Talk:List of shock sites/Archive 1

message: Should we put a notice on this page that the content is offensive? Maybe at the top instead of at the links, where one would have already scrolled past loads of disturbing stuff already? Imerson 17:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Attention: These are external links, and lie beyond the control of the Wikipedia. Their content could be considered disturbing by some viewers.
A quick comment. The tubgirl.jpg indeed has orange juice. It's not a rumor. There has been a picture series of about 10 images about the girl and in one of them the orange juice is shown applied from a bottle (or alike, I can't recall the correct english word for it). 
Do you believe that the previous warning displayed in the article should be kept, deleted, or modified?
*I vote for keep. I don't believe it is a matter of consensus as to who finds this offensive or disturbing, or who doesn't (IMO, few people won't). Every normal person will find it disturbing, and should at least be warned about what they will encounter. I also believe it is not a matter of culture. For example, even the Swedish media, which tends to be very "open-minded", displays a warning before such content is aired. Therefore, to be fair to those who don't want to come in contact with this material, I believe we should keep the notice.--Blunt01 23:38, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Offensive content notice? 

message: *Why is there 'weffggfhxghjcll-known' under 'Goatse.cx' while the original text doesn't have any of these characters and is correct?
*What's with the colon after "Credits"?
*Does bakla mean heshe?  (It's a guess, and I'm not a linguist, but I'm testing to see how smart I am.)
*Does someone want to write about Manbeef, and does it count?
lysdexia 15:32, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: questions

message: The vfd debate related to this article may be seen at Talk:List of shock sites/delete -- Graham  ☺ | Talk 22:36, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  VfD debate 

message: Several of the listings mention Lemonparty, often in the form "this site contains Lemonparty (see below)". However, although Lemonparty is mentioned a lot, there is no description of it in the article. I would verify the image myself, but right now I am masturbating to photographs of a pregnant Monica Bellucci and I do not want to spoil the mood. -Ashley Pomeroy 17:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lemonparty 

message: Although wikipedia, to me, stands for freedom of expression, and unbiased information, I feel the advertising of these external links Can only have a negative affect on anybody who visits them. I recognise that people do not have to view the links if they don't want to, but the fact that wikipedia is advertising and archiving these shock sites, makes wikipedia, itself, an archive of shock sites.
:How would removing this list emphasize Wikipedia's stance for "freedom of expression, and unbiased information"? Under those guidelines, the effect that a sight might have on a viewer should be of no consequence when deciding whether to include it in the encyclopedia. And as you say, no-one is forced to go to the actual sites. Wikipedia is, in fact, one of the very few places where you can learn about these sites without actually visiting them. — David Remahl 17:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *I don't see what the problem is with being "an archive of shock sites". Kappa 18:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

text: What's wrong with external links with a warning? Now putting all the images inline, that's different. 68.237.103.187 18:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do not use wikipedia as means to advertise this filth 

message: I don't even have to leave rationale, this is tin-pan alley schlock. Wikipedia's large audience is being abused for the sake of porn, lewd, and inappropriate sites which feature vulgarity, and sites that have no relation to knowledge and/or education whatsoever. What knowledge can one profit from viewing this? I say someone should make a major change, or else it must be deleted. "Eating feces", should that even be showcased? 
Эрон Кинней (talk) 02:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has saved me from being trolled into tubgirl.jpg and butt.plu.gs (though I probably wouldn't trust a site called buttplugs anway). It's useful.
*We aren't advertising any site. If anything we are deterring people from visiting them. And besides, who gave you the right to decide pages are innapropriate? Foolish Child 14:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this page really appropriate? 

message: I am so annoyed with people writing such utter nonsense. Death exists in the world, as do people who like to do depraved acts. It wont go away, and Wikipedia is an encyclopeadia for ALL people, not just for the Christian right, or Jewish people, or for Icelandic people. Its for all.
Rather than attack the Wiki page, why not just go to another page and not scroll down. It is called SHOCK SITES!! Come on you guys, what did you expect? Fluffy bunnies and marshmallows. 
Please keep the page. Information OVER ignorance --drmike 01:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is the world, get used to it 

message: NVM, delete this. I already came across it on that list >_<
--Datavi X 09:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another shocker on the block 

message: I agree with what a previous poster stated saying that it is good for this to be here, on Wikipedia, so people can learn about it here, and not be suprised by it on the Internet. I, myself, was shocked with Lemonparty over an AIM conversation. We should keep this page up so people can see what they are, what their purpose is, and why to stay away from them.
Regarding the people who say that having these things up make Wikipedia itself a host of Shock sites and gives it a bad name; Wikipedia also has articles regarding perversion such as homosexual/bi acts, sex toys, graphpic sex-related material, etc. But we are not deleting those
articles, so why should we be deleting this one?
WatchHawk 23:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep The Page 

message: Why was Snickerbars deleted from the article? It seemed to be a legitimate shock site.
I'd add it back if I could remember what was on it (and no, I'm not going to the URL to find out...) Sister Ray 04:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Snickerbars

message: I believe, and always will believe, that facts are amoral, that they're neither good or bad, but can be used for good or bad purposes.
This list is such an example.
Doesn't Wikipedia exists so people can learn?
A list of shock sites, if nothing else, is useful for people who DON'T want to see these sites as it makes them far more difficult prey for social engineers.
They add the URLs into a list of blocked sites, and that's it, they'll never be bothered by them again.
However, it seems that some (many?) would prefer to delete this list. This is denial, and denial has never made any problems go away.
I think this list is important, I also think that not one good )(or even half-baked baked) reason to delete this list has been given.
--A5y 13:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not one good reason to delete 

message: Shouldn't all these entries point to wikipedia articles, whether there exist any or not?  I thought every list should. Snargle 06:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't that encourage people to create spam articles? Foolish Child 14:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikify

message: I put in that b0g.org contained shock images, someone seems to have deleted it. They're in the "offenisve shit" section, for future reference. Worldmaster0 18:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  b0g.org 

message: Why the crap is the list so short now? Also, what is with the "List of shock sites/Temp" page? Just get this page back the way it used to be.--WatchHawk 03:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You SAW that? 69.37.254.141
Me too, but it wasn't NEARLY as scary as the picture that used to be on the page about anencephaly, that picture scared me so much, whenever I'm alone and away from my computer, I can't think straight and get all these scary thoughts about dead babies being everywhere, and I only saw it for a second! Bill Sayre 02:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length 

message: I actually went to this because I wanted to see if the HI baby is really suffering from a "mild" form of the disease. It's not. I know with something that bad everything is relative, but someone just expecting a bloody picture may not like that. Is it just me, or should that part be removed? Sister Ray 04:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cherry Cake 

message: i added a warning stating that you click the links at your own risk. my friend got mad beacuse he "didnt know it would link right to it" (dont ask me)
Vulcanstar6 00:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  warning added 

message: Just because you find something objectionable, this is NOT a reason to delete its article. These sites are all notable and relevant, and there is enough information in the article to prevent it from being merely a spammy list of links. Wikipedia is not censored and deleting a page because you personally find a page objectionable violates WP:NPOV. It's entirely subjective what is offensive and what isn't. While I'm aware that the reason these pages are here is purely because they are intended to be objectionable, not everyone would find them objectionable. It's a point of view. So please, stop nominating this page for deletion. If you feel it hasn't got enough content, then by all means, visit each site and expand their description. However I feel that not many of you will be willing to do this. Foolish Child 14:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moral Objections 

message: I went through this list and censored these sites on my site. Trolls find this stuff anyway, there's no fighting it, but just to tell some of you guys, this thing can be used for good.--Kafeithekeaton 05:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article isn't just for trolling... 

message: I have placed the  tag on this article a couple of times, and it's been reverted.  I'm not saying I don't believe the information here, but this article needs to be sourced for two reasons.  First of all, ALL articles need sources to back up their claim.  But more importantly, this article will become merely a repository of shocking links if we don't source it, by which I mean, find some kind of reliable source indicating that each of these sites is in fact a "shock site", (and while we're at it, a source discussing the "shock site" phenomenon, including the term).  I'm replacing the tag; please DON'T remove it until the article is sourced.  Mangojuice 13:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (In response to the most recent edit summary), I agree that it's readily apparent that all of these sites are meant to be offensive and shocking.  That's not what I'm suggesting needs backing up.  Surely, there's a difference between Goatse.cx and Lime Rave in terms of whether they belong on this list: Goatse.cx obviously does, there are pop culture references to it, plenty of this is given in the Goatse article.  What I want to see here is sources showing that the shock sites in question have actually received some attention, so that we can verify that something is a shock site, which goes beyond whether it is merely shocking.  Otherwise, what's to stop me from taking some random gross picture I come across on the net and listing it in this article?  This kind of difference is what WP:V is there for; there's plenty of evidence about Goatse receiving lots of attention, while there wouldn't be any good information backing that up for the random gross picture I found on the net one day.  Again, I call on the editor reverting me to please discuss these issues.  Mangojuice 17:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: From WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to  reliable, published sources."  This is the first line of WP:V, which can be considered the CENTRAL policy of Wikipedia.  It is "true" that those sites are shocking.  It needs to be verifiable.  I'm trying to help here; this article keeps getting nominated for deletion, and this is one of the problems with it.  Skinmeister: PLEASE stop removing the cleanup-sources tag without discussing it; the article does need sources, but even if you don't think it does, it's just there to encourage editors who can help to do so.  It's there to help!  Mangojuice 19:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: There is really no use for articles like this. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a collection of links to sites which feature grotesque and disturbing content.  I can somewhat understand having articles about specific notable shock sites, but to have an article that is just a list of various shock sites is ridiculous. Now all we need is a list of porn sites and we'll be complete (actually now that I think about it, most of these sites are, in effect, porn sites). - Conrad Devonshire 02:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The community has decided to keep this article, by a very decisive margin. Although you may feel that this article is useless, many people have found this article helpful or at least interesting. It (descended from shock site) is one of Wikipedia's oldest and most well-known articles. Rhobite 03:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of whether people find it helpful or not, it is in clear violation of Wikipedia's policies and is in effect just an advertisement for shock sites. Conrad Devonshire 07:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since none of these shock sites make money, and it is very unlikely that the site owners added their own sites to this article, that seems like a pretty shaky argument to me. Sites like goatse, lemonparty, tubgirl, etc. are unquestionably well-known parts of Internet culture. Writing an article about them is no different than writing an article about a popular discussion board or an Internet fad. Rhobite 16:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well put. 69.119.93.73 23:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article simply needs to go

message: Everyone thinks that this this as an "advertisement" for shock sites. Nothing could be further from the truth. If anything, this list shows what sites are shock sites so that people can avoid them. In fact, thanks to this article I now know what sites are unsafe and I've been able to avoid being tricked into going to these sites.
:Exactly. I think people just want to delete this so it will be easier for them to trick people into going there.
Besides, I always thought that the "list of" lists are not meant to be "encyclopedic." I mean, why is there a List of Jews and List of Arabs. Nobody seems to object to that, despite the racial connotations it contains. --Machrider 15:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point. I'm sure that the article about Last Measure, for example, has saved people a lot of annoyance and embarrassment. Rhobite 16:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be said, of course, that, even as we don't operate to protect the sensibilities of readers, neither do we operate to save people from annoyance and embarrassment; such saving is perhaps ancillarily salutary, but oughtn't to be of concern to us.  With respect to lists, there are those of us who believe, nearly categorically, that lists are unencyclopedic and that categories, which serve the same purpose, should be used instead; in situations such as this, then, we'd likely suggest that shock sites that are sufficiently notable be given there own articles whilst those otherwise situated be listed as external links in the Shock sites article or altogether removed.  I readily concede, though, that those of us so inclined vis-à-vis lists are in the minority, and so, even as there is a (not insignificant) qualitative difference between lists comprising primarily intra-Wiki link and lists comprising external links, if List of French Canadian writers from outside Quebec, List of bands from Canada, and List of Head Men's Basketball Coaches at the University of Wisconsin are to stay, so ought this article.  Joe 16:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Categories are not replacements for lists. You can't format or add additional information to a category. And there are many topics that don't deserve their own articles, but they do get a brief mention in an article such as this one. Rhobite 17:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rhobite's position is surely the dominant one here (to which I adduce the dispositions of sundry AfDs on lists), and I certainly don't think a consensus exists for the reopening of the debate writ large.  I understand the position, and I recognize that lists serve roles categories cannot; it is for that reason that I don't look reflexively with disfavor on lists.  Nevertheless, I continue to believe that lists are almost always unnecessary.  In the case of List of bands from Canada, for example, a category is fine except for such bands as are redlinked.  If a band from Canada is notable, an article should be created; if a band is not notable, I'm not convinced it belongs on a list, but think that, if one desires to enumerate bands from Canada for which we don't have articles in view of general nn, he/she should do it in an article such as Music in Canada (I admit that following my policy would create very long articles very quickly).  The shock site list, for example, ought to be divided into those sites which merit articles on their own and those which do not; the latter should be added as external links infra to the shock sites article or as references/examples passim in the article, whereupon the list would no longer be needed.  Lists are, though, for better or worse, here to stay, and I'm not particularly unhappy about that.  Joe 17:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rhobite and Joe, I agree with you on lists in general. I would go even further than Joe and say that non-notable external links, if used purely as examples, are inappropriate everywhere. (That said, I will not fight the inclusion of a few of these links into Shock site, especially as a compromise for those who want to keep this list.) As for determining which sites are non-notable, see my efforts below. I figure I can remove one every day. Melchoir 01:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, on second thought, screw it. I'm outta here. Melchoir 08:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please, look at the other side of the coin

message: From the bottom, working our way up to the top...
I have removed:
===CherryCake.org===
CherryCake.org contains a picture showing the remains of a man who put a lit firecracker into his mouth. It is not yet known who he was. The name was chosen to trick people into going to the site, as the gruesome photo makes the victim look like a oozing cherry cake.
On February 16 2006, the front page was updated to show a picture of a fetus which appears to be suffering from a serious case of Harlequin type ichthyosis, followed by the original picture of the man's face after 2 seconds.
External link: www.cherrycake.org
from the article. It makes no attempt at claiming notability, verifiability, or meeting WP:WEB. Melchoir 18:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From WP:WEB: "Failure to meet these criteria does not mean that a subject must not be included".  I think that is the case of websites on this list that don't have articles of their own. VegaDark 19:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, WP:WEB is a guideline, and WP:N is an essay. WP:V and WP:OR are policy. Who decided which websites to include on this list? Where are the reliable sources? Per the recommendations at WP:V, I am copying the removed material here so that other users may, if they wish, search for a published, reputable source that addresses it. If you'd like to conduct such a search, be my guest. Melchoir 19:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Okay, let's get started 

message: CherryCake.org contains a picture showing the remains of a man who put a lit firecracker into his mouth. It is not yet known who he was. The name was chosen to trick people into going to the site, as the gruesome photo makes the victim look like a oozing cherry cake.
On February 16 2006, the front page was updated to show a picture of a fetus which appears to be suffering from a serious case of Harlequin type ichthyosis, followed by the original picture of the man's face after 2 seconds.
External link: www.cherrycake.org
</div>
from the article. It makes no attempt at claiming notability, verifiability, or meeting WP:WEB. Melchoir 18:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From WP:WEB: "Failure to meet these criteria does not mean that a subject must not be included".  I think that is the case of websites on this list that don't have articles of their own. VegaDark 19:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, WP:WEB is a guideline, and WP:N is an essay. WP:V and WP:OR are policy. Who decided which websites to include on this list? Where are the reliable sources? Per the recommendations at WP:V, I am copying the removed material here so that other users may, if they wish, search for a published, reputable source that addresses it. If you'd like to conduct such a search, be my guest. Melchoir 19:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CherryCake.org

message: I honestly don't see why this page should be deleted. This list could and should be used for people not wanting to be shocked. Take for example, the everyday parent. Their young, impressionable child is reading things somewhere online and comes across a link to bottleguy. With trolls as rampant as the common cold online, the child may be thinking that bottleguy is some elderly man who makes ships in a bottle. This could scar a child for life and can be prevented. Modern web browser allow the blocking of any site deemed inappropriate for themselves or their children. Schools as well may have to use a list of shock sites, such as this one, to prevent students from accessing them in school. Overall, this list helps people a lot with avoiding shock sites. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Killerrobotdude (talk • contribs) 16 April 2006.
:That is an excellent argument for a page like this to exist somewhere on the Internet. However, it doesn't address how it is appropriate to Wikipedia. Melchoir 01:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Strong Keep

message: There's a tag at the top of the page that speaks of uncited sources.... The links to the pages are right under the entries. For most of the sites listed, there are links right under the description. The others are sites that aren't up anymore. Those are just in a gray area, they could stay as is, or they could be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Killerrobotdude (talk • contribs) 02:04, 16 April 2006.
:The sites themselves are not reliable sources. In particular, they are incompetent at judging whether they are (1) actually shock sites and (2) notable enough to include here. In order to meet content standards such as WP:V and WP:OR, this article must either cite independent sources that describe the various "shock sites" as shock sites or point to sub-articles that do the same (usually the case for a list). Melchoir 02:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, sorry, in my eagerness to reply I forgot to show you the history of the tag in question. See #Sources above. Melchoir 02:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. I think the sites themselves prove that they are shock sites. Click on the link, and I can guarantee that most people will be shocked. I think the fact that they're so shocking proves their notability, as well. I would think that WP:V is designed for claims that are controversial. For example, if I told you that the sky is blue, you shouldn't ask me to cite a source for that. If you did, you would be gaming the system.--Primetime 02:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That they might shock most people in some hypothetical experiment is not enough for an encyclopedia. Mangojuice explains why at length above. Melchoir 02:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, as an example, I believe the "rotten.com bird" under "other shock sites" is sourced.  The letter from slashdot asking that the filename be changed is proof (a pretty lousy source, but perhaps the best we can find) that that page has in fact been used as a shock site.  It could be argued that it's obvious that teletorrents.org and the ShrewsburyCollege.co.uk sites are shock sites, as they have/had clearly offensive content with a misleading name.  All the rest, however, give no proof whatsoever that they are shock sites rather than simply shocking pictures/video, let alone proof in a reliable source.  I'm pretty sure such proof could be found for Goatse.cx... and many of the sites are perhaps notable as memes (though the community seems to not think much of memes without strong reliable sources; see The Game (game) and all its deletion/undeletion debates), but we need to be PROVING these sites are actually shock sites.  While we're at it, is the term "shock site" even found in any reliable source?  Mangojuice 05:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: UNCITED SOURCES?

message: In response to objections that the article is a linkfarm, I'll disable the external links. This will probably erode support from my own position that the page should go, but it is a simple measure that maintains the alleged utility of the page while marginally improving its compliance with WP:NOT. I hope we can all agree to that much at least. Melchoir 06:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a non-starter. I understand I'm a new visitor to the article, so I apologize for butting in all of a sudden. However, Google often directs visitors to mirrors and there is the possibility of not finding the site.--Primetime 06:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how Google is relevant. For all the links I disabled, the address was identical with the text. If someone really wants to visit one of these pages, there is no barrier to doing so. Melchoir 06:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's reassuring to see the blue links, because that lets you know the address is probably correct. It also helps set the list off from the "Former shock sites" section below it. Finally, it makes it easier to visit the sites if one can just click on the link.--Primetime 06:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh... perhaps you'd be content with the format at List of wikis? (That list itself needs a whole lot of trimming...) External links shouldn't be so prominent, and they should be subordinate to the corresponding internal link. Currently, the middle section looks exactly like the "External links" section of an article, and no article should be a glorified External links section. Melchoir 06:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I usually put the heading up front and the link at the back of the listed item. I'll try it out now.--Primetime 06:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does the article have to have links?  It's just a list with warnings, really.  If someone just HAS to find the page in question, they can find it on their own time.  An encyclopedia doesn't have graphic pictures under the 'pornography' entry, for example, so why should this one be any different? hobbie 13:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I think the "pornography" entry should have hardcore and softcore pornographic pictures included. This leads to my second point: A picture is worth a thousand words, so for our visitors to understand just how shocking these sites are, they need to visit them themselves. It makes it much easier and more assuring to do so it there are hotlinks included in the list.--Primetime 19:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Wikipedia is NOT censored, wether the images are offensive or not (and calling them one or the other is POV, you have to allow readers to form their own opinion) should not be a factor in wether they are included. In the article on, for instance Grass, had no pictures, would you be in favour of inserting one to illustrate what grass is? It's no different here, and to claim it is is entirely POV. At the very least, external links should be included. Articles on websites such as eBay and YTMND have external links, why is this any different? Foolish Child 11:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links