Talk:Tattoo ink

This "article" is a fucking hash. I really like the bit about "absorbing and retaining light" The ad for tat ink is ace, too DevoutHeretic (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 gonna "be bold" and make some changes DevoutHeretic (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 15:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Prod concerns

This article was recently prodded. I deprodded, as the subject is notable, but disputed content is a concern. Hence I am copying the prod criticisms here for further discussion. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article has a political agenda and contains false information. It uses compleatly unreliable references, or outright misrepresents the reference in the article. For example reference number 7 is in German is actually about ink allergens. This Wikipedia article also suggests that home made and traditional inks are commonly made with dirt and blood and this is obviously dangerous to put forward as real information. It also suggests that mercury lead and arsenic are common in modern tattoo inks which misrepresents reference 6. Reference 4 is inspired by accusations in a lawsuit with a particular company that did not hold up in court. It even states that they are unaware of what many modern ink suppliers use as it is a "trade secret". Reference 4 also diverts to suggest that it is a common mistake for a tattoo artist to write a name incorrectly. This Tattoo Ink Wikipedia article is clearly right wing vandalization and disrespectful to an art that has been deeply rooted in cultures around the world for thousands of years. Not only does this article have an obvious angle, but it uses false information and completely unreliable or misrepresented references to fit that point of view. None of these revisions could be used as an informed article on tattoo ink.

Removed Recipe

I removed the recipe, because it seemed out of place, and could be misconstrued as a how-to. Might add a section of "traditional" inks under the "other tattoo inks" section. AlleyRegent69 (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should "soot tattoo" be merged into this article?

Is soot tattoo a concept that makes sense as its own article? Soot is a component of both ancient and contemporary tattoo inks, and to me it makes more sense to cover that topic in context here. I'd like to merge that short article into this one and redirect it here. Dreamyshade (talk) 07:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I figured out what happened - that article was supposed to be about the dermatology topic of accidental "soot tattoos", but that got lost over time and people added info to it about use of carbon in tattooing. I fixed that article, moved the relevant information here, and disconnected that article from the "tattoo" template. Dreamyshade (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]