Talk:Health effects of tattoos/Archive 1

Archive 1

Spelling

The editor who created most of the content here seems to prefer spellings matching Canadian English. Since this article topic is not one with any distinct national focus, it seems reasonable to conform with that convention for this article. Please try to keep any additions according to this style, and feel free to change any existing text to match it. LotLE×talk 00:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

POV

This article, refactored from Tattoo ink, seems to have been written by an editor with a WP:SOAPBOX agenda against tattooing. Although extensive citations are present, those given only approximately support the far more extreme claims made throughout the article (and sometimes not at all), and overall the tone attempts to create a vastly overstated description of medical risks around tattooing. LotLE×talk 19:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, LotLE. The paragraphs below address one phrase of your concerns at a time.

I was the guy who ignorantly wrote a bunch of WP:SOAPBOX when I first contributed to the Health Concerns section of the Tattoo ink article (from which this article has been derived). However, after educating myself about what soapboxing is, I do believe that my subsequent revisions to the article have all been well-substantiated and reflect all research I have found in regards to the medical effects of tattoo pigments. Of course, I believe that every Wikipedia article should have a NPOV. To wit, each time I came across any medical complication in my research, I wrote about it; and had I come across any positive medical effects, I would have reported on them, too. If there were statistics on how common medical complications with tattoos are, I would have cited them; but, as one of my references states (PMID 10901983), no such statistics exist. As far as Health Concerns go, I have yet to find a medical article that addresses the "other" point of view (i.e., that downplays the health risks of tattoos). If it is simply my prose that poses neutrality problems, I would encourage you to change my tone while maintaining my facts (as you did after my soapboxed initial contribution to the Tatoo Ink article).

Hi Ut Libet, I think there is indeed room for improvement in the language here. However, two things make the situation much better than a day or two ago, IMO. I believe that my refactoring into this child article addresses the WP:UNDUE weight issue. I was concerned to see the majority of the article on Tattoo ink devoted to health risks that are rare, at worst. However, since this article is specifically about that subject, even if it is a rare or uncommon occurrence, no such balance issue exists (perhaps one of tone and accuracy, but that's straightforward to address). The other big improvement is that you have greatly improved the quality of your citations. There were some previous cites to sources not really meeting WP:RS, and that had a clear agenda against tattoos. However, it looks like the large majority of the sources you now use are solid and neutral medical articles. Congratulations on the excellent work. Best wishes.

I think we are unlikely to find any "positive" medical effects, per se. Clearly, people don't get tattoos as a medical treatment, and I would be rather shocked to find that getting one ever cured a cold, or cancer, or tuberculosis. The one thing that seems conceivable to me is that some psychologist might have studied the "self-empowerment" felt by tattooed people (and whatever positive pyschological effects on, e.g. depression). I'm speculating though, I do not have anything to cite at this time. That's true of pretty much anything though, I think... no one is going to find info on the "positive medical effects of watching sports" or "the positive medical effects of wearing polyester". Inasmuch as things other than drugs or surgeries are studied by medicine, they are for the harms potentially associated (other than maybe dietary matter, which aren't quite medical, but are studied for benefits). LotLE×talk 21:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply; I'm glad to know that I have made some improvements to my editing style since my soapboxing incident. In regards to tattoos' psychological benefits, I will search the medical literature this week if I can (or will otherwise do so in November). I can't thank you enough for all the time you've taken to rectify my misguided edits and to educate me on Wikipedia's policies. I know I'll be a better editor because of this fiasco. Cheers, Ut Libet ヽ(;・_・)/ (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If any of my citations appear to be redundant or to be merely approximating, please point them out here and I will give you page, paragraph, and sentence numbers so that you can see the precise sentence(s) of each journal I believed provided that particular article the merit to act as a suitable reference.

If one believes the tone of my text to be overstating, the simplest thing to do would be to change the infracting text. However, I do not believe it to be appropriate to extinguish a paraphrase from a peer-reviewed medical journal without discussing as to why. For instance, I have noted that the phrase "Dermatologists have been observing a steady increase in the number of severe medical complications resultant from tattoo pigments in the body" was changed to "Dermatologist [sic] have observed rare but severe medical complications from tattoo pigments in the body". That neuters the medical article's original words, "stetigen Zunahme der Inzidenz" (first sentence of last paragraph before "Korrespondenzadresse" section, pg. 771 of PMID 18773181). I believe it is the Wikipedia editor's responsibility to change another user's unreferenced assertion of opinion, or to refute a source from which a factual paraphrase came, but not to change another user's paraphrase of a factual reference that one believes to have been published by a reliable source. If, in this particular instance, in removing my factual paraphrase, you believed that the Hautarzt medical journal is not a verifiable, reliable source, that is a completely different matter and it warrants a discussion of its own on this page. I find it worthwhile to mention that Wikipedia's NPOV standards ask us not to avoid making objectionable statements, if the statements are objectively true. I can't help but feel that some of your edits, as well as your very statements above, have "[criticised] the tone of the writing without addressing the substance of the argument" (found in File:Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg|Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement, from Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution). That is, you are not refuting my central points, nor have you specifically quoted any of my mistakes and explained why I am mistaken, nor have you contradicted anything particular I have said much less provided supporting evidence for your opposing case. However, I earnestly hope that you are willing to act in good faith and share with me the particulars of your contentions, so that we may work together to establish a more balanced article.

I've put back in the original phrase "severe medical complications" from the Hautarz journal, as per reasons stated above. Please revert this change and comment here if my edit is inappropriate. Ut Libet ヽ(;・_・)/ (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry for such a long-winded post, but as I'm sure you've noted, I've put a lot of effort into improving this article; I would like to see as much of my research remain while not contravening Wikipedia's standards. By the way, should Tattoo#Health_risks link to this page? Thanks for all your edits in Tattoo Ink and for making this child article. Cheers, Ut Libet ヽ(;・_・)/ (talk) 03:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Reorganizing refs

I found the citation style almost impossible to follow in many places. In many cases, 5 or 10 case study citations were given for one rather narrow fact. That is nice for (redundant) support of a point, but distracting to read with footnote style. To try to clarify this, I have moved the Case Study style citations to a section called that; the titles seem to indicate pretty well which fact(s) they support in the article. Those citations that give a broader secondary or overview approach to a subject I retained as footnotes.

The problem with medical case studies is that they generally just present one (or a couple) individual patient examples where some complication was encountered (or believed to be encountered). That is good to support the claim that "X has occurred", but it doesn't give guidance to frequency or pattern. Just one citation is enough to support the claim "X has occurred", but it would be a shame to throw out all the nominally redundant cases of the similar fact. I believe that organization into a Case Studies reference section, with relevant subsections, is the clearest way to let readers identify citational support without disrupting reading or editing. LotLE×talk 07:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

60 Minutes says Tatoos prevent sweating and can cause liver failure

I watched 60 minutes last Sunday. It said that someone covered with tattoos will have a problem getting toxins out of their blood. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5486993n&tag=cbsnewsMainColumnArea.2 About 18:40 into the video. Did some research on the web and it sounds untrue. What do you think? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 03:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a really old urban legend that has been debunked for decades. LotLE×talk 07:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Scarring

I scar fairly easily. Can this affect the condition of a tattoo? --FailureAtDeath (talk) 06:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hepatitis risk from tattooing vs. dentistry

The article said this:

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention no data indicates an association between tattooing in the United States and increased risk for HCV infection.

"Tattooing and Health Risk: Statistics Show Lower Hepatitis Risk in Tattoo Shops than in Dentists' offices". Tattooartist.com. 2007.

I checked the reference and found this:

About hepatitis: Of the 13,387 annual cases of hepatitis detailed in the most recent CDC report, 12 are associated with tattoo studios. By comparison, 43 cases -- or better than 300% more -- are associated with dental offices [2].

[2] Hepatitis Surveillance, Report Number 56, April, 1996, Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

Now think about this: how many tattoo parlors are there in the US, and how many dentist's offices are there? If getting a tattoo were as common as getting dental work done, you can bet there would be more cases.

I've changed the article to say just how many cases there were, without the (industry) spin.

Also, according to the CDC that report came out in 1995 not 96.

AADM2 (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

nerve infection

68.188.203.251 (talk) 06:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC) My son's left arm was heavily tattoed and he subsequent had so much nerve pain he had surgery to move the nerve. It was never wholly successful and he now has the same pain which requires medication and keeps him from lifting in his right arm. Add section regarding nerve damage.