Talk:Goatse.cx/Archive 1

message: ===Results===
Inline:                       	15
Inline but not at top of page:	0
Link:                         	1
External link:                	58
None of the above:            	1
Comments                      	
The voting and comments are preserved at Talk:Goatse.cx/Vote -- Curps 03:45, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll: Should the goatse image be shown inline, as a link, as an external link, or none of the above?

message: Inline:                       	15
Inline but not at top of page:	0
Link:                         	1
External link:                	58
None of the above:            	1
Comments                      	
The voting and comments are preserved at Talk:Goatse.cx/Vote -- Curps 03:45, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Results

message: Is there any fact in favour of this theory or is it just a way to offend french people?
IT's a reference to an interview with a frenchman who practices anal stretching. http://www.bmezine.com/news/people/A20210/plp56/ [Not safe to view -Cow] 204.52.215.125 23:43, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, it's not conjecture. The man in the article above _says_ that he's French.
----
This is not the same guy.  This is another guy, who did an interview.  Look at the guys body, it's totally different.
----
The Goatse guy is, AFAIK, Karl, from Germany, married to Martha, who is also famous for images of that sort. The couple had an online group dedicated to the topic at one point. Not sure if it's still active. Zuiram 23:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "According to some sources, the man is from France," ? 

message: Wasn't this originally its own entry which was then merged into the single Shock site entry? Why, then has it been pushed back out into its own entry again? This smacks of fickleness to me.
--80.1.224.6 07:27, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. It was seperated because it had grown quite a bit (snigger.) Frencheigh 21:50, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separated into new entry? 

message: I think I have edited this page twice to state that Xxxx Xxxxxxx, renowned anal stretcher, is believed to be the Goatse man. It does not currently say so and I can't find my IP in the edits.  Is this going to be included? There is a great similarity between some of his (attributed) published pictures and the goatse material. Comments please. 128.211.144.180 08:05, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The information was removed by an anonymous IP. Feel free to add it again. Sam Hocevar 10:12, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This information has been removed from this Talk page per Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. It should not be reverted. --Dhartung | Talk 22:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xxxx Xxxxxxx? 

message: The shock mainly comes from the 'carnal image'. A good pencil sketch of the image would provide the information, without being shocking. I've seen it being done in other parts of Wikipedia, such as in the article of List of sex positions. Bogdan | Talk 17:39, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that would really work. This article is about a website that displays a photograph, while the sex position articles describe generic acts that can be performed by nearly anyone. Guanaco 17:48, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about a drawing/sketch? 

message: Whoever did the research on this thing, I feel sorry for you.
Goatse doesn't bother me anymore, but to look at it that long.... --Keith, evil dude 01:04, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just one thing to say. 

message: The two external links sections have grown pretty big and difficult to read; they could do with some better organisation, or splitting out. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how it should be done, or if it needs to be done? --Dave2 14:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: What's wrong with having a selfref (:Image:Goatmedia.png) regarding a goatse parody? WhisperToMe 20:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the selfref 

message: Came accross the text below by somebody vandalising some pages. I thought maybe it could serve as a good visual aid for this article without all the graphic details. Any comments? — Anonymous
CENSORED. I just accidentally looked at this. Jeez. See the page history. — Different Anonymous Person
Here.  ⇒  JarlaxleArtemis 00:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ascii art? 

message: Someone nowiki-ed most of the links to goatse sites, despite the vote favoring external linking with 57 to 1. Quit the vandalism. --62.251.90.73 13:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: Somewhere around the time the movie The Village was in cinemas in America, I was visiting CliffyB's website. He referred to this film's promotional poster, mentioned it was funny, and that anybody who didn't have to laugh wasn't a real fan of the internet. I have to admit being in a totally different mindset I didn't get it, only later during the day suddenly burst out laughing. I think this is a real spoof on Goatse.cx, and should be added to the main page, but I'm not sure... the movie itself seems too serious. Retodon8 01:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, it's not any kind of stretching. It's only somebody holding up the slate/card/whatever, and needs quite a bit of mental work to make it fit as a parody. --jacksonj04 15:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Village?

message: I know it's really tasteless, but I have to say I had a good laugh with the photo at Hurricane Rita's Wikipedia entry, where the eye of the storm is strategically situated between Florida, Mexico, and Cuba:
:Image:Rita2005-colorIR.GIF
lolzzz
:Um, ok. Rhobite 00:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you'll find that's the virgin mary ;) Secretlondon 12:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Because It'll Inevitably Be Mentioned 

message: Remove all links, and put a huge warning at the top of the screen. Instead of links post the URLs and if they are really desperate they can C & P for goatsey goodness.
:WP:NPOV. :) 24.224.153.40 20:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Better yet, remove this trash. Of course Wikipedia shouldn't link to a website, which helps promote it, that posts a picture like that on the homepage and mocks the need for a warning. I'm becoming more and more anti-Wikipedia. -Barry- 04:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good addition 

message: Why are so many of the sites referenced on this page mentioned in nowiki format so we have to copy-paste the link?Worldmaster0 14:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nowiki 

message: Been playing "Planescape: Torment" recently, entered this room and did a double take:
Planescape: Torment screenshot
Is it possible this is intentional? The obvious doubt is that the game was released way back in 1999, although the article states the site was around before then...
Darric 23:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No such image. --jacksonj04 15:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Meh, sorry. Try here: Screenshot Darric 13:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goatse in Planescape: Torment? 

message: Well, I don't know which side of the edit war is right, but I do notice one side of the edit war involves multiple anon IPs and one just-created user, which is sometimes an indication of trying to avoid WP:3RR while pursuing an edit war, which we try to discourage, so for this reason I reverted.  As a general rule WP:NOT does mention that Wikipedia isn't a links site, external links should be chosen sparingly.  Protection was applied, perhaps there can be a timeout in the edit war and some discussion about external links here. -- Curps 03:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Nothing for 2 weeks. Very little discussion. Let's try it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trying unprotection 

message: I've created a poll to review the decision here after the potentially contradictory decision made at Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Poll Results. See Wikipedia talk:Censorship/Shock images poll --Fangz 01:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shock images poll - please vote! 

message: The Times magazine cover is not shown on the top right. Instead, the describing text is shown twice. Should this be fixed?
--Mesko
The cover is irrelevant, likely not intended to be a goatse and does not merit inclusion at the top of the article or likely at all.  Just slap the real thing on there if you want to illustrate what it is.  Or perhaps even the ascii version. Tomyumgoong 04:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that the image is relevant (snopes is a very relevant site for this sort of thing), it is sourced, it satisfies the transformative condition of fair use, it illustrates this article, it is of lower resolution and won't impinge on the value of the work itself, this image should be on this article. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are better images to illustrate the article.  I don't know of the license status of the original, or of the many asciis approximating it, but those would certainly be superior.  It could perhaps be used in the section on parodies, but I suspect there are clearer examples for that as well. Tomyumgoong 13:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Times magazine cover 

message: What about using something like [] instead?  I guess the use of the actual goatse image (the best possible fair use image) was forwned upon last year... but the climate may have changed sufficiently for its reinclusion, or the use of the ascii. Tomyumgoong 20:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More Appropriate Image

message: I can slightly understand creating an article about this site (I don't like it, but I can understand it), as it seems to be fairly notable, but there should be no links to pornographic content on this page, especially when they have nothing to do with the site whatsoever (e.g. "goatse hentai"; "female goatse"). We are supposed to be creating an encyclopedia, not a host of links to bizzare porn. - Conrad Devonshire 02:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of the links you removed were articles about goatse or non-pornographic parodies. And the pornographic links are relevant and appropriate. If people don't want to view them, they don't have to click on them. There's no Wikipedia rule against linking to pornographic content. Rhobite 03:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apropos of the non-existence of any proscription against one's including pornographic links in an article, Rhobite is, of course, altogether correct.  Notwithstanding that never should encyclopedic quality be sacrificed in order to protect one from seeing depictions he/she would not like to see (see WP:NOT), it is eminently unlikely that one would click on one of the external links and be surprised to see content he/she would find objectionable.  An argument can be essayed that the external links are inappropriate as only tangentially related to the topic (although I think they are sufficiently relevant to the topic to merit inclusion), but never should that argument rest on one's affinity (or lack thereof) for the contents of the sites to which the article links.  Conrad may mean to suggest that pornographic topics are inherently unencyclopedic (see, e.g., in his noting that "[w]e are supposed to be creating an encyclopedia"), or are somewhat less encyclopedic than other similarly notable topics, but the disposition of that question seems long settled.  Joe 03:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed pornographic links

message: Is there anyone who has any information about the health effects of performing an act like this? I think that would be a good addition to the article. --Berserk798 18:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  health aspects 

message: I have reverted the removal of the TIME cover as it is:
# definitely a fair use image, 
# as close to the normal image as we can have on Wikipedia (we certainly don't want the original goatse.cx image), and
# it passed IFD. 
I don't beleive it should be removed. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't we want the original image?  Its exclusion is unencyclopedic. Tomyumgoong 23:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You all may be interested in this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ta_bu_shi_da_yu_2 Signned: Travb 04:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TIME Goatse.cx image 

message: What a wonderful resource! The sum of all human knowledge indeed. ---me 03:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup! --Xinjinbei 13:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank god for wikipedia! 

message: [] the logo in the flash looks somewhat like a parodie. Does anyone else agree? --anewman 15:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Parodies

message: I see the image is upp. If you argue it should get down, consider also taking down the Muhammad cartoon image. Otherwise, both stay up. Lets not have double standards regarding shock images. --Striver 18:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: gotta love G4.Geni 18:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I told you G4.Geni 20:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is G4? Any link? --Striver 15:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4 --mtz206 (talk) 12:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, ok, cool. Do you know were the discussion of the deletion can be found? --Striver 19:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: and classical WP:POINT. You do not really want goatse up, Striver, you want Muhammad down. Ergo you are spamming this unrelated talkpage. Plus Muhammad is not a "shock" image (he's not that ugly). People got angry when they heard there were these cartoons, not when they saw them. Conversely, people are not "shocked" when they hear there are images of assholes. They are shocked when they see them) dab (ᛏ) 21:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not in any position of telling me what i can and can not write in the talk page, and i stronly object to you claiming so. And please do not cite false evidence such as "POINT", point is only applicable to acctualy article editing, something you should have know if you had acctualy read the policy. Further is your arguement totaly voided, think about something that would shok you only of hearing it, say for example... no, lets not try to shock you. And then imagin seeing it. --Striver 15:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, this is what I heard: "Whine whine whine, blah blah blah, whine whine and whine." Now shut it. Skinmeister 22:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this when you run out of arguements?--Striver 22:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The comparison of the cartoons to "shock" images is a false analogy fallacy. Does anyone honestly think that El Fagr would have printed the Goatse.cx image as they did six of the cartoons (a main one on the headline page) (all solely images depicting Muhammad) or even consider doing so? Ergo, false analogy. Netscott 21:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I do agree that they are no equaly shoking, but i strongly object to the statment of them not being shocking.--Striver 22:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is wrong. Skinmeister 00:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Skinmeister, isn't everyone's opinion wrong when they disagree with you? BhaiSaab talk 00:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: apparently, in the  USA a senator has made goatse links illegal. i just saw this on digg.com . since i dont have the time to verify, ill leave this here and see if anyone else can and alter the entry as appropriate.
:Nope. It says:
(a) IN GENERAL.—Whoever knowingly embeds words or digital images into the source code of a website with the intent to deceive a person into viewing material constituting obscenity shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not more than 10 years.
:http://shii.wordpress.com/2006/07/26/goatse-now-illegal-in-the-united-states/
:As Wikipedia clearly is not misleading (disregarding trolls, of course), the links do not constitute as illegal and can stay.
:And a senator cannot make anything illegal by himself ;) — Mütze 21:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not illegal to do that. That website is just spreading rumors. And if it is illegal, then the U.S. is becoming more totalitarian every day.  ⇒  JarlaxleArtemis 00:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: And besides, if it's legal on its own, it's not obscene. Scienceman123 talk 01:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Goatse Links Illegal?

message: I did a Google Image Search for "caramel cod" (that's something from a certain Simpsons Halloween Episode, in case you don't know) and on the first results page was an image that fit the description of the goatse picture. Here is a link to image results page (the pertinent image was the third one in the first row at the time I saw it).  So I'm wondering, is this in fact the infamous goatse image, or just an imitation of it?
:It might be the same guy, but it is not the infamous picture. Check the mirror links in the article for the real Goatse. — Mütze 22:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this it? 

message: 70.22.244.113 04:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  goat.se/cx/ or goats.ec/x/ worth mention here? 

message: I'm not too sure about this one... this movie supposedly came out in 1992, according to IMDB, but the image smacks of the original Goatse one. The article said nothing about when the site came up, so I assumed there was a very slight possibility this could've been inspired by it. Opinions? --Kiwizoid 06:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Parody? 

message: Obviously this article features a lot of both, and since it was written without any references it is impossible to separate them.  I have a feeling this would rely heavily a lot on internet forums, etc, which are not reliable sources at all.  It would be good if someone who is familiar with the topic would go through the article and remove the parts that cannot be verified, especially in the "Etymology" section.--Konst.ableTalk 23:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Etymology section looks good to me. I'm a little bit worried about the new "Origin" section though. Without sources, it'd be quite easy for the first person to come along to just make up a story that credited themselves or friends with the creation of the goatse site. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 23:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facts from Fiction 

message: What is the correct pronounciation of the word "Goatse?"
:According to an FAQ on the forum General Mayhem, a large 1337 Internet forum community and the site of heavy use of the word goatse, it's pronounced GOAT SEE. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 01:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't mean it's the "correct" pronounciation, just (maybe) the most common one. There is no official pronounciation, because it was only ever a written website. — Mütze 11:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I thought goatse.cx = goat secx--Greasysteve13 06:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yah, that's right... but over time people have taken to referring to it as "goatse" rather than "goat secx", and the pronunciation of the former by many is as stated above. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 10:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, see also: Domain hack--Greasysteve13 22:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronounciation 

message: Just wondering, where did the name hello.jpg come from?--AAA! (talk • contribs) 08:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be so that when someone links a person directly to the image, it's not gaping_anus.jpg, it could be that they were lazy and didn't want to think of a clever name, or were in a rush, it could be to make it sound friendly to unsuspecting victims, or it could be the first thing that came to the site's creator's mind, like just a random word. I guess some research would have to be done, but where would we find the original creator of the site? --Piroteknix 03:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: My guess was always that it's the first thing you see on the site, so a sort of welcome/greetng. Rahulchandra 03:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Soo...

message: is goatse.ca affiliated with the original goatse.cx creator?
I can't say for sure, but I personally doubt it. Goatse was an Internet sensation back and the day and prompted many many mirror sites. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 00:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  goatse.ca 

message: I've seen discussions before about who the man in the picture might be, but it's not discussed here. Any ideas why?Jstohler 20:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was removed because no citation was given.--OPaul 23:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This information has been removed from this Talk page per Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. It should not be reverted. --Dhartung | Talk 22:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Someone posted a comparative JPEG on the Something Awful which highlighted in great detail the similarities between the Goatse man and "Mr. J." Would that be acceptable as a citation that the two men are in fact one and the same? --212.219.220.116 14:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why no Who Is section?

message: I have strong doubts that goatse.cx means "goatsex".  Aside from the reasons in the original self-contradictory text, I myself remember seeing the site listed officially in a whois search as "Goat Securities".
Obviously I cannot produce a whois now as a citation, so I can't completely revert the text to the opposite.  But since the etymology is NOT exclusively "goatsex" there shouldn't be such assertive text one way or another in order to remain npov. -- 74.12.77.137 00:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you're looking for. Of course the actual entymology is probably impossible to prove, but I can't believe the "goat sex" pun is a complete coincidence. From the first time I heard of it years ago, I instantly recognized it as a play on the TLD. Seems to me most people referred to the page with the TLD as goatse.cx when it first came out as well. "Goatse" was not something I heard until much later. The claim in the article that the page does not contain any goats is pretty lame. See  and similar. "Goat sex" is just a funny/absurd/nonsense phrase. Also, I recall around the same time seeing a flood of vanity IRC addresses based around similar TLD puns (joeblow@thinks.your.momma.su.cx etc.) when TO and CX opened up to foreign registrations, so it's not without precedent. – Þ  10:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Not to mention the main page of the site linked to: dolphinsex.org ... obviously there was something dealing with animalsex in the mind of the creator —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.209.35.32 (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: * Inclusion of Goatse into a product (criterion 3 of WP:WEB) []
* Minor Media Mention: This Week In Goatse: Johnny Knoxville
* Minor Media Mention: Techsploits: The Great Unknown 
--TrollHistorian 21:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Sources 

message: I've removed the following from the giver part of the Organization section:
(...) or that the giver has already done so, and that this is the cause of the condition the receiver's anus is in.
The reason I removed this is because if the giver's penis put the receiver's anus in that condition, then why would he be stretching it? It just doesn't sound right. So I've removed that sentence and kept the first one, and tagged it with . Anyone agree or disagree with this? --AAA! (AAAA) 02:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a bad joke. Feel free to delete the nonsense. --FOo 07:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean the whole part about the Anal Sex joke? --AAA! (AAAA) 08:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: When put that way, it seems to logically make sense, and the captions above the pictures and the pictures themselves are still visible on archive.org, so I'd imagine that anyone who sees it would get it almost immediately. So... yeah, even if it's a bad one, I do think it's a joke and it's meant to only be taken as The Receiver about to receive, not after. Personally, I vote that the removed text stay removed. Kiwizoid 02:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: He could be stretching it to show the viewer the amount of damage done by the giver's penis. Rnnlar 13:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt it. --AAA! (AAAA) 00:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anal sex joke

message: I've removed the TIME cover, because despite months of discussion there has been no source cited making a connection between it and hello.jpg. The association is purely on the part of Wikipedia's editors, making it original research. (Frankly, it reminds me more of a Sheela Na Gig than hello.jpg, but I won't be adding it to that article either.) —Angr 06:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The TIME cover 

message: I was looking through the edits and noticed that the spam removed at 16:30, 3-22-07 had been there for a while, and given the structure of it being on the page and the editor not removing the other part makes me assume an error in reading on their part, so I put it back in. Feel free to remove it if it can be confirmed it wasn't on the Giver page - I don't trust Archive.org too much due to the usually sparse listings it has for a page. --Kiwizoid 06:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacement of supposed spam 

message: I don't think that we should say that Kirk is goatse- until a few months ago we had almost no google references to kirk save wikipedia and if you look on page one of this talk, the XXXX XXXXXXX thing, a history check reveals that that originally said Kirk Johnson but was removed due to lack of evidence.
::The Kirk Johnson "discovery" has been around for years, the research was originally done by Stileproject.  This was also the same research that discovered that "hello.jpg" was part of a series of photos. Eli lilly 14:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that a "citation" that requires users to look at pornographic images would be totally unacceptable, the only possible way that Johnson could be mentioned as the Goatse man would be if he admitted somewhere that he was the man in the Goatse series. We'd also need to be sure that it really was him as well, and not just some sad imposter who's obsessed with the identity of the Goatse man. --212.219.220.116 09:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kirk Johnson 

message: goatse.cz --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that a mirror? Kiwizoid 18:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's baaaaaaaaack.... 

message: I know it's disgusting, but look again and you can clearly see an asshole above the stretched vagina. That's no ass that's being spread my friends. It's not a man, it's a herm! A little dick, a little puss. --anon, who wants their account associated with goatse.cx? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.81.136.119 (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the other gap.zip images (if you dare); you'll find that it is indeed his anus that he's opening. An anus that bears a remarkable resemblance to a vagina thanks to years of stretching, but most definitely an anus. --212.219.220.116 17:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's a hermaphrodite, not a man baby! 

message: This article came up on wikien-l, so I popped over to see how we're handling external links here. That looked great to me; a little warning, but what I trust are live and useful links. However, when I was reading the article, I saw this bit:
: The Internet Archive has the original site preserved as it was before it was shut down. .
That link contains some sort of image that I really didn't need to see before breakfast. I don't know if some prankster put it in the page, if the Archive was down and is back up, or what. So I removed it. But if somebody with more domain knowledge and a stronger stomach could sort it out and put back whatever's appropriate, I'd appreciate it.
Thanks, William Pietri 15:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What was the image? hello.jpg? Or something else? I'm not clicking unless someone tells me. --AAA! (AAAA) 00:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the image is hello.jpg, read the article please 83.67.29.196 17:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean in the Archive.org link. --AAA! (AAAA) 23:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was referring to the archive.org link, the image displayed is hello.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.67.29.196 (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's what I thought. --AAA! (AAAA) 00:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pekaak 18:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive.org link works just fine 

message: I have actually been there, caught by surprise. it is truly a shock site
BTW: goatse.cx can be said as "goatsex" did you know that?
** yes, we did. that nugget of information used to be in the article, but someone removed it.Pekaak 18:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  /seen already 

message: can anyone else actually not wait to find out what is to become of goatse?Pekaak 18:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goatse auction 

message: This was just added to the article under the heading "Identity of the "Goatse Man":
::Research has identified that the Goatse Man is in fact named Kirk Johnson, or at least goes by that name online. He is the same person who appears on Bottleguy and Detroit Hardcore, as confirmed by the mole at the top left corner of his anus- the chances of another practitioner of anal stretching having a mole in the same place is extraordinarily unlikely. It is this analysis that ties hello.jpg and the contents of gap.zip to the name of Kirk Johnson. It is also a supposed "fact" that Kirk is french, however this is likely to stem from a BME article about anal stretching featuring a french practitioner who is not Kirk Johnson, and therefore this rumour is likely to simply be Xenophobia.
I'm removing this per WP:BLP, and the material should not be re-added without a reliable source. Also, "research has identified" and "this is likely" is prime weasel wording and possible original research, and that should also be fixed before this appears in the article. William Pietri 18:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I can see how it violates Wiki policy, it does seem slightly funny that people are so determined to avoid posting stuff that might embarrass a guy who routinely posts pictures of himself with large objects inserted in places where they most definitely shouldn't be. --DaveJB 10:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goatse Subject Identity