Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-01-12/Goatse.cx/Archive1

Statement by user:Ludwigs2
As the complainant (not to get too lawyerly) I'll start. My understanding of this issue is as follows:


 * The image used on this page is (as all parties agree) offensive to the vast majority of potential readers.
 * The image adds little to no encyclopedic value to the article.

Other potentially offensive images (such as the images on penis) contain important information - the visual depiction of a penis describes it far better than any verbal description could manage. However, the screenshot in question does not 'describe' goatse.cx, nor does it provide the same kind of informational value. At best it acts as a form of visual identification, or (as proponents have argued) gives an indication of how shocking the site really is. But wikipedia is not a shock site (per wp:NOT) and so indulging in excessive shock tactics is out of line. This article only needs to describe that the original site was shocking, it does not need to show how shocking the original site was.


 * since the image lacks appropriate encyclopedic value, it is not protected by content policies guidelines (i.e. by NOT#CENSORED or other tools designed to keep useful information from being excluded)
 * since the image is broadly offensive, and not protected, it should be removed.

The sticking point in this debate has been the assertion by several other editors that the picture does have encyclopedic value (and so is protected by policy), but no obvious value has been offered or demonstrated other than the two points I've dismissed above. To my mind, mere visual identification is not a sufficient value to offset the offensiveness of the image, particularly when the entire purpose of the site was to offend people visually. Using this image merely replicates the shock site in wikipedia space, which is not the purpose of wikipedia. -- Ludwigs 2 20:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by user:RaseaC
Goatse.cx is notable for a number of reasons, one of which being the image in question. As such the image is necessary as an indication of the site’s notoriety. Furthermore, a description of the image is not sufficient, such as a description of a penis or faeces is not sufficient either and as such an image assists the reader in understanding the subject of the article. I understand that a common argument is that by displaying the image WP is belittling itself to the level of a shock site, I belive that such an assertion is incorrect as the purpose of displaying this image is to inform, not offend. I believe that, for the reasons above, there is encyclopaedic merit in the image and as such it is protected by WP:NOTCENSORED and, considering there is a general disclaimer that covers the site, there is really no argument here (though I suppose I understand other editor’s qualms).  raseaC talk to me 21:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Throwaway85
My argument is as follows:


 * The image is of clear encylopedic value, in that goatse.cx is, for all intents and purposes, hello.jpg.  Inclusion should be the default choice here, with a powerful argument being needed by exclusionists in order to change that.
 * The argument that the image is offensive is, to me, immaterial. The images at Genital warts, Holocaust, and Rape of Nanking are similarly offensive, if not moreso, but are included due to their inherent informative value.  Having a Goatse article without hello.jpg simply does not make sense.
 * Wikipedia is not censored. This argument has been dismissed by exclusionists, but I feel it is entirely applicable.  While Wikipedia is not a shock site, that is neither the intent nor the effect of inclusion.  The intent is to inform, the image has clear informative value in regards to the subject of the article, and thus is covered by NOTCENSORED.

My above points, and others like them, have been repeated ad nauseum. Even if the only value of the image were in visual identification, that would still be sufficient as most people would be unaware of the visual nature of goatse, as opposed to, say, vomit. The fact that the image is central to the subject, to the point where the subject is defined by it, means that there is a clear need to include, and clear informative and encyclopedic value in doing so.

Statement by The Aviv
As someone who stumbled into this article, I can attest that the description in the introduction does more than an adequate job in its purpose. The image is not necessary. After reading a description of the picture, I do not believe most Wikipedians would be interested in seeing the actual thing.

There is a difference between showing the seriousness of genital warts (or the horrors of the holocost) and showing how shocking some shock image was. The latter is very much akin to showing a photograph of vulgar pornography in an article about a pornographic genre. Having done a quick survey before writing this, articles about pornography indeed show illustrations as opposed to the real content. If one is trully eager, there are other means of getting the latter. The same applies to articles about shock sites. If one is trully eager, there are other means of getting a grasp of hello.jpg. If, by some miracle, the file should no longer be available in any form or way, humanity could consider itself fortunate.

- The Aviv (talk) 11:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Sceptre
I support the image's inclusion on the grounds that the image has a clear fair use rationale, based on precedents I gave in my expansion of the FAQ for the article: website screenshots, fair use images in articles about them, and the encyclopaedic use of fair use images of which the sole purpose is to offend (Jyllands-Posten, Virgin Killer). I also believe that the image's appropriateness is irrelevant to the matter of inclusion. Finally, I'd like to make a point that I discussed with another Wikipedian several weeks ago, about the Virgin Killer article: the best way to deal with images you find offensive is not to complain about their offensiveness, but to find a policy-based reason to remove it. For the Virgin Killer article, pre-IWF, we could have easily switched the offensive cover with the more-common US cover (I believe Electric Ladyland's cover was also mentioned in the discussion) with the rationale that the more common cover should take preference. However, once people complained about the Virgin Killer cover, the Streisand effect kicked in and gave the offensive image a rationale for use that is stronger than the American cover. You see? Sceptre (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by
Goatse is by all accounts an utterly horrible and reprehensible site which has led to the melting of many people's brains. Who is he? How did he get his ass so wide? Why did he do that in the first place? Why oh why did I ever want to use the internet? It is a phenomenon, and like it or not, as offensive as the image is, there really is something about it that you cannot describe in words. The article has survived numerous AfDs, and I think it's fair to say that the article is about the picture really, thus it would seem necessary to show the picture. I believe NOTCENSORED allows us to do this, and the general disclaimer states that some things may be offensive. For that reason, there is no real reason to remove it, as it is certainly not illegal. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Jolly Janner
My position is that a screenshot of the website should be included in the infobox. The image adds irreplacable value to the article, by portraying the article's subject in a manor that no text can achieve. It is therefore fair to say that it's use is permisible by policy stating that offensive images should be used if they are needed for the article. My other view is that barring the image is unacceptable, as it distorts a copyrighted image from its original, potentialy breaking the fair-use rationale given.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  00:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by User:Luciform
Some commonsense, please...

First, to address the FAQ.


 * Q: Why is there a picture of the man's anus?


 * The article is about a website and the image displayed on that website, so a screenshot is included.


 * This is not done for the majority of websites documented on Wikipedia. An external link is always deemed sufficient.


 * This image is subject of a continuing discussion regarding its appropriateness, given the admitted shock value of the image versus the image's disputed benefit to the encyclopedia, as well as whether we can claim fair use or scholarly purpose.


 * Fair use: The screenshot is copyright infringement. It is not 'trivial' since all the significant content of the site is reproduced in it.
 * Scholarly purpose: A random individual stretching his anus apart is not "scholarly" by any means.


 * Q: Why not just link to it, so users can choose to see it?


 * A: Some readers are unable to access the website because of local internet network blocks. As well as that, the picture can remain as an archive of the website in case it was to change or be taken offline.


 * Wikipedia is not a web archive. And Wikipedia is not a way to gain access to blocked content. It is not in the interests of Wikipedia or the community to keep this image available on the site.
 * The image, if kept on Wikipedia, only maintains the original's purpose as "shocking".

Response to User:RaseaC:
 * ... the image is necessary as an indication of the site’s notoriety. Furthermore, a description of the image is not sufficient, such as a description of a penis or faeces is not sufficient either and as such an image assists the reader in understanding the subject of the article.
 * The notoriety of the site is indicated in the text. Once one has understood that some things are 'horrific', one does not then need to see all instances of horrific things. Pictures of penises and feces aid in identification and generalization (like the ABCD guideline) and and, as mentioned by User:Ludwigs2, are only there to assist the prose.
 * I believe that, for the reasons above, there is encyclopaedic merit in the image
 * The one reason - an indication of notoriety?..
 * there is really no argument here
 * To this part, I agree.

Response to User:Throwaway85:
 * The image is of clear encylopedic value, in that goatse.cx is, for all intents and purposes, hello.jpg.
 * Then you are admitting that including the image is copyright infringement.
 * In response to Ludwigs' assertion that no mention of the image's value has been made, I simply cannot disagree more strongly.
 * This is not encyclopedic content.
 * Besides thinking that the content of hello.jpg is not valuable or informative, I think that not every article about "X" needs "picture of X" included, just as you would not stab yourself to know that it is painful and dangerous, you do not need to have the entire negative emotional impression set upon you when being told of (yet another) shock-site.
 * In my opinion, you have NOT indicated encyclopedic value.

Response to User:Sceptre:
 * the encyclopaedic use of fair use images of which the sole purpose is to offend (Jyllands-Posten, Virgin Killer).
 * I disagree that the sole purpose of those images was to offend. Even if that was the case, these were not "shock sites" on some random corner of the Internet created by some random individual. The use of the word "shock" should also be an indication that some of the content is inappropriate for mirroring on Wikipedia. Even if it were legal, the article on child pornography would not include images because they would not add any value. And it's even worse here.

Response to User:Mattbuck:
 * It is a phenomenon, and like it or not, as offensive as the image is, there really is something about it that you cannot describe in words.
 * In this case, what is wrong with an external link? Wikipedia is not the place for it.

Response to User:Jolly_Janner:

Edit: Added heading (line above).
 * The image adds irreplacable value to the article, by portraying the article's subject in a manor that no text can achieve.
 * What value?! Did you mean the shade of pink that his anus happens to have? The length of his penis? The presence of a ring?.. Irreplaceable? This is all described in the text - if one then insists on viewing the image, one can then use an external link.

Plainly vulgar and uninformative.

I have trouble understanding the arguments presented by the defenders of the image. This image can only serve the same purpose as the original site - to offend - and it is too accessible (linked directly from Shock site, with no warning about the image). Though it gives users a choice to view the image (as would an external link), it does not give users the choice not to view the image - besides being completely unencylopedic.

NOT: Obviously inappropriate content is usually removed quickly.

Wikipedia has no images from nor an article for the popular ratemypoo.com. Precisely because it is not encyclopedic content.

I think the 'middle ground' in this situation is to delete the page completely (image included), but to leave the mention of it in Shock site. Barring that, the image should be removed.

Some of the text content also needs altering (which seems to use selective vocabulary that, rather than informing, only disgusts), but this is for another day).

Statement by User:Editor510
As a direct quote from my argument against on the talkpage of aforementioned article: "...children as well as adults use this site, schools use this site. Can you imagine how horrifying it might be?" I stay true to this. Wikipedia is getting vaster and vaster and soon, very young children will know what Wikipedia is. Now, your argument may be that 'Well what the hell will they be looking up Goatse for, anyway?' Well, I summon another message posted by User:Sean William, on the 11 Nov, 2009, at 22:39, UTC, which now resides in Talk:Goatse.cx/Archive 3. He states that he had been "reading up on internet history" and had then easily got "reading about shock sites." From there, he found Goatse, and saw this article, and was apalled. You can easily get to any page on Wikipedia, with the amount of links everywhere. I feel that my point has been made.-- Editor510  drop us a line, mate 20:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Summary of this dispute
As I understand the debate from the opening statements, this content dispute concerns the following points:


 * 1) Whether hello.jpg has a valid fair-use rationale, due to the portion included
 * 2) How NOTCENSORED applies to this article
 * 3) Whether the image has sufficient encyclopaedic value that its use is not simply gratuitous and designed to offend
 * 4) Whether it matters if it offends people or not

Is this an accurate summary of the issues that need to be discussed? If so, we can begin immediately. (parties may reply to each other here, but please keep it civil and related to the summary that I gave) The Wordsmith Communicate 01:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I realised that the FUR was in dispute, but otherwise sounds about right to me. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * from my view, points #3 and #4 above (sufficient encyclopedic value and whether it matters) are the main issues - #1 (fair use) is a separate issue that I had thought was resolved in a different action, and #2 (NOTCENSORED) is contingent on one's perspective on 3 & 4. But yes, that is otherwise a fair and accurate summary of the dispute as far as I am concerned.  -- Ludwigs 2  01:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ludwigs2 (on his point above, nothing else!); FUR isn't really a concern of mine, #2 is dependent on #3&4.  raseaC talk to me 02:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. FUR was already covered many moons ago, appears to be a red herring.  3 is really the only issue for me, as a finding that the image does have encyclopedic value makes the res of the points (aside from 1, dealt with earlier) irrelevant. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * #3 is a subset of #1, but, nevertheless, #3 and #4 seem to be the main points and #2 is the application. Sceptre (talk) 04:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * actually, #3 and #1 are unrelated. fair use just asks whether we are legally entitled to use the image.  It has no bearing on the content decision of whether to use the image (except to prohibit its use in some cases).  -- Ludwigs 2  05:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Our fair use rules are deliberately stricter than the US government's rules; an image cannot have a valid fair use rationale on Wikipedia if the image is not encyclopedic (NFCC#5) Sceptre (talk) 09:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Either way, that seems like more of a commons issue. Either the image is encyclopedic, and it gets included, or it isn't, and it doesn't.  Let commons deal with whether or not we should be hosting it. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As a commons admin, I would like to point out that we would delete it on sight as being an unfree image if it ended up on Commons. Commons only hosts free media, and anything with a FUR by definition is not free. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I'm fr from up to speed on who does what in regards to particular images, but my understanding is that the fair-use issue was resolved the last time there was a spat over the image. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sceptre, please read the fair use policy. you are confusing the issue of whether an image can legally be used (which is what FUR is about) with the issue of whether an image should be used (which FUR has nothing to say about).  your argument is rather like saying that since wikipedia allows any non-copyrighted to be included, wikipedia has an obligation to include all non-copyrighted material in the world.  silliness.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Does it matter?
OK, from the discussion here I gather that issue 1 has already been resolved, so for the purposes of this mediation the copyright infringement argument shall be considered invalid. I think issue 4 (whether i matters that an image is potentially offensive) would be the easiest to discuss first, and will pave the way for the bigger questions. So, i'm opening this section to discuss. Replies are allowed, but keep it civil and related to this particular part of the goatse issue. The Wordsmith Communicate 15:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If it is useful for the article to have the picture included, then it doesn't matter if it's offensive.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  16:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your own statement implies that offensiveness does matter, otherwise why would you qualify it by saying "if it's useful"? obviously it matters whether a picture is offensive, it's just that sometimes we accept offensive material because it improves the general understanding of the topic.  for instance, if I were to go to the Kama Sutra and add some hard-core porn images (arguably related to the topic of the page) they would be removed (or replaced with milder images) using arguments that effectively amount to 'those images are unnecessarily distasteful'.  It's the same reason wikipedia does not have a photo of a freshly beheaded corpse on the decapitation page or a photo of a woman actually being raped on the rape page.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying there, but we don't have a non offensive version of Goatse. By all means, Wikipedia can use less offensive images of say sex if it is just as informative as offensive images. The real question is about whether it is okay to use an offensive image? We don't have a non-offensive version available and I don't know if Wordssmith wants us to discuss the "informative value" issue yet.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  19:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that we do have a less offensive version of goatse. I am suggesting that the image of goatse has no value that makes its specific inclusion necessary, that I do not believe that you can point to any such value (at least, you haven't done so effectively to date), and that we need to balance that inherent lack of value against the clear potential for offense that the image represents.  If you explicitly agree that we do need to consider the offensiveness of images when making these decisions, at least to some minimal extent, then that's good enough for me.  We can close this segment of the discussion and move on to tackle the intrinsic worth of the image.  That way we can (later) properly balance its offensiveness against its value.


 * If you're not willing to explicitly agree to that, I'd like to hear why - I can't really see a reason to disagree, personally. -- Ludwigs 2  19:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree (to a minimal extent). Only in that if there are non-offensive versions available, which are of equal value to offensive images, they should be prefered. As I said, Goatse has no non-offensive versions available.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  20:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is why I was saying the issue of offense is illusory. If we have two images, one which is offensive and one which is not, and the inoffensive one has more value to the project, we use it.  Conversely, if the offensive one is more informative, we use it instead.  If neither is informative, we use neither.  The point is, offensiveness only comes into play when there are two images of equal value, and one is objectively more offensive than the other.  In all other cases, the more informative image is used.  Here, we have an informative image that is central to the subject, and so we include it, regardless of potential offense. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm really just trying to establish the (as it seems to me obvious) fact that offensiveness is always a consideration in these discussions. it strikes me whenever editors have a topic like this, the first thing they do is acknowledge that the image is offensive, and then they make the overt argument "we're going to use this image anyway despite the fact that it is offensive because it adds this information to the article".  in that way offensiveness is always a consideration, even in those cases where editors decide to use the picture regardless.  do you agree?


 * No, you're absolutely right. An image that adds marginal information at the cost of great offense should not be included, but offensiveness is a very, very small consideration.  It can only be used as an arbiter when two images are of equal encyclopedic value.  The case of an image being so marginal that offensiveness dictates it not be included indicates, to me, that it should not be included in the first place, regardless of offensiveness. To futher illustrate my point, however, note that there is a completely inoffensive version of Virgin Killer available.  We do not use it, however, because the offensive cover is a big part of the subject's notability, almost as much as hello.jpg is with goatse.Throwaway85 (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

again, let's not get to get to the next argument yet (and yes, I can already see you trying to hedge your arguments for the next stage - lol). let's just take a little straw-poll here to make sure we're ready to move on.

Straw Poll: Can we agree that offensiveness is (to some possibly minimal extent) always a consideration in discussions of images? use tick ✅ or cross to affirm or deny.


 * ✅ -- Ludwigs 2 23:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, but only in a positive sense: offensiveness can not be used to remove an image, but if an image is notable for being offensive, and we cover the image, that gives it a small advantage towards usage. Sceptre (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take this as a disagreement, despite the tick, so we might as well stop the poll and go back to discussion. at any rate, I certainly can't agree to your restrictions, which make no sense to  me.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Sceptre is referring to virgin killer and other images like that here. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what he's referring to specifically, since he hasn't said. all I know is that I can't agree to what he did say, as it makes no sense to me.  It sounds like he's saying that we should only consider offensiveness in order to make sure that offensive material is retained, which is patently bizarre, if true.  perhaps if he explained the comment?  -- Ludwigs 2  00:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Never one to shy away from sticking my nose where it doesn't belong, I think he means that if we have an article on a subject where there is an image, notable for being offensive (naked girl running from the bombed village in Vietnam springs to mind, as does VK and abu ghraib), then it should be included because of that. I'm tempted to disagree, as I think only notability, and not offensiveness, should play a part in that. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That may be true, but that's not what he said. look, the point of this is not to vaguely agree to some point with a lot of qualifications; the point is to find some statement that we all agree to without qualifications.  only then can this discussion move on to the next step.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the qualifications are necessary, as there does not appear to be an appetite for accepting your proposed statement without them. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * then this would be a good time to start suggesting things that you would agree to, wouldn't it? -- Ludwigs 2  01:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've yet to make any contributions to the discussion but generally agree with the other 'pro-imagers'.  raseaC talk to me 23:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Only in the loosest of senses. That is, offensiveness should only be a criteria for inclusion/exclusion where an equally informative, less offensive alternative exists.  In all other cases, our usual policies regarding image inclusion effectively render the offensiveness criteria superfluous. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅  Jolly  Ω   Janner  16:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 2
An image's offensiveness should only be used as a criteria for inclusion or exclusion if: a) it satisfies WP:N as a result of its offensiveness, or b) There is an equally valid, but less offensive alternative. For all other occasions, an image should be judged based upon the normal criteria at WP:IUP tick✅ or cross. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ This is pretty much my point in the above section. a) is a criteria for inclusion, but b) is a criteria for exclusion. However, I'd not want an image to be kept or deleted solely because of it's offensiveness. Sceptre (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The WP:N component is to cover things like the Danish Mohammed cartoons, which were notable because of the offense they caused.  Simply saying "look how many people this picture pisses off, we have to have it" is silly, and I've yet to see anyone argue that point. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ - sounds fairly reasonable to me. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This would imply that offensive images of any sort could be added to wikipedia, at the whim of any editor, so long as the image satisfied some minimal qualification for page inclusion. This is neither desirable nor common wikipedia practice.  -- Ludwigs 2  01:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Any image that is added would already have to meet inclusion guidelines. Are you suggesting that images that are offensive must meet stricter guidelines than other images? Throwaway85 (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that I don't think the wording above works for me. For instance, this wording would allow me to go to the kama sutra page and edit in a few stills from a hard-core porn flick to demonstrate various positions; all I'd need to do is insist that there is no other 'equally valid' (whatever that means) image.  likewise, this wording would allow me to go to the rape page and insist that it include a picture (or better yet a video) of a woman actually being raped because rape is notable for its offensiveness.  This wording all but guarantees that more offensive material is chosen over less, since every interested editor will either claim that the more offensive material has more value, or that with particularly notable subjects that the most objectionable image for the topic be preserved due to notability.  -- Ludwigs 2  02:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The wording doesn't say that at all, and I'm not sure why you continue to insist that that's what we're advocating. If an image is appropriate, and meets the guidelines, then it gets included.  If there is another image that is just as appropriate, that is less offensive, then it gets used instead.  Images of rape are illegal and a non sequitur.  Also, I don't think notable means what you think it means, at least not by your usage of it above.  If an offensive image, such as the danish cartoons, or the video of that Iranian girl getting shot, gain notability due to their offensiveness, then that is an argument for inclusion.
 * At any rate, this is the wrong forum for debating what policy should be. We're simply trying to ascertain what the problems are in regards to this dispute.  I would say to take your complaints to the relevant policy pages, but you did that, and consensus was not to change policy.  I suggest you accept that, and then let's move on to the more substantive issues we're dealing with. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There's no point moving on to more substantive issues if we cannot agree on whether the offensiveness of an image should be taken into consideration. we'll just get stuck on this point.  -- Ludwigs 2  03:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * P.s., as far as I can tell, that is exactly what you're all advocating, which is part of why I find your stance so confusing. part of our sticking point is that I keep trying to advocate for a conservative 'let's not offend people without need' position, and you all seem to be arguing for a 'fuck anyone who's are offended' viewpoint that (I confess) I find distasteful.  can you phrase a version of this that doesn't amount to telling anyone who's offended by an image to fuck off?  -- Ludwigs 2  03:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My position, that I've restated many, many times, is that additions to articles should be made only if they improve the article, and that that dynamic works very well as it is, thank you very much. The "fuck anyone who's offended" angle of that is that I refuse to exclude an improvement on the grounds that somebody somewhere has their panties in a twist.  We make the articles as good as we can make them, not as good as we can make them without stepping on toes. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * and my position is that we don't step on toes unless we need to to make a good article. are your statement and mine different?  -- Ludwigs 2  03:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, mine puts building a good article first, worrying about toes second. That's the proper balance here. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * well, sorry, but I don't see it that way. in both your view and mine good articles get written, but your view ultimately leads to a unnecessary toe-crunching.  -- Ludwigs 2  04:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not unnecessary toe-crunching, just necessary toe-crunching. I don't want to rehash the debate we had at WP:NOT, but we will write the best articles we can, and if people's toes get crunched, tough shit.  I'm not changing evolution so that creationists don't get offended, I'm not changing judaism so muslims don't get offended, and that's the way it should be.  We build the articles as best we can.  If there's a way to make it as good without being as offensive, then fine.  We do not, however, start with the goal of not offending anyone and see what scraps of information can be tossed together to satisfy that. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * see, this is exactly what I'm looking for. are you willing to admit that unnecessary toe-crunching should be avoided?  because if you are, that means that you accept that offensiveness is a consideration in all debates about offensive images (because unnecessary toe-crunching means unnecessary offense).  is that a fair statement?  -- Ludwigs 2  04:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary being that which does not contribute to the improvement of the article, yes. If, however, text or an image improves the article, the toe-crunching goes out the window. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * we can argue the second phrase in the next segment; I just want to get clear that we all agree on the first point (which seems pretty commonsensical by itself, I think, but which unfortunately gets tangled up with other issues). should we try another straw poll on that necessary but no unnecessary toe-crunching bit?  -- Ludwigs 2  04:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really see the point, I think most people can agree with "don't go out of our way to piss people off". Throwaway85 (talk) 04:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The point (if you're serious about pursuing mediation) is that we slowly remove and resolve points where we are misunderstanding each other, so that we can focus down on precisely the points that we actually need to debate. the problem with our previous discussion (on goatse) is that we kept jumping from one idea, to the next, to the next, and back to the first, which never let us resolve anything.  if we can solidify this thought as a point of common agreement, then we've cut off one jumping point - we don't need to discuss this anymore.  that means we can move on to remove the next jumping point and resolve that, until we're left with only one or two places where we just can't agree.  then we can look at those carefully and rationally, without the distraction of mere misunderstandings.  -- Ludwigs 2  05:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Then by all means, make your proposal. Keep in mind the limits that people have expressed here, and try to be as specific as possible. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * well, again, should we try another straw poll on that necessary but no unnecessary toe-crunching bit? no sense starting if you aren't on the bandwagon.  -- Ludwigs 2  06:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, make your proposal. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * sure thing - new section below  Ludwigs 2


 * I should point out that, as a point of order, videos or photos of sexual abuse are illegal in themselves, and them being uploaded would result in the Foundation themselves stepping in and turning the uploader over to the FBI. Sceptre (talk) 03:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * as an aside, no one is arguing this point... it's all good.  -- Ludwigs 2  04:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You knid of did, when you said "this wording would allow me to go to the rape page and insist that it include a picture (or better yet a video) of a woman actually being raped because rape is notable for its offensiveness." The response was, don't be silly, anyone who does that gets the next 18 months room and board paid for care of Uncle Sam. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * reductio ad absurdem -- Ludwigs 2 04:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a convincing argumentative style when the consequent is clearly impossible. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You made the straw man, not me, you can't point out our logical fallacies without looking extremely foolish (I know, I know). Also, re: Throwaway: here in Britain, we have the more poetic term "at her Majesty's pleasure". Sceptre (talk) 06:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sceptre, as a Canadian, may I humbly request use of your far more poetic term? Throwaway85 (talk) 06:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * dudes, let it go - this is entirely unproductive. -- Ludwigs 2  06:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 3
Images that add value to an article should be used even if they are offensive, but unnecessary offense should be avoided where possible. use tick✅ or cross -- Ludwigs 2 06:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

✅ sure, why not. I still feel this is covered by general article improvement guidelines, but if it lets us move past this issue, then I'm all for it. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

✅ yeah - I just don't want to come back to this point, is the main reason I'm being so pedantic about it. -- Ludwigs 2 07:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

✅ - as long as an offensive image adds value that an inoffensive image does not, it should be included. But if the inoffensive image is just as good, then there's no reason to include something that is offensive. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the gist of the argument above. Is everyone in agreement (without having to conduct another poll) that this is implied by the proposal? Throwaway85 (talk) 13:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

✅  raseaC talk to me 13:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Generally, a good idea. Sceptre (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅  Jolly  Ω   Janner  17:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Yes. But the images in the Abu Ghraib article have all the anuses (anii? ;) and penises masked. Maybe it was too quick to conclude on the on the 'fair use' issue (since that seemed to be the main counterargument against censoring the image). Anyway, ignoring my belated involvement, moving on... Luciform (talk) 05:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, that seems to be everyone who's actively participating on board. Should we move on to the next point? Throwaway85 (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * fine with me, I'm just waiting on the mediator - his show really. -- Ludwigs 2  22:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Does the image have value?
Good to see agreement all around on the previous issue. Next question is, "does hello.jpg have any sort of encyclopaedic value in the article goatse?" Note that this is any value at all, not necessarily crossing the threshold for inclusion (which is going to be the next question). —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Wordsmith (talk • contribs)
 * My position on this is clear. Goatse is notable because, and only because, of hello.jpg.  Were it not for the image, there would be no article.  Goatse.cx is not notable in and of itself; the usage of hello.jpg is what makes it notable. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * err... was there a problem with waiting for the mediator on this?


 * I'm open to considering whether the image has value, but the above argument doesn't do it for me. to my mind, goatse is notable because it was an early and prominent internet shock site.  'hello.jpg' might be notable in its own right  (we can get into that issue if needed) but creating the identity goatse=hello.jpg is pretty much wp:SYN, and flies in the face of simple observation.  goatse had several different images - this was just the first on the page; the imagery was not the subject matter of goatse in any meaningful sense, it was (as far as anyone knows) simply imagery the authors chose to be as shocking as possible.


 * further, even if I were to grant the above argument, it doesn't really speak to how the screenshot adds value to the article. you'll have to draw out the 'adds value' argument explicitly, rather than relying on the assertion that the supposed identity of oatse and hello.jpg translates (somehow) into encyclopedic value for he screenshot.  -- Ludwigs 2  06:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ludwig, this is why I asked you if you had encountered Goatse outside of this article, in the wilds of the internet. The Goatse and hello.jpg are synonymous.  It's not synthesis, it simply the truth.  When the GNAA or 4chan would raid forums, they would flood them with "goatse"--hello.jpg.  When the london olympics logo made the news, everyone yelled "Goatse!" not "Hello.jpg!"  Do yourself a favour:  Do a google image search for "goatse" with safesearch set to moderate.  All of the images that come up are takes on hello.jpg, not in any other way connected to the site.  The image is the phenomenon, and it would simpkky be silly to have an article on goatse.cx without it. Throwaway85 (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hell, even the sources confuse the two. Check out these two articles on Wired:
 * Erm, sorry, it actually was me that opened this section. I just forgot to sign. The Wordsmith Communicate 06:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ah, ok - do you want me to re-demote it? -- Ludwigs 2  06:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * In response to User:Throwaway85:
 * First, and I could be wrong, but it seems your evaluation of "notable" is rather subjective.
 * Otherwise, it cannot easily be argued that the image is anything other than offensive. Further, it would also be hard to argue that an image succeeding in only creating offense would have any encyclopedic value.
 * The "in a way that the text can not" argument is only valid if you consider the only gain from the image (additional disgust/offense) to be valuable, and I hardly think that this is appropriate.
 * What exact features of "hello.jpg" make it valuable to the article?
 * "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information"
 * Luciform (talk) 06:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say yes, the image does have value. While it is true that Goatse.cx is a shock site with additional content other than hello.jpg, this image is not only a good indication of what a shock site is and how it works, but also a good example of how shocking goatse.cx is. The website is notable because of hello.jpg and therefore including an example of hello.jpg seems obvious.  raseaC talk to me 13:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that generally with websites an image of the front page is shown. Hello.jpg IS the front page - it's kind of the point. You put in a vaguely innocuous address and are IMMEDIATELY confronted with that image. That is what makes it a shock site - after seeing the front page, the rest of the images really aren't shocking at all, merely disgusting. They're fairly irrelevant. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are two ways to see the Goatse article: as an article about a website, or an article about an image. In the website case, the screenshot of the front page adds value to the article, as it's the best visual identification of the website we've got (it doesn't have a logo, which is the alternative for visual identification). In the image case, it is generally understood that, in articles about images, use of the image would automatically add value to the article simply because of its inclusion. The "offensiveness" argument is also relevant, but I find it kind of weak and try not to use it. Sceptre (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

So, can I safely summarize the arguments given by the three of you (Scepter, mattbuck, and RaseaC) above as follows? Is that correct, or would you modify or add to those statements? -- Ludwigs 2 16:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Sorry for my delay in getting back to this page - had a couple of other things to attend to. so, let's assume that these four bullets cover the issue. I think I can say the following fairly, though feel free to disagree:
 * the image shows how shocking the website was
 * screenshot images are conventional for articles about websites
 * the image is visual identification for the site (used because the site has no logo)
 * the article is specifically about the image, and so the image automatically has value
 * I'd agree with the last two, although I still think that the first one is rather weak. I'd also appreciate it if you added my "article about an image" argument, as that's stronger than "it shows how offensive it is". Sceptre (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've edited in a 4th bullet point, which hopefully captures what you mean. sorry for the omission...-- Ludwigs 2  17:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that covers the gist of my argument, as well. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Are we waiting for mattbuck's reply? Luciform (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry. I don't really agree that 3 is an argument for keeping it, but generally yes. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * the image shows how shocking the website was
 * as Sceptre pointed out, this is a weak argument to begin with, and I would argue further that is should never be wikipedia's purpose to include a shocking image merely to display its shockingness. it needs some value beyond that to be includable.
 * screenshot images are conventional for articles about websites
 * this is a convention, not a policy - it's nice to have screenshots, but they are by no means required for a page about a website, and do not add any information (see the visual identification point, next).
 * the image is visual identification for the site (used because the site has no logo)
 * this is a branding issue, useful mostly for commercial products that need to be identifiable to potential users. Visual identification of this sort does not add actual information, it just makes the subject easily identifiable.
 * the article is specifically about the image, and so the image automatically has value
 * ✅ this point is the only one of the four that has (IMO) potential.

If we agree with this, then the next step is to set the first three aside as resolved and focus our discussion on this last point. what do you all think? -- Ludwigs 2 17:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the rejection of the first argument, although the second has some weight.  The third to me is more marginal, although it may have some value.  Obviously I, too, believe the fourth to be the strongest. Throwaway85 (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that 1 has no value on its own, merely as part of the "picture says a 1000 words" argument. I am also willing to accept that 2 has no value - using that solely is a violation of WP:OTHERSTUFF. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. OTHERSTUFF is not intended to provide justification to ignore convention, merely to disallow the use of the existence of an article conforming to x to establish x as a convention in and of itself. If one or two articles had screenshots, then 2 would violate otherstuff.  That being said, there is no clear consensus to include screenshots, and some articles collapse those screenshots by default.  My entirely scientific sampling of 10 articles shows 4chan, Digg, Slashdot, Wikipedia, Fark and Facebook have screenshots prominently displayed; Reddit hides by default; and Myspace, Boingboing and Arstechnica show no screenshot. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to barge in when I said I would sit back and not be involved. I would just like to add an argument for y'all to discuss and accept or reject: an image helps people who have trouble reading. Non-native English speakers or other weak readers may get lost in the text describing the image but feel more comfortable with the image itself. Resuming lurking. Remco47 (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would agree that point one and two are irrelevant (I think point one came from what I said and in fairness I didn't express myself too well, what I meant was more in agreement with what has now become point four). I would argue, however, that point three is relevant to the extent that the image is and website are almost one and the same but point four sort of covers that point.  raseaC talk to me 20:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that point two isn't a strong enough justification in itself for including the image, but I disagree with discarding it. Whatever is eventually decided, it may be a combination of several reasons that may not be enough by themselves to justify inclusion, but may cross the threshold when combined. If we agree that four is the strongest point, and two is a weak but potentially valid argument, then we can move on to the next part. The Wordsmith Communicate 20:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. I would similarly modify point 4 to say that the subject of the article, goatse.cx, is a website that is synonymous with hello.jpg, the image in question.  As per my point above, any image resembling an anus held agape (thanks, internet) is equated with Goatse, not hello.jpg.  The website, for all intents and purposes, is simply a container for the image, which is far more notable than the site itself.  See the articles I pulled from Wired for an example of this.  A similar search for hello.jpg returned no matches, despite the images resembling hello.jpg, not goatse.cx Throwaway85 (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with what Wordsmith says.  raseaC talk to me 21:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Wordsmith. Also, the reason why #2 and #3 are convention is that a policy demanding the inclusion of such images would run counter to NFC. Hell, #4 is a convention too. However, if an image passes #2, #3, and #4, it is generally understood to get a free pass if it's non-free. Sceptre (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * #'s 6 and 8 appear to be the relevant ones there, but I thought we'd established that fair use wasn't a concern? Throwaway85 (talk) 11:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * While it is about non-free content, I'm focusing more on the guideline saying "these are acceptable uses" rather than "this applies only to non-free content". Sceptre (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

My reasons have more to do with the subject of this section than any broader concerns. in brief: I don't disagree that all of these things are nice to have in an article; my point is that none of them are essential to have as a part of article content. with non-problematic images these reasons for inclusion are perfectly fine (I've added images to articles myself just because I thought the article needed some color), but not one of these is really a justification for including problematic content. surely none of you would argue that we should retain hello.jpg solely on the grounds that it adds a splash of color to the page, or on the grounds that it will help people find goatse products at WallMart? -- Ludwigs 2 17:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * shocking images don't add information. they add shock. if you want to teach a child not to touch flame, you explain that fire hurts, but you don't hold the child's hand over a hot burner.  the child may try to touch the burner himself (and that may ultimately be the way s/he learns), but forcing them to touch it cannot be excused as 'informative'.
 * screenshots don't add information. the same screenshot used explicitly to show how to navigate or use a site does add information, but otherwise a screenshot is just a beautification.
 * visual identifications don't add information (aside from the branding issues I discussed above). they are (again) a form of beautification.  they have more value than screenshots to the extent that they make it easier to find a product at WallMart, but that doesn't really apply in this case.
 * We don't decree that anything is essential as that runs counter to our style policies. We're not arguing for the inclusion because it adds a "splash of colour"—hell, I don't like images that are there solely for that reason—, we're arguing for it's inclusion as we shouldn't ignore the precedent of using images that pass any/all of the four points above. Sceptre (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sceptre: at this point I'm only arguing to exclude these three reasons as immaterial - we'll get to the last reason in a while. on that note, I take it you agree with my assessment that the image's use to shock, as a screenshot, or as a visual identification can be excluded are primary reasons for using the picture?  excluding your last sentence above, that seems to be what you're saying.  -- Ludwigs 2  22:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not. My post was re-iterating my views on images: we shouldn't include images, free or non free, unless they have substantial value. That said, I believe that the use of images for clear and concise visual identification generally is substantial value. Sceptre (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So, if I understand Ludwigs' objection below, he would prefer we come to some sort of agreement on whether or not the image has value. As a means of kickstarting the process, I make the following proposal from which to base further discussion:

Value Proposal

 * 1) While not convention per se, it is commonplace for articles on websites to include a screenshot of that website's homepage.
 * 2) The image aids in visual identification of the phenomenon.
 * 3) The website goatse.cx is notable only because of hello.jpg, and the impact that the latter has had on internet culture.

While I don't believe 1 or 2 necessitate inclusion on their own, I do feel that combined, they justify it. 3 is, for me, the strongest point, as it is the reason that we have an article in the first place, and the image has had a greater impact on internet culture than most other images out there. Were it not for hello.jpg, we would not have an article on goatse.cx. It follows, then, that the article should include the image. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would agree with this. Visual indentification is a poor argument and just by itself is not enough reason. The image itself is notable enough, hence why we use goatse.fr, as the website goatse.cx isn't the main point of notability. It's just the name of the article and some of the article is about the website.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  16:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Another salient point, mitigated somewhat by the fact goatse.fr is a mirror of goatse.cx, and thus practically identical. Throwaway85 (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

well, maybe if I reverse the problem you'll see my point. this screenshot fails the redaction test (picked that phrase up in another context, but I like it): If we removed the image, what would the reader lose? he'd lose having the actual image burned into his eyeballs against his will (not in my view a bad thing to lose), but he hasn't lost the sense of the image (the sense is carried adequately by the text description even as it stands now). let's compare that to the redaction test on the penis article: removing images of penises from that article would require significant expansion of the article, since the article would now have to describe various parts of the penis and all of their relationships to each other in sufficient detail to build up a picture of the penis in someone's mind. The article needs to discuss the relationships of the various parts of the thing - where the glans is, and how it relates to the corona and the urethra - and that is most effectively done through an image. nothing in the goatse screenshot carries that same kind of informational value. the image doesn't display anything that would be impossible to describe in the article; removing the image would not require a painful (if not impossible) rewriting of the article to get across the same meaning. so the image has no value that merits its necessary inclusion. -- Ludwigs 2 19:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody's arguing that 1 and 2 necessitate inclusion; they merely strengthen the case for it. What is your objection to 3? Throwaway85 (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally think 3 is a specious argument (the website is not notable for the image, it's notable for being a shock site). even if I granted it, though, it's still irrelevant; as I said, the image can be removed without affecting the informativeness of the article, so why would we use it?  -- Ludwigs 2  05:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, here we are again, where I have to question what your knowledge of the subject is. Your claim that " [goatse.cx] is not notable for the image, it's notable for being a shock site" is wrong.  Not only is it wrong, it's self-evidently so to anyone who knows what the phenomenon is.  Goatse.cx, by itself, is not notable.  Hello.jpg, is.  Googling "goatse.cx" returns 25,900 results.  Googling "goatse" returns 352,000 results - over 10x as many.  Googling "goatse" with safesearch on moderate returns 39,900 images.  That's 40,000 images that are SFW that are directly related to goatse.  Once again, the image is the phenomenon.  Before you continue to argue, do everyone here a favour and actually read the sources.  Hell, go to ED/Goatse, and the second sentence is "Goatse predates Encyclopedia Dramatica and is still the most overused shock image here" (my emphasis).  Ludwigs, you're simply ill-informed.  Please actually research the subject before making claims as to its notability. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But hey, don't trust me. The following images are all found by googling for "goatse" with safesearch on moderate: ... And I got bored.  There are thousands more.  Notice a pattern here?  The goatse phenomenon is defined by the visual schema of an anus held agape by two hands, ie: Hello.jpg. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You asked my opinion, throwaway - don't get yourself in a knot about it. I am not all that impressed by a bunch of internet sources on the topic.  but whatever, It is (as I said if you had taken the time to read past the first line) totally irrelevant.  whichever is the case, the image can still be removed without affecting the informativeness of the article.  -- Ludwigs 2  08:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You don't trust a bunch of internet sources on an internet phenomenon? The links I provided aren't even sources, they're images that show my argument, that the image is the phenomenon, is sound.  Reading the sources for an article you have been involved in a heated debate about is, to put it mildly, suggested, as is actually acquainting yourself with the subject of the article.  As for removal not affecting the informative nature of the article, how can that be?  The image is the reason for the article, and not having it just seems silly.  The logical terminus of that argument is that all images can be removed from all articles and be replaced with text, without affecting the article's ability to inform.  We include images because they are inherently valuable, and this is no exception.  Ludwigs, you appear to be arguing out of a philosophical opposition to the nature of the image, without bothering to appreciate the image's relationship to the article and its subject, and that is not helpful.  You are doing so in the face of opposition from nearly every other party, against consensus, and against 5 previous RfCs.  This appears to be a habit of yours.  I am not trying to engage in an ad hominem attack here, but I have a serious concern about your approach to this discussion.  At any rate, I don't like where this is going.  I don't want to give the impression that I'm trying to stop the debate at a point favourable to myself, and so I would welcome your response.  That said, I myself will not respond further until Wordsmith offers guidance, as I don't want to derail this process. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * again - read the argument I gave above. we do not include images because they are inherently informative (a phrase which doesn't even make sense); we include images when then are informative.  This image is not informative in any meaningful sense of the word.  now, I know and you know that you cannot point to any actual value this image has - all you can do is continue to repeat the entirely tautological assertion that "the picture has value because it's a picture".  unfortunately, unless you have more than that, you really don't have much of an argument in favor of using the image.


 * P.s. I'm not interested in your personal opinion of me.  believe it or not, I'm working on the belief that you are capable of following and engaging in logical discourse.  If I decide  that you won't, or can't, and that you will never move beyond the kind of self-enclosed, self-justifying, self-fulfilling statements of belief the you currently use, then I'll suggest we bag this and move straight to arbcom where the issue can be decided authoritatively.  I am still hoping, however, that you will start to engage the discussion properly so that we can resolve it without that effort.  that would mean that you'd actually have to address what I say, however, rather than cherry-picking single phrases that you can rant about.  -- Ludwigs 2  10:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: Per WP:DR, WP:RFAR/G, and WP:RFAR/G, Arbcom does not handle content disputes. The next step would be MedCom. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Just note that consensus does not have to be unanimous. Every major decision on this wiki has some form of disagreement, so this mediation will go by whomever presents the strongest arguments. Now that we have established that the above three reasons are reasons to potentially include it, we can get into the discussion of how this balances with its potential offensiveness. Opinions? The Wordsmith Communicate 16:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Should this be in a different section? please feel free to move my comments if so.


 * As I have said multiple times, once the question of balancing is raised, it almost inevitable leads to to the conclusion that the picture should be removed.
 * Most participants here agree that points 1 and 2 (screenshot conventions and visual identification) are not sufficient grounds in and of themselves for including an offensive picture, though they would be contributing factors in some cases and are certainly sufficient grounds for non-offensive images.
 * Per my argument above, the picture could easily be removed without impacting on the informativeness of the article; the picture is in no sense necessary to the content of the article the way that offensive pictures on other articles often are.
 * Points 1 and 2 are insufficient justifications to offset the patent offensiveness of the image; point 3 is irrelevant, because the screenshot itself adds no necessary content to the article. therefore the offensiveness of the image significantly outweighs any value added by the image.


 * as an afterthought (this is not part of the argument above, but it just occurred to me, and it strikes me as an important point): 'hello.jpg' does not itself, if I understand things correctly, qualify as a fair use image. The proponent logic - that goatse=hello.jpg, and so the screenshot is needed to display hello.jpg - seems to imply that the screenshot is being used primarily to circumvent Wikipedia's fair use policies.  That might call for the immediate removal of the image on blue-letter policy grounds, and even if it doesn't, it significantly reduces the power of that particular argument.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * One point at a time, then:
 * Fair use: This issue has been decided, and there appears to be no reason why the acceptance of point 3 above would cause it to violate WP:FUP.
 * Balancing offensiveness vs content: Your interpretation of the agreement above seems suspect.  Nobody ever agreed that inclusion should be a balance between offensiveness and information, we agreed that unnecessary offense should be avoided, but informative content should be added regardless of offense.
 * Rejection of point 3: The fact that goatse is a phenomenon centered around the visual nature of hello.jpg makes a depiction of that nature inherently valuable and informative, to the same extent that a picture of a square is inherently valuable and informative in an article on squareness. Perhaps a better example would be that of Smiley.  The visual schema of a smiley face is memetic in nature, in the same way that goatse is.  Rather than simply describing a smiley face, the image is included.  It is inherently valuable in identifying the phenomenon, as is goatse.
 * Points 1 and 2: Are simply further reasons why the image is valuable.
 * Removing the image does not reduce "informativeness" of article: Patently false. The image is the subject of the article, and, as such, inherently valuable and informative as described above.  Say, for example, someone were to come across one of the images I posted above.  They see it is referred to as "goatse".  Not knowing what goatse is, they come to Wikipedia to find out.  A simple textual explanation would not explain how any of the above images are "goatse".  The screenshot, however, makes it instantly obvious, and further reading explains why the image and its memetic descendants are so widespread, and what it's impact has been.  Without the image, the article merely describes a phenomenon, and the reader is left with, perhaps a greater understanding of the website, but not a realization of how it is related to any of the images that have sprung up.  With the image, it is abundantly clear.  The image, therefore, increases the article's "informativeness" immeasurably.
 * Throwaway85 (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think any of these really work
 * To your point 1: You can't have your cake and eat it too. If the importance of this screenshot is solely that it depicts hello.jpg then it may not meet fair use guidelines.  I actually don't know (which is why it's not an explicit part of my arguments), but the issue may need to be reopened.  but as I said, that's secondary.
 * To your point 2: at the end of the day we mean the same thing, so please don't bog us down in some pointless microanalysis of every single phrase.
 * To your points 3 and 5: again, you're using specious logic. the picture of a square could not be removed from an article on squareness without a significant loss of factual information.  The picture of a smiley probably could be removed from the smiley page, since it does not add much (if any) information, but the picture of a smiley is non-offensive and so the issue will never arise.  Pictures are informative when they add add content information that would otherwise take an inordinate amount of text to include.  a picture of a square is important on a squareness page because readers need a clear mental image of a square to understand concepts such as equal sides, right angles, its relationships to rectangles, etc.  That mental image is neatly and succinctly incorporated in a picture.  Readers do not need (and most likely do not want) a clear mental image of hello,jpg to understand the content of the article (and I'll stress that you have never said it does - you just keep harping on the 'visual identification' point as though it were meaningful).  a simple verbal description is sufficient to give all the descriptive information the article needs.  Further, if someone comes across the image somewhere outside of wikipedia, they will have already seen the image, and therefore wikipedia does not need to show them the image - the article in that case only needs to give a description and history of the site so that people can put the image they've already seen in context.  you've just got that entirely backwards.
 * To your point 4: we don't disagree on this, so why did you present it as a counterargument? -- Ludwigs 2  01:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What specific clause of WP:NFC do you feel is violated?
 * No, you specifically stated that you believe the decision to include should be made by determining if an image's value outweighs it's offensiveness, which is the argument you originally put forth and was rejected by the participants here. The agreed upon statement dictates that an image with value should be included regardless of offensiveness.  Your argument: (O > V) → !I.  Agreed upon argument: (V → I) && ((!V && O) → !I), where V = Image has value, O = image is offensive, and I = image is included.
 * I strongly disagree with your reasoning on #3. You state, "Pictures are informative when they add add [sic] content information that would otherwise take an inordinate amount of text to include."  Gently put, this is false.  The contrapositive would state "Pictures are not informative when they don't add content that would otherwise take an inordinate amount of text to include."  Really?  Are you sure that's what you're trying to argue?  In so doing, you would be implicitly claiming that the Apple logo is uninformative because it could be accurately described as "a sillouhette of an apple with a bite taken out of it."  Your interpretation of what makes an image valuable and informative runs counter both to discussion on this page, as well as Wikipedia consensus and policy at large.  I am unsure what point you are trying to make in the second part of that paragraph, as it is both muddled and contrary to some of your previously stated positions.
 * You seem to be arguing that 1 and 2 are irrelevant, my point was a mere disagreement with that sentiment. If I am mistaken, then please disregard. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * throwaway, dude - please read all the way through before you start typing.
 * what part of "I actually don't know" didn't register? it's not important right now if there's no clear answer.  my only thought was that it hello.jpg was not fair use itself, then a screenshot whose only purpose was to display hello.jpg would not be fair use either.  don't ask about it again; we'll get to it if we need to.
 * what part of "don't bog us down in some pointless microanalysis" didn't register? I think what you meant type was was V || !O → I, but in fact what we agreed on was "Images that add value to an article should be used even if they are offensive, but unnecessary offense should be avoided where possible" which is a more complex statement that can't be put into binary logic (the 'unnecessary offense' bit is closer to a weight argument, which has no simple logical formulation).  I'm not trying to slip something by you, so don't obsess over this point.
 * sorry, but I don't see your point. the Apple logo isn't informative - it's simply a logo, and there is no informational value in it whatsoever (except product branding, as per previous discussions).  are you under the impression that the logo informs us of something?  what would that be, exactly?  You seem not to get the distinction between functional images and non-functional images (as thought the schematic for an electronics component and a scan of an oil painting fulfill the same purpose in life)


 * So, let me ask you a simple, straight-out question: no hemming, no hawing, no hand waving, no dodging; just answer it. For the purposes of informing a reader about Goatse.cx, what information would be lost by removing the picture and leaving just the description of the image that that's currently on the article (or some variation thereof)?  I can easily answer this question for your squareness example, or for the images on the penis page, because a lot of information is lost in those cases but I don't see an answer to that question for the goatse screenshot.  -- Ludwigs 2  05:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Goatse.cx is not simply a website, but a web phenomenon. That phenomenon occurred as a result of hello.jpg.  The phenomenon transcended the simple "shock site" label, and became an ingrained part of the internet metaconsciousness.  That transcendence was not of the website, but of the visual schema represented by the image, and demonstrated by the above links.  A simple textual description of the image cannot begin to show the reader how that transcendence occurred, or the nature of the relationship of goatse's memetic descendants to the image and the website that started it all.  Throwaway85 (talk) 05:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: the JavaScript issue appears to be confined to Chrome. I will use firefox from here on out.  Ludiwgs, don't worry, I'm still here =* Throwaway85 (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hunh? javascript issue?  what?
 * Note: you didn't answer the question I asked. I'll repeat it.  For the purposes of informing a reader about Goatse.cx, what information would be lost by removing the picture and leaving just the description of the image that that's currently on the article (or some variation thereof)?  Or are you suggesting that the reader has lost information about 'the transcendence of the image into a memetic element of the human meta-consciousness'?  -- Ludwigs 2  15:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I answered your question. I'm sorry if you didn't like the answer, but that's not my problem.  I don't see anything productive coming from continuing to have this discussion. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not that I didn't like the answer - I simply didn't understand it. can you clarify?  -- Ludwigs 2  08:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite simply, Goastse is not nearly as notable as a shock site as it is for hello.jpg and the memetic descendants thereof. I use the terms transcendence and metaconsiousness deliberately.  Goatse changed the internet, such that any tech-savvy netizen would instantly recognize a mere representation of the visual schema of hello.jpg, which explains the success and prevalence of the above images.  The internet "metaconscience" can be viewed as the totality of the various discussions, thoughts, opinions, rants, and social interactions that take place on the tubes.  More than that, it is the awareness of that totality.  Goatse fundamentally changed it, to the point where one could post one of the above images, stripped of any context, on /. or reddit or digg or 4chan or any number of sites and it would be instantly recognized.  Furthermore, it would be recognized as "goaste" not "that picture from goatse.cx".  This is what I mean when I say that the image is the phenomenon.  Goatse.cx was a shock site, but that's not why goatse is a household term in many circles.  The image, hello.jpg, the visual schema associated with it, and their combined impact on the net created the goatse phenomenon.  Personally, I would be happier if the page was simply on goatse, not goatse.cx, as the former is much more notable than the latter.  Regardless, we find ourself at a juncture whereby we disagree on whether the image has value.  Given that the image caused the phenomenon, and spawned thousands of memetic descendants, I argue that it does.  I've yet to hear a convincing argument as to why it does not.  Given your opposition both to the consensus on this page and the result of the previous RfCs Ludwigs, I think you need to demonstrate that the image has no value.  I think it only honest to say that I don't see you convincing me. P.S.  The javascript issue was due to a bug with a Chrome extension that resulted in js being appended to any edit I made.  See the history for details. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

allow me to counter clarify... I actually understood this aspect of your former post, and I have no problem saying that as a metaphysical/philosophical argument it has merit. goatse as an internet meme - fascinating idea. However, there are two problems with this argument with respect to this discussion: Now, if you want to leave this discussion, that's fine - I will take it as a sign that you have no effective argument to make but are unable to admit it, and I will remove the picture (citing this conversation) pending any future valid argument for its inclusion. If that's how you want to close this discussion, just say goodbye. Or you can give a concrete (non-metaphysical, at least) answer my question - For the purposes of informing a reader about goatse, what information would be lost by removing the picture and leaving just a description of the image? - in which case I will gladly admit that I was wrong, and we can close the discussion that way. up to you. -- Ludwigs 2 18:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * if you tried to add this argument as is to the article it would be removed as pure, unambiguous OR - this is not information that could be used in the article, so you can't argue that removing the picture removes this information. Unless you have some sources that explicitly discuss hello.jpg as a meme, that is (in which case the article should probably be moved from 'goatse' to 'hello.jpg', and rewritten broadly).
 * The image itself is not part of the meme, even if we allow the meme. the meme is idea of it, which is easily captured in words; someone who has never actually seen goatse will instantly get the idea of it with a brief description and any picture containing a circle and hands. that's how memes spread. the overwhelming majority of people who know about goatse have never seen it (myself included, till I came to that wikipedia page), they've just heard about it.  therefore no memetic information (should any such exist) is lost by excluding the picture either.
 * as an added point: images are not included by default an wikipedia.  Any editor can remove any content from wikipedia at any time, whenever they have good reason to believe it is unencyclopedic. it is then up to other editors to justify that the content is encyclopedic so that it can be re-added.  see BRD.  You keep arguing that I need to provide a reason for removing the image, when in fact it is you who needs to provide a credible argument for including it.    burden of proof is not on me here, friend - it's on you.  get it straight.

well, I noticed this morning that Throwaway is still engaged in defending the image in article space even though he refuses to provide a proper reason for it's inclusion here. pure unreasoning tendentiousness... I will wait another 48 hours for a satisfactory response to my question above, and if none is forthcoming, I will assume that this mediation is resolved in my favor and I will remove the image. -- Ludwigs 2 17:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You've been told: that's not how it works. If you do remove it, please note that consensus is not on your side, and you'll be taken to ANI if you try it. Sceptre (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm echoing Sceptre here. This mediation has not concluded, in your favour or otherwise. Starting an edit war because you don't like how this is going will not be tolerated, and I won't hesitate to seek full protection for the article. If necessary, I will also request blocks for anybody who participates in an edit war over the image. Note that this applies to any warring, both removing the image and reinstating it.


 * I disagree.
 * consensus ≠ majority rule, and consensus ≠ status quo. consensus is based in a preponderance of reason and evidence for a given point; read wp:consensus.  since I am the only one actually making an argument on this page, I don't see that the 2-4 other editors involved can actually claim they have anything remotely resembling consensus.
 * I didn't start a damned thing - I simply responded to the actions of Throwaway and Sceptre to (once again) impose the image on the page without reason or discussion. If they want to retain that image on the page unambiguously, all they need to do is give a decent response to the question I asked (repeatedly) a few lines above; in the absence of that, they should refrain from engaging in edit wars with other editors on the goatse page.
 * Let's be frank: you are not going to 'out-stubborn' me on this issue. I have huge reserves of stubbornness I haven't even tapped yet.  Either discuss it properly so that we can be done with it (one way or the other), or cede the point to me so that we can be done with it.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The article has now been full protected, with the image intact. I told you I would, and I did. Its going to stay that way until this mediation is over.
 * In addition, just because you don't like their arguments doesn't mean that they don't exist. I happen to thing their arguments for inclusion are perfectly valid, as are your reasons for not wanting it included. Currently, you're editing tendentiously and using an WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT argument. This needs to cease immediately if you want to get your point of view across. The Wordsmith Communicate 19:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm still waiting for them to answer my relatively simple question above, so I can't quite buy your 'perfectly valid' assertion. perhaps you'd like to clarify what these 'perfectly valid' arguments are, since they seem incapable of doing so?


 * I've left a note on your talk page that deals with the remainder of your comment. -- Ludwigs 2  20:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

arbitrary break 1
Alright, i'll bite. The essence of the pro-inclusion argument (from my understanding of what has been said here) is that the image helps in visual identification, that it is the subject of the article ("hello.jpg" has become synonymous with "goatse" in internet culture) and that text alone isn't sufficient to describe the image and its memetic qualities. The pro-inclusion editors feel that these items, coupled with WP:NOTCENSORED, are enough to override your objections. You, obviously, feel differently. You may not believe their viewpoint is valid, but now at least you know exactly what their argument is. The Wordsmith Communicate 20:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That is pretty much what I assumed their argument to be (well, with the qualification that I don't think they were saying that hello.jpg was the 'subject' of the article, but only that it was synonymous with goatse in the popular imagination - a minor semantic point I have no intention of worrying over). I'm happy to acknowledge the first two points, though I believe that we've established that those two points are not sufficient to merit the inclusion of the screenshot over offensiveness objections.  I disagree with the third statement - that text alone is not sufficient to describe the image and its memetic qualities for the purposes of the article (italics for the phrase I've added).  I see no factual grounding for that claim.  This is the intent of the question I asked above: If the proponents can specify what information would be lost by removing the image and leaving a description, I would have no choice but to admit that the image is required.  Note that I can easily satisfy this requirement for offensive images on most other wikipedia articles I'm aware of - I'm happy to give examples if you want them; just suggest an image for me to justify - but I don't see how that can be done effectively for this image.


 * this is a nice little decision point, if you care to take the challenge: answer that question to my satisfaction and we should all agree that the image is required; fail to answer it, and we should all agree that the image isn't required. -- Ludwigs 2  21:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if visual identification is a valid argument. It is circular (meaningless) to say, "this image identifies itself", and contradictory to all valid pro-image arguments to then claim, "for this it is valuable".

Also, use of the goatse is copyright infringement (even if you justify its use through some invented "screenshot" policy).

If the important quality in the image is the schematic semantics, then valid (non-offensive) image-replacements do exists, like the joke logo-proposal above. Including one or two unoffensive (less offensive) versions of the 'schematic arrangement' could be an option. This would be in line with the supposed purpose and value of the image (and the article) in documenting this as an internet phenomenon. Luciform (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think so too. I'm simply waiting on the 'reasonableness' factor to catch up with the conversation. that may be a while, though - there's a lot of ego-investment in this particular image.  -- Ludwigs 2  03:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ego has nothing to do with it, and as soon as your "limitless stuborness" runs out, we might actually get somewhere. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * dude, I'm waiting on you to answer my question. If you're waiting on me to get bored and go away, well...  we're going to be here a very, very long time.  -- Ludwigs 2  03:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, including some of the more notable parodies may be an alternate way to represent the visual schema. I think it might be silly to provide the derivative without the original, but what do the rest of you think? The Wordsmith Communicate 04:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I agree that it's silly to provide the parodies without the original. Second, as the original has value, as demonstrated above despite the na na na na na na nas of certain editors, offensiveness doesn't factor into the equation. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * see, this is what I mean. Throwaway seems to believe that merely stating that it has value is sufficient, and that no other argument is necessary.  since I credit him with having a reasonable degree of intelligence, this can only mean that he's aware of the fact that the image has no value, and thus is making a determined effort to avoid discussing the matter.  I'd be happy using one of the parodies (I actually offered that as a suggestion some time ago, and ran into this same stubbornness from Throwaway).


 * Again, I made a challenge above that would end this mediation once and for all, quickly and efficiently. why hasn't anyone answered it?  -- Ludwigs 2  04:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The answer to your question is that while text can discuss and clarify points of an image (and its significance), visual media provide information and understanding to the human brain that words simply cannot match. Take a look at images that have alt text attached. The alt text provides a general understanding of the features of an image, but tonnes of information about the intricate details is still lost. Think about goatse as a piece of modern art, for a moment. Hundreds (thousands?) of words can be written describing a painting, i.e. the brush strokes, colour scheme, size, features, expressions on human faces, shadowing etc. However, nothing can quite match an image of the painting itself as far as helping the reader understand the intricacies of a piece of art. Now, by no means am I suggesting that hello.jpg is modern art, but it has become part of cultural awareness that millions of Internet users have come to know, in a manner similar to, say, Mickey Mouse.
 * Anyway, I hope that clarifies the position of the pro-inclusion editors sufficiently for you. The Wordsmith Communicate 04:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, we've been over this point before. If we were going to use some abstract 'information theory' sense of the word this would be tautologically true, but then we'd want to use the same logic to convert all of the text on wikipedia to spoken-word sound files, since obviously a spoken phrase carries more information than a written phrase (intonation, emphasis, pacing, timbre, etc.).  In fact we don't do that, because we recognize that the 'extra' information in a sound file is not pertinent to the content of most articles.  Now if goatse were a piece of fine art, then all the nuanced details about composition, brushwork, and etc (all that extra sensory data) would clearly be important to the article, because people would come to the article wondering how (say) Da Vinci approached he act of painting itself.  By contrast, the only important information about 'hello.jpg' is that it's a picture of a guy stretching his anus with his fingers.  that's it.  compositional details aren't relevant to the article; photographic techniques aren't relevant to the article; all that extra visual data -  who cares?  it's a picture of a guy stretching his anus with his fingers, and that simple statement is all that readers need to understand the nature of goatse in its entirety.


 * Again, this is why I asked the question above the way I did (and I suspect this is why you have once more studiously avoided answering the question that I asked). You all know as well as I do that there is no article-pertinent information lost with the removal of the picture.  If there were any, you'd have come up with it by now, and we'd be done with this conversation.  I mean, this is not a problem - I'm willing to let you try to answer that question as many times as you like (and you may even surprise me and show me that there actually is some significant information lost by removing the picture).  but please don't resort to this semi-mystical reference to some unspecified abstract information contained in the image itself.  If you can't show me something concrete, you're just blowing steam up my ass, and that's not really pleasant for either of us.  -- Ludwigs 2  05:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ludwigs2: I seriously doubt that value has been "demonstrated". It seems we're having trouble getting through to each other.

Taking WordSmith's summary here's how I see it:
 * the image helps in visual identification
 * This does not suggest value in any way. The image is an image. Read my comment above.
 * it is the subject of the article
 * The image or the phenomenon? The idea that goatse was merely a grotesque image had been abandoned by the pro-imagers to support their arguments. They recognise that it is notable for its "impact [on] internet culture". This makes it a phenomenon. Realizing this - the phenomenon is the subject of the article - I think we can safely document the phenomenon without employing the image.
 * Parenthetical: "hello.jpg" has become synonymous with "goatse" in internet culture
 * Taken literally, this is simply not true. Can you cite any articles that claim an equivalence between the text "hello.jpg" and the goatse image?
 * Otherwise that statement has a vague meaning, along the lines of "goatse is the image", something that even the pro-imagers indirectly deny.
 * text alone isn't sufficient to describe the image and its memetic qualities
 * The image is very simply and conveniently summarized in text as: "A man with a ring on one finger spreading his anus apart with both hands".
 * "Memetic qualities"? The image does not help describe cultural ideas or how their spread.
 * Otherwise what is it in the image that text can't sufficiently describe?

We have established for a while now that this last question is of fundamental importance. Pro-imagers rather than advancing this discussion have only been evasive of this issue.

If the content in the image has no value, which it seems not to, then it does not qualify for inclusion.

Thusfar, the 'visual schematic' has been the only claimed value of the image. If this is the case, and a graphical representation of this visual 'arrangement' is deemed necessary, then substitution is possible, and removal is more than justified.


 * visual media provide information and understanding to the human brain that words simply cannot match
 * I'm not sure what this means, but that 'effect' on the human brain seems to be disgust - this is an unnecessary personal violation. Anything else can be described in text or with a less offensive image.

Luciform (talk) 05:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The effect on some human brains is disgust, you mean. Some people are bound to be offended/disgusted by just about anything. For example, I am disgusted by pictures of vaginas. Goatse, on the other hand, doesn't affect me at all. As far as shock images go, its fairly mild. There are some shock images/videos that do completely disgust me (such as the video of the 3guys1hammer murders), but goatse isn't one of them. I imaging there are thousands, if not millions, of people who are similarly nonchalant about goatse. So, when saying that the image is offensive/disgusting, one must ask "offensive to whom? has there been a study done (and published in a reliable source saying that it is offensive? Otherwise, saying it is offensive is just as much original research as saying that hello.jpg is synonymous with goatse. The Wordsmith Communicate 05:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We've accepted that the image is generally offensive - it is a major reason why its inclusion has come into question. It is also non-free (illegal) and alternatives seem to be available.
 * Although you may not be directly offended, you have acknowledged that the content may be "offensive to some people".
 * Though objection (to inclusion) may have been motivated by offense, it is startling that we are unable to find one valid reason to include this image.
 * Images generally carry visual information. This assertion has somehow been used as an argument for the inclusion of the image. What we need is to show that this particular image for the particular purposes of the article merits inclusion. And this has not been done.
 * The particular qualities and details in the image can either be described succinctly and just as accurately in the text (or through a substitute image), or they are impertinent (justifying removal, alone) and offensive.
 * The only thing captured by the image is its visual 'identity', which may be useful to recognize the original exactly, but not to describe the effects of the phenomenon (to which its presence may even be detrimental) or the salient qualities of the image.
 * A reader's questions about the nature of the image and its effects are more than adequately answered in text.
 * I am also very serious when I bring up the copyright infringement that inclusion involves: outright duplication is illegal.
 * Even though I may concede that it would be awkward to exclude an image from an article about that image(-based-phenomenon), I do not think that "awkward", 'unusual', or 'uncommon' practices are necessarily unjustified. After noting this, I think anti-image arguments start to seem natural, and also more reasonable.
 * We have found logical reasons to remove the image, but seemingly none to include it. Although you may think that removal arguments are repetitive, they have not been address, and the counter-arguments are either dubious or do not exist - admittedly, a surprising development.
 * Above, I addressed your assertion that consistent inclusion arguments exist, which, to my understanding, they do not.
 * One of the points we addressed was, "the image shows how shocking the website was", and we agreed unanimously that this was not a valid reason for inclusion. Beyond that, value was not established.
 * It seems that the image is important to the article 'just because'. Instead of discussing why, it seems to have been more important to mention metaconscious, transcendental beer-drinking... ;)
 * Ignoring the rambling, it is rational discourse that has brought us here, and though it may be surprising, it seems undeniable that it has so far justified removal.
 * I tried to point this out by addressing your apparent conception of the discussion (which seems to have lead you to the opposite conclusion). That the image has value to the article is still only a claim and has yet to be shown.
 * Luciform (talk) 08:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please, stop saying that using it is a copyright violation - we've already established that the image is acceptable under the fair use rules, and to keep banging on about this is disingenuous. As for the offence, I would like to use my favourite hyperbolic argument - should we remove the pictures from the articles washing machine and button (clothing) because they may offend the amish? That an image is offensive to someone is not a reason for removal of it. As for a substitute... that seems a bit ridiculous, especially if we replace it with one of the goatse-inspired images as Wordsmith noted. The image we have is perfectly good - if we replace it by (say) an svg graphic, that would be a bit silly, and lose the whole point of the article. This isn't some sex position which can be explained by two nameless svg characters, goatse is a website about one particular Guy Opening (his) Ass To Show Everyone. To have a picture other than of that guy opening his ass...
 * What I am saying is that if we have an argument for inclusion at all, it is the image of hello.jpg (or some variant) which should be used, not a parody. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * @ Wordsmith: You misunderstand the problem. I am not objecting to this image because it is particularly offensive ('particularly' is obviously subjective, and I've seen much worse myself).  I'm objecting to this image because it is unnecessarily offensive.  I would have no objection to using worse pictures if I could say to myself honestly that the pictures contribute something valuable to the article, but I can't say that honestly in this case.  As far as I can tell, the only reason this image is here is to replicate the original shock site on wikipedia as much as possible, and the only reason people argue for it is that they (a) get a prurient thrill out of replicating the shock site on wikipedia, or (b) are duped into supporting that prurient thrill through a blind and thoughtless obedience to policy.  NOTCENSORED was not written into policy so that some damned yokels could get their rocks off using wikipedia to offend the entire world.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is quote possible that I do misunderstand the problem (wouldn't be the first time). In my understanding, this article is primarily about the picture. It is also my understanding that when we have an article about a thing, it is much preferred to have an image of that thing, be it hat, horse or Venus de Milo, except where including a picture is unfeasible (such as a BLP for which there is no free image yet available) or impossible (no known photo exists or can be taken). If I am correct, you believe that offensiveness is another such criteria to allow us to not have an image, yes? If so, you feel that the value that would be lost by removing the image is either non-existent or not sufficient to warrant keeping it. Is this more or less correct? Also, I would caution you not to speak ill of the motives of other editors. Incivility will not be tolerated here. The Wordsmith Communicate 18:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The argument "the article is about the picture" is a well-worn effort to muddle the argument, yes, but it doesn't have much validity. The image itself (separate from goatse) is a non-notable piece of hardcore gay porn, with no particular qualities or features that set it apart from any other of the other kajillion pieces of hardcore gay porn on the internet.  Its only notability (or maybe notoriety is a better word) comes from the fact that the original creators of goatse happened to use it - basically random chance: they grabbed this image out of the universe of offensive images without (so far as I can tell, and so far as is documented) any obvious rhyme or reason.  Now, as an element of the shock site goatse the image gained some prominence, but that prominence has to do with the site and the purpose of the site (i.e. to trick people into viewing images that would shock them against their will), not with the image itself.  in other words, had the original creators of goatse happened to use a different set of images, or put the images in a different order, there'd still be a 'goatse meme' because the trick would still be there, but the meme itself would conform to whatever picture happened to have prominence on the page.  The various parodies - e.g. the fake 2012 Summer Olympics logo - are not paeans to the actual image 'hello.jpg,' but are efforts to recapture the 'trick' of making people think about hardcore gay porn against their will.  very effective at it too - the fake logo is a lot funnier than the original site ever was.  goatse is goatse, and goatse is the trick; the image is happenstance.


 * What you said about my beliefs has an element of truth, though I'm not sure I'd put it quite the way you did. Images are generally useful, and even simple visual identification is usually a plus in an article. However, when it comes to images that have a potential for offense, I believe that a higher standard is required: potentially offensive images should have clear, concrete and unambiguous content value that justifies their inclusion.  An image of a penis on the penis page has content value, because it stands in for the protracted, tedious, and ultimately unsatisfying description of a penis which would have to be done in the absence of an image.  The Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons have a place on the controversy page because the controversy is about the images themselves: some description is required, but any effective description (in the absence of an image) would be protracted, tedious, and ultimately unsatisfying.  For goatse, however, there's no such clear content value - whether you think the article is about the shock site or the meme, the operative element is easily summed up in the phrase "an image of a man distending his anus with his fingers" and the image itself is superfluous.  the only value the screenshot itself has in the article is to increase the reader's sense of shock, and wikipedia (I think) is not in the business of going out of its way to shock its readers.


 * You might consider why a screenshot of goatse is used here, rather than a version of 'hello.jpg'. that choice speaks volumes.


 * I assume, incidentally, that you will caution Throwaway and Scepter when they question my motives (as they have a couple of times already, if I remember correctly)? regardless, I stand by my words.  If there is some other reason to advocate for the retention of this image, I am more than happy to hear it (that is what I keep asking for), and I will stand corrected when I do. -- Ludwigs 2  19:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again, your ignorance is the primary stumbling block to getting anything done. You claim "The image itself (separate from goatse) is a non-notable piece of hardcore gay porn, with no particular qualities or features that set it apart from any other of the other kajillion pieces of hardcore gay porn on the internet."  This was shown to be false above.  First, the image itself is very notable.  Second, It's not "gay" porn, the subject is heterosexual and married.  Third, you claim there is nothing to set apart from all the other porn images.  Nothing, that is, except for the phenomenon that resulted from it.  Ludiwgs, you simply don't know what you're talking about, and you continue to hold your hand over your ears and ignore everything we're telling you.  Do us all a favour, and stop arguing until you familiarize yourself with the subject. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Your evident failure to read my actual argument combined with your seeming inability to refrain from insulting me consigns this comment to the garbage bin. when you actually have something meaningful to say, and can say it without lacing in ad hominems, feel free to try again.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Throwaway, please focus any future responses on the validity of Ludwig's argument, not his character. I warned Ludwigs for doing the same thing above, so now I must similarly caution you. Two people can have a disagreement without the need to be disagreeable. The Wordsmith Communicate 03:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * alright, reset and ignore that last non-responsive exchange. would someone care to try addressing the points I made?  -- Ludwigs 2  03:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll do so tomorrow. Little too full of Olympic cheer to do so properly ATM. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Srsly, there's even cemetery goatse. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Reset
Following a short wikibreak, I feel ready to reengage on this matter in a more dispassionate manner, and am hopeful that others share this desire. My argument can be summarized as follows:


 * The website, goatse.cx[cz, fr, etc] serves as a container for hello.jpg. Yes, there are more images there, but hello.jpg is both the most prominent and the one that serves as the basis of the goatse meme.  That meme has become incredibly widespread, and has indeed had such a profound effect upon the internet and society as a whole so as to engender new laws specifically prohibiting deceitful linking to shock sites.  Because the image is so influential, and because the website serves essentially as a container for it, any article on goatse.cx should include a representation of hello.jpg.  To do otherwise would be akin to excluding the "hand of God" image from Sistine Chapel ceiling.  Yes, there are other images there, but it's known primarily for that one.

Anyway, I hope we can continue this discussion in a more fruitful manner than before. Ludwigs, if you could do me the favour of briefly summarizing your argument to relieve the burden of rereading everything that's come before, I would be greatly appreciative. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * ok, summary first:


 * the website goatse.xx is primarily notable as an early, well-known internet shock site. the images on the site (and in particular hello.jpg) are significant only because of their intention to shock; the actual subject or content of the images is otherwise largely irrelevant.  The only reason any mention of the hello.jpg is required in this article is because that particular image became (as you point out) a bit of a cultural meme.  However, the substance of that cultural meme can easily be captured with a simple verbal description, and the image itself adds no necessary value or information to the article over what's provided by the description.  because it adds no particular value and is generally taken to be broadly offensive, we should refrain from using it.


 * With respect to your argument about the Sistine Chapel, I don't think the 'Creation of Adam' analogy works. The paintings in the chapel are notable in their own right as works of art, the Creation of Adam is iconic both for the chapel and Michelangelo, and many, many people in the world are interested in inspecting the image itself without regard to its relationship to the chapel.  None of these points are true for hello.jpg.  There is nothing notable about hello.jpg except for its use on goatse, and its only value on goatse lies in its shocking nature.  -- Ludwigs 2  05:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)