# Talk:Body piercing

I have reverted this change, pending conversation. Significant reliably sourced material has been removed and some has been altered in a way that the source does not support (Angel does not say a word about "less reputable piercers" and adding this kind of change violates verifiability and original research policies. Certainly, adding balance may be appropriate...but not in a way that misleads our readers as to what the sources say or that removes what reliable sources have to say for a different point of view. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I've re-edited to remove your concern (not my intention to deliberately misquote) and try to add back the balance I was trying to achieve. I'm sure I can come up with a few more edits over the next few days that add back in a few of the references to claims by those opposed to gun piercings - Once I've had the chance to assess them and see which actually do meet the reliability standards for primary sources that I was taught while studying at university. As with the whole of Wikipedia, this article is very much a "work in progress", but as it was previously, it read like a piece of totally unbalanced anti-piercing gun propaganda from the very vocal needle piercing faction. Gidz (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I have reverted you again as you have again removed reliably sourced material and this time removed sources for material which you have retained. You restored your "less reputable piercers" to a claim asserted by Angel, and simply removed the reference from Angel to the sentence.
I've checked the source you cite for this sentence: "With more modern designs of piercing gun using disposable cartridges, there is no scientific evidence to support these claims in cases where the staff using them are properly trained, and the risk of infection is no different to needle piercings and usually the result of poor after-care - A situation that can also occur with needle piercings." Can you please cite the precise sentences at http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Body-piercing/Pages/Introduction.aspx that support this? I'm afraid I cannot find it. You cite no source at all for content such as "These regulations have effectively banned the older, much-criticised, types of piercing guns from use and eliminated the associated risks of cross-contamination between clients. As a result of these regulations, provided the piercer follows proper hygiene procedures, gun piercings when done properly pose no significant health risk over needle piercings" and "Although many in the professional body piercing movement claim that piercing guns are unsafe and should not be used at all, these claims usually refer to older designs of piercing gun no longer in general use." This may be true, but it must be verifiable; we need sources.
This is a peer reviewed "good article"; it is extensively sourced, and the sources have been vetted against the "Good Article" criteria on Wikipedia, with an uninvolved reviewer who determined that they meet WP:V. They are not "primary sources", which are not preferred for Wikipedia articles. (See WP:PRIMARY.) You are welcome to add balance to this article, but you do not have justification for removing this reliably sourced material, and you cannot add assertions such as the above without adding a reliable, published source per WP:V and WP:NOR.
I'm happy to pursue another opinion, if you like, but please don't continue removing this material before consensus is established. This is not in keeping with Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Consensus policy. I'm sure that some middle-ground can be achieved here, but while adding reliably sourced, opposing views would certainly be appropriate, I can't agree with the removal of sourced material from this article and especially not the replacement of reliably sourced content with unsubstantiated material. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Constantly reverting edits you don't agree with and quoting rules is not a way to achieve consensus - editing the bits you don't agree with until we get to a point where we all agree with what's written is how we get there! With that in mind, I did a further re-edit that adds both pro and con references. However, just after saving it, it occurred to me that the best solution to the question is probably to remove the whole of the argument about the pros and cons of piercing guns from this article and move it all to the article on them here . Let the discussion on the pros and cons take place there, with a link to the article from this one. Replace the section on them here with a simple couple of lines saying that they are by far the most common method used for piercing ears, but that many body piercing practitioners have voiced concerns about the safety of some older designs that may still be found in use, the conditions in which some are used, and also about the training of some staff using them. With a short and simple section like that, it would be a lot easier to achieve a balance, it wouldn't need many references, and the dedicated article could be expanded to become a full historical review of the various designs and also of the concerns about them. What do you think? Gidz (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate you finding sources for some of this content, but am still concerned with some unsourced material, which I've removed, and some statements that go beyond what primary sources can be used to verify - a patent for a single piercing gun can't be used to substantiate a statement like "Again, this criticism mainly refers to older outmoded designs of gun, as most current models use hand pressure rather than springs, combined with thinner and sharper studs, to provide a gentler and more controlled piercing." We need a reliable, independent source to verify performance and also how widespread the model has become. I'm also unable still to find support for this statement: "Where such disposable or semi-disposable guns are used and the staff using them are properly trained, the risk of infection is no different to needle piercings and usually the result of poor after-care - A situation that can also occur with needle piercings." You cite [1], but I don't see anything there comparing the risk of infection between needle piercings and gun piercing. Is there a subpage that discusses this? I'm happy with shortening the section on it (and have updated the APP's stance), but we really need sound sources to make any conclusions about current vs. older models or relative health risks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've found another source, too, which includes another form of pocketing - which is an ornament inserted at a single base. Having put it in, I kind of wonder if it would be more at home in Body modification, since it isn't an ordinary fistula. But I leave that up to others. I'm not by any means an expert on body piercing; I arrived here years ago simply because the article was heavily vandalized and it's one of our 10,000 most viewed. Eventually, I got tired of the bad shape it was in and determined to try to make it better. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This article has a carefully balanced selection of images from different cultures around the world to avoid western bias. It is a general article on the subject of body piercing, and while it is entirely appropriate to include images of pierced genitals in appropriate subarticles, I don't believe that the article benefits from the inclusion here. Genital piercing remains quite rare. Naval piercing is by contrast very common. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

From the article: "they gradually thereafter came back into vogue in Italy, Spain, England and France—spreading as well to North America—until after World War I when piercing fell from favor and the newly invented Clip-on earring became fashionable."
Do the sources listed actually suggest that clip-on earring are more popular than pierced ears? If so, how recent are they. I cannot check since none of them are online sources, but this claim seems rather dubious. Tad Lincoln (talk) 09:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The source said that in the period after WWI ear piercing was no longer in vogue, while clip-on earrings were. As the article notes, ear piercing enjoyed a resurgence in the 1960s. There are no statistics comparing the popularity of clip-on earrings to ear piercing after the resurgence. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The BME encyclopedia article about nipple piercings says that the common "fact" that romans had nipple piercings is an urban legend. Does anybody has the knowledge necessary to judge the reliability of their source against source 40 in the article? Shim'on (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

According to this report body piercing is a kind Steel addiction. If you guys think it's true then i would like to create a new section about Steel addiction. Steel Addiction details --BrokenShip (talk) 09:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Unreliable source. Scientific reference needed. . . Mean as custard (talk) 11:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Body piercing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100606115922/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_7-9-2004_pg9_4 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_7-9-2004_pg9_4
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120114195410/http://www.safepiercing.org/piercing/faq/ to http://www.safepiercing.org/piercing/faq/
Added {https://piercinguide.com/tragus-piercing-what-is-a-tragus-piercing-how-to-clean-tragus-piercing-2021/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100606055328/http://www.campkc.com/campkc-content.php?Page_ID=748 to http://www.campkc.com/campkc-content.php?Page_ID=748
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091204134837/http://www.esquire.com/women/sex/ESQ020602SEX_50 to http://www.esquire.com/women/sex/ESQ020602SEX_50
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910170125/http://www.cda.org/page/Library/cda_member/pubs/journal/jour0807/zadik.pdf to http://www.cda.org/page/Library/cda_member/pubs/journal/jour0807/zadik.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Oliver Liebowitz.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted the lead image recently replaced back to the long-standing image. The rationale for the substitution was to show gender neutrality, but since the article is on body piercing in general the current picture (also of a man) seems more on point, which three different types of piercings on display. The other was a lower quality image of a single piercing, which was obscured by a very prominent tattoo. I note that this change was made and reverted several weeks prior and would appreciate consensus before a new image is introduced. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)