Jump to content

Talk:Prince Albert (genital piercing): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
Bots
7,561,080 edits
m Maintain {{WPBS}}: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Body Modification}}.
 
(42 intermediate revisions by 28 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{Talk header}}
{{Censor}}
{{Censor}}
{{not a forum|technical issues/general comments}}
{{WikiProject Body Modification|class=start|importance=mid}}
{{Archive box|[[/Image discussions|Image discussions]] <br>
[[/Archive 1|Archive 1]]}}.

{{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.}}
{{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.
== Picture placement ==
Given that the current top Google hit for "prince albert" is this article, it might be a good idea to move the photo down a bit; anyone hitting "I Feel Lucky" might be a bit surprised. For that matter, I followed a Google link after specifically searching for information on the piercing, and was still surprised by the photo. &mdash;[[User:Tregoweth|tregoweth]] (''[[User talk:Tregoweth|talk]]'') 00:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

::There has been much discussion of this. Please refer to the upper portion of the page, and the archives. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] 16:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Y'know, this isn't censorship for the protection of minors. It's just what a respectable encyclopedia does. [[Penis]] does not open with a picture of an erect penis, and even once-controversial [[clitoris]] leads with a diagram. People are much more likely to know what they're getting in those articles than this one, so it's high time to fix this anachronism. It's posted upfront from the era when we were concerned about "censorship." I propose we use a diagram in the lead. [[User:Cool Hand Luke|Cool Hand]] ''[[User talk:Cool Hand Luke|Luke]]'' 20:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

:I think the photograph should stay. [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] ([[User talk:Anchoress|talk]]) 02:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

::I do too. It's just that it shouldn't be at the top of the page. We should lead with a line drawing. [[User:Cool Hand Luke|Cool Hand]] ''[[User talk:Cool Hand Luke|Luke]]'' 07:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

:::Meh. I said I think the photograph should stay. As in, '''''stay where it is'''''. [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] ([[User talk:Anchoress|talk]]) 07:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

::::Man, how come? I was just looking up tobacco and I got this crap. I didn't want to know this existed. At the very least I could have read the opening text and realized this was NOT what I was looking for. Christ. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.176.213.169|67.176.213.169]] ([[User talk:67.176.213.169|talk]]) 21:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:::::Because Wikipedia is [[WP:NOTCENSORED|not censored]]. We aren't here to monitor your internet surfing. --[[User:thirteen squared|13]]<sup>[[User talk:thirteen squared|2]]</sup> 02:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

::::Any reason? Most comparable articles lead with a drawing, and viewers of articles like [[Penis]] are much more likely to know what they're looking up. [[User:Cool Hand Luke|Cool Hand]] ''[[User talk:Cool Hand Luke|Luke]]'' 07:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

:::::I think drawings are inferior, and the widespread use of them stupid. Just because a bunch of other articles are using them in the lead, doesn't mean drawings are better. IMO photos are better and all articles should lead with them. [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] ([[User talk:Anchoress|talk]]) 07:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

::::::Since everyone is chiming in with opinions, here's my $0.02: I think the photo currently leading the article is, frankly, very unattractive. If there must be a photo there, perhaps it can be a good photograph. Well-lit for starters. And as for composition, a photo withou hand in the background holding the erection forth as if to say "hey, world, look at my jones!" And, since I'm being perfectly frank, the white bumps on the underside of the shaft are also a distraction. So, if the photo has to be there, can we have another?[[User:Dpmath|Dpmath]] ([[User talk:Dpmath|talk]]) 01:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

:::::::Hi Dpmath: When it comes to better quality pics, it's pretty much up to editors who want better pics to procure them. Because of the [[GNU]] licensing we use with WikiMedia, any pics submitted must be completely free for any use. You can try to get or make one yourself, or you can request a better pic at requested images. But be warned that there are lots of WP articles that don't have any pics at all, and they will probably take precedence. [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] ([[User talk:Anchoress|talk]]) 05:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

::::::'''Move the picture down, and replace it with an illustration.''' Cool Hand Luke made an extremely cogent argument above (on 23 November 2007) with which I agree totally. Some of the more individual elements of the photo which distract Dpmath in the comment above would be minimized with the use of a diagram. This article is linked to from articles about British royalty, for example, and it's a bit of a shock, IMO, when idly navigated to. I think the current picture is startling without any warning, and a diagram would improve the article. [[User:Jason L. Gohlke|gohlkus]] ([[User talk:Jason L. Gohlke|talk]]) 07:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::::'''I agree with Gohlke and Cool Hand Luke.''' Frankly I find the photo tasteless and unnecessary. A diagram or drawing would be more informative and not distract visitors with extraneous information. The photo should be embeded in a context in which its purpose is clearer---as in comparative photos showing the placement of the piercing in circumcised and uncircumcised men, or when the penis is soft and when it is erect. I do not believe that my preference for an illustration here stems from prudishness or censorship. I have a P.A. and I like people to see it. I just don't assume that this is the forum for it to be shown, but rather to inform people about the piercing---which an illustration does most clearly, in the first instance.[[User:Dpmath|Dpmath]] ([[User talk:Dpmath|talk]]) 21:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that we would struggle to find a better photograph to use in this article. As for an illustration, that wouldn't have near the encyclopedic or educational value of an actual photograph. '''<font face="times new roman">[[User:hmwith|<span style="background:#999;color:#fff;padding:0 4px">hmwith</span>]][[User talk:hmwith|<span style="background:#666;padding:0 4px;color:#fff;">τ</span>]]</font>''' 18:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

== Prince Albert ==

I can't possibly believe what is said here about people using this in victorian England, including Prince Albert.

The article about [[Doug Malloy]] mentions a pamphlet of his that spread many myths about many piercings, and I bet this is such a case...

Of course the myth should be mentioned, but not told as a probable fact. I can't possibly believe this without seeing a XVIII century picture... (if they were kinky enough to do it then, they would photograph it too...) -- [[User:Nwerneck|NIC1138]] 02:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

::Nevertheless, it's a very, very commonly told story about the origins of this piercing. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] 15:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

:::In light of the doubts already raised by the fake histories circulating about the P.A., and information regarding the origins of the P.A. elsewhere on Wikipedia traced to published sources, I have edited the history section to reflect the role of Doug Malloy in creating the urban legends around its putative namesake. [[User:Dpmath|Dpmath]] ([[User talk:Dpmath|talk]]) 00:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

==Removed==
"In the 19th century it was commonly referred to as a dressing ring, and the question 'Which side is sir dressed on?" used by tailors and hospital staff amongst others refers to the arrangement of the anatomy in this area; the ring was used to hold the penis at one side of the pantaloons' top. "

The expression applies to the natural proclivity of "the anatomy in this area". We would need a reliable reference to imply otherwise. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', 12:37 [[4 October]] [[2007]] (GMT).

== Are the pics really necessary? ==

Okay, I know Wikipedia does not censor itself, but you have to draw the line somewhere. Being a male, those pictures are extremely traumatizing to look at. Can't we just have links to the pictures, with a caption, i.e. WARNING: EXTREMELY SHOCKING CONTENT or something? Maybe I'm overreacting, but I quite literally almost passed out after seeing those. Images like those are useful only for shock value, and serve no educational purpose. [[User:MinnesotanConfederacy|Josh]] ([[User talk:MinnesotanConfederacy|talk]]) 07:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
::Yes, necessary. No, no presentation other than the current one. See [[WP:CENSOR]]. '''[[User:hmwith|<span style="background:#999;color:#fff;padding:0 4px">нмŵוτн</span>]][[User talk:hmwith|<span style="background:#666;padding:0 4px;color:#fff;">τ</span>]]''' 13:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are they necessary? [[User:MinnesotanConfederacy|Josh]] ([[User talk:MinnesotanConfederacy|talk]]) 21:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
::I forgot to also tell you to check out [[Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles]].
:::So remove them and put up less graphic diagrams. Sexual education teachers don't teach via videos or pictures of people having sex. The sole purpose of those pictures seems to shock children and teenagers who come across it unknowingly.
::::No, they are not there for that purpose. You have assumed that they are, but it is quite far from the truth. I've got several piercings (I'm an adult female). I originally came to this article because I was curious about what kinds of piercings are out there and what they looked like. I LOVE that there are good, high-quality pictures in this article. Also, the chances that "children and teenagers" will come across this unknowingly are extremely, extremely low. Besides that fact, if they DID come here unknowingly, perhaps their parents should be keeping a closer eye on their internet activity? It's not our fault their parents weren't concerned enough to monitor their childrens' activity. --[[User:thirteen squared|13]]<sup>[[User talk:thirteen squared|2]]</sup> 18:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

:::::Why not use a picture like '''image link removed for copyright issues'''. [[Child_pornography]] does not have pictures of underage pornography. [[Pornography]] does not have pictures of pornography. [[Coprophilia]] does not have pictures of people getting sexual pleasure from feces. Also, can I put my penis on Wikipedia if I get the piercing?

::::::We cannot use that image for two reasons. The first is that it is of extremely low quality. You can barely tell that's a penis, let alone a penis with a piercing...and what's with the pink coloring? Second is because we do not have the rights to use it (which is also why I've removed the link to it). The only times diagrams are really used is if it is difficult to convey what it is through actual photos. This is why many of the pages for sexual positions display diagrams and why the vast majority of kama sutra/sex position sites use diagrams and not people. It's a lot easier to see what's happening in the picture when the angles are just right, the images are plain (no shadowing, no blankets, no lighting issues), and you don't have to deal with all the human stuff interfering with what the picture is conveying (arms in bad locations, hair covering key areas, sweat causing glare). An example of an article where a diagram was used prior to a good quality picture being found is [[autofellatio]]. Since we only have one good quality photo, the editors at that page also kept the diagram.

::::::Your examples are rather poor. Having underage photography on the child pornography page would be illegal. Prince Albert piercings, while distasteful to many, are not illegal. Any pictures on the pornography page would almost definitely be breaking copyright laws. Since regular sex can't be used because sex itself is not pornography (and it can often be difficult to distinguish between pornography and plain, old sex), it leaves us without suitable images. Also, pornography is more than just the sex. It's also the history, the industry, the effects, and the culture behind it so, really, anything over maybe one picture would be too much anyway. Coprophilia is another where the majority of images will likely hold copyrights or it is very unlikely people will upload them. Further, this would probably be another case where diagrams would be better than photos, like I mentioned above. Photos are likely to be messy (no pun intended) or of very low quality. However, if we have good quality, law-abiding photo, we use it. Examples are [[penis]], [[nipple piercing]], and [[clitoris]]. For some reason, people don't get all up in arms over general pictures of genitalia, but once it's got a metal bar through it, people freak out. It's so ridiculous.

::::::That said, "It doesn't happen on other articles." is never a good reason for removal. Maybe the other articles SHOULD have photos on them; maybe they shouldn't. What we argue here, on this page, is how this article, and this article only, is keeping up with policies and guidelines. As it is, Wikipedia is [[WP:CENSOR|not censored]], we are not your babysitters, and there are ways for you to [[Wikipedia:Options to not see an image|not see an image]] if you don't want to. And no, your picture of a penis with a piercing will not necessarily make it to Wikipedia. If the photo is of lower quality than the ones we have, it won't be used. If it's of higher quality, then we may use it to replace one of the images already on the page. If you want to try to get a picture of your penis with a piercing on this page then, by all means, go ahead. Thanks. --[[User:thirteen squared|13]]<sup>[[User talk:thirteen squared|2]]</sup> 14:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Its inclusion in the articles is important because it illustrates the Prince Albert Piercing. Wikipedia is an illustrated encyclopedia. That's like asking why there's a big picture of a tongue in the [[tongue]] article or a nose piercing in the [[nose piercing]] article. If you don't like the image, stop coming to this article. It's just for informative and educational purposes. Thanks, '''[[User:hmwith|<span style="background:#999;color:#fff;padding:0 4px">нмŵוτн</span>]][[User talk:hmwith|<span style="background:#666;padding:0 4px;color:#fff;">τ</span>]]''' 21:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
:I think they add to the reader's understanding of the topic, which is the standard for inclusion of visual illustrations. [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] ([[User talk:Anchoress|talk]]) 05:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
::Firstly, we got the point of the piercing in the first picture. Whoever wrote this article obviously felt the need to add numerous more pictures unnecessarily. Secondly, a less graphic diagram would be a better alternative considering the demographic that visit this website. And no, it's not peoples fault for visiting this article that they're traumatised by pictures of penises with holes through them.
:::The number and type of pictures are fine. The best way to see how something looks is to see it yourself. From there, seeing a high-quality color photo of it. A diagram is NOT going to be good enough to convey this piercing, especially when there are great pictures available. If you are offended, leave the page. Wikipedia is not censored. A photo conveys more than a drawing or diagram ever will. If someone is traumatized by a picture of a penis with a hole in it, they probably shouldn't have wandered onto a genital piercing article. We're not here to babysit people, shield them from the world, and then coddle them when they see something that offends their sensibilities. --[[User:thirteen squared|13]]<sup>[[User talk:thirteen squared|2]]</sup> 18:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

== Ugh ==

Please move the pictures DOWN the page. At least then the reader can read about what it is first and then scroll down to see it. I am a 14 year old boy, and I was thoroughly disgusted when I opened this page. I immediately hit the "discussion" tab once I saw one glimpse of that picture. [[Special:Contributions/68.54.174.43|68.54.174.43]] ([[User talk:68.54.174.43|talk]]) 23:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You're the one searching for it, ding-bat. [[User:Rekutyn|Rekutyn]] ([[User talk:Rekutyn|talk]]) 21:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

== Pictures ==

What do people expect to see when they click on "prince Albert piercing" on an uncensored encyclopedia? If you don't want to see a penis with a hole in it, don't search for articles on genital piercing. Also, I find it hard to believe that the "14 year old boy" who wrote above is really 14. 14 year olds don't refer to themselves as "boys" and a penis pic is the least of your problems when you're a freshman.[[Special:Contributions/72.78.159.73|72.78.159.73]] ([[User talk:72.78.159.73|talk]]) <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|comment]] was added at 20:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::Listen buddy, I'll call myself whatever I want thank you very much. And how the hell was I supposed to know I'd get a picture of a penis piercing? [[Special:Contributions/68.54.174.43|68.54.174.43]] ([[User talk:68.54.174.43|talk]]) 03:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
And another thing, "don't search for articles on genital piercing.". I didn't know what a Prince Albert piercing was. And a "freshman"? Um, I'm in 8th grade for your information. [[Special:Contributions/68.54.174.43|68.54.174.43]] ([[User talk:68.54.174.43|talk]]) 03:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
::: There's an old saying "If you've seen one dick, you've seen them all." Looking at a genital in a non-sexual context is no different than looking at an earlobe, tongue, or nose. I would like to think that most people are grounded in the basics of certain procedures, such as the Prince Albert and would have some kind of base expectation as to what piercing goes where. Life is not butterflies and rainbows. If you don't want to be grossed out, then perhaps it's best not to look? [[Special:Contributions/75.60.196.25|75.60.196.25]] ([[User talk:75.60.196.25|talk]]) 04:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
:::: Not having shock pictures in an encyclopaedia would be a much better alternative.
:::::LOL, these are NOT shock pictures. If you want to see shock pictures, please go Image Google 2 girls 1 cup, goatse, or tubgirl. These are photos of legitimate piercings for a legitimate article about that legitimate piercing. If you believe the photos should be removed from this page, I highly suggest you head over to one of the many articles about spiders with pictures of spiders and ask for them to be removed because someone who has arachnophobia might be "shocked" to find a picture of a spider on a spider article. Wikipedia is not censored. --[[User:thirteen squared|13]]<sup>[[User talk:thirteen squared|2]]</sup> 18:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

== Picture placement ==

I would just re-iterate existing suggestions to move the photo further down the page. My 9 year-old daughter stumbled across this article whilst researching Prince Albert for her school homework - it was the top hit on Google. [[User:FrumpyMum|FrumpyMum]] ([[User talk:FrumpyMum|talk]]) 18:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
:He's right, it is. So lets just have a vote or something on whether or not to move the picture down the page and have a warning at the top, ok people? [[Special:Contributions/68.54.174.43|68.54.174.43]] ([[User talk:68.54.174.43|talk]]) 16:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
:I'm sorry you were distressed, of course, but I think your displeasure may be misplaced. You should probably have a talk with your daughter's teacher about the wisdom of sending nine-year-olds home to google "Prince Albert", and you might want to reconsider whether you want your daughter using an uncensored adult encyclopedia for her homework. Wikipedia simply isn't composed for children, and contains lots of material that some parents don't want their kids stumbling on. [[User:Elmo iscariot|Elmo iscariot]] ([[User talk:Elmo iscariot|talk]]) 13:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
::I would like to agree with [[User:Elmo iscariot|Elmo iscariot]]. Such issues can easily be averted with parental guidance when it comes to research on the internet. There are these things called books, encyclopedias, at schools and in libraries. They are remarkable resources for children if you are concerned with them finding material that may be considered unsuitable. Turning a child loose on the internet without supervision is a more distressing issue than any anatomical photograph.[[Special:Contributions/75.60.196.25|75.60.196.25]] ([[User talk:75.60.196.25|talk]]) 04:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
:While I'd prefer to note that you should monitor your child's internet access, I'll kindly point you to Wikipedia's [[WP:Content disclaimer|content disclaimer]] located at the bottom of every page. Wikipedia is an [[WP:CENSOR|uncensored]], illustrated encyclopedia. Some may find it objectionable, but Wikipedia is used worldwide, we don't cater to any culture or what it finds offensive, be it images of prophets or the human body. Also, 68.54.174.43, note that [[Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion|polling is not a substitute for discussion]]: "Wikipedia decisions are not made by popular vote, but rather through discussions by reasonable people working towards consensus." '''<font face="times new roman">[[User:hmwith|<span style="background:#999;color:#fff;padding:0 4px">hmwith</span>]][[User talk:hmwith|<span style="background:#666;padding:0 4px;color:#fff;">τ</span>]]</font>''' 18:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

==Vote for picture placement==
{{discussion top|1='''Wikipedia decisions are not made by popular vote, but rather through discussions by reasonable people working towards consensus (see [[WP:VOTE]]).''' Wikipedia is not a [[WP:DEMOCRACY|democracy]]. Regardless, moving the image down ''is'' [[WP:CENSOR|censorship]], and the fact the WP is not censored is an official [[WP:POLICY|policy]]. If you'd like to debate it, please see [[Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not|the relevant talk page]] to try to create a new consensus. This is not the place to discuss what images are and are not suitable for the top right corner of an article (per [[WP:MOS]]). Also note that there is a [[WP:Content disclaimer|content disclaimer]] at the bottom of every page warning that content may be objectionable. If you would like to keep from seeing similar images, see [[Wikipedia:Options to not see an image]]. '''<font face="times new roman">[[User:hmwith|<span style="background:#999;color:#fff;padding:0 4px">hmwith</span>]][[User talk:hmwith|<span style="background:#666;padding:0 4px;color:#fff;">τ</span>]]</font>''' 18:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)}}
This is a vote to see if the picture should be moveddown the page or not. Vote Move down or Dont move

*'''Move Down''' [[User:Numpty454|Numpty454]] ([[User talk:Numpty454|talk]]) 19:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
*'''Don't Move''', per [[WP:NOTCENSORED]] [[User:Apertus|Apertus]] ([[User talk:Apertus|talk]]) 01:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
*'''Move Down''' Due to a high risk of people not knowing what the article is about, and it's the top hit on Google for "Prince Albert". There's a chance of a child doing a report on him and searching Google for it, clicking the first link they see, and getting a monitor full of penis. In fact, it's already happened to someone's 9 year old daughter. [[Special:Contributions/68.54.174.43|68.54.174.43]] ([[User talk:68.54.174.43|talk]]) 18:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
*'''Move down'''. No outside party is forcing this; it's not censorship by any sane definition of the word&mdash;just an editorial decision to make the article more valuable to those unfamiliar with the term. Would also favor creating a line drawing, like the drawings used on many sexually-explicit lead blocks. To re-emphasize: the picture should stay in the article, but the lead block should have a drawing to give readers proper context. Not everyone knows what a "Prince Albert" is. [[User:Cool Hand Luke|Cool Hand]] ''[[User talk:Cool Hand Luke|Luke]]'' 04:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
*'''Don't Move''' I think the photo should stay (where it is). If people get offended by a photograph of anatomy, just as many people are likely to be offended by a drawing. It's not like the photo is being used in a sexual manner nor is the subject being used sexually. Parents and schools can control content. I would like to think that if a student was looking up the person and bumbled into this article, proper filters set up by parents and schools would take care of any issues. Concerned parents might also want to contemplate using books/encyclopedias if objectionable content is feared. Additionally, drawings may be subject to copyrights, causing additional complications. [[Special:Contributions/75.60.196.25|75.60.196.25]] ([[User talk:75.60.196.25|talk]]) 04:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
**The first statement is manifestly untrue. Drawings are considered less offensive. Much of your argument addresses a false premise. Wikipedia is [[WP:NOT|no censored for the protection of minors]], and that's not what anyone has proposed. We would change the image because we think it improves the article, not because we want to be wikinannies. As for the last point: we would make our own drawing. Drawings are no more likely to be subject to copyright than photos. [[User:Cool Hand Luke|Cool Hand]] ''[[User talk:Cool Hand Luke|Luke]]'' 00:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

*'''Move Down''' I know this discussion is old, but I would recommend moving the picture down. I was looking for information on Prince Albert, which as previously mentioned, this is the first thing that comes up with Google so I ended up here by mistake. I am not offended by the picture and think it has value for the article, but I think it would be more appropriate to push it down far enough that you have to page down to see it. [[User:Love4Mizzou|Karen]] ([[User talk:Love4Mizzou|talk]]) 01:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

:No. Besides the fact that Wikipedia is [[WP:CENSOR|not censored]], you are incorrect about Google. While typing in Prince Albert brings up this as the first hit, it clearly states that it is the Prince Albert PIERCING (and the small summary even says it is a male genital piercing) and people who are honestly looking for information on Prince Albert the person would know that the person Prince Albert was not a piercing or a part of the male anatomy. If you were expecting information on a person and, instead, clicked on something clearly about male genital piercings...well...that's not our fault and we're not your babysitters.
:Also, pushing it down will not do any good because not every computer has the same ratios as yours does. What might require you to scroll, might be right on the page for someone with a wide screen. Someone with a very wide screen may be able to see the entire article without scrolling at all and, clearly, moving the picture down would do absolutely nothing to them.
:Besides all of that, Wikipedia is [[WP:NOT#DEM|not a democracy]] and voting does not matter if it throws policies and guidelines aside. Why people think these polls work or are binding, I will never understand. The picture adds value to the article, as do the others. By censoring it we either detract from the article by removing it or make it bottom-heavy by moving it, but of which are to be strongly avoided. --[[User:thirteen squared|13]]<sup>[[User talk:thirteen squared|2]]</sup> 03:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this is not the correct way to go about this. Votes are not a substitution for discussion. '''<font face="times new roman">[[User:hmwith|<span style="background:#999;color:#fff;padding:0 4px">hmwith</span>]][[User talk:hmwith|<span style="background:#666;padding:0 4px;color:#fff;">τ</span>]]</font>''' 05:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
:'''Move down and add diagram.''' A diagram would improve the article and avoid inappropriate exposure (so to speak). How many encyclopedias are gratuitously not safe for work? Because this article is. Also see my rationale below. The voting approach may or may not be helpful--but in any case discussion HAS taken place on this page. [[User:Jason L. Gohlke|gohlkus]] ([[User talk:Jason L. Gohlke|talk]]) 19:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
*'''Coment''' I think [[user:Cool Hand Luke]] has put the argument across perfectly. Votes not the rigt way to go about? I thought wikipedia was a decomcracy where consensus was used e.g. [[wp:RFA]]. Also even if it isn't sometimes you have to bend policy rules to achieve innovation. Otherwise, Wikipedia will be forever stuck in a state of static equilibrium. :) [[User:Numpty454|Numpty454]] ([[User talk:Numpty454|talk]]) 09:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
^ Sorry, you are mistaken. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy| Wikipedia is not a democracy.] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.139.47.141|72.139.47.141]] ([[User talk:72.139.47.141|talk]]) 01:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
{{discussion bottom}}

== Pictures are not necessary ==

Honestly, that's not what I wanted to see when I viewed this article. Atleast I was hoping for a drawn diagram or something a lot less graphic. A warning or something would've been a lot nicer. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:124.177.69.166|124.177.69.166]] ([[User talk:124.177.69.166|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/124.177.69.166|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

:Please read the above discussions for why the pictures are there. In a nutshell though, [[WP:CENSOR|Wikipedia is not censored]]. --[[User:thirteen squared|13]]<sup>[[User talk:thirteen squared|2]]</sup> 17:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


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.
What is wrong with illustrations or even functioning of a part of the human body?
Assuming all Wikireaders are “homo erectus”; they should be at an evolutionary stage of being able to develop independent thought that surpasses conditioning.


And you my friend have way too much time on your hands! <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;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-->
With the subject of the human male penis, embarrassment or conditioning would be the only obstacle in civil intercourse.


: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)
Why doesn’t horse or even dog penises offend those offended by nude human males?


==Hatnote==
Therefore, embarrassment would be conditioned in the “eye of the beholder”.
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 ==
While illustration discussion and functioning of the human body might be taboo to some, the stigmatization enforces dysfunction.
The One and Only Worldwise Dave Shaver 07:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jaxdave|Jaxdave]] ([[User talk:Jaxdave|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jaxdave|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


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)
124.177.69.166: There is a content warning/disclaimer at the bottom of every page, including this one. See [[WP:Content disclaimer]]. '''<font face="times new roman">[[User:hmwith|<span style="background:#999;color:#fff;padding:0 4px">hmwith</span>]][[User talk:hmwith|<span style="background:#666;padding:0 4px;color:#fff;">τ</span>]]</font>''' 18:17, 3 March 2009 (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)
== Origin of the name? ==
Does anyone know where the name originally came from? The only mention in the article is of an urban myth that Prince Albert was one of the most famous people to have the piercing, but the wording suggests that the piercing was already called that and the myth was built around the name rather than the other way around. [[User:Danikat|Danikat]] ([[User talk:Danikat|talk]]) 20:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


== main page image ==
:There has been kind of a rumor circulating for long time that some young and ultra-trendy military officers in the Victorian period supposedly resorted to extreme measures in order to wear tight trousers without showing a bulge. However, I don't know whether the rumor is actually factually historically correct, and any personal connection with Prince Albert himself would almost certainly be extremely remote at best... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 11:52, 29 January 2010 (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)
::I would suspect that properly stitched underwear would be a more practical, desirable and obvious means to assist with "tucking" (if such a thing ''really'' was of significant concern). Genital piercing also doesn't really seem to conform with pre-modern European/Western customs, ''particularly'' among the middle/upper class constituents of commissioned military officers. [[User:Schwinghammer|Schwinghammer]] ([[User talk:Schwinghammer|talk]]) 12:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


: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)
== Consider hindsight when arguing for use of a photo (at the top) ==


== Suggest at least a couple more pictures of normal PA piercings. ==
When it comes to the issue of whether to use a photo or sketch that includes genitalia (aroused or not), fecal matter, mutilation, and other things that are generally considered shocking to display (to the general public), I think some contributors are missing an important point and the Prince Albert piercing issue is a great example. Everyone commenting on this page obviously knows what a Prince Albert piercing is and, by now, has seen a photo of it. The arguments will continue as to whether a particular photo should be put at the top of a page or further down to temporarily hide it. Consider this everyday scenario: a child or someone with delicate sensibilities hears the term but doesn't know what it is comes to Wikipedia to look it up. They type in "Prince Albert piercing," click "Search" and BAM!: there's the photo, standing out in superb realism.


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 think those of us who already know what a Prince Albert piercing is are indulging in a bit of disingenuousness by saying "If you don't want to see it, don't look it up!" We have the benefit of hindsight whereas the naive individual looking it up, does not. And no: moving down the page, below the bottom of the screen is not censorship. The picture is still there but requires one to at least see the text before choosing to view the photo. The question we need to ask ourselves is: are we more interested in shocking or in educating? Does this have to be an either/or issue? We have the power to give a choice to the seeker to view the picture after briefly reading about it... or not. - [[User:Brianmacian|Brianmacian]] ([[User talk:Brianmacian|talk]]) 01:15, 30 April 2010 (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.
:A fundamental policy on Wikipedia is that it is [[WP:NOTCENSORED|not censored]]. We are not here to shock your delicate sensibilities. We are here to inform. The idea that everyone who comments here has seen a photo of it so we don't need it is moot. We're not here to cater to the specific group of people that leave comments on the talk pages of Wikipedia articles, nor does the fact that they've likely seen a photo of it matter in any way whatsoever. We're here to inform the general public about the topic at hand. For a piercing, any piercing, photos are the best way to convey that information. People have tried, over and over again, to get something they find offensive off of Wikipedia and it has never happened, nor will it (and that ''includes'' moving photos below the fold). It's a slippery slope and that's why we don't censor. --[[User:thirteen squared|13]]<sup>[[User talk:thirteen squared|2]]</sup> 19:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


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">—&nbsp;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 completely agree that a photo is the best way to convey information and I personally don't find the photo in question offensive. I'm simply proposing alternatives to the photo/no photo polemics so that everyone who visits it can get the best use out of Wikipedia. The point is well taken that moving a photo "below the fold" is useless when you consider some monitors don't have a "fold." How about this: why not allow the user to click on graphic area, at the top, that will reveal the photo if they so choose? Could giving a choice like that to someone be construed as censorship? If so, how? They're not being barred from seeing the photo if they want to see it. Interestingly, I looked up "[[urination]]." The only photo of a human urinating is a long-distance shot of human figure facing a seashore. But if I click on the photo, it enlarges to show what appears to be a stream of liquid pouring forth from the midsection of something that could easily be a statue. This is useless since we can't see the urine coming from a human penis. Rightly or not, this appears to be a double-standard when it comes to the idea of censorship.


== External links modified ==
::As a side note: the "we" you mention includes me; I've been an active contributor for five years. --[[User:Brianmacian|Brianmacian]] ([[User talk:Brianmacian|talk]]) 19:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
:::Hiding the photos in any way, including allowing the user to click something to reveal the photo, is considered censorship. You're deliberately trying to hide it because someone, or yourself, may consider it offensive. You wouldn't do that for photos you wouldn't consider offensive. That is why it is considered censorship. There's also that slippery slope issue again. What you find offensive, others do not, and vice versa. There are also ways to set your browser so you have the choice to not see them. That's called personal responsibility. You're welcome to fight that policy by posting a message on the talk page at [[WP:NOT]], but this talk page is not the place to do that. --[[User:thirteen squared|13]]<sup>[[User talk:thirteen squared|2]]</sup> 00:14, 2 May 2010 (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:
::::Sadly the photo debate will never go away on WP because of the nature of this site. You must remember that as an "open source" it is exactly what it says, a vehicle for anyone and everyone. Just like the debate on the need to have an image to demonstrate what is required for [[autofelatio]], the real battle is between the unimaginative prurient types who wallow in the need for actuality and those that are intelligent enough to grasp that this article is about a "ring through a penis". If there is such a need for graphic images, why are there no pictures that demonstrate what constitutes child porn? Er, because it is illegal in most jurisdictions. It is therefore sad to think that legislation is the only way that disturbed weirdos can be stopped from peddling their twisted take on reality! Especially if they cannot work out that this entire article is about a cock ring!
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080305184437/http://www.safepiercing.org/bodyAftercare.html to http://www.safepiercing.org/bodyAftercare.html
:::::There is no way to get around the fact that a photograph will always convey the information 1000x better than text (ever heard the phrase, "A picture is worth a thousand words."?). The example of child pornography is irrelevant because one is illegal and the other is not; it's apples and oranges. It also has nothing to do with "disturbed weirdos" (which, by the way, is a violation of [[WP:CIVIL]]; comment on the content, not the contributors). What one person does not find offensive, someone else does. We do not remove content simply because someone on the planet might think it is icky. --[[User:thirteen squared|13]]<sup>[[User talk:thirteen squared|2]]</sup> 13:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
== Requested move ==
{{Requested move/dated|Prince Albert genital piercing}}


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
[[Prince Albert piercing]] → [[Prince Albert (genital piercing)]] — I am unconcerned about the images, but a move/rename would make it clearer to readers coming from search engines or other WP articles that they are clicking on an article about a type of genital piercing. Then they should not be surprised by any images. [[User:Jokestress|Jokestress]] ([[User talk:Jokestress|talk]]) 00:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Update: Per feedback below about naming conventions, I changed the proposed move from ''Prince Albert genital piercing''. [[User:Jokestress|Jokestress]] ([[User talk:Jokestress|talk]]) 18:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
*'''Neutral''' - I kind of agree with your sentiment, and it's a good idea, but unfortunately it may fail [[WP:COMMONNAME]] given that no disambiguation is necessary. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 08:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
**'''Comment''': Perhaps an alternative [[Prince Albert (genital piercing)]] per [[WP:DISAMBIGUATION]] naming conventions. I have usually heard or read it called a "Prince Albert," vs. a "Prince Albert piercing." [[User:Jokestress|Jokestress]] ([[User talk:Jokestress|talk]]) 08:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''; the principles laid out at [[WP:TITLE]] do not support this move. We strive to be as concise as possible in article naming, and to be only as precise as necessary. [[User:LtPowers|Powers]] <sup><small><small>[[User talk:LtPowers|T]]</small></small></sup> 14:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' [[Prince Albert (genital piercing)]]. As nominator said, it might prepare readers a little better for the images the article contains. And as the page needs disambiguation anyways I don't think putting an extra word in does too much damage. Also, the [[WP:AT]] clause about conciseness still only says "shorter titles are ''generally'' preferred to longer ones". I think this is one of those times it isn't. And if nothing else, there is still [[WP:IAR]].[[User:TheFreeloader|TheFreeloader]] ([[User talk:TheFreeloader|talk]]) 16:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


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)
:'''Support''' per nom. Having had a look at the talk page, there appears to be a rather worrying reoccurrence of members of the public repeatedly suggesting the same change to this article (moving the main image) and this being turned down by editors on grounds of censorship.


== Hooooly guacamole ==
:I would suggest that there may be issues of systematic bias, in that regular editors to this page may have radically different perception as the encyclopedic value of these sorts of images compared with the average user of Wikipedia.


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.
:Aside from the obvious point that discretion ≠ censorship, the greater issue is that user feedback is being so blatantly rejected by editors on this page. [[User:The Celestial City|The Celestial City]] ([[User talk:The Celestial City|talk]]) 16:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
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.
[[User:Fefil14|Fefil14]] ([[User talk:Fefil14|talk]]) 08:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


== Image is not a Prince Albert ==
::We quite rightly reject calls for removal of images of Mohamed coming from Muslims who find such depictions offensive. Why would we treat images of genitalia any differently? [[User:LtPowers|Powers]] <sup><small><small>[[User talk:LtPowers|T]]</small></small></sup> 18:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
::::The [[Muhammad]] does not contain a pictorial depiction of him in the lead. I think most people would be satisfied simply by placing the picture further down the article. [[User:The Celestial City|The Celestial City]] ([[User talk:The Celestial City|talk]]) 18:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
:::We are not really talking about removing the images here. All that which is being proposed is to change the name so that people may get a better chance of knowing what the page might contain before going to it.[[User:TheFreeloader|TheFreeloader]] ([[User talk:TheFreeloader|talk]]) 18:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
::::Yes. To reiterate, please do not discuss the images in this proposal. This is solely about the article title. [[User:Jokestress|Jokestress]] ([[User talk:Jokestress|talk]]) 18:43, 10 February 2011 (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.
*'''Comment'''. This article could use better sourcing, so here's sourced support for the title [[Prince Albert (genital piercing)]]:
:#"...it is said that the genital piercing, the 'Prince Albert,' originated at the Victorian court, whhere it was used to attach the penis discreetly to the inside leg of male courtiers."<ref name="barham">Barham, Andrea (2007). ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=lIkPXkrEOP0C&pg=PT58 The Pedant's Return: Why the Things You Think Are Wrong Are Right].'' Random House, ISBN 9780553384918</ref>
:#"The 'Prince Albert," in which a ring pierces the urethral opening and the undersurface of the penis..."<ref name="komisaruk">Komisaruk, Barry R.; Whipple, Beverly; Nasserzadeh, Sara' Beyer-Flores, Carlos (2009). ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=Kkts3AX9QVAC&pg=PA118 The Orgasm Answer Guide]'', p. 118. JHU Press, ISBN 9780801893964</ref>
:#"''Prince Albert'': The best known of the piercings to the glans (the head of the penis) is the Prince Albert. [...] The Prince Albert (known familiarly as a 'P.A.') was also called a 'dressing ring' by the Victorians..."<ref name="brame">Brame, Gloria G.; Brame, William D.; Jacobs, Jon (1996). ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=HIeJeIOuqBoC&pg=PA342 Different loving: the world of sexual dominance and submission]'', p. 342. Random House, ISBN 9780679769569</ref>
:#"Prince Albert: The most popular and well known of all male genital piercings..."<ref name="gage"> Gage, Simon; Richards, Lisa; Wilmot, Howard; and Boy George (2002). ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=FPHZbVhQQTUC&pg=PA159 Queer]'', p. 159. Da Capo Press, ISBN 9781560253778</ref>
:#"By way of example, there are three popular types of penile piercings. The most common is known as the 'Prince Albert.'"<ref name="greenberg">Greenberg, Michael I. (2005). ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=tjZttRRH8H8C&pg=PA448 Greenberg's text-atlas of emergency medicine]'', p. 448. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, ISBN 9780781745864</ref>
:#"Congratulations! You have just permanently damaged your irreplaceable penis and pushed a ring through the injury to make sure it doesn't heal. You now have a 'Prince Albert' on your wee-wee!"<ref name="reuben">Reuben, David (2000). ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=cnoyjhe7cP8C&pg=PA88 Everything you always wanted to know about sex* *but were afraid to ask]'', p. 88 Macmillan, ISBN 9780312976569</ref>
:#"The commonest form of male genital piercing remains the Prince Albert, or P.A., ..."<ref name="rutty">Rutty, Guy N. (2004). ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=DuNTznUH8ZkC&pg=PA163 Essentials of autopsy practice: recent advances, topics and developments]'', p. 163. Springer, ISBN 9781852335410</ref>
:#"A Prince Albert is a ring-style piercing that extends along the underside of the glans from the urethral opening to where the glans meets the shaft of the penis."<ref name="winks"> Winks, Cathy; Semans, Anne (2002). ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=naD9GP_sWMwC&pg=PA274 The Good Vibrations Guide to Sex: The Most Complete Sex Manual Ever Written]'', p. 274. Cleis Press, ISBN 9781573441582</ref>
:As noted in the article, the acronym is PA, not PAP. The terms ''Prince Albert piercing''<ref name="blue">[http://books.google.com/books?id=X8T0sglLnrAC&pg=PA117]</ref> and the variant ''"Prince Albert" piercing''<ref name="decuyper">[http://books.google.com/books?id=YvN3RYd_QPwC&pg=PA47]</ref> appear to be the less common usage, and more sources simply call it a "Prince Albert." Feel free to add examples to support the existing title. [[User:Jokestress|Jokestress]] ([[User talk:Jokestress|talk]]) 18:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support'''; the more descriptive name could reduce confusion and accidental page hits. [[User:Snowmanradio|Snowman]] ([[User talk:Snowmanradio|talk]]) 20:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
*'''Comment:''' Move rationale is ''to make it clearer to readers coming from search engines ... that they are clicking on an article about a type of genital piercing''. What exactly is wrong with a reader coming to the article without first knowing it's about genital piercing? --[[User:Pnm|Pnm]] ([[User talk:Pnm|talk]]) 10:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
:*'''Comment''' This article is the first result for "Prince Albert" on many search engines. Someone looking for information on unrelated topics should have a more accurate description of the content of this page. It's the search equivalent of sending them to a [[shock site]], as it's clear from comments above that many readers are indeed shocked. I fully support the article and images as they stand, but this minor title clarification will help readers make a more informed choice about whether this article is relevant to what they wish to research. If you click on a link where the title indicates it's about genital piercing, you really have no grounds to complain about the content. It helps eliminate a primary source of complaints above without altering the article content. [[User:Jokestress|Jokestress]] ([[User talk:Jokestress|talk]]) 11:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


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.
==References==
[[User:Nuttyskin|Nuttyskin]] ([[User talk:Nuttyskin|talk]]) 12:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
{{reflist}}

Latest revision as of 14:56, 8 September 2024

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Google

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Article has been updated (including better images). — 78.149.199.229 (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

[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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prince_Albert_(genital_piercing)&oldid=1244681699"