< March 28 March 30 >

March 29

File:Goatse.fr homepage.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. This is an extremely contentious deletion debate with numerous parties on either side of the argument putting forward valid points to state their position. Looking at the people wishing to keep the image, many of them mention that Wikipedia is not censored. This appears to be the main and strongest argument put forward from this side. The people wishing to delete the image put forward the point that this image is so extreme that it goes beyond the scope of Wikipedia not being censored - This point isn't very persuasive and I would suggest that if there are exceptions to Wikipedia not being censored other than by the law then this should be discussed somewhere that isn't a deletion discussion. To sum up so far, I believe the people wishing to keep the image have put forward a sound point about Wikipedia not being censored and I don't believe the people wishing to delete the image have successfully countered that argument.

Moving onto the people wishing to delete the image. The major policy reason put forward is that the image fails WP:NFCC#1 - they claim that the image could easily be replaced by a textual description of what appears on the site. WP:NFCC#8 is also mentioned because some commenting believe that the use of the image doesn't increase the readers understanding of the topic. Looking over the discussion, in a similar way to the above, I don't believe the opposite side have countered either of these arguments successfully and have failed to show how the image complies with our non-free content criteria.

We are there left with each side putting forward sound arguments. The strength of the arguments is what has turned this from a no consensus close to a delete close - the image failing the non-free content criteria is a much more persuasive (and indeed stronger) argument than the need to protect our not censored guideline. For any image to be kept during a discussion where the non-free content criteria is brought in to question the images validity, the onus is on the people wishing to keep the image to show that it does fall under the criteria. This has not happened in this case and I have therefor come to the conclusion that the consensus is for the image to be deleted. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 18:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Goatse.fr homepage.png (Warning: NSFW image) (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Jolly Janner (notify | contribs | uploads).
  • Just to clarify something, I claim it is unencyclopedic because: "A picture conveys more than text. If you subtract what the text conveys from what the picture conveys, you're left with the marginal benefit of displaying the picture. I'm pretty sure the marginal benefit of displaying the Mona Lisa is substantial and educational. I'm pretty sure the marginal benefit of displaying the goatse.cx image is nothing but shock value."[1] The image does not add anything to the encyclopedia, hence it does not belong in it. Prodego talk 05:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now, as for the other arguments: 1) "It is gross". Yes indeed it is, but Wikipedia is not censored. Have a look at our Gangrene page for example. I would say that the images there are just as nauseating as this image. 2) "It is not encyclopedic". Par the GNG our inclusion criteria is sufficient coverage, which this article (image) received. Why is it not encyclopedic? It is one of the most well known \ most used shock images. Doesn't that make it notable at all? 3) "Wikipedia is not a shock site". Completely agree. However, all we have is a low-res image that can only be added to that specific page. I presume that hi-res versions on other websites are much more appealing if man wishes to shock the reader. In conclusion i would say it is a (weak) keep. I am unconvinced by the deletion arguments, which in some cases seem to border on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 12:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. This is an iconic image, which is the direct subject of goatse.cx. As such, it can't fail NFCC #1. Furthermore, it doesn't fail any other point of NFCC, because it has a valid fair use rationale.
  2. This image has value to the article, precisely because it is an iconic image. Without the image, the reader will not understand the nature of the phenomenon. It's like having an article about the Mona Lisa, but not showing the actual Mona Lisa. A reader would never know what all the fuss was about for the Mona Lisa. The same goes for goatse.
  3. Just because it is offensive, doesn't mean we shouldn't have the image. There is no "the offensiveness outweighs the value". Offensiveness should not keep Wikipedia from informing their readers. This is stated in our non-censorship policy, and is backed by precedent such as the Virgin Killer article and the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article.
These three arguments combined constitute for me an undeniable reason to keep the image. It's legal, it's the right thing to do, and it would be the wrong thing to censor. Remco47 (talk) 12:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons are also designed to offend. They cause deep offense to 23% of the world population. Do you believe that these should be deleted as well? Those images, as well as goatse, are notable because they offended many people. Remco47 (talk) 13:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons are political and social commentaries that may offend due to their nature, but somehow I doubt the artist sat there snickering to himself about how he was going to send those silly Muslims into a fit. The goatse image is designed to make people sick to their stomach. The images are in no way comparable. Shereth 13:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whether an image is designed to offend or not is difficult to establish, of course. I agree with you that the cartoons may not have been. But I will also note that the person who made the actual images displayed on goatse.cx, most probably did not intend to cause this phenomenon. The person (we're not allowed to say his name) is demonstrating a technique for ass-stretching... a fetish. There is a reason why the article is categorized as Category:Erotica and pornography websites. Remco47 (talk) 13:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so (see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer). Anyone can edit an article, and changes made are displayed immediately, so Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms.
Obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site, or clear vandalism) is usually removed quickly. Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the U.S. state of Florida where Wikipedia's servers are hosted, will also be removed. However, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content.
The NFCC issues I can see (though I think it's a huge reach), but the "gross" part is very much not a reason to delete. Hobit (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Section Break 1[edit]

((tmbox))

I think a picture of a particular suicide would be warranted in an article if said picture had had much media attention. I can imagine such a picture leaking, public outrage --> notability established. It's one of the finer points of the Streisand effect. Remco47 (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who wants to keep it just to prove a point that Wikipedia isn't censored? Without making arguments, I can't really understand why you want to delete the image. This also applies to a few others above: if you don't make arguments, I can't make counterarguments to change your mind... ;) Remco47 (talk) 00:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could stop spending so much of your on-site energy making counter-arguments to everyone here? You are not going to convince anyone here who has takent the time to come here and express their desire to have this image removed. "NOTCENSORED" doesn't mean we host every peace of garbage on the internet. "THINKOFTHECHILDREN" doesn't mean that we have to subject everyone to explicit images. Illustrating this article, which is of marginal notability itself, does not at all override the heavy problems that allowing images of this sort on the project. While I see that your primary interest in this project has been to put that image on the article and maintain it there, I'm going to assume good faith and believe that you really don't want to be wasting everyone's time by responding to each and every comment here in favor of its removal. Bastique demandez 00:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate you think I'm wasting your time, there are a lot of articles which are far less notable than Goatse, with far less sources. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate your sarcastic reinterpretation of what I said to Remco47 above as indicative of my feelings about you, you should perhaps know that if I were referring to you, I'd be responding to you. Bastique demandez 00:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure what you're saying here. Should I not be a part of this debate? This image has been on my radar for some time now. I'm not going to just stop because you don't like it. Remco47 (talk) 01:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by your contribution history, this image appears to be the only thing on your radar. Bastique demandez 01:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. You can't see my watchlist. Remco47 (talk) 02:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's focus on the arguments here, not on the people who make them. This issue is contentious enough, & we don't need to let it degrade into exchanges of name-calling & accusations. -- llywrch (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was already in a collapsed section within the infobox.... although I havn't looked at the article in a long time. That was the result of the discussion I was following about the image a previous time on the talk page. Peachey88 (Public) (talk) 03:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. In pure headcount, the balance tips slightly to the side of deletion. But headcount isn't everything. I'd say the closing admin will have a difficult job. ;) Remco47 (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Maybe of the calls to delete are based on personal opinion, using policy as a convenient crutch. Most should weighed quite low in the final analysis. Tarc (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is sad, because I think it's the right answer. It opens up a can of worms (do we do this with anything that more than X% of the world might be offended by? etc.) but it seems reasonable for images like this. Hobit (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inadvertently, I think you draw attention to an important distinction. The article's task is to describe the site, its purpose and its effect, i.e. to shock. It is not the article's task to convey the shock. I think arguments that the effect of the site cannot be understood in the absence of the image are based on the misconception that the Wikipedia article, to be encyclopaedic, needs to reproduce the effect of the original site. As a general proposition, that's surely false. An article about a shock does not need to convey the shock. (There are many analogies, but for example, an encyclopaedia article on sexual arousal is not obliged to be sexually arousing.)KD Tries Again (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
Indeed, an article about a shock site is not required to shock itself. However, if you want to convey the phenomenon it caused, you need to show what caused the phenomenon. Otherwise you're just talking in the dark. This extends to an article about sexual arousal. If an article about sexual arousal contains passages that describe ways to get sexually aroused, or shows images of erogenous zones in humans, someone might find that in itself sexually arousing. That doesn't mean we should remove the passages or the pictures. (Also because sexual arousal is not wrong.) Remco47 (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To any reader who has an anus and a ruler, stating that the site displays a picture of an anus distended to whatever the dimensions are is a complete description of the phenomenon. Adding the image doesn't add knowledge - it just reproduces the effect, which is not an encyclopaedic aim (just as reproducing the effect of sexual arousal should not be the aim of an encyclopaedia article on the subject).KD Tries Again (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
The purpose of inclusion is the illustration of the subject matter, not reproduction of the shock effect. This thing gained notoriety to begin with because people enjoyed slipping it innocuously into posts and forums and e-mails and such, to catch people unawares. This is an encyclopedia, not a random discussion board. Short of a miraculous landing via Special:Random, are you really suggesting that people are going to go to goatse.cx not expecting to see what they're about to see?Tarc (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As this is an encyclopaedia, they should expect to be informed on the topic. The "illustration" doesn't add information; it does what it was originally designed to do.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
Simple contradiction is not a valid argument. I believe, both here and at the DRV, I have explained in detail why an article of a shock image needs the image included, and why text cannot convey the same meaning, the satisfying WP:NFCC #1. Endlessly saying "no it doesn't" is getting tiresome. Tarc (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the thing, though; our article on sexual arousal includes images or text that some may consider salacious not because we want to convey the sensation of sexual arousal, but because they are valuable educational aids in conveying the mechanics and specifics of how sexual arousal works. The Goatse image is not in the same category; what benefit does it have over a textual description of a gaping anus, except to convey the sensation of shock that the site aims to convey? We do not need to shock people with an image to tell them that it is shocking. Shereth 21:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an article on the concept of shock, the image isn't on the article to shock, it's on the article because it's a depiction of the very subject. That it happens to shock, is because the subject does, it is a side effect. What is the argument for the use lead image in Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion? It's used because it identifies the subject, and contributes something to the understanding of the subject that words cannot. It is the same here, that viewers find that contribution shocking is irrelevant. - hahnchen 22:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris 14:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, Scepter... your real argument argument here is that - due to your skills as a mind reader, no doubt - you know that everyone else is too stupid and inhibited to consider this situation rationally, and therefore it's your obligation (as the only rational being present) to enforce the image over all objections? trust me, I've argued with you - you're not that rational. In fact, I think you are the one acting emotionally, out of some misbegotten desire to break through all these deeply ingrained ideas that you seem to think other people have. You're apparently the Goatse version of a seventh day adventist, or engaged in some odd form of social engineering to make sure everyone ends up seeing the world from your point of view (how's that for mind reading).
the rest of your points are just hand-waving and stawman arguments, so they don't really call for a response. I'll leave them as is for others to judge. --Ludwigs2 20:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ludwigs2, please limit your comments to the arguments, not the person making them. You're getting awfully close to the line there. -- llywrch (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. In the context of things, I feel I am being more rational, or at the least, more objective. I'm not the one trying to impose moral standards here, after all. And that's what annoys me (both off-wiki and on-wiki): people who try to impose prudish moral standards on others. It's nothing short of POV pushing, in my opinion. All I'm trying to do is give this image the same consideration any other image would get, which is how things should work (and would work in theory) on Wikipedia. Sceptre (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, you are trying to impose a moral standard, it's just not a prudish one. Just like some religious moralist who might try to force removal of the image on puritanical grounds, you are trying to force inclusion of the image out of a distaste for prudishness. the reason I know this is that I have consistently tried to argue from the perspective of the value of the image in the article, yet every time I have tried to discuss whether the image is useful and relevant you have rejected the argument out of hand as prudishness. Every argument against the image is (to your mind) prudish, which is not a rational or reasonable perspective to take. I'm sorry you don't see the POV you're pushing, but that does not mean you're not pushing it.
llywrch - my previous response to sceptre might have been heated, for which I apologize, but it was accurate. --Ludwigs2 22:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you on the "oh, is that it?". At this size, it's not that gross. The shock value is linked to surprise as much as grossness. This picture is thumbnail sized. If it's this small, I don't think people will be so surprised. They will see the picture, think "that's gross, let's not watch that fullscreen any time soon", and be on their merry way. I ask everyone to just take a long look at this picture, as it is displayed in the article, and tell me it's really that awful. It's just a tiny open anus after all. Remco47 (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the only possible argument for deletion should be a copyright one, the whole 'grossness' thing is completely subjective and at any rate, it's not our job to decide what other people can see, at the end of the day we're a bunch of people that edit a website that few people regard with any degree of seriousness.raseaCtalk to me 15:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Section Break 2[edit]
  • That is exactly the issue here. NFCC section 8 (Contextual significance) is completely open to personal interpretation, as one might deem the image significant, and another person doesn't. I would argue that this image is significant because the entire article is about this image - yes, it is about the website, but the website received acclaim due to that particular image. I would argue that this case bears similarities to the Tank Man article. Both article's are directly related to their respective images, as it are the images that directly caused the notability of the article itself. If the tank man image would not have been made, we wouldn't have the article. If the goatse image was never made, no one would know the site. So i would say that if the article itself is notable, the image should be added as well. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 18:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a knockdown argument for the article (if we have it at all, and it really is barely sourced) being about the image. It doesn't quite get as far as being a reason that the image should be included. I think the analogy fails, because the goatse image acts - unavoidably - as something other than an illustration. It's inclusion reproduces an effect rather than just helpig to describe it, and that doesn't stike me as an encyclopedic aim. (but I'm now repeating myself...)KD Tries Again (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
Yes, you are repeating yourself; this ridiculous "reproducing the effect" bit doesn't hold water. The burden of inclusion has been well-explained by dozens of editors at this point. Just because some prudish editors do not accept that explanation...well, that's just too bad. Tarc (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc - just exactly where has the burden of inclusion been met? I don't see it. if you could list out all the reason here that would be great, because I have never seen a decent explanation of why this image should be included, and I'd be curious to. If you can't, of course, then I'll expect you to refactor your statement above as a mistaken impression. thanks. --Ludwigs2 20:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This has been explained several times; the image can not be adequately replaced by a free alternative (none exists, though if you have a mirror and a digital camera, feel free), or by text (inadequate and does not convey what the image can). Clear? Good. Tarc (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the visceral shock factor, what exactly does this image convey that a textual description cannot? It's a man's anus being manually stretched by his hands. Unless we are concerned with the condition of the man's fingernails or the precise color of his insides, I still fail to see what the image is supposed to communicate to the reader that cannot be accomplished by simple text. Shereth 20:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
see, this has been my question all along, and it's the one thing that the image proponents never actually answer. they've got arguments about why why shouldn't 'remove' the image (most of the questionable, mind you), but they have nothing meaningful about why we should 'include' it in the first place. it's discouraging trying to get that point across. --Ludwigs2 20:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have been arguing the "Why" in my first response post towards this delete rationale. I don't find the refute that the image produces a secondary effect very convincing, as many images have secondary effects. Take Depictions of Muhammad for example. Those images have a secondary effect on some users as well and still we include them. In other words, i stand with my analogy and conclusion that if we create an article about an image, that image should be included. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To Ludwigs2: did you not see my Addendum to my comment above? I make an argument there specifically why to keep. (Maybe it was overlooked because it wasn't at the bottom of this thread.) - -llywrch (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "proponents never actually answer", you mean "proponents have answered all the time, but I refuse to even acknowledge their response". We should include the image, because it is a depiction of the subject, something that the text cannot adequately convey. It is the same reason we have non-free images on Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion, Cloud Gate and Aaliyah. It's because visual depictions of the subject matter are important, and offers something for the reader that WP:ALT doesn't. That people find the subject distasteful is irrelevant, those who find the subject matter unencyclopedic should air their grievances at WP:AFD. - hahnchen 21:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To llywrch: sorry for the delay in my response; needed some gym time to chill out. I just read you addendum now, and I have to say (first) that I think you've captured the point that really lies behind most image proponents' arguments, and (second) that I dislike the point intensely. it's basically a social engineering argument, as though it's wikipedia's purpose to 'toughen up' people for that big, bad, ugly internet world, whether they want to be toughened up or not. to my mind, this is an article about the shock site, and it's only purpose is to discuss the shock site - it shouldn't replicate the shock site, it shouldn't have some 'meta-purpose' about displaying what the internet is like, or anything like that. really, the unspoken thought that every proponent of this image has (I think) is: "it's just a stupid image, people shouldn't be such babies about it". But it's not wikipedia's job to tell people what they should and shouldn't be babies about.
to my mind we should include offensive images where there is a clear, explainable need for them in the article, and we should exclude them otherwise. There are plenty of offensive images on wikipedia that are clearly needed - for example, removing penis images from the penis article would absolutely castrate cripple the article. by contrast, removing the screenshot from the Goatse article would not make one whit' of difference to the article - the article would be perfectly fine without it. so why are we indulging in such an image when we don't need to? --Ludwigs2 04:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ludwigs2, two things. First, all of us need to keep ourselves from becoming too emotionally invested in this issue. The point of this discussion is to determine whether or not this image is useful for Wikipedia, not to win some argument. I'll state here that if this image ends up being deleted, I can live with that & will move on -- & I hope everyone who is disappointed with the eventual decision can do that. (I may end up being disappointed with the closing Admin's reasoning for keeping/deleting the image, but I will explain my reasons for that in a comment below.) Becoming emotionally invested over the outcome of this discussion will keep one from present the best argument for her/his opinion, is self-destructive, & will likely lead to Wiki-Burnout.
Second, in my comment about testing one's tolerance, I did not mean to say that people need to be "toughened up" for "that big, bad, ugly internet world" -- I doubt anyone can be toughened up that much. What I was trying to say is that there is a lot of content on the Internet which uses the practically unlimited exercise of free speech possible & crosses the line between a justifiable right into license. This image is the best known -- "iconic", so to say -- example of this phenomena. Most examples of crossing this line have some justification, a "higher reason", as there is with, for example, the Dadaist art piece Fountain; the Goatse image is, I believe we can all agree, disgusting for the sake of being disgusting. Include it for that reason, & there is no need to include any other similarly repugnant image for that reason. -- llywrch (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your point about emotional investment. I'm not actually invested in the image issue (which, like you, I could be happy either way on). I've been getting upset because of the argument style that a lot of proponents use, which boils down to a denial of consensus through personal attack (i.e., "everyone who opposes the image is irrationally emotional, and thus we don't need to discuss the matter with them"). I appreciate people like you who don't use that style, and apologize for letting the people who do use it get under my skin.
That being said, there's a problem of logic with your second claim. There are two things here: the goatse site (which is clearly notable as a shock site), and the 'hello.jpg' image, which is far less clearly notable as an image. Wikipedia would not, I don't think, have a separate article on 'hello.jpg' (and in fact, that term is a redirect to the goatse article), because the image itself is only notable for having been used as a shock element on goatse. To my mind the dorks who first invented the goatse site would have chosen any image they found that was sufficiently shocking; the fact that they ended up with hello.jpg was pure happenstance. we should all be thankful, I think, that they didn't run across images of coprophilia, cannibalism or butchered human bodies, or any of the other more grotesque paraphilias that exist in the world. It would be one thing if goatse were actually a real site dedicated to describing techniques of anal distention (that would mean that the picture itself was representative of the message that goatse was trying to get across, and give a stronger case for including the image), but as it is it's just some random gross picture they pulled out of their... err... hat to freak people out. Goatse is about freaking people out: the particular means by which they freak people out is inconsequential. As I explained in the mediation, giving a brief description of the image itself, and then showing one of the hoax pictures that appear later down in the page (e.g., the london olympics logo) would more than adequately cover all the ground necessary for an encyclopedic coverage of the topic - people would see the hoax image, and understand what goatse did perfectly, without ever needing to be exposed to the image itself. The fine line here is between explaining what the shock site is (which is valuable to the encyclopedia) and replicating the shock site as is (which is not encyclopedic at all). --Ludwigs2 17:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • again, NFCC is not an issue here. Read Wikipedia:NFCC#Rationale: this policy tells us when we may use an image, it does not (and never did) tell us whether we should use an image. This is a godawful specious argument, and I wish people would stop repeating it. --Ludwigs2 20:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have never said it MUST be used, nor to my recollection has anyone else argued that, so please, enough with the strawman constructions. What has been explained here is why it SHOULD be used, and why text is not an adequate representation, thus satisfying this project's non-free requirements. Tarc (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • uh... please reread what I wrote - where did you get that 'must'? I said that NFCC tells us we may use the image - no one disputes that. the fact that we may use the image in no way translates to a claim that we should use the image. NFCC is irrelevant to the 'should' question. --Ludwigs2 20:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are at the crux of the argument (not for the first time). I am not just contradicting the assertion that the image should be included. Like other editors, I still haven't seen a compelling reason to include it. Like others, I can't imagine anyone at whom the article is aimed being left puzzled by a text description. This is not analogous to a painting. The reason I harp on the effect of reproducing shock is that I can't imagine anything else which the image adds to a clear text description. And again, just because we CAN (if it's legal) reproduce the content of shock sites (or pornography or...well, add your own list) it doesn't mean that we can't exercise judgment to the contrary. Failing to host just any image we can host is not censorship.KD Tries Again (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
Apply this logic to the Tank Man article and other pages with non free images. A description saying "Man standing in front of 4 tanks with a flag" is just as clear as the image. A lot of these non free images can be replaced by prose and users could still imagine what it looks like. What makes this image different, other then its grossness and shock value? I still argue that this image is an integral part of the article's subject and should therefor be included. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 21:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me for picking out your specific comment here, because I've seen the same argument repeatedly above; your particular repitition of this claim just happens to be the one that made me respond. With that out of the way, of course we can distinguish between Tank Man, or the Iwo Jima flag raising (some poor misguided soul has implied that the Mona Lisa is involved here somehow as well) and an image of a red distended anus. The latter is intended purely for shock value, and its inclusion is based on a perceived need to illustrate the exact shock value. The other examples are not. We can easily make a procedural distinction between the two (it is allowed, it is not prohibited, and it is simple to do), but more importantly, we can easily make an aesthetic distinction between the two. The idea that this is difficult or prohibited is nonsense. It frankly cries out for refutation by the expedient of just making that distinction and closing with a rationale of "Can too!" - but of course I don't recommend that approach to the actual closer. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The latter is intended to depict the subject of the article, in the same manner as the Tank Man image. That the subject was made to shock, is irrelevant. - hahnchen 21:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some images add nothing of encyclopedic value to an article, some do. What the goatse image adds is not information or explanation or clarification or anything one might expect of an encyclopedia article; it adds the function of serving as a surprise shock image, the function for which it is famous (and encourages the use of Wikipedia as a host of a surprise shock image). Again - because something shocks or titillates or frightens, it does not follow that we need to host it. If notable, we might need to have an article explaining it - that's all.KD Tries Again (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
To be frightfully honest? I think you're vastly overstating the shock value inclusion has. For one, most people searching for the article would already know about the existence of the site. Of those who don't, I would expect them to search Google and click through; on Google (UK and US) the article is the top result, and has a textual description there. That leaves just Special:Random and actually being linked to the Wikipedia article by some dick. And, I know this is more of a stretch (fnarr fnarr) than anything else, but I expect them to read left-to-right, and not see the image in their direct line of sight before reading the words "shock site". And finally, it's a thumbnail image. The "shock" the thumbnail would have is rather low. And really, Goatse is rather passé these days. There are far more shocking images (mostly on medical articles) that trolls can link to; the only thing Goatse is good for in 2010 is for a cheap amateur laugh. Sceptre (talk) 21:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for being the poor misguided soul I am, but I do believe I made myself clear that it was not about comparing the artistic value of Mona Lisa to goatse. I used it as an example of how you need to show what the phenomenon is about, in order for the reader to understand the phenomenon. In the case of a phenomenon around a picture (be it Mona Lisa or goatse), it is a picture that needs to be shown. As I've said before: otherwise you're just talking in the dark. Remco47 (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<EC>In response to Gavia immer, I believe that WP:NOTCENSORED states that we shouldn't be excluding an image because it is offensive. We generally do include pictures of the topic of the article. I don't see why the topic being a "shock image" should make us do otherwise. Frankly I don't care about the shock value nor do I think that's why we should keep the picture. We should keep it because the article is about the image and to leave the image out serves no purpose other than to not offend. Hobit (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) Oh, i'm actually glad you picked my comment apart for the sake of argument - if everyone just ignores other users comments we may just hold a straw poll instead of a discussion :). I agree with your comment. The Mona Lisa, Tank Man and Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima images all had the intention to spread something newsworthy. In contrast the Goatse image's original purpose was shock value, and originally (At the time the image was made) it as one of the things that should not be included within an encyclopedia (At least not without a VERY clear reason). So far i can agree with your rationale.
However in its current form, the website/image has become something akin to an Internet meme. In fact, the website Goatse.cx has become notable enough to warrant an encyclopedic article - mostly thanks to that image. I would therefor say that these days the image is entangled in such as way to the article notability that it should be included. Aesthetic value has little to do with the issue. This image is in no way the epitome of aesthetically correctness or beauty, and yes, many people will find it offensive - Personally i have been evading looking at it during this entire discussion. Even so i deem the additional value of topic completeness paramount to my own ideas of that image. I think this is the main crux in this entire discussion - Leaving out all the policy talk and personal opinions we can boil this down to the question if this image adds anything to the article. I would argue it is directly related to the subjects notability, while other people have different opinions on this issue. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 22:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excirial raises the main point. This image of the website's front page and its notorious photograph is the primary means of illustrating the article, and is in every meaningful way the subject of the article. No other image is as relevant to that article. So that's the argument for including the image. And I can think of no other circumstance, past or potential, in which another image that is comparably integral to an article's subject would be getting this kind of opposition. The only reason this image is getting the scrutiny it is receiving is because it shows a man stretching his anus. It may sound almost deliberately obtuse to phrase it like that, but the point is that that visceral reactions to graphic content are dictating deletion arguments here, not any content-neutral principles that are otherwise applied to other images and other articles. If not for that graphic content, no one would argue that this image--an image of the article's subject and the only useful image for illustrating that article--was replaceable by a text description. And I have seen no one articulate a workable, objective principle that would delete this image based on its content. I'm sympathetic to that visceral reaction; I certainly had it myself when I first saw the image however many years ago, full screen rather than thumbnail size as here. But "images should be deleted that people find revolting" is not a workable principle. I really don't like minimizing others' arguments to IDONTLIKEIT, but I'm struggling to see any other motivation here, particularly where many of the deletion comments are intertwined with attacks on the article and its subject. postdlf (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
postdlf: you are making the fundamental error of assuming that the image and the site are an identity. the site is a shock site, the image is just a random image that they chose because it had high shock value. it's not like goatse was a site dedicated to describing the process of ass stretching (in which case the image would represent the purpose of the site. If I thought that this image was actually necessary to convey anything about goatse (other than shock) then I would be right in there on your side of the fence, pitching to keep it. but it doesn't. all this image does is replicate the shock site in wikipedia space, for no good, encyclopedic reason. --Ludwigs2 05:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The site always had that photograph as its front page, and the site has no identity apart from that photograph; "goatse" is synonymous with that photograph. It was not a generic shock site that rotated through images and happened to pick one that gained it notability. So why that photograph was chosen by the goatse.cx webmasters is completely irrelevant to whether the image is relevant to the article; all that matters is that it was chosen. Regarding the rhetoric that including the image in the article "replicate[s] the shock site" on Wikipedia," it is hardly as shocking in thumbnail size, contextualized in an article about the site, the photograph, and its notoriety. The encyclopedic reason is to illustrate the subject of an encyclopedia article, particularly as that subject is really the photograph. postdlf (talk) 05:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how many other ways to say that NOTCENSORED and IDONTLIKEIT are irrelevant unless and until we've established that we're discussing keeping or deleting something of encyclopedic value. I am still waiting to find out why a text description will leave readers who are expecting an encyclopedia article rather than a laugh in the dark.KD Tries Again (talk) 05:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
In that case you are requesting a circular argument, with no beginning and no end. Let me sketch it out: "Why does this article need this image?" -> "The subject of the article is the goatse.sx website, a website which notability is directly related to that particular image. Argument: Encyclopedic completeness requires we add it". -> "Why? what value does it have over a textual description? Can't it be replaced by mere prose?" -> "Of course, but that would be the same for Tank man and a lot of other NFCC images. We keep those as well". -> "Those images had notability when they were made" -> "This image earned notability over time as one of the most used shock images" -> "Wikipedia isn't a shock site, we MAY add images, but we are not REQUIRED to do it" -> "There are images which are a lot worse then this one. I would refer you to the images we have on the gangrene article and other medical pages" -> "Those images serve an educational purpose. The goatse image is only meant to shock people" -> "True, but by being successful it has grown into a well-known images and it received media attention just because of that." -> "The website received media attention, not the image. We cover the website, why should we cover the image?" -> "In this case the website IS the image. The entire reason it gained any notability is because of that image". -> "Even if it does, we are not required to include the image. Why does this article need this image?".
Loop back and we can go on and on and on for a LONG time. There is no real end to this debate - it all boils down to a personal opinion if the article needs the image. I still argue that the image is related in such a way to the website that it should be included for completeness sake. All the famous NFCC images mention in this thread share this in common - their article's are based upon that image. Tank man is based upon that photograph. Raising the flag is based upon the photograph. Mona Lisa is based upon the paining. Goatse is based upon the image we debate. I would say that is a very valid reason to include it. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 08:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do hear you, but I think there are a couple of big holes in your argument. Yes, some - maybe many - images we host could be replaced by a text description: it does not follow either that goatse could not be replaced by a text description (it obviously could), nor that every image which could be so replaced should be deleted. "All or nothing" is not what we're debating. Secondly, accepting that the website happened to use this single image, the fact remains that it might have used many others (just different assholes?) to precisely the same effect. The specificity of the image is unimportant - it was a shock image which happened to shock. From that perspective, there just isn't an analogy with a work of art like the Mona Lisa or some of the records of historical events you've put forward as examples.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
You're arguing based on something other than current policy and practice. Any image that is considered "replaceable" per NFCC policy is deleted, because only usage of non-replaceable non-free images are permitted. So you can't have it both ways by claiming this image is replaceable, but other non-free images that are equally replaceable don't have to be deleted. That another image could have been selected by the goatse webmaster is really completely irrelevant; again, this is a standard that does not exist and is not consistent with current practice and policy. An image is not replaceable or irrelevant to a topic based on speculation as to how it could have been otherwise. A different photograph of a musician could always have been chosen for an album cover, for example, but when the record company selected a particular one, that's the one we use because that is the album cover. This image is an image of the website and the picture they hosted on their front page. postdlf (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)KD, ou have no idea what you are talking about. The specificity of the image is the primary importance here; this specific image is associated with this specific term, thy are inseparable. When people see the word "goatse", the association is made to the image itself, not to the website that hosts it, or hosted it in the past. Tarc (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are both missing my point. Of course it used that image, but it might equally well have used a different one: the fact that this specific image could easily be replaced with a different image of a distended anus supports the contention that it adds nothing to a text description. I was pointing out the disanalogy with Excirial's examples.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
Actually, if that was your point them yep, I did miss it. Unfortunately for you, your actual, now-revealed point is the weakest argument seen on this page yet. Tarc (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I can see your point - No tank man image would have meant no tank man article. No mona lisa painting would have meant no article. No flag raising picture would have meant no article. No goatse image might have meant that another image could be used. However, that would be arguing "What if?". If these images were not made, some alternative might have popped up. No, we wouldn't have the "Tank man" page but we might have had some other image that would receive wide coverage. No mona lisa might have meant another painting was made and so on. Hence, perhaps "Goatse" might have never excisted at all without this image - perhaps a similar site would have received all notability instead.
Arguing "What if" is therefor mostly besides the point. The reason why they chose this particular image is not important. They chose it, and this particular image received substantial media coverage because of this. "Goatse" is synonymous to this image, not to a specific site (There have been several incarnations of the site after all). I would say this particular image is famous because we made it so, and not because it has an inherent quality attached to it. Even so, this particular image received all the attention and notoriety, and not some other random image. Every human has the capacity to become famous, and yet we only include the once that managed to do so. We don't argue that anyone might have done the same. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 15:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Last try, because I think it's important. It's because any equivalent image could replace that one that the actual image adds nothing to a text description. This supports the contention that the image adds nothing informational or encyclopedic to the description in the article.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
No, it could not, simple as that. Goatse refers to that specific image, not to a random (but perhaps similar) shock image. If we were debating about a similar image which was added for illustrations sake, my vote would be delete, simply because it would not be directly related to the notability and controversy around the website. The image is not added to explain to the user what, to quote the article "showing a naked man stretching his anus" looks like, but to display the reason why this article generated so much controversy, which directly caused the notability of this article. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@ Excirial(e/c): I'm sorry, but you are wrong on one fundamental point. Without the 'Tank Man' image, there would be no article for 'Tank man'; this is true. However (and this is crucial) removing the goatse screenshot would in no way damage the goatse article. Goatse was a shock site, and the article can explain the shock site and its importance easily and well without the image - all the image does is replicate the shock site in wikipedia space. 'Tank man' is an iconic image; goatse is an iconic shock site. there's a world of difference between those two statements.
let me put it another way: Antisemitism and racism are unpleasant but important concepts, and wikipedia displays antisemitic and racist material where and when it needs to to accurately depict topics. However, we have articles (I assume) on notable shock jocks who have made antisemitic or racist jokes just boost their ratings (not uncommon for shock jocks), but we do not repeat their antisemitic or racial jokes in wikipedia unless we have good reason to believe that the shock jocks are intending to be antisemitic or racist (as opposed to just being jerks). goatse is a site designed by jerks, for the purpose of yanking people's chains; there is no sense in helping them to continue to yank people's chains. --Ludwigs2 17:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You need help with analogy-crafting, as that doesn't match this case. At all. The article-plus-image isn't here to "yank people's chains" as the site itself does; it is simply to tell what the fucking site is about in the first place. Article-minus-image does not do that as adequately as article-plus-image does. Tarc (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me: you can honestly sit here, looking at the reams of comments on this page, the unpleasantness of the mediation, the mountains of vituperative comments on the talk page, and tell me that the image doesn't yank people's chains? I don't really give a flying fuck what might be intended; the fact is that it does yank people's chains, excessively, and does so without any real point. we can tell people what the site is about without replicating the shock tactics that were the site's main raison d'etre. that's been my point all along. --Ludwigs2 19:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, we can't, any more than we could describe in text what the big hullabaloo was regarding the Virgin Killer album (or Blind Faith for that matter) without the image in question. Your prudishness should not be imposed on others, and should not be allowed to gut articles of things you do not like. Tarc (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remember to keep cool, and don't start aiming for the editor instead of the opinion. It is the issue that should be debated, not other editors conduct or prudishness. Doing so will only cause a lot of friction, and nothing good has ever come from doing that (And besides, it won't help solve the issue at hand)! Note that this is aimed at the direction this entire discussion seems to be heading, and not towards a single editor. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, there is no need for anyone to drop the f-bomb here. I've been gently reminding people here to remain civil, & now I'm going to have to become stern here. The next person who posts something in any way incivil will get a time out for the rest of seven days this FfD will run -- midnight UTC, 4 April, if my calculations are correct. Even if that results with all of my comments being disregarded by the closing Admin. (And I'm giving Ludwigs2 a pass here since it's clear he was responding in kind.) Now play nice or else. -- llywrch (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This makes no sense. Par your argument antisemitism and racism images are added if they are required for accurately depicting the topic, and naturally we don't display these images just for the sake of displaying them, or for means of personal vanity. But how exactly is the goatse image different? This image is the reason why we even have a goatse article - by displaying it we do not mean to reproduce the shock value - instead it is meant to illustrate why the site received its notability \ notoriety. After all, it was this specific image that caused all the buzz around the site itself. If we included this image merely because of its shock value we would display a high-res full screen version of it. Instead, we display a low quality and heavily pixelated version to demonstrate to the user WHY the site generated its notability \ notoriety, and NOT to shock the user. I would say displaying it is completely within reason and context on this article, simply because it is so closely related and critical to the topic itself. If this article was about a random shock site that repeatedly posted this kind of shock images i would argue that we should not include any of those images at all because they are not exactly relevant to the article itself. But this particular image is the reason for this website's notability, and therefor in my eyes extremely relevant to the topic itself. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, what we mean to do is largely irrelevant. There are many people in the world who didn't mean to pull the trigger on the gun, but they went to jail for it anyway. The fact is, whether we mean to or not, we are replicating the goatse shock site in wikipedia. I mean, all I have to do to goatse someone is send them an email with a faked link that leads to our wikipedia page, and damn - got 'em!
I could accept this if there was a decent reason to include the image, but there just isn't. we don't need to 'demonstrate' the site on wikipedia, because all 'demonstrating' the site means is 'demonstrating' the shock value of the site (because the only thing the site has is shock value). Wikipedia might have an article about how sticking one's finger in an electrical outlet will cause a painful electric shock, but we would not allow the article to advise people to do so just to see what it feels like, and we would certainly not (assuming it were technically possible) force people to get an electrical shock when they visit the page. yet by including this image on the goatse article we effectively force everyone who wants to read about a classic internet shock site to experience the site itself. That just aint right.
P.s. resolution is not an issue - the image is perfectly clear at its current resolution. that's a red-herring. --Ludwigs2 21:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your point about shocking people by sending them a faked link to the Wikipedia article is completely irrelevant, you can do this with any Wikipedia article that contains an image that the recipient may not like - penis, autofellatio, Virgin Killer, etc. Even better, send them a link direct to the image page for many of the images listed at MediaWiki:Bad image list. Other people, depending on their culture and attitudes, would find images that you consider harmless and benign to be extremely shocking. Thryduulf (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Im having quite a bit of difficulty following this train of thought, and in fact i think we are actually starting to derail here. The electricity example is so far besides the point and so unrealistic that i don't have a reaction to it - and nor do i think it serves any real purpose in this discussion. To state it plainly: If we have an article that is entirely about a particular image, that image should be included. If the article is about a shock website that contains a random collection of shock images, none should be included. "Goatse" refers to that image, and not to the site. We force anyone who wants to read Depictions of Muhammad to view the images on that article, same with about every medical and sexual related article. Why is this images so radically different from those other offensive images that we have already created a grand total of 34 pages in A4 format, containing a total of 1.675 lines and 118.577 words? Other then it being offensive, what would be the reason AGAINST including an image that is so directly related to the article? I have been stating over and over that this images is contextually relevant for this article. Arguments that "Other images could have been selected as well" and "Its offensive" are just moot points. "Offensiveness" is an opinion which varies among humans, and "Other images could have been selected" is nonsensical. We don't argue that we should remove an article about subject XYZ simply because 10.000 other persons could have achieved the same thing.
Besides, it seems we keep returning to the point where we argue if the image does or doesn't add anything at all to the article, and every time we repeat that argument it results in more comparisons that head to the same result. I would say that unless we have a new point or statement that isn't a variation of what has already been said, we should call it quits to give the closing admin a break. Reading the same thing in 1001 different variants over and over isn't effective not efficient. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 22:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we should break it off for now. I think you are making a category error when you equate goatse with the image, you (obviously) don't; I don't think the image adds any particular value to the article, you don't seem to think that's an important distinction. fair enough. you're wrong of course but fair enough. --Ludwigs2 03:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Better to agree we disagree, then to debate on into eternity. Even though it is obvious that i am correct. My, aren't we making a great meta:MPOV display here? Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 09:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
possibly true. I have been practicing my evil chuckle {mwahahahahahaaaaaa) --Ludwigs2 15:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, forgot to sign. Previous comment belongs to me. JPetersen (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but those aren't the arguments for not including the image (the subject's permission? reducing accessibility?).KD Tries Again (talk) 04:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
I tried to be objective, & in this case I may have bent over backwards too far. As I wrote above, believe this image needs to be kept because it is an iconic example of repulsive content that the nature of the Internet can allow to be created. -- llywrch (talk) 06:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I am counting correctly, as of now we are currently at 25 keeps (one conditionally), and 38 deletes (one unsure). Which puts us at about 60% in favor of deletion thus far... just in the interests of keeping track here. JPetersen (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus, then. Not too surprised.KD Tries Again (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
If it were down to a pure headcount, then those figures might mean something. However, this is not a vote and so the closing administrator will (hopefully) discount those !votes (on both sides) that express nothing more than "I don't like it!", "we should keep|delete it because I say so", etc; and there are some comments that will have more weight attached to them than others. All this means that the number of people including a bold "keep" or "delete" with their comment is irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment KD Tries Again, I agree that this is probably not considered anywhere near consensus yet, and voting has not gone on long, but when do we consider a consensus reached? Some thought must be put into this...
  • Thryduulf, I again agree that a straight head-count is not the end all and be all, however certainly it means something? Lest why even have any consensus and do everything unilaterally? Also, who decides which votes are "good" or not? I could just as easily argue that there are people in the "Keep" camp in favor of keeping solely on the ground of WP:NOTCENSORED which carries no more weight than those in favor of deletion solely based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Because we can include something on Wikipedia, does NOT mean it is necessarily is helpful to Wikipedia or the article. I agree it's a complicated issue, but at what point do we draw a line? If 99% of people were in favor of deletion would we then have consensus? Again, who decides what vote has grounds or not? I expect you and I may have different opinions on that, for example. It's not a matter of pure headcount, but majority consensus must at least play a part here. JPetersen (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My thought is just that, if this runs long enough, the "votes" will even out to be about equal. This suggests to me that the policy or policies we are attempting to apply aren't well suited to deciding this case, and maybe others like it.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
Something Excirial said above, that I thought was well-advised. we have all already beat this horse to death with discussion. let's sit back silently and wait for the administrator who takes on the closure of this case to review the material. I think we can all trust that s/he will carefully weigh the arguments that have been made, and will not be swayed by any minor differences in the yeah/nay count, and I think we can trust s/he will (out of sheer self-preservation, if nothing else) give a clear explanation of the decision reached. There's really no need for us to keep pottering on about it. --Ludwigs2 18:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia not being censored does not mean we have to include absolutely everything, and excluding things that make us look completely disreputable, such as this image, are acts of editorial judgment, not censorship. This image is not educational; it's a shock image. It has no place in a serious encyclopedia. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't be absurd. Having a dictionary entry for something is completely different from showing an image of it. The Webster's entry for "fuck" doesn't have an image of sexual intercourse (even that wouldn't really be a fair comparison, though it's closer). You're comparing apples and oranges here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This image fails WP:NFCC#8. The lead of the article already conveys everything in the image sufficiently, with text alone – the image only adds shock value. The inclusion of this non-free image does not add any contextual significance to the article whatsoever; its sole purpose is to shock readers, but Wikipedia is not a shock site. This is an encyclopedia, and I find arguments that this image belongs in an encyclopedia to be wholly unconvincing. As KD wrote above, the task of this article is to explain this shock site, not to convey the shock presented by it. While we're at it, I would like to explicitly reject the argument that this image is iconic. Just because a shock image has drawn some coverage in the mainstream media and notoreity in internet culture does not make it iconic. Indeed, I find the comparison of this image to Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima and Tank Man to be rather troubling.
  • This image is not necessarily protected from deletion by WP:NOTCENSORED. While Wikipedia indeed is not censored, that does not mean that we should put just anything in our articles, no matter how offensive. And because, unlike WP:NFCC, the WP:NOT policy is not legal in nature, we can afford to ignore it. As MuZemike wrote, “not censored” is not the same thing as “not subject to editorial discretion.” “Not censored” means that we shouldn’t delete images solely because they’re offensive; however, it does not automatically protect offensive images from deletion. In other words, I do not think WP:NOTCENSORED on its own is a valid reason to keep; it has to be supplemented with a good argument for why the image is encyclopedic. I don’t see that here.
  • I take issue with the argument that “while it is gross and disgusting, [the image] is a major movement in our culture.” Let’s not exaggerate the notability and importance of the article’s subject for the sake of trying to win the argument. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, not a major movement, but still a fair-sized meme in the world of the internet. Notability is after all relative - I see goatse as a lot more notable than your home town, but I'm sure you and any other resident would argue the opposite. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because this keeps popping up in the conversation, I should point out that 'meme' (and particularly the notion of a 'cultural meme') is at best pop psychology and at worst a bit of fringe theory bordering on pseudoscience. I don't object to the term itself, which has a degree of cultural currency, but there is no scientific evidence that cultural memes actually exist, and (so far as I know) no academic discipline that currently investigates the concept. It's not an active theory in psychology or sociology, at any rate. Just a note to the reviewer to take all this 'meme' talk with a grain of salt. --Ludwigs2 18:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is not a scientific concept either. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That is, of course, bullshit; [2] Tarc (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    a link to a now-defunct electronic-only journal? was it even peer reviewed when it was being 'published'? whatever... my point was that the term is more in the realm of popular belief than in the realm of scientific fact. Find a more mainstream source if you want to dispute that. --Ludwigs2 19:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What I have found above is more than sufficient to dispute your asinine earlier assertion. But thanks. Tarc (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    yeah, and I think we can dismiss 90% of your arguments by referring to wp:CIV. If you want a fight, Tarc, let's take it to userspace where I can teach you what it means to be rude without violating the higher standards that public discussions require. --Ludwigs2 15:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Incivility (and there is none on my part, for the record) would not diminish one's argument, whether they are for or against the image. Arguments are evaluated on their own merits, not dismissed on an appeal to emotion as you are trying to do now. Logic 101, Ludvig. Tarc (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Here or anywhere else this side discussion is not productive. Prodego talk 16:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Insert1.modified.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Insert1.modified.png (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Apham (notify | contribs | uploads).
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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:2-3-4 tree insert 1.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:2-3-4 tree insert 1.png (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Cmuhlenk (notify | contribs | uploads).
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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Insert2.modified.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Insert2.modified.png (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Apham (notify | contribs | uploads).
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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Insert3.modified.PNG

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Insert3.modified.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Apham (notify | contribs | uploads).
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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:2-3-4 tree insert 2.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:2-3-4 tree insert 2.png (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Cmuhlenk (notify | contribs | uploads).
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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:2-3-4 tree insert 3.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:2-3-4 tree insert 3.png (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Cmuhlenk (notify | contribs | uploads).
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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Signing of the Maastricht Treaty.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep — Scientizzle 18:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Signing of the Maastricht Treaty.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Ssolbergj (notify | contribs | uploads).
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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Wheelpuzzleboardchanges.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wheelpuzzleboardchanges.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Money game (notify | contribs | uploads).
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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Wheelbackdrops.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wheelbackdrops.png (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Sottolacqua (notify | contribs | uploads).
Additionally, pictures of the "On Account" scoreboard – something that was used on maybe 1% of episodes – are not necessary. A text description is fine. Sottolacqua (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
More