This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nudity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of nudity and naturism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NudityWikipedia:WikiProject NudityTemplate:WikiProject Nuditynudity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness articles
It looks as if there is someone trying to split this article into two: Sun Tanning and Sun Bathing. Please bring changes this big to the talk page for discussion. I personally don't think there is enough distinction between Sun Tanning and Sun Bathing to require such a split. Maybe a mock-up in userspace would help determine if these two articles could stand on their own or not. Padillah (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that tanning, as deiscussed in the article has predominantly nothing to do with the sun, but about solariums, and artificial tanning. To talk about the benefits of the sun in that setting is, in my opinion, confusing.Ewawer (talk) 01:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand the distinction you are trying to make. Are you saying the article is only about artificial tanning? Or are you claiming a radical difference between sunless tanning and tanning in the natural sun? I, for one, think tanning is about the darkening of the skin and the means to accomplish that are secondary. However I do not think there is an acceptance of "Sun Bathing" as the use of the sun for medicinal purposes. Most definitions I know of would all but equate the two phrases. Padillah (talk) 11:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the article would be limited to tanning there would not be any issue. However, the name itself implies the sun is an element, and references to the benefits of "sun" tanning (eg vitamin D, etc) become misleading.Ewawer (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this is where I get lost. It sounds like you want to "limit" the article scope by including all forms of tanning. Wouldn't that be "expanding" the article scope? Or are you suggesting that the name implies the sun has a part in the process but we shouldn't mention the sun? Or are you suggesting two articles, Sun Tanning and Artificial Tanning? Or are you reffering to exposure to the sun without darkening the skin? You write that mentioning the benefits of sun tanning are misleading, but I don't see how. It's explicitly presented that exposure to the sun has the mentioned benefits, is there a way it could be mistaken to mean artificial tanning has those same benefits? I don't think I could support two separate articles, there's just not enough notable information and they are not different enough to warrant being distinguished from each other. I think we should talk about renaming the article but how would we distinguish it from leather Tanning? "Tanning (melanin)"? "Body Tanning"? I just can't think of a name that isn't more convoluted than the colloquial. Padillah (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You make my point sound more complicated then it really is. What I propose is an article called Sun bathing, which deals with social aspects of attending, say, beaches, pools etc and dealing with the medical and health benefits of the sun, and the risks involved. There would be another article called Tanning (human) (to distinguish it from leather tanning) which would deal with the non-sun aspects of skin darkening, including the fashion aspects. It would deal with artificial methods, with a link to the sun bathing article as one of the methods available. It seems very simple to me.Ewawer (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Direct DNA Damage says that UVB is responsible for only 8% of melanoma cases, whereas this article says it has not been linked to melanoma. I will remove the words "but not melanoma."24.65.95.239 (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone up for browsing Flickr to make these images more representational? I understand that there are a lot of excitable males editing WP, but regardless: the ratio is out of kilter for a balanced article. 88.105.65.1 (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All due respect but how far out of kilter can it be when we've only got 7 pics? And two of those are a machine and an arm? By my count we've got 7 pics: 1 machine, 1 arm, 1 man, 1 couple, 1 topless, and 2 women. You are more than welcome to drop the second woman (who, admittedly serves no purpose) and we'll be even. The only other woman I could see being extra is the one to illustrate "topless" sunbathing, we could do this with a topless guy but it doesn't have the same impact, and I think bottomless would be a little too far. But, to address your point, yes, we have 1 too many pics of women. Which do you think should go? Padillah (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response - sometimes overstatement has its uses. I would suggest Sunbathing.jpg be removed, as it is yet another beach pic. The other on grass breaks the monotony of sandy tones, and demonstrates a different (and common) situation of use to the others. The grass one could perhaps be moved to where the other was to allow for a single clear lead image (of a tan) and no large void where the other was. 88.105.65.1 (talk) 16:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a nice idea but it's just not fitting the flow of the text. It makes the article hard to follow and, without being able to correctly place the pic on the opposite side it looks crowded. Is there an overriding reason for a pic on that side? Does the MOS say anything about pic placement? Padillah (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uneven application of suntan lotion causes cancer???
I removed the section on uneven application of suntan lotion on the body increasing the risk of cancer. There is nothing in current scientific studies, or even in conjecture among respected scientists to suggests that suntan lotion can cause cancer simply by not being applied evenly.Fireemblem555 (talk) 07:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The rays of the sun are strongest between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m"
This sort of "scientific" statement is totally useless. Which time are we being told of? Solar time? Local Mean Time (LMT)? Standard Time (ST)? Or Daylight Saving Time (DST)? Contrary to the good old days in which LMT was the universal rule of legal time in use, nowadays ST/DST is mostly a totally arbitrary matter.
For instance, countries like Spain, France, Belgium and the Netherlands, that geographically pertain to the GMTtime zone (the same of UK), during World War 2 adopted (the German occupied ones, forcefully) the German ST, CET, proper to Central Europe countries like Germany, Poland, Austria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Italy, etc. With the end of WW2 they forgot to return to GMT and, so far, their governments have subjected the populations to a looney standard time, an average of 1 hour ahead of LMT in fall/winter and 2 hours ahead in spring/summer!
If the "10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m." refers to LMT, this means that sun exposure should be avoided in the following places during these local DST hours: Dublin, 11:25 a.m.-5:25 p.m.; Lisboa, 11:36 a.m.-5:36 p.m.; London, 11:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.; Madrid, 12:15 p.m.-6:15 p.m.; Paris, 11:50 a.m.-5:50 p.m.; Roma, 11:10 a.m.-5:10 p.m.; Berlin 11:07 a.m.-5:07 p.m.
(I have experimented sunbathing at 5:00 p.m. local DST (corresponding to local 3:25 p.m. LMT) and it burned; but at 5:30 p.m (local 3:55 p.m. LMT) it was quite endurable.)
So, "scientific" statements should be more accurate and be less misleading when alluding to timing. They should always state the time signature, preferably LMT, as it is the closest one to solar time.—Ana Bruta (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"At this time, tanning oil and bathing suits that left little to the imagination were coming out."
I have changed the phrase in cultural history, because, to me it destroyed the objectivity the article maintained up till this
point. The statement that the bathing suits of that time left little to the imagination(though just implying they were briefer than
they had been previous) provides a very objective view point which I did not believe fit in to the article. I would concede that
the text I have replaced it with is less than ideal and would encourage rewriting.
121.217.116.49 (talk) 11:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since this section speaks mostly about nude and semi-nude sun tanning, would these images be ok to add to this section ? They do illustrate the theme of this section accurately. Both images would not have to be used, but the two would be better for overall balance and fairness.
I imagine they could, one topless woman is as good a representation as the next. I think the other one gave an impression of being older that might not be as confrontational as the topless woman you posit so there might be a push-back from that point of view. Any idea why the other image was removed? I have not been as active on WP lately. Padillah (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know that there had been another image of a topless woman on this article before. When I got here, the page looked like this - [[1]]. For some reason, an anon came in the other day and removed two of those images. Anyway, I chose these two photos in particular because they depict sun tanning fully nude, topless, and with a minimal coverage swimsuit (the other girl beside the topless one), they are both taken from a similar photographic prospective and pose (the male one at a little higher angle), and they are male and female for balance. People are beginning to complain more and more about the lack of males depicted in articles pertaining to different aspects of nudity. Feminism on the rise at Wikipedia maybe? LoL. NightFlyer (talk) 03:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, back in (Wow, September? I have been away), there was this version with a picture of a couple of women on a beach in Barcelona. The pic was removed, (according to this diff, to "make article viable for wider audience, as a lewd image is not needed". Seeing as this is a blatant violation of WP:CENSOR I see no reason not to replace that pic or one just like it. Neither of the pictures being better worse or indifferent. If you are comfortable that the girl in the picture you proposed is of legal age (and barring any copyvio) Pick one (or a set) and put them back where they were. Women wearing monokinis sunbathing on a beach in Barcelona, SpainPadillah (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right Padillah. The image that you submitted is a better example for topfree sun tanning, so I added it and the male nude sun tanning image to this section of the article. Thanks for your help ! NightFlyer (talk) 03:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Recently, an IP removed the male image; it was promptly restored per this discussion. however, I have removed it as I too feel it is essentially gratuitous. We do not censor images, but neither should we use images unnecessarily. First off, it detracts from the credibility of the project when one small section features two nude images. Secondly, the existing image - of the two women - appears far more "respectable", if you will, in that it is clearly a public setting and is not framed to focus primarily on their genitalia. The male image looks as if some guy wanted a picture of himself on the Internet, and took advantage of ouur conventions to do so. (Reviewing the photo contributor's record on Commons, that appears possible; his contributions there consist of images of himself sunbathing in the nude, skinny-dipping, wearing a thong, and ejaculating.) If there are concerns about gender equality, the solution lies in finding a mixed-gender image that is also in a public setting, and with a similar composition. --Ckatzchatspy17:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are forcing me to have reasons behind my decisions and I'm not used to that :) Thanks for poking through the contribs from the editor, it never occurred to me. That being said, the section also focuses, unconsciously maybe but it does, on "topless" sunbathing which the current pic represents. I agree the ideal would be to find a free pic of a couple, in public, sunbathing, but I don't know how hard that would be. Till then, we have what we have. Padillah (talk) 17:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I find the image quite relevant, it illustrates a practice, it's the only one fully nude so far, and it's a free image. How is female semi-nudity more respectable than male nudity? Michele Bini (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned this earlier, but apologies if I wasn't clear. It has nothing to do with women versus men or than partial versus full nudity. Instead, it is the setting and composition of the photo itself. (The deck shot would be equaly problematic if it were a female, although I'd wager that there is less of a chance that the associated concerns over exhibitionism versus encyclopedic improvement would come into play.) Find a similar beach shot photo that has men, and substitute away; we don't need two images, thhough, and the presence of two nude shots in a smmall section (when large parts of the article have no images or illustrations) is odd. --Ckatzchatspy20:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In light of WP:HOWTO this section really shouldn't be here. I think I remember (some months ago) there being a section on the affects of sunscreen and the relationship to skin cancer. Do we think we can get this section to a state that it reflects observation and not instruction? or do we chuck it? Padillah (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This section is not trivial nor is it advice. Nothing in that section suggests anyone approach tanning in a given manner. How various people dress while tanning is not trivial, it speaks directly to exposure, both of skin and socially. And it is not unverified, there are several primary and secondary sources regarding various methods of dress for tanning. What makes you feel that this section needs to be removed rather than improved? Padillah (talk) 15:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't do feelings--I prefer reading. How could you maintain that the statement "To maximize tan coverage, some people minimize the amount of clothing they wear while tanning" is not utterly trivial? Or do you perhaps care to provide a source for "Some people suntan in the privacy of their backyard, where they can at times wear what they choose"? What if local regulations don't allow people to be nekkid in their backyards? What about those people who don't have backyards? What about frontyards? What about people who suntan in other people's backyards? But the basic claim, that you can suntan better if you wear less clothes, I don't understand how that is anything other than trivial, even if you found a source for it (and no, there are no sources in that section, not a single one). Drmies (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but when you express the outlook that a section should be removed I can't help but get the impression you feel it should be removed. Unless you've found a different way to refer to the emotions behind your judgment, they are commonly called "feelings". Now, if you want to be pedantic about the use of nouns in English please try someone else. If, however, you are trying to improve this article please try to stay on point. There is great support for the purported health benefits of nude sun-bathing. You bring up a good point, they should be sourced (and were, at one point). If you want to tag the section with a hat note, feel free. I will look for citations to support the section. Padillah (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Now, if you want to be pedantic about the use of nouns [sic] in English please try someone else": I'll assume that this is not a personal jab. If there is anything encyclopedic to say about the purported health benefits of nude sun-bathing, that's fine, but allowing statements like the ones cited above (which don't say anything about such benefits) to stand is not of benefit to an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Didn't get back in time to correct that, you caught me) This was no more a personal jab than your attempt at verbal parrying "I don't do feelings". It may have seemed clever at the time but, as you can see, it is patently incorrect (regardless of my ability to use a possessive apostrophe). As for the article, you are right. This section used to be different and much better supported but the other editor and I dropped our guard and several editors had their way with it and it turned into what is there today. I will try and find sources for what is there and/or rewrite the section to conform to the sources I find. Please bear with me (if you find any sources you are more than welcome to add them yourself). Padillah (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<--Hey Padillah, thanks for your note. A rewrite would be a great idea, and, as you suggest, there may be something salvageable in the history. All the best, Drmies (talk) 22:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have undone the changes still not corrected and restored the part about skin protection. Thank you for spotting and reporting these issues. Michele Bini (talk) 12:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I, personally, find the article Sun tanning to be biased. It has an obvious "pro-tanning" leaning, the section 'Sociological perspective' is the main offender; it explains reasons suggesting that tanning is healthy by using biased sources such a website wholly dedicated to promoting sun tanning whilst not being objective itself (See source 19 on the article), and the section does not provide any objective view of sun tanning, which would have the two sides of the argument objectively written. I have flagged the article as biased until the dispute is resolved. RyanC13 (talk) 06:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, it never even occurred to me that you could have a tanning bias. Thank you for the input. Let's see what we can do with it. Padillah (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So far it seems the answer is 'no' but this seems strange as many have sparse or no hair to cover them,that seems counterintuitive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.254.129.225 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 9 July 2013
Well, this article is about sun tanning specifically, which is a phenomenon that happens while sunbathing. We don't have an article specifically on sunbathing (sunbathing is a redirect), so if enough natural-science information can be found, it would be a good idea to create such an article. Otherwise a section should be added to this one about animals if adequate sources are available. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you people keep deleting this scientific info and replacing it with non-cited information about how the SUN WILL KILL YOU? Are you all retards?
"Despite all the fears concerning the sun causing diseases, sunbathing in moderation offers health benefits that many are ignorant of, such as nitric oxide production lowering blood pressure, and mood elevation with vitamin D production being most obvious, and lowered risk of heart disease as a scientific result. Research suggests sunlight helps reduce blood pressure, cutting heart attack and stroke risks and even prolonging life.[1]" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-22433359) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.230.50 (talk) 02:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All the claims in the lead (introduction) are (or should be) supported by citation of reliable sources in the main body of the article. If that's not the case, please point it out here and I'll look into it. The reason your contributions are reverted is that safety and efficacy claims have to be supported by sources that conform to this Wikipedia guideline WP:MEDRS and www.mail.co.uk and bbc.co.uk don't conform. Basically what you need is an authoritative review published in a scholarly journal with a good reputation, or a position statement from a relevant scientific body, or similar. Anyway, reading that guideline will give you the gist of why your edits have been overturned. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on Sun tanning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
YAn editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
There are already exists an extensive article about Sunless tanning. It seems redundant to include it here. It is also off-topic, as this page is about SUN tanning.
I would support a removal of most of the off-topic details in that section, but it's probably worth at least briefly mentioning sunless tanning in this article. Deli nk (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When I was reading this article, I found some parts that need citation to prove this topic on the second paragraph from UVA section. The sentences are information about the UVA based on scientific evidences, so it needs to include references
(DDoran 20:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeygirl11 (talk • contribs)
Does light intermediate skin count as light or medium skin? According to the wikihow page, "3 Ways to Tan When It's Cloudy", those with light or pale skin shall stick to five minutes on each side when tanning whereas those with medium or dark skin are okay when they do ten minutes per side. Also according to the aricle on the same website "3 Ways to Tan Safely", those with either type 1 or type 2 skin shouldn't use tanning beds at all.
--Evope (talk) 07:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems to have had a history of disagreement regarding images that has resulted in the section on Cultural history having essentially no photos of people actually tanning on a beach, so I have added one, which along with the Monet painting illustrates the extremes.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does sweat decrease the rate of tanning appreciably? I've read that the transparency of water decreases at shorter wavelengths. -- J7n (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 11 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ErinnDoughertyy (article contribs).
.jpg){kind=link}
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Tanning § Requested move 25 February 2024. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 11 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ErinnDoughertyy (article contribs).