Talk:Goatse.cx/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

How about this

Looking at some of the previous comments on the article's talk page, people are arguing whether to add the hello.jpg image to the article or not. People were adding it, then it was removed as a copyvio and also shocking. But I have an idea. Why not get a print screen screenshot of the front page of the website with the images disabled (which can be done on firefox)? It won't be disturbing, and not really a copyvio, as it can be tagged with {{web-screenshot}}. What do you think? --AAA! (AAAA) 03:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• that would seeem to work, but personally i think we should just have it at the bottom of the page, its no more shocking than some images i have seen on wikipedia Pekaak 15:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd just include a screenshot featuring the image - but somewhere further down the page, as seems to be the consensus with other potentially 'offensive' images. Wikipedia is not censored, after all. --Kurt Shaped Box 17:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You should be able to find an ASCII version with google. Dhimwit 22:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

What about a vector illustration? Would that count as "shocking"? --Willy888 05:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could add a little box that requires you to punch in your age before you could see the image. if you're not 18, you cannot see the image. it's not perfect, i know, but it would work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.243.50 (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

All of these ideas are worthy. I know and believe Wikipedia is not censored, but posting the actual image is not needed to achieve this goal. The best paths, in my opinion, are posting an ASCII version or a hand drawing. Both of these can be found readily. (I will place links to these versions when I find them. Feel free to do it for me.) -- Skwee (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Or, the Finnish wikipedia had a photoshopped parody. The hands of Goatse Man are merged with the blue edges of the Wikimedia logo, and his hands stretch the red circle at the top. It's at http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goatse . Skwee (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I have just deleted the screenshot of goatse.cz. My reasons are:

1) It is grossly offensive and not suitable on those grounds alone. 2) It was displayed right at the top of the page such that even a casual reader would not be able to avoid seeing it. 3) Many readers of this article will be people who have heard of goatse and are curious to find out what it is without actually seeing it. 4) Those who do really want to see it can still find it without difficulty from information in the article. It is not necessary to include the actual image. 5) Those who do not want to see it WILL be seriously offended. 6) Incontrovertibly NSFW. 213.162.113.17 (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If Wikipedia added Image:Hello.jpg to the article, then it wouldn't be any better than Goatse.--4.244.3.16 (talk) 04:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Im getting rid of that disgusting picture...I came to wikipedia to find about the image without having to see it...thanks a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.229.62.155 (talk) 07:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Time?

Where is the time logo? JeffBurdges 19:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• its in an external link Pekaak 12:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

When was the site started?

Anyone know when the site first appeared? The Internet Archive's Wayback Machine goes back to Oct 08, 1999. – gpvos (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: Yes, a time line of when the site appeared, when it was popular, etc, would be good to add 72.244.56.236 06:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Misty

The Wayback Machine takes about 5 months to archive a single day though, plus the page had to have been submitted by a user, which means it could have been around a few years prior to that.--4.244.3.16 (talk) 04:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Including a screenshot of the goatse.cx site as a linkimage?

I recently uploaded a low resolution screenshot of the goatse.cx (well, actually it was a cap from the goatse.cz mirror) frontpage and inserted it into this article, using the {{linkimage}} template, so that those interested in viewing the image described at length in the text could choose to do so, whilst not 'goatseing' innocent civilians. Today, the image was deleted by an admin "on the basis of a long standing consensus that this is not an appropriate image to be included in Wikipedia" and (s)he suggested that I open a discussion here on the suitability of including the image in the article to determine if consensus has changed since the last discussion (which was about two years ago now).

As the image is not displayed inline, I cannot honestly understand what harm it would do to include a clickable image of a pop-culture/internet icon (which has had recent media exposure) for informational purposes. I notice that the general consensus on other articles (Penis and Anus, for example) is to include images that some people may find offensive, as per Wikipedia is not censored. I'm aware that vandals may find it amusing to add the picture to other articles, so I would certainly support adding it to MediaWiki:Bad image list to prevent this, if the image is restored.

In the grand scheme of things, I don't suppose that it really matters *that* much, so whatever the community decides is completely fine by me. So, anyway - opinions plz ppl. --Kurt Shaped Box 19:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Like I said above, maybe you should get a screenshot with the images blocked. I'd do it, but I'm too nervous. --AAA! (AAAA) 03:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Put back the hidden screenshot image! wikipedia is not censored! 83.67.29.196 18:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

But the "Wikipedia is not censored" note also says "While obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately..."; the entry for shock site explicitly mentions goatse.cx as an example. Therefore it can - and should - be removed. Mr. Vernon 04:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Vernon, you miss the point. "such as an irrelevant link to a shock site". The policy is to prevent random goatsings on arbitrary articles. An image here is obviously relevant, look at the title of the article. 219.77.142.86 (talk) 11:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, a penis and an anus are just a penis and an anus. Goatse's pretty twisted. Skwee 18:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

From an article *about* goatse.cx? --Kurt Shaped Box 07:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

"Usually". In context, an image of Goatse will improve the article. Like the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article. Also, read WP:IAR - "if the rules prevent you from improving Wikipedia, ignore them." Will ^(talk) 15:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%. Still, I do realize that this has been a touchy subject in the past, so I'll wait for more opinions... --Kurt Shaped Box 18:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

long long standing consensus is no. If you want technical reasons it is normaly deleted under G4 or copyvio.Geni 22:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I wish the US would ratify WP:NOT so we could edit objectively without fear of inprisonment :P. Jokes aside, if copyvio is a concern, then are there any lawyers here who could give an opinion on whether a screenshot of the website falls under fair use? I'd think it might be. Wiki should be uncensored as much as the law allows for. 219.77.142.86 (talk) 11:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not favoring censorship here, but when a man stretches his anus to abnormal proportions people need fair warning. Link the hell out of it, but don't include a picture with the article. --User:Tastywheat/sig 07:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If people really want to see the image they can easily find it based on the information in the article. The written description of the picture in question is sufficient for the majority of people viewing this article, especially given the graphic nature of the picture in question. 72.21.237.44 14:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with the original poster- the description on its left was fair enough warning, and they had the option as to whether or not to view the image. There should be a poll Pekaak 20:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Should be clear an image ought to be included, this is an article about it after all. Mathmo ^Talk 21:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Screenshot should go in. The article is about goatse.cx, it should have an image of its subject. WP:NOT guys. I don't really want to look at it either, but much I'd prefer to see it than have a censored Wikipedia. 219.77.142.86 (talk) 11:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I say leave it out. I've known about goatse.cx for many years, know what was on the front page, and never had an urge to actually view the image. I came here (via article on RickRolling, go figure) to find out ABOUT the site, not to see the actual images. If I wanted to do that, then I'd go to the site itself or a mirror. (user "irrelevant", not signed in.)87.81.12.15 (talk) 05:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

In popular culture

I think that we should remove anything that doesn't pretty explicitly mention the site. Picking out various images that vaguely look similar to the image constitutes original research. -Chunky Rice 01:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The Links-NSFW?

As several links on this page go to sites containing hello.jpg, it wouldn't be an unreasonable idea to tag those specific links with NSFW- Not Safe For Work. This would probably save somebody a lot of trouble. Skwee 21:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:DISCLAIMER. And the goatse.cz link does say "viewer discretion advised". --AAA! (AAAA) 23:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps... but who would Wikipedia "Goatse" and start perusing various links and assume that they wouldn´t end up on a site that´s NSFW? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.121.15.221 (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Identity of the Goatse Man

Is the reference (5) in the "Identity of the Goatse Man" section, meant to lead a picture of a gentleman with 2 fish up his bottom? Ryan4314 20:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Bioshock goatse

I added a citation and link and everything :) VTNC 06:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Good for you bud, but it's long gone - I came here to see if it was mentioned, and it's not... (There was a design contest for an etching to go in the Bioshock Special Edition: One of the finalists was a mechanical image that turned out to be an abstract of Goatse!) JaffaCakeLover (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Links

I think that those links are against some rule of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xparasite9 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Structure of article

Why does the article start with the section "The site goes offline"? Nobody expects articles to be strictly chronological, but this should surely be near the end. I guess if anybody finds out any of the history of the site they could change the section name to "History" and keep it at the start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.11.134 (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

One person takes goatse offline?

As of January 14, 2004, the domain goatse.cx was taken offline due to a complaint from one Rhonda Clarke
What? The site shocked thousands if not millions of viewers, and one person's complaint took the site down? That sounds weird, possibly fishy. -Rolypolyman 17:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Video

The Goatse picture is actually just a still from a video. I saw the video about a year ago. Why doesn't the article bring that up? --The monkeyhate 21:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia forgot to include a passage about how you saw the video last year? An incredible oversight. On behalf of Wikipedia, I offer you my deepest regrets. It is also Wikipedia's fault you did not edit the article and add information on this supposed video. Again, another massive failure on our part. How will we ever redeem ourselves now? -Unsigned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.70.154.193 (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

putting hello.jpg on article page, suggested ideas

I made some toned down pics of hello.jpg. I am not a photoshop expert, so someone should make their own version and upload it, the pics are here as samples/inspiration for others. I think they are much less graphic, since you realize what it going on, but it doesn't look human or organic or disgusting anymore, it looks like a cartoon, or a comic. Your imagination will give a more disgusting image than these. NSFW warning. Color reduction to 3 + greyscale [1], threshold adjust [2], and my recommendation of inverted (most detail for least "human body" ness) [3]. 64.252.1.10 (talk) 07:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is not okay to directly post the image on the Wikipedia page. While Wikipedia is not censored, the policy does state obviously inappropriate content, such as those from a shock site, will be removed. I believe this page is best used for information of the shock site, and if someone ever wants to view this (disgusting) image, they can search for the link, or maybe click on one of the links in the references. I'm not sure, though, about direct external links with warnings. I know those were here before, but they have been removed. --GVOLTT ^{How's my editing?}\_{My contribs} 18:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don´t get it. Either Wikipedia is censored, or it´s not. As long as a picture in question illustrates the subject matter, why shouldn´t it be used? Here´s the policy you´re referring to:

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

It doesn´t say that "obviously inappropriate content, such as those from a shock site, will be removed", to the contrary actually. I guess it´s a question of what "text, images, or links relevant to the content" means, because I´ve seen plenty of examples where a good picture illustrating a porn/human-anatomy/whatever-related article has been deleted in favor of a "cleaner" image.--Threedots dead (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be disgusting. We don't want people to vomit when they go to the article. Wanting to put the image on the article is like forcing news channels to cut out of something interesting for a car chase. Frankly, the minds of innocent people will be raped. 76.238.154.101 (talk) 02:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

A major concern previously with including this sort of picture on Wikipedia is that it will encourage trolls to use this site as a shock site -- in other words, setting up redirects or tricking people into landing on that image. Making it easy to use Wikipedia to piss people off is not in the project's interest. My vote's against including the image ... even if it weren't a copyvio. :) --FOo (talk) 10:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference 27

the reference 27 has porn banners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.122.51.49 (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of image, may 2008

Hi,

I propose that this article is primarily about an image, so we should show that image in the article.

I realise this has been discussed before, but I feel that times change, and a fresh consensus should be reached.

Comments from all are, of course, welcome.

My vote is 'yes'.

--  Chzz  ►  04:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been bold and uploaded the screenshot. I suggest anyone against it reads Wikipedia:Options to not see an image. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 01:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I fully support the addition of a screenshot from the site. Good job, Meaty. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Cheers! Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 01:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, reverted addition of image as it was an edit made by a blocked/banned user. Revert if necessary. Seraphim♥Whipp 20:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not a new proposal, and I don't see how anything has fundamentally changed since the last (archived) vote. The former opinion that was overwhelmingly opposed to the image stands - the fundamental reason being that the image is easily and widely available, and a large number of readers would like to learn of goatse without seeing it. As such, the presence of the image conflicts with the primary goal of being an encyclopedia article. Stop fighting this revert war.--Fangz (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

To expand, that wikipedia is not censored is policy that by default, questionable material does not have to be deleted. However, the converse of the statement is not true - offensive images do not have to be included, just because deleting them is 'censorship'. Wikipedia:Profanity is better as guideline here.

Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if they are informative, relevant and accurate, and should be avoided when they serve no other purpose than to shock the reader. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not.

The argument was that it was possible to provide information about goatse without the image, and that including the image when a perfectly good text description exists together with links etc serves only to shock the reader. Ergo, the image should not be displayed inline.--Fangz (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how such a small image can be such a shock to the reader; I also find it ridiculous that a purportedly uncensored encyclopaedia would have an article about an image, but not show the image. If you try to imagine a similar topic which has a non-shocking image, would you be asking that it be removed? My point is, according to WP policy, the nature of the image should not affect the decision to include it. Wikipedia policy is to be 100 percent objective, therefore 'we' (WP) should not make judgement calls about what is and is not offensive. Of course shocking images should not be used where they are not directly related to the subject matter, but in the case of goatse there is no possible argument - it is absolutely relevent.

I have no plans to revert the image again, as I am keen not to engage in an edit-war.

I would politely request that no-one else performs a revert - in either direction (ie if someone else *does* put the image back, don't revert it again; let's not fan the flames)

I hope that we will be able to come to an agreement in this discussion platform.

--  Chzz  ►  21:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to spark off a debate about principles. My argument is absolutely pragmatic: a large number of people coming to this page do not intend ever to see goatse, thumbnail or not. If they see the thumbnail. they would rapidly shut off the tab or whatever, or anyways would not keep on reading as they would otherwise have. Hence, the presence of the image, however well intentioned, does not provide additional information that the reader wants that, for example, an external link does not provide and actively prevents the reader from what they do want. (The distinction here with the muslim cartoons thing was that readers in general can be presumed to want to see the cartoon. Even in the case of fundamentalist muslims, it is the production of the images that is offensive, not that they can see it.)

Certainly, we should try to be objective... But within the bounds of reason. Goatse is an image designed and used to be offensive and shocking. Only in the most technical sense can one argue that deciding that it is actually offensive is unobjective. And in any case, while in terms of content and stance we are compelled by policy to be objective, in terms of stylistic decisions there is really no alternative but to be subjective in deciding how best to present an article. I make a subjective decision, for example, by deleting an animated GIF for example from some physics article. Deleting the goatse image has a similar stylistic role.

If you want to get more opinions on this, there's Wikipedia:Third Opinion, and Wikipedia:Village Pump to talk to. That's probably likely to get a more representative and varied group of views that random users looking on the talkpage.--Fangz (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

(Reply, following edit conflict) In my view, the presence of the image in question here is most definitely informative, relevant and accurate when taken in context of the article - it's a cliche, but sometimes a picture really *does* speak a thousand words in aiding the understanding of a topic. The act performed by the Goatse Man is a physically improbable one, as I'm sure that many would agree and the sort of thing that (IMO) needs to be seen to be believed and understood. We, as an encyclopedia should be as comprehensive as possible, whenever possible. Why should readers be forced to go somewhere else to see something that we are more than capable of showing for ourselves in an encyclopedic context? Besides, is a picture of Goatse in an article about Goatse even 'shocking' at all? The shock value of Goatse comes from being unexpectedly 'Goatsed' (i.e. being tricked into loading the image when one is unprepared) - not from seeing Goatse (lo-res, I might add) in a place where one might fully expect to see Goatse.

There may be a case for including the image further down the page (as I believe has been suggested before), or perhaps lowering the resolution even further - but that is an entirely different matter. I believe that the image (in some capacity or other) has a perfectly legitimate use here.

Yes, the consensus in the past was not to use the image - but consensus can change over time. There certainly does seem to be a much wider use of potentially-offensive images in various articles (human anatomy-related in particular) now than there was at this time last year. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. One of the main reasons someone might seek out an article on goatse is because one wishes to know what goatse is, before seeing the image. Asking a non-net savvy person about goatse would bring up a blank look, and perhaps an inclination to go to wikipedia to find out. This person will certainly not appreciate having the goatse image be present there (and I suspect this is the cause of a great number of the anonymous editors removing the image!), and will certainly not expect it to be present. (Compare the various anatomy related articles - their names typically describe what they contain. If the article's title was man with anus pointed at camera, then things would be different). As for a picture saying a thousand words, the exact same words can be also said via an external link. The question is what having an inline image adds to the article - I don't think it balances out what it takes away.--Fangz (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that this situation is markedly different from say, for example, Penis. There are many, many, many people who view the article and are shocked to see images of real (as opposed to diagrammatic) penises within. Many attempts are made to remove the images, which are usually restored after much discussion, per WP:NOTCENSORED and the 'informative, relevant and accurate' clauses at Wikipedia:Profanity. As to the 'people might view it without knowing what it is' argument, I present the presence of images in Ampallang, Lorum, Prince Albert piercing as a counterargument. The naming of these articles gives no clue (to a non-body piercing person) as to what they may find on first view, yet the pics are kept, as it is argued they are in important aide in illustrating the concept of 'wearing jewelry through your cock'. Personally, I think that the integrity of WP as an informative, illustrated encyclopaedia is more important than what *some* people *may* be grossed out by. Still, mine is but one opinion. There will be no more reverts from me until a consensus is reached. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Then perhaps those other ones should be changed - though an argument can be made that these images are not generally available on the net, so there's actually a stronger censorship issue since we have a dichotomy between being able to see photographs and not. In the end, the situation I see is this:

Advantages: People who do want to see the image will be spared one mouse click.

Disadvantages: People who want to know what goatse is without seeing the image would be unable to use the article, and the images form a distraction, and there's going to be a nigh-on-constant revert war with newcomers to the page removing the image. Can be used by some to block wikipedia (though ok, that'd be rather hypocritical).

The disadvantages clearly outweigh the advantages to me.--Fangz (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think the image should not be in the article for the same reasons you mentioned (I'm not really good at these kinds of discussions, just so you know). --AAA! (AAAA) 13:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Support This should be included. --Banime (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

RFC: should the small screenshot of the page be added

• yes. In the recent comments above, it's easy to loose track of the fact that only 1 person directly objected, and 3 spoke out in favor. Older discussions may have had different results, but WP:CCC. An editor was WP:BOLD and added the image; it was stable for a short time, then has been reverted (back and forth); at present, any attempts to put the picture on are being instantly reverted and described as vandalism. I cannot see any case for vandalism; I cannot see a clear consensus against the image; I welcome all input. Surely it goes without saying that WP is WP:NOTCENSORED - so any discussions of that nature should be irrelevent. The question is, is the image useful to comprehension of the article, and is it's use justified (for copyright reasons). I think that it is totally appropriate to an article on this subject to show a screenshot, and justifiable under fair use. Some counter-arguments were;

• The wikipedia image could become the target of attempts to trick users into seeing this 'shocking image' - I find this very unlikely, given the quality and size of the screenshot; a simple google search will provide much more 'shocking' versions of the image for users wishing to trick others.
• Users reading the page will not want to see the image, just read about it - this doesn't seem to apply to any other topic than this; I think this argument is covered by WP:NOTCENSORED - we are not in a position to decide what is and is not shocking, we are trying to provide information.
• From previous argument - "'people might view it without knowing what it is" - other examples were given, Ampallang, Lorum, Prince Albert piercing - as other articles that do immediately show images that some might find 'shocking'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.242.32.12 (talk) 11:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: "we are not in a position to decide what is and is not shocking, we are trying to provide information." It is stated in the article: "was an Internet shock site", "had four sections, two of which had images intended to shock the viewer". You could use such a shitty argument in the articles you mentioned but since it is acknowledged in the article that the site in question served the purpose to shock the viewers (obviously), you sound like a hypocrite. Theundertaker1 (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. If someone wants to, they can look at the URL. But let's not discourage people from going to the page. Seeing goatse should be a choice; putting it in the article will force it on people who just want to read about it. ImpIn | (t - c) 09:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• no, of course not. What kind of sadism is that? Shinobu (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • P.S. I'm glad I saw this popping up in the RFC list. Thanks for the heads-up, I'm glad I got to know beforehand that said Wikipedia article is not safe. By the way, would it be possible to ban people who insert the image in articles? Shinobu (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    • It would be very improper to ban people for making good faith edits, even if you disagree strongly with them. Unless you mean inserting on other article pages.--Fangz (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• no Ever heard of that thing called common sense? Mentioning WP:NOTCENSORED or giving examples from other articles is like answering to a question with "Because I can." This article is about a shock site and such an image would have really no other purpose than to disgust people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theundertaker1 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• no I came here from the RFC page, and absolutely second the previous sentiment. You can certainly link to a clearly-marked screenshot, but displaying it inline would make the wikipedia article a meta-goatse all over again, something people could send others a link to as a gotcha. Eeblet (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• no (responding to RfC). Link to a screenshot, but don't provide it in the article itself. The image is so jarring, that having it in the article would be a violation of WP:UNDUE, all by itself. --Elonka 02:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Yes - if we can include way more objectionable images, we should include Goatse. Sceptre ^(talk) 06:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Could you stop with such arguments already? That and other articles with potentially offensive images don't have the purpose of shock value like this obviously has and you can argue they have the purpose to inform while this article covers a shock/gay porn site that gained it's notoriety just by shocking people and being appreciated by homosexuals. And just like everyone who wants the image inserted in the article, you fail to provide a reason, even if other articles would have shocking irrelevant images, why do you want to include one here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.180.164 (talk) 15:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• The image is fine because of context. Goatse on George W. Bush is inappropriate. Goatse on an article about the image is fine. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yes The image should be in the article about itself, no two ways about it. Otherwise the article isn't complete. --Banime (talk) 22:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Yes Wikipedia doesn't censor images and images have been kept on the Harletype Ichthysis, Mohammmed, and Virgin Killer articles. Why is an exception being made here? 22:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genjix (talk • contribs)

• No. A clearly marked link is fine (read: actually not fine but a compromise needs to be made somewhere). Echoing what Keblet's said above. -masa ♫ 00:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Big disgrace

This should be deleted, some of the references: Tribute to Goatse.cx, blogs, digg, CollegeHumor, links containing that crap all over while in other articles, relevant links with a lot less shock value aren't allowed. Most of the editors of this junk and most people who post in this talk page enjoy staring at a gay's bleeding ass, what more can you say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.180.169 (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way...

Why do all sex positions have some lame drawings, in fact show me a single photographic image that can turn a man on in any article. All this while it's alright to have explicit content in articles such as Micropenis, Autofellatio, Gangrene and people here are begging to add a temporary impotence and vomit inducing crap potentially exposing anyone who clicks on "Random article". Also why is it allowed to share links to gay porn sites like in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Goatse.cx#Xtube_Profile and comment how funny it is to "stick a grapefruit up his anus" while adding links to normal porn in the talk pages of any articles, relevant or not, would be reverted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.181.177 (talk) 07:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this question would be more appropriate at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous? bsrboy (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Defunct Websites Category

Now that it's back up(though not in its original form), should we take it out of the category "Defunct Websites"?- 66.33.236.19 (talk) 01:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Good idea Towel401 (talk) 15:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I just asked because I can't do it. Do you need to be an admin? 208.111.193.62 (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No. You need to have an account that was created atleast four days ago. Usually you don't need an account to edit articles, but sometimes articles get protected if people without accounts vandalise it too much. Hope that helps. bsrboy (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

editsemiprotected

{{editsemiprotected}}

"photoshopping" needs to be changed to digital image editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cshewel (talk • contribs)

 Done, makes sense to me per [4]. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 12:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Goatse image

There is a goatse image. Can we use it for this article? --frogger3140 (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's been decided not to use the image, am I right? --A. Rafey (talk) 03:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)User: lf2planet

Why? The article is about the image... --Banime (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

That happens when you have an article about a gay porn site or other shit, you can't keep the article clean.

we could use the ASCII Goatse version? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.139.248.141 (talk) 09:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Remove the image

Yes, WP is not censored so it doesn't matter how disgusting it is to normal people, WP is not a democracy so it doesn't matter if 1000 would vote against displaying but what's the purpose of showing a screenshot of a web page consisting solely in a photo of a bleeding ass, jerk off material for homosexuals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubercool17 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED is absolutely non-negotiable. If an image is encyclopedic and passes the non-free content criteria/is free, it can be used. Cf Virgin Killer. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Lame amateur gay porn (probably made with a cell phone camera) is encyclopedic? What prevents someone to add a big gallery of amateur gay porn in "Anal sex"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubercool17 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The argument "Wikipedia isn't censored" is ridiculous. Where do you draw the line? Would you put an auto-play video of Chechclear up on the page "because it's relevant"? Or if someone made the page Cutting People's Limbs Off would you browse Ogrish and throw a couple of pics up "because it describes the article and it's relevant"? Common sense and a bit of decency, people, stop jumping back to the ultimates. It's obscene. It's foul. Most people who visit the page would not want to see it. You don't forget it once you've seen it. It's one damn click away, all you have to do is go down to references. It SHOULDN'T be displayed in-article. 218.215.57.63 (talk) 14:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC) To clarify that was directed at the discussion in general, not you Ubercool. Seneillion (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Below his gaping anus, his dangling penis and scrotum were visible, as well as a ring on the ring finger of his left hand.[1]This made me lol

Goatse was a website of two images and nothing else. It is not the same as including "samples" of a more expansive shock-site. Goatse was a website devoid of samples; it was known precisely for only one picture.

Images of Goatse parodies confuses explanation of the site. Someone who does not know Goatse (which is pretty likely considering how long it has been gone) is not going to be informed by a goatse-inspired BBC Olympics Logo submission or any other oblique references. Those images only serve to make the phenomenon appear more complicated to understand than it really is. Again, it was a website known only for its homepage, one picture.

Wikipedia is a reference tool which is only purposeful when it avoids frustrating abstractions. Wikipedia does not censor, so it is not possible to include an edited version of the actual picture. Therefore, the only solution is to include the actual picture as it is. The picture or a screenshot should fall under fair-use, since the picture was the website's entire content, and any discussion of the website is of the picture. --76.113.196.138 (talk) 07:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Why are so many freaks so determined to make people look up a man's ass? Really, what would the image explain that isn't covered by the text description? Optimus Sledge (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah sure, 76.113.196.138 It's just a bleeding ass, that's it. As relevant as jerking off, making a bad photo of your semen and adding it in the Sperm article. So, it must be deleted not because of it's nature but simply because it's not necessary.

The picture you're removing isn't even the actual image, it's a graphical representation, and not even close to looking like a bleeding ass. So your arguments here are baseless. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 19:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't know since I have images disabled but what difference does it make? I said it should be removed since it's not needed. The caption is "The Goatse.cx front page on November 7, 2008". Very few websites have screenshots, only important ones and in the case of this shitty site there's nothing to show, it consists in just some plain text which was quoted and an image which was described and it's not needed for the comprehension of the article, it's the image of an ass, not a microprocessor. And it's not a defunct website, just a click away. So what is the purpose?

Undent-Meh, the image in question wouldn't be censored even if wikipedia was censored....which it isn't, so....the article is about the website, having a screenshot of the website is pretty much the most relevant image possible. That some other articles about websites don't is irrelevant...I really don't see the objection, reading this discussion you'd think it was the actual goatse pic itself. I say have the image, but can't do anything cos semiprotected...92.1.85.51 (talk) 07:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I just saw this discussion now (I was the person who uploaded the image). I don't see any reason at all why an article about a website should not contain a screenshot of the website in the infobox. There is a long-standing consensus that the actual Goatse image should not appear in the article - but the website as it exists currently does not show this image, merely an artistic representation. As far as I'm aware, there's nothing down in policy which states that only the the articles concerning 'important' websites should feature a screenshot. If Ubercool17 knows better, then feel free to correct me on this... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

goatse.asia

This seems to be the most popular mirror going now. Should its location be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.143.239 (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd just use the mirror from the internet archive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.36.149 (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

ASCII Goatse

here's the "official" ascii goatse used for jokes in text only environments: http://www.nerdgranny.com/ascii-goatse/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.139.248.141 (talk) 08:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Image

Is there any reason beyond "urrrrrgh, it's a guy's asshole being stretched!" that dictates that we can't use this image in the article? I'd be glad to hear it. Remember, Wikipedia is not censored and may contain content you may find objectionable. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I think "it's a guy's asshole being stretched" pretty much covers it. Goatse is a shock site. Wikipedia is not. Also, no one is saying we can't use the image, only that we shouldn't. It isn't censorship, it's an editorial decision. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

However, those editorial decisions are purely because they don't like the image, not because of the encyclopedicity of an image. Encyclopedicity is the inclusion criteria for content, not offense. There's no reason to treat the Goatse image different to genital piercings, birth defects, chemical warfare, or Muhammad. None at all. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Is a shock image encyclopedic? That's the simple question, but you wouldn't get a simple answer. I, as the original "wtf why??????" remover, would say that it's not. Because it's a shock image, and not an image that is merely censurable; there's surely a degree of difference between the two. We can easily document the website without resorting to the same imagery. There was (what seemed to me) a suitable image placed there a month or two ago, but I'm not sure where it went. Let me go look for that. --Izno (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It was removed with this edit (reverted once and then removed again). I'm not entirely sure why that was the line of thought pursued... --Izno (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think any image can be encyclopedic if you do it right. Under normal circumstances, this image would be unacceptable on Wikipedia. However, using the image in an article about the image would most likely be acceptable. That's why the Bad image list exists: to facilitate the use of offensive images in articles where they are warranted, while denying use where they are not. I actually think that the article actually suffers by not including the image; the textual description is not really adequate enough. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The majority of those images aren't used anywhere... And I obviously disagree that it suffers; if you can describe the image in about 6 words, then an entire article (is really too much) should be doing the topic justice. If the textual description is lacking, then that should be fixed. --Izno (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

They say a picture paints a thousand words. And I think it's true in this case. Showing the picture would be much more encyclopedic than any textual description could. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

How encyclopedic it is is obviously up for debate, so I'll go down a different road. Would a drawing suffice? I wouldn't be able to get myself to do it, nor do I have a scanner, but I suspect the biggest issue people have is the color of the image. Something to the degree of the image submitted to the Olympics committee, only without the rings and assorted text. --Izno (talk) 01:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no; user-created derivative works are much harder to make fair use claims for than the originals. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Undent: That's unfortunate that you say that, because that means you are at an impasse with the other editors on this article. We (as in, the plural not inclusive of you) could edit war, but I trust you won't do that. Other than the compromise positions I've offered, is there anything you would be satisfied with, other than to include the image? --Izno (talk) 01:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure. I do, however, think that omitting the image on anything other than purely encyclopedic concerns is unacceptable per WP:NOT#CENSORED. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that having an article about one image is a bit lacking if we don't include the image in question. While I dislike the idea of seeing it again, I think NOT trumps arguments against it, and there are good encyclopaedic reasons why we SHOULD have it. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Having read the arguments of the 2005 straw poll, I feel wikipedia shouldn't display the image even though it can in this case. The purpose of the image is to shock everyone, instead of being informative to the majority of people and only [unintentionally] hurting the feelings of a minority, such as religious people of a particular belief (images of Mohammed) or "prude" people (photos of sex organs). I've seen my share of shock media online and know how to find them if I wanted to, and I expect wikipedia readers who really want to see the image, to use the external links or use google. I do not have a policy or guideline to back this up, just my gut feeling. If this discussion cannot come to a consensus, I'd encourage to start a new straw poll or RfC to see if the consensus from 2005 has changed. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I generally agree with Sgeureka. While a valid argument can be made that it's encyclopedic to include the image, a balance always has to be met. The primary function of an encyclopedia is to provide its' readers with information without undue censorship: but that goal is in fact damaged if the readers' generally find the article more distressing than informative. We ultimately need to consider the desires of a majority of our readers, rather than adding it just so we can feel good about how uncensored we are. I'm personally almost entirely desensitised to the Goatse image (lots of time at b3ta will do that to you) but I'd still rather not look at it, given the option. I wager the average reader is even less inclined to unexpectedly come up against it, and would not appreciate such a shocking image in an encyclopedic discussion. ~ mazca ^t|c 19:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. We consider our mission over a multitude readers' objections. We didn't budge for the Muhammad cartoons or Obama's birthplace, so we shouldn't over this. The purpose of this image is informative in and only in this article. We include images of way more "offensive" stuff anyway. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a substantial difference between a multitude and a majority. The majority of our readers don't find images of Mohammed in themselves offensive. The majority of our readers don't greatly care about Obama's birthplace. I suspect, though, that a vast majority of Wikipedia's readers would be at least somewhat disquieted being faced with Mr Goatse's back passage - and I do think that's where a line should probably be drawn, in the interests of reader service rather than censorship. I would, by the way, hesitantly like to see one of the examples you suggest of something "way more offensive" than this on Wikipedia. ~ mazca ^t|c 19:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Harlequin type ichthyosis. One of the relatively tame "unholy trinity". American mutilation of Japanese war dead are pretty sickening. Images of the Nanking massacre. However, those are informative. And I think that this image will be too. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Purely rationaly seen, those images indeed show acts and describe stories much more sickening than Goatsecx. But the dead bodies are shown in such a superficial and unreal way that the imagination can't get grip on it. Goatsecx, however, shows an act of mutiliation (not really, but that's how I experience it) in such a detailed and in-your-face way that the imagination can't get around it. I think this is why I can look at the massacre images with no problem, but get a shot in the head when I look at Goatsecx.
I've browsed through MediaWiki:Bad image list, and saw nothing which gave me the same emotional reaction as Goatsecx (although that list isn't really complete). The only images that might come close are the ones on Gangrene, Genital wart, and this unused photo of a penis being eaten by Syphilis. The stuff on Ejaculation is also somewhat tasteless. But, again, it doesn't come close to the Goatse image. Cheers, theFace 19:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, thanks guys, for ruining my lunch. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 23:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

But there's the problem. That's your emotional reaction. What's not to say someone will get turned on, or be intrigued by this image? Rule 36 exists :) Sceptre ^(talk) 13:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Rule 36 is (this?), but indeed. It is my emotional reaction, and my opinion that I want to choose if I want to see the image. I originally came here because I heard of it, and wanted to read what it is, after which I decided that I did not wanted to see it (though I later overcame my fear). According to the 2005 poll, the majority agrees with this. I see no reason why we should re-do that poll as neither the situation nor the people have changed. Cheers, theFace 17:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I assume he was referring to #36 on the 'rules of the internet' - broadly, "There will always be more fucked up stuff than the stuff you just saw." But yeah - it certainly appears to me that, any NOTCENSORED idealism aside, there is still nowhere near any consensus to include this image. Perhaps another straw poll would illustrate or debunk this appearance, but it seems the editors against rather outnumber those for - the old poll still seems broadly representative. ~ mazca ^t|c 00:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought Rule 36 is "There is a fetish for it. No exceptions." And NOTCENSORED will always win out against editor's sensibilities. That's what it's supposed to do. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

That's rule 34! :D Anyway, while WP:NOTCENSORED is a great idea when it comes to protecting encyclopedic content from substantial, though minority objection (e.g. Mohammed images) I'm not aware of any situation where it actually has resulted in the inclusion of offensive content in spite of a strong consensus among editors to the contrary. There is a balance to be struck between an overly-censored encyclopedia and one that strays too far in the other direction - a valid NOTCENSORED argument could be made for covering List of shock sites with a truly spectacular array of images to illustrate the various things being discussed, but I don't think it would be in our best interests as a respectable encyclopedia. There's a difference between NOTCENSORED winning against editor's sensibilities, and winning against editor's opinions of what makes Wikipedia look ridiculous. ~ mazca ^t|c 17:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You have options to not see an image. But you cannot decide for everyone that they cannot see the image because you don't want to. And that poll is four years old. The average Wikipedian sticks around for two or three years. Mgm and Tony Sidaway are the only two users I've seen around and active recently. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

(@ theFace and Sceptre) Speculating what the majority thinks or how much support the old poll still has today, is not going to help either side of the argument. Just start a new strawpoll or RfC and let the community speak for itself. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: Similar discussion going on at Talk:Autofellatio. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 18:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Reactions to Goatse

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrneutron/sets/1568481/

http://www.the-elite.net/ClarkPage/Phases/

Should it go into the article? 20:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Kirk Johnson

I have found some evidence that the man is in fact Kirk Johnson. I typed his name in google (along with "goatse" so we can results of him and not the boxer) [5]. Most of the results say that the man is Kirk Johnson. Not only that, I viewed the HTML source of the goatse.cz mirror, and the keywords in the code contained "Kirk Johnson" in it. Here is the source:

<HTML><HEAD><!-- Start Quantcast tag -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://edge.quantserve.com/quant.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
_qacct="p-95ACIuCMJpQa2";quantserve();</script>
<noscript>
<img src="http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-95ACIuCMJpQa2.gif" style="display: none" height="1" width="1" alt="Quantcast"/></noscript>
<!-- End Quantcast tag -->
<TITLE>Goatse - the official site</TITLE>
<META NAME="Keywords" CONTENT="Goatse, Goatse.cz, Goatse.cx, Goatsecz, Goatsecx, Anal Stretching, Goatse Man, Kirk Johnson, 
Shock site, Tubgirl, the giver, the receiver">
<META NAME="Description" CONTENT="The official Goatse site at Goatse.cz. Visit us to find what you're looking for...">
<META NAME="Author" CONTENT="info@goatse.cz">
<META name="Rating" content="General">
<META name="Robots" content="All">
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<FONT SIZE="5" FACE="Helvetica, Arial, San Serif, Serif, Times"><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="+2">
<P>The goatse.cx lawyer has informed us that we need a warning! So.. if you are under the age of 18 or find this photograph offensive, please don't look at it. Thank you! </FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE><HR><P ALIGN="CENTER">
<a title="download picture" target="_blank" href="goatse.htm"><IMG SRC="http://www.goatse.cz/hello.jpg" WIDTH="480" HEIGHT="360" ALT="stinger" BORDER="0"></a> 
<BR></P><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="+3"><I><P>IMPORTANT NOTE: There are many merchandising attempts for goatse.cx 
around the web-- none of them are real, none of them are official. Do not buy this gimmick merchandise. 
The official goatse.cx merchandise is coming soon! </P></I></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P ALIGN="CENTER"><A HREF="giver.html" style="text-decoration: none"><font color="#000000">[ the giver ]</font></A> 
<A HREF="mail.html" style="text-decoration: none"><font color="#000000">[ feedback ]</font></A> 
<A HREF="contrib.html" style="text-decoration: none"><font color="#000000">[ contrib ]</font></A> </P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER"><br>*<a style="text-decoration: none" title="leaving this site..." href="http://goatse.unfg.org/whygoatse.htm"><font color="#000000">urinalpoop</font></a>* <br>*<a style="text-decoration: none" href="http://goatse.unfg.org/whygoatse.htm"><font color="#000000">dolphinsex</font></a>* </P><HR></FONT><script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript">

</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
_uacct = "UA-422197-6";
urchinTracker();</script>
</BODY></HTML>

Now, if you look on the line that says 'META NAME="Keywords"', you'll see Kirk Johnson's name in the list of keywords. Not only that, you can also see the alt attribute "stinger" in the source aswell, which was removed recently.

Also, on the goatse mirror, there is an information page that's a biography of goatse. They also mention the identity of him [6] (safe to view). It says he's a regular poster to the newsgroup "alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.male.anal". Since it's mentioning that Kirk Johnson is the goatse man and a regular contributor to an anal site of some sort, I don't think this is violating the WP:BLP policy. And to make things even better, the work on that site is licensed under the GFDL, just like Wikipedia.

Second, it also mentions the origin of the alt attribute "Stinger" of the #quake channel, and the origin of the word "goatse". Although it says some of it is from the Wikipedia article, notice how it says "some of it".

Now, I know this may not be sufficient evidence for the origin of the term "goatse" and the "stinger" alt, but I think it's sufficient evidence that the man is Kirk Johnson (The page source, the google results...). Any questions? --AAA! (AAAA) 09:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting... but when I first started reading your comment it appeared to be a heavy dose of original research, once I got to the end however and saw the source I can tell now it is ok. So I'll say this looks fine and you can add it in, so long as you carefully source it and do not add in any of your own extra original research. Mathmo ^Talk 21:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

When people mention Kirk Johnson they say that he has posted various pictures here and there and give the the impression that he has generally been quite active on the internet, which suggests to me that it would not be so difficult to contact him – or at least at some time early on one was able to contact him if desired. I wonder then has anyone ever spoken to him or has there ever been any word from him? Also, from what period did Kirk Johnson post his pictures? Such things I do not want to search for myself at the risk of again seeing that horrible picture. --Frédéric Chopin 2027 09:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

His email would apear to be kirkjohnson692003@yahoo.com from his latest postings in alt.binaries.erotica.fisting dated Nov 11th 2007. --86.158.74.167 16:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Even though Kirk Johnson is probably Goatse man, any information on him should strictly adhere to this. Skwee (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

A quick Google search for "anal stretching specialist" brings up hundreds of pages all relating to Kirk Johnson being the Goatse man. --81.136.133.98 (talk) 07:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"internet meme"

Is anyone else bothered by the fact that an overused neologism is being used in an encyclopedic article? Neologisms make good wikipedia entries, but they do not belong in articles. They require time to settle. As well, there are words that can be overused without even being neologisms, which would be the case for meme, were it a standard English word. For example, if semiotics were as vogue as Dawkins, we might start every wikipedia entry with "X is a signifier for the referent Y." While true in the model it assumes, it is biased in style and approach. Meme suffers similar overkill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.249.102.31 (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is about a picture of a man stretching his anus, and it's in an encyclopedia. The use of term 'meme' is the least of your worries, i'd say. --90.206.122.203 (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

How can you deal with such a situation?

It's clear a pic of a bleeding ass is totally out of place. But what can you do when people who are not motivated by improving an article but just by their paraphilia keep pursuing it, you obviously can't reason with them. Does this have to go on forever? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.180.180 (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Kirk Johnson's ass is not seen bleeding anywhere in his vast library of images & video footage. He is an anal stretching specialist with years of practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.52.119 (talk) 11:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

He's a "stretching specialist", got raped in jail, doesn't matter. It's just a ass so stop it with "Look at WP:NOTCENSORED, Man cutting his dick and eating it has a pic so this one must have one too" and so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.181.159 (talk) 12:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Be civil, bro. The reason for the goatse website's notoriety is an image. This project is designed to be a compendium of information, which includes accumulating images to help facilitate understanding of a phenomenon. Images are used to great effect in other articles, the policy on censorship establishes a precedent. Wikipedia is not a democracy. In some cases opposition to something that would increase its function as an encyclopedia is borne out of bigotry. That said, if there's a new poll link me to it. 92.0.150.111 (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Image clearly belongs there. It should be put back then the article should get sprotected. All these prudes that don't understand that wikipedia is not censored are wrong. Just because your agenda is a nicer more fluffy internet doesn't make it so, people that delete the image are clearly wrong and are slanting the article to be biased against anal stretching. 68.34.186.206 (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone flag this as being written not in Wikipedia's standards

The opening paragraph of this article is not written in a formal way. It needs cleanup to meet wikipedia's standards. Someone please fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.101.248 (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Censorship

External links that apply to this page were removed. Goatse is a shock site. Of course the original image will be shocking. There is no need to censor information. Censorship defies one of the original purposes of wikipedia. As an established user even I cannot undo the vandalism that resulted in information being censored. Wikipedia has become a joke. Leondegrance (talk) 06:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• French mirror of the original image
• The complete Goatse series in animated slideshow format

Goatse man?

Is there any indication as to who the guy in the picture might be? Saberwolf116 (talk) 03:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Why no picture? / Why semi-protected?

The goatse picture is not displayed. Why is this? I understand that the picture may be shocking to some people, but that's true for many pictures shown on Wikipedia articles. The bottom line is that this is a relevant picture, and not illegal in the USA.

The article is even semi-protected. Someone in charge must have made the decision that this picture must not be added. This must be the only article where WP:NOTCENSORED does not apply. Why is that so? Why is WP:NOSEE not a solution for people who are easily shocked or at work?

If there are no objections, I'll add it in. Remco47 (talk) 00:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

There are a few discussions about it in the archive. As for semi-protection, I'm not sure it's because of the picture but because of persistent vandalism. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I've just read some of the archive, but I don't see any compelling argument there. Basically people say that they find it disgusting. But that's not a good argument, since Wikipedia is not censored. I know that many Wikipedians don't find pornographic imagery objectionable. But many religious people do. (And many workplaces do, too.) To them, we say: "Wikipedia is not censored". The same should hold true for this image, which many Wikipedians find shocking. You should apply WP:NOTCENSORED even more so if you yourself think an image is offensive. Remco47 (talk) 01:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

In theory, you have a point. In all of the discussions about the image, people have jerked their knees and got this image deleted for no encyclopedic reason whatsoever. The only reasons given to keeping the image out that carry any weight are the arguments about possible copyright problems, which is in the purview of FFD. For encyclopedic neutrality, I would support you adding the image to the article and will advocate for keeping it; as I have argued in the past, it is a violation of NPOV to include the Jyllands-Posten cartoons in an article about the cartoons, but not Goatse in an article about Goatse, after the copyright restrictions of the various images have been considered. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure a fairly airtight argument could be made to use the Goatse image under fair use; I can't see any aspects of the WP:NFCC that would prevent it. As I've detailed in previous discussions, I remain slightly dubious as to its necessity (I still think there's a balance to be struck between NPOV and encyclopedic credibility) but honestly at this point I would not object if there was consensus to include it. ~ mazca ^talk 14:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

NFCC#5 is the deal-breaker, here: encyclopedicity. I think that NFCC#8 is not that much of a problem: as this article is about the image itself, you'd be hard-pressed to argue that its inclusion didn't "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". I'd love for an actual discussion that doesn't break down into "no consensus for inclusion" or "but it's disgusting!" arguments. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I've never thought much about NFCC#5, it's so hopelessly vague and open to interpretation. I agree that any discussion on the appropriateness of fair-use on the Goatse image would quite possibly get torpedoed by people equating "encyclopedic" with "not disgusting" anyway, there - it's hard to separate opinions on inclusion from opinions on fair use. ~ mazca ^talk 17:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think that no image is inherently unencyclopedic. Even the Goatse image may have some use on Wikipedia. As far as I know, no Wikipedia policy explicitly forbids shock images in any context; if there was such a policy, it'd be so vague that medical articles, such as Harlequin type icthyosis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), would not have their images in their articles. And I feel willingly censoring Wikipedia for any reason other than what is in policy would lead us down a slippery slope to the point where Conservapedia is more raunchy than we are. It is true, though, that the uploading of the image invites the possibility for abuse, but we have safeguards in the software to greatly mitigate that. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Based on what you have discussed (and the fact that a lot of website articles now have screenshots in them), I have uploaded a screenshot of goatse.fr and added it to the infobox (I used dotcom infobox, because it allows the auto-hide version for screenshots). If you want to be even bolder and upload hello.jpg itself and add it amongst the prose then you have my support. Jolly Ω Janner 19:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

  I don't think we should use the dotcom company infobox because it's not a dotcom company, but I applaud your cojones. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

   Done. Jolly Ω Janner 19:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• I think I can be content with hidden by default. --Izno (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

  No issues here if it's hidden by default. It combines the benefits of offering an uncensored encyclopedia article, without the drawback of having the article itself be something of a shock site. Appears to be a great compromise to me. ~ mazca ^talk 22:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

  Seems somewhat reasonable. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for handling the affair. I lost track of the issue due to a vacation. A hidden-by-default image seems like a good compromise (though I would argue that the small size of the screenshot diminishes the shock value considerably). Remco47 (talk) 00:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

We're not here to shock but to educate. --Izno (talk) 03:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I know, but I'm questioning the usefulness of hidden-by-default, since the small size already reduces shock value. Anyway, no big deal. Remco47 (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• I can't see people writing any 1,000 word long rants essays, so I think my work here is done. Peace at last! Jolly Ω Janner 12:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge?

Does this really qualify in terms of notability??? I think it should be summarized and merged with Shock site.

I listed it for articles for deletion a year ago for that reason, but someone came up with a reference, which looking back at it looks almost a circular reference... It would probably do better merged... --Izno (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The article should stay as it is. Not merged. Sorry, but Goatse's like the king of shock sites. Merging it with 'shock sites' would be like merging 'Alice Cooper' with 'shock rock'. Just my opinion. --Lordnecronus (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes I think when readers do a search for "Goatse" they already know it's a shock site and are looking for more in-depth information on it which this article provides. Now if only there was a way to find out how many times a certain word is searched for on Wikipedia... -- œ^™ 19:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You mean this? Jolly Ω Janner 20:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Petition for goatse on Google doodle logo

on petitiononline there is a petition to get the goatse on google homepage, should we put that in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.50.106.235 (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No. --Izno (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It should be added if and when Google actually does it, but I seriously doubt that will happen. Remco47 (talk) 23:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyrighted pornography? Of course they're not going to put that on their homepage. Jolly Ω Janner 23:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Somehow I don't think Google would do that...crazy!--Mikecraig (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, they might do something with their logo like the Olympics logo on the BBC site as a parody on the meme, but again, highly doubtful. ;) Remco47 (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"Erotica" site?

How come Goatse is classified under "Erotica and pornography websites"? Erotica and pornography is material that's meant to turn people on sexually. Now who in their right mind would get turned on by the Goatse photo and its intent is clearly to shock, not to be sexually titillating. Willy Peter Johnson (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess because it fits there better as there isn't a shock site category (as generally nonnotable), and pictures up people's arses tend to fall into two categories - pornography or colonoscopy. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Considering that User:Ipatrol removed the cat today (I'm inclined to agree that Goatse is neither erotica or pornography), I'm going to be WP:BOLD and add the article to Category:Humor websites. Seems like a better fit to me, considering the humuorous elements of the site and the inherent humour surrounding 'Goatse culture' (including the pranking of one's friends/associates/co-workers). --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The image is of a male porn star. Apparently there are people who like anal stretching. [7] It's a kind of fetish, pleasurable for the same reason as a butt plug. Remco47 (talk) 01:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

No known reliable sources state who is in the picture. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

There are heaps of other pictures of him that are certainly pornographic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.82.140.25 (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The pictures are of well known anal stretching specialist Kirk Johnson.--81.136.133.98 (talk) 11:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Parody

Not sure if it is a parody, but there's a logo around that supposedly represents a Belgian car rental firm: http://mols.be/ and http://imgur.com/ZEdZk.jpg --84.245.33.210 (talk) 11:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Censored Screenshot

Looks like someone added a collapsible screenshot of the site on July 24. Isn't this against Wikipedia's policy on censorship? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.135.45 (talk) 20:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want to see the screenshot, you are more than welcome to uncollapse the image. --Izno (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The idea is that it should be expanded by default. Why make people jump through hoops to see what the site looks like? Wikipedia does not censor, does not place disclaimers, and does display spoilers. Something similar would be that some people may not want to know what a Vorlon looks like before they've seen them in Babylon 5. The article does not have an image yet, but if it would, it would not be collapsed. Remco47 (talk) 00:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Also consider Death, which shows a corpse. Remco47 (talk) 00:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The justification that I supported for hiding it was because it was standard for website pages, for some reason I can guess is copyright related. But seeing as that is currently not the case (see Youtube, Wikipedia, etc), I'm bringing this article in line with other website pages; there is no encyclopedic reason not to. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Amended at 01:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC), additions in red.

This is a compromise position we settled on a month or two ago. The photo is still accessible to those who must, for some odd reason, view it here. I see no reason to unhide it (and in fact, remove the hidden option) by default. --Izno (talk) 05:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Editing should not work on the requirement of a reason to break an inconsistency in articles; in fact, it should work in the opposite way: a reason should be given to create an inconsistency. Is there an encyclopedic (and expressly not necessarily moral) reason why the image must be hidden, and at that, one that cannot be immediately countered by mentioning the Jyllands-Posten cartoons and/or autofellatio? If not, it should be unhidden because there is an encyclopedic reason to do so: to bring inline with other articles about websites and to fix an inconsistency for which the only reason for existence is to satisfy the objections of a few people who don't like to see a man's asshole on an article about an image of a man's asshole. I know the "current" solution is a compromise, but is more "the lesser of two evils" than saintly. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre is correct, and I am re-inserting his edit. Skinmeister (talk) 11:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This is daft. While consensus can change, there has been nothing like the level of support or agreement needed to overturn the original decision at Talk:Goatse.cx/Vote that hosting the image was unencyclopedic (a convincing argument for me was that it made the fad of tricking people to click through to the image possible through a link identified as wikipedia.org). So the image should not be on Wikipedia at all. On top of that its most recent uploader said when uploading "This image is only shown to readers of Wikipedia when they click the "show" button on the infobox. I uploaded this image based upon a consensus reached on the Goatse.cx talk page with other editors" which is not the way it is currently displayed. --Rumping (talk) 23:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This is even more daft. I do believe that consensus has changed, and this reaction is way overblown. Now the image has been completely removed from the page and the image has been falsely 'speedy-deleted' by Master of Puppets on the grounds that it hasn't been used for more than 7 days. This is vandalism. Remco47 (talk) 10:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. We don't need to bind ourselves to a four-year-old straw poll. Hell, the only poll which I believe is still binding is the Gdansk vote, and that was to prevent nationalist edit warring, not to impose prudish moral standards on the rest of us. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that consensus can change over time and that the straw poll in 2005 is not the best representation of community. The straw poll didn't have the voting option of "viewable when clicking 'show'". Over time the technology changes and users have been content with the current (well as of yesterday) system of clicking "show" to view it. Jolly Ω Janner 16:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to retract that last part of my statement. This appears to have been a misunderstanding. Resuming assuming good faith. Remco47 (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It was linked from a recent Slashdot thread on Wikipedia in your pocket, this time with a warning, but often in the past without. And according to Master of Puppets the new version has been used for vandalism in Wikipedia, as past versions were. That is why it damages building an encyclopedia. --Rumping (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of an image does not warrant deletion of it. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Just put it on that list of restricted images. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I've uploaded a new screenie because the reason for the old ones deletion was either a lie or a mistake. Skinmeister (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

While I like your enthusiasm, the better solution may be to wait for Master of Puppets to undelete the original version, as it has correct copyright information and a fair-use rationale, which this version lacks. Remco47 (talk) 00:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre has added appropriate fair-use rationale now and I had uploaded a lower resolution image over your image. The problem appears to be resolved. Jolly Ω Janner 12:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It's great about no censorship and what not, but some discretion should be advised, so Wikipedia doesn't become a repository for shock/inappropriate images. This should be a encyclopedia... but regardless you definitely should expect something when looking for Goatse... -TPAINROXX/BKW 04:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I am fairly new to Wikipedia, but I fail to see what is 'encylopaedic' about this whole article, particulary the picture under discussion. I admit I havent yet read through the previous keep/delete debates as yet.(It is after 8 am local time and I've only had a few hours sleep. I was going to bed when I stumbled across that photo)

I dont't think the comparison by Remco47 to showing what a Vorlon looks like or a corpse are valid arguments. There is great difference between a 'concealed' fictional character, the reality of a corpse that may be seen on the (late) night news and a 'sexually' explicit photo. Many websites do make some, perhaps disingenuous, attempts to prevent people, especially children, inadvertantly seeing something they, their parents or local laws may find objectionable.

I'm a wordly big boy of 40+ years and I didn't like seeing it. I don't think that a warning and having to make an extra mouse click can really be called censorship. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It's censorship for the reasons, not the means, of hiding it. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

As personally disgusting as I find this image, and as much as I'd like for it to be collapseable, I have to refer you all to "Wikipedia is not censored" where it states that "Wikipedia will also not use specific disclaimers within articles warning readers of such content. All articles fall under the site-wide Content disclaimer. However, readers who do not wish to be exposed to certain content have a number of options to selectively prevent Wikipedia content from being displayed on their screen." Therefore, collapsing the image is not a choice, as it is a form of disclaimer.165.123.220.124 (talk)

There doesn't seem to be a consensus here - I don't seem to be the only person who thinks the image use is damaging the encyclopedia and unnecessary given the external links. It would be considered offensive by typical Wikipedia readers and its omission would not cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate. Anyone who insists on looking at the image itself can just follow a link offsite. On top of that the image can still be abused both by linking to Wikipedia and for vandalism in Wikipedia; for example the image is not listed at MediaWiki:Bad_image_list. --Rumping (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The obvious solution to that is to add it to the bad image list. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It makes more sense to add it to the bad images list than to remove it from the article. Wikipedia is not censored and does not abide to point-of-views (these are key principles), so it would be damaging to the encyclopedia to not show the image. Jolly Ω Janner 00:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Jolly Ω Janner 00:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Just because you don't have consensus about what is encyclopedic, doesn't mean others are pushing a point of view contrary to WP:NPOV; that would be a misunderstanding of that policy. Nor, given the external links to the picture, is censorship involved; that too is a missunderstanding of the policy. Nobody has answered the point that the image would be (and indeed has been) considered offensive by typical Wikipedia readers and its omission would not cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate. --Rumping (talk) 02:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, the fact that this article is about the image itself? That fact gives it a prima facie fair use defense. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to break it to you, but Wikipedia contains ideas, concepts and content which some people may find offensive. It's in the general disclaimer iirc. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. I too am against censorship. This is not an image some find offensive, but an image intended to be offensive; an image created for the express purpose of offending and/or disturbing people. I think it's a different case than the ones mentioned before about sexual positions and what not. Allow me to provide and example. We have an article about child pornography, but there are no images of child pornography in the article. We chose to not to have it, which is different than censoring. For the article on disembowelment, we don't have an image of a man being disemboweled. We chose not to put that on, because it would disturb all of us, and not provide any benefit. We can image from the text what disemboweling looks like, or, similarly, what goatse.cx looks like. 165.123.223.193 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC).

I dissagree. I think that for readers who have never seen hello.jpg, the words alone are not enough to give an accurate description in one's mind; an image is required. Child pornography is actually illegal in the case of the child pornography article and not sure about disembowelement, but in my opinion it should if it's not illegal in Florida. Jolly Ω Janner 22:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That is just strange. There is general agreement that is is a shock picture, but you are arguing that a reader cannot really understand how shocking it is without being forced to see it and to be shocked. To me that deliberately turns Wikipedia into a shock site, unnecessarily since those who actually wish to see the picture to inform themselves can just follow an external link. --Rumping (talk) 01:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding the point. We are using the image in an article about the image. I don't know how to emphasise this enough. We expressly do not force people to have to click links to see an encyclopedic image—and the encyclopedicity of this image, in this context, is beyond question—based on someone's moral standards. That argument would fall flat on its face if I used it in favour of removing the Jyllands-Posten cartoons (for which the same arguments apply), so it won't work here. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason we don't have an image on the child pornography page is mainly because it would be illegal in the state of Florida where Wikimedia is based. All content on wikimedia projects must be legal in Florida. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. We only censor if we're legally obligated to; for example, when personal details of a person are "known" but officially suppressed (for example, Nevada-tan). Sceptre ^(talk) 01:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Vote?

Why this is discussed is beyond me. Apparently for strange equality/rebel reasons, a number of users insist on keeping this on Wikipedia. If you consider the previous vote obsolete, then shouldn't we start a new one? That may settle it for good. I can think of three options one can vote for: 1) the image is shown normally, like this. 2) the image is put in a collapsible box. 3) the image is not shown, but an external link is given. - theFace 19:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Because that vote happened 4 years ago. In Wikipedia terms, that's ages, and most of the people in that poll will have probably left. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It's better to have discussions amongst experience users who quote Wikipedia's core principles and policies, than to have a vote. Anyone can "vote" and may not be fully aware of Wikipedia's policies etc. Jolly Ω Janner 20:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the discussion has gone on long enough (see /Archive 2). Fortunately, this case isn't very complex, and not a lot of policies are cited. Your point is consistency. My point is that the image is fucking ugly. I don't want it on Wikipedia. Cheers, theFace 21:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

"My point is that the image is fucking ugly." That's exactly why Wikipedia should not use voting. Jolly Ω Janner 21:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

How many kids would really stumble across something like this? The only paths I can see that would lead someone here are "Shock Sites", "Memes", and ".cx". Oh, and the Random article button, but, really. 24.131.168.28 (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding above: collapsible anything is considered bad form last I checked... A general (maybe unwritten?) guideline of Wikipedia is that you should be able to print it out and it should still work just as well. So no collapsing. On the general issue: I see no reason to vote on whether to keep the image or not. The image is clearly within our policies and guidelines. Gigs (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The image is undoubtedly horrible, but undoubtedly within guidelines. Perhaps the compromise could be to make sure it's below the first page of the article. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Screenshots belong in the infobox. Jolly Ω Janner 23:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I would take it out of the infobox and into the main body of the article would be to make the image more prominent. Since the image is an important part of the article (more so than for most other sites), it should be at a large size. But that probably doesn't count as fair use, so Copyright Law bites us in the ass, so to speak... Remco47 (talk) 04:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)