Talk:Tattoo/Archive 2

Quick polls

Gallery

Should this article contain a gallery of photos at the bottom of the article?

Support

1. Support in concept image galleries are useful to illustrate a visual topic. If good images are available, then they should be included. I don't have a large number to suggest, at present. Johntex\^talk 21:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
2. extremely weak support-the minute you make this available, all the artists that don't realize this is an encyclopedia will start posting images that are probably not going to be very...notable. it could get overwhelming very quickly if it starts. Though I would like a gallery somewhere, perhaps on the artist list page.Resonanteye

Oppose

1. Strong oppose - Only images directly relevant to illustrating a specific discussed concept in the body text advance the encyclopedic quality of the article. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
2. Stronger oppose - I see no need for this article to contain a gallery if images. Images in the article should be illustrative of or directly related to the text of the article. In addition, I could see a gallery of images as a maintinence hassle, as it could attract a "piling on" of images, including copyrighted ones, that would have to constantly be culled. Glowimperial 21:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Galleries are impractical and ugly. Exploding Boy 21:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Can't see what the article would gain by having a bunch of extra images at the bottom. You can find galleries of tattoo photos everywhere online and creating another one here doesn't seem to be worthwhile. Fightindaman 23:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose---Even though I think visual art needs some images to be understood, I think there is enough on the page. A more extensive list page will be nice when it happens, though. I'm trying to get sources for a few more people to put up there, who meet notability guidelines. If anyone wants to write me up they are more than welcome, look through a few tattoo magazines for my interviews ;) or just look at my talk page for a short list of some names that I'm trying to get up there. Resonanteye
6. Strong oppose One image is enough to show what a tattoo is Professor marginalia 21:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Back tattoo from beach

Should the image Image:Man with tattoo on his back - at the beach - cropped.jpg be added to this article as additional illustration? (Comment on where, if supporting)

Support

1. Support - Image is properly exposed as shown by Image:Photo with histogram.JPG. Useful to article to have a photo of a tattoo covering a back. Johntex\^talk 21:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC). I have no strong preference on where - but some image should be at the top. If not this one, then put another one at top and this one in its place. Johntex\^talk 21:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose - Image is of somewhat "washed out" quality because of high incidence angle sun illumination, and suffers glare spots. A full back tattoo would be moderately desirable in principle, however. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose. It's just not a very good image. Exploding Boy 21:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose - I'd prefer a much clearer image. I don't see any immediate need or rush to get an image of a full back tattoo into this article and am more than willing to wait until one is available. I'm not sure what this image is intended to illustrate other than "this guy has a big tattoo". Glowimperial 21:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose - It's quite a good tattoo, although there are hundreds that are better. Perhaps it could go up until someone gets access to a better example of a backpiece - Drrngrvy 01:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose - \neither a good tattoo nor a good image imo

1. Support as a warning against tacky ink-This is an excellent example of a young person who has gotten an "impulse tattoo" that is poorly done and thought out. Please keep this image so legitimate Tattoo Artists can have a quick Wikipedia reference to show clients of what a "Bad Tattoo" is so we can prevent these eyesores. I try to talk my clients out of blue ink because it can resemble Gangrene. The tattoo is also in a light shade that will further fade as the young man exposes his skin to dangerous ultaviolet rays. The end result in a few years will appear like a crumpled childs watercolor left out in the rain. Also I would like to see a section on how Tattoos will change shape and color as a person ages. I believe there should be a three day waiting period and a Tox/blood borne disease screen before such stamps of bad judgment are created. As a general rule of the thumb a tattoo is bad if a child with Magic Marker can reproduce the tattoo on skin. An example of this are Prison Tattoo markings that are done in filthy conditions and give legitimate artisits and tattoo wearers a reputation for being disease ridden criminals. Cr8tiv

1. Oppose Only one photo is necessary, and a better one can be found.Professor marginalia 21:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Clarification: Only one photo is necessary for a particular significant detail discussed in the text. By significant I mean it is not necessary to show one each of a back tattoo, ankle tattoo, face tattoo, sailor tattoo, etc.

Professor marginalia 21:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Oppose My Back Tattoo is much nicer and so is everyone else's. Certainly a more attractive (female) example could be used. User:Hotbikerguy 12:30 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Citations and POV

Article is based largely on opionion. I don't think that aftercare should be in there unless it is universally accepted and referenced properly. People should not look to this article for medical advice... especially stating that tattoos will heal with no aftercare as long as they are done properly.

Also, author mentions symbolism of certain tattoos in specific communities. It is imperative that this is referenced because it is not common knowledge.

Yet more images

Two images of people on a beach were added to the article recently, I think as a vanity thing. Not necessarily photos of the editor or her/his acquaintances, but at least snapshots taken by the editor. Neither of these contributes anything useful, IMO. Here are some problems:

1. Both images are of whole people (and even of scenic background), rather than focused on their tattoos themselves.
2. Neither image shows details of the tattoos very well: they are washed out by the light, and in the case of the woman (with just one small tattoo), partially covered by a bikini.
3. The woman pictured does not add anything conceptually distinct from the existing woman with a lower back tattoo. The two designs are not identical, of course, but both are sort of "in the same ballpark"
4. The man pictured might minimally add an illustration of a "whole back" tattoo, but as above it's just too washed out in the image to get a clear sense of the work, or even what the tattoo image is.

In general, the question to ask if adding an image isn't whether a given person is attractive, or a friend of yours, nor even whether the photo is nice as a photo, or if the tattoo is generically aesthetically pleasing. Rather, it should be possible to state what specific concept discussed in the body text is directly illustrated by that particular image. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed! Seconded! Glowimperial 15:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Lulu, thanks for explaining here your revert on the additional images. I added the two photos in question. They are

1. Image:Man with tattoo on his back - at the beach.JPG (taken by me of an unknown man)
2. Image:String Bikini (Jassi) Rear.jpg (not taken by me - found at G-String)

• First of all, I think you might find a better word to use than "vanity". Since we encourage free submissions, there are naturally going to be photos here uploaded by the photographer in an effort to help improve the encyclopedia. "Vanity" would seem to have unwarranted negative connotations.

I apologize if my use of the word "vanity" was too harsh. I meant it only is the slightly special sense it's used with on WP (something like, "of more interest to the editor than to the page"). I checked that you had taken the man picture, and just assumed w/o clicking through that you had taken the woman as well. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Second, I like images. In general I like a few more than some people might like. In my opinion, multiple images help illustrate variety. Naturally, this can be taken too far, I'm just saying I think this article is under-illustrated at the moment, IMO.

I disagree on this point. I'm more inclined to think that this article is over-illustrated now. In particular, the other arm of the same model with the leopard seems a bit gratuitous to me. I really don't want a "gallery of favorite tattoos" here: there are plenty of other places on the web that have that. Right now we have: a typical representational animal; an abstract design to contrast with imagistic ones; a lower-back on a woman to illustrate a discussed common location; a religious theme. Actually, that silly small bear feels slightly superfluous: but I guess it can be argued to illustrate the fact that some people do very simple and small designs. And the image of the tattoo gun is really great to have, since it's hard to visualize from the verbal description. I wouldn't mind adding a "body suit" if we had a GFDL/PD example that was photographically good (and that was cropped to show that tattoo rather than the person), since that's a discussed concept. Or likewise maybe for some fine-line black-ink work (the religious one has a little of that, but a portrait of a loved one or favored celebrity is a common design we might illustrate). But for example, just having a "slightly nicer" picture of an animal, or dragon, or even pin-up girl doesn't really add anything as concept to the leopard example. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Third, I think this article needs a picture at the top. Whatever image the editors here decide is the best image, is fine with me. It seems a shame for a visual art not to have a photo in the lead-in.

Maybe. I'm mixed about this. If we had a really nice body-suit example, that might be good next to the lead. None of the existing examples (including some briefly added and removed) really stand up to such increased prominence, IMO. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• For the photo of the man, I do think that a tattoo covering the whole back is something the article is currently missing. The photo is not really washed out. In actuality, it is really a good capture of the subject - the tatoo itself was a little faded. I think it is important to show tattoos in this state, since many of them will fade, this is a true-life representation. As for the background, I am ambivalent. I actually think that having some of the photos here display a little contextual surroundings, rather than just being a close-up of the tattoo, would be beneficial. However, if others decide that the image would have merit if cropped, that is certainly doable - it is a very high resolution image.

I'm definitely strongly against background. I don't care that beaches are pretty and that the guy has a nice haircut... that's not the subject of this article, and just distracts from it. The woman one also seemed a little bit too much of trying to titillate with near-nudity. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• For the photo of the woman, again, I think the design is different enough from anything shown that it could be included. However, this one could also be trimmed into a very small close-up if we prefer.
• As to your point about 'state what specific concept discussed in the body text is directly illustrated by that particular image.', I strongly disagree. This is a "nice-to-have". If the photos nicely line up nicely beside specific illustrations of things in the text, that is great, but it is not required. The images are instructive to the reader in their own right.

Oh no! I think this is an absolute requirement for any image! Again this is not a gallery. We may not be able to get the images to fall exactly next to the corresponding discussion, depending on layout... but nothing should be illustrated that doesn't pertain to the discussion in the article. This is an encyclopedia article, not a graphic or visual composition.

• Thanks again for the discussion. Johntex\^talk 16:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Lulu, I think we'll just have to disagree on how many pictures are prefereble, and how closely the images must match with the text. To me, readers will learn a lot from seeing photos of tattoos, even if that means we put some of the photos in a gallery at the bottom. I don't have a strong feeling about the amount of background to show, therefore, I have made a cropped version of the tattooed back, which I hope will address your concerns about showing any background: Image:Man with tattoo on his back - at the beach - cropped.jpg. Johntex\^talk 19:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

That's better cropped. But it's still too washed out by the glare of the sun. I don't mean the fading of the tattoo itself, but rather the lighting effects from the angle (micro-shadows and overly bright areas). But the main thing is Wikipedia is not an image gallery. This rule is really clear as WP policy. You might considering assembling a gallery within Wikipedia namespace (see Wikipedia:List of images), but it's absolutely not something that belongs in article space. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Adding one more image does not cross some magical line into being an image gallery. Therefore, discussion of including this image or not should focus on the merits of the image, not of soem reference to a policy that does not prevent adding it. Johntex\^talk 20:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Huh?!... You wrote immediately above: put some of the photos in a gallery at the bottom. Do you see the connection between that and an image gallery?! As in, in the very note that I responded to!

FWIW, I don't think the washed out back picture is good to include at all, but the comment on image galleries was about... wait for it... image galleries (I'm sorry to be a bit snippy, but you proposed an image gallery, then feigned inignity about me mentioning an image gallery). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

(resetting indent) Lulu, you are mistaken on several counts:

1. The image is not washed out. Here is the image with a histogram showing how many pixels at at a given brightness. Image:Photo with histogram.JPG If the image was washed out, you would see a huge number of pixels in the far right zone of the histogram. In reality, you see only a few pixels there. Perfectly exposed? Perhaps not, but you argue above that we are interested in photos of tattoos, not photos that are perfect art. Therefore, you complaint is both incorrect and inconsistent with your supposed belief that we should focus on the tattoo.
2. You are attempting to misapply WP:NOT. The policy actually prohibits "Collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles." (emphasis added) Clearly that is not what we are discussing here, as we have a lengthy article we are attempting to illustrate.
3. Image galleries are allowed on Wikipedia. If they were not, then we would not be provided with the <gallery> and </gallery>tags. I challenge you to find any policy that says that an image gallery is prohibited within an article.
4. Since you have misinterpreted the policy, it is not surprising that you misunderstood my comment. When I said we could have a gallery at the bottom, I was referring to having a gallery within this article - which is allowed. I was not referring to deleting the article and replacing it with an image gallery, which would not be allowed.
5. Again, there is no clear line of "add one more photo and this article violates some policy". We have to decide if the image is worth including in the article, nothing more, nothing less.
6. The image is useful because it shows a tattoo covering an entire back - which as you admit above, we don't have here yet.

Concernign your "Huh?!" comment, I don't think you actually are sorry to be snippy - if you were sorry, then you wouldn't have left a snippy comment. It is not like you made the snippy comment then thought better of it - it is all one sarcasim-laden post where you make your snippy comment and say you're sorry about it.
I'm trying to be accomodating to you, even cropping the picture to address one of your complaints. I don't see where I have given you any cause to claim that I am feigning indigntion about anything. I wish you would keep your tone more civil. Johntex\^talk 20:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Life history of tattoos

Beefart would like to see a section with some comment on how long tattoos last. He has seen old tattoos that look, well, a bit tatty. He has also read reports of tattoos made 50 years ago that are now just blue blurs. How long will a tattoo last and what can be done to maintain them in good condition? Captainbeefart 13:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Provided nothing's done to it, a tattoo should last forever. If a tattoo is just a "blue blur" it's probably due to some external factor, as that shouldn't happen by itself. Over time there will be some loss of color, this can be fixed with touch-ups and the amount of fading can be lessened by keeping the tattoo well protected from sunlight (using clothing and/or sunscreen). Fightindaman 14:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

There might be an encyclopedic sentence or two that could be added on fading, but we should be careful to keep in mind that this article isn't "Advice for people getting tattoos". It's a NPOV description of what tattoos are (including history, techniques, etc). Actually, a little bit of the stuff on sterilization procedures leans a bit in that "Dear Abby" direction... maybe I'll work on cleaning up the language in that section a bit. While autoclaves and all are perfectly encyclopedic to mention, we're not providing readers with medical (or even aesthetic) advice. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see a "techie Wikie" and a dermatologist set up a small computer program that will show how a Tattoo will age on different types of skin, with different inks on different body parts.

Abusing "see also"

Unfortunately, some new editors mistakenly think that WP articles are improved by sticking in random link farms into a "See also" section. I went through and removed a whole bunch of things that are already discussed in the main article (and should not be repeated in "See also", per WP style). There are a couple remaining links in the "See also"... I'd like to delete that section altogether, but we should first incorporate prose mentions of the remaining concepts into the body text (or maybe just Wikilink existing mentions). Feel free to help. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

All that stuff on approved inks

I wonder about that section. There is a lot of rather strange detail on links and names of inks, many of which have no WP articles. It doesn't really feel like general readers will want the minutiae on all the different tinting substances, and their regulatory status (moreover, I think it is implicitly USA regulations that are mentioned, which might vary elsewhere; but the whole thing is unclear). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Islam and tattoos

An anonymous editor added some claims to the article indicating certain Shia acceptance of tattoos. This purport could definitely use some supporting citation; I'm not disagreeing with the fact (nor agreeing), but readers need a basis on which to believe the claim. S/he linked also to several specific Muslim clerics. I think the last of these is intended as Ali Khamenei, but I did not want to change it if s/he possibly meant to refer to someone else. However, as above, simply adding a name of a cleric makes the overall Shia belief question even more in need of a citation (none of the cleric articles mention tattoos; nor would I particularly expect them to, even assuming the claim is true). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I received the below email personally. I redact the return address, but it may be the same anonymous editor who added the claims about Shia Islam (it seems to purport that). Looking at the links, I don't get the impression they meet WP:RS, since they are informal message boards. It might be possible on them to support a weaker claim like: "Some muslims believe tattoos to be permitted by their religion" (but even there, I'd prefere a more "official" source):

Hi,
Here are a few links to back up my claim:

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=76990&hl=tattoos
http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=17183&hl=tattoos
http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=53556&hl=tattoos
http://www.al-islam.org/organizations/Aalimnetwork/msg00343.html

Hope that helps.
from sas.

Length of article

I put a tag on the article {{split}}. This article can easily be split up into multiple articles. I'll help out if necessary, but this is an extremely long article. Bastique▼^parler_voir 22:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

In retrospect {{split}} was probably not the best template choice. I suggest the History section be split into a History of tattoing article. Bastique▼^parler_voir 22:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd support the split. Actually, I wonder if it would be possible to split off some of the religious prohibition stuff into the same child/sibling article. The part on Jewish law seems to keep growing with lots of details most readers really won't care about. The decription itself seems perfectly encyclopedic; but the 98% of readers who aren't all that interested in Jewish theology don't really care about the various sectarian distinctions made between denominations (nor, for example, exactly what basis Maimonedes argued on, etc). Similarly with the Christian and Muslim parts, but those seem to have grown less detail so far. LotLE×talk 19:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Tramp Stamp? Tattoo=STD?

If someone wants to include information on some of the slang terms currently used to refer to certain types of tattoo that would be great, but I changed the caption on the photo to something a little bit more neutral and less confusing for folks who aren't current on the hip lingo the kids are using these days. Zandrous 21:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree on this. Moreover, a slightly derogatory term is better to avoid in a caption when it is peripheral to the tattoo location/style itself. I think the term is still mentioned in the main text, but described with the caveat. LotLE×talk 18:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yea I took "tramp stamp" off. It is offensive!

I would like to see an article that details "buyers' remorse" after getting a Tattoo. An example of this are uncentered lower back tattoos in unattractive colors such as blue or green that can resemble gangrene, white which can look like Michael Jackson's skin disease or darker reds which look like a scab or Karposi's Sarcoma. Clearly with Tattoo removal being a profitable side line for Dermatologist Mercedes payments we need to address the costly and psychological effects of Skin Art that brands one a "Tramp".

I would like to see a study to see if there is a link between STD infections and Tattoos. As both unsafe sex and Tattoos are Risk Taking behavior. I have not been able to find anything on the internet but anectodal stories such as "If your partner wears a Tattoo be sure to wear a Condom." Hotbikerguy 12:40 20 March 2007

The picture is messed up. Wikizilla ^{(Signme!)Talk} 00:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's back. Wikizilla ^{(Signme!)Talk} 00:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism in "Reintroduction to the Western World"?

In the last paragraph of this section, next to the image of the young woman with the tattoo on her lower back, the text states that Winston Churchill's mother had both of her nipples pierced and a snake tattoo around her wrist. This may be true, but I am highly skeptical. I've never edited Wikipedia before, so I don't know how to fix it if it is indeed vandalism. Can anyone verify the information? Dryad13 15:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Dryad13

disputed

I'm concerned by the undue weight and spin given to the "health risks" section. As well, there is quite a bit of duplicative repetition of the same statements (I've started to reduce that issue). This has become worse with a few recent edits that tend to overstate health risks; not so much with direct falsehoods as with insinuation. Certainly health risks should be addressed in the article, but if you just count words, the article reads like a long admonishment not to get tattoos (this is made worse by the fairly long—though not particularly innaccurate, nor POV—section on "negative associations").

I suppose part of the solution is to find more encyclopedic material on what tattoos actually mean to people, the forms of tattooing as artwork, and the like. Those things are mentioned concisely, but a bit more might help. Of course, it needs to be NPOV and verifiable... a discourse by editors on "what I like about tattoos" is entirely unencyclopedic, of course. LotLE×talk 05:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

LuLus continous attempts to mimalize the health risks of tattoo come across as biased. He won't let the reader make up his/her mind about whether the risks are minimal but insists upon inserting "small" into the lists of risk. Then he takes a quote from the CDC out of context to indicate that the CDC knows that the risk from tattooing is minimal when their actual feeling is that they need more data. Just because they cite their own study does not indicate that they belive this is the end of the story.

"CDC's Position on Tattooing and HCV Infection

Although some studies have found an association between tattooing and HCV infection in very selected populations, it is not known if these results can be generalized to the whole population. Any percutaneous exposure has the potential for transferring infectious blood and potentially transmitting bloodborne pathogens (e.g., HBV, HCV, or HIV); however, no data exist in the United States indicating that persons with exposures to tattooing alone are at increased risk for HCV infection. For example, during the past 20 years, less than 1% of persons with newly acquired hepatitis C reported to CDC's sentinel surveillance system gave a history of being tattooed. Further studies are needed to determine if these types of exposures, and the settings in which they occur, are risk factors for HCV infection in the United States. CDC is currently conducting a large study to evaluate tattooing as a potential risk."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug rosenberg (talk • contribs)

It's an odd agenda Doug rosenberg seems to be pushing here; his were most of the bad edits—well, some by IP addresses, but I'm pretty sure that those are him while logged out (same paragraphs, same tone, etc). The undue weight mostly leans on one scientific author named Haley RP.

It's a bit interesting to look at Google Scholar for Dr. Haley: Haley has published esentially the same paper in a number of journals (it's not unusual to do so; scientists often rework the same research or analysis for different publications), and almost nothing at all on any other topic. Moreover, it doesn't look like any other researchers find a similar result (the CDC explicitly rejects it): namely, commercial tattooing in the USA is associated with a highly elevated Hepatitis C risk. It's hard to know Dr. Haley's motives here (one can imagine both noble and ignoble ones, but either are entirely speculation); but the position is one advanced by one researcher, clearly not general scientific consensus. You can't really blame Dr. Haley for who reads him, but it looks like all the web-buzz about his paper(s) are entirely among fundie Christians, on web pages arguing the general evils of tattoos (but like I said, those sites might cite entirely good research out of their own politicized motives; that wouldn't be the researcher's fault).

I am a bit annoyed at Doug rosenberg taking out the word "small" from the clause "small risk" repeatedly, since it clearly attempts to slant meaning to imply "significant risk" or the like, which would be wrong. "Small" used this way in medical circles is nothing subjective or POV, it's just the way medical folks talk (eschewing false precision in quanification). Pick up a bottle of prescription medicine sometime (or the little flyer that comes with it): it will say something like Drug X carries a significant risk of nausea; a small risk of intestinal damage; and an insignificant risk of heart damage (or along those lines). Medicine conventionally divides risks among large, significant, small, and insignificant (or rare), in descending order. As used in the article, "small" was used in precisely the way it is used in medicine. LotLE×talk 16:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I am "significantly" annoyed by Lotus-Eaters who continues to slant the tatoo article to indicating "small risk" and to take CDC quotes out of context. He claims to want to use this because this is how medical labels deal with it. However, the last time I checked wikipedia is neither a "medical label" nor a medical journal. He must be the only person in the world who translates the lack of small to mean the inserstion of significant. Of course the "readers are too stupid" to make their own mines by reading the health section and must rely upon Lotus-Eaters redacting of any health concerns to calm their nerves. I have no dog in this hunt, but I'm merely trying to get across that there are risks and despite their widespread use it remains undecided even with the CDC:

"CDC is currently conducting a large study to evaluate tattooing as a potential risk."

Lotus-Eaters seems intent upon keeping this information from the public. When I have indicated a point of view, I have always given the other side equal space. However, Lotus-Eaters is intent upon minmalizing this point of view in the very section, the Health section where it should be most prominent. Except for certain psychological benifits their are no positive health benifits to Tattoos so in fact the Health Section should skew towards the possible negative concerns and not poo-paa them. Now, I noticed that since I put in the full CDC quote

"Although some studies have found an association between tattooing and HCV infection in very selected populations, it is not known if these results can be generalized to the whole population. Any percutaneous exposure has the potential for transferring infectious blood and potentially transmitting bloodborne pathogens (e.g., HBV, HCV, or HIV); however, no data exist in the United States indicating that persons with exposures to tattooing alone are at increased risk for HCV infection. For example, during the past 20 years, less than 1% of persons with newly acquired hepatitis C reported to CDC's sentinel surveillance system gave a history of being tattooed. Further studies are needed to determine if these types of exposures, and the settings in which they occur, are risk factors for HCV infection in the United States. CDC is currently conducting a large study to evaluate tattooing as a potential risk."

which contradicted his assertion that the CDC found no risk, Lotus-Eaters removed the quote completely!

He has also made it looked like the FDA regulates inks which is completely misleading since their website states explicitly that they do not test tattoo inks at all.

(Doug rosenberg 21:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC))

I haven't the foggiest idea what Doug rosenberg is on about on FDA ink regulation. I never edited that section; I've actually been tempted to pair down the whole thing on different inks quite a bit. That seems obscure and not all that interesting (all the stuff with dozens of ink names) to most readers (I suppose professional tattooists need to know that stuff, but I hope they find it out from relevant professional publications, not here).

The other nonsense about quoting the entire webpage from the CDC really deserves a slapdown, for fair use violation as well as for undue weight. I left a fair, but apppriately concise, characterization of the CDC's statement. The fact that prisons tattoos don't follow proper sterilization procedures is definitely worth noting; if we had something citable about other non-sanitary contexts that would be worthwhile (including outside US context). As is the fact the CDC is conducting additional studies (though that's sort of automatically true). But the main fact is that no general evidence exists linking HCV to tattooing in the general population. Doug rosenberg should really take his "dog out of this hunt" as he says... maybe go find a medical dictionary to learn about the language of comparative risks... WP ain't a medical journal, but we hardly should eschew use of medical language in discussing health risks (in this article or any other where it might be germane). LotLE×talk 22:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The entire section could definitely be made more concise, and some of the claims seem to be completely off the wall -- for example, the speculation that no cases of HIV are attributable to commercial tattooing (in the US) being attributable to the "small amount of blood" etc. The reason is far more likely to be the use of universal precautions and sterilization techniques in all commercial tattoo operations. Blood could be gushing from an HIV+ person's body during a tattoo application; it wouldn't matter, as long as the needles were only used once, the inks were disposed of, and the equipment was correctly sterilized. Exploding Boy 04:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Exploding Boy - you have contributed nothing useful to the infection section except obscuring some very carefully thought out health precautions. You have also added some proven false statements about sterization being safe. I know a lot of people are pro-tattoos and have a financial motivation in promoting tattoos. I have nothing against this but they should confine their enthousiasm and opinions to the sections besides the Health sections which if anything thing should err on the side of caution. (Doug rosenberg 01:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC))

No! Wikipedia should not decide to err! It's not our job to give medical advice or to speculate on what risks might be. Exploding Boy's changes were extremely good, and remove the lingering POV issues with the section (and also acheive much better conciseness and precision). LotLE×talk 02:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course you agree. According to your opinion all the risks are small and speculative. Why just a little bit before you were advocating the language of Medical labels? I suppose we should remove the health section entirely since it might disuade someone from getting a tattoo. Of course you aren't a completely unbiased editor since the two photos of yourself in this section indicate that you are a strong proponent of tattoos. Remember tattoos don't cure any illness. They are completely optional. Unfortuantely, everything in the Health section is going to be negative against tattoos. Don't you understand that? (Doug rosenberg 03:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC))

You do know that smoking crack doesn't cure any illness either, right? Well, unless you think neutral point of view is an illness, I guess.

While I'm not a citable source, the risks associated with tattooing are indeed small, but well understood, not speculative. The section is certainly worth including, but like every section should be factual, verifiable, and NPOV. It shouldn't be an avuncular lecture on why not to get a tattoo. And indeed, tattoos do not cure any illness, a quality they share with probably 99.99% of the topics addressed in Wikipedia articles. Other things that don't cure illness: Oil painting, Surfing, Gilgamesh, The Crimean War, Marisa Tomei, Symbolist literature, Zebrafish, Cosmic background radiation, Finno-Ugric, etc. Some of those things I've done, or read, or seen, or whatever. WTF point is this supposed to have?!

On the weird digression about "proponent": No, certainly I'm not a proponent of tattoos (nor an opponent equally). I indeed have several tattoos myself, as I imagine do many editors of this article (editors tend to work on topics they feel some connection to, or have some knowledge of). But I don't have particularly many compared to heavily tattooed people (probably fewer/smaller than many other editors); nor do I have any connection to the tattooing profession. I guess that puts me in the ultra-elite 1/7th of Americans who have them (I'm more "elite" in having a Ph.D. though; and still more elite than that in not being an idiot). I also wear cloths and eat pizza, and drive a car, and own a house, I'm not a "proponent" of those things either, particularly (well, actually, I reckon I volunteer with Habitat for Humanity because I advocate personal home ownership). WTF?! LotLE×talk 03:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

We're not doctors; we shouldn't be giving out quasi-medical advice or precautions. In particular, phrases like "people with X should be extremely cautious about Y" do not belong in Wikipedia articles. If sterilization of tattoo instruments isn't safe, then feel free to add some well-cited evidence to support that. Note that the current wording says that sterilization "reduces" risks, not that it eliminates them. It should be noted, however, that the instruments that are generally sterilized in a tattoo shop never come in contact with customers' skin. Needles are single-use and therefore disposed of after touching a client, and tattoo guns and cords are covered in plastic.

Actually, this isn't the only section of this article in desperate need of cleaning up; the entire thing needs reworking (again; what is it about this article?). Exploding Boy 04:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Stigma and phobia

I actually have a bit higher opinion of the article than does Exploding Boy, above. It's still a little bit rough, but I think it's gotten to be pretty good and informative over the last several months. Cleanup is always good, but I wouldn't quite say "desperate".

Anyway, his comment about the fact that we should not be giving out quasi-medical advice got me thinking about the whole "health risks" section. While I don't think it should be removed entirely, as Doug rosenberg suggest facetiously, there is something a peculiar about it. There are many activities that people engage in or undergo that have associated health risks; my feeling is that in most cases the associated Wikipedia articles don't carry any "health risks" section. I would think that an article on an actual medical procedure, or drug, or disease, probably does have a section on health risks.

But what about stuff like articles on sports, or other physical activities, that are associated with injury risks (many much higher health risks than those associated with tattooing... sports vary widely, of course: I'm not very likely to hurt myself playing chess, but doing so rock climbing is a real possibility). What about articles on foodstuffs that might cause allergies, or food particularly prone to carrying food-poisoning bacteria? Or what about foods that are just "bad for you" (e.g. high fat)? What about articles on household cleaners, or other ordinary substances or chemicals, that can cause poisoning, or have carcinogenic risks? Or powertools that can seriously damage you? Or articles on "travel locations" where you might catch some contagious disease?

Getting a tattoo is hardly the most "dangerous" thing I've done, for example. A lot less than rock climbing, for example; or probably than walking in some neighborhoods I've been in. In fact, getting a tattoo was not the most dangerous thing I did on the day I last got a tattoo (a few years back): almost certainly the most dangerous thing I did that day was drive to the tattoo parlor. Highway accidents are really alarmingly prevalent. Of course, this wasn't any special drive, no more dangerous than the one that millions of people commute every day. But if you were to lay odds on what the most likely cause of me suffering bodily harm on that day would be, dying in an auto-crash probably comes first.

In most of these "activity" articles, I think there is no "health risks" section at all; and where there is, I think the tone of it is likely to be quite different than the one in this article. The difference seems to be a moralism that comes out of a stigma sometimes associated with tattooing, or with the subcultures of people who have tattoos. And I suspect a bit of it comes from personal phobias about needles and blood, which seems to put off a lot of people. In any case, none of that bias is remotely encyclopedic. It might be OK to cite some source on stigma or phobia (we have a bit on the former), but not to endorse (nor disclaim) such belief systems.

The one category of example I've deliberately omitted is anything having to do with sex. That area equally seems surrounded by stigma and phobia, so a lot of those articles probably also contain weird tacitly moralistic digressions. Maybe especially ones on "non-standard" sex things. I haven't read many such articles, but that's my hunch. LotLE×talk 05:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't it Janice Joplin who said tattooed people like to fuck a lot?

Anyway, I think a small health risks section is warranted. However, it needs to be concise and brief. Again, we're not doctors. Some mention of the potential risks is, I think , fine. Exploding Boy 05:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I do appreciate everybodys clarification here and I apoligize for any personalizing I made of this. However, while I don't think tattoos are overly dangerous, they are not completely without risk as celebreties portrayed them. Tattooing and piercings are probably the only operation that people will get that that isnt done by a surgeon. Even in the medical profession there are mishaps that result in contamination. How many people really understand if they are getting a tattoo in a safe manner? And of course if you do pick up Hepaitus C in particular you would never know for years until you came down with symptoms or got a blood test for some other problem. You would never know where it came from. Tattoos are really two conflicting stories. The visible story which is obvious and the invisible story which can be dangerous if not understood. People know full well that if they go rock climbing they can fall, and most americans are aware that sex has it risks, but few people know that there is any risk if you get a tattoo. So IMO the health risks should be upfront and not couched in feel good terms. That can be left to the rest of the article (Doug rosenberg 05:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC))

Huh? I've hardly ever seen any mention of tattoos that didn't mention infection risks, almost always wildly overstated. The chance that someone is unaware of these risks is vastly more improbable than someone being unaware of the risks of other activities they engage in (even leaving aside any "medical" activities/procedures). The driving thing is a pretty good example: it's something that billions of people do daily, most of them believing the dangers involved to be much less than they actually are. In contrast, just about everyone who gets a tattoo does so believing the risks to be greater than they actually are.

I'm quite certain I've never heard anyone in my life—celebrities or otherwise—say that tattoos are "completely without risk", not even by implication. On the other hand, I've frequently heard what amounts to the same claim in relation to driving (a far more dangerous activity); heck there are popular movies glorifying reckless driving that have the moral "the good guys never get hurt no matter how reckless they drive". LotLE×talk 06:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well driving is probably the most dangerous thing most people do on a daily basis and it is most likely the only activity that can land them in prison or get themselves killed if they make a few miscalulations. Honestly, I'm not sure the average consumer is qualified to check that the tattoist is following all the accepted practices. Since it seems that just about everybody is getting tattoos nowadays, I can only hope that the local authorities are regulating the practices. I see disturbing cases on the web of people complaining they got heptitus C from Tattooing in the not so distanct past. As far as I can see in the US, there is only the cited Haley study which condems Tattoing as a big source of Hep C and the CDC data which finds no Hep C link. Hopefully, there are are some studies in the future to clear this up.(Doug rosenberg 11:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC))

On the other hand, I'm certain that the average consumer is not qualified to check that the mechanics who repair their car's breaks, engine, tires, etc. are following accepted practices. Certainly I personally support regulation of tattoo parlors (it's neither here nor there, but my current home state, Massachusetts, was one of the last states to remove laws prohibiting tattoo parlors; naturally when opened, they were subject to careful inspection and regulation). I also support regulation of places that prepare food. Or ones that manufacture... just about anything... to insure both workers and locals are free from toxic poisoning. But I don't believe that I am personally qualified to guarantee any of those regulations are articulated or inspected correctly. I rely on experts (i.e. ones hired by my state government) to know what proper food transportation procedures are, and also for sterilization of tattoo equipment.

Of the two of us, Doug rosenberg, which has published in epidemiology journals, do you reckon? And which of us pontificates, without real citation, about what risks "might be" in areas that happen to have stigma associated with them? It turns out those two things have opposite answers. In relation to nothing, I was wondering after your prior comment about what you believe to be my tattoos if you think I'm the fellow with the eagle and panther tattoos on each arm. I'm not; while I don't particularly love the designs (they're not bad, but they don't "speak to me"), I guess I'm either flattered or insulted that you think I'm so much younger than I am (confessedly, I don't know when eagle/panther guy's photos were taken). LotLE×talk 16:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have re-inserted, with different phrasing, the reference to needlestick HIV transmission. The study and information was originally quoted out of context. The fact that no tattoo artist has contracted HIV from tattooing is notable, since needlestick injuries are as common in our field as nursing, in some cases. Resonanteye 15:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I am highly suspicious of this Doug rosenberg fella. It appears to me he has an axe to grind. The fact that there is a risk of infection from tattooing is rather obvious. The question is what weight it should be given in this article. The idea that "Tattooing and piercings are probably the only operation that people will get that that isn't done by a surgeon" is ridiculous. What about chiropody, dentistry, hairdressing, immunization to mention but a few. All that is required for this article is to point out that, in common with all invasive surgical procedures, there are health risks and for that reason many jurisdictions license the activities of tattoo artists. All the specifics and studies about infections do not belong in this article as they are largely unprovable. Health risks associated with dentistry, for example are not even mentioned in the Wikipedia article on the subject. What is of interest with regard to health risks in the field of tattooing, is how they have been significantly reduced in recent times (concomittant with a greater understanding of infective agents and infection routes), just as they have in all areas of invasive surgery. All the stuff about the inks and the CDA is also irrelevant to the article. It would be far better to say "Inks used are regulated in some jurisdictions" with an appropriate citation. I would be fascinated to read about inks in the sense of what they contain and how that may, or may not have changed over the years. Lets keep these personal prejudices out of the bodies of wikipedia articles, and stick to that which is relevant to the subject and irrefutable.

Myredroom 18:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be an issue about the way Pamela Anderson got Hepatitus as Tommy Lee has been reported to both have and not have the disease and the tattooist calims he used dfferent needles for both people which is the usual routine.

Metals, MRI

The section on MRI gave a very indirect citation about the alleged metal content in tattoo inks. The link was an edited syndication of an article that allegedly originally appeared on ABC news. The ABC link is dead. But it mentions a Northern Arizona University scientific paper that has these results. Unfortunately, Google Scholar is not turning anything up in my searches. The syndicated article itself had errors of fact right within the article, so it seems like a bad source; if we can find the NAU paper, it is presumably better.

Neither copper nor nickel are per se toxic metals. Not that I recommend eating a penny, but... well, kids eat copper pennies pretty regularly without any real harm coming about (some adults too). Also, those metals are not strongly ferromagnetic, so their effects on MRIs would be minimal (depending on amount of course). Then inclusion of this supposed fact (seems plausible, but is not really supported) in the health section (and under MRI subsection specifically) seems to be trying to make a speculative point rather than state any known fact. Maybe it would make more sense, if cited, under the procedure section. LotLE×talk 16:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Correction: Nickel does show ferromagnetism. I misremembered (I'm not a solid-state physicist). LotLE×talk 17:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I left the MRI section unchanged since just because you have some metal on your tattoo, doesnt mean you are going to blow up a MRI machine and the conclusions reached there are still valid. I just removed the observation that inks have no metal in them because that isnt justified by the science. The link I included seemed to have the best synopsis of the article.

Yes it's good to depend upon experts but do you honestly policing Tattoo parlors is a major concern amoung politicians in Arkansas or Alababma? And if someone breaks your car, you know relatively soon but if you get Hepitius C, and you only find out about it years later it would be quite a shock. From what I can see pinpointing the cause of a case of Hepitius C seems to be most controversial because of the time between infection and diagnosis. And at that point you arent going to be sure what really infected you. Do you believe that Pamala Anderson got her Hep C from Tommy Lee? Hep C can be transmitted accidently even in what one consider safe medical condictions: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug rosenberg (talk • contribs)

What would it take to convince you, Doug rosenberg, that you are not an M.D.?! You shouldn't be practicing medicine without a license. Heck, even if you were a physician, you're not my doctor, nor that of most readers. If you happen to live in Arkansas or Alabama, and you feel that your state regulators are doing a poor job, complain to your state rep, or maybe to the local health department. Don't annoint yourself to start preaching inaccurate quasi-medical advice. Do the same thing if you think your local restaurant is unsanitary, BTW, which is a lot more likely infectious disease danger.

I'm not sure what the incubation period of Hep C is supposed to show. It is indeed relatively long, certainly compared to something like botulism; but I don't personally want to get either disease. Cancer has an even longer latency period after exposure to carcinigens, very few articles on which have moralistic "health risks" sections with quasi-medical prognositcations. Or, for example, the article White Mountain National Forest does not carry any "health risks" section, even though Maine has a particularly high prevalence of Lyme Disease, and walking in that forest is about the highest risk way of getting exposed to the ticks that carry it.

As to this anecdote that seems to motivate your rants: Do I think that if two people who apparently had a long-term history of sexual contact, and who both contract HVC, are most likely to have transmitted the virus via tattooing? Well, no, I think that's way down on my list of likely events. I don't believe or disbelieve that Mr. Lee and/or Ms. Anderson have HVC: I'm not their physician. It's conceivable that one or both of them do (both seem healthy from the little I know of them); and it's conceivable that Mr. Lee contracted it earlier; and it's conceivable that Ms. Anderson contracted it from Mr. Lee rather than vice-versa, or from another source. If those facts actually are true (something about which you certainly have no specific knowledge), tattooing is an extremely unlikely vector of transmission (even if one or both of them believe it to be the vector, neither being M.D.'s to the best of my knowledge). LotLE×talk 20:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick point: if people were experiencing serious health problems directly attributable to being tattooed you can be damn sure a whole lot of tattoo shops would be getting shut down PDQ. Probably few politicians would have much sympathy for tattooers. The fact that this isn't happening and that indeed tattoo shops are proliferating, suggests that the health risks are minimal in a well-maintained shop staffed by professionals who follow up-to-date procedures. Exploding Boy 22:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with you that the source of Pamala's HCV is unknown. Although I believe her claim that she has it; her blaming it on tattoos doesnt ring true. She might have been shooting up and just tried to blame tattoos for all I know. The connection is not as straight forward as if you got food poising after eating bad food. I've never stated that I think Tattoos are high risk. It is most likely low risk. Of course there are a lot of things that on the face of it seem to taken care by the government and that turns out false. Look at the flooding of New Orleans. There are stories over 20 years about how New Orleans was going to go under water. This was a completely advoidable situation but yet it still happened. (Doug rosenberg 23:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)) Good work on the statistics of who has tattoos broken down into all those categories. That's very interesting. Where is the percentage for people who have tattoos on the East Coast?(Doug rosenberg 23:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC))

More WP:NPOV#Undue weight violations

It appears Doug rosenberg is at it again. Not every single isolated case of a health effect associated with tattooing need be presented in an an encyclopedia, much less in the wildly overstated characterization Doug rosenberg gave. I did not outright remove the MMWR mention of a small number of staph cases, but I did take out the WP:OR violation of his speculation of the motives about unlicensed tattooing (FWIW, I think he's basically right in the characterization, but it's not our place to speculate).

By way of perspective: I agree with the CDC, of course, that Methicillin-resistance in staph is a serious concern. But the very article Doug rosenberg gave had a link to "Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Infections in Correctional Facilities --- Georgia, California, and Texas, 2001--2003" which documents a larger cluster of cases of the same disease, unrelated to tattoos (I'm pretty sure he's not going to put that in any corresponsing Wikipedia articles though). I reckon that among the things Doug rosenberg won't add to articles are the discussion in the same MMWR issue about much larger number than 44 of polio cases in Pakistan; or the 354 Hep C 2006 cases among infants (much more than the number associated with tattoos); or the rather large increase in mumps in the USA. Of course, those infectious issues are chosen just from that one weekly newsletter, many other things occur if you look at other weeks of MMWR. LotLE×talk 18:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, LuLu I must have mislinked this. I'm not sure where that link came from. Of course since I know you will redit whatever I write severely I dont spend a lot of time perfecting it now! LOL. Doug rosenberg 22:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

LuLu, I would just like to state for the record that I'm not against tattoos at all. I for one find tattoos on females very seductive (especially tramp stamps). I just find the health risks of tattoos most interesting and a confusing story so that is why I'm concentrating on them. Certainly it is a story that is changing all the time and that makes it more interesting to me. I've certainly learned a lot by researching it on the web. The only other entries I have edited at Wikipeida are "Audrey Tautoo (amost tattoo) to clear up a birthdate misconception and some funny quotes from on the Dallas Mavericks. And maybe something about Paris Hilton but I dont like to admiit it. So if you think I have evil intention of trying to stamp out tattoos by just concentrating on the health effects of tattos, I think you are gravely mistaken. (Doug rosenberg 07:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)).

I care about your sexual confessions even less than I care about your lay medical advice. Maybe there are bulletin-boards for both things, but Wikipedia ain't either. The very minimal health risks associated with tattoos are very well understood, completely unconfusing, are not changing, and are not particularly "interesting" to Wikipedia readers other than yourself. Please stop harming this article by inserting irrelevant speculation, or silly mischaracterizations (such as 44 cases of MRSA in 3 clusters being a "widespread outbreak"). LotLE×talk 08:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Remove personal attack. People, let's stick to discussing the article. Exploding Boy 15:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Which religions are Abrahamic?

I see that someone removed Islam from the list of Abrahamic religions, but following the link to Abrahamic tells me that these are generally held to include Islam and the B'hai as well as Islam and Christianity. Does anyone who knows more about this than I do want to justify this change?Zandrous 17:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah... the same anonymous editor who tried to remove mention of Islam from this article also removed the entire section from History of tattooing. It's weird. At first brush, it seems like an anti-Islamic thing. Though looking at the brief edit history of the IP, s/he also edited al-Sistani's article (by deletion of a paragraph, though not one that is clearly positive or negative). So maybe it's some sort of convoluted pro-Islamic thing in the editor's mind (I don't know how that might work, but anything's possible). In any case, the mention of Islamic prohibitions (though mixed within different traditions) is certainly worth noting.

Btw. Do you know anything about B'hai attitudes towards tattooing? I have no idea what their take is on it, but if they have any restriction or prohibition, that seems noteworthy. Likewise with any other (non-Abrahamic) world religions. There's nothing there basically just because I don't know any other religions that have much specific doctrine about tattoos (either pro- or con-). If some religion used tattoos as actual parts of religious ritual, that would be worth mentioning too; and likewise if some sect or school had a prohibition. LotLE×talk 19:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Erasure of Islam

I received the below email on my Wikipedia account. I suspect it's from the same person who erased all the Islam references:

 Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 01:18:13 -0400
 From: "Ibrahim Masri" <imasri29@gmail.com>
 To: wikpedia@gnosis.cx
 Subject: Wikipedia Tattoo page

 Hey,

 I hope you're doing well. On wikipeida there is a tatto topic that
 states tattos are forbidden in islam. This is not true as many big
 scholars say tattos are not forbidden.

 Here's proof from Grand Ayatullah Ali Al-Sistani:
 http://www.sistani.org/html/eng/menu/4/?lang=eng&view=d&code=189&page=1

 If you would like more scholars' word, please let me know.
 -- 
 Ibrahim

I replied:

If you can locate a better citation that you give here, I think that would be excellent information to include in the article. What you give is doesn't meet Reliable Sources, since it is a very informal web page without any clear source of attribution; but assuming the facts are as you describe, a scholarly source shoudl be possible to find.

Please continue this discussion on the talk page for the tattoo article.

Btw. If you are the anonymous editor who has repeatedly removed all reference to Islam: DON"T DO THAT. The idea that some Muslims feel a religious prohibition is well cited; a good citation of contrary opinion would be great, but not deletion of clearly relevant material.

LotLE×talk 16:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Move to strike

Under Purposes, the line "Many music fans (mainly metal/alt) have tattoos of their favourite band to show their devotion to that band." is kind of a lame tack-on. One vote to strike. --64.238.49.65 19:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

  I think it should be kept but maybe better worded since it is relevant to the article. Noobeditor 00:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Back tattoo

I hadn't seen the above referenced "vote" take place, but added the image regardless. It's substantially better than the image that was here.

Also, this article has a very good potential, with a little bit of attention, of becoming featured. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 19:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The "vote" on the back tattoo is higher up this page. As I read the vote, 2 people "opposed" it, 1 "weak opposed" it, and 1 "opposed" it but said perhaps we should use it until something better appears. I "support" the picture. I did take it, but regardless of that fact, I think it is a pretty decent image of a whole back tattoo. There was a suggestion that the image is overexposed, but I uploaded a histogram that shows that it is not actually over-exposed, though it does tend toward lighter tones. The image is used on a couple of other langugage versions of Wikipedia, according to what links here. I'm still in favor of having it in the article if consensus agrees. Johntex\^talk 19:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The vote took place some time ago. One can hope that more people will be watching this article. I had an offwiki discussion with someone else before I flipped the article over and saw the vote. This article could very easily become featured status with a bit of nurture. There are a number of tattoo images on the Commons, but I'll see what I can get myself. This image is substantially more appropriate than the one I saw on the article earlier.

I have another appointment on mine in a few weeks, and I'll try to get some general shots at that time. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 13:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

John, I want to point out that nobody has objected in the week since we've begun discussing this. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 21:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Tattoos in Judaism

From the paralel article on the Hebrew Wikipedia:

היהדות אוסרת לחרוט כתובות קעקע על הגוף. איסור זה הוא אחד מתרי"ג מצוות ומקורו בויקרא יט,כח: "וְשֶׂרֶט לָנֶפֶשׁ לֹא תִתְּנוּ בִּבְשַׂרְכֶם וּכְתֹבֶת קַעֲקַע לֹא תִתְּנוּ בָּכֶם".

Rough translation: Judaism forbids engraving tattoos on the body. This prohibition is one of the 613 mitzvot and its source is in Leviticus 19, 28: "<snip bit that I can't translate> and you will not tattoo yourselves."

Note that it definitely says "tattoo"; ktovet ka'ka is the accepted term for a tattoo (a more modern, colloquial version is ka'aku'a). The same passage from he:WP later mentions an interpretation by the Rambam, a very well-known biblical interpreter, that defines the tattooing process with a fair amount of accuracy (to scratch the flesh and fill it with ink or other coloring agents).

This should probably be incorporated in the article somehow, but I'm unsure as to how. Any suggestions? LeaHazel : talk : contribs 22:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Lea, I Don’t see why Judaism should be mentioned at all. This is an article about tattoos, not taboos -Scotty

Because there's already a section on it, and I think if it exists, it should be as accurate and reflective of all available information as possible. A lot of biblical citations get taken out of context because of poor translation, so I thought I'd be able to contribute by providing some insight into the text in the original language. And yes, it's an article about tattoos, and the religious prohibitions against tattoos are a part of that, just like the stigma against tattooed people, the health risks, the equipment used etc. are a part of it. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 11:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe lea's suggestions should be included in the tatttoo history article. Noobeditor 00:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is there no information on Holocaust tattoo given to Jewish people?

newbie

Hi all, new to wp, old to tattooing. I've read all your posts above and I think... 1.a section on "possible repercussions" would be less judgemental than "health risks".

2. I have replaced the top photo with a photo that is not washed out, is representative of modern tattoo art, is a bit more tasteful than the "tramp stamp" picture (haha) and does not show anyhone's face or too much(or little) background. Hope it works for you, I did the art and the work so I knew it could be safely donated to "the cause"

3.I added to the shop hygiene section, and added "pregnant or nursing" to reasons that a client may be refused service. Most states disallow pregnant and nursing women from being tattooed.

4.I think I f'ed up the code to leave a reference, if someone could patiently repair that, I would most appreciate it.

5.I would love to see a small list-much like the list for musicians-that includes notables beyond the handful that are here. I was thinking those who had been published either repeatedly in features or interviews in magazines, or in books about tattooing. I can think of a few "big names" that aren't in here, and ought to be

6. I added a small slang paragraph citing appropriate source material(I think)

7.Judaism fully belongs in this topic, at least to explain that traditional beliefs conflict with body modification, and that this group was one of the few histoirically proven to undergo involuntary tattooing in recent history.

8.maybe of a listing of technical approaches/styles? There are a handful of different logical and aesthetic approaches or "schools" in tattoo these days, it's part of why it'sgrowing so quickly and getting more artistic...These approaches are technically and artistically extremely distinct from each other, and sub articles will serve the need to show the variety available within this art medium a bit better than clogging up the main text with too many photos

9.It is an art medium. Explain surrealist painting without images. I dare you to make it interesting. The fact that we see someone else's body changed visually is what makes this medium fascinating to many people.

10. I added a photograph of a professional who wears a highly visible tattoo. I have some sources to cite if necesary to make the point about visible tattoos causing discrimination a bit more balanced. let me know if they are needed.

Thanks for being patient with me...I'm going to look through my dermatology texts and see if I can't find source for the explanation to fading also. I know that it is because over time cells in the underlayer of the epidermis shift and die off, taking some pigment with them...I'll have to find reference for that though.

I'll come armed with better reference tomorrow, hope you guys can make my additions work into the article somehow. It is really incredibly well-written already, I just hoped having a tattoo artist add might help.

anjiResonanteye 05:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Science behind a tattoo.

Can we add a section on the science behind why tattoos are permanent? Why doesn't the body dissolve the tattoo? Is it a property of the ink, a property of the method, or both? Lux 17:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Mechanism section added. 86.139.253.235 12:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

blatant self promotion time!

seems like there's a user with the name Venicebeachtattoos adding links to all tattoo related articles that go to http://www.venicebeachtattoos.com. I'm going to be going on a bit of cleanup of this --Threatis 12:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! If you're on IRC, you may want to participate on the #wikipedia-spam to help us combat this ongoing menace! Bastiq▼e ^demandez 14:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I've met them. They aren't bad people. They are probably quite unaware that this isn't a place where they can just add a link. I added a (non self-promotional) website link. It is a site that has articles from various tattoo magazines, links to studios' websites, and artist's portfolios, along with a handful of "new tattoo"-type FAQs. I though this might be a good addition if people wanted more information than can be included, or wanted to see more images. It's not a pay site and it's not associated with any particular artist. The ads there aren't too heavy either. Oh, and by the way, there is a link to me on that site somewhere if you dig hard enough for it, but none of my work has been featured there, or even posted(to my knowledge). It's a pretty broad site.

Resonanteye 05:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Be that as it may, I dont see it as quite the resource as something like Bmezine or Tattooed Nation. It's pretty much put there for blatant self promotion, and as such should be removed. --Threatis 12:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, there's no reason that any site that advertises should be on this article. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 13:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

See the point, well said. Although the site lists conventions and has articles and health and safety FAQs, and artist and studio listings, as well. That was why I originally posted it as a resource. If we expand that list of artists it can serve as well or better. on my talk page I've got the short list of some of the bigger names, people who have been well-covered in newspapers, magazines, movies, books, and documentaries. Some of the artists already on the artists list page don't really meet the notability guidelines as well as some of the ones that aren't up there-if you know what I mean. Resonanteye

By the way, Tattooed Nation is newer, and has not as extensive a yellowpages/directory. Resonanteye

If you want to create an encompassing article entitled List of tattoo conventions, I would not be at all opposed, and a site that lists tattoo conventions (without prejudice for advertisers), could theoretically be included on such a page. But that would be the more appropriate place for a link such as this. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 14:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

That is a marvelous idea! I'll add it to the project pile. I'm going to keep on expanding the artist pages, as well. Thanks Resonanteye

BTW, you may have misunderstood me- I am not sure. the page only has outside ads. Such as clothes, books, etc.- not the studios or artists listed on the site. It doesn't have the people listed as advertisers, it's some web-ad thing I was referring to, not that ads the site sells individually. Resonanteye Thanks

I should apologize if we seem rigid... as you can imagine this page has a history of being a particular target for spammy, marginally related links. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 14:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes.I belive it.As Isaid(someplace)---in the industry we call it " shameless self-promotion"... 70.193.66.244

removed paragraph

"A newer method of removal is by tattooing glycolic acid into the skin with a tattoo machine: the acid pushes the ink to the surface of the skin in the scab, which is later removed. This method purportedly scars less than laser techniques. Glycolic acid is also used for facial peels; when used for tattoo removal, a lower percentage mix is used."

I did a little research and what I came up with unanimously agreedthat this method is no longer used, as it scars and does not actually remove tattoo ink. My dermatology text backs this up, since it states that tattooink lies in a section of the epidermis that is below the area where glycolic acid can function- the acid wokrs because it kills off the entire layer of dead cells, dehydrating them quickly so that they then shed all at once. The tattoo ink lies just under this "dead/shed" layer, which is why it is permanent.

If you tattoo this acid into someone it actually just makes enough scar tissue from a deep tissue chemical burn to make the tattoo look a little lighter through it-

Also, this is not a new technique. people have been attempting to remove tattoos by tattooing acids and caustic agents into the skin since the mid-70s.

The only reliable and verified removal agent is the laser treatments now available... here's a link to someone that has some recent information about all this stuff

rethinkyourink.com or http://hyperspacestudios.com

I had a chat with one of the guys there, he's always got sound sources for his information. He's one of those famous guys that has been doing this for a long time, he's pretty reliable. Also reading that textbook helped too. And on top of all this I have some sources to go in and cite on the page. 70.193.200.180 07:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to sign in before I posted... Resonanteye 07:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

peer review?

I think we need more eyes on this one. It's a popular subject and the article is put together pretty well so far. I'm gonna put it up there, and hope for the best. Resonanteye 23:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea! Lets go for it! Bastiq▼e ^demandez 15:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Origins of 'Tattoo'

I am somewhat confused by the description of the origins of the word.  It seems that the article is providing contradictory information under the "Terms" section:

Most often, but quite wrong, many people believe the original root word behind tattoo is the Samoan word tatau, meaning to mark or strike twice (the latter referring to traditional methods of applying the designs). Sailors traveling the Pacific who encountered Samoans, and who were fascinated by the Samoan tatau, mistakenly translated the word "tatau" into the modern tattoo.

The first sentence appears to indicate that the word 'tattoo' DID NOT originate from the Samoan word 'tatau'.  However, the second sentence alludes to the opposite.  This may have arisen from an incomplete modification to the original entry.  In any case, is it actually true that the word does not originate from the Samoan word?  Every other source I have come across seems to indicate that it has.  Can anyone clear this up?  Thanks.-128.97.136.151 21:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I know, I think every book I have read about the history says it's samoan in origin. Can you find a asource?because then you can just go ahead and cite it, and change the entry in that section. Resonanteye 08:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope that clears things up a bit, source: [2]

Britishink 16:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

According to my online research, the word 'tattoo' as used in this article is derived from the Samoan word 'tatau' [3]. The derivation from the Dutch 'taptoe' relates to the military drumbeat or bugle to signal troops [4] [5] [6]. I'm going to go ahead and edit the section of the article and add references. Thanks, everybody, for all your help! - 128.97.212.115 19:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, somebody edited the page before I got a chance and, while with good intentions, made the wording slightly more confusing. It also appears that the section contains a bit too much information about the origins of the word in the Samoan language. I'll try to clean it up.

Also, it appears that people are getting the two uses of 'tattoo' confused with one another. I'm also going to post a link to the "Tattoo (disambiguation)" page. Feel free to correct me on any of the information if I'm wrong. I will be citing some of the sources I mentioned above. - 128.97.212.115 19:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Images Peer Review, Tattoos in Islam

I personally find the images slanted entirely to tattooing in the West, the one picture of a tribal tattoo doesn't list a tribe--there's not much point in tribal tattooing without affiliation. There are huge groups of peoples with large traditions in tattooing that don't have images in this article--could the images be made more international and less Western?

As to image galleries, that's a purely POV topic, some people like 'em, others don't. I think they can be used poorly, and personally don't care for them. But if they don't otherwise interfere with the qualities of the article, what does it matter? If you write the article and I don't like image galleries, so what?

The Western view of Islamic societies can be biased towards certain groups. I know many tattooed Muslims. It's not necessarily shared with the world at large, because in tribal Islamic cultures, showing great amounts of skins may not be shared--also many Western tattoo artists are male and there are Islamic tribal cultures where the women, not the men, get tattoos. I haven't studied the topic, so I can only go with what I know from personal experience. Have folks tried google scholar searches on body art of particular cultures? Look, especially, in South Asian Muslim cultures, in tribal societies.

I personally think that Wikipedia could stand more FA on culturally significant and current aspects of Western culture, like meth use, tattoos, military brats, and many other areas--but placed within their international roots. I would like to see this article, as part of what I see as important Wikipedia articles on culture, go for the gold standard. Assuming that all critiques are made in good faith could help the editors see deficiencies in the article. KP Botany 01:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

These are all good recommendations. I think one of the reasons that this article is so west-slanted is that most of the tribal and indigenous art of tattooing is covered under "History of tattooing"; or ought to be. Many of the other cultures that aren't represented here are more and more burying their roots, of which tattooing is a big part. The medium itself is becoming less prevalent in many other places in the world. In the US and Japan it is becoming more popular. Since this is about modern times, not antiquity, those cultures are under-represented in this article but should be included in the "history" article.

Resonanteye 22:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there is room for one or two images of tribal tattoos, as long as they're authentic and not the "tribal style" that is popular among some tattoo-lovers. If there is an article on tribal tattoos or history of tattoos, or both, then more extensive images should appear there, such as examples of tattoos from different cultures. That is also where tribal-inspired tattoo images would be most appropriate, I think. If such articles don't exist, or are stubbish, they should be created/expanded. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 13:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

tattoo removal cream?

Lately there has been a ever growing treatment that involves a cream which is tattooed back over the tattoo its self that brings the pigment back to the surface and affectivly removes the tattoo. Its takes from 2 to 5 treatments depending on how large an area the tattoo is covering - Added to section Health Risks by 81.110.251.199 (01:30, December 13, 2006)

This cream sounds as dubious as a "5-year-super-special-henna-tattoo". Anyone care to cite references, or should it just be removed? --LuciferBlack 09:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like magic pixie dust to me - I'm removing it. Unless someone's going to cite that properly, it sounds extremely farfetched. Glowimperial 00:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It is magical pixie dust. It's one of those acid treatments that has been causing scars since the last century. There is a reference to it on bme but I can't remember where, as an "ill-advised" procedure. My formal training included the statement "there is no known removal technique which is considered safe and non-scarring, which fully removes all traces of tattooing, except for modern laser treatnments."

This is resonanteye, BTW, but I'm on the slowest computer in the world at work, and can't sign in...

This was a sketch on Saturday Night Live, someone was just trying to be funny. The thing looked like deoderant, and got rid of the tattoo by chemically burning it off and leaving scarring24.75.180.31 07:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

tattoo removal cream?

Lately there has been a ever growing treatment that involves a cream which is tattooed back over the tattoo its self that brings the pigment back to the surface and affectivly removes the tattoo. Its takes from 2 to 5 treatments depending on how large an area the tattoo is covering - Added to section Health Risks by 81.110.251.199 (01:30, December 13, 2006)

This cream sounds as dubious as a "5-year-super-special-henna-tattoo". Anyone care to cite references, or should it just be removed? --LuciferBlack 09:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like magic pixie dust to me - I'm removing it. Unless someone's going to cite that properly, it sounds extremely farfetched. Glowimperial 00:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It is magical pixie dust. It's one of those acid treatments that has been causing scars since the last century. There is a reference to it on bme but I can't remember where, as an "ill-advised" procedure. My formal training included the statement "there is no known removal technique which is considered safe and non-scarring, which fully removes all traces of tattooing, except for modern laser treatnments."

This is resonanteye, BTW, but I'm on the slowest computer in the world at work, and can't sign in...

This was a sketch on Saturday Night Live, someone was just trying to be funny. The thing looked like deoderant, and got rid of the tattoo by chemically burning it off and leaving scarring24.75.180.31 07:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Japan

Wow, is this a article on tattooing or an article on tattooing in japan. There are an inordinate amount of references of japan and what they do in japan and yada yada when tattooing in a modern sense is done around the world and in an ancient sense was just as prominantly done in western and african cultures. I see rarely any of those though —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.166.222.8 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 17 December 2006

Possible Protection Time?

I've been watching this page for a while now, and I'm seeing a lot of vandalism as of late. should we possibly get this page for a short period until the vandals get bored and move on? --Threatis 22:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, would be glad. Since I first started watching this article I've noticed continual vandalism, spam, advertising etc. and I'd like to see a damper put on it. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 13:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

even partially protecting it (from unregistered users) would help.

Resonanteye 03:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I semi-protected it. Let's give it to February 1 2007. Johntex\^talk 05:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Legality issues.

I think this article should include legality in particular regions, such as age restrictions. 4.234.39.196 18:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

General comments

I think the article starts badly:

"A tattoo is a mark made by inserting pigment into the skin; in technical terms, tattooing is dermal pigmentation. Tattoos may be made on human or animal skin. Tattoos on humans are a type of body modification, while tattoos on animals are most commonly used for identification."

I think that tattooing is no more body modification on a human than it is on an animal. On humans it may be carried out for the purposes of decoration, which is unlikely to be the case in animals. However tattooing in humans has also been used as a method of identification (WW2), and continues to be so in some sub cultures. Tattooing of humans is also used in the medical arena to aid the use of radio therapy (which is another reason I am highly suspicious of the stuff about MRI). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myredroom (talk • contribs) 22:00, 14 February 2007

Proving a negative?

There has been a "FACT" tag associated with the statement that nobody has contracted AIDS via a tattoo for over a year. I'm curious how the person who added it thought it was possible to prove or disprove. Absent a citation proving that it had, indeed happened, shouldn't it be removed? Peter Camper (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think something should be added about legal age requirements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.161.239 (talk) 02:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Extremely USA centered

Most of the article is extremely USA centered. Like saying states before countries, talking about the FDA (it should be said that 'in the united states, the FDA...' or something like that) and so on. The majority of the readers is probably not american (just a guess). And even if that's not the case, english wikipedia does not mean US wikipedia. Ran4 (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem has been identified, however, an American would have a hard time solving it. Someone needs to add other information, as the bias seems to come from the lack of information. Rds865 (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed for quote

In the "etymology" section is a quote by Capt. Cook that needs a citation. I looked for the quote in Cook's Journal that is posted on Project Gutenberg. I could not find the exact quote. I found a similar but different quote from a visit to Tahiti: "Both sexes paint their Bodys, Tattow, as it is called in their Language. This is done by inlaying the Colour of Black under their skins, in such a manner as to be indelible." (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/8106/8106-h/8106-h.htm). Any ideas about this? Has anyone been able to find the exact quote? Ddimatteo 14:54, 30 October 2007 (Tokyo Standard Time)

Nonsense list

The article has this list: "...in the Philippines, Borneo, Mentawai Islands, Africa, North America, South America, Mesoamerica, Europe, Japan, Cambodia, and China. " Why don't we say 'the world'? Are there any notable exceptions to this list? I notice Australia is missing in a count of the continents, but every other one is represented. Can we skip the exhaustive list and say 'nearly all geographic areas' or something to that effect? Phasmatisnox 17:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Tattoos are popular in Africa? Do they use light-colored opaque ink so it'll show up on their dark skin? I wasn't aware you could make a light colored ink show through pigmented skin, the skin being fairly opaque when pigmented already by melanin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Many African-Americans are tattooed; not being a tattoo artist I can't speak to the inks involved but there's no question that black and colored inks show up on dark skin. I don't know if tattoos are traditional in Africa or not. 99.153.133.34 (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal

Added some alternative removal methods, but needs expansion and some more refrences besides http://people.howstuffworks.com/tattoo-removal3.htm. (IRMacGuyver 08:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC))

yeah, like a hot iron. Rds865 (talk) 07:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC) rendG]] (talk) 05:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Mythbusters Reference

Should the Mythbusters be treated as a good source to discount the possible MRI interactions? I think if you really looked you could find at least a dozen ways to refute the validity of almost any experiment those guys come up with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.114.168 (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

they tattooed pig skin and put it in the mri, as well as put a tattooed person in a mri, and asked a mri tech if they had heard of exploding tattoos. Rds865 (talk) 07:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"Negative Associations" section

After reading one of the cited studies, I reworded part of this section to reflect the nature and findings of the study. I removed one of the sources, which was listed as an "Unpublished master's thesis", as wikipedia guidelines state that only published works should be cited. Brienf (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Tattoo taxonomy

According to various plastic surgeons, tattoos are divided into five types: amateur, professional, cosmetic, medicinal, and traumatic. In the article, Traumatic ("Natural tattoo") is located in the Procedure chapter, while Cosmetic and Medical further up, in the Purposes chapter. How about moving all types in one chapter? ktr (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

tribal tattoos

Dear editors, tribal tattoos are very intresting and popular subject for people searches. I suggests to open a category in the tattoos page for tribal tattoos See: http://tattooblogger.blogspot.com/2008/07/interesting-things-about-tribal-tattoos to get some ideas. Cheers! Tattooblogger (talk) 11:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Aside from agreeing with Sheepeh below, the blog post in question doesn't seem to exist anymore. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 02:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not feel that would help the atricle as tribal tattoos are already mentioned. And Wikipedia is not a soapbox WP:SOAPSheepeh (talk) 23:41, 31 July 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 :)

• "kilmer" :
  • [http://www.emedicine.com/derm/topic563.htm#section~histology Tattoo lasers / Histology], [[Suzanne Kilmer]], [[eMedicine]]
  • blank

DumZiBoT (talk) 06:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hidden tattoos

File:Barak Victory.jpg

Some adults have tattoos that are not visible when they wear a business suit.

This image was added but it got removed. Is this really too tangential for the article? Let's talk about it.--Parisbag (talk) 02:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Moko

Are not tattos! Read the article. They are gouges in the skin made with albatross bones. This article says Tattoos are made by injections. Need to decide. Victuallers (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Bible + Tattoos

Please remove the line "The Bible forbids tattoos in Leviticus 19:28. This biblical law is strictly adhered to by observant Jews."

Any observant person would realise Leviticus 19:28 forbids ritual scarification, as practised by Pagans. It's crap like this that's giving people the wrong image of the tattooed community.

On another note, the catholic church has in fact said "tattoos are ok.". Coudl be worse mentioning.

Forgot to sign 82.19.15.148 (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Orthodox Jewry has always banned tattoos. In fact, some Orthodox cemeteries won't bury a tattooed Jew (or any non-Jew); this became a controversy because of the tattoos borne by Holocaust survivors. I wish I had a source for this ... someone should research it. 99.153.133.34 (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article is wrong (surprise, surprise) as to the reason why tattoos are banned in the Bible (Leviticus) and Judaism. It has nothing to do with the body being the property of God. Wikipedia is dead wrong on this point. The passage in Leviticus specifically refers to the practice of marking or cutting the flesh in the CONTEXT of MOURNING THE DEAD, which was a practice specifically associated with the pagan world contemporary to the ancient Israelites. The Israelites were supposed to disassociate themselves from such acts that were so obviously connected to paganism. Jewish Law came to extend the ban to all such markings for any reason, though it is unclear that the Biblical text was intended to be applied outside the context of mourning for the dead.

However, the notion that the human body is owned by God, and that a person is forbidden from modifying God's creation which is already perfect, has got nothing to do with the ban on tattoos in the Bible. Otherwise, circumcision would have been banned by the same rationale.

I am correcting the text accordingly.

Jacob Davidson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 21:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Atomic Bomb Victims

Under the "Accidental Tattoos" section, I think that something should be mentioned about victims of the 1945 Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. There are reported cases of women who, having been wearing floral dresses at the time of the impact, had the dark patterns burned into their flesh. I am not entirely sure whether these intense flash burns count as a literal "tatoo," but, certainly, they left permenent, unwanted marks on the skin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.221.179 (talk) 04:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

External links

We have recently seen the addition of lots of external links, moving the article thoroughly into WP:LINKFARM territory. The below articles seem like perfectly good ones as background sources, but if we wish to cite them, we should use them as support of specific points in the article, i.e. as regular footnotes. If you see some fact supported in these that is not in the article, or that is not adequately cited, please feel free to use these resources as notes.LotLE×talk 20:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• 36 Tattoos by David Shields, The Village Voice, October 15 2002
• Tattoos Gain Even More Visibility by Guy Trebay, The New York Times, September 24 2008
• So why do 'Normal' People get Tattoos? by Finlo Rohrer, BBC News, October 9 2007
• NPR Audio: Tattoos No Longer Reserved for the Rebellious August 2 2007
• The Changing Cultural Status of Tattoo Art by Hoag Levins

Tattoo Shop Resource

If your wanting to find a local tattoo shop, you can visit htttp://ww.findatattooartist.com , there are thousands of shops listed and they seem to be well organized —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.222.54.26 (talk) 04:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Aftercare

Why do they tell you not to eat spicy foods, not drink alcohol? The whole aftercare tattoo speech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.218.249 (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This quote from the aftercare section of the tattoo article is ambiguous and should be corrected: "Many tattooists advise against allowing too much contact with hot tub or pool water, or soaking in a tub for the first two weeks. This is to prevent the tattoo ink from washing out or fading due to over-hydration and to avoid infection from exposure to bacteria and chlorine. In contrast, other artists suggest that a new tattoo be bathed in very hot water early and often." The second sentence is not in contrast to the former. Tattoos definitely shouldn't be soaked for the first two weeks while they're healing. They should also be washed frequently, as the article later states, simply not soaked in water or exposed to running water for more than 10 minutes. Fireyelectra (talk) 22:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)fireyelectra

Freak show tradition and world's most tattooed man

I am very disappointed that Lulu of the Lotus Eaters entirely reverted the paragraph I added on this. The tradition of tattoo within historical freakshows and fairgrounds is an important part of the cultural tradition of the art. I think there is a place for such historical facts in this article.

I am also very surprised that there is no place for the world's most tattooed man, supported by a relevant citaton and photo, in an article about tattoo.

I would welcome the views of other Wikipedia editors on this.

Peteinterpol (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If you take a look at my edit, you will see that your characterization is untrue. I kept some of the material you added, keeping what I agree is a notable mention of tattoos in freak shows and performance art. The digression into specific names who are not broadly notable in this context was trimmed. Also, I really don't think the "guiness world record" image is a good way to characterize tattoos broadly, it just becomes a slightly sensationalistic "trivia/quirky" image. LotLE×talk 08:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject Body Modification

I'm trying to start a wikiproject for body modification, if anyone is interested in joining go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Body_Modification ScarTissueBloodBlister (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I would edit this out but the page is locked.

The Japanese word irezumi means "insertion of ink" and can mean tattoos using tebori, the traditional Japanese hand method, a Western style machine, or for that matter, any method of tattooing using insertion of ink.

It sounds hokey, it is not sourced, and the last part makes the previous 2 parts redundant.68.9.130.10 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC).

New Article on Tattoo methods.

The article was written on New skool style of tattoing. I am unfimiliar with the subject to a degree but believe it to be more appropriate to be merged here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a link? I can't find it. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The link should work now.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm considering starting a whole new category pertaining to "tattoo art styles", which would include New skool. I'm surprised there is nothing here yet addressing the different styles. Lot's of rich information there. Godogo1 (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There are already quite a few independent articles on different tattoo styles. How would one go about merging them ALL into a tattoo style sub-heading. For example; Borneo traditional tattooing, Black-and-gray, Irezumi, Marquesan tattoo, Criminal tattoo, Biomechanical Tattoo Art, there are probably others.Godogo1 (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If there are multiple articles existing of Tattoo styles, you may want to keep that article then and make a Category of Tattoo styles with a listing of the different styles and links to each article.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. Godogo1 (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I say don't merge, just expand the article, it's really short..ScarTissueBloodBlister (talk) 04:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Henna Tattoos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.26.5 (talk) 07:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

dyes and pigments

This section is pretty specific with factual details, but just about every sentence has been flagged with a {fact} tag for almost a year. I have no real idea if any of the purported facts are true, but it's been long enough that I'm getting tempted to rip out all the uncited descriptions if they don't get some support. It's better to omit the section (or most of it) than to advance false facts. Does anyone have expertise here who can provide citations about the various chemicals used? LotLE×talk 03:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

An obvious Google search produces some candidate citations:

• http://chemistry.about.com/library/weekly/aa121602a.htm
• http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm048919.htm

i want to be a tatooist

can u help me with some information on becoming a tattooist please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.208.100.158 (talk) 11:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

allergies

I have just got through a major allergic reaction (anaphalactic shock) hair dye being the cause. After testing this is what im allergic to;

p-phenylenediamine (ppd) p-toluenediamine 1,4-benzenediamine 1,4-phenylenediamine 2,4-diaminoanisole p-aminoaniline o-aminophenol and Hydroquinone

everytime i come in2 contact with these my reaction will get worse (near fatal before!)

would a tattoo have any of theses substances in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.47.17 (talk) 13:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Although the article Tattoo medical issues and Tattoo ink contain some background information, this is absolutely not the place to seek medical advice! If you have a medical questions--especially one specific and about yourself, rather than general background curiosity--consult your own physician (and perhaps coordinate with your tattooist). Nothing we write here can ever be medical advice, and please do not mistake it for such. LotLE×talk 16:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

External links for tatoo

Add External links for tatoo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Admirer-wiki (talk • contribs) 17:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Indentification

"Tattoos are sometimes used by forensic pathologists to help them identify burned, putrefied, or mutilated bodies. Tattoo pigment is buried deep enough in the skin that even severe burns are not likely to destroy a tattoo.[citation needed] " This statement seems to be somewhat questionable. If we consider severe burns to be third degree burns, then there is no way the tattoo can survive such a burn. By definition a third degree burn is one that has destroyed the entire surface of the skin and where muscle and bone has possibly been damaged by burns too. Shardakar (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

donating blood after a tattoo?

How long do you have to wait to donate blood after getting a tattoo? Include this under health. Descobedo99 (talk) 00:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Typically the Red Cross doesn't allow you to donate till at least a year after a tattoo. Shardakar (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

superstitions or mythology section?

shouldnt there be a section regarding superstitions about tattoos?--Hicups0002 (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No.--69.121.51.151 (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Please help ID this:

Please help place this striking image. I am not sure which tattoo article it should go into, if any.

Thanks.Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

The Tahitian word for the act of tattooing is tātātau, and is an onomatopoeia. The Tahitian word for the mark left on the body can be called tātātau, but is more often referred to as nono'a.--Hr4079 (talk) 08:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

"Negative associations"

The phrase: "Tattooing was also used by the Nazi regime in concentration camps to tag prisoners." is used in the negative associations section. However, this example is also used in the "Identification" section, and I suggest it be removedGafpa (talk) 04:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

More Samoan tattoo pictures

I have finally got around to uploading some more pictures of the same traditional Samoan tattoo.

Full back

Detail of front

Front shot with genitals obscured

--CloudSurfer (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link needed

There needs to be a disambiguation or a "see also" link to take users to Military tattoo included in this article. --Saukkomies ^talk 12:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction

StupidUnoriginalName (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

"A teardrop tattoo, for example, can be symbolic of murder, with each tear representing the death of a friend."

"Tattoos on the face in the shape of teardrops are usually associated with how many people a person has murdered."

I do not know which of these statements is true, but at least one of these logically has to be false.

Sorry if this message is not up to Wikipedia standards, this is my first post.

Both could be true; some people do wear them to show the death of a friend, often through gang related violence, and some do wear them to show how many they have murdered. (One CAN murder friends too) There may be other reasons that they are worn too. I find it unlikely that every person on the planet with face tears has them for the same reason. I used to know someone whos nickname, "Greety", came from his tattoos. ("To greet", means "to cry" in Scottish English...although "to cry" can mean "to name"..lol)86.14.187.220 (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Lancetyrell

Suggested Video of Tattooing in Brazil

I am working with the Global Lives Project. There is a video of a man in Brazil getting tattooed in a tattoo shop I would like to add to the page. You can view the video here. I intend to shorten the duration of the video. Any thoughts? Dchein (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

"Genital Tattoo" is out of place

The Genital tattoo line is not mentioned in the opening paragraph as one of the "five types of tattoos" under "Types of Tattoos" nor is it appropriate with the disambiguation of the "types of tattoos" listed. It is merely a location of a tattoo, not a type of tattoo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.220.15.42 (talk) 03:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Resurgence of tattoos in Western cultures from the late 1990s

Could the article please be expanded to explain the reason behind the resurgence of tattoos in Western culture from the late 1990s, as I can't see that Janis Joplin's tattoos by Lyle Tuttle in the late 1960s could have been that influential in the late 1990s, and that the Pew Research Center concluded that Generation X of Generation Y are 'are not afraid to express themselves through their appearance' is not particularly insighful or specific, as Generation X and Generation Y could cover people born from the early 1960s through to the early 2000s, which would include a large proportion of the world's entire population. Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 09:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

A major contributor in tattoo popularity during the 90s till present is the tribal tattoo. --Jonhope123 (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

External links

Hi everyone! Is there a reason why there are no external links on the tattoo page? --Jonhope123 (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal from New skool

It was proposed in 2009 that content at New skool be merged here. What's your pleasure.?? Dlohcierekim 21:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Henna confusion

There is reference to henna is a sidebar illustration. But is this not washable? --Therefore, not a real tatoo? And the article mentions tatoos as forbidden in Islam, but the woman in the picture is wearing hijab --or is she a Shiite?Dogru144 (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

image layout

Interesting article, lots of content, however as a non-aligned editor with no vested interest or previous contributions to this article, I want to share my observation that your image-factor is super-cluttered. I would strongly suggest paring-down the number of images, standardizing their sizing and dumping the excess pics into an expanded gallery. I thought I'd bring this up here before just attacking the page and going hell for leather cleaning up the pics. Azx2 19:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

As part of a large structural edit to deal with some clutter across multiple related articles, I cut down image density and tried to choose images relevant to the nearby text. I would ask for assistance from everyone in keeping the photos relevant and focused on the encyclopedic content. - BanyanTree 05:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources

There seems to be some confusion about it. There are currently cites claiming to support that Britain is named after "design" (which would be news to Britain (name) and wikt:Britain) and that being tattooed was a royal privilege in modern Europe (which is somewhere in between overstating the case and complete fabrication). Could someone with access to these (unlinked) sources clean up what the authors were actually claiming or remove them per WP:UNDUE? — LlywelynII 07:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Misordered text

The line "Native Americans also used tattoos to represent their tribe." in the following excerpt should be moved sooner or later in the article (unless the native american practice is somehow associated with criminality.

The Romans tattooed criminals and slaves, and in the 19th century released US convicts and British army deserters were identified by tattoos. Prisoners in Siberian and Nazi concentration camps were tattooed with an identification number. Today, many prison inmates still tattoo themselves as an indication of time spent in prison.[3]

Native Americans also used tattoos to represent their tribe.

Insofar as this cultural or subcultural use of tattoos predates the widespread popularity of tattoos in the general population, tattoos are still associated with criminality. Tattoos on the face in the shape of teardrops are usually associated with how many people a person has murdered. Although the general acceptance of tattoos is on the rise in Western society, they still carry a heavy stigma among certain social groups. Tattoos are generally considered an important part of the culture of the Russian mafia.

I don't see a good place or I would have just done it. Cheers, Randy Sage, 67.174.221.32 (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC) (not signed in)

Tattoos have been around for hundreds of years and have served throughout time as permanent pieces that are memoirs to our loved ones, faith or religion, significant things to us, or in basic cases forms of art expression. The negative stigma associated with tattooed individuals needs to end; it is unfair to discriminate against possible employers because tattooed people were once known to be druggies or thugs. Tattoos are more common now than ever; one in ten people are now tattooed and it is no longer strange to see that someone has and displays their body ink. As we continue to modernize, so does our acceptance of different styles, appearances, and learn to respect other’s ways of life. In the workforce, it is vital for discrimination against tattooed individuals to end. It is not the appearance of someone that should matter, but their resume, skill set, and unique talents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.121.162.19 (talk) 07:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Tatau?

Why is tattoo called tatau in Far Cry 3?--78.156.109.166 (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Social Stigma & Form of Self-Mutilation

Where's the section describing the intensely socially stigmatizing effects of tattoos? Or of their historical association with criminality and mental instability, being a widely recognized form of self-mutilation, strongly indicative of mental illness in the wearer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.181.226.11 (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Merge

Here is why I think temporary tattoo should be merged with this article:

• Temporary tattoos are, to my knowledge, intended as alternatives to real tattoos, but not necessarily body painting.
• This article suffers from multiple issues. To be specific, it fails WP:TONE and WP:NOTHOWTO.
• Decals and henna are mentioned here as well as in the temporary tattoo article, so these two pages are already connected to each other in some way or the other.

Let me know your thoughts on this issue. Thanks! - Fangusu (talk) 23:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

What are the lines under the eyes called, and what do they mean?

Either from the outer corner or middle going down from the eye, like a scar or sometimes more than one, like a claw pattern. I've seen several styles & patterns. Jakotsu from InuYasha as an example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.192.14.161 (talk) 09:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Review

Of health risks associated with new dyes as well as the cleavage results of the dyes in laser tattoo removal doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60215-X JFW | T@lk 12:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Changes inre: tattoos and Bible

@MeeshKapiche: I wanted to call attention to the changes made in this edit regarding tattooing and passages found in The Bible. I think if there is information we can include on Biblical analysis of tattoos, we should include it, but I'm concerned about 1) the tone of the edit and 2) the sources used. On the first point, Biblical tattoos in western culture are still very popular despite being forbidden by holy commandment in Leviticus does not strike me as an appropriate way to describe this. There's no real need to describe the text in Leviticus as a "holy commandment," when it is much clearer to say that, "In Leviticus 19:28, tattooing is explicitly condemned." There's also an issue with framing the popularity of these tattoos in the context of people ignoring this text in Leviticus unless we have sources that discuss it in that manner, otherwise it feels more like original research to say there is some association here. ON the second point, it's great to provide a source to the actual passage, but the source from the United Church of God is not reliable for this kind of claim, as it is an organized Christian entity. Is there a book or some other source that talks about tattooing in relation to Leviticus? I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 17:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Copyright of tattoos?

Is there any copyright issue with tattoo's? An original peace of art would be copyright protected, I think, but is that the case here? If so, there should be something about that in this article. --Judithcomm (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I imagine any laws would be hard to enforce. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.143.86 (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Disfigurement.

Why don't women realize that their own offspring will look at those tatoo's as a danger sign to themselves, a sign of potencial sado-masochistic tendencies where they themselves become target of those tendencies.

They designate blunted emotions, such as forced onto an individual through army training, and have the stigmata of being designated misagonistic, not belonging, with a severity of physical cerebral scartissue caused either by hitting your head at the wall, taking too much cocaine, or for that matter sniffing glue.

In Latin America, especially Venezuela, that has grown to a level where Ukrainian ex military and convicts have gone into merchandizing overdrive in both brothel, army, and other sections, where even a none 'slave' is designated as slave by a sado-masochist.

Tattoo's, have nothing to do with non conformism, it has to do with branding, with an overal enforcement to label another section forcefully, which in the case of Venezuela is the branding of certain male sections in conjunction with branding 'opposition' woman in that same form to force them to only pertain to branded males through forms of rejection by most anyone else. Clearly a Russian/Ukranian Sado Masochistic pattern with lots of irrespect for any female opposition counter to the 'Regime'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.73.126.124 (talk) 13:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem with Tattoo's, is that there is no retained pride, joy, in a dare, for anything but a small tatoo. Over time, individuals with large tatoo's begin to wonder why they did so, there being an overal rejection excepting by those whom would be of the thought that they are 'slave' oriented (S&M crowd), and due the overal rejection, consider having another one, to reject that same rejection. That makes for a viscious circle, where the woman ends up obtaining tatoo's from and through a sadistic orientation set that forecloses on childbearing and child rearing, that same foreclosure being what a 'brothel'/'white trafficker' would have in mind for the next 20 years. 190.73.126.124 (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tattoo#Identification

Are forcible tattoos common or do they merit a separate entry? The Armenian example, detailed here . MichelleInSanMarcos (talk) 03:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Cultural traditions

Details on the Kurdish tradition, with comments that mention Aleut, Amazigh, and other traditions. http://proof.nationalgeographic.com/2015/01/21/the-last-tattooed-women-of-kobane/ Here is a photo of a woman tattooed in the Ethiopian tradition: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/tattoos/photo7.html MichelleInSanMarcos (talk) 03:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tattoo. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131103145504/http://www.tattooarchive.com/tattoo_history/macdonald_sutherland.html to http://www.tattooarchive.com/tattoo_history/macdonald_sutherland.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110712031242/http://www.mauimagazine.net/Maui-Magazine/July-August-2011/Marked/ to http://www.mauimagazine.net/Maui-Magazine/July-August-2011/Marked/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tattoo. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101223231358/http://www.aad.org/public/Publications/pamphlets/cosmetic_tattoos.html to http://www.aad.org/public/Publications/pamphlets/cosmetic_tattoos.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100304131732/http://cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/transmission.htm to https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/transmission.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Addition of "tattooage" to article

The consensus is against adding tattooage, a variant not in common usage, to the article.

Cunard (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should word variants not in common usage be added to an article? An editor has added tattooage to the article several times after being reverted by myself and another editor. One source is Wiktionary, which is not considered to be a reliable source, and the other is the Oxford English Dictionary, which is behind a paywall and can't be independently verified as of now [7]. A web search makes it clear that "tattooage" is not used with any degree of regularity; if it is listed in the OED, it's likely that it's tagged as obscure or archaic. One of the few usages I found was from a medical textbook published in 1910. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• No. There is an entry for the word in the Merriam-Webster unabridged, second edition (1934). This is Wikipedia, however, not Wiktionary. The only reason to mention an uncommon variant is if it's noteworthy in some way (e.g., historically important), and we'd need more than a dictionary source to verify that. (As a side note, this is another RfC whose wording seems likely to lead the casual participant toward a certain conclusion. My latest pet peeve. Grrr!) Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. I added this variant because
  • (1) it is seen in some texts;
  • (2) major dictionaries have it.
  • (3) it is the form that was transmitted to some languages;
  • (4) it is a function of an encyclopedia, as a reference work, to list related terminology. Wikipedia is not wiktionary, but I didn’t create an article for this particular form. Wikipedia isn’t a specialized work which uses only standardized jargon. For example, a person searching for “tattooage” on Google will know that it is tattoo. This is encyclopedic content, it will not hurt to have synonyms.

Josebarbosa (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment (1) More accurately, it's been seen in a couple of texts published prior to 1940 (2) No major WP:RS dictionary lists it as anything other than archaic (3) hardly relevant here (4) it's not an encyclopedia's job to popularize words that have long fallen out of common usage. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Other than the OED, which retains words centuries past their shelf life, and Wiktionary, which is irrelevant for our purposes because it's a wiki, do any other recent major dictionaries list it? (I think I'm asking a rhetorical question because I checked them all, but I guess I might have missed one.) Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 17:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

(1)Which is relevant, works of different fields use it: medicine, history, anthropology etc., and there are more recent texts using it, including a study published in 2013, a book published in 2006 etc.; (2)The Online Etymology Dictionary; Merriam-Webster; besides the OED, these examples suffice to show that isn’t an invented word; (3)Relevant; (4)It isn’t an encyclopedia’s job to “popularize” anything. It is a repository of systematic knowledge, including the nature of words that are likely to be searched because they are not widely known. It is exactly the present case. Josebarbosa (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

But taking the entire article into consideration, I think it is better to add it in “Etymology”, instead of in the initial section, and rename it as “Word” or “Terminology”, because even as it is currently, there’s more content than just the etymology of the term “tattoo”. Josebarbosa (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• No. Non-current term, doesn't add to the understanding of the subject, possibly WP:JARGON, and definitely against Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Batternut (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Batternut's comment. Inclusion of the word "tattooage" doesn't add to the understanding of the subject, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. A dictionary is the place for "words that are likely to be searched because they are not widely known." Sakuranohi (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• No, it adds nothing to the understanding of the subject and is simply perverse usage. On a side issue, "an unspecified amount of tattoo designs", is ungrammatical, you can only use 'amount of' for Non-countable nouns - water, sand, sugar, flour, money etc - Count nouns - which any plural such as 'designs' necessarily is - use 'number of'. Pincrete (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Creating a tattoo studio article

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I am working on the Tattoo artist article for the next couple of weeks for my Technical and Professional Editing class at Texas A&M University. I am planning on moving the "Studio" section in that article and creating an entirely new article dedicated to tattoo studios, as I feel that this section contains a lot of really great information but not information that is relevant to tattoo artists themselves. I think the collection of Wikipedia articles would really benefit from an article all about tattoo studios. I wanted to notify any users on this article's talk page as I feel this decision could also potentially impact this article. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Ands1234 (talk) 02:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Diana na 2de beh.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

"young people" of both sexes?

§ United States says:

Soon after the Civil War, tattoos became fashionable among upper-class young adults.

Of both sexes? I'd be surprised at it being acceptable on young women, but I'm not changing it because I don't know. --Thnidu (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Internal tatooing

I have three small tattoos 50 cm "up" in my colon. These were put there during my first colonoscopy to mark where polyps had been removed, both to make it easier to locate them during a follow-up six months later, and to prevent misidentification later on. Is this something that would fit in the Medical Section, and if so, what citations would be needed, as presently this is only a personal anecdote. JDZeff (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Sounds plausible, JDZeff. I had polyps removed from my colon about two years ago and a follow up colonoscopy two weeks ago. There are no visible tattoos on the MP4 movie. 2403:6200:8832:1FA2:C132:4837:5F5C:4A92 (talk) 09:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

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. Peer reviewers: Threedeezeens.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Community Economic and Social Development II

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 12 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: SINGH KHUSHWINDER.

— Assignment last updated by Michelle312 (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)