Talk:Goatse.cx

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
News This article has been cited as a source by a media outlet. See the 2004 press source article for details.
  • "Lazy Guide to Net Culture: NSFW." (June 9, 2004). Scotsman.com. [news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=651492004].
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2006/10/23. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Poll: Should the goatse image be shown inline, as a link, as an external link, or none of the above?

[edit] Results

Inline: 15
Inline but not at top of page: 0
Link: 1
External link: 58
None of the above: 1
Comments


The voting and comments are preserved at Talk:Goatse.cx/Vote -- Curps 03:45, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] previous stuff

Under History, how can an August 2001 warning have been replaced later by a November 2000 warning? Time travel? ;) -Jonathan Drain 23:34, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


See: Talk:Shock_site/Archive for previous discussion.

I'd rather not start an edit war over such a triviality, but it's not at all clear that the goatse man's penis is erect. 140.180.137.120 22:46, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, the picture (hello.jpg) did originate from gap.zip, a series of pornographic images (under the name gap3.jpg). WhisperToMe 01:00, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sure. But if you look at the others (for instance, gap13.jpg, or gap25.jpg), the Goatse Guy's penis is clearly flaccid. It's hard to say in gap3, but extrapolating from the others, I'd say it's flaccid here. 204.52.215.125 06:00, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Uh - you guys have inspected the pic that closely? :P

Keep it.

http://goatse.fi (safe to view) has changed. It is now the home page of a company called Goatse Networks who supposedly sells web hosting. Whether such company actually exists or not is left as an exercise for the fellow doing the update on the parody page descriptions. I lack the skill of words. 195.148.28.67 19:49, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The choosing of the Goatse.cx domain

I've on Slashdot.org and SomethingAwful.com that Hick wanted a play on the Got Milk campaign, so he tried for gotse.cx, but it was taken so he deviated further to goatse.cx.

-- That is something definitely worth following up, it would be great in the article if it could be verified. --220.253.65.164 13:34, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, we could put that in as a theory. 162.84.155.122 21:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous. If you think information gleaned from Slashdot and SomethingAwful could be considered accurate, you shouldn't be using the internet.

[edit] "According to some sources, the man is from France," ?

Is there any fact in favour of this theory or is it just a way to offend french people?

IT's a reference to an interview with a frenchman who practices anal stretching. http://www.bmezine.com/news/people/A20210/plp56/ [Not safe to view -Cow] 204.52.215.125 23:43, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have some supporting evidence also, because my best friend's brothers stepdad knows him. You see, he IS a Frenchman, but he's living in America. He felt that socialism was, uhh, taking advantage of him.

On 270 millions + americans I bet you'll find many crazy men to do that, so if the only "evidence" you have is just this example, I'm sorry, it's a liiiitle bit stupid to claim that this guy is french don't you think ? :) We could also claim that he is american and votes for Bush ?

Er, it's not conjecture. The man in the article above _says_ that he's French.

This is not the same guy. This is another guy, who did an interview. Look at the guys body, it's totally different.

The Goatse guy is, AFAIK, Karl, from Germany, married to Martha, who is also famous for images of that sort. The couple had an online group dedicated to the topic at one point. Not sure if it's still active. Zuiram 23:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Separated into new entry?

Wasn't this originally its own entry which was then merged into the single Shock site entry? Why, then has it been pushed back out into its own entry again? This smacks of fickleness to me.

--80.1.224.6 07:27, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes. It was seperated because it had grown quite a bit (snigger.) Frencheigh 21:50, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Wikipedia should have these images on the site - but in which manner should they be displayed. I think most would object, understandably, to the images being in the article itself, anyone have any ideas? --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 16:05, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My opinion is that a link to the site (and its mirrors) will suffice. I don't see any gain in having WP host images that may well lead to boycotts from certain users, censorship from sensitive groups (eg. an inclusion on various schools' internet filters) and will almost certainly undermine people's trust in the site. Why should these images be on the site? --Fangz 03:08, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have earlier argued the same point with regards to blood / gore / violence, and have consistently been shut down, including one guy posting a picture of a disemboweled soldier in reply to my statement that I'd prefer not to see that kind of material.
My personal opinion is that, ideally, all this stuff should be opt-in, but hosted.
For now, for consistency with other articles, the goatse image should be posted inline at the top of the page. Zuiram 23:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I do not support the posting of the actual goatse image in this article. This site is considered the first major "shock site" for a reason. If people want to actually go visit the photo, they're but one click away. As for people looking for more information on the site or phenomenon... well, they can do without the image, I think. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 23:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] possible etymology of "stinger", circa 1994/1995

I remember hanging out in EFNet #doom back in 1994 or 1995, one of the ops named Stingman/Stinger grossing everybody out with the goatse picture, including myself, before the goatse.cx domain shortly thereafter existed.

Whether or not the goatse man is actually this person, I do not know. But I am 99% certain the caption "Stinger" that once appeared under the image traces back to the nickname of this person who made it a fad/zeitgeist/whateveryouwannacallit of that IRC channel.

[edit] Kirk Johnson?

I think I have edited this page twice to state that Kirk Johnson, renowned anal stretcher, is believed to be the Goatse man. It does not currently say so and I can't find my IP in the edits. Is this going to be included? There is a great similarity between some of his (attributed) published pictures and the goatse material. Comments please. 128.211.144.180 08:05, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The information was removed by an anonymous IP. Feel free to add it again. Sam Hocevar 10:12, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] What about a drawing/sketch?

The shock mainly comes from the 'carnal image'. A good pencil sketch of the image would provide the information, without being shocking. I've seen it being done in other parts of Wikipedia, such as in the article of List of sex positions. Bogdan | Talk 17:39, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that would really work. This article is about a website that displays a photograph, while the sex position articles describe generic acts that can be performed by nearly anyone. Guanaco 17:48, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Needs comment/observation about "most obscene pic on Net"

Wiki is being discussed on slashdot.org, and I made this observation about this article:

The article is little more than a blow-by-blow description of the web phenomenon in question, and descriptions of parodies of said web phebomenon. This page could use this line of commentary, or perhaps it's just an observation:

This photograph is commonly regarded as the most obscene picture on the Internet.

By whom? --gcbirzantalk 04:05, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
More obscene than, say, kiddie porn? I wouldn't say so, exactly who does? Seraphimblade 03:22, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Of course it's more obscene! Kiddy porn is just pictures of people having sex with little kids. This is a photo of some guy opening his anus! </sarcasm> --Carnildo 03:41, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it's the most obscene, but I think it's different than kiddie porn. It's a specific image that's taken on a life of it's own as the default sort of "shock link." I'm not sure if that's really true anymore since a) goatse.cx no longer exists and b) it's gone beyond cliche at most of the major sites on the web, but there used to be a time when seeing it was practically a rite of passage. I think it's got legitimate historical context in a ridiculously bizarre sort of way.
Is there need for such a graphic description..."Below his gaping anus, the man's dangling penis and testicles are visible. " Did make me chuckle though 16/08/05
What's so bad about that? You should see the graphic descriptions on "List of shock sites"!Worldmaster0 21:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Trust me, this is by no means, and by no definition I have encountered, the most obscene picture on the internet, in any category that I've seen it sorted under. Zuiram 23:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quake stuff

Where did the anon who posted that get his information?

[edit] Poll - still going?

We have had consensus for a while - is there a reason people are still voting? Surely, if others want the poll to continue, I won't stop them, but it seems like it's more than time to end it. --SPUI (talk) 00:30, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, there was no explicit time limit, but it has probably run long enough. It was advertised on Talk:Autofellatio, Wikipedia:Current surveys, Wikipedia:Requests for comments, and Wikipedia:Images for deletion.
As you say, we have consensus, and that consensus is against using the image either inline or as an internal link, but only as an external link. I would interpret that to mean that the image should not be uploaded to Wikipedia, and that any currently-uploaded image, if applicable, should be removed as consensus opposes using it. -- Curps 03:45, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)


[edit] When did it come online?

The article lacks the most basic information any website article needs: when did the site come online? AxelBoldt 01:45, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Someone has redirected the Goaste page here, Goaste is a seperate website.

WTF is this article for? Wikipedia should IMHO be somewhat educative, but to have some junior click "Random Page" and have a look at Goatse.cx? --212.47.219.55 08:31, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

There are lots of pages on here that young kids should not be seeing. Info before offensive-ness.
What wikipedia really needs is a set of {{offensive}} tags...
Zuiram 23:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just one thing to say.

Whoever did the research on this thing, I feel sorry for you.

Goatse doesn't bother me anymore, but to look at it that long.... --Keith, evil dude 01:04, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] original mr. goatse image gallery

This image gallery [1] (not work safe) shows many images from different angles of a man that seems to be the original goatse man. What is the best use for this? I think we should put a link on the article, but where. As this is more important than the million links to refering works. Atleast it "proves" that goatse is no hoax, right? --Easyas12c 5 July 2005 09:19 (UTC)

That shows the contents of 'gap.zip', mentioned several times in the article already. Frencheigh 5 July 2005 09:33 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilink

I provided a Wikilink to All your base are belong to us, since I wanted to let folks know where the message from Goat.cx originated/parodied. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 9 July 2005 07:22 (UTC)

That's a very good idea. :D Worldmaster0

[edit] Links

The two external links sections have grown pretty big and difficult to read; they could do with some better organisation, or splitting out. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how it should be done, or if it needs to be done? --Dave2 14:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] goatse's hello.jpg

Visit my user page. Hehehe hehe. hello.jpg on it. And a joke behind it. JeremyJX 22:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the selfref

What's wrong with having a selfref (Image:Goatmedia.png) regarding a goatse parody? WhisperToMe 20:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ascii art?

Came accross the text below by somebody vandalising some pages. I thought maybe it could serve as a good visual aid for this article without all the graphic details. Any comments? — Anonymous

CENSORED. I just accidentally looked at this. Jeez. See the page history. — Different Anonymous Person

Here. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 00:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Someone nowiki-ed most of the links to goatse sites, despite the vote favoring external linking with 57 to 1. Quit the vandalism. --62.251.90.73 13:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)



Just so you know, there's a link on http://sam.zoy.org/goatse/ (referenced in the parodies section) that, according to Avast!, leads to a page with a malicious script in it (VBS.Malware). I'm not going to give the URL, but the link is at the bottom of the page:

Other shock sites
   * Last measure. Please do not click on this link!
                                          ^^^^^^^^^------- Link to malicious script

Everything else in the page I've looked at so far looks OK, but if this can be confirmed by someone else, perhaps a warning is in order?

72.134.246.160 06:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC) ---

[edit] The Village?

Somewhere around the time the movie The Village was in cinemas in America, I was visiting CliffyB's website. He referred to this film's promotional poster, mentioned it was funny, and that anybody who didn't have to laugh wasn't a real fan of the internet. I have to admit being in a totally different mindset I didn't get it, only later during the day suddenly burst out laughing. I think this is a real spoof on Goatse.cx, and should be added to the main page, but I'm not sure... the movie itself seems too serious. Retodon8 01:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, it's not any kind of stretching. It's only somebody holding up the slate/card/whatever, and needs quite a bit of mental work to make it fit as a parody. --jacksonj04 15:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Because It'll Inevitably Be Mentioned

I know it's really tasteless, but I have to say I had a good laugh with the photo at Hurricane Rita's Wikipedia entry, where the eye of the storm is strategically situated between Florida, Mexico, and Cuba:

Image:Rita2005-colorIR.GIF

lolzzz

Um, ok. Rhobite 00:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
I think you'll find that's the virgin mary ;) Secretlondon 12:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Good addition

Remove all links, and put a huge warning at the top of the screen. Instead of links post the URLs and if they are really desperate they can C & P for goatsey goodness.

WP:NPOV. :) 24.224.153.40 20:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Better yet, remove this trash. Of course Wikipedia shouldn't link to a website, which helps promote it, that posts a picture like that on the homepage and mocks the need for a warning. I'm becoming more and more anti-Wikipedia. -Barry- 04:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pumpkin

"on May 2005, there was an image on the site showing a pumpkin with some hands around it as if it was stretching its anus"

I believe that image was first used to deface the Dremel website of their pumpkin carving kit: http://www.dremel.com/HTML/home_fr.html

It was up for a few days in place of the Dremel example pumpkin.

I'm not sure if anyone knows more about this...

[edit] Goatse.org/mirror

This is important. I posted it but someone deleted it. The mirror was once popular but currently displays the text go away. Any...reason to delete it?

[edit] Nowiki

Why are so many of the sites referenced on this page mentioned in nowiki format so we have to copy-paste the link?Worldmaster0 14:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Goatse in Planescape: Torment?

Been playing "Planescape: Torment" recently, entered this room and did a double take:

Planescape: Torment screenshot

Is it possible this is intentional? The obvious doubt is that the game was released way back in 1999, although the article states the site was around before then... Darric 23:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

No such image. --jacksonj04 15:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Meh, sorry. Try here: Screenshot Darric 13:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

That pic being a parody is a real stretch..... (pun intended) -- Anon, 17 Sep 2006 0700 UTC

[edit] External links

Well, I don't know which side of the edit war is right, but I do notice one side of the edit war involves multiple anon IPs and one just-created user, which is sometimes an indication of trying to avoid WP:3RR while pursuing an edit war, which we try to discourage, so for this reason I reverted. As a general rule WP:NOT does mention that Wikipedia isn't a links site, external links should be chosen sparingly. Protection was applied, perhaps there can be a timeout in the edit war and some discussion about external links here. -- Curps 03:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trying unprotection

Nothing for 2 weeks. Very little discussion. Let's try it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shock images poll - please vote!

I've created a poll to review the decision here after the potentially contradictory decision made at Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Poll Results. See Wikipedia talk:Censorship/Shock images poll --Fangz 01:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Having the pic, and on the top

Since the new standard given in Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article dictates that images are ok at the top, EVEN if they may offend 1 000 000 000 people, i would think this has a bearing on having the goats pic. Following the logic there, it should go to the top of the article. Any VALID arguements for not doing so? --Striver 12:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

For one, the Muhammed cartoons are the very subject of the article. This is not the case for any other cartoons. Take a look at all the prior discussions. You will find plenty of VALID arguments as well as polls for taking the disputed cartoons to the top... Claush66 14:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The article is about the CONTROVERSY, and Goatse.cx MAIN issue is the picture. Its comparable. Could you help find the valid argument, please?--Striver 14:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It is comparable, but apart from the fact that the polls are already made, there is an important difference.

In the Mohammed Cartoons, there is no consensus on whether or not the editors who published them thought they were very offensive. Since I did not think so when I first saw them, but only later when I saw the way others interpreted them understood how they could be considered offensive, there is no consensus, and the only way to give that info to readers coming in to see the article is to keep the cartoons in the article so that people can have a look and make their mind up for themselves. Additionally, there is an argument saying that the people who died in the event might not have chosen to die, had they seen the real cartoons.

Contrary to this, in the goatse article there is consensus. There is nobody that thinks that the people that linked the picture to different sites had any other purpose than to schock people. I don't mind the picture being shown in the article, but neither do I think that different people will have different opinions about why the goatse-picture was spread, so showing it in the article would not make any different to new readers.. Personally, the goatse article is only interesting to me inasfar as there are people who use it to make points about censorship and hypocracy. The point raised is valid and important to discuss, because the vast majority do not want to contain neither censorship nor hypocracy. For this reason, even if I do not really care about goatse article in itself, if the poll had not already been made, I would have voted to display the picture rather than a mere link. Also, whenever the link dies later, and this controversy still exists, you can in future go to my talk page and recruit my vote for including it into this article, reduced in size, just like the cartoons were. Or simply quote this, and vote in my behalf on this. I have just downloaded a copy of it to my computer for this future event.DanielDemaret 17:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Isnt wikipedia policy that "votes are evil" and "wikipedia is not a democracy"? Further, what does the intention of the original user matter?

I think the goatse picture is highly offensive. But i also know that there are people how do not think it is offensive. In the cartoon article, it was established that Wikipedia does not care if some people get offended. So, i wonder what hinders someone to include the goatse picture at the top of this article, shrinked? It cant be that someone might be offended, can it? --Striver 17:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

One is a cartoon, the other is borderline pornographic. There is a difference. That is, it is not censorship, but what the reader would be obliged to see. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 17:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is really "offended" by the Goatse picture. They are shocked, which is why the Goatse site is called a "shock site". So far the Wikipedia consensus seems to be that blasphemous pictures such as Muhammad cartoons image or Piss Christ cannot be censored, but that "shock pictures" do not contribute to the value of articles. I agree with Striver that there are grey lines. Babajobu 17:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Pornography is not a propblem, Wikipedia has several pornographical pictures. What makes you think that some Muslims dont get shoked of the pictures? Is that Wikipedia policy? "If it shocks someone, it gets out"? You can be sure there are people not geting shoked of goatse, im sure there are people geting aroused by it (me NOT being one of them). Isnt the schok effect minizied by shrinking the picture, like in the cartoons article? --Striver 18:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that's a Wikipedia policy, I said that's what consensus seems to indicate. People overwhelmingly support inclusion of "blasphemous" images (no matter what religion) but a majority opposes inclusion of so-called "shock images" like Goatse, tubgirl, et cetera. However, I have to agree with Striver that a thumb of the Goatse image probably makes sense in that article. However, considering Jimbo ordered that the autofellatio photograph be moved from the article and replaced with a drawing, I have to guess he wouldn't let Goatse hang around, either. Babajobu 18:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
At least according to the archives he didn't order any such thing, but waited for consensus. The point was simply that a photo wouldn't be a better illustration in that case than a simple drawing, and the latter is seen to be more encyclopedic style. He rather sensibly mentioned that discussing censorship and hypocrisy is besides the point, which is to judge content by its merits at explaining the subject matter in the most encyclopedic manner possible.
FWIW, I think in this case the picture should be on Wikimedia servers to avoid dependency on the continued availability of outside resources, but not necessarily shown inline as the actual content beyond the written description in the article is a detail not strictly necessary for understanding what goatse is about. Also, voting is evil. -- Coffee2theorems | Talk 14:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  1. On voting Ok, so lets not vote then:) I am sure that if the last link dies, and someone is still interested in goatse, someone will insert the picture. I don't care one way or another :) I was merely trying to assure you that if you wanted the same handling on the picture matter in both articles, then you would get your way, and I would support you :)
  2. On intent. You wrote : "What does the intentions of the original user matter"? That was very interesting. To me the intentions are what makes an insult or offence, and is therefore at the core of the matter. Intent makes all the difference to me. If you sincerely think that intent is not important, then that leads to a lot of further questions from me to you. About a book full. I think one could make an entire wikintent.org on that debate.
  3. On the goatse picture Since I was not offended by the picture, I can only speculate on why different people voted only to keep the link here. It was your invitation that led me to this article, Striver. The article itself, and why people would vote at all here, is about as interesting as to me as a cigarrette on the street. Ugly, but not important.DanielDemaret 18:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. The picture is to be considered pornographic and it's illegal in many countries to display such picture over the internet BEFORE first asking the viewer if he/she is legal age. That's it. It can not be legally published on the first page. Actually, even the external links should warn the reader about the content. By the way, Striver, I'd like to read that Mohamen picture article discussion. Any link? --Kirils 07:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I just realised emotioanly that i am proponing the insetion of that obnoxious picture... *yuck*... That inclines me to get out of this talk page. I think i made my point, so im out of here... thanks for some intresting replies. Peace --Striver 18:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This "poll" is a textbook example of don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. To discuss the Mohammed cartoons you should discuss the Mohammed cartoons, not create polls about other pages. Weregerbil 12:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, he didn't alter the Goatse article at all. I think there are legitimate questions about what sort of content is acceptable in Wikipedia, and Striver is trying to determine why we accept blasphemous images but not "shock" images like goatse, considering, according to him, members of the given religions may very well be "shocked" and horrified by a blasphemous imag. It's a fair question, and a fair question to raise on the goatse page, too, in the context of whether or not to include the gaotse image. He probably should have just raised the issue, though, rather than present a poll to restore the goatse image; the poll was a bit WP:POINTy. Babajobu 12:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

What poll? i didnt start any poll, i just chated a bit on the talk page. --Striver 13:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep, you're right, my apologies. Striver absolved of all crimes! He is innocent of violating WP:POINT! Babajobu 13:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • smile*, one crime down, thousands left :) --Striver 01:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Times magazine cover

The Times magazine cover is not shown on the top right. Instead, the describing text is shown twice. Should this be fixed?

--Mesko

The cover is irrelevant, likely not intended to be a goatse and does not merit inclusion at the top of the article or likely at all. Just slap the real thing on there if you want to illustrate what it is. Or perhaps even the ascii version. Tomyumgoong 04:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Considering that the image is relevant (snopes is a very relevant site for this sort of thing), it is sourced, it satisfies the transformative condition of fair use, it illustrates this article, it is of lower resolution and won't impinge on the value of the work itself, this image should be on this article. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
There are better images to illustrate the article. I don't know of the license status of the original, or of the many asciis approximating it, but those would certainly be superior. It could perhaps be used in the section on parodies, but I suspect there are clearer examples for that as well. Tomyumgoong 13:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The dates were wrong (referenced 30 September, not 20 September), so I fixed those. Also, Snopes never proved anything. All they did was make a vague reference to the possibility of a parody between Time and Goatse in an article about a cloud that someone edited to be a goatse parody. Observe: http://www.snopes.com/photos/natural/godhands.asp -- Anon, 17 Sep 2006 0700 (UTC)

[edit] More Appropriate Image

What about using something like [[2]] instead? I guess the use of the actual goatse image (the best possible fair use image) was forwned upon last year... but the climate may have changed sufficiently for its reinclusion, or the use of the ascii. Tomyumgoong 20:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me put it more directly... Would it start a shitstorm if the actual goatse image were used as fair use instead, or if an ascii rendering were put at the top in place of the Time cover? It could then be deleted as an orphan image, or moved down to the parody section where it belongs (assuming someone actually wishes to document it in that section). Tomyumgoong 00:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed pornographic links

I can slightly understand creating an article about this site (I don't like it, but I can understand it), as it seems to be fairly notable, but there should be no links to pornographic content on this page, especially when they have nothing to do with the site whatsoever (e.g. "goatse hentai"; "female goatse"). We are supposed to be creating an encyclopedia, not a host of links to bizzare porn. - Conrad Devonshire 02:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Many of the links you removed were articles about goatse or non-pornographic parodies. And the pornographic links are relevant and appropriate. If people don't want to view them, they don't have to click on them. There's no Wikipedia rule against linking to pornographic content. Rhobite 03:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Apropos of the non-existence of any proscription against one's including pornographic links in an article, Rhobite is, of course, altogether correct. Notwithstanding that never should encyclopedic quality be sacrificed in order to protect one from seeing depictions he/she would not like to see (see WP:NOT), it is eminently unlikely that one would click on one of the external links and be surprised to see content he/she would find objectionable. An argument can be essayed that the external links are inappropriate as only tangentially related to the topic (although I think they are sufficiently relevant to the topic to merit inclusion), but never should that argument rest on one's affinity (or lack thereof) for the contents of the sites to which the article links. Conrad may mean to suggest that pornographic topics are inherently unencyclopedic (see, e.g., in his noting that "[w]e are supposed to be creating an encyclopedia"), or are somewhat less encyclopedic than other similarly notable topics, but the disposition of that question seems long settled. Joe 03:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] health aspects

Is there anyone who has any information about the health effects of performing an act like this? I think that would be a good addition to the article. --Berserk798 18:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TIME Goatse.cx image

I have reverted the removal of the TIME cover as it is:

  1. definitely a fair use image,
  2. as close to the normal image as we can have on Wikipedia (we certainly don't want the original goatse.cx image), and
  3. it passed IFD.

I don't beleive it should be removed. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we want the original image? Its exclusion is unencyclopedic. Tomyumgoong 23:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
You all may be interested in this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ta_bu_shi_da_yu_2 Signned: Travb 04:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank god for wikipedia!

What a wonderful resource! The sum of all human knowledge indeed. ---me 03:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Indeed indeed!

[edit] Parodies

[[3]] the logo in the flash looks somewhat like a parodie. Does anyone else agree? --anewman 15:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image

I see the image is upp. If you argue it should get down, consider also taking down the Muhammad cartoon image. Otherwise, both stay up. Lets not have double standards regarding shock images. --Striver 18:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

gotta love G4.Geni 18:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Why was the picture speedie deleted? --Striver 19:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I told you G4.Geni 20:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
What is G4? Any link? --Striver 15:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4 --mtz206 (talk) 12:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, ok, cool. Do you know were the discussion of the deletion can be found? --Striver 19:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
and classical WP:POINT. You do not really want goatse up, Striver, you want Muhammad down. Ergo you are spamming this unrelated talkpage. Plus Muhammad is not a "shock" image (he's not that ugly). People got angry when they heard there were these cartoons, not when they saw them. Conversely, people are not "shocked" when they hear there are images of assholes. They are shocked when they see them) dab (ᛏ) 21:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
You are not in any position of telling me what i can and can not write in the talk page, and i stronly object to you claiming so. And please do not cite false evidence such as "POINT", point is only applicable to acctualy article editing, something you should have know if you had acctualy read the policy. Further is your arguement totaly voided, think about something that would shok you only of hearing it, say for example... no, lets not try to shock you. And then imagin seeing it. --Striver 15:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, this is what I heard: "Whine whine whine, blah blah blah, whine whine and whine." Now shut it. Skinmeister 22:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Is this when you run out of arguements?--Striver 22:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Insightful quote from the JP Cartoons:

The comparison of the cartoons to "shock" images is a false analogy fallacy. Does anyone honestly think that El Fagr would have printed the Goatse.cx image as they did six of the cartoons (a main one on the headline page) (all solely images depicting Muhammad) or even consider doing so? Ergo, false analogy. Netscott 21:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

MX44 23:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I do agree that they are no equaly shoking, but i strongly object to the statment of them not being shocking.--Striver 22:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
You are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is wrong. Skinmeister 00:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Skinmeister, isn't everyone's opinion wrong when they disagree with you? BhaiSaab talk 00:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goatse Links Illegal?

apparently, in the USA a senator has made goatse links illegal. i just saw this on digg.com . since i dont have the time to verify, ill leave this here and see if anyone else can and alter the entry as appropriate.

Nope. It says:

(a) IN GENERAL.—Whoever knowingly embeds words or digital images into the source code of a website with the intent to deceive a person into viewing material constituting obscenity shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not more than 10 years.

http://shii.wordpress.com/2006/07/26/goatse-now-illegal-in-the-united-states/
As Wikipedia clearly is not misleading (disregarding trolls, of course), the links do not constitute as illegal and can stay.
And a senator cannot make anything illegal by himself ;) — Mütze 21:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not illegal to do that. That website is just spreading rumors. And if it is illegal, then the U.S. is becoming more totalitarian every day. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 00:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
And besides, if it's legal on its own, it's not obscene. Scienceman123 talk 01:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this it?

I did a Google Image Search for "caramel cod" (that's something from a certain Simpsons Halloween Episode, in case you don't know) and on the first results page was an image that fit the description of the goatse picture. Here is a link to image results page (the pertinent image was the third one in the first row at the time I saw it). So I'm wondering, is this in fact the infamous goatse image, or just an imitation of it?

It might be the same guy, but it is not the infamous picture. Check the mirror links in the article for the real Goatse. — Mütze 22:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] goat.se/cx/ or goats.ec/x/ worth mention here?

[4] [5] 70.22.244.113 04:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Parody?

I'm not too sure about this one... this movie supposedly came out in 1992, according to IMDB, but the image smacks of the original Goatse one. The article said nothing about when the site came up, so I assumed there was a very slight possibility this could've been inspired by it. Opinions? --Kiwizoid 06:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] goatse.cz - "living" mirror

Goatse.cz appears to be a "living mirro", at least the email section is updated. A friend just forwarded an email that had been sent to the address mentioned on the contact page http://www.goatse.cz/mail.html which was subsequently published.

[edit] We need to either add the hello.jpg image or remove the others

Does anyone else find it silly that this article is about an (in)famous image and doesn't include the actual image, but does have several images of a "Temple of Goatse Map" from some video game? Roland Deschain 09:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

maybe it is silly, but I don't understand why the non-inclusion of hello.jpg is a reason for deletion of other images? 58.187.30.128 12:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The whole point of this page is so a person can find out about the goatse.cx image withought actually having to be shocked by it. Having the picture on the page would defeat the whole purpose. Euphoric1 6:57, 2 October 2006
I think it's a bit presumptuous to say that that is the whole point of the page. I don't think I have to point to Wikipedia is not censored again, but I can certainly see your point. But that is just your opinion. — Mütze 12:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The issue of not including the goatse image was discussed and concluded many moons ago. I invite you all to please leave it alone unless you really have new information (not just opinion) to contribute to that discussion. --FOo 19:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

True, but this will indeed rob is all of a once more interesting discussion. It is not like it will actually ever change, nor do I even pretty much care either way, but agruing the point is still fun. — Mütze 20:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TIME cover

I have removed the TIME cover again because claiming that it is based on Goatse.cx is... not true. The only reference that is cited is an urban legend website where the only evidence that is claimed of the relation is a reader writing them an email saying that it has resemblance! That is as unreliable of a source as you can get.--Konst.ableTalk 23:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Seems like someone put it back again ReidarM 08:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
That someone would be me. I went ahead and re-worded the caption to de-emphasize that people thought it was deliberate, because quite clearly it is not. However, considering that using the actual goatse picture is out of the question, this article could definitely use some imagery, and that one is an amusing occurance of an "accidental goatse", if you will. My apologies if this is not to your liking, but I think it's okay now. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 23:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't quite see how that caption justifies the inclusion of the pic, when it's obviously unrelated. If I say I think the hole looks like Steven Tyler's lip print, can I use it to illustrate the Steven Tyler article? On a side note, when is all the unverifiable info getting removed? GassyGuy 07:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, Konstable removed that TIME cover twice, and it was readded each time by different people. The reason I re-added it is as described above... it's one of the few images in the article (which gives it aesthetic value) and I also happen to think that it makes the article more interesting to have an example of an "accidental goatse". Obviously you don't agree, but I must say... that unintentionally humorous magazine cover in this article is considerably more interesting than Steven Tyler's lips would be in his article. I dunno man... either you appreciate its value or you don't; it looks like there's some controversy.
As for the primary chunk of unsourced information (the Origin section), that's not quite so controversial. My plan was to leave that until somebody could either source it or replace it with the actual story, but if you're really for removing it entirely in the meantime I wouldn't revert it. My philosophy with this article has been to improve it as best as I can with the little information we do have, and hopefully over time Wikipedia editors would be able to fill in some of the blanks. Whatever works man. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 10:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
It's clearly disputed, whjat is required is a reliable secondary source for the interpretation plus a watertight fair-use justification since we can only, by law, use magazine covers in illustrating the article on the magazine itself. Guy 17:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
There was a source for it somewhere. It was an urban legend website where it said that one of their readers emailed them and said that the cover had some resemblence to goatse. That's hardly a reliable source to claim that people perceive it as similar.--130.216.191.183 00:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


Was this a real time magazine cover or a hoax? Anomo 06:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The cover is real. However, it had nothing to do with goatse. It is merely a funny "accidental goatse", which is why I argued for its inclusion on this page. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 04:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Facts from Fiction

Obviously this article features a lot of both, and since it was written without any references it is impossible to separate them. I have a feeling this would rely heavily a lot on internet forums, etc, which are not reliable sources at all. It would be good if someone who is familiar with the topic would go through the article and remove the parts that cannot be verified, especially in the "Etymology" section.--Konst.ableTalk 23:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The Etymology section looks good to me. I'm a little bit worried about the new "Origin" section though. Without sources, it'd be quite easy for the first person to come along to just make up a story that credited themselves or friends with the creation of the goatse site. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 23:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pronounciation

What is the correct pronounciation of the word "Goatse?"

According to an FAQ on the forum General Mayhem, a large 1337 Internet forum community and the site of heavy use of the word goatse, it's pronounced GOAT SEE. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 01:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't mean it's the "correct" pronounciation, just (maybe) the most common one. There is no official pronounciation, because it was only ever a written website. — Mütze 11:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I thought goatse.cx = goat secx--Greasysteve13 06:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Yah, that's right... but over time people have taken to referring to it as "goatse" rather than "goat secx", and the pronunciation of the former by many is as stated above. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 10:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Yep, see also: Domain hack--Greasysteve13 22:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images in the tribute section

There seem to be some concerns about the images in the Tribute section. Seeing as everyone's getting tired of the revert war, I figured we should deal with the images here:

  • Time Magazine- I removed this because it keeps getting included as "may remind some of goatse" or "possibly alludes to goatse", which I believe is basically original research. Yes some communities have thought so (particularly online ones), but many others have not. In addition, there have been no sources cited which state that many people are reminded of goatse- we're here to report verifiable information, and not to perpetuate opinions.
Does it matter if it's cited or not? The fact is, that the Time Magazine cover resembles goatse! (Cloud02 16:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC))
Well, according to you anyway. I could just as easily say it doesn't resemble goatse, and then our opinions are equally valid unless one of us provides a citation from a reliable source. I could take dozens of pictures of clouds that resemble goatse too, but I doubt they'd be included for looking like goatse. --Wafulz 18:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, a cloud that happens to resemble goatse isn't nearly as interesting as a famous magazine cover that does. You're missing the point. The purpose of the image here is to spice up the article and hopefully be an interesting coincidence to the reader. It's very discouraging to see something so innocuous so heavily opposed. We're not trying to claim that this "accidental goatse" was intentional; quite the contrary. What makes it interesting is that it was accidental.
Eh, whatever, if you don't find it interesting, than telling you that I find it interesting and think it contributes to the article isn't gonna change that. Just trying to explain my side of the story. It doesn't matter anyway though, because that magazine cover is Fair Use and the rationale doesn't support its use in this article, so that one's doomed, I'm afraid. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 21:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Isn't there a Fair Use issue for the image too --72.140.89.114 23:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
See bold. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 23:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Quake II mod- This one is an obvious allusion, from the shape and the name. However, I could also create a Warcraft III map based on goatse, or a Doom level, and it won't deserve to be in the article more than any other image. Can someone verify the popularity of this mod or the map with a citation or something? Basically, I don't want to set a precedent where anyone can submit an image of their favourite minor mod/map/goatse-themed-rally car/whatever and say it was inspired by goatse. --Wafulz 01:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
As for this puppy, I say give it the benefit of the doubt. If we're gonna nix the other picture then we might as well leave this one in. This one is definitely an intentional goatse, adds imagery to the article, and is indicative of the cult following this website has. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 21:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, in that case, then the quake mod and the UT map are just as little justified in being in the article, because it's just as much up to the user to see the similiarty to goatse. And about people adding their favorite map, etc etc. would haev a lot less value than the COVER of Time Magazine. Whether or not that the use of the cover in this article would be covered under fair use, is not really for us to decide. If Time Magazine don't believe it is fair use, then they can state it. (Cloud02 11:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Soo...

Just wondering, where did the name hello.jpg come from?--AAA! (talk • contribs) 08:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It could be so that when someone links a person directly to the image, it's not gaping_anus.jpg, it could be that they were lazy and didn't want to think of a clever name, or were in a rush, it could be to make it sound friendly to unsuspecting victims, or it could be the first thing that came to the site's creator's mind, like just a random word. I guess some research would have to be done, but where would we find the original creator of the site? --Piroteknix 03:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
My guess was always that it's the first thing you see on the site, so a sort of welcome/greetng. Rahulchandra 03:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] goatse.ca

is goatse.ca affiliated with the original goatse.cx creator?

I can't say for sure, but I personally doubt it. Goatse was an Internet sensation back and the day and prompted many many mirror sites. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 00:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/o/a/Talk%7EGoatse.cx_31f8.html"