![]() | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Harlequin-type ichthyosis.
|
![]() |
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
(Please, I attentively ask by own experience: Never search for images on this disease, unless you are prepared to see something very strong, do not do it if you are underage).
I doubt Wikipedia's purpose is to advise.. This seemed unnecessary so I deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Constellus ( talk • contribs) 01:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Can they see? Their eyes are all puffy and bloodshot. What is it like to live Harlequin, and does the skin ever clear up or is it always cut up like that? I would like some more information on this rare condition. 4.240.54.145 22:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
This obviously can't be right, as it's a very rare condition, but is it meant to say "are relatively likely" or "are extremely unlikely"? If it's the latter, it hardly seems worth mentioning, since everybody is extremely unlikely to bear a harlequin child. The report linked from the article says "There is no report for the relation of harlequin ichthyosis and psoriasis. However both of them are inherited keratinization disorders. We would like to point out that there could be a relation between harlequin fetus and psoriasis", which seems pretty agnostic on the issue (of course, there are skin disorders other than psoriasis). -- Camembert
I think it's meant to say, "are more likely", so maybe rephrase as, "Compared to those with no family history of severe skin disorders, families with a history of skin disorders are more likely to birth a harlequin child." - or something like it but less clunky. PMC 23:25, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I think it would be educational and worthwhile to mention the way the disease is passed genetically (aka. if it is autosomal dominant, recessive, etc.). I personally am interested in this information and feel that many others are probably curious as well. 70.72.84.188 ( talk) 02:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
This article states that the oldest living person with the disease was born circa 1984, yet states afterwards that there is an adult man born circa 1980 who still thrives. Can we change to say the man born in 1980 is oldest, or is he dead? Would like some sort of conformation.-- Helgado ( talk) 22:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Scour eg Depleted Uranium and its constituents as well as Desert Storm/ Operation Iraqi Freedom. At least the former should provied several leads to research papers. Dysmorodrepanis 21:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
However, there have been improvements in care, and some children have survived into adolescance.
Is this for real? I for one have a hard time believing it. [[23:18, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Oxnard, California mid 1960's, my family lived in the Pleasant Valley Estates housing track. There was a family , the Zagarnagas who had 2 daughters. Lisa Zagarnaga had this exact disease. At the time, I do not think there was a name for it. She had been told, 4 people in the entire World had her condition, her and her Uncle were two. She was thin, dry flakey from head to toes. She had thin, dry sparse hair, eyelashes. Salt baths were her routine. Her father was a Sheriff. Her younger sister, Cherise was normal. Lisa's school photos can be seen from Ocean View Jr High. (----) 11-14-13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.57.87 ( talk) 01:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I actually just found a video on YouTube last night. I was looking up Siamese twins and a video came up of what I honestly thought was some sort of puppet. When I found out it was real it completely broke my heart. Also I honestly couldn't sleep and I could not get the image out of my mind. I actually cried for a long time. I may well be more sensitive and I mean no disrespect to parents of these precious babies or the persons that suffer with this disease but sometimes you just wish you could unsee something. I think in this particular case there really should be some kind of WARNING. It would not have saved my heartbreak last night but others coming to wiki to look up things might benefit from such a warning. I've recently noticed that you believe that a warning is not necessary for external links featured in the article about the harlequin fetus disease. I know that the article is about a medical subject, but the disease is widely considered to be disturbing, and I feel that some people who would be afraid of pictures of such diseases may unknowingly click links. Though there is some mention that pictures of it have been featured as shock images, I feel that it is important to notify viewers at least somewhat that not everybody would be happy to view such content. Wikipedia specifies that such images are too disturbing to some people to feature on the main page, and I feel that there should be more indication. I would be happy to work out a compromise of some sort. Thank you for your time. Oklonia 01:52, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
True, but I do not believe that everybody who uses Wikipedia is aware that such a disclaimer exists, and I do not think that it is clear that "Disclaimers" means that there is a content disclaimer. We might not need to put everything in bold like what was done before (not by me but someone else), but I feel that we should say something that at least tells people about this. There are warnings such as those on other pages on the site, and though such might not be required here, something beyond what already exists should, at least in my opinion, be said. Oklonia 00:23, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Ævar. I think as long as we make it clear that there are photographs at the other end of the link we don't need to say any more than that. Readers can make their own judgements as to whether seeing a photo would upset them or not. If they've read any of the article they will have some idea of what to expect. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I found a copyrighted article from the Dictionary of Disease and medical terms with the EXACT same text as this article. I don't know who copied who, it might have been them copying us. Either way, someone has to figure out whats up.
I think it might be a good idea to include a warning. I see no obvious problem with that from an encyclopedic point of view. I'm not particularly squeamish, but recently I happened to come upon some pictures of Harlequin babies by accident and they literally made my stomach turn. I believe that this would be a rather common reaction, so I think it's fair enough to include that kind of notification. Jonas Liljeström 15:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there's anything wrong with putting a warning on here. Just at the bottom, where we link to the video/pictures, just put a small warning after the link saying something like, "A Note of Caution: This condition can be extremely shocking/upsetting and viewers are urged to use their judgement.' Something like the warning on the Alternative Reading section on the page snuff film. Evil bacteria ( talk) 22:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out that some witty and adorable funster has put the words Many people enjoy making love to harlequin children at the end of this article, under references.
Am I going to delete it? Nah. There are so many uptight editors around here that I'm sure one of them will notice and get round to it before long ... (cough, cough) Garrick92 14:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry. That's actually a little funny.
I knew someone would do it once they had it drawn to their attention. If more people were fact- and sense-checking, and fewer people were acting as though the sanity of the world depended on their personal intervention in the creation of an article, the quality of this site would pick up dramatically. Straining at gnats and swallowing camels, etc. Garrick92 17:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I find your attitude quite peculiar, I must say. Since you posted here it appears you considered it worth correcting, and yet you show great disdain for anyone who actually takes the initiative to do so. I would suggest that the person who did the job of removing the vandalism was actually behaving in a much more mature way than you. In the future, why not just delete the vandalism instead of using it as an opportunity to lambast those who do much needed cleanup work? Hammerite 18:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Under the genetics section, the children are described as having "armored plating." This certainly has to be vandalism, no? Would anyone object to me changing it to "plated skin?" Mikeythetiger 22:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm concerned that the image of an affected baby is perhaps a little too graphic for some readers. Although the topic is clearly a visceral one it is possible that people may come across this page not knowing even the nature of ichthyosis and thus may find the image objectionable. If I may refer to the page on prank flash as an example, the main image is taken from the same source (the game Fatal Frame 2) as some shocking pictures used in prank flash, but the image itself is not disturbing in any form. Not only does the site display clear warnings about the content of prank flash sites above links but it also avoids using any prank flash images with the potential to offend (which include, incidentally, the harlequin fetus). It's my opinion that the teenager image and external links are adequate without the controversial picture. However I have not attempted to remove it in case I am alone in my opinion. Eujensc 23:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the warning is a little offencive towards sufferers, If a person reads the article they have a good ide of whats comming Catintheoven 10:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I have tagged this article with the {{ confusing}} template, because I can't understand it, especially the first paragraph. Could someone help make this more clearer? -- AAA! ( AAAA) 02:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
LOL
Apart from the word 'disease' (which may suggest something contagious perhaps?) I find nothing confusing about the opening paragraph. It is an accurate description of a medical condition using appropriate and unambiguous terms. Perhaps such usage of medical terminology and assorted other big words in an article describing a medical condition is confusing? Perhaps it should be re-written to accommodate those with an interest in congenital birth defects who yet have no grasp of the correct terms and find that their interest does not extend to looking said terms up. In other words, I suggest leave it, its fine and there are plenty of other sites making it "more clearer." Plutonium27 16:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The part of the article that reads, "On Thursday, April ye 5, 1750..." should read, "On Thursday, April þe 5, 1750..." The thorn character was used as a 'th,' so this sentence fragment is the equivalent of "On Thursday, April the 5, 1750..." The thorn was often written similarly to a 'y' and in printing a 'y' was used due to the the thorn being unavailable on printing machines. I tried to change it, but it won't let me, probably because 'þe' registers as a spelling mistake. Could someone please fix this? Holymolytree2
I've been wonder, just what exactly is that layer of yellowish material that covers the child apon birth. Is thias skin or what? This is one of the first times I seen pictures that contain this feature, most others seem to have raw red skin. Whatever it is, it dosn't appear to be perminent, since the few survivors of this disease arn't still covered with it. Would anyone like to share some light on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.98.58 ( talk) 02:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I first learned about this disorder on a boring night job, reading a medical book.. It is nothing less than devestating, I can't even imagine what these poor kids have to go through in their short lives. It is my hope that eventually medical science will advance to a point that it can be more helpful, both to the children and also their families. Having birthed six children myself I imagine that the parents need all the support they can get. -- 75.105.91.249 ( talk) 05:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment removed for civility reasons Andjam ( talk) 04:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Someone has added a photo request to this article. There are at least two good images in polish article about it; one is public domain illustration from 1886 J. Bland Sutton's classic paper, second is .svg image made by me (in polish, but easy to translate). Third image is from turkish wikipedia and it's copyright status is uncertain (however, it's already in wikimedia commons). Filip en ( talk) 11:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I have seen some videos on youtube, and it looks absolutely disgusting. The eyes of the child where solid red, and the head had half of like a strip of hair totally not there. I think just for the sake of people, photos not to be included. Possibly there could be a link to one, but there needs to be a warning. It is absolutely disgusting, please think this over well. This gave me nightmares for weeks.
AntiVanMan ( talk) 23:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I you guys want to watch the video,you can go here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xW4TVRLSgg .This is the original video.I got this video from a friend from Mecca —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.13.112.140 ( talk) 16:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
How, exactly, is this disturbing? ( Personal attack removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.65.22 ( talk) 21:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
just cos wikipedia is not censored doesn't mean you should put disturbing images up, if people really want to see an image of it you can put a link on the page. it is pretty grotesque. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.170.254 ( talk) 14:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
lol-- 216.165.95.64 ( talk) 10:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC) WTF happened to the image? If you consider that grotesque, you need help. Put it back right now. -- 216.165.95.64 ( talk) 06:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Unless there are a number of reasoned objections I will reinstate the diagram shortly. Hadrian89 ( talk) 15:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that some people may want to add images of Harlequins, although they are slightly disturbing, so add a link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theukvato ( talk • contribs) 07:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Harlequin syndrome should not redirect to Harlequin type ichthyosis. It is a different disorder.
Aside from the ridiculous argument that educational information should be removed because it is disturbing, I move that the elementary genetics problems (frequencies) in the Notable Cases section be removed. The information should be truncated after "The chances of suffering from the condition were given as roughly one in a million in general." (which, by the way should probably be cited, as I'm sure the chances are actually much lower). The rest of the information is simple population genetics and is unnecessary.* M ♦ ANDERSON ♦ 198 00:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
This article attracts a lot of vandalism. Unregistered users should not be allowed to edit it. Drutt ( talk) 10:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
There are websites claiming that Lucy Betts is the oldest survivor in Britain, rather than Nusrit Shaheen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.118.100 ( talk) 12:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I'm confused. I just saw a show on the National Geographic Channel, half of which whas on a teenage girl who suffered from Harlequin Ichthyosis; I heard the narrator very clearly, several times. Unfortunately, the contents of this article barely sounds like the same disease she suffers from, and the show went into her symptoms, and the genetic reasons behind it, in great detail.
67.251.76.94 ( talk) 04:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Much discussion is going on in whether pictures should be added. I would highly disagree to add pictures of Harlequin babies for the reason that... Well, they seem quite disturbing, and if anyone were to stumble upon this by accident, they wouldn't see anything they don't want to. If you really want images, add a link for it at least. -- Theukvato ( talk) 07:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
If human penis has a picture, why harlechin babys can't have it? Is absurd 190.199.106.138 ( talk) 02:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored !!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.199.106.138 ( talk) 00:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
It's very frustrating to have to google for photographs of people with this condition just to get an accurate idea of its appearance. Given that the article mentions people living reasonably full lives with this condition, it also seems cruel to claim that their appearance is so horrifying that it cannot be shown on wikipedia. Threepenpals ( talk) 08:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Eh, go to the talk section of anencephaly & look at the massive arguments over the images there. Personally I'd be in favour of real images, but I'm sure a ton of people would complain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.5.70.1 ( talk) 07:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
A picture might be to goatse. there is already a illustration and if anyone needed to see an image, they can google it like so: google image search of harlequin ictcyosis School district 43 Coquitlam Learn with us! 16:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
how many known cases of HI have their been? 1 in how many carry the gene? -- 99.101.160.159 ( talk) 02:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Harlequin-type ichthyosis. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello everyone.Probably, you need to put a warning before viewing the Gallery,because the images are very unpleasant there,and indeed in the images in this article and in other articles where it is Nokil83a ( talk) 15:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
This- https://ru.abcdef.wiki/wiki/Harlequin-type_ichthyosis#Prognosis Nokil83a ( talk) 17:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Copyright infringement Nokil83a ( talk) 17:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D1%85%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BE%D0%B7_%D0%90%D1%80%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0# Nokil83a ( talk) 17:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello,bad know English language ,etc.,etc.- i in Ukraine (watch my IP-address.....). Region state Korea not error(?): 1.Pyeon Chang(information about this city in Wikipedia-no?). 2. Pyongyang (information about this city in England Wikipedia-yes and other Wikipedia-yes!). This now first human in information about " Notable cases " . Why not error in name this region Korea? 91.217.66.210 ( talk) 22:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyongyang — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.217.66.210 ( talk) 23:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2023 and 11 December 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Peer reviewers:
Lewis.tristen.
— Assignment last updated by Mbl5581 ( talk) 13:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
![]() | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Harlequin-type ichthyosis.
|
![]() |
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
(Please, I attentively ask by own experience: Never search for images on this disease, unless you are prepared to see something very strong, do not do it if you are underage).
I doubt Wikipedia's purpose is to advise.. This seemed unnecessary so I deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Constellus ( talk • contribs) 01:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Can they see? Their eyes are all puffy and bloodshot. What is it like to live Harlequin, and does the skin ever clear up or is it always cut up like that? I would like some more information on this rare condition. 4.240.54.145 22:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
This obviously can't be right, as it's a very rare condition, but is it meant to say "are relatively likely" or "are extremely unlikely"? If it's the latter, it hardly seems worth mentioning, since everybody is extremely unlikely to bear a harlequin child. The report linked from the article says "There is no report for the relation of harlequin ichthyosis and psoriasis. However both of them are inherited keratinization disorders. We would like to point out that there could be a relation between harlequin fetus and psoriasis", which seems pretty agnostic on the issue (of course, there are skin disorders other than psoriasis). -- Camembert
I think it's meant to say, "are more likely", so maybe rephrase as, "Compared to those with no family history of severe skin disorders, families with a history of skin disorders are more likely to birth a harlequin child." - or something like it but less clunky. PMC 23:25, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I think it would be educational and worthwhile to mention the way the disease is passed genetically (aka. if it is autosomal dominant, recessive, etc.). I personally am interested in this information and feel that many others are probably curious as well. 70.72.84.188 ( talk) 02:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
This article states that the oldest living person with the disease was born circa 1984, yet states afterwards that there is an adult man born circa 1980 who still thrives. Can we change to say the man born in 1980 is oldest, or is he dead? Would like some sort of conformation.-- Helgado ( talk) 22:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Scour eg Depleted Uranium and its constituents as well as Desert Storm/ Operation Iraqi Freedom. At least the former should provied several leads to research papers. Dysmorodrepanis 21:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
However, there have been improvements in care, and some children have survived into adolescance.
Is this for real? I for one have a hard time believing it. [[23:18, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Oxnard, California mid 1960's, my family lived in the Pleasant Valley Estates housing track. There was a family , the Zagarnagas who had 2 daughters. Lisa Zagarnaga had this exact disease. At the time, I do not think there was a name for it. She had been told, 4 people in the entire World had her condition, her and her Uncle were two. She was thin, dry flakey from head to toes. She had thin, dry sparse hair, eyelashes. Salt baths were her routine. Her father was a Sheriff. Her younger sister, Cherise was normal. Lisa's school photos can be seen from Ocean View Jr High. (----) 11-14-13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.57.87 ( talk) 01:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I actually just found a video on YouTube last night. I was looking up Siamese twins and a video came up of what I honestly thought was some sort of puppet. When I found out it was real it completely broke my heart. Also I honestly couldn't sleep and I could not get the image out of my mind. I actually cried for a long time. I may well be more sensitive and I mean no disrespect to parents of these precious babies or the persons that suffer with this disease but sometimes you just wish you could unsee something. I think in this particular case there really should be some kind of WARNING. It would not have saved my heartbreak last night but others coming to wiki to look up things might benefit from such a warning. I've recently noticed that you believe that a warning is not necessary for external links featured in the article about the harlequin fetus disease. I know that the article is about a medical subject, but the disease is widely considered to be disturbing, and I feel that some people who would be afraid of pictures of such diseases may unknowingly click links. Though there is some mention that pictures of it have been featured as shock images, I feel that it is important to notify viewers at least somewhat that not everybody would be happy to view such content. Wikipedia specifies that such images are too disturbing to some people to feature on the main page, and I feel that there should be more indication. I would be happy to work out a compromise of some sort. Thank you for your time. Oklonia 01:52, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
True, but I do not believe that everybody who uses Wikipedia is aware that such a disclaimer exists, and I do not think that it is clear that "Disclaimers" means that there is a content disclaimer. We might not need to put everything in bold like what was done before (not by me but someone else), but I feel that we should say something that at least tells people about this. There are warnings such as those on other pages on the site, and though such might not be required here, something beyond what already exists should, at least in my opinion, be said. Oklonia 00:23, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Ævar. I think as long as we make it clear that there are photographs at the other end of the link we don't need to say any more than that. Readers can make their own judgements as to whether seeing a photo would upset them or not. If they've read any of the article they will have some idea of what to expect. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I found a copyrighted article from the Dictionary of Disease and medical terms with the EXACT same text as this article. I don't know who copied who, it might have been them copying us. Either way, someone has to figure out whats up.
I think it might be a good idea to include a warning. I see no obvious problem with that from an encyclopedic point of view. I'm not particularly squeamish, but recently I happened to come upon some pictures of Harlequin babies by accident and they literally made my stomach turn. I believe that this would be a rather common reaction, so I think it's fair enough to include that kind of notification. Jonas Liljeström 15:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there's anything wrong with putting a warning on here. Just at the bottom, where we link to the video/pictures, just put a small warning after the link saying something like, "A Note of Caution: This condition can be extremely shocking/upsetting and viewers are urged to use their judgement.' Something like the warning on the Alternative Reading section on the page snuff film. Evil bacteria ( talk) 22:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out that some witty and adorable funster has put the words Many people enjoy making love to harlequin children at the end of this article, under references.
Am I going to delete it? Nah. There are so many uptight editors around here that I'm sure one of them will notice and get round to it before long ... (cough, cough) Garrick92 14:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry. That's actually a little funny.
I knew someone would do it once they had it drawn to their attention. If more people were fact- and sense-checking, and fewer people were acting as though the sanity of the world depended on their personal intervention in the creation of an article, the quality of this site would pick up dramatically. Straining at gnats and swallowing camels, etc. Garrick92 17:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I find your attitude quite peculiar, I must say. Since you posted here it appears you considered it worth correcting, and yet you show great disdain for anyone who actually takes the initiative to do so. I would suggest that the person who did the job of removing the vandalism was actually behaving in a much more mature way than you. In the future, why not just delete the vandalism instead of using it as an opportunity to lambast those who do much needed cleanup work? Hammerite 18:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Under the genetics section, the children are described as having "armored plating." This certainly has to be vandalism, no? Would anyone object to me changing it to "plated skin?" Mikeythetiger 22:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm concerned that the image of an affected baby is perhaps a little too graphic for some readers. Although the topic is clearly a visceral one it is possible that people may come across this page not knowing even the nature of ichthyosis and thus may find the image objectionable. If I may refer to the page on prank flash as an example, the main image is taken from the same source (the game Fatal Frame 2) as some shocking pictures used in prank flash, but the image itself is not disturbing in any form. Not only does the site display clear warnings about the content of prank flash sites above links but it also avoids using any prank flash images with the potential to offend (which include, incidentally, the harlequin fetus). It's my opinion that the teenager image and external links are adequate without the controversial picture. However I have not attempted to remove it in case I am alone in my opinion. Eujensc 23:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the warning is a little offencive towards sufferers, If a person reads the article they have a good ide of whats comming Catintheoven 10:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I have tagged this article with the {{ confusing}} template, because I can't understand it, especially the first paragraph. Could someone help make this more clearer? -- AAA! ( AAAA) 02:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
LOL
Apart from the word 'disease' (which may suggest something contagious perhaps?) I find nothing confusing about the opening paragraph. It is an accurate description of a medical condition using appropriate and unambiguous terms. Perhaps such usage of medical terminology and assorted other big words in an article describing a medical condition is confusing? Perhaps it should be re-written to accommodate those with an interest in congenital birth defects who yet have no grasp of the correct terms and find that their interest does not extend to looking said terms up. In other words, I suggest leave it, its fine and there are plenty of other sites making it "more clearer." Plutonium27 16:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The part of the article that reads, "On Thursday, April ye 5, 1750..." should read, "On Thursday, April þe 5, 1750..." The thorn character was used as a 'th,' so this sentence fragment is the equivalent of "On Thursday, April the 5, 1750..." The thorn was often written similarly to a 'y' and in printing a 'y' was used due to the the thorn being unavailable on printing machines. I tried to change it, but it won't let me, probably because 'þe' registers as a spelling mistake. Could someone please fix this? Holymolytree2
I've been wonder, just what exactly is that layer of yellowish material that covers the child apon birth. Is thias skin or what? This is one of the first times I seen pictures that contain this feature, most others seem to have raw red skin. Whatever it is, it dosn't appear to be perminent, since the few survivors of this disease arn't still covered with it. Would anyone like to share some light on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.98.58 ( talk) 02:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I first learned about this disorder on a boring night job, reading a medical book.. It is nothing less than devestating, I can't even imagine what these poor kids have to go through in their short lives. It is my hope that eventually medical science will advance to a point that it can be more helpful, both to the children and also their families. Having birthed six children myself I imagine that the parents need all the support they can get. -- 75.105.91.249 ( talk) 05:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment removed for civility reasons Andjam ( talk) 04:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Someone has added a photo request to this article. There are at least two good images in polish article about it; one is public domain illustration from 1886 J. Bland Sutton's classic paper, second is .svg image made by me (in polish, but easy to translate). Third image is from turkish wikipedia and it's copyright status is uncertain (however, it's already in wikimedia commons). Filip en ( talk) 11:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I have seen some videos on youtube, and it looks absolutely disgusting. The eyes of the child where solid red, and the head had half of like a strip of hair totally not there. I think just for the sake of people, photos not to be included. Possibly there could be a link to one, but there needs to be a warning. It is absolutely disgusting, please think this over well. This gave me nightmares for weeks.
AntiVanMan ( talk) 23:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I you guys want to watch the video,you can go here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xW4TVRLSgg .This is the original video.I got this video from a friend from Mecca —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.13.112.140 ( talk) 16:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
How, exactly, is this disturbing? ( Personal attack removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.65.22 ( talk) 21:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
just cos wikipedia is not censored doesn't mean you should put disturbing images up, if people really want to see an image of it you can put a link on the page. it is pretty grotesque. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.170.254 ( talk) 14:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
lol-- 216.165.95.64 ( talk) 10:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC) WTF happened to the image? If you consider that grotesque, you need help. Put it back right now. -- 216.165.95.64 ( talk) 06:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Unless there are a number of reasoned objections I will reinstate the diagram shortly. Hadrian89 ( talk) 15:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that some people may want to add images of Harlequins, although they are slightly disturbing, so add a link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theukvato ( talk • contribs) 07:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Harlequin syndrome should not redirect to Harlequin type ichthyosis. It is a different disorder.
Aside from the ridiculous argument that educational information should be removed because it is disturbing, I move that the elementary genetics problems (frequencies) in the Notable Cases section be removed. The information should be truncated after "The chances of suffering from the condition were given as roughly one in a million in general." (which, by the way should probably be cited, as I'm sure the chances are actually much lower). The rest of the information is simple population genetics and is unnecessary.* M ♦ ANDERSON ♦ 198 00:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
This article attracts a lot of vandalism. Unregistered users should not be allowed to edit it. Drutt ( talk) 10:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
There are websites claiming that Lucy Betts is the oldest survivor in Britain, rather than Nusrit Shaheen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.118.100 ( talk) 12:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I'm confused. I just saw a show on the National Geographic Channel, half of which whas on a teenage girl who suffered from Harlequin Ichthyosis; I heard the narrator very clearly, several times. Unfortunately, the contents of this article barely sounds like the same disease she suffers from, and the show went into her symptoms, and the genetic reasons behind it, in great detail.
67.251.76.94 ( talk) 04:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Much discussion is going on in whether pictures should be added. I would highly disagree to add pictures of Harlequin babies for the reason that... Well, they seem quite disturbing, and if anyone were to stumble upon this by accident, they wouldn't see anything they don't want to. If you really want images, add a link for it at least. -- Theukvato ( talk) 07:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
If human penis has a picture, why harlechin babys can't have it? Is absurd 190.199.106.138 ( talk) 02:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored !!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.199.106.138 ( talk) 00:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
It's very frustrating to have to google for photographs of people with this condition just to get an accurate idea of its appearance. Given that the article mentions people living reasonably full lives with this condition, it also seems cruel to claim that their appearance is so horrifying that it cannot be shown on wikipedia. Threepenpals ( talk) 08:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Eh, go to the talk section of anencephaly & look at the massive arguments over the images there. Personally I'd be in favour of real images, but I'm sure a ton of people would complain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.5.70.1 ( talk) 07:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
A picture might be to goatse. there is already a illustration and if anyone needed to see an image, they can google it like so: google image search of harlequin ictcyosis School district 43 Coquitlam Learn with us! 16:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
how many known cases of HI have their been? 1 in how many carry the gene? -- 99.101.160.159 ( talk) 02:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Harlequin-type ichthyosis. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello everyone.Probably, you need to put a warning before viewing the Gallery,because the images are very unpleasant there,and indeed in the images in this article and in other articles where it is Nokil83a ( talk) 15:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
This- https://ru.abcdef.wiki/wiki/Harlequin-type_ichthyosis#Prognosis Nokil83a ( talk) 17:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Copyright infringement Nokil83a ( talk) 17:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D1%85%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BE%D0%B7_%D0%90%D1%80%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0# Nokil83a ( talk) 17:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello,bad know English language ,etc.,etc.- i in Ukraine (watch my IP-address.....). Region state Korea not error(?): 1.Pyeon Chang(information about this city in Wikipedia-no?). 2. Pyongyang (information about this city in England Wikipedia-yes and other Wikipedia-yes!). This now first human in information about " Notable cases " . Why not error in name this region Korea? 91.217.66.210 ( talk) 22:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyongyang — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.217.66.210 ( talk) 23:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2023 and 11 December 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Peer reviewers:
Lewis.tristen.
— Assignment last updated by Mbl5581 ( talk) 13:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)