Talk:Fitzpatrick scale

Article categorization

This article was categorized based on scheme outlined at WP:DERM:CAT. kilbad (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Validity

I can't help but wonder how valid the Fitzpatrick scale is today. It acts like there's only several specific types of skin color types throughout the entire range of human skin color, and places a huge level of adaptive value on skin color. It implies there's a huge cutoff point for those with fair skin and those with olive skin, where anything lighter than olive burns quite easily. It doesn't take into account a whole host of other traits affecting tanning capacity and sunburn susceptibility- offhand, notice how the khoisan, inuit, and tibetans are exposed to UV intense environments, yet they all generally have relatively light skin, especially the khoisan. It also seems to conflate "very light skin" as purely a trait of redheads, and that redheads can't tan and always burn- this is false. The trait has pretty variable penetrance. It also seemingly doesn't take into consideration how those who are heterozygote for the MCR1 allele for red hair are generally at increased susceptibility to sunburn and poorer tanning capacity, yet won't manifest red hair whatsoever.

Finally, it outright says those with "black" skin never burn- that is completely false.

Recent research on classifications for african-americans finds that many can't properly classify themselves: http://www.ishib.org/journal/20-2/ethn-20-02-174.pdf ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mannoro (talk • contribs) 02:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Fitzpatrick/von Luschan calibration

The introduction to the list ("The following list shows the six categories of the Fitzpatrick scale,[4][5] in relation to the 36 categories of the older von Luschan scale:") needs to have the bit about the von Luschan scale dropped. One clue is that the von Luschan scale starts at 1, not 0. The "scores" that supposedly match the von Luschan scale instead seem to be the scores from one of the references. See the instruction page for the questionnaire — there are ten multiple-choice questions, each option having a numerical value, with the values added up to get a final score that indicates where the individual sits on the Fitzpatrick scale. — Pfhreak (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Emoji modifiers

I have just come across this. Since this is a topic relevant to Unicode, or Emojis, or Google, I have created the {{R with possibilities}} "Emoji modifiers" (the official Unicode name for these characters). I find it hard to believe that the Unicode Consortium (apparently on the request of Google and/or Apple) would resort to what is basically institutionalised race baiting. They had the choice to (a) leave it alone, and up to the font creators or (b) decide that no, they should make it the responsability of everyone using emojis to constantly worry about race and skin color. They chose option (b). I clearly understimated the racial hysteria going on in America in 2015.

At least this topic should be kept away form this page, which is after all about dermatology, not race. People predictably going to write about "controversies" this is causing should knock themselves out at some dedicated page. --dab (𒁳) 12:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I am a couple of years late stumbling upon your comments, but you are completely correct that a large section on emoji race/coloration has no business on a page about dermatology. I removed most of it, leaving just a one-sentence summary and a link to the emoji page where interested readers can learn more. DoctorEric (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fitzpatrick scale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160331085655/http://www.arpansa.gov.au///pubs/RadiationProtection/FitzpatrickSkinType.pdf to http://www.arpansa.gov.au/pubs/RadiationProtection/FitzpatrickSkinType.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

chart

The IP is right, The Fitz1-2 and Fitz3 emjois were reversed. The lower the score, the more prone to skin cancer (light color eye, skin, hair), but the whole chart needs adjusted, not just the captions.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Eurocentric bias

this part needs to be de polticised. It implies at least that being "eurocentric" is a negative. Also it assumes a homonogity among europeans that does not if fact exist. It should be to wit, where the scale came from and that it. Wiki is not a poltical platform for soap boxing JUBALCAIN (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)