Talk:Prince Albert (genital piercing): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Why I moved the image under the fold: the piercing articles have a significant percentage of the articles with images of human genetalia. The "under the fold" compromise does have precedent |
m Maintain {{WPBS}}: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Body Modification}}. Tag: |
||
| (242 intermediate revisions by 95 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header}} |
|||
This article represents a clash of opinions at the moment, neither of them mine, and I know nothing about this subject so I can't edit. Can anyone help? |
|||
{{Censor}} |
|||
{{not a forum|technical issues/general comments}} |
|||
{{Notice|Much discussion has gone into the use and type of images in this article, as well as their placement. Moving, resizing or deleting the images in this article is considered vandalism and all such changes will be reverted. Please see the archived image discussions for details.}} |
|||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start| |
|||
{{WikiProject Body Modification|importance=mid}} |
|||
}} |
|||
==Image placement== |
|||
In case you missed the notice above, much discussion has gone into the use and type of images in this article, as well as their placement. Moving, resizing or deleting the images in this article is considered [[WP:VAND|vandalism]] and all such changes will be reverted. Please see the archived discussions for details: [[/Archive 1|Archive 1]] [[/Archive 2|Archive 2]]. [[User:Jokestress|Jokestress]] ([[User talk:Jokestress|talk]]) 01:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THEY BE PLACED ELSEWHERE OUR UNDER AGE VERIFICATION! MY 12 YEAR OLD SON LED ME TO THIS ARTICLE THINKING IT WAS FUNNY. HE THEN TOOK ME ON A TOUR OF SEVERAL OTHER GOODIES THAT ARE OF NAKED PEOPLE. THIS IS PORN! THERE NEEDS TO BE USER LOGIN AND PASSWORD INFORMATION AND PROOF OF AGE. NOT SAYING THE INFORMATION IS INAPPROPRIATE FOR ALL AGES - BUT UNDER 18 THERE NEEDS TO BE A RESTRICTION. DOES NOBODY MONITOR THE TYPES OF PICS AND THINGS ARE POSTED? AS A PARENT IT GREATLY ANGERS AND CONCERNS ME.WIKIPEDIA IS SUCH A WONDERFUL TOOL FOR LEARNING. BUT IF IT CAN'T BE CONTROLLED AND REGULATED THEN IT NEEDS TO BE SHUT DOWN. AS OF NOW MY SON'S COMPUTER HAS WIKIPEDIA BLOCKED AND i PLAN TO TALK TO THE SCHOOL BOARD ABOUT THIS AS WELL. |
|||
I'm looking into it. There are some things I cans see for a start that are bad advice and need fixing. Hopefully I'll have it done soon! |
|||
ALL THAT REALLY NEEDS TO BE SAID TO THE CHILD IS THAT A P.A. IS A PIERCING OF THE PENIS - THE END. THE PARENT CAN DECIDE IF THEY WISH TO ELABORATE TO THE CHILD. |
|||
[[user:kylet|kylet]] |
|||
And you my friend have way too much time on your hands! <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/79.77.76.157|79.77.76.157]] ([[User talk:79.77.76.157#top|talk]]) 20:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
I think we need pictures. |
|||
:Wikipedia is [[WP:NOTCENSORED|not censored]]. That means relevant images will be included and we do not hide them. Period. If you don't want your child to see images of a pierced penis on an article about pierced penises, you should be monitoring their Internet usage more closely. Babysitting your kid is not our job. [[User talk:Icy Tiger's Blood|<span style="font-family:COLONNA MT; color:blue;">ICY</span><span style="font-family:COLONNA MT; color:orange;">TIGER'S</span><span style="font-family:COLONNA MT; color:red;">BLOOD</span>]] 19:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::I have just re-read the article, and I see nothing wrong with it. It appears factually accurate and reasonably complete. As for images, I think a diagram, rather than a photograph, would be most appropriate. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] 17:16, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
==Hatnote== |
|||
:::I don't want to be prudish, but I would agree that a diagram is preferable to the current photograph. While I'm not a Wikipedia contributor (and thus don't know the usual standards Wikipedia uses), I would consider the current photograph to be "not work safe." I'd like to think that even the more risqé Wikipedia articles would avoid this kind of graphic photographry. Just my two cents. Feb 13, 2005 |
|||
Because this is frequently the top search engine result for "Prince Albert," even though the primary here is [[Prince Albert]], I believe [[WP:HATNOTE]] allows for a notation to otheruses. [[User:Jokestress|Jokestress]] ([[User talk:Jokestress|talk]]) 22:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== Google == |
|||
:::I see nothing wrong with a photograph. It is the best way to describe the situation and a diagram, altough possibly adaquate, would be no less "disturbing" to those of you who think that way. Accept nature for what it is. --[[User:Zippanova|Zippanova]] 00:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Still the top search result on Google for Prince Albert, people are using this as an example of "Wiki-porn"... How notable or wide-spread is this type of piercing? If it isn't, maybe you could somehow merge it with other genital piercings? [[User:Ikmxx|Ikmxx]] ([[User talk:Ikmxx|talk]]) 04:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC) |
|||
There's no mention of how such a piercing affects the bearer's ability to function sexually, when it is placed and when it is removed. [[User:Etz Haim|Etz Haim]] 11:43, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|||
Nevermind... after researching it a bit, I think the article is just fine how it is, but how it ended up top is a different problem, it's due people linking to it more than the other one so it's nothing that can be fixed, more of a problem on Google's end... [[User:Ikmxx|Ikmxx]] ([[User talk:Ikmxx|talk]]) 05:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:In your experience is there such an effect? For the most part, unless we're talking about very large guage jewellry, there is no effect on sexual function. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] 17:36, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
== main page image == |
|||
::According to my experience, many people who bear piercings are not exactly aware of the potential health hazards. Considerations on sexual health and function should not only include the ability to perform intercourse. It should also be examined if sexuality and fertility are affected in the long term, and how. [[User:Etz Haim|Etz Haim]] 09:30, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|||
The main page image on the article is laughably un-encyclopedic. It looks like the kind of unsolicited dick pic you'd get from a sketchy online hookup. It's blurry, dark, poorly framed and obviously taken by the subject himself. There are two other images in the article which are both better illustrations, so this image serves no purpose and should be removed. [[WP:CENSOR]] does not apply here, but [[WP:GRATUITOUS]] does. [[Special:Contributions/24.91.28.20|24.91.28.20]] ([[User talk:24.91.28.20|talk]]) 04:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== The picture is disgusting == |
|||
:Article has been updated (including better images). — [[Special:Contributions/78.149.199.229|78.149.199.229]] ([[User talk:78.149.199.229|talk]]) 21:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
You shouldn't have a picture of a person's genitals on a wikipedia entry for obvious reasons. Somebody who stumbles across the entry accidentally at work could lose their job ,etc. |
|||
It would be alot better if you had a link on the page to a picture of the piercing. |
|||
== Suggest at least a couple more pictures of normal PA piercings. == |
|||
:[[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not censored]]. Please also note that the above was posted by [[User:Rift14]], who is a vandal. [[User:RickK|Rick]][[User talk:RickK|K]] 18:09, May 12, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
The discussions about images/illustrations is outrageous. Parents need to be aware of what their children are doing on the internet. Wikipedia is used for information regarding specific subjects. If a person can't find the information they require they will need a new source. |
|||
::Also, I have to ask -- how do you accidentally stumble across this at work? "I was just looking for a bit of info on genital piercings, but I wasn't expecting any pictures, damn it!" |
|||
:::It is '''very''' possible to come across this page without expecting an erect pierced penis. The first time I came across this article was from a link on [[Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha]]. The passage "''The Prince Albert piercing is named after Prince Albert, who is rumoured to have used this body piercing to enable him to make his clothes fit more neatly. No contemporary evidence supports this rumour and it may have been an invention by Doug Malloy who popularised more extreme forms of body piercing and wished to give this form a spurious heritage.''" really gives no clue that you are about to see this. Someone please draw a diagram or something. [[User:Claviola|claviola]] [[User_talk:Claviola|(talk to me)]] 03:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::I guess you see this by hitting "random page", but frankly, if you're working in a place that has a problem with (factual and non-pornographic) content like this, I would personally recommend a) sticking to safer websites and b) consider a change of employment at your earliest convenience -- though that may just be me... -- [[User:Captain Disdain|Captain Disdain]] 00:50, 23 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::Actually given that this is [[Wikipedia:Most visited articles|one of the most visited pages on wikipedia]] I suspect that a large number of people hear the term and do not know what it is. They then ask google or come stright here (something that I frequently do when I encounter a term I do not know and which I woudl like too). That said I don't think the image shoudl be removed, if nothign else it will enable the types of people I just mentioned to figure out what the Prince ALber Pircing is right away with out even needing to read the article. [[User:Dalf|Dalf]] - [[User talk:Dalf|Talk]] 03:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC) |
|||
I'm trying to find more pictures of "normal" PA piercings. I have questions regarding what a blowout might look like. Surprisingly enough it is hard to find pictures of this. You find more of the "worst case scenario" pictures or outrageously sized piercings. On my new piercing I am concerned I may be getting a blowout, but what I have looks no where near the only pictures I find. But I am having a hard time finding pictures of a normal piercing (not outrageously sized!) with high enough definition to see skin close up. |
|||
I'm a vandal? - Rift14 |
|||
I thought I might be able to find standard pictures here but instead I see people complaining that they accidentally clicked on the page. Here's an idea. Don't click on the "Prince Albert (GENITAL PIERCING)" link if you don't want to see it! <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:JTH1124|JTH1124]] ([[User talk:JTH1124#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/JTH1124|contribs]]) 21:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
I think the picture is clearly informational, not pornography, no different from the pictures on [[penis]]. While some work-safe policies may not allow it, the chance of getting caught is small, and the chance of a successful defense seems quite good, considering the typical investment in an employee. This is one of our most popular articles and should be as informative as possible. |
|||
== External links modified == |
|||
Oh, and excellent job on the article! Answers many common questions people have about this topic. Something about the effect on sexual interaction might be good though. For example, I assume it's unsafe to leave jewelry in during intercourse. [[User:Deco|Deco]] 22:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|||
:I've gone over this issue in a number of articles. Bottom line: There are people who don't want pictures like this on the Wiki at all. There are people who think explicit pornography belongs on every sex-related article on the wiki. My compromise is this: Keep the picture under the fold. [[User:Samboy|Samboy]] 06:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
I have just modified one external link on [[Prince Albert (genital piercing)]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/813132462|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes: |
|||
==Page Re-Design== |
|||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080305184437/http://www.safepiercing.org/bodyAftercare.html to http://www.safepiercing.org/bodyAftercare.html |
|||
Unless anyone has an objection, I am going to clean up and re-organise this article to make the information here (which is great) easier to search and read.[[User:Glowimperial|Glowimperial]] 16:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC) |
|||
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. |
|||
==Why I moved the image under the fold== |
|||
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} |
|||
I moved the image under the fold because: |
|||
Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 23:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
* The image is explicit and will offend the sensbilities of a significant number of English speakers. |
|||
* A person who does now know what a Prince Albert piercing and goes to this page to find out more does not expect to see an explicit image |
|||
* People who are offended by explicit images may be offended to the point that they will look at all of Wikipedia in a negative light. |
|||
* A picture like this violates the boundaries of a significant number of English speakers. |
|||
* Anyone is free to scroll the page down to see the image of the penis in question. |
|||
== Hooooly guacamole == |
|||
Here is how I handle these kinds of editing disputes. While I usually follow [[Wikipedia:One-revert rule]], I do not do so for pornographic images: |
|||
Why not include some pictures of more mild PA piercings? Mother of God, this is the most cringeworthy article on wikipedia. To pass these extreme versions of piercings as the norm is ignorance at best, deception at worst... Please include the more mild/common versions of the piercings in the picture that are first seen rather than the butchery of what has become. |
|||
# I will keep the image but move it under the fold |
|||
Thank you, please understand that I have good intentions and that I just want readers to be aware of all of the differences that make us human. I love us all and I think that we need to be appropriate and impartial to what constitutes a PA piercing. |
|||
# If someone reverts my edit and moves the image above the fold, I will completely remove the image from the page |
|||
This is all I will be saying on the subject. Judging from previous replies from the mods, they do not care about these sort of concerns. But, I will vocalize my own concern as one of perhaps hundreds that disagree with the choice of pictures being used. Furthermore I believe that I have a very reasonable complaint that is common in anyone who views this page. Again, I will not be replying nor will I read any replies to this comment. What I said is fact, and that is objectively true. |
|||
# This usually results in an edit war |
|||
[[User:Fefil14|Fefil14]] ([[User talk:Fefil14|talk]]) 08:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
# I am willing to end said edit war when the other party is willing to have the image in question under the fold |
|||
# If someone else completely removes the image, I will not revert the image. I don't want pornographic images in the Wikipedia ''at all''; I only accept "under the fold" as a compromise. |
|||
# I will not remove drawings. Only photographs. |
|||
== Image is not a Prince Albert == |
|||
Thank you for your time. [[User:Samboy|Samboy]] 06:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
The picture captioned ''Prince Albert piercing plus scrotal ladder of BCRs, pubic piercing and tattoo'' does not show a penis with a Prince Albert piercing. Come to think of it, it doesn't show either a scrotal ladder or a tattoo. It does show an apparently erect penis, with helpful signposts to the various penile parts; but a piercing, no. |
|||
[1] Censorship is when a government makes it illegal to have information or images of a certain nature illegal. It is not censorship to say "I don't want this image here". |
|||
I sometimes wonder if editors mischievously substitute pictures which are deliberately wrong, to prove that no-one actually reads these articles; or, if readers do, they do not possess sufficient critical faculties to question what they see. |
|||
:Samboy, before I go and revert/contribute to your edits to both this article and the [[Frenum Piercing]] article, let me state several things. |
|||
[[User:Nuttyskin|Nuttyskin]] ([[User talk:Nuttyskin|talk]]) 12:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
* Photos of the human body in its natural state are not pornographic. They are not intended to arouse or in any way provide sexual stimulation to the reader. |
|||
* although it is not censorchip to say "I don't want this image here" it does go counter to what many editors and users see as the basic policies of Wikipedia. What is more important than you "not wanting the image here" is that other users and myself want the image here. |
|||
* ''I don't want pornographic images in the Wikipedia ''at all''; I only accept "under the fold" as a compromise.'' - It's good to want things, but you don't make drive the policies of Wikipedia, and the images related to body modification or body piercing topics are not pornographic. If you are really concerned with pornography's place in Wikipedia, maybe you should concentrate your efforts to contribute in areas related to pornography. |
|||
* You are not making a compromise, as you are engaged in nothing resembling a dialogue on this or any other page, to my knowledge, that establishes a compromise. Softening your position, yet still enforcing it on the community is not a compromise. [[User:Glowimperial|Glowimperial]] 02:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:The reason I am so hard line about this is because the "anti-censorship" forces have an extremeist position and are completely unwilling to compromise. First we proposed removing the images. They put the images back, crying "censorship"! Then we tried putting a notice at the top of the page with pornographic images that there was, well, pornography on the Wikipedia. That was shot down "You're making people feel bad about their body". |
|||
:Then I explained I had no problem with a naked body, but that maybe an encyclopedia is not the place for having such images. The "anti-censorship" forces cried "Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia" (ignoring the fact that we have "pedia" in our name). |
|||
:Then Jimbo Wales himself removed a pornographic image, stating "This image is completely unacceptable for wikipedia". Oh, did the "anti-censorship" forces cry like little babies about how Wiki would lose a lot of editors if we dared not host a pornographic image here. |
|||
:The "anti-censorship" forces are not interested in dialog. They are not interested in compromise. They are only interested in shoving their [[Heinlein]]-inspired morals down the throats of anyone and everyone who comes to the Wikipedia. And, quite frankly, I'm sick and tired of it. |
|||
:I'm sick and tired of the semantic games the "anti-censorship" forces play instead of discussing the issues. I'm sick and tired of the way the "anti-censorship" forces have no respect for my boundaries and no respect for my values. I'm sick and tired of the "anti-censorship" forces telling me that my point of view doesn't matter and that my boundaries and beliefs do not matter. |
|||
:The bottom line of this: I have a boundary which is violated when I go to a page and find an explicit image at the top. Especially when I have no expectation of seeing such an image...I did ''not'' know what a Prince Albert piercing was when I went to this page and was quite offended when my question was answered with a pornographic image. |
|||
:Just so you know I don't approve of censorship, let me word it this way: I'm fucking sick and tired of being told to eat shit whenever I try to do anything to make Wikipedia even the slightest bit work-safe and safe to view in front of my family. |
|||
:Now that I have gotten that off of my chest, let's talk. I am willing to work with you if you are willing to work with me. Is there anything I can do to help you feel confortable having the image be "under the fold"? I think having an illustration (either a picture of the thing that does the piercing by itself or a drawing) and diving the article in to sections will make putting the explicit picture "under the fold" less noticable. |
|||
:I'm willing to work with you. Are you willing to work with me? [[User:Samboy|Samboy]] 03:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::I'm more than willing to participate in a dialog or discussion regarding the issue. First let me establish that I am the primary maintainer of [[body piercing]] entries on Wikipedia at this time. I am not territorial out of a sense of personal ego (although I take some pride in the work I've done in this area), but I am protective of the articles in this section. I have gone to great length in order to re-vamp dozens of entries, and to bring them into accord with the policies and standards of Wikipedia. So like yourself I am interested in presenting a body of information that is concise and useful to the public. |
|||
::I will also add that I have never added photographs, illustrations or other like media to Wikipedia, or the articles in question. That's not my area of expertise. |
|||
::I'll add that I am an avid researcher of all things related to [[body modification]] and that from my perspective, the images currently on Wikipedia fall so far from what I would consider pornographic or offensive that your perspective is alien to me, to the point that from my perspective it seems irrational. I'm not saying that my perspective is purely objective here, I'm just establishing that I am used to working with a body of literature on the subject at hand, and that the subject matter, as well as the imagery seems rather everyday to me. That being said, I am aware that large portions of the public are largely ignorant of the range of body modification or body piercing activity, and that the reality of that activity can come as a shock to persons unfamiliar with it. |
|||
::Lastly, I'll add that I believe that there are two key errors in Wikipedia's current policy regarding material that may be considered offensive. First, I personally believe that Wikipedia should have images relevant to all entries, even if those images are extremely pornographic. I'd rather participate in a system with no dividing line on this issue, rather than on where the dividing line continually in flux. Secondly, I would support the kind of system where entries featuring potentially offensive imagery are flagged, and users should have to actively select to view the images. Currently there are several proposals on how to do this, and there is some discussion regarding the viability and policy issues related to establishing such a system. |
|||
::My background and perspective being briefly established, I'd like to say that although I find your established personal policy regarding offensive material to be counter to the policies and practices of Wikipedia, I'm not particularily interested in berating you for your beliefs (which I have no problem respecting) nor to convert you to my point of view. What I would like to do is establish my point of view on Wikipedia's policy relative to offensive material and attempt to show you that this particular area of Wikipedia (that being [[body modification]] related materials, including all entries related to [[body piercing]]) does not contain what you are defining as pornographic content. |
|||
::The first argument that I would make in response to your edits is that the practice of having graphic images of nudity or genitals in appropriate articles within Wikipedia is commonplace, and a standard practice. There is much precedent, in the many edits and discussions that have taken place over the life of Wikipdedia, most notably in basic articles such as [[penis]], [[clitoris]] and [[vagina]], that when medical subject matter is entered into Wikipedia, graphic images are appropriate content. Body piercing, is a medical matter, and as such I feel falls into this category to a certain degree. I will admit that something such as a [[Prince Albert piercing]] is of much less medical importance than say the penis itself, I would care to remind you that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_is_not_paper#Wikipedia_is_not_a_paper_encyclopedia Wikipedia is not paper]. |
|||
::Secondly, I cannot, and will not agree to your argument that the photos in the entries in question are pornographic. Yes, Jimbo has weighed in on many, many sex related entries, most notably (for our purposes) the entry on [[autofellatio]], and that his intervention and a great deal of community consensus establishes a precedent that graphic photographs of sex acts are not currently considered appropriate content for Wikipedia. But the images in the entries related to body piercing are not pornographic, and they are not intended to illustrate sexual activity, nor to provide fodder for the titillation of viewers. They are intended to be illustrative of the general technical placement of the piercings themselves, and in this capacity they have a potential to be helpful to readers, especially those who might not be familiar with the technical language often used to describe the placement of body piercings. |
|||
::Thirdly, I object to having the image under the fold for two reasons. First among those reasons is that there is, in my opinion, no objectional content in these articles. The images are purely illustrative of the human body in its natural state (genital body piercing is a much, much more common activity than is generally understood by the public, in fact genital body modification may be the most common type, outside of tattooing and ear piercings), and as such are not offensive. By placing them below the fold, we endorse the opinion that the images are offensive, which in itself offends a significant portion of Wikipedia users. Secondly, given that body piercing is a largely visually aesthetic practice, these entries should all eventually have prominent images, clearly illustrating the individual piercings, as they are commonly practiced. |
|||
::Lastly, it is well established that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored_for_the_protection_of_minors Wikipedia is not censored for the participation of minors]. As such, I'm not going to entertain any arguments that Wikipedia needs to be safe for work or family. It's not that kind of encyclopedia. In my opinion and experience, your personal policy regarding offensive material is a much greater violation of the principles of Wikipedia than any image could ever be. Also, as you may know all of the data in Wikipedia is available to the public, via the GPL. If Wikipedia's policies create an environment that is unpleasant to you, Wikipedia has provided both the tools and raw data to remove what content you find offensive, provided you do it on your own dime, and outside of Wikipedia itself. |
|||
::I hope that I've been able to make my case without resorting to semantic trickery. In plain language, I'm trying to establish that as the images you have altered are not pornographic, they are appropriate content for Wikipedia, and that as apporopriate content, there is no reason for them to be below the fold. I realise that placing them below the fold does nothing to reduce the quantity and quality of the information in any of the entries, but what it does do is establish that the images or the practices described in the entries are in some way offensive, in and of themselves, which does alter the tone of the articles, in what I see as a negative way. [[User:Glowimperial|Glowimperial]] 06:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::Thank you very much for the response. I mean that. You're handling a disagreement in a very civil and dignified fasion. If all Wikipedia editors handled disagreements as well as you do, we wouldn't need an arbitration panel. |
|||
:::I agree that you have done a lot of good work on the body piercing articles. And, yes, I agree that having another editor tear your work to shreads is one of the very frustrating problems the Wiki has. |
|||
:::I don't think we will ever agree whether the image of the piercing is pornographic or not. So, I will let go of this issue. I hope you don't mind me re-framing the issue a little. I'm doing this to help us both be on the same page. Here is a list of Wikipedia articles I found with inline photographs of human genetalia in them at midnight (Wikipedia time) January 1, 2006: |
|||
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Christina_piercing&oldid=30378765 Christina piercing] |
|||
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Frenulum&oldid=32611239 Frenulum] |
|||
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Penis&oldid=33360038 Penis] |
|||
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Syphilis&oldid=32488311 Syphilis] |
|||
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Prince_Albert_piercing&oldid=31922437 Prince Albert Piercing] |
|||
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Unfinished_Music_No.1:_Two_Virgins&oldid=32909252 A Lennon/Ono album] |
|||
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Nudity&oldid=33372834 Nudity] |
|||
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Vagina&oldid=33405490 Vagina] |
|||
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Vulva&oldid=33128099 Vulva] |
|||
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Clitoris&oldid=33402703 Clitoris] |
|||
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Frenum_piercing&oldid=32331434 Frenum piercing] |
|||
:::Summary: There were 11 pages with inline images of human genetalia in the English-language Wikipedia at the end of 2005. Of those, seven (64%) had the image above the fold. Of the seven pages with the image above the fold, three of them were piercing related images. Of the remaining four, two of the images (the Lennon/Ono album cover and the picture of the maked girl in Nudity) have the genetalia visible as only a small part of a larger image. |
|||
:::Body piercing articles accounted for 60% of the close up images of genetalia above the fold at the beginning of this year. Now, let's get away from statistics and back to the issue. |
|||
:::From where I am standing, what is most telling is that [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Penis&oldid=33360038 Penis], [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Vagina&oldid=33405490 Vagina], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Clitoris&oldid=33402703 Clitoris] do not have the image of the genetalia above the fold. I don't think I need to point out that the presence of these images is one of the most hotly contested issues here on Wikipedia. One point made during the Clitoris wars is that, while the people who don't want these images may be a minority, it is not best to steamroller over these people's point of view. "Under the fold" is the one (and only) concession we have gotten; I fought for optional image-free versions of the articles, and lost; others fought for linking of images and lost. I think the "anti-censorship" people here are pretty extreme, but we both agree that's a discussion which goes far beyond the body piercing articles. |
|||
:::I agree with you on having some way of flagging potentially offensive images. I brought this up myself during the Clitoris wars. People seemed to agree it was a good idea. No one has actually implemented it yet. I wish they would because it would do a lot to stop a battle where both sides have a POV and NPOV is plain simply impossible. |
|||
:::Where to put the dividing line for potentially offensive images has been one of the endless discussions on Wikipedia. Many people there plain simply shouldn't be one. Jimbo wants to have one. I want to have one. People who surf Wikipedia at work want to have one (another one of the few concessions we won was removing the images from a discussion about nudity on Wikipedia in the Village Pump). A lot of editors, obviously, don't want one. |
|||
:::So, in closing, the piercing articles have a significant percentage of the articles with images of human genetalia. The "under the fold" compromise does have precedent. Again, I thank you for your input. [[User:Samboy|Samboy]] 21:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 14:56, 8 September 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Prince Albert (genital piercing) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2 |
 | Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about technical issues/general comments. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about technical issues/general comments at the Reference desk. |
 | Much discussion has gone into the use and type of images in this article, as well as their placement. Moving, resizing or deleting the images in this article is considered vandalism and all such changes will be reverted. Please see the archived image discussions for details. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Image placement
[edit]In case you missed the notice above, much discussion has gone into the use and type of images in this article, as well as their placement. Moving, resizing or deleting the images in this article is considered vandalism and all such changes will be reverted. Please see the archived discussions for details: Archive 1 Archive 2. Jokestress (talk) 01:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THEY BE PLACED ELSEWHERE OUR UNDER AGE VERIFICATION! MY 12 YEAR OLD SON LED ME TO THIS ARTICLE THINKING IT WAS FUNNY. HE THEN TOOK ME ON A TOUR OF SEVERAL OTHER GOODIES THAT ARE OF NAKED PEOPLE. THIS IS PORN! THERE NEEDS TO BE USER LOGIN AND PASSWORD INFORMATION AND PROOF OF AGE. NOT SAYING THE INFORMATION IS INAPPROPRIATE FOR ALL AGES - BUT UNDER 18 THERE NEEDS TO BE A RESTRICTION. DOES NOBODY MONITOR THE TYPES OF PICS AND THINGS ARE POSTED? AS A PARENT IT GREATLY ANGERS AND CONCERNS ME.WIKIPEDIA IS SUCH A WONDERFUL TOOL FOR LEARNING. BUT IF IT CAN'T BE CONTROLLED AND REGULATED THEN IT NEEDS TO BE SHUT DOWN. AS OF NOW MY SON'S COMPUTER HAS WIKIPEDIA BLOCKED AND i PLAN TO TALK TO THE SCHOOL BOARD ABOUT THIS AS WELL.
ALL THAT REALLY NEEDS TO BE SAID TO THE CHILD IS THAT A P.A. IS A PIERCING OF THE PENIS - THE END. THE PARENT CAN DECIDE IF THEY WISH TO ELABORATE TO THE CHILD.
And you my friend have way too much time on your hands! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.76.157 (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not censored. That means relevant images will be included and we do not hide them. Period. If you don't want your child to see images of a pierced penis on an article about pierced penises, you should be monitoring their Internet usage more closely. Babysitting your kid is not our job. ICYTIGER'SBLOOD 19:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Hatnote
[edit]Because this is frequently the top search engine result for "Prince Albert," even though the primary here is Prince Albert, I believe WP:HATNOTE allows for a notation to otheruses. Jokestress (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Still the top search result on Google for Prince Albert, people are using this as an example of "Wiki-porn"... How notable or wide-spread is this type of piercing? If it isn't, maybe you could somehow merge it with other genital piercings? Ikmxx (talk) 04:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Nevermind... after researching it a bit, I think the article is just fine how it is, but how it ended up top is a different problem, it's due people linking to it more than the other one so it's nothing that can be fixed, more of a problem on Google's end... Ikmxx (talk) 05:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
main page image
[edit]The main page image on the article is laughably un-encyclopedic. It looks like the kind of unsolicited dick pic you'd get from a sketchy online hookup. It's blurry, dark, poorly framed and obviously taken by the subject himself. There are two other images in the article which are both better illustrations, so this image serves no purpose and should be removed. WP:CENSOR does not apply here, but WP:GRATUITOUS does. 24.91.28.20 (talk) 04:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Article has been updated (including better images). — 78.149.199.229 (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Suggest at least a couple more pictures of normal PA piercings.
[edit]The discussions about images/illustrations is outrageous. Parents need to be aware of what their children are doing on the internet. Wikipedia is used for information regarding specific subjects. If a person can't find the information they require they will need a new source.
I'm trying to find more pictures of "normal" PA piercings. I have questions regarding what a blowout might look like. Surprisingly enough it is hard to find pictures of this. You find more of the "worst case scenario" pictures or outrageously sized piercings. On my new piercing I am concerned I may be getting a blowout, but what I have looks no where near the only pictures I find. But I am having a hard time finding pictures of a normal piercing (not outrageously sized!) with high enough definition to see skin close up.
I thought I might be able to find standard pictures here but instead I see people complaining that they accidentally clicked on the page. Here's an idea. Don't click on the "Prince Albert (GENITAL PIERCING)" link if you don't want to see it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JTH1124 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Prince Albert (genital piercing). 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080305184437/http://www.safepiercing.org/bodyAftercare.html to http://www.safepiercing.org/bodyAftercare.html
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: 5 June 2024).
- 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) 23:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Hooooly guacamole
[edit]Why not include some pictures of more mild PA piercings? Mother of God, this is the most cringeworthy article on wikipedia. To pass these extreme versions of piercings as the norm is ignorance at best, deception at worst... Please include the more mild/common versions of the piercings in the picture that are first seen rather than the butchery of what has become. Thank you, please understand that I have good intentions and that I just want readers to be aware of all of the differences that make us human. I love us all and I think that we need to be appropriate and impartial to what constitutes a PA piercing. This is all I will be saying on the subject. Judging from previous replies from the mods, they do not care about these sort of concerns. But, I will vocalize my own concern as one of perhaps hundreds that disagree with the choice of pictures being used. Furthermore I believe that I have a very reasonable complaint that is common in anyone who views this page. Again, I will not be replying nor will I read any replies to this comment. What I said is fact, and that is objectively true. Fefil14 (talk) 08:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Image is not a Prince Albert
[edit]The picture captioned Prince Albert piercing plus scrotal ladder of BCRs, pubic piercing and tattoo does not show a penis with a Prince Albert piercing. Come to think of it, it doesn't show either a scrotal ladder or a tattoo. It does show an apparently erect penis, with helpful signposts to the various penile parts; but a piercing, no.
I sometimes wonder if editors mischievously substitute pictures which are deliberately wrong, to prove that no-one actually reads these articles; or, if readers do, they do not possess sufficient critical faculties to question what they see. Nuttyskin (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC)