Talk:Nipple piercing

Picture of Home with chain connecting the two

This image is a good Photoshop job. However, the two pictures chosen to combine sex bing bijeaux homosexuality seine dommage aro milk absorbat male for American or thea noor, porno bague bijeaux transexuality poitrine dammage ard milk transpirator female for Germany or coffe dynamique 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 2021 —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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

'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)

I Agree. My girlfriend sports 4 piercings (nipple, tongue, navel and labret) and has never set any alarm off at any airport. All that thing about Nicole Ritchie sounds like a concoction or, at best, urban legend. John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.46.44.3 (talk) 10:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's possible for piercings to be set off at alarms, but it's not probable. You can read stories on the internet in forums and such where people have set off the alarms. While it's not likely, if the alarm's sensitivity is set too high, it could very well go off. I actually read a news article somewhat recently (within the last six months or so) where the alarms went off and a girl was asked to remove her piercings (a painful embarrassment as they had to use pliers and those forcing her to remove them snickered while she did it). She ended up suing the airline over it. So, no, definitely not an urban legend. --13² 17:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

Sources

While I agree with most of the page's content, only one thing (that doesn't have to do with famous people) is sourced, so I have added refimprove templates. I also removed one source due to its self-published nature.--Flash176 (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Citation Tags

What exactly would you like to see verified? What's in doubt?--Lamilli (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much everything, especially the history section.--Flash176 (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Christina

"Christina Aguilera had all her piercings removed, including her left nipple, keeping only her right nipple piercing." She's had them all removed? Or she's had all but one removed? This sentence actually made my head hurt.--Jclaggett (talk) 09:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the wording. I hope that it makes more sense now. Next time, feel free to be bold & fix it! hmwithτ 21:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of BMEZine link

Hey, this is a paysite. Do we really need to promote these people?

They're also a vast database. The only pictures you have to pay to see are genital and older nipple ones.--Flash176 (talk) 01:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's the largest database for photos of this piercing. If you can find another, that is more free, then add it. Until then, the BMEZine link should remain. --13² 04:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

breastfeeding and nipple piercing

i work in a research unit at the University of Western Australia and we have recently published an article in which we detail 3 women that we have seen that have had problems breastfeeding after a nipple piercing. Many websites state that there is no problems, but we have evidence that strongly suggests that there may be problems. Women need to be aware of this potiential problem if they are considering nipple piercing.Jane66 (talk) 11:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This would normally be considered original research, but since there's a citation to a published article it can stand. That said, where you were placing it was completely inappropriate, especially since you were removing an extremely reliable source that said correctly done nipple piercings won't cause any problems and made it sound like every nipple piercing will be an issue with breastfeeding, which isn't true. However, another user resolved this issue so the information can stay. --13² 12:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

A preview of the JAMA letter is here. Hairhorn (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you can't read the source without paying to subscribe to the website. Also, I take issue with only having 3 examples. That hardly sounds scientific without being able to read the letter.--Flash176 (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree and I'm more inclined to remove the statement until I can actually read the full source. I fear they made a lot of hasty conclusions, generalizations, and assumptions, especially considering all the research out there that says quite the opposite. I'm ok with leaving it in as a very vague, very neutral notation, but not anything that could be considered concrete (though I'd prefer to remove it entirely). --13² 15:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The document in question is a research letter reviewing 3 cases, not a research article. (And having to pay isn't a verifiability issue, take a walk to your local university medical library instead. Even my local city library has JAMA.) The letter clearly doesn't make hasty conclusions, with language like this: "We present 3 patients with lactation difficulties suggesting that nipple piercings can lead to complications". There are no claims to have made a full research study, nor do they claim any absoute link. They can be accused of being vague, but hardly of jumping the gun. Hairhorn (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

All right, maybe that was a bit of a hasty generalization on my side ;) and, so long as you've read it and can attest to its merit, I'll leave it in. I'm still a bit uncomfortable about it though since they only had three patients, but so long as the statement remains very vague, then I'll leave it be. --13² 17:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

i never said that every woman who has their nipple pierced would have a problem. It only takes a few people to have a problem, to suggest that it is a problem sometimes. We make no claims as to the incidence of subsequent difficulties. However, the 3 women that we saw all presented within a month to our research unit which suggests that it is not a RARE problem. We have also seen women who have had a piercing and who did not have that problem.For people not familiar with JAMA, it is an extrememly reputable journal, and even letters are sent to independent reviewers for critical comments and many letters are not accepted. They do not publish any letter that they recieve. Also, there was nothing to suggest that the women who had had their nipples pierced had had it done in an ímproper manner', what ever you mean by that.Jane66 (talk) 04:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hairhorn, I never said having to pay was a verifiability issue. A source doesn't have to have ready access to be considered a source.

Jane66, let me make this clear up front: I can't read your letter, so I can't know your methods and am not saying you're wrong. It's just that your 3 examples don't sound very scientific, not to mention if it's a problem, somebody should have heard about it by now on all of the forums. I really would like to check your letter out, though, as it sounds interesting.--Flash176 (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Jane66, you are currently in violation of WP:COI as you are trying to promote your own work and research here and are arguing against those who may not completely agree with it. Please discuss this issue in a more neutral fashion. Thank you. --13² 17:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject Body Modification

I'm trying to start a Wikiproject on Body Modification, if anyone wants to join go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Body_Modification ScarTissueBloodBlister (talk) 02:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

14th Century Cleavage

I've been looking, and I can't find any credible sources for the assertions that women wore necklines that reveled their nipples, or that Queen Isabeau wore a nipple ring. Its seems highly unlikely to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_piercing#Body_piercing_folklore gives an uncited mention to the Book "Dreamtime" by Hans Peter Duerr which appears to be a history of witchcraft. That article seems to take a much more secptical view of the idea than this one. Should the two be reconciled? 69.115.19.58 (talk) 06:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree. I saw the highly dubious "history" section and jumped straight here to see if anyone is already investigating it. Much of the history section sounds like someone's fantasy (a high risk for an article like this) and should be either cited or deleted.

In particular, in the 14th century, the "fashion" was not only no displayed cleavage, in fact women's garments went at least up to the chin, so you didn't even see a seductive throat, and until quite late in that century it was still common to cover the whole body except the face and hands, in much the same manner as hijab; see wimple. The idea that bared nipples were shown in public is utterly preposterous. This is a particular concern because the Marquis de Sade wrote a "history" of Isabeau of Bavaria, much of which is completely fictitious, probably designed to simultaneously satisfy his own peculiar desires and get back in the good books with the Revolutionaries; if that is the source, then the claim is certainly bunk. In fact even if de Sade isn't the source, it is bunk.

The Anneaux De Sein is slightly more plausible, but still rather dubious. For one minor thing, the French is wrong; it should be "anneaux des seins" (which, of course, is simply the ordinary modern French word for "nipple rings," but literally translates as "breast rings.") More significantly, when I Google it, every page seems to be quoting the same, sole source: a particular paragraph from Kern, Stephen (1975). Anatomy and Destiny: A Cultural History of the Body. Bobbs-Merrill. p. 97. ISBN 0672520915. Professor Kern is a presumably reliable source; he is a professor of history whose studies specifically include the history of sexuality (see his academic bio page). However it appears in some of the quotes that his source for this claim is Fuchs, Eduard (1912). Illustrierte Sittengeschichte vom Mittelalter bis zur Gegenwart. Munich: A. Langen. p. 68 (Ergänzungsband, i.e. "Supplement", volume not stated). ISBN 3882203447 (1993 edition). {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help) This is a significant problem because Eduard Fuchs was not an historian, he was a radical activist who was writing propaganda to attack the upper classes. -- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 06:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, searching through the history logs I find that the disputed text has had a {{fact}} tag since December, 2007. (It has occasionally been temporarily removed without justification or discussion, which is generally considered vandalism.) The original author of the claims, User:Lamilli, has an edit history that shows great interest in sexually oriented body modification but no particular interest in historical research. In view of the lack of any shred of support for this improbable claim, the long period it was marked dubious without any evidence at all being offered, and the arguments indicating it is very probably false, I am going to remove the highly improbable 14th century claim. I will not touch the 1890s claim until I can confirm that the quotes of Prof. Kern that I have read are accurate. If that proves to the case, I will pre-pend the claim it with "It has been claimed by one author [insert Prof. Kern ref], based on a claim by radical activist Eduard Fuchs, that during the Victorian period around 1890 ..." -- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 06:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Healing time

I reverted the recent change to the healing time for these piercings, as they went against the published paper from a reputable source. My edit summary was a little harsh, but it's still mostly true. Anything less than a medically published paper (or better) is going to be less reliable than what's already there. I will assume it was changed because you have to log in to the site to see the paper. Keep in mind though, that sources don't have to be readily accessible pages on internet. If it's in a book, peer-reviewed journal, or printed paper, it is still considered reliable, and often more reliable than the vast majority of online material. ICYTIGER'SBLOOD 13:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Vogue Quote

It seems that the source for the "Vogue" quote is unreliable: Vogue's first issue was 1892.

98.249.9.192 (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Axl Rose

I just wanted to add that Axl Rose also has or used to have a nipple piercing. I feel like he should not be left out of the "Popular Wearers" section. I am pretty sure a lot of others are forgotten to, but I thought at least Axl Rose should be in there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.86.43.180 (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Picture

You claim that the new picture would be "much better" - I don't see in which way. Such huge rings are just not a typical exemplar.--Lamilli (talk) 08:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Images must be functional at the size presented. In the case of the image you prefer, the piercings cannot be easily seen, which is why the previous image is preferable. Please do not edit war. BMK (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to insist on the previous image. I can see your point that the piercing is hardly noticable in thumbnail view. Still, the image that was introduced by IP without explanatory statement features an atypical size of jewelry. I hope to find a compromise with you and propose that image with a clearly visible piercing of typical form and size. Other than that, I don't really see why you reverted the other changes.--Lamilli (talk) 11:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nipple 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.lalecheleague.org/llleaderweb/LV/LVJunJul99p64.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110913061625/http://fashioncopious.typepad.com/fashioncopious/2008/05/new-trend-in-fa.html to http://fashioncopious.typepad.com/fashioncopious/2008/05/new-trend-in-fa.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 01:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Lists of examples

I have again removed the long lists of examples of people with these piercings. I have done this on two grounds: first, the sourcing was generally poor, with a mix of self-published, deprecated, and primary sources; second, there is no indication that the extensive list warrants inclusion. Please don't restore it without addressing these issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)