaining hot-linking, and another for a quite public example, Wired.com hotlinking and getting goatse'd, there's no further need for edit warring - all that was needed was a polite "Citation needed," folks. --Lexein (talk) 06:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

First goatse

 * First Goatse Flickr Laughing Squid
 * Goatse Mac app post and instructions
 * Goatse condoms at ROFLcon

Reliable sources would be good to have. --Lexein (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Goatse Security
Some sources about Goatse Security: WhisperToMe (talk) 15:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Goodchild, Joan. "3 areas where FUD needs to stop." Network World. August 26, 2010.
 * "FBI investigating iPad e-mail leaks." ''CSO Online. June 10, 2010.
 * "Grandes dolores de cabeza de pequeños robos de datos." PC World en Espanol.
 * Bagh, Carl. "Goatse hacker who mastered iPad-AT&T security breach arrested." International Business Times. June 17, 2010.


 * Did you mean to post at Talk:Goatse Security? Feel free to expand the Goatse Security article with your sources. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh.. I didn't even know it had its own article. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's okay. I created the article a few days ago. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I started a stub on the French Wikipedia: fr:Goatse Security - It's important because one member is French and Goatse Security has a website in French. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Traffic
Currently over 80,000 hits per month, ~3300 ranking of pages. On days when traffic to this article spikes by over 3x, there are media-related reasons. -- Lexein (talk) 11:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * June 9, 2010: spiked to 10k over 3.3k average Gawker broke the Goatse Security ATT story
 * July 2, 2010: 10k/4.4k - explanation?
 * October 20, 2009: 8.6k/2.8k Goatse pumpkin image showed up.
 * February 14, 2009: 4k/751 Valentine's day.

where is goatse?
I have read the discussion atop the page, but still have not read a decent reason for not including a picture of goatse, which after all the entire reason for this page existing.

Is WP censored or not?

If it is should I shall trawl through WP deleting any page that features mention of sexual organs?

I thought not.

I am somewhat bewildered, is WP censored or is it not?

I often see pictures of hands or buttocks online. So why not goatse? All goatse is, is simply a picture of 2 hands, a set of buttocks and a reddish lacuna, so why on earth would anyone object? I fail to understand the reason for controversy (mind you I also don't get the reason for deleting the GNAA page)

Doktordoris (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You said you read discussion atop the page, but did you follow the links? There is buried treasure there. Simply put, consensus went against it, as the weight of policy went against it.
 * BTW, there have indeed been several deletion sweeps of images, by the way. I understand why it's easy to assume censorship, when other policies were the reason. Among reasons I would now put forward to exclude hello.jpg are:
 * Wikipedia tries not to promote websites, but we'll document them if they're reliably sourced. In that light,   itself wouldn't be shown in the infobox website template, but only a fair-use screenshot of the last archived copy of the site, from web.archive.org.  As a result, the image would be smaller than you might expect, and its shock value accordingly reduced. Then there would be endless revert wars over size, because the picture would be "too small to shock anybody" ... what a mess.
 * This is not a medical article about a self-induced medical condition, nor is it an article about the practice of stretching,
 * The very strict policy on WP:Biographies of living persons prohibits unauthorized non-free use of an identifiable picture of a living person, and also prohibits revealing personal information, including names, of non-public figures.
 * So no, I don't think Wikipedia is censored, in the sense of arbitrary protectionism of presumed innocent or religious grounds or bad for Wikipedia's rep or blocking access to information in the public interest or indeed any of the usual types of narrow biases which usually drive censorship.
 * It's all on Includipedia anyways. --Lexein (talk) 05:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Lexein, Thanks ever so much for taking the time to write the above text. You have cleared matters up for me.

cheers

Doktordoris (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

--Lexein (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Wired article from 2007
This is the current Wired article that got Goatsed: I'm trying to see where the archives of the Wired article are. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Philipkoski, Karen. "Vote for the Sexiest Geeks of 2007." Wired. December 28, 2007

Anil Dash and the Goatse shirt
See: WhisperToMe (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "The goatse t-shirt, a year later." Anil Dash website.

Goatse Security
The Apple iPad hack thing was all over the news, and it caused some serious fallout. Plus, Goatse Security is hosted on a subdomain of the main Goatse mirror, goatse.fr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.50.90.217 (talk) 06:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Name
Perhaps a mention of how supposedly the "Goatse Man" is called [redacted] is in order? ~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 12:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC) --Lexein (talk) 13:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Per maintain Wikipedia policy and BLP policy, I've redacted your comment.
 * 2) To reiterate, the very strict policy on WP:Biographies of living persons (read it) prohibits unauthorized non-free use of an identifiable picture of a living person, and also prohibits revealing personal information, including names, of non-public figures.  It's also been discussed before; use the discussion search box above to verify. There are also no (multiple) WP:Reliable sources, which would be required to satisfy BLP.
 * Encyclopedia Dramatica already confirmed that goates stands for "Guy Opens Ass To Show Everyone." Clearly they are a better wiki than ou, as they are able to get information to the public in a timely manner.  (V3N0M) 14:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, [redacted] is already dead. He died trying to insert a volleyball into his anus.  It was reported on bmezine.com (probably contains NSFW pics)  (V3N0M) 14:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've redacted the name again, per BLP, and pulled your comment out of my comment. I'm not unsympathetic: if [redacted] is really dead, he certainly leaves behind a pretty big hole in the internet zeitgeist. But srsly, your dispute is not with me, it's with the purpose and policies of Wikipedia. But a variety of other encyclopedia-like wikis, such as Encyclopedia Dramatica, Includipedia, Citizendium, Conservapedia and the like are available.  --Lexein (talk) 02:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

He is on face book - [redacted, as this basically amounts to the same thing as the above] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.133.98 (talk) 10:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC) --redaction by LiteralKa (talk 03:02, 22 November 2010 )

In case you're wondering who overhauled the article.
I did some wordsmithing on the article! I'd really like to bring it up to F.A status!--Zucchinidreams (talk) 11:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Wonderful. One can only imagine the sort of bruttle warfare that would occur amongst Wikipedians if it was to ever be nominated as Today's Featured Article.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  01:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you did "wordsmithing," then you did a pretty poor job. "[s]ee Wedding ring."  ?Really?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.145.177.155 (talk) 04:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be so funny if it ended up being a Featured Article. Especially if the Image was on it. I would love Wikipedia Forever.

Conkern65 (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Clarke
Just a reminder, Ms. Clarke's name was published in the cited Scotsman article. The unredacted PDF of the January 11 2004 Christmas Island Internet Administration Limited complaint includes her name and email address, so we do NOT cite the unredacted copy. Her name is therefore multiply sourced, but her email address is prohibited per WP:BLP. I hope this helps prevent an edit war. If there's consensus to remove her name, or an OTRS request to do so, I'll certainly go along with that. --Lexein (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The e-mail address may be defunct, but I don't see a reason why the e-mail address needs to be included. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

WTF?
Why the hell is their a link to the original site archive? Do you want to tempt our readers into visiting a site they will almost certainly regret to? Ilov90210 (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I really don't think it makes a difference when the title is the URL. I also removed the disclaimers as per the guideline. LiteralKa (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia sucks. They try harder. They even do goatse! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.58.68.66 (talk) 03:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Wording
Do we really need phrases like "gaping anus, his dangling penis" in the summary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.77.254 (talk) 02:10, 10 September 2011


 * Well, it's been described this way for a very long time, and reverted to this without community consensus against. Since there's no picture (why? see above and here), "gaping" is concise, and connotes gross widening and deepening in a way that "enlarged" or "distended" would not. An attempt to state its dimensions, or relate its dimensions to other physical objects would be reverted as WP:OR, and might meet with objections from a variety of major league sport organizations. For this topic, the fewer words, the better, so I favor the current wording. --Lexein (talk) 02:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "to approximately the width of his hand" The size is already discussed here, is there any need for an adjective at all? could "Below his anus," serve? It just doesn't seem very in keeping with the rest of WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.77.254 (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Added emphasised word above to clarify my meaning. Latitude is granted in describing movies, objects, and photographs, where the photo is unavailable. This prose has been hammered on by many editors. If you think you can do better, per WP:BRD, be bold, but don't be surprised at a revert, and be sure to discuss courteously without making further changes until consensus is reached. --Lexein (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Essay tag
I'm tempted to summarily remove the essay-like template as unhelpful, since there's no mention of section, or specific recommendations for improvement, or any discussion here about it. IMHO, the article is well cited, covering a site and following events significant in Internet culture. There is leeway given in writing descriptions of visual representations, and the lead otherwise summarizes the article. Historical events are described in a neutral tone, not from a personal "I remember" POV, and each references a source which supports the paraphrase or quote. --Lexein (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Followup: edit conflict, so I missed that the tag had already been removed a few minutes before. Thank you. --Lexein (talk) 03:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The word "Four"
I changed the word four to the number 4. --68.103.24.102 (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Informative article at Gawker
Possibly useful source: http://gawker.com/5899787/finding-goatse-the-mystery-man-behind-the-most-disturbing-internet-meme-in-history --Mormegil (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Ubuntu moved here pending indep. sources
This item needs verification in independent reliable sources. Has anyone in the press noticed this?
 * In February 2012 Ubuntu fell victim to a similar prank as the 2012 Summer Olympics Logo, with the Ubuntu for Android program being advertised with a reminiscence to the original goatse picture.

--Lexein (talk) 10:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * https://plus.google.com/115547683951727699051/posts/C4ALVny7j5Q -- 141.76.176.83 (talk) 12:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * lol... fukken saved. :D -badmachine 09:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Good. Looks like Lennart Poettering has achieved notability, and has been cited by many (according to Google Scholar). It's in the article now. One more RS, from a different notable person, would be very helpful. --Lexein (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Some anonymous IP has deleted (from different IPs) the Ubuntu item, without discussing here, and with the false reason "not notable". Ubuntu is certainly notable, Poettering is notable, therefore what he says has sufficient weight to be included here. Given that he devoted an entire (small) blog entry to the topic. Further, "official" WP:N Notability is absolutely not required for items included in articles, only verifiability in reliable (or notable) sources. N applies solely to articles as a whole. Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've removed this for now, somebody's G+ post is not a valid source of it being "noted to be reminiscent of the original goatse picture." If you want to add it back, find a reliable source. Ciaran Sinclair (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * A reading of WP:V and WP:RS allows blog posts by established, published authors. Lennart Poettering is such an author. It's not an extraordinary claim, so extraordinary proof is not expected.  I would argue that perception of Goatse, and making note of apparent reference to it, is part and parcel of its gestalt. Shall we consult 3O? Or RSN?  --Lexein (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I argue that it's totally irrelevant and unencyclopedic. So something marginally looks like something else and someone points it out, not important nor educational and it reflects unnecessarily negatively on an organization.  If you look hard enough at geometric shapes they will inevitably remind you of something, rorschach tests for instance, or pictures in the clouds, etc, but that doesn't mean we should include every instance of something looking like something else.  For another example, people have pointed out that Lady Gaga looks like a mix between Madonna and Marilyn Manson, but it would be ridiculous to include this in the 'pedia.   S Æ don talk  22:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Identity of the subject; origin of the photo
Who is the man in the photo? When and where was it taken? Who took it and for what purpose (private, commercial pornography, etc.)? Where did the person who established the shock site get it from and are there any known instances of it that predate the setting up of that site? It seems odd given the wide circulation it has received that no one seems to know anything about the origin of the image itself. If anyone knows, please try to include this information in the article. Thanks. Credulity (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Some of what you ask is addressed in the topmost text block of this Talk page. Many claims have been made, but not a single reliable source has ever been produced to support any of them. For a bit more, please read this blast from the past. --Lexein (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: the April 2012 Gawker.com article, only goes as far as saying that "the man in the picture goes by the name of..." Meaning, his real identity could not be ascertained, only his nom-de-internet.  So, could we say "A 2012 Gawker article states 'the man in the picture "goes by the name of" ... '"?   Well, is Gawker considered a reliable enough source?  Sometimes, but not good enough for this WP:BLP, in my opinion.  So, I think we should still wait for at least one more independent reliable source, a really good scholarly or journalistic one, before stating the man's name in the article. Even then, I might be wrong, and WP:BLP may prevent it.  Others may certainly disagree - discuss?  RFC? --Lexein (talk) 07:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

GAN
A user put a GAN tag on the article on August 5. I removed it and didn't bother writing a GA review, since the fact that the GAN was the user's first edit has me suspicious. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, alright. I say, you only get one first edit; go big or go home. --Lexein (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably would've been quick failed anyway. And what kind of first time editor already knows how to file a GAN? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Infobox URL
In a recent edit, a concern was expressed about the safety of a live URL in the infobox. Well, Google safe browsing says the site has been OK for the last 90 days. But since the site in its original incarnation is defunct, I think delinking in (but not removal from) the infobox is appropriate. Thoughts? --Lexein (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't we add the image?
Wikipedia is not censored, so why don't we have the image here? We could still put it under something that needs to be clicked to expand. Also, if copyright is a concern, I'm sure this would count as fair use.  flarn 2006  [u t c] time: 21:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read the tan infobox at top, and this, too. --Lexein (talk) 11:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

This article contributes absolutely nothing.
As a strict, no-nonsense Roman Catholic, I can safely say that this article has deeply, and utterly offended me in the most traumatic of ways. Yes, the photo has been deleted for a long time, but when I first came to this article in, I want to say, sometime between 2006-07, I went to Wikipedia to read about Internet memes. When I saw that image, I was deeply scarred for life. I had nightmares for weeks. While I am glad that the image is gone, I firmly believe that this article should be deleted as well. The discriptions are too graphic, and can give someone with a vivid imagination nightmares. I come to Wikipedia for detailed information about our world, NOT, disgusting, filth like this. Please, remove this trash. Thanks. 50.36.81.177 (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ❌. Without being unkind, I must point out that as a matter of policy, this encyclopedia is not censored, and does not, and will not shield individuals from the world. Wikipedia neither promotes, nor decries, facts and events which exist in the world: it documents them, as written about in reliable sources over a significant period of time. This Talk page is about improving the article, but you have made no suggestions for improvement, nor have you provided adequate policy-based justification for deletion, especially since you acknowledge that it documents a seminal Internet meme. As for why the image was removed, the policy-based reasons might surprise you: please read this. --Lexein (talk) 07:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

haha amazing, man up.. your god did, at some point Villings (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)