Talk:Prince Albert piercing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This topic may attract censorship. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not censored. Articles may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Images or details contained within this article, in particular, may be graphic or otherwise objectionable in order to ensure complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to our content disclaimer regarding objectionable content. |
 Archives |
| Image discussions |
.
 |
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. |
Contents |
[edit] Vote for picture placement
This is a vote to see if the picture should be moveddown the page or not. Vote Move down or Dont move
- Move Down Numpty454 (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Don't Move, per WP:NOTCENSORED 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. 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—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. Cool Hand Luke 04:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, this is not the correct way to go about this. Votes are not a substitution for discussion. hmwithτ 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. gohlkus (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. :) Numpty454 (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 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. —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. 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. Cool Hand Luke 20:07, 23 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?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. 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. gohlkus (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.Dpmath (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
[edit] 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...) -- NIC1138 02:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Nevertheless, it's a very, very commonly told story about the origins of this piercing. 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. Dpmath (talk) 00:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] 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. Rich Farmbrough, 12:37 4 October 2007 (GMT).
[edit] 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. Josh (talk) 07:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Why are they necessary? Josh (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- I forgot to also tell you to check out Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles.
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, нмŵוτнτ 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. Anchoress (talk) 05:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 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. 68.54.174.43 (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 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.72.78.159.73 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- 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? 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. 68.54.174.43 (talk) 03:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 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. 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? 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. Elmo iscariot (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
