Talk:Shock site

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. [1].

This page was previously nominated for deletion. Consider the following prior discussions before re-nominating: Keep, VfD 2004-05-11 Speedy Keep, AfD 2006-10-19

Previous discussion have been archived. Editors interested in improving this article are encouraged to see also Archive 1

Contents 1 the ultimate newspaper 2 List of Shock Sites 3 Penisland 4 Pimpmygoogle 5 Meatspin.com 6 Warnings on external links 7 Cleanup tag 8 Penis Bird 9 'capybara' tubgirl 10 removed dead links 11 Meatspin 12 What about K-fee? 13 What about Shockfilter? 14 Mr. Hands 15 Porkhole source 16 Optical Illusions, Shocker 17 bottle guy 18 anti-shock sites 19 How about Bag Slap? 20 Honkee.org 21 teletorrents.org 21.1 teletorrents.org 22 Cadaver.org 23 Orange juice verifiability 24 Sources?! 25 Meatspin 26 Deletion Reccomended! 27 The Deletion of this entry 28 From Wikipedia: No Disclaimer Templates 29 A proposal 30 Other shock sites section 31 References 32 references 33 a really big problem... 34 removed the questionable orange juice factoid, as promised 35 What's the use? 36 WHAT??? 37 Re-adding LastMeasure 38 READ THIS! (From the article, Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is Not) 39 Swollentip.com

[edit] the ultimate newspaper

why has it been removed (twice) from the list? i cite this as a reference to the site, and the content is quite clearly shocking, making this a good example of a minor shock site

• Find us a reference per WP:V and WP:RS. That porkhole list certainly doesn't count, it's not reliable at all, just the opinions of the owner of the site. Mangojuice^talk 23:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Surely the porkhole site is still a reliable list of shock sites, even if it is hosted by a shock site, surely every source is just voicing its writer's opinions, so this porkhole site is as reliable as any, and surely one doesn't need a reference to show that this site is an example of a shock site? when obviously it is not nearly as used as lemonparty for instance, it is still quite clearly a shock site and is used as such
  • You'll see from WP:RS that private websites aren't generally considered reliable sources. It helps if they're independent, but in this case it's obviously not an independent source. Yes, we need a reference. It's what separates random total crap sites from notable examples like Tubgirl. As for Ultimate Newspaper, this particular site really has no chance without a good source: I couldn't even turn up the site on a google search. Mangojuice^talk 13:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree that the site is a very minor shock site, but the fact remains that it is a shock site and therefore it can be given as an example of what a shock site is, just like all the other shock sites on the page are examples of shock sites. I feel ultimatenewspaper is a very good example of a shock site with a name designed to attract little suspicion
      • I agree, and I'd love to have it, but not without a reliable source! Everything else has a source. It's the only way we can keep the article from getting flooded with every non-notable site that is the "new up and comer". See WP:V: the burden is on YOU to provide a source. I highly doubt one exists for ultimate newspaper, and since it gets less than 100 google hits, it may not even be appropriate to include even if a source IS found: it's just not important enough. Mangojuice^talk 16:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Can you give me an example of what you would consider a reliabe source?
          • A newspaper article, a magazine article, a page on a well-established, significant, and independent website with content produced by those behind the website. The source for Goatse, for instance, is a snopes.com article about a related picture, which is definitely reliable. Definitely not reliable are blog or forum postings, or personal websites. Really, we're already bending the rules as far as they can be bent on this page as it is. Mangojuice^talk 02:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Shock Sites

Can anyone provide me with a mirror of this page before it was merged? I am also trying to find the url the image of the paintball man, that is several thousand pixels by several thousand pixels,which crashes most browsers, does anyone know what I'm talking about?

[edit] Penisland

Penisland contains no offensive marterial whatsoever but is shocking because of the title. It leads users to beleive its contents pertain to the human male's genitals when in actuality it is indeed talking about a pen island.

• That doesnt qualify as a shock site, although it may qualify as an unintentional anti-shock site if there were such a catagory, :P. VulcanStar621:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pimpmygoogle

Removing this; it has been removed before. Turns up only 871 references on google (140 unique), and those hits are shared with www.pimpmygoogle.co.uk, which is not a shock site. Alexa rank is 584K+. No reference. Mangojuice^talk 17:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meatspin.com

Hello, I am the owner of this website and had noticed you removed it. I was wondering why this was? It is one of the most visited and linked to shock sites on the web. Please tell me what information I would need to submit to get it relisted. Thanks

Probably because you've sold out, and now the page is full of adverts. Wikipedia is not here to either drive traffic to your site, or money to your wallet. Skinmeister 20:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

So what? Most any page you visit now has some sort of ads on it. Its offered as a free service, the ads help pay for bandwidth and such for having such a high traffic site. Wikipedia is here to point surfers in the right direction, im not trying to get you to put money in my pocket. When people come here looking for shock sites, they should be able to find a complete list. Not just the hand picked ones. At either rate I guess it doesn't matter too much. There is really only one ad listed on the site, most others are choked full of them. Top, left, right, and bottom of the page. If there is anything I could do to get it reslited I would be happy to do it, Otherwise I appreciate your time.

You need to start by providing reliable secondary sources which describe this as a shock site and attest to its prevalence and significance. Wikipedia is not a web directory, after all. Just zis Guy you know? 19:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with this guy. Why should it be removed if it's far more well known than alot of those websites? Fuck, you could even check google fight. I tried having it fight Hai2U and what was more known? Meatspin. If your going to remove Meatspin, then why keep sites that are far less known?

Aw, man, talking about meatspin. Haha. Anyway, meatspin is very much known. More so then other shock sites, which I personally have never heard of. Who's one to make executive decisions without other members' consent first anyway? Seriphyn 20:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

C'mon dude! There are only three schock sites that can match Meatspin in popularity; Goatse, Lemonparty and Tubgirl! I have barely even heard of HAI2U, and you class that as a major schock site while Meatspin is not listed at all? Damn, you're sick if you don't think Meatspin as a schock site! --62.119.94.59 13:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

For the hundredth time: verifiability. Must have it. Truth is not the issue. Mangojuice^talk 15:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you don't have any intension of adding it to the list, then can you at least remove the hotlink from the word Meatspin, so it doesn't just link to the Shock Site article. It would be good, if the site indeed isn't classes as a shock site here, that Meatspin should have it's own article, instead of being a hotlink to this article (which doesn't have any info at all about Meatspin). Then, and only then, will I accept that Meatspin is not feautured here! If it isn't listed in this article, then the name shouldn't link to this article! --81.233.245.208 20:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough! I've listed Meatspin at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, along with the redirects for several other sites that don't have sources and have been removed from this article. Mangojuice^talk 05:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, what better verification is there than the site itself?

Please see Wikipedia:Original research. Sure, it's pretty clear it's a shock site. But unless we're going to become pioneers in shock site-ology, we need to report on research other people have done and reported in reliable sources. Mangojuice^talk 05:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I've got some sources where it's listed as a shock site, too. Say for example [2], <link to attack site removed> [3], [4] (internal list). If you need more sources, just do a Google search. Nota that it is not listed on all sites, but it is listed on about half of the sites listed. [5] I hope I made enough references to make it into the list! --81.233.245.208 13:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, None of those are any good. The first and fourth ones are archived copies of previous versions of this article. The other two are unreliable personal opinion: wikis, blogs, and forum posts are generally considered not reliable sources. Please read the rest of this talk page for more guidance, and read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If you can come back with an actual reliable source, we'd love to have it. Mangojuice^talk 20:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You know, Encyclopedia Dramatica has an article with 5 shock sites dubbed "The Power 5". These 5 shock sites are "some of the most basic shock images a computer user can stumble upon". They happen to be: Goatse.cx, Hai2U, Lemonparty, MEATSPIN and Tubgirl. Is that proof enough? If it is, keep the meatspin entry I just made! ViperSnake151 14:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica is basically a free forum; it can't count as a reliable source any more than a personal website could. Mangojuice^talk 14:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I am ... DiscoSphincter _talk. I know a thing or two about gayness and shock sites. I am a big fan of meatspin and it is a shock site. MEATSPIN ALL THE WAY!!! ... DiscoSphincter _talk

I also have another piece of viable proof that Meatspin can be considered a shock site, firstly it's image origin came from YTMND, and coined the term "also cocks", also the original GIF was included in Last Measure because it contains some of the most famous shock site images! If Meatspin is famous enough to get into Last Measure, it deserves to be mentioned! But also, if we're "not allowed to drive traffic to other sites", then we can't link to almost every other major NON-SHOCK site at all on Wikipedia if that's the way you wanna do it! Come on, Meatspin can be called "the next generation of Shock Sites", since it also has music that goes with the image! ViperSnake151 19:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone trying to help us get meatspin back on here! I had posted a topic in the meatspin forums, to try and get people to help us find some sort of press release mentioning meatspin. One of our users found the following link, and I was wondering if it would be enough to get meatspin back up? http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2006/10/17/13748/788 - I apologize I am not familiar with wikipedia so I don't know exactly what I need to do to submit a relaible news source. Please tell me I finally found a good source! Thanks -meatspin

Definitely better than anything I've seen so far. But I don't think it cuts it, because it just doesn't say anything interesting about meatspin. It says, effectively, that some forum someone or other in politics moderates included a link to Meatspin.com, which is not at all surprising, and proves nothing. Anyone else have an opinion? Mangojuice^talk 04:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This goes out to the owner of the site who's arguing that it should remain.

I tried for you but maybe you should give this a go. MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. It's all on the talk page though. It's a list of "spam" sites that will be allowed to be unblocked.

Faris b 07:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The main reason it was added to the blacklist was to stop it being spammed here. Guy (Help!) 08:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I thought that you all would want it unblocked so that it could be added, assuming you all get the proper reference, I didn't know you all don't want it because it contains non-straight contents. That's the way I'm seeing this. Goatse.cx isn't counting because it's a solo thing.

Faris b 14:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, thanks for the help! It seems meatspin finally got back on here, how do I remove it from the blacklist so that the external link can actually become a link? Thanks! Meatspinheh

Meatspin should be on the major shock site list because according to www.alexa.com, the traffic it generates is almost ten times more than tubgirl. It has more traffic than goatse and hai2u, too. Surely that is some verification. - anonymous, 14:50, November 30, 2006

If it is ever added it should link to resonance

[edit] Warnings on external links

Those will be needed. TheKillerAngel 18:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert it, but there had been prior discussion about this, see above and on Talk:List of shock sites. It was felt that (1) WP is not censored and (2) each entry fully and clearly describes what is there before the link. I, myself, am neutral on the subject. Mangojuice^talk 18:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup tag

I'm removing this. There's no active discussion about cleanup, and I don't see anything massively wrong with the article. If someone adds it back, please explain what needs cleaning up. Mangojuice^talk 01:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Penis Bird

So apparently we should have a little discussion on this. My feeling is, a shock site is defined as a website with a shocking image used for trolling. The Penis Bird image apparently qualifies, we've got good backup that it was used for trolling, and JzG's objection seems to be that it's not shocking enough. I agree it's not shocking on the level of Goatse or Lemonparty, but I think its use is quite similar. Mangojuice^talk 14:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• I think that it belongs. Even if it isn't incredibly shocking, some people would find it to be, and it was used for trolling. The article itself says that a shock site can be something that contains an image that is "extremely distasteful" (among other things). Penis Bird fits that, if you ask me. Cirus ^{Talk/Contribs} 16:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• It's not very shocking though, is it? Pretty lame, in fact. Just zis Guy you know? 16:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• No, it isn't really shocking... but, it fits the definition included in the article, and I still believe it belongs. As Mangojuice said, its use is similar to more shocking images/sites. Cirus ^{Talk/Contribs} 17:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps we should have an article on mildly annoying sites? Just zis Guy you know? 19:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'capybara' tubgirl

Anyone know the origin and history of this: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v72/capybara/more/tubgirl.jpg - needless to say, not work safe! LamontCranston 12:19, 05 Aug 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about that one, but I don't think it's the same person. However, there is another image on MOID ([6] NSFW, clearly), and it seems to be the same person. Cirus^{Talk/Contribs} 04:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removed dead links

I notices some links were dead and removed them. Under Lastmeasure.

[edit] Meatspin

Meatspin should definatley be added here. It's on the same level as lemonparty and goatse and way better than fucking PENISBIRD. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CornPickle (talk • contribs) 15:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• See the archive and above discussions for why it isn't on the list. Cirus^{Talk/Contribs} 04:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The arguments presented opposing meatspins inclusion were, quite frankly inadequate. That is why I added a meatspin reference here, then Cirus removed it. We should discuss this again. Triumph's Hour 07:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is quite simple: verifiability. I will back the inclusion of Meatspin 100% if we can get an independent, reliable source that describes it. In principle, it would be okay for an entry to remain without a source, but in the case of Meatspin, it was already up for a long time without one. It's impossible to prove that something isn't verifiable... but I think we can wait for a source. Mangojuice^talk 15:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh please, that criteria wasn't followed for many other shock sites listed here, judging from the discussions above. After all whoever heard of penisbird, meatspin is way more shocking. Triumph's Hour 01:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Popularity is not the same thing. I know Meatspin is much more popular, I've seen the rankings. There are a lot of somewhat popular ones, but verifiability is scarce. Penis bird's derives from a letter Slashdot sent to Rotten.com which Rotten published. If you don't think that source is appropriate (or if you think some other site isn't sourced properly) feel free to bring it up, and maybe we can remove it. But the equalizing only works in that direction: everything should be brought in line with policy rather than away from it. Mangojuice^talk 01:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The wowomg.com redirect and the fact that the phrase Meatspin is censored on MySpace might be able to serve as shaky sources, I don't know, but I suppose they're better than nothing Foolish Child 10:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Compare alexa ratings to all the other shock sites listed, Meatspin is far ahead of all of them, and the only one in the top 100 K

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.goatse.cx --718,083 http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.tubgirl.com 4,777,382 http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.lemonparty.org 108,293 http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.Hai2U.com 356,475 http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.meatspin.com 62,965

Meatspin is clearly more popular than those sites, here are sources. Now you say popularity is the issue, when earlier you said it is veriability, I somehow think you just have some hang up against meatspin or its current owner

Alexa statistics don't mean that much, especially when you compare to a site like Goatse which isn't online anymore. I actually KNOW Meatspin is that popular, but this is not a reliable source. If the rank was in the top 1000, that would be unambiguous evidence. But ranks below that aren't very meaningful. Yes, it gets hits, like a lot of websites do. What we need is a publication of some kind with some kind of reputation for selectivity actually writes about Meatspin. I would love to add it back, if such a source existed, but we need to see it. Mangojuice^talk 21:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone trying to help us get meatspin back on here! I have searched high and low and the only potential source I have found is: http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2006/10/17/13748/788 - I don't know what other info would be needed. Everyone I run into OFFLINE knows what meatspin is. MangoJuice, do you still feel that this is not enough sources? Meatspin 10:15, 30 September 2006

[edit] What about K-fee?

Is there some reason why K-fee isn't on here? It's generally used to shock. I'm pretty sure it used to be on here. Karwynn (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC) What is K-fee?

• It's coffee, or some caffeine-based product. German, I think. The online advertisements the above person is referring to feature something innocent such as a car travelling down a country road, a young couple about to kiss on a beach or some plants waving in the wind, and a hideous demon or zombie pops up very suddenly and screams. They're more frightening than offensive, so I can see why- if they ever existed here at all- they have been removed from the "shock site" list. CO.

[edit] What about Shockfilter?

Is there some reason why shockfilter was removed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oddmike (talk • contribs).

Where is the verifiable external evidence of its significance and authority? Just zis Guy you know? 12:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Hands

There is a video about a horse raping a man to death being circulated called Mr. Hands. (See http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002389068_brodeur19m.html ) Is this video notable? WhisperToMe 04:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It's got one media mention, so it's borderline... but I wouldn't think it's a shock site. It's just an internet WP:MEME. Mangojuice^talk 07:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I also found http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/30/D8E700JG0.html WhisperToMe 04:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

He has an article: Kenneth Pinyan WhisperToMe 04:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Porkhole source

Recently, DiabolSV readded thewillpower.org to the list, citing this as a reference. That site would serve as back up for a lot of material here, and a lot of other sites that aren't on the list. I for one think it can't qualify as a reliable source: it's published on a shock site, so it's not independent from its subject, and I don't believe there's any editorial process there: in short, I think that source is likely just something the owner of porkhole put up to promote other ventures, according to his/her tastes. Plus, it doesn't say anything evaluative about any of the sites, it's just plain descriptions. Mangojuice^talk 20:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The list was made because the wiki doesn't have a lot of sites. It was hosted on a different site keara.org but it went down so my friend added it to his site and eventually added more to the list

-Fear me for I am Remote Controlled.

Okay, see, that's what I thought. It's basically a personal website, not reliable. However, I'm glad it's out there. I'm going to add a link to it as an external link in the article. If that list exists, maybe people won't be so intent on adding unverifiable shock sites here. Mangojuice^talk 17:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Optical Illusions, Shocker

There is an optical illusion webpage, which goes through three illusions, and then the fourth, which you need to look closely at, after about 5 seconds a scary face and a shrill scream appears, maybe add this to your listing??

http://www.winterrowd.com/illusions/

Thankyou.

No. Completely different kind of shock site, and not a major version thereof. --Rob W 09:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

and on whose authority do you say that? Can you give any references, or are you giving your own opinion and definition? If you look at the current definition given by the article, it includes stuff that "frightens". And it's issues like these that makes me think we need a complete rewrite- there's too much crap with users editing content based on their own opinions. Blueaster 22:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's just say, the use of the term "shock site" is not really up to us. If someone describes this illusions flash thingy as a shock site in a reliable source, we could include it. But like every other site people have suggested adding, I'm sure no such source exists. Mangojuice^talk 14:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This is technically known as a screamer, not a shock site. See computer pranks 70.117.19.228 16:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bottle guy

add bottleguy.com to the list

It used to be there, but we didn't have a reliable source to use for verifiaction. If you could provide one, that would be helpful. Mangojuice^talk 16:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] anti-shock sites

http://oralse.cx might be a good example here

There are more (does "underage chick with hairy pussy" ring a bell?), but I think the [citation needed] tag means actually something like "a citation for such a cite actually being used in this anti-shock way". And I doubt that's enough, since the article text implies that this behaviour is or has been common practice. Now go and find a good citation for that. Good luck. Shinobu 05:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

http://www.1337spin.com is a good example of an anti-shock, or shock parody website. "1337", when pronounced, rhymes with "meat", so visitors may expect similar content to www.meatspin.com. The website features a metal version of the same song as meatspin.com ("You Spin me Round"), and a man head banging in a circular motion.

[edit] How about Bag Slap?

Why not? It's just as shocking as most of these sites put together.

What is it? --AAA! ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You can imagine... --DaveTheKing ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Honkee.org

Why this site no?. It has been mirrored at http://www.geocities.com/roby_died/index.html

We discussed it before, and the conclusion was that it didn't clearly meet the definition. Plus, as is the case for just about every other site that could be proposed, we need sources, or we can't include it. Mangojuice^talk 17:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] teletorrents.org

[edit] teletorrents.org

I fail to see why this would be removed for 'not having sources'... it's sent to people to surprise them for God sakes. Does it not make sense to make people who visit this page on Wikipedia aware of it? I have sent the site to many of my friends telling them that it was a torrent search engine, and to their surprise, they saw a man being fisted! If this site's name and content do not convince you that this is indeed a shock site, then what the fuck will? Sandwiches99 00:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It simply isn't sourced. As has been said on this page many times, there has to be sources for each site listed. If you can find a source, go ahead and add it. --Cirus^{Talk/Contribs} 04:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Then for the love of God, spare me the tediousness of looking through the Wikipedia page on sources, and just tell me what you'd like as a source. I mean really, is the description and content of the site not enough? Sandwiches99 00:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

http://www.teletorrents.org/banners.php is proof of the intention of it being used as a shock site, if not that it actively is. Foolish Child 10:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cadaver.org

Is this a separated Web site or just part of Rotten.com?

[edit] Orange juice verifiability

The tubgirl section needs a citation referencing evidence that the liquid being expelled from the subject's anus is indeed orange juice. I have no reason to believe it isn't but where is the proof?

There is no verafication that it is orange juice.

[edit] Sources?!

I, for one, am utterly confused by this whole "verify it" stuff. What exactly are we supposed to verify? As it currently stands, it seems that nobody has any clue how to check verifiability, and this is the cause of our problems. Feh. ~ Flameviper 17:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

---

[edit] Meatspin

Where is meatspin?Meatspin redirects here but there is nothing to be found about meatspin.It must have been delted.Would it be ok if i put up information about meatspin again? Dermo69 12:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't, unless you have a reliable, independent source for the information you add. I recently removed Meatspin from the article again, with apologies to ViperSnake -- he found a source (the "Lazy Guide to Net Culture (NSFW)" from Scotsman.com) which we can't use because it itself is based on a previous unsourced version of this article. Mangojuice^talk 14:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a reliable source discussing meatspin's sale. It is ridiculous that the site isn't up http://digg.com/tech_news/Meatspin.com_sold_

Not reliable. And it doesn't back up the most important part of the information. Digg.com is a web forum; anyone can submit info if they want. (And we used to have a link to the Ebay auction itself before.. but that only talks about a domain being sold, not about Meatspin as a shock site.) Mangojuice^talk 10:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Meatspin is basically a cynical ploy to get click-throughs. I agree it should not be included; in any case, we're now into the "me too" generation of shock sites and there needs to be something pretty sectacular to elevate it above the common herd. Guy 20:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] Deletion Reccomended!

This article contains useless sites that can have no benefit to people at all. Maybe friends can joke eachother into going into the sites, but that's about it. These sites are grotesque and need to be removed, along with this whole article. Some of these sites contain pornography, viruses, trojans, and more horrible things. If a hacker gets on someone's site they could come to this wiki, look for one of these sites, and redirect the homepage he is hacking to the shock site. A friend could trick a gullible friend into going to the site. None of these things have any benefits to anyone at all. People don't even need to know this information because it can not benefit them in any way positive, besides for them to make a mental note to never go to that site... This topic needs to be deleted because of these reasons.

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Luna Santin 05:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I did, I am nominating it for deletion just as it says I should, thank you very much. Opinions on deletion go here people!!

The learning curve is a bit steep, unfortunately; please direct your comments (probably this whole paragraph you typed here is good) to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shock site. Also, I'd encourage you to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~), which will automatically add your name and the time, when posting on talk pages. Thanks and good luck. Luna Santin 05:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been nearly tricked to enter these sites if it weren't for this article. Many forums and web pages recommend this article for an updated reference to links which are dangerous or unpleasant before entering a link left by someone. I think that with suitable warnings the article can stay as a way to defend ourselves from this grotesque pranks. --189.135.69.96 05:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Deletion of this entry

I think the page must not be deleted since it just prevented me from going to one of those sites.

[edit] From Wikipedia: No Disclaimer Templates

"Why they should not be used

   * Redundant with the Disclaimer link at the end of every page.
   * Hard to define which articles should have a disclaimer (how would you define an "adult content" article, for instance, given that it varies wildly by culture).
   * Wikipedia is not censored.
   * The lack of the disclaimer on certain pages as opposed to others might open Wikipedia to lawsuits.
   * By the time you see them, it's too late — the article has already been loaded."

and so, I'm deleting the disclaimer Blueaster 21:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A proposal

Since there is concern over whether or not shock sites in itself is a notable enough topic to merit its own article, then perhaps the content of this article should be merged with Internet troll. If no one raises any objection to this within the next two days, I'm willing to go through with it.--Rouge Rosado Oui? 03:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it should definitely be merged! Sumperson01 05:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Although it pains me to say so, I think we probably shouldn't. Frankly, the Troll (Internet) article is horrendous, full of original research and amateur classifications of trolling, and it's very long already. Focus on rewriting Troll (Internet), that's what would really help. Mangojuice^talk 14:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• The irony is that the troll discussion page has trolling on it! But anyway I 'disagree' it should remain seperate. RBlowes 15:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• I disagree as well. The term "shock site" has, for better or for worse, been coined at this point, and is notable enough to deserve its own article. I wouldn't mind seeing this article expanded though. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 23:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• "shock site" is a legitimate entry, period.Sys Hax 06:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other shock sites section

I saw somebody had removed this section, and I thought that was actually rather proactive. Neither of these two sites listed has anything resembling a proper source. I really feel it would be better to purge both of these from the article. The others may have tenuous sourcing, but these have absolutely none - just primary sourcing to confirm the existence of said sites. Hardly of encyclopaedic quality. GassyGuy 05:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

If you want to remove them go ahead. I think the sourcing is as good there as elsewhere in the article. I just ask that you watch this page and continue to defend against the reintroduction of material you remove.. because it will come back otherwise, with lower quality. Mangojuice^talk 07:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

I just replaced the references that Blueaster removed. While I appreciate that those references aren't ideal and don't back up everything in their entry, that doesn't mean the article is better off without them. May I suggest adding {{fact}} tags where you feel like additional sourcing is necessary? If the statements are verifiable, we should ask for references. If they're unverifiable, the content should be removed... not given without references at all. Mangojuice^talk 01:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] references

i was going to remove some more references and then paste this list in, but i had to go somewhere... i'm just going to post this and see what you guys think...

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=759&id=651492004 (It references THIS ARTICLE, on WP as a source for its info!)

http://www.blackraven.cx/ (It's a primary source, an automated message talking about the policy of a company. Although its very existance does say something, any interpretation of this would count as original research)

http://goatse.cx/ (same reason as above)

http://web.archive.org/web/20040109213953/http://goatse.cx/ (this is definately a primary source, as it offers zero information and any analysis of this that has not been already published would count as original research. However, this looks like a good candidate for an external link)

http://web.archive.org/web/*sa_/http://lemonparty.org/ (raw data- a primary source- is useless to WP)

[edit] a really big problem...

if you google "tubgirl" and "orange juice", you end up with several pages of results with anecdotes of how people stumbled across the "fact", via Wikipedia, that tubgirl is expelling orange juice, and not any other liquid.

suddenly the fact that we can find no reliable source of this dubious factoid becomes 10 times more important, since this article IS affecting what people think and are saying about tubgirl. We don't want WP to become responsible for spreading any misinformation, and if we don't do something soon, everyone will be quoting WP on this, and if it's wrong, it will be a serious blow to WP's credibility.

And so, I'm giving everyone four days, ending monday, or perhaps earlier, based on your consensus or impatience, to find solid proof that tubgirl is for sure a part of a series of artistic photos, and that the spurting liquid is really orange juice. Otherwise, the sentence goes, and will never be brought back, ever.

I know we all want to believe this sentence, since it's much easier to take and makes the picture seem alot less gross, but still, we have to follow WP guidelines, and now that we find out that this article is read by countless people on teh intarweb, we need to up the quality of the article if we wanna call ourselves good editors.

Peace, Blueaster 02:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If anyone ever finds a source for it, we can put it back in. But yeah, until then, might as well get rid of it. BTW, I removed the scotsman source entirely; no point to it, it's circular reasoning to include it, and there's a link here on the talk page anyway. The other four are primary sources that back up virtually nothing of the text. However most of the text in each of those entries can be backed up by the sites themselves (though again, as a primary source). You're right about the "orange juice" business, of course: that requires a source. A lot of the work I had previously put in here was insisting that a source be found that describes each of the sites as a shock site, with some kind of reliability to it: the Snopes.com article does this for Goatse, and there are sources for the others but not as good as that. Mangojuice^talk 04:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removed the questionable orange juice factoid, as promised

here it is if anyone needs to see it It was believed this liquid was feces, but after revealing that this was one image out of a series, the liquid is simply orange juice Blueaster 23:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's the use?

What's the use of this page if everyone is deleting sites off everytime they're added? You know, this article doesn't deserve to stay if this keep happening. And what is this whole deal about "references and notability"? Aren't these sites ALREADY well-known enough by everyone to be on the list? Also, just because someone doesn't like the content doesn't mean that it can be removed like meatspin, bottleguy and hai2u.

Faris b 16:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WHAT???

what is the point of this page? it is just to describe the shock sites.

why not put the "list of shock sites" as part of the external links section, or as a new article? Jontsang 20:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine, let's have another article or an external links section have them then.

Faris b 01:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• I don't quite understand why everyone is asking for "verification" all the time. Well, that is to say, I do and I don't. Yes, every page needs to have reliable information on it- that's the nature of an encyclopaedia, whether online or not- but does anyone actually know how any of these weird and wonderful shock sites came into being, in truth, and was anyone supposed to know? Those elderly men the page mentions as kissing and having sex on a bed- do we have their names? Do we know whose penis the "Penis Bird" parrot is sitting on? Or whose parrot it is? What country it was in? Or whether it was wild or domesticated? Did the "tubgirl" volunteer to have her picture taken or was she forced? Was she paid to do it? Was the photographer's name Fred...? I'd say another aspect of a shock site is that nobody knows where the pictures or video clips came from. If that isn't a sufficient enough reason to bring back the sites that have been removed from here, then I should say the whole thing should be deleted. The shock site's role is to do just that, shock- or entertain. People don't watch them to wonder about where they came from. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.81.33.111 (talk • contribs).

People are asking for verification because of our policy which requires that every article be verifiable from reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. If that makes it hard to discuss individual shock sites then maybe it means we simply shouldn't be doing that, and should restrict ourselves to discussing the phenomenon of the shock site, which can be done within policy. If you want to document what you consider to be shock sites, but you have no reliable secondary sources, please find another Wiki to document them on - this is an encyclopaedia, not a web directory. Guy (Help!) 09:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• I wasn't necessarily insinuating that I wanted to be directed anywhere; merely suggesting what other people are saying: that the whole thing should be deleted, or that the guidelines should be relaxed, if only because something like this comes with so little information. CO.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it's not an information dump site or a collection of inexhaustable lists, and definately not an attempt at noting everything there is to know about anything. This article is sufficient enough to give the idea of what a shock site is. There is no set WP article length, if it's short, it's short. There's no need to ruin a perfectly consise (actually still a bit bloated) article by adding any more unverifiable information. We need to stick to secondary sources here (although we've already compromised alot in what we've allowed.) Blueaster 04:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re-adding LastMeasure

I re-added Last Measure to the list. Apparently someone thinks that because there should be no article about the GNAA on Wikipedia, no article should mention the GNAA. Let me disagree. Sam Hocevar 23:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

i have no problems with that, although you couldve at least edited it first to fix its horrible writing style Blueaster 00:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I can fix that, too, but I’d rather do that in two steps otherwise it’s hard to know what was changed. Sam Hocevar 12:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] READ THIS! (From the article, Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is Not)

In the section, Wikipedia is Not an Indiscriminate Collection of Information

5. Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples.

Which means, that we should concern ourselves with more than just describing shocksites. Which is why I'm opposed to adding any more site entries, unless they cite secondary sources' analyses of these sites. Blueaster 04:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swollentip.com

Check it. I think it far surpasses most of the article's listings in terms of shock value.