Talk:Prince Albert piercing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Prince Albert piercing article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Clash of opinions

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

The comment above "I'm looking into it..." was not by me. --kylet 10:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Sexually function affects

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)

I'm concerned by the line "It is safe to wear a condom without removing the jewellery." I don't know if it's valid, as it seems to me to not make sense, and I would like it cited if there's any way to do that. Poesian 00:53, 02 May 2006.

Well, I suppose it would depend on the specific type of jewellery. The types most often worn, barbells, curved barbells and captive-bead rings, are all safe to use with condoms, since they have no sharp edges or points. Exploding Boy 05:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It is certainly safe to wear a condom with the piercing, as any piercer will tell you and as I and anyone else with the peircing can corroborate from personal experience.

I'm not sure who is responsible for the "increased female pleasure is doubtful because of the limited nerve concentration in the vaginal interior" part of this article, but I have never heard anything so ridiculous in my life. Stimulation inside the vagina is central to female sexual pleasure. I replaced it with a more accurate reference to increased G spot stimulation, which is the most common reason for getting this piercing.

- January 9, 2006 5:15 pm Central Time

There's two halves to this anatomical debate: "The vagina, like nearly all other internal body structures, poorly supplied with end organs of touch [nerves]. The internal entodermal origin of the lining of the vagina makes it similar in this respect to the rectum and other parts of the digestive tract. (Kinsey, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, p.580.)" [[1]] HOWEVER, research in the 1980s shows there is some extension of the clitoral nerves into the anterior (the top) vaginal wall in SOME, but not all, women. So technically doing it missionary would be the same with or without a PA, but the lady might get some improvement (or severe pain, depending) if one does it from behind.Legitimus 23:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. RickK 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)
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)

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)

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)

It seriously is a disgusting picture that serves no real purpose except to gross others out. That whole "Wiki is here for non-censored truth!" is bull. Of course Wiki is censored, it's censored by the ones who think anything and everything goes! It's no wonder Wikipedia has the credibility of a ten year old. Maybe perverts want homo's want to look at a bunch of pictures of cocks online but not me. Maybe I'll find some pictures of infected penises due to bad metal in the piercing and post those all over. It's totally relevant and I wont be censored! Nothing like looking at a huge oozing cock of puss and blood!- Wikipedia Critic —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.89.72 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a pervert, nor am I a 'homo'. I think the picture is appropriate, because it perfectly illustrates something that text alone would not. Personally, I believe that most of the people who come here to check out PAP, if they left after reading an un-illustrated description of it, would immediately go to google and look for a picture. Why shouldn't we show them a tasteful, illustrative, non-pornographic picture of the article's subject right here? Oh, and BTW you mis-spelled 'pussy'. Or were you trying to say 'puss and boots'? In which case, you mis-spelled 'boots'. ;-) Anchoress 00:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with it on the page, as it is an accurate example, but I think it should be farther down, so as no to intrude in the "scroll" of at least a 1024 X 768 resolution desktop. It may turn someone against reading the article, which kind of goes against the article.--Attitude2000 14:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsafe for work / consider the Spoiler warnings

It's arrogant to say, "Than maybe you should consider a change in employment." It's not a remote chance, that someone would come from Prince Albert, no idea they are about to see something unsafe for work, and get into trouble because of the image. An ignorant boss would assume the person was looking at porn. If all of those "waste some time here" websites with the streaming videos of cute girls, etc., take the time to identify "unsafe for work" as a category, it is a distinction that the culture pays attention to, and wikipedia should too.

I have noticed "spoiler warnings" in several wikipedia entries. It seems to me that the danger of getting in trouble at work warrants a similar kind of warning system. The picture should be there. It shouldn't be censored. But if wikipedia participates in the reader's experience with regards to spoiling movie plots, the idea that they could come, say they come from "Random article" even if the chance is remote. If you're going to stay completely hands-off, that's fine, but if spoiler warnings are considered appropriate wikipedia style, there should be an unsafe-for-work warning too.68.122.70.37 08:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion, but this is the wrong place for it. I'm not sure where is the place to suggest it, but you might try checking in the FAQ for info on proposing new policy. Anchoress 15:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 more does not expect to see an explicit image
  • People who are offended by explicit images may be offended to the point that they will look at all of Wikipedia in a negative light.
  • A picture like this violates the boundaries of a significant number of English speakers.
  • Anyone is free to scroll the page down to see the image of the penis in question.

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:

  1. I will keep the image but move it under the fold
  2. If someone reverts my edit and moves the image above the fold, I will completely remove the image from the page
  3. This usually results in an edit war
  4. I am willing to end said edit war when the other party is willing to have the image in question under the fold
  5. If someone else completely removes the image, I will not revert the image. I don't want pornographic images in the Wikipedia at all; I only accept "under the fold" as a compromise.
  6. I will not remove drawings. Only photographs.

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

[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".

Samboy, before I go and revert/contribute to your edits to both this article and the Frenum Piercing article, let me state several things.
  • Photos of the human body in its natural state are not pornographic. They are not intended to arouse or in any way provide sexual stimulation to the reader.
  • although it is not censorchip to say "I don't want this image here" it does go counter to what many editors and users see as the basic policies of Wikipedia. What is more important than you "not wanting the image here" is that other users and myself want the image here.
  • I don't want pornographic images in the Wikipedia at all; I only accept "under the fold" as a compromise. - It's good to want things, but you don't make drive the policies of Wikipedia, and the images related to body modification or body piercing topics are not pornographic. If you are really concerned with pornography's place in Wikipedia, maybe you should concentrate your efforts to contribute in areas related to pornography.
  • You are not making a compromise, as you are engaged in nothing resembling a dialogue on this or any other page, to my knowledge, that establishes a compromise. Softening your position, yet still enforcing it on the community is not a compromise. Glowimperial 02:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The reason I am so hard line about this is because the "anti-censorship" forces have an extremeist position and are completely unwilling to compromise. First we proposed removing the images. They put the images back, crying "censorship"! Then we tried putting a notice at the top of the page with pornographic images that there was, well, pornography on the Wikipedia. That was shot down "You're making people feel bad about their body".
Then I explained I had no problem with a naked body, but that maybe an encyclopedia is not the place for having such images. The "anti-censorship" forces cried "Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia" (ignoring the fact that we have "pedia" in our name).
Then Jimbo Wales himself removed a pornographic image, stating "This image is completely unacceptable for wikipedia". Oh, did the "anti-censorship" forces cry like little babies about how Wiki would lose a lot of editors if we dared not host a pornographic image here.
The "anti-censorship" forces are not interested in dialog. They are not interested in compromise. They are only interested in shoving their Heinlein-inspired morals down the throats of anyone and everyone who comes to the Wikipedia. And, quite frankly, I'm sick and tired of it.
I'm sick and tired of the semantic games the "anti-censorship" forces play instead of discussing the issues. I'm sick and tired of the way the "anti-censorship" forces have no respect for my boundaries and no respect for my values. I'm sick and tired of the "anti-censorship" forces telling me that my point of view doesn't matter and that my boundaries and beliefs do not matter.
The bottom line of this: I have a boundary which is violated when I go to a page and find an explicit image at the top. Especially when I have no expectation of seeing such an image...I did not know what a Prince Albert piercing was when I went to this page and was quite offended when my question was answered with a pornographic image.
Just so you know I don't approve of censorship, let me word it this way: I'm fucking sick and tired of being told to eat shit whenever I try to do anything to make Wikipedia even the slightest bit work-safe and safe to view in front of my family.
Now that I have gotten that off of my chest, let's talk. I am willing to work with you if you are willing to work with me. Is there anything I can do to help you feel confortable having the image be "under the fold"? I think having an illustration (either a picture of the thing that does the piercing by itself or a drawing) and diving the article in to sections will make putting the explicit picture "under the fold" less noticable.
I'm willing to work with you. Are you willing to work with me? Samboy 03:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm more than willing to participate in a dialog or discussion regarding the issue. First let me establish that I am the primary maintainer of body piercing entries on Wikipedia at this time. I am not territorial out of a sense of personal ego (although I take some pride in the work I've done in this area), but I am protective of the articles in this section. I have gone to great length in order to re-vamp dozens of entries, and to bring them into accord with the policies and standards of Wikipedia. So like yourself I am interested in presenting a body of information that is concise and useful to the public.
I will also add that I have never added photographs, illustrations or other like media to Wikipedia, or the articles in question. That's not my area of expertise.
I'll add that I am an avid researcher of all things related to body modification and that from my perspective, the images currently on Wikipedia fall so far from what I would consider pornographic or offensive that your perspective is alien to me, to the point that from my perspective it seems irrational. I'm not saying that my perspective is purely objective here, I'm just establishing that I am used to working with a body of literature on the subject at hand, and that the subject matter, as well as the imagery seems rather everyday to me. That being said, I am aware that large portions of the public are largely ignorant of the range of body modification or body piercing activity, and that the reality of that activity can come as a shock to persons unfamiliar with it.
Lastly, I'll add that I believe that there are two key errors in Wikipedia's current policy regarding material that may be considered offensive. First, I personally believe that Wikipedia should have images relevant to all entries, even if those images are extremely pornographic. I'd rather participate in a system with no dividing line on this issue, rather than on where the dividing line continually in flux. Secondly, I would support the kind of system where entries featuring potentially offensive imagery are flagged, and users should have to actively select to view the images. Currently there are several proposals on how to do this, and there is some discussion regarding the viability and policy issues related to establishing such a system.
My background and perspective being briefly established, I'd like to say that although I find your established personal policy regarding offensive material to be counter to the policies and practices of Wikipedia, I'm not particularily interested in berating you for your beliefs (which I have no problem respecting) nor to convert you to my point of view. What I would like to do is establish my point of view on Wikipedia's policy relative to offensive material and attempt to show you that this particular area of Wikipedia (that being body modification related materials, including all entries related to body piercing) does not contain what you are defining as pornographic content.
The first argument that I would make in response to your edits is that the practice of having graphic images of nudity or genitals in appropriate articles within Wikipedia is commonplace, and a standard practice. There is much precedent, in the many edits and discussions that have taken place over the life of Wikipdedia, most notably in basic articles such as penis, clitoris and vagina, that when medical subject matter is entered into Wikipedia, graphic images are appropriate content. Body piercing, is a medical matter, and as such I feel falls into this category to a certain degree. I will admit that something such as a Prince Albert piercing is of much less medical importance than say the penis itself, I would care to remind you that Wikipedia is not paper.
Secondly, I cannot, and will not agree to your argument that the photos in the entries in question are pornographic. Yes, Jimbo has weighed in on many, many sex related entries, most notably (for our purposes) the entry on autofellatio, and that his intervention and a great deal of community consensus establishes a precedent that graphic photographs of sex acts are not currently considered appropriate content for Wikipedia. But the images in the entries related to body piercing are not pornographic, and they are not intended to illustrate sexual activity, nor to provide fodder for the titillation of viewers. They are intended to be illustrative of the general technical placement of the piercings themselves, and in this capacity they have a potential to be helpful to readers, especially those who might not be familiar with the technical language often used to describe the placement of body piercings.
Thirdly, I object to having the image under the fold for two reasons. First among those reasons is that there is, in my opinion, no objectional content in these articles. The images are purely illustrative of the human body in its natural state (genital body piercing is a much, much more common activity than is generally understood by the public, in fact genital body modification may be the most common type, outside of tattooing and ear piercings), and as such are not offensive. By placing them below the fold, we endorse the opinion that the images are offensive, which in itself offends a significant portion of Wikipedia users. Secondly, given that body piercing is a largely visually aesthetic practice, these entries should all eventually have prominent images, clearly illustrating the individual piercings, as they are commonly practiced.
Lastly, it is well established that Wikipedia is not censored for the participation of minors. As such, I'm not going to entertain any arguments that Wikipedia needs to be safe for work or family. It's not that kind of encyclopedia. In my opinion and experience, your personal policy regarding offensive material is a much greater violation of the principles of Wikipedia than any image could ever be. Also, as you may know all of the data in Wikipedia is available to the public, via the GPL. If Wikipedia's policies create an environment that is unpleasant to you, Wikipedia has provided both the tools and raw data to remove what content you find offensive, provided you do it on your own dime, and outside of Wikipedia itself.
I hope that I've been able to make my case without resorting to semantic trickery. In plain language, I'm trying to establish that as the images you have altered are not pornographic, they are appropriate content for Wikipedia, and that as apporopriate content, there is no reason for them to be below the fold. I realise that placing them below the fold does nothing to reduce the quantity and quality of the information in any of the entries, but what it does do is establish that the images or the practices described in the entries are in some way offensive, in and of themselves, which does alter the tone of the articles, in what I see as a negative way. Glowimperial 06:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the response. I mean that. You're handling a disagreement in a very civil and dignified fashion. If all Wikipedia editors handled disagreements as well as you do, we wouldn't need an arbitration panel.
I feel that you have done a lot of good work on the body piercing articles. And, yes, I agree that having another editor tear your work to shreads is one of the most frustrating problems the Wiki has.
I don't think we will ever agree whether the image of the piercing is pornographic or not. So, I will let go of this issue. I hope you don't mind me re-framing the issue a little; I'm doing this to help us both be on the same page. Here is a list of Wikipedia articles I found with inline photographs of human genetalia in them at midnight (Wikipedia time) January 1, 2006:
  1. Christina piercing
  2. Frenulum
  3. Penis
  4. Syphilis
  5. Prince Albert Piercing
  6. A Lennon/Ono album
  7. Nudity
  8. Vagina
  9. Vulva
  10. Clitoris
  11. Frenum piercing
Summary: There were 11 pages with inline images of human genetalia in the English-language Wikipedia at the end of 2005. Of those, seven (64%) had the image above the fold. Of theese seven pages, three of them were piercing related images. Of the remaining four, two of the images (the Lennon/Ono album cover and the picture of the maked girl in "nudity") have the genetalia visible as only a small part of a larger image.
Body piercing articles accounted for 60% of the close up images of genetalia above the fold at the beginning of this year. Now, let's get away from statistics and back to the issue.
From where I am standing, what is most telling is that Penis, Vagina, and Clitoris do not have the image of the genetalia above the fold. I don't think I need to point out that the presence of these images is one of the most hotly contested issues here on Wikipedia. One point made during the Clitoris wars is that, while the people who don't want these images may be a minority, it is not best to steamroller over these people's point of view. "Under the fold" is the one (and only) concession we have gotten; I fought for optional image-free versions of the articles, and lost; others fought for linking of images and lost. I think the "anti-censorship" people here are pretty extreme, but you don't seem to see it that way; we both agree that's a discussion which goes far beyond the body piercing articles.
I agree with you on having some way of flagging potentially offensive images. I brought this up myself during the Clitoris wars. People seemed to agree it was a good idea. No one has actually implemented it yet. I wish they would because it would do a lot to stop a battle where both sides have a POV and NPOV is plain simply impossible.
Where to put the dividing line for potentially offensive images has been one of the endless discussions on Wikipedia. Many people there plain simply shouldn't be one. Jimbo wants to have one. I want to have one. People who surf Wikipedia at work want to have one (another one of the few concessions we won was removing the images from a discussion about nudity on Wikipedia in the Village Pump). A lot of editors, obviously, don't want one.
So, in closing, the piercing articles have a significant percentage of the articles with images of human genetalia. The "under the fold" compromise does have precedent. Again, I thank you for your input. Samboy 21:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I've put some thought into my response to this, and here's what I think. I was suprised to learn what a high percentage of nudity related images on Wikipedia are located in body modification entries. I would have figured that there would be many, many images containing genital nudity in Wikipedia, given its intended scope.
Firstly, I don't want to remove or alter images from any entries on Wikipedia for POV reasons. If the only argument that can be made that the images should be removed is that some users might be offensive, it must be weighed against the value of having the images in the entry in the first place. In the case of body modification related images, there is a strong case to be made that the images are informative and not intended to be viewed in a pornographic or erotic context, a case that can't really be well made for images related to pornographic films or sex acts. While the images may appear shocking or disturbing to some readers, they are not intended to. The almost universal scope of human body modification, especially genital modification, requires adequate and NPOV presentation in Wikipedia.
Secondly, I have no problem moving the images "below the fold", if possible. My primary concern is that the level of information in the entry is not decreased. While the entry on Prince Albert piercing is lengthy enough to allow for the image to be located below the fold, in the case of shorter entires, I would like for the image to remain, although located as close to the bottom of the page as is possible. For instance, on the page Christina piercing I would rather have the image in the article, even if it cannot be located below the fold. You will note that I have removed the image from that entry entirely, as it is frankly a poor image, largely obscured by both bad focus and pubic hair. In fact the whole Christina piercing entry needs a serious re-write.
There will no doubt be more piercings of graphic male and female nudity on the relevant pages within Wikipedia, as the project continues to expand, and this issue will be with us for a while. There is also no doubt that many of the images will be in entries related to genital piercing. What I can agree to is that I will agree to the convention of placing or moving any relevant photographs as close to "below the fold" as is possible, while still retaining an image of usable size. In entries where the article is so short as to make placement "below the fold" impossible, I would like for the images to remain, although I will do what I can to format both the entry and the image so make that possible. I cannot agree to reducing the photographs to a link (as you did in the Christina piercing entry), as I strongly feel that it colours the subject matter in a negative light, and I feel that the entry of that POV into body modification related entries is a greater evil than the presence of the image itself. In the case of diagrams, I would like for them to be prominently placed at the top of the entry, whenever possible, as I cannot entertain the concept that a diagram of what is essentially a medical procedure on the human body could, be considered offensive by enough of a population of users as to be of concern to Wikipedia as a whole.
How does that sound to you? I realise that you are likely unhappy with readers coming across any images of graphic genital nudity at all within Wikipedia, and I also realise that you are not alone in this position. I also realise that my proposal does not entirely eliminate the prospect of users coming across images that they might find offensive. I myself would much rather see people stop treating the human body as something that can be considered offensive, in any of its activities, or functions, so that this would not be an issue. I also realise that my opinion on this matter is neither "perfectly objective", nor law. We would both like to see articles flagged, so that users have the option of seeing images that are relevant to entries, but that might be considered offensive to significant populations of readers. Unfortunately a system like that is not available for our use at the current time.
If you're willing to compromise on this, I have no problem trying to keep order in this area of Wikipedia, as I'm active here all of the time, and I have almost all of the pages on my watchlist. Glowimperial 19:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I appreciate you willing to work with me on this. I have just divided the article in to sections, and since the picture emphasizes a piece of jewelery used, I put it in the the "Jewelery used" section. I think this makes for a better article; people can more easily skim the article. Samboy 19:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with moving the picture to the "Jewelry used" section (or to "under the fold" in any way). The intent of the picture is to illustrate the piercing, not the specific piece of jewelry, and, as such, it belongs at the top of the page.
However, right now, I have neither the time nor the desire to get into an edit war over this issue. I do feel that it is wrong and against the Wikipedia spirit for a single prudish user to hold this page hostage to his narrow world view by means of threats. Qvdm 06:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that Samboy's approach (enumerated above) is likely in violation of Wikipedia's policies in that he's admitted that he will engage in edit warring until the other party backs down if someone opposes moving images. This is hardly cooperative editing and should be dealt with accordingly, if it occurs.

Also, I'd like to express my incredulity at Samboy's calling the image on this page pornographic. It is not pornographic. It neither depicts a sexual act nor displays the human body in a manner intended to arouse. A photograph of part of a human penis is not always and only pornography. Exploding Boy 18:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Added: it's also fascinating that hits to this article outnumber all of Playboy, Clitoris, Nudity and Masturbation by a fator of at least 2... Exploding Boy 18:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving the image back to the top of the page

Having thought about this issue for a while, and after looking at numerous other Wikipedia articles and studying Wikipedia guidelines, I have come to the conclusion that the original image positioning is correct.

The image illustrates the main topic of the article. It depicts a body part possessed by more than 50% of the world's population and regularly seen by a majority of the rest. It does not depict or imply intercourse or masturbation or any other sexual act and therefore cannot be construed to be pornographic by any reasonable person.

The intent of the image is to illustrate the piercing, not the specific jewelry used. Therefore, the current positioning is wrong, and I propose moving the image back to its rightful position at the top of the page. Qvdm 07:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There is nothing "pornographic" about the image, and the possibility of offending people ABSOLUTELY 100% should NOT affect the content or layout of a page. The only things that need to be considered are relevance, readability, and factuality. BTW, QVDM, I see you created the image( and I ended up here because it was used by a vandal on some other pages). The Public Domain tag you used has become obsolete, please go and relabel it with a correct tag. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 07:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
That's nice. What about respecting people's feelings? Is that something that matters to you? Samboy 06:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The purpose is of an encylopedia is to state facts. Fuzzy, personal POV concepts like 'respect feelings' have no relevance here. Qvdm 08:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll remain neutral on this topic for the time being, but I did just have an interesting thought. We take the time to provide warnings about movie and book "spoilers" and even magic trick "spoilers", because some people might want basic info about the subject, but not want to know the full details. I'm having a hard time reconciling the practice of having what some people may consider to be "offensive" images not "below the fold," when something that may "offend" someones ability to enjoy a film or book later is something that we do protect and keep "below the fold." I'll make no claim as to which, if either of these practices is appropriate. Peyna 17:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider the two situations to be analogous in any way. In the case of an entry on a book or a movie, the full details of a narrative are are hidden, so as not to deprive the reader of the entry of their ability to enjoy the narritive as a new experience. The situation here is an effort to conceal material from all readers/viewers to appease the morality of a group of viewers. Furthermore, the concealment of the full narrative of a book or movie in no way casts judgement or POV upon the movie, it is done in a NPOV manner that bears no relation to the content of the narrative. Efforts to conceal or move images of graphic nudity in this and other body modification entries impose a moral judgement upon the subject, which is counter to the ideals and goals of Wikipedia. Glowimperial 18:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I think it depends on how you look at it. I think it is entirely proper to view both as being "protective" of the reader, albeit in significantly different ways. I accept your arguments regarding the problems of a moral judgment and what constitutes worthy of protection, but it is obvious that Wikipedia has decided that the interest of the reader in being protected against having facts regarding content of a book or movies inadvertently disclosed against their will is an important interest; whereas the interest of the reader in protected against having something that may be offensive to them in a different way perhaps is not considered as important of an interest. I don't think it is a stretch of an analogy at all. The problem comes out in enforcement. While the "spoiler" rules apply equally to all film, books, etc.; we wouldn't want to apply a similar standard equally to all images. Perhaps the United States Supreme Court definition of obscene might be an appropriate starting point. Peyna 19:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't feel a need to "protect" readers from any content here. Frankly, I don't necessarily feel that entries on narritive fictions such as books or films should have spoiler warnings here. This is an encyclopedia, not a film review, but that is another issue, and pertains to an area of Wikipedia I have little interest in editing. Your point regarding the absurdity of applying the spoiler rules to all images is worth noting in this debate. Does Wikipedia censor images of rare birds so that birdwatchers doing research don't have the experience of seeing a bird themselves marred by their premature discovery of a bird's image in Wikipedia? I think not. There is a cultural practice regarding "spoilers" in films and books, because film watching and book reading are such popular cultural activities that there is an established convention when those narratives are presented to the public that they be briefly summarised and that readers of materials pertaining to books and films be warned if key elements of the narrative are going to be discussed beyond that summary.
As the Supreme Court standard on obscenity is in itself a POV view, it has no bearing on how we conduct ourselves here on Wikipedia. I like to think that Wikipedia has a much more objective view on the subject, as it serves a body larger and more diverse in opinion than the United States does. Further, as the Supreme Court standard of obscenity is concerned primarily with sexual matters, I cannot see how their standard has any bearing on any of the images currently used in any body modification related entries that I am aware of. None of these images depict sexual behavior of any kind, and there is a current policy on Wikipedia that already covers that situation. A penis, in it's natural state (limp or erect), pierced or unpierced, photographed in close-up, is not an image that is obscene or overtly sexual. The photographs we are talking about here are of anatomical/medical/cultural interest, and there is no depiction of sexual activity in them. Just because a penis (in this example) can be used for sexual purpose, does not make any depiction of it either pornographic or obscene. Glowimperial 20:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Where's the picture? I read all this talk about a picture, above the fold, below the fold, and it's gone??--Anchoress 00:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Wish I knew... The picture seems to have been marked non-displayable somehow, but I have no idea how to fix it. Does anyone have any suggestions? Qvdm 08:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I've been trying to figure out why th picture doesn't properly display for several days now. I've got no idea what's wrong with it. Glowimperial 11:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prince Albert bearing personalities

Why not make a list of famous people who bear a Prince Albert piercing? I can think of the singer Fred Durst off-hand, and I'm sure the information is anywhere on the web...

It's not just some kind of sick curiosity on my part, I think that one step on the path of accepting the controversial genital piercings might be to show that many people have them, including famous people. Also, if this information is available elsewhere, why shouldn't it be on Wikipedia?

I just wanted to discuss this, see what others think and not just add some more controversy to an already controversial article!! --IronChris 18:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with it as long as the information is verifiable (eg: the person has admitted to it in an interview). But anything that contains the phrases "is rumoured to have" or "may have" or "when I had sex with him he had" is out. Exploding Boy 18:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Personally I don't think lists like this are a good idea. List articles tend to be poorly cited (if at all) and given that Prince Albert piercings are removable and generally not visible to the public, I'd say that a list article on the subject would be extremely short and not particluarily of use. Also, in my experience, when genital piercings are described in magazine articles, oftentimes the names of the piercings are wrong - every genital piercing becomes a Prince Albert, for example, as that's the only piercing that the writer knows about. When it comes to genital piercings, IMHO, a proper cite requires an image which includes the bearer's face or other identifying characteristics, or at least a link to an image. Glowimperial 19:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where does the image keep going?

Well? Exploding Boy 16:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The picture for this article is on the "bad image list" meaning it cannot be inlined into an article. Raul654 15:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Why? As a result of what discussion? By whose request? By whose authority? I'm completely and vehemently against this type of censorship and this feature. Exploding Boy 00:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed from article

recent addition by anon editor:

Serious infection is a significant risk as the genital area is extremely difficult to maintain as a sterile environment. Several cases of severe infection leading to amputation of the penis have been reported in the medical literature.

This not only contradicts the information in the article, but seems unlikely. Sources, please. Exploding Boy 06:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


I've heard Dr. Drew Pinsky say as much on his radio show, "Loveline". Guess that's not much of a citation. 63.25.241.152 00:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Urine Sterile?

I take issue with this recent addition:

Despite that urine is not sterile (it can contain viruses or be easily contaminated by bacteria on the skin), infections of Prince Alberts are relatively rare.

First, urine is usually sterile, and if it's not, it's because of a *bacterial* infection. Regarding viruses, I don't know what to correct first, the fact that they wouldn't infect a wound (even IF the person whose urine was being used WASN'T ALREADY INFECTED WITH THE VIRUS LOL), or the question of whether or not viruses actually *do* live in urine (I've never heard of it), or the question of whether or not urine contaminated with organisms other than bacteria is still sterile (because it's bacterial infection we're concerned with here). Next, the 'contaminated by bacteria on the skin' part: Isn't that the point? The cleaning agent cleans away the bacteria. I think if we're concerned that people with PAPs are going to *store* their urine and use it later, or use *other people's urine* to disinfect their wounds, the above information is pertinent, otherwise not so much.--Anchoress 00:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Urine is normally sterile, I haven't read the change, but many resources state that urine is sterile, and all my training thus far have agreed, unless the individual has a UTI, which is usually cased by bacteria going back up to the bladder from the urethra. --kylet 00:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

Jewellery was spelt correctly. I do not think it is usual to change British to American spellings and vice versa, but if you do change once instance of a word you should change them all for consistency. Jewellery was changed to Jewelry in the Jewellery section only, co I changed it back. --kylet 11:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of the name

The Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha article says that the story of Prince Albert having a genital piercing was "certainly" originated by Doug Malloy, but this article only says that this is suspected to be the case. How certain is this? Rodparkes 03:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Neither article cites references, so it's more accurate to say that it may have been or probably was apocryphal, which is what this article says. Anchoress 06:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not the picture issue again!

I removed the picture of the penis because wikipedia should be accessible to people of all ages. I agree; who keeps adding the picture again; if you're a male, not to be cruel, but don't be gay. People don't want to look a a man's genitalia. It's not appropriate.

There is pictures of death and shit on wikipedia. What do you think is worse? Sex or Violence? Grow up

First of all, the above comment is unsigned. Secondly, it's in the wrong section of the discussion, so I have added a new header above it. Thirdly, this issue has already been discussed at great length above, and the consensus has been that the picture should stay. Wikipedia is not intended to be a children's encyclopedia. Rodparkes 04:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


There is pictures of death and shit on wikipedia. What do you think is worse? Sex or Violence? Grow up
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/r/i/Talk%7EPrince_Albert_piercing_6199.html"