Talk:Nipple piercing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Picture of woman with chain connecting the two

This image is a good Photoshop job. However, the two pictures chosen to combine, the rail thin woman where her ribs are seen, and the large breasts of a healthy woman, were poorly chosen. One can tell it is image-editing by the angle of the chest above the breasts. Also suspicious is the lightness of the arms by the edge of the breasts where there should be shadow. I'm going to find a better photo that is not edited. • Joanna 13:47 EST 2 January 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 18:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Joana - You are incorrect in several of your assumptions. First, it is not two photographs of two women, but the same woman. Second, she is not "rail thin", and you implication that she is not "healthy" is also incorrect. She is tremendously healthy, and is in fact a "health nut", in both diet and exercise. I have several other pictures of her that i would be glad to post in this discussion. As she is a great example of this subject, I think it would be somewhat "personal bias" to remove the photo. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beachnut4 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Gay Angle?

This work doesn't suggest that some gay men pierced their nipples before straight celebrities embraced it. On a documentary about piercing on MTV, a man said many people assume he's gay because his nipples are pierced. Paul Rutherford, an openly gay singer of Frankie Goes to Hollywood posed with his pierce nipple in the early 1980s years before it became trendy in straight circles. Is there a non-homophobic way to bring this up in this Wikipedia entry? Maybe it's different in other countries, but I'd say gay men were doing it before others in the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chumley41 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major Changes

I've already removed the aftercare and how-to information from this page, unless someone has a major objection, I'm going to re-format it to be in line with the layout of the majority of other body piercing related pages. Glowimperial 21:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Future generations

Isn't it funny to look at the picture of a hairy (male, I suppose) nipple right besides the heading about breastfeeding? This is only noticeable on big screens with small characters but what will the future generations will think of us as screen size will surely increase and human hair will maybe decrease, even disappear? In a few years or centuries, wouldn't it be a little misleading? Josie dethiers 09:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] But why?

I came to this page wondering why anyone would want to get a nipple piecing. I can understand motives for almost all the others, but nipple piercings just seem pointless. --24.239.174.223 23:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

For the same reason people get any other piercing; some do it for the thrill, some do it because they think it looks good, and others do it because it's kinky. To find out more, please go to the body piercing page because I think they've got a nice section about the culture of piercings. --pIrish 02:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of nipple piercings?

I came here looking for some history on nipple piercings such as Roman gaurds or... Victorian women... rumors? I don't know, perhaps a nipple piercing historian could stop by here and spruce it up.

143.229.182.13 02:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC) AlRod

ha tildes.

[edit] Hormonal stimulation by nipple piercings

I have added 2 sections about that because it seems to be very special for this kind of piercing and often overlooked. Women not taking hormonal contraception have it relatively easy to recognise the effect - prolonged periods, irregular cycles or galactorhea can be signs of light/beginning hyperprolactinemia. Men (and women taking hormonal contraception) will typically not see any early warning signs. Seems to be highly individual, YMMV. Some precautionary prolactin tests will not hurt. Richiez 09:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This all seems rather alarmist for a wikipedia entry on nipple piercings. Every piercing has its dangers but this entry is probably 50% warning about the possible medical problems that could arise. What are the percentages of people who end up with these symptoms, it almost feels like all people with this piercing are affected. Which can't be right. 65.14.229.26 11:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)AlRod

Should not sound alarmist. Little is known about percentages of people who get it but I believe that a light hyperprolactinemia following nipple piercings is very common - definitely more than 10%. How much of that develop into serious problems has never been studied. The reason I wanted to have it here is because awareness is very low.. show me the studio that tells you that nipple piercing will stimulate prolactin. It may be possible to prevent this kind of problems by using Vitex Agnus Castus extract or testing prolactin levels.Richiez 19:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed section

I've removed a section regarding health concerns. While the information may be correct, the citations are not. Please see WP:CITE to see how to correctly cite references. If they are cited correctly, it can be put back in.

This is the section I removed:

Long term stimulation of prolactin that is caused by nipple piercings may result in overt hyperprolactinemia (Modest & Fangman 2002, Demirtas et al 2003). This problem may develop decades after the piercing so the association is easily missed.
Infection or hormonal stimulation caused by nipple piercings can cause particularly nasty mastitis (Jacobs et al 2003).

Feel free to clean it up and put it back. --pIrish Arr! 20:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding the citations in case they are needed:
  • Modest GA, Fangman JJ; N Engl J Med. 2002 Nov; Nipple piercing and hyperprolactinemia.
  • Demirtas Y, Sariguney Y, Cukurluoglu O, Ayhan S, Celebi C; Dermatol Surg. 2004 Aug; Nipple piercing: it is wiser to avoid in patients with hyperprolactinemia.; PMID 15274719
  • Jacobs VR, Golombeck K, Jonat W, Kiechle M.; Int J Fertil Women's Med. 2003; Mastitis nonpuerperalis after nipple piercing: time to act.; PMID 14626379
Hopefully this can all be worked out and fixed. --pIrish Arr! 20:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It would really help if you could give a hint why you consider the citations incorrect. I could guess but I am not into mind reading. I did read the citation guide Richiez 19:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to get you to mind read anything. Wikipedia isn't an MLA/APA/whatever-formatted research paper. It follows it's own citation rules to make everything look more formal and run easier. If you follow the instructions on WP:CITE, it will tell you how to do it and, if you've done it correctly, the references will have a link following the statement and will automatically show up in in the references section by itself (you don't have to manually put it there). --pIrish Arr! 20:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Harvard style citations are allowed and use of citations templates is neither required nor useful for this citation style. So I am guessing you object that there were 2 different citation styles mixed on the page? Or something else? Richiez 08:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

They may not be required, but they are strongly encouraged. It just looks nicer, more uniform, and formal. Many people will automatically just delete citations that weren't generated with a template because, in almost all cases, it just looks sloppy and not befitting of an encyclopedia. Here's a whole page of templates you can use, including templates for books, magazines, and journals. All you have to do is put in the information that you know (you don't have to fill every blank) and it will only show up with what you put there. Contrary to what a lot of people think, you don't need a URL to use these. Simply using the template causes it to show up correctly and just looks better overall. --pIrish Arr! 14:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This is getting lengthier than I expected and maybe we should continue the discussion in another place as it is getting slightly unrelated to this article?

The templates don't look bad. Otoh if you consider use of templates mandatory then think about fixing Wikipedia:Harvard_referencing which says "There is no requirement or recommendation to use citation or footnote templates in Wikipedia, and many editors find them unhelpful and distracting.". Automatically deleting citations which are compliant to official policy would be a very bad idea.

Regarding this case, is it acceptable to use Harvard referencing? What else is the problem? Richiez 18:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Since this conversation began, I've forced myself to increase my understanding of the citations policy so I know what I'm talking about and don't dig myself into a deeper hole. Clearly the most recent message to you indicates that I do not think templates are mandatory. Don't make assumptions that I still do, especially when I said, and I quote, "They may not be required, but they are strongly encouraged."
I still maintain that templates (which do accomodate for Harvard referencing) are the most preferred route and what looks best on a page that is already using a template-based structure, like this one is. At the very least, it should be made perfectly clear that there are two styles being used by having two seperate references sections (I recently saw this on Humpback Whale and it was ok, but, even though they've got a handful of non-template style referencing, more than 85% of their references are still template-based).
Why are you so against using templates? I'd really be curious to know why you seem to think not using templates for these few statements is better. Preferably on some grounds other than just because it's allowed because, so far, that's the only reason you've really given me thus far. You've not shown me one reason why templates are worse in this instance. If there's some specific reason why, I'd really be happy to know about it, otherwise, it just looks like you're fighting it based on what's allowed, rather than what looks or works best. --pIrish Arr! 19:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "stronly encouraged": that does still considerably contradict the text which I quoted earlier.

I am not (and never was) strongly against templates but was trying to figure out why you deleted my text in the first place given that I considered my citation style perfectly appropriate fo WP.

After looking at the harvard citation templates I think they are quite sane but don't help me very much compared to plain text.

What I consider extremely messy is the footnote style referencing where reference entries are scattered throughout the whole article. You need to search all sections to figure out where a particular reference is defined and references get accidentally removed very easilly. Furthermore even someone frequently proofreading an article is easilly confused if the footnote references are renumbered which happens fairly often in the WP.

For me the ideal citation system has this:

  • reference definitions not inline in text - and this is pretty imperative
  • citations in text with recognisable text (not just confusing footnote numbers). For example in some publications the citations use footnotes like "Demirtas04" or "Demir04" - very conscise and still 1000% better than plain numbers. This would be my personal favorite - does anything like that exist on WP?
  • special PMID template - just type PMID 123456 into citation template and have everything filled out magically. If WP can build the stable link automatically, why not the rest?

- Richiez 17:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. This is the kind of response I've been looking for. One where you're giving me more insight into what you're thinking because, up until now, it's been extremely hard to tell.
I'm not too sure what you mean about having difficulty searching for footnotes. The templates don't require you to find numbers within the article; they've got links that connect the statement and its reference at both the statement (the number at the end) and in the reference sections (the "^" at the beginning of the reference). There shouldn't be any searching to begin with unless the template was done incorrectly. If a reference template gets removed, it should automatically take it out of the references section and renumber the others. I guess I just need you to explain that problem a bit more because I don't think I'm really grasping what you're saying.
I took the section out because, at that time, I really didn't think anything other than templates were acceptable. That's why I read up on it as soon as it was questioned. I just haven't put it back in because...well...I just haven't. Even if it does go back in just like it is, I do think we really need a "footnotes" section and a "bibliography" section to seperate the two styles. --pIrish Arr! 19:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the footnote issues:

  • when reading the article I find them harder to keep track off than Harvard style referencing. Few people will remember footnote numbers very well and they get renumbered very easy. So essentially when I try to verify a text I need to jump back and forth for nearly every footnote whereas Harv or similar would make it much easier for me to remember whether I have already seen that reference.
  • when editing it is messy that references are not defined in a central section but scattered inline of the text throughout all sections.

Richiez 13:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Trivia'

The 'trivia' section mentions a small group of popular, mainstream artists, and their 'association' with nipple piercing. It is loosely accurate at best, and frankly seems to seek to validate said piercing by association. Surely there is more interesting trivia about nipple piercing, otherwise this section must be removed in its entirety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.104.160.62 (talk) 10:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Nipple Shield.jpg

Image:Nipple Shield.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)