Talk:Sunless tanning

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Deliriumwaltz.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Would someone please translate this article into spanish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.210.3 (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a lot of work. It has a good structure and has enough merit to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia, but it needs to be edited for tone and point of view, as it's mostly written in a sensationalist style. It also contains a lot of factual inaccuracies. It contained a lot of external links (most of which I deleted). Also, it contains a lot of broken links that all seem to be really the same thing; for example, it has self-tanning lotion and self-tanning cream. — Brim 15:29, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Beyond that, most of this article seems to be copied verbatim from HowStuffWorks.com... Possibly copyright vio? 24.0.253.136 13:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some of you people really, really need to learn how to use links. Adding a ~~backslash~~ forward slash (/) after a file name at the end of a url will screw the link more often than not. If you're going to contribute to an article, take the time to do it right and check your work. Others are supposed to be contributing their findings, not cleaning up your mess.

The article is very U.S. centric. More references to non-american regulations would be in order. This article should rather feature a general person in a spray tan facility rather than Donald Trump, especially when the photo is inobvious

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eysteine (talk • contribs) 22:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No sun doesn't equal no skin cancer risk

Edited the page out with misleading quotes that state that artificial tans remove the risk of skin cancer. People who get NO UV and people who get too much UV both share a higher risk of skin cancer, so total avoidance isn't prevention, and we should be careful not to imply this. Pharmboy 23:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of a helpful link

While doing extensive research on formulation of a sunless tanning product (I am a formulation chemist) I saw ~~many~~ (most?) of the internet resources on Sunless Tanning, DHA, Erythrulose, Melanotan, tyrosine, etc... The resources I found most useful were this article on Wikipedia and a website called Sunless.com[1].

I added this link to the bottom of this page as it has MANY resources for both straight forward information on sunless tanning products, health & safety, and cosmetic concerns as well as a forum for users to respond. This sunless tanning product user feedback section was extremely helpful to me as I looked at options for creation of a new product. I'm fairly sure that this information would be of benefit to someone looking for more information on sunless tanners in general as it discusses the real-world usage experiences of many people.

I am not affiliated with the website. To my knowledge the website is not a commercial site; although it does have that appearance on first inspection.

I would propose that you/we add a link to this website to the wikipedia article as it provides additional information and provides a forum for those who wish to discuss sunless tanners. Kemistboy 15:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed tag from Unreferenced to Clean Up

There are plenty of links on the page, but they are put in the article instead of used as footnotes. I feel there are plenty of citations in the article to verify the claims made on the page, and organization is the problem. Will see about fixing that soon. Pharmboy 22:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prominence of "Carotenoid-based products" subject

The claims made in this section, especially "safest" "most effective" and "permanent" seem to have little evidence. Also suspect is the fact that Carotenoid-based products is the first subheading while topical tanning agents, which are are much more common and mainstream are simply filed under "Other". Bockrocker2 (talk) 06:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

carotenoid tanning

claims that this produces a better tan than uv exposure are unfounded, sources are making statements about a diet rich in fruit and vegetables are being used to imply that eating large quantities of carotenoid containing foods to produce carotenaemia will give you an attractive tan, even though all images of carotenaemia i could find look similar to jaundice and/or are localized to a specific area such as the nose, none of which resemble the look of someone who has a sun induced tan

80.5.128.19 (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion 12/1/16

Deleted: "Since the coloration that forms does not provide much protection against UV, and the effect only lasts for a few hours,[31]"

Reason: Citation to “Dermnet – New Zealand,” not a scientific site. Rather, the website was founded by a NZ dermatologist, offers “…up to date information on skin diseases and their management.” The section cited was written by Vanessa Ngan, Staff Writer (no other information) 14 years ago (2002).

Earlier history

Currently this seems to be Wikipedia's only article on the concept of skin modification (/skin dyeing) besides skin whitening and blackface.

If this is going to be our only spot for this, a) we should discuss and link blackface from here, at least in the context of actors playing We 3 Kings, Othello, Black Peit, &c. and b) we should have a further discussion of other skin darkening practices beyond the present-day First World.

Off the top of my head, early European visitors to Mecca like Burton felt they needed to artificially darken their skin to avoid being exposed and executed for violating its sanctity and Lazarite missionaries to China like Abbé Huc (coming in between the Franciscans & co. mucking up the Jesuits' missions and the Treaty of Nanjing & al. protecting most Europeans from most persecution) felt they needed to dye their skin yellow before hitting the mainland to avoid trouble with xenophobes and/or the law. Maybe both could be handled as something like "spycraft". The Britons supposedly dyed their skin blue for religious/magical reasons. Presumably there are other instances/reasons/examples of artificially darkened/tinted skin that should be touched on. — LlywelynII 06:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trump

The caption that says Trump uses tanning lotion isn't supported by the source [2] which says "There is debate as to whether Donald Trump’s skin tone is due to a spray-on tan, sunbed or make-up." The image has been removed and can't be restored unless there is a supporting source. Sjö (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know his skin colour does look artificial, but without a reliable source it's WP:OR to say that he uses tanning lotion or any other method. And a reliable source in this case would IMO have to be someone with better information than conclusions drawn from looking at photos. Perhaps a better image to show what sunless tanning looks like is File:Tanning lotion mens.jpg. Sjö (talk) 12:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, using a NYT as a source that it is plausible that self-tanning products are the reason for Trump's winter tan. The article indicates why other explanations are unlikely, but that is too much info to include in the caption Peaceray (talk) 05:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not particularly happy about including Trump but with the caption now saying "plausible" I think the image is OK. Sjö (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia article on spray tanning and the main image is of someone who isn't even confirmed to have done it before? Only deemed "plausible" by the NYT? Bit ridiculous if you ask me. Maybe include the image lower in the article with an explanatory caption. MikeLovesBaseballCap (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agreed; including Trump as the only image in the article based on speculation, even speculation from a RS, is pretty ridiculous. Faceless Enemy (talk) 23:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]