Talk:Permanent makeup
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess. |
| Start | This page has been rated as start-Class on the quality assessment scale |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance assessment scale |
 |
This article is within the scope of the Fashion WikiProject. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. Thanks! |
||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
||
| High | This article is on a subject of High-importance within fashion. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
 Archives |
| /Archive 1 |
[edit] changes
Posts or changes to this page should be done only in the interest of the public so as to provide unbiased information that is not self-serving. Permanent makeup is heavily monitored and your additions will be elimated if they link to personal websites or if the articles themselves link to personal websites. Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion. Please refer to the policy on posting external links. policy about external links
[edit] Talk page guidelines
From Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines:
- Be positive: Article talk pages should be used to discuss ways to improve an article; not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article or its subject.
- Sign your posts: To sign a post, type four tildes (~~~~).
- No personal attacks A personal attack is saying something negative about another person. This mainly means:
- No insults: Don't make ad hominem attacks, such as calling someone an idiot or a fascist. Instead, explain what is wrong with an edit and how to fix it.
- Don't threaten people: For example, threatening people with "admins you know" or having them banned for disagreeing with you.
- Don't make legal threats: Threatening a lawsuit is highly disruptive to Wikipedia, for reasons given at the linked page.
Do not strike out the comments of other editors without their permission.
Never edit someone's words to change their meaning. Editing others' comments is sometimes allowed, but you should exercise caution in doing so.
Sbowers3 (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutrality/sourcing
I'm a bit concerned by both the neutrality and sourcing (or lack thereof) that appears here. For example, there is a "results" section which purports to list outcomes, but does not cite where it came from. Especially for data which appears empirical, it is critical to be able to see who compiled it and how. There also seem to be some health concerns cited regarding tattooing, but those receive quite short mention, despite being sourceable to the FDA, hardly a fringe or unreliable organization. Some sections are going to need outright removal if they cannot be sourced. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
While I didn't construct the "results" section, I pretty much left it alone since it is all common knowledge to those within the industry. When time permits I can try to find some "generic" sources but the same information is pretty much repeated over and over again on many different professionals' independent websites. What things are you troubled over the health concerns? I can expand on that if needed. Tatt bratt (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- The main concern is the unsourced "results" section, right now. "Common knowledge" doesn't do it for evidence presented as empirical, someone needs to have actually studied the matter using empirical methods, and we need to cite it so those reading can see who compiled the results and how. The other bit isn't as big of a deal, since a more expanded article regarding the health issues is linked to, so that's a more minor thing. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- How empirically can one study what is essentially an art form, really? I see where you are going with this and I will give it some thought and research but it may not be at the level you are expecting. This industry is very, very young.Tatt bratt (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Well, if the results haven't been studied and can't be properly sourced, we shouldn't have a section labeled "results". "Common knowledge in the industry" is not verifiable. If someone does eventually study it, it always can come back later with a proper source. As to empirical studies, they are routinely done with cosmetic surgery, using many techniques and metrics with a random sampling of patients by a neutral organization (was the patient happy with the procedure a year later? Was there any visible scarring? Any complications? Any need for further procedures to correct deficiencies from the first one?) Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
-
I added a bit of clarification to the Australian regulation sentence but wonder if this entire section (Regulations/Oversight) shouldn’t be moved to the end of the article (just in front of References). It just seems more logical to me to start with History and end with Regulation. By the way, I agree that there need to be a lot more references. The “permanence” issue should also be addressed further in either Results or Adverse Effects and Complications.--Another-sailor (talk) 11:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- While some of your changes to the paragraph made it read better, I am not in favor of this part: Exclusive to Australia, practitioners are prohibited from advertising the procedures as "permanent" since, "…benefits of cosmetic tattooing are not permanent and will generally only last three to five years."[2] I think it was better left alone simply because this is not true about the results of permanent makeup - they last indefinitely. There is a lot of poor training and equipment and people get less than desirable results. For instance, my own permanent eyeliner is nearly 20 years old and has not ever been touched up. Some procedures need refreshing of color but that is the same with any kind of tattooing and tattooing by definition is certainly permanent. I put in that link as a compromise to someone who I was pretty much engaged in an edit war because she was insistent on including this legislation, albeit greatly flawed. Please change that part back. I have no problem with moving Regulations. Tatt bratt (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
