Talk:Sun tanning

Nude image

The existing image served the purpose of demonstrating sun tanning (the article topic) fine and there is no reason to delete this image from the page, and instead add another image of sun tanning, that features topless sun tanning. This article isn't about nude sun tanning, it is about sun tanning in general, and the image isn't "better" than the existing image. The existing image better serves this purpose and no justification was given for deleting it from the page. I have no problem with displaying images of any body part if it is the topic of the article or significantly adds context to the article. In this example, it doesn't. Pharmboy (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Nude image inserted by Dandelion1 reverted again, user refusing to use TALK of article. Original image portrays the proper tone for article as it shows how the majority of people enjoy Sun tanning, which is the topic of the article. Nude/topless image is fine in an article that covers the topic, which is not this article. No justification given for deleting existing image. Pharmboy (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Your favorite image was moved below. After you reverted the top one we now we have two instances of the same picture. I'm going to delete the instance of the one on top and replace it with the beach image. You claiming that the proper tone of the article means that proper suntanning includes wearing clothes is falling on deaf ears. You should be happy that there is a balance of images on the page regarding states of dress. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 20:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandelion1 (talk • contribs)

You would probably do well to not insult me and instead open a conversation, as your comments in summary only indicate that you have no idea what I am about. You question my motives, yet I have explained them in full detail on every change. I have no problem with nudity or displaying nude images on Wikipedia in the proper context and never have. A picture, any picture, should add to the context of the article. If it takes away, does not give more meaning to, or is not related to a topic, then it doesn't belong, regardless of whether it is a nude or not. There isn't a concensus to change the lead image to this nude, so your unilaterally changing the image to the nude, TWICE, without initiating any conversation within the talk page is improper. Both times I have left detailed reasoning in my summary and on the talk page. Adding nudes to any page tends to get a reaction from some you might call "prudes", which is why explaining in TALK is considered a courtasy. If the image added something to the article, I would have no problem adding it, but it doesn't, nor does deleting a valid image twice without discussion. At this point, you methods are disruptive and if you make a change like this again with using talk and building a concensus, you force me to take further action. Pharmboy (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Its is funny how you criticize me for not reading the talk page. I have read your comments. But look at what you have just done, again. You have now restored the image at the top of the page that you so like, so now there are two of them. You have not established consensus either regarding excluding topfree images from the page. I'm not forcing you to be a prude, Pharmboy, nor am I forcing you to "take further action". Its all you pulling your own strings. You don't think there is a need to have balance on this page with regard to dress, well I do. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 21:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandelion1 (talk • contribs)

Reverted. Seeking administrative opinion. Until then, the article is restored to the state it was before this dispute. Please refrain from using summaries with personal attacks, such as when you wrote: Women suntanning without Pharmboy's blessing. and Wikipedia is not used soley by prudes like Pharmboy alone, as well as your personal dislike of that does not change that fact. I have not resorted to any personal attacks and would expect the same from you. Pharmboy (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• I support the nude image, many people tan nude i.e. to avoid "tan lines" something such as tan lines should be noted and this image well illustrates that. We should be so puritanCholga^talK! 23:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Sorry, but I think the image is excessive. It's not a question of being prude, and it's not a question of censorship, as that doesn't apply here. If this were the article on nude beaches, the image would be fine, but the content is illustrated just fine by the image that Pharmboy has added. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to butt in but I must agree with HelloAnnyong. Especially without any reference to either nude or topless suntanning (which is usually called "Sunbathing", though I'm not sure that means it requires an article of it's own). I don't see how the picture would be appropriate without some reference as to why it is appropriate. You can't just put a picture in an article and hope the reader figures it out. Padillah (talk) 13:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to weigh-in here in against the use of the nude. I'm in total agreement that the photo adds nothing to the article. Nudity is clearly important to Dandelion, and that's great, but Wikipedia is not a sounding board for his personal agendas. This borders on a POV pushing issue. NObodyNOWHERE (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment I've tried to step around that issue somewhat until someone else noticed. The majority of his edits ARE nudity related (ok, ALL of his edits) and it is a bit of a crusade for him. Read how he has dealt with them on his talk page and elsewhere, and history to gain a perspective. You are also welcome to do the same with mine. This nothing to do with anyone being a prude, it is based solely on context. Just as we wouldn't have a nude person eating a hot dog in the Hot dog article, there is no context here for the image as well. He is more than welcome to change the redirect from Sunbathing (which is a bit more nude specific) and create a new article that focuses on it, assuming it meets all other criteria here. Nudity without context does seem to be pushing an agenda, and the combative nature of his current (and previous) coversations (and lack thereof) make it difficult to assume good faith in this issue, or to think it isn't a POV issue. I'm rather fond of nudity, truth be known, but not using nudity out of context in articles on Wikipedia, and never to push a political point of view. Pharmboy (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

WHY NOT RECOGNIZE PEOPLE WEAR CLOTHES AND GO WITHOUT WHEN SUNTANNING? Why are you trying to skew how people choose to suntan? Get over it. When did we decide here that suntanning can only be ONLY written about and represented in the context of wearing clothes? If you are going to pursue a page for clothed sunbathing people only, why not rename the article Sun tanning (clothed)?

FYI, I do edit articles on Wikipedia that are poorly written and incomplete, and yes, many of them are related to clothing-optional contexts. They are some of the worst written articles here and I would like to improve that. Everybody on Wikipedia has an agenda and a motivation to participate and get involved in the community. I have no reason to apologize for improving articles and building articles. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 00:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Dandelion, I have no issue with the image. My problem comes from the lack of context for the image. To make note of the myriad ways a person can get a tan is notable, believe me, in this society nude sunbathing is notable (if only for being the exception). But that means add a section to the article about tanning in the nude or "sunbathing" vs tanning... or what have you. To simply post a picture of nude people tanning is, as Pharmboy pointed out, akin to posting a picture of a nude person eating a hot dog - yes it can happen but why are you showing it? You give us a why... and I'll drop it. Heck, you put that pic in context and I'll switch sides and advocate it's inclusion. But, without context, it's just nudity. Padillah (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen a naked person eat a hot dog, but hundreds of thousands enjoy suntanning/sunbathing. That is one of the main draws of beaches and resorts whether they are clothing-optional/topfree/clothed only. Its the most common thing people probably do without clothes, in fact, one takes off clothes to get a better tan. Its right up there with swimming. Your hot dog analogy/comparison is weak. Its nudity to you, but suntanning to me. Look at the picture again. What do you think they are doing? Are they trying to be naked or are they trying to get a good tan? Think. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 03:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandelion1 (talk • contribs)

And if you would have typed that in the article instead of here you'd have context and this conversation would be over. If you had added a section with that text and a link to Nude Beach I'd be on your side. Instead you refuse to read the article, you refuse to understand the concept of "context", you refuse to understand that, as much as you may wish it, the world doesn't revolve around you (or your outlook). So, where you see suntanning, I see a POV push to incorporate nudity in as many facets of WP as you possibly can. Having reviewed your contributions, and your lack of discussion before editing (even in the midst of Mediation One minute after agreeing to mediation you make the same edit that is being mediated... incredible), it's becoming clearer that you have an agenda. I really hope mediation works. Padillah (talk) 05:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Am I not allowed to add the image in the middle of mediation? Well I suppose Pharmboy is not allowed to remove my image while in mediation by the same logic? Has Pharmboy established the gold standard of proper image selection for this page? Do explain. Perhaps you can respond to what I just wrote above. Am I not participating properly in the discussion here? I am assertive about editing and discussing. I have agreed to mediate. You pouting and whining that I edit articles relating to nudity doesn't take away from my credibility. I do have an agenda. I want to prevent people like Pharmboy from censoring/blocking/footnoting the reality of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people who sun bath in their natural state. Its not a fad. Its not out of context. You yourself have an agenda and an attitude. So what. Try to focus on the issue at hand instead of going of on a tangent. Can you do that? Can you focus? Or do you want to continue to define yourself with personal attacks? User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 06:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

As for adding the image in the middle of mediation I'm not entirely sure, I am going more off the guideline that you don't edit a page until the dispute is resolved. As for Pharmboy establishing the standard, no: the 3O and other editors did that when they weighed in on the topic. By continuing to push your edits you are blatantly ignoring consensus. By refusing to discuss the matter (no, personal attacks in edit summaries does not constitute "discussion") you have shown a lack of respect for other editors. Now, to address what I believe is your argument I must ask you a question: Do you really think tanning is so complex a situation that an average reader cannot possibly understand it without the aid of a topless woman on the beach? I'm also forced to ask myself, Why that picture and not this one?... or even this one? Rather than understand that clothing-optional beaches are the exception (that's why they have the explicit name) you remain obstinate. Rather than try and find a different clothing-optional picture to convey your ideas you remain obstinate. You asked if you are participating properly: well I count 6 contribs to this discussion page in the last month by you - as opposed to 13 edits to maintain the pic on the article page. The only reason given is "some people tan without clothes", well some people tan in their backyard but I don't see you championing that cause. I am not whining nor pouting about your choice of material or your credibility, I said your contribs reveal an agenda. If you want so badly to keep people from censoring these pictures then what is so hard about adding a context statement to the article so the pic has an anchor in prose? Unless you are asserting that clothing-optional tanning is as socially acceptable as clothed tanning, yes it is out of context. I don't understand where I'm pushing an agenda. Other than articles containing coherent ideas I have little use for this article or this discussion. I also don't understand the apparent difficulty in typing a context statement into the body of an article. I am focused on the issue at hand: until it is placed in a suitable context that picture is not appropriate. A random picture of a dog would not be appropriate; people bring their dogs to the beach too, but random pictures of things you might find at the beach don't help the article. I now ask you to focus: Given the current state of the article what statement in prose anchors the picture you are trying to include? Padillah (talk) 07:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You say "you don't edit a page until the dispute is resolved". Last time I checked, both myself and Pharmboy were editing the page yes? So that makes us equally guilty of editing without having a resolution to the dispute. Perhaps since this community of consensus has achieved the gold-standard locked-in all-comprehensive featured article NPOV status for sun tanning I should have known better. How bold of me to suggest we be inclusive and NPOV in this article. How unsettling this must be for you. You seem to want to come to his rescue, but he is no less guilty of editing and reverting. Perhaps you should drop him a long-winded FYI as well. Another example of a point of yours that goes nowhere useful in this debate.

Why must an article be "complex" to use a photo of women sunbathing? Is an image of a clothed woman sunbathing "less complex" than someone not wearing anything? Is "more" the new "less"? An unbelievable suggestion on your part. Perhaps in your mind, when a phenomena comes to light which exposes that there is in fact more colors in the rainbow of diversity of expression and lifestyles in this world, you get a little nervous? So I think you are making little sense here.

Please explain, what "different clothing-optional picture" should I be looking for other than what already exists in the sun tanning and sun bathing Commons image galleries? What value would another image serve in this debate? Are you in fact acknowledging, finally, that is is more diversity in the gallery than on this page? Do I hear a hint of recognizing this fact?

This article need not establish what is considered "socially acceptable". That is your game. Some people don't think Wikipedia is socially acceptable because it is so comprehensive and inclusive. Think about it: Is Wikipedia really the "social acceptable status-quo internet encyclopedia of all things standardized for conformity with an aim for international cultural homogonization"? Is that some kind of Wikipedia standard you are trying to create out of thin air? I merely want the article to represent reality. Its not "complex". Some people wear clothes when sunbathing, others do not. Do you understand that? Do you understand people have uploaded images illustrating this? Do you understand that Wikipedia has not established that activities that are BOTH **widely** popular clothed and unclothed can only be by default be represented by imagery in clothed contexts?

What additional context need be established on the page beyond the general topic of sun tanning? Do you want me to write a paragraph detailing clothed and unclothed tanning? Perhaps you would want me to write: "Sun tanning is a complex phenomena. Some people wear clothes and others do not. Two separate, yet equal worlds."

Sun tanning isn't complex, but why establish clothed sun tanning images as the norm for representing the topic visually? Can't we have a proper mix? Image:Zille3a.JPG has more going on than sun tanning. Its an illustration of many activities going on at once. Why use that or an image of tiny people on a crowded beach? I don't see where you are going with this. Again, go look in the image gallery for better examples.

I don't understand your statement: "some people tan in their backyard but I don't see you championing that cause". When was I supposed to champion a cause and why? Is that a subcategory of sun tanning to you? Perhaps we should have a subcategory of people who sun tan with protective eyewear.

I have not inserted a random image, it is about sun tanning. You are failing to make a good argument claiming it is out of context of sun tanning. What the else are they doing? Tell me. Dogs on the beach? What are you trying to say? You sound lost. Do you want me to type a sentence saying people sunbathe with clothes and without and reference it sources to put your mind at ease? User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 04:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That is a great question:

Do you want me to type a sentence saying people sunbathe with clothes and without...

YES!!! That's exactlly what we want. That's all I've ever asked for. I even said I'd be on your side if there were some statement in the article explaining the clothing-optional outlook.There should be something in the article that justifies the need for a clothing-optional picture. I have not asked you to delete the image nor remove it from the commons nor anything else: only JUSTIFY it. If you looked into Wikipedia Image Use you'd see under Rules of Thumb

Do not place shocking or explicit pictures into an article unless they have been approved by a consensus of editors for that article.

This may come as a surprise to you but a topless woman, under any circumstances, is explicit. As much as some may love the idea, we do not yet live in a clothing-optional society. The only thing I've been trying to do is get you to understand that there are two viewpoints, not just yours. There is a reason beaches are explicitly labeled "Clothing-optional" because that is not the norm. OK, let me walk you through this step-by-step and see if that helps.

• You admit that there is nothing "complex" about sun tanning. That is exactly the point I was trying to make.
• How does the image of the woman in a bikini fail to convey the idea of "laying in the sun to get a tan"? Inasmuch as she is tanning in the sun it is completely successful in conveying the article's message (you lay in the sun to darken your skin).
• Since the "bikini" image does not fail to convey it's message, what is the use of the "Unikini" image? To convey a secondary message that some people tan without clothing.
• Since there is a secondary message inherent in the "Unikini" image, that message should be expressed in prose somewhere in the article so as not to leave the reader guessing about the secondary message.

You said "Perhaps in your mind, when a phenomena comes to light which exposes that there is in fact more colors in the rainbow of diversity of expression and lifestyles in this world, you get a little nervous?", Don't you want the readers to be exposed to, and understand, what those colors and diversity are? You talk about the diversity on the Commons image page but you refuse to expound on this diversity when given a chance. And, as wonderful as all that diversity is, none of it communicates anything extra about tanning. Do you think just sticking an image on a page helps you communicate your message? Do you think you will gain ground if you post clothing-optional pictures in as many places as possible? The reason for these and some of my other questions, as well as reviewing your edit contribs as I mentioned earlier, is to determine if you are genuinely interested in fostering a welcoming attitude, clothing or not, or if you are trying to push an agenda. You are correct in the sideways attack that I should have moved questions about your personal agenda to your talk page, I'm sorry for not handling that well. Please accept my apologies for that. By the same token, personal attacks aside, you might want to think about how much you actually know about me. You have no idea who I am nor what ideals I stand for. You are automatically assuming that because I have an issue with your edit you get to make up your mind about what kind of person I am and what kind of ideals I represent. May I say your assumptions have, without exception, landed as far from my personality as they possibly could. Please stop assuming every one is against you and try some good faith. Some people are honestly trying to help (until you start attacking them). Padillah (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time time-wise to respond to this. Please have patience with me this week and I will post soon. Thank you. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 00:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandelion1 (talk • contribs)

I already stated above that changing Sunbathing from being a redirect to this article, and instead making it an article on, well, sunbathing (which is the common term for nude tanning in my neck of the woods), then put a stub in this article, with a main article tag pointing to the full article. The nude would definately go on the new article, and possibly here if the context for it made sense. I thought that was a logical solution. It appears he doesn't agree and forced me to go to wp:Third opinion, and now WP:Mediation after he reverted yet again. He isn't obligated to enter mediation, although I would hope he would, to hopefully avoid WP:arbitration. Or he can listen to yours and/or my ideas and in the end he would have what he wants anyway. It appears he thrives on confrontation, even when a solution is easily at hand. I am trying to do everything by the book here, but it takes both sides cooperating to avoid making a bigger issue of this. Pharmboy (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I was in the middle of trying to write a polite explanation, but you go again and revert the image, in the middle of a discussion. You leave me no choice but to seek mediation on this, and arbitration if necessary. You can't just bully others to get your way here. We are trying to discuss the image in a polite manner, explaining our reasonings, but you won't participate. Pharmboy (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Dandelion, please go to WP:Requests for mediation/Sun tanning, in particular the Parties' agreement to mediate section and enter an agree or disagree on the subject of mediation. I would hope you would agree, in good faith, to get the opinions of those not involved in the article. Pharmboy (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Concensus This discussion has continued for an adequate period of time, and at this stage is only rehashing old arguments. Dandelion is the only one who wants to include the nude image, while everyone else and finds the image out of context, and have offered their reasoning. The admins have not decided to take this case at Mediation at this point. At this time, the concensus is to NOT use the image within the current article. If Dandelion wants to pursue this further at Mediation (that I initiated) or by Arbitration, or any other sanctioned steps, I will be happy to participate. At this time, however, no new policies or reasoning is being given and the discussion is rapidly degrading from a discussion, into an argument, which isn't going to change the concensus. I would expect the image to not be added back unless Mediation, Arbitration or some other sanctioned process has overruled this concensus. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Mediation request

Formal Mediation is currently taking place here. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Mediation ended with Dandelion agreeing to add context, which has been done. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Mediation is not over yet as far as I'm concerned. Please be patient. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 01:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandelion1 (talk • contribs)

What point of mediation hasn't been met? PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Heck, I like that content so much I'll add it myself.

Dandelion, thank you very much for the content you provided over at RfM: Sun Tanning. That looks great! Nicely Wikified and well written all we need now are a couple of sources and we're set. I hope you don't mind me posting the content, after reading it I really felt my posting it would be a step toward "healing the gap". That really looks good, thanks for the effort. Padillah (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

What's with the HUGE nudity template on this page?

Um what's the big idea of putting this huge "Nudity" template at the bottom of this page? This is not a nude-centric topic and I don't feel there is any reason to try and hijack it into being one. I can't tell the project what articles it contains and which it doesn't but I can insist that this article is not about a nude-centric choice - Nude sunbathing is a subset of sunbathing in general. Articles like nude bike-riding are nude-centric by their very nature but this article is not and should not be overwhelmed by the addition of a template that's almost as big as the article itself. This gives undue weight and skews the articles content. Padillah (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Tanning and non-Caucasians

Do non-Caucasians tan in the sunlight too? Is tanning popular e.g. in Asia? Please add info if you have it. -- 212.63.43.180 (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Every race tans in sunlight. African, Asian, Latino, etc. Some individuals don't produce enough melanin, but all races have the potential. As to popularity, you would need to research that. Since it is considered a 'leisure activity', my guess is that it is less common in Asia, per capita, based on the political and economic realities there. See Ganguro for some exceptions. PHARMBOY (TALK) 13:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

New Image Idea

Some people have sex while suntanning, why don't we have an image of that? It's important to show both points of view: those who have sex while tanning and those who don't.

On a more serious note, why don't we just get a picture of the back of someone tanning topless? That way we see that people do tan topless but don't have to show unneeded nudity. It seems so obvious yet I can't imagine that nobody mentionned it in the enormous discussion above...

p.s. apologies for going on about an argument that's already been solved. -M.nelson (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a fine idea and I wish I would have thought of it earlier. We could have used a picture of a topless guy too, but that would defeat the intent of the picture. I suppose we could argue that a picture isn't needed to understand the concept of not having clothes on - if someone doesn't get it just tell them to go take their clothes off... there, you've got your example. All that is well and good but let's be fair. As it stands I don't see the harm in such a small, almost obscure, picture. There's no titillation, it's just some lady laying there, topless. It could be more extreme, I think Dandelion1 showed great restraint in choosing that particular picture. Padillah (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I second the idea of having a section dedicated to people having sex while suntanning, along with an explanitory image. Also, we should include a section explaining why only caucasians tan (and primarily women at that) as that is the impression I got from this article.

I was pleased to see the image depicting several caucasian women tanning topless as I couldn't get a clear image of the act without it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.4.243 (talk) 07:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, am I sensing sarcasm? Please, unless you have something more constructive (or sarcasm that's more immaginative) refrain from using this as a message board. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Melanoma

This page says UVB doesn't cause melanoma, but UVA does, do any of reliable citations repeat this, as it does not seem true. 24.65.42.159 (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

one study that deals with the subject: [[1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.142.144.126 (talk) 07:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Another study that suggests that UVA is of greater relative importance than UVB for melanoma formation: Setlow RB, Grist E, Thompson K, Woodhead AD (1993) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 90:6666-6670. 217.142.144.126 (talk) 07:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if UVA causes the vast majority of melanoma cases, it is irresponsible to suggest that UVB is incapable of causing melanoma. If the UVB mutated exactly the right gene, it should be able to cause Melanoma, although it is much less likely. Is there any study to confirm this possibility? 70.70.140.211 (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Cultural History

The aforementioned section of the page is really badly organized and reads like a high schooler essay. Someone really needs to rewrite it. Glandrid (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"Coney island" image

There is a slow-moving revert war under way over inclusion of an image apparently depicting a man in shorts lying on the sand at Coney Island. The image has been added by User:Rasputinfa who is its creator, and then by a couple of IP addresses. It has been removed by three other editors including myself.

I'd ask that a consensus be established on whether we want this image or not. I'd argue no because it is comparatively low quality, adds nothing to the udnerstanding of the topic and does not particularly illustrate the act or any effect of suntanning, or any other special point in the text.

As the image placement guideline makes clear, if an article is to have a number of images they shiould each illustrate some pertinent point. In the example used on that page: "Three uniformed portraits would be redundant for a biography of a famous general." Equally, multiple low-quality pictures of someone lying on sand are redundant in the context of this article.

Obviously there are opposing views, and I'd urge them to have their say. Anyone have a view one way or the other? Euryalus (talk) 05:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

What I could gather (from edit summaries, since the editors have not decided to abide by WP:BRD) is that this is an attempt to gender balance the article. With the exception of one picture all the pics are of females. This pic appears to have been added in an effort to change that. However, since it contains both a male and a female (neither of whom are tanning) it doesn't really help. I have to agree with you quality is poor and nothing is being depicted that's not in any of the other pics. If the editors want to address the apparent gender bias then they can find a quality pic of guys tanning and replace one of the "girl" pics. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Don't use image New image adds nothing to the context, doesn't improve the understanding of the article, and appears the creator is simply trying to push his photo into the article. Also, last time I checked, there was no copyright info on the image anyway. Regardless of copyright status, the concensus seems to be clear that the image is simply inferior to the existing photos available, so it serves no purpose for the one individual to keep trying to post it under names and/or ip addresses. The author *did* try to replace the lead image (your suggestion) the first time he posted the image. If you check the history, you will see I reverted, for the reasons listed. I also gave a full reason in the summary. PHARMBOY (TALK) 02:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Note I just reverted the image back off the page. Simply put, the image just isn't up the quality of what we already have. The fact that the original author tries to keep adding it under his IP instead of his name doesn't help his case, and demonstrates his goal is to publish his picture, regardless of quality or concensus. PHARMBOY (TALK) 02:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Further to the above, there are seven pics in the article - three male (this, this and probably this) and four female. That seems like gender balance to me. Euryalus (talk) 03:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Parrish1982" :
  • {{cite journal |author=John A. Parrish, Kurt F. Jaenicke, R. Rox Anderson |title=Erythema And Melanogenesis Action Spectra Of Normal Human Skin |url= http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1751-1097.1982.tb04362.x |journal=Photochemistry and Photobiology |volume=36 |issue=2 |pages= 187–191 |year=1982 |doi=10.1111/j.1751-1097.1982.tb04362.x}}
  • {{cite journal |author=John A. Parrish, Kurt F. Jaenicke, R. Rox Anderson |title=Erythema And Melanogenesis Action Spectra Of Normal Human Skin |url= http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1751-1097.1982.tb04362.x |journal=Photochemistry and Photobiology |volume=36 |issue=2 |pages= 187–191 |year=1982 |doi=10.1111/j.1751-1097.1982.tb04362.x |issn=}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 09:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The Perfect Picture which opens up a new category/article on sun tanning

Check it out, you'll love it

--[[::User:Panyé El Skat-e-board-ér|Panyé El Skat-e-board-ér]] ([[::User talk:Panyé El Skat-e-board-ér|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Panyé El Skat-e-board-ér|contribs]]) 09:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)