Talk:Navel piercing

Separate "Health Concerns" Section?

Both the introduction and the "History and Culture" sections currently mention health risks associated with this piercing. The two sections taken together currently come off a little patronizing. I think moving them to their own "Health Concerns" section would allow those looking for that particular information to find it quickly and would still attract the attention of people browsing the site or thinking about getting a navel piercing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.202.1.85 (talk) 03:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can We Get a Better Image?

Can we get a better picture of a navel piercing, maybe one that's less of a picture of a woman sexily arching her back with a tiny navel piercing that can barely be seen and more of a closeup of a navel, with piercing?

It went away. I put up another image that someone else posted for permitted use. See what you all think. Author782 07:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a lot better, although we still need a closeup. I have an appointment at a local piercing & tattoo studio on Monday to pick up some jewelry, maybe I can draft someone there for one. Glowimperial 16:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of 'Celebrities'

I propose to the delete the sentence: "Other notable celebrities with navel piercings are Hayden Panettiere, Beyoncé Knowles, Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, Melissa Joan Hart, Janet Jackson, Britney Spears, Hilary Duff, Christina Aguilera, and Jessica Alba." on the grounds that this sentence is getting longer and longer. There are no citations for these claims, the list can over time get incredibly long and what is encyclopaedic about this information? If people believe it should be included then perhaps a separate article is required "Celebrities with navel piercings." Any views? Gillyweed 03:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added sources for all the the ones that I could. I say any should be deleted without sources/pictures of the piercing. - hmwith talk 11:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good policy that we should use here. Thanks. If you disagree with this approach, please comment or forever hold your peace! Gillyweed 13:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just nuked another addition. I agree that the sentence isn't the best, perhaps there should be a wikipedia category for celebs with navel piercings and leave it at that.. (aren't we here to accumulate useless trivia? no? Oh dear.) BlakJakNZ (talk) 05:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting discussion - a while back, on a different account, I had done exactly what was proposed here - I created a category for celebrities with navel piercings and added the aforementioned celebrities to the list, removing the unnecessarily lengthy sentence from the article. I also created a list that corresponds. However, it was unanimously voted to be deleted, since it was deemed insignificant. I will probably just re-make the list as a sandbox on my userpage, since it interests me and clearly other Wikipedians would find it interesting, even if the community deems it uncyclopedic. Caution: Wet Floor (talk) 05:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fear the pictures used in this article evoke emotions too similar to those of passion, sexual arousal and sexual eruption, only to name a few. Initial interest is at risk, transmutating into something otherworldly, hindering the absorption of knowledge and reason. I believe the approach towards "enlightening visitors"-efficiency in this article can be altered, so that wikipedia's principles are not intoxicated or disturbed in any way. Anything to further the light. Revan ltrl (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, disagree. The images in this article don't appear to be overtly sexual - the association of body jewellery with adulthood, beauty, attraction and so on is one that's apparent when you read various articles on the subject anyway (navel piercings are purely cosmetic, so when it comes down to it, there are ties and it's impossible to completely sever them.) BlakJakNZ (talk) 05:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect history

The page states that "the navel piercing first hit the mainstream when model Christy Turlington showed her navel piercing at a fashion show in London in the 1960s," which is incorrect. The link provided to the Wikipedia page about Christy Turlington indicates that she was not born until 1969. So how could she have modelled the fashion during the 1960s? The link provided to reference this claim (http://www.navelrings.biz/) says that she was indeed the first to model the piercing, but the author has misinterpreted the information which refers to another fashion statement in the sixties, which is not the navel piercing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartypants 013 (talk • contribs)

Fixed. hmw ith 13:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewelry vs Jewellery...

I think i'm going to unwatch this article - the spelling inconsistency is getting frustrating. Reference American_and_British_English_spelling_differences#Miscellaneous_spelling_differences :

British jewellery; American jewelry. The standard pronunciations (UK IPA: /ˈdʒuː(ə)lri/, US IPA: /ˈdʒu(ə)lri/)[69] do not reflect this difference. According to Fowler, jewelry used to be the "rhetorical and poetic" spelling in the UK. Canada has both, but jewellery is most used. Likewise, Commonwealth (including Canada) has jeweller and US has jeweler for a jewel(le)ry retailer.

Yet people insist on changing the spelling - to the point where the article remains inconsistent. I'd like to see one standard set and then adhered to for the whole article (as it stands now it is still split).... i'm sick of undoing edits for the sake of people who can't see past their local spelling conventions. (Yes, where I come from, colour has a U in it. I don't go and add a letter U into every instance of color that I see... ) That and the fact i'm hardly a SME in the area of body piercing means I think i'm going to leave this article be going forward, and instead concentrate on other areas. Good luck guys. BlakJakNZ (talk) 04:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alos, one historical discrepency is that the article says that it has no historical basis, but it actually hails from acient egypt. The pharaoh was the only one allowed to have a naval piercing; all others were executed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.230.195 (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pierced navel as a symbol

Pierced navel symbolizes woman's openness toward anal sex. Aesthetics of visual appearance of navel piercing gives a clue to its symbolism - it resembles a seminal liquid dripping out of the anus.

I don't know how to add a sign to the above post, but uh. I think we should delete that? I've never heard of that, and there are no sources, and talk pages aren't a forum, and you know, wow. Punkonjunk (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing history

Okay, so did the ancient Egyptians do navel piercings or not? Because the article seems to indicate that it was popular among Pharaohs and then immediately discredit this as a myth spread by some book. Crawldragon (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Navel 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:

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) 16:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can We Get More History About The Navel Piercing?

Can we get more history about the navel piercing? I propose to add on more about where it is believed to originate other than the Pharaohs. In India navel piercings are very common but I did not read anything about it in India.—Dlozano04 (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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)[reply]

Advertising tone

The mentions of TummyToys a few times in the jewellery section sounds like advertising. 220.158.191.117 (talk) 10:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]