Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 March 29

< March 28 March 30 >

March 29

File:Goatse.fr homepage.png

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

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

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

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

File:Goatse.fr homepage.png (Warning: NSFW image) (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Jolly Janner (notify | contribs | uploads).
  • Delete, unencyclopedic, does not add anything substantiative to the article, could be replaced with text, etc. This shouldn't be necessary. Prodego talk 03:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify something, I claim it is unencyclopedic because: "A picture conveys more than text. If you subtract what the text conveys from what the picture conveys, you're left with the marginal benefit of displaying the picture. I'm pretty sure the marginal benefit of displaying the Mona Lisa is substantial and educational. I'm pretty sure the marginal benefit of displaying the goatse.cx image is nothing but shock value."[1] The image does not add anything to the encyclopedia, hence it does not belong in it. Prodego talk 05:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if NFCC 1 is satisfied, just because the image can be shown here does not mean that it should. Any marginal encyclopaedic value is outweighed by the deleterious nature of the image. This isn't calling for censorship; it is calling for sensible editorial judgement. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Couldn't "sensible editorial judgment" involve removing cartoons which have generated death threats (and actual death)? Where is that line between censorship and "sensible editorial judgment"? To me, WP:NOTCENSORED is saying we judge the topic independent of how gross it might be. Otherwise I think it has no meaning. Hobit (talk) 05:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is a significant difference between excercising censorship and exercising editorial judgement. Content creators do the latter every day on this encyclopaedia. The judgement involves assessing the net benefit of a particular item of content. Editorial judgement is of course to a large extent subjective: that's why in controversial circumstances it should be exercised based on consensus, as it is here. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's garbage, not knowledge. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - On multiple points. First of all, this is a picture of goatse.fr, not goatse.cx - the two websites do not even display the same content. As such, this image is not even accurately portraying the subject of the article. Secondly, NOTCENSORED was written in an attempt to allow pictures of offensive subjects, such as genitals, etc onto the article to allow for educational purposes. This is not an educational purpose, this was uploaded for shock value. As such, NOTCENSORED does not apply. Additionally, even if it could be shown, that doesn't mean it should be shown. Thirdly, it fails NFCC in that it 1) can be replaced by text easily enough, 2) can be linked to from an external site, and 3) Hi, Opal! Lastly, Hesperian summed it up perfectly: "A picture conveys more than text. If you subtract what the text conveys from what the picture conveys, you're left with the marginal benefit of displaying the picture. I'm pretty sure the marginal benefit of displaying the Mona Lisa is substantial and educational. I'm pretty sure the marginal benefit of displaying the goatse.cx image is nothing but shock value." It's a disgrace that people could even think that this image is even marginally encyclopedic. (X! · talk)  · @199  ·  03:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry to be a disgrace. On the second point, I don't think we can, or should, pick what topics we censor and which we don't. I'll note that we've kept album covers which are (at least IMO) more offensive than this. On the third, I think most people would agree that the impact of the words and the impact of the picture are quite different. More so than most images in fact. On #1 if that's the main issue, we can move the article to goatse. Hobit (talk) 05:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I have seen the original, infamous goatse.cx (I was tricked into following a link from Slashdot many years ago when it still was hip), & this is the original, infamous image. So the goatse.cx != goatse.fr argument is not relevant. -- llywrch (talk) 06:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Both goatse.fr and archive.org seem to agree that this is indeed the actual page. There is no reason to doubt this, except for the above statement. Remco47 (talk) 12:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Replaceable by a description and a direct link to the website, which is better than a reduced-size screenshot for illustrating the "shock value" in any case. The central image has a very vague copyright status as well. More importantly than either, we are not a shock site, and nothing about our willingness to provide encyclopedic material on a famous shock site requires us to provide a mirror or archive of that site. Neither does WP:NOTCENSORED require it; that policy only covers encyclopedic material that is "judged acceptable", and we can surely judge it acceptable to include depictions of Muhammad, illustrations of sexual positions, Rorshchach blots, etc., without being obliged to judge acceptable the use of shock images as shock images per se in our neutral encyclopedia. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It fails NFCC #1 point b (i.e. it's an unfree image that can be described by text) -- User:Gavia immer makes my arguement a bit more eloquently. Also, the image shown is not goatse.cx, per User:X! above. -- Flyguy649 talk 03:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both the image and the article both the image and the article are utterly non-encyclopedic. Not notable, etc. Bevinbell 04:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but that just smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT - there are plenty of refs in the article to illustrate notability. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Any image can be replaced by text easily enough (ex. "six soldiers raise an American flag in Iwo Jima). However, the text in this case does not convey the same je ne sais quoi as the image itself. To those claiming that it is unencyclopaedic, I would point out that encyclopaedias, especially this one, attempt to have a picture on every article with an identifiable subject, i.e. wherever a picture of the subject is possible. This is gross, yes, but other than that there's no reason why this image is different from other screenshots on an article about web content except for its offensiveness. The WordsmithCommunicate 04:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The picture does not assist the goatse.cx article explain what a shock website is; the picture is used in order to actually shock the viewer. Since this is not a "believe-it-or-not" website, we do not need to present evidence to demonstrate human eccentricities. The image may have some encyclopedic value in an article on anus elasticity, if presented with other verified anatomical information, but until such an article emerges the image is not needed, and it should be deleted to prevent disruption. Johnuniq (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually then it would fail NFCC as being replaceable. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Wordsmith. The image is iconic, just as much as any other internet meme which rises to WP:N. Per WP:NOTCENSORED if we would keep another image that was less offensive, we should keep this one. Replaceable, as Wordsmith notes, is easy to say about any image. Clearly the shock value of the image is very difficult to replace with words. Thus I feel it meets all the requirements of our non-free image policies. Hobit (talk) 04:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wanted to quote postdlf as he says it better than I could: "NFCC arguments are also nothing but a pretext, because in no other circumstance would anyone (short of those who want no non-free content) entertain the notion that a non-free image could be replaceable in an article about that non-free image. "
  • Keep: this reason won't have a coherent structure, but I'm hoping to list several reasons why I believe the image should be kept, and some rebuttals to the above !delete votes.
    1. Encyclopedicity: I see already that some people are arguing that the image is "unencyclopedic" without reason. Of course, just asserting it to be unencyclopedic does not make it so. The encyclopedic worth of an image is not measured by the worth of the image by itself, but by the worth of the image to the article we wish to include it on. I would agree that in, 99% of cases, use of this image would be undoubtedly unencyclopedic. However, that leaves the 1%, namely: this article. Leading into the next point...
    2. Precedent: This article is about a notable shock site of which the sole "attraction" is the image. It does not matter if we argue that the article is about a website or about an image; in both cases we reach the same inclusion: precedent, as a whole, would lend to this image being used. We use screenshots of websites in website articles, and we use copyrighted images in articles about images. These categories of images are well understood to be acceptable uses of non-free content and their existence on Wikipedia is relatively non-controversial. My favourite example that I like to use of the former is Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, and I implore people to find an encyclopedic reason that would exclude the Goatse image but would not, with minimal tinkering, delete the Iwo Jima image. And, what do you know, that leads us up to the next point!
    3. NFCC#1: Again, I see people do not understand NFCC#1, which reads as thus: Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Emphasis mine. People seem to be forgetting that part of NFCC#1. And, who wouldn't? As I've shown above, the image has encyclopedic value. It's strange how someone could argue that not showing an image, whether free or non-free, in the article about it, is maximising the encyclopedic value of the article. However, I'm going to give an example using Iwo Jima: "Six American servicemen raise an Amercian flag on a hillside." That is a non-free description of the image that would, if you apply NFCC#1 as given in this discussion, deem Iwo Jima unnecessary to encyclopedic coverage and have it deleted. Which is similarly as unthinkable.
    4. Offensiveness: This is the big issue that we seem to be split upon. I have a feeling that most "delete" arguments could be easily shown to be based solely or primarily on the shock value of the image. I'm not arguing that the image is not offensive; of course it is. It's the Internet's most notable shock image. However, I am reminded of the Content disclaimer which says, that in no uncertain terms, Wikipedia contains content that may be objectionable. I feel, however, that I'm not answering the point. The question is: is it acceptable to delete this image because it is offensive? The answer is: no. NOT#CENSORED was written in mind that its use would be abused, so it implicitly and explicitly limits offensive content without stopping offensive but encyclopedic content on the encyclopedia. A good example of this is the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, where some of the cartoons are "objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so", but we show them all because to not do so would be to inhibit encyclopedic coverage. The gist of NOT#CENSORED is summarised it its second- and third-last sentences: Articles may include objectionable content if said content is relevant to an article, and discussion of its use should focus on its appropriateness in said article. This image may be offensive, but it is not gratuitously offensive, (the baseline for exclusion of offensive material), and I believe that the image has a place on Wikipedia, in this article only, despite its unquestionably offensive nature.
    5. RFC 2119: we seem to be splitting hairs on the question of whether we must or should include it just because we may. Of course, we aren't obliged to include any content on Wikipedia. The entire encyclopedia is based on content we should or may cover, and any content we include is included because it betters the encyclopedia. While this is mainly a philisophical point, I believe that we may and we should use the image in the article because its use, I believe, will increase the encyclopedic value of the given article and the encyclopedia as a whole.
    6. Website mirrors: I note that, correctly, there is objection to the image because goatse.cx=/=goatse.fr. This is an extremely pedantic objection, however, this could easily be resolved by replacing the image with a screenshot from an archived version of the site on, say, the Internet Archive.
    7. Consensus: A great deal has been made about how there is a repeated "no consensus" for use. This is wrong. There have been, to date, two complete deletion discussions (one in 2005 to delete, one in 2009 to keep) and two complete deletion reviews (one in 2009 to endorse, one just closed to overturn). Any other deletions were carried out under CSDs G3 and G4, which do not reflect or enforce consensus. Additionally, the consensus to exclude in both instances was weak. The 2005 poll is weak because of its age; that was over half of the encyclopedia's lifespan ago. Most of the people in that poll have left Wikipedia, and most of the reasons for exclusion are mitigated by the development of practices and guidelines, most notably the NFCC, which render the consensus moot. The 2009 deletion review is weak because the discussion was pretty evenly split, and because of a three-week discussion on the talk page that resulted in no objection to use of the image (as a hidden image, later unhidden for consistency and accessibility reasons). Remember, consensus can change, and in this case I believe it was by a more mature and less reactionary discussion which, granted, had less participation. However, since that consensus was formulated, the image has, in one way or another, successfully resisted attempts of removal, and I daresay that there is a consensus for use (if you believe in the first place there must be consensus to include content).
  • In summary, I implore the closer of the FfD to keep this image. As I have shown, there are multitudes of reasons on why this image may and should be used on Wikipedia and that the only real reasons for its exclusion do not reflect Wikipedia policy in anyway. Far be it for me to be scaremongering, but I believe that deletion of this image would lead us down a slipperly slope where offensive but valuable images are similarly deleted. Thank you, Sceptre (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As an additional point, some people are arguing that we could just link to goatse.fr and not have it on the servers. While this is true, removing it just because we can link to it would similarly delete any other website screenshots on the encyclopedia, and runs counter to the unwritten rule that you shouldn't have to click through to unaffiliated websites for information that is not prohibited by our policies or guidelines. That, and some monitoring software actually blocks Goatse.fr, but wouldn't dare block Wikipedia (as we know what happened last time). While the monitoring software does its job most of the time, there are still cases where the blocking software is just there for reasons unrelated to school/work, and we shouldn't have to put those Wikipedia readers at a disadvantage just because "we can link to it instead". Sceptre (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I know "me too" votes are a waste of time to persuade the closing Admin, but I am compelled to point out that Sceptre makes an admirably eloquent & persuasive case in his argument above. Any opposing argument must needs to respond & overcome all of his points, as well as the result of previous discussions. Sceptre provides both relevant precedents in this case as well as independent substantive reasons to keep this image. If we want this article to be comprehensive -- in other words, to achieve Featured article status -- we need to have this repugnant image. -- llywrch (talk) 06:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum The need of this image goes beyond explaining just why goatse.cx is repulsive & offensive: it illustrates at least two further points. One point is that if you search the Internet, you will find images (as well as text) which test your limits of what you actually think you will tolerate. (And if you haven't been tested like this, you really haven't tried to look very far into the Internet for information or entertainment.) Another point is that any image one uploads to the Internet will never go away: I can't believe that the man who posed for this image, unless he is dead, doesn't think about it on a regular basis, & even if his family & current friends know nothing about it he doubtlessly regrets or feels embarrassment over the image. (You would understand that once you get to my age.) We need to keep this image because it is repulsive & offensive. This is not simply a shock image. It is an example of the nature of the Internet, & its impact on people. -- llywrch (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Protego; the only things the image offers over and above a textual description of its content are (1) the elicitation of shock and disgust; and (2) a reduction in the accessibility of the article. Hesperian 06:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - NFCC 1 b can be interpreted to allow anything to be deleted, as one can legitimately textually replace any image with a textual description thereof. We did not write the NFCC policy as cover for deleting all fair use images from Wikipedia; we wrote it to limit those uses to areas where the image is valuable to the article's readers in terms of conveying something educational or important that text does not do well, and with images where a free replacement is impossible or difficult. This image is horribly offensive - but Goatse is horribly offensive by definition, and notable for that reason. It's hard to convey exactly how offensive the website is without the image. I don't like the image either. But it's necessary to convey the point to readers, of why Goatse is so shocking and offensive; in that sense, it's necessary to properly cover the site in the article. We have WP:IDONTLIKEIT for a reason - lots of stuff we don't individually like, or that is highly offensive to some cultures, is still necessary to adequately cover topic areas with good encyclopedia articles. This is perhaps the most personally offensive example of that I can think of, but some Moslems feel the same way and same depth about images of Mohammed, and there are other examples. As a matter of policy, IDONTLIKEIT is not allowed to win. It can't, because if we strip out anything which has a sufficient number of offended parties we're left with the Wikipedia encyclopedia of small mammals and pretty flowers. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The image is sexually explicit, and it is my very firm belief that such images should not be hosted on this website unless the subject has consented to it. Hosting an image like that is far more intrusive than most BLP issues we deal with. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, that is actually a good point, and one of the few good points I've heard in this FFD. The rest of the !delete votes don't address my rationale enough (mostly being variations of "eww, guy's ass, delete it under a rule which would similarly delete Iwo Jima or the Muhammad cartioons"). In the MedCab case, I did ask for a reason to delete this image but not delete Iwo Jima, the Autofellatio image, or the Muhammad cartoons, and I think we may have found it, even though it's an ethical reason and not a policy based reason... for some reason, I feel better listening to this reason than a rehashed "think of the children" reason. Sceptre (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment- Whatport80 implies that the guy doesn't mind. Apparently he's a porn star anyway, but I don't know how accurate it is. I don't know that much about Goatse (why should I?). SS✞(Kay) 02:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The image is disgusting. I don't like it. I really don't like it, and, looking back, wish I could unsee it. This image is not suitable to be viewed by children, or those easily offended. However, for those people we point to the content disclaimer - succinctly "wikipedia may have stuff you find offensive, get over it". The question is whether it passes NFCC - currently it does not as it is not used on any article, because it was deleted, and there was a mediation ongoing as to whether it should be included or not. Let us put aside that issue, and assume that it was in use, then what fair use rationale would it have? Put simply, this (or preferably an archive version of goatse.cx) enhances people's understanding of the topic. It's a shock image, and frankly, thus it enhances people's understanding. Consider - say someone told you that it was possible, through training, to open your anus to that diameter - you would likely not believe it, even if they said that they had done it to their own posterior. You'd laugh them off. If they then drop their trousers, bent over and showed you, that you would believe. Shock sites rely, generally, on preconceptions - that the person who looks like a girl is a girl (bakla.net), that old people don't have sex (lemonparty.org) and that projectile diahorrea is a myth (tubgirl.net) - which they then shatter with the image. Simply saying these things with words doesn't make them credible - as the phrase goes, seeing is believing. Thus, the goatse image enhances one's understanding of the topic. Otherwise, per Spectre. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • leaning Delete - not convinced by fair use criteria. Am leaning towards the view that its presence here is gratuitous and for shock value rather than education. I am happier with an external link. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; While it passes the non-free use criteria, as they are usually interpreted, and while I partially agree with points made above in favor of the image, I still feel strongly that we should make an exception of the exception here, and not display it anywhere on Wikipedia.
    The image is being used for its shock value on the original homepage. Displaying it on Wikipedia will only have the same effect. In this case, I believe Wikipedia is improved if we only describe and link to the image, and not display it directly. Amalthea 07:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per all of the above. --Conti|✉ 10:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There seem to be two main arguments to remove the image - NFCC 1 (No free equivalent) and NFCC 8 (Contextual significance). Can this image be replaced with another image? Not really, as i don't think a free equivalent exists. Can it be replaced with mere prose? Well, that is of course arguable, but i would ask people why the non free image on the Tank Man article cannot be described by mere prose ("Man standing with flag in front of 4 tanks"). Stating this is a famous image of historical importance is a moot argument in this case, as this particular image gained plenty of notoriety on its own. Furthermore I would say that the goatse.sx article is entirely about this specific image. Yes, the article is about a website, but that entire website is made to display the image in question. I would therefor argue that the image is contextually significant and without free equivalent.
Now, as for the other arguments: 1) "It is gross". Yes indeed it is, but Wikipedia is not censored. Have a look at our Gangrene page for example. I would say that the images there are just as nauseating as this image. 2) "It is not encyclopedic". Par the GNG our inclusion criteria is sufficient coverage, which this article (image) received. Why is it not encyclopedic? It is one of the most well known \ most used shock images. Doesn't that make it notable at all? 3) "Wikipedia is not a shock site". Completely agree. However, all we have is a low-res image that can only be added to that specific page. I presume that hi-res versions on other websites are much more appealing if man wishes to shock the reader. In conclusion i would say it is a (weak) keep. I am unconvinced by the deletion arguments, which in some cases seem to border on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 12:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I made this point on the DRV:
  1. This is an iconic image, which is the direct subject of goatse.cx. As such, it can't fail NFCC #1. Furthermore, it doesn't fail any other point of NFCC, because it has a valid fair use rationale.
  2. This image has value to the article, precisely because it is an iconic image. Without the image, the reader will not understand the nature of the phenomenon. It's like having an article about the Mona Lisa, but not showing the actual Mona Lisa. A reader would never know what all the fuss was about for the Mona Lisa. The same goes for goatse.
  3. Just because it is offensive, doesn't mean we shouldn't have the image. There is no "the offensiveness outweighs the value". Offensiveness should not keep Wikipedia from informing their readers. This is stated in our non-censorship policy, and is backed by precedent such as the Virgin Killer article and the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article.
These three arguments combined constitute for me an undeniable reason to keep the image. It's legal, it's the right thing to do, and it would be the wrong thing to censor. Remco47 (talk) 12:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I find the arguments that this meets the NFCC criteria to be a bit on the weak side; I find the arguments that this sort of image actually improves Wikipedia to be misguided at best. There is a difference between content that is merely offensive and content that intends to offend. An image of a vulva is offensive to some but not designed to offend the viewer; an image of a grotesquely gaping anus is designed specifically to shock and offend. Trying to stretch WP:NOTCENSORED to cover content whose aim is quite admittedly to cause viewers to react in revulsion is a concept that boggles my mind. This image does nothing to increase the value of Wikipedia to its readers and does us a disservice by being hosted on our servers. It should be deleted post haste in deference to common sense and longstanding precedent. Shereth 13:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons are also designed to offend. They cause deep offense to 23% of the world population. Do you believe that these should be deleted as well? Those images, as well as goatse, are notable because they offended many people. Remco47 (talk) 13:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons are political and social commentaries that may offend due to their nature, but somehow I doubt the artist sat there snickering to himself about how he was going to send those silly Muslims into a fit. The goatse image is designed to make people sick to their stomach. The images are in no way comparable. Shereth 13:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whether an image is designed to offend or not is difficult to establish, of course. I agree with you that the cartoons may not have been. But I will also note that the person who made the actual images displayed on goatse.cx, most probably did not intend to cause this phenomenon. The person (we're not allowed to say his name) is demonstrating a technique for ass-stretching... a fetish. There is a reason why the article is categorized as Category:Erotica and pornography websites. Remco47 (talk) 13:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Keep per the excellent demonstration of the images encyclopaedicity by user:Sceptre. The image cannot be replaced by a free image, so if we have an image it has to be this one. Can the image be replaced by a textual description that serves the same encyclopaedic purpose? No it can't. The point of, and thus the entire notoriety of the Goatse websites, is/was this image so replacing it with a textual description would not be providing encyclopaedic coverage of the subject. WP:NOTCENSORED explains that whether an image is shocking, disgusting, offensive or any other subjective description you wish to apply to it is irrelevant to whether the image is encyclopaedic or not. Once we start censoring the encyclopaedia because some people don't like some content we'll end up with no more than a couple of dozen articles that contain no illustrations and little textual content. Thryduulf (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it might be useful to remind everyone exactly what WP:NOTCENSORED says:
Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so (see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer). Anyone can edit an article, and changes made are displayed immediately, so Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms.
Obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site, or clear vandalism) is usually removed quickly. Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the U.S. state of Florida where Wikipedia's servers are hosted, will also be removed. However, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content.
The NFCC issues I can see (though I think it's a huge reach), but the "gross" part is very much not a reason to delete. Hobit (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Strong keep, as per various commentators above, but particularly as per Sceptre and Thryduulf. In this case the entire reason that the site was notable was that it displayed this image, and the controversy resulting from such display. Therefor the reader cannot possibly understand the situation as well from a description or a replacement image as from the actual image. it is true that one can describe the image -- one can describe almost any image. But humans are, by and large, visual creatures, and an actual image has for most people a much stronger and clearer effect than a description does. That is, indeed, why people object to this image, because of the strength of the impression it makes. Removing the image due to the distaste that many feel runs squarely afoul of WP:NOTCENSORED. The "not encyclopedic" or "NFCC #1" arguments are, IMO completely rebutted because in this case the image is the main reason for the subject's notability. no other deletion arguments made seem to me to have significant weight. DES (talk) 14:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Section Break 1
  • Delete. Arguments such as DESiegel's just above essentially amount to a claim that WP:NOTCENSORED overwhelms any possibility of editorial judgment. I would not want to volunteer for an encyclopedia in which that was the case. We make judgments all the time about both text and images based on whether they benefit the article, not just whether policy technically allows them. In this case, I see no benefit to the article at all. Chick Bowen 14:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not so. I argue that "degree of offensiveness" is not a proper axix of editorial judgement on wikipedia. But "degree of encyclopedicy" or "degree of relevance" is. I argue that in this specific case this specific image benefit the article, indeed are essential to a true understanding of the subject. I argue further that given that benefit to the article, the offensiveness of the iamge should be allowed zero weight in considering whether ti include it. It is that last point,m that the offensiveness should get zero weight, that WP:NOTCENSORED stands for. You say that you "see no benefit to the article at all". Do you really think this image will not help a reader understand more thoroughly exactly why the gotse cite was controversial? Do you really discount my point that humans are primarily visual and learn better through images? If you do, then you will sensible object to this image. But if you are balancing those points against the offensive nature to this image, then NOTCEMNSORED says you are wrong. DES (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep, as long as the article exists (it appears to have been the subject of multiple deletion discussions), this image should be. There's even this warning on the talk, which should be more than sufficient.

{{tmbox}}

  • The article subject has become famous because of this image, so it ought to be there. In Germany, there's a proverb: "One image says more than thousand words" and it's like this in fact. I couldn't have properly imagined how the image looked like if you told me how it looked like, but I hadn't seen it in the article. Of course, if it's decided that the article should be deleted, then the image should go as well, as it's non-free. The only other option to get rid of this image would be to ban all non-free images, but this would also mean losing many other images. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it is the most informative and only suitable image for illustrating goatse.cx; the image is the subject of the article, notwithstanding fatuous claims that the article is "about the website." That is a completely false dichotomy, as the website was defined by that image on its front page and has no claim to notability without it. Next, claims that the image is unencyclopedic are necessarily invalid, and should be dismissed by the closing admin out of hand, as long as an encyclopedia article about it exists (which I'm openminded about, but that's another discussion). Many such comments above are really attacks on the article, and as such have no relevance to a discussion focused on whether the article, as long as it exists, should feature this image of the article's subject. NFCC arguments are also nothing but a pretext, because in no other circumstance would anyone (short of those who want no non-free content) entertain the notion that a non-free image could be replaceable in an article about that non-free image. The image is no more replaceable by a text description than any other non-free image on Wikipedia. As for claims that we shouldn't include the image because "Wikipedia is not a shock site," I'm struggling to find a workable principle within such rhetoric so long as we have articles about shock sites. Parroting "Wikipedia is not an advertising forum" cannot block commercial images from encyclopedic articles on commercial subjects; "Wikipedia is not a porn site" likewise cannot prohibit nude or erotic images in relevant articles. In any event, the shock of the shock site came from people unexpectedly being directed to it and having it display full size on the screen. Contextualizing it within an article and reducing its size to the minimum where it is still legible would reduce its shock without removing its informational value (as would desaturating it, arguably). postdlf (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have several points. The first, and I feel most relevant, is about those claiming that the image cannot be replaced with text. Indeed, the comment above mine states, "The image is no more replaceable by a text description than any other non-free image on Wikipedia" - obviously that is complete rubbish: many non-free images are replaceable (and are replaced) by text; that's the whole point of NFCC#1. Above, Sceptre says that people misunderstand NFCC#1 because it requires the alernative to provide equal encyclopedic value. This in itself is not disputed (actually, we've read the policy, and we know what it says thanks very much) - however, in this case, text can clearly and neatly summarise any encyclopedic value that can be obtained from the image. In fact, the image provides no additonal information that cannot be described in text except the degree to which someone might expect to be shocked - I think that referencing its status as a well-known shock image is sufficient to make this clear (yes, in text). Finally, note that although NOTCENSORED is being wielded as the almighty weapon which the delete !voters are summarily ignoring because 'they don't like it', it only states that "'being objectionable' is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content." (emphasis mine) - arguments that NOTCENSORED alone means the image cannot be removed are therefore, obviously, false. Ale_Jrbtalk 20:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You didn't properly read my comment. I said this image is no more replaceable than any other non-free image. I did not say the converse, that no image is more replaceable than this one, as you have somehow interpreted it in claiming I said that no image is replaceable by text. postdlf (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I cannot comment on the copyright status of the image as I am not clued up on that sort of thing but as far as I can tell every other argument basically boils down to offensiveness, to which end there is no real reason to delete. The only reason this is getting so much press is because it's widely offensive to a lot of WP editors. I would hazard a guess that there are equally offensive images on WP that are not perceived as offensive by editors and therefore remain (Muhammad anyone). raseaCtalk to me 20:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image itself, rather than that which it depicts, is iconic and significant. As such, it is replaceable with neither text nor another image; "gaping anus" does not impart the same contextual information a shock image is important for the image itself. NFCC.1 (and .8) is actually very clearly passed in this case. The other issue, of course, is that this is an image of a gaping anus. I think it's a shame {{linkimage}} was deleted. That would have solved the whole "Goatse? What is goatse?" /wikipedia search/ "Ohmigod it's a gaping anus" problem. We do have an obligation not to turn ourselves into a shock site, but at the same time we cannot adequately write about the phenomenon without the image. If we must either display the image brazenly or not host it at all, we have to choose the former. (Optimally, though, we would have an opt-in of sorts, like linkimage, so that the reader must choose to render the image or not.) ÷seresin 20:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Prodego, who was right to skip protocol and remove it immediately. If the argument that pictorial depiction is always superior to mere description is valid (Is it suggested, for example, the the articles on Murder and Suicide would be easier to follow if illustrated with pictures of corpses?), and NOTCENSORED is interpreted to mean that no editorial judgment can be exercised with respect to images of this kind, the future for the project is bleak.KD Tries Again (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
    To be fair, murder, suicide etc can be committed in many different ways, and are not articles about a particular image. If there were an article white college cheerleader stabbed through the heart with a serrated 8-inch cooking knife made in Mansfield by a drug-crazed psychopath, 6ft 3, wearing dungarees then that could probably manage a non-free image to adequately explain it. More accurately, an article such as suicide of Megan Meier could have a non-free image of her dead body, but we wouldn't, out of respect for the family, the victim and also because, one would hope, such images are not available. However, none of those issues applies here - this is not an article on something generic like anal stretching (there it would probably be replaceable), but it is an article which is effectively about the image, and thus it fulfills NFCC. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good distinction, to point out that this image is not being used to illustrate a more general subject. It's one thing to decide whether to use an image that illustrates a topic. It's quite another when the image is the topic, as is the case here. Incidentally, we do have photographs of hanging people, Lee Harvey Oswald being killed, victims of genocide, Rodney King being beaten... It's really a shame that we are much less shocked to see pictures of violence and death than one of someone doing something...unusual to their own body. postdlf (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think a picture of a particular suicide would be warranted in an article if said picture had had much media attention. I can imagine such a picture leaking, public outrage --> notability established. It's one of the finer points of the Streisand effect. Remco47 (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with the caveat that comments here don't represent the vast numbers of people who have been inadvertently directed to this page. This image fails our inclusion policy in numerous ways, not the least of which is that the image is unfree, and the fair use provisions indicate that it is replaceable by a text description. Additionally, this is *not* a vote. However much a I appreciate the editing community, I don't always believe that our collective decision making ability always reflects what's appropriate for our readership, which outnumbers us 100:1. If I were able, in this instance, to act as a volunteer, without conflating my role, I would re-delete it, because it doesn't belong on our project. Bastique demandez 22:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please explain how this image can be replaced by a text description of equal or greater encyclopaedic worth? Your comment reads to me like "I know better than consensus does what is best for the encyclopaedia", which if true renders the entire point of discussion pages, policies like WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CSD, etc irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you like looking at photos of stretched ani? - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't, but what on earth has that got to do with anything? Whether I or anyone else likes or does not like an image is completely irrelevant to whether it should be kept or deleted. See WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bastique, I am glad you don't have that power, because it was that very act which led us to this. The debate over this image has been a long & passionate one, & cannot be resolved by the unilateral & ill-advised act of one person. Further, your argument can be simply refuted: (1) You can't read other people's minds, or know what their experiences with this nasty image is unless they tell you. (2) Unfree images are not forbidden simply because they are unfree. (3) My understanding of your statement is that you are attempting to say, in large part, that this image should be deleted because you don't like it without directly saying "This image should be deleted because I don't like it." There are lots of images I don't like on Wikipedia -- including this one -- but subjective opinions like that don't convince closing Admins. (4) Sceptre has set forth a very eloquent & thoughtful argument above for keeping this image, & nothing you have written responds to any of Sceptre's points. -- llywrch (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not appropriate for an encyclopedia, even one as shitty as Wikipedia. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete been watching pretty closely since this FFD was initiated. I don't want to be pigeonholed by things like WP:IDONTLIKEIT nor thrown links like WP:NOTCENSORED. Editorial judgment in this case (a shock image) should override newWikipedia-speak. I also agree with what Bastique states above. Killiondude (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't provide any additional substance to the article. Content could be equally be provided through web links that were used in the past. -Vcelloho (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Prodego and Hesperian. Sarah 23:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for obvious reasons. Per everybody who said "delete" above. I'm shocked that people want to keep it just to prove a point that Wikipedia isn't censored. Utter nonsense. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who wants to keep it just to prove a point that Wikipedia isn't censored? Without making arguments, I can't really understand why you want to delete the image. This also applies to a few others above: if you don't make arguments, I can't make counterarguments to change your mind... ;) Remco47 (talk) 00:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could stop spending so much of your on-site energy making counter-arguments to everyone here? You are not going to convince anyone here who has takent the time to come here and express their desire to have this image removed. "NOTCENSORED" doesn't mean we host every peace of garbage on the internet. "THINKOFTHECHILDREN" doesn't mean that we have to subject everyone to explicit images. Illustrating this article, which is of marginal notability itself, does not at all override the heavy problems that allowing images of this sort on the project. While I see that your primary interest in this project has been to put that image on the article and maintain it there, I'm going to assume good faith and believe that you really don't want to be wasting everyone's time by responding to each and every comment here in favor of its removal. Bastique demandez 00:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate you think I'm wasting your time, there are a lot of articles which are far less notable than Goatse, with far less sources. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate your sarcastic reinterpretation of what I said to Remco47 above as indicative of my feelings about you, you should perhaps know that if I were referring to you, I'd be responding to you. Bastique demandez 00:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure what you're saying here. Should I not be a part of this debate? This image has been on my radar for some time now. I'm not going to just stop because you don't like it. Remco47 (talk) 01:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by your contribution history, this image appears to be the only thing on your radar. Bastique demandez 01:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. You can't see my watchlist. Remco47 (talk) 02:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's focus on the arguments here, not on the people who make them. This issue is contentious enough, & we don't need to let it degrade into exchanges of name-calling & accusations. -- llywrch (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think this is a clear case for ignoring all rules. We should delete this file and the article that uses it (but that will require an AfD). Our notability criteria for inclusion is just a device to get around the fact that this encyclopedia does not have experts to decide inclusion. It works well in general, but this is the excpetion where it fails. This file (and the article) are not encyclopedic. Could you imagine any other encyclopedia including this offensive rubbish. Furthermore having them damages our mission. A shock site is a one-off event, and it will soon be forgotten. There should be consnesus here to say "Enough is enough". Get rid of it. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason this is at IFD is because Prodego did IAR, and there the DRV concluded that as there was a fair amount of opposition to the deletion on grounds of going against consensus, it should be undeleted and sent here. IAR does not mean ignore dissenting opinions, it means you ignore rules which get in the way of majority consensus. Furthermore, claiming it will soon be forgotten goes against WP:CRYSTAL. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I was talking about ignoring the notability inclusion guidelines here. They should not get in the way of deleting this file. That is the key point, not what you think is WP:CRYSTAL. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing to do with the NFCC criteria that some listed above, the image in question is unencyclopedic and adds nothing beside shock value that can't be replaced by a simple text, as Prodego and Hesperian pointed out. Snowolf How can I help? 01:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compromise - We keep the screenshot, but add it in a collapsible box with text "See low-resolution screenshot" so that people will only see it if they choose. The screenshot is pretty encyclopedic as far as an article on goatse.cx is concerned but that doesn't necessarily mean that some 55 year old who still uses AOL that wants to learn more about this "goat see" thing would have to look at prolapsed rectum. I would implement this right now under the rules of Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss but I do not edit pages that are locked due to edit wars. harej 03:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was already in a collapsed section within the infobox.... although I havn't looked at the article in a long time. That was the result of the discussion I was following about the image a previous time on the talk page. Peachey88 (Public) (talk) 03:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cary. Quite honestly, the file is not necessary to further understanding of the article. —Dark 03:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rjd0060. Keegan (talk) 03:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I concur in the analyses of Sceptre, with whom I have rarely had occasion to agree but whose clarity of thought here is to be commended, and Remco, with respect both to compliance with the NFCC and to the image's being encyclopedic, and I find myself regretting for a moment my many arguments over the years toward the proposition that an admin should not discount at XfD any vote that purports to apply policy and does so in a fashion that is not irrational on its face; undoubtedly the "delete"s should thereunder carry the day (and at this point no responsible closer could find otherwise), but I wonder whether, inasmuch as they conflict with longstanding policy and practice (which can, to be sure, change, but not, one hopes, at an insular and idiosyncratic FfD), they are consistent with the sentiments of the larger community. Joe (talk) 05:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. In pure headcount, the balance tips slightly to the side of deletion. But headcount isn't everything. I'd say the closing admin will have a difficult job. ;) Remco47 (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Maybe of the calls to delete are based on personal opinion, using policy as a convenient crutch. Most should weighed quite low in the final analysis. Tarc (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Prodego; the image has no encyclopaedic value; the article already describes the scene and the image only serves add nothing to it other than the shock itself. The encyclopaedic value of its article is least to say questionable, so I don't see the need for a featured article here. Actually, it could be just a comment in List of Internet phenomena and little would be lost. Anyhow, in a printed version it wouldn't be missed, and if the reader is really interested in the image; Google can help him/her; there already an Internet Archive. A keep on this could set a really bad precedent, and we could end up allowing non-encyclopaedic offensive visual content of no particular value for almost every thing in Wikipedia that could really hurt the possibilities of Wikipedia ever reaching the educative system, and thus fulfilling one of its main goals. Please, people, forget fanaticism and use common sense. Mariano(t/c) 07:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, most horrendously unencyclopedic and gratuitously offensive. In the event this is kept I would most strongly support it being placed in a collapsible box. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is sad, because I think it's the right answer. It opens up a can of worms (do we do this with anything that more than X% of the world might be offended by? etc.) but it seems reasonable for images like this. Hobit (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Text does not adequately convey the the essence of of a shock image, especially in an article that is about the image. WP:NFCC is fully satisfied. This is remarkably similar to the Virgin Killer debate...with such controversy generated by a shocking album cover, not including what the fuss is all about in that article would be doing a disservice to the reader. The initial DRV was chock-full of !voters doing the WP:IDONTLIKEIT shtick rather than evaluating the rightness or wrongness of an admin deleting an image out of process, for personal reasons. We are seeing the same sort of appeal to emotion, think of the children mentality in a slew of delete !votes here as well, e.g. "the deleterious nature of the image", "It's garbage, not knowledge", and "Not appropriate for an encyclopedia, even one as shitty as Wikipedia" type argument can and should be discarded in the final analysis. Tarc (talk) 13:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inadvertently, I think you draw attention to an important distinction. The article's task is to describe the site, its purpose and its effect, i.e. to shock. It is not the article's task to convey the shock. I think arguments that the effect of the site cannot be understood in the absence of the image are based on the misconception that the Wikipedia article, to be encyclopaedic, needs to reproduce the effect of the original site. As a general proposition, that's surely false. An article about a shock does not need to convey the shock. (There are many analogies, but for example, an encyclopaedia article on sexual arousal is not obliged to be sexually arousing.)KD Tries Again (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
Indeed, an article about a shock site is not required to shock itself. However, if you want to convey the phenomenon it caused, you need to show what caused the phenomenon. Otherwise you're just talking in the dark. This extends to an article about sexual arousal. If an article about sexual arousal contains passages that describe ways to get sexually aroused, or shows images of erogenous zones in humans, someone might find that in itself sexually arousing. That doesn't mean we should remove the passages or the pictures. (Also because sexual arousal is not wrong.) Remco47 (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To any reader who has an anus and a ruler, stating that the site displays a picture of an anus distended to whatever the dimensions are is a complete description of the phenomenon. Adding the image doesn't add knowledge - it just reproduces the effect, which is not an encyclopaedic aim (just as reproducing the effect of sexual arousal should not be the aim of an encyclopaedia article on the subject).KD Tries Again (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
The purpose of inclusion is the illustration of the subject matter, not reproduction of the shock effect. This thing gained notoriety to begin with because people enjoyed slipping it innocuously into posts and forums and e-mails and such, to catch people unawares. This is an encyclopedia, not a random discussion board. Short of a miraculous landing via Special:Random, are you really suggesting that people are going to go to goatse.cx not expecting to see what they're about to see?Tarc (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As this is an encyclopaedia, they should expect to be informed on the topic. The "illustration" doesn't add information; it does what it was originally designed to do.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
Simple contradiction is not a valid argument. I believe, both here and at the DRV, I have explained in detail why an article of a shock image needs the image included, and why text cannot convey the same meaning, the satisfying WP:NFCC #1. Endlessly saying "no it doesn't" is getting tiresome. Tarc (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the thing, though; our article on sexual arousal includes images or text that some may consider salacious not because we want to convey the sensation of sexual arousal, but because they are valuable educational aids in conveying the mechanics and specifics of how sexual arousal works. The Goatse image is not in the same category; what benefit does it have over a textual description of a gaping anus, except to convey the sensation of shock that the site aims to convey? We do not need to shock people with an image to tell them that it is shocking. Shereth 21:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an article on the concept of shock, the image isn't on the article to shock, it's on the article because it's a depiction of the very subject. That it happens to shock, is because the subject does, it is a side effect. What is the argument for the use lead image in Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion? It's used because it identifies the subject, and contributes something to the understanding of the subject that words cannot. It is the same here, that viewers find that contribution shocking is irrelevant. - hahnchen 22:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This image fails NFCC (It's copyrighted, everyone else SAYS they own it, but no way to prove it, therefore permission cannot be obtained, it cannot be properly attributed. Further, it really doesn't improve Wikipedia, could be described with just text. It's a shock image and has always been. Keep it off the wikipedia.

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

  • Delete - This does nothing to improve Wikipedia and (as previously pointed out) fails the NFCC requirements. - Philippe 17:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unencyclopedic, NFCC 1 is not applicable, the image adds no appreciable value and offends people broadly. it's merely a replication of a shock site in wikipedia space. delete it and salt the ground so nothing grows there again. --Ludwigs2 20:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    a more detailed explanation of why this image should be deleted. First, as I put it on the mediation page (revised):
    • the website goatse.xx is primarily notable as an early, well-known internet shock site. the images on the site (and in particular hello.jpg) are significant only because of their intention to shock, and are otherwise largely irrelevant. They do not explain or describe goatse, they just replicate goatse. We would not allow the wikipedia article on a computer virus to actually infect people's machines with that virus, so why would we allow an article on a shock site to actually replicate the effects of the shock site?
    • The only reason any mention of the hello.jpg would be useful in this article is because that particular image became (as has been pointed out) a kind of cultural meme. However, the substance of that cultural meme can easily be captured with a simple verbal description, and the image itself adds no necessary value or information to the article over what's provided by a description. Because the adds no particular value, replicates the shock site and is generally taken to be broadly offensive, we should delete it.
    now, to address Scepter's points above, one by one.
    1. Encyclopedicity: Scepter claims that "some people are arguing that the image is "unencyclopedic" without reason." In fact, there is no reason to assume that the image is encyclopedic in the first place. The image doesn't do anything except replicate the shock site - it adds no necessary information, it doesn't display technical details, it doesn't help the reader understand an abstract concept... it simply shocks. If Scepter were capable of offering a decent reason why he image should be considered encyclopedic, then he'd have a decent argument, but in fact, he is resting his entire argument on the belief that he is not required to show that the image has an encyclopedic purpose. That's just wrong-headed.
    2. Precedent: This is simply a scare-tactic argument, along the lines of "today they come for our Goatse, tomorrow they come for our Mona Lisa". The precedents that he is referring to are fairly mindless conventions - sure, the article on Adobe might have a screenshot of the Adobe site, just because it looks nice or adds some product branding. Such images add color to the page, and maybe help readers recognize the site if they go to it. But such images are not integral or indispensable elements of the article. If someone wanted to remove the screenshot from the Adobe page, and had a good reason for doing so, the image would almost certainly go. The Goatse image does not look nice, and there are no product branding issues - how do these 'precedents' even apply?
    3. NFCC#1: This is just silly. NFCC#1 tells us whether or not we are prohibited from using an image because of fair use rules. It says absolutely nothing else. The fact that we are not prohibited from using the image says nothing at all about whether we want to use the image. Essentially this is a 21st birthday argument: "I just turned 21, I am no longer prohibited from drinking alcohol, therefore I am obligated to drink as much alcohol as I can before I pass out". Rubbish.
    4. Offensiveness: For any 'normal' (non-offensive) image, editors would sit down and discuss whether a particular image was useful in an article: an image might be added, then someone might object to it for some trivial reason, and after a short discussion that weighs the merits of the image it might be removed or it might be kept. this is normal (good) editing practice. Sceptre's argument here seems to be that because the image is offensive, this normal editing process does not apply - the image must be kept no matter what objections are raised over it. I'm a fan of NOT#CENSORED, mind you, but NOT#CENSORED was designed to prevent editors from removing useful material for emotional reasons; it was never designed to prevent editors from using normal editing practices or to circumvent discussions about the merits of an image in an article. Offensive material needs protection from emotional reasoning, but it does not need - and should not get - protection from normal editing discussions.
    5. RFC 2119: This is not an argument, as far as I can tell, but something that lies between hand-waving and wik-lawyering.
    6. Consensus: Scepter's conception of consensus can be seen in this archived link where an RfC on removing the image had a majority of editors asking for removal, but he and other proponents decided it was not a large enough majority (it was less than 66%, a number which they self-admittedly pulled out of thin air). their understanding of consensus excludes any editor they can manage to class under IDONTLIKEIT, and they habitually claim that every editor who objects to the image is suffering from IDONTLIKEIT. Even in his statement above, Scepter has to carefully exclude and qualify the discussions he talks about (how the removal consensuses were 'weak' and those people aren't around anymore anyway, and the other discussions don't count, and...). In fact, this image has been contested so many times through so many venues that any claim that it has some kind of historical consensus is absurd on the face of it. At best, it's managed to hang on by its fingernails for a protracted length of time, and that hardly has any bearing on the current discussion.
    When we get down to brass tacks, all the inclusion of this image does is perpetuate the original shock site in wikipedia space. The purpose of goatse.xx - the way it was almost always used - was to trick people into visiting a page where they would see images they find disturbing and revolting. Low and behold here we are on wikipedia, a supposedly "serious" encyclopedia, where we have a supposedly "serious" article that (guess what) tricks people into seeing images they find disturbing and revolting for no good reason. That's why I think this image should be deleted: wikipedia will lose nothing by deleting this image, and will gain a bit of its reputation back. --Ludwigs2 07:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, the point's flying way over your head and into the horizon, as it has been doing for the past few months. Your point, as many others, can so easily be traced to a dislike of the image just because it's a guy's ass. Let's go over your rebuttals, shall we?
        1. The encyclopedicity reasons, I explained in the "Precedent" section. If you don't think it's encyclopedic, then nominate File:Www.wikipedia.org screenshot.png for deletion. The precedents are relevant precisely because they are so widely followed. Sure, the Adobe screenshot might be removed, but it would surely be replaced not long after. If this website was a run-of-the-mill website that had a Wikipedia article, we wouldn't even have this discussion. The fact is, website screenshots and notable images both are understood to have automatic encyclopedic worth (hence why they are so abundant) and the fact that a website has a guy's ass does not reduce it. Hell, the currently used screenshot of ED contains racism, sexism, sexually explicit references, and desecration of the English language[Although, really, that's not their fault.], but I don't see anyone deleting that, even though the "fact" that "Sheneequa's giant black vagina squirts liquid that tastes like Raspberry Rush" is way more offensive to me that a guy's asshole.
        2. The NFCC#1 "rebuttal" is a straw man argument; my argument is that it passes NFCC#1 based on the precedent arguments (incidentally, the drinking age here is 18, and it's customary to at least have a couple of units on that day).]
        3. On the offensiveness argument, you appear to be advocating the editorial process by... bypassing it? As I said, I'll accept any argument that would not similarly delete any other notable or pornographic images or website screenshots—for example, Sjakkalle's "consent to upload" argument (which, while not policy, I agree is a good argument, and if this image was deleted, I'd prefer it to be reflected in the closing summary)—as removal for being offensive is censorship, and it would indeed be for emotional reasons if removal was done without due diligence.
        4. Re, consensus: 66% isn't really an arbitrary number when it comes to vote-counting; it's a common baseline for supermajorities. Outside Wikipedia, you need 66% in both chambers of the legislature to revise the California Constitution, for example, and you used to need to have 66 senators to invoke cloture in the U.S. Senate. On Wikipedia, 66% used to be the baseline to delete articles (back when it was less of a discussion) and is currently the baseline for default consensus actions such as moving articles; Brion Vibber, for example, said he wouldn't implement flagged revisions on enwiki without a two-thirds majority. You're focusing too much on Jolly Janner's admission that he came up with it, and not focusing, or, even worse, deliberately being ignorant to the status of a two-thirds supermajority in voting.
        Really, when we get down to it, the problem isn't replicating a shock site or damaging the reputation of Wikipedia (seriously, Size of English Wikipedia satire.svg is not without a grain of truth; we are too focused on pop-culture and little unincorporated villages). The problem is editors who come to the encyclopedia with ideas ingrained into their minds so deeply that they don't listen to reason and are not open to discussion at all, and prefer to rely on their own feelings when they conflict with Wikipedia process and policy. In this case, people who want an encyclopedic image deleted just because it's offensive. Sorry, that isn't how we roll. When you edit Wikipedia, we expect you to keep your feelings at the door and to edit in pursuit of the common goal of encyclopedia building. Shouting for removal of an image because you don't like it is anathema to that expectation, but sitting down and calmly finding objective and sensible reasons is not. That's all we ask. Sceptre (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, Scepter... your real argument argument here is that - due to your skills as a mind reader, no doubt - you know that everyone else is too stupid and inhibited to consider this situation rationally, and therefore it's your obligation (as the only rational being present) to enforce the image over all objections? trust me, I've argued with you - you're not that rational. In fact, I think you are the one acting emotionally, out of some misbegotten desire to break through all these deeply ingrained ideas that you seem to think other people have. You're apparently the Goatse version of a seventh day adventist, or engaged in some odd form of social engineering to make sure everyone ends up seeing the world from your point of view (how's that for mind reading).
the rest of your points are just hand-waving and stawman arguments, so they don't really call for a response. I'll leave them as is for others to judge. --Ludwigs2 20:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ludwigs2, please limit your comments to the arguments, not the person making them. You're getting awfully close to the line there. -- llywrch (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. In the context of things, I feel I am being more rational, or at the least, more objective. I'm not the one trying to impose moral standards here, after all. And that's what annoys me (both off-wiki and on-wiki): people who try to impose prudish moral standards on others. It's nothing short of POV pushing, in my opinion. All I'm trying to do is give this image the same consideration any other image would get, which is how things should work (and would work in theory) on Wikipedia. Sceptre (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, you are trying to impose a moral standard, it's just not a prudish one. Just like some religious moralist who might try to force removal of the image on puritanical grounds, you are trying to force inclusion of the image out of a distaste for prudishness. the reason I know this is that I have consistently tried to argue from the perspective of the value of the image in the article, yet every time I have tried to discuss whether the image is useful and relevant you have rejected the argument out of hand as prudishness. Every argument against the image is (to your mind) prudish, which is not a rational or reasonable perspective to take. I'm sorry you don't see the POV you're pushing, but that does not mean you're not pushing it.
llywrch - my previous response to sceptre might have been heated, for which I apologize, but it was accurate. --Ludwigs2 22:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'll reference Sceptre's analysis, as I feel it is quite excellent, and that his points have not been adequately refuted by anyone voting delete. As a personal story, when I heard about Goatse, I of course went to wikipedia to find out more. I did see the image here, and I really wish now that I could scrub it from my brain. However, The picture conveyed to me a whole lot more about the website than any text could, and I am glad that I have seen the image, so I can know what the fuss is all about. This is why it satisfies NFCC #1: no free image or text could have helped me understand Goatce.cx like that image could. I would be supportive of requiring readers to click on an "unhide" link to access this (and any other potentially offensive) images, but I understand that that discussion's already been had. In light of the binary choice then (display it for all to see in the article, or not at all), the answer clearly lies with Keep. Buddy431 (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • err... I have explicitly refuted most of Sceptre's arguments at the mediation page (I added a link at the top of the section). would it be worthwhile to present those refutations here? --Ludwigs2 00:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can write an opinion herejust like everyone else has, but don't act like your entry will somehow invalidate Sceptre's or anyone else's opposing point of view on the matter. Tarc (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dude, chill. Sceptre doesn't have a reasoned argument; I do. No one is obliged to listen to reason, of course, but the fact that you don't want to listen to it doesn't mean I haven't invalidated his position. --Ludwigs2 04:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ludwigs2, Sceptre has responded to your arguments on the mediation page. His comments above may be taken as his summary of the points he made there. It would help greatly if you were to furnish a similar summary of what you wrote there for this discussion -- if for no other reason than to help the poor Admin who dares to close this discussion. -- llywrch (talk) 05:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • lol - alright. I was conflicted about rehashing the same arguments here, but I suppose it would be useful. I'll edit it in under the 'delete' comment I made above. --Ludwigs2 06:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks. This helps the discussion. I may not agree with you, but the only way we are going to reach some kind of consensus (or at least a conlusion) to this lengthy debate over this image (& the defunct site) is to fully articulate our reasons. Simply stating that this image is encyclopedic/unencyclopedic, proper use/abuse of Fair use, etc., is little more than rehashing the discreditted "delete this because I don't like it" argument. -- llywrch (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're right, of course - I've just had to repeat variations of these arguments so many times in so many places that I'm burned out by it. I should probably go back and edit out some minor pissiness, but I'll look into that later. --Ludwigs2 16:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wikipedia isn't censored. Get over it. Seriously, go here - WP:CENSOR, and get over it. There are considerably more offensive images on Wikipedia to specific groups. The image adds considerably to the article, and graphically depicts what words cannot - had goatse just been a text file, it would not have obtained such notoriety - this is a subject impossible to describe using text alone. This is EXACTLY the purpose of non-free content on Wikipedia. - hahnchen 21:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I echo Sceptre's wonderful analysis above. Most of the above delete opinions are pretty obvious IDONTLIKEIT votes. Personal prejudices shouldn't affect this image just as they shouldn't affect images of Mohammad, which many also find personally offensive. "Eww icky!" isn't a reason to delete something, nor is it an excuse to call for IAR. ThemFromSpace 22:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. This image is neither free nor encyclopedic. Basically we have the choice between a useful article about the phenomenon that people can actually read without having to lock themselves in first, and a little shocksite-style easter egg hidden in the encyclopedia consisting of the image plus some alibi text that is going to be read much less because of the presence of the picture. The first choice is obviously the right one. This has nothing to do with censorship. The question of censorship only arises with content that makes a positive contribution to the encyclopedia as an encyclopedia. Hans Adler 00:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I was in high school, back in that ancient period before the Internet, one of the most common pranks was to leave the unabridged dictionary in the school library open to the entry for "fuck", 'shit", etc. Kids probably know about more "shock-style easter eggs" in Wikipedia than you or I do. -- llywrch (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lol. that is pretty gross. Lol.--69.114.214.58 (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as long as it's not blown up huge on the article page. At the size it is now, I think it's fine. (And to the children argument, guys, I'll be a minor for quite a few years yet.) I don't see how it's that much of a shocker at that resolution; it's kinda "oh, is that it?". So keep for illustrative purposes. SS✞(Kay) 06:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you on the "oh, is that it?". At this size, it's not that gross. The shock value is linked to surprise as much as grossness. This picture is thumbnail sized. If it's this small, I don't think people will be so surprised. They will see the picture, think "that's gross, let's not watch that fullscreen any time soon", and be on their merry way. I ask everyone to just take a long look at this picture, as it is displayed in the article, and tell me it's really that awful. It's just a tiny open anus after all. Remco47 (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the only possible argument for deletion should be a copyright one, the whole 'grossness' thing is completely subjective and at any rate, it's not our job to decide what other people can see, at the end of the day we're a bunch of people that edit a website that few people regard with any degree of seriousness.raseaCtalk to me 15:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic; dubious copyright status. WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't give us a carte blanche to host the most outrageous images we can find. We are better off without it, in my opinion. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is zero valid justification for this image being in a real encyclopaedia rather than a text description of the image. Zero. All the lawyering arguments above really boil down to the idiot IP post above "Keep Lol. that is pretty gross. Lol." At least that ones honest. --Amentet (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is this the same argument you use against every other non-free image depicted here for the use of identification? Or just ones that you find offensive? Because it's the arguments for delete which generally read "Lol. that is pretty gross. Lol." - hahnchen 17:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your edit and the IP's edit carry similarities though - both are completely devoid of sensible arguments, and both votes should be ignored for that reason. Oh, and do you know the WP:AGF policy? I think reading it would be a good idea. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 18:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you'll find that the first sentence of my post is saying that this image is unencyclopedic, which is a perfectly valid argument. I would have thought that such an assiduous reader of the assume good faith guideline would assume good faith themselves. As for the vote being ignored, that would be impossible because this is not a vote WP:NOTVOTE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amentet (talk • contribs) 08:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Section Break 2
  • Comment: It is worth reviewing the parallel and unresolved Mediation Cabal discussion on precisely this issue. I think it does indeed come down to those editors who argue that the image is unencyclopedic and does not improve the article being accused of censorship and IDON'TLIKEIT. But Ludwigs2's argument, not adequately answered here or there, is that the burden is on the inclusionists to show why the article needs it. We don't host any (legal) image whatsoever just because we can. I haven't seen anyone make a convincing case that the image is valuable as encyclopedic content rather than to reproduce ("illustrate" if you will) the shock of the original site.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
  • That is exactly the issue here. NFCC section 8 (Contextual significance) is completely open to personal interpretation, as one might deem the image significant, and another person doesn't. I would argue that this image is significant because the entire article is about this image - yes, it is about the website, but the website received acclaim due to that particular image. I would argue that this case bears similarities to the Tank Man article. Both article's are directly related to their respective images, as it are the images that directly caused the notability of the article itself. If the tank man image would not have been made, we wouldn't have the article. If the goatse image was never made, no one would know the site. So i would say that if the article itself is notable, the image should be added as well. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 18:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a knockdown argument for the article (if we have it at all, and it really is barely sourced) being about the image. It doesn't quite get as far as being a reason that the image should be included. I think the analogy fails, because the goatse image acts - unavoidably - as something other than an illustration. It's inclusion reproduces an effect rather than just helpig to describe it, and that doesn't stike me as an encyclopedic aim. (but I'm now repeating myself...)KD Tries Again (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
Yes, you are repeating yourself; this ridiculous "reproducing the effect" bit doesn't hold water. The burden of inclusion has been well-explained by dozens of editors at this point. Just because some prudish editors do not accept that explanation...well, that's just too bad. Tarc (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc - just exactly where has the burden of inclusion been met? I don't see it. if you could list out all the reason here that would be great, because I have never seen a decent explanation of why this image should be included, and I'd be curious to. If you can't, of course, then I'll expect you to refactor your statement above as a mistaken impression. thanks. --Ludwigs2 20:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This has been explained several times; the image can not be adequately replaced by a free alternative (none exists, though if you have a mirror and a digital camera, feel free), or by text (inadequate and does not convey what the image can). Clear? Good. Tarc (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the visceral shock factor, what exactly does this image convey that a textual description cannot? It's a man's anus being manually stretched by his hands. Unless we are concerned with the condition of the man's fingernails or the precise color of his insides, I still fail to see what the image is supposed to communicate to the reader that cannot be accomplished by simple text. Shereth 20:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
see, this has been my question all along, and it's the one thing that the image proponents never actually answer. they've got arguments about why why shouldn't 'remove' the image (most of the questionable, mind you), but they have nothing meaningful about why we should 'include' it in the first place. it's discouraging trying to get that point across. --Ludwigs2 20:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have been arguing the "Why" in my first response post towards this delete rationale. I don't find the refute that the image produces a secondary effect very convincing, as many images have secondary effects. Take Depictions of Muhammad for example. Those images have a secondary effect on some users as well and still we include them. In other words, i stand with my analogy and conclusion that if we create an article about an image, that image should be included. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To Ludwigs2: did you not see my Addendum to my comment above? I make an argument there specifically why to keep. (Maybe it was overlooked because it wasn't at the bottom of this thread.) - -llywrch (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "proponents never actually answer", you mean "proponents have answered all the time, but I refuse to even acknowledge their response". We should include the image, because it is a depiction of the subject, something that the text cannot adequately convey. It is the same reason we have non-free images on Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion, Cloud Gate and Aaliyah. It's because visual depictions of the subject matter are important, and offers something for the reader that WP:ALT doesn't. That people find the subject distasteful is irrelevant, those who find the subject matter unencyclopedic should air their grievances at WP:AFD. - hahnchen 21:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To llywrch: sorry for the delay in my response; needed some gym time to chill out. I just read you addendum now, and I have to say (first) that I think you've captured the point that really lies behind most image proponents' arguments, and (second) that I dislike the point intensely. it's basically a social engineering argument, as though it's wikipedia's purpose to 'toughen up' people for that big, bad, ugly internet world, whether they want to be toughened up or not. to my mind, this is an article about the shock site, and it's only purpose is to discuss the shock site - it shouldn't replicate the shock site, it shouldn't have some 'meta-purpose' about displaying what the internet is like, or anything like that. really, the unspoken thought that every proponent of this image has (I think) is: "it's just a stupid image, people shouldn't be such babies about it". But it's not wikipedia's job to tell people what they should and shouldn't be babies about.
to my mind we should include offensive images where there is a clear, explainable need for them in the article, and we should exclude them otherwise. There are plenty of offensive images on wikipedia that are clearly needed - for example, removing penis images from the penis article would absolutely castrate cripple the article. by contrast, removing the screenshot from the Goatse article would not make one whit' of difference to the article - the article would be perfectly fine without it. so why are we indulging in such an image when we don't need to? --Ludwigs2 04:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ludwigs2, two things. First, all of us need to keep ourselves from becoming too emotionally invested in this issue. The point of this discussion is to determine whether or not this image is useful for Wikipedia, not to win some argument. I'll state here that if this image ends up being deleted, I can live with that & will move on -- & I hope everyone who is disappointed with the eventual decision can do that. (I may end up being disappointed with the closing Admin's reasoning for keeping/deleting the image, but I will explain my reasons for that in a comment below.) Becoming emotionally invested over the outcome of this discussion will keep one from present the best argument for her/his opinion, is self-destructive, & will likely lead to Wiki-Burnout.
Second, in my comment about testing one's tolerance, I did not mean to say that people need to be "toughened up" for "that big, bad, ugly internet world" -- I doubt anyone can be toughened up that much. What I was trying to say is that there is a lot of content on the Internet which uses the practically unlimited exercise of free speech possible & crosses the line between a justifiable right into license. This image is the best known -- "iconic", so to say -- example of this phenomena. Most examples of crossing this line have some justification, a "higher reason", as there is with, for example, the Dadaist art piece Fountain; the Goatse image is, I believe we can all agree, disgusting for the sake of being disgusting. Include it for that reason, & there is no need to include any other similarly repugnant image for that reason. -- llywrch (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your point about emotional investment. I'm not actually invested in the image issue (which, like you, I could be happy either way on). I've been getting upset because of the argument style that a lot of proponents use, which boils down to a denial of consensus through personal attack (i.e., "everyone who opposes the image is irrationally emotional, and thus we don't need to discuss the matter with them"). I appreciate people like you who don't use that style, and apologize for letting the people who do use it get under my skin.
That being said, there's a problem of logic with your second claim. There are two things here: the goatse site (which is clearly notable as a shock site), and the 'hello.jpg' image, which is far less clearly notable as an image. Wikipedia would not, I don't think, have a separate article on 'hello.jpg' (and in fact, that term is a redirect to the goatse article), because the image itself is only notable for having been used as a shock element on goatse. To my mind the dorks who first invented the goatse site would have chosen any image they found that was sufficiently shocking; the fact that they ended up with hello.jpg was pure happenstance. we should all be thankful, I think, that they didn't run across images of coprophilia, cannibalism or butchered human bodies, or any of the other more grotesque paraphilias that exist in the world. It would be one thing if goatse were actually a real site dedicated to describing techniques of anal distention (that would mean that the picture itself was representative of the message that goatse was trying to get across, and give a stronger case for including the image), but as it is it's just some random gross picture they pulled out of their... err... hat to freak people out. Goatse is about freaking people out: the particular means by which they freak people out is inconsequential. As I explained in the mediation, giving a brief description of the image itself, and then showing one of the hoax pictures that appear later down in the page (e.g., the london olympics logo) would more than adequately cover all the ground necessary for an encyclopedic coverage of the topic - people would see the hoax image, and understand what goatse did perfectly, without ever needing to be exposed to the image itself. The fine line here is between explaining what the shock site is (which is valuable to the encyclopedia) and replicating the shock site as is (which is not encyclopedic at all). --Ludwigs2 17:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • again, NFCC is not an issue here. Read Wikipedia:NFCC#Rationale: this policy tells us when we may use an image, it does not (and never did) tell us whether we should use an image. This is a godawful specious argument, and I wish people would stop repeating it. --Ludwigs2 20:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have never said it MUST be used, nor to my recollection has anyone else argued that, so please, enough with the strawman constructions. What has been explained here is why it SHOULD be used, and why text is not an adequate representation, thus satisfying this project's non-free requirements. Tarc (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • uh... please reread what I wrote - where did you get that 'must'? I said that NFCC tells us we may use the image - no one disputes that. the fact that we may use the image in no way translates to a claim that we should use the image. NFCC is irrelevant to the 'should' question. --Ludwigs2 20:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are at the crux of the argument (not for the first time). I am not just contradicting the assertion that the image should be included. Like other editors, I still haven't seen a compelling reason to include it. Like others, I can't imagine anyone at whom the article is aimed being left puzzled by a text description. This is not analogous to a painting. The reason I harp on the effect of reproducing shock is that I can't imagine anything else which the image adds to a clear text description. And again, just because we CAN (if it's legal) reproduce the content of shock sites (or pornography or...well, add your own list) it doesn't mean that we can't exercise judgment to the contrary. Failing to host just any image we can host is not censorship.KD Tries Again (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
Apply this logic to the Tank Man article and other pages with non free images. A description saying "Man standing in front of 4 tanks with a flag" is just as clear as the image. A lot of these non free images can be replaced by prose and users could still imagine what it looks like. What makes this image different, other then its grossness and shock value? I still argue that this image is an integral part of the article's subject and should therefor be included. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 21:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me for picking out your specific comment here, because I've seen the same argument repeatedly above; your particular repitition of this claim just happens to be the one that made me respond. With that out of the way, of course we can distinguish between Tank Man, or the Iwo Jima flag raising (some poor misguided soul has implied that the Mona Lisa is involved here somehow as well) and an image of a red distended anus. The latter is intended purely for shock value, and its inclusion is based on a perceived need to illustrate the exact shock value. The other examples are not. We can easily make a procedural distinction between the two (it is allowed, it is not prohibited, and it is simple to do), but more importantly, we can easily make an aesthetic distinction between the two. The idea that this is difficult or prohibited is nonsense. It frankly cries out for refutation by the expedient of just making that distinction and closing with a rationale of "Can too!" - but of course I don't recommend that approach to the actual closer. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The latter is intended to depict the subject of the article, in the same manner as the Tank Man image. That the subject was made to shock, is irrelevant. - hahnchen 21:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some images add nothing of encyclopedic value to an article, some do. What the goatse image adds is not information or explanation or clarification or anything one might expect of an encyclopedia article; it adds the function of serving as a surprise shock image, the function for which it is famous (and encourages the use of Wikipedia as a host of a surprise shock image). Again - because something shocks or titillates or frightens, it does not follow that we need to host it. If notable, we might need to have an article explaining it - that's all.KD Tries Again (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
To be frightfully honest? I think you're vastly overstating the shock value inclusion has. For one, most people searching for the article would already know about the existence of the site. Of those who don't, I would expect them to search Google and click through; on Google (UK and US) the article is the top result, and has a textual description there. That leaves just Special:Random and actually being linked to the Wikipedia article by some dick. And, I know this is more of a stretch (fnarr fnarr) than anything else, but I expect them to read left-to-right, and not see the image in their direct line of sight before reading the words "shock site". And finally, it's a thumbnail image. The "shock" the thumbnail would have is rather low. And really, Goatse is rather passé these days. There are far more shocking images (mostly on medical articles) that trolls can link to; the only thing Goatse is good for in 2010 is for a cheap amateur laugh. Sceptre (talk) 21:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for being the poor misguided soul I am, but I do believe I made myself clear that it was not about comparing the artistic value of Mona Lisa to goatse. I used it as an example of how you need to show what the phenomenon is about, in order for the reader to understand the phenomenon. In the case of a phenomenon around a picture (be it Mona Lisa or goatse), it is a picture that needs to be shown. As I've said before: otherwise you're just talking in the dark. Remco47 (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<EC>In response to Gavia immer, I believe that WP:NOTCENSORED states that we shouldn't be excluding an image because it is offensive. We generally do include pictures of the topic of the article. I don't see why the topic being a "shock image" should make us do otherwise. Frankly I don't care about the shock value nor do I think that's why we should keep the picture. We should keep it because the article is about the image and to leave the image out serves no purpose other than to not offend. Hobit (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) Oh, i'm actually glad you picked my comment apart for the sake of argument - if everyone just ignores other users comments we may just hold a straw poll instead of a discussion :). I agree with your comment. The Mona Lisa, Tank Man and Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima images all had the intention to spread something newsworthy. In contrast the Goatse image's original purpose was shock value, and originally (At the time the image was made) it as one of the things that should not be included within an encyclopedia (At least not without a VERY clear reason). So far i can agree with your rationale.
However in its current form, the website/image has become something akin to an Internet meme. In fact, the website Goatse.cx has become notable enough to warrant an encyclopedic article - mostly thanks to that image. I would therefor say that these days the image is entangled in such as way to the article notability that it should be included. Aesthetic value has little to do with the issue. This image is in no way the epitome of aesthetically correctness or beauty, and yes, many people will find it offensive - Personally i have been evading looking at it during this entire discussion. Even so i deem the additional value of topic completeness paramount to my own ideas of that image. I think this is the main crux in this entire discussion - Leaving out all the policy talk and personal opinions we can boil this down to the question if this image adds anything to the article. I would argue it is directly related to the subjects notability, while other people have different opinions on this issue. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 22:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excirial raises the main point. This image of the website's front page and its notorious photograph is the primary means of illustrating the article, and is in every meaningful way the subject of the article. No other image is as relevant to that article. So that's the argument for including the image. And I can think of no other circumstance, past or potential, in which another image that is comparably integral to an article's subject would be getting this kind of opposition. The only reason this image is getting the scrutiny it is receiving is because it shows a man stretching his anus. It may sound almost deliberately obtuse to phrase it like that, but the point is that that visceral reactions to graphic content are dictating deletion arguments here, not any content-neutral principles that are otherwise applied to other images and other articles. If not for that graphic content, no one would argue that this image--an image of the article's subject and the only useful image for illustrating that article--was replaceable by a text description. And I have seen no one articulate a workable, objective principle that would delete this image based on its content. I'm sympathetic to that visceral reaction; I certainly had it myself when I first saw the image however many years ago, full screen rather than thumbnail size as here. But "images should be deleted that people find revolting" is not a workable principle. I really don't like minimizing others' arguments to IDONTLIKEIT, but I'm struggling to see any other motivation here, particularly where many of the deletion comments are intertwined with attacks on the article and its subject. postdlf (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
postdlf: you are making the fundamental error of assuming that the image and the site are an identity. the site is a shock site, the image is just a random image that they chose because it had high shock value. it's not like goatse was a site dedicated to describing the process of ass stretching (in which case the image would represent the purpose of the site. If I thought that this image was actually necessary to convey anything about goatse (other than shock) then I would be right in there on your side of the fence, pitching to keep it. but it doesn't. all this image does is replicate the shock site in wikipedia space, for no good, encyclopedic reason. --Ludwigs2 05:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The site always had that photograph as its front page, and the site has no identity apart from that photograph; "goatse" is synonymous with that photograph. It was not a generic shock site that rotated through images and happened to pick one that gained it notability. So why that photograph was chosen by the goatse.cx webmasters is completely irrelevant to whether the image is relevant to the article; all that matters is that it was chosen. Regarding the rhetoric that including the image in the article "replicate[s] the shock site" on Wikipedia," it is hardly as shocking in thumbnail size, contextualized in an article about the site, the photograph, and its notoriety. The encyclopedic reason is to illustrate the subject of an encyclopedia article, particularly as that subject is really the photograph. postdlf (talk) 05:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how many other ways to say that NOTCENSORED and IDONTLIKEIT are irrelevant unless and until we've established that we're discussing keeping or deleting something of encyclopedic value. I am still waiting to find out why a text description will leave readers who are expecting an encyclopedia article rather than a laugh in the dark.KD Tries Again (talk) 05:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
In that case you are requesting a circular argument, with no beginning and no end. Let me sketch it out: "Why does this article need this image?" -> "The subject of the article is the goatse.sx website, a website which notability is directly related to that particular image. Argument: Encyclopedic completeness requires we add it". -> "Why? what value does it have over a textual description? Can't it be replaced by mere prose?" -> "Of course, but that would be the same for Tank man and a lot of other NFCC images. We keep those as well". -> "Those images had notability when they were made" -> "This image earned notability over time as one of the most used shock images" -> "Wikipedia isn't a shock site, we MAY add images, but we are not REQUIRED to do it" -> "There are images which are a lot worse then this one. I would refer you to the images we have on the gangrene article and other medical pages" -> "Those images serve an educational purpose. The goatse image is only meant to shock people" -> "True, but by being successful it has grown into a well-known images and it received media attention just because of that." -> "The website received media attention, not the image. We cover the website, why should we cover the image?" -> "In this case the website IS the image. The entire reason it gained any notability is because of that image". -> "Even if it does, we are not required to include the image. Why does this article need this image?".
Loop back and we can go on and on and on for a LONG time. There is no real end to this debate - it all boils down to a personal opinion if the article needs the image. I still argue that the image is related in such a way to the website that it should be included for completeness sake. All the famous NFCC images mention in this thread share this in common - their article's are based upon that image. Tank man is based upon that photograph. Raising the flag is based upon the photograph. Mona Lisa is based upon the paining. Goatse is based upon the image we debate. I would say that is a very valid reason to include it. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 08:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do hear you, but I think there are a couple of big holes in your argument. Yes, some - maybe many - images we host could be replaced by a text description: it does not follow either that goatse could not be replaced by a text description (it obviously could), nor that every image which could be so replaced should be deleted. "All or nothing" is not what we're debating. Secondly, accepting that the website happened to use this single image, the fact remains that it might have used many others (just different assholes?) to precisely the same effect. The specificity of the image is unimportant - it was a shock image which happened to shock. From that perspective, there just isn't an analogy with a work of art like the Mona Lisa or some of the records of historical events you've put forward as examples.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
You're arguing based on something other than current policy and practice. Any image that is considered "replaceable" per NFCC policy is deleted, because only usage of non-replaceable non-free images are permitted. So you can't have it both ways by claiming this image is replaceable, but other non-free images that are equally replaceable don't have to be deleted. That another image could have been selected by the goatse webmaster is really completely irrelevant; again, this is a standard that does not exist and is not consistent with current practice and policy. An image is not replaceable or irrelevant to a topic based on speculation as to how it could have been otherwise. A different photograph of a musician could always have been chosen for an album cover, for example, but when the record company selected a particular one, that's the one we use because that is the album cover. This image is an image of the website and the picture they hosted on their front page. postdlf (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)KD, ou have no idea what you are talking about. The specificity of the image is the primary importance here; this specific image is associated with this specific term, thy are inseparable. When people see the word "goatse", the association is made to the image itself, not to the website that hosts it, or hosted it in the past. Tarc (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are both missing my point. Of course it used that image, but it might equally well have used a different one: the fact that this specific image could easily be replaced with a different image of a distended anus supports the contention that it adds nothing to a text description. I was pointing out the disanalogy with Excirial's examples.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
Actually, if that was your point them yep, I did miss it. Unfortunately for you, your actual, now-revealed point is the weakest argument seen on this page yet. Tarc (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I can see your point - No tank man image would have meant no tank man article. No mona lisa painting would have meant no article. No flag raising picture would have meant no article. No goatse image might have meant that another image could be used. However, that would be arguing "What if?". If these images were not made, some alternative might have popped up. No, we wouldn't have the "Tank man" page but we might have had some other image that would receive wide coverage. No mona lisa might have meant another painting was made and so on. Hence, perhaps "Goatse" might have never excisted at all without this image - perhaps a similar site would have received all notability instead.
Arguing "What if" is therefor mostly besides the point. The reason why they chose this particular image is not important. They chose it, and this particular image received substantial media coverage because of this. "Goatse" is synonymous to this image, not to a specific site (There have been several incarnations of the site after all). I would say this particular image is famous because we made it so, and not because it has an inherent quality attached to it. Even so, this particular image received all the attention and notoriety, and not some other random image. Every human has the capacity to become famous, and yet we only include the once that managed to do so. We don't argue that anyone might have done the same. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 15:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Last try, because I think it's important. It's because any equivalent image could replace that one that the actual image adds nothing to a text description. This supports the contention that the image adds nothing informational or encyclopedic to the description in the article.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
No, it could not, simple as that. Goatse refers to that specific image, not to a random (but perhaps similar) shock image. If we were debating about a similar image which was added for illustrations sake, my vote would be delete, simply because it would not be directly related to the notability and controversy around the website. The image is not added to explain to the user what, to quote the article "showing a naked man stretching his anus" looks like, but to display the reason why this article generated so much controversy, which directly caused the notability of this article. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@ Excirial(e/c): I'm sorry, but you are wrong on one fundamental point. Without the 'Tank Man' image, there would be no article for 'Tank man'; this is true. However (and this is crucial) removing the goatse screenshot would in no way damage the goatse article. Goatse was a shock site, and the article can explain the shock site and its importance easily and well without the image - all the image does is replicate the shock site in wikipedia space. 'Tank man' is an iconic image; goatse is an iconic shock site. there's a world of difference between those two statements.
let me put it another way: Antisemitism and racism are unpleasant but important concepts, and wikipedia displays antisemitic and racist material where and when it needs to to accurately depict topics. However, we have articles (I assume) on notable shock jocks who have made antisemitic or racist jokes just boost their ratings (not uncommon for shock jocks), but we do not repeat their antisemitic or racial jokes in wikipedia unless we have good reason to believe that the shock jocks are intending to be antisemitic or racist (as opposed to just being jerks). goatse is a site designed by jerks, for the purpose of yanking people's chains; there is no sense in helping them to continue to yank people's chains. --Ludwigs2 17:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You need help with analogy-crafting, as that doesn't match this case. At all. The article-plus-image isn't here to "yank people's chains" as the site itself does; it is simply to tell what the fucking site is about in the first place. Article-minus-image does not do that as adequately as article-plus-image does. Tarc (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me: you can honestly sit here, looking at the reams of comments on this page, the unpleasantness of the mediation, the mountains of vituperative comments on the talk page, and tell me that the image doesn't yank people's chains? I don't really give a flying fuck what might be intended; the fact is that it does yank people's chains, excessively, and does so without any real point. we can tell people what the site is about without replicating the shock tactics that were the site's main raison d'etre. that's been my point all along. --Ludwigs2 19:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, we can't, any more than we could describe in text what the big hullabaloo was regarding the Virgin Killer album (or Blind Faith for that matter) without the image in question. Your prudishness should not be imposed on others, and should not be allowed to gut articles of things you do not like. Tarc (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remember to keep cool, and don't start aiming for the editor instead of the opinion. It is the issue that should be debated, not other editors conduct or prudishness. Doing so will only cause a lot of friction, and nothing good has ever come from doing that (And besides, it won't help solve the issue at hand)! Note that this is aimed at the direction this entire discussion seems to be heading, and not towards a single editor. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, there is no need for anyone to drop the f-bomb here. I've been gently reminding people here to remain civil, & now I'm going to have to become stern here. The next person who posts something in any way incivil will get a time out for the rest of seven days this FfD will run -- midnight UTC, 4 April, if my calculations are correct. Even if that results with all of my comments being disregarded by the closing Admin. (And I'm giving Ludwigs2 a pass here since it's clear he was responding in kind.) Now play nice or else. -- llywrch (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This makes no sense. Par your argument antisemitism and racism images are added if they are required for accurately depicting the topic, and naturally we don't display these images just for the sake of displaying them, or for means of personal vanity. But how exactly is the goatse image different? This image is the reason why we even have a goatse article - by displaying it we do not mean to reproduce the shock value - instead it is meant to illustrate why the site received its notability \ notoriety. After all, it was this specific image that caused all the buzz around the site itself. If we included this image merely because of its shock value we would display a high-res full screen version of it. Instead, we display a low quality and heavily pixelated version to demonstrate to the user WHY the site generated its notability \ notoriety, and NOT to shock the user. I would say displaying it is completely within reason and context on this article, simply because it is so closely related and critical to the topic itself. If this article was about a random shock site that repeatedly posted this kind of shock images i would argue that we should not include any of those images at all because they are not exactly relevant to the article itself. But this particular image is the reason for this website's notability, and therefor in my eyes extremely relevant to the topic itself. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, what we mean to do is largely irrelevant. There are many people in the world who didn't mean to pull the trigger on the gun, but they went to jail for it anyway. The fact is, whether we mean to or not, we are replicating the goatse shock site in wikipedia. I mean, all I have to do to goatse someone is send them an email with a faked link that leads to our wikipedia page, and damn - got 'em!
I could accept this if there was a decent reason to include the image, but there just isn't. we don't need to 'demonstrate' the site on wikipedia, because all 'demonstrating' the site means is 'demonstrating' the shock value of the site (because the only thing the site has is shock value). Wikipedia might have an article about how sticking one's finger in an electrical outlet will cause a painful electric shock, but we would not allow the article to advise people to do so just to see what it feels like, and we would certainly not (assuming it were technically possible) force people to get an electrical shock when they visit the page. yet by including this image on the goatse article we effectively force everyone who wants to read about a classic internet shock site to experience the site itself. That just aint right.
P.s. resolution is not an issue - the image is perfectly clear at its current resolution. that's a red-herring. --Ludwigs2 21:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your point about shocking people by sending them a faked link to the Wikipedia article is completely irrelevant, you can do this with any Wikipedia article that contains an image that the recipient may not like - penis, autofellatio, Virgin Killer, etc. Even better, send them a link direct to the image page for many of the images listed at MediaWiki:Bad image list. Other people, depending on their culture and attitudes, would find images that you consider harmless and benign to be extremely shocking. Thryduulf (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Im having quite a bit of difficulty following this train of thought, and in fact i think we are actually starting to derail here. The electricity example is so far besides the point and so unrealistic that i don't have a reaction to it - and nor do i think it serves any real purpose in this discussion. To state it plainly: If we have an article that is entirely about a particular image, that image should be included. If the article is about a shock website that contains a random collection of shock images, none should be included. "Goatse" refers to that image, and not to the site. We force anyone who wants to read Depictions of Muhammad to view the images on that article, same with about every medical and sexual related article. Why is this images so radically different from those other offensive images that we have already created a grand total of 34 pages in A4 format, containing a total of 1.675 lines and 118.577 words? Other then it being offensive, what would be the reason AGAINST including an image that is so directly related to the article? I have been stating over and over that this images is contextually relevant for this article. Arguments that "Other images could have been selected as well" and "Its offensive" are just moot points. "Offensiveness" is an opinion which varies among humans, and "Other images could have been selected" is nonsensical. We don't argue that we should remove an article about subject XYZ simply because 10.000 other persons could have achieved the same thing.
Besides, it seems we keep returning to the point where we argue if the image does or doesn't add anything at all to the article, and every time we repeat that argument it results in more comparisons that head to the same result. I would say that unless we have a new point or statement that isn't a variation of what has already been said, we should call it quits to give the closing admin a break. Reading the same thing in 1001 different variants over and over isn't effective not efficient. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 22:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we should break it off for now. I think you are making a category error when you equate goatse with the image, you (obviously) don't; I don't think the image adds any particular value to the article, you don't seem to think that's an important distinction. fair enough. you're wrong of course but fair enough. --Ludwigs2 03:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Better to agree we disagree, then to debate on into eternity. Even though it is obvious that i am correct. My, aren't we making a great meta:MPOV display here? Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 09:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
possibly true. I have been practicing my evil chuckle {mwahahahahahaaaaaa) --Ludwigs2 15:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Wikipedia is not censored. Think of the Virgin Killer album cover image. That is CP! Yet that is kept. The goatse screenshot is totally encyclopediac, is not CP, and should be kept just like the Virgin Killer pic. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! It is an iconic image, just because certain people do not find what the image depicts tasteful, it does not mean that it should be deleted. I suspect many of the people voting delete have been the subject of a good Goatse at some point and have not seen the funny side. Snaisybelle (talk) 22:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This isn't an April Fools' joke; I'm serious. After reading User:Are you ready for IPv6?'s post, I was convinced that this image shouldn't be deleted. The Virgin Killer image is much worse, since it's CP. PS: Wikipedia isn't censoring (click here for details). --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: since when is anatomy inherently 'sexual content'? You people need to really leave your biases at the door... or do we need to replace every image of the human body with a drawing or text so as not to 'offend' your sensibilities? SiriusBsns (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You can't have the article without the image. CHINGCHONGCHINGCHONG —Preceding undated comment added 04:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete – "not censored" is not equivalent to "not subject to editorial judgment". –MuZemike 04:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know that you edit a lot in the video games space here. It's accepted as standard, that a visual depiction of the subject, such as the box art forms a useful and encyclopedic part of the article. Visual depiction of the subject is important. And yet, you suggest that for this article, it's irrelevant. Why? Because it's "shocking" or "offensive"? Because that's pretty much what censorship is. - hahnchen 00:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This image does not help, and indeed in my opinion hinders the article by distracting the reader with unnecessary, uninformative shock value. As one reading the article, it was very distracting. I'd also put forth that the arguments in favor of keeping it seem to rely on WP:NOTCENSORED as a crutch. Not censored means we should not censor ourselves, which is true; however it does not address whether it should be included for editorial reasons. Since at this point the image does not add anything to, and actually detracts from the article, I can see no reason to include it. Censoring notwithstanding, it just doesn't make good editorial sense. We've been so busy asking whether we can keep it, in accordance with Wiki policy (such as censorship), that we've not stopped to really address whether we should keep it and whether it really adds anything to the article. NOTCENSORED is a red herring that is at times overly cited in lieu of editorial sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saberswordsmen1 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, forgot to sign. Previous comment belongs to me. JPetersen (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Speaking from a "meta" level, this is going to be a difficult discussion for the closing Admin to handle. For one thing, the lines in this discussion are so sharply drawn that someone is going to be unhappy with the decision. Another is that this is an old dispute which goes back at least to 2005, so a bad decision will, at best, lead us to DRV for another round with a lot of the same passion there. Also, I honestly hope the closing Admin doesn't take the easy way out by counting "keeps" & "deletes" then going with the majority -- because settling this dispute that way will only keep this matter going & lead to even more tension between Wikipedians. And lastly, but most importantly, most of the statements on both sides suck: only a handful provide more than a simple assertion for "keep" or "delete", as if writing "Wikipedia is not censored" or "not encyclopedic", etc. are magic words which will cause the closing Admin to willy-nilly decide in favor of the writer's opinion.

    Looking over the arguments provided, the points they make fall more or less into one of three categories. The first concerns whether keeping or deleting this image violates WP:NOTCENSORED. The second is whether this image violates some clause of WP:NFCC. Both of these considerations are subordinate to the third, which can be simply expressed as does this image improve the article? (Although I think it does, I am not discussing that here.) If an image improves the article, policy gives us room to include it, regardless if someone finds it offensive or if it is available under a free license; if it doesn't, then it is irrelevant whether it is offensive or the legal basis it being used in Wikipedia under. These apply whether the image is this one, one about a cuddly kitten, one about a patient suffering from tertiary syphillis, or a blank wall: if it doesn't improve the article, it isn't needed.

    Now there have been a few comments which address this consideration with reasons for & against. Two against its additional value are (1) that a sexually explicit image should not appear on Wikipedia without the subject(s) permission -- which appears to have weight with the other side -- & (2) that this image reduces the accessibility of the article. (I'll admit I'm not going to read the article knowing that I'll likely see this picture.) There are two in favor of its additional value: (1) it is an iconic image of repulsive images to be found on the Internet (& thus keeping this image does not automatically mean Wikipedia must keep similar repulsive images); & (2) depending on external links is dangerous because websites go away all of the time (look at the recent end of Geocities). Asserting whether this image is/is not "encyclopedic" (or any other example of Wikipedia jargon) will not help because this is a subjective opinion, and any closing Admin worth her/his salt may use a definition which no one here agrees with -- thus sending this issue back for another go-around. If you honestly care whether this image is included in Wikipedia, think through your opinions in far more detail. (And if we honestly need more time to provide better quality reasoning, we should take it.) Otherwise we are going to find ourselves right back here over this matter, squabbling at each other & getting nowhere, while someone else makes the decision for us. -- llywrch (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but those aren't the arguments for not including the image (the subject's permission? reducing accessibility?).KD Tries Again (talk) 04:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
I tried to be objective, & in this case I may have bent over backwards too far. As I wrote above, believe this image needs to be kept because it is an iconic example of repulsive content that the nature of the Internet can allow to be created. -- llywrch (talk) 06:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MuZemike. While per NOTCENSORED we do not suppress content solely because it is offensive, we may also take into consideration that the point of this image is to annoy people by shocking them, and that is something that can well be described without actually doing it. Consider this an application of WP:POINT to mainspace editorial policy, if you wish.  Sandstein  19:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That may well have been the point of the original image (or at least what it was used for, the original use was apparently something quite different), but now the question is if we should be using the image in an article largely about the image. We would in general do so, so I disagree that the point of the image, in the context of the article, is to annoy. Rather it is to inform. Hobit (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Now that is stretching AGF! Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      *laugh*. On the off chance you were also being serious, I don't think GF has anything to do with it. The article is about the image, so the image should be in the article as it clearly shows exactly what is being discussed. I can assure you, until I saw that image no set of words would have gotten me to visualize that. Hobit (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is about a shock site, goatse, that became notable solely because of the image, so much so, in fact, that people often refer to the image itself as 'goatse'. While I don't accept the argument that the site and image are the same (which is literally false), it makes sense to me that we would show the image that made the site famous — since it is the only thing the site is known for.

    Furthermore, I don't accept the argument that the image should be deleted based on a rule which says something like 'If an image can be replaced with words without loss, then we can delete the image and just use the words'. Firstly, this rule is not a written part of policy as far I know. Secondly, it does not seem to have precedent: plenty of images on Wikipedia could be replaced with words but are not. And thirdly, replacing the image with words would result in some loss: I for one did not know how far the anus was stretched. Also, the way the hands are configured has become an iconic part of the image — pictures which reference goatse also use this hand configuration.

    As an aside, I think it's beautiful how much civil discussion has been made over a picture of a guy stretching his anus remarkably wide... somehow, it gives me a little bit more faith in the inherent goodness of people. Squandermania (talk) 03:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep,while it is gross and discusting, it is a major movement in our culture. Like the 'Tube Bar Tape' from New Jersey and the Garbage Pail spoof of the Cabbage Patch dolls. This is something that happened in our culture and the internet and mass applause made is possiable. While somethings that make us unconfortable should be shut down or closed away, it nearly always results in making it more popular, driving it underground and letting it run wild. Sensorism is not the solution. HOWEVER !!!! Wikipedia does have and EDITORIAL right in that it owns the ciber property and editoral rights make sure that the right product shows up. (i.e. the wiki is not filled with idiot porn ads). I think this is really a defining moment for the wiki in that it has to DEFINE how much of pop culture is ACCEPTABLE. Lets us say that an idiot, created the goatse site. If it is offensive, by taking it out suggests it did not exsist. By leaving it in runs the risk of atracting more of the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BatMiata (talk • contribs) 16:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I am counting correctly, as of now we are currently at 25 keeps (one conditionally), and 38 deletes (one unsure). Which puts us at about 60% in favor of deletion thus far... just in the interests of keeping track here. JPetersen (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus, then. Not too surprised.KD Tries Again (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
If it were down to a pure headcount, then those figures might mean something. However, this is not a vote and so the closing administrator will (hopefully) discount those !votes (on both sides) that express nothing more than "I don't like it!", "we should keep|delete it because I say so", etc; and there are some comments that will have more weight attached to them than others. All this means that the number of people including a bold "keep" or "delete" with their comment is irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, image is notable and with out it the goatse.cx phenomena would not be properly documented. 24.91.55.102 (talk) 04:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a shock site. Why is this even on Wikipedia? -FASTILYsock(TALK) 04:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, invalid use of an unfree image. We are tno talking about the non-notable mirror site therefore we should not be using a screen grab of its copyright-violating front page in order to illustrate something that frankly does not need illustrating. Guy (Help!) 07:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment KD Tries Again, I agree that this is probably not considered anywhere near consensus yet, and voting has not gone on long, but when do we consider a consensus reached? Some thought must be put into this...
  • Thryduulf, I again agree that a straight head-count is not the end all and be all, however certainly it means something? Lest why even have any consensus and do everything unilaterally? Also, who decides which votes are "good" or not? I could just as easily argue that there are people in the "Keep" camp in favor of keeping solely on the ground of WP:NOTCENSORED which carries no more weight than those in favor of deletion solely based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Because we can include something on Wikipedia, does NOT mean it is necessarily is helpful to Wikipedia or the article. I agree it's a complicated issue, but at what point do we draw a line? If 99% of people were in favor of deletion would we then have consensus? Again, who decides what vote has grounds or not? I expect you and I may have different opinions on that, for example. It's not a matter of pure headcount, but majority consensus must at least play a part here. JPetersen (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My thought is just that, if this runs long enough, the "votes" will even out to be about equal. This suggests to me that the policy or policies we are attempting to apply aren't well suited to deciding this case, and maybe others like it.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
Something Excirial said above, that I thought was well-advised. we have all already beat this horse to death with discussion. let's sit back silently and wait for the administrator who takes on the closure of this case to review the material. I think we can all trust that s/he will carefully weigh the arguments that have been made, and will not be swayed by any minor differences in the yeah/nay count, and I think we can trust s/he will (out of sheer self-preservation, if nothing else) give a clear explanation of the decision reached. There's really no need for us to keep pottering on about it. --Ludwigs2 18:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia not being censored does not mean we have to include absolutely everything, and excluding things that make us look completely disreputable, such as this image, are acts of editorial judgment, not censorship. This image is not educational; it's a shock image. It has no place in a serious encyclopedia. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't be absurd. Having a dictionary entry for something is completely different from showing an image of it. The Webster's entry for "fuck" doesn't have an image of sexual intercourse (even that wouldn't really be a fair comparison, though it's closer). You're comparing apples and oranges here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I concur with most of the points already presented by the "delete" side of this debate. I believe the strongest arguments (with which I concur) are as follows:
  • This image fails WP:NFCC#8. The lead of the article already conveys everything in the image sufficiently, with text alone – the image only adds shock value. The inclusion of this non-free image does not add any contextual significance to the article whatsoever; its sole purpose is to shock readers, but Wikipedia is not a shock site. This is an encyclopedia, and I find arguments that this image belongs in an encyclopedia to be wholly unconvincing. As KD wrote above, the task of this article is to explain this shock site, not to convey the shock presented by it. While we're at it, I would like to explicitly reject the argument that this image is iconic. Just because a shock image has drawn some coverage in the mainstream media and notoreity in internet culture does not make it iconic. Indeed, I find the comparison of this image to Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima and Tank Man to be rather troubling.
  • This image is not necessarily protected from deletion by WP:NOTCENSORED. While Wikipedia indeed is not censored, that does not mean that we should put just anything in our articles, no matter how offensive. And because, unlike WP:NFCC, the WP:NOT policy is not legal in nature, we can afford to ignore it. As MuZemike wrote, “not censored” is not the same thing as “not subject to editorial discretion.” “Not censored” means that we shouldn’t delete images solely because they’re offensive; however, it does not automatically protect offensive images from deletion. In other words, I do not think WP:NOTCENSORED on its own is a valid reason to keep; it has to be supplemented with a good argument for why the image is encyclopedic. I don’t see that here.
  • I take issue with the argument that “while it is gross and disgusting, [the image] is a major movement in our culture.” Let’s not exaggerate the notability and importance of the article’s subject for the sake of trying to win the argument. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, not a major movement, but still a fair-sized meme in the world of the internet. Notability is after all relative - I see goatse as a lot more notable than your home town, but I'm sure you and any other resident would argue the opposite. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because this keeps popping up in the conversation, I should point out that 'meme' (and particularly the notion of a 'cultural meme') is at best pop psychology and at worst a bit of fringe theory bordering on pseudoscience. I don't object to the term itself, which has a degree of cultural currency, but there is no scientific evidence that cultural memes actually exist, and (so far as I know) no academic discipline that currently investigates the concept. It's not an active theory in psychology or sociology, at any rate. Just a note to the reviewer to take all this 'meme' talk with a grain of salt. --Ludwigs2 18:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is not a scientific concept either. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That is, of course, bullshit; [2] Tarc (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    a link to a now-defunct electronic-only journal? was it even peer reviewed when it was being 'published'? whatever... my point was that the term is more in the realm of popular belief than in the realm of scientific fact. Find a more mainstream source if you want to dispute that. --Ludwigs2 19:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What I have found above is more than sufficient to dispute your asinine earlier assertion. But thanks. Tarc (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    yeah, and I think we can dismiss 90% of your arguments by referring to wp:CIV. If you want a fight, Tarc, let's take it to userspace where I can teach you what it means to be rude without violating the higher standards that public discussions require. --Ludwigs2 15:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Incivility (and there is none on my part, for the record) would not diminish one's argument, whether they are for or against the image. Arguments are evaluated on their own merits, not dismissed on an appeal to emotion as you are trying to do now. Logic 101, Ludvig. Tarc (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Here or anywhere else this side discussion is not productive. Prodego talk 16:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, image is notable and with out it the goatse.cx phenomena would not be properly documented. WP:NOTCENSORED Yestadae (talk) 04:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as argued in the DRV: The concept is notable if offensive to some. However, many things are offensive to some. If we stop covering them, Wikipedia loses every usefulness. The image is an extremely effective illustration of the concept. Mere text cannot convey the effect of the image. Thus, the image is a valuable addition to Wikipedia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sceptre's and Tarc's comments above. Limit use via the blacklist, keep small in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Insert1.modified.png

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

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

File:Insert1.modified.png (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Apham (notify | contribs | uploads).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

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

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

File:2-3-4 tree insert 1.png (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Cmuhlenk (notify | contribs | uploads).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Insert2.modified.png

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

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

File:Insert2.modified.png (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Apham (notify | contribs | uploads).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Insert3.modified.PNG

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

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

File:Insert3.modified.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Apham (notify | contribs | uploads).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

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

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

File:2-3-4 tree insert 2.png (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Cmuhlenk (notify | contribs | uploads).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

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

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

File:2-3-4 tree insert 3.png (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Cmuhlenk (notify | contribs | uploads).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Signing of the Maastricht Treaty.jpg

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

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

File:Signing of the Maastricht Treaty.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Ssolbergj (notify | contribs | uploads).
  • WP:NFCC#8. Purely decorative image. Reades does not need to se this image. Massively overused. Rettetast (talk) 11:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If we had a picture of the signing of the Declaration of Independence I suspect we'd have it in a lot of articles too. In one sense it is purely decorative--the image itself isn't discussed. In another sense it is quite meaningful, providing sense of the occasion. I do agree it could probably be removed from a lot of those articles (Spain, etc.) but that should be discussed on the talk pages of those articles. There are places where it is clearly appropriate to be used. Hobit (talk) 13:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Hobit this picture is relevant to the article. If any picture should be removed get rid of the picture of the Provincial Government Buildings. -Vcelloho (talk) 23:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Important in illustrating the formation of the European Union. I don't think it should be used non-freely on EU member nations' articles though, just the Maastricht Treaty and the European Union growth articles. Remove from Spain, Italy, France, etc. Mike H. Fierce! 01:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really get a lot of information from this picture beyond what the chamber looked like; the ornate ceiling takes up half of the picture, and I can't actually tell what any of the people in the room are doing because they are too small and/or far away. So I don't see what this image is really contributing to the article. postdlf (talk) 02:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The member states' flags, the flower decorations, plenipotentiaries and guests (who clearly sat still when this photo was taken), signing table and even the treaty itself are visible. No free alternative is known, and if we are to pick one single image to illustrate the Treaty's signing and history, I don't see how any other image could be more informative. - SSJ ☎ 19:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Wheelpuzzleboardchanges.jpg

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

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

File:Wheelpuzzleboardchanges.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Money game (notify | contribs | uploads).
  • Excessive fairuse. Only a screenshot of the current puzzleboard is really needed, not of the past puzzleboard, and especially not four screenshots glommed into one. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – This looks like a garbled mess stapled together with different zoom levels and font sizes for the years. The photo is not really that illustrative anyway since two of the pictures are so tightly zoomed that the boarder, which is supposed to be the focus of the photo, is cropped out. Sottolacqua (talk) 13:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment at the least the licensing appears to be wrong (should be non-free, not CC). Hobit (talk) 13:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we were just talking about legal fair use, this would be an easy question. The low resolution screenshots provide commentary on the subject just through their selection and juxtaposition, by providing information on how the set has changed over time. So I think there is definitely a sound legal fair use claim to using this image. However, my understanding of WP guidelines and longstanding consensus is that this isn't enough; the information the image provides needs to be tied to discussion of sufficient length in the article. Here, the changes that these images illustrate aren't discussed in the article at all. The puzzle board itself is discussed, but the article also contains a screenshot of the current board design. Until the article adds in content about the design change, there's no reason to have more than that one screenshot. postdlf (talk) 12:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep (or replace with something better-looking) and please see comments for following article. They apply here, too. JTRH (talk) 02:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree that this is excessive fair-use. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Wheelbackdrops.png

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

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

File:Wheelbackdrops.png (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Sottolacqua (notify | contribs | uploads).
  • Unnecessary photo-montage per above. Only a picture of the current set is really needed, if at all. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I originally created and uploaded this file to placate folks who were so adamant about needing a discussion of the changes over 30 years in the first place. Sottolacqua (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, pictures of the "On Account" scoreboard – something that was used on maybe 1% of episodes – are not necessary. A text description is fine. Sottolacqua (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful to show set history, nothing gained by deleting it. Robert K S (talk) 06:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I agree with Robert K S on this.--It's my Junior year in High School! (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Chris[reply]
  • Keep and also vote to Keep the illustration described in the previous entry. I would submit that the alternative to a couple of unobtrusive screenshots is something like this: [[3]], which is probably a couple of thousand words of expository writing describing something that makes no sense whatsoever to someone who hasn't actually seen what's being described. JTRH (talk) 02:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A text description should suffice. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_March_29&oldid=1145610186"