Talk:Tattoo/Archive 1

Older Stuff

What about how tattoos can be affected by MRI? --zandperl 22:35, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

they are not affected at all. I have a number of tatto and I have ben scaned. neither the tattoo changed or the image were affected by the tattoo.

Well, it's a common misconception then. I've put in the relevant info. --zandperl 18:01, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The television series "Mythbusters" on the Discovery Channel routinely looks into urban legends and myths, often using real-world recreations. They recently did a piece on the Tatoos in MRIs story. Turns out, heavily mettalic tattoo ink does react to MRIs, and causes interference too. On a regular basis though, the worst that can happen is minor discomfort to the patient. Here's the link to the show: http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/episode/episode.html (see ep.19). --LuciferBlack 20:30, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

---

I have add a new picture but after a thought i don't know if it charge too much the page by too many pictures. WDYT ? Chmouel 11:19, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

I was just wondering if we should use all those pictures of the same person's tattoos? i reduced it. If anyone thinks they should go back, heres what was taken out: (nov 2004)

Tattoo of a black leopard

Detail of eagle tattoo

I agree. Actually, in general the photos in this article are not very good. Exploding Boy 20:43, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Why are the photos "in general, not very good"! What is it about them that is "not very good? Can you do better, if so lets see them! I took the pics, it's very difficult to see how four pics in quite a long article are not a useful addition. At least I got my finger out and took the pics, processed them and uploaded them!!! What did I do wrong, please explain to me further. Until I understand, I have reverted - Adrian Pingstone 23:15, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that my photos are public domain which are particularly valued in WP because they won't cause any copyright problems if ever WP goes to a print or CD edition. Therefore there has to be a better reason for removal than anon or Exploding Boy have put up. By all means add more (there's plenty of room in the article) but don't take away what's there - Adrian Pingstone 08:26, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My comment wasn't intended as a personal attack on you, your photography skills or your tattoos. I'm simply agreeing with the above poster that we should have pictures of more than one person's tattoos, and observing that many of the photos currently in the article are not so good as photos of tattoos. Exploding Boy 16:28, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

I have to agree with Exploding Boy. I thought when I first read this article, "Why are there pictures up of simplistic tattoos?" It's nothing personal, I just think that more intricate and unique tattoos would be better shown. The complexity that can be obtained with modern tattooing just isn't being shown in these pictures. (24.4.244.190 21:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC))

History

I've taken out two chunks of text that look like they were copied and pasted directly from here and here. They didn't connect flow the text around them, leading me to believe they originated offsite. If someone can confirm that they originated on the Wikipedia, then please revert my edits, but the History section badly needs to be merged together and sorted out.

Note that the two above links could prove to be good sources of information, but their content needs to be verified, and re-written for the Wikipedia --Kieran 15:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Disappearing Text

I was going to correct the spelling of "Betty Brodbent," (currently Betty Broadbent) but the text just isn't there in the edit window (or whatever it's called). I checked every "edit" link, but it wasn't in any of them either. I tried Safari 1.2, I was using IE 5.2.3, and discovered that the text didn't even show up in the article. Then, I tried Firefox 1.0, and it is the same as IE. Normally, I would suspect a browser bug, but these are three different browsers and it affects them all.

• It's probably not there because it was in the sections I removed for being copyvio. Please feel free to use the links in the paragraph above as sources to add information to the history section, though. --168.209.97.34 11:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Skin Regeneration

How can tattoos be permanent when you're always regenerating your skin? No matter how deep you inject the pigments, surely they'd rise to the surface and flake off eventually..

Eventually is a relatively long time, that deep in the skin. --Jack (Cuervo) 15:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Eventually is irrelevant. The ink is placed below the layers of skin that regenerate. --fightindaman

Removed

Can someone provide a source for this:

"Natural" tattoos

According to George Orwell, workers in coal mines would wind up with characteristic tattoos owing to coal dust getting into wounds.

Exploding Boy 16:27, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Tattoo gun

I think it would nice to have an image of a tattoo gun in the article. Obviously, we need an image with proper permissions. Probably ideal would be of a tattoo being inked, but with the photo showing a good amount detail on the components of the tattoo gun. That would really help to illustrate the process of tattooing, to complement the pictures of healed results.

I'm probably getting inked later this month, and I intend to take pictures. I can add one if others think it's a good idea. (Looking over the article again after posting this, I saw there was already a photo of a tattoo gun in action, so I would assume that this is sufficient. Let me know if you think otherwise.) --fightindaman

More image options

Two abstract tattoos on arm

I see that a number of months ago in this talk page, there was some concern with using serveral image of the same model (well, two currently; I got the impression it was more before). I'm afraid I'm not really that impressed with the current images either. They're not bad, but they're not really the best in photographic quality or in showing range of designs.

If anyone is interested in using them, the images at Mertz/Sushinsky tattoos are all donated to the public domain. You can see thumbnails of most, but not all, of them at [1] (I didn't regenerate the proof sheet for the newest images, sorry). I know this is somewhat vanity, since they're just pix of my partner and I, but I think the photographic quality of most are pretty good. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:48, 2005 August 29 (UTC)

I'm really dissapointed with the lack of technical details shown in the tattoo pictures (in the article). Honestly, these tattoos wouldn't be a wow factor to anyone. I completely agree with respect for all choices in tattoos, but I think that the current movement would be better shown with better work. These tattoos are all quite simplistic, there at least needs to be some variety instead of people wanting their personal tattoo to be shown. (24.4.244.190 21:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC))

Two things: (1) this isn't a contest to show the "best" tattoos. It's not Tattoo Afficianado magazine, but an encyclopedia. What we want is to illustrate the concepts. "Wow factor" is a detriment more than an asset for these, being atypical (not that we want needlessly ugly either); (2) Can you propose an uploaded image with proper copyright release that you would suggest using. Most images found elsewhere are under copyright, and we cannot reporduce them legally. It wouldn't be bad to illustrate the idea of "body suit", for example, but we need a released image if we are to do so. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

bloodstream

"The placement of a tattoo can later cause problems for medical workers who need to inject needles into a patient. For example, in women, a popular spot for administering epidural anesthesia to relieve birth labor may cover where the anesthesia must be applied (the lower back area). This poses a unique problem, because the ink of the tattoo might spread into the blood system and cause further complications and later health risks in the patient."

Well, this is totally inaccurate, there is no way the pigment can get to the bloodstream, whoever knows how to edit it, do it please. unknown editor and date

Which picture where

I think it's reached a pretty good point. The two images from the same model bother me slightly, especially since they are stylistically similar also. But that's minor; they are good photos of well applied tattoos.

I do want to be somewhat conscious of where in the article the various images go, while still keeping an aesthetic balance to the layout. The images should not crowd out the text at any point. The initial three in the opening discussion (but below the intro) seem right. And having the tattoo gun in action next to "Procedure" is absolutely perfect. The religious tattoo next to "Purpose" seems nice, since religious meanings are part of what is discussed there. The color chart more-or-less makes sense near procedure and the tattoo gun--the choice of colors is connected with the application process.

The small bear is now next to "Tattoo removal". I think I did that to balance layout; but I feel bad if it insinuates that that tattoo is particularly a candidate for removal. In some sense, however, it is one that would be easier to remove than something larger and darker. So that leaves the second image of the same model, his eagle on the other arm. I didn't want it by "Infection", which is a yicky insinuation; so I moved it next to "Aftercare"... that tattoo doesn't specifically illustrate care procedures, but I reckon it must have been well cared for to remain sharp, so there is a sliver of connection. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Skull on back

A new editor made two edits, the first to upload this image, the second to place it on this page. My guess is that this tattoo is either on the editor himself or on some friend of his, so this is a vanity thing. There's nothing specifically objectionable about the image, but it's also not clear to me what it really adds to the article either. We don't want the article to just be a gallery of "rate my tattoo" or the like. I guess one could say that the skull illustrates shading more than other images (the religious one has some though); but other than that it's not terribly thematically or technically special. What new concept is illustrated by this one?

Now I would like to have an example of fine-line work, which isn't in the current article. Or possibly something less Western, like a traditional Maori design (or maybe Japanese). Those would round out the examples. And I'm still not all that thrilled by the same model who has two similar tattoos on each arm. They're good photographically, but again, this is not a gallery. There's no real distinct concept represented by each of that model's two arms: they're both figurative but slightly abstracted, they have a similar ink density and color balance, the locations and sizes are the same, etc. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Aftercare

I have 3 tattoos, all from the same parlor. My tat guys told me (once for each tattoo) to keep them out of direct sunlight for at least a few hours (after wrapping it in saran wrap). I assume this is to prevent sunburn and thus distortion of the tattoo? Not adding to the article, since I dunno. --Jack (Cuervo) 16:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent Edit 02/12/05

This recent edit is much improved with good text. Photos of tattoos are still pretty bad though. (unsigned comment by User:MacBride, apparently referring to his own edits)

Tricia Allen

My comment about this edit being much better had nothing to do with my edit. The article has been briefly tidied up by Tricia Allen. Dr Allen is probably the best known academic writing about tattoos and an accomplished tattoo artist herself, having been taught by D.Ed Hardy who you all know is generally accepted as the m,ost influencial living tattoo artist. (unsigned comment by User:MacBride)

OK. Though the edit history doesn't show any tidying that might be by Tricia Allen in the last month or so. There are some anon edits, but not really anything I'd call tidying. I suspect you're thinking of something else (some other website, maybe?). But it doesn't matter. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Maori ink

Lulu, I have a large tat done in the Maori style by Curly at Intoyou in London and others in Marquesan style. I'm sensitive about 'vanity' posts/pics but feel it would be good to have some non western ink illustrated. Might post a pic and see what people think.... (unsigned comment by User:MacBride)

If you have a photo(s) that you'll release as PD or GFDL, would you upload it and show us here on the talk page? Something Maori-ish would be helpful, I think. And I think it would be useful as a replacement for one of the two similar images from the same model. I'd like to avoid having too many images, since WP articles use images to illustrate discussed concepts—galleries as such are prohibited. Of course, what's probably really most distinctive about the Maori style is the "face masks", my guess is that's not what you mean you've done :-) (I could be wrong).

P.S. When you write comments on talk pages, please end with four tildes (~~~~) so we can see who wrote what, and when. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Origins from India?

I've read before that tattoos originated when the fishermen of the western coast of India started marking them on their kids. Recently a global denim company has been adverising the Indian origins of tattoos and bandannas. However, I'm unable to find a mention of the Indian context in this article. Interested editors may look at this fact(??) and include it at an appropriate place. --Gurubrahma 19:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Tattoos have roots going back so far in so many countries that it's probably impossible to say where they "originated" if there even exists such a single beginning. As for the history of tattoos in India I am rather ignorant, but without a source I don't think this bit really has a place in the article. Fightindaman 00:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Functional tatoos?

I recently saw a program on Discovery about a tribe of snake catchers somewhere in Asia that use tatoos as a mode of protection against venom. This may sound mystical or magical but it was revealed that they use special formulas for the inks that contain venom so by slowly poisoning themselves they gain a resistance to the venom and since the tattoos are renewed (monthly or every 6 months depending on the tattoo) constant doses are administered. Anybody have any more precise information about these type of tattoos?

The current issue of Skin & Ink Magazine, December 2005 has an article by Amy Gold on "Mystical Burmese Charm Tattoos" that covers that very subject. Well worth reading. Tattoos as amulets and talismans for protection are common in both Burma and Thailand. In addition to specific protection against snake bites, people believe it is possible to get tattoos that offer protection from knife wounds and bullets.

VinceH 03:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Link spam

It seems like we are acquiring a really large number of pointless (vanity?) externale links. Some are commercial, but those are usually removed. But even the ones that are non-commercial are mostly completely arbitrary, and do not in any central way illustrate the concept/history of "tattoo" (galleries of flash or of applied tattoos, impressionistic essays, etc). I'd like to ruthlessless remove all the external links that are not essential to understanding the concept itself. Google or web directories exist to find the "resource of the week" for flash and galleries... that's not what an encyclopedia is for.

Any objections? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed that this article tends to accumulate link spam. A lot of the body modification articles tend to attract anonymous or new wikipedians trying to help with the one bit of offhand knowledge they've come across on the web, or worse, television. I figure that you as the primary maintainer of this article should take the lead in sorting the good from the bad on the links in this article. I think it might be time to do a re-write on the article and fork it as well, but that's a different issue, Maybe Tattoo flash needs it's own article to start with? Glowimperial 20:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... I hadn't really thought of myself as the "primary maintainer"... but I guess I have probably made more edits than anyone else in the last few months. I have been jarred a bit by the redlink to the tattoo flash magazine. If no one is going to create the article, we should probably just leave the generic meaning by itself. I'm not sure about the fork idea, the article seems pretty good to me... not flawless, but no really big problems.

As to links, I'll give other editors a couple days to opine, but after that get ruthless in my deletions. :-) Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

If not the "primary maintainer" you are the most familiar with the article as it stands. I wasn't actually interested in making a like to Tattoo Flash (magazine), I was thinking of forking the information (and therefore the links) related to [[Tattoo flash] and designs to a seperate article. Another fork could be Tattoo iconography which could be where the explanations and histories of various tattoo designs sits. This article has the potential to get huge. Just look at the additions that User:154.20.81.51 is making. Glowimperial 00:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah... that anon has added quite a bit of somewhat questionable merit. Actually, I have this odd hunch it's copyvio anyway... Usually when anons come up with something "born fully formed" it's copied from somewhere. Let me do a search to see if the source is on the web. I see what you mean about subtopics though; I'm certainly not opposed to that (which isn't to say I'll necessarily do the work myself either). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

As suspected, the "Rediscovery in Europe" was improperly copied from <http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=499&sid=c92cbba2168b6d78e44912dc3921ea9f>. The Leviticus thing did not show up in a search, though it also reads like probable copyvio. However, I rewrote the Leviticus bit to seem less like original research, so probably my modified version is OK, even if the earlier version was copied from elsewhere. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Previously published outside material

The material referencing Tattoos and Leviticus, and the incidence of tattooing amongst European royalty is not copyright infringement because I am the original author of the published material.

OK, that satisfies permission. Since this talk page comment is your first ever WP edit, do you have a way to show that you actually are Vince Hemingson. I don't mean to be rude about it, but many anons and new users have made false claims in the past, and it only takes a few seconds to register an account. For example, if you could add a note at the angelqueen site (or some other web site you control) that indicates the release as GFDL or PD, that would help us satisfy copyvio concerns.

However, the Levitius stuff—well, actually the rediscovery stuff also—is a bit too chatty and informal in tone for WP. It doesn't quite have an encyclopedic quality to the writing. I don't mean low quality, just not the same writing style we would want. I think my edits to the Leviticus stuff brings it closer. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

My comments on the historical background of tattooing regarding Leviticus 19:28 have been "borrowed" by "Christian" (and I use that term loosely) web sites and commentators without permission for many years now. In most cases, my material is used without reference, out of context and usually misquoted. Not surprising. The material originated out of a series of e-mails with Brandon at About.com in - of all things - an advice column for Christian Teens who were inquiring about getting tattooed. Check it out.

Whether or not someone else used material without (or even with) permission is not germane to releasing it as GFDL or PD to WP.

Frankly, there are a large number of factual and historical inaccuracies in much of the information regarding tattoos and tattooing.

The material has also been seen on http://www.vanishingtattoo.com , which I also authored or co-wrote. Much of the material has also been vetted and approved by National Geographic Channel, which has the most stringent fact-checking department in the known universe. As for being Anonymous - Vince Hemingson VinceH 03:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

If you co-authored the material, we also need a release from any other co-authors who have a copyright interest in the material. The factual content of both additions look OK to me; but since the tone of neither is quite what we need, I'd suggest a more practical approach is to write the material over to better fit into a WP article. That alleviates any concern that co-authors, prior publishers, etc. have conflicting copyright claims. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Leviticus description

Another issue with this article is the common myth that some Jewish cemetaries will refuse to inter bodies that bear tattoos. Although this is a familiar story for those of use who attended some form of Torah study/Hebrew school, I have never heard this myth substantiated or varified, and can think of countless Jewish cemetaries which have interred tattooed bodies. If anyone can come up with any real evidence, so much the better. Otherwise, this misinformation ought to be deleted. Menelaos 18:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm adding a tag to indicate the need for a citation. If no one can provide one, we'll pull it out (it was only recently added to the article, not longstanding). Btw., Menelaos, don't mark substantial comments as "minor edit". Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

User:VinceH has inserted (apparently repeatedly, if those IP addresses are him) a new section describing the Leviticus (alleged) prohibition on tattooing. This material has a number of problems as written. A few are minor formatting issues, but in the main the tone is not quite encyclopedic and/or it borders on original research WP:NOR.

Some Christians believe that certain translations of Leviticus 19:28, which is in the Old Testament of the Bible, prohibits them from getting a tattoo:

As written, this is just simply wrong. Those Christians who believe it believe that Leviticus itself prohibits tattoos, not that "certain translations" do. And excluding Jews and Muslims who give similar weight to the book is unnecessarily limiting. It seems like the author of the comment is trying to "weigh the scales" against this theological belief through a semantic game; our job is to present the belief neutrally (if we present it at all, which seems worthwhile).

"Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the Lord." - Leviticus 19:28

A historically and linguistically correct translation of Leviticus 19:28 from Hebrew, Greek or Latin texts, could not have mentioned the word "tattoo". Tattoo is a specifically Polynesian word that entered the English language after the voyages of Captain James Cook to Tahiti in the eighteenth century - which is when tattooing became popular again in the West. Interestingly, tattoo and taboo are the only two Polynesian words to enter into English language usage.

This remark is a just silly. Of course the Hebrew word isn't "tattoo" (and it is Hebrew, not Greek or Latin that Leviticus was written in... FWIW, none of the OT or NT was written in Latin, but some is in Aramaic). That's an English word that happens to be of Polynesian origin. The words "God" or "cloth" or "sheep" are also not Hebrew words, but English translations of Leviticus will use these words (I think all of Germanic origin, not sure about "cloth").

On the other hand, it is possible that the author of Leviticus indeed did not have a word that directly corresponds with the concept "tattoo". This is a matter of near east or linguistic scholarship, I would imagine. I have no idea what the answer is. But then, even if the author did not have the concept of "tattoo", it is a theological question how the prohibition on some sort of body modification should be generalized. I'm also not a theologian, so won't opine (for that matter, I'm also not Christian, Jewish or Muslim, so don't really care what the answer is). Our job in this article, again, is not to do original theological or linguistic scholarship, but simply to mention what people actually do believe, where relevant and verifiable.

Another, presumably older translation of Leviticus 19:28 reads, ""Do not cut your bodies for the dead nor put marks upon you. For I am the Lord." - Leviticus 19:28

This style is enormously unencyclopedic... "presumably older". Bleach.

It is widely believed among Biblical scholars that Leviticus 19:28 refers to an ancient practice in the Middle East of people cutting themselves and rubbing in ash when in a period of mourning after an individual had died. It was a sign of respect for the dead and a symbol of respect and reverence and a sense of profound loss for the newly departed; and it is surmised that the ash that was rubbed into the self-inflicted wounds came from the actual funeral pyres that were used to cremate bodies. In essence, people were literally carrying with them a reminder of the recently deceased in the form of tattoos created by ash being rubbed into shallow wounds cut or slashed into the body, usually the forearms. This rite would have been part of a culturally accepted process of grieving.

Again, the circumlocution "it is widely believed" just makes it sound like we're not really sure. If we are confident that it's verifiable, just describe the ancient practice. If we're speculating, it doesn't belong here at all. Or if it is believed by, e.g., "Dr. Jones and Rubin", we should cite them explicitly. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Jewish burial

Here are the details on Jewish burial practices as related to tattoos. Most Reform or Conservative cemetaries will bury people with tattoos, just as they now bury suicides. I believe that there may be some that still won't bury people with tattoos, but they may be a declining/dying minority. Some cemetaries still engage in the practice of only burying people with tattoos or non-ear piercings close to or up against the fence of the cemetary. Traditionally this is the place where suicides and other "dishonored" burials would be restricted to. In most jewish cemetaries, the plots next to the fence are still the cheapest plots and those areas recieve the least landscaping or care from staff. Many Reform and Conservative Jews will go to great lengths to avoid having to take a plot near or next to the fence, even now. Of course many don't particularily care - my grandfather famously declared that he wanted to be buried as close as possible to the fence of Hillside Memorial (where he is buried), near the supermarket next door, so that his spirit would have to travel the least distance to get a bite to eat after dying. He had occasionally served as a Rabbi and was quite religious, I'm using him as an example of the change that has occured in modern times in Jewish attitudes toward burial practices.

Orthodox Jews are another matter. When I was in high school, I was dating a girl who's octogenarian, Orthodox grandmother committed suicide in a public and obvious manner, with many witnesses. Her son (who was not himself Orthodox) went to great lenghts to get her buried in an Orthodox cemetary, next to her husband, who was a deeply religous man during his life, being raised in a Yeshiva atmosphere. It was explained to my girlfriend's father that the cemetary did not bury suicides, gentiles or persons with tattoos, no exception, even though her plot had been bought decades ago. He was able to get her buried in her plot, though, only by bribing the director of the cemetary directly (I believe the bribe went into the tens of thousands of dollars). If I recall an alternate death certificate was forged, as well as other paperwork as a part of this process, and the director treated my girlfriend's father with absolute distaste, both during the process and during the funeral which was performed quickly by the cemetary's on-call rabbi. He was asked not to visit her after the burial, as well.

I realise that this is purely anecdotal experience and may not represent standard practice regarding burial practices regarding tattooed Jews, but I believe that it is safe to say that there is within the Jewish community some sub-cultures still refusing to bury Jews with tattoos. I was raised hearing all of the do's and dont's of my religion, and tattoos were high on the list, with the difficulty of being buried always mentioned. While the discrimination against tattooed persons being buried in Jewish cemetaries may be dying out, I'm sure that it continues to some degree. Glowimperial 19:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Part of the urban legend quality comes, I think, from the status of Holocaust survivors who had been tattooed involuntarily. I suppose that there was some Rabbinical dispensation involved, but none of these were ever denied their desired burial on this basis (but if they had been, that would be another emphasis of how terrible the death camps had been, hence the resonance of the mythic story).

In any case, since the question is somewhat complex, and not unambiguous, if we want to include the claim about Jewish burial in the article, we should but a footnote that links to some discussion of the issue. I would imagine that there's some website out there that is citeable, rather than merely anecdotal. Maybe some synagogue or Jewish talmudic website with a discussion of the question. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll do some digging. I highly doubt that any holocaust survivor was denied burial in any Jewish cemetary due to their tattoos. Survivors are revered in the Jewish community, and I doubt that the tattoos were either intended to make them ineligable for burial (a minor urban legend) or prevented them from recieving proper burial. I'm sure there's some boilerplate policy on this issue within both the Reform and Conservative communities available on the web that can be cited on this. Glowimperial 20:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The sources I can locate in a web search all say that it's fine to bury someone, merely with the presumption that they are "repentant" for the sin of "marking the flesh" (just like they should be repentant if they ate shellfish during their life). And that those applied involuntarily (or as, e.g. part of a medical procedure) don't matter either. E.g. [2], [3], [4]. I'm tempted to yank out the burial comment altogether. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm still inclined to believe that the burial of voluntarily tattooed persons may still be prevented from recieving proper buirals, or be forced to be buried "close to the fence" in Orthodox Jewish cemetaries. That could stay out of the entry until proper cites and references could be developed. Also I've been inclined to suggest that the Tattoo entry should start forking into more entries to cover specific topics such as New School Tattooing, Criminal Tattooing, Tatooing in Judiasm, etc... Maybe then those entries could go into more of the specific histories than this main entry can without becoming unmanageably dense. Glowimperial 21:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, my hunch at this point is that it's more of a "look down their noses at" type attitude of Jews (even Orthodox) towards tattooed people (including decedants), rather than an actual refusal to bury them in the Jewish cemetaries. I mean, maybe if someone's dying comments were "Tattoos good, Judaism bad", that might seem unrepentant... but it seems unlikely that someone who actually wanted to be buried in the religious fashion (and paid the bill, etc), would actually be denied rites.

Btw, the refactoring thing seems reasonable. If there's a child article in the religious thing, it should be Tattooing in Abrahamic religions, since many Muslims and certain fundamentalist Christians read Leviticus in exactly the same fashion as many Jews, especially Orthodox. From what I know, the Islamic attitude is pretty much the same "look down the nose" thing, but a Muslim in good faith is forgiven any such past sins. However, each of the children you suggest is a little thin on material currently to make up a whole article. But certainly, e.g. Criminal tattooing has room for a good length article (it has multiple books on the topics): gang insignias, symbologies of prison terms and crimes, etc. I really don't know much of those details, but I know there's plenty of information to know. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Tone and permission

How to prove I am Vince Hemingson... Send an e-mail to vince@vanishingtattoo.com Or Google me. Or send me your snail mail address and I'll send you a DVD gratis.

Is vanishtattoo.com, then, the original publication source for the material? (I don't immediately see the material there, but I see that there are a bunch of pages). If you control that site and can indicate there that reuse under GFDL or PD is allowed, that lets anyone who is concerned tell that the material is used with permission. It's not about convincing me (not sure what the DVD might be). If I'm hit by a bus tomorrow (or just decide not to edit this particular article), other editors still need to be confident the article doesn't violate copyright.

As for the lack of an "Encyclopedic" tone in my writing, that will come as a tremendous shock to my agent, the numerous Editors who hire me to pimp out articles and scripts and the lawyers who retain my services as a "tattoo expert" for what must admittedly be said are truly exorbitant and usurious rates. VinceH 03:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm certain no one hired you to write an encyclopedia with the stylistic approach of the sections in question. It looks fine for a popular, chatty article on tattoos, but it's not as formal in tone as we'd want. Obviously, WP articles vary greatly in meeting this stylistic standard, but we should work towards that. FWIW, I'm also a paid writer, and I know that different fora and different audiences require different tones. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Vince - no need to throw your agent or editors around here, nor to bring up your "usurious rates". I believe that Lulu and I are both concerned that your contributions to this entry are done in a fashion that is counter to both the style and policy of wikipedia. Your contributions do qualify as original research and regardless of their accuracy or quality, it would be more in line with the policies and practice of wikipedia that you refrain from editing articles on the basis of your own research and opinions. If your research is relevant and adds to the entry, please leave it to the public to make use of your research without your involvement or prompting. Glowimperial 04:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I have not made any contributions nor edits based on my opinion, but merely on the facts gleaned from some seven or more years of research into tattooing culture and the cultural anthropology of the traditional tattooing practises of indigenous and aboriginal peoples in some thirty different countries and cultures around the world. That hardly qualifies as promulgating a point of view.

Please read WP:NOR. Your individual, personal experience is almost the exact definition of "original research" for Wikipedia purposes. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, Glow the biggest concern that you and Lulu seem to have expressed to date is that there is a stranger in town. No worries, I generally don't bite.

And if you are a professional writer then I am sure you would agree that much of the section on Tattoos has the sound and feel of a hastily written junior high school paper. VinceH 04:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Which sections are you concerned about in the article? I do not have the overall impression you describe, but agree there are paragraphs that can be improved. To a slight extent, experienced editors do have a heightened concern about anonymous or brand new WP editors; having a relatively long and productive edit history gives someone a positive reputation. But in general, we all welcome new editors who wish to join and enhance WP. Welcome on board. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome, it is most appreciated.

Honestly, how formal do you really want the article to be?

About the same tone as you'd find in Encyclopedia Brittanica or similar (not that I've ever read the EB entry on tattoos; but I'm familiar with that general writing style). Actually, I prefer a somewhat greater academic formality than EB uses, but that's more my own background than WP policy as such.

Let's begin just with the opening sentence for starters.

A Tattoo is a design in ink or some other pigment, usually decorative or symbolic, placed permanently under the skin.

Ink - or paint or any other colouring agent for that matter - can be defined as pigment particles in a carrier solution. Ink is NOT, neither tattoo ink nor any other kind of ink, a pigment in and of itself.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you feel we need to link to definitions of "ink" or "pigment"? Would you prefer "pigment within ink or other medium"?

Not all tattoos are designs. A design, by its very nature - and definition - is "usually decorative or symbolic".

A more technically correct and accurate opening might be:

A tattoo is to be marked with an indelible design by the insertion of a pigment into punctures or cuts in the skin.

"placed permanently under the skin" is vague in the extreme and a very poor description. It does not accurately convey how a tattoo is actually made. VinceH 05:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

That suggestion is not quite grammatical. But the bit about "insertion into punctures or cuts" looks like a good clarification. Please feel free to add it. I think cosmetic tattoos are reasonably called a design, but are not exactly either decorative or symbolic. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

If I can provide any additional information about tattooing that would be helpful to people and increase the sites's knowledge base, I am more than happy to provide it as a passionate tattoo devotee and aficianado. Not much more to it than that.

VinceH 05:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

English Kings

Edward VII was George V’s father. George wasn’t born in 1862, but was Duke of York, and his elder brother was Duke of Clarence; so perhaps George V and Edward VII have been confused?

Slang

Wondering why the term "ink" isn't referred to in the sentence "Most tattoo enthusiasts refer to tattoos as tats, art or work, and to tattooists as artists." As far as I'm aware, the use of the word "ink" as slang for tattoo work is pretty common. A pretty minor thing, but still worth mentioning, if you ask me. Perfect13thStep 22:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Henna Tattoos

Is the amount of text here actually needed? There is a whole separate article devoted to this subject which could be linked to, as opposed to the paragraph which essentially just repeats it. I suggest a sentence or two before the link. Lady_Contradiction 22:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. Sounds like a good idea. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added a link to the article in the Temporary Tattoos section. Opinions? Lady_Contradiction 00:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Edits and image from User:Lemaire

I'd like to remove the koi tattoo image he added to the entry. Even though it contains no links, it is part of his attempt to use Wikipedia to promote himself and he should not be induged in any way. He's been linkspamming in several body modification related articles, and I'd rather not use his image in the entry. Glowimperial 13:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, please take it out. I felt ambivalent about an image that was pretty clearly added out of a vanity interest, but didn't automatically find it was bad for the article itself. But if the same user has been linkspamming elsewhere, that's probably good reason to "shoot on sight". Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Image has been removed. It wasn't a bad image, but I felt that to have it here further promoted someone who has abused Wikipedia, specifically to promote himself & his businesses. Glowimperial 21:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Dress code

This suggested addition:

1. Duplicates discussion elsewhere in article;
2. Is unreferenced;
3. Is not important enough for a section header.

I removed it. Possibly a sentence in "negative associations" might be usable, but let's not introduce anti-tattoo POV language (nor pro- of course, but it is the subject of the article). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I provided a reference. The section is logically placed after the section "purpose". It is more than only negative associations, it sometimes even restricts dressing choices.--Patrick 06:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

A major section for a single sentence that is barely worth including at all!? C'mon, this borders on vandalism. However, I do see that the prior sentence about work dress codes had been deleted at some point (probably because it wasn't worth having), so I added your sentence back into a more appropriate place. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Religious Attitudes

The 'Tattooing in the Ancient World' section included information on current religious views, so after having expanded on the Islamic viewpoint, I created a section for religious attitudes altogether.

By the way, while Muslims respect the Bible, they specifically believe that it has been tampered with and do not use it as a guide through which they live their lives. Thus, it is wrong to suggest that Muslims give similar weight to Leviticus, and wrong to suggest that Leviticus is the reason for their aversion of tattooing.

If anyone has any queries, let me know. :) (And yes, I'll be making an account very soon).

I think I read the diffs incorrectly, and thought you had deleted material rather than just moved it. The additional Islamic material is helpful (but needed slight NPOV modification). I changed paragraph order since Leviticus predates the Koran, and chronological makes sense (not because one religion is more important than another).

Btw, yes please register a username. It's a lot easier to follow edits by a name than by a (possibly changing) IP address. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)