This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sun tanning article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archive 1 (2005–2008) |
It looks as if there is someone trying to split this article into two: Sun Tanning and Sun Bathing. Please bring changes this big to the talk page for discussion. I personally don't think there is enough distinction between Sun Tanning and Sun Bathing to require such a split. Maybe a mock-up in userspace would help determine if these two articles could stand on their own or not. Padillah ( talk) 14:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
The article on Direct DNA Damage says that UVB is responsible for only 8% of melanoma cases, whereas this article says it has not been linked to melanoma. I will remove the words "but not melanoma." 24.65.95.239 ( talk) 20:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Anyone up for browsing Flickr to make these images more representational? I understand that there are a lot of excitable males editing WP, but regardless: the ratio is out of kilter for a balanced article. 88.105.65.1 ( talk) 14:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
All due respect but how far out of kilter can it be when we've only got 7 pics? And two of those are a machine and an arm? By my count we've got 7 pics: 1 machine, 1 arm, 1 man, 1 couple, 1 topless, and 2 women. You are more than welcome to drop the second woman (who, admittedly serves no purpose) and we'll be even. The only other woman I could see being extra is the one to illustrate "topless" sunbathing, we could do this with a topless guy but it doesn't have the same impact, and I think bottomless would be a little too far. But, to address your point, yes, we have 1 too many pics of women. Which do you think should go? Padillah ( talk) 15:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Does the "Standing sun tanning" image contribute anything? It does not seem to have anything to do with sun tanning? Mtpaley ( talk) 20:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I removed "Standing sun tanning". It is totally superfluous for this article and (IMHO) looks like someones ego shot. Mtpaley ( talk) 18:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
It's a nice idea but it's just not fitting the flow of the text. It makes the article hard to follow and, without being able to correctly place the pic on the opposite side it looks crowded. Is there an overriding reason for a pic on that side? Does the MOS say anything about pic placement? Padillah ( talk) 14:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I removed the section on uneven application of suntan lotion on the body increasing the risk of cancer. There is nothing in current scientific studies, or even in conjecture among respected scientists to suggests that suntan lotion can cause cancer simply by not being applied evenly. Fireemblem555 ( talk) 07:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
This sort of "scientific" statement is totally useless. Which time are we being told of? Solar time? Local Mean Time (LMT)? Standard Time (ST)? Or Daylight Saving Time (DST)? Contrary to the good old days in which LMT was the universal rule of legal time in use, nowadays ST/DST is mostly a totally arbitrary matter.
For instance, countries like Spain, France, Belgium and the Netherlands, that geographically pertain to the GMT time zone (the same of UK), during World War 2 adopted (the German occupied ones, forcefully) the German ST, CET, proper to Central Europe countries like Germany, Poland, Austria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Italy, etc. With the end of WW2 they forgot to return to GMT and, so far, their governments have subjected the populations to a looney standard time, an average of 1 hour ahead of LMT in fall/winter and 2 hours ahead in spring/summer!
If the "10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m." refers to LMT, this means that sun exposure should be avoided in the following places during these local DST hours: Dublin, 11:25 a.m.-5:25 p.m.; Lisboa, 11:36 a.m.-5:36 p.m.; London, 11:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.; Madrid, 12:15 p.m.-6:15 p.m.; Paris, 11:50 a.m.-5:50 p.m.; Roma, 11:10 a.m.-5:10 p.m.; Berlin 11:07 a.m.-5:07 p.m.
(I have experimented sunbathing at 5:00 p.m. local DST (corresponding to local 3:25 p.m. LMT) and it burned; but at 5:30 p.m (local 3:55 p.m. LMT) it was quite endurable.)
So, "scientific" statements should be more accurate and be less misleading when alluding to timing. They should always state the time signature, preferably LMT, as it is the closest one to solar time.— Ana Bruta ( talk) 23:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I have changed the phrase in cultural history, because, to me it destroyed the objectivity the article maintained up till this point. The statement that the bathing suits of that time left little to the imagination(though just implying they were briefer than they had been previous) provides a very objective view point which I did not believe fit in to the article. I would concede that the text I have replaced it with is less than ideal and would encourage rewriting. 121.217.116.49 ( talk) 11:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Since this section speaks mostly about nude and semi-nude sun tanning, would these images be ok to add to this section ? They do illustrate the theme of this section accurately. Both images would not have to be used, but the two would be better for overall balance and fairness.
NightFlyer ( talk) 15:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I think you're right Padillah. The image that you submitted is a better example for topfree sun tanning, so I added it and the male nude sun tanning image to this section of the article. Thanks for your help ! NightFlyer ( talk) 03:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment Recently, an IP removed the male image; it was promptly restored per this discussion. however, I have removed it as I too feel it is essentially gratuitous. We do not censor images, but neither should we use images unnecessarily. First off, it detracts from the credibility of the project when one small section features two nude images. Secondly, the existing image - of the two women - appears far more "respectable", if you will, in that it is clearly a public setting and is not framed to focus primarily on their genitalia. The male image looks as if some guy wanted a picture of himself on the Internet, and took advantage of ouur conventions to do so. (Reviewing the photo contributor's record on Commons, that appears possible; his contributions there consist of images of himself sunbathing in the nude, skinny-dipping, wearing a thong, and ejaculating.) If there are concerns about gender equality, the solution lies in finding a mixed-gender image that is also in a public setting, and with a similar composition. -- Ckatz chat spy 17:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
In light of WP:HOWTO this section really shouldn't be here. I think I remember (some months ago) there being a section on the affects of sunscreen and the relationship to skin cancer. Do we think we can get this section to a state that it reflects observation and not instruction? or do we chuck it? Padillah ( talk) 13:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
This section is not trivial nor is it advice. Nothing in that section suggests anyone approach tanning in a given manner. How various people dress while tanning is not trivial, it speaks directly to exposure, both of skin and socially. And it is not unverified, there are several primary and secondary sources regarding various methods of dress for tanning. What makes you feel that this section needs to be removed rather than improved? Padillah ( talk) 15:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
<--Hey Padillah, thanks for your note. A rewrite would be a great idea, and, as you suggest, there may be something salvageable in the history. All the best, Drmies ( talk) 22:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
The edit made by 86.139.135.98 on 17:47, 27 March 2010 have not been reverted yet. Is there a way to do it without having to correct each and every change?
The edit made by 74.176.17.78 on 04:09, 3 April 2010 could probably also be reverted. The RedBurn ( ϕ) 11:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I, personally, find the article Sun tanning to be biased. It has an obvious "pro-tanning" leaning, the section 'Sociological perspective' is the main offender; it explains reasons suggesting that tanning is healthy by using biased sources such a website wholly dedicated to promoting sun tanning whilst not being objective itself (See source 19 on the article), and the section does not provide any objective view of sun tanning, which would have the two sides of the argument objectively written. I have flagged the article as biased until the dispute is resolved. RyanC13 ( talk) 06:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Is it necessary to have a topless picture to illustrate tan lines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.43.72 ( talk) 10:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The article now has no more sun-bathing images, even though sun bathing redirects to it, and it may be helpful to illustrate the practice. -- Michele Bini ( talk) 10:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
So far it seems the answer is 'no' but this seems strange as many have sparse or no hair to cover them,that seems counterintuitive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.254.129.225 ( talk • contribs) 11:32, 9 July 2013
Why do you people keep deleting this scientific info and replacing it with non-cited information about how the SUN WILL KILL YOU? Are you all retards?
"Despite all the fears concerning the sun causing diseases, sunbathing in moderation offers health benefits that many are ignorant of, such as nitric oxide production lowering blood pressure, and mood elevation with vitamin D production being most obvious, and lowered risk of heart disease as a scientific result. Research suggests sunlight helps reduce blood pressure, cutting heart attack and stroke risks and even prolonging life.[1]" ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-22433359) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.230.50 ( talk) 02:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sun tanning. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
There are already exists an extensive article about Sunless tanning. It seems redundant to include it here. It is also off-topic, as this page is about SUN tanning.
What do people think? -- Michael Powerhouse ( talk) 16:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
When I was reading this article, I found some parts that need citation to prove this topic on the second paragraph from UVA section. The sentences are information about the UVA based on scientific evidences, so it needs to include references (DDoran 20:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeygirl11 ( talk • contribs)
Does light intermediate skin count as light or medium skin? According to the wikihow page, "3 Ways to Tan When It's Cloudy", those with light or pale skin shall stick to five minutes on each side when tanning whereas those with medium or dark skin are okay when they do ten minutes per side. Also according to the aricle on the same website "3 Ways to Tan Safely", those with either type 1 or type 2 skin shouldn't use tanning beds at all. -- Evope ( talk) 07:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
This article seems to have had a history of disagreement regarding images that has resulted in the section on Cultural history having essentially no photos of people actually tanning on a beach, so I have added one, which along with the Monet painting illustrates the extremes.-- WriterArtistDC ( talk) 17:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Does sweat decrease the rate of tanning appreciably? I've read that the transparency of water decreases at shorter wavelengths. -- J7n ( talk) 09:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Tanning § Requested move 25 February 2024.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk)
12:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 11 May 2024. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
ErinnDoughertyy (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Lindseybean28 ( talk) 21:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sun tanning article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archive 1 (2005–2008) |
It looks as if there is someone trying to split this article into two: Sun Tanning and Sun Bathing. Please bring changes this big to the talk page for discussion. I personally don't think there is enough distinction between Sun Tanning and Sun Bathing to require such a split. Maybe a mock-up in userspace would help determine if these two articles could stand on their own or not. Padillah ( talk) 14:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
The article on Direct DNA Damage says that UVB is responsible for only 8% of melanoma cases, whereas this article says it has not been linked to melanoma. I will remove the words "but not melanoma." 24.65.95.239 ( talk) 20:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Anyone up for browsing Flickr to make these images more representational? I understand that there are a lot of excitable males editing WP, but regardless: the ratio is out of kilter for a balanced article. 88.105.65.1 ( talk) 14:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
All due respect but how far out of kilter can it be when we've only got 7 pics? And two of those are a machine and an arm? By my count we've got 7 pics: 1 machine, 1 arm, 1 man, 1 couple, 1 topless, and 2 women. You are more than welcome to drop the second woman (who, admittedly serves no purpose) and we'll be even. The only other woman I could see being extra is the one to illustrate "topless" sunbathing, we could do this with a topless guy but it doesn't have the same impact, and I think bottomless would be a little too far. But, to address your point, yes, we have 1 too many pics of women. Which do you think should go? Padillah ( talk) 15:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Does the "Standing sun tanning" image contribute anything? It does not seem to have anything to do with sun tanning? Mtpaley ( talk) 20:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I removed "Standing sun tanning". It is totally superfluous for this article and (IMHO) looks like someones ego shot. Mtpaley ( talk) 18:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
It's a nice idea but it's just not fitting the flow of the text. It makes the article hard to follow and, without being able to correctly place the pic on the opposite side it looks crowded. Is there an overriding reason for a pic on that side? Does the MOS say anything about pic placement? Padillah ( talk) 14:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I removed the section on uneven application of suntan lotion on the body increasing the risk of cancer. There is nothing in current scientific studies, or even in conjecture among respected scientists to suggests that suntan lotion can cause cancer simply by not being applied evenly. Fireemblem555 ( talk) 07:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
This sort of "scientific" statement is totally useless. Which time are we being told of? Solar time? Local Mean Time (LMT)? Standard Time (ST)? Or Daylight Saving Time (DST)? Contrary to the good old days in which LMT was the universal rule of legal time in use, nowadays ST/DST is mostly a totally arbitrary matter.
For instance, countries like Spain, France, Belgium and the Netherlands, that geographically pertain to the GMT time zone (the same of UK), during World War 2 adopted (the German occupied ones, forcefully) the German ST, CET, proper to Central Europe countries like Germany, Poland, Austria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Italy, etc. With the end of WW2 they forgot to return to GMT and, so far, their governments have subjected the populations to a looney standard time, an average of 1 hour ahead of LMT in fall/winter and 2 hours ahead in spring/summer!
If the "10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m." refers to LMT, this means that sun exposure should be avoided in the following places during these local DST hours: Dublin, 11:25 a.m.-5:25 p.m.; Lisboa, 11:36 a.m.-5:36 p.m.; London, 11:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.; Madrid, 12:15 p.m.-6:15 p.m.; Paris, 11:50 a.m.-5:50 p.m.; Roma, 11:10 a.m.-5:10 p.m.; Berlin 11:07 a.m.-5:07 p.m.
(I have experimented sunbathing at 5:00 p.m. local DST (corresponding to local 3:25 p.m. LMT) and it burned; but at 5:30 p.m (local 3:55 p.m. LMT) it was quite endurable.)
So, "scientific" statements should be more accurate and be less misleading when alluding to timing. They should always state the time signature, preferably LMT, as it is the closest one to solar time.— Ana Bruta ( talk) 23:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I have changed the phrase in cultural history, because, to me it destroyed the objectivity the article maintained up till this point. The statement that the bathing suits of that time left little to the imagination(though just implying they were briefer than they had been previous) provides a very objective view point which I did not believe fit in to the article. I would concede that the text I have replaced it with is less than ideal and would encourage rewriting. 121.217.116.49 ( talk) 11:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Since this section speaks mostly about nude and semi-nude sun tanning, would these images be ok to add to this section ? They do illustrate the theme of this section accurately. Both images would not have to be used, but the two would be better for overall balance and fairness.
NightFlyer ( talk) 15:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I think you're right Padillah. The image that you submitted is a better example for topfree sun tanning, so I added it and the male nude sun tanning image to this section of the article. Thanks for your help ! NightFlyer ( talk) 03:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment Recently, an IP removed the male image; it was promptly restored per this discussion. however, I have removed it as I too feel it is essentially gratuitous. We do not censor images, but neither should we use images unnecessarily. First off, it detracts from the credibility of the project when one small section features two nude images. Secondly, the existing image - of the two women - appears far more "respectable", if you will, in that it is clearly a public setting and is not framed to focus primarily on their genitalia. The male image looks as if some guy wanted a picture of himself on the Internet, and took advantage of ouur conventions to do so. (Reviewing the photo contributor's record on Commons, that appears possible; his contributions there consist of images of himself sunbathing in the nude, skinny-dipping, wearing a thong, and ejaculating.) If there are concerns about gender equality, the solution lies in finding a mixed-gender image that is also in a public setting, and with a similar composition. -- Ckatz chat spy 17:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
In light of WP:HOWTO this section really shouldn't be here. I think I remember (some months ago) there being a section on the affects of sunscreen and the relationship to skin cancer. Do we think we can get this section to a state that it reflects observation and not instruction? or do we chuck it? Padillah ( talk) 13:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
This section is not trivial nor is it advice. Nothing in that section suggests anyone approach tanning in a given manner. How various people dress while tanning is not trivial, it speaks directly to exposure, both of skin and socially. And it is not unverified, there are several primary and secondary sources regarding various methods of dress for tanning. What makes you feel that this section needs to be removed rather than improved? Padillah ( talk) 15:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
<--Hey Padillah, thanks for your note. A rewrite would be a great idea, and, as you suggest, there may be something salvageable in the history. All the best, Drmies ( talk) 22:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
The edit made by 86.139.135.98 on 17:47, 27 March 2010 have not been reverted yet. Is there a way to do it without having to correct each and every change?
The edit made by 74.176.17.78 on 04:09, 3 April 2010 could probably also be reverted. The RedBurn ( ϕ) 11:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I, personally, find the article Sun tanning to be biased. It has an obvious "pro-tanning" leaning, the section 'Sociological perspective' is the main offender; it explains reasons suggesting that tanning is healthy by using biased sources such a website wholly dedicated to promoting sun tanning whilst not being objective itself (See source 19 on the article), and the section does not provide any objective view of sun tanning, which would have the two sides of the argument objectively written. I have flagged the article as biased until the dispute is resolved. RyanC13 ( talk) 06:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Is it necessary to have a topless picture to illustrate tan lines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.43.72 ( talk) 10:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The article now has no more sun-bathing images, even though sun bathing redirects to it, and it may be helpful to illustrate the practice. -- Michele Bini ( talk) 10:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
So far it seems the answer is 'no' but this seems strange as many have sparse or no hair to cover them,that seems counterintuitive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.254.129.225 ( talk • contribs) 11:32, 9 July 2013
Why do you people keep deleting this scientific info and replacing it with non-cited information about how the SUN WILL KILL YOU? Are you all retards?
"Despite all the fears concerning the sun causing diseases, sunbathing in moderation offers health benefits that many are ignorant of, such as nitric oxide production lowering blood pressure, and mood elevation with vitamin D production being most obvious, and lowered risk of heart disease as a scientific result. Research suggests sunlight helps reduce blood pressure, cutting heart attack and stroke risks and even prolonging life.[1]" ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-22433359) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.230.50 ( talk) 02:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sun tanning. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
There are already exists an extensive article about Sunless tanning. It seems redundant to include it here. It is also off-topic, as this page is about SUN tanning.
What do people think? -- Michael Powerhouse ( talk) 16:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
When I was reading this article, I found some parts that need citation to prove this topic on the second paragraph from UVA section. The sentences are information about the UVA based on scientific evidences, so it needs to include references (DDoran 20:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeygirl11 ( talk • contribs)
Does light intermediate skin count as light or medium skin? According to the wikihow page, "3 Ways to Tan When It's Cloudy", those with light or pale skin shall stick to five minutes on each side when tanning whereas those with medium or dark skin are okay when they do ten minutes per side. Also according to the aricle on the same website "3 Ways to Tan Safely", those with either type 1 or type 2 skin shouldn't use tanning beds at all. -- Evope ( talk) 07:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
This article seems to have had a history of disagreement regarding images that has resulted in the section on Cultural history having essentially no photos of people actually tanning on a beach, so I have added one, which along with the Monet painting illustrates the extremes.-- WriterArtistDC ( talk) 17:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Does sweat decrease the rate of tanning appreciably? I've read that the transparency of water decreases at shorter wavelengths. -- J7n ( talk) 09:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Tanning § Requested move 25 February 2024.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk)
12:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 11 May 2024. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
ErinnDoughertyy (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Lindseybean28 ( talk) 21:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)