Jump to content

Talk:Body piercing/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Age laws

Why is there not a section or article regarding the age of consent laws for body piercing by state like there is for tattoos?Yonskii (talk) 23:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Opening section

I'm going to make some edits to the last sentence of the intro, which at present stands thus: Some people practice piercing for religious or other cultural reasons, while many individuals, particularly in the modern West, choose to be pierced for spiritual, ornamental, sexual, or conformist reasons, or as a form of rebellion in punk, heavy metal, and alternative culture.

I see a few problems here. One is that the part of the sentence that begins "while many individuals" implies that many people are pierced in the West as opposed to "some" (in the East?) are pierced for religious or "other" cultural reasons (which are so broad as to include everything that follows the "while many individuals" phrase). I'm also not sure about describing piercing as a form of rebellion, or participation in subcultures as rebellion. Maybe I'm too cynical, or maybe this way of phrasing things has become dated given how mainstream body piercing (not to mention punk, heavy metal, and even alternative culture) has become, in this age of niche marketing.

Anyway, if you're committed to the intro as it was, have a look at my changes and improve, improve, improve.Dpmath (talk) 04:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a few concerns about a line added to the intro recently. This claim seems subjective at best, and is likely dubious: The actual piercing does not hurt... Someone else has noted that this needs a citation: and is rarely infected. And lastly this statement contradicts what comes later in the article: The healing time based on the piercing could be one week to one month. Dpmath (talk) 04:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Verification of Healing Times

we need to either verify those healing times or remove them, they're not even consistent within wikipedia. see Christina Piercing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.7.162 (talk) 07:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, the clitoral piercing itself should be included. Even if it is illegal in the United States, Wikipedia isn't a US-only venture 141.225.144.236 (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I just found out, a piercing studio NOON in Tokyo has the technique of healing Web even since 90's. So, I'm going to edit that part. Though, not so many piercers can do it still, so I'll add a warning, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.108.250.26 (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

New Sections/Topics to Consider?

I think it might be good to add a little more about religious and cultural piercings, as well as the histories behind them...as opposed to having 90% of the article being about modern piercing, attitudes, and aftercare. Also, a tattoo artist/piercing I once met told me that people with very low blood pressure tend to faint shortly after being pierced, especially after cartilage and thick-tissue piercings - even if they had no fear of the procedure and experienced little pain. Is this true? If so, could we include it? It's certainly interesting. - anonynonmember —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.212.206.203 (talk)

Image of pierced vagina

I removed the picture of the vagina and that you personally feel that it might be inappropriate for younger viewers. Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not censor imagery of the human body that is intended for illustrative purposes. We've been through this debate on a dozen body modification related pages, and the image always stays, provided a sexual act is not shown (in other words a picture of a pierced vagina in sexual intercourse is against current Wikipedia policy and would be immediately removed. As one of the chief editors on body piercing related subjects here, the inclusion of appropriate images of human genintalia is acceptable and represents the consensus of many editors who have weighed in on the subject. What you're engaging in right now is considered blanking vandalism, and your argument that the image should be removed is weakened by that vandalism. Please refrain from blanking or censoring Wikipedia content without an appropriate discussion on the talk page of the article involved. Glowimperial 18:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I am against censorship but I think the image should not be included but not due to censorship. It is not illustrating a point in the article but illustrating links. It is use on pages linked to already and I would defend it being there. It is not illustrating text so I think it is unnecessary. Rex the first talk | contribs 10:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I just feel that the picture of a pierced vagina is a bit inappropriate and rather sudden. I was not expecting to suddenly see a female's private parts.

It's not really inappropriate (it's illustrating the topic at hand). It is possibly too sudden and unexpected. On the plus side, it's brightening up a dreary list of links. Also, this page is where genital piercing redirects from- and it would be very appropriate for that page. So I think it's useful and should stay, but it could be removed if people think it's unnesscessary. Bunniwhoops 17:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


I also have a problem with the pierced vagina pic,while I agree that wikipedia should not be censored, it just seems really innapropriate to include such a picture in said topic. I believe pictures like this should be alright but on thier apropiate pages where the user knows ahead of time that thier going to see such a picture, here it just sort of pops out at you. Deathawk 15:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

About section 5. Isn't the pain felt with piercings subjective from person to person? Doesn't that make the small passage about pain felt very unencyclopedic? And even if it isn't shouldn't there be a cleanup on the language and spelling and layout of this passage? 01:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah - There's no reference for that data, and it's highly subjective and the formatting is incredibly bad. I'm going to remove the content added by user:206.191.69.149. If you look at his talk page, he's got a pile of soft warnings on vandalism, I doubt he's going to be able to back up his claims with a reference (which you better damn well have on information that subjective), even if contacted there. Glowimperial 05:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to suggest removing this section from the "90's fads" catagory. First due to the fact piercing has been around for an extremely long time, and second because the 90's only saw a more flurishing of piercing and tattooing, it is very much carrying into the 2000's.--Azslande 21:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

What the hell is a Jacob's Ladder? It's under the Genital Piercing section. I followed the link and all it says is that it "is also a type of body piercing". That sure helps. </sarcasm> If anyone knows, drop a note on my talk page or i'll just watch this page. DryGrain 18:43, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think a Jacobs ladder is when you get lots of piercing up the shaft of the penis. So the jewellry sort of looks like rungs on a ladder. Irresponsible 15:52, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

let's be a bit more NPOV and point out that this sort of thing is also considered to be mutilation. compare & contrast with anorexia. -- Tarquin

Let's not. Body piercing is not a disease. That is really insulting both to people who are pierced and to anorexia sufferers. - Montréalais
I don't know if this subject has ever been researched but there are personality disorders that present as a self mutilation behaviours. Body piercing _in some cases_ can be a manifestation of this disorder.
Kpjas
Eating peanuts can be associated with personality disorders, too, but nobody's going to draw parallels between anorexia and peanuts in peanut. - montréalais
Agreed. An article on self-harming might appropriately mention that body piercing is one way this disorder can manifest itself. Vicki Rosenzweig 16:42 Aug 19, 2002 (PDT)

so what your saying is that someone like me, with 6 piercings _in total_ possibly/probably self-harms? right then............. and also its not mutilation, unless the person piercing does it incorrectly, then you may have a 'strange/mutilated' body part where you had to take out a bad piercing Selphie 10:50, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've removed the following, because it reads as "This, but this, but this": While some people consider body modification to be a sign of non-conformity, others deride body piercing as trendy, but this isn't always the case.

I've removed the following, because it is vague: Some people choose to be pierced to symbolize certain relationships.

Lastly, the following seems important, but once the previous two weak statements are cleared, it needs compelling context: This leads to prejudice or cognitive bias against those with piercings or visible signs of past piercings. A source would also be helpful; I'm sure they exist. Dpmath (talk) 05:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, somebody who understands this subject needs to cleanup "Piercing in industrialized civilizations". This section is so unencyclopedic I don't know where to start. I added the cleanup tag to alert others. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 15:15, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay, it should be better now. --Julie-Anne Driver 02:11, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Ummm, I'm not sure. I still get the weird sensation that somebody is winking at me as I read the text. It just doesn't read as encyclopedic. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 02:44, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I removed the following links from the article:

Among my reasons for removing these are

  1. Wikipedia isn't a how-to guide,
  2. PDF isn't the right format for whatever encyclopedic information can be found in these.

dbenbenn | talk 21:31, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've removed them again, and listed all but Image:Gauge Chart.pdf on WP:IFD. dbenbenn | talk 02:07, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've cleaned up the article, rearranged and added new sections and information. I've also removed the following:

"Genital piercings are some of the most common, and some piercers report that the Prince Albert piercing is the most popular of all, for females the most popular genital piercing is the vertical hood in which navel jewelry is often worn, ideally the piercing is placed so the lower part of the navel curve rests next to the clitoris. Many wearers of genital piercings keep their jewelry in during sexual activities, but others find it uncomfortable. It depends to a large degree on the design of the jewelry, the kind of genital piercing, and the type of sexual activity."

I'd like to see some sources to back up these claims.

Exploding Boy 22:56, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Re: image "pierced girl"

I removed this for two reasons: first, the image summary was inappropriate (if the subject was indeed a "girl" then she shouldn't have been pierced by any reputable piercer to begin with; otherwise she should be called what she is: a woman). Second, the photo was woefully inadequate. I'm sure that there must be dozens, if not hundreds, of Wikipedians who sport piercings. I feel quite confident that we can get some clear photos of piercings that are actually useful. Exploding Boy 16:46, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

I respect your meaning. In my opinion it is/was a nice example showing three different types of piercings. My english is not the best, of course someone should be old enough to be pierced. I also call 20-year-old women 'girls'. (Actually I was not aware there is an "age border", because there also isn't one by the word 'girlfriend', I think) - but how I said: my english is not the best, but I'm able to learn :-). --Avatar-en 17:40, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I say, feel free to replace with a better photo and caption. But in the meantime, I have reinstated the image, which is the only real image of actual piercings that the article has. Earpol 21:21, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Would you guys want to use either of my pictures? I may have more clear ones somewhere if you want... The two I have in commons aren't bad though. Kevin Videll 18 August 2005

I went ahead and added the picture. What is it with people with facial piercings and sepia tone pictures? Haha... -User:Kvidell
Changed it to a slightly more clear, non sepia picture ;P -Kvidell

Still a problem

The current images on this page are portraits. If you are showing off your piercings to your best friend, this is fine, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. While I have no particular problem with someone getting their face on a page, the photo needs to highlight the subject matter, and shold have as little extraneous material as possible. Sunglasses, headphones, curtains or other complex backgrounds and wash-out are all problems that prevent the subject matter from taking center stage in a way that educates the viewer.

Some suggestions, if anyone wants to try to upload a good pair (male and female would be good) of facial piercing pictures:

  • Either get a professional to do it, or get a friend who really knows what they're doing with lighting. Skin tones are hard to capture well, especially when the primary subject matter is a hightly reflective material.
  • Either get a close-up on just the piercings or get very close on the whole face. Don't worry about hair or clothes, they have no bearing on this article.
  • Remove any extra material that might complicate the picture such as neck-straps, other jewelry, high collar, glasses, headphones, etc.
  • Prefer a subject who has no tatoos or other body modification in the area so that we're not conflating the topics for the naive reader who may not yet understand.

I hope this helps. As it stands the images aren't useless, but they are certainly not as illustrative as they could be. -Harmil 05:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Understood! What you want to see is pictures of _piercings_, not pictures of _people with piercings_, correct? I can try to hammer that out later. My photographic style isn't usually atuned to taking pictures of people but I can fiddle around for awhile and see if I can come up with anything.
I'll make a small gallery of my more suitable results and I suppose we can pick one? I have a female in mind I can take pictures of, she's a friend who will have no problem releasing her face to creative common or completely public domain for the purpose of this encyclopedia. And of course pictures of myself are in the same boat, so that's not an issue. kvidell 22:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Gauging

is there a place on wikipedia that describes the gauging of sizes of piercings? Kingturtle 01:15, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't look like. Why don't you add a section on it to the article? Ø 01:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Because I don't know how the gauging works, and where the gauging numbers came from. Kingturtle 01:38, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Well the gauging is simple enough. Smaller numbers indicate larger sizes. Sizes between 16 to 10 are common, 16 being the smallest in that range and 10 being the largest. Smaller sizes range down to 18 and 20 in my experience---never seen smaller. Large sizes can go up to 00---I don't think there's a triple 0 yet anyway. As to where they originated, who can say?
16:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Ø

Remaking...

I would like to hear suggestions on redesigning this article and cleaning it up a good bit... I am a professional body piercer, so I can help quite a bit. Id like to hear some suggestions and offers to help. I just personally find this article to be very fragmented and just lacking in general. As well, Iv been working on bringing the piercing pages themselves up to date. I would love help, and would love to turn this into a project if anyone would be willing. --Azslande 18:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I've been meaning to do some work on this page and the body modification page for some time, but haven't gotten around to it. I'd be more than willing to help in any effort to better this particular region of Wikipedia. This page is a bit of a mess, there being three key issues, as far as I am concerned:
    1. The lack of good historical and cultural data on the practice, both contemporary and ancient. Also references to that data. In the past we have had problems with users adding material to body modification related pages after viewing National Geographic specials or seeing info-tainment programs, often this data is incorrect or not necessarily relevant to the article. On the other hand users like myself have been adding data to various body modification and piercing articles that in the trade or practice of those two things is common knowledge, but there are very few texts or other reference materials to verify that data in the face of fact checking or in the case of a difference of opinion.
    2. All healing time and aftercare information should be removed or minimised to explain the healing process of body piercing in general terms. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide - the article on Rhinoplasty does not include a how-to nor healing time and aftercare, and neither should the body piercing page or any related pages. If this is an issue, I could see the creation of an additional article body piercing aftercare that in general terms outlines common practices for the aftercare of body piercings, if it could be done without endorsing any method in particular. Glowimperial 00:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The article as it stands is very skewed toward the modern, western world. Only a couple paragraphs are what is labelled "In ancient times", which is very inaccurate. The article gives the appearance that piercing was some ancient, little-understood practice, that was lost for centuries, until some new-agers rediscovered it and perfected it. This image tells me that there is much more to be added to this article, and probably much content to be removed (or split off to sub-articles). The current article is basically a how-to for piercing, not an in-depth discussion of piercing's origins, history, uses, practices, etc. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-4 21:10

It needs a lot of work.

I read the sections on the various techniques of piercing, and I can't make any sense of it, even though I had to learn and practice venipuncture for a hematology class and am familiar with blood collection equipment.

Use of the word "spiritual" in this article doesn't make sense at all. That's a word like "love" that means everything and nothing. Does this mean that people with body piercings are closer to God? Does it mean that getting jabbed with a large bore needle makes you contemplate your mortality? Does it mean that people with piercings are de facto better equipped to understand the supernatural? Tell me, because I don't know. Feelings aren't facts, and this article is heavy on feelings and attitudes. BrianGCrawfordMA 16:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the confusion at all. Exploding Boy 16:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
What's confusing to you Brian? If your input could make the entry easier to understand, or if we could help you understand what's already in the entry, it would be good.
Body piercing and other forms of body modification have a long history as spiritual practices. Body piercing is practiced in a manner analagous to circumcision in many cultures. In no way is the entry intended to propose that pierced people are "more spiritual" than any other group, the entry is intended to describe that body piercing is practiced by many people, both ancient and contemporary in a spiritual context. What wording in the entry is troubling you? Glowimperial 17:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

wordiness...

  • regarding the sentence "others choose to be pierced as a form of sexual expression and/or for sexual stimulation or the perceived increase in sexual feeling that certain piercings are thought by some to create..."
    • that's pretty iffy. what is a "perceived increase" in sexual stimulation? that's like telling the doctor your foot hurts only to be told it's not your foot that hurts, it's your perception of pain in your foot that hurts.
    • this sentence can be made simpler. I'd suggest, "Others choose to be pierced as a form of sexual expression, or to increase sexual sensitivity."

209.82.111.194 20:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)209.82.111.194 15:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)jpx

  • i'll also offer my thoughts about cleaning up the following cluttered paragraph: "Attitudes toward body piercing have grown more accepting in the West and in other parts of the world. In some areas, certain types of piercings, even those once considered radical, are becoming more accepted. For example, while ear piercing was long uncommon among middle- and upper-class Western males, today men with pierced ears can be seen working in banks and other traditionally conservative settings in some areas, though this is by no means universal. In other parts of the world, ear piercing is still considered inappropriate for males in many settings, as are multiple ear piercings on women."
    • the first and second sentences say the same thing
    • i'm not sure about the use of an example. shouldn't an example be a specific example, like a famous person in a conservative line of work who has visible piercings? a politician or a CEO or something.
    • what is the argument of this paragraph? the first half says that people are becoming more liberal in their attitudes towards body modifications. the last sentence says that people's attitudes are not changing. there should be one main point.
    • to me the thrust of this section is : body piercing is a practice found all around the world throughout history; it got repressed under in Western cultures in the modern era, but (or therefore) took hold in subcultures; in the western world today, those attitudes and norms which caused piercing to be repressed are changing, resulting in a greater acceptance of body modification.
    • here's what i'd suggest. something like: "Body piercing is returning to the mainstream of modern Western cultures as attitudes and values change. Piercings that don't conform to cultural norms -- for example, facial piercings or ear piercings for men -- can still be considered inappropriate." (hmm...even this can be improved on...)

209.82.111.194 20:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)jpx

From - Behavior that hinders healing

* Swimming in public swimming pools, lakes, rivers, streams, and oceans as they may be too harsh to promote skin cell healing. Chlorine in swimming pool water may be an irritant. Bacteria, protozoa, and parasites found in non-chlorinated water can lead to infections."

I have been told emphatically that the salt of the ocean is actualy good for a piercings healing process. Is this not true?

  • I was told by my piercer the other day that the reason swimming in the ocean is discouraged is because of the bacteria in the water, not the salt (which is used extensively to clean the healing piercing). --pIrish 21:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
From experience I have found that a reliable way of getting a new or incompletely healed piercing infected is to go swimming (in a swimming pool, I don't know about outdoors). This is almost never mentioned (some FAQ, perhaps RAB mentions it briefly) but I think it should be. Chlorine doubtless is a bactericide but it doesn't seem to sterilise completely. Should I promote this to the main article? It's IME only but if it helps prevent others having my trouble then I'd be pleased. Thoughts? 81.153.17.100 (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Belly piercing?

A belly piercing is most commonly known as a navel piercing. However, neither of those are "Female genital piercings". There is already a navel link under "Body piercings", so I removed the link under "Female genital piercings".

This was my first edit, so please don't eat me if I did something wrong.

Decembers 21:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Store names?

One of the lines in the current revision is "Stores such as Hot Topic sell H2Ocean. Claire's markets rinses used in ear and body piercing aftercare that have excess chemicals that tend to hinder the healing process.". I'm not too comfortable with that; I don't feel that the names of the stores are particularly relevant. I think they could also be perceived as promoting a specific venue. Anyone else agree? samwaltz 18:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The store names are irrelevant and the link in the above paragraph to HTOcean stinks of commercial promotion. Glowimperial 19:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Religious Aspect

I think there needs to be a religious aspect of piercing section. Religious piercing is often done in trance states of the practitioners.

-Bill

April 29, 2007

clean up of the "see also"

I removed several entires. First of all, we don't need a laundry list of strains of hepatitis. We don't even need a link at all - we have a link to hepatitis in-text at the appropriate juncture. Same with HIV. Herpes isn't even mentioned in the article at all, and as far as a reader is concerned, the link between the two, if any, is not apparent. This see-also section should not read like a shopping list of STDs and blood-borne diseases. --Cheeser1 23:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Potentially misleading section

The section about piercing removal is extremely misleading. While, yes, some piercings will close on their own, others will never close, and some that do close - like nose piercings - often leave a bump or scar. People reading this may be considering getting a piercing and I think it's important to indicate which piercings are truly permanent and which ones will disappear over time. I'm sure there are good third-party sources on this topic that can be cited here. 68.146.41.232 (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I watch the article for vandalism and don't generally contribute to it, but I saw your note and agree. I've included a mention about scarring from Mayo Clinic. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary Image

I am removing this image, as I dont see how it is helpful. It is simply a picture that a user uploaded of their own nipple that he/she is not even sure about as the subtitle is "A nipple piercing four months after removing the jewelry, most likely an allergic reaction to the metal used.". it is difficult to tell if it is even infected because we have nothing compare it to as well as no size reference. I recommend we look for another image demonstrating an infected piercing if we could. If I am in the wrong feel free to revert... -- Greenfeast (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Section Numbering/Layout

Seems some of the information in the subsections of section 4 should be their own sections, or at least not in that section. Also, the article should contain history of piercing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.7.246 (talk) 15:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject Body Modification

I'm trying to start a Wikiproject on Body Modification, if you want to join sign up here please: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Body_Modification ScarTissueBloodBlister (talk) 01:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Images

I've removed Shanti.jpg from the article. The woman's piercings are barely visible, which I believe doesn't serve the subject of the article. Wikipedia has many better pictures to illustrate body piercing, but I'm not sure that more images are currently needed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I dont think the current lead off image shows "body piercing." I would like to see a more sexual style image that shows a beautiful female with nipple and or genital piercings. Considering the subject I don't think it is inappropriate for the article. I think the current pic focuses to much on the face. Garkeith (talk) 12:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Body piercing is not all about sex and certainly not all about contemporary Western practice. I don't see the need to sexualize the lead of the article. But your point is well taken about the facial focus. For now, I've moved a preexisting image further up, but will look for one that is less Western-centric. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Here's an alternative image that is not Western-centric and focuses on the body: File:Taipoussan Singapour 1994 03.jpg. I'll keep looking. Meanwhile, I've found some more information to incorporate from [1]. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Marissa likes Girls —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.82.152.109 (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Massive influx of unsourced information and images

To maintain its Good Article status, this article needs to maintain high sourcing standards. There's not a single source in sight in this edit. Also, I believe the influx of 33 new images to this article massively overwhelms it. Wikipedia is not a collection of photographs. A few well-chosen images can enhance an article, but there is already a link in the article to [2] where all these images and more can be found. While a variety of images of a single piercing may be appropriate for a targeted article, I don't believe that we need multiple images of various piercing types for the overview. See also Image galleries. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it might be true that there were no sources gives. That indeed is something to be improved. But the fact that this article about body piercing does not give an overview about the serveral piercing types out there is also something to be improved. And why not give a picture of each piercing? --Lamilli (talk) 12:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Historical cultures for various body parts are discussed in the History section. Information such as this, added in that edit -- "Piercings on the penis or the scrotum have a long tradition and several indigenous cultures and are applied for aesthetic as well as stimulation reasons" -- is covered in the section on "Body_piercing#Nipple, navel and genital piercing (with reference to specific indigenous cultures) and in "Reasons for piercing". Information such as "Piercings of the ear are in the western culture the most common piercing and the piercing of the earlobe is probably the only traditional piercing in Europe and the USA." and "Popular sites for piercings are the navel for women and the nipples for both genders" are in the section called "Growing popularity in the West" (though no claim made of popularity of nipple piercing, since the only source I've found for it gives it a 9% prevalence among piercers). (Scratch that; I sectioned it out to a new section called "21st century statistics", though I heartily wish I could find some statistics from other continents to avoid systemic bias. Our piercing articles are generally uninformed about international practices and seem to think piercing is all about being edgy.)
This text added -- "Different piercings are associated with different risks and healing times but also with different benefits" -- is covered (insofar as sourceable) in "The healing process and body piercing aftercare". (Benefits, as above, in "Reasons for piercing.")
There are embedded links to each type of piercing within the article on its first mention, mostly in the lede paragraph. Except ear piercing, which has no article (strangely). Many of them are found in the 2nd paragraph. In typical summary style, the overview article should not be as detailed as these sub-articles, which is where our readers can go to find out (for example) what kinds of genital piercing there may be. That guideline notes that "generally 30KB of prose is the starting point where articles may be considered too long"; this one is already 55KB. Without fear of overwhelming this article, we could add {{Further}} or {{See also}} tags to the various sections to make sure that readers who are interested find Nose piercing and Nipple piercing, etc., where they can read more detailed coverage and see diverse pictures of the various piercing subtypes.
In terms of the number of images, this article does link to the Commons gallery, as recommended, in the related media section, where with a single click interested viewers can see this. Images are not supposed to overwhelm articles, but to balance with them. This one has a variety from around the world (again, to avoid systemic bias) representing the various piercing types (according to their prominence and popularity).
The piercing sub-articles are generally in pretty bad shape right now, because most people add information without sourcing, but there's always hope that somebody will add some material that meets verifiability, is globally balanced and avoid unsubstantiated speculation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Piercingshq

Any reliable resource? Piercings FDPark (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) That looks like a very well-done website, but unfortunately there's not much information about who they are, which makes it very difficult to determine in the site meets "reliable source" guidelines for Wikipedia. Have they been cited by reliable, published sources such as newspaper, magazines or books? That can help establish their usability on Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see, so I should just put resources who we can verify, right? (For some reason, when I try to log in it gives me some kind of error) 190.210.126.153 (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's having trouble right now; I keep getting error messages, too. You might want to just wait a bit and see if that works itself out. :) But, yes. Sources should meet the guidelines at "identifying reliable sources". Generally, Wikipedia likes books, newspapers, magazine articles and reliable industry websites. If we can't verify that a resource is reliable because of who made/wrote it, we can sometimes verify that it is reliable because of who else uses it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Moonriddengirl, I'm reading the IRS right now. 190.210.126.153 (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Body_piercing/Archive_1&oldid=1144753515"