Biography Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pornography Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

"The case created a popular sensation at the time and was a frequent subject of jokes and joking references."

Can you imagine if the situation was reversed, and John had cut off her clitoris or nipples? He would be hated, reviled, and demonized. Why is it OK to injure men and not women? Feminism creates some ridiculous double-standards - don't be fooled!

Yes, and your point is...? (BTW, it's not Wikipedia's fault that it became a popular joke; you're commenting not on the article, but the subject thereof, so again - what's your point?)

Coincidentally, I think that you're making a mountain out of a molehill - or rather, forgetting certain rather key facts. Said facts would be the fact that John Bobbit has since HIMSELF made a mint off of appearances that play off his very misfortune (even starring in a porno where his character loses part of his penis and moans "Not again!")... as well as the fact that the case is probably as famous as it is in part because people DO, as much as they may joke, still find Lorena the wacko and John the poor victim (even though he apparently was somewhat abusive to his wives in general, if the court cases are any indication). It's not like people forget that you'd have to be psychoticly out of your mind to chop off ANY body part from somebody, let alone sensitive sexual organs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.207.106.58 (talk) 03:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I think the penis pick should be removed. Too graphic. Perhaps it can be lowered in the page so people can be warned first?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.9.154.246 (talk • contribs) .

Wikipedia is not censored. I wouldn't mind it being moved down, though. --Rory096 21:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody please do something about the penis picture! I think it's okay to have, but please have some type of warning. It doesn't even have to do with it being a penis but being a SEVERED body part, which would give me the same reaction if it were a severed hand, foot, eyeball, etc. Jbm867 05:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to argue this point on another talk page, so someone posted a picture of a gutted man just to make a point. Just give it up. Wikipedia, in its attempt to avoid censorship (except as dictated by Florida law), has gone to the point of shoving this stuff down our throats.

If you really want to change this, find offensive pictures of a documentary nature in more sensitive topics (alternate sexuality, child abuse (of a suggestive, not explicit, nature), etc.), and add them appropriately to articles until people reach a consensus that it has to stop.

Just make sure it is in line with policy; vandalism will have the opposite effect of what is intended. Zuiram 05:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia never censored? John Bobbitt was the victim of a crime. If a woman were victimized in a similar way, there is no way such a photo would be tolerated. Or can you refer us to photos of women, say, being raped that appear on Wikipedeia?24.64.223.203 04:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In order to more effectively make this point, you could add a picture (of a consenting adult) to the Female_circumcision page, and during the discussions refer to this page and others of its kind as precedent. Such a picture would have identical value to the articles. Zuiram 05:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like seeing that penis head picture either. Lower it down on the page, and warning in big bold font. 68.102.37.191 07:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't move it. Don't remove it. Leave it alone. We've been over this in autofellatio and in penis and in clitoris and in feces. And that's just off the top of my head. Wikipedia isn't censored, for any reason, nor should it be - whether the censorship is intended to cover violence, sex, or anything else. It's a collection of knowledge, and prudishness of any kind is just going to fuck it up.

IMO, it's not prudishness to not want to see e.g. a photo of child abuse on that page if the server moved to a jurisdiction which allowed it, or to not want to see the effects of acid on humans under the health and safety section on Nitric_acid.

Everyone gets offended by something, and some things offend more than others.

The autofellatio article you mentioned, has only an illustration on its main page. To view the explicit picture, you have to click a link to it. The same could advantageously be applied elsewhere, allowing those who wish to see it to do so, while not forcing it upon those of us who do not wish to see it.

FWIW, this particular picture does not offend me, personally. It is low resolution, and not overly explicit or gory, IMHO. However, I'd still like to see it moved to a subpage. IMO, the net utility of wikipedia is the amount of material it provides multiplied by the number of people to which said material is useful. Moving it to a subpage does not lower the amount of provided material, but it does increase the number of people who will not press the 'Back' button, rather than reading the article.

Zuiram 05:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the comparison of the penis pic with a picture of a woman being raped is completely ridiculous. If it was a picture of Lorena actually removing John's penis (though who knows why that picture would exist), then it would be the same thing. As is, it's a picture of a piece of evidence being shown in a courtroom - in fact, it's the most important piece of evidence in the entire case, probably. That makes it a perfectly logical inclusion in an encyclopedia. If it can be shown to a court, why can't it be shown to encyclopedia readers? Suntiger 18:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in some courts, it would not be shown, to avoid undue emotional impact on the jurors, whose task it is in these courts to objectively evaluate guilt et cetera.

Moreover, the legitimacy of forcing people to participate in jury duty itself is debatable, particularly as it potentially involves exposure to people and situations one would otherwise not expose oneself to, against one's will. Zuiram 05:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Some feminist political activists and Ecuador residents were vocal supporters of Lorena during the media ordeal."

I'm confused. Is this Ecuador, the country? There doesn't seem to be any citations... --Lachoy11 18:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on sampling at google, most of the world seems to think the woman's name is spelled Loreena, with two e's, which was my own understanding. It doesn't matter who is right, but on searches, both spellings should lead to this page. Only the correct spelling should appear in the title, of course. Lamabillybob 23:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While it's possible that The New York Times is wrong, it spells Lorena's name with one e. I did create the two redirects Loreena Bobbitt and John and Loreena Bobbitt. --Asbl 15:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since she was born in South America and has an Hispanic maiden name, it's almost got to be Lorena. Lorena is an actual Hispanic name; Loreena isn't, and goes against spelling/pronunciation standards in Spanish. A sample of other articles shows that it's Lorena anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.207.106.58 (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The reference to John Wayne and Lorena has been removed from the Bobbit worm (sic) page as it is unverifiable (although very funny!) - suggest removing reference to worm from this page also if nobody objects. Squeezeweasel 17:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this page should be protected by an administrator due to the large amounts of vandalism it seems to inspire by anonymous IP addresses? - Ocatecir 00:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Linkimage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that they lived in Manassas Park, VA which is not true. They lived in the Maplewood Park Apartments located at the intersection of Maplewood Drive and Peakwood Court in zipcode 20111. This is outside of the City of Manassas Park's limits. The actual mailing address for that location is Manassas, VA 20111. Just about nobody outside of the corporate limits of Manassas Park uses Manassas Park, VA 20111 as their mailing address, and in fact the USPS's website shows that "Manassas" is the preferred city name for zip code 20111.

I am curious as to why or how the notion that Bobbit lived in Manassas Park came to be, given the above.

USPS - ZIP Code Lookup - Find a City By ZIP Code Results show the following (images omitted):

Criminal Castration and Severed Penis crimes, Bobbitt - The Crime library says "Manassas" twice, with no mention of "Park".

It appears that they lived in the Maplewood Park Apartments at 8178 Peakwood Ct, Manassas, VA 20111-2134. USPS - ZIP Code Lookup - Find a ZIP + 4 Code By Address Results show the following (images and some unnecessary formatting omitted):

I have changed the article to reflect these revelations.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears further that the change was made in this not-fully-subtantiated edit "as per Manassas article".   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who lives here (in Manassas) I'll clarify the addressing. The apt they live in is just barely outside the city limits of Manassas Park, in Prince William County. For reference: the 7-ll across from the field she threw his penis in (less than a half mile down the road) is inside the city limits of Manassas Park. Manassas City's city limits are about a mile north on rte 28. Manassas and Manassas Park form a sort of "C" shape around the area their apartment is located in. Take a look at this map to see an example: Look where 28 passes through Manassas Park, then through the county, then into the city of Manassas, and you'll see why there is confusion. Everyone here considers that area part of Manassas Park even though it really isnt: http://www.princewilliamcountywebsite.com/map.html JamesBenjamin 02:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That 7-11 is located at 8211 Old Centreville Road. This address is not within the city limits of Manassas Park, and in fact, if you visit the Prince William County GIS Mapper website here you can enter the parcel GPIN 7796-98-7710 and verify that this property is within Prince William County and is not in Manassas Park. (The mere existence of the ownership and parcel information on the Prince William County GIS Mapper confirms this, as the GIS Mapper contains no data for parcels of land in Manassas City or Manassas Park City.) As far as "everyone here" considering that area (Maplewood Park Apts) part of Manassas Park, that is, in my experience, having lived in the Maplewood Park Apartments at one time, not true. 68.48.240.189 03:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]