Talk:Shock value

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy Low‑importance

	Philosophy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled][edit]

This is closely related to shock site — couldn't we just redirect? Dewet 07:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While the current text mostly talks about website stuff the term itself is much broader and personally I think that this artcle seriously needs expansion. Is there somewhere it can be listed for that? -- Lochaber 17:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Haagen-Dazs[edit]

I dont understand how the addition of cows to an ice-cream ad' adds shock value? What are they on about? Is it not a pointless statement if its without clarification? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.216.82 (talk) 16:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to say the same, that just doesn't seem to make sense. 87.222.150.247 (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

overhaul[edit]

I gave the article a bit of an overhaul to fix the problems it had...However, I had to remove the section about music because it had no sources, and the shock rock article seems to have the same issue this article had regarding references...If somebody can work on getting references for that article, I can work on incorporating parts of it into this one.

rzrscm (talk) 04:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G-rated[edit]

I'd like for the article to mention something about shock value not being confined to R-rated material. Most offensive stuff designed for shock value we see today is R-rated because it doesn't know how to be G-rated and still be offensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theboombody (talk • contribs) 19:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the first line back to a previous edit[edit]

Someone had written Shock value is the potential of an action (as a public execution), image, text, or other form of communication to provoke a reaction of massive disgust, shock, anger, fear, and other similar negative emotions hoping to make their audiences sick. What does that mean? Make the audience vomit? Make the audience come down with an illness? Cause nausea? A very poor edit by somebody, as shock value has nothing really to do with causing an audience to be sick. I also think the public execution part is somewhat misleading, as that doesn't seem the encapsulate what shock value truly is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.3.101 (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Shock value. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Benetton-related content[edit]

The amount of content on Benetton make this page look like an ad for that company. Klod (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]