Talk:Prince Albert (genital piercing)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Picture placement

I too was looking for the Victorian Prince Albert. PLEASE have some consideration and move the picture and place some sort of friendly warning message. How many kids are out there Googling for some report, only to find this? I do mot suggest censorship, I am for balance in all things- so an Adult Content warning seems reasonable to me. Make the photos a click-able link instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.84.204 (talk) 02:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

I think the photograph should stay. 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. Cool Hand Luke 07:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Meh. I said I think the photograph should stay. As in, stay where it is. 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.213.169 (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is not censored. We aren't here to monitor your internet surfing. --13² 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. Cool Hand 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. 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?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)

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. hmwithτ 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...) -- 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)

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).

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)

Yes, necessary. No, no presentation other than the current one. See WP:CENSOR. нмŵוτнτ 13:47, 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.

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. --13² 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 not censored, we are not your babysitters, and there are ways for you to 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. --13² 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, 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)

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. --13² 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. 68.54.174.43 (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You're the one searching for it, ding-bat. 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.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)

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? 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. --13² 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. 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)

I would like to agree with 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.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 content disclaimer located at the bottom of every page. Wikipedia is an 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 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." hmwithτ 18:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Vote for picture placement

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

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 democracy. Regardless, moving the image down is censorship, and the fact the WP is not censored is an official policy. If you'd like to debate it, please see 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 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. hmwithτ 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 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)
• 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. 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 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. Cool Hand 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. Karen (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No. Besides the fact that Wikipedia is 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 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. --13² 03:00, 3 January 2009 (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)

^ Sorry, you are mistaken. Wikipedia is not a democracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.139.47.141 (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.69.166 (talk • contribs)

Please read the above discussions for why the pictures are there. In a nutshell though, Wikipedia is not censored. --13² 17:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

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.

With the subject of the human male penis, embarrassment or conditioning would be the only obstacle in civil intercourse.

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

Therefore, embarrassment would be conditioned in the “eye of the beholder”.

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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaxdave (talk • contribs)

124.177.69.166: There is a content warning/disclaimer at the bottom of every page, including this one. See WP:Content disclaimer. hmwithτ 18:17, 3 March 2009 (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. Danikat (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

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... AnonMoos (talk) 11:52, 29 January 2010 (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. Schwinghammer (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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.

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. - Brianmacian (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

A fundamental policy on Wikipedia is that it is 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. --13² 19:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

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.

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

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. --13² 00:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

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!

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. --13² 13:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: clear consensus to rename. Kotniski (talk) 11:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

---

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. 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. 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.  — 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." 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. Powers ^T 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.TheFreeloader (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2011 (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.

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.

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. The Celestial City (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

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? Powers ^T 18:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The Muhammad article 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. 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.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. Jokestress (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. This article could use better sourcing, so here's sourced support for the title Prince Albert (genital piercing):

1. "...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."
2. "The 'Prince Albert," in which a ring pierces the urethral opening and the undersurface of the penis..."
3. "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..."
4. "Prince Albert: The most popular and well known of all male genital piercings..."
5. "By way of example, there are three popular types of penile piercings. The most common is known as the 'Prince Albert.'"
6. "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!"
7. "The commonest form of male genital piercing remains the Prince Albert, or P.A., ..."
8. "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."

As noted in the article, the acronym is PA, not PAP. The terms Prince Albert piercing and the variant "Prince Albert" piercing 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. Jokestress (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support; the more descriptive name could reduce confusion and accidental page hits. Snowman (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? --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. Jokestress (talk) 11:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support move to Prince Albert (genital piercing), not per WP:COMMONNAME, but because unlike human penis, I wouldn't expect a general audience to know what Prince Albert piercing means. Existing options not to see an image work for specific images, not images on unanticipated topics. Unevenly applying WP:TITLE (Precision and disambiguation and Neutrality in article titles) to objectionable articles is censorship, and I don't like that. But to accommodate consensus for keeping a photograph at the top of this article, and this is a digital encyclopedia project which people reach by searching, it's reasonable to provide more disambiguation than usual. --Pnm (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Placement Relative The Frenular Nerve Bundle

Article text says: "While some piercers may choose to avoid the nerve bundle that runs along the center of the frenulum altogether, others do not." and claims as source: ref name="scofield2010" Scofield, Christi Smith; Scofield, Ted (2010).Sexy Slang's Bedroom Challenges: 69 Ways to Spice Up Your Sex Life, p. 114. Sourcebooks, Inc., ISBN 9781402241536. However, that source says nothing about placement relative to the nerve bundle. In fact, it's a one-sentencer defining a PA as going out thru the frenulum, period, contrary to the detail in the article, instead of providing a source for it. I'm removing the ref entirely, and giving a "Citation Needed".
I'm not in the least questioning the article's statement "While some piercers may choose to avoid the nerve bundle that runs along the center of the frenulum altogether, others do not."; I've heard it widely asserted. In fact, I have heard specifically that some piercers believe that even men who have no frenulum (many circumcised men, and a few intact men) still have a crucial nerve bundle there running right down the middle there-- and which better-safe-than-sorry piercing practice needs to avoid disturbing, at the risk of either persistent pain or persistent numbness.
In any case, this all needs sources, and what I took out is useless as a source for anything. To reiterate: I'm discussing the nerve bundle-- and not the, uh, mechanics of which piercing-placement allows what skin to shift where, either in intact men with a frenulum or in circumcised men with a frenulum. (That is a very significant topic! But a distinct one.) Sean M. Burke (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Photos

Why are the photos not showing up anymore? They're all still in the article, none of them are redlinked (deleted), yet the only one showing up is the only one that doesn't actually show a penis. These photos are showing up elsewhere on Wikipedia, but not here. What's going on? ICYTIGER'SBLOOD 22:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The editor who renamed renamed the article was sloppy. The images are included in MediaWiki:Bad image list‎, and the new page name was not added to the exception list for the images Qvdm (talk) 09:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

This has been fixed now. WT:BIL for similar requests in the future. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous

I was just reading a news story online with my husband about Prince Albert of Monaco's wedding and wanted to know more about him. I typed into my Google search tab "Prince Albert"-- NOT anything about piercings- and this is the first link that came up so I clicked. I must have missed, in my usual haste as I surf the web, the "(genital piercing)" caveat next the main title of the article. It is shocking to see that picture-- I don't care who you are-- if that is not what you are searching for. This absolutely should not have been the first link in my search (a Google issue, I know) but Wikipedia should not have that offensive, albeit freakishly educational, picture right at the top of the article when the main subject/title is "Prince Albert." It might make sense to have a picture like that at the top of the article describing "Penile Piercing." It's ridiculous. And most of you piercing freaks who posted impolite and unempathetic comments to the KIDS who happened upon this article, just as I did, are idiots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelhawkins (talk • contribs) 22:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you misclicked, but having an image of something at the top of the article about that thing is kind of de rigeur - please also see WP:NOTCENSORED. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)