Talk:Shock site/Archive 4

message: I will admit that linking a historic version of this article to the current page was a bit pointless, but I do think we should somehow put a link to a more comprehensive list of shock sites on this article. If someone had a problem with  for whatever reason, then thats fair enough. But I do still think it won't do any harm to add a link to a list. If anyone knows of a website which does comprehensively list these sites (preferably without the images), please link it to this article. Theres probably some bizzare reason why this can't be done (there generally is on this website), but its still worth a try. Randomator 14:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ok 

message: The article Computer prank mentions a shock site called Last Measure. Wikipedia's page on Last Measure redirects here. Shouldn't it be mentioned here? Does anyone know anything about that site? --Anotherpongo 12:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It used to be in the article; here's an old version that has info on it.  .  No one ever found reliable sources about it, though, so it got taken out.  We should probably delete that redirect.  Mangojuicetalk 13:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It's a blog that does not appear to be a reliable source for verification; see the reliable sourcing guidelines.--Isotope23 talk 13:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last Measure 

message: Just wondering why this link was removed? Because it did serve as a place for people to edit, rather than this page - and also provided a list of shock sites for anyone who was trying to do research into a link they suspect is dodgy. --Landspeed 06:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  http://shocksites.bluwiki.org/ 

message: I think yeah, you should. But the downside to these sites, they can't be stopped. There's probably thousands, but to document the sickest ones is a good idea. The people who make these sites need to pay up. However I beleive they could atleast say and have a page before the image, "This site contains a girl in a bath tub", please click back unless you want to see it.
I'd feel sick reading that, but yeah. I hope you guys understand my opinion, and another thing, they won't do that as they want people to view there sick images or whatnot. And the guy who made this page is right.
And plus, they're still a domain, so they still have the right to be up, which is a shame damnit. :<Liquinn 20:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liquinn's Conclusion 

message: (UTC)
I'm not going to waste weeks of time like this but this website needs to be mentioned with tubgirl and goatse on the grounds that it is part of an 'unholy trinity' of shock sites. Urban dictionary hits for 'unholy trinity' and 'lemonparty' prove the sites infamy as much - its also well documented on google images. I know its not a great source - its no longer 'newsworthy' and makes unlikely book material - but we're not going to find hits for this site on google news or books as 'mangojuice' requests. This user has is on a partisan quest to hold this article hostage (FYI he's also written a piece on how to merge Star Trek characters) and deflects criticism allegations on the grounds that they're personal attacks. Unhelpful.
WinstonBerni 15:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Very well said. I will continue, as I said time and time again, to revert his destructive edits, as will the rest of the Wikipedia community. Maybe eventually, this overzealous administrator on a power trip will realize that the community that he likes so much does not want him here at all. As for the personal attacks thing, isn't it funny? I mean, I referred him to meta:Don't be a dick because it is a relevant essay that applies to the situation, and I got a "Final warning" on my talk page, complete with a cute little "Stop" icon. Aftli 16:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lemonparty.org inclusion 

message: As soon as the page is un-protected, I will volunteer my time to rewrite this article, which is now in need of a major rewrite:
* The article no longer lists much relevant information about each site.  The goal of this article was always not only to warn other users of the sites, but to present some history about each site. 
* The article contains useless references to things that are no longer in the article - this is mainly because of a certain person who continues to simply delete sites he does not like, and does not completely and correctly modify the rest of the article, preferring instead to just continue in his own ongoing edit war.
* The text of the article is currently horrible - too bad there is no way for me to revert the changes, since an overzealous administrator decided to "ask for the article to be" protected, in order to continue his personal vendetta against shock sites and the general community on this article.
So, look forward to a complete rewrite as soon as this article is unprotected. The rewrite will include references, history about all major shock sites, and we will no longer follow the guideline of a shock site having to be discussed by a major media outlet in order to be considered "major" - as no such references exist for any shock sites.  An anonymous user below explained this best:
But when the topic originates on the internet, and rarely leaves the internet, then sources are hard to find. Any news articles you find, regardless as to whether they are from a big news source, are written by normal people with the same amount of information on the topic as you. If the New York Times went and wrote and article about meatspin, they would have come across the same amount of information as you have to make their article, the only difference is that they actually have a voice.
Aftli 17:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major rewrite now needed 

message: Please visit Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mangojuice to voice your opinion on the senseless reverts, and overzealous and inappropriate actions (such as protecting this article) that administrator User:Mangojuice has taken in order to win his edit war on this page.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aftli (talk • contribs).
It is a critical Wikipedia policy that all additions be verifiable and from reliable sources.  Our notion of reliable sources does not include forum postings, blogs, or mentions from user-edited sites like Wikipedia itself, or sites like Urban Dictionary, Encyclopedia Dramatica, et cetera.  Normally information that is not sourced is not removed immediately, but some shock sites have been thoroughly researched by several editors and no sources could be found, so they've have to be removed.  Notably, these include:
* Meatspin
* meatroll.com
* Hai2u
* Lastmeasure.
** I'm back from vacation now, and I'll be back to regularly reverting useless and non-constructive edits by Mangojuice and whoever else tries to ruin the article. Sorry this article continued to suffer while I was on vacation. Oh, and lol @ whoever removed Lemonparty as a "major shock site". Aftli 18:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *As to whether or not "everybody's had enough", I really don't think that's true.  A couple of new editors with no idea what Wikipedia is have stopped by here to complain that this site isn't just like Urban Dictionary, and have mostly vanished into thin air: so what.  If you look at my RfC, you'll find that everyone not already connected to the dispute has agreed that I haven't done anything wrong, and in fact have commended the work I've been doing here.  Wikipedia policy will NOT be ignored on this page just because you are annoyed about how policy dictates this page should be.  Mangojuicetalk 13:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Oh, and by the way, Aftli, as a shock site owner, you should probably stay away from the editing of this page and leave it up to Wikipedia, as you have a conflict of interest.  If you refuse to do that, you should at least come clean about which shock site or sites you own.  Mangojuicetalk 15:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: * If anybody is looking for a reliable scource look at http://www.jenkem.org/wiki/index.php?title=Shock_Sites. This has just about every shock site ever on it.208.111.223.124 00:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PLEASE READ (regarding information removed from the article)

message: Old threads no longer active have been moved to /Archive 2.  Mangojuicetalk 13:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived 

message: Souces that have been mentioned for Meatspin:
1. : Ebay auction of the Meatspin.com domain name, winning amount $2100.
2. : Article on Politicalcortex.com.  Relevant excerpt:   
3. General web statistics: Ghits, Alexa rank, wholinks2me.com
4. User-contributed content sites: Urban Dictionary, digg.com thread
My concerns for each of these sources:
1.  This proves that a domain name, Meatspin.com, was sold for $2100.  It has some hits statistics, which were posted by the person trying to sell Meatspin: I don't disbelieve them, but it doesn't really mean anything.  Oh, and if anyone thinks this proves notability, notice that FARMMEMORABILIA4SALE.COM, a domain name I don't think any of us would call notable, sold for $4500.  
2.  Most importantly, this is not a reliable source: see ; basically, anyone can create an account there and post whatever they want to, there's no editorial control on average articles.  The author of the article in question has posted 9 things total and has received very few comments from others: in other words, this is just a blog entry.  But beyond that, the article is laughably incoherent and uninformed about the internet.  The article is trying to discredit a politician because of an aide that politician employs named Misenti.  The article criticizes Misenti for being an administrator on a forum site called duckandcover, based on the content of duckandcover.  He mentions that the forum contains a link to MeatSpin.com, and that MeatSpin.com links to something else undesirable.  This guy doesn't know the time of day: he's probably talking about the pornish-Adult Friend Finder type advertisements MeatSpin.com has, and .. seriously?  Anywhere on the internet is three clicks away from porn.  And for some reason the author chooses to highlight the singles advertisement but not, say, mention the gay/transexual porn right in the middle of the page.  Presumably because the singles advertisement, when he saw it, referred back to towns in the area.  Those ads always do: they parse your IP address to learn where you are and put up nearby locations.  What we can learn from this is basically only that there is a link to MeatSpin.com somewhere on duckandcover, which doesn't mean anything (I mean, we could find that link ourselves directly).  
3.  Every site has web statistics, and it's hard to interpret their meaning.  It has repeatedly been rejected to use Google, Alexa, or similar sites as sources because they can be manipulated, and because the results are hard to interpret: see Wikipedia:No original research.  I'm of the opinion that adding web statistics to other sources may be okay, but they really can't be our only sources.  Also, in the particulars, Alexa ranks for sites below the top 1000 are extremely unstable and have very questionable meaning.
4.  User-controlled content like Urban Dictionary, digg.com (or any other forum or blog) is not remotely a reliable source because there is no editorial control whatsoever: it's mob rules.  It's been rejected as a reliable source for Wikipedia many times, even for inherently hard-to-source topics.  Mangojuicetalk 14:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We know now that this does not matter - the people have spoken. Ciper is free to add back Meatspin, as well as any other sites. Aftli 15:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will continue to revert completely unsourced additions.  Sources that cannot even arguably be called reliable will also not count.  If you want sites added, find sources and engage in the discussion.  Mangojuicetalk 21:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I own meatspin.com. You mention that sources like Alexa are not reliable as their stats are unstable. Would be uploading my stats for the past year of 35,000 visitors per day do anything? I could install extreme tracking on the site with a public login so you could track stats. Just thought I would throw it out there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.225.149.113 (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you, but hit count is just kind of irrelevant with respect to WP:ATT. Mangojuicetalk 01:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meatspin.com sources 

message: Would Motherman.com be considered as a shock site?. It is a site, and it is shocking. It is used for trolling, and unsuspecting people get sent there. However, although many people have been duped by it, I don't think that it has been published in the printed press. Does this mean it shouldn't be included in here - as it wasn't published in the Sunday Times or New York Times? --Landspeed 4 March 2007.
:Answering my own question. This site is part of the meatspin network, and while one day meatspin.com might have a valid reference, this site certainly doesn't. It is not particularly noteable either, and, therefore, is not suitable to be included in the article, for the same reasons that meatspin.com shouldnt. --Landspeed 19:58 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Recently Phonetrace has become a popular shock site. It tricks the user into thinking the site is used to locate the exact position of a person by the signal their moblie phone emitts. I'm not going to add the page to the article, as I can see some of you, obviously with a lot of time on your hands (Akhilleus, Mangojuice) regard it as a very precious article, so I'll leave it to someone else to add the page. --Tadhg 14:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Find a good source and it can go in.  There has been a little discussion of the site before: see /Archive 2, but no one has presented a source.  Mangojuicetalk 14:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Harvard guidelines state that a web address is a source, so would the web page and the fact that it exists not require a source? --Tadhg 14:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:ATT for more on what Wikipedia considers acceptable.  At minimum, we need a source that actually writes about the subject, and some basis for believing that the source is reliable. Mangojuicetalk 19:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok after doing a search the only articles I could find were trying to trick people into using the site, so they didn't mention the site as being a shock site. --Tadhg 13:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've thought about this before.  The thing is, if shock sites are specifically connected with trolling, then rotten.com probably isn't one.  But it's definitely a notable site.  Maybe we could put a link under "see also"?  Mangojuicetalk 02:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it funny how this user thinks of this article as "his article"?  He's "thought about this before", debating on whether to "allow" it to be added. Remember, he makes all the decisions here! Aftli 16:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what do you think, Aftli?  Is Rotten.com a shock site in the sense that this article discusses?  Should we include it in the article?  Mangojuicetalk 17:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it should, because the article contains the shock site category. --AAA! (AAAA) 05:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Just checked - it is there anyway, but not linked to this article. --Landspeed 21:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely sourced enough for me.. but is it really a shock site?  To me, it just seems like a humor site, albeit somewhat tasteless (no pun intended)... no evidence that it is trying to be deceptive about its content, or used for trolling.  This brings up an interesting point about this article: never mind the sites, is the definition of a shock site that we have here the right one?  Is it adequately sourced?  Mangojuicetalk 22:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the definition of 'shock site' here is of one that is immediately shocking, with a grotesque image / video etc, which is instantly shocking. There is however, a category of sites like manbeef and bonsai kitten, which instead are more slowly shocking / disturbing, because they are made to appear 'real', yet twisted/disturbing. In Germany, the phrase 'shock site' apparently tends to refer to a different kind of site - e.g. I have seen one where you are meant to concentrate on the centre of the screen, 6cm away, then suddenly there is a full-volume shriek, together with skull with burning eyes that appears (to shock the user). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.69.22.62 (talk) 14:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other shock sites to consider 

message: It is a tertiary source, a place where volunteers take published information and compile it into articles that can inform a reader about a topic.
Even if there are facts that a reader should know about a subject, it's not a part of WP's purpose to include that information if it can only be provided straight from a random contributer's observations and research.
There are plenty of other Wikis and user-created-content sites where users are supposed to contribute original research and observation (urban dictionary, blogs, forums, uncyclopedia), but not here. So what if WP is the dominant Wiki-based encyclopedia? You can't go ahead and act counter-productively against its guidelines just because you think you have to get this information included in WP.
The fact is, blogs and forums are NOT reliable sources of information. Sure, you can trust the posters of forums and authors of blogs, but, since there are so many of them, it's hard to tell which ones are reliable. I have encountered plenty of health blogs that give conflicting and/or dubious health advice, I have seen obviously biased blogs publishing smear after smear against unfavored politians, and I have even seen multiple blogs state that the liquid spewing out of tubgirls anus is orange juice. Nothing on Google has ever revealed the original source of this statement. However, in these blogs, they all cited Wikipedia as their source. Do you see the unreliablity of blogs? (And really, about any other user-created-content based site such as a forum)
And google statistics by themselves mean nothing. It's like trying to interpret someone's blood pressure readings without knowing anything else about them. And these numbers can change too, without any documentation whatsoever. To include this information into Wikipedia is to take your own observations of raw data, and make a conclusion (which, however common-sense it may seem to you, can still be wrong), which clearly is a violation of WP's policy exclude any original research and only include attributable information (after all, WP is a tertiary source, and NOT an indiscriminate orgy of information which subjectively seems notable).
Sorry for the ranting, I kinda got carried away, but it's a little frustrating that editors who don't seem to understand the guidelines (and why they exist in the first place) are so adamant on ignoring those guidelines just because they think that Wikipedia should be something that it is not.
And by the way, Aftli, WP is not a democracy, it is a community based on consensus and working towards creating an encyclopedia under the guidelines that have been laid down by its founders and are followed by the community. So just because you and those who agree with you dominate this talk page right now with your vision for what the article should be, doesn't mean that administrators and other editors will side with you. Blueaster 05:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to point out the inherent contradictions in "not a democracy" and "based on consensus". As well as the specious logic that leads us from "based on consensus" to the statement that the voiced majority opinion is irrelevant. I would also like to point out how ridiculous a concept it is that administrators and editors, who pay no more attention to any one article than any other, (and thus don't particularly care for the well-being of this specific one), would be better aware of what is important and relevant information to this article than the users who have making use of it and contributing to it for months. Upthorn 11:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate orgy of facts about everything and anything that is subjectively notable. 

message: I have noticed that Wikipedia contains a huge number of pieces of information (and whole articles)
without sources or references, and yet the pages seem to remain. Is there a particular reason that
the Shock Sites page has such special, near real-time enforcement of the need for sources and references, and near total-control by locking most of the time?. 
Most of the pages describing episodes of TV series, or events within movies, do not have sources for that information. Surely those pages should have a reference that the TV episode / movie exists, but refrain from describing the content of the episode / movie at all, as there are no reliable source for that information?. 
Another example is the article on Parachutes : it contains a lot of information about parachutes, almost all of which is not referenced at all!. Also, I have a reference, published in a respected publication, which shows there is no evidence to support the use of parachutes, and that their routine use could not be recommended safely when jumping from planes. Should I use this source to delete large portions of that page?. I feel that these points are important when discussing the policy on the shock sites page, so should be discussed here in order to make things more clear for other users considering these issues. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Landspeed (talk • contribs).
:It's true that many WP articles fail to observe WP:ATT properly. But that's an argument to fix those articles--it's not an argument to relax policy on this page. Especially not when it's reasonable to assume that some of the editors might profit from any extra publicity the article will give to their shock sites. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To answer Landspeed's question more directly, a lot of research was done to weed out non-notable sites that had been added to the list.  Look back at the talk page archives (particularly Talk:Shock site/Archive 1) as well as Talk:List of shock sites.  Generally, unattributed information is kept around with the idea that it will eventually be attributed.  Here, a lot of work has confirmed that much of the material removed cannot be properly attributed, which is a different situation.  As for the general argument, see Wikipedia:Do you ever go fishing?.  Mangojuicetalk 15:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance of maintaing Wikipedia Integrity on the shock sites page 

message: As I said before, to include unreferenced content or information from unreliable sources is not a part of Wikipedia's mission. But I understand that some people want to create a more comprehensive article on Shock sites that would have to go beyond WP's rules. So as a consession, here are some Wikis where you can go wild without having to worry about "oppresive" guidelines and administrators.
here's to freedom. Meep. Blueaster 00:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably Encyclopedia Dramatica too.  And let me add that I wouldn't object in the least to an external link to a shock site list elsewhere.  Mangojuicetalk 13:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is fortunate that your opinion no longer matters here, as it goes completely against consensus, which you are preventing. I will continue to revert your destructive edits. Aftli 16:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Alternative Wikis for those who want to create a more comprehensive article on shock sites 

message: I just spent a lot of time including other shock sites in this article.  Why are they not worthy of mention.  People should be informed of these sites.  How would you like it if your son or daughter inadvertanty clicked on a link to nimp.org or gimpyd.com?  This article's purpose is to include information on all of the shock sites, not just goatse and tubgirl.  Whoever is reverting these edits is doing a great disservice to this article and should be banned for vandalism.  Fuck Off!  This is flagrant censorship, This is America, This Isn't Right!
Yeah, people should have the right to know about this. Amazing what people put on the internet these days.
:See WP:ATT.  If you can meet that standard, the information can be included.  However, this isn't Urbandictionary.com or some private website: there's a standard of source-checking and reliability here.  After a lot of research, we've turned up completely empty on those sites.  Help would be appreciated, but at this time, it's unacceptable to keep that stuff there without sourcing.  Mangojuicetalk 16:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been reading the heated argument on this page, and I have to go in favor of Aftli.  First of all, your statement "we've turned up completely empty on those sites" makes no sense. And second, regardless, I don't see how sites need a citation if it is a shock site.  If it's a shock site, it's a shock site!  Why is "sourcing" needed? Eridani 23:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because not all "shock sites" are inherently notable.  I could spend, maybe, a half hour and create one of these sites.  Does that mean it should be included in the article?  No, of course not.  This is an encyclopedia, and it has to meet encyclopedic standards - specifically WP:ATT and WP:NOTE.  This article is supposed to be a formal survey of shock sites - what they are, and what their cultural role is.  It is not a list of shock sites, nor is it a collection of things relating to them - it is a sourced, encyclopedic article, and must meet standards as such.  --Haemo 23:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Attribution.  That's what we consider verifiability.  Mangojuicetalk 11:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article will now follow WP:IAR when it comes to sourcing.  Since this article isn't going anywhere (numerous discussions have been had on whether to keep it), the "rules" are preventing us from modifying the article and making it as it should be.  Mangojuice has been reminded on [His RFC] to WP:IAR where appropriate. I will continue to revert all destructive edits by him.  If you would like to add a site to the page, please make sure you discuss it on the talk page first - but we will allow sites without "sources" from "major media outlets", since none exist for this type of material. Aftli 15:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  People were reminding me to ignore the rules, in other words, to use my admin tools even in a content dispute, as long as it's clearly appropriate.  I once again call upon Aftli to stop editing this article because of his conflict of interest as a shock-site owner, or at least to be up-front about it: what shock site do you own, exactly, and what is your real interest in expanding the list?  Mangojuicetalk 15:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but no, we will not "allow sites without 'sources' from 'major media outlets', since none exist for this type of material."  This absolutely goes against WP:ATT and WP:IAR is rather poor justification for this.  I've semi-protected the article for now to allow discussion without edit warring, but I will upgrade this if need be to full protection... and I expect  will voluntarily refrain from overriding this protection.--Isotope23 16:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And based on the latest addition of unsourced material, I've fully protected this for the time being.--Isotope23 16:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I just hope that all users refrain from snarky comments, unhelpful sarcasm, and over-broad claims of support from the "community", because this situation has escalated far enough, and any more immature snark and whining will definately be "destructive" to any progress. <3 Blueaster 22:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This is ridiculous

message: If you have been involved in this dispute, please feel free to add a statement.  However, please do not edit the statements of other users, except to endorse.  Please keep responses to other users' statements in your own section.
====Statement by involved user Mangojuice ====
About a year ago, when the list (formerly at List of shock sites) was being cut down, a lot of research was done to find references of any, even vaguely reliable sort for the sites in the list, after we had cut out ones that barely even get google hits or Alexa rank.  For most sites, including Hai2u and Meatspin, I did a lot of research myself trying to find any reliable sources.  Nothing has been found that can qualify as a reliable source for Meatspin, and the best thing I found for Hai2u was from the forum rules of an underpopulated Anime forum, mentioning that shock sites such as (short list including Hai2u) should not be linked, and people could be banned for this.  These sites do get lots of hits from forums, blogs, and so on, and they have entries on Urban Dictionary and Encyclopedia Dramatica, but these have been rejected many many times by the community as reliable sources.  Probably the best source is a list of shock sites the owner of a shock site put up after discussion at Talk:Shock site: he appeared to actually understand how Wikipedia works, and he put up his own list of shock sites on his own shock site webpage.  Still, not independent, and as the individual opinion of one person, not reliable.  Normally, I wouldn't be aggressive about removing unsourced information on any article, but in this case, after so much research was done that came up empty on such a wide variety of material, I have been.  I just don't think it's acceptable for that work to go to waste by giving up and allowing unverifiable material back in.
See Talk:List of shock sites for the early history of the efforts to reduce the list; see Talk:Shock site/Archive 1 for the later history.  Unlike the more recent Talk:Shock site/Archive 2 archive, there is a lot of attention from established users who actually care about Wikipedia policy.  
Some arguments that may come up against my position, and my rebuttals.  (1) What's the rush?  Sources will eventually be found.  Response: several editors have worked hard to find sources and have removed the sites for which no reliable sources could be found.  When sources are found, we can add the information then: plenty of time and effort has been spent on finding them: it's doubtful good enough sources exist.  (2) This is not the kind of topic you can expect reliable sources for.  We should be willing to accept less reliable sources.  Response: The Wikipedia community has repeatedly rejected the idea that we should bend the need for reliable sources because a topic is hard to source.  See, for instance the deletion debates over The Game (game).  (3) The list isn't very useful if we limit it to just the sourceable examples.  If this is an argument for removing the list entirely, it may be a good one.  If this is an argument for not limiting the list, see WP:USEFUL -- many things are useful, but aren't appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia.  Mangojuicetalk 17:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Others that endorse this statement:
*Strongly endorse - this is an encyclopedia, and no article gets a pass on guidelines, no matter how much some editors would like it to.  Also, I commend [[User:Mangojuice for his level head and civility on this topic.  --Haemo 02:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

message: About a year ago, when the list (formerly at List of shock sites) was being cut down, a lot of research was done to find references of any, even vaguely reliable sort for the sites in the list, after we had cut out ones that barely even get google hits or Alexa rank.  For most sites, including Hai2u and Meatspin, I did a lot of research myself trying to find any reliable sources.  Nothing has been found that can qualify as a reliable source for Meatspin, and the best thing I found for Hai2u was from the forum rules of an underpopulated Anime forum, mentioning that shock sites such as (short list including Hai2u) should not be linked, and people could be banned for this.  These sites do get lots of hits from forums, blogs, and so on, and they have entries on Urban Dictionary and Encyclopedia Dramatica, but these have been rejected many many times by the community as reliable sources.  Probably the best source is a list of shock sites the owner of a shock site put up after discussion at Talk:Shock site: he appeared to actually understand how Wikipedia works, and he put up his own list of shock sites on his own shock site webpage.  Still, not independent, and as the individual opinion of one person, not reliable.  Normally, I wouldn't be aggressive about removing unsourced information on any article, but in this case, after so much research was done that came up empty on such a wide variety of material, I have been.  I just don't think it's acceptable for that work to go to waste by giving up and allowing unverifiable material back in.
See Talk:List of shock sites for the early history of the efforts to reduce the list; see Talk:Shock site/Archive 1 for the later history.  Unlike the more recent Talk:Shock site/Archive 2 archive, there is a lot of attention from established users who actually care about Wikipedia policy.  
Some arguments that may come up against my position, and my rebuttals.  (1) What's the rush?  Sources will eventually be found.  Response: several editors have worked hard to find sources and have removed the sites for which no reliable sources could be found.  When sources are found, we can add the information then: plenty of time and effort has been spent on finding them: it's doubtful good enough sources exist.  (2) This is not the kind of topic you can expect reliable sources for.  We should be willing to accept less reliable sources.  Response: The Wikipedia community has repeatedly rejected the idea that we should bend the need for reliable sources because a topic is hard to source.  See, for instance the deletion debates over The Game (game).  (3) The list isn't very useful if we limit it to just the sourceable examples.  If this is an argument for removing the list entirely, it may be a good one.  If this is an argument for not limiting the list, see WP:USEFUL -- many things are useful, but aren't appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia.  Mangojuicetalk 17:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Others that endorse this statement:
*Strongly endorse - this is an encyclopedia, and no article gets a pass on guidelines, no matter how much some editors would like it to.  Also, I commend [[User:Mangojuice for his level head and civility on this topic.  --Haemo 02:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by involved user [[User:Mangojuice|Mangojuice]] 

message: http://www.porkhole.net/keara.html
Liquinn: Site doesn't work, hopefully that can be fixed asap.
It's a list of shock sites, please add it to the external link —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frogz Contributions/66.167.71.104 (talk) 04:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I for one am in favor of the link.  I'm not sure what objection is being made when it has been removed before.  Mangojuicetalk 17:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure when that site started acting like that since i had no problems before, but it doesn't take you to a list anymore, it takes you to some sort of search engine. I'm sorry to say it has no use anymore. —The preceding comment was added by Mrengenious (talk) 01:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia doesn't accept advertising, sorry.  Mangojuicetalk 01:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  please add 

message: I think article description of the two examples is to bland. Say that there's a "man stretching his anus with his hands" is not veritable enough, we should precise that is far  stretched (to about 10 cm diameter?) with clear display of red internals; for tubgirl saying "orange/yellow liquid" may mislead to think about urine, it would be better to add "a dense orange/yellow liquid resembling diarrhea".
I think these precisions will better prepare those that want to look at the images, reducing part of the "shock-effect". A more "medicine-like" explanation would help too. --BMF81 12:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I see why this is necessary.  It's a shock site... anyone visiting it after seeing this article can presumably expect to be "shocked".  Why would we as an encyclopedia be concerned with reducing that effect?--Isotope23 17:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: . The current content is descriptive enough that nobody will be surprised; it is more descriptive than the request above suggests. CMummert · talk 17:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More description details

message: Can someone please tell me why meatspin redirects here when there is no mention of it on the page? 82.5.75.13 13:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, good catch.  I tried and failed to WP:RFD that redirect a while back, along with several others.  Isotope has now deleted that redirect as unecessary.  Mangojuicetalk 14:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, sorry I forgot to comment here after I did that.  I salted the page because it was a protected redirect, but that can always be adjusted in the future if it is determined Meatspin should be included here (or get its own article).--Isotope23 14:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Meatspin redirects here

message: Brilliant - an AfD just merged a bunch of trivia, and unsourced material here, which is exactly what we've been trying to keep out of this.  Can an admin, say, delete it?
Also - why was this pp-protected?  I don't see any reason for it. 
--Haemo 21:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD Merge

message: Ogrish.com can be added to the page whenever it is unprotected. It hosts all sorts of sickening autopsy media and other violent footage. Here is the reliable source I found from News.com  and another one from the Financial Times . It also received a mention in  towards the end of the article. —  MichaelLinnear 03:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ogrish.com has an article. Andjam 04:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should still be mentioned in this article, as Goatse.cx is. —  MichaelLinnear 04:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it.  This is definitely adequate sourcing.  Mangojuicetalk 14:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.--Isotope23 14:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I added it. —  MichaelLinnear 05:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example of a shock site (With a source!) 

message: The main article for Ogrish explains the merger with Liveleak and the renaming but the paragraph in this article led you to believe it was actively functioning as Ogrish.com. The only changes I made were to show it's history. Coradon 07:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed some of the words in the Ogrish blurb to reflect past tense. 

message: Well, since the most recent AfD closed as keep despite extremely little sourcing, I think the article needs to take a new direction.  First, it's apparent that the current form has the definition wrong.  This is OR, but here's how it's used in the sources I've seen.  The Scotsman.com source  defines a "shock site" as a site with offensive content with the built-in idea that the site might be used as part of a trick where one expects to see something not offensive but instead is sent to a shock site.  This is the definition as endorsed by the article now.  However, the other sources, , , , all use the term "shock site" to merely refer to any website that hosts shocking content.  Mind you, none of these last three sources are actually about shock sites as a topic (though, the scotsman article is), but rather are about certain events relating to certain websites that are described as "shock sites".  Anyway, this second definition seems to be the one that sources use, so we need to revise our definition.  Second, we need to do away with this list of examples, it's caused nothing but problems.  As many, many newer users have pointed out, the list isn't comprehensive.  Since most (virtually all) potentially offensive websites don't appear in reliable sources at all, we really can't have a comprehensive list.  Furthermore, the sourcing we do have totally sucks.  The only sites we have at all reasonable sources for are ones that already have their own articles: Goatse.cx and Ogrish.com.  Therefore, I think, it is reasonable to eliminate the "examples" section and replace with a list, which will be a plain list of other articles on shock sites.  Third, we could stand to have a little more actual text.  For one thing, the "anti-shock" site phenomenon could be mentioned; the Scotsman source backs that up.  Also, there seems to be a coherent story about shock sites in general: Goatse.cx and Ogrish were both shut down because they were so offensive; Stileproject and Rotten.com have not been, but have been the subject of serious complaints.  This seems to be a general issue we could write about and we have the sources to do so.  Mangojuicetalk 21:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New direction for the article 

message: i move that cc.org be included on the list of shock sites, it has made me vomit many a time —The preceding Frogz unsigned comment was added by 72.244.127.175 (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  cc.org 

message: MangoJuice, you are wrong!
From WP:ATT:
Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge.
Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible.
So what you are having such a hang-up about is finding secondary sources for "descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge" - primary sources!
That tub girl exists can be verified by anyone without specialist knowledge.
That tub girl is shocking can be verified by anyone without specialist knowledge.
That tub girl is wearing a mask can be verified by anyone without specialist knowledge.
That she is squirting an 'orange liquid' out of her anus can be verified by anyone without specialist knowledge.
If I were to state that her name is Ralph & she is 12 years old & the 'orange liquid' is blackberry jam with food coloring I would, in fact need a secondary source!
Whether or not a website exists can be verified by anyone without specialist knowledge.
Whether or not a website meets the definition of a 'shock site' can be verified by anyone without specialist knowledge.
Now, my beef with the 'shock site' page is this:
As an encyclopedia, I expected WikiPedia to explain what in the heck is going on in the picture. Not to have a debate about whether or not it's technically a 'shock site.' Information about who is in the picture, who took the picture, what is the orange liquid, etc...
Whether or not there is a canonical list of 'shock sites' is tertiary. Perhaps at the bottom of the page, or perhaps not at all. That would be up to the community & has NOTHING to do with attribution!
The primary purpose, to define 'shock sites'.
The secondary purpose, to define or give information about search terms such as 'tub girl', which redirect here.
Have fun with your little tug-of-war!
*The above comment was added by 
:*We'd love if you could dig up some more verifiable information for us to use in the article.  As for the "orange liquid" bit, someone at some point put into the article text saying that it was orange juice.  I don't know if that's true or not, and neither did they, nor, as far as I can tell, does anyone else.  Which is sort of the point: I'd rather have no info at all in there than something someone made up that can't be verified.  Mangojuicetalk 20:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mango juice is kind of expensive, I doubt they'd have used that.  Although, it is less acidic.  Aaanyway.  You are right, simple observations aren't original research.  So, saying that Tubgirl depicts blah with orange liquid is not OR.  What is OR, though, is classifying Tubgirl as a shock site without any reliable sources to back that up.  I mean, we could also make the observation that on Yahoo.com one can find pictures of large amounts of nude people taken by Spencer Tunick.  That's easily verified, but including it here would imply that this is considered to be a shock site (and, moreover, some people surely do find those photos offensive).  Now, I think Tubgirl probably is generally considered as such, and Yahoo isn't, I'm picking extreme examples here, but I think this illustrates why we have to avoid that kind of OR.  Mangojuicetalk 16:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Do you think we should add rotten.com to this page? The site is pretty shocking, and it has it's own article, which also has quite a few sources. --AAA! (AAAA) 03:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At a cursory glance, yes, I think it would qualify for the same reason as Ogrish above. --MichaelLinnear 04:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. I'll get started on it when I get the chance. Cheers. --AAA! (AAAA) 06:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you guys think about my comments at #New direction for the article?  I think Rotten.com certainly belongs, but partly, that's because the current article seemingly gets the definition wrong.  Mangojuicetalk 15:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, after looking it over it's very intriguing. A new approach like that might create an article with more "meat" to it. --MichaelLinnear 05:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The typical Wikipedia approach: look for independent, reliable secondary sources.  So far, for shock sites, I haven't seen one source saying X is a shock site and another saying X isn't, but if it came up, we could just mention the difference of opinion, and possibly favor one side if one source had a better claim to authority.  Mangojuicetalk 20:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rotten.com 

message: Should we give unprotection a try?  I don't like to see articles of such minor controversy full-protected for months on end.  At least semi-protection.  I was going to make a few improvements. BenB4 05:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is semi-protected right now, you should be able to help out right now. --MichaelLinnear 05:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotect? 

message: Hello,
Somebody has stupidly put a link as reference of a shock site. 80.118.163.12 09:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, did you read the link?  It actually references Goatse.--Isotope23 16:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll admit, it's not the best reference.  It does call Goatse a shock site, though, which is why it's there.  Still, it's a very tangential mention: if anyone can do better, it would be appreciated.  Mangojuicetalk 18:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, I admit. Regards. 80.118.163.12 14:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snopes.com 

message: There's still a link to List of shock sites, which has been merged with this article.
59.101.141.121 11:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure? I looked and wasn't able to find it. --MichaelLinnear 22:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to redirect 

message: The section on tubgirl describes an article "claiming that the subject matter is allegedly popular in Japan."  That's excessive weaselling.  If we say "claiming that", then we've already distanced ourselves from a POV endorsement of the claim - we're not saying the claim is true, but we're saying that the article says it's true.  With "claiming that...allegedly" it sounds like the article cited is also distancing itself from the claim.  (In which case, who made the actual allegation?)  I'd strongly suggest removing the word "allegedly"; the article in question did really make the claim, and so we can say that for sure without extra weasel words. 216.59.228.3 12:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Mangojuicetalk 20:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claiming that...allegedly 

message: Has anyone heard of Insultmonger.com? What is Insultmonger.com? --Blake3522 07:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insultmonger.com 

message: Thanks alot Mangojuice for your helpful and constructive edits. They're so good in fact that bluwiki's page on it is better then the almighty wikipedias. Greatly appreciated.
=== Why isn't meatspin on there? ===
There are 2 shock sites that have got me, goatse(years ago) and meatspin(day before this addition)
Meatspin's receiver page has an animation... I won't describe it here for 2 reasons
1. It might be removed
2. I don't feel comfortable with that.
::Meatspin isn't listed because there are not sufficient reliable sources to establish notability.--Isotope23 talk 13:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow thanks alot 

message: There are 2 shock sites that have got me, goatse(years ago) and meatspin(day before this addition)
Meatspin's receiver page has an animation... I won't describe it here for 2 reasons
1. It might be removed
2. I don't feel comfortable with that.
::Meatspin isn't listed because there are not sufficient reliable sources to establish notability.--Isotope23 talk 13:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why isn't meatspin on there? 

message: ...but the article doesn't say what it is. Is it a shock site? A particular image? A site about shock sites? If it's a shock site or picture, how bad is it? I'd search the web, but I'm afraid of what I might find. Shinobu 18:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet another dead end redirect that needs to be dealt with...  I don't know about this particular one, but if it redirects here I'd suggest it's probably a shock site/image.  If I had to guess it is urine or feces related.--Isotope23 talk 18:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and I'm wrong.  It is geriatric groupsex.--Isotope23 talk 18:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: They don't... or at least nobody has ever produced any reliable sources that establish WP:V,WP:N, or WP:WEB.  That is why the current redirects are daft because anyone redirect here are going to be left with no idea what it actually is (unless they look here or in the archives once this gets archived)--Isotope23 talk 22:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would an Alexa ranking suffice as a reliable source? WhisperToMe 23:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say no... Alexa rankings aren't a factor for notability per the guidelines because they are terribly unreliable and skewed...  What is really necessary is multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable sources.--Isotope23 talk 23:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lemon party redirects here... 

message: This subpage has been created with the page history from Last Measure to preserve its history for GFDL purposes per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 August 9 as content from Last Measure was merged into this article. Although the merged content is no longer part of this article, it is present in the page history and (as it could be restored in future) the source history needs to be preserved as a result. WjBscribe 00:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Attribution - [[Talk:Shock site/Last Measure]]

message: This subpage has been created with the page history from Meatspin to preserve its history for GFDL purposes per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 August 10 as content from Meatspin was merged into List of shock sites, from which content was later merged into this article. Although the merged content is no longer part of this article, it may be present in the page history (either here or at List of shock sites) and (as it could be restored in future) the source history needs to be preserved as a result. WjBscribe 02:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Attribution - [[Talk:Shock site/Meatspin]]