Biography Unassessed

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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment 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]

"In "Frankenpenis," Bobbit played a character who was made with spare parts (like the monster in Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley's "Frankenstein") and whose penis inexplicably comes off during a rousing session of intercourse. Bobbitt then moans, "oh no, not again.""

rofl

Malmsteen Maiden 07:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol @ penis pic. MisterCheese 01:23, 27 February 2006 (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]