Talk:Tanorexia

I use sunbeds 3 times a week for appx 30 mins in total which is the equivalent of 9 - 12 hours sunlight.

I believe the annual accepted useage is 26 sessions per year but I don't see that much evidence that my level of useage is harmful....

I do not also sun worship in the garden and I prob do less damage to mmy skin than those who go sun worshiping abroad or go mad when it is sunny in the UK.


 * Well, it is your choice...

Merge proposal with Sun tan or Sunbed
I propose that the article be merged into Sun tan and redirected. A cultural phenomenon that is quickly explained, and backed up with a verifiable source, would add greatly to the Sun tan article. I don't think there is much chance that Tanorexia will surge in information any time soon, but if it does, we could easily split it back out. Agreed.

An alternate merge destination would be Sunbed, since that appears to be the primary tool involved in Tanorexia. This article would also benefit from a contemporary cultural context. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 04:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I heard this word on "Access Hollywood" last evening, and they referenced the Wikipedia definition. I'd almost say it was a silly neologism, except that it seems to be in use by some physicians. (I googled it, and it gets only 187 hits.)  I recommend it be merged with an article of substance, such as sun tanning.  There really isn't much to add to this piece, and it would benefit from being placed in a broader, more useful context.  deeceevoice 12:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Disagree - Tanorexia is a syndrome associated with poor self-image and O/C behavior that is NOT limited to those who use tanning beds / Sunbeds. This would be the same as merging anorexia or bulimia to Food.  Linked "tanorexia" from Sun Tanning and/or Tanning Bed is acceptable, but the overwhelming majority of people who tan indoors or outdoors do not suffer from tanorexia, so linking would not be against my understanding of the official policy of neutrality, and would appear to be the eventual outcome of tanning.  While not an "official" medical term, tanorexia is an accepted general term within much of the medical community to explain this rare compulsion, and is well documented within industry trade magazines both for and against tanning of any kind. Pharmboy 00:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree, merge with the "health risks" section of sun tanning - it's a simple neologism and only requires a couple of sentences of explanation. --McGeddon 22:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Disagree - if it is a mental condition recognized by the APA then it belongs in an article discussing such disorders. ZBrannigan 21:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree
I think that tanorexia should remain in its own section. I can and will provide more information about tanorexia soon. Because it is very rare, including it in sunbeds would make that article less than neutral. I will soon be adding information about tanning addiction in its own section, which is also rare and very different than tanorexia. Pharmboy 12:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I second the idea about keeping Tanorexia separate. The term is now in common use in the media, and it is helpful to have some medical background. The article does not need to be much longer than it is, though. I have removed some tautologous material. It would be useful to have references to uses of the word and any further medical information about the condition. (BTW, I am not convinced that "tanorexia" and "tanning addiction" are different things - this especially needs medical citations if it is true.) -- TinaSparkle 13:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing tag for merge
We haven't received any more feedback on merging, and there appears to be an agreement that not merging is the correct course of action. Pharmboy 00:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"too dark" term does not belong in an encyclopedia
Term removed again, does not belong for two basic reasons: Accuracy, as an individual sees themselves as "paler" than they are, regardless of their current tan level. This means if they have a light or moderate tan, they still perceive it as no tan or not enough. Secondly, the term also has Point Of View (POV) issues as "too dark" is an opinion, stating that some or no "dark" is acceptable and beyond that is "too dark", which is beyond the purpose of an encyclopedia. Please note that you can be very dark without being tanorexic. Ask anyone who works outdoors. Tanorexia isn't about skin color, it is about the individuals perception of their skin color and potentially an addiction to the endorphine high that a minority of tanners experience when tanning. Pharmboy 00:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

term is slang
While "slang" may not be the proper linguistic term to describe it, at present I can't put my finger on a better one. The word "tanorexia" is not only a non-recognized term in every language, in every dictionary (save slang dictionaries), it is also not recognized in any medical text (at least in any official context).

In addition, the term itself is simply a hackneyed merging of two unrelated words, one that really doesn't make much sense at that. As I somewhat articulated with the "alcoholic → shop-oholic" example, the word is simply the result of pedestrian logic and widespread use due to the lack of any official term. This would definitely seem to coincide with the definition of a slang term. --JohnDoe0007 10:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "Tanorexia" is a term commonly used in English (which is all that matters for the English version of Wikipedia) but you are correct that it is not an actual technical term used formally by doctors. Whether or not it makes sense isn't as much of an issue, whereas the term has been in use as long as I have been in the tanning industry (over 14 years) and it's used by media, doctors (informally, but still used) and by laymen.  The term isn't true slang as it is not a substitute word for an accepted term, rather, it is an unofficial word used for a syndrome that is little understood and not properly researched by the medical community.  Any other word that you could "make up" would simply be ignored or misunderstood as a broad cross section of the English speaking community already uses the word, and even Google pulls up over 44k hits for the term.


 * I understand not liking the term because it is not official, but it is the generally accepted word for the syndrome. At such a time as the medical community "renames" the syndrome, we could (and would) put a redirect to this new term.  Until then, the term "tanorexia" is the lesser of all evils and has to stay, if for no other reason than the majority of English speakers knows the word or can easily tell by the admitted "hackneyed merging", what the word means.  ie: Wikipedia is here to explain what the syndrome is, not to convince everyone to use a new term that _we_ make up.  Pharmboy 12:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * One additional note: Part of the problem I have is that I have a great deal of experience dealing with the small minority of people who could arguably be called "tanorexic", yet I can't sit here and write a full article on the syndrome based on my experiences.  This would violate WP:OR as Original Research.  Most of the articles written within the industry and elsewhere were on paper, not the web, making citations difficult and time consuming.  Although I am not a medical professional, I am hoping my experience (documented on my wikipage and history) would allow the benefit of the doubt in this instance.  Being an ugly or mangled word doesn't negate the fact that it is still the only universal term used to describe the syndrome.  The other problem is that tanorexia (or for that matter, even tanning addiction, which has different symptoms) is suffered by such a small number of people, it is difficult to get good science on it.   This is also not a reason to remove or change or redefine the term, however, as 'number of sufferers' isn't relative to the conversation.  Pharmboy 12:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Back up a minute...I understand and agree with pretty much everything you're saying. I never made a motion or even implied such a thing as to have the article moved, deleted or altered in such a way that would change its title or recognition.

I simply had a problem with you removing the mention of the fact that the word is slang. "Tanorexia"—like it or not—is slang. Just because there is no other term that is as widely recognized to convey the meaning, doesn't mean it is not so.

"Choco-holic" is a widely used term in English too...and as far as I know there is no more appropriate substitute. That doesn't mean the term is not slang.

If you feel that declaring this fact somehow diminishes or otherwise tarnishes the significance of the word, or that it somehow discounts the existence or seriousness of the condition, then it would seem you have too strong a personal tie to this term.

If simply saying the words "and the term is generally considered to be slang" would be automatic grounds for the entire article to be deleted from Wikipedia, then I understand your aversion to include them. But I do not believe that to be the case. Do you have any reason to believe otherwise? --JohnDoe0007 09:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It isn't about having a horse in the race. After all, I run the marketing and IT for a company that builds tanning beds, promoting the concept of "tanorexia" as a problem is exactly COUNTER to my business interests.  Technically, my interests would be served by playing it down and trying to get it removed, but that wouldn't exactly be neutral, and not my style.  My interest is the same as yours, to make the article accurate and neutral.  I did a little research and now agree that describing it as "slang" is appropriate, but think it should be done in a way that doesn't make the syndrome appear to be "imaginary".  Part of the problem of the syndrome *is* how poorly documented it is, partially because of how rare it is.

I went ahead and make some significant changes that I feel you would agree upon, to make the article more neutral without downplaying the syndrome, nor making it appear as if this is a fully documented medical condition. It also flows a bit better. If you think the changes are not proper, I am confident we can reach consensus as our goals are the same. One of the changes I made was to create a wikilink to an empty article about tanning addiction, which is similar but has very different symptoms. It, too, is not official but reported and a real issue, although it is more likely to become accepted in the future. From my experience, tanning addiction (similar to runner's high) is much more common than tanorexia to boot, but I have refrained from introducing OR into the subject matter. Pharmboy 12:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge
I have reconsidered by previous objections, and it may be better to merge this with Tanning addiction. They are not exactly the same, but similar enough to benefit from a single article that covers both conditions. This term is getting less and less used, and may be more wp:neo than real term. Pharmboy (talk) 15:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That (the term being WP:NEO) is basically a large part of what I was saying all along. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What I have traced back is how frequently it is being used, and it is becoming LESS common, rather than more common. The symptoms and issues are still very different than traditional "tanning addiction", and this needs to be addressed with any merge and redirect.  They are both exceedingly rare, which is part of the issue.  P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 17:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)