Talk:Sun tanning/Archive 1

Archive 1

Cells

Do only dead or alive cells tan, or both? - Omegatron 19:35, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Apparently from the article, cells don't become tanned, melanocytes produce the pigment which makes skin look tan. Some produce the pigment only in response to the radiation, some don't need it to produce pigment. But I would suspect that the cells need to be alive to produce pigment.

I wonder how long the pigment remains before it fades - does it have a half life? I suppose that a dead black person would eventually fade and look albino, but would that happen before or after the skin decomposes? I'd guess that melatonocytes remain active for some time after general biologically recognized death, and if so, then a dead white person exposed to the sun might still tan for some time. Castlan 06:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[Interjected] I believe it doesn't decompose any faster than the rest of the body. the 'fading' noticed after a few months with out sun is just due to the shedding of the skin, and so pigment. This is clearly demonstrated when cut. The new skin has a lighter pigment to the surrounding area.

Uh. I meant the dead skin cell layer on alive people, versus the deeper layers of alive cells. - Omegatron 14:07, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Melanocytes are cells located in the bottom layer of the skin's epidermis. Castlan 9 July 2005 00:45 (UTC)

Dangers of tanning

Is sunlight just as harmfull to your skin as artificial UV rays from a sun tanning bed?

[Interjected] It's slightly different. Sunlight at midday has more UV-B; UV-B causes cancer, but also triggers production of vitamin-D and melanin. UV-A is also present, but UV-A doesn't cause cancer as much, but messes up collagen in the skin far more, and doesn't stimulate melanin production so much; but if you have already built up a tan, UV-A triggers release of melanin so the tan appears, but causes less DNA damage. Most suntan lamps produce more UV-A than sunlight and less UV-B; so they probably age the skin more quickly, since that is a lot more to do with collagen damage, but cause less cases of cancer and they don't give such a good tan. WolfKeeper 23:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It is actually UVA which has been linked to melanoma, and both UVA and UVB invoke the tanning response in skin. When judging the relative dangers of UV tanning beds vs. tanning in the sun, keep in mind that UV rays cause cancer whether they are produced by the sun or by a lamp. Tanning beds vary widely. Some have UVA-only lamps; others have a mix of UVA and UVB. In the 1970s, tanning beds were UVB only. You can ask your local tanning salon which type of lamp (bulb) they use, but less than one percent will be able to give you an answer. Without equipment testing, their answer will be meaningless anyway, because, as the lamps age, their output changes significantly. Tanning salons that maintain their equipment properly (change the lamps when they are supposed to) are extremely rare. UVA-only tanning bed lamps allow a far larger dose of UVA than you can get from the sun, for UVB is the ray that burns the skin, naturally limiting exposure. UVA-only tanning beds were manufactured precisely for that reason, to allow longer tanning sessions without burning. How much UVA you might receive from any particular tanning bed is impossible to determine without equipment testing, but most dermatologists believe that UVA-only tanning beds are contributing to the increase in melanoma. --Miko4444 00:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I am curious whether or not it is actually safer to use a sun tanning bed rather than getting a tan from a natural source.

[Interjected] Probably safer, but the tan isn't quite as good, and the skin aging is probably worse. But it will depend on the tanning bed. WolfKeeper 23:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, is there a threshold of UV exposure, such as staying out longer than X hours in the sun? Or something along those lines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.38.43.184 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

The state of the art isn't likely near where one could claim that Radiation from a UV tube is healthier than Solar light at sea level, but a responsible Tan Salon should at least be able to handle the necessary precaution in order to avoid excessive exposure. The Sun's timer is preset a little too long for most non-third world populations to rely on. The Sun would probably be healthier, if you dilligently kept track of your levels of exposure, and took into account cloud cover and other atmospheric fluxuations. Other than just natural Sunlight, I could rationalize tanning bed use to set base in preparation for a holiday spent closer to the equator.

There would be no hard and fast thresholds. Basically, the minimum amount possible to get enough natural Vitamin D production and heal certain skin conditions is what I would recommend, because every moment the UV rays penetrate your skin is another bit of subdermal tissue degradation, and most of that stuff, like collagen, doesn't really regenerate much. Now if it raises your mood and increases your endorphines, then it's definitely worth it - but take it slowly, and let your natural defenses enough time to compensate (pigment). And as you are almost definitely going to get more Sunlight than you bargained for, use that Sunscreen and non-animal based moisturizer. Unless you are a corpse, then try a formaldehyde cocktail. Castlan 06:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It would be great to see what are dangers of "NO TANNING" I ve heard roumors of staying in dark to mantain your skin young. Whats your oppinion, cant find anything useful on wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.250.202.181 (talk) 02:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I thing it has something to do with inactivity of skin, stopping/lowing the bloodflow to stop ageing processes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.250.202.181 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Putted some answer in "dangers of tanning" Hope some specialist will tell more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.250.202.181 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Ability to tan

I came to this article hoping it would have some information on people's ability to tan; I have noticed some light-skinned people that tan fine, whereas others only turn red and get sunburn if they're in the sun too long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.152.39 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 26 June 2005 (UTC)

Melanocytes are present in different concentrations in different people, and have different levels of activity. Even in the same individual, different concentrations and activities can be observed. Swarthy people have melanocytes that don't need UV exposure to produce melatonin, your light-skinned people that tan fine have significant melanocytes that are inactive, your others don't have significant amounts of melanocytes. I believe Michael Jackson has a skin condition that negatively affects these cells, and that freckles are just clusters of melanocytes. Note that once your skin is exposed enough to burn, it still takes some time (an hour or so?) to turn red. So even after you have covered up, a sunburn may still manifest. Castlan 9 July 2005 00:45 (UTC)

The information above is incorrect. Except for individuals suffering from Vitiligo, everyone has roughly the same number of melanocytes per square centimeter of skin. Individual differences occur because there is more than one type of melanocyte. Fair-skinned people have melanocytes that produce a type of melanin called pheomelanin, which is red-yellow in hue instead of brown. Red-yellow melanin does not create a tanned appearance, and it does not absorb UV radiation as effectively as the brown type of melanin, eumelanin, which is why fair-skinned people burn instead of tan. What type of melanocytes you have, and the type of melanin they produce, is genetic in origin, just like hair and eye color. The degree to which you tan will depend on which type of melanocyte predominates. It is likely that people who tan slowly, and not very dark (usually described as skin type II in the typical breakdown), have both types of melanocytes, but I can't find a source for this. --Miko4444 02:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Blatant advertising for fake tan product removed

Hope nobody objects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.2.12.173 (talk • contribs) 07:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Effects of Sunscreen on tanning

Does the application of Sunscreen slow the process of tanning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.87.24.254 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I've always wondered this, and no one ever can give me a straight answer. If you're tanning to get tan, and the tan comes from exposure to UV and the sunscreen blocks at least some of the UV, then I would assume the answer to be yes. However I've gotten some strange answers. Ranging from "well it's UVA that does the tanning and UVB that causes cancer, and that's the one sunscreen blocks, so no it wont slow it and it's beneficial" (which I believe is incorrect), to lots of other inventive guess-answers. But no one seems to know.

But if you're tanning to get tan, I wonder which would be worse... tanning with sunscreen, and taking longer to tan therefore more exposures... or tanning without it and therefore tanning quicker and needing shorter (albeit higher intensity) exposures. Or does it even matter? I mean maybe in order to get tan you have to get a certain amount of radiation for a certain amount of tan... in which case you'd need to be exposed to the same amount of UV either way you look at it? But maybe it's the way in which you get that exposure (intensity, duration, etc) that makes a diff?? I have no idea. But I really wish someone would thuroughly explain this in the article and back it up with good sources.

- Anon user, 1/30/2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.169.130.131 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course sunscreen slows tanning! Sunscreen has a Sun Protection Factor- normally between 5 and 30 or more. This is the amount that the sunscreen reduces the UV-B radiation by. To a fair degree that determines how quickly you build up a tan. But there's also UV-A radiation, sunscreens vary as to how much they block this, you can tell from the * (star) ratings. 4 stars mean that that sunscreen has a UV-A SPF that is the same as the UV-B rating; 2 stars are half etc. etc. It's a combination of the total UV-A and UV-B dose that determines how quickly you tan.WolfKeeper 06:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Other animals

Do other animals besides humans tan? I've never heard of such a thing, but I don't see why not, really. Especially relatively hairless animals like elephants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.36.145.113 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

This article contradicts itself

"However, having a tan is visible proof that your skin is being damaged and this could have a long term effect on your health, e.g: skin cancer (which is now an epidemic in the United States), or signs of ageing such as early wrinkling, brown age spots, blotchiness or sagging, older skin which looks older than it actually is."

Asserting that tanning is unhealthy.

"Getting good sun exposure and a tan is, regardless of fashion, often beneficial and healthy to a person as long as it is done in a gradual and safe fashion with the use of protective sunscreen and monitored exposure."

Asserting that tanning is healthy.

These points seem to contradict each other. Lantoka 11:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

In response:

Actually, it really doesn't contradict itself. It says that it may be healthy as long as it is done in a gradual and safe fashion, with protective sunscreen. The first statement, where it says it is unhealthy, is what happens when one is overexposed, has unmonitored exposure, and does not use sunscreen.

69.86.137.28 02:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)Angelo

There is no scientific support for the idea that suntanning is healthy, other than as a healthy individual's response to skin damage from overexposure to UV. I have re-written this article. It could still use more information about the relative tanning characteristics of different skin types and shades, for starters. Wyss 17:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Moslem women in Australia (generally noted for high levels of skin cancer) are now getting Ricketts due to lack of exposure to sunlight. There is a SMALL need for exposure to the sun. But there is no need to be exposed to the sun to the point of getting a tan. A tan is a defense mechanism against over-exposure. Garrie 05:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[Interjected] Not necessarily over-exposure. The body produces a tan when there is a change in the enviroment which requires better defence from sunexposure. People in cold climates (e.g. Scandinavia), have on average much more fair skin, which is more sensitive to sun, so as to be able to produce the vitamin D. The change in tan means that less damage is done, but vitamin D can still be produced in the conditions the body has adapted to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.95.189 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

A contradiction remains in the article. It suggests that moderate sun exposure is beneficial, but what "moderate" means is not defined. If it was defined, the contradiction would be eliminated. Unfortunately, there are many conflicting studies, and few take into account all of the variables, such as sunscreen use and diet. The consensus, however, seems to be that no one needs to seek out any additional sun exposure. The average person gets enough daily exposure during activities such as going to work, school, and the supermarket. --Miko4444 03:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

a study by dr........?

top one from sunbed

A study by a Dr. Anthony Liguori and others, published in the July 2004 issue of the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Part 1, suggests that the use of sunbeds may be addictive. The UV rays emitted by the beds stimulate the production of endorphins, resulting in a natural "high".

second one from suntan

A study by Dr. Anthony Liguori and others, published in the July 2004 issue of the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Part 1, suggests that indoor sun tanning may be addictive. Ultraviolet light stimulates the production of endorphins (through the production of Vitamin D), resulting in a natural sensation of well-being.

Trying to find the source of this, wondering if someone might know where or how to find this. it seems like it was taken as a quote but then changed, and I am not sure who has changed it, and which one it is... thank you Shane198three —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shane198three (talk • contribs) 07:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Some serious questions this article does not address

One thing I've always been a little perplexed by is this: if you're skin tans in response to exposure to UV radiation, and you're told to wear sunscreen/sunblock (which blocks or screens such radiation) then isn't this kind of a catch 22?? Does wearing Sun Screen cause a person to take longer exposure time or more levels of UV in order to tan since the tan is linked to amount of exposure (more UV = more tan) and since sun block actually limits this. Thus if you're sunning yourself in order to Tan isnt it counter productive to use sun block or sun screen??

Secondly there is no mention in this article about the effect of getting enough betacaratine on your body's abillity to tan. Also excersize promotes rapider tanner. There are also tan extenders that claim to help extend a person's tan, and personally I seem to find that using moisturizers help the tan keep longer. This article also does not make any mention of tanning techniques (such as the need to build up a base and then to have maintenence tanning), nor does it mention what is now widely accepted as scientific fact: that tanning can be mildly addictive (related to release of endorphines as well as behavorioral psychology).

There's also a difference, I believe, between sunblock, sunscreen, and suntan lotion. Sunblock = deflects radiation away from skin. Sunscreen = absorbs the radiation. Suntan lotion = little or no UV protection, with moisturizers and other components to promote tanning, reduce peeling, replace moisture and nutrients lost from sun exposure etc. This should be noted.

- Anon User, 1/30/06 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.169.130.131 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Survey in pic caption

The caption on the first picture says that many girls said ... in a survey. It would be a good thing to say something more about the survey - giving an idea of what group of tennage girls think this. JPD (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Why tanning?

There is very little information as to why tanning is so popular. So some people feel healthier (How does being darker make you healthy?) and some like the appearance of being athletic (but with tanning parlors on every corner, does anybody use a tan as evdence of athleticism?). I suspect that for the vast majority it is a social issue. A fashion trend.

Some people take tanning too far. I've seen many people with tans much too dark to be natural. Not attractive at all. PrometheusX303 18:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[Interjected] The idea of tanning is that tghe body does it all itsself (providing it is a real tan, so therefore it is all natural.86.143.95.189 17:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The act of being darker isn't necessary healthy or not healthy, but it proves that your body is recieving large amounts of Vitamin D, which is vital for proper health. However excessive amounts of Vitamin D are lethal. Malamockq 21:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Most Canadians (I assume N Americans) meet their daily requirement of vitamin D through diet anyways(http://www.canadian-health-network.ca/servlet/ContentServer?cid=1119222300970&pagename=CHN-RCS/CHNResource/CHNResourcePageTemplate&c=CHNResource). I agree that tanning is completely just a fashion trend. Any respectable dermatologist would tell you that, if anything, a tan is a sign of damaged skin and a prophecy of early wrinkling. 199.126.246.247 21:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

While most people probably do get enough vitamin-D through sun exposure, a large minority don't (http://www.newstarget.com/003838.html) (http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/diet.fitness/10/28/vitamin.D.ap/). Lack of sunlight has been linked to many diseases e.g. Multiple Sclerosis, rickets, various forms of cancer. Tanning has long been used by body builders to make muscles look more defined, thats how it makes people look more athletic. One explanation for why it makes people feel healthier is because increased sunlight is correlated with better mood. Another is that(at least in southern california) we would associate paleness with fat midwestern tourists, so in a way being pale was as unhealthy looking as being fat. MonolithicNinja

Here's the thing. Yes, vitamin D is a health benefit of UV exposure. UV exposure. NOT sun tanning. Sun tanning is a darkening of the skin resulting from EXCESSIVE UV exposure. The problem with this article (and many in the media) is that legetimate benefits of vitamin D are listed as though they are the result of getting a tan. Its like listing the health benfits of moderate drinking as "benefits of drunkenness" and saying that since moderate drinking prevents [list of illnesses] "well maybe binge drinking IS good for you overall". Really though, you never need to drink to the point of drunkenness to achieve these benefits, and in the same way you don't need to expose yourself to the point of tanning to get vit D benefits. These benefits have nothing to do with a TAN and therefore i see no place for them in the SUNTAN article. The only real health benefits of a tan is looking good and feeling better about yourself, which i'm not saying aren't legitmate, and the only reason people 'suntan', by definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.126.246.247 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Still Unanswered

If you want to tan and you're putting on sunblock, isn't that counter-productive??

There is still no answer to a continuing paradox in my mind: tanning comes from UV radiation stimulating melanocytes to produce melanin and sunblock/sunscreen blocks UV radiation; so therefore isn't using Sun screen/block going to increase the amount of time it takes you to tan? So then, if your goal is to get a tan, isn't it illogical to use sunscreen in a tanning bed or when sun bathing?

One other question that needs addressing is which produces a better tan: long exposure to low levels of UV rays, or short exposure to high levels of UV rays? Also, which is more damaging to the skin: long, low-level exposure; or short, high-level exposure? This could greatly affect the logic of tanning strategies and safety. For example, if length of exposure is more damaging in comparison to intensity while short, intense exposure is beneficial to tanning, then it would actually make more sense to tan without sunscreen for shorter periods of time rather than to apply sunscreen and tan for a longer duration.

This is a bit like the issue of low fat foods... people eat low fat or "diet" products but then eat MORE OF THEM as a result of them being less filling and less satisfying.

These are questions I can't find the answers to anywhere.

Another big question is the effect of having a tan... if having a tan is a natural barrier against UV radiation, then shouldn't it be beneficial to reducing the effects of the harm from the sun? Therefore shouldn't tanning be beneficial, once it's developed? In such a case then it would make more sense to get tan and then maintain it indefinately, rather than let it fade and rebuild it (thus incurring more damage because in this case, if the facts were such, then GETTING the tan would be the key area where damage could be done to the skin, rather than maintaining it). So here control would be the main issue of concern; how the tan was achieved (slowly vs quickly). This, of course, depends on whether the majority of skin damage is being done during the initial phases of tanning as opposed to maintenence tanning (during which one is protected via melanin).

I'd really like to see these questions addressed and answered and added comprehensively into the article by someone who either really knows the answers or can find the information and properly cite it. Thelastemperor 20:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I shall do my best to answer your questions, which are many. :)

First, suntan lotions and sun screens are two different products. The purpose of suntan lotions are to moisturize the skin. They may or may not contain sunscreen ingredients. Sunscreens block or absorb UV radiation, and inhibit tanning. Sunscreen ingredients can be divided into two categories: chemicals which absorb UV radiation, and physical blocks such as zinc oxide. Some chemical sunscreen ingredients absorb only UVA, some only UVB, but the physical blocks are effective for both.

Second, while UVB will more quickly cause a sunburn, both UVA and UVB damage DNA and invoke the tanning response, and both cause sunburns. UVA just takes a little longer to do so.

Third, suntan lotion is an immensely profitable gimmick. There is nothing in suntan lotion that can enhance or speed up tanning. Only UV exposure makes melanocytes produce melanin. Suntan lotions with moderate amounts of sunscreen are also a gimmick. Typically, they contain chemical sunscreens which absorb UVB, but do not absorb UVA. This allows longer exposure to the sun without burning.

Fourth, beware of "tanning strategy" misinformation from the tanning industry, which is only concerned with increasing their profits. They encourage people to tan daily, even though your melanocytes takes up to seven days to fully respond to a single tanning session, and they encourage people to purchase and apply incredibly expensive products that are nothing more than scented moisturizers.

Fifth, a tan offers very little protection, the equivalent of a SPF4 sunscreen, so getting a tan to protect your skin is counterproductive. The benefit of the tan is vastly outweighed by the damage your skin will incur getting it.

Sixth, and most important, there is no such thing as getting a tan safely or optimally. All tans, no matter how slowly and carefully acquired, are a response to the DNA-damaging effects of ultraviolet radiation. --Miko4444 03:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

i wanna sun tan now after reading this article!

"stimulates the production of Vitamin D, which promotes lower rates of disease, and ironically lower rates of skin and other types of cancer"

cool, i did not know that...so does that mean tanning isn't bad for you? (Oahc) 14:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

no. it increases damage to dna and hence cancer, but also raises antioxidants that help fight cancer. the good stuff probably doesn't increase past a fairly small exposure, whereas the bad stuff increases with your exposure. patrickw 18:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

also, most people can probably get their daily requirement of Vit D from diet anyways (it is added to milk, etc.) 199.126.246.247 21:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Most people can? Maybe, if they drink a quart of milk each day and regularily eat fish. Peoplesunionpro 13:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Vitamin D synthesized in the skin is far more readily absorbed than consuming Vitamin D orally, please read "The UV Advantage" by Michael F. Holick, Ph.D., MD. --Vox Teardrop 15:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No safe tan

I think this article needs to emphasize the fact there is no such thing as a "safe" tan. Now I realise this is an article not a health advisory, but from the way it currently reads it would seem that only tanning to the point of burning is risking cancer, when this is not true. To achieveany tan, even a nice looking golden one, is risking skin cancer. I think we really need to emphasize this fact, because alot of people refering to this article probably still believe tanning is okay if you don't burn (i used to)

Intro. A line should be added to the intro saying something along the lines of "Although today a tan is culturally assoaciated with health and beauty, it has been identified as the leading cause of skin cancer and most health experts advise against spending time in sunlight to achieve a tanned look", except less weasel word-y with actual citation to the WHO and american dermatology assoaciation or something. Certainly something should be added. An intro to this article without mention of skin cancer is like an intro to smoking without mention of lung cancer.

Risks Section. The sentence "Sunburns are a symptom of skin damage and are associated with skin cancer" implies that tanning without getting sunburnt (on a bed or outside) is okay. We need to emphasize that any tan is a risk. A citation of the link to tanning and wrinkling should also be added. Also, as a general comment on writing style, this section reads like a list, not an article. It jumps suddenly to talking about "addictiveness" with no transition and has no intro or conclusion.

Benefits Section. Call me on "NPOV" if you want, but I think that any apparent "benefit" of deliberate tanning is just bullshit used by tanning companies to make money, or myths spread by igonorant tanners. As i have pointed out most people get enough vitamin D already, and if they don't, there are better ways to get it, like a 20 minute walk through a park (not "tanning" really) or supplements. Sure we need some sun, but most people get enough in day to day activities, not needing to devote time under the tanning lamp or in the yard shirtless. Tanning for "health benefits" is the biggest load ever; its like saying you get drunk every weekend for the "health benefits" you've read about beer (in moderation). ...Also, the same comments on style from the previous bullet apply here too.

Prevention Section. Again, it implies tanning without burning is "safe". Only one sentence briefly mentions the idea of avoiding the sun as much as possible, though I believe most national health organisations would back this up. It makes it seem like the American Academy of Dermatology's recommendation are some radical new speculation, while in the last section, an entire paragraph is devoted to some Dr Grant's research paper. Not exactly balenced. Also the "NOTE:" at the end is completely unverified and weasely, not citing a single of hte "many experts" against the use of sunblock.

K there's my two cents, cause i'm bored. Do what you want, hardcore wikipedians. 199.126.246.247 22:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Where is your source that "most people get enough vitamin D already"? All this article says is that sun tanning occurs with UV exposure. And that sun burns are what occur with EXCESS UV exposure. The article doesn't say that "lying in the sun for 20 minutes is not tanning". If you don't think there is any benefit, you should look over the source that simply states that more people die from lack of sun exposure, rather than from excess exposure. Peoplesunionpro 14:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this is part of the balance issue with the article, but working on cites to make the article more neutral, myself. There is evidence that people who get almost no UV exposure have a higher incidence of skin cancer than those who get a modest to moderate amount, but again, I am working on data to provide adequate cites before I make any changes, since this issue gets political and is so emotionally charged. Of course there are risks, but as you point out, they are associated with overexposure, particularly as a child. I don't want to see the article be a soapbox for anyone, but instead provide real information. Pharmboy 17:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"I think this article needs to emphasize the fact there is no such thing as a "safe" tan."

I have not been satisfied that this is a true statement. It is my opinion after working in the industry for 15 years that moderate tanning without sunburn is beneficial to health. Homo Sapiens have been exposed to sunlight for 200,000 years and developed quite nicely as a species. Why now is it all of a sudden considered a bad thing? People also need to know that dermatologists make incredibly large sums of money from selling sunblock lotions. Also, sunscreen often contains the following chemicals of which many are quite toxic:

• p-Aminobenzoic acid (PABA) up to 15 %.
• Avobenzone up to 3%.
• Cinoxate up to 3%.
• Dioxybenzone up to 3%.
• Homosalate up to 15%.
• Menthyl anthranilate up to 5%.
• Octocrylene up to 10%.
• Octyl methoxycinnamate (Octinoxate) up to 7.5%.
• Octyl salicylate up to 5%.
• Oxybenzone up to 6%.
• Padimate O up to 8%.
• Phenylbenzimidazole sulfonic acid (Ensulizole) up to 4%.
• Sulisobenzone up to 10%.
• Titanium dioxide up to 25%.
• Trolamine salicylate up to 12 %.
• Zinc oxide up to 25%.

I certainly don't want these chemicals on my skin. Please think this through properly. --Vox Teardrop 19:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Vox, about the whole "history of the species" thing-- Cancer doesn't tend to strike before reproductive age, therefore, it does not have anything to do with evolutionary fitness. In fact, with average lifespans of maybe 30 years for most of our species' development, skin cancer would rate about as big of a problem during those times as hearts giving out at 80 now. So you may want to rethink your argument. -- Dan 22:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Some cancer must strike before reproductive age in some cases, and therefore giving a natural advantage as the human body has defences against cancer. These characteristics would only be important if-like you said-they strike before reproductive age. This therefore means that the ""history of species" thing" is a perfectly viable argument, as are the toxic chemicals in sun block. I think you should rethink your argument a bit. In any case, if tanning is the defence against UVB and UVA rays, then surely it would be beneficial to have a tan, as then less damage would occur. regular exposure is better for you than infrequent short exposure as the body body builds up its tan (and so defence) resulting in less damage. 86.143.95.189 17:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there are no studies that show that moderate tanning is unhealthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.219.66.222 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

References to Dr's

There are numerous references to doctors in the article; most are of the form "Dr John Doe"; for greater clarity and professionalism it would seem better to use the form "John Doe, Ph.D.", "John Doe, M.D.", "John Doe, D.D.", etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.19.178.194 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Better yet, unless it's someone of note (i.e. notable enough to have their own page here), they probably don't warrant a mention at all. Anyone who cares about who did the research can follow the reference link, but for your average person this information is entirely irrelevant. --203.206.183.160 11:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Suicide Rates

"Sunshine also has positive effects on psychological mood and in prevention of suicude, as suicide rates increase in winter."

this statement is actually not true, it's a myth and summer has higher average suicide rates. From the suicide article "People commit suicide more often during spring and summer. The idea that suicide is more common during the winter holidays (including Christmas in the northern hemisphere) is actually a myth.[14]" I ask that this be removed. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.160.169 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} Powers 01:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

UVA and UVB

One gets the impression from reading this article that UVA and UVB are completely distinct from each other, when in fact they're nothing more than arbitrary subsets of a continuous spectrum. Surely this binary description of UV radiation breaks down at some point... if anyone knows of an example in this context, the whole thing might deserve a brief mention. For the moment, I've just replaced the statement "The two frequencies of light which cause tanning are UVA and UVB"... --203.206.183.160 17:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You are quite right, UVA and UVB are terms created by scientists to group together certain parts of the spectrum. For example, a milliwatt of 280nm (UVB) behaves quite differently to a milliwatt of 314nm (also UVB). Don't even get me started on UVC. --Vox Teardrop 19:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Guys!

Im not sure how this edit thing work, but isnt the statement that UVB cause NOT melanomas all wrong?!? In fact, there is some discussion on whether or not UVA can contribute or not, but UVB can for sure cause melanomas...

And also, I was under the impression that UVB didnt cause skin aging at all (doesnt "reach" so deep, to the collagen in dermis), that this was solely due to UVA (thought it should me mentioned in the UVA (not only the UVB list). Sorry about the english, Im norwegian... Ole Nordmann

http://www.gwu.edu/~magazine/2005_research_fall/features/feat_sunlight.htm

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.217.215.51 (talk • contribs) 18:00-18:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Health Benefits of Moderate Tanning/Sun Exposure

There are two sides to this coin and I feel that there are definite benefits to moderate tanning/sun exposure. I am going to compile a list of websites that study the benefits of UV exposure. I wish people would educate themselves fully instead of listening to "scare tactics" by the Dermatology society without question.

http://www.sunarc.org/

http://www.tanningtruth.com/

http://www.sun-wellness.com/

http://www.uvadvantage.org/

--Vox Teardrop 21:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism controversy

The section "This Wikipedia article in the middle of plagiarism controversy" posted on January 13, 2007 was removed.

I think it is of some interest, as it shows how Wikipedia is used today by traditional media.

The original text was:

The author of an article published in October 2006 in Portuguese newspaper Público was accused of "a way of plagiarism" by the newspaper's ombudsman in January 2007.

Apparently, it is an unquoted translation of an article in an English-language science magazine. The box is a translation of the Wikipedia article about sun tanning, with a sentence left in English, considered by the editor as "a regrettable editing lapse".

The newspaper posted all the relevant documentation online. [link]"

Please comment. Ricardo Monteiro 22:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is interesting. However, I do not agree that this is something of interest for the Sun tanning article. I'd suggest that it might be better placed in the Wikipedia:Press coverage space. MLA 09:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

How? Ricardo Monteiro 15:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I can only assume this is a technical question and unfortunately I can't really help as my understanding of wiki templates is limited. MLA 15:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ozone hole

Incidence of skin cancer in Queensland, Australia has risen to 75 percent among those over 64 years of age by about 1990, due to thinning of the ozone layer.

An article is cited after this sentence, but ummm, the ozone hole is over Antarctica. Queensland is in Australia, not Antarctica. So, I propose if that if the skin cancer rate is actually 75 percent (which from what I've read is apparently plausable) then the "due to the thinning of the ozone layer" bit should be removed. Constan69 23:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The ozone hole is indeed in Antartica, but ozone is thinning all over the world.—anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.230.188.49 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Aging

How does the sun affect aging of the skin? Does any amount of sun exposure have the potential to produce fine lines and wrinkles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.237.155.14 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment

How come all East Asian people can tan but most Caucasian people can't? East Asian people have light skin when they are born...just like Caucasian people. I don't understand why they never burn. It's always been a mystery to me. (69.117.20.128 - talk) 20:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

4pm

Who says that the sun is strongest between 10am and 4pm? Solar noon is around 12pm and 1pm in areas with some form of Summer Time. Could we just say around solar noon (with a wikilink to a description of what this is)? Ufwuct 11:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

http://www.epa.gov/sunwise/actionsteps.html EPA states that this face is indeed true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.160.254 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Health risk section and Cultural history section.

On June 6, User:Jamhotjosh vandalized this article [1]. User:86.141.37.33 reverted the vandalism, but for some reason two sections were missing. I restored them. --Urod 13:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Image discussions

There were many discussions of images. While archiving posts from May 2005 through December 2007, I grouped them together for ease of navigation. — Athaenara ✉ 03:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Images

What's with all the reverts? Anyone up for some discussion on it? —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 04:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Using one of Sven's images is ok with me. More than that will ultimately distract some readers. Moreover, too many distracting photos in a short article like this gives undue weight to the naked breasts and bottoms they show and some may consider that disruptive, which is a blockable vio. Another editor has already reverted them altogether. Wyss 04:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think that one or two images is enough for this article. WP:NOT censored, and they're all roughly equivalent in terms of licensing, so it's pretty much which one editors want more. I see absolutely nothing wrong with the tits picture. However, enough people have a problem with it to make me not want it there, as you can have pictures illustrating tanning without showing bare boobs, however silly the uproar over that is. It's not inappropriate in the slightest, but it is controversial, and less controversial alternatives exist. That's my opinion. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The Romania pic should be re-added, as she has a very dark tan and that would suit this article well. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I've re-added the very dark, horiz. tan pic as per above. Wyss 13:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think more than 2 pictures of girls suntanning is gratuitous. In fact, it might be better if we have one picture of a girl and one picture of a guy. Also, the picture with the nudity should probably be placed lower in the article than the non-nude picture as this is often the custom with controversial images in articles. How about we switch the positions of the two current pictures in the interest of being less provocative? Kaldari 19:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Kaldari, good solution, though other contributors will, eventually, without a doubt object to the topless pic and I think s/he will have a point if other good pics are available with a complete bikini or bathing suit. Andries 20:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Truth be told, although this is only my opinion, I like the dramatic nature of the opening photo and since there is only one from the series included in the article, it's much less open to criticism for being gratuitous or disruptive. Wyss 20:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally I share your opinion, but from experience with similar issues, I can assure you that others will not. If you want the picture to have the best chances of surviving for the long term, you'll want to minimize the shock value. Ways of doing this include keeping the picture at a reasonable size (the current size of 400px seems excessive), and moving the picture lower in the article. Just my 2 cents. Kaldari 21:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Your 2 cents is likely a shilling but if you're ok with it for now, I say let's leave it until someone else stumbles across it and has something to say. Wyss 21:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with Image:Sunbathe breasts.jpg. I mean it's only a pair of tits for fuck sake, half the world has 'em. Gerard Foley 23:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I gotta say that it suprises me to see these two images on an article about tanning. I agree there should be 1 male 1 female. Neither image in itself is offensive but the topless one could just as easy be a small bikini.Garrie 04:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Sexist

i find it rather sexist that only women are shown sunbathing. how about a picture of a guy sunbathing? or a picture of a guy and a woman? Kingturtle 06:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I raised this issue a while back. It might be a good idea to try to find pictures of both genders, lest we imply that only women sunbathe. Kaldari 20:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This falls way into the realm of the obvious. Mentioning that both genders sunbathe and showing pictures to prove it seems to be redundant at best. - Nosforit --130.237.6.40 22:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Nude Woman

I am not trying to censor anything on wikipedia, I am a strong advocate of free speech and am against censorship, But I think that showing a picture of tan lines would be much more informative than showing a topless woman tanning. Omgitsasecret 23:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Where are the tan lines. patrickw 18:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You object to the topless pic? Well, it does seem gratuitous. But what about the pick of the guy with the hairy arse/monkey butt? I mean dang. Looks to me like someone's due for an ass wax. deeceevoice 01:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

More topless hotties

That's what wikipedia needs.

hmm, I think I'll go register wikiporn.com

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.166.106.2 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

What is the point?

Can someone tell me the point of having multiple nude/semi-nude sun tanners? It would work just as well to keep just one to explain the popularity of nude tanning and have the other with at least some shorts on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.47.34.73 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not? Pictures are good. We have one woman sunbathing with normal swim attire, one woman sunbathing topless, one man sunbathing nude, and one man taking shelter from the sun. I believe that covers the spectrum pretty well, don't you? Powers 23:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It just seems it would be... less offensive to some if a single nude tanner were pictured followed by a discussion on nude tanning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.47.34.73 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

We don't intentionally offend anyone, but neither do we take special measures not to offend anyone. It's a quagmire; if you do one thing to make sure someone isn't offended, then there's little reason not to do another thing to make sure someone is offended, and pretty soon we're spending all of our time trying to figure out who might be offended by what, instead of writing an encyclopedia. As I mentioned, we have only one picture of a nude tanner. The second picture is of a topless woman, which is not, in fact, nude suntanning in the sense Europeans would think of it; it is very common in many places in the world. Powers 02:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Tanning without clothes is common and popular because it reduces tan lines and because it is more comfortable. I wish the nude tanning shots did not cut people off at the head. The other image is from a weird angle below the feet. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 21:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The nudity borders on not safe for work, and seems unnecesary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglasdanger (talk • contribs) 03:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not safe for work. Powers 11:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm by no means a prude, but my eyebrows shot upward on seeing the (half) nude photo, and then another. Come on, it's completely gratuitous. It has really nothing to add to the article. It's sort of like in court, certain evidence is withheld because it would add little if any value but would be too inflammatory. You would get the same informational value just by stating that people sunbathe in the nude, w/o the picture & without bothering quite a few people, especially those who really don't want their children to see this stuff. Plus, no warning on the top of the page. Can we vote or something? Do you really see yourself opening what should be a completely innocuous article (we're not talking about the adult porn industry here!) at work w/o people raising questions? --Knyazhna 22:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Wikipedia is not necessarily safe for work. If it's a concern, you can turn off the display of images in your browser. These are not rules I've made up; they are long-established conventions on Wikipedia. If you have better images than the ones we show -- free ones, ideally -- by all means, put them up. But illustrating the different ways that people sunbathe is hardly unecncylcopedic in an article on sunbathing! It is of immense value to show the many ways people sunbathe. Powers ^T 17:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ugh!

Aaaargh! that picture of the monkey ass guy is absolutely, positively and extremely nasty. I do not object in any way to the nudity. Rather, I am objecting to the extremely nasty look of that picture. I feel soiled for having seen it. It seems there has been discussion as to what pictures to use, so I will not remove it, but I will ask the people who have been discussing the pictures to reconsider. That picture is NASTY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.38.5.162 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah i think we get the point with the womans breast tan lines but is the second nude pic really nessesary?Barry White 07:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Suntanning in the nude is very common. We ought to have a picture of it, and this is the only one presented so far. Powers ^T 01:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Constantly reverting pages - Do we really NEED the nudes?

The two nude images, one of a man and one of a woman, are constantly being edited out by A/Cs. I revert when I see it, but I have to ask: Are these even necessary? I understand that nude sun tanning is common, but I am not sure what the images add to the article since everyone pretty much knows what a nude person looks like. I don't have any problems with nudity, but I respect that others might, and unless the images are significantly adding to the content of the message, maybe we need to consider not having them on the page. In other words, unless the images are adding unique information or context, perhaps they are not appropriate in an encyclopedia. If they *ARE* adding an extra dimension in explaining nude suntanning in some way I don't understand, then please explain.

Saying "well, people should just get over it" isn't acceptable, as this is not why we put anything on Wikipedia. That isn't a valid reason to include something that obviously others see at controversial, no matter how silly you and I think that is. Tell me, are the pictures REALLY adding value to the article, or are they purely optional? I am the only one who thinks the pictures are more hassle than they are worth because they are not really adding anything to the article? Again, if they added to the article, I would defend them to last edit, but I just don't see how they are helping define "sun tanning" any more than a description that "some people tan nude" does. Pharmboy 22:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

As long as a substantial amount of sun tanning is done nude, there is no reason to exclude images of sun tanning just because some find it controversial. Jesus is controversial, as well rock and roll. Clothes, sunglasses and sunscreen are accessories to sun tanning.

That said, the nude sun tanning images on this page are not any thing to be happy about. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 23:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Why not? Powers ^T 02:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The real question is: Are they substantially adding context to the article or providing information where words alone would not be sufficient? That is the sole issue. Pharmboy 15:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[Interjected] If its a good image demonstrating sunbathing, then it should be considered for this page, clothes or no clothes, sunscreen or no sunscreen, umbrella or no umbrella, sunglasses or no sunglasses, beach towel or no beach towel, et cetera. Right now I would like to see a better replacement for the naked male sunbathing image. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 03:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

And why is the image of the man sunbathing nude "weak"? I put it back because we don't have anything better yet. Powers ^T 11:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I have never removed any of the nude images (check history, I have even reverted them back until we can reach concensus here). I question the NEED for the photo. Again, no one has answered the question: Does this add to the article? Does it offer some context that words alone can not describe? I personally find the image distasteful, not because the person is nude, but the actual image itself. It adds nothing to the article except controversy. "Why not" is not justification for inclusion of an image. "Until we find something better" doesn't answer the questions "is it necessary or beneficial" either. The new female nude is more tasteful than the old, and should be sufficient if you feel you MUST show what a nude sunbather looks like. Pharmboy 19:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I was responding to myself, as an additional question to Dandelion, not to you, Pharmboy. =) I disagree with you, however, that the sole issue should be whether the images are providing information that cannot be conveyed by words. That may be a good criterion to use when evaluating fair use images, but for free images I disagree that we ought to be so strict. I also did not use "Why not" as a justification for the inclusion of the images; it was a question to Dandelion, as in "Why do you feel that 'the nude sun tanning images on this page are not any thing to be happy about'?" Powers ^T 19:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The nude woman sunbathing that I linked to I believe is better than the image showing a woman cropped in an impersonal and objectifying way (head and lower part of body out of frame). The image of the man sunbathing on this page is just lame. That is my opinion. It just is not a strong image from a composition stantpoint. Maybe it means a lot to the person who took it, but I challenge anybody to claim that it is a solid image worth of being on wikipedia. Maybe if we keep it here people will be better motivated to suggest or come up with a better image. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 03:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100%. A single nude is more than enough, but any nude should be tasteful, not offensive. That is one reason the two keep getting deleted, they look "obviously" out of place. The new nude image is fine and should be enough to demonstrate "nude suntanning" without any other images. I still say delete the male nude because the angle looks more pornographic than informative, and yes, lame. Pharmboy 23:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed nude male

I thought we had already covered this that the photo of the male nude was not needed and potentially in poor taste. Another nude of a woman was also removed for being objectifying. Many people don't see a nude photo as being necessary to begin with, but if others feel it is necessary, it should more tasteful, and one is enough to convey the message. Unnecessary nudes of questionable taste (ie: money shots...) take away from the article. We have one, it appears that the concensous agrees it is enough. Pharmboy 13:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see much of a consensus. I see Dandelion and Pharmboy agreeing that the male nude picture is unnecessary. Two people does not a consensus make. Regardless, other people have also commented on the gender imbalance of the picture selection; we have two clear pictures of women sunbathing and one picture of a man under and umbrella and viewed from behind. As it is, the picture selection strongly implies that only women lay out in the sun to tan. That's misleading. Powers ^T 14:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Maintaining equal images of males and females in articles is not any goal I am aware of. The concensus is not misleading, it is just based on more than the Talk page, it is based on the History of the article. The image of the male has been removed without explanation many times without it being vandelism. The old female image was FINALLY replaced with the current image, (the old was objectifying). Same with the male image. Nudes don't bother me. Nude images that are in questionable taste in an article for a field that I have written extensively for 14 years, DO bother me and many others. The image needs to be replaced with a less objectionable male nude image if one is going to be used. Pharmboy 01:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what's objectionable about it. It's here, we have it, and we don't have a replacement. We should use it. Powers ^T 16:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

But others DO, which is why it has a long history of being removed. It adds nothing but poor taste. Pharmboy 13:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

People object to the image on Human feces, too, but that doesn't mean it should be removed. I still don't see what's objectionable about the image. It's the best image we have of a male sunbather; until there's a better image available, why not use it? Powers ^T 14:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, but...

I have to echo the sentiments of those that disagree with the use of the nudes in this article. I wouldn't object in an article where it made any kind of sense, but it really just doesn't fit in here. The claim (made by what seems to be a very vocal and willful minority) and rallying cry has been that nude sunbathing is popular and so it should be represented visually.

First off, it doesn't follow that just because something exists and is popular (what the hell is the basis for that determination anyway?) that it should also be seen in an encyclopedic article. The fact is that this photo adds nothing to the article.

Second, if the subject of nude sunbathing was so important as to warrant the use of a potentially inappropriate photo, I'd think that someone (like, maybe any one of the transparent handful who have pushed so hard here) would have had any interest in having that subject mentioned in any meaningful way in the main body of the article. No one has made a peep about adding other information on the subject, and yet the photo is so important? Please...

The nude photo is unnecessary and gratuitious and wouldn't reasonably be expected by someone looking for information on the subject (unlike with a sex related article). And, to be honest, it isn't even a good/representative sunbathing picture! There is nothing in the current picture to indicate that that woman is even sunbathing! If she were using a sun reflector or any other typical tanning equipment then you could make an argument, but as it stands, there's nothing to indicate anything going on other than posing nude on the beach. As a matter of fact, if you'll look at the other photos in the series, it's obvious that she is definitely NOT sunbathing. It's a series of shots designed to be provocative. Is being naked and on a beach all that it takes to qualify in your mind? Including shots of breasts just for the sake of having them is not enough reason to include them in the article. THESE PICTURES DO NOT MAKE THE ARTICLE BETTER. So, why include them?

70.94.32.98 00:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

UVB range

"(in particular, UVB waves in the 285nm to 287nm range)" Are you sure about that range? isn't it 295 to 297?

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: [[2]] —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)

Some alternatives to Suntanning section

I think the big problem I have with this section is it's only supported by links to a single company. That smacks of spam to me. You've got two refs but they are for the same company. Can a reference be found that does not mention a company? Or maybe a paper from a epidemiologist. Something that doesn't have a for-profit company all over it. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 19:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• The other problem is that by providing an "alternative" to the subject matter of the article, you are applying a bias to the subject matter. The concept itself is flawed. I agree with the spam as well. The article about "mobile spray tanning" was already deleted (I was involved in that) as spam as well. In short, the section doesn't belong in this article regardless, as it is NOT "sun tanning". PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)