Talk:Shock site/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Whoreshit.com

This site has been archiving shock site images for quite some time now. There are all of the classics, as well as some new ones that do a great job of shocking (including one man one jar). -Unsigned

[update] This website hosts links to malicious pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.107.163.208 (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Tubgirl

I haven't actually seen it, but I'm pretty sure it's a shock site. I'm not about to go looking for sources though, because I don't wish to view it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.86.67.176 (talk) 04:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a shock site, but it isn't that horrifing...but then again, I find charonboat funny.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.119.1 (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is Tubgirl not mentioned here? It's one of the originals; although I'm not sure if it predated Goatse.cx or not. In any case, it's certainly famous enough to warrant inclusion in an article about shock sites, especially given that lemonparty is mentioned (which came much later and, in my opinion, is much less shocking -- homesexuality is generally more widely accepted than... you know, spraying your own feces into your face). Anyways, Tubgirl is worthy of a mention in this article. The only reason I'm not adding it is that it seems like if it's not here, there is a good reason for it... as I can't imagine that somebody simply forgot. Is there a reason? The Stile Project is significantly less worthy of an inclusion, IMO; mostly because it was very rare that somebody would hide a link to a Stile project image and release it to an unsuspecting chat room full of kids -- unlike Tubgirl, Lemonparty, Goatse.cx, etc. --24.189.101.122 (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Tubgirl was one of the most well-known shock sites back in the day. The Stile Project is simply a porn portal much like the millions of porn portals out there--I fail to see how it even fits under the shock site classification except from the Wired mention back in 2001. 69.181.137.24 (talk) 06:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Tubgirl redirects here but it is not discussed. I am not particularly keen to construct a page where the redirect is or a section on this page to discuss it as I intend to stay poorly-informed by not viewing the material. It would seem appropriate for a well-informed person to either do one or to edit the 32 pages which currently link to the redirect.

Warmest Regards, :)--thecurran let it off your chest 02:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:IAR

Mangojuice, everyone here knows it, some speak out, some don't. You kill this page. Wikipedia is meant for providing information on a range of topics and editors are supposed to make constructive edits, while editors who make destructive edits (you know, deletion of information, that kind of thing) are called vandils. Now we have an admin who deliberately makes destrucive edits and people who, after looking at the abysmal wikipedia page look elsewhere for shocksite information. (Bluwiki and now scribblewiki) So this obviously means that the edits are not for the betterment of wikipedia. But don't worry, mangojuice is backed up by the rules! Or more appropriately, one rule. The notability rule. Famous shocksites such as hai2u, last measure, lemonparty, tubgirl, meatspin and heck, bottleguy are not considered notable because no respectable website, book or magazine is desperate enough to write about sites which depict people insituations which make you wanna throw up. But luckily wikipedia foresaw this kind of thing and made the following rule: Ignore all rules. WP:IAR Its simple and its exactly whats going on here. The notability rule is preventing editors from improving this article. And this is the exact situation that WP:IAR is for. So now, can we PLEASE make this article somewhat useful so they don't end up having to go to other wikipedias?----Cjhard (talk) 08:51, 5 January 2008

Agree with you there, rules are what is holding us back from putting in the rest of the shock sites into the article, lemonparty, hai2u etc. I would like them to be in the article, but someone will say 'We need the sites to be verified as a shock site', which I guess does and doesn't make sense, if no one writes about them, then how can they be verified? They can't.Liquinn (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've heard this argument before. WP:IAR is for places where the rules don't make sense, where the letter of the rules goes against the spirit. That's not the case here; we're talking about the big principles of what Wikipedia is and what it isn't. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means that its burdensome sourcing requirements prevent it from being cutting-edge. That's what the info about shock sites is: it's too cutting-edge for Wikipedia. Someone has to break the ground somewhere else first and then we follow. I came to this page as a result of one of its deletion debates, which nearly ended up deleting the page had it not been for the fact that this topic is appropriate. I like to think that without me and the people helping me, this page would have degenerated so far that it would be deleted by now. Mangojuice^talk 18:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with you there, hopefully Cjhard understands. Liquinn (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the sites should be added here. Wikipedia is here as a resource, and it seems ridiculous that the current application of the WP:N rules are causing unheard of shock sites such as "charonboat" to be listed, when well known ones such as bottleguy are not. Wikipedia should not be right at the forefront of these things, you're right, lest this page, and wikipedia itself, become a record of what is fashionable at that specific moment, or become bogged down with useless information, but sites such as lemonparty.org and meatspin.com are not new: they are established, and deserve a mention on this page. ImperviusXR (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

How is CharonBoat a shock site? Last time I went on it? It had nothing on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liquinn (talk • contribs) 14:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't even know what CharonBoat is. Tubgirl is without a doubt a worthy inclusion. Everybody knows Tubgirl. It was one of the original shock sites on the web. Saying that Tubgirl is not notable is just false. CharonBoat, on the other hand... no. --24.189.101.122 (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

CharonBoat removal

I feel the time has come for this discussion, the last time I went on this site, (CharonBoat.com), it contained fuck all content on it, so I am wondering if it should remain in the article, or be mentioned the content is somehow not there, if someone else can confirm there's no content on there.Liquinn (talk) 15:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

BME Pain Olympics Final Round

I think this shock site should be notable enough. There are enough reactions on YouTube to make this a well-known site. --Chinese3126 (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

What site are you on about? Let me know what the shock site name/url is. We first need to establish that the site is well known, before we can take any further action.Liquinn (talk) 14:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is a shock sites as such; I think it is just a video, where people willingly cut off their 'male parts' (someone mentioned 'hatchet vs genitals below, probably referring to this). This is the most extreme form of body modification. Buckethed (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it does deserves a add. I seen it and its starting to be passed around the web. There has been reactions and etc. Also if its acually a video of people who will try their best to hurt them selfs then there should be a official site for it plus info on the event and such. --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 21:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, it if doesn't receive any notability, then it shouldn't be mentioned here. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 21:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, BME has said that the Pain Olympics videos were fake. At the end of the original videos, they explained that they weren't real. But, people took that off and made it seem real. Wikipedia has an article about the Pain Olympics, and it explains this. 98.216.32.46 (talk) 06:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Newer List of Shock Sites (December 2007)

I have found this site: http://shocksites.scribblewiki.com/Main_Page made by one of the original creators of the massive Bluwiki page that used to exist. It could do with some tidying, but, I was wondering if there is any way that (once tidied up), a link to this page could be given?. It would likely hugely decrease vandalism on this page (as people can put stuff there instead), with only notable shock sites going into this main article? Any ideas on this? Thanks! Buckethed (talk) 04:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC) You need to verify the site, before you add the link's to the article xLiquinn (talk) 15:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

New List of Shock Sites

SINCE WIKIPEDIA DOESNT LIKE LULZ, CHECK THIS OUT FOR LULZ! http://www.digg.com/offbeat_news/List_of_Shock_Sites_finds_a_new_home_again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.87.161.157 (talk) 12:54, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

www.meatspin.com meatspin is definatly a shock site 2 men having anal sex with the one receiveing swirling his penis around and around. You spin me right round baby right round.

www.2girls1cup.com Scatporn female shits in a cup they do something never made it past that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.176.164 (talk) 02:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Umm, they do a bit more than just that. Be glad you didn't watch it o_o I was gagging at a couple points... --76.238.37.203 22:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This page really should mention "Last Measure." The Wikipedia page for Last Measure redirects to this article, but this article makes no mention of it. It should likely mention nimp.org. Nimp.org is also associated with a group of Wikipedia vandals, particularly one named Blu Aardvark. He has been banned multiple times and has set up multiple sock puppet accounts. The group behind nimp.org is also the group that started the ban The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers movement, according to the article mentioned on the top of this page. I'd at least assume a site like that is close to being notable enough to mention in an article on shock sites. Mandanthe1 23:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Question

So I am definitely not understanding why there can't be a list of shock sites. If someone wants to know where they can be found, why can Wikipedia not provide this service? Eehellfire (talk) 09:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

We can, if we have reliable sourcing to back up the information. Just like everything else on Wikipedia, we are only supposed to include verifiable information. Mangojuice^talk 13:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as strict as you might think it is, we have policies to stop any person making a shock site, and it gets posted up on Wikipedia, unless there is documents, facts, or whatever, as long as it can be verified as a well known shock site, I fail to see the benefit of adding these type of sites that can't be verified as well known to the article.Liquinn (talk) 15:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This page is a joke

Why are all the major shock sites such as meatspin and lemonparty not included? Surely NO ONE would challenge their status of shock sites? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.254.241 (talk) 22:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, where are 2 girls one 1 cup —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.43.128 (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Because they need SOURCES - Albeit, Lemonparty is now on the list. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Just open the damn page, that's your source. If article says people usually have 5 fingers on hand, will you ask for source?

More than likely. But I can't back that up with sources.

Reference #7 is fake

Reference #7 is not a relevent reference for this article; it is a fake article about something called the "Gay N*gger Association of America". I am assuming it's corresponding line in the article (This photograph was taken by snid) is also fake. Since the page is locked, someone else has to edit this, but it definitely should be edited.
67.85.133.134 23:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC) chasdenonno

Yup. I thought we had gotten rid of that one as unreliable. I removed the info sourced from that plus the source. Mangojuice^talk 00:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Dudes, we need to put MEATSPIN all over this shit. And the source would be that list of shock sites which i dont wanna link to, it is in reality itself a shock site

Suggesting cupchicks.com/2girls1cup.com

I think that cupchicks.com (a horrible shocksite which contains a short video of two girls making out, then one of the girls takes a shit in a glass held by the other, then they eat the feces and vomit on each other) has a place in the list of shocksites but it is filtered and can't be added... is it still possible to added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarpeDiemIsrael (talk • contribs) 17:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source writing about this site? Mangojuice^talk 18:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

None yet but I will be looking for ones. Thank you. CarpeDiemIsrael 18:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a relatively new one. It appears on both 2girls1cup.com (link removed) and cupchicks.com (link removed), though it's the same video. 2girls1cup.com was registered on August 12, 2007 (whois record has protected identity), and cupchicks.com was registered August 23, 2007 (by a Steve Harris, NSFW Pty Ltd, in Bristol, United Kingdom). I suspect the second registration is a mirror, though why anybody would even think about mirroring or hosting this is beyond me. It's shock value is about 100 orders of magnitude greater than goatse and tubgirl combined. Just simply, totally disgusting.

Anyway, it's still pretty new. I would think that it was put online to coincide with the start of the fall 2007 academic year for college students. I suspect we'll be seeing more of this propogate through the web's message boards & forums as the months go on; it's already been put on urban dictionary, reddit, digg, and several reaction videos have been posted to youtube.

Of course, I don't have any proof, but the "feces" in the video looks a heck of a lot like chocolate ice cream. I suspect it's a well-constructed fake. That unfortunately doesn't make it any less gross, though. Dr. Cash 06:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Dude if it was ice cream then it still came from her ass. and it is poo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.43.128 (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, not necessarily. If you look again (as I know you want to) there is a break in between where the girl, um, 'excretes' the 'substance' and where the girl actually starts eating it. So they could have A) shot one take of the girl crapping, mixed some crushed nuts/vanilla ice cream into chocolate ice cream to get the same color/consistency, and then filmed the rest of the clip using the ice cream, or B) started out with the ice cream and somehow gotten it into the girl's rectum (perhaps with an enema). Just some, ahem, food for thought. -Unsigned

Meatspin

Where is meatspin.com??? meatspin doesn't even redirect to here. D-Fluff has had E-Nuff 18:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It was removed because it doesn't meet notability for a website.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

So why no redirect then? D-Fluff has had E-Nuff 19:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Those were deleted per a request for deletion. Since Meatspin isn't covered here, it is basically useless to redirect here.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I know you serious wikipedians are all about your policies, but past versions of the article are much more complete. It's kind of ridiculous for me to have to dig through the article's history from a year or two ago to find a better treatment of the subject. Not that you weren't going to do it anyway, but feel free to quote more policies here so I can also learn how to butcher an article effectively. D-Fluff has had E-Nuff 14:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll only quote 1: WP:N. Those more "complete" versions should have never been posted here in the first place.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a helpful policy to know! D-Fluff has had E-Nuff 00:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If we need a redirect, it should be to the DC Inside article. This is the only article that talks about it. Skwee (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Explain to me again why there is no MeatSpin? Its a classic! Tell yourt friends hey, check out me at spin .com--Cartman005 01:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

How is meatspin not notable? It's practically a staple on every "fratty" website on the internet.216.188.238.98 (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

SeeWP:N, WP:RS, WP:WEB, and WP:V.--Isotope23 ^talk 12:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

"meatspin" generates (here) 289,000 hits in google against 389,000 for "goatse", so I think your notability objection is very weak. personally, I think it is hard to find anyone who knows goatse but does not know meatspin, I mean both pranks were similarly popular in same circles. 95.132.59.183 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC).

There is a lack of reliable sources for Meatspin, while the BBC and the Scotsman have written about Goatse and its effect on internet culture. We generally use reliable sources, not google hits (which can be easily manipulated) as our measure of notability. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"the execution of a Russian soldier in Chechnya"

Believe me not that I have any interest in watching it, but didn't "the execution of a Russian soldier in Chechnya" video mentioned in the Ogrish section, have a name e.g as in goatse? In fact didn't it have an article? I'm just curious as to what the name of it was, can anyone tell me? Ryan4314 20:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

chechclear.wmv Earfetish1 20:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

i added Lemonparty.org

I don't think I put on enough info about it, but that's all I remember from the site, and I really don't want to look at it again. I also link to a reference of a video interview where Superbad actors discuss the page while doing press for the movie. I saw on another article's discussion, they said Youtube isn't okay to use as a source, so if whoever is not down with that, just take it off. ChesterG 17:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It's utterly idiotic to make an outright ban on YouTube as a source, because YouTube is just another medium. In this case, we're not talking about some user-uploaded video but an interview with CELEBRITIES on MOVIEFONE that just HAPPENS to be on YouTube, because, guess what, that's an easy way to source videos in an online encyclopedia. The whole point of these debates is to establish notability - if celebrities are talking about it in interviews and the internet is full of references and parodies, then it's pretty obvious it's notable as a part of that very internet culture, and latching on to a technicality like 'reliable sources' when the subject itself is such that it would never be covered by mainstream media just seems stubborn, counterproductive, and curmudgeonly. Regardless, the clip you're referring to is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QspVBPkmP5Q and I think, being an official interview by Moviefone, it is at least as reliable as the VH1 clip that finally put the 2girls1cup on here. I'm gonna put the Lemonparty info back up in a bit with that as a source if no one else does it before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baligant (talk • contribs) 19:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Lemonparty was obviously removed again. I have re-added it. This time I have sourced it with an accurate and factual description of the website; with a link to a short film that was made to parody the site; and with information regarding a reference made to the site on the American television sitcom 30 Rock. Although I agree that every single potentially shocking website doesn't qualify as well known enough to have its own entry on this page, obviously if one had gotten famous enough to be slyly mentioned in a mainstream TV show, it is a testament to how well know the site is in general. TheGoonSquad (talk) 15:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly pornographic sites & Talk page needs cleanip

I have added a warning just under the external links category. I fear that users (possibly underage or those who may not know what they are clicking on) will go to an external site which they shouldn't be on. I haven't seen or been able to find a template for the warning that should be provided near adult links, so I improvised. Please only edit if you feel you have a legitimate reason to edit. Oh, and this talk page needs cleanup... "WIKIPEDIA DOESNT LIKE LULZ" is not contributing to the page. --Ts1and2fanatic 02:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there are some unhelpful comments on here. But generally, we don't remove comments unless there's a good reason to. As for the warning, I just removed the external links section instead, since none of the links are informative, but are merely more examples that have previously been removed from the article. Mangojuice^talk 01:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

2girls1cup.com

Why do people keep adding this? There's no evidence of notability, it's unsourced, and I don't think it's even worth putting on the article. And since there are multiple users putting it on the page without reason, I'm beginning to sense sockpuppetry. --AAA! (AAAA) 02:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It's probably a hot meme right now. It'll pass. Mangojuice^talk 14:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

How do you not see the irony of what you're saying in that sentence right there? The whole topic we're dealing with IS memes! So because it's popular it shouldn't be documented?

Don't think so, it's already very big. Tons of movies with peoples reactions to it avialable (look at Break.com, etc). I think it will quialify as a classic. 78.69.52.158 20:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I doubt puppetry. People see the YouTube vids and run here to add it. Many of the editors adding it have been contributing here for a while.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, for starters, I apologise for not checking the talk page before making the entry or even before undoing your delete Iso, but I think it most definitely meets the requirements for notability and references (the site is still live, so if it wouldn't be so disgusting to people I would add a link directly to it). Its possibly the most viewed shock site at the moment, and definitely the most "responded to" (1060 youtube reaction vids as opposed to 14 and 11 for tubgirl and goatse respectively). it is also arguably one of the most shocking sites to date. it hardly seems accurate not to mention it in this article. the reason so many people keep adding it is most likely that a lot of people feel it belongs here. if we still cant reach an agreement, perhaps we should have a vote? LarsHolmberg 22:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

They may feel it belongs here, but without verification of notability from reliable sources, it doesn't belong here. Voting isn't the way things are done at Wikipedia; we discuss to form consensus, but consensus doesn't override policy and guideline. If you have reliable sources to establish notability I think this absolutely should be here, but I don't see those sources at this time.--Isotope23 ^talk 23:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

As stated in WP:Notability, "Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by other guidelines such as those on using reliable sources and on handling trivia. The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines." I think the immense reaction from people, particularly the posting of so many videos on youtube clearly demonstrates what an impact it has had, and that definitely motivates inclusion in the article. As for verification, I would love to hear what claims I'm making that are not supported by the sources provided. Could you think of a better source for the fact that exceptionally many youtube response videos have been posted other than youtube itself for example? Also, wikipedia guidelines do not support the arbitrary deletion of stuff in this manner (assuming you still think verifyability is a problem). If you feel the content needs some refinement, please do not put it in the trashcan every time somebody adds it, instead you should add the appropriate markup. Good content can not always start from nothing, there is a process involved. LarsHolmberg 12:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, if you can provide reliable sources that demonstrate this is a notable site, I would wholeheartedly agree it should be added. A series of YouTube videos is not a reliable source for notability. Beyond that, sorry, I don't agree with you on markup. If it is unsourced, it is out of the article until sourcing is provided. It can easily be retrieved from the article history if someone can find citations and sourcing that demonstrate notability.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Completely concur with Isotope. The thing is, if no one has bothered to write something reliable about the website or its content, we can't say anything about the site without what we say being original research, and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. If you care so much, why not try to get some internet-focussed publication to write an article about the site? Frankly, that's where things are puzzling: people seem to think these shock sites are a major part of internet culture but they are so universally ignored in reliable publications. Mangojuice^talk 18:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Google news turns up one posible source.Geni (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Search engine tests don't work. Youtube and other video sharing websites should not be used to establish notability. Do we need a page on Buffalax because his videos get millions of views?YVNP (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This video is discussed in a segment of VH1's Best Week Ever. Amusingly, Wikipedia's lack of coverage is also mentioned. Pvl (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Google Trends shows facts of the popularity trends between a few shock sites. Dan Leveille (talk) 10:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't the fact that there is a reaction video of Joe Rogan watching this, and a parody video featuring John Mayer make it notable enough? Saying that YouTube videos are not a reliable source for internet memes is ridiculous - YouTube videos and forum postings are THE MEDIUM for internet memes and if Wikipedia is to reliably cover them AS THEY OCCUR (and not a year later, as with the Chuck Norris facts), it's going to have to drop this stupid prejudice and fetish for "reliable media" (like the New York Times is really going to a do a piece on shock sites). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.207.114 (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the "Best Week Ever" segment, although it never mentions the site by name, is definitely a reliable source. This now has my full support. Mangojuice^talk 17:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I apoligize for my mistake. I just remember now about the John Mayer thing. There are quite a few of those. But all that shows is that there should be a PASSING mention of these videos on their page. Forums and youtube are not acceptable unless there is proof that a meme is found across enough popular forums and websites. Benny Lava (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the "Best Week Ever" segment describes this thing as a popular meme, and so does the article Geni found that isn't used as a source in the article yet but will be. Once we have that sourcing, I think it's okay to use primary sourcing for a couple of examples. Mangojuice^talk 14:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I only see a commercial site at www.2girls1cup.com now. No video. Only a request for money therefore I remove it. Update: I can't remove it because the article is semi-protected. I invite enstablished registered users to delete it. --87.15.203.56 (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.15.203.56 (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Why dont we just put the popular ones where they are, then put the unpopular ones like Lemonparty and cursed sanctuary in a list, with a short description? Skane 18:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Lack of reliable sources. Mangojuice^talk 04:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

New shocksite

Any chance of inclusing timetopuke.com which has most of the shock sites bundled into one? eg 2girls1cup, hatchet vs genitals etc etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timetopuke (talk • contribs)

If you can show us some realiable sources and prove its notability, then yes, we might. --AAA! (AAAA) 04:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Rule of thumb

I've noticed many debates over notability on this discussion page, and propose using Google to determine notability. Here are some examples:

• Goatse-1,400,000 hits
• Tubgirl-165,000 hits
• Lemonparty-78,000 hits
• Meatspin-97,600 hits
• 2Girls1Cup + Cupchicks-A whopping total of 13,570,000 hits (added together)
• Bottleguy-646 hits
• Teletorrents-305 hits

So, which of these are well-known and which are not? Debate and decide. Skwee (talk) 02:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

How about if we use our guidelines instead? The search engine test is a bad one. --Haemo (talk) 05:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Or just simply WP:V. We can't write about any topic without reliable sources. Mangojuice^talk 17:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well...Lemonparty has been on TV. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Or1zm6Ub7c4 And WP:GOOGLE says the search engine test is a rule of thumb. 74.212.39.109 (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Amusing youtube spot, but of course that's not TV. Mangojuice^talk 20:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

In fact it did air on television. If you check the YouTube link, it had been removed due to a copyright claim by Fox. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

your google is broken, my only shows 389,000 results for goatse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.132.59.183 (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The number of hits may have decreased as sites died. Keep in mind that the hits you see were calculated back in 2007. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It is retarded to keep bitching about "reliable sources" when we're talking about shock sites here. The reliable source is the god damn site itself. IF you go to meatspin.com and you see a spinning cock then yep, it's a shock site! And since when are Google and YouTube not reliable sources for Internet culture items?

I ADDED SOME SHOCK SITES

I added some major shock sites including KIDS IN A SANDBOX EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhatYouDid (talk • contribs) 00:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Please do not add any unless there are reliable sources to back them up. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

2007

2girls1finger

Should 2girls1finger be put in? It is clearly a shock site, which makes 2girls1cup look tame and has loads of very bad links below it. It is very shocking :( Buckethed (talk) 02:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't, unless there's coverage in reliable sources. Mangojuice^talk 04:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be here.Geni 03:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice work - there's another source we can use for 2girls1cup. However, that isn't about "2girls1finger" which is apparently not the same. Mangojuice^talk 04:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This seems to solve the issue of what happened in that video. This should be mention in the Corophagia page perhaps.:)YVNP 17:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you honestly think that "Deep Thrusts" or whatever the fuck is more notable than 2girls1finger? I never heard of the former before looking at this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.255.197 (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Pain Series

Pain series redirects here, but there's no information about it on this page. 67.163.166.150 (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I've taken care of the problem. If you're curious, you can look through old revisions. Mangojuice^talk 21:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Shrewsbury pics

They should be deleted since they are not pics of the site and are just pics of the site. Just find the real story or post the shock site to compare with the new website.(not really necessary)YVNP (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Lemonparty again

So recently, Lemonparty was added back in on the basis of three external links. Two of them were postings of a parody video that has been circulating on YouTube. One is just the video, the other is a brief column about it that appears on a website vaguely linked to VH1; the text claimed this appeared on the show but that's not what the website indicates. Furthermore, these sources don't make any reliable claims about the shock site. The third link is backing up a very dubious reference in a sitcom, but it's just someone's blog, not a reliable source anyway. So what we've got here is a couple of blogs. I don't think this cuts it, but if others disagree I'm interested to hear where my analysis is off. Mangojuice^talk 05:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

A search of "lemon party" and "30 Rock" brings up over a thousand discussions of people's citings of the far from dubious reference to the website on that show. (Twice.) How you could call it "dubious" is beyond me; it was blatant and implicit and intentional. What's going on here is that people are playing little games with the edits to try and posture positions of authority, and it's getting to cross the line of acceptable wiki behavior. Why would you demand sources that are not equally demanded for "TubGirl"? The only source there is rotten.com, a website that perhaps defines dubiousness. If anything "lemon party" has been sourced BETTER than most of the entries in this article. I am putting the content back in for what is now a FOURTH time, and if it is removed again, I'm going to demand administrative intervention. TheGoonSquad (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The point is, we don't get to decide if it was a reference or not, but even if it is, we need reliable sources that talk about Lemonparty the shock site. You do have a good point about Tubgirl's sourcing; it's totally inadequate, so I'm going to remove that one. Mangojuice^talk 15:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ogrish banned in germany? Thats simply not true. Ì and all my friends can access the site (now liveleak) without problems. I doubt that the government would have the jurdical rights to do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.208.148.40 (talk) 12:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It says it was banned, back when it was actually Ogrish; not that it's banned now. Mangojuice^talk 16:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Brooklyn bizarro

The site is run by Jimmy Palmiotti of comic book fame. He has done many notable comics like deadpool and it is used for his comics as well. It should mentioned.YVNP (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

2008

Meatspinned

Hey guys, I just added a bit about meatspinned. i think i got most of the info wrong. edit it if you tgink i have. --Jasper1066 (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC) Not notable for reasons stated long ago. Years ago. No new notability exist198.189.252.243 (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Man-X

Man-X.org appears to feature webcams monitoring decaying human corpses. Not sure if real or hoax. Disguised and advertised as a porn site with "live webcams showing beautiful bodies" and a typical "click here if you are 18 or older" disclaimer. - link verified and info added 1 jan 2008. 78.21.206.84 (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not disguised it states what it is. It is has few hits.198.189.252.243 (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Three things

1. Should we put new entries to the discussion page at the top, or bottom, of this discussion page?
2. Should out.ihang.org be included? It shows some guy walking around department stores, 'hanging out' and openly doing bad things. It shocked me a lot :(
3. Should nutsintheass.com be included? It is a truly shocking site, feature a clip where someone puts his, 'nuts' into someones 'ass' :'( These minor shock sites seem to be proliferating at a ridiculous rate! Buckethed (talk) 04:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Standard practice on Wikipedia is to put new threads at the bottom of the page on talk pages. As for 2 and 3: if there are reliable sources about them they can go in, but this has generally not been the case for all but some of the very most notorious shock sites. Mangojuice^talk 14:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have moved this to the bottom - it was unclear from the dates of the entries above! Buckethed (talk) 07:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I readded lemonparty and meatspin

I've got five letters for you: WP:IAR. This is most definitely the correct time to apply this underused rule. As we all know, Wikipedia is NOT (WP:NOT) an indiscriminate collection of information, so clearly this article should not just contain information on every single minor shock site that might spring up, but Wikipedia is also not a beaurocracy. To quote from WP:NOT, "Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines if you feel they conflict." I believe that there are serious conflicts here. I think we can all agree that the perfect state of this article would be to have all the major shock sites listed here, and verifiably sourced, with no pollution from unheard of shock sites such as "charonboat"; the WP:N rule is supposed to make sure that these unheard of sites do not enter into wikipedia, but it seems to have failed here quite dramatically. Because of the nature of this article's content, no verifiable sources will exist for many reputable and well known shock sites. However, by applying these principles that are part of the underlying laws upon which Wikipedia is founded, we can create an article about shock sites with all the characteristics of that perfect article I just described, save one small point: we take the forum posts, the blog submissions, the youtube videos, and in the cases of well known shock sites, such as meatspin, lemonparty, or hai2u, we simply do not take a source. This course of action benefits the article, the wikipedians, and the casual reader, who now has a good page to read about shock sites. Rules are necessary to the wellbeing of wikipedia, but sometimes we need to break those rules. ImperviusXR (talk) 11:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:WIARM -- IAR does not say that we should not aim to be a reliable encyclopedia just because it suits us. I'm reverting your change, because although editors have known about Lemonparty and Meatspin for years now, there have still been no sources, which means that that information is not verifiable. If you want this in so badly, go find some real sources. Someday, I'm sure, they will exist. Until then, set up a blog or something if you want the information to be out there. Wikipedia is not the place for original work. Mangojuice^talk 14:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

To quote WP:WIARM ""Ignore all rules" does not sabotage the other rules. Its purpose is to keep them from sabotaging what we're doing here: building a free encyclopedia." Clearly, in the case of this article, the notability rules are holding back this article's usefulness and reliability. I really do not see how you can think that WP:IAR does not apply here: this is the sort of rules clash that it was created to avoid! I don't want to start an edit war, so I won't put back the information on the two sites, but i really hope that we, the wikipedian community, can either reach a consensus on either side or build a compromise somehow. ImperviusXR (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's be specific. Forum posts are not good enough, because anyone could make some easily to influence the inclusion of their favorite shock site. (Heck, having been added to the Wikipedia article would probably be better proof than most forum posts.) In many cases I would be willing to agree that these posts are not made with conflicts of interest. But reliability? There is no way to assume, except in perhaps some very rare instances, that any of the material is accurate. People can just say whatever they want, there's no chance that any of it is fact-checked. It's really not reliable in any stretch of the imagination. I think the requirement for sourcing is absolute: we definitely must have some. As for less reliable-than-normal sources I think we are already stretching things a lot as it is. But let's at least talk about some specific sources. Mangojuice^talk 11:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that the only content that we are probably going to be putting on this page is the nature of the site, which is easily verifiable by visting the site in question, we just need proof of a specific site's notability. I reckon that we, as a community, could draw up a (short) list of shock sites that we find notable. ImperviusXR (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, proof. Proof is not opinion. It would be unacceptable to simply have people say what they think is notable and leave it at that. People have often come here to push for their favorite "new, up and coming" shock sites and that cannot be the standard. Look at List of Internet phenomena: there is no reason a topic like this cannot insist on sourcing. There are tons of Internet phenomena not covered there, but certainly the ones without reliable sources are not covered, no matter how momentarily popular they were. Mangojuice^talk 16:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That isn't my point: my point is, that i am suggesting that we, the contributors of this page, draw up, by popular consensus, a list of perhaps two or three sites that are notable, and whose presence will improve this article. ImperviusXR (talk) 08:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Basing the threshhold for inclusion directly on opinions is not acceptable. We need some kind of principle on which to make the decision. The only one I would support is the existence of reliable sources on the subject: it is required anyway, and is already tough enough to meet. Early on we had tried things like Ghits and Alexa rank but they were very unreliable when it came to conformity with WP:V. Mangojuice^talk 14:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree: basing the inclusion on general wikipedian consensus would seem to me to be the best way to maintain an article of exceptional standard on the subject of shock sites. WP:IAR. ImperviusXR (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:IAR is a really lousy argument. Yes, one can ignore rules. But then, the rules are there because almost all the time they are correct. What makes this subject such an exception? Apparently, its extremely low level of coverage in reliable sources. Normally, such topics are either deleted, or if they remain included the coverage is limited to what is covered in reliable sources, and going beyond that is considered original research, which we try to avoid. So, why do none of those arguments apply here? Mangojuice^talk 05:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:IAR, as I have detailed above, describes this situation almost precisely- the rules are holding back the quality of this article. By acting as i have described above we can make this article sustainable, and better. Anyway, surely we can [WP:V]] the sites' descriptions based on the sites, the only thing that needs to be proven is notability. ImperviusXR (talk) 08:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

What makes this different from other subjects where there aren't any sources? In both cases, sticking to sources is holding us back from writing the article. And we disagree about the quality: I think the only way we get quality is by sticking to sourced material - it makes the article worse to include unsourced material. And I think WP:WIAFA and WP:WIAGA back up my opinion on quality. Mangojuice^talk 12:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:WIAFA requires an article to be " "Comprehensive" [which] means that the article does not neglect major facts and details." Neglecting to mention the most well known (yet unsourced) shock sites surely means that this article fails to meet this criterion. To the average wikipedia reader, this criterion easily outweighs the WP:N debate. ImperviusXR (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

For the third time, what makes this subject different from other subjects where there aren't any sources? Why should we not use your same argument to ignore WP:V and WP:NOR everywhere? This argument is a slippery slope and I see no reason we should depart from the principle here: there's nothing special about this subject. Mangojuice^talk 21:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

So are you saying that WP:IAR should never be applied? Clearly the rules in this case are standing in the way of a good, comprehensive article. ImperviusXR (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, for the fourth time, why doesn't your argument imply that we should ignore WP:V and WP:NOR everywhere: what makes this subject different from all the others? And yes, I am saying that we should never ignore WP:V and WP:OR. The text of the rules maybe, if it doesn't match the spirit, but never the spirit of those rules, which is what you are proposing. Mangojuice^talk 21:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

See also WP:WIARM#What "Ignore all rules" does not mean, specifically, it doesn't mean there is an exception to every rule, nor does is it an invitation to use Wikipedia for purposes contrary to WP:NOT (specifically, not a publisher of original thought). Mangojuice^talk 21:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

What you are saying goes directly against the rule WP:IAR. in other cases, application of those rules improves the quality of the article: here it clearly detracts from it. "The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should perhaps be ignored." ImperviusXR (talk) 08:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, if it wasn't obvious before, I am saying that the application of the rules here does not detract from the quality of the article. Application of the rules makes the article as good as it can be, because reliability and verifiability is much more important for quality than the misguided aim to cover unverifiable information. I have no idea why you think that general principle wouldn't apply here, when it makes such sense everywhere else. And you still haven't answered that, despite me asking it four (now five) times, nor do I think you possibly can. Mangojuice^talk 13:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have answered the point, continually- the application of the rules is leading to this article being incomplete, covering random sites here and there without being comprehensive or reliable (ironically). I have said again and again that WP:IAR should definitely be applied here- you say that WP:N should never be contravened- I draw your attention to the "A" in "IAR". While it is true that we should not just allow any shock sites (because there are obviously thousands) to get in, i dont see why we shouldn't take two or three major ones without sources. After all, the information we would put on them is no less reliable than taken from a source- data from a wikipedian going to a website and reporting on it is surely more reliable when the site is the shock site in question than if it were a short piece on a website about that site. ImperviusXR (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you are absolutely correct. Mangojuice has literally owned this article for years now. Community consensus be damned, nobody is allowed to edit it without his permission, and he has abused administrator privileges and friendships with other administrators to keep it that way. For example, as soon as consensus was reached at one time, where every single person on the discussion page was in agreement (except for this guy), the article was locked. Want to know what version the page was locked to? His version. This page has been a lost cause for years now, and Mangojuice continues to be the major reason why I, and many other people, just don't bother editing Wikipedia articles. Aftli (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You are simply arguing that Wikipedia's core principles aren't important in general. All the things you have been saying apply just as well to any topic where there isn't enough reliable information to maintain encyclopedic coverage. You have time and again refused to explain why this topic is different from any other - the conclusion is inescapable that this topic is not different from any others, so the only reason to ignore the rule is to argue that the rule isn't important. And I see no logic at all to the idea that adding unreliable information to an article somehow makes it more reliable - it's not ironic, it's just wrong. Similarly, I do not think that it's a good idea to use "data from a wikipedian going to a website and reporting on it" - that is simply original research and there's no reason to think it would be usable here any more than it is usable anywhere else.

I think it's fair to say you are never going to convince me so you may as well stop trying. I'm probably not going to convince you either. Nonetheless, I think the precedent, and the fact that this stance has been upheld every time uninvolved but established Wikipedians have been called to comment on it indicates that we should continue handling things this way until there is consensus to change it.

FWIW I recognize that the list is kind of crappy. I for one would favor simply removing it. I don't think it's a valuable or legitimate goal of the encyclopedia to try to present a list of examples of shock sites. I've made this point before but received little feedback on it, and given the continuous amount of interest the list generates I've concluded that that solution isn't wanted. Alternatively, I wouldn't mind having a plain list of articles without any information about them -- the criterion for inclusion would just be whether or not there exists a stand-alone article on the subject (that describes the subject as a shock site) on Wikipedia. That would take care of the "CharonBoat" problem you pointed out - surely such minor, though sourced, incidents would not qualify for independent articles. Mangojuice^talk 16:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with you on your new suggestion for how a site can qualify for inclusion: I would rather have a few, well sourced and famous shock sites missing out a few who cannot be sourced than have a few, badly sourced, and not particularly famous sites being included. (Oh, and by the way, by "data from a wikipedian going to a website and reporting on it" i was referring to the system of legitimate sourcing that wikipedia has, making the point that having to search for these sources is much more ridiculous and unreliable than citing the actual site as a source for WP:V, although obviously this would not contribute to the WP:N side of things. Still, it was a small point, and does not really matter) I'll still keep a watchful eye open for sources and the like to be able to get information about better-known sites on wikipedia, and i'll keep an eye out for vandalism and unsourced references to the page, seeing as consensus has clearly not been fully reached on the issue. ImperviusXR (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Just stopping by to help with consensus. My voice is with ImperviusXR. Just list a couple of most famous ones and describe them. If you write "the page contains..." and use the page in question as a source, I see no problems with that.20:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.234.207.20 (talk)

Mr Hands

This video (also called 2Guys1Horse & mrhands.mpg) has spawned many YouTube reaction videos. It shows this, which garnered national attention. Is national notoriety sufficient basis for including it in the article ? 205.238.227.157 (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it even a site? I don't think we should be calling viral videos "shock sites" if there isn't an actual site. Mangojuice^talk 17:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Lemonparty.org

I added lemonparty.org again. It was removed. Let's settle this once and for all: Is lemonparty.org a shocksite. In my opinion, it most certainly is. How is lemonparty.org different from Goatse.cx? If no-one objects I will add it again in a couple days. I however don't want this to become an Wikipedia:Edit War. So if anyone objects please bring up concerns here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipedialuva (talk • contribs) 20:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read through the archives of this talk page. This has come up over and over, and we simply need reliable sources on the subject. Mangojuice^talk 20:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Tubgirl

Why is tubgirl redirected here? There is no mention of tubgirl in the entire article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.248.226 (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

List of shock sites

This website has listings of all the major shock sites currently known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamez629 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

BME Pain Olympics a.k.a. Hatchet v.s. Genitals

This site DESERVES to be added. I can GARENTEE YOU its worse than 2 Girls one Cup.

Reactions

• BME Pain Reactions (Click for Mor info for the Link)
• Another
• Another One
• Its a Chick watching it xD

I litterly gotten sick for the ENTIRE DAY watching this. I gaged on 2 Girls but THIS is a WHOLE NEW OTHER LEVEL. The Site Link is in the First Video right in the Summary area --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 21:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources? As in, about its notability. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 21:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a shock site, but it isn't real. They have a disclaimer at the end of the video claiming that it was false. Most of the videos leave the disclaimer out though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.86.67.176 (talk) 04:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Lemonparty

Okay, I personally think Lemonparty is notable enough for this list just because it has been referenced in culture obscurely:

• Firstly, it has been referenced and alluded to TWICE on 30 Rock (most notably with the "It isn't a lemon party without Old Dick!" line in Ludachristmas, which ironically is a double-meaning line - hiddenly referencing the picture, plus the fact that there was a "Dick Lemon" in that episode).
• Talkshow with Spike Feresten also did a sketch making a obvious allusion to the picture without "directly" showing it.
• The Best Week Ever blog did a story about the Talkshow sketch (and did also mention the fact that lemonparty is a shock image too)

Would this be good enough? ViperSnake151 15:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't think so. The 30 Rock joke is WP:OR without a source backing it up other than the show itself. The same applies to the "obvious allusion" in the Spike Feresten show. And the other one is a blog, not a reliable source, and in any case it has nothing to say about the shock site. Mangojuice^talk 00:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Also I linked the eBaums World version of the Lemonparty sketch and you hear Spike saying something like "Hey eBaums World, I didn't have the time to do Tubgirl, but here's Lemonparty" - that pretty much confirms that it was a takeoff on Lemonparty. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, you can cite episodes as a source. Also, I did remove the OR saying it was a Double entendre, and I'm just letting the reader piece the joke together themself (with Dick in the line, being a hyperlink to Penis) ViperSnake151 01:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

ASCII art representation of PenisBird

I've restored and reworded the statement in the Other shock sites section about trolls posting ASCII art renditions of the image. This was removed with a edit summary saying that it was original research. I consider that it is not original research if you can clearly read the statement in the source, and that is what my rewording was trying to address. To me, it would be original research if there was no mention of it in the source, and some editor would have searched through Slashdot forums, seeing the text version and then added the statement to the article. –W2bh (talk) 12:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• As the edit that you mentioned was one of mine, i thought i should point out my reasoning. The source does not state that the ASCII version of the penis bird appears "from time to time" on slashdot, and with that removed, i did not think that this imitation of the picture (that does not stem directly from the page, but the trolls linking to it) was not then deserving of mention in this article. ImperviusXR (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica

I've added Encyclopedia Dramatica to the list with sources as it has been cited as a shock site by multiple sources. I have a draft of a proposed ED article at User:Urban Rose/ED and included parts of it in the article. If you think that the whole draft belongs in the article, I will add it, but my intent is not to go against the article's latest deletion review by recreating the article in this page, so I've only included the introduction and the mention of the incident involving Jason Fortuny.--Urban Rose 16:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any of the refs refer to it as a shock site, do they? It really isn't a shock site...there might be some "shocking" things on it but not in the sense of this usage. I removed it...RxS (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

To respond to the comment left on my talk page. ED doesn't exist primarily as a place to shock people, it's a parody site. There's ton's of site that have shocking content that are not shock sites. Please remove the section as it does not fit. And if you have a problem with other sites that are included, the way forward is to remove them (or discuss them here) and not to point them out as a new standard of inclusion. RxS (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

ED is not a shock site. None of the sources refer to it as a shock site, or even refer to it doing something shocking or offensive. It is known to be offensive to many, even not considered a shock site. Mangojuice^talk 18:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Two of the sources are written and cannot be verified, but one of the internet sources does specifically refer to the site as offensive. See my comment on your talk page.--Urban Rose 18:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Urban, let's keep the discussion here on this page where it belongs. Regardless of that source, it doesn't come close to describing the site as a "shock site" or any wording that means anything equivalent. Plus, out of three people who've commented, only you think this is a shock site, and frankly it sounds like you're doing it to preserve material that has been rejected elsewhere. Mangojuice^talk 19:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason I didn't include the entire draft of the article was to avoid recreating rejected material. And personally, I don't care how many people think it is or isn't a shock site. I think the site speaks for itself. But I'm not going to start an edit war so I won't be readding it anytime soon.--Urban Rose 02:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Last Measure and McAfee sitadvisor

Regarding Talk:Shock_site/Archive_3#Last_Measure - The blog in question appears to be owned by McAfee staff. If the person who wrote the entry is a McAfee staff member, then wouldn't this be a reliable source? WhisperToMe (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that might be reliable. It's called a blog, but it's not really a blog. Mangojuice^talk 03:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't meatspin.com be on the list?

It contains an image of a person spinning his penis around. -Unsigned

We know. No reliable sources talk about it, though, so we can't use it. Mangojuice^talk 01:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

So I put {{nomorelinks}} on here

I'm now suggesting that ANY additional shock site added to this article be discussed on the talk page first unless it is already sourced when added. I just amended the default wording of that {{nomorelinks}} Substitution bomb to add a little warning, since I think it could help. ViperSnake151 23:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It's been tried before, we'll see if it helps. I moved it to the examples section, b/c I figure most people will click the "edit" tab on that section to add their item. Mangojuice^talk 15:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This is gross

This is gross. especially meatspin, goatse, and 2 girls 1 cup --Ωfrogger3140Ω (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It could be worse. We could also include the images of the shock sites... --AAA! (AAAA) 19:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No Don't!!! --Ωfrogger3140Ω2 omega (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Pwned :) 24.209.243.50 (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Wut Da Heck --Ωfrogger3140Ω2 omega (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Goatse.co.nz

A relatively new goatse website, Goatse NZ has popped up. May this be added to the goatse section please?125.236.191.51 (talk) 08:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Got references? Mangojuice^talk 20:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Got Milk? user:Goatjuice.(sorry, could not resist. no offense meant)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ogrish

Level 3 Communications is not a German company. I think that sentence should be fixed (by someone who can edit the article;)). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.72.158.48 (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Mylazysundays

mylazysundays.com, anyone? Johndoe789 (talk) 15:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Infoslash.net

It became popular in last months. Warning: do not open the site if people are close to you. --201.79.155.68 (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Fake references

Please remove reference #10 - it sends users to a shock site. I haven't bothered to check the other references, as their titles make it obvious they are not actual references. Can an editor please audit the references? Mrspandex (talk) 04:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Reference #10 does send the users to the shock site in question, but it is also the correct address. It refers to a letter from Slashdot, which is present on that page. It might be reasonable to include a warning in that link, though. Mangojuice^talk 04:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

PuddingFart

Puddingfart.com is pretty self explainatory. It has a women sit on a plate of pudding and then proceeding to fart on it. Little did she knw that she would release a nugget at the end of the video. Pudding Fart —Preceding unsigned comment added by OTmp3 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Rotten.com

Isn't Rotten.com, in existence since 1996 and perhaps one of the oldest of any well-known sites, worth mentioning? I'm not quite into shock sites (yuck!), but I wouldn't be surprised if the entire tradition originated with this one. Steinbach (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to say the same.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 11:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this just happening to me?

When I try to edit the page, this puddingfarts site doesn't show up. Is this happening to any of you & could somebody fix it? There is nothing noteworthy about the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.47.86.168 (talk) 04:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

1guy1cup

This shock site has been appearing all over. Maybe a mention? YVNP (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate article!

List of shock sites is exactly the same. The LMOE (talk) 08:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry. It just redirects to this page. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

2009

Last Measure again

It does have a source for it in a McAfee SiteAdvisor blog post [5], and it does meet the reliable sources and attribution guideline since it can be considered as a trusted secondary source (I'd ask the previous user who said that it isn't what he thought about it, but I can't reach him). That should cover the bases for verifiability, wouldn't it? --Aeon17x (talk) 13:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've never been clear whether these "official" blogs should be considered reliable sources. In this case: the independence of the source is clear, and it definitely should be considered secondary. But is this a reliable source? Is there any kind of editorial oversight? Or is it just the personal mouthpiece of a person who works for McAfee? Mangojuice^talk 15:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Good question on the reliability bit. I suppose we should run it through the RS noticeboard and see what happens. As for editorial oversight, there should certainly be some degree of it... the author speaks of how SiteAdvisor itself responds to Last Measure and other shock sites, as well as an impression that he's working with other people in their project by identifying themselves as a team ("we spotted a MySpace group..."). The tone seems rather unofficial, but the details presented were clear and investigated thoroughly, at least on the technical aspects. --Aeon17x (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

And about reliability, I think it may meet the requirements for self-published sources.

• relevant field - This particular blog post is about Last Measure and shock sites in general, and discusses their group's response to those type of sites.
• reliable third-party publications - The author and other members of their group has been cited in at least one academic paper on browser attacks [6]. --Aeon17x (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Being cited in an academic paper is not the same as having reliable publications. The standard you point to says that self-published sources can be used if they're written by experts... I think the best argument would be that their position working for McAfee qualifies them as experts but that's outside the WP standard policy. I think the RS noticeboard is the best idea. Mangojuice^talk 13:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I was skeptical at first, but I think the report is reliable and within the scope of McAfee's expertise. I'd say this one goes to weight. Does the mention on this site merit coverage in our brief list of examples of shock sites? My feeling is that it does not, because there are other shock sites around that get mentions in the popular media and are of much greater cultural weight. --TS 22:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

True that, I suppose the current shock site article isn't lacking at all in providing examples of them. Not to mention Last Measure is just a mixture of other shock sites anyway. --Aeon17x (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Would the fact that the core scripts of Last Measure are FOSS be good to mention too? ViperSnake151 15:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Why do we even need examples here?

Going beyond the discusions of why any particular shock site should or should not be included as an example... I have to question whether there is a need to include any examples. I find the article clearly explains the topic without needing to list any examples... so the examples seem superfluous. Given the constent debate over whether individual sites should be listed or not, wouldn't it simplify matters just to omit having examples all together. Blueboar (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I've proposed that myself in the past but I felt hesitant to implement it. Partly, it's because a lot of editors who would oppose it are somewhat transient here. And partly, it feels like taking the easy way out to me. Mangojuice^talk 20:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Some of the examples are so famous that we really need to mention them. Describing them is a different matter, but still useful, i think. At least you'll know what to expect.20:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.234.207.20 (talk)

Is this considered a shock video?

This video shows several clips of car crashes but it doesn't look like any one is hurt. 69.181.224.126 (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Putrid

The site PutridSexObject.com is an additional shock site which may have a place on the article. I am not sure how to determine whether or not it is verifiable. The artist in it named Thistle Harlequin is interviewed here here but I don`t know if the blog is notable or anything. Is inclusion in this article determined on the basis of things like google count, hits, stuff like that? I am just suggesting it here, if anyone knows what other information needs to be acquired and how to do it, that would be helpful. For now I have redirected the artist's name in case anyone is looking. Tyciol (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion is on the basis of verifiability from reliable, secondary sources. Blogs don't qualify normally because there is no editorial oversight. (We made an exception for the Last Measure source, though, because it was an official blog of MacAfee.) Most sites won't get reliable sources unless the phenomenon is really widespread; as you can see we only have a handful of entries. Mangojuice^talk 01:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Glassass.com

♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Edits i cant do

"Last Measure is a shock site script written by the Gay Nigger Association of America (GNAA) which utilizes Flash, Javascript, and Java"

GNAA bit needs to go. Indivdiff (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

woah nm, they actually did make it. Indivdiff (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Just get rid of the page.

Since it's pretty much useless.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 02:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• No, there is such a thing called a "shock site" and several shock sites have become notable. The general concept is there, so we need an article about it. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I've been noticing that the "popular" shock sites aren't featured here because of some stupid notability rule (Meatspin, etc).--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 04:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This article needs a section on the legality of shock images

According to the Miller test, it would seem that shock images and shock video are illegal in the USA. However while there's been cases of even text sex story websites like "Red Rose Stories", I've not been able to find cases of the government vanning someone over shock images or shock sites. And the 2girls1cup bust was when it was sold for sexual reasons, not when it was used as a shock video. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 10:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. If you can dig up any reliable source material that would be a good way to expand the article. Mangojuice^talk 06:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the problem is I've not been able to. Read Obscenity#U.S._activity_and_court_cases_dealing_with_obscenity if you haven't. It's rather interesting how the US laws are working now. The shutting down of hardcore porn sites and even a fictional sex stories site appears to be ignoring the Miller Test where it says, "The jury may measure the essentially factual issues of prurient appeal and patent offensiveness by the standard that prevails in the forum community, and need not employ a "national standard."" since people that come to a website full of sex stories or extreme porn ore of the community that wouldn't find that stuff obscene. Then there's the site called "That's Fucked Up" that posted some images from the Iraq war and the website itself well by the title it would attract only a certain community of people and plus thus images would be political anti-Iraq-war images.

Now Canada which has stricter obscenity laws, one tried to bust someone for writing a sex story [7] but it was thrown out of court. Tthe UK which also is stricter than the USA tried busting somebody for writing a sex story [8] [9] and he was found not guilty[10].

The thing is that shock images and shock sites are specifically designed to upset people who don't want to be. I'm very surprised I can't find a case of someone being prosecuted for them. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 08:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Until this is mentioned in a reliable source, unfortunately we can't include anything about it. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing for meatspin

Have any other sources been found for Meatspin? There is a Crave Online article which mentions Meatspin as a method of an office prank: http://www.craveonline.com/entertainment/humor/article/5-insidious-office-pranks-67719 WhisperToMe (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Nothing remotely good. I don't think that source is enough, since it basically says nothing about Meatspin so as "not to ruin it." Mangojuice^talk 04:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, interesting to see that after literally years, this Mangojuice user is still here trolling this article. Compelling arguments have been made against you, yet you still abuse administrative privileges to get your way here. Maybe it's time to give it a rest? Agreed somebody needs to police this article, but you are far from impartial. 75.127.214.162 (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No, 75.127.214.162, he is right. We need suitable references for every entry. Also personal attacks are no good. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

By "abuse administrative privileges", I mean "I am an administrator, I am not impartial, for some reason I care way too much about this article, enough to spend years policing the people who disagree with me, and nobody but other administrators have ever agreed with me. So if I have a problem, I'll just call another administrator to back me up, and I'll even have somebody lock the article for me so that nobody else can have any fun." Yes, this user has actually gone through other administrators (undoubtedly having private conversations with them) to lock this article. Pages upon pages of discussions with people disagreeing with him be damned - he'll get his way. It's abusive and it needs to stop. Find somebody else to police the article, enough of this. Oh, and I don't care that you don't like my personal attacks. Mangojuice is a troll. 75.127.214.162 (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add that a brief read-through of the current talk page will show that this user literally feels that he *owns* the article. Nothing he has disagreed with has ever been done here. If that isn't abuse, I don't know what is. 75.127.214.162 (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

In order to abuse one's privileges as an administrator, one would have to do an unjustified block or an inappropriate rollback. Mango hasn't done either. Mango is reminding everyone to follow the Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:RS policies. Articles have to follow these policies; this isn't something that Mango is making up. And if being "impartial" means going on the side of the policies instead of what one simply wants, then Mango is doing a good job. Once some guy writes an in-depth article about Meatspin for a reliable newspaper or source, Meatspin will be included. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't say he feels he "owns" the article, and if everything he's done here supports WP policy, he's not abusing privileges. However, he may still have some systematic bias, perhaps a tendency to prefer keeping the number of shock sites mentioned here to a minimum, and that may translate to enforcing the notability rule more strongly here than in other articles. There are other articles on Wikipedia that mention websites that don't have good newspaper articles about them, and yet the mention of them isn't removed from the WP article, at least not immediately. Mango is doing fine, but it's unfortunate that there's not another established user or administrator who perhaps has a more "inclusionist" systematic bias with regard to shock sites rather than a "deletionist" viewpoint. I'm just putting it out there, no need to barrage me with replies telling me how little I know about Wikipedia and its policies. 71.113.31.86 (talk) 04:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ballsack.org

BallSack.org - One of the largest (1500+) compilations of shocking media content gathered from around the internets. Ballsack has gore, scat, and everything in between. It's like a malaise of redbull and asparagus, So scantly sweet and vegetative.

• But are there any Wikipedia:Reliable sources that discuss the content? WhisperToMe (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Images?

This topic needs images. Is there anything getting in the way of putting up a tubgirl image in this article? BabyJonas (talk) 23:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Meatspin

I see that meatspin isn't on here. Do you REALLY need relible sources to include such a popular prank/shock site?--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Yes we do. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

To prove that it exists? LMFAO!--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Greg, we know it exists. What we need to prove is whether it is worthy of inclusion. For something to be worthy of inclusion, a secondary source must talk about it in detail. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well it IS a popular prank/shock site. I'm sure that I can find something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg D. Barnes (talk • contribs) 03:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, in that case please see what you can find. I've tried myself but I haven't found much yet. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of the results I've been getting are forum posts, blogs, etc. There's gotta be an article on this stuff.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Tubgirl redirect

Tubgirl redirects here, but is not mentioned. 164.107.224.109 (talk) 06:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sourmath

I thought sourmath.com (DO NOT GO TO IT!) was the most common one. it's the only one i've ever heard of. Keepssouth (talk)

Upon Images

Now, I am not suggesting this to be prurient, however, this article might be improved by a screengrab from a shock site that is notorious to users of the internet, as, from the contents of the article, shock sites have cultural repurcussions. If somebody has the appropriate technology to blur out genitallia, then one could put on a picture of one of these websites, ideally one mentioned here. Pictures do help for people who find it hard to see small print, inter alias, it helps the formatting of the page to appear encyclopedic. I also suggest more video links describing the sites, within obscenity rules, of course.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thatsnotsexy

We should add information about thatsnotsexy.com in the page.113.211.132.81 (talk) 09:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• If you can find reliable sources, post them here, or 'Be Bold' and add it to the shock sites page... but only with references which are of higher quality than just 'personal blogs', or links to the particular picture of the old lady in question. Buckethed (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

FAO : Delicious Carbuncle

Hi! Just wondering what you have against 'One Man, One Jar' being added (other than that it is a disgusting shock site, that should not have a place on a wikipedia page?) You say 'please read the talk page again', but nothing has been added for almost a month?

I put the site back up a few days, with *more* proper references, as well as other references which were not of BBC / CNN quality (based on the previous discussions by Wikipedia Admins on this particular page, these references support the higher quality references).

At the present time, 'One Man, One Jar' is better referenced than 'Lemonparty'. I don't know why you aren't removing One Man One Jar and keeping Lemonparty, but I cannot believe that is is because a wikipedia admin owns the site! (as this would be against all that Wikipedia stands for, to be honest!)

I do believe that Lemonparty and One Man, One Jar both have a place on this site. I do not believe that these sites should have their own *page* (and the incredibly detailed sourcing you are requesting basically means you are wanting these shock sites to be eligible for a dedicated page on Wikipedia).

I will however respect your opinion as a more experience wikipedia user, and remove the Lemonparty entry too, to 'see what happens' as you said. I guess nothing will happen, since you are removing One Man, One Jar, which now has better sources, but if anything happens, that will be interesting in itself. Buckethed (talk) 06:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this has already been more than adequately discussed, but to reiterate - your favourite shock site lacks coverage in reliable sources. As simple as that. This will likely never be a long list (on Wikipedia), as internet shock sites are not often discussed in any detail in reliable sources. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It does have coverage in reliable sources - something most shock sites don't!. I don't have the time to carry on but will periodically look for more sources (I would note; reliable sources are needed - and they are available, but lesser quality sources can also be used (e.g. a news site which is says it is 'blog based', but which only has a small handful of selected editors). This reference was rejected, but is *not* a personal blog, and technically, you could argue is using the same model as BBC News :). This would be a useful supporting source. Anyway, 'One Man, One Jar' is eligible to be included here, but if it is deleted without any review of the sources, I will just get even more sources (a mix of full reliable, and lesser *non-personal blog* type sources, and return in a few months. (Also, I will watch this site, and remove truly non-notable stuff when it is added etc) :) Buckethed (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Another thing; this isn't 'my favourite shock site'; I think my problem is that I am following the rules that were hammered out for this page by various Wikipedia Admins prior to your arrival; I understand that you reverted the addition of this shock site initially (it did meet criteria for this page even then), but I have since found more references for it; I understand you will auto-revert no matter what. My view is that I respect the guidelines set down by the admins in previous years, and that I add sites to this page that have at least 1 reliable source. I agree that 'One Man, One Jar' does not warrant a seperate wikipedia page, but I disagree applying the *page* notability rules to entries within a page such as this :S Buckethed (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Bagslap.com

Ok, am I the ONLY one mortified and upset that bagslap doesn't have it's own title? Bagslap is one of the most shocking re-directs on any internet site. It is also on the meatspinnetwrok.org, which I cant link to as that would be the end of this wikipedia account. notability is obvious. Add PLEASE!--Graythos1 (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Hands

Considering that Wikipedia has an article on the Enumclaw horse sex case, should Mr. Hands not have all the references it needs to be included in this list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.50.87.197 (talk) 06:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

One Man, One Jar - discussion

After the Good Faith removal by Delicious Carbuncle of 'One Man, One Jar', I think it is worth discussing the validity of keeping 'One Man, One Jar' in the article (in the context of how the Shock Sites article is currently managed.

The 'Shock Sites' article used to be called 'list of shock sites', and included things like Goatse, Tubgirl, Dolphinsex, Urinalpoop, Lemonparty, Meatspin, and many of the original shock sites. It had about 15-20 shock sites in total. The problem came with the fact that it really was just a list of shock sites, mainly without references except those pointing to the site itself.

There were many arguments about whether it was reliable to just point at a shock site (e.g. 'the reference of www.meatspi_n.com means that it exists, and it is a shock site, so it should be kept'). Eventually, it was decided that (as per Wikipedia policy), any shock site should actually be backed up by references. This resulted in the list being slimmed down greatly. Some of the original sites (such as the original, non-commercial meatspin.com, and tubgirl, did not survive the slimming down, as although they were the 'original' shock sites, not just the 'me-too' ones, they did not have any references whatsoever.

Ideally, on Wikipedia, all the sources should either be from BBC news / similiar quality sites (with the proviso that they are not just 'the story of the day', but news articles which have lasting impact e.g. a large earthquake etc), or even better from peer-reviewed journals. In the field of medicine, if something is not published in a peer- reviewed journal, it is not considered to be good evidence; 'expert opinion' is one of the lower levels in the hierachy of evidence when designing the SIGN / NICE / AMA medical guidelines.

For the shock sites article, the chances of finding references on major news sites, or in a peer-reviewed journal, are minimal. While these types of references are the MOST verifiable / reliable, it should be noted that verifiability / reliability is of course a spectrum; and we cannot always obtain references / sources at the purest / best end of that spectrum. There have been discussions by moderators in the past on this page, and it has been noted that we cannot expect broadsheet newspaper or peer-reviewed journal sources for this article, we will not accept personal blogs, or links to other lists of shock sites, or references containing only very tenuous links to the site (although this last category of reference can be useful). Going back to the medical field, even here, the utility of 'Evidence Based Medicine' (basing everything only on peer-reviewed journals) has been questioned, with one particular article being published in the [British Medical Journal] http://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459.abstract directly question this approach.

With these points in mind, I would like to discuss the One Man, One Jar references:

The references are:

http://blurt-online.com/features/view/708

Blurt Magazine is a printer magazine, and has an accompanying website, blurt-online. This reference is actually a printed discussion about his experiences watching 'one man, one jar'. Admittedly, the description is pretty graphic (as well as his description of the response to it), but as it is not a blog (it is a published 'interview' in essence), it is a more reliable reference than the two lemonparty ones.

http://www.last.fm/music/Products+of+Monkey+Love/_/One+Man,+One+Jar

This reference is from a music / radio station website, listing an album 'One Man, One Jar' by a group 'Products of Monkey Love'. The description includes the statement 'Well anyway, this song is about that video, looking at the world from his perspective...' (after giving a full description of what happens in the One Man, One Jar video. Again, this reference therefore is more clear in content and more reliable than the two lemonparty ones.

http://thenextweb.com/socialmedia/2010/07/04/youtube-hacked-justin-bieber-videos-targeted/

(as well as the other two Justin Bieber references)

These confirm that Justin Bieber videos on Youtube were hacked, with 'OMG FAGGOT', a claim that he had just died in a horrific car accident, and also that 'One Man, One Jar' was substituted for some of the videos.

So, in summary, these references feature an interview with a band member discussing the site and his reaction to it as a shock site in detail, the second is a 'tribute' to the site (also, documenting clearly that it is a tribute to the video), the third group of references refer to the fact that the site was used as part of an attack on Justin Bieber Youtube videos (a classic use of a shock site essentially the same as 'bait and switch' as described in the Shock Site article.

I am now going to briefly discuss the 'Lemonparty' article:

The Lemonparty maxim article (ref 13) just mentions the word 'Lemon party' without content; and it mentions the phrase 'Lemon Party' in describing dialogue within a show Reference 12 'It's not an old man orgy if it's not a lemon party' is from bestweekever.tv (VH1), which is a blog (and with a link to a media spoof of Lemonparty - a lemon having a party).

I would say that these references are weaker than One Man, One Jar. I do not think Lemonparty should be removed; it meets the Shock Sites inclusion criteria which have been hammered out with years of discussion between Wikipedia editors and moderators, and has stood the test of time by not being removed for months / years. The current criteria are quite strict; allowing only four (or five with One Man, One Jar) sites to be listed. I am also aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I am not using the fact that Lemonparty is weaker alone to justify inclusion of One Man, One Jar in this page; just using it as a reference for the Shock Sites inclusion criteria.

Comments? :) (other than TL;DR of course!) Buckethed (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Any views on this (particularly the references etc?) My opinion is that they meet notability criteria as above, and that the 'One Man, One Jar' site therefore has a place on this page.~

Of the references you posted above, only the Blurt Magazine article appears to meet Wikipedia standards for reliable secondary sources. The last.fm link is self-published and the nextweb link is a blog post. Given that the standard for notability generally requires multiple reliable sources, I think we still need at least one more indisputable source before the information can be added to the article. Uncle Dick (talk) 07:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussions by Wikipedia administrators over the years on this site (check the logs) do note that shock sites are notoriously difficult to source. The standard for notability for creation of a new page does indeed require multiple sources. 'One Man, One Jar' does not have enough references to justify it's own page, but certainly does justify addition to this page, and should be re-added in due course. Out of interest, there are many, many mainstream news sources regarding the Justin Bieber hack. The sad thing is, they say 'pornography', rather than 'One Man, One Jar'. This is clearly due to the fact that bbc.co.uk, or cnn.com, are unlikely to say 'One Man, One Jar' (they are unlikely to know the name of the 'Porn' video). They are also unlikely to describe the contents of the video ('A man sitting on a jar, which breaks inside his rectum, followed by his removing the pieces excruciatingly slowly'). They would just say 'porn sites'. The nextweb link, in combination with the multiple BBC / CNN sites do verify what happened. In fact, this is one of the few sites (probably the only site on this page) that actually has sources backing up that it was used to shock unsuspecting people (e.g. Justin Bieber fans!) Buckethed (talk) 08:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

When the BBC or similar discuss the site by name we can consider adding it to this list but until then it simply isn't notable. As for lemonparty, I would remove it from this article, but I am reliably informed that it is operated by a prominent Wikipedia editor and thus protected from any such action. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

If we actually need the BBC or similiar (e.g. CNN) to discuss a shock site by name, before it is notable, then we should put this whole page up for AfD, and even Goatse / 2 Girls 1 Cup might not be notable!. With regard to 'Lemonparty' being operated by a prominent Wikipedia editor, and thus protected, I assume you are joking, but if not, that would make no difference to the inclusion here. Lemonparty has a reference of equal standing to the interview for 1 Man, 1 Jar (which is a reliable source), and 1 blog entry. The 'blog entry' source for 1 Man, 1 Jar is also not just a standard 'blog', but from an editor of a news site which happens to use a model which shares some features with a 'blog'. In addition, 1 Man 1 Jar was used as part of an attack on Justin Bieber sites which did make news sites such as BBC, but of course they would never describe it by name. The site is better-sourced than 'Lemonparty'. Lemonparty meets the inclusion criteria for this page, and 1 Man 1 Jar does too. (I do understand that 1 Man 1 Jar is so disgusting that many people would cringe, but that shouldn't be a reason for not including this notable site on this paqe). I would also note that Wikipedia does have inclusion guidelines that are on a per-page / per-section basis (e.g. the section on aviation incidents / accidents). 1 Man 1 Jar does *not* warrant its own page (yet), but does warrant addition to this site. Buckethed (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't joking about lemonparty - take it out and see what happens. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

What would happen? Buckethed (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Any chance at a discussion of why One Man One Jar, which has references, can't be included? (other than that fact it is disgusting?). At present it does meet the criteria which were hammered out for years on this particular page. Buckethed (talk) 06:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Delicious Carbuncle : Any chance at a discussion of why One Man, One Jar, which has *reliable* sources, can't be included?. At present it *does* meet the criteria which were hammered out for years on this particular page. I see you reverted 'Jarsquatter' recently, so you are still around on this page. Buckethed (talk) 06:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Kescalada, 24 April 2011

Under Lemonparty, please add Archer to the list of television shows that have referenced it. Unfortunately I couldn't find a clip to add as a citation like the other entries, probably because the show only aired on 4/21/11.

Current text: The image has been mentioned on some television shows such as a sketch on Talkshow with Spike Feresten, and dialogue on 30 Rock, and in the Flaming Moe episode of The Simpsons.

Please change to: The image has been mentioned on some television shows such as a sketch on Talkshow with Spike Feresten, dialogue on 30 Rock, in the Flaming Moe episode of The Simpsons, and in the Archer episode "Double Trouble."

Kescalada (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a reliable source, a youtube video won't cut it either. CTJF83 12:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Please change the tv shows referencing Lemon Party to include John Stewart's Daily Show on 9 May 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.206.117 (talk) 03:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

References

Distinction

Shouldn't there be some kind of distinction made between shock sites that are based on a single image/video (goatse, tubgirl, 2 girls, meatspin, etc) that does not change and those sites that are collections of material that changes over time (rotten.com, ogrish.com, etc). 87.114.102.136 (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal of sites

Do we really need a list of sites? It's fucking disgusting. These sites aren't going to help people looking for research. With that logic I've removed the list of sites. Cheers, Kevin12xd (talk) (contribs) 21:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

"Fucking disgusting" is hardly a reason to remove the list. Having a list of specific examples helps to illustrate the degree to which a shock site can be, well, shocking. Many of the sites that you de-listed are also fairly notable. List should be reinstated. 96.244.141.101 (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm shocked that someone with reviewer and rollback privs would blatantly vandalize an article. I have taken the liberty of undoing his edits. Eminence2012 (talk) 11:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Finally a credible source that Meatspin is a shock site and should be added to this page

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2013/04/goatse/

"The early 2000s brought scores of Goatse knockoffs: Shock sites like Lemonparty.org, meatspin.com, and tubgirl.com each enshrined a single, nasty piece of porn for the delight of the savvy."

Surely this source (Wired Magazine) is credible andmainstream enough to allow for Meatspin's inclusion in the article.

Yep. And now that that crybaby MangoJuice is gone (hilariously enough driven off by some redneck with an IQ of 20), nobody will be crusading against the addition of Meatspin to this article. I'm adding it. ElectricPickle (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Viewer Discretion Is Advised (thus demonstrating the passive voice, better avoided)

Perhaps a warning advising those who land here by accident of search engines, etc, of the content herein? This page might, for instance, turn up in a search for "electric shock." The vivid descriptions of assorted shock sites tends to turn this wiki page into a shock site. An adult-only warning might dissuade young teenagers from reading the examples. Me, I've skimmed the depths of depravity decades ago on USENET groups where people post images that try to out-disgust each other. (You think that is disgusting, well, look at this!). A listing of the alt.sex newsgroups suggests that it may be wrong to impose one's own notions of moral depravity upon others. Just as the produce section of a grocery store contains a wide assortment, few choose one of everything, rather folks choose what they like. Something is wrong if it generates negative consequences for those involved. We cannot protect everyone from hurting themselves, even if the negative consequences do not present themselves a long time afterward. Hpfeil (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It should be obvious that these are not safe for work. Besides, Wikipedia is not censored. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources for Meatspin

http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2013/03/fsu_campus_wifi_user_redirecte.php http://gawker.com/5990105/florida-state-student-faces-felony-charges-for-redirecting-schools-wifi-users-to-infamous-shock-site http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/computers/stories/wi-fi-on-florida-campus-redirected-to-porn-site

Would these qualify as reliable sources? If so, I think Meatspin warrants a section because it received news attention.

Sega31098 (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Sega31098 (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Admin review

I have asked for an Admin review of the AfD, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shock site (4th nomination). --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 05:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

You nominated it for deletion. It was closed as keep. You asked for review. It was reviewed and re-closed as keep. The next step is not to then gut the page (with misleading "clean up" edit summary) and then edit war over it. Don't take this as a defense of any particular content -- just a WP:BRD-type request that specific issues and/or major changes be talked about on the talk page first (especially since it's the person who nominated it for deletion removing the text). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014 edits

In light of the tag added here citing that the article needed "cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: missing history, impact, legality; too many examples.", I made some edits to the article. I removed the non-site based examples from the Example section and moved the examples that had their articles to the See also section in accordance with WP:SEEALSO. I kept the Category link, removed one entry which was already mentioned in the body text, and added several more that have their own articles to the See also section. This effectively reduced the Example section to nothing, so I removed its section title as well, which resulted in this version.

Rhododendrites did not like this edit and reverted it twice [11][12]. I'm not sure if Rhododendrites took the time to review the actual edit since their edit summary was "Seriously? obv keep at AfD so you practically blank the page with "clean up" edit summary?"

I agree with the tag that Qxukhgiels added and agree that if this article is going to be kept that it should have history, impact, and legality sections added, but I can't get that far because Rhododendrites objects to my first step in the process. Comments anyone? --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 05:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Your use of the phrase "if this article is going to be kept" suggests you have yet to accept that the AfD passed, just like the first two did. I'm not sure how gutting the article is a required prelude to history, impact, and legality sections getting added, maybe you could enlighten us? Stuartyeates (talk) 07:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

If converting the Example section selections to See also items is what you refer to as "gutting" then your issue is with the Wikipedia Manual of Style and not my edits. Qxukhgiels tagged the article as needing Cleanup and that is what I proceeded to do. If you accept that the article could benefit from the new sections, then how about Assuming Good Faith and letting someone who has demonstrated willingness to actually work on the article, do just that. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Qxukhgiels is entitled to an opinion and to tag the article accordingly, but that doesn't prescribe certain actions nor does it circumvent the need to gain consensus. The fact of the matter is you didn't and haven't tried to add anything to the article, but have only removed content. Nobody stopped you from adding sections and as is clear here the addition of content was never objected to. It sounds like you're still saying the examples have to go before you can do anything else. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually that's exactly what you did. I was literally in the middle of making edits when you started to revert. As slow as I edit, the "Examples" would have been gone for maybe an hour or so before I had used the sources and some of the content (as NinjaRobotPirate indicates below) to post the new sections.

Qxukhgiels is not alone in their opinion. Significant discussion in all 3 AfDs have pointed out that the article needs improvement. You violated WP:POINT in a rather obvious, but seemingly unconscious way. Maybe you need to take a step back for a bit and gain some perspective? --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually that's exactly what you did. No. It's not. You AfDed the page, you took it to DRV, and those didn't go how you wanted it to. The next edit you make is to gut the article without any explanation other than the misleading edit summary "clean up". So I reverted. You then removed it all again with the edit summary "Nothing removed that is not in the Main articles, edits made in light of new tag", again with no indication you were doing anything other than gutting the article, using the clean up tag as an excuse. You came here and have ever since been trying to argue "Rhododendrites won't let me add content and improve Wikipedia!" as though there was any indication you were planning an expansion. You'll notice that I didn't revert anything after you explained that here and even said nobody's stopping you from adding content. Rather than go ahead and make the edits, you're now saying "yes you are?"

I never disagreed with the addition of the other content, and in fact I think it would be great! Nor am I defending any particular content currently in the article, and in fact I agree the examples dominate the page unnecessarily. All I did was revert when you removed them wholesale then started to edit war over same removals with no real explanation or discussion. My only point about Qxukhgiels is not that I disagree with him/her, it's that you used the cleanup tag as an excuse. Look, all that I (and, I think, most people) would ask is that if you want to make improvements to a page that start by removing lots of content -- especially if you just finished trying to delete the page -- just let us know, either in the edit summary or on the talk page beforehand. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Rhode, I've gotten past the AfD and I wish you would too. I've stated what my intentions are for this article and you have said that you agree that changes and improvements need to be made. How about dropping the stick? --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, that doesn't address what I said in any way, of course. But regarding dropping the stick: This thread exists and persists because you've been spuriously accusing me of somehow stopping you from adding content. I've repeatedly explained that the opposite is true, but you don't seem interested to hear it and instead accuse me of beating a dead horse. Please take this as a personal invitation to proceed with your article expansion as well as appreciation thereof (if that sounds sarcastic in this context, I assure you it's not). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated. Regards, --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not especially concerned with whether the examples stay or not. I wouldn't miss them. However, I think some of the content could easily be salvaged in a rewrite. For example, the cleanup template requests information about legality, and the section on bestgore.com does, in a limited fashion, discuss this topic. The article from The Verge that I added also discusses this topic briefly. I'll see what else I can find. History is a little easier. Most sources trace shock sites back to Rotten.com. From there, we get the classic shock sites, such as Goatse.cx. I'll try to get around to writing this up later. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I've looked at the sources that have been mentioned here and in the recent AfD and I can't find anything worthwhile to add under the headings of History, Legality, Impact, etc. And quite frankly, I just don't care enough about the subject to devote any more time to it. So unless someone else wants to improve this "encyclopedic gum on the bottom of a shoe", it will likely be AfD'd again and the fans can go through this with someone else. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

One Man, One Jar

I have added 'One Man, One Jar' together with an appropriate reference (an interview with a band, as a featured article on the website for 'Blurt' magazine. Please don't remove on sight as it does have a proper reference! Buckethed (talk) 00:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Would have been nice to not just remove this saying 'source is not notable enough' - e.g. what kind of notability meter was used etc??!. The source is as notable as most of the others used, it verifies the 'One Man, One Jar' perfectly. One Man, One Jar will be re-added soon, since the removal was unwarranted! (Note : this removal is different to removing the constant re-additions of meatspin, BME pain olympics final round (hatchet vs genitals) etc etc, which aren't posted with sources. Buckethed (talk) 08:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, the entry is back, with a good number of references - didn't realise it was so notable to be honest :) I know it is one of the most shocking and disgusting sites, so please don't remove it for this reason alone :) Buckethed (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

If this site is to be removed, please discuss here first! The references are more notable than several other shock sites on this page (not peer reviewed scientific journals, but we can't get those for any shock sites) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckethed (talk • contribs) 08:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Also, this site is the sexiest thing ever created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.82.91.217 (talk) 10:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Shock site. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110307092023/http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=0Jftig3yHP8 to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jftig3yHP8

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Petition to change redirect Last Measure to another article.

Wikipedia's page on Last Measure redirects here, but there is no mention of it in the entire article. I've found that there's some mention of it in the GNAA article on the "Trolling" section. 190.238.144.43 (talk) 04:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Done. wbm1058 (talk) 00:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Site Revision

Per the issues listed at the top of the site and some of the things I saw on the talk page, I collected research on shock sites and integrated the existing knowledge on the page into a more comprehensive overview of sites including sections on legality, their history, ethical questions about the sites, and media impact. Please let me know where you think I can improve the revision or add more content if necessary! -Bcstanley1 (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Bcstanley1, I reverted the last revert since it felt a bit too aggressive and removed a lot of good work. I'd like that work to benefit from upcoming review/feedback from peers as well. I did restore the categories following Davey2010's concern. The additional concern about layout (and the prominent appearance of a couple of the most prominent sites) is something we can continue to discuss here -- I don't feel strongly one way or the other. -Reagle (talk) 11:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that the prev (now current) layout is much better and that have the list of sites is better than having it as a prose, That being said I'll respect anyones opinions and if others believe the previous layout was better than I'd happily restore that revision. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Davey2010 please undo: Bcstanley1's version is superior. It has twice the content, seven additional sources, improved prose, etc. That version will also soon receive feedback from peers. I don't think a preference about layout -- on which I don't feel strongly -- should be the basis of reverting that work. And this doesn't preclude prominent listing a few of the prominent sites in the near future. Shalor (Wiki Ed), what do you think? -Reagle (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The content can be readded whilst still keeping the current layout as can the sources, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 16:48, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Hi Davey2010, I think that this should be discussed. If I'm summarizing correctly, you're stating that the article should be primarily focused into sections that focus on specific shock sites as per the current format? If so, I do have to respectfully disagree as this is extremely limiting and doesn't allow for a good overall history of shock sites. I do think that there should be a section that lists notable shock sites, but I don't think that this should be the main format of the article. The version that you reverted discussed the history and legality of shock sites as a broader whole, which is something that would not be possible if the article focused on specific sites as not all sites have the same history or legal issues.

Or are you arguing that the article should retain the sections that talk about specific shock sites and post that in addition to the additions that Bcstanley1 added? I think that this would be the better option of the two, personally. I'll create this version of the article so we can see what that would look like. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Davey2010, Reagle, what do you each think? Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Including both the examples as well as the student's text would allow for the best of both worlds - a section that specifically focuses on notable examples while also giving an overview of the general history and legal issues that go beyond individual sites. I can list this on 3O as well. For some reason this is listed as a pending revision - not sure why, this account is neither new or unregistered. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• I managed to get the pending changes to show up with my main account so that it is easier to see - I'm fine with them being reverted but I wanted this to be easier to see so the current version can be debated. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Hi Shalor (Wiki Ed), Many thanks for your feedback, Given everyones disagreed with my revert I've gone ahead and undone my revert, Many thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 17:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Hi Shalor (Wiki Ed), Ah thank you for this that's what I meant and you've done this perfectly so thank you very much for that,

I certainly agree your version is the best - We're keeping examples but at the same implementing the other editors changes/updates which I think's perfect! :),

Thanks again for doing this it's much appreciated, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 17:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• No problem! I figured that you meant to add both together, but wanted to make sure. I was going to bring JamesBWatson in, but looks like it's all resolved. :) Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Peer Feedback:

Hi Bcstanley1! Upon reviewing your article, I've made some grammatical changes throughout -- I've mostly added commas, restructured sentences for clarity, and reworded some phrases to avoid repetition and make the content more concise. Below are some additional changes worth considering:

- in the History section, identify the "he" that pleaded guilty following the description of BestGore (the person is not identified, but this seems relevant to the point you're making

- US v. Richards is not dated or linked; providing this content would be helpful for the reader to understand the significance of the case in relation to the topic (there is a very famous case with a similar title)

- be mindful of repetition throughout - you link "snuff films" twice in third paragraph of Legality section

- ending the legality section with blocks (ex: Australia) seems unfinished -- you just pointed out another legal approach to dealing with these films. Can you finish with discussing how blocks on certain sights might be more effective, or mention any other legal approaches that have been utilized?

- links on the Examples section

- repetition -- you essentially repeat content from History and Media directly in Examples. Because this content is the exact same, perhaps consider shortening the examples to just have their date of creation, who is in charge of them, whether or not they are still available online, etc. (quick facts). That way you avoid being repetitive and you can also probably add additional examples

Great job! JessWeiss (talk) 12:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

---

Hi Bcstanley1! After reviewing your article, I think JewssWeiss hit all the main points of revision. In an effort not to re-hash her suggestions, I reworded and slightly modified a few sentences in your article. Feel free to ask me questions! Sydneg (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Meatspin

We should add information about meatspin.com in the page. --JohnnyLurg (talk) 01:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• This site has been added and removed many times; there are simply no references or sources of any reliability for it. If some can be found, post them here, and we can look at readding the site - but many people have tried to find references for the last 3-4 years, so it is probably not possible Buckethed (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

(Revise) http://meatspin.fr/ works — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.140.241.115 (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2013/04/goatse/

Here's your reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.56.66.86 (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Media organization mention

The link at the top redirects to https://www.scotsman.com/news, even though it's supposed to go to a specific article. Does anyone know what's up with this? It could be because the article is NSFW, but I'm not sure. --Birdsinthewindow (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Liveleak

Hello.Now the Liveleak site has a different address, and before this address it also had a different address. In addition, it says that the old address has changed to Liveleak, please put the newest one after Liveleak. Nokil83a (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nokil83a: No. ItemFix has nothing to do with LiveLeak; it's just that LiveLeak was redirected to ItemFix. Wretchskull (talk) 08:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

About last measure

There was an audio on the page called: fsckyou.wav.mp3 What does that audio sound like? Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:4A9F:300:808C:980C:2965:21C9 (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Kkele

Kk2öe 2A02:8108:29C0:BA0:1570:629D:DAC8:F26E (talk) 15:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)