Talk:Goatse.cx/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Part of a series

Shouldn't it be mentioned that there's an entire series of "goatse.cx" pictures floating around out there and that the man in the image is named "Kirk Johnson?" I'm sure there's a better source than ED, but all the information IS there on the Encyclopedia Dramatica "Goatse" page, which can't be linked (which is crap, considering there's Encyclopedia_Dramatica, the article). I thought Wikipedia was over the whole ED-Wikipedia drama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.161.6.33 (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you are refering to the images, which are mentioned in the second paragraph of the lead. Jolly Ω Janner 22:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Move to just "Goatse" rather than "Goatse.cx"?

This image is almost always referred to as 'goatse'. Very rarely do people use the full 'goatse.cx'.

The guy in this image is called Kirk J by the way and he is on sites like XTube featuring his anal stretching.--Ginnitytyg (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Not necessary. Goatse already redirects here. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

What the hell is this?

So, I'm an avid reader of the wiki. I rarely edit it. So, as I'm reading up on Internet history, I start reading about shock sites. (I'm no newcomer to the internet, I know these sites.) So I come to goatse, which I've seen before, but why the hell is the actual image here? I understand that Wikipedia is not censored, but it's incredibly stupid to post a shock site image on an ENCYCLOPEDIA page. If you absolutely believe that it should be included here, at least HIDE it under a collapsible box that defaults to being hidden. I know that has been done on Wikipedia in the past. Goatse is absolutely revolting, why do you feel the need to post it here when it can be found just by googling "goatse" and clicking on "I'm Feeling Lucky"?

P.S, if anyone responds to this message with WP:CENSOR, I'm going to reach through the Internet and punch them in the face. Come up with a rational reason to keep Goatse in this article instead of throwing "policy" around. Anybody who's been here long enough knows that policy is a joke anyway. Sean William @ 22:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons have more shock value than the Goatse image does; however, as the images themselves are notable, an encyclopedic viewpoint would favour the prominent and unhidden inclusion of the images in an article about them, even if some people may find it offensive. Seeing as this article is about the Goatse image (and the site it was on), the same argument applies. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Apples to oranges, Sceptre. The same argument does not apply. The cartoons you linked to are offensive to Muslims; goatse is offensive to humans. The only people who aren't offended by goatse are seasoned Internet veterans, whose numbers are few. However, Wikipedia contains an absurd percentage of them... leading to images such as this. You and I both know that a great deal of headaches could have been averted if certain hardline Wiki-conservatives weren't so irrationally adamant to keep the image in the article you linked. Perhaps you should take a step back and think before reciting the same argument that has been repeated for years, Sceptre? Can you give me a good reason why an image of goatse makes this article more effective than the same article with an inline link, without using WP:CENSOR? Sean William @ 01:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about an image. Not actually including the image if we can provide a disservice to the encyclopedia. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. Why would an inline link not suffice? Sean William @ 05:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Because links don't work on paper. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

An interesting choice of words, Sceptre, since Wikipedia is not paper. Sean William @ 03:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• The image is used in the article, because a word description is not enough to describe the image in a reader's mind. We do not link to the image, because we believe all readers should have access to information directly through Wikipedia, unless copyright etc prevent us. Many reader's do not know what goatse is. The image informs them of this. People's opinion on the image is up to them, but we show it regardless. Jolly Ω Janner 20:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

  You're not answering my question as to why a transcluded image is more effective to accomplish your stated purpose than an inline link. Sean William @ 03:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Humans burn calories when they have to click the button on their mouse/keypad to lead them to the link. Content? Jolly Ω Janner 19:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

And what is seen cannot be unseen, especially for a child. Special:Random was clicked 2.4 million times yesterday. There are 3,093,725 articles, so there was a 77.5% that some random person viewed an image they'll never forget. In a mathematically perfect world, 10 people have already arrived at this article by Special:Random this month. But you don't care, you're just one of the thousands of Wikipedians who live by the rules instead of thinking for themselves. No wonder why Wikipedia hasn't been able to pull out of its death spiral. Sean William @ 22:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

How can we pull Wikipedia out of a death spiral that it is not in? WhisperToMe (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Firstly your calculations are incorrect, because page views do not mean one person. One person can hit the random button more than once and there are lots of other errors that occur making it a greater figure. You disregard all the people (100,000 last month according to your system of page views) who come to this article to learn about goatse.cx and the image aids in that learning process. Jolly Ω Janner 11:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

My calculations are perfectly valid. The odds of somebody using Special:Random to get to goatse twice are absolutely astronomical, so my 10 number is perfectly fine. And it's obvious I already disregarded the 100,000 visitors and your other attempts to invalidate my argument by leading off with "a mathematically perfect world". But that's beside the point, you don't give a shit either way, so I'll just leave you to your own devices. I have no hope for Wikipedia any longer. Sean William @ 15:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

While your shock is understandable, from a rational point of view it is clear that the image should be displayed on this page. Sean William, emotions should not dictate what actions Wikipedia should take. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but are you guys fucking serious? There's a difference between being uncensored and being a shock site. There is ALREADY A LINK to an archived mirror of goatse.cx, so why put an image of goatse.fr on the top of the page for everyone to see? Absolutely ridiculous. I am being bold. REMOVED. GSMR (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The image helps in reader's understanding of the topic. Jolly Ω Janner 17:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The link to the archived mirror of the site helps even more (as it IS the full-sized image of the site itself). The best part about that link is that people who really want to "understand the topic" that thoroughly can choose to do so, instead of having that image forced on them. GSMR (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about choice. Wikipedia displays all the information that is relevent to a reader's understanding of the topic. Why should we censor the image for those who want to easily be able to see it? Jolly Ω Janner 19:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not censored if you link to it in external links; it is fully available already. GSMR (talk) 01:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It would not be fully available on Wikipedia. Full availability would be showing it within the top right of the article, which is what we are doing now. Jolly Ω Janner 15:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Maybe we should give a free sample of AIDS to everyone who wants to fully understand the article about AIDS. GSMR (talk) 06:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Showing a photo of Goatse in the Goatse.cx article is to showing photos of AIDS sufferers to illustrate the effects of the disease. Showing a photo of Goatse is not the equivalent of infecting someone with a disease. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I have to side with the folks that would propose using a link to the shock site image. The point of Wikipedia is to inform and educate people. The point of a shock site is to shock people. I think we can inform without shocking people. The justification for including it seems to be pretty weak. Just because we can do it, doesn't mean we should. People may be using Wikipedia to find out what a site is, if they have concerns that it may be shocking or otherwise distasteful. Becoming party to the shock itself reduces Wikipedia to the equivalent of any free-for-all wiki. My analogy here would be that we don't put the ending to movies at the top of articles on each movie either. There's no need to put the punchline, a shock image, at the top of each and every shock site article. Anyhow, I'm removing the image for two reasons: (1) what I just said and (2) it contains a picture of a mirror, not the original. If there is disagreement, I'd suggest a straw poll at this point. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the reason why the top of most film articles don't contain the ending is because those plot summaries are more like advertisements than real plot summaries. We don't deliberately leave out the endings, it's more a symptom of bad writing. In character articles, however, it's more common to see the important things mentioned where they should be, regardless of however "spoiling" they are (Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader mentions that he is Luke's father, for example). The point is, this is an image in an article about an image, and a screenshot in a website in an article about the website. Precedent both lends the image a strong argument to inclusion. The nature of it being a "shock image" is irrelevant to Wikipedia; as far as we're concerned, it's just a copyrighted image with context clearly given, and we should treat it like any other image like it. Sceptre ^(talk) 09:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the inclusion of the images and applaud Sceptre and JollyJanner on the way they have handled this discussion despite the other side getting heated and offensive: well done to you both. The reasons for inclusion are clear and have already been mentioned (even before demands to repeat the reasoning again and again). To reiterate, my reasons for inclusion are:

• The picture in question is the subject of the article and therefore warrents inclusion for that reason alone.
• Hiding/linking the image raises key accessibility issues and would impede some users' use of the project and again, for this reason alone, inclusion is fully warrented.
• Our old friend WP:CENSOR just because some editors don't think the rules are worth sticking too, doesn't mean the majority of the community shares those views.
• Education: until viewing this article for the first time after stublim across it from the AN/I a few minutes ago I did not know the history of that image despite seeing it about the internet (we'll leave my browsing habits out of this) and therefore the image and this article has educated me and I'm willing to assume it's done/going to do the same for others.

There are other reasons but I'm too tired to come up with them but above are four perfectly good stand-alone ones. WP's 'spiral of death' has nothing to do with this, nor is there any reason to swear at other editors, bash Muslims or get into revert wars, let's just discuss this properly. raseaC^{talk to me} 09:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article contains a screenshot of wikipedia.org which is freely available and linked to. This is an attempt at censorship and nothing more. The onus is on you (Sean William) to find a policy that says it should be removed. WP:CENSOR is a policy that supports the inclusion of the image in this article, so to dismiss it detracts from your argument. James086^{Talk | Email} 09:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

We could just as well use most of the arguments presented above to show a picture at 2 Girls 1 Cup, or various other articles about similar topics. Not showing these pictures can be perfectly okay, and if there's consensus for that, it's really got nothing to do with WP:CENSOR. We are not required to show such images. --Conti|✉ 13:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Also note that there has been a vote at Talk:Goatse.cx/Vote back in 2005, where the clear consensus was not to show the image. Maybe another vote/strawpoll/!vote/thingy should be held to see if the consensus has changed. --Conti|✉ 13:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm wary about starting another strawpoll as it will devolve into "delete - it's disgusting" arguments. I'm also wondering if a four year old straw poll (half the age of Wikipedia) would be binding; I'm not even sure the Gdansk vote is binding any more. And re: your point about 2 Girls 1 Cup: you are quite correct that we are not required to show the images. However, the decision to show or not to show them must be made on the same grounds as everything else: whether the image has encyclopedic merit and whether its inclusion would be seen as fair use. If someone made an airtight argument to use an image on that article (like the argument for the use of the Goatse image is assumed to be here, or the use of the Muhammad cartoons in the article about that controversy, or the AACS encryption key in that article; the list goes on), then an ideal IFD would probably see it kept under the current rules of fair use and use of offensive imagery. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I hate straw polls. It undermines policy. I can guarantee most of the people involved in a straw poll will vote on their own opinion of what Wikipedia should be without an understanding of Wikipedia's policies. Jolly Ω Janner 18:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, a strawpoll will just see a bunch of people typing 'keep' or 'delete' with very few offering any substantial arguments beyond 'wow, that's sick'. A discussion such as the one that is happening here is much more effective and therefore appropriate. raseaC^{talk to me} 18:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to strongly voice my support for keeping the image, and council Sean William to tone it down and relax. Wikipedia is not a children's website. There are many things on here that I would not want my young children seeing. That does not make them uninformative. The inclusion of the image is absolutely central to the article, and anyone who advocates its removal should ask themselves what brought them to the page in the first place, and why they care so much. It really seems like some sham rage to me. *edit* Seriously? We have list of male performers in gay porn films but not sham rage? Huh.Throwaway85 (talk) 05:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have the energy to debate endlessly with a few people who (a) believe preserving a picture of someone's anus is some stance against censorship and (b) have tons of time. That reminds me why I stopped editing so much... cheers. By the way, I originally ended up here because I was doing research on shock sites related to my work on URL categorization, not because of whatever your theory is about why I ended up here, Throwaway85. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 09:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Haha, nice mutual patting-on-the-back, pro imagers. The fact is that people don't read encyclopedic articles about shock sites expecting to see a shock image. My AIDS argument stands; showing someone a shock site so that they can "fully understand" it is the same as giving someone a disease so they fully understand it. Not only is the image "sexual in nature", it is damaging in nature. Being absolutely revolting is reason enough for the image to at least be hidden by default.

Enjoy your built-in shock site masquerading as encyclopedic content, trolls! GSMR (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

We've already discussed infecting people with AIDS and have decided that it's probably not appropriate (we probably have a policy to back that somewhere but I can't think what it would be). Being absolutely revolting is reason enough for the image to at least be hidden by default suggests you're arguing against the image for censorship reasons, which, as we all know, isn't a particularly good reason. raseaC^{talk to me} 17:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Wiktionary logo

Shouldn't something about this be included in this article? Wutsje (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't, per virtually every WP policy that exists. Original Research, Undue Weight, Reliable Sources, etc. --Conti|✉ 07:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

So a BBC News related parody is okay to mention, but a WMF related one isn't? Wutsje (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The BBC News parody seems pretty irrelevant to me, too, quite honestly. --Conti|✉ 23:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The BBC parody was broadcast live on national television. That's far more significant. Jolly Ω Janner 00:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Should the image be displayed?

We are all aware that Wikipedia is not censored and that you can configure your browser to mask images, but I and many others believe that showing the content of Goatse on this article is tantamount to Wikipedia containing its own built in shock site. There's a difference between an image being 'sexual' in nature and being damaging and disturbing in nature. GSMR (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed there are differences between sexual and disturbing in nature but WP:CENSOR does not appear to differentiate between the two, it simply says that content may be 'exceedingly offensive' which, obviosuly this is, but therefore is still covered by WP:CENSOR and so should not be removed. Anytime someone uses WP:CENSOR as an argument against inclusion they poo-poo their own argument straight off the bat. The question is simply down to whether or not the image helps the reader understand the article and this image does and therefore should stay. raseaC^{talk to me} 17:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

And a picture of some nice, healthy, human Feces will help them understand that article, too (and yes, we've had that discussion once as ewll). Not to mention 2 Girls 1 Cup, or, hell, Torture, while we're at it. We could have pictures for all of those, yet we don't. And we won't, no matter how often people cry "WP:CENSOR!!". Not censoring things does not mean that we need to have every kind of picture anyone can think of. We are still allowed to use our brains, and we are still allowed not to use images that will creep out 99,9% of the population. --Conti|✉ 17:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying WP:CENSOR is an argument for keeping it in, I just don't think it's an argument for either side of the debate. I have no objeection to any relevant picture being included in any of the above articles regardless of how 'distateful' it may be. I wouldn't say it's particularly 'nice' but is this the sort of picture you were describing re: feces? I mean we all know what a shit looks like so you could argue that image is redundant, but it helps the reader understand the Human feces article just as the image on this article helps the user understand it further (infact it's probably more relevant here because I would assume more people know what a shit is than what a shocksite is). raseaC^{talk to me} 18:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me put this another way: Don't you think that there is a line, somewhere, where a picture becomes too distasteful to show? I'm fine with people arguing that the line isn't crossed here, but acting like there is no such thing as "too distasteful", well.. I wouldn't even know what to say to that. --Conti|✉ 18:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't think there's any such line. If someone sees such an image by accident it's natural, if on purpose it's choice. raseaC^{talk to me} 18:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

And do we want people having nightmares because of something they stumbled upon by accident, or perhaps because they thought (and reasonably so) that an ENCYCLOPEDIA ARTICLE about a shock site would not be a shock site itself? GSMR (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If viewing one tiny picture of a distended anus gives you nightmares, perhaps you should recuse yourself from the internet. There's much, much worse stuff out there. Goatse is old hat anyways, and I highly doubt anyone coming to this article will not have been exposed to it before. Personally, I find the picture of emaciated corpses stacked should-high at holocaust to be much more disturbing. That image, however, much like this one, is central to the article. Should we remove the image from Genital warts as well? Fact of the matter is, if you're here, you either know what to expect or are trying to find out. I think including a screenshot of the goatse.cx homepage is itself a defense against accusations of shockery. We could have hello.jpg, but we don't. We have a screenshot. Look, if you're offended, don't visit. We have infoboxes on gay porn actors' pages that detail length and girth. The articles mention how ably an actor serviced another one. If you want to start censoring Wikipedia, I can think of many more appropriate places to start than here. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If you think that goatse is an "old hat", then you are pretty much disconnected from reality. It is an "old hat" for nerdy geeks like us. For the rest of the general population, it's not. And, in the end, this is an encyclopedia for everyone, not just one for us nerdy geeks, who've seen everything and aren't offended by such images. Others are, and we should take that into account. --Conti|✉ 20:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

First off, you are assuming that all visitors to this page are seasoned internet veterans (when most of them are not) and second, you're putting words in my mouth. I am not trying to censor Wikipedia. I am not going to defend a position you're trying to put me in.

I will quote Sean William's comment above:

"You and I both know that a great deal of headaches could have been averted if certain hardline Wiki-conservatives weren't so irrationally adamant to keep the image in the article you linked. Perhaps you should take a step back and think before reciting the same argument that has been repeated for years, Sceptre? Can you give me a good reason why an image of goatse makes this article more effective than the same article with an inline link, without using WP:CENSOR? Sean William @ 01:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)"

Oh, and, this is beside the point, but while I'm above such personal attacks as "l0lz if u dn't laik gaotse den gtf0 de innernetz lol omg!!!!!111oneoneone" I will just state for the record that I am not offended by Goatse; I have seen it countless times before, but the "seen goatse to the point that it doesn't bother me anymore" category is a VERY small amount of people on the Internet and such people naturally would be overrepresented in authors of an article called Goatse.cx.

GSMR (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly I think we should stop referring to the article as a 'shocksite' because it clearly isn't; it's an article explaining the concept of a shocksite and using images to aid that explanation. Those visiting WP should be aware that any article may (and in many cases probably will) contain offensive (even 'exceedingly' so) text, images, videos etc. as clearly stated in our easy-to-read disclaimers. If people choose not to read these discalimers and are therefore surprised to see some guy holding his ass open it is no one's fault but the visitor. raseaC^{talk to me} 19:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better myself. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

"If people choose not to read these discalimers and are therefore surprised to see some guy holding his ass open it is no one's fault but the visitor." If I wouldn't know it better, I'd be sure that your comment would be a parody of people defending the image. --Conti|✉ 20:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep our replies alltogether otherwise talk pages become very confusing. The Sean William quote is irrelevant as I've already said that WP:CENSOR shouldn't be a factor in either side of the debate. Other than that I'm not sure anything new has been said. raseaC^{talk to me} 20:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• The image should be used in the article, because a word description is not enough to describe the image in a reader's mind. We do not link to the image, because we believe all readers should have access to information directly through Wikipedia, unless copyright etc prevent us. In some cases www.goatse.cx(.fr or .cz) may be blocked; I know for a fact that it is blocked in schools across the United Kingdom. Many reader's do not know what goatse is. The image informs them of this and is therefore doing the encyclopedic duties which is what Wikipedia is. (Note how I never mentioned censoring or reader's views on the image's "disguistingness"). Jolly Ω Janner 20:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course the image should be kept. There isn't an encyclopedic or legal reason to remove it. If we could write a good fair use rationale for a screenshot from 2 Girls 1 Cup, again, we should use that image. Same with feces. Regarding torture: as torture is illegal nearly everywhere in the world, that's a reason why we shouldn't upload photos of it. However, we routinely use artwork to illustrate concepts of some torture methods (e.g. waterboarding).

I think NOT#CENSORED actually does apply here. Apart from the 2005 vote, the image has not been the subject of a legitimate discussion of its suitability that ended in its deletion. And in 2005, standards were less rigorous as they are today. The reason for the existence of a prohibition on censorship is because it will lead to a slippery slope. Censoring an encyclopedia would also run against its mission to be the "sum of human knowledge". Thus, we must allow any encyclopedic content, regardless of how offensive it is.

Yesterday, I attended a discussion about the concept of blasphemy in Islam. And, of course, the Jyllands-Posten cartoons came up. The recurrent theme is that Muslims are rather protective of their beliefs—even moderates in Western countries—and I can guess that over 90% of people were offended by the images. That's 1.3 billion people, or 20% of the world population. So why do we include them when we know they will offend most Muslims? Because the offensiveness of an image has no bearing on its encyclopedicity. If an image is relevant to the article it is to be added to and passes our criteria on non-free images, we can use it. End of. Thank you. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this discussion recent enough? (I realize that, technically speaking, the discussion didn't end with deletion, but rather prevented restoration.) Yes, we can use the image if we want, but we shouldn't be obligated to do so. You can cry censorship all you want, but consensus has pointed to "no image" time and time again. You don't have to like it, but it might be time to accept it and move on. 71.162.25.80 (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't even be bothered to read all of that because it looks as if a) the discussion was regarding an image we couldn't use for legal (copyright) reasons, which has now been addressed and b) the majority of people supporting deletion are doing so against WP:CENSOR. I'm afraid that as far as I'm concerned that discussion is irrelevant. raseaC^{talk to me} 22:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that the will of the community is irrelevant to you. 71.162.25.80 (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments such as those are unhelpful. Please redact. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

On what grounds? I've said nothing out of line. 71.162.25.80 (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) a redact is not completely necessary. Discussions are a lot easier if everybody knows each contributors true behaviour. raseaC^{talk to me} 22:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC) As a wikipedian the will of the community is absolutely relevant to me (look through my contributions if you want, I'm often involved in long discussions to establish a concensus) but I am also interested in the project sticking to it's policies because frankly this place would be insane otherwise. Therefore a discussion where every contributor is contributing with policies in mind outtrumps a million people citing WP:IDONTLIKE. Let's please keep this discussion on content and not contributors. raseaC^{talk to me} 22:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm just particularly sensitive to IP editors coming in with personal attacks. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It's fine, I appreciate it. I've got a particularly lovely one in my talk archives and while I take them seriously when directed towards others if they're directed towards me I think letting the community know how another editor operates is important. raseaC^{talk to me} 22:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I still fail to see how that qualifies as a personal attack, but it's not particularly germane to this discussion in any event. If either of you have an issue with my comments, please take it to my talk page so that I may learn to be more sensitive in the future. 71.162.25.80 (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It's considered poor form to criticize another editor's commitment to the project, particularly after having a single, one-statement-each dispute with them. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

In the time-honoured words of you yourself: couldn't have said it better myself. (We should really work in shifts to distribute our greatness more efficiently!!) raseaC^{talk to me} 23:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a 3-year contract in Vegas in here somewhere, I'm sure of that. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Why should the image be removed? Because it shocks and offends people? Removing it for that reason is nothing other than censorship. It is relevant to the article, it is informative and relevant even if distasteful. James086^{Talk | Email} 04:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Censorship should not come into it. The image is necessary in order to show readers of the article what it is. It is not an encyclopedic image however, and some suitable alternative could be better. However at this moment in time there is no reason other than taste to remove it. While I agree it is distasteful, Wikipedia isn't censored. It is not illegal to view the image, is informative and relevant. If any compromise needs to be made, might I suggest a disclaimer on the article itself? Calvin (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

All Wikipedia articles are covered by the general disclaimer, which states, iirc, that what you see may be offensive. There's also (again, iirc) some policy about avoiding using disclaimers. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Please bear with me, I'm still getting used to the policies. I had forgotten that. My point still stands as such, that it should be kept unless a suitable alternative can be found.Calvin (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The image shouldn't be there (as it's basically obsene) and should be removed immediately. I can't think of any circumstance that it will stay, once properly reported.

As much as wikipedia isn't censored, it also isn't allowed to promote obsene material, which this picture surely is.

What's more, I'd suspect that the creators of the page merely want to use the "shock" value of this image to drive traffic towards the web site.

Not that the site shouldn't have an image to represent itself, but personally, I find using such shock tactics both cynical and rather distasteful.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, but Wikipedia is allowed to promote obsene material under the law of Florida. Jolly Ω Janner 19:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:NLT? raseaC^{talk to me} 20:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Under U.S. law, the image isn't legally obscene. The third prong of the Miller test isn't satisfied. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

RemoveThe image is, as we know, a shock image. It shouldn't be on Wikipedia. It says in our own rules 'Wikipedia is not a shock site'. Anyone can access this, even young children in today's times!--Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 09:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The image is a screenshot of the website, which contains the shock image within it. Can you provide me with a link to your quote "Wikipedia is not a shock site".?

I could've sworn it was there last time, but my point still remains. Young children can see this image. Who cares if it is a screenshot, it's still obscene. It's like saying 'Ah, but this is only the violent part of Nightmare on Elm Street. Not all of it, so it's suitable to look at.' Makes no sense, does it.--Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 14:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC) PS Don't be such a smartarse about it.

It isn't our duty to prevent children from seeing obsene images. It's up to parents or teachers etc. A child could just as easily search for pornography on the Internet. Removing it would be a dissadvantage to many people who want to further their understanding of the topic. Jolly Ω Janner 14:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right Editor510, that analogy makes no sense whatsoever. Furthermore, I think it would be helpful for you to review WP:CIVIL. raseaC^{talk to me} 19:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Really? The trusty, faithful, "won't somebody think of the children" argument? Sorry, that simply doesn't fly. If a child manages to find their way to the goatse.cx article, there's a dman good chance they either knew what they were looking for or came across a lot of porn on the way. As far as goatse being a shock image... maybe in 2003, but this stopped being shocking years ago. I restate my prior argument: If you're coming to the goatse article, you know what to expect, or are trying to find out. Having a tiny screenshot of the frontpage does not constitute makign WP a shock site. Such arguments are baseless. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Well here's what I say. To hell with it all. Wikipedia is a bloody bureaucracy and has stopped feeling the meaning of what it is. No wonder I've semi-retired, this site is so oppressive!!--Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 09:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you find it "oppressive" and bureaucratic that we don't censor. This image has been the subject of numerous failed attempts to delete it. It ain't gonna happen. Let it go. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete: I hate to point this out (because I know it's going to fall on deaf ears where it counts), but 'uncensored' does not mean 'practiced with wild abandon'. Wikipedia is uncensored specifically and precisely so that uncomfortable images which need to be shown in order to carry across a particular idea are not restricted. so, for instance, the breast article leads with an image of a woman's breast - an image which would be censored in many mainstream journalistic venues (at least in the US), but which is a useful and effective image for demonstrating what a breast is. However, this image does not effectively demonstrate what the website is, and is not necessary to any understanding of the website (since, obviously, there is a link on the article which leads to the website and the image itself for the curious/adventurous). It is simply a moment of offensiveness by wikipedia editors who are mimicking the offensiveness of the site itself. It adds no value to wikipedia (well, it might, if it were effectively cropped and transferred over the the rectum page as a depiction of the interior rectal cavity, but that's not where it is). And yeah, I know, freedom of speech has always been the rallying cry of pornographers everywhere, but please: try to take the encyclopedia seriously. This isn't needed, and it doesn't belong. --Ludwigs2 04:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete. The purpose of a shock site is to allow trolls to send people to the site to cause them to view an image that will offend them. By placing this image on Wikipedia, we enable the use of Wikipedia as a shock site. This adds nothing informative to the site and merely enables abuse of Wikipedia. --FOo (talk) 05:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Both of the above points have been discussed extensively in the archives. Please read discussions before contributing. raseaC^{talk to me} 08:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. They both thoroughly ignore the discussion that has come before. Look, we're talking in circles here. Can we just close the RfC and move on? Throwaway85 (talk) 11:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

sorry - I'm not used to ongoing RfC discussions having sections archived, so I didn't think to look. perhaps one of you would be decent enough to summarize the arguments pertaining to this particular point? because - frankly - I'm having a hard time thinking of an argument against the idea that wikipedians should use common sense and discretion when adding material to articles. thanks. --Ludwigs2 15:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Back during the DRV, someone noted that common sense was "something both sides think they have but don't". And, by the way, your argument also supports removing some of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons. "Stereotypical Arabian with a bomb in his turban" is a free description of one of the more offensive cartoons, of course. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I appreciate cynical humor, but don't live my life according to it. Common sense is something that everyone has in general and no one uses 100% of the time. Failing to use it can either be a momentary blindness (which is normal and acceptable) or intentional obnoxiousness (which is normal but irritating). And I would have supported showing the Jyllands-Posten cartoons, since they were in fact the very thing that was being discussed. That's not the case here.

Uh, the image is the thing that's been discussed. Or the website. Precedent both lends to the use of non-free images in articles about them; Jyllands-Posten for images in the article about the image, articles such as Yahoo!, Google, Wikipedia for screenshots of the websites. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The RfC discussion has obviously not been archived but the responses to all of the issues raised have (because people just keep bringing up the same ridiculous arguments) it all boils down to the only delete argument being because people don't like the picture but phrased a million and one different ways. The R in RfC is fairly fundamental - you're not required to comment and so noone is forcing you to do the research if you don't want to but at the same time noone is going to do that research on your behalf. raseaC^{talk to me} 16:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I honestly think this goes back to my "talking in circles" argument. We've bee over this many, many time before. At some point, we need to close the RfC and move on. When is that point? Throwaway85 (talk) 16:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Now. We've already got two keeps and three withdrawn proposals so there was never a reason to bring it up again. raseaC^{talk to me} 17:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)The only reason people end up talking in circles is that people on the both sides don't listen to what's being said. Obviously I don't like this picture (and would be a bit disgusted by someone who did) but that is not my argument. My argument is that the picture adds nothing significant to the reader's understanding of the website, and because it adds nothing significant there's no real reason to include it in wikipedia. We do not include a picture of a child being raped on the pedophilia article, because a sexual desire towards children is understandable without a disturbing image. We do have pictures of oral sex on the felatio page because the images (which some would find disturbing) do help explain what felatio is. The image of a man stretching out his ass is not relevant to the purpose of goatse.cx (it's just one of any number of disturbing images they could have used, and I'm sure they have dozens more), therefore it is not relevant to an effective discussion of goatse.cx, therefore it adds no direct value to the wikipedia article. since it adds no value and is disturbing to many people, it has no place on wikipedia.

now, if one of you wants to address my argument directly (either through a reference to a specific past discussion or with a new response), I'd appreciate that. However, I am not much interested in attempts to shut down the conversation through misrepresentations of my position, so please don't do that. --Ludwigs2 18:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to address your argument directly. Goatse.cx is an article on internet history. The relevance of goatse lies entirely in the picture hello.jpg. While most everyone knows what pedophilia is without seeing an image of a child being raped, very few people would be able to understand goatse in the absence of the image provided. It is very much central to the article, and therefore must remain, despite what some editors may feel about the content of the image. Throwaway85 (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Describing the image in words is actually rather difficult and I imagine many readers would not have the exact image of the man stretching his anus accurately in their head. I mean, it's not something you see every day, so for the majority the picture is helpful. For people like you and me, we've probably seen it before, so it's hard for us to put ourselves into the mind-set of all those readers who haven't seen it yet. Jolly Ω Janner 18:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

lol - I think the debate here revolves around the question of whether it's necessary to put that image in people's heads in the first place, not over whether the picture is necessary to accomplish that end. throwaway's response was quite helpful - I (for one) hadn't realized that the page was entirely about that set of images. I think I'd still prefer that a verbal description be used instead of the image, but that's a much weaker argument (that wikipedia itself doesn't need to shock in order to convey the fact that the website was shocking). --Ludwigs2 19:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Remove. I can't believe we've come to a point where we're displaying the goatse image on Wikipedia. It's pretty much the textbook example of what WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't mean - just because we're not censored, doesn't mean we should be displaying such blatantly offensive and obscene images as this one. Maybe some people here are jaded by overexposure, and don't find it offensive any more; that's their problem. Most people would, and I do not like the thought of our regular readership hitting the 'Random Article' button and stumbling across this image. We are an encyclopaedia, not a shock site, and should not include this image or any other like it. Robofish (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Your reasoning doesn't appear to have taken into account the other side of the argument. Have you considered that for many users the image is actually helpful in their understanding, which is what an encyclopedia is about. Jolly Ω Janner 18:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

eh, marginal reasoning, at best. the sentence "The page features an image of a man distending his anus with his fingers" conveys an understanding that the website is shocking very effectively; the image itself doesn't add much to the understanding except a certain degree of nausea. --Ludwigs2 19:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment Is there a single objecter whose argument does not boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT? If so, I haven't seen one. Throwaway85 (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

90% of wikipedia boils down to IDONTLIKEIT. however, there's a big difference between "IDLI because it's gross", and "IDLI because it detracts more from the encyclopedia than it adds." --Ludwigs2 19:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

plus, I'll add that if I have to choose between people who want to remove the image because it's gross people who want to retain the image because it's gross (all other things being equal), I'll always side with removal. grossness for grossness' sake is, well... gross. --Ludwigs2 19:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

We're not being gross for the sake of. We're being gross as it's an unfortunate side-effect of being encyclopedic. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Noone ever said anything about keeping it because it's gross. Not sure where you got that from, but I'd appreciate a little AGF. Look, go take a gander at Genital warts and see if the image here is any worse than they are. Like that article, the picture here is necessary to explain to the reader what the article is about. Also, your argument about WP being 90% what people don't like is specious and a poor justification for editing an article in any case. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

eh, don't get hung up on the side comments. I'm sure there are people on W who advocate for things like this just because they are immature, but those kind of people don't last long, so I doubt any of them are major players in this debate. I probably should have left off that comment entirely, but there's sometimes a gap between my typing and my brain. . re genital warts, though - again, I know why images of genital warts are necessary; a visual depiction of them is really the only way to know what they are. I'm not convinced that same argument holds true here. really, it relies on making an identity between goatse.cx and the image hello.jpg (as opposed to goatse.cx being a site that shows these kinds of images). if it's an identity, then the picture may be required; if it's just a typicality then the picture probably isn't required. see what I mean? --Ludwigs2 00:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I do believe that Goatse is basically hello.jpg, hence inclusion should be taking place. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly right. In the context of internet phenomena, Goatse is, and only is, Hello.jpg. That's it. It's like meatspin.com. How do you impart understanding of what meatspin is without some kind of visual aid? Furthermore, the only real question that needs to be asked is, "Does the picture enhance the viewer's understanding of the subject?" In this case, it's a resounding yes. Oh, and don't worry about the brain/kb disconnect. I've suffered from it for years. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is true that I don't like the image. But I am also concerned that including it on this page may damage the public reputation of Wikipedia. That may seem like a strange concern at the moment - the image has been there a while, and hasn't caused any off-wiki controversy yet - but I think that's just because this is a fairly obscure page and most users aren't aware of it. I think it's only a matter of time, though, before some blogger or media organisation stumbles across it, and writes an article about how 'Wikipedia, supposedly a tool for education, contains pictures of men with distended anuses' or something like that, and we'll find ourselves in another Virgin Killer controversy all over again. Call me paranoid if you will, but I remember that last one and the mess it caused, and have no desire to see something similar happen again. Including the image on this page doesn't add much to the article - I concede that it does add something - and risks bringing the whole of Wikipedia into disrepute. I personally don't think it's worth the risk. Robofish (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

And moreover, besides the above: it's just not very considerate to confront our readers with such a blatantly offensive image. Proponents of its inclusion argue that they can't properly understand the article without it, but I think we owe them a little more respect than that. Robofish (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The Virgin Killer article was supposedly showing child pornography, which is illegal in the UK, so that's why it was censored. Goatse isn't illegal, so no such event is going to happen to this article. Jolly Ω Janner 18:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

The RFC appears to be over. So, what was the result? 72.65.225.73 (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the majority (66%) of users were supporting its removal, so no action was taken i.e. removing it. Jolly Ω Janner 19:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I counted nine editors in favor of removal, six in favor of keeping it. 72.65.225.73 (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, less than 66% of users in favour of removal. Jolly Ω Janner 19:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Right, but where does this 66% figure come from? Is it some sort of policy? 72.65.225.73 (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I just came up with it on the spot. Probably not the best way to conclude a RfC. Better off asking an experienced RfC user. Jolly Ω Janner 19:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

66% is normally given as a baseline for discussions anyway. Besides, the ones supporting removal had weaker arguments than those supporting keeping it; no-one supporting removing made a decent fair use or encyclopedicity argument, they were either easily rebuffed, or else they resorted to "but it's disgusting!" reasons. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

66% is meaningless and arbitrary - decisions on wikipedia are supposed to be based on arguments, not voting. I don't think there was any real consensus here - I still find the picture gratuitous and unnecessary. I suggest you leave the RfC open for a while longer to get a broader segment of opinions, otherwise this problem will simply occur again the next time someone runs across the page and is annoyed by the photo. --Ludwigs2 20:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right that 66% is arbitrary, but generally, if we do resort to vote counting, 66% is a general baseline. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

There's been five previous discussions and the upshot was keep. raseaC^{talk to me} 21:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm still open to any argument that does not boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If someone can give a good reason for deletion, then lets do it. All of the "but it's gross" comments simply don't fly. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I gave you such an argument - that the image doesn't add enough value to the understanding of the subject to merit using it (given its patent offensiveness). The counter-argument offered (that gostse.cx was entirely and completely identified with that image) struck me as specious, since I sincerely doubt that the people who made the original site cared one whit what pictures they used, so long as the pictures used were extremely offensive. But I see no point in arguing about it, since it's clear that adolescent prurience is trumping common sense and common courtesy on this page. The fact of the matter is, there are no decent arguments on this talk page at all: what we have is one group of editors using wp:ILIKEIT and another using wp:IDONTLIKEIT, and I have to side with the IDONTLIKEITs, because I mistrust the reasoning behind the ILIKEIT pov. --Ludwigs2 22:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

So because we don't share your moral outrage, we are prurient adolecents? It's a real wonder why you have been unable to convince anyone to delete the image. Whether you distrust my reasoning or not, you have failed to provide an adequate refutation of my argument. Gotta fly, hopefully it will by slightly less prurient round here when I get back. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

hunh, is that what you read?

1. moral outrage is an incorrect term. I think the picture is ugly and unnecessarily shocking, but that's about it. I reserve moral outrage for acts that actually harm people.
2. I don't know how old you are, so I can't say whether you are in fact an adolescent. however, the "argument" in favor of using this picture boils down to "the website was shocking, and so we have to shock people ourselves with this picture so they can see how shocking it was". The belief that people need to be shocked in order to understand something is a typically adolescent attitude, so I don't know what else to call the display of this picture except adolescent. prurient follows from the nature of the picture itself. In fact, I can counter your argument simply by pointing out the following:
   • people do not need to be shocked to understand that something is shocking.
   • people do not like to be shocked by being shown offensive images without advanced warning

since you are not adding anything to people's understanding of the site (only magnifying the shock they feel when they reach this wikipedia page) and you are not giving people a choice to not be shocked when they arrive at this page, you are doing a disservice to everyone who visits this page. Whatever you think, readers should have the choice to not see that image (at least on wikipedia). why do you insist on taking that choice away from them? --Ludwigs2 03:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig, what you're getting at there when you say "readers should have the choice" boils a lot down to out good old policy WP:censored. On this talk page, it'd be better to apply Wikipedia's existing policies to the case of this article. If you have a problem with the way Wikipedia choses to show shocking images then discuss it on the policy's talk page. As far as I've always been concerned, Wikipedia always shows shocking images if it thinks they're useful. Jolly Ω Janner 03:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

the operative phrase being "if it's useful." I don't think it is useful, for precisely the reasons I outlined above. Don't get me wrong, I am not shocked by this picture (you'll have to work a bit harder if you want to find something that shocks me); I just find it distasteful. And that is precisely my point: since I am not shocked by this kind of imagery, I find that the picture adds absolutely nothing to the discussion of the topic. therefore the picture's only value lies in its ability to shock readers, therefore it doesn't belong on the page. --Ludwigs2 04:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

ok, I will give people a while to offer up some reason for using this picture that doesn't involve its ability to shock readers, and if none is forthcoming I will invoke the silence=consent rule and remove the picture. as it stands the majority of editors present have asked to remove the picture, and the best argument I see on this page (which would be my own) indicates the picture should go. in the absence of any cogent counter-argument, I feel that move is justified. If you've got a card to play, play it, otherwise I'm calling the hand. --Ludwigs2 23:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

There is neither silence nor consent to removing the photo, and removing it would be in contravention of process during an RfC and a possible conflict of image. And there is a good reason for keeping it in the article: this is an article about an image, and the website that solely consists of that image. Precedent lends in both cases to the image's inclusion: either as a prima facie argument for fair use (see Raising the Flag on Iwo-Jima, Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy) or as a visual aid to the website (see Wikipedia, Google). As Wikipedia has no rules prohibiting appropriate but offensive content—in fact, it's explicitly condoned—there's no policy based reason to remove the image. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, it's just another fair use image, albeit one placed on the bad images filter (like the image in Penis) to prevent juvenile vandalism. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sceptre, I believe it was you arguing above that the RfC was closed, and that the majority decision to remove wasn't enough of a supermajority to actually count as a majority. please make up your mind. If the RfC is still open, I will of course wait before taking any such action.

At any rate, as has been pointed out (by several editors), there may not (and should not) be a rule against posting appropriate but offensive content, but there are rules about posting arbitrary offensive content. The entire argument in favor of using this image can be summed up in this sentence: "The website is the image, and so using the image is necessary for any proper discussion of the website". However, that is actually an editorial decision, without -so far as I know - any basis in fact. do we have a reliable source which says that the creators of the website intended that image to be the 'flagship' image of that page? why that one, and not one of the other images on the page? It seems likely to me that the creators of that page would have used any image that was sufficiently offensive, and since the page itself does not explicitly discuss anal sex or the expansion of sphincters (or have any other content relating to the image, except presenting it for shock value), I see no reason to assume that they (the creators) chose that particular image for anything other then its shock value. I would argue, then, that the picture is incidental, presented on goatse purely for shock, and of no substantive relation to the page whatsoever, except for the fact it was used. If that is the case, it does not belong on wikipedia.

Now, perhaps you have a reliable source which indicates this image was intended by its creators to be equal to the site itself? possibly some reliable secondary sources that equate the image to the webpage with some kind of statistical analysis or reasoned argument? if so, then please present it, or offer some other argument that this image is needed; not merely a misguided effort by wikipedia editors to include arbitrary offensive material in the project. I await your reply. --Ludwigs2 01:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You're just ruleslawyering now. The use of the image is not arbitrary; indeed, it's backed by precedent. If this article is about the website, precedent lends to using a screenshot of the webpage in question. If this article is about the image, precedent, again, lends to using the image. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

don't accuse me of ruleslawyering immediately before you try to claim the backing of precedent, not unless you want to get trouted. can you please show me where that precedent is established (at least in the first case, since I disagree that the second case is a valid condition)? --Ludwigs2 02:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

For the use of screenshots, or logos, in website articles, I chose a category at random: Category:BitTorrent websites. Most of them have either a screenshot or a logo. For articles about fair-use images, Category:Pablo Picasso paintings. For articles using relevant but offensive images, Category:Sex organs. For overlap of the last two, there's really only one example: the Jyllands-Posten cartoons. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

for the record, these are not precedents, these are examples. a precedent would be a discussion of the application of policy on a similar issue, and would carry more weight than this kind of thing. with that in mind, though, let's exclude some of these at the start:

• Category:Pablo Picasso paintings, or any other fair-use image issue, would not apply, since Pablo Picasso paintings would be (generally speaking) non-offensive and relevant to most discussions about Picasso's art.
• Category:Sex organs, and similar, would not apply, since images of sexual organs are directly pertinent to discussions of sexual organs, which I have argued is not the case here.
• The Jyllands-Posten cartoons would not apply, since there is no debate about whether the cartoons are relevant to a discussion of the topic - that is not the case here.

That leaves Category:BitTorrent websites. on a quick survey of 10 sites (chosen more or less at random), only 2 - ArenaBG and Oink's Pink Palace - displayed a screen shot, and neither of those showed images or objectionable content. Of the remainder, 6 showed logos, 1 had no image, and 1 had an example of a typical file. 2 out of 10 does not constitute an established precedent (or even a community norm), and is certainly not enough to support the claim that an objectionable image should be shown on normative grounds. --Ludwigs2 04:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree about whether the image is directly pertinent to the website, as I think it (very obviously) is. And regarding the stuff about the BitTorrent websites: it's a matter of visual identification, which most website article do. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

well, if you want to reduce it to a matter of personal opinion (agreeing to disagree) then the image should obviously be removed. wikipedia does not post objectionable material on the whim of an editor or editors. If we cannot clarify whether it should or shouldn't remain, then it shouldn't. period. further, visual identification is certainly preferred where possible, but that preference does not extend to the display of offensive images without direct value to the article.

are you ready to concede this, or do you want to keep arguing the point? --Ludwigs2 04:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia also does not remove objectionable material on the whim of an editor or editors. Our policies on the fact are very emphatic about that. Besides, the "offensiveness" is totally irrelevant to its inclusion: Wikipedia contains content that may be objectionable. Our policy regarding offensive images is such: we treat them as any other image. And let me tell you, the bar is pretty high for this image to be included. Not because of its offensiveness, but because of its copyright status. If you can convince me that the image fails the non-free content criteria, it can go; otherwise, it stays. End of. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

so your argument now is that any image that any editor has entered on wikipedia - anywhere - should remain unless it's not a free image? that's... I don't know what word to use except "silly". and for the umpteenth time, the ability to include an objectionable image does not equal a mandate to include every objectionable image anyone wants to include. please use logic. --Ludwigs2 05:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Any images uploaded to Wikipedia should remain on the servers unless they are obsolete, unused, unencyclopedic, too low quality to be useful, a copyright violation, or illegal (although, in the sixth case, the OFFICE would intervene, not the editors). It's not obsolete, it's not unused, it's of a good enough quality to use, it's not illegal, and I see no arguments from you regarding whether its encyclopedic or its copyright status. While I'd agree with you that we shouldn't have gratuitous amounts of objectionable, this under no circumstances falls under any reasonable definition of "gratuitous". And no, "it's objectionable" is not an argument; it's as relevant to its encyclopedic value as the fact that this image is blue. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I never said that this image should be removed from the wikimedia servers - please do not engage in strawman arguments. I said that the image should be removed from this article. there are myriad images in the commons that are not attached to articles on wikipedia, and I have no objection to the image remaining in commons (or even, really, to a link to the image being offered from this article). I object to the image being transcluded directly into the article - it is an unnecessary bit of offensiveness that adds nothing to the understanding of the subject and serves to offend just about everyone who visits the page. understood? --Ludwigs2 05:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's what's going to happen if we can't use it here. I mean, if we can't use the image on an article about the image, or a screenshot of a website on an article about the website, where can we use it? I'm arguing that it does indeed add to the understanding of the subject (hence why the image was kept at FFD under NFCC#1 grounds), and, for the millionth time, offensiveness is irrelevant to the use of an image. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

why precisely do you think this image is necessary (I've already covered this above, but repetition is sometimes helpful)? and no, they are probably not going to delete the image from commons just because it is not being used on this article, or if they do it will be for other reasons. and no one is saying that we can't use an image or a screenshot where appropriate, but (again) you are making a logical error. The actual policy phrase is "However, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content". This does not mean that an article is required to to show all objectionable materials that are relevant to its content, nor does it mean that an article is obliged to show a particular piece of objectionable material that is hypothetically related to content. it simply means that where objectionable material is needed to explain a topic, it may be included in an article. This image is not necessary to an understanding of the topic, and so there is no requirement of need to use it. If there were a decent reason why this image was needed that would change the discussion dramatically, but the only reason I have seen offered to date is that the image brings across the full shock value of the site. But NOTCENSORED explicitly excludes shock images. so, again: why precisely do you think this image is necessary?--Ludwigs2 06:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You're really running out of arguments if you're arguing about the use of the word "may". Let's go through your arguments in order: 1) This is a non-free image, so it not being used will lead to its deletion, 2) we don't have to include it, but it would be wrong to exclude it for no other reason that we don't have to include it, 3) as I have argued, this image is necessary to the understanding of the topic, which is why it was, on paper, kept on NFCC#1 grounds, 4) NOTCENSORED excludes irrelevant shock images, and, even if it's unnecessary, that doesn't mean its inclusion will is irrelevant, and 5) offensiveness is irrelevant to the use of an image. Why are you ignoring that simple fact? Sceptre ^(talk) 06:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

ok, let's go through your argument point-by-point:

1. whether or not the image gets deleted is irrelevant to this discussion - it is not the purpose of this article to retain images on wikipedia. you may download a copy for your own use if you are worried about the issue.
2. why would it be wrong to exclude it? obviously, the reasons it would be excluded are that it adds nothing to the article and is offensive. not needing to include it is not a reason; it's an option we can choose.
3. You have repeated this point, but you have not as yet given a single reason why this image is needed (except a few comments about how it gives an appropriate degree of shock, which is not a valid reason per policy). please state your reason explicitly
4. I don't understand what your point 4 says - it's confused. can you clarify
5. I'm ignoring "offensiveness is irrelevant to the use of the image" because it's either nonsensical or it's a horrible misreading of NOTCENSORED. Of course offensiveness is not irrelevant to the use of an image. It is allowable to offend people if an image is needed for the understanding of a topic, but wikipedia does not encourage offending people without cause or need. or do you think it does? --Ludwigs2 06:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

And again:

1. The image has a certainty of deletion if the image is removed. You're missing the point here.
2. See points three and five for reasons why your reasons to exclude it are wrong.
3. The FfD closed as a keep on NFCC#1 grounds, which means that it is needed as a reasonable free textual representation of the image does not exist, thus the image should be used.
4. NOTCENSORED has a prohibition on irrelevant shock images. The use of an image on an article about the image, or the use of a screenshot of a website on an article about the webiste, is never irrelevant.
5. Offensiveness is, as far as Wikipedia policy goes, totally irrelevant to the use of an image. NOT#CENSORED prohibits the use of "offensiveness" as a reason to remove content. However, it does not prohibit using "unnecessary", "copyright violation", "illegal", etc, as a reason to remove content. As I have argued many times, this image is not unnecessary, not a copyright violation, and not illegal.

Your arguments are becoming ad nauseum. I suggest you drop the "offensiveness" argument, as it's irrelevant to the matter at hand, and the "unnecessary" argument, as that's been thoroughly debunked. If you can't use any other arguments, please stop adding to the RfC, because, frankly, your refusal to get the point is become disruptive. Sceptre ^(talk) 06:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

condensing a bit for brevity

1. why should anyone care if the image is deleted? again, this is an irrelevant concern for this discussion.
2. we're not talking about the file itself (so the FfD discussion is irrelevant). NFCC #1 merely states that a non-free image may be used (under some circumstances) when no equivalent free image is available. It has no bearing on whether an image should be used on an article, except to spell out when a non-free image can be used. this is also irrelevant
3. you said: "the use of a screenshot of a website on an article about the webiste, is never irrelevant." This is incorrect - there are many pages about websites that do not show screenshots of that site. That clearly shows that use of a sceenshot is optional, not a mandatory inclusion. this can not be used as an excuse to display an offensive image on its own
4. you said:"NOT#CENSORED prohibits the use of "offensiveness" as a reason to remove content." wp:NOTCENSORED says no such thing - please follow the link and read the policy. the strongest statement it makes on the issue is "Beyond that, 'being objectionable' is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content", a qualified statement that comes immediately after a statement that discussion should focus on whether the material is appropriate and immediately before a paragraph that says "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." This image fails on all three counts - it does not make the article more informative or more accurate, and suitable alternatives (in the form of text descriptions) are readily available.

Please do not blame me for being persistent in trying to correct what I see as a clear misreading of core policy, and please don't resort to ad hominems. thanks.

Time for me to hit the sack. we can continue this tomorrow if you like; hopefully by then you'll be able to provide a reasonable argument for you case. --Ludwigs2 07:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Nah, I'm tired of going around in circles with you not getting the point. And NOT#CENSORED does prohibit "offensiveness" as a reason to delete content, because, well, what's excising something because it's offensive? Sceptre ^(talk) 07:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand that's what you believe; unfortunately, what you believe seems to conflict with what the policy actually says. please read the quotes I provided above. --Ludwigs2 17:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

---

I'm sure, Ludwig, you have made some nice points above however those of us that do not wish to wade through what is undoubtedly the same arguments that appear time and again throughout the archives can simply look at your last post. 'The image should obviosuly be removed' simply demonstrates that your overall opinion is that WP should do what is obvious (i.e. not show the horrible, disgusting, immature, etc. etc. picture) and therefore it suggests that your arguments all boil down to WP:IDL which, as you know, just isn't how it works around here. The overwhelming concensus (when you remove uninformed arguments) of this discussion is keep, 2 previous polls have been keep and 3 have been withdrawn. THe simple fact of the matter is, if you don't like the picture, don't look at it (and for the record, I automatically disregard anyone that cries 'BUT I'M NOT OFFENDED'). raseaC^{talk to me} 05:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

RaseaC: you are entitled to forgo reading the actual arguments made, but you are not entitled to try to recap arguments you haven't read, particularly not when your recap is utterly and completely wrong. please read the argument I made, and please respond to the argument I made. I'm not interested in your response to arguments other people have made in other places, because they do not apply here. --Ludwigs2 05:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say I hadn't read them (I watch this page) I simply stated that WP:IDL sums up the arguments you have made. In short I understand that you don't like the picture and an 'argument' you are using to defend that point is that it doesn't really add anything to this page. Please have a look at the multiple responses that have been made to your concerns in the archives. I can assure you you have said nothing that hasn't been said before so while you may wrongly accuse me of not reading comments, I think I can rightly say that you have not looked through the archives, which is the very reason they're there. Either that or you're trolling. Please, please keep your responses in order, I'm sure other editors can keep up with responses even if they're not directly under the post to which they respond. raseaC^{talk to me} 05:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

If in fact you are correct that this particular point has been raised in the archives, then it seems to me that the various editors who defend this image should have a ready answer to my point. since they don't, I can only assume that you are mistaken. I'll add that I recognize the common defense of this image is that any objection to it falls under wp:IDL, but unfortunately that is not the argument that I am making. again, please read the argument I actually offered before counseling me on its validity. --Ludwigs2 05:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You simply poo-pooing an argument is not the same as one not being offered. It's clear through your posts you don't like the pictures and that's the basis of your arguments for removal. I'm sorry, but that doesn't wash. raseaC^{talk to me} 05:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

so, let me recap your point: You haven't read my argument, you have no argument of your own to offer, and you (apparently) can read my mind well enough to know what I'm actually thinking despite what I tell you. do I have that right? and you actually think that's going to work?!?

please don't waste my time. --Ludwigs2 05:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. You use "offensiveness" too often in your arguements, which is irrelevent and so most of your comments are devalued as a result. I have given reasoning for the inclusion of the image several times on this talk page and the fair-use rationale on the image's page states it clearly (at least on the one I uploaded, Sceptre's may be different, since mine got deleted and Sceptre re-uploaded another). We have done all that is needed to keep a non-free file on this page by Wikipedia policy. Jolly Ω Janner 15:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the two of you keep bringing up the 'non-free' image issue. we are not debating whether it's ok to use a non-free image. we are debating whether it's proper to use an offensive image that adds no value to the article. if we choose not to use the image, the issue of whether or not it is a free image is irrelevant. --Ludwigs2 17:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig, the reason very few editors will take your view seriosuly is becuase you keep coming back to the 'OH MY GOD, SOME GUY'S SHWOING HIS ASS' argument. Feel free to contribute to this discussion when you have another point of view, until then we've heard it all before ('A LOT!!)raseaC^{talk to me} 22:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

RasceaC... if you are going to argue with yourself, it's no wonder you get bored; I doubt the opponents you conjure in your head are particularly sophisticated. if you are going to argue with me however, I suggest you listen and respond to the arguments I actually make, because I have no interest in the stupid things that you believe I would have said if I were like the people you imagine. thanks. --Ludwigs2 16:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Is showing the picture really necessary? I think we could get the point across easily that the picture is of a man with his asshole stretched open, without actually showing it. FallenMorgan (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not about whether it's necessary... you could say that about everything. You could say that for every single image on Wikipedia and for all the tables, infoboxes etc. It's about whether it improved the reader's understanding of the topic. And it does. End of. Jolly Ω Janner 02:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no policy-based reason for removing the image and so effectively no reason to do it whatsoever. The article is about an image (in effect) and therefore inclusion of that image in the article is commonsense. The only viable arguments against inclusion would be copyright/legal ones, because every other counter-argument is going to be due to taste and nothing else. As a point of reference for using talks, can we please a) not make threats and b) place new comments at the end of a thread. raseaC^{talk to me} 00:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Summary of argument for removal of image

Since the discussion in the #Conclusion section above became a bit protracted, allow me to summarize the argument for removing the image, to make life a bit easier for everyone.

• Main argument:
  1. (Granted by all) the image is offensive, and so falls under wp:NOTCENSORED.
  2. NOTCENSORED says: "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available".
     • This image (a mere screenshot of the site) is not informative, and is only relevant or accurate to the extent that it mimics the original site's efforts to shock and offend.
     • Alternatives - in the form of verbal descriptions - are readily available, and would prove equally suitable for conveying the shocking nature of the site.
  3. Therefore, the if and only if nature of the policy compels us to remove the picture, since it fails the proper conditions for inclusion.
• Invalid counter-arguments (listed to avoid going over this ground again)
  • Non-free use issues: These concerns are irrelevant. That policy only spells out the conditions under which a non-free image can be used; it has no bearing on editorial decisions about which images should be used on a page.
  • Requirement to use an image: that concern is irrelevant; use of images on articles is preferred, but not mandated by policy. There is no policy that requires the use of available images, and no established pattern of using screenshots or images that would serve to offset NOTCENSORED.
  • "Offensiveness is irrelevant": This statement contradicts NOTCENSORED, which clearly states that material generally considered to be offensive should not be used unless it is needed for encyclopedic purposes.
  • "The image file will be deleted": This is of no possible concern, since we are discussing what properly goes in this article, not the disposition of an image file that might not be used on the article.

If anyone has any further comments to make, please do so below, so that we can get a fresh handle on this debate. --Ludwigs2 18:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This isn't really "fresh"; I've said it many times before... but I have to dissagree when you say that words do the jobs equally as well. Words can never describe an image "equally". It is guaranteed that a user who has never seen the image before, who reads the description, will have a slightly different picture in their mind as to the one used on the website goatse.cx. Showing the screenshot solves this problem and is therefore informative. Jolly Ω Janner 18:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

granting that words will never really describe an image fully, I have to disagree with much of the rest of what you say. The only advantage of using this image here is that it increases the reader's feeling of shock; the image does not 'inform' the reader about the website in any meaningful sense of the word 'inform'. Compare, for contrast, the use of images on penis - these clearly do more to inform readers about what a penis looks like than any verbal description could achieve. They are useful and pertinent to the discussion of the topic. This article, however, is not about anuses or odd quasi-sexual practices. it is an article about a shock website, and so the only information we need to convey is that the website displayed shocking images, a fact which can be conveyed adequately in words. We do not need to indulge in shocking readers ourselves to convey that fact that the website is shocking, and we do not need to put this image into people's heads merely so they feel an exaggerated sense of shock. --Ludwigs2 19:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, what is the meaningful sense of "inform"? Jolly Ω Janner 20:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe I gave a contrasting example, above, where potentially offensive images were clearly informative. If you'd like to make an argument that this image is informative in the same way as those, I'm happy to hear it. just please don't use anything which boils down to "it shocks users, thereby 'informing' them of how shocking the site is". We don't 'inform' children of the heat of fire by holding their hands over hot stoves, nor do we 'inform' people about electrical shocks by sticking their fingers in outlets. Same principle applies here. --Ludwigs2 21:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, as you said with the penis (and as I said earlier), it informs readers of what goatse.cx looks like more than words can inform, therefore why not have both words and a picture? Jolly Ω Janner 21:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

the cases are not parallel. on the penis article, the images (though some may consider them shocking) are not there to shock; they are there as a graphic example of what a penis is. If one happens not to know what a penis is, the images on that page would be truly helpful (much more helpful than any description), and there is (to my knowledge) no less offensive means for giving that information. If there were, we should probably use it.

This article is about a shock website. the images on the website have no other purpose than to shock, and replicating them on wikipedia does not aid particularly in helping people know what a shock website is, or what goatse.cx is; it simply turns this wikipedia article into a lightweight version of the original shock site. if one happens not to know what a shock website is, a description in words would be perfectly adequate; images only serve to create a greater degree of shock, not a greater knowledge of the topic. since we have a less offensive means of conveying the same information, we should use that instead of the offending image. --Ludwigs2 22:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your point is invalid as offensiveness is not a factor for images on Wikipedia. The image should stay. Jolly Ω Janner 22:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That is a point I've refuted (I think) 4 times in the last 24 hours. I have a very clear statement of policy that shows your statement is incorrect. Do you have a statement of policy to support it? if so, let's compare; if not, I insist you retract. --Ludwigs2 23:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

But "offensiveness" is not a factor for images on Wikipedia. I fail to see why you can't get this fact. Whether the image is necessary, fair use, of a good enough quality, its encyclopedic value. But not offensiveness. Because that's what censorship is: the removal of information because it's objectionable! (Merriam-Webster). Not only that, but NOT#CENSORED explicitly says "Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content.", but arguments like the one I just presented are. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, I have given examples of where the image would pass NFCC#1 and 8. NFCC is the highest bar for image use on Wikipedia, not NOT. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

What on Earth is "NFCC"? This discussion is not just for those fluent in gibberish. If you're going to use OMGWTFBBQ acronyms, at least link them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria: #1 No free equivalent. #8 Contextual significance. Read the link for further details. Jolly Ω Janner 00:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

NFCC deals solely with the legal and ethical considerations of non-free content. It has nothing, nothing, nothing to say with respect to editorial decisions about what images to use. As I have said before...

Note: I am starting to sense a lot of IDIDNTHEARTHAT. This is not difficult material, I've provided policy links, and I know you can read, so if you continue to present me with absurd misuses of policy then I will consider your edits disruptive and take appropriate action.

To your other point (and I think this addressess Jolly, below, though I can't quite tell what he means with that link): wp:NOT#CENSORED says (3rd paragraph, 1st line) - "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if...". I've highlighted the last four words because they are an explicit statement that offensive material should only be used if the material is informative and other alternatives are not available. Such material should not otherwise be used. That is what 'if and only if' means. The 'Beyond that' phrase you give above (same line that Jolly used, except he started two words in) only says that discussion should restrict themselves to content appropriateness and not delve into personal feelings. Remember 'beyond that' is a connective phrase in English, making that sentence subordinate to the preceding one; please do not use it out of context. --Ludwigs2 00:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Other alternatives aren't available. Text isn't an "alternative", although it does help and there certainly isn't a non-offensive image that could act as an alternative. As I already discussed, the image is informative. Jolly Ω Janner 01:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness". Jolly Ω Janner 00:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

  What Janner said. You're focusing on the letter of NOT#CENSORED, but not the spirit. And WP:NOT is meant to be taken in the spirit, not the letter. The point of NOT#CENSORED is that we can use objectionable material, and we treat it just like any other material. We don't go overboard, having ten pictures of Goatse, or having it in glorious high definition. The use of screenshots of websites in articles about the website, and images in articles about them, whichever point you want to look at the image from, are considered to have a prima facie claim to be better than any other replacement and be essential to the understanding of the topic the article is about. If the article would be better if the image was ommitted, or if a free textual description could replace it, then it would have already been deleted per our non-free content criteria already (respectively, #8 and #1). But it hasn't, because it doesn't violate the NFCC, and thus doesn't violate the standards in NOT. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Other alternatives are obviously available - a text description or a simple explanation of the shock site, to name two. The real question you're asking is whether those available alternates are satisfactory. unfortunately, neither you nor Jolly have managed to say what exact information this image supposedly adds to the article. without any any clear specific information added, this image is simply unnecessary and offensive, text alternatives are good enough, and then both the letter and the spirit of the policy demand that the image be removed. so, ball is in your court - what precisely does this image add, and why is that information necessary? If you can't answer, the image goes. --Ludwigs2 02:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

See, this is where I disagree: I don't think a textual replacement would serve the same purpose as well. If you want to get down to the basic arguments, the image is there for the same reason that every screenshot of a website in an article about the website and every image in the article about an image is: visual identification. Like it or not, that argument has kept hundreds of website screenshots before from deletion, and is considered enough to keep the image; if this article was about, say, Wikipedia, we wouldn't be dreaming of removing the screenshot! And therein lies the spirit of NOTCENSORED: again, we use objectionable material like any other material. As long as a screenshot of Wikipedia is acceptable in the article about Wikipedia, so is a screenshot of Goatse.cx in the article about Goatse.cx. As long as the use of the Muhammad cartoons is acceptable on the article about the Muhammad cartoons, so is the use of Goatse on the article about Goatse. So, the ball is now in your court: why precisely should we remove, and delete this image? If you can't give an answer that doesn't mention the offensiveness of the image, the image stays. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

since the only reason this discussion is happening is that the image is offensive, your limitation is disingenuous, so I'll ignore it. The fact of the matter is there is neither a policy nor a guideline that specifies that an article needs to contain images - images are preferred in most cases, for a variety of reasons, but are entirely optional and at the discretion of editors. Now, since the reason you are promoting this image is merely for the purpose of 'visual identification', well... to paraphrase NOTCENSORED, the omission of visual identification will not "cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate", therefore visual identifications which are considered to be offensive should not be used. that's blue-letter policy, and the fact that non-offensive screenshots are used frequently is irrelevant (since they are not covered by this policy). I'm afraid you're going to have to find some more information-relevant reason for this image if you want to get by the restrictions built into NOTCENSORED. --Ludwigs2 04:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

And I'll point out, just because the two of you seem unclear on the issue: wp:NOTCENSORED has clear restrictions built into it on the use of offensive material. It is not a carte blanche for any funky picture anyone cares to post. --Ludwigs2 04:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't told convinced why this image should be treat differently from any other else. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That's in policy too (have you actually read NOTCENSORED?). this is clearly an image "that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers". Therefore NOTCENSORED applies, therefore everything I've been saying here follows. --Ludwigs2 05:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's offensive. And yes, I've read NOT#CENSORED. My reading of it is "use common sense with offensive content: don't use it willy nilly, but don't treat it differently from other images." And as inclusion is supported by the NFCC, then inclusion is supported by NOT#CENSORED. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Then let me suggest that you are reading it incorrectly, because that's only an approximation of what it actually says. --Ludwigs2 06:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

More

To drive a stake in the heart of this inane "yes it is"/"no it isn't" argument once and for all: please see the Virgin Killer DRV. In case you're wondering, this is before the infamous IWF block, where there was less commentary of that album cover (other than saying the cover was banned, there was only a tracklist in the article). In the aforementioned (IFD and) DRV, the community overwhelmingly supported the image's inclusion as a visual aid despite its patent offensiveness, and overwhelmingly opposed deleting it simply because it's offensive. Neither NOT#CENSORED or the NFCC have fundamentally changed since then, so this should be considered binding precedent. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sceptre, you've been here long enough to know that there's no such thing as "binding precedent". What are you trying to be a WikiLawyer? Everything is considered on a case-by-case basis. What a load of donkey. "Binding precedent". Over my dead body. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You should also know better than to argue with anyone more than 2 rounds on any talk page. File an RFC if you want to know what the community thinks. Don't declare "game over" like some kind of ass. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The whole thread is ruleslawyering from both me and Ludwig. I'm just trying to end it. And an RfC in an RfC? Very meta. Sceptre ^(talk) 06:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The best way to stop ruleslawyering is to stop doing it yourself, and then never ever do it again. It's complete shit, and you know that. As for this being an RFC already... I guess I didn't scroll up far enough. Serves me right, no doubt.

There is still no such thing as binding precedent, and if you really believed that this post would end it, that's incredibly naïve. So naïve that it's worthless as "reasoning". You know damn well that asserting firmly that you're right doesn't end arguments. Honestly, Sceptre, you weren't born yesterday... Don't do things that you know won't work. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sceptre is annoyed at me (perhaps unavoidably) because I've been pushing him to accept a reading of policy that goes against what he wants. Most of the debate here (you'll notice) has been reiterations of the same 2 or 3 points of policy that just don't seem to sink in with him. If you think a new RfC is in order, maybe that's best - I have a nice template I made that we can use to outline the core arguments being made on each side (I've been wanting to test it, anyway). let me know and I'll pull it out.

that being said, though, I'll at least thank Sceptre for giving a better argument than I've seen on this page to this point. Of course it's not a binding precedent, and I don't even think it's a completely comparable case (since in that case the image clearly had informative value - it was a published album cover intended to represent the album, as opposed to a mere screenshot created by some third party), but it's close enough to merit further inspection. give me a day or two to read through the arguments there and I'll see if there's anything pertinent that can be adapted to this debate, for either side.

Oh, and Sceptre - I stopped being an RfC participant and became a full-fledged participant when I started this attempt at rational policy application. Mostly I was annoyed at the way other RfC participants were being hounded out of the discussion, so I thought it was time to to take the stuffing out of this debate and bring it down to brass tacks (which I'm generally pretty good at). I did not think brass tacks would meet quite this much resistance, frankly, but I persevere. --Ludwigs2 06:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I could argue that your interpretation of NOT#CENSORED is incorrect and mine is at least closer to the spirit of the rule; I did a search for the "if and only if" statement, and it appears to have been added several months ago "per talk" but I can't find any discussion supporting the inclusion. The spirit of the rule has always been not to remove content because it's offensive; the addition of the statement doesn't change that fundamental. Sceptre ^(talk) 06:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Just because it's an interesting discussion, let's talk about the spirit of NOTCENSORED for a moment. To my mind, this rule comes out of a practical encyclopedic necessity: Sometimes an encyclopedia needs to show things that people are uncomfortable with (for various personal, religious, or moral reasons). Again, using Throwaway's Genital warts example: these images are likely to offend some people on all three of those counts, and yet the encyclopedia needs to show them on informational grounds. The policy arose to prevent people from removing information from the encyclopedia out of squeamishness. However, I don't believe the policy was ever intended as a moral equivalent of free speech. Wikipedia has many policies and guidelines that restrict the kind of information that can go into the encyclopedia; the encyclopedia has never been considered an 'open forum' where any kind of expression can be made. This applies to images, too. clearly, if we added this image to any other article on wikipedia it would be treated as vandalism and immediately reverted (and probably earn us a block in the process); it is not treated as vandalism here because it has an identifiable relation to the topic. But NOTCENSORED (IMO) was not designed to protect material which simply has a relation to a topic; it was designed to protect images which have clear encyclopedic value. This is the point you and I keep dancing around: we both recognize that the image has a relation to the topic, but I believe it does not have encyclopedic value, while you either think it does have encyclopedic value or you think that encyclopedic value is not pertinent (you've made both claims in the course of this discussion). I've simply set a higher bar for inclusion than you use, for what I think are valid philosophical reasons, and this image doesn't quite hit the bar I've set. do you see what I'm saying? --Ludwigs2 07:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur that NOTCENSORED does not confer any kind of free speech, or any requirement that we use any image that we possibly can. NOTCENSORED means to me that we make decisions about, in this case, images, based on encyclopedic merit, and not based on the idea that we need to protect our readers. Whether this image has encyclopedic merit is certainly a debatable proposition, and one can think that it doesn't without falling foul of NOTCENSORED. NOTCENSORED is not a positive reason to include anything; it's simply the statement that "protecting" viewers is not to be accepted as a reason to keep something out. It appears to me that people are questioning the image on encyclopedic grounds, and that's a fair question. It would be cool to talk about it without our non-censorship policy clouding the issue. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

ah, see, that's the point I've been trying to get across here. I believe the intent behind NOTCENSORED is to exclude images that might offend and have no encyclopedic value. the basic thought would be: "If we need to offend someone to get an idea across then so be it, but we should actively avoid offending anyone if it's possible to do so without compromising the encyclopedia." This is my problem with this particular image: it clearly will offend large numbers of people (that's not debated), but I personally don't see the value it adds, and I don't see what's lost if its removed, so I don't understand why we are offending people with this image for no particular reason. it seems silly and counter-productive to the encyclopedia. --Ludwigs2 08:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that the intent behind NOTCENSORED is to exclude anything. I think of it as being there so we don't exclude things for the wrong reason, i.e., to protect the children and other alleged innocents. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Kind of, yes. I honestly believe this image does have encyclopedic value, in this article only. And I will treat it as a normal image: I'm opposed to the splattering of images all other the place even if they're inoffensive and free. Enough to make your point, and no more. Sceptre ^(talk) 07:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It can be difficult to talk about this kind of image without NOTCENSORED being brought up over and over again, even if nobody is trying to censor anything. We decided to keep the image at Autofellatio, but that was because it proves that the act is physically possible, which is not a priori obvious. (I really enjoy saying "autofellatio" and "a priori" in the same sentence.) In this case, the image is not necessary to prove anything; it simply illustrates what the website is notable for.

Frankly, I'm undecided regarding its encyclopedic merit. I know that I'm a jaded Internet person who has no problem seeing Goatse at any time or place. That makes me unusual, compared with most of humanity, and I do believe I'm allowed to think about how this page will affect readers without being a censor. We might be worse off with it because it causes people to navigate away from the page in order to free their eyes from seeing it. It's a question; I don't know. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think for users such are ourselvefs, who have seen the image many times, it can be difficult to put ourselves in the mind-set of someone who has never seen the image. It will be shocking, yes, but for someone who's never seen it, it sure informs them of what it looks like. Jolly Ω Janner 14:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it does that. Whether that counts as sufficient encyclopedic merit to use it is a question... I guess we have to just find a consensus. Are there any relevant WikiProjects to inform of this RfC, to get more input? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a discussion over at the wp:NOT talk page, which is probably where this needs to be resolved anyway. --Ludwigs2 19:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The simple question we must ask is this: Does the image make the article more informative? Could it be replaced by textual description and still be just as informative? I think the answer to the first part is clearly yes. The second part is where we are having disagreement. NOTCENSORED has been bandied around a lot, but the key part here is "...and no equally suitable alternatives are available". Ludwigs, if you honestly believe that there is a textual equivalent to that picture that does as good a job describing the phenomenon as does the image, then by all means compose and propose it. I think it a fool's errand, as I simply can't see text effectively conveying what goatse is all about, and certainly not as well as the image does. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

it's actually worse than that. when you ask "Does the image make the article more informative?" you have to ask "What information is the article trying to convey?". It seems to me that there's an amount of confusion on this point: to my mind, the article is supposed to convey the fact that goatse was a shock site, which is easily accomplished in words. I think, however, that a number of editors have convinced themselves that the article is supposed to convey the shockingness of goatse, which (of course) can never be adequately achieved in words. However, I disagree that we need to convey the shockingness of the site, which is why I see no need for the picture. it's not our job on wikipedia (IMO) to convey emotional states to readers; we merely need to provide information. --Ludwigs2 19:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I see where you've gone wrong. The article does not exist to state that goatse was a shocksite, it exists to explain the nature of the website goatse.cx. The image is not necessary to explain that it was a shocksite, but it is entirely necessary to explain the nature of the website. The notability of goatse.cx is not merely that it was a shocksite, but rather what kind of shocksite, and central to that is hello.jpg. I don't care about the free speech aspects, the image in question is essential to describing the phenomenon of goatse.cx. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

which seems to boil down to the reasoning that "we need to shock readers so that they can see how shocking goatse was" - that's reasoning I reject prima facia. --Ludwigs2 20:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Once again, that's the exact opposite of what I've been arguing. I don't care if the readers are shocked. It shouldn't enter into the equation. The picture is necessary to convey important characteristics about the article's subject. That is all. Only those who oppose inclusion appear to be concerned about the "shocking" nature of the image. The rest of us are simply saying that it doesn't matter whether the image is shocking or not, it's necessary. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The WP:NOT policy states we shouldn't focus on its offensiveness, just to back you up there Throwaway. Jolly Ω Janner 20:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(e.c) and again, I ask you: what 'important characteristics' are conveyed by this image? a short, specific list would suffice. --Ludwigs2 20:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That the site essentially consisted of hello.jpg, and what hello.jpg was. How can you go on to talk about its impact (London olympics logo, etc, etc) without first showing what hello.jpg was? Are you honestly claiming that removing the image would in no way hurt the article or lessen the amount of information provided to the reader? Throwaway85 (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

first, the site did not consist of hello.jpg, that was simply the first image among several on the site. second, yes, that's exactly the claim I'm making. the entries in the Reception and parodies section only need to say that the spoofs and/or mistakes resembled the offensive image. showing they resembled it (which isn't done explicitly anyway) adds very little above and beyond the verbal description. I'd be tempted to say that a verbal description of hello.jpg, along with the london olympics picture, would be more effective than the current arrangement. people can get the idea from the London picture quite effectively without being exposed the the actual hello.jpg image - completely informative, without being anywhere near as offensive. what say we remove the screenshot and put the london picture in its place, with an appropriate caption? --Ludwigs2 21:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The title of this article is goatse.cx. The article is about the website goatse.cx. Goatse.cx is notable, because of the hello.jpg layout on it. Therefore we should show that, not the London Olympics logo. Don't forget, hello.jpg is a notable thing itself. Jolly Ω Janner 21:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

@Ludwig: And now I can only assume you're being facetious. Text is a very poor substitute for pictures, and it is common wikipedia practice to include pictures where possible, as they are far better at conveying information than text alone. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

see, this is what bugs me about arguments on this page. The two or three core supporters of this picture seem to share an unfortunate no compromises allowed perspective which I personally find disturbing. guys, in the future please approach these issues from a spirit of discussion. In case you haven't noticed, I can be just as stubborn as anyone else if the argument devolves to a test of wills, but I prefer it doesn't come to that since that will get us nowhere. This is about the article, not the picture, and if we can find an effective version of the article that doesn't use the picture everyone will win. so let's entertain the idea, ok? --Ludwigs2 21:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig, as I said above, if you can come up with a better, not effective, version of the article that does not include the picture, then by all means propose it. As I have repeated many times, I don't think that's possible, but I wish you the best of luck. Also, the "two or three core supporters" stand in opposition to, well, you. Trying to pass us off as some vocal pov minority is pretty disingenuous. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

well, I think I have come up with (IMO) better approaches to the problem; however, each time I do they are instantly and roundly dismissed by you, Jolly, or Sceptre, often in a fairly absolute and uncompromising way. there doesn't seem to be any room for discussion on the matter. and sorry, I didn't mean to cast you as a small minority, precisely. I do happen to believe the three of you are the primary dedicated and vocal supporters, and that most people who visit this page would argue for deletion except that it's just too much effort making an argument against this kind of advocacy. that's not a criticism; I have no problem with advocacy, I'm just pointing out that its hard to participate on this page. I'm far more persistent than most people, and even I find it a strain trying to get some fair consideration of different ideas. --Ludwigs2 23:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Compromise doesn't really enter into it, as we're talking about an either/or proposition. Either we include the picture, or we don't. If you feel you've come up with a better solution, then start a new section with your proposed wording/imaging that you feel improves upon the current version, and we'll discuss it like we always do round these parts. I'm not opposed to removing the image per se, but I'd have to see a version that is both an improvement on the current one and that could not be further improved by the inclusion of the picture to get my vote. As I've said before, I don't think that's possible. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I just thought of something: IIRC, .png files can have thumbnails that differ from the actual image. What if we were to include a png version of hello.jpg that had a black bar saying "click for full image" across the naughty bits, then clicking led to the full, uncensored version? I don't really like the censorship, but it would convey sufficient information to be used on the article, while still leaving the actual image for those who wanted to see what the fuss was about. My only concern here, and I think it's a big one, is the precedent that would set for other articles with pictures that might offend people. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That's modifying the image to what it's not... I don't like the sound of that especially with copyrighted images such as this. It's not under creative commons license, so modification is a big no-no. Jolly Ω Janner 23:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) hmmm... I see (and share) your concern about other articles, and I'm giggling a bit about wikipedia adopting porn-mag tactics, but the idea has potential. I think someone else suggested we might use a collapsible table with a warning message. we could try either - the black-bar thing may end up in administrative review eventually, but it would solve the basic problem of exposing people to the image unnecessarily. I could work with that. --Ludwigs2 23:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I'd much prefer this to a collapsable table, as the reader is then forced to click to gain any information at all. A censored (ugh) version would convey the basic premise w/o the reader having to do anything. Alternatively, and this would take more doing, we could write a template that pixelates such images, which clicking reveals. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

point about modification taken - does that apply to thumbnails as well, or only to the image proper? I don't know what image policy says about that (if anything) --Ludwigs2 23:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Think it may be a legal issue, more than a policy issue. People in porn mags get away with it 'cause they own the rights to bar them out or whatever. We're using the image under fair-use and do not have rights to use it, let alone rights to edit it. I mainly learned this from Flickr, about the different types of licenses: some allow you to modify images and some don't. With copyrighted ones such as this, you certainly can't modify it. Then again, I don't know if baring it out is considered editing the image, but may appear to do so. Jolly Ω Janner 23:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the actual copyright status of the image? I recall reading about it on ED and the subject of the photo had gone online on some forum or another and answered questions, etc. It may be possible to track him down and ask for permission to modify the photo as I suggested above. I'm still concerned about precedent, but if it can put the matter to rest then I don't see a problem with moving forward and seeing what the community thinks. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Jolly, are you sure editting an image in this matter doesn't fall under fair use? I'm thinking specifically of the recent row over at boingboing concerning the Demi Moore photos. They editted the photos in a similar manner. Note that at no time do Ms. Moore's lawyers question the right of boingboing to do so, they merely claim defamation. I think we may be within our rights to display an editted version of the picture, so long as it does not change its actual content. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

tell you what - let me whip up a quick hiding template - I'll edit it in then self revert, and post a link back here so you can see what it looks like. that, at least, would sidestep all the editing questions... --Ludwigs2 02:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

interestingly, the ability to collapse images is built in to the {{infobox website}} template. here's what it looks like [1]. I need to make a couple of adjustments at the template page to allow for alternate wording beside the generic 'screenshot', but I'll make that request now. --Ludwigs2 02:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of having the image collapsed by default. It makes it incumbent upon the reader to click the link, whereas we should be offering maximal information from the get-go. Furthermore, the collapsed box reeks of censorship. I am already uncomfortable with implementing my above suggestion. This seems to go too far. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't like that black bars censoring idea at all. If the image is useful, we should show it. If not, not. It is a policy not to protect our readers. I believe the intent of this image is not to shock people, but to show people what this site is about. There is a certain amount of shock value necessary to explain why the site is such a notorious internet phenomenon. Imagine goatse.cx with a picture that just shows someone's ass. That wouldn't make the site very shocking or famous, would it? That's about all that you can convey with a text description, because what exactly does ass stretching mean anyway? You can't really explain how shocking the site is without showing the site. So shocking our readers is a byproduct of that. That's tough, but that's of no concern to us, per policy. Remco47 (talk) 12:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

and for the 5th time, I argue that it is our purpose to explain that the site was shocking, but it is not our purpose to explain how shocking it was. the first is informative, the second is entering into the shocksite world on our own. I will keep making this argument until someone actually addresses it, so if you could all stop avoiding it, please, that would be nice. --Ludwigs2 17:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it must be explained how shocking it is. This site is not just a site that some found shocking. It is the notorious mother of all shock sites. A description that it is a shocking stretched buttcrack simply won't convey the special status of the site. And let me add: this is an article about a visual phenomenon, thus it should have a graphic displaying said visual phenomenon. In the case of a website, that is a screenshot. Simple as that. Remco47 (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The concept of collapsing by default is pretty much exactly the same as removing the images and so all arguments against removal can be applied to collapsing. We should, by default, present readers with all available information. raseaC^{talk to me} 13:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

actually, it's pretty much exactly a compromise between the two positions. yah? --Ludwigs2 16:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It's effectively removing the image from the page (by your logic a link would suffice) and therefore is censorship. raseaC^{talk to me} 17:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and I'm starting to think my black bar idea might not be a good one. Ludwig, I know you feel strongly about this, but I vehemently disagree with you, and I think consensus is going that way too. Throwaway85 (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)

why don't we table this argument here until the similar argument over at wp:NOT reaches a conclusion. it gives me a headache to argue the same points in two different arenas. --Ludwigs2 18:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Good plan. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, re: hiding the image: I'd prefer that if it was the default behaviour of {{infobox website}}, as it used to be. But, right now, it does reek of censorship to hide it just because of the debated NOT#CENSORED caveat. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The default behavior hasn't (shouldn't have) changed. all I did was add a parameter that allows specification of title text if collapsing is enabled. --Ludwigs2 20:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I distinctively remember it being that, but maybe my memory is faulty. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)