Talk:Shock site

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:
Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please see prior discussion(s) before considering re-nomination:
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] WP:IAR

Mangojuice, everyone here knows it, some speak out, some don't. You kill this page. Wikipedia is meant for providing information on a range of topics and editors are supposed to make constructive edits, while editors who make destructive edits (you know, deletion of information, that kind of thing) are called vandils. Now we have an admin who deliberately makes destrucive edits and people who, after looking at the abysmal wikipedia page look elsewhere for shocksite information. (Bluwiki and now scribblewiki) So this obviously means that the edits are not for the betterment of wikipedia. But don't worry, mangojuice is backed up by the rules! Or more appropriately, one rule. The notability rule. Famous shocksites such as hai2u, last measure, lemonparty, tubgirl, meatspin and heck, bottleguy are not considered notable because no respectable website, book or magazine is desperate enough to write about sites which depict people insituations which make you wanna throw up. But luckily wikipedia foresaw this kind of thing and made the following rule: Ignore all rules. WP:IAR Its simple and its exactly whats going on here. The notability rule is preventing editors from improving this article. And this is the exact situation that WP:IAR is for. So now, can we PLEASE make this article somewhat useful so they don't end up having to go to other wikipedias?----Cjhard (talk) 08:51, 5 January 2008

Agree with you there, rules are what is holding us back from putting in the rest of the shock sites into the article, lemonparty, hai2u etc. I would like them to be in the article, but someone will say 'We need the sites to be verified as a shock site', which I guess does and doesn't make sense, if no one writes about them, then how can they be verified? They can't.Liquinn (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've heard this argument before. WP:IAR is for places where the rules don't make sense, where the letter of the rules goes against the spirit. That's not the case here; we're talking about the big principles of what Wikipedia is and what it isn't. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means that its burdensome sourcing requirements prevent it from being cutting-edge. That's what the info about shock sites is: it's too cutting-edge for Wikipedia. Someone has to break the ground somewhere else first and then we follow. I came to this page as a result of one of its deletion debates, which nearly ended up deleting the page had it not been for the fact that this topic is appropriate. I like to think that without me and the people helping me, this page would have degenerated so far that it would be deleted by now. Mangojuicetalk 18:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with you there, hopefully Cjhard understands. Liquinn (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the sites should be added here. Wikipedia is here as a resource, and it seems ridiculous that the current application of the WP:N rules are causing unheard of shock sites such as "charonboat" to be listed, when well known ones such as bottleguy are not. Wikipedia should not be right at the forefront of these things, you're right, lest this page, and wikipedia itself, become a record of what is fashionable at that specific moment, or become bogged down with useless information, but sites such as lemonparty.org and meatspin.com are not new: they are established, and deserve a mention on this page. ImperviusXR (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

How is CharonBoat a shock site? Last time I went on it? It had nothing on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liquinn (talk • contribs) 14:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CharonBoat removal

I feel the time has come for this discussion, the last time I went on this site, (CharonBoat.com), it contained fuck all content on it, so I am wondering if it should remain in the article, or be mentioned the content is somehow not there, if someone else can confirm there's no content on there.Liquinn (talk) 15:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BME Pain Olympics Final Round

I think this shock site should be notable enough. There are enough reactions on YouTube to make this a well-known site. --Chinese3126 (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

What site are you on about? Let me know what the shock site name/url is. We first need to establish that the site is well known, before we can take any further action.Liquinn (talk) 14:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is a shock sites as such; I think it is just a video, where people willingly cut off their 'male parts' (someone mentioned 'hatchet vs genitals below, probably referring to this). This is the most extreme form of body modification. Buckethed (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it does deserves a add. I seen it and its starting to be passed around the web. There has been reactions and etc. Also if its acually a video of people who will try their best to hurt them selfs then there should be a official site for it plus info on the event and such. --҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 21:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, it if doesn't receive any notability, then it shouldn't be mentioned here. --Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 21:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Newer List of Shock Sites (December 2007)

I have found this site: http://shocksites.scribblewiki.com/Main_Page made by one of the original creators of the massive Bluwiki page that used to exist. It could do with some tidying, but, I was wondering if there is any way that (once tidied up), a link to this page could be given?. It would likely hugely decrease vandalism on this page (as people can put stuff there instead), with only notable shock sites going into this main article? Any ideas on this? Thanks! Buckethed (talk) 04:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC) You need to verify the site, before you add the link's to the article xLiquinn (talk) 15:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New List of Shock Sites

SINCE WIKIPEDIA DOESNT LIKE LULZ, CHECK THIS OUT FOR LULZ! http://www.digg.com/offbeat_news/List_of_Shock_Sites_finds_a_new_home_again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.87.161.157 (talk) 12:54, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

www.meatspin.com meatspin is definatly a shock site 2 men having anal sex with the one receiveing swirling his penis around and around.

www.2girls1cup.com Scatporn female shits in a cup they do something never made it past that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.176.164 (talk) 02:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Umm, they do a bit more than just that. Be glad you didn't watch it o_o I was gagging at a couple points... --76.238.37.203 22:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This page really should mention "Last Measure." The Wikipedia page for Last Measure redirects to this article, but this article makes no mention of it. It should likely mention nimp.org. Nimp.org is also associated with a group of Wikipedia vandals, particularly one named Blu Aardvark. He has been banned multiple times and has set up multiple sock puppet accounts. The group behind nimp.org is also the group that started the ban The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers movement, according to the article mentioned on the top of this page. I'd at least assume a site like that is close to being notable enough to mention in an article on shock sites. Mandanthe1 23:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

So I am definitely not understanding why there can't be a list of shock sites. If someone wants to know where they can be found, why can Wikipedia not provide this service? Eehellfire (talk) 09:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

We can, if we have reliable sourcing to back up the information. Just like everything else on Wikipedia, we are only supposed to include verifiable information. Mangojuicetalk 13:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as strict as you might think it is, we have policies to stop any person making a shock site, and it gets posted up on Wikipedia, unless there is documents, facts, or whatever, as long as it can be verified as a well known shock site, I fail to see the benefit of adding these type of sites that can't be verified as well known to the article.Liquinn (talk) 15:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] this page is a joke

Why are all the major shock sites such as meatspin and lemonparty not included? Surely NO ONE would challenge their status of shock sites? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.254.241 (talk) 22:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

yer where 2 girls one 1 cup —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.43.128 (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Because they need SOURCES - Albeit, Lemonparty is now on the list. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference #7 is fake

Reference #7 is not a relevent reference for this article; it is a fake article about something called the "Gay N*gger Association of America". I am assuming it's corresponding line in the article (This photograph was taken by snid) is also fake. Since the page is locked, someone else has to edit this, but it definitely should be edited.
67.85.133.134 23:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC) chasdenonno

Yup. I thought we had gotten rid of that one as unreliable. I removed the info sourced from that plus the source. Mangojuicetalk 00:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] suggesting cupchicks.com/2girls1cup.com

I think that cupchicks.com (a horrible shocksite which contains a short video of two girls making out, then one of the girls takes a shit in a glass held by the other, then they eat the feces and vomit on each other) has a place in the list of shocksites but it is filtered and can't be added... is it still possible to added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarpeDiemIsrael (talk • contribs) 17:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source writing about this site? Mangojuicetalk 18:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
None yet but I will be looking for ones. Thank you. CarpeDiemIsrael 18:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a relatively new one. It appears on both 2girls1cup.com (link removed) and cupchicks.com (link removed), though it's the same video. 2girls1cup.com was registered on August 12, 2007 (whois record has protected identity), and cupchicks.com was registered August 23, 2007 (by a Steve Harris, NSFW Pty Ltd, in Bristol, United Kingdom). I suspect the second registration is a mirror, though why anybody would even think about mirroring or hosting this is beyond me. It's shock value is about 100 orders of magnitude greater than goatse and tubgirl combined. Just simply, totally disgusting.

Anyway, it's still pretty new. I would think that it was put online to coincide with the start of the fall 2007 academic year for college students. I suspect we'll be seeing more of this propogate through the web's message boards & forums as the months go on; it's already been put on urban dictionary, reddit, digg, and several reaction videos have been posted to youtube.

Of course, I don't have any proof, but the "feces" in the video looks a heck of a lot like chocolate ice cream. I suspect it's a well-constructed fake. That unfortunately doesn't make it any less gross, though. Dr. Cash 06:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


dude if it was ice cream then it still came from her ass. and it is poo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.43.128 (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, not necessarily. If you look again (as I know you want to) there is a break in between where the girl, um, 'excretes' the 'substance' and where the girl actually starts eating it. So they could have A) shot one take of the girl crapping, mixed some crushed nuts/vanilla ice cream into chocolate ice cream to get the same color/consistency, and then filmed the rest of the clip using the ice cream, or B) started out with the ice cream and somehow gotten it into the girl's rectum (perhaps with an enema). Just some, ahem, food for thought.

[edit] Meatspin

Where is meatspin.com??? meatspin doesn't even redirect to here. D-Fluff has had E-Nuff 18:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It was removed because it doesn't meet notability for a website.--Isotope23 talk 18:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
So why no redirect then? D-Fluff has had E-Nuff 19:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Those were deleted per a request for deletion. Since Meatspin isn't covered here, it is basically useless to redirect here.--Isotope23 talk 13:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I know you serious wikipedians are all about your policies, but past versions of the article are much more complete. It's kind of ridiculous for me to have to dig through the article's history from a year or two ago to find a better treatment of the subject. Not that you weren't going to do it anyway, but feel free to quote more policies here so I can also learn how to butcher an article effectively. D-Fluff has had E-Nuff 14:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll only quote 1: WP:N. Those more "complete" versions should have never been posted here in the first place.--Isotope23 talk 19:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, that's a helpful policy to know! D-Fluff has had E-Nuff 00:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If we need a redirect, it should be to the DC Inside article. This is the only article that talks about it. Skwee (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Explain to me again why there is no MeatSpin? Its a classic! Tell yourt friends hey, check out me at spin .com--Cartman005 01:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

How is meatspin not notable? It's practically a staple on every "fratty" website on the internet.216.188.238.98 (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

SeeWP:N, WP:RS, WP:WEB, and WP:V.--Isotope23 talk 12:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "the execution of a Russian soldier in Chechnya"

Believe me not that I have any interest in watching it, but didn't "the execution of a Russian soldier in Chechnya" video mentioned in the Ogrish section, have a name e.g as in goatse? In fact didn't it have an article? I'm just curious as to what the name of it was, can anyone tell me? Ryan4314 20:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

chechclear.wmv Earfetish1 20:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] i added Lemonparty.org

I don't think I put on enough info about it, but that's all I remember from the site, and I really don't want to look at it again. I also link to a reference of a video interview where Superbad actors discuss the page while doing press for the movie. I saw on another article's discussion, they said Youtube isn't okay to use as a source, so if whoever is not down with that, just take it off. ChesterG 17:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It's utterly idiotic to make an outright ban on YouTube as a source, because YouTube is just another medium. In this case, we're not talking about some user-uploaded video but an interview with CELEBRITIES on MOVIEFONE that just HAPPENS to be on YouTube, because, guess what, that's an easy way to source videos in an online encyclopedia. The whole point of these debates is to establish notability - if celebrities are talking about it in interviews and the internet is full of references and parodies, then it's pretty obvious it's notable as a part of that very internet culture, and latching on to a technicality like 'reliable sources' when the subject itself is such that it would never be covered by mainstream media just seems stubborn, counterproductive, and curmudgeonly. Regardless, the clip you're referring to is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QspVBPkmP5Q and I think, being an official interview by Moviefone, it is at least as reliable as the VH1 clip that finally put the 2girls1cup on here. I'm gonna put the Lemonparty info back up in a bit with that as a source if no one else does it before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baligant (talk • contribs) 19:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Lemonparty was obviously removed again. I have re-added it. This time I have sourced it with an accurate and factual description of the website; with a link to a short film that was made to parody the site; and with information regarding a reference made to the site on the American television sitcom 30 Rock. Although I agree that every single potentially shocking website doesn't qualify as well known enough to have its own entry on this page, obviously if one had gotten famous enough to be slyly mentioned in a mainstream TV show, it is a testament to how well know the site is in general. TheGoonSquad (talk) 15:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly pornographic sites & Talk page needs cleanip

I have added a warning just under the external links category. I fear that users (possibly underage or those who may not know what they are clicking on) will go to an external site which they shouldn't be on. I haven't seen or been able to find a template for the warning that should be provided near adult links, so I improvised. Please only edit if you feel you have a legitimate reason to edit.


Oh, and this talk page needs cleanup... "WIKIPEDIA DOESNT LIKE LULZ" is not contributing to the page.

--Ts1and2fanatic 02:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there are some unhelpful comments on here. But generally, we don't remove comments unless there's a good reason to. As for the warning, I just removed the external links section instead, since none of the links are informative, but are merely more examples that have previously been removed from the article. Mangojuicetalk 01:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2girls1cup.com

Why do people keep adding this? There's no evidence of notability, it's unsourced, and I don't think it's even worth putting on the article. And since there are multiple users putting it on the page without reason, I'm beginning to sense sockpuppetry. --AAA! (AAAA) 02:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It's probably a hot meme right now. It'll pass. Mangojuicetalk 14:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
How do you not see the irony of what you're saying in that sentence right there? The whole topic we're dealing with IS memes! So because it's popular it shouldn't be documented?
Don't think so, it's already very big. Tons of movies with peoples reactions to it avialable (look at Break.com, etc). I think it will quialify as a classic. 78.69.52.158 20:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Yep, I doubt puppetry. People see the YouTube vids and run here to add it. Many of the editors adding it have been contributing here for a while.--Isotope23 talk 20:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, for starters, I apologise for not checking the talk page before making the entry or even before undoing your delete Iso, but I think it most definitely meets the requirements for notability and references (the site is still live, so if it wouldn't be so disgusting to people I would add a link directly to it). Its possibly the most viewed shock site at the moment, and definitely the most "responded to" (1060 youtube reaction vids as opposed to 14 and 11 for tubgirl and goatse respectively). it is also arguably one of the most shocking sites to date. it hardly seems accurate not to mention it in this article. the reason so many people keep adding it is most likely that a lot of people feel it belongs here. if we still cant reach an agreement, perhaps we should have a vote? LarsHolmberg 22:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
They may feel it belongs here, but without verification of notability from reliable sources, it doesn't belong here. Voting isn't the way things are done at Wikipedia; we discuss to form consensus, but consensus doesn't override policy and guideline. If you have reliable sources to establish notability I think this absolutely should be here, but I don't see those sources at this time.--Isotope23 talk 23:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
As stated in WP:Notability, "Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by other guidelines such as those on using reliable sources and on handling trivia. The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines." I think the immense reaction from people, particularly the posting of so many videos on youtube clearly demonstrates what an impact it has had, and that definitely motivates inclusion in the article. As for verification, I would love to hear what claims I'm making that are not supported by the sources provided. Could you think of a better source for the fact that exceptionally many youtube response videos have been posted other than youtube itself for example? Also, wikipedia guidelines do not support the arbitrary deletion of stuff in this manner (assuming you still think verifyability is a problem). If you feel the content needs some refinement, please do not put it in the trashcan every time somebody adds it, instead you should add the appropriate markup. Good content can not always start from nothing, there is a process involved. LarsHolmberg 12:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, if you can provide reliable sources that demonstrate this is a notable site, I would wholeheartedly agree it should be added. A series of YouTube videos is not a reliable source for notability. Beyond that, sorry, I don't agree with you on markup. If it is unsourced, it is out of the article until sourcing is provided. It can easily be retrieved from the article history if someone can find citations and sourcing that demonstrate notability.--Isotope23 talk 13:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Completely concur with Isotope. The thing is, if no one has bothered to write something reliable about the website or its content, we can't say anything about the site without what we say being original research, and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. If you care so much, why not try to get some internet-focussed publication to write an article about the site? Frankly, that's where things are puzzling: people seem to think these shock sites are a major part of internet culture but they are so universally ignored in reliable publications. Mangojuicetalk 18:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Google news turns up one posible source.Geni (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Search engine tests don't work. Youtube and other video sharing websites should not be used to establish notability. Do we need a page on Buffalax because his videos get millions of views?YVNP (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
This video is discussed in a segment of VH1's Best Week Ever. Amusingly, Wikipedia's lack of coverage is also mentioned. Pvl (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Google Trends shows facts of the popularity trends between a few shock sites. Dan Leveille (talk) 10:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't the fact that there is a reaction video of Joe Rogan watching this, and a parody video featuring John Mayer make it notable enough? Saying that YouTube videos are not a reliable source for internet memes is ridiculous - YouTube videos and forum postings are THE MEDIUM for internet memes and if Wikipedia is to reliably cover them AS THEY OCCUR (and not a year later, as with the Chuck Norris facts), it's going to have to drop this stupid prejudice and fetish for "reliable media" (like the New York Times is really going to a do a piece on shock sites). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.207.114 (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, the "Best Week Ever" segment, although it never mentions the site by name, is definitely a reliable source. This now has my full support. Mangojuicetalk 17:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I apoligize for my mistake. I just remember now about the John Mayer thing. There are quite a few of those. But all that shows is that there should be a PASSING mention of these videos on their page. Forums and youtube are not acceptable unless there is proof that a meme is found across enough popular forums and websites. Benny Lava (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the "Best Week Ever" segment describes this thing as a popular meme, and so does the article Geni found that isn't used as a source in the article yet but will be. Once we have that sourcing, I think it's okay to use primary sourcing for a couple of examples. Mangojuicetalk 14:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I only see a commercial site at www.2girls1cup.com now. No video. Only a request for money therefore I remove it. Update: I can't remove it because the article is semi-protected. I invite enstablished registered users to delete it. --87.15.203.56 (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.15.203.56 (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Why dont we just put the popular ones where they are, then put the unpopular ones like Lemonparty and cursed sanctuary in a list, with a short description? Skane 18:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Lack of reliable sources. Mangojuicetalk 04:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] new shocksite

any chance of inclusing www.timetopuke.com which has most of the shock sites bundled into one? eg 2girls1cup, hatchet vs genitals etc etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timetopuke (talk • contribs)

If you can show us some realiable sources and prove its notability, then yes, we might. --AAA! (AAAA) 04:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rule of Thumb

I've noticed many debates over notability on this discussion page, and propose using Google to determine notability. Here are some examples:

  • Goatse-1,400,000 hits
  • Tubgirl-165,000 hits
  • Lemonparty-78,000 hits
  • Meatspin-97,600 hits
  • 2Girls1Cup + Cupchicks-A whopping total of 13,570,000 hits (added together)
  • Bottleguy-646 hits
  • Teletorrents-305 hits

So, which of these are well-known and which are not? Debate and decide. Skwee (talk) 02:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

How about if we use our guidelines instead? The search engine test is a bad one. --Haemo (talk) 05:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Or just simply WP:V. We can't write about any topic without reliable sources. Mangojuicetalk 17:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Well...Lemonparty has been on TV. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Or1zm6Ub7c4 And WP:GOOGLE says the search engine test is a rule of thumb. 74.212.39.109 (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Amusing youtube spot, but of course that's not TV. Mangojuicetalk 20:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2girls1finger

Should 2girls1finger be put in? It is clearly a shock site, which makes 2girls1cup look tame and has loads of very bad links below it. It is very shocking :( Buckethed (talk) 02:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't, unless there's coverage in reliable sources. Mangojuicetalk 04:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
There appears to be here.Geni 03:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Nice work - there's another source we can use for 2girls1cup. However, that isn't about "2girls1finger" which is apparently not the same. Mangojuicetalk 04:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
This seems to solve the issue of what happened in that video. This should be mention in the Corophagia page perhaps.:)YVNP 17:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you honestly think that "Deep Thrusts" or whatever the fuck is more notable than 2girls1finger? I never heard of the former before looking at this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.255.197 (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pain Series

Pain series redirects here, but there's no information about it on this page. 67.163.166.150 (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I've taken care of the problem. If you're curious, you can look through old revisions. Mangojuicetalk 21:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shrewsbury pics

They should be deleted since they are not pics of the site and are just pics of the site. Just find the real story or post the shock site to compare with the new website.(not really necessary)YVNP (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] lemonparty again

So recently, Lemonparty was added back in on the basis of three external links. Two of them were postings of a parody video that has been circulating on YouTube. One is just the video, the other is a brief column about it that appears on a website vaguely linked to VH1; the text claimed this appeared on the show but that's not what the website indicates. Furthermore, these sources don't make any reliable claims about the shock site. The third link is backing up a very dubious reference in a sitcom, but it's just someone's blog, not a reliable source anyway. So what we've got here is a couple of blogs. I don't think this cuts it, but if others disagree I'm interested to hear where my analysis is off. Mangojuicetalk 05:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

A search of "lemon party" and "30 Rock" brings up over a thousand discussions of people's citings of the far from dubious reference to the website on that show. (Twice.) How you could call it "dubious" is beyond me; it was blatant and implicit and intentional. What's going on here is that people are playing little games with the edits to try and posture positions of authority, and it's getting to cross the line of acceptable wiki behavior. Why would you demand sources that are not equally demanded for "TubGirl"? The only source there is rotten.com, a website that perhaps defines dubiousness. If anything "lemon party" has been sourced BETTER than most of the entries in this article. I am putting the content back in for what is now a FOURTH time, and if it is removed again, I'm going to demand administrative intervention. TheGoonSquad (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The point is, we don't get to decide if it was a reference or not, but even if it is, we need reliable sources that talk about Lemonparty the shock site. You do have a good point about Tubgirl's sourcing; it's totally inadequate, so I'm going to remove that one. Mangojuicetalk 15:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

ogrish banned in germany? thats simply not true... i and all my friends can access the site (now liveleak) without problems - i doubt that the government would have the jurdical rights to do that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.208.148.40 (talk) 12:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It says it was banned, back when it was actually Ogrish; not that it's banned now. Mangojuicetalk 16:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brooklyn bizaro

The site is run by Jimmy Palmiotti of comic book fame. He has done many notable comics like deadpool and it is used for his comics as well. It should mentioned.YVNP (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Meatspinned

Hey guys, I just added a bit about meatspinned. i think i got most of the info wrong. edit it if you tgink i have. --Jasper1066 (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC) Not notable for reasons stated long ago. Years ago. No new notability exist198.189.252.243 (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Man-X

www.Man-X.org appears to feature webcams monitoring decaying human corpses. Not sure if real or hoax. Disguised and advertised as a porn site with "live webcams showing beautiful bodies" and a typical "click here if you are 18 or older" disclaimer. - link verified and info added 1 jan 2008. 78.21.206.84 (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not disguised it states what it is. It is has few hits.198.189.252.243 (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Three things

(1) Should we put new entries to the discussion page at the top, or bottom, of this discussion page?

(2) Should out.ihang.org be included? It shows some guy walking around department stores, 'hanging out' and openly doing bad things. It shocked me a lot :(

(3) Should www.nutsintheass.com be included? It is a truly shocking site, feature a clip where someone puts his, 'nuts' into someones 'ass' :'( These minor shock sites seem to be proliferating at a ridiculous rate! Buckethed (talk) 04:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Standard practice on Wikipedia is to put new threads at the bottom of the page on talk pages. As for 2 and 3: if there are reliable sources about them they can go in, but this has generally not been the case for all but some of the very most notorious shock sites. Mangojuicetalk 14:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I have moved this to the bottom - it was unclear from the dates of the entries above! Buckethed (talk) 07:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I readded lemonparty and meatspin

I've got five letters for you: WP:IAR. This is most definitely the correct time to apply this underused rule. As we all know, Wikipedia is NOT (WP:NOT) an indiscriminate collection of information, so clearly this article should not just contain information on every single minor shock site that might spring up, but Wikipedia is also not a beaurocracy. To quote from WP:NOT, "Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines if you feel they conflict." I believe that there are serious conflicts here. I think we can all agree that the perfect state of this article would be to have all the major shock sites listed here, and verifiably sourced, with no pollution from unheard of shock sites such as "charonboat"; the WP:N rule is supposed to make sure that these unheard of sites do not enter into wikipedia, but it seems to have failed here quite dramatically. Because of the nature of this article's content, no verifiable sources will exist for many reputable and well known shock sites. However, by applying these principles that are part of the underlying laws upon which Wikipedia is founded, we can create an article about shock sites with all the characteristics of that perfect article I just described, save one small point: we take the forum posts, the blog submissions, the youtube videos, and in the cases of well known shock sites, such as meatspin, lemonparty, or hai2u, we simply do not take a source. This course of action benefits the article, the wikipedians, and the casual reader, who now has a good page to read about shock sites. Rules are necessary to the wellbeing of wikipedia, but sometimes we need to break those rules. ImperviusXR (talk) 11:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:WIARM -- IAR does not say that we should not aim to be a reliable encyclopedia just because it suits us. I'm reverting your change, because although editors have known about Lemonparty and Meatspin for years now, there have still been no sources, which means that that information is not verifiable. If you want this in so badly, go find some real sources. Someday, I'm sure, they will exist. Until then, set up a blog or something if you want the information to be out there. Wikipedia is not the place for original work. Mangojuicetalk 14:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
to quote WP:WIARM ""Ignore all rules" does not sabotage the other rules. Its purpose is to keep them from sabotaging what we're doing here: building a free encyclopedia." Clearly, in the case of this article, the notability rules are holding back this article's usefulness and reliability. I really do not see how you can think that WP:IAR does not apply here: this is the sort of rules clash that it was created to avoid! I don't want to start an edit war, so I won't put back the information on the two sites, but i really hope that we, the wikipedian community, can either reach a consensus on either side or build a compromise somehow. ImperviusXR (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Let's be specific. Forum posts are not good enough, because anyone could make some easily to influence the inclusion of their favorite shock site. (Heck, having been added to the Wikipedia article would probably be better proof than most forum posts.) In many cases I would be willing to agree that these posts are not made with conflicts of interest. But reliability? There is no way to assume, except in perhaps some very rare instances, that any of the material is accurate. People can just say whatever they want, there's no chance that any of it is fact-checked. It's really not reliable in any stretch of the imagination. I think the requirement for sourcing is absolute: we definitely must have some. As for less reliable-than-normal sources I think we are already stretching things a lot as it is. But let's at least talk about some specific sources. Mangojuicetalk 11:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Given that the only content that we are probably going to be putting on this page is the nature of the site, which is easily verifiable by visting the site in question, we just need proof of a specific site's notability. I reckon that we, as a community, could draw up a (short) list of shock sites that we find notable. ImperviusXR (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, proof. Proof is not opinion. It would be unacceptable to simply have people say what they think is notable and leave it at that. People have often come here to push for their favorite "new, up and coming" shock sites and that cannot be the standard. Look at List of Internet phenomena: there is no reason a topic like this cannot insist on sourcing. There are tons of Internet phenomena not covered there, but certainly the ones without reliable sources are not covered, no matter how momentarily popular they were. Mangojuicetalk 16:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
That isn't my point: my point is, that i am suggesting that we, the contributors of this page, draw up, by popular consensus, a list of perhaps two or three sites that are notable, and whose presence will improve this article. ImperviusXR (talk) 08:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Basing the threshhold for inclusion directly on opinions is not acceptable. We need some kind of principle on which to make the decision. The only one I would support is the existence of reliable sources on the subject: it is required anyway, and is already tough enough to meet. Early on we had tried things like Ghits and Alexa rank but they were very unreliable when it came to conformity with WP:V. Mangojuicetalk 14:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree: basing the inclusion on general wikipedian consensus would seem to me to be the best way to maintain an article of exceptional standard on the subject of shock sites. WP:IAR. ImperviusXR (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:IAR is a really lousy argument. Yes, one can ignore rules. But then, the rules are there because almost all the time they are correct. What makes this subject such an exception? Apparently, its extremely low level of coverage in reliable sources. Normally, such topics are either deleted, or if they remain included the coverage is limited to what is covered in reliable sources, and going beyond that is considered original research, which we try to avoid. So, why do none of those arguments apply here? Mangojuicetalk 05:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:IAR, as I have detailed above, describes this situation almost precisely- the rules are holding back the quality of this article. By acting as i have described above we can make this article sustainable, and better. Anyway, surely we can [WP:V]] the sites' descriptions based on the sites, the only thing that needs to be proven is notability. ImperviusXR (talk) 08:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
What makes this different from other subjects where there aren't any sources? In both cases, sticking to sources is holding us back from writing the article. And we disagree about the quality: I think the only way we get quality is by sticking to sourced material - it makes the article worse to include unsourced material. And I think WP:WIAFA and WP:WIAGA back up my opinion on quality. Mangojuicetalk 12:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:WIAFA requires an article to be " "Comprehensive" [which] means that the article does not neglect major facts and details." Neglecting to mention the most well known (yet unsourced) shock sites surely means that this article fails to meet this criterion. To the average wikipedia reader, this criterion easily outweighs the WP:N debate. ImperviusXR (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
For the third time, what makes this subject different from other subjects where there aren't any sources? Why should we not use your same argument to ignore WP:V and WP:NOR everywhere? This argument is a slippery slope and I see no reason we should depart from the principle here: there's nothing special about this subject. Mangojuicetalk 21:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
So are you saying that WP:IAR should never be applied? Clearly the rules in this case are standing in the way of a good, comprehensive article. ImperviusXR (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, for the fourth time, why doesn't your argument imply that we should ignore WP:V and WP:NOR everywhere: what makes this subject different from all the others? And yes, I am saying that we should never ignore WP:V and WP:OR. The text of the rules maybe, if it doesn't match the spirit, but never the spirit of those rules, which is what you are proposing. Mangojuicetalk 21:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
See also WP:WIARM#What "Ignore all rules" does not mean, specifically, it doesn't mean there is an exception to every rule, nor does is it an invitation to use Wikipedia for purposes contrary to WP:NOT (specifically, not a publisher of original thought). Mangojuicetalk 21:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
What you are saying goes directly against the rule WP:IAR. in other cases, application of those rules improves the quality of the article: here it clearly detracts from it. "The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should perhaps be ignored." ImperviusXR (talk) 08:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, if it wasn't obvious before, I am saying that the application of the rules here does not detract from the quality of the article. Application of the rules makes the article as good as it can be, because reliability and verifiability is much more important for quality than the misguided aim to cover unverifiable information. I have no idea why you think that general principle wouldn't apply here, when it makes such sense everywhere else. And you still haven't answered that, despite me asking it four (now five) times, nor do I think you possibly can. Mangojuicetalk 13:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I have answered the point, continually- the application of the rules is leading to this article being incomplete, covering random sites here and there without being comprehensive or reliable (ironically). I have said again and again that WP:IAR should definitely be applied here- you say that WP:N should never be contravened- I draw your attention to the "A" in "IAR". While it is true that we should not just allow any shock sites (because there are obviously thousands) to get in, i dont see why we shouldn't take two or three major ones without sources. After all, the information we would put on them is no less reliable than taken from a source- data from a wikipedian going to a website and reporting on it is surely more reliable when the site is the shock site in question than if it were a short piece on a website about that site. ImperviusXR (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
You are simply arguing that Wikipedia's core principles aren't important in general. All the things you have been saying apply just as well to any topic where there isn't enough reliable information to maintain encyclopedic coverage. You have time and again refused to explain why this topic is different from any other - the conclusion is inescapable that this topic is not different from any others, so the only reason to ignore the rule is to argue that the rule isn't important. And I see no logic at all to the idea that adding unreliable information to an article somehow makes it more reliable - it's not ironic, it's just wrong. Similarly, I do not think that it's a good idea to use "data from a wikipedian going to a website and reporting on it" - that is simply original research and there's no reason to think it would be usable here any more than it is usable anywhere else.
I think it's fair to say you are never going to convince me so you may as well stop trying. I'm probably not going to convince you either. Nonetheless, I think the precedent, and the fact that this stance has been upheld every time uninvolved but established Wikipedians have been called to comment on it indicates that we should continue handling things this way until there is consensus to change it.
FWIW I recognize that the list is kind of crappy. I for one would favor simply removing it. I don't think it's a valuable or legitimate goal of the encyclopedia to try to present a list of examples of shock sites. I've made this point before but received little feedback on it, and given the continuous amount of interest the list generates I've concluded that that solution isn't wanted. Alternatively, I wouldn't mind having a plain list of articles without any information about them -- the criterion for inclusion would just be whether or not there exists a stand-alone article on the subject (that describes the subject as a shock site) on Wikipedia. That would take care of the "CharonBoat" problem you pointed out - surely such minor, though sourced, incidents would not qualify for independent articles. Mangojuicetalk 16:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with you on your new suggestion for how a site can qualify for inclusion: I would rather have a few, well sourced and famous shock sites missing out a few who cannot be sourced than have a few, badly sourced, and not particularly famous sites being included. (Oh, and by the way, by "data from a wikipedian going to a website and reporting on it" i was referring to the system of legitimate sourcing that wikipedia has, making the point that having to search for these sources is much more ridiculous and unreliable than citing the actual site as a source for WP:V, although obviously this would not contribute to the WP:N side of things. Still, it was a small point, and does not really matter) I'll still keep a watchful eye open for sources and the like to be able to get information about better-known sites on wikipedia, and i'll keep an eye out for vandalism and unsourced references to the page, seeing as consensus has clearly not been fully reached on the issue. ImperviusXR (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mr Hands

This video (also called 2Guys1Horse & mrhands.mpg) has spawned many YouTube reaction videos. It shows this, which garnered national attention. Is national notoriety sufficient basis for including it in the article ? 205.238.227.157 (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it even a site? I don't think we should be calling viral videos "shock sites" if there isn't an actual site. Mangojuicetalk 17:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lemonparty.org

I added lemonparty.org again. It was removed. Let's settle this once and for all: Is lemonparty.org a shocksite. In my opinion, it most certainly is. How is lemonparty.org different from Goatse.cx? If no-one objects I will add it again in a couple days. I however don't want this to become an Wikipedia:Edit War. So if anyone objects please bring up concerns here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipedialuva (talk • contribs) 20:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read through the archives of this talk page. This has come up over and over, and we simply need reliable sources on the subject. Mangojuicetalk 20:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


Why is tubgirl redirected here? There is no mention of tubgirl in the entire article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.248.226 (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Shock Sites

This website has listings of all the major shock sites currently known.

http://www.thedogmatist.com/2007/the-definitive-list-of-shock-sites-and-media/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamez629 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BME Pain Olympics a.k.a. Hatchet v.s. Genitals

This site DESERVES to be added. I can GARENTEE YOU its worse than 2 Girls one Cup.

Reactions

I litterly gotten sick for the ENTIRE DAY watching this. I gaged on 2 Girls but THIS is a WHOLE NEW OTHER LEVEL. The Site Link is in the First Video right in the Summary area --҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 21:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources? As in, about its notability. --Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 21:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lemonparty

Okay, I personally think Lemonparty is notable enough for this list just because it has been referenced in culture obscurely:

  • Firstly, it has been referenced and alluded to TWICE on 30 Rock (most notably with the "It isn't a lemon party without Old Dick!" line in Ludachristmas, which ironically is a double-meaning line - hiddenly referencing the picture, plus the fact that there was a "Dick Lemon" in that episode).
  • The Best Week Ever blog did a story about the Talkshow sketch (and did also mention the fact that lemonparty is a shock image too)

Would this be good enough? ViperSnake151 15:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't think so. The 30 Rock joke is WP:OR without a source backing it up other than the show itself. The same applies to the "obvious allusion" in the Spike Feresten show. And the other one is a blog, not a reliable source, and in any case it has nothing to say about the shock site. Mangojuicetalk 00:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Also I linked the eBaums World version of the Lemonparty sketch and you hear Spike saying something like "Hey eBaums World, I didn't have the time to do Tubgirl, but here's Lemonparty" - that pretty much confirms that it was a takeoff on Lemonparty. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, you can cite episodes as a source. Also, I did remove the OR saying it was a Double entendre, and I'm just letting the reader piece the joke together themself (with Dick in the line, being a hyperlink to Penis) ViperSnake151 01:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ASCII art representation of PenisBird

I've restored and reworded the statement in the Other shock sites section about trolls posting ASCII art renditions of the image. This was removed with a edit summary saying that it was original research. I consider that it is not original research if you can clearly read the statement in the source, and that is what my rewording was trying to address. To me, it would be original research if there was no mention of it in the source, and some editor would have searched through Slashdot forums, seeing the text version and then added the statement to the article. –W2bh (talk) 12:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

  • As the edit that you mentioned was one of mine, i thought i should point out my reasoning. The source does not state that the ASCII version of the penis bird appears "from time to time" on slashdot, and with that removed, i did not think that this imitation of the picture (that does not stem directly from the page, but the trolls linking to it) was not then deserving of mention in this article. ImperviusXR (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedia Dramatica

I've added Encyclopedia Dramatica to the list with sources as it has been cited as a shock site by multiple sources. I have a draft of a proposed ED article at User:Urban Rose/ED and included parts of it in the article. If you think that the whole draft belongs in the article, I will add it, but my intent is not to go against the article's latest deletion review by recreating the article in this page, so I've only included the introduction and the mention of the incident involving Jason Fortuny.--Urban Rose 16:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any of the refs refer to it as a shock site, do they? It really isn't a shock site...there might be some "shocking" things on it but not in the sense of this usage. I removed it...RxS (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
To respond to the comment left on my talk page. ED doesn't exist primarily as a place to shock people, it's a parody site. There's ton's of site that have shocking content that are not shock sites. Please remove the section as it does not fit. And if you have a problem with other sites that are included, the way forward is to remove them (or discuss them here) and not to point them out as a new standard of inclusion. RxS (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
ED is not a shock site. None of the sources refer to it as a shock site, or even refer to it doing something shocking or offensive. It is known to be offensive to many, even not considered a shock site. Mangojuicetalk 18:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Two of the sources are written and cannot be verified, but one of the internet sources does specifically refer to the site as offensive. See my comment on your talk page.--Urban Rose 18:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Urban, let's keep the discussion here on this page where it belongs. Regardless of that source, it doesn't come close to describing the site as a "shock site" or any wording that means anything equivalent. Plus, out of three people who've commented, only you think this is a shock site, and frankly it sounds like you're doing it to preserve material that has been rejected elsewhere. Mangojuicetalk 19:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The reason I didn't include the entire draft of the article was to avoid recreating rejected material. And personally, I don't care how many people think it is or isn't a shock site. I think the site speaks for itself. But I'm not going to start an edit war so I won't be readding it anytime soon.--Urban Rose 02:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Last Measure and McAfee sitadvisor

Regarding Talk:Shock_site/Archive_3#Last_Measure - The blog in question appears to be owned by McAfee staff. If the person who wrote the entry is a McAfee staff member, then wouldn't this be a reliable source? WhisperToMe (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that might be reliable. It's called a blog, but it's not really a blog. Mangojuicetalk 03:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shouldn't meatspin.com be on the list?

It contains an image of a person spinning his penis around.

We know. No reliable sources talk about it, though, so we can't use it. Mangojuicetalk 01:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] so I put {{nomorelinks}} on here

I'm now suggesting that ANY additional shock site added to this article be discussed on the talk page first unless it is already sourced when added. I just amended the default wording of that {{nomorelinks}} Substitution bomb to add a little warning, since I think it could help. ViperSnake151 23:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It's been tried before, we'll see if it helps. I moved it to the examples section, b/c I figure most people will click the "edit" tab on that section to add their item. Mangojuicetalk 15:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)