Talk:Prince Albert (genital piercing)

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?

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!

kylet

I think we need pictures.

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. Exploding Boy 17:16, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

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

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. --Zippanova 00:32, 15 Apr 2005 (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. Etz Haim 11:43, 19 Dec 2004 (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. Exploding Boy 17:36, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

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. Etz Haim 09:30, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The picture is disgusting

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.

Wikipedia is not censored. Please also note that the above was posted by User:Rift14, who is a vandal. Rick K 18:09, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

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. 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... -- Captain Disdain 00:50, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually given that this is 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. Dalf - Talk 03:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a vandal? - Rift14

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.

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. Deco 22:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Samboy 06:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page Re-Design

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.Glowimperial 16:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why I moved the image under the fold

I moved the image under the fold because:

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 about 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 some people.
Anyone is free to scroll the page down to see the image of the penis in question.

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:

I will keep the image but move it under the fold
If someone reverts my edit and moves the image above the fold, I will completely remove the image from the page
This usually results in an edit war
I am willing to end said edit war when the other party is willing to have the image in question under the fold
I will not remove drawings. Only photographs.

Thank you for your time. Samboy 06:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[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".