Talk:List of shock sites

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 April 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 April 2006. The result of the discussion was Speedy keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 January 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 November 2005. The result of the discussion was Keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Offensive content notice?

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)

• I tried; someone deleted it. Guess it's POV or something. --Ntg 03:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

This notice is currently being displayed on this article's list of links:

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)
  • Swedish media is required by law to do that. And I seriously doubt that anyone would come to List of shock sites and start clicking on external links to shock sites without expecting things that "could be considered disturbing by some viewers." — David Remahl 17:11, 31

Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Revert. The previous sentence (The following links are external to Wikipedia, and lead to sites of the nature described above and in shock sites.) was perfectly all right and NPOV. I also question the way you first modify the page, and then propose the vote. It should be the other way. --Sam Hocevar 23:52, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Regarding your last sentence, would that be POV, or is there consensus on it? (If there is, I apologize.) Regarding your first comment, while that notice could be considered NPOV, "the nature described above" is ambiguous.--Blunt01 01:56, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I prefer this message over the one we're voting over, but I still think it is superfluous. — David Remahl 17:13, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• I think the warning should be removed. External links are per definition out of Wikipedia's control, in this article and any other. The article has already described how most people consider shock sites disturbing, and that that is their whole point. We already have a general disclaimer describing the nature of external links. If we insert another disclaimer here, then we should do the same in every other article with an External links section too. — David Remahl 17:11, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep the warning. Not only that, but add an additional warning saying that the links are not only disturbing in nature, but can also be malicious to some extent and that users should proceed with caution. A.K.R. 09:21, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep the warning. With so many people wanting this page deleted for being "malicious", I think we at least can have a warning to appease them. Also, with pictures like some of those hosted by the links on this site are so disgusting that I believe ~90% of the population would find them dislikable. Yes, this is a free encyclopedia, but let's show some responsibility! --Lhademmor 10:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It'd fucking sick I hate the fucking fetus ughhh how am I going to eat.

questions

• 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)

not sure what to say to the other questions, but man beef doesnt count as a shock site, since it only SAID it was selling human meat, and included pictures of cow and other types of animal meat.

ManBeef has now been turned into a porn site, so that's pointless anyway - but if we start writing about stuff like that we'll have to put in Bonsai Kitten and all those ones. Does it count as a shock site if it's a hoax?

Ad what about sites that are shocking because of the genuine moral content, not the images, e.g.www.prussianblue.net ?

Floodgates open...

How could you possibly call that NPOV? Foolish Child 14:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

VfD debate

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)

Fnord

Can someone verify the Gummy series is gone? I'm not looking. User:Oven Fresh/sig 23:14, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not Found

The requested URL /gummi/ was not found on this server.

Apache/2.0.53 (FreeBSD) mod_perl/1.99_08 Perl/v5.6.1 PHP/5.0.3 mod_watch/4.3 Server at www.fnord.org Port 80

should Brian Peppers be mentioned?

should Brian Peppers be mentioned?

• possibly but he is more of an internet phenomenon than a shock. perhaps rubber johnny is worth a mention though? --Philip Laurence 18:31, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• • I hope you're both kidding 68.71.132.59 20:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with ^. Brian Peppers' face is in no way offensive. How can you even compare something like Cherrycake or Goatse with a picture of Brian Peppers? Foolish Child 14:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Have seen both Brian Peppers and Rubber Johnny. Rubber Johnny is not that scary actually, have seen it more than once and never considered it disturbing, just weird. If we wrote about Brian Peppers, we would have to include the World Craniofacial Foundation too. His image is only startling and not harmful. Even Snopes's article about him doesn't have a warning.

Lemonparty

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)

Do not use wikipedia as means to advertise this filth

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)

• I don't see what the problem is with being "an archive of shock sites". Kappa 18:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia stands for freedom of expression and unbiased information except where it offends or disagrees with me.

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)

• Wikipedia is not censored. WP:NOT. If we start deleting pages because someone feels they're to offensive to serve an encyclopedic purpose, it could logically end with us deleting pages on, say, the word Fuck, simply because it is considered offensive. A lot of things in this world are offensive, that doesn't mean we need to shield people from ever knowing about them. Foolish Child 14:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this page really appropriate?

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)

• Basically wikipedia users have the right to know these things exist (without needing to see them for themselves), and should have an NPOV source of information about them. Kappa 02:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it's really handy that if your friend sends you a link, or one is posted on a messageboard, you can check it out here and make sure you're not about to see something you'd rather not. We're all grown-ups, we can handle reading a description of something horrible, can't we? And if not... why the heck ARE you here reading it? Just to freak yourselves out and get all righteous??? Weirdos.

There is strange and disturbing stuff all over the Internet, but this is actually a valuable resource which might actually save people from visiting the sites. Why waste your time complaining about it? You seem to have forgotton that anyone who doesn't want to read it, doesn't have to.

• The obvious answer to this 'objection':

It's possible to modify the 'hosts' file on your computer so that certain web addresses effectively cease to exist. I come to this page, and simply add the pages listed here. I don't read the content or go to the sites, but now they are effectively blocked. However, the description is required to stop people simply listing sites they don't like or even competitors to their business. However, it may be a good idea to make the site links as not actually HTML links. By simply typing: abcd.com or www.abcd.com . This would prevent search engines linking to the sites in question from a popular site like wikipedia, yet allow people to go these sites if they need to confirm that they really are shocking site by copy and paste. Here is this page being used:

http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/

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)

This is Stupid AND Gross!!!!

I haven't looked at the pictures, and I NEVER WANT TO!!!!!!

This is just plain stupid. I believe that this page should be deleted. The prank flash article is fine, but this I WANT OUT!!!

Never mind me though, I'm a whiny little NOOB

Please disregard the above statement...

Excuse me... But I am not a n00b like you are. I'm merely voicing my opinion.

-Aidepikiw0000

That is why the page is called "List of shock sites" and has a warning at the top of the page. There are no pictures on the page though, just descriptions. --Link9er 13:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

And thank God for that! --Lhademmor 10:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and if you can, emphasize things with italics as opposed to CAPS, it's kinda annoying.

This is the world, get used to it

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)

-Aidepikiw0000

Yes, of course. Just because YOU don't like it, it should be deleted. Nice one, Hitler. 86.142.10.224 13:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• I think it's better to have an article that informs you of these kind of links rather than having you be scarred irreperably by following one of the links somebody posts on a forum, for example. Saved me from clicking on a pic of Goatse...

Another shocker on the block

NVM, delete this. I already came across it on that list >_<

--Datavi X 09:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep The Page

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)

A Valuable Page

I agree with the sentiment that this page is valuable in that it allows you to learn about what's out there without having to look at it. Here’s a hypothetical situation, you hear about one of these sites from a friend, and want to know what it is about. This page will allow you satisfy your curiosity without surrendering the contents of your stomach. The whole non-censorship issue aside scenarios like that one justify this page. The only people who are going to encounter objectionable content here are those who go looking for it.

Jingle Bells Backwards

I just found another one, called Jingle Bells Backwards, and it tricks people into trying to find a hidden message in the song played backwards. Instead, when it is nearly done playing, a negative of a video clip of a woman screaming at you pops up, scaring you half to death.

--Matau 17:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)(yes, I know I've been gone for a while. I've been helping Crystal Matrix with BS01 Wiki.)

-- It's not exactly a shocksite however, as it doesn't have pornographic or generally sickening content.

----Nebb 15:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC) It's not a shocksite, it's something called a screamer. There's a seperate page for this stuff, and it's much more common.

Thanks for the info though. I'll watch out for that one. 68.237.103.187 18:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Warning

The top of this page should have a large warning in bold text. I personally know someone who has had a severe heart attack upon viewing a shock site, I am very thankful he is still alive.

LOL! That's the funniest thing I've heard in ages. Skinmeister 21:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't a shock site, it was a screamer. I used to think they were the same thing. Sorry. But he still did have a heart attack. If you don't believe me, I don't care. Just please add a warning anyways.

What? I didn't said I didn't believe you, I said it was funny. That someone would react in such a way is very amusing to me. Skinmeister 23:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Why a warning? You're not given a link and told to "click here" as it is. It's hard not to know what you're clicking on on a page called "list of shock sites".

i think there should be an added warning in bold print about the last measure link

this particular link can be extremely troublesome and irritating for those curious enugh to link to it

stop your complaining

These sites are a part of interent culture, so stop your bitching and stop trying to delete an article just because you dont like the material coverd in it. This article dosent seem to violate any of wikipedias policies, so unless you have something to add leave the article alone.

And am I the only one who finds humor from any of these shock sites?

--Joe dude 01:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You actually find HUMOUR in these sites? You are clearly not a member of the human race.

Yeah they are funny. They made by humans for humans. Sorry we can't all belong to the morally righteous upper crust like yourself. I'm sure us lowly denizens will get there some day. Keep praying for us father.

I don't find the sites particularly funny, what IS funny is people like you throwing hissy fits about them. That's why I like them. Skinmeister 23:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The humour lies in laughing at the reaction people give them. That's the sole reason they exist in the first place. Foolish Child 14:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

mrhands.mpg

What is mrhands.mpg? Could I get a description or something? I saw someone link to it, and before clicking, I decided to wiki it. Seeing it linked to from this page didn't make me happy, so what is it? --68.54.161.91 22:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen it myself either, but I think it's a bloke being fucked by a horse. Afterwards he died of internal bleeding or something.

yeah its a guy geting it from a horse, i also heard he died afterwards,its one of the more "hardcore" shockers, not for the faint of heart --Joe dude 22:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Owch.

Snickerbars

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)

Not one good reason to delete

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)

Wikify

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)

Wouldn't that encourage people to create spam articles? Foolish Child 14:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems worth keeping

This list has actually saved me from quite a bit of mental scarring. :)

I totally agree with you there, sir. ^_^ - Supera

Culled Websites

The following websites were culled from the list for being dead. Shocking is acceptable, not working aint. :)

http://web.archive.org/web/20040717064609/http://www.diddlers.info/ http://www.newsfilter.org/ http://ai.technocore.ru/pics/eyebug.jpg dsl.thekremlin.net/wtf/penisfish.jpg http://vyr.us/idiot/index.html http://www.retropay.com/goatse http://remote-access.renamon.net:280/ http://www.captain-obvious.com/alissa/ http://www.highballer.com/ http://www.workse.cx/

There may be a few more I killed, too. Others got moved to 'dead sites'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_shock_sites&oldid=40048763 was the state before these websites were culled - if they come back, I see no reason why they shouldn't go back on the list.

(Apologies for the 5 edits - if I'd left it too long, I probably would have had edit conflicts :)) Most websites were checked, but those flagged as Javascript bombs were just given a quick wget to see if they 404'd.

b0g.org

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)

Length

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)

An attempt to keep the old page, I suppose. About half the links on it don't work, anyway, but I still think they should be listed (I was scarred for life after seeing the Nick Berg execution one, although I didn't know who it was at first.) Sister Ray 04:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

You SAW that? 69.37.254.141

Cherry Cake

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)

• It's just you. Skinmeister 20:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Thought so. Just had to check. Sister Ray 00:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, are these photos of guys with their faces blown off real, or what? I guess there's no way to tell. Rufusgriffin 10:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• It honestly could be either. I didn't spend that much time looking at it. Sister Ray 23:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

warning added

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)

Yet another vfd

Let's hope this is the last, although it won't be. Interesting to look through the edits of 205.188.116.11 who initiated this one though, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraq&oldid=47146962 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_shock_sites&oldid=46683838 He has an odd sense of morality if he thinks those edits are OK, but is opposed to this article.

Moral Objections

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)

This article isn't just for trolling...

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)

Sources

I have placed the {{cleanup-sources}} 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)

(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)

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)

This article simply needs to go

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)

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)

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)

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)

Please, look at the other side of the coin

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Actually, on second thought, screw it. I'm outta here. Melchoir 08:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's get started

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)

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)

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)

Strong Keep

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)

"This could scar a child for life and can be prevented."

Not necessarily. It won't mess youup for life. Seeing a picture is one thing, but actually seeing it in "real-life" is another

"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."

That's not a good thing always, that's censorship, beause some would consider it "inappropiate" like in school. Voluntary blockings, okay. Anyway, tey could get around the blocks. -SWF

UNCITED SOURCES?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

External links

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Verifiability

Does a high number of relevant hits on Google count as verifiability?

I get the following results:

• Goatse - 862,000
• Tubgirl - 182,000
• "Last Measure" - 182,000
• Klerck - 113,000
• Lemonparty - 80,100
• Meatspin - 40,100
• Honkee - 26,600
• Hai2u - 15,600
• Cherrycake - 3,370
• Teletorrents - 2,350
• Bottleguy - 1,470
• Penisbird - 1,400
• l33thaxor - 903
• Highballer - 877
• Ratemygoatse - 838
• Tubboy - 836
• Workse - 524
• Desertofthereal - 367
• Mongface - 200
• Bagslap - 160
• Biggernigger - 138
• Pimpmygoogle - 104
• "Lime Rave" - 79
• Supermodelsfart - 60
• Cheapabortions - 34
• Regentxxylol - 11

I am aware that quite a few of these are misleading, but this does lend weight to some of the more popular sites' verifiability. (And proves that Meatspin should be in the "Major Shock Sites" section)Foolish Child 12:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I made the argument on Wikipedia:Deletion review/The Game (game) that a Google search could be used directly as a primary source in certain cases; I'd say it was pretty soundly rejected by the opposite side. Regardless of whether it should count or not, I believe that a high hit number misses what we want for two reasons: (1) it measures only the present, whereas if something was more popular in the past it would be good to acknowledge it, and (2) it shows popularity but not that the site in question is a "shock site", that is, it's being used specifically to make people view disturbing things when they don't want to. Mangojuice 12:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I realise it's a pretty shaky source, but for now surely it's better than nothing? And I wasn't claiming that it verified they were shock sites, that's a lot harder to verify (unless forum posts count as evidence ;)), just that it proved their notability. Foolish Child 12:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It's debatable what level of hits shows notability. I think it's a no-brainer that Honkee and the more popular ones must be notable, and also that the notability of Desertofthereal and the less popular ones are brought into serious question by your search. The ones in the middle, I'm not sure. For something like this, I would expect very large google search results; if these things are meme-like, they should be all over the internet. As for citing a google search, that's another matter. I'd say the only thing the community could agree you can cite a google search for is a statement like "Searching for 'Goatse' on Google returns over 800,000 results." Mangojuice 13:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I suppose. But as for the sites that return few results, they tend to be two or more words run together, which are obviously going to return far fewer results than a single word. Add to that the fact that most of the sites are propagated mainly by forums, IMs and e-mail, and I can uderstand why there would be a low number of results on Google. But now I'm just undermining myself, so I'll stop. Foolish Child 15:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

ADVERTISING????

For my own curiosity... who thinks this article does not conform to NPOV because it is advertising something??? I would just love to know #1 what people think it is advertising and #2 who is smoking what. These sites do not advertise anything or make money by selling products. The reason they are significant is because they are used in trolling. The notion that they are ADVERTISING like coca-cola would advertise "vanilla coke" is the most outrageous flamebait ever. - Abscissa 22:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This article clearly needs to be cleaned up. But I agree, "advertising" may not be the right criticism. I suggested {{cleanup-sources}} which was repeatedly and endlessly reverted by Skinmeister, which got very frustrating, so I stopped bothering. Perhaps it's time to change it back to that? Or just a generic cleanup message? Mangojuice 02:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, cleaned up, I can support. I am going to also stop short of saying that I fully support everything Skinmeister has been doing -- I've just been going through the histories and it looks like some pretty nasty stuff has been going on. On that note -- I suppose we should really wait until the vote goes through. In the mean time I would strongly encourage everyone to visit the nominator's userpage to learn more about him. - Abscissa 03:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I put the cleanup tag on the article. I also reported Skinmeister for his blatant 3RR violation in removing the advert tag four times. However, I get the feeling he'll remove the ordinary cleanup tag anyway. He's lost all his credibility with me, though, after calling my adding the "cleanup-sources" tag vandalism, and refusing to discuss it after being asked repeatedly. Mangojuice 03:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I can understand why Skinmeister would be upset. If I were an administrator, I would have placed a warning on Mr. Devonshire's talk page about nominating the article so quickly after the last vote. I can also understand why he was probably suspicious of the motives of some users. The people asking that the article be cleaned up are the same people who voted to delete the article on the voting page. So, it's clear the more entries are taken out of the page for them, the better. Thus, I don't think Skinmeister deserves to be criticized so much. He has already been banned for the incident, and being banned is a humiliating experience.--Primetime 03:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

His refusal to discuss edits is a problem. I didn't vote on the AfD until this most recent time, and I voted delete precisely because the article was in such a shabby state of verifiability, which I had been trying to alert the editors of this page to, only to have my opinions summarily dismissed by Skinmeister. He's been blocked now for the 3RR, as has Conrad. I don't want to "kick him while he's down," but I sincerely doubt that being blocked will make him realize he doesn't own this article. If he gets involved with the discussion, I'll consider him a good-faith contributor. Mangojuice 14:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, that does not give him the right to act like a king and undo other users' edits and label them as vandalism without discussion just because he disagrees with them. As for my view on this article being an advertisement, I feel that that is the case because most of the sites listed here have virtually no notability and the article is therefore giving them unwarrented publicity. - Conrad Devonshire 04:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest you aquaint yourself with Internet troll. The sites in question do not need and are not looking for publicity -- that is not why they exist. - Abscissa 05:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Abscissa here, your complaint is more of a notability complaint. Advertisements would do something else: portray their subject in a rosy light. Mangojuice 14:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Meatspin

why exactly isn't meatspin one of the "major" shock sites? It's easily more famous (at least where I live) than about half of the major shock sites listed. 24.250.119.145

• I think all of these shock sites have their places. The people I know are aware of very little about most of these shock sites. I would have to say that I could bottleguy more people than I could goatse. It was only a few days ago that I myself heard of bottleguy and some other shock sites, while I had known of (and had sadly seen) goatse. I must admit that I had seen meatspin prior to that a few months, but it isn't all that shocking. Whatever kind of intercourse is going on in that gif isn't as bad as the mechanics of things like goatse and bottleguy.Killerrobotdude 06:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• I second the motion to list Meatspin under major. It's easily more noteable than Fuck.org, Mongface, Supermodelsfart and Cherry Cake. And it's the only one of this list that's commercialised. Foolish Child 16:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• I third this motion. Meatspin is now the fourth major shock site

-SWF

Goatse

Shouldn't Goatse be listed as a former shock site? The original domain is offline, and nobody is sure if there are any other "official" mirrors, so does this not mean it should be classed as offline? I'll add the external link from the article in the mean time. Foolish Child 16:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

No. I may not be "official" but it still exists. Many remmeber Goatse, Goatse T-shirts are still getting sold, the goatse look-aliks websits sam/zoy/fun/org or whatever it is is still getting replies. Goatse is alive and well, even if it is old -SWF

Cleaning out cruft

Actually, I don't like the organization at all. We should not be listing shock sites that aren't major, and we should list them all regardless of whether they're current or no longer online. I would like to remove all but the following from the list: Goatse, tubgirl, Last measure, Klerck, Lemonparty, Meatspin, Honkee, Hai2u, Cherrycake, Teletorrents, Bottleguy, and Penisbird. The google search numbers Foolish Child put up earlier show that the ones I want to keep had at least 1000 ghits, leaving the others in question as to whether they've attained any serious status as a shock site. I'm not going to be WP:BOLD, though, as I'm sure this is controversial, but I think we clearly need to clean the cruft out of this page, and I think my criteria is a decent place to start, at least. Mangojuice 04:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The cruft has been cleansed. Anything added to this page must (like all information added to wikipedia) satisfy WP:V.
brenneman^{L} 05:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

To be more specific, I've moved the page to List of shock sites/Uncited as a holding pen until we decide what goes onto this page. There's also a thread I've started at wp:ani regarding this. - brenneman^{L} 06:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected the page until the edit war cools down. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me father for I've edit warred. I'll do thirty Hail Jimbo-s. Anyway, I'm done, so don't protect on my account. - brenneman^{L} 06:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Why did you leave most of the links out? A link to a site is enough reference. Now users coming to vote think this page is really this short and vote without knowing how the article really looks like. Lapinmies 07:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The page is really short and this is how it "really looks." Have a look at the policy about bias, and in particular the section on "undue weight." In the absence of any sources saying site Q is a notable shock site, we're (potentially) giving a biased account. I personally don't find a gay geriatric threesome shocking, with or without scrotums. (Scroti?) This page was simply a list of sites whose inclusion was based entirely on the opinion of the editor(s) who inserted them. That's in violation of several of our most important policies. Review the five pillars and re-examine this list. - brenneman^{L} 07:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

You are going against consensus by blanking, the afd's prove that. I just dont understand why an admin is picking sides by protecting a butchered version. Lapinmies 07:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The simple fact is that we don't "vote" on verification. I'm sorry that that idea isn't conveyed more clearly and more often, but it (as supporting neutral point of view) is the rock upon which all of wikipedia rests. Consensus on a tiny forum like AfD can say "yes, we want this article" it cannot say "yes, we'll let citations from reliable sources slide."
brenneman^{L} 07:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Blanking 90% of an article is pretty much the same as deleting the article. That's gaming the system using a policy, which is against the Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point policy. Things which are obviously true (like the sky being blue, for example) do not need citations, anyway. If you want to change the statement about them being notable, that's one thing. But, you're just removing them.--Primetime 07:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It does not matter if you find the sites shocking or not. What matters is that the sites are meant to shock the public and used for trolling, links are enough to verify that. If I did not follow good faith, I might even think that you are trying to deceive the people voting in the AFD by supporting this censored version of the article. Lapinmies 07:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to fully endorse the previous comment by Lapinmies, I share the same sentiment. As for A Man in Black's criticism that the sites are not noteworthy, again I encourage you to look in to the history of trolling and Slashdot trolling. This list is a "who's who" of trolling sites and is very important. - Abscissa 16:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The fact that these pages exist is not the fact that needs to be verified. Wikipedia is not a listing of every web page that exists. What needs to be verified is the fact that these sites are somehow noteworthy, and have been widely discussed, and this needs to be done on a site-by-site basis. Brenneman was right to delete most of these links, because no effort had been made to verify that they were indeed noteworthy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the "penis bird" should be brought back; it's better sourced than most of the others. Rotten.com published a letter from slashdot describing its use as a shock site, and Rotten.com is not just some blog or personal website, and has a credible history of publishing communication they've received from people over their content. Mangojuice 16:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Good work on removing the unverifible sources, Brenemen. The fact that users have commented that doing so is an "underhanded" way of deleting the article is actually support of the article's deletion. - Conrad Devonshire 22:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the following source establishes that Goatse.cx is a shock site; as a Snopes.com article it's definitely a reliable source: [1]. When the page is unprotected, this should be added as a reference for the Goatse entry. Mangojuice 03:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel it's appropriate to protect a page currently undergoing an AfD that has been significantly altered from the originally nominated version, as people's votes for keep or delete could be affected by this. I would request a temporary reversion back to the previous version of the article, at least until the AfD is closed. VegaDark 07:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Errr... if I weren't already involved I'd have said "no" to a request like this. I wouldn't unprotect because there's indications that back and forth reversions would continue. I wouldn't edit protect because the history is there to examine, it's straightforward to place a note in the deletion discussion that the article has been substantially changed, and finally but probably most importantly a page must always be protected in the wrong version^TM. To ask to choose which version is protected fundamentally misunderstands what page protection is about.
brenneman^{L} 08:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Redactions in blue. VegaDark is right, what I meant wasn't clear. - brenneman^{L} 08:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This request wasn't made because of a disagreement over what the right/wrong version may be, it seems common sense that if you are going to have a page that is under AfD protected, it should be protected as the same version (or at least a similar version) that went up for deletion. I've made note on the AfD of this but I can't guarantee everyone will see the note. On previous AfD notices we say that "A previous version of this article went up for deletion" if that is in fact the case, and If we make note of that on those notices I think that implies it weighs significantly on the AfD process. The current version is a significantly different version than that of what was nominated for AfD and I don't feel that those visiting the AfD since the protection are getting an accurate representation of the page they are voting on without sifting though a huge amount of comments that they are likely to not bother reading. Also, I didn't request unprotection, I am fine with the page being kept protected after the revert, therefore eliminating your concern of further back and forth reversions. VegaDark 08:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the request as the AfD has been closed. If I had known it would close so soon I probably wouldn't have bothered. VegaDark 17:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I've requested that the page be unprotected at WP:RFP. Mangojuice 17:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

come on now

these sites are just nasty there is no point in keeping them up if you really wanted to visit them you could find them else were

Cleaned out

I have cleaned out a large number of sites with extremely low numbers of Google hits. All the ones I removed had under 1000 hits, except for one that did not even sound like a shock site, just an annoying site to visit. I put in the refs that we have. I was astonished how crappy some of the work on this article has been; I plead with any other editors of this page, don't take this as hostile, try to improve the article. As examples: (1) Supermodelsfart gets only 60 Ghits, but was listed as a "major site". (2) Klerck.org had one of the highest, but was listed under "former shock sites" while Goatse (also, technically, a former site) was still in the major sites section. (3) Minor spinoff websites like ratemygoatse and tubboy are not notable; rather, they give some credibility to the idea that the one they're based off of is notable. Mangojuice 20:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

For reference, the "you are an idiot" site is the one that I don't think is a shock site; probably used for trolling, but a different kind. Mangojuice 20:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Mangojuice. I personally don't like the single list format. When I first visited the article, I wanted to see the most shocking site and just ignore the rest, so it's helpful to have the most infamous at the top. Also, when you removed some of the items, you didn't say which ones and how many, and I didn't want to look through the now-combined list to try to find them. I wanted to look at the ones you removed, and I was thinking I probably wouldn't want them removed anyway unless they weren't genuinely shocking.--Primetime 22:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

protection

Could an admin protect this site against deletion attempts? The fact that it is constantly nominated is a problem.

And I agree about "you are an idiot." 24.250.119.145

Reversion

Just to let everyone know, I have reverted the article to the last version by Aaron Brennemen. And addressing any users who might accuse me of censorship, I am simply asserting my right as a Wikipedian as is stated per WP:V. If simply removing unsoursed text from an article is the same as "underhandedly" deleting it, then that is proof that the article merited deletion in the first place - Conrad Devonshire 00:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Ohhh... maybe something in-between? So we don't just flip back-and-forth? - brenneman^{L} 00:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you propose? Also, I noticed much of the material being removed actually has citations.--Primetime 01:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I looked at your version of the article and you are right that some references have been added. - Conrad Devonshire 01:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh just stop. This is getting old. If the article merited deletion, then surely one of the four attempts to delete it would have succeeded. Avertist 01:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

What is "getting old" is illogical arguments such as that. One could use the same argument to claim that because all assassination plots against Adolf Hitler failed, he did not rightfully deserve to be ousted. - Conrad Devonshire 01:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. I don't ever recall a referendum for Hitler's removal being given to the German people. ;) Avertist 01:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Re-protected

I've re-protected. I'm going to spread some love here by pointing to WP:DEATHRAYS and a nicely non-specific section on "disruption." Three reverts isn't a right, and if anyone does a full revert once I've unprotected I'll use that clause. How does everyone feel about that?
brenneman^{L} 01:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You accidentally protected the wrong version. I would suggest restoring your cleaned-up version, then re-protecting it. - Conrad Devonshire 01:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

brenneman was right to come along and protect the page if there was an edit war, without paying attention to the current version of the page. You can't just protect whatever version you prefer, Conrad. In any event, this whole thing has become entirely rediculous and is like some 3 vs. 3 battle for control of the article. It does not look like it is going to be settled calmly any time in the near future. May I humbly make the suggestion that the article get protection from anonymous edits, and the users who were involved in the edit war spend some time working on other articles? There is a lot more to worry about on Wikipedia than this article. - Abscissa 01:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

☆Aaron, you did the right thing.--Primetime 01:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I've realised I was a bit oblique, so now that I know we're all here I'll restate: I'm going to unprotect and anyone who does a full revert will find themselves blocked per policy. Can I have any "Aye" to indicate understanding? - brenneman^{L} 01:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

If I say, "Nay", can you just leave it protected indefinately? kthx!! .... I'm done with this article, I only believe that I ever made one edit to it... now everything in my user history is about jews and shock sites... :-) - Abscissa 01:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Strong Aye - ;) excellent decision. Avertist 01:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Aye, I definitely want to see editing move forward, and that can only happen with discussion. Mangojuice 02:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

On your own heads be it...

• I've un-protected. Everyone be on your best behavior, and have some tolerance for the wrong version^TM being on the page. MJ has made a good start below.
• I'd also ask for indulgance to continue editing this page following unprotection despite having exercised adminstrative rights on it. Even one objection will be enough to stop me from doing that, so don't be shy.
• Since I can't have my cake and eat it to, if it's decided that I'm trusted to edit, I'll change "don't revert or I'll block you for disruption" to "don't revert or I'll place a note on ANI and I 99.36% guarantee you'll be blocked for disruption."

brenneman^{L} 06:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• • I don't understand why you are leaving this article as the current version. There was no reason for it to be reverted to this since List of shock sites/Uncited was created. - Conrad Devonshire 17:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Site by site discussion

In order to try to get the contents of this page under discussion, I propose to start a discussion of the sites one by one. I think there's no real need to discuss Goatse, Lemonparty, Tubgirl, or Last Measure: those are obviously good examples. I also think there following are obvious candidates for removal, due to their low number of google hits: Regentxxylol, Cheapabortions, Supermodelsfart, Lime Rave, Pimpmygoogle, Biggernigger, Bagslap, Mongface, Desertofthereal (see Talk:List of shock sites#Verifiability for the numbers, these are all under 500). The following weren't included above, but have very small numbers of google hits: Jiztini (49), Fist.tk (371), ShrewsburyCollege (39). If I'm making a mistake on one of these, I think we should see some sources; I'd expect a lot of google hits for something that's really a shock site.

Other entries worth keeping (but perhaps we should discuss)

• Hai2u. See Wikipedia:Deletion review#HAI2U for a source describing this as a shock site; not a reliable source. Google hits probably inflated.
• Bottleguy.com; seems to have some significant exposure; Google image search brings it up 3rd; google hits probably not inflated.
• Penis bird; page on Rotten.com is evidence of it being used as a shock site.
• Meatspin; an awful lot of hits on Google; they can't be that inflated.
• Teletorrents.org; see this for evidence from the site that they want it used for trolling.

Other entries probably not worth keeping:

• Klerck.org. Lots of google hits, but Klerck is a well-known troll. I didn't find much evidence that klerck.org was much of an example of a shock site.
• Cherrycake; google hits probably inflated; minimal evidence found.
• Highballer; virtually all google hits don't refer to the pic; could not find evidence.
• Ratemygoatse; not a shock site, this is a rate me site / variant of the Goatse thing.
• Tubboy; not worth mentioning on its own, perhaps mention under tubgirl, as a variant.
• Workse; could not find any references to this anymore.
• Stretch; just a variant of Goatse, probably not worth mentioning, there are loads of them.
• Skinny; I found the site searching for "Skinny +phreak" but found no references to it in the 1st three pages.
• Faggotry; loads of google hits, but they refer to the common term, mostly. Faggotry.com is the 4th result returned; I would expect higher if this were much of a phenomenon.
• Porkhole.net; a search for "Porkhole" returns 416 hits, but this site isn't even on the first two pages.
• Honkee.org; a search for "Honkee" returns 31K+ hits, but most are unrelated, as a variant spelling of Honky. Even searching "Honkee +shock" returns no relevant results.
• LJabuse and denisepaolucci: we can skip this; we already have Last Measure.
• You are an idiot: not a shock site.

Remember, a shock site is not just a nasty image, it's defined on shock site specifically as one being used to trick people into visit it via trolling. This list is not a list of offensive viral videos and internet memes; it's about shock sites, which is a more specific phenomenon. Okay.. anyone disagree with my proposed fate for any of the sites? Let's discuss and stop edit warring. Mangojuice 03:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, this is just a first pass. We do have to eventually conform to WP:V here, I'm just trying to clean out the less worthy examples, as a preliminary step, hopefully leaving us with examples we have a prayer of verifying with a source. Mangojuice 03:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I have never stumbled upon any of the sites in the last list except "You are an idiot" and the varians of "Last Measure". In fact the only place where I have heard about them is Wikipedia. Lapinmies 06:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think most of us can agree to delete You are an idiot. I'm pretty sure nobody considers that a shock site. VegaDark 06:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I just did so, but someone put it back. Let's try this again... Skinmeister 18:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Idea

Since this page has been needlessly reverted to the "uncited" version, the page List of shock sites/Uncited is redundant. I am therefore considering redirecting that page to this. - Conrad Devonshire 01:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)