Talk:Penis/Archive 2

Inclusion of a list of slang terms for the penis
I removed the slang terms for the penis because I don't think it adds anything to the article. We could turn the article into a massive list of slang, but what would it achieve? --Robert Merkel

I agree that this should be kept out of the article. I have Moved the slang terms to a subpage. Or perhaps there should be a Sexual slang page to encompass this whole partially taboo subject. -- The Anome

Do we really need to have slang for 'penis' in Wikipedia at all?


 * Yes

I mean, how often have you been looking through Encarta or Britannica and found a page where THEIR editors tried to remember all the names for the male copulatory organ??!!! - Mark Ryan


 * Irrelevant. This is an *INTERNET* Encyclopedia, and the Internet is about sex.  In fact this article would be a reasonable central organizing metaphor for the entire project, as we are virtually sure that every contributor will eventually contribute to this file.

Y'know, while I'm probably among the more squeamish readers of the pedia, it's kinda nice to have a list /somewhere/, and an encyclopedia is probably the best place for somebody who just wants to know without having to wade through a lot of other crudeness. A person learning english, for example, is probably wise to be informed enough not to be left out in the cold. I was around 20 before I realized the other meaning of "Johnson"...

Are you seriouly planning to add penis nicknames in every languges ? The page will grow to several Gigabytes.

By the way mine is nicknamed Charles-Edouard :)

Ericd 03:57 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

It is a bit ridiculous. Do we need ANY slang terms for cock errr penis? Zocky 04:10 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

No we don't. I say it should be removed.

Hm. Having the English slang terms was dubious but the slang terms in other languages is not at all needed. Add those to the penis article in the correct languages. This is the English Wikipedia. --mav 07:23 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

mav, why don't we just get rid of all the slang terms. It's so silly


 * Agreed. we don't need them. -- Tarquin 11:22 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

I took the liberty of removing the slang terms. I think there's just too much controversy over it. Perhaps a separate page could be created, as mentioned above by The Anome.

Created the Sexual slang page. I think it is nicer this way. And I also think that perhaps the piercings section should go somewhere else...maybe on Genital piercing, which currently just redirects to Body piercing.

Wikipedia isn't a usage guide, it's an encyclopedia; please see talk:vagina. I think we were basically just trolled. --LMS

Erect penis photograph?
True or false: the picture that narrows the Erection section of this article is appropriate for Wikipedia. 66.245.86.121 18:13, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * ALthough it's close to the edge of what is acceptable, I think there's general agreement that clinical photos are acceptable. →Raul654 18:27, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't it either be in a different section, or show a more erect penis? Marnanel 18:31, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please see: Profanity and Choosing appropriate illustrations. Hyacinth 18:57, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If we are going to show an erect penis, we should show one that is fully erect, rather than semi-erect. This also suggests that we should discuss the angle of erection in this article, and its variability. -- Karada 07:29, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * There was a paragraph about this in the normal variations section. I've moved that to the erection section. Jamesday 03:28, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And it should show an entire penis, not one that has had some of it amputated. Tannin 13:38, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Without invoking the circumcision wars, it probably makes sense to have an uncirumcised penis depicted here, as it represents wildtype. Oh, and for anyone who does not like photographs of erect penes, may I suggest producing a good anatomically correct drawing? -- Karada 23:37, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Uh, that's exactly what is at the top of the page. →Raul654 23:42, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * No, that's a flaccid penis. There are lots of noteworthy changes between the erect and flaccid state: many anatomical features only come into play during erection. The fundamental biological function of the penis (apart from providing an extension of the urethra) is to be erect in order to facilitate sexual intercourse. -- Karada 07:24, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Hopefully there will eventually be a good selection of videos and images illustrating the process and accompanying changes. Jamesday 03:28, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * If soeone wonders whether those would be clinical in nature, consider that I once spent several days at a medical trade show in a booth adjacent to one with continually looping video of a penis pump in use on a human penis. Jamesday 14:27, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * There should be two photos, one of a natural penis and one of a circumcised one. And the photos don't need to be nearly as large as the one that was just removed.Matt gies 01:07, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Larger would be good, particularly including details of structure. We don't yet have a good image for glans, frenulum, foreskin, pearly penile papules and an assortment of other structural details. Jamesday 03:28, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)



I have taken some pictures, should it be included in the article? I can add labels for the specific parts--Clawed 12:34, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd give it a go. Don't be shy! --Minority Report 12:43, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Some info on the picture (right) - Uncircumsized, normal leghth (not a small specimin like most medical photos), colour photo with a black background, fully erect in second photo. But the first photo is more zoomed in than the second.--Clawed 13:04, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Looks good. I'd put it in if I were you. (Sorry this subject is almost impossible for an Englishman to write about without lapsing into double entendre. --Minority Report 13:49, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I've been bold and replaced the black and white image. You might want to tweak the caption. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 16:57, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh goodie, more pics. Now can we all just calm down and consider why we need four pics in this article? - Robert the Bruce 02:30, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly calm, as is everyone else with the possible exception of you Robert. Note that I replaced the b/w image with a colour one. What have you got against the picture above? Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 11:14, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * No you didn't Theresa. You replaced a black and white pic of an erect penis with two colour pictures. The pic of the flacid penis should either replace the appropriate black and white one lower down in the article or be removed. Quite simple really. - Robert the Bruce 03:02, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The flacid and erect photos are on the same image so I can't do that. If you really object to the tuly enormous number of penises on this page I suppose you could remove the b/w flacid one, I won't add it back in (although someone else might I suppose) Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:47, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The obvious question which no-one is asking; Clawed, is that your penis? - Ashley Pomeroy 20:54, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * yes--Clawed 22:46, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Then I applaud you; you show an admirable level of commitment to the Wikipedia project. May your penis symbolise the penii of all mankind forevermore. On a more serious level, would it be possible to 'smart blur' the picture with Photoshop? I believe it works well enough as an iconic image at the moment - it is Penis rather than a penis - because the colours are so red as to make it more of an illustration than a photograph, but I believe you could forestall possible controversy by making it more abstract. -Ashley Pomeroy 22:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * You want him to deliberately degrade the image? Why would we want a blurred image? Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:41, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Photoshop's 'smart blur' is a clever little thing which is used a lot by Playboy magazine etc; it leaves edges sharp and only blurs large sections of colour. The end result is a photograph that looks like an airbrushed illustration; the detail is still there, and the image isn't 'blurry' as such, it merely looks more abstract. Indeed Playboy magazine seem to use it for exactly this reason; people find it more acceptable to ogle obviously-artificial images of naked women rather than actual naked women. And I would never ask anyone to degrade their penis. -Ashley Pomeroy 10:47, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image
Is it too much to ask to attempt to keep this encyclopedia G-rated and safe for all the family? I support a version which links to the penis images, but does not display them in the article page. Is this really too much to ask? This sort of thing can get this whole site blocked from libraries. --Cantus 02:54, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I do think it is too much to ask. Far, far too much.  On the Talk:Clitoris someone came up with the excellent idea of a children's Wikipedia.  It occurs to me that tt ought to be possible to fix the Wiki code to suppress articles or sections, or even images, that are marked up in a certain way.  This would enable the reader to set his or her own preferences by category. --Minority Report 23:47, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * It was been decided that clinical images are acceptable, as they would in any other encyclopedia. Beyond that, Wikipedia is not censored. →Raul654 03:09, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * This is not a medical textbook, it is an encyclopedia. Graphic images of human genitals are not shown in encyclopedias. Period. --Cantus 03:28, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Because... ? People who read encyclopedias aren't entitled to the same information as medical students? - Hephaestos|§ 04:08, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) Period.


 * Err....Someone here would find medical textbooks very disappointing indeed... - Nunh-huh 04:13, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Not having read any medical textbooks, I'm moved to say then that we should replace this graphic with whatever graphic is in the medical textbooks, so as to satisfy Cantus' sensibilities. Or are medical students expected to "play it by ear"? - Hephaestos|§ 04:17, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, it depends on the text a bit. Accepting the "Penis Challenge", I've looked at two Internal Medicine texts: only one has a picture of a penis, and that's "the penis before and after testosterone treatment of an intersexual patient". I suspect one would do better in a text of Endocrinology, Anatomy, or Urology. I guess you're supposed to know what a "normal penis" is by medical school, as illustrations tend to be pathological. - Nunh-huh 04:32, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm definitely puzzled by the news that encyclopedias do not show "graphic images of human genitals." I'm pretty sure my old Britannica did; those were the most thumbed pages when I was a child!  Where does all this new prudery come from?


 * If you want a filtered internet, please use one of the large number of filtering programs which are available. However, I would support a page with most images on it, leaving only a few more than the modest selection which are here at present in the main article. It would be somewhat messy to have forty of fifty images in this article, even though there are plenty of variations for them to illustrate. Jamesday 03:28, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake why on earth is anyone horrfied by a part of the human anantomy? This is so childish. A penis may be in an erect state without sexual arousal (such as a natural aid to continence in sleep). But honestly why are people so hung up about any sexuial connotations. It is this very kind of opression that creates imbalance and unhealthy interest in the "forbidden". A penis is part of nature get over it! Dainamo

Metric conversion
From last version by 80.191.66.199:
 * The average human penis is 5 inches (15 up to 17 cm) in length when fully engorged with blood during arousal

Are we implying that metric people on average have longer penisses? :p -- Ferkelparade 23:38, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * It is but one of the many advantages of the SI system. -- Karada 12:23, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Five inches is normal?? I thought about six inches was the minimum you could have without getting embarrassed.  Just goes to show how much pressure society puts on men...  Chameleon 10:58, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comparative anatomy
My sentence relating male and female anatomy was removed as "unwieldy". Unless the information is considered wrong or irrelevant, I suggest that its unwieldiness be removed by editing, rather than by deleting. I have restored it, in its own section. AxelBoldt 15:15, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The new section works considerably better than where it had been, though we may want to include something on why the two anatomies are homologous. Do we have an equivalent section on vulva? - jredmond 16:28, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Yup, there's a section in the vulva article listing the homologous male structures. As to why the structures are homologous: males and females use almost the same genome, and it's much easier and more efficient to make slight modifications to a single body plan than to come up with two different plans altogether. Rather than have one section of the genome make an ovary and another section make a testicle, you use just one section to form the common precursor of both and then change things slightly towards the end, under the action of hormones. If something's easier and more efficient, evolution is more likely to find it. However it doesn't always find it: even though the vas deferens and the fallopian tube perform a very similar function, they are not homologous but constructed separately from scratch. AxelBoldt 17:51, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Axel, this is a very clear explanation. It should be (after the removal of the intentional viewpoint) merged into the article... -- Karada 22:25, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Maybe better to put into homologous? Since it isn't really specific to the penis. AxelBoldt 00:27, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Modification/mutilation
I've changed the "modification or mutilation" items to just "modification", and in some cases altered the text altogether. As we've discussed (and discussed and discussed) at the circumcision and genital modification and mutilation article, the word "mutilation" tends to carry negative connotations, while "modification" is more neutral. Since the distinction between "genital modification" and "genital mutilation" is often blurry, I'm going with the more neutral term. (Also, putting "modification or mutilation" every single time is rather awkward.)

I'm also changing "bifurcated" to "split" and rephrased some sentences for clarity's sake.

- jredmond 03:49, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Keeping the voluntary cut, but removing the involuntary one is POV. Involuntary cutting is more common.  Modification has a connotation of voluntary involvement, and usually connotations of improvement (a modified engine).  Mutilation may have a social connotation just the opposite, but enough men such as myself feel violated as to merit both points of view. DanP 19:25, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure where the word "modification" automatically connotes "good", but no such connotation is as strong as the negative ones associated with the word "mutilation". Also, using "modified or mutilated" when discussing practices like genital piercing or tattoing is disingenuous; it tends to imply that some penises are pierced or tattooed involuntarily. (This creates a very disturbing image in my head of roving Prince Albert gangs, tackling unsuspecting men in dark alleys and giving them body art.)

In any case, saying "modification or mutilation" for every single practice makes this section painfully awkward to read. IMHO, it'd be better to use that particular phrase only once (with the wikilink) and find different ways to express that the penis is somehow different as a result of whatever practice. This will reduce the N/POV arguments about what is and what isn't mutilation, and improve the aesthetic value of the section. - jredmond 20:17, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The word "altered" is shorter than "modified", and does not indicate improvement or mutilation. Would the term "altered genitals" be better for you? I think "modified" is more offensive to me than "mutilation", as "modified" implies just a small (ie. trivial) loss, but both are cultural distinctions, not dictionary ones. I think "modification or mutilation" is value neutral, even more so than "alteration", but sound neutral. DanP 20:35, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * "Altered" works; in fact, that's what I suggested as a neutral compromise over on the talk pages for circumcision. :)  However, we need to avoid overusing it like we had "modified or mutilated".  I'm re-phrasing some of these sentences so they don't rely on "alter" or "altered" or "alteration" for everything.


 * That opening paragraph seemed incredibly awkward, and I could not come up with a suitable replacement to introduce the section. I've replaced it with a link to the main genital modification and mutilation article, and indicated that circumcision is especially controversial when performed on infants and young boys.


 * I had used "decorated" to characterize the addition of body art. It seemed to me like an appropriate word choice, given the voluntary nature of and typical motives behind such enhancements, and using it gives us a chance to skip the "alter" echo for at least that one paragraph.  I'm putting it back.


 * Finally, I'm doing some formatting and minor clean-up so that this section reads more easily and fits more closely with the rest of the article. - jredmond 21:32, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This sentence in the "Fears and reassurance" section is ugly...

 * "Possibly due to shame incolcated in regard to genitalia, some people suffer from misunderstandings and resultant fear."

Ouch. I think I know what that sentence's author is trying to convey - some people have issues with their own genitalia - but I can't think of a prettier way to phrase it. Someone please help!!! - jredmond 21:43, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Poll
Robert Brookes and his sockpuppets vandalize this article. I would like to take a poll about the contested sections:

Robert Brookes removes information about hypospadias and the raphe. This is the diff. I believe that the the version of Robert Brookes is incomplete. I would like to take a poll. For preventing ballot-stuffing, I suggest that only people registered before 2004-10-01T00:00:00 GMT/UTC have the right to vote in this poll. I propose that the poll last until the end of the week. I shall define the end of the week as 2004-10-10T00:00:00 GMT/UTC.

Now that we established the rules, let us define the questions:

¿Should we include the information that circumcision sometimes cause iatrogenic hypospadias and that the raphe runs from the præpuce to the perineum?

Yes:

I recently registered but am voting anyway, since I made other contributions. How about adding a little about penis wrinkles? Walabio, you're writing English, not Spanish, so there's no inverted punctuation. lysdexia 05:35, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) 	Ŭalabio 08:17, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)

No:



Comments:

The article is more informative if we include the complete information. Ŭalabio 08:17, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)

Ŭalabio 08:17, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)


 * I have not yet figured out why in the world Robert would oppose these parts of the article.  Even the proponents of circumcision are aware that the outcome varies, and now the Friends of Robert even mess with the frenulum article.  This is a bit like opponents of circumcision deleting every extremely rare foreskin problem, which we are certainly not doing.  Complications of hypospadias are common enough that I think it should be there.  Perhaps we should add other complications of circumcision (skin bridges, keloids, suture tunnels, etc.).   If paraphimosis and oedema are residing right in this article, why can't we include facts about circumcision problems?  Or would Friends of Robert rather we just delete every problem on both sides from this article?  DanP 23:19, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Poll Closed
Since the poll was coming out one sided, I let it run a few more days. 100% of respondents agree to include the information about the raphe and hypospadias. I declare the poll closed and the information should be included.

Ŭalabio 01:34, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)

LOL ... what was the number of participants? The results are binding on no one. - Robert the Bruce 10:02, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Erectile Bone
What the heck is an erectile bone? Can anyone provide information that it exists? DanP 17:19, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I think the name for this is penile bone. Many animals have one. Humans don't. -- Karada 09:22, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * So says the article. I've never heard of such a thing in any anatomical study.  I think this should be substatiated by at least some mention of anyone actually seeing such a thing in any species.  Is it the pubic bone?  Or what is it?  It could be urban legend.
 * Many mammals have them. The ones I can remember offhand are the walrus and the sauropod dinosaurs.DanP 21:49, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * See Beresford WA, Burkart S. The penile bone and anterior process of the rat in scanning electron microscopy. J Anat. 1977 Dec;124(3):589-97. -- Karada 13:57, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Also see pictures at . -- Karada 14:01, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually, humans occasionally are born with the penile bone. It is generally surgically removed. 金 (Kim) 02:42, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC) I have a very good memory for such trivia. I'll try to find the reference, but the memory goes back to the previous millenium. 金 (Kim) 02:52, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC) I found one piece of collaboratory information almost immediately. Clellan S. Ford and Frank A Beach, Patterns of Sexual Behavior, p. 30 says "Both gorillas and chimpanzees possess a penile bone. In the latter species the os penis is located in the lower part of the organ and measures approximately three-quarters of an inch in length." Here is an on-line source. It's rare, but they are found in humans too: When medical texts say that humans don't have them I think they are just reassuring those males who don't have them that they are normal. ;-) They are also called "pizzle bones" by some people.  See Lame Deer: Seeker of Visions, by John Fire Lame Deer.
 * Do you have a medical source for this? If so please post it. - Robert the Bruce 02:48, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here is the medical info: http://www.vh.org/adult/provider/anatomy/AnatomicVariants/OrganSystem/Text/Penis.html 金 (Kim) 03:25, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Iatrogenic hypospadias
DanP inserted the claim that hypospadias can be iatrogenic (e.g. caused by medical treatment). Has anyone heard of this? JFW | T@lk  20:07, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I've not heard of this. What mechanism is DanP suggesting for this? Pre-natal effects of hormone therapy? Botched surgery? -- The Anome 08:16, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * "Iatrogenic" means "caused by doctors", so "iatrogenic hypospadias" is a fistula caused by medical error. Not exactly plain English!Michael Glass 03:33, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

template:sex
The sex warning seems reasonable to me, but aparently many other people don't like it. Why? – Quadell (talk) (help)  00:48, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * If it seems reasonable why not go ahead and reason it. There is a debate/vote going on in Talk:Clitoris which this seems to be an attempt to preempt.--Jirate 00:56, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)
 * Why? See Template talk:Sex. &mdash;No-One Jones (m) 01:03, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please discuss here. The clitoris poll is completely unrelated to this message. By the way, Quadell, can you assist me in reverting this page? Thanks. --Cantus 00:58, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Are you really calling for an edit war? If you can make a good argument, do so, but do not start trouble. -- Netoholic @ 01:15, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)

What is everyone's thoughts on the content warnings in Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse? Why there and not here? Double standards anyone? --Cantus 01:29, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * (response already posted on User_talk:Sverdrup) Inappropriate and ugly ( should only be used once per article&mdash;for the article title at the top. Oh, wait, I checked the source now, and it turns out it is using == blah  ==, which is just as bad). If someone doesn't want to see images of what an article discusses, he/she should set his/her browser to not display images. &mdash; David Remahl 01:35, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Your comment perfectly illustrates the argument made on Template talk:Sex. Where should the line be drawn? Elbows? Clitoris? Sexual abuse? The only way to be NPOV is to not draw the line. &mdash; David Remahl 01:44, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Your comment perfectly illustrates the argument made on Template talk:Sex. Where should the line be drawn? Elbows? Clitoris? Sexual abuse? The only way to be NPOV is to not draw the line. &mdash; David Remahl 01:44, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I endorse the. Many Wikipedians with children may agree. Chmod007, the line should be drawn as far as daytime TV - swimwear OK, genitals no. JFW | T@lk  16:28, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * "Daytime TV" in which country? POV! Can you explain to me why a parent would want to prevent his/her child from seeing images of genitals? When I was five, my parents and I read Where do children come from?, fully illustrated. What is it about scientific documentation of human sexuality that you believe could corrupt children so easily? &mdash; David Remahl 16:33, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

David, which country has daytime TV on public/mainstream channels that feature male frontal nudity? Your parents had the POV to be very liberal, and I declare a POV in being somewhat more conservative. The warning only pertains to the images as far as I am concerned. Cantus is quite right in pushing this template, and your POV is not affected if the template stays. Nobody is removing the pictures. JFW | T@lk  16:43, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I modified message (which is not ) and it is now fully acceptable to me, since it is factual and to the point. I oppose any template that in a blue box at the top of the article gives undue prominence to the notion that sexuality is offensive. And I oppose the general Template:Sex message, especially on articles such as Penis and Clitoris, since the images on these pages are not explicitly sexual. There is no need to get harmless Wikipedia blocked by censoring software, just because they choke on the  template. If they choke, it should be based on actual article content. &mdash; David Remahl 16:56, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * As for daytime TV, I don't think Swedish public television has any clear guidelines on nudity, nor is it controlled in the laws that control the broadcasts (as some things are, violent pornography is completely banned, for example, and graphic violence is heavily restricted during daytime). The images in this article could certainly just as well be part of a daytime educational program, and a couple of years ago a youth show created some public opinion waves depicting masturbation at 7 PM. &mdash; David Remahl 17:11, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's important to remember that no one will be offended by the image. What they will be offended by is the breach of what they think of as a universal rule. If you look through the comments by the antis, non of them say's that the image offends them, it is always somebody else. The presence of the warning is proof, in the mind of some, of the existance of this rule. It is not the job of an encyclopedia to caharcterize information in this way. It is also not practical as it requires the layout of the page to be further adjusted so the image cannot appear on the same screen as the warning. It fosters a belief in forbiden knowledge. Can you produce some evidence of what % of the population will be offended and what % feel it should be their for some other reason, and what those other reasons may be. The motivation of some users is unclear. I want a warning that warns about the warning, as I find the warning offensive, and I feel a significant propotion of the population will agree.--Jirate 19:13, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)


 * Well, the images are actually offensive to me. There you go! An anti speaks his mind!
 * Okay, David has given a nice cool exception to the practical rule adhered to in virtually the whole world. Will we base policy on the Swedish precedent or the UK, USA, Dutch, French etc...
 * JIrate, your is also really quite offensive to superstitious little me. I suppose I should insert a warning about your warning. JFW |  T@lk  19:57, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Hmm, is it time to add Wikipedia is not a television channel to the list of What Wikipedia is not? We're an encyclopaedia. We shouldn't base policy on Swedish television policies, nor on UK television policies. I simply answered your question of which country's television would show nudity during the daytime. &mdash; David Remahl 02:23, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)