Talk:2 Girls 1 Cup

Original Website

The website is www.mfx-media.com and there are usually previews for every movie that cost 49 euros. The directory structure is the same for all series. A quick use of Excel and a text editor and you can download a minute movie from hundreds of these movies. So the idea that this video leaked out as a result of evidence in a trial is STUPID and sadly ignorant of the darker side of the web and how one gets movies for free. There is something repellently ignorant about those that know about MFX videos via 2g1c. I guess I just hate N00BZ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.127.239 (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Who's saying anything about this video being evidence leaked from a trial? And in what way are we, as you so eloquently put it, "stupid", "ignorant", and "N00BZ" for believing what has been reported in the international media?

If you have any useful information to add to the article, you are welcome to do so, as long as you cite your sources and convey it in a manner befitting an encyclopedia (that is to say, don't call the readers "noobs").

And in case you missed it at the top of the page, this is for discussion of the article itself and any relevant criticisms/suggestions. It is unfortunately not intended as a place to chat about the subject matter, argue over the origins, or anything else not directly related to improving the article itself. If your claims can be verified by third party sources, then the article will be updated accordingly. If your claims cannot be verified, then they have no place in an encyclopedia, regardless of how stupid, idiotic, or "noob" we are for not believing every single thing we're told in an AOL chat room.--24.154.15.193 (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Name of the song

Does anyone have any information, like name of song or composer, of the soft piano tune which is played in the background? Wartime2 (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Herve Roy's "Lovers Theme" gssq (talk) 12:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

I think this should be deleted. It is not encyclopedic information. Does anybody have any problems with this?— Preceding unsigned comment added by BVBede (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not censored. Please do not remove templates from talk pages. — Ocatecir^T 05:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it was censored. I merely think this article contains random and unimportant information. BVBede (talk) 06:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Being "unimportant" is an opinion. In order to be included in Wikipedia, a topic has to meet its notability guidelines. The article is sourced, makes a claim of notability, is verifiable, and is not original research, satisfying Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion. Notability is different from importance or popularity. — Ocatecir^T 07:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

But notability is not temporary. I may be wrong in this case, but at the very most the page is on the cusp of notability if it is in fact notable. It may prove moreso in the future. BVBede (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is quite notable. It has been mentioned in the media multiple times. It's in fact so notable, that the Washington Post Magazine talked about it. It's a viral video that's made it onto VH1, for christ's sake. It's made it onto the MASS MEDIA. It's no longer an inside-joke viral video like a lot of shock sites. And like Ocatecir said, Wikipedia isn't censored. If you want just want to delete this article because it talks about something immoral and disgusting and a shock site, no matter how prevalent in the media it is, go to Conservapedia. Plus, lots of things on Wikipedia aren't exactly "encyclopedic." The point of Wikipedia is that it contains everything, even things that some encyclopedias wouldn't have. There's an article on goatse.cx, Neurotically Yours and Happy Tree Friends (There USED to be a very good article on Retarded Animal Babies, which is a hell of a lot funnier than Happy Tree Friends, but for some reason, Jimbo won't let anyone make an article about it), so wouldn't this article be a lot more "encyclopedic" since it actually gets the mass media's attention? Fucking KEEP —Preceding unsigned comment added by ForestAngel (talk • contribs) 10:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This article should absolutely not be deleted. It does a great service by allowing people (like me) to find out what the heck this thing is without having to visit the site. • TheBendster (talk) 26 December 2007, 07:31 (UTC)

Oh, you really don't know what it is until you've seen it. Same goes for every shock site. I suggest you see it for yourself. Same goes for goatse.cx. Nowadays, I just find shock sites funny (except for Rotten.com or Ogrish).ForestAngel (talk) 13:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so this thing deserves an article, but Tourettes Guy doesn't? It's just another fetish video that for some reason got a mild bit of attention. Mrcongojack (talk) 02:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with TheBendster. I just came across the "Kermit reaction" video when my husband found it being featured on YouTube, and we had no idea what it was all about. At first, we were looking for the original video, but found all the "reactions". In confusion, we turned to Wikipedia. Now we understand this whole absurd affair and we know that we do NOT want to see the original. In this way Wikipedia has performed a VERY VALUABLE SERVICE!Batika (talk) 04:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand you, go and delete yourself! This article has been very useful for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.134.160.231 (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't delete this article! Thankfully, I was able to read about the video and know what people are talking about without having to watch the video myself. 70.162.166.222 (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Count me in as another who found this article incredibly useful simply for informing me about the clip before I decide whether to watch it or not. If anything, this article should be kept as a "warning buoy" for those not interested in perverting their minds any further, but still want to be informed of what's going on. And yes, this is (unfortunately) notable, because it has become a topic of relatively casual chat for many, and I do think it meets the general Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion for the same reasons already discussed here.--72.144.160.100 (talk) 05:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The arguement is not whether or not this article is useful, it's whether or not it meets the standards all articles on wikipedia must meet. Is it encyclopedic? I don't know....AngielaJ

My thoughts on this

I agree with the article creator, Ocatecir - it seems notable enough for an article now - just. The article is very new, and has never gone through an actual AfD yet as it was speedily deleted and salted previously under different titles, and it will be nominated for deletion at some stage in the near future, I predict.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it will probably be nominated for deletion, but notability never goes away and it meets Wikipedia's policies, so I'm confident that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2 Girls 1 Cup (14th nomination) will be a "Speedy Keep" :) — Ocatecir^T 17:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it'll get quite that far... at least not for another 20 years yet.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

But to say that notability never goes away is a disputed statement - we have WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Those do not apply here. Notability, once established, does not go away. The news coverage and attention makes this a significant meme that is approaching the level of goatse.cx. — Ocatecir^T 21:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

How do you measure or quantify in objective terms how it is "approaching the level of" goatse?--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

He's right. I've heard from many people that 2girls1cup is the new goatse. Meaning that it's become very popular as something to show to friends with the sole intention of grossing them out. ForestAngel (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Is the link to the original site really appropriate?66.201.163.142 (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL - yes. — Ocatecir^T 06:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

We do make it abundantly clear what the person who opens the link is in for, so it's not a lot more disquieting than everything else that has to do with this thing. Incidentally, about the worth of this article, note that it makes people less likely to see the clip to find out what it is. :/ --Kizor (talk) 07:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it would make people more curious to see what it is. We are very curious monkeys, we humans. If everyone's talking about something, we want to know what it is. It's for the same reason why people were blinded from the atomic bomb at Hiroshima: people heard a noise, and they looked to see where it was coming from. Same principle here. This has worked before. The song Relax got so much publicity because the media was saying that it had dirty lyrics. So, lots of people listened to the song, curious to hear for themselves. The exact same thing is going to happen here. It's just human nature. ForestAngel (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this will be as notable as goatse --Pwnage8 (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If other internet phenomena and memes such as LOLCATs and such are notable, then 2 Girls 1 Cup is CERTAINLY notable as well. As disgusting as this appears to be (and no, I haven't seen the video although I do think the reactions can be entertaining), it is definitely a huge internet phenomenon that deserves discussion. Its inclusion in Wikipedia may be offensive to some, but is not an endorsement of the content therein. 209.59.33.93 (talk) 11:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Related shock sites

I am mentioning the shocksites related. contact me if you see a problem.YVNP (talk) 11:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There will always be copycats. Unless a 3rd party reliable source connects the two, we are slipping down a rabbit hole of filth and unencyclopedic content if we start mentioning every copycat that comes along. Lets keep the additions to the article verifiable. — Ocatecir^T 01:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but 4girlsfingerpainting is still notable because of the swap.avi artcle. It has also been featured on playhouse tv. I think the articles on swap make it notable. I will do some research on 2girls1finger. I saw the video[not the site] at encyclopedia dramatica.YVNP (talk) 03:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Swap.avi is also from the same guy who made the film 2girls1cup is from. That gives it two sources of notability. =)John denied your pina colada —Preceding comment was added at 03:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Joy? I think not.

The following sentence says "and the joy others experience watching said reactions," but joy is certainly the wrong word here. Amusement, or schadenfreude, or some other adjective would be much more accurate and appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.79.244 (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You are splitting hairs, here. — Ocatecir^T 03:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Released Purposely

You know MFX released this as a fake blog like many film companies will do to spark interest in their films. Often called internet viral marketing, they were hoping to start a phenemomia. And did. The truth is they (he) paid the girls and it is unclear if they actually enjoyed the act as much as he did, while he watched and video taped it.

related vids

I show all the evidence worth mentioning. It is from the same company. It has a notable presence on playhouse.tv. Since the court case forced the guy to give up all the vids and swap.avi went into circulation at that time, it was very likely from a leak from the case. Even if it was not from the same case it is still from the same company and notable on it's own. I think it may even deserve it's own section.YVNP (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Any entries to a Wikipedia page need to be verifiable by reliable sources. Unless a reliable source (read: NOT internet forums or random websites) has written about the related videos they do not get a mention in an encyclopedia article. — Ocatecir^T 03:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[1] is what I was talking about. It has pictures to compare with 4girlsfingerpaint and evidence it is from the same company.YVNP (talk) 03:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"404 File Not Found". Plus, something awful would not be a reliable source. — Ocatecir^T 04:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

google it. sorry for the prob. The article is somehow still availble online and on something awful. Something awful is reliable because it is the source of internet memes. Just like the reaction vids on youtube made 2girls1cup notable this makes swap.avi notableYVNP (talk) 04:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It isn't the reaction videos on youtube that made this topic notable enough for inclusion in wikipedia, its the 3rd party coverage by reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking that did. — Ocatecir^T 04:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

And it is something awful that establishes the notability. remember we are talking about a simple mention at least and a section at best.YVNP (talk) 04:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

the link http://www.somethingawful.com/index.php?a=4354 works. the pics are not in the actual article.YVNP (talk) 04:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

http://youtube.com/playhousetv swap.avi gives a lnik to the vid. It is in there videos. That's two sources of notability. One proves the link and the other strengthens the notability. YVNP (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not expect to actually find an article on this

But I'm glad I did! It's really quite well done, except for a couple things.

The last sentence doesn't make sense grammatically. "....causes "Moral Bankruptcy" to have the "Best Week Ever!" Someone, please edit that so it makes sense!

Oh, and the title is supposed to be all one word: "2girls1cup."

I've seen that video of 2guys1cup and I had no idea that John Mayer was the one who made that video! How do you know that it was him?

You also should talk about 2girls1finger.

Did you know that the most recent edition of Washington Post Magazine did a review for 2girls1cup? That should also be mentioned. I don't know where to find the article (I have a physical copy of the magazine, though. That's where I read it), but I can't find it. The article in the Magazine mentioned that "There's actually a Greek word for what they're doing..."

Just my two cents. ForestAngel (talk) 09:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"Moral Bankruptcy" has been changed to something about declining morals but the references 1 and 2 don't back up that claim at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.211.185.38 (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

swap.avi

I think it's time to mention swap.avi. I gave two reliable sources of notability and will find more soon if possible. I don't know how to add it though.YVNP (talk) 05:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Something as famous as Swap.avi deserves a mention, and its own article. So does the fetish producer. We have articles for Episodes of Cheers, they both deserve one.72.94.53.38 (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I see your pint. (although I hate the articles on things as small as episodes. I think it deserves a mention. ^_^YVNP (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Similar Sites

I know of at least one more site that was created that greatly resembles this - 2girls1finger.com. Is it worthy for mention? 71.89.2.22 (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I've been to that one, it's MUCH worse I think... None of this "could just be chocolate" thinking for that clip....

ALSO!!! Should there really be an external link to the site at the bottom of the article? If so, shouldn't it AT LEAST have a warning? I know you might say "people stupid enough not to realise... deserve it" and you're right, but a warning would still be nice. - Healyhatman

Yes, there should be an external link. As Ocatecir mentioned above. Reference is WP:EL. -Etoile (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's make this a featured article

Let's make this a featured article. Obviously it needs improvements to meet featured criteria but with work we can do it. William Ortiz (talk) 16:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not honestly sure there's enough to say using only verified, reliable sources about 2 Girls 1 Cup that would allow for a comprehensive, well-written featured article wihtout straying into original research and synthesis of published material.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What law makes this video illegal in the USA?

I've read all the news sources I can find but I don't know why the USA bans this video. What USA law says it is specifically illegal? There is the first ammendment. If this is obscene, then a large amount of porn would fit that, too, and most porn would be banned in the USA. William Ortiz (talk) 16:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is the indictment, mostly it has to do with mailing obscene matter. However this talk page is not for discussion about the video, it is for article improvement. — Ocatecir^T 17:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

So he was busted for mailing it? I had heard mailing obscene material in the mail was illegal. The article and several news sites make it sound like scat porn is now illegal in the USA to even put on a website or on one's computer. This needs to be made clear. William Ortiz (talk) 01:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay that link said, "In a communication last year to the FBI's 56 field offices, the anti-obscenity campaign was described as "one of the top priorities" of Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez and FBI Director Robert Mueller." Wow wasted tax dollars at work. Anyway, so what exactly was the illegal thing?

• Websites that depicated "depicted bukkake, fisting, and depictions of defecation, urination, and vomiting in conjunction with sex acts" are illegal?
• Mailing pornography to people who requested it (like Playboy, Hustler, and Penthouse do) is illegal?

These seem to be what he was doing.

I have not heard of these things being illegal before and if there is a new law, it should be mentioned at least what the law is. William Ortiz (talk) 01:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Check out this article: Miller Test. It describes the standard in the USA by which speech/expression can be labeled as obscene (and thus unprotected). The standard is very difficult to meet, as you might imagine. For example, if the 2g1c video was shown to have some sort of artistic merit, then it cannot be labeled as obscene... no matter how disgusting it may be. 209.59.33.48 (talk) 08:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The law is different in different states. This is especially relevant since the internet. One early case that tested the law's applicability across US state (if not international) boundaries was AA BBS [2]. Robert and Carleen Thomas, in California, operated a telephone-based bulletin-board system (a precursor of modern internet websites) hosting photographs that featured, amongst others, images of bestiality (copulation between humans and animals). A US postal inspector in Memphis, Tennessee subscribed to the BBS and downloaded images. The couple were charged and convicted under Tennessee law in 1994. The Miller Test (which crucially depends upon local community standards) was applied in this case. The Thomases appealed and the verdict was affirmed on appeal in 1996. I'm surprised that we don't seem to have an article on the case. In the context of the commercial development of the internet during the mid 1990s, it was a keenly watched case. --Tony Sidaway 12:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Time/Dates?

When was this video first saw... btw, excellent article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.3.102 (talk) 14:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Can't we remove the link?

It's awful, and unnecessary. If people still want to figure out what the heck it's about after reading the article then can't they search for it themselves? • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 14:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I think it should be removed. If you click on the link, you will see that there are several pornographic ads on the website.TheMissileSilo (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, from Wikipedia's recommendations on links to be avoided: "Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising." See Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided TheMissileSilo (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the link for now. If anyone does object please discuss it here. • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 21:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait, it says at Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, "except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject". Now what? Is 2girls1cup.com "official" or just one of the many places which happen to host the video? • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 21:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say that 2girls1cup.com is the original site, though I'm not sure anything is "official" about it. And I still think the link is worth having there. -Etoile (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the link should be restored. It may not be palatable, but External links are for readers looking for more -- and once there's at the end of this article, they'll know exactly what they're getting themselves into. It also seems encyclopedically remiss to not link to the actual subject of the article. Regarding "objectionable amounts of advertising," that's meant to prevent spam links. I think in this case when the link would be to the article's subject itself, that sort of thing is (or should be) exempted. Dylan (talk) 06:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like an admin removed it, giving the reason "we don't link to shock sites" click here to see the diff 74.38.86.119 (talk) 07:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That hardly is a valid argument. WP:Wikipedia is not censored says:

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

(emphasis mine)

To me, it is evident that this link is relevant in the context, and doesnt violate any policies, and thus I will (re)add it in a few days if noone proves the contrary. I'd also like to note these replies to commons arguments for removing content. Hell, even Goatse.cx links to goatse.cz! I really don't see a problem with linking to the subject of the article here. Waldir ^talk 13:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course I agree, the policy is totally clear on this point.--SummerWithMorons (talk) 11:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems that 2girls1cup.com is currently a blacklisted link. The reason for its blacklisting is not in the blacklist log, but this shows that it was added because it is a "shock site being relinked on articles (also otrs)". An administrator would have to remove the link from m:Spam blacklist before anyone could add it as an external link. --PseudoChron (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's easy. It looks like there isn't much opposition to this so I will personally ask an admin to temporarily remove the url from the blacklist so we can re-add it (and let's hope noone else tries to remove it again...) Waldir ^talk 23:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's not that easy. Removing the link from the spam blacklist temporarily only to include it in the article would prevent future versions to be saved, when the link is back in the blacklist. And evidently, not many admins are willing to be seen removing permanently that link from the blacklist... :\ Waldir ^talk 01:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well...

You seem to be lacking an article on SWAP.avi. Just because something is so grotesque does not change the fact that it exists, and it has lots to do with both MFXVideo, and SomethingAwful. Not to mention, all these nasty poop videos are related.... TO swap.avi, somehow.... trying to trick ppl into downloading that awful movie, has become sort of a fad around the internet, as is seeing how many times one can watch it without gagging.... So, why dont you all have an article about that disgusting film made by the SA Goon Metis? As an encylopedia, we should include articles that are important, whether we like them or not. 71.76.153.217 (talk) 09:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources about SWAP.avi? If so, feel free to write an article. Powers ^T 15:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I gave two up there. The anon is right. He gave even more notability. Metis is a major editor of something awful and it is a fad. A simple google source shows it is a powerful meme. :/YVNP (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait, you mean SomethingAwful and a morning radio program are considered reliable sources? Powers ^T 13:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes since something awful is a popular website and playhouse tv is as well. This combined with it's connection to the company makes it notable.YVNP (talk) 04:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

So write an article, then. Powers ^T 00:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for seeing what I mean. I think it should just be mentioned here for now.YVNP (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of "swap.avi". I'm going to assume it involves mouth-to-mouth swapping of something nasty though. *doesn't sound notable, but then 99.988% of Wikipedia is already junk; why stop now?*. • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 14:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Does swap.avi have anything to do with 2girls1cup? The original IP-editor was arguing that an article should exist, now you're saying it shouldn't? Powers ^T 23:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The Anon isn't me. I'm me. It has a lot to with 2girls1cup because it is from the smae company as two girls one cup, is notable for an article on something awful and a reaction vid from playhousetv. It more notable than the kermit vid(which I know accept for the msnbc mention) and has is simply worth a simple mention.YVNP (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Kermit not notable

The kermit vid is not worthy of mention. Kermit is fictional and anyone can use him. It has no known notable source like John Mayer, just a puppet. The vid has a lot of views but nothing else.YVNP (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

change my mind msnbc mentioned it.YVNP (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not true that "anyone can use him", at least not legally. Powers ^T 13:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't stop them.YVNP (talk) 04:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This article should be locked

Anyone else think this article should be locked? It's informative and stuff but it's just asking for a whole bunch of vandalism. NIRVANA2764 (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Check the logs - it's already semi-protected, and has been since it was posted, just not marked as such. I'll add the padlock icon maybe, so people know. • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 22:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

John Mayer

Should it really be stated in this article that John Mayer is a "singer/comedian" rather than merely a singer? Although it is stated in his Wikipedia article that he is a verifiable comedian, he is much more known for his music than anything else. I was going to edit that part but thought I should discuss it with everybody first. Djskein79 (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

In making a parody of the 2 Girls 1 Cup video he was working in his capacity as a comedian, not a singer. So for that reason I think it's perfectly appropriate to use both words. I did repunctuate it to "singer and comedian" though, because I think that's nicer wording. • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 16:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry man, I just edited it without reading that. I'll revert under those guidelines stated above (unless someone else has already). Djskein79 (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Major grammatical error

". . . then taking turns consuming the excrement and vomiting into each others' mouths, eliciting sexual arousal from the acts."

The last phrase should be either deleted or amended. The grammar is incorrect; "elicit" is followed by "in", not "from", and the indirect object needs to be the viewer, for example:

"Scatological video elicits sexual arousal in some subjects."

More important, what exactly the video "elicits" is entirely subjective, and since the vast majority of viewers are disgusted rather than aroused, this phrase simply rings false. Any mention of what the video "elicits" should be qualified by the audience in question-- either hard-core fetishists or the general audience that turned the video into a phenomenon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.208.72 (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The sentence is not talking about the viewers, it is talking about the two girls in the video.— Ocatecir^T 21:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I updated the sentence to clarify this. --AB (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The sentence is incredibly stupid anyway. I'm removing it.

Barrett Ross (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

A picture

This article could benefit from a screenshot of the video. --PseudoChron (talk) 02:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I uploaded and added Image:2girls1cup_screenshot1.jpg. --PseudoChron (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's such a good idea. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, but I think in this situation it's best to just use your imagination. In my very humble opinion, the informative value is outweighed by the potential for the unsuspecting Wiki reader to heave their Pop-Tarts, simulated poo or not. There is some informative value going on there though, no question about that. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that this image should be used in the article. Yes, some people will find it offensive but I think it would really help readers that have not seen the video to better understand what the video is about. The screenshot doesn't even contain any nudity, just two girls licking a brown substance that happens to be excrement. I have seen images on Wikipedia much more "shocking" than this. There is precedent of images being kept in articles despite the images causing vomiting. See Gangrene, Autofellatio, Smegma and their talk pages for examples of disgusting images that have been kept because they enhance the article. An article about a popular internet video can be improved by adding a screenshot of that video. Wikipedia is not censored. --PseudoChron (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Bongwarrior. Totally unnecessary. The description lets everyone know exactly what's going on here. Lets not be explicit just because we can. — Ocatecir^T 13:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ocatecir, please remember Wikipedia is not censored. As PseudoChron notes, the image does usefully ilustrate the article, and other controversial articles also use images despite many 'moral' objections... besides the examples he gives, see also Muhammad and the ongoing discussion on the issue (I am linking this cause I think there are several good points there and in the FAQ). I think it is a shame for the wikipedian community if we let the image be deleted (it is marked to be so in 4 days), and will add the image myself if better arguments than these are not presented. Waldir ^talk 13:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course I know wikipedia is not censored, but that policy is not a suicide pact to vulgarity. That policy exists so that useful content will not be censored. A screenshot will not add anything to the article; if anything it will detract from it. — Ocatecir^T 18:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Ocatecir and Bongwarrior. The image would not add anything useful to the article. It also could be illegal in Florida and therefore exposes Wikipedia to unnecessary legal risk. Johntex\^talk 04:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll post some quotes from wikipedia pages that I think speak for themselves.

Wikipedia:The perfect article:

• "A perfect Wikipedia article includes informative, relevant images—including maps, portraits, photographs and artworks—that add to a reader's interest or understanding of the text."

Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence and encyclopedicity:

• "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be significant relative to the article's topic."

Wikipedia:Good article criteria:

• "A good article is illustrated, where possible and appropriate, by images."

Wikipedia:Profanity:

• "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if they are informative, relevant and accurate, and should be avoided when they serve no other purpose than to shock the reader."

Wikipedia:Pornography#Existing policy:

• "Wikipedia is not censored is a policy: some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links as explained in the disclaimer."

Also note that the Graphic and potentially disturbing images proposal has been rejected by the community.

As for the legality of the image, I would say that it clearly fulfills the fair-use criteria, and as a matter of fact the image already uses the appropriate {{Non-free film screenshot}} template. The only reason it's marked for deletion is because it isn't used in any articles. It's absurd to suggest wikipedia is at legal risk because of this image.

Last but not least: please stop using the "useless" argument. It is discouraged (as a subjective argument) in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#USELESS. --Waldir ^talk 00:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean that we should upload pictures of goatse and tubgirl (among others)? While I do understand that Wikipedia is not censored, there should be limits to suitability. For example, while not particularly pleasing to look at, photographs are appropriate for articles discussing medical conditions, as the photographs enhance the readers understanding of the condition.

On the other hand, when the article is discussing a shock site, and gives the appropriate URLs to said shock site, the only valid reason to include a picture would be for shock value. And I think that we can all agree that Wikipedia is above becoming a shock site in itself.

If you do feel the need to include an image, it should be descriptive, informative, relevant, and significantly add to the readers understanding of the subject. Instead, the image above depicts little more than two random girls licking an unknown substance. While it may be a factually accurate rendering of a single frame of the video, it does little to aid the readers understanding of the video as a whole, other than to say 'look at these girls eating poop'. --24.154.15.193 (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with BongWarrier, Ocatecir, and Johntex above. I would also add that picture adds nothing to the article except the opportunity to use Wikipedia to shock people. What's the good of writing an article that people are too disgusted to even look at? The picture is not helpful at all. • Anakin ^(talk) 17:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't see any shock value in the image. And as the url is blacklisted, it can't be added to the article, so 24.154.15.193's proposal is not feasible (and I would agree with him if the url could be added -- but no admin is willing to be seen removing that link from the blacklist). Perhaps this image could even prevent people from being shocked as otherwise they would look up the video since the text is obviously not sufficient to give an idea of what the video is like (especially due to Wikipedia's NPOV policy). But it looks like most of you prefer the image deleted, so I won't oppose that anymore, and will re-add the delete orphan tag it had (I hid it temporarily since this discussion was going on). Waldir ^talk 17:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The text is sufficent to describe the video. From the second line of the article:

"The video features two women defecating and vomiting into a cup, then taking turns consuming the excrement and vomiting into each other's mouths"

It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the video is two girls who eat poop, vomit it out, then eat the vomit-covered poop. What's not to understand? Is it REALLY necessary to show the girls eating the aforementioned vomit-covered poop? Does Wikipedia REALLY need a 'this is what two girls eating shit looks like' image?

As for the availability and linkability of the website, perhaps the address could be added as plain text, I.E "the video can be seen at 2girls1cup.com"? (The fact that you were able to read that last sentence is proof enough that a plaintext URL will work fine.) This would allow any inquisitive readers to see the content of the video, while allowing uninformed readers to see information about the video/website without having a big 'look at these girls eating shit' image plastered all over the page. Even Uncyclopedia has deleted their entire 2 girls 1 cup article after people kept uploading stills from the video. Are you really trying to argue that Wikipedia should be held to lower standards than Uncyclopedia?--24.154.15.193 (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Lol, of course not :) As I said before, I'd be pleased to support the link-instead-of-image approach, and you indeed provided a workaround we havent thought of. I'll do it if it hasn't been done yet. But before finishing, I'd like to add, in a eppur-si-muove-ish way, that I still don't find the image that shocking, really :P I have no special interest on coprophagy or shock sites, or scat films, as it might look given my enthusiastic defense of the keeping of the link and the image. But I am a very curious person, and as well as I was delighted to find out that Wikipedia had an article on something I read somewhere and made me curious (as this guy was), I ended up a little disappointed in having only a vague text (I knew it was a scat film, so that description was nothing new -- what I wanted to know was why it was notable) and no image or link to allow me to further investigate. I suppose a link like you provided is good enough, so I'll consider this issue settled. Waldir ^talk 23:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Other Possible Locations of vid?

Yes I think so. Google it; some remain out there. If you wanna see it bad enough... so yes, there are other locations than YouTube like it stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natashu (talk • contribs) 07:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

new, scam site

I have been trying to look at the vid (well, not exactly look at it, but just to look if its there:) ) and there is this site, which I dont know if it's scam or not (I am crazy enough to look at these videos, but not crazy enough to enter my credit card number to some strange form) - so I wrote into that article that it is "possible scam".

And I wrote the author of 2g1c about that and he even wrote me back, that he is sorry and I should try this url - http://www.flurl.com/item/2girls1cup_Official_Video_u_279710 . Should we write it into the article as "official" place of the video? --Have a nice day. Running 13:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source that documents this, then yes. — Ocatecir^T 16:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The only source now is my mailbox --Have a nice day. Running 18:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about "official", as it's probably just some site that hosts the vid. However, the link does indeed go to the infamous 2g1c vid. The current link at the bottom of the article (2girls1cup.com) really should be noted as a potential scam site. I don't know if the intent is to steal credit card numbers, but I'm willing to bet that it is. 66.207.82.237 (talk) 05:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

External links

I removed the 2girls1cup site entirely from the external links section, as it doesn't even have the video anymore, and added in a link to cupchicks.com. This appears to be the most popular site that people are finding the video on now. While this isn't normally the sort of site we'd want in our external links section, it is reasonable to have an external link to the video, and this site will likely stay around for some time. A google search on 2girls1cup leads to many scam links which try to upload viruses to people's computers, so I think having links to the video here is preferrable to not having them. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

            I've taken the liberty of removing all of the external links, solely for the reason that this may spread abuse amongst the community i.e. adding fake links or scam-URLs. CZMQFRG (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)