Jump to content

Talk:2 Girls 1 Cup/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Original Website

The website is www.mfx-media.com and there are usually previews for every movie that cost 49 euros. The directory structure is the same for all series. A quick use of Excel and a text editor and you can download a minute movie from hundreds of these movies. So the idea that this video leaked out as a result of evidence in a trial is STUPID and sadly ignorant of the darker side of the web and how one gets movies for free. There is something repellently ignorant about those that know about MFX videos via 2g1c. I guess I just hate N00BZ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.127.239 (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Who's saying anything about this video being evidence leaked from a trial? And in what way are we, as you so eloquently put it, "stupid", "ignorant", and "N00BZ" for believing what has been reported in the international media?
If you have any useful information to add to the article, you are welcome to do so, as long as you cite your sources and convey it in a manner befitting an encyclopedia (that is to say, don't call the readers "noobs").
And in case you missed it at the top of the page, this is for discussion of the article itself and any relevant criticisms/suggestions. It is unfortunately not intended as a place to chat about the subject matter, argue over the origins, or anything else not directly related to improving the article itself. If your claims can be verified by third party sources, then the article will be updated accordingly. If your claims cannot be verified, then they have no place in an encyclopedia, regardless of how stupid, idiotic, or "noob" we are for not believing every single thing we're told in an AOL chat room.--24.154.15.193 (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
OMGn00bLOLz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.52.30 (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Name of the song

Does anyone have any information, like name of song or composer, of the soft piano tune which is played in the background? Wartime2 (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Herve Roy's "Lovers Theme" gssq (talk) 12:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Ocatecir (talk · contribs) removed this fact as alleged original research, despite that the existing reference allowed the end user to play the sound and verify that it was the same song from the video. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 16:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this is not original research for exactly this reason. --Geniac (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

I think this should be deleted. It is not encyclopedic information. Does anybody have any problems with this? — [Unsigned comment added by BVBede (talk • contribs).]

Wikipedia is not censored. Please do not remove templates from talk pages. — OcatecirT 05:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it was censored. I merely think this article contains random and unimportant information. BVBede (talk) 06:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Being "unimportant" is an opinion. In order to be included in Wikipedia, a topic has to meet its notability guidelines. The article is sourced, makes a claim of notability, is verifiable, and is not original research, satisfying Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion. Notability is different from importance or popularity. — OcatecirT 07:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

But notability is not temporary. I may be wrong in this case, but at the very most the page is on the cusp of notability if it is in fact notable. It may prove moreso in the future. BVBede (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is quite notable. It has been mentioned in the media multiple times. It's in fact so notable, that the Washington Post Magazine talked about it. It's a viral video that's made it onto VH1, for christ's sake. It's made it onto the MASS MEDIA. It's no longer an inside-joke viral video like a lot of shock sites. And like Ocatecir said, Wikipedia isn't censored. If you want just want to delete this article because it talks about something immoral and disgusting and a shock site, no matter how prevalent in the media it is, go to Conservapedia. Plus, lots of things on Wikipedia aren't exactly "encyclopedic." The point of Wikipedia is that it contains everything, even things that some encyclopedias wouldn't have. There's an article on goatse.cx, Neurotically Yours and Happy Tree Friends (There USED to be a very good article on Retarded Animal Babies, which is a hell of a lot funnier than Happy Tree Friends, but for some reason, Jimbo won't let anyone make an article about it), so wouldn't this article be a lot more "encyclopedic" since it actually gets the mass media's attention? Fucking KEEP —Preceding unsigned comment added by ForestAngel (talk • contribs) 10:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
"Some reason"? The AFD for RAB stated that there is no significant coverage by reliable third parties. And that's the difference between RAB and Hungry Bitches. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 11:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This article should absolutely not be deleted. It does a great service by allowing people (like me) to find out what the heck this thing is without having to visit the site. • TheBendster (talk) 26 December 2007, 07:31 (UTC)

Oh, you really don't know what it is until you've seen it. Same goes for every shock site. I suggest you see it for yourself. Same goes for goatse.cx. Nowadays, I just find shock sites funny (except for Rotten.com or Ogrish).ForestAngel (talk) 13:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so this thing deserves an article, but Tourettes Guy doesn't? It's just another fetish video that for some reason got a mild bit of attention. Mrcongojack (talk) 02:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with TheBendster. I just came across the "Kermit reaction" video when my husband found it being featured on YouTube, and we had no idea what it was all about. At first, we were looking for the original video, but found all the "reactions". In confusion, we turned to Wikipedia. Now we understand this whole absurd affair and we know that we do NOT want to see the original. In this way Wikipedia has performed a VERY VALUABLE SERVICE!Batika (talk) 04:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand you, go and delete yourself! This article has been very useful for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.134.160.231 (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't delete this article! Thankfully, I was able to read about the video and know what people are talking about without having to watch the video myself. 70.162.166.222 (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Count me in as another who found this article incredibly useful simply for informing me about the clip before I decide whether to watch it or not. If anything, this article should be kept as a "warning buoy" for those not interested in perverting their minds any further, but still want to be informed of what's going on. And yes, this is (unfortunately) notable, because it has become a topic of relatively casual chat for many, and I do think it meets the general Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion for the same reasons already discussed here.--72.144.160.100 (talk) 05:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The arguement is not whether or not this article is useful, it's whether or not it meets the standards all articles on wikipedia must meet. Is it encyclopedic? I don't know....AngielaJ

My thoughts on this

I agree with the article creator, Ocatecir - it seems notable enough for an article now - just. The article is very new, and has never gone through an actual AfD yet as it was speedily deleted and salted previously under different titles, and it will be nominated for deletion at some stage in the near future, I predict.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it will probably be nominated for deletion, but notability never goes away and it meets Wikipedia's policies, so I'm confident that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2 Girls 1 Cup (14th nomination) will be a "Speedy Keep" :) — OcatecirT 17:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it'll get quite that far... at least not for another 20 years yet.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
But to say that notability never goes away is a disputed statement - we have WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 21:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Those do not apply here. Notability, once established, does not go away. The news coverage and attention makes this a significant meme that is approaching the level of goatse.cx. — OcatecirT 21:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
How do you measure or quantify in objective terms how it is "approaching the level of" goatse?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
He's right. I've heard from many people that 2girls1cup is the new goatse. Meaning that it's become very popular as something to show to friends with the sole intention of grossing them out. ForestAngel (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Is the link to the original site really appropriate?66.201.163.142 (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL - yes. — OcatecirT 06:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
We do make it abundantly clear what the person who opens the link is in for, so it's not a lot more disquieting than everything else that has to do with this thing. Incidentally, about the worth of this article, note that it makes people less likely to see the clip to find out what it is. :/ --Kizor (talk) 07:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. I think it would make people more curious to see what it is. We are very curious monkeys, we humans. If everyone's talking about something, we want to know what it is. It's for the same reason why people were blinded from the atomic bomb at Hiroshima: people heard a noise, and they looked to see where it was coming from. Same principle here. This has worked before. The song Relax got so much publicity because the media was saying that it had dirty lyrics. So, lots of people listened to the song, curious to hear for themselves. The exact same thing is going to happen here. It's just human nature. ForestAngel (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this will be as notable as goatse --Pwnage8 (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If other internet phenomena and memes such as LOLCATs and such are notable, then 2 Girls 1 Cup is CERTAINLY notable as well. As disgusting as this appears to be (and no, I haven't seen the video although I do think the reactions can be entertaining), it is definitely a huge internet phenomenon that deserves discussion. Its inclusion in Wikipedia may be offensive to some, but is not an endorsement of the content therein. 209.59.33.93 (talk) 11:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I am mentioning the shocksites related. contact me if you see a problem.YVNP (talk) 11:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There will always be copycats. Unless a 3rd party reliable source connects the two, we are slipping down a rabbit hole of filth and unencyclopedic content if we start mentioning every copycat that comes along. Lets keep the additions to the article verifiable. — OcatecirT 01:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah but 4girlsfingerpainting is still notable because of the swap.avi artcle. It has also been featured on playhouse tv. I think the articles on swap make it notable. I will do some research on 2girls1finger. I saw the video[not the site] at encyclopedia dramatica.YVNP (talk) 03:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Swap.avi is also from the same guy who made the film 2girls1cup is from. That gives it two sources of notability. =)John denied your pina colada —Preceding comment was added at 03:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Joy? I think not.

The following sentence says "and the joy others experience watching said reactions," but joy is certainly the wrong word here. Amusement, or schadenfreude, or some other adjective would be much more accurate and appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.79.244 (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You are splitting hairs, here. — OcatecirT 03:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Released Purposely

You know MFX released this as a fake blog like many film companies will do to spark interest in their films. Often called internet viral marketing, they were hoping to start a phenemomia. And did. The truth is they (he) paid the girls and it is unclear if they actually enjoyed the act as much as he did, while he watched and video taped it.

I show all the evidence worth mentioning. It is from the same company. It has a notable presence on playhouse.tv. Since the court case forced the guy to give up all the vids and swap.avi went into circulation at that time, it was very likely from a leak from the case. Even if it was not from the same case it is still from the same company and notable on it's own. I think it may even deserve it's own section.YVNP (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Any entries to a Wikipedia page need to be verifiable by reliable sources. Unless a reliable source (read: NOT internet forums or random websites) has written about the related videos they do not get a mention in an encyclopedia article. — OcatecirT 03:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
[1] is what I was talking about. It has pictures to compare with 4girlsfingerpaint and evidence it is from the same company.YVNP (talk) 03:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
"404 File Not Found". Plus, something awful would not be a reliable source. — OcatecirT 04:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
google it. sorry for the prob. The article is somehow still availble online and on something awful. Something awful is reliable because it is the source of internet memes. Just like the reaction vids on youtube made 2girls1cup notable this makes swap.avi notableYVNP (talk) 04:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
It isn't the reaction videos on youtube that made this topic notable enough for inclusion in wikipedia, its the 3rd party coverage by reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking that did. — OcatecirT 04:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
And it is something awful that establishes the notability. remember we are talking about a simple mention at least and a section at best.YVNP (talk) 04:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
the link http://www.somethingawful.com/index.php?a=4354 works. the pics are not in the actual article.YVNP (talk) 04:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
http://youtube.com/playhousetv swap.avi gives a lnik to the vid. It is in there videos. That's two sources of notability. One proves the link and the other strengthens the notability. YVNP (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not expect to actually find an article on this

But I'm glad I did! It's really quite well done, except for a couple things.

The last sentence doesn't make sense grammatically. "....causes "Moral Bankruptcy" to have the "Best Week Ever!" Someone, please edit that so it makes sense!

Oh, and the title is supposed to be all one word: "2girls1cup."

I've seen that video of 2guys1cup and I had no idea that John Mayer was the one who made that video! How do you know that it was him?

You also should talk about 2girls1finger.

Did you know that the most recent edition of Washington Post Magazine did a review for 2girls1cup? That should also be mentioned. I don't know where to find the article (I have a physical copy of the magazine, though. That's where I read it), but I can't find it. The article in the Magazine mentioned that "There's actually a Greek word for what they're doing..."

Just my two cents. ForestAngel (talk) 09:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"Moral Bankruptcy" has been changed to something about declining morals but the references 1 and 2 don't back up that claim at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.211.185.38 (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I fixed the spacing for 76.211.186.38's entry. Kylee20051 (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

swap.avi

I think it's time to mention swap.avi. I gave two reliable sources of notability and will find more soon if possible. I don't know how to add it though.YVNP (talk) 05:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Something as famous as Swap.avi deserves a mention, and its own article. So does the fetish producer. We have articles for Episodes of Cheers, they both deserve one.72.94.53.38 (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I see your pint. (although I hate the articles on things as small as episodes. I think it deserves a mention. ^_^YVNP (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Similar Sites

I know of at least one more site that was created that greatly resembles this - 2girls1finger.com. Is it worthy for mention? 71.89.2.22 (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I've been to that one, it's MUCH worse I think... None of this "could just be chocolate" thinking for that clip....


ALSO!!! Should there really be an external link to the site at the bottom of the article? If so, shouldn't it AT LEAST have a warning? I know you might say "people stupid enough not to realise... deserve it" and you're right, but a warning would still be nice. - Healyhatman

Yes, there should be an external link. As Ocatecir mentioned above. Reference is WP:EL. -Etoile (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I created the "2 Girls 1 Finger" article but it was deleted right away. --Youfightthepowertoparty (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's make this a featured article

Let's make this a featured article. Obviously it needs improvements to meet featured criteria but with work we can do it. William Ortiz (talk) 16:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not honestly sure there's enough to say using only verified, reliable sources about 2 Girls 1 Cup that would allow for a comprehensive, well-written featured article wihtout straying into original research and synthesis of published material.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 21:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What law makes this video illegal in the USA?

I've read all the news sources I can find but I don't know why the USA bans this video. What USA law says it is specifically illegal? There is the first ammendment. If this is obscene, then a large amount of porn would fit that, too, and most porn would be banned in the USA. William Ortiz (talk) 16:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is the indictment, mostly it has to do with mailing obscene matter. However this talk page is not for discussion about the video, it is for article improvement. — OcatecirT 17:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
So he was busted for mailing it? I had heard mailing obscene material in the mail was illegal. The article and several news sites make it sound like scat porn is now illegal in the USA to even put on a website or on one's computer. This needs to be made clear. William Ortiz (talk) 01:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Mere possession of obscene material cannot constitutionally be punished as a crime in the U.S. It is the distribution of obscene material that may be punished by applicable federal and state laws. You can relax. 74.68.123.162 (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


Okay that link said, "In a communication last year to the FBI's 56 field offices, the anti-obscenity campaign was described as "one of the top priorities" of Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez and FBI Director Robert Mueller." Wow wasted tax dollars at work. Anyway, so what exactly was the illegal thing?

  • Websites that depicated "depicted bukkake, fisting, and depictions of defecation, urination, and vomiting in conjunction with sex acts" are illegal?
  • Mailing pornography to people who requested it (like Playboy, Hustler, and Penthouse do) is illegal?

These seem to be what he was doing.

I have not heard of these things being illegal before and if there is a new law, it should be mentioned at least what the law is. William Ortiz (talk) 01:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Check out this article: Miller Test. It describes the standard in the USA by which speech/expression can be labeled as obscene (and thus unprotected). The standard is very difficult to meet, as you might imagine. For example, if the 2g1c video was shown to have some sort of artistic merit, then it cannot be labeled as obscene... no matter how disgusting it may be. 209.59.33.48 (talk) 08:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The law is different in different states. This is especially relevant since the internet. One early case that tested the law's applicability across US state (if not international) boundaries was AA BBS [2]. Robert and Carleen Thomas, in California, operated a telephone-based bulletin-board system (a precursor of modern internet websites) hosting photographs that featured, amongst others, images of bestiality (copulation between humans and animals). A US postal inspector in Memphis, Tennessee subscribed to the BBS and downloaded images. The couple were charged and convicted under Tennessee law in 1994. The Miller Test (which crucially depends upon local community standards) was applied in this case. The Thomases appealed and the verdict was affirmed on appeal in 1996. I'm surprised that we don't seem to have an article on the case. In the context of the commercial development of the internet during the mid 1990s, it was a keenly watched case. --Tony Sidaway 12:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Time/Dates?

When was this video first saw... btw, excellent article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.3.102 (talk) 14:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Can't we remove the link?

It's awful, and unnecessary. If people still want to figure out what the heck it's about after reading the article then can't they search for it themselves? • Anakin (contribs • complaints) 14:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I think it should be removed. If you click on the link, you will see that there are several pornographic ads on the website.TheMissileSilo (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, from Wikipedia's recommendations on links to be avoided: "Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising." See Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided TheMissileSilo (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the link for now. If anyone does object please discuss it here. • Anakin (contribs • complaints) 21:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Wait, it says at Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, "except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject". Now what? Is 2girls1cup.com "official" or just one of the many places which happen to host the video? • Anakin (contribs • complaints) 21:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I would say that 2girls1cup.com is the original site, though I'm not sure anything is "official" about it. And I still think the link is worth having there. -Etoile (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the link should be restored. It may not be palatable, but External links are for readers looking for more -- and once there's at the end of this article, they'll know exactly what they're getting themselves into. It also seems encyclopedically remiss to not link to the actual subject of the article. Regarding "objectionable amounts of advertising," that's meant to prevent spam links. I think in this case when the link would be to the article's subject itself, that sort of thing is (or should be) exempted. Dylan (talk) 06:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like an admin removed it, giving the reason "we don't link to shock sites" click here to see the diff 74.38.86.119 (talk) 07:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
That hardly is a valid argument. WP:Wikipedia is not censored says:
(emphasis mine)
To me, it is evident that this link is relevant in the context, and doesnt violate any policies, and thus I will (re)add it in a few days if noone proves the contrary. I'd also like to note these replies to commons arguments for removing content. Hell, even Goatse.cx links to goatse.cz! I really don't see a problem with linking to the subject of the article here. Waldir talk 13:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course I agree, the policy is totally clear on this point.--SummerWithMorons (talk) 11:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems that 2girls1cup.com is currently a blacklisted link. The reason for its blacklisting is not in the blacklist log, but this shows that it was added because it is a "shock site being relinked on articles (also otrs)". An administrator would have to remove the link from m:Spam blacklist before anyone could add it as an external link. --PseudoChron (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, that's easy. It looks like there isn't much opposition to this so I will personally ask an admin to temporarily remove the url from the blacklist so we can re-add it (and let's hope noone else tries to remove it again...) Waldir talk 23:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's not that easy. Removing the link from the spam blacklist temporarily only to include it in the article would prevent future versions to be saved, when the link is back in the blacklist. And evidently, not many admins are willing to be seen removing permanently that link from the blacklist... :\ Waldir talk 01:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

how does the black list thing deals with systems like TinyURL ? --TiagoTiago (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well...

You seem to be lacking an article on SWAP.avi. Just because something is so grotesque does not change the fact that it exists, and it has lots to do with both MFXVideo, and SomethingAwful. Not to mention, all these nasty poop videos are related.... TO swap.avi, somehow.... trying to trick ppl into downloading that awful movie, has become sort of a fad around the internet, as is seeing how many times one can watch it without gagging.... So, why dont you all have an article about that disgusting film made by the SA Goon Metis? As an encylopedia, we should include articles that are important, whether we like them or not. 71.76.153.217 (talk) 09:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources about SWAP.avi? If so, feel free to write an article. Powers T 15:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I gave two up there. The anon is right. He gave even more notability. Metis is a major editor of something awful and it is a fad. A simple google source shows it is a powerful meme. :/YVNP (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Wait, you mean SomethingAwful and a morning radio program are considered reliable sources? Powers T 13:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes since something awful is a popular website and playhouse tv is as well. This combined with it's connection to the company makes it notable.YVNP (talk) 04:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
So write an article, then. Powers T 00:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for seeing what I mean. I think it should just be mentioned here for now.YVNP (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I've never heard of "swap.avi". I'm going to assume it involves mouth-to-mouth swapping of something nasty though. *doesn't sound notable, but then 99.988% of Wikipedia is already junk; why stop now?*. • Anakin (contribs • complaints) 14:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Does swap.avi have anything to do with 2girls1cup? The original IP-editor was arguing that an article should exist, now you're saying it shouldn't? Powers T 23:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The Anon isn't me. I'm me. It has a lot to with 2girls1cup because it is from the smae company as two girls one cup, is notable for an article on something awful and a reaction vid from playhousetv. It more notable than the kermit vid(which I know accept for the msnbc mention) and has is simply worth a simple mention.YVNP (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Kermit not notable

The kermit vid is not worthy of mention. Kermit is fictional and anyone can use him. It has no known notable source like John Mayer, just a puppet. The vid has a lot of views but nothing else.YVNP (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

change my mind msnbc mentioned it.YVNP (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
No, it's not true that "anyone can use him", at least not legally. Powers T 13:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't stop them.YVNP (talk) 04:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This article should be locked

Anyone else think this article should be locked? It's informative and stuff but it's just asking for a whole bunch of vandalism. NIRVANA2764 (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Check the logs - it's already semi-protected, and has been since it was posted, just not marked as such. I'll add the padlock icon maybe, so people know. • Anakin (contribs • complaints) 22:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


John Mayer

Should it really be stated in this article that John Mayer is a "singer/comedian" rather than merely a singer? Although it is stated in his Wikipedia article that he is a verifiable comedian, he is much more known for his music than anything else. I was going to edit that part but thought I should discuss it with everybody first. Djskein79 (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

In making a parody of the 2 Girls 1 Cup video he was working in his capacity as a comedian, not a singer. So for that reason I think it's perfectly appropriate to use both words. I did repunctuate it to "singer and comedian" though, because I think that's nicer wording. • Anakin (contribs • complaints) 16:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry man, I just edited it without reading that. I'll revert under those guidelines stated above (unless someone else has already). Djskein79 (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


Major grammatical error

". . . then taking turns consuming the excrement and vomiting into each others' mouths, eliciting sexual arousal from the acts."

The last phrase should be either deleted or amended. The grammar is incorrect; "elicit" is followed by "in", not "from", and the indirect object needs to be the viewer, for example:

"Scatological video elicits sexual arousal in some subjects."

More important, what exactly the video "elicits" is entirely subjective, and since the vast majority of viewers are disgusted rather than aroused, this phrase simply rings false. Any mention of what the video "elicits" should be qualified by the audience in question-- either hard-core fetishists or the general audience that turned the video into a phenomenon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.208.72 (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The sentence is not talking about the viewers, it is talking about the two girls in the video.— OcatecirT 21:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I updated the sentence to clarify this. --AB (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The sentence is incredibly stupid anyway. I'm removing it.

Barrett Ross (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

A picture

This article could benefit from a screenshot of the video. --PseudoChron (talk) 02:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I uploaded and added Image:2girls1cup_screenshot1.jpg. --PseudoChron (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that's such a good idea. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, but I think in this situation it's best to just use your imagination. In my very humble opinion, the informative value is outweighed by the potential for the unsuspecting Wiki reader to heave their Pop-Tarts, simulated poo or not. There is some informative value going on there though, no question about that. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that this image should be used in the article. Yes, some people will find it offensive but I think it would really help readers that have not seen the video to better understand what the video is about. The screenshot doesn't even contain any nudity, just two girls licking a brown substance that happens to be excrement. I have seen images on Wikipedia much more "shocking" than this. There is precedent of images being kept in articles despite the images causing vomiting. See Gangrene, Autofellatio, Smegma and their talk pages for examples of disgusting images that have been kept because they enhance the article. An article about a popular internet video can be improved by adding a screenshot of that video. Wikipedia is not censored. --PseudoChron (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Bongwarrior. Totally unnecessary. The description lets everyone know exactly what's going on here. Lets not be explicit just because we can. — OcatecirT 13:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Ocatecir, please remember Wikipedia is not censored. As PseudoChron notes, the image does usefully ilustrate the article, and other controversial articles also use images despite many 'moral' objections... besides the examples he gives, see also Muhammad and the ongoing discussion on the issue (I am linking this cause I think there are several good points there and in the FAQ). I think it is a shame for the wikipedian community if we let the image be deleted (it is marked to be so in 4 days), and will add the image myself if better arguments than these are not presented. Waldir talk 13:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course I know wikipedia is not censored, but that policy is not a suicide pact to vulgarity. That policy exists so that useful content will not be censored. A screenshot will not add anything to the article; if anything it will detract from it. — OcatecirT 18:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with Ocatecir and Bongwarrior. The image would not add anything useful to the article. It also could be illegal in Florida and therefore exposes Wikipedia to unnecessary legal risk. Johntex\talk 04:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll post some quotes from wikipedia pages that I think speak for themselves.
Wikipedia:The perfect article:
  • "A perfect Wikipedia article includes informative, relevant images—including maps, portraits, photographs and artworks—that add to a reader's interest or understanding of the text."
Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence and encyclopedicity:
  • "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be significant relative to the article's topic."
Wikipedia:Good article criteria:
  • "A good article is illustrated, where possible and appropriate, by images."
Wikipedia:Profanity:
  • "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if they are informative, relevant and accurate, and should be avoided when they serve no other purpose than to shock the reader."
Wikipedia:Pornography#Existing policy:
Also note that the Graphic and potentially disturbing images proposal has been rejected by the community.
As for the legality of the image, I would say that it clearly fulfills the fair-use criteria, and as a matter of fact the image already uses the appropriate {{Non-free film screenshot}} template. The only reason it's marked for deletion is because it isn't used in any articles. It's absurd to suggest wikipedia is at legal risk because of this image.
Last but not least: please stop using the "useless" argument. It is discouraged (as a subjective argument) in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#USELESS. --Waldir talk 00:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Does this mean that we should upload pictures of goatse and tubgirl (among others)? While I do understand that Wikipedia is not censored, there should be limits to suitability. For example, while not particularly pleasing to look at, photographs are appropriate for articles discussing medical conditions, as the photographs enhance the readers understanding of the condition.
On the other hand, when the article is discussing a shock site, and gives the appropriate URLs to said shock site, the only valid reason to include a picture would be for shock value. And I think that we can all agree that Wikipedia is above becoming a shock site in itself.
If you do feel the need to include an image, it should be descriptive, informative, relevant, and significantly add to the readers understanding of the subject. Instead, the image above depicts little more than two random girls licking an unknown substance. While it may be a factually accurate rendering of a single frame of the video, it does little to aid the readers understanding of the video as a whole, other than to say 'look at these girls eating poop'. --24.154.15.193 (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with BongWarrier, Ocatecir, and Johntex above. I would also add that picture adds nothing to the article except the opportunity to use Wikipedia to shock people. What's the good of writing an article that people are too disgusted to even look at? The picture is not helpful at all. • Anakin (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't see any shock value in the image. And as the url is blacklisted, it can't be added to the article, so 24.154.15.193's proposal is not feasible (and I would agree with him if the url could be added -- but no admin is willing to be seen removing that link from the blacklist). Perhaps this image could even prevent people from being shocked as otherwise they would look up the video since the text is obviously not sufficient to give an idea of what the video is like (especially due to Wikipedia's NPOV policy). But it looks like most of you prefer the image deleted, so I won't oppose that anymore, and will re-add the delete orphan tag it had (I hid it temporarily since this discussion was going on). Waldir talk 17:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The text is sufficent to describe the video. From the second line of the article:
"The video features two women defecating and vomiting into a cup, then taking turns consuming the excrement and vomiting into each other's mouths"
It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the video is two girls who eat poop, vomit it out, then eat the vomit-covered poop. What's not to understand? Is it REALLY necessary to show the girls eating the aforementioned vomit-covered poop? Does Wikipedia REALLY need a 'this is what two girls eating shit looks like' image?
As for the availability and linkability of the website, perhaps the address could be added as plain text, I.E "the video can be seen at 2girls1cup.com"? (The fact that you were able to read that last sentence is proof enough that a plaintext URL will work fine.) This would allow any inquisitive readers to see the content of the video, while allowing uninformed readers to see information about the video/website without having a big 'look at these girls eating shit' image plastered all over the page. Even Uncyclopedia has deleted their entire 2 girls 1 cup article after people kept uploading stills from the video. Are you really trying to argue that Wikipedia should be held to lower standards than Uncyclopedia?--24.154.15.193 (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Lol, of course not :) As I said before, I'd be pleased to support the link-instead-of-image approach, and you indeed provided a workaround we havent thought of. I'll do it if it hasn't been done yet. But before finishing, I'd like to add, in a eppur-si-muove-ish way, that I still don't find the image that shocking, really :P I have no special interest on coprophagy or shock sites, or scat films, as it might look given my enthusiastic defense of the keeping of the link and the image. But I am a very curious person, and as well as I was delighted to find out that Wikipedia had an article on something I read somewhere and made me curious (as this guy was), I ended up a little disappointed in having only a vague text (I knew it was a scat film, so that description was nothing new -- what I wanted to know was why it was notable) and no image or link to allow me to further investigate. I suppose a link like you provided is good enough, so I'll consider this issue settled. Waldir talk 23:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Other Possible Locations of vid?

Yes I think so. Google it; some remain out there. If you wanna see it bad enough... so yes, there are other locations than YouTube like it stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natashu (talk • contribs) 07:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

new, scam site

I have been trying to look at the vid (well, not exactly look at it, but just to look if its there:) ) and there is this site, which I dont know if it's scam or not (I am crazy enough to look at these videos, but not crazy enough to enter my credit card number to some strange form) - so I wrote into that article that it is "possible scam".

And I wrote the author of 2g1c about that and he even wrote me back, that he is sorry and I should try this url - http://www.flurl.com/item/2girls1cup_Official_Video_u_279710 . Should we write it into the article as "official" place of the video? --Have a nice day. Running 13:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source that documents this, then yes. — OcatecirT 16:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The only source now is my mailbox --Have a nice day. Running 18:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about "official", as it's probably just some site that hosts the vid. However, the link does indeed go to the infamous 2g1c vid. The current link at the bottom of the article (2girls1cup.com) really should be noted as a potential scam site. I don't know if the intent is to steal credit card numbers, but I'm willing to bet that it is. 66.207.82.237 (talk) 05:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the 2girls1cup site entirely from the external links section, as it doesn't even have the video anymore, and added in a link to cupchicks.com. This appears to be the most popular site that people are finding the video on now. While this isn't normally the sort of site we'd want in our external links section, it is reasonable to have an external link to the video, and this site will likely stay around for some time. A google search on 2girls1cup leads to many scam links which try to upload viruses to people's computers, so I think having links to the video here is preferrable to not having them. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of removing all of the external links, solely for the reason that this may spread abuse amongst the community i.e. adding fake links or scam-URLs. CZMQFRG (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. We already have a link to the Hungry Bitches trailer on mfxmedia.com in footnotes. But it appears you accidentally removed all the interwiki links and categories. I put them back. But next time, if you completely explain an edit on talk, please put something like "removing external links per talk" in the edit summary for the avoidance of doubt. A blank edit summary raises suspicions. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 11:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
How about duplicating the Hungry Bitches link under External Links, together with a warning about the content? Many people visiting this site will be curious to find the original video. If that's what they want (and they are sure they want it), a link would seem appropriate. The existing link in the References section is rather cryptic. Regarding the risk of scam links and fake URLs, I don't really see the problem. Wikipedia can never be responsible for the content of any external site, so why is this case special? It seems clear that mfxmedia.com is the most official source for the video, since they are the owners and vendors of the full movie. I would suggest a link such as the following: "2 Girls 1 Cup video (Warning! Extremely shocking content!)" Thunderfish (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, at the moment we are basically hiding the link in the references section. The odds of any reader happening to figure out that reference 2 is the actual video are remote. There is certainly no rule against duplicating a reference in the external links section, nor will Wikipedia's servers be straining under the weight of the extra 100 characters of text this article would then contain. While I wouldn't personally suggest that anyone view this video, people coming to this article will likely be looking for the video and so we're doing them a disservice by trying to hide the link. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 13:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Remote? The article states that "2 Girls 1 Cup is the trailer for Hungry Bitches", and the description of reference 2 is "Trailer for Hungry Bitches". It seems pretty obvious to me. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 18:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's obvious when you read the text and references side-by-side; but most people probably don't do that. Typically, the purpose of a reference is to validate statements made in the text. A casual or unskeptical reader will not scroll forward/back every time (s)he comes to a reference. So when I saw the references 1,2 in the text, I merely expected a page telling me, "2 Girls 1 Cup is the trailer for Hungry Bitches". I didn't assume that one of those references would be the video itself. In fact I would suggest that reference 2 is totally redundant (since reference 1 is enough to validate the first sentence), and the video itself belongs in an external link. The video is relevant to the whole article, not just to one factual statement. Thunderfish (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

NO IT'S NOT REAL!!!

The video has a broken shot and you have no evidence that the women are really doing what they appear to be doing. You should find this or change the intro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.59.156 (talk) 01:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Does not mean it's fake. The man admitted he would be willing to eat feces and that he only accomidated those who refused to eat it. YVNP (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sequels

I added a "sequels" heading, for the videos related to it. Someone feel free to expand on it. I felt it was neccessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aginor 27 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Those other videos are not sequels; besides there being no way of telling which order they were uploaded, are they even from the same production company? I haven't seem all of them, so I don't know. The only relation they have to 2 Girls 1 Cup is that they are copies of existing short video clips that were recontextualized by the same person the same way as the Hungry Bitches trailer. They were just named something catchy and had a domain name added in at the start as a caption. --Geniac (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

One of them is notable. Fourgirlsfingerpainting is swap.avi which has enough notability and connection to mfxmedia to be mentioned. There's loads to mention. The playhousetv spot, the something awful article, and the mfx media release are plenty.YVNP (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

"One of them" what is notable? They're not sequels. They're not related other than how I just described. I just found that SWAP.avi was speedy-deleted because there was no assertion of importance or significance made. --Geniac (talk) 03:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
swap.avi is from the same company. The video has the same logo and everything. The others are not. 2girls1finger is just a random video from Japan. The 4girlsfingerpainting is from the same source. That means it is related. The something awful article adds notability. The playhousetv reaction video is pretty notable75.6.136.225 (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Spin-offs?

There should be a section for the other similar videos. The most obvious being 2 girls 1 finger. 222.164.220.58 (talk) 08:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

See the above Sequels section for this exact same discussion. They're not spin-offs. --Geniac (talk) 03:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the link should be removed, that's just me...I do however agree that description of the similar videos is appropriate. — [Unsigned comment added by Aginor 27 (talk • contribs).]

Wikipedia is not censored. --Geniac (talk) 03:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh grow up you tedious bore. This is an encyclopedia site (and not the best one either). Removing it would not be censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.110.234 (talk) 11:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Please be civil and explain your arguments more appropriately. --Geniac (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
People who choose to click the link are pretty certain of exactly what they're going to see. crassic![talk] 04:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but you cannot expose PORN on wikipedia, it´s illegal to expose free porn without controls in most of the countries. You must put an advisory...I´m going to delete the link again until you put and advisory (+18 or alike) --Vitilsky (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The servers are located in the United States, so US law applies, not that "in most of the countries." Please cite the law that you mean. No, an advisory is not required for almost anything on Wikipedia. Please do not delete any links without providing a valid reason. --Geniac (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
That, and there is already an advisory in the first sentence of the article: "2 Girls 1 Cup is a copy of the trailer for Hungry Bitches, a pornographic film". --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 00:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored. This is censorship plain and simple. If you don't think this is censorship I'm curious as to what censorship is. And I'll bet a lot of you calling for the removal think you live in a free society. --Calibas (talk) 23:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

-agreed that wikipedia is not censored. i believe the article has encyclopedic value. --Infestor (talk) 22:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

8 Girls No Cup Relation

I am quite sure the video of 8 Girls No Cup is related to MFX Videos as at the beginning it says "MFX 1000." As you know 2 Girls 1 Cup is "MFX 1209." I believe it should be mentioned. For a source type in 8 Girls No Cup on Google and watch the beginning of the video. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.96.244 (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC) It is related by the same company. I think it should be mention as a part of the films that are related to twogirls one cup.YVNP (talk) 12:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Dozens of reactions?

The term 'dozens' is clearly an understatement of the amount of reaction videos posted on YouTube.

This like should read more along the lines of 'hundreds' or perhaps 'thousands' if the actual numbers reach that level. However it can be easily said that the number of reaction far exceeds 100, therefore it's best to change it to hundreds. KrizzyB (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


I added a photo

I posted a snapshot of the video on the article. --Youfightthepowertoparty (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

That snapshot is copyrighted, and not by you. I left a note on your talk page explaining what you should do when uploading non-free pictures to Wikipedia. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 22:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
James2001 (talk · contribs) removed the image, calling it not "suitable for Wikipedia". But censorship isn't suitable for Wikipedia either. Who is right? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 17:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Guidance on how to handle this issue may come from the essay Wikipedia:Pornography. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 19:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
There should be a vote on this image, just like with Goatse.cx. --Jon Ace T C 19:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Good idea. After five days, there appears to be no consensus among people who watch this article. I'll start by putting up an RFC to gauge consensus among a wider community. (Incidentally, it appears there's another current RFC about Goatse.cx too.) --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 15:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


I'm a third party, and I'm confused. Is this a debate about the the image being non-free content, or being objectionable material? For the former case, I'm going to have to abdicate as I don't know anything about wiki policies on this manner.

For the latter case, I believe a lack of censorship is one of the most amiable attributes of wikipedia. That being said, the issue of pornography is far from being cut and dry. I will admit right now that I have not read the article specifically because I know the image is present and I am afraid to look at it. I did read WP:Pornography. One thing I thought was interesting was editting talk pages into a redirect that forced people to look at shock videos was considered "so egregious a form of vandalism that the system message was changed to forbid redirecting from a new messages notice, as well as to add a 'diff' that allows users to see what is changed." Clearly creating exceptions for shock videos is not beyond reason.

I think including a screenshot of the video makes wikipedia itself a shock site. Let me reiterate a point that has been stated; what is truely gained from an image as opposed to a description? All that can be done with an image is viewing it. Would you shoot someone so they can understand how a gunshot feels? Including the image removes the detachment between the article and the video, like imbedding a "cyber-gun" into the wikipedia page on gun violence that shoots everyone who reads it. Perhaps in the arm, such that the wound is not fatal, this being analogous to using a screenshot rather than the video itself.

I support a link to the site and/or a link to the image. But something this horrible requires informed consent. Displaying it without warning on the front page is harmful to the readers, in my opinion. AzureFury (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

  • We already have a link to MFX-Media's site, which has the trailer in MPEG format from which this still image was taken. As for replacing the image with a link to the image, the issue is about the combination of the non-free status of the image with its scatological nature. If the image were free, we could just put a link to the image on the article, as we did in the past for various penis-related articles such as Autofellatio. But there are two issues:
    1. About a year ago, Template:Linkimage got deleted. The comments that led to the deletion of Template:Linkimage explain why we don't just link to images anymore, citing WP:CENSOR (policy) and WP:DISCLAIM (guideline).
    2. Because Hungry Bitches is non-free, linking the image as opposed to "using" (that is, transcluding) it would run afoul of the one-article minimum, at least in the estimation of BJBot.
    So we already transclude allegedly disgusting images at the top of articles such as maggot therapy and Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, as TFD/Linkimage points out. I was neutral on this issue, but after reviewing TFD/Linkimage, I'm almost inclined to !vote Keep. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 01:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There's already a precedent for deleting objectional material. Admittedly, it is not consistently applied. You could argue that this violates WP:CENSOR but I could respond by citing WP:COMMON. We are not slaves to guidelines. If it isn't possible to include a link to the image but it is possible to include a link to the site then so be it. What can you get from the image that you can't get from the site? AzureFury (talk) 08:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a copyrighted image, censorship doesn't come into it. And unlike stills from TV series etc, this one does infringe on the original, as athis still could also have comercial value as porn, and the size is large enough to compare with other internet porn.
Hence, it is not fair-use.Yobmod (talk) 12:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Likewise, a mainstream DVD movie could be frame-grabbed into desktop wallpaper. The point is that I don't see how reproducing a single frame from a movie trailer that MFX-Media distributes for no charge causes harm to MFX-Media, let alone enough harm to outweigh the benefit of identifying the work that is the subject of the article. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 00:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
It is very rare that a frame from a mainstream movie would have any value by itself. There is very little market for movie frames. This image has value as a porn image, of which there is a big market. Distibuting for no charge is not the same as freely-liscenced. They could decide to start charging tomorrow.Yobmod (talk) 09:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Your argument supports the assertion that "it could become not fair use tomorrow should MFX pull the trailer", not "it's not fair use today". I just checked again today, and the button to download the trailer is still there. But even if MFX does take it down, doesn't the right to put, for example, the Associated Press photo Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima on a commercial web site also have value? Yet we show it. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 12:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I beg to differ on this not being a censorship issue. WP:COMMON most certainly comes into play. I don't understand why someone can't do research on this topic without being forced to view the image or watch the video. Should someone doing research about rotten.com be forced to look at motorcycle.jpg? Kouvre (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, what is the supporters' counter to the claim that the description is sufficient and nothing is gained by the picture itself except disgust? AzureFury (talk) 02:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

East718 deleted the picture for being non-free and for having been removed for 7 days. Can we close this as Remove now? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 14:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Infobox name

Should the infobox use Hungry Bitches, the official title of the film, or 2 Girls 1 Cup, the title under which the trailer became popular? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 20:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the article is called 2 Girls 1 Cup, I'd opt for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrews Palop (talk • contribs) 10:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I too would opt for 2 girls 1 cup, although we should mention somewhere the official name of the video --Indraroop —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The picture

Is that picture really necessary? If people aren't satisfied with the description surely they can check out the site for themselves... --Andrews Palop (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
There's a difference between censorship and discretion. --Andrews Palop (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a shock site either. This is not a trivial matter so don't pretend like one sentence can be conclusive. AzureFury (talk) 01:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

wiki page title

Why is this page called 2 girls 1 cup and not Hungry Bitches? Since when were movie pages named after the trailer not the movie? Unless there is going to be a separate page. --24.94.251.19 (talk) 03:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC) This article is searched for due to the popularity of the youtube videos labeled "Response to watching 2 girls 1 cup" otherwise this wikipedia page and any mention of this video, outside those who regularly watch fecal eating pornography, would not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.251.116.164 (talk) 03:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete references

Authors please note that you have missed another popular media reference. In "Superhero Movie", Professor Xavier's Internet videochat message to protagonist Rick Ryker suffers interference/poor bandwidth problems and becomes garbled. Only a few words of his instructions are heard, including "......two girls......one cup.....you know what to do". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.4.51.61 (talk) 11:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


also referanced in series 2 episode 4 of the inbetweeners —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexpmuller (talk • contribs) 19:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Pornographic? You have to be kidding!

The video is disgusting, but it's not even remotely porn. You don't see any genitals, just some boobs in the first shot but no nipples. Pornography is about people having some kind of sexual intercourse, the things you think about when fapping. This, on the other hand, would make even the toughest, steel-reinforced boner turn flaccid.

I propose: 2 Girls 1 Cup is a copy of the trailer for Hungry Bitches, a poop sex film... Because that's exactly what it is, and what people should know. Telling people it's porn is like tricking them to see goatse by saying "check out this sweet ass". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoef1234 (talk • contribs) 07:17, August 3, 2008

It may not be pornography ("the explicit depiction of sexual subject matter with the sole intention of sexually exciting the viewer") to you, but that doesn't mean it's not to somebody somewhere. --Geniac (talk) 13:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
And you do see a girl defecate into the cup before the start to chow down on it. Kylee20051 (talk) 05:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
is softcore porn still porn? from what I remember from when I saw this vid, it was softcore porn combined with cophrophilia (sp?) ... --TiagoTiago (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
But it's more of a suprise prank video then a actual porn video. Kylee20051 (talk) 05:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
It was intended to sell a poop porn video, but it ended up being used as a prank against people not familiar with the coprophilia scene. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 10:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
For me films showing injectable drugs in use produce a bigger reaction -- where people clumsily tear up their veins to get high. I mean keep in mind that these people are not actaully killing, enslaving or torturing people against their will. Nor are the actions as physically unhealthy as smoking or strong drugs at least if all participants are from areas with good medical care so as not to have parasites.
Just goes to show how many people have trouble distinguishing the make-believe actions of others from self reality. I am, however, very glad they haven't created smell-o-vision to force partial participation. Until then my own reaction to these will continue to range from laughter at the type of mind that needs this to be sexually excited to a mild shudder at the thought that the material might be presented to me as a serious attempt at seduction.

65.26.139.183 (talk) 05:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

no description of what exactly goes on in the vid?

why isn't there any more details on what is shown on the vid? there isn't any direct description of the video itself, just stuff other people said about it, and general stuff about the genre of the vid, what gives? --TiagoTiago (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

WHY did this video become so popular?

This article says the video became a popular viral video — but it doesn’t say why.

What is special about this particular video?

I haven’t seen the it myself, but from the decription, it just sounds a typical scat/vomit video. There must be thousands of videos just like this, and there’s nothing new about scat videos, I remember seeing one back in the 80s. So what is it that made this particular video so interesting, or shocking, and caused such a reaction?

Grand Dizzy (talk) 16:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the Hungry Bitches trailer just happened to be in the right place at the right time for someone to start a fad. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 11:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It's so effective as a shock video because it begins very unassumingly and the shocking stuff comes with no warning. It looks like a normal porn video, two girls are making out, then all of a sudden bam you're watching people eat poop. REGULAR-NORMAL (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Its some combination of right place/right time, as well as getting a memorable and funny name. Really, its popularity is from viral spread - someone sees 2girls1cup, then shows it to other people. All something needs is good enough propagation rate among the right people and the right starting place and anything can explode virally. tl;dr version is that it was popular on 4chan. ThrustVectoring (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably for the same reason that lighting bundles of soft poop on people's door steps really was a popular Halloween trick for over a hundred years in small towns (though not so much in the last 40-50 years as cow poop became less accessible and fire extinguishers more accessible to modern populations). That is the trick is generally physcially harmless but can produce real disgust or mental revoltion in the victim.65.26.139.183 (talk) 05:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

the "what they do" section needs work

if it is allowed to stay I believe that section needs to be worked on, the language currently used doesn't sound very encyclopedic, and the parts about the opinions of medical doctors, I'm not sure if it even should be there, but if it is to stay, I think it needs sourcing and all --TiagoTiago (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Add images

Can we add some images to the article? Or can we post a link showing screenshots of the video? Superjustinbros. (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You have GOT to be kidding me. I just watched it. I was FULLY aware of its grossness, and I nearly threw up in the middle. Nobody wants to see it. Archer 90 (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I do. Superjustinbros. (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm for having the images, if they are available in a license suitable for wikipedia. Otherwise go for the links to them.--Sum (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Superjustinbros. (talk) 22:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No.--MaxRebo120 (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

There ought to be at least one image. Perhaps a "tame" image with a camera angle that isn't especially disturbing. "I don't like it" ain't a very encyclopedic excuse for exclusion. Dr. Cheis (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, we have to worry about legal implications; see my edit here: [3]. Mind you I'm not working with any explicit mandate from the lawyers at the Wikimedia Foundation; I'm using only my own common sense based off what is reported in the article. Also, certainly a tame image wouldn't be a problem, though.Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Images? Are you TRYING to be blocked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imandreas (talk • contribs) 05:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Plot Summary

I propose that is either re-written to make it more neutral in its tone or totally removed. From what I can tell that just appears to be more akin to the blurb that would accompany the video on the porn site. Needs to be more matter of fact and less like a press release. --Footix2 (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No.--Sum (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Notation on the commonality of practice?

This article should also have a new section added (by someone) to mention, if briefly, that this is not a bizarre type of film/fetish beyond the West. These films are hugely successful and popular in South America, Asia, much of Europe.... While it may be shocking to even the majority of people in the US and FAR Western Europe; many standard adult audience video shops in the rest of the world carry these videos right next to the "plumpers", "stockings" and Big * films. That such a film is so shocking to a small minority (of the planet) and generally accepted, though not nessaceraly enjoyed, by the rest of the world should probably be covered. Lostinlodos (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

That's probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on wikipedia. LOL. Homunq (talk) 03:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
And yet some of the largest "adult" film companies in Europe have massive "scat" catalogues. Multi-Media-Verlag (MMV) (over 10K titles) of Germany, Glimpse Video Productions of England, Hightide Video of the Netherlands, ....
In North America there's Extreme Associates (XA Video, X-Models, XGirls), and Brown and Gold Film (BGF) each with thousands of titles. There's the referenced MFX Media of Brazil, which also has a working relationship with XA's X-Models studio. There are hundreds of Asian studios with thousands of films each. Millions of small private studios putting out unique DVDs, VHS, and streaming/download videos (over a million hits on a web search); though granted most are inter-related to other companies or part of larger studios. All said, it's not exactly unheard of. Rare; possibly fringe, but not unheard of.Lostinlodos (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Unprotection?

Can this article and talk page be unprotected now so that unregistered users can edit and make comments? We can quickly restore protection if necessary. --TS 19:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Something like this that is media-centric would probably create a storm of uninformed comments about the media and posts about the excessive overreactions of western viewers of the trailer. As it stands now, the article already has too large a section on the reactions, lets not open it up to hit-n-run posters as well. Lostinlodos (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
It was unprotected about 15 days ago. In those days we've seen this change compared to this change in the preceding 15 days and this change in the preceding month.
So apparently there was a small acceleration in the rate of editing.
The major addition was a paragraph on an episode of Law and Order: SVU, added by 76.118.26.93.
Is this person a regular Wikipedia editor or just a passer by? We don't know. We do know that, to date, that is the only Wikipedia edit currently in existence on this wiki that was made from that IP number.
There is solid evidence suggesting that a lot of our existing content (as opposed to formatting and the like) comes from just such edits. --TS 01:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think it is a bad idea to have the link to a porn site [4]</ref> from Wikipedia is a bad idea. If this stays, then what if we get in trouble for having a younger kid going to that site?

173.59.25.69 (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)David

Wikipedia is not censored, there are plenty of links / pictures / etc. in Wikipedia that might upset some people - remember that different countries have different opinions, so one cannot cater for all ideals.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, we've always had a disclaimer. We also have illustrated articles on vaginaplasty and autofellatio--because we're an encyclopedia, not a child-minder. A child who comes to this article to shock his or her parents lacks imagination. --TS 23:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Media response section biased

In the Media recognition section, please correct "Dr. Pepper" to "Dr Pepper" - there has not been a period in the name since the 1950s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.218.36.83 (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Why do people always use extreme videos like this to propagate the absurd myth about society's "declining morals"? I mean, we aren't promoting this sort of behavior, most people were disgusted by the video, and most people are not even remotely close to behaving like this. I suggest a removal of the "moral decline" section because it's just giving ammo to the nostalgic lunacy that's destroying America. ----Eman91 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.22.240.43 (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you've got a point.
You have to bear in mind that the "moral bankruptcy" phrase is clearly attributed to VH1, a TV channel the publishes videos glorifying thuggery, gangsterism, drug pushing and pimping, and the phrase "society's declining morals" is in a reference to a TV show "Law and Order: SVU", which is I hazard to guess a modern-day version of the infamous Dragnet.
But the first sentence says this:
Many in the media have taken the video's popularity as a sign of society's declining morals.
This is referenced to the following statements:
  • "Seriously, though, how long are you going to enjoy watching “Two Girls One Cup” reaction videos? "[5]
  • This isn't about declining morals. The article is about the paucity of entertainment available to deprived TV viewers during the writer's strike of 2007/8. It's a comment on the media.
  • "How desperate for attention does someone to need to be to produce the likes of the new Internet video phenomenon "2 Girls, 1 Cup"? " and " I suppose everyone is entitled to his or her 15 minutes. I just hope that in the case of the video "2 Girls, 1 Cup" the math makes it more like seven and a half."[6]
  • The article is about the low entertainment quality of offerings on Youtube, and like the first reference, these are only tangential references. It's a comment on the media.
  • "The two girls and their cup aren't so worrisome – merely ladies with the worst job ever." (found here as the Globe and Mail website doesn't provide free access to me)
  • Unlike the other two references, this one does discuss the video in detail and in context. But again it isn't really a comment morals. It's a comment on the media.
So I think we should probably reword it to reflect the nature of the references. --TS 01:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Posting a link to this video seems unnecessary. If someone is interested in watching it they should google it, the possibilities of a child coming across the link is high. The article doesn't even have any warnings about possibly disturbing material. DaleIX (talk) 08:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No. Already discussed several times before. Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. --Geniac (talk) 04:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Then I don't see why people don't post the link to 3 guys 1 hammer. DaleIX (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I recommend you discuss that at Talk:Dnepropetrovsk maniacs, not here. --Geniac (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Google supplies broken links, commentary, reaction videos, and Wikipedia. I can't find the original video at all. It's like searching for a needle in a pile of shit. 24.170.165.214 (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Yep... Can't find the actual video via google or youtube. Every link I've seen are reaction videos and parodies. — al-Shimoni (talk) 03:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I present to you...the needle! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.172.224 (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

1 guy 1 jar is something different

The article says that Perez Hilton made a video of himself eating penutbutter out of a jar in the same manner as the girls and called it 1 guy 1 jar. I've seen the actual 1 guy 1 jar and it is really really disgusting, a man sticks a small (half pint?) jar in his anus and then slams his body down breaking the jar then pulls the pieces out while dripping blood at a concern worthy rate. I'm not going searching for the video, but 1 guy 1 jar is something different. --EmersonWhite (talk) 11:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

A 'Synopsis' section

We need a 'Synopsis' section, no doubt, similar to a FA article about another short video Diary of a Camper. Does anyone disagree? Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


the citations for the mans death link to information about john mayer. funny, but incorrect — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.245.58 (talk) 05:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

How do you know what they are eating from the cup is what was defecated into the cup.

In the video you see the girl defecate into the cup then the video cuts away to the girls eating from the cup. You do not see anyone take the cup full of feces right after she defecates and started eating from the same cup.Beancrisp (talk) 03:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It is kind of implied. I think we can accept it as a plot element more than anything else. It's clearly meant to be the same cup. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree, it was a plot element. The material in the video may well be chocolate per http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/revolting/2-girls-1-cup-real-poop which cites a declaration by the producer of the 2 Girls 1 Cup video. He says "I have already made fetish movies with scat/feces using chocolate instead of feces. Many actors make scat films but they don't agree to eat feces." Unfortunately, he's not talking about the 2 Girls 1 Cup video there and so we don't know if they used chocolate, or something else, in this video. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
"Many actors...don't agree to eat feces." Wow. He talks about it like refusing to eat shit is this horrible and spoiled thing. I honestly can't say I blame them.

We might just all be dicks trying to look serious when talking about two girls shitting in a cup and eating chocolate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.58.126 (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

^^^ Amen to that, the most sensible and realistic thing anyone has said in this whole discussion. 86.178.72.75 (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Content?

Can we just give a brief outline to what exactly viewers found appalling? --Sam 23:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It's puke-inducing material? ZappaOMati 21:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

But-Jar guy source is wrong.

Article reads:

"Another attempt was by a man who wanted to butt-boink a pickle jar up his anus, yet it failed and the glass broke while in the rectum, causing him to bleed internally and to die a week later. [18][19]"

Neither source 18 or 19 talk about this. These two sources are for the previous sentence. Can someone please correct it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.111.171.54 (talk) 02:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Heavy vandalism

There's lots of vandalism on this page. I recommend it be reverted and locked. I'd fix it but I'm really busy right now. Yes, and I was looking at the wiki page for 2 girls 1 cup. Shut up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilcoe (talk • contribs) 06:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2_Girls_1_Cup/Archive_1&oldid=1221664996"