Talk:Prince Albert piercing/Archive 1

message: Unless anyone has an objection, I am going to clean up and re-organise this article to make the information here (which is great) easier to search and read.Glowimperial 16:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Re-Design

message: Why not make a list of famous people who bear a Prince Albert piercing? I can think of the singer Fred Durst off-hand, and I'm sure the information is anywhere on the web...
It's not just some kind of sick curiosity on my part, I think that one step on the path of accepting the controversial genital piercings might be to show that many people have them, including famous people. Also, if this information is available elsewhere, why shouldn't it be on Wikipedia?
I just wanted to discuss this, see what others think and not just add some more controversy to an already controversial article!! --IronChris 18:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a problem with it as long as the information is verifiable (eg: the person has admitted to it in an interview).  But anything that contains the phrases "is rumoured to have" or "may have" or "when I had sex with him he had" is out.  Exploding Boy 18:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I don't think lists like this are a good idea.  List articles tend to be poorly cited (if at all) and given that Prince Albert piercings are removable and generally not visible to the public, I'd say that a list article on the subject would be extremely short and not particluarily of use.  Also, in my experience, when genital piercings are described in magazine articles, oftentimes the names of the piercings are wrong - every genital piercing becomes a Prince Albert, for example, as that's the only piercing that the writer knows about. When it comes to genital piercings, IMHO, a proper cite requires an image which includes the bearer's face or other identifying characteristics, or at least a link to an image. Glowimperial 19:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prince Albert bearing personalities 

message: recent addition by anon editor: 
Serious infection is a significant risk as the genital area is extremely difficult to maintain as a sterile environment. Several cases of severe infection leading to amputation of the penis have been reported in the medical literature.
This not only contradicts the information in the article, but seems unlikely.  Sources, please.  Exploding Boy 06:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed from article

message: I take issue with this recent addition:
:Despite that urine is not sterile (it can contain viruses or be easily contaminated by bacteria on the skin), infections of Prince Alberts are relatively rare.
First, urine is usually sterile, and if it's not, it's because of a *bacterial* infection. Regarding viruses, I don't know what to correct first, the fact that they wouldn't infect a wound (even IF the person whose urine was being used WASN'T ALREADY INFECTED WITH THE VIRUS LOL), or the question of whether or not viruses actually *do* live in urine (I've never heard of it), or the question of whether or not urine contaminated with organisms other than bacteria is still sterile (because it's bacterial infection we're concerned with here). Next, the 'contaminated by bacteria on the skin' part: Isn't that the point? The cleaning agent cleans away the bacteria. I think if we're concerned that people with PAPs are going to *store* their urine and use it later, or use *other people's urine* to disinfect their wounds, the above information is pertinent, otherwise not so much.--Anchoress 00:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Urine is normally sterile, I haven't read the change, but many resources state that urine is sterile, and all my training thus far have agreed, unless the individual has a UTI, which is usually cased by bacteria going back up to the bladder from the urethra. --kylet 00:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urine Sterile? 

message: Jewellery was spelt correctly. I do not think it is usual to change British to American spellings and vice versa, but if you do change once instance of a word you should change them all for consistency. Jewellery was changed to Jewelry in the Jewellery section only, co I changed it back.
--kylet 11:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: The Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha article says that the story of Prince Albert having a genital piercing was "certainly" originated by Doug Malloy, but this article only says that this is suspected to be the case. How certain is this?
Rodparkes 03:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither article cites references, so it's more accurate to say that it may have been or probably was apocryphal, which is what this article says. Anchoress 06:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the name 

message: I question the description of the PA as "a common form of male body piercing".  Obviously it's far from common among the general male population.  Even among those men with piercings, I suspect other types would be far more frequently found - in years of visiting nude beaches, I have only ever seen one man with a PA.  Does anyone have any objection to the deletion of the word "common". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rodparkes (talk • contribs) 08:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What the article actually says is that Prince Alberts are a "common form of male genital piercing."  Exploding Boy 18:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken, but this could still be read as implying "commonly found among men in general" rather than among men with pierced genitals only (like saying lipstick is "a common form of female facial decoration").  Besides, are there any reliable statistics on what is common in this area?Rodparkes 04:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is it really "common"?

message: What are the pictures so small? Makes the article looks odd --kylet 14:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PIcture size