Talk:Sunless tanning

message: Would someone please translate this article into spanish.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.210.3 (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Beyond that, most of this article seems to be copied verbatim from HowStuffWorks.com... Possibly copyright vio? 24.0.253.136 13:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

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

message: While doing extensive research on formulation of a sunless tanning product (I am a formulation chemist) I saw many (most?) of the internet resources on Sunless Tanning, DHA, Erythrulose, Melanotan, tyrosine, etc... The resources I found most useful were this article on Wikipedia and a website called Sunless.com.
I added this link to the bottom of this page as it has MANY resources for both straight forward information on sunless tanning products, health & safety, and cosmetic concerns as well as a forum for users to respond. This sunless tanning product user feedback section was extremely helpful to me as I looked at options for creation of a new product. I'm fairly sure that this information would be of benefit to someone looking for more information on sunless tanners in general as it discusses the real-world usage experiences of many people.
I am not affiliated with the website. To my knowledge the website is not a commercial site; although it does have that appearance on first inspection.
I would propose that you/we add a link to this website to the wikipedia article as it provides additional information and provides a   forum for those who wish to discuss sunless tanners. Kemistboy 15:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of a helpful link 

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

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

message: claims that this produces a better tan than uv exposure are unfounded, sources are making statements about a diet rich in fruit and vegetables are being used to imply that eating large quantities of carotenoid containing foods to produce carotenaemia will give you an attractive tan, even though all images of carotenaemia i could find look similar to jaundice and/or are localized to a specific area such as the nose, none of which resemble the look of someone who has a sun induced tan
80.5.128.19 (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  carotenoid tanning 

message: Currently this seems to be Wikipedia's only article on the concept of skin modification (/skin dyeing) besides skin whitening and blackface.
If this is going to be our only spot for this, a) we should discuss and link blackface from here, at least in the context of actors playing We 3 Kings, Othello, Black Peit, &c. and b) we should have a further discussion of other skin darkening practices beyond the present-day First World.
Off the top of my head, early European visitors to Mecca like Burton felt they needed to artificially darken their skin to avoid being exposed and executed for violating its sanctity and Lazarite missionaries to China like Abbé Huc (coming in between the Franciscans & co. mucking up the Jesuits' missions and the Treaty of Nanjing & al. protecting most Europeans from most persecution) felt they needed to dye their skin yellow before hitting the mainland to avoid trouble with xenophobes and/or the law. Maybe both could be handled as something like "spycraft". The Britons supposedly dyed their skin blue for religious/magical reasons. Presumably there are other instances/reasons/examples of artificially darkened/tinted skin that should be touched on. — LlywelynII 06:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Earlier history

message: The caption that says Trump uses tanning lotion isn't supported by the source  which says "There is debate as to whether Donald Trump’s skin tone is due to a spray-on tan, sunbed or make-up." The image has been removed and can't be restored unless there is a supporting source. Sjö (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I know his skin colour does look artificial, but without a reliable source it's WP:OR to say that he uses tanning lotion or any other method. And a reliable source in this case would IMO have to be someone with better information than conclusions drawn from looking at photos. Perhaps a better image to show what sunless tanning looks like is :File:Tanning lotion mens.jpg. Sjö (talk) 12:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, using a NYT as a source that it is plausible that self-tanning products are the reason for Trump's winter tan. The article indicates why other explanations are unlikely, but that is too much info to include in the caption Peaceray (talk) 05:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm not particularly happy about including Trump but with the caption now saying "plausible" I think the image is OK. Sjö (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an encyclopedia article on spray tanning and the main image is of someone who isn't even confirmed to have done it before? Only deemed "plausible" by the NYT? Bit ridiculous if you ask me. Maybe include the image lower in the article with an explanatory caption. MikeLovesBaseballCap (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly agreed; including Trump as the only image in the article based on speculation, even speculation from a RS, is pretty ridiculous.  Faceless Enemy (talk) 23:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trump