Talk:Penis/Archive 4

message: I'ts not so much about Christian groups but there is a line between porn (in this case) and relative information lets face it, paedophiles and perverts would support images of that nature where children had access to.
:Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. And I can't see how merely showing photographs of the body part in question is going to do any harm; they're small and quite far down the page. CameoAppearance 00:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To many [[Paedophiles]] ? 

message: How about we have a title page when someone searches for Penis that says something like "the following page has images and words that some may find offensive" and below that there are two hyperlinks, one to the current article, the other to a pictureless less offensive explination. just an idea, any comments?
:I think that's a very good idea -- it isn't censorship, but it protects anyone who may not want to see pictures that may offend them.  There is the argument, however, that if they went to an article on Penises, perhaps they should expect some level of offense.  Regardless, I think it's a great idea. --Sugarskane 14:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia is not censored. Period. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: a Censoring idea that works

message: I was here about a week or two ago and I could've sworn there were more than two measly photos of human penises.  What happened?  Where did the penises go?  There isn't even a good pic at the top of the article, which is the most logical place to have a picture of a penis to introduce the subject matter.  --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 16:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did the penises go? You just won the award for best thing ever said JayKeaton 15:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Penis pics? 

message: The raphe is mentioned under Fears and reassurance. From what I found in the talk there was some kind of raphe discussion but I'm not sure if it was a fear of raphe or what.--Gbleem 17:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Males who are raised under a curtain of secrecy and shame may imagine that the raphe is a scar and conclude from that that something terrible has happened to them. We need a good picture of a raphe and the information that it is the "biological zipper" that closes up everything from the perianal area to the foreskin area. 金 (Kim) 23:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  raphe 

message: I don't think the pictures of the penises belong here, a diagram is fine, but many might find the errected penis offenisive. Especially since it's a real photograph.
Note: I haven't a problem with the article at all, and would greatly appreciate browsing some of the headings and reading the information but the pictures offend me - and possibly many other wikipedians - making it undesirable to utilize this otherwise useful article. Chooserr 01:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and on a side note, you might want to turn on (or off, I forget which it is; the opposite of whatever you have it set to now) "raw signatures" in your prefs. =) —Locke Cole 02:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: What exactly do you find offensive about the human body? (The sig comment was for me, hopefully my sig is now fixed) Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 03:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone goes looking for "Penis" on Wikipedia, they should find a photo. FCYTravis 03:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Aye, the sig comment was for you, but his response raises a question: maybe there's a possible technical solution here? What if images could be marked as potentially offensive, with logged in users given a preference option to not show potentially offensive images? Then we get the best of both worlds: those who want to see Wikipedia uncensored can (as would anonymous users), but for those who may find such images offensive, they can disable them. It's possible we might get into edit wars over people marking images offensive (and vice versa), but at least that moves the debate from the article to the image itself. Oh, and yes, your sig looks great. =) —Locke Cole 03:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh no, not Toby again. --cesarb 03:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Locke, the very idea of "potentially offensive" violates WP:NPOV - because who decides what's offensive? The only completely NPOV way to do this is to have a global "All images on/All images off" toggle, with text descriptive of each image. FCYTravis 03:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Who decides?" — A consensus of editors, initially the image uploader? The idea is that it moves the debate out of the article and to the image. But having seen this was something discussed before, I'll drop it as a bad idea. :P —Locke Cole 15:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm surprised that Locke Cole's idea was previously dismissed as unworkable. Yes, community standards as to 'offensive' vary widely... so don't bother with that label. Have a list of a few specific things that some large group of people find 'offensive' and let any user check off whether they want to see 'male sex organs', 'female breasts and sex organs', 'human sexual acts', 'bloodshed', et cetera. Yes, that would require more complex tagging, but it doesn't seem unworkable. People might well disagree about whether a penis picture is offensive or not, but I doubt there'd be much disagreement about whether it is a penis or not. Once that's established it can be labeled 'offensive' by the individual user if they so choose. --CBD ☎ ✉ 15:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That would work as well. I was going for the simpler idea of just having a "may be offensive" checkbox (which wouldn't even have any effect unless the user was logged in and had ticked off the "don't show me potentially offensive images" checkbox). But certainly categorizing certain kinds of images ("image shows nudity", etc) would work as well. —Locke Cole 15:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that would be such a good Idea. I'm sure people who are offended by the content of wikipedia will be queuing up to join. Chooserr 04:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Neutral labeling of images gets my support too. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 07:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just dont understand this whole arguement. If you're on Wikipedia looking for an article on "penis", why would you be offended by seeing an image of one? Thats the point of the encyclopedia isnt it? It's not offensive as its just the human body, its natural. If you go on Wiki looking for the KKK for instance, would you be shocked or upset if you found a photo of them? If you want to know about something but dont want to see a photo of it, then thats your own problem, no one else'. TR_Wolf
Please review Talk:Circumcision#Potentially unexpected images for a different take on this issue.  Tomertalk 07:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm not sure