![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
I removed the following links from the article:
Among my reasons for removing these are
dbenbenn | talk 21:31, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
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)
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 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
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:
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)
is there a place on wikipedia that describes the gauging of sizes of piercings? Kingturtle 01:15, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
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 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)
209.82.111.194 20:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 209.82.111.194 15:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)jpx
209.82.111.194 20:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)jpx
* 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?
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)
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 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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Marissa likes Girls —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.82.152.109 ( talk) 15:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
Any reliable resource? Piercings FDPark ( talk) 14:10, 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)
Thanks, Moonriddengirl, I'm reading the IRS right now. 190.210.126.153 ( talk) 14:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
I removed the following links from the article:
Among my reasons for removing these are
dbenbenn | talk 21:31, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
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)
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 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
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:
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)
is there a place on wikipedia that describes the gauging of sizes of piercings? Kingturtle 01:15, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
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 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)
209.82.111.194 20:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 209.82.111.194 15:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)jpx
209.82.111.194 20:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)jpx
* 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?
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)
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 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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Marissa likes Girls —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.82.152.109 ( talk) 15:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
Any reliable resource? Piercings FDPark ( talk) 14:10, 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)
Thanks, Moonriddengirl, I'm reading the IRS right now. 190.210.126.153 ( talk) 14:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)