Talk:Haemophilia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Natsci article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.
WikiProject on Medical genetics This article is supported by the WikiProject on Medical genetics, which gives a central approach to Medical genetics and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Haemophilia, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Maurice of Battenburg

Are you sure that Prince Maurice of Battenberg had hemophilia?? He died in service fighting the German forces in 1914; he would not have been able to join any military force if he had hemophilia. Arno 07:27, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Some biographies on Queen Victoria and her descendents say that Beatrice passed the gene on to both Leopold and Maurice, while others say just Leopold was a sufferer. His cousin, Prince Waldemar of Prussia had hemophilia, but he enlisted, albeit with a desk job. Leopold also enlisted, so it wasn't out of the question. Maurice, if he had hemophilia, might have had a job that would keep him out of fighting, but it was a war, chances are, he found some way to get into action. Morhange 02:11, 01 Jul 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Haemophilia B

There seems to be a contradiction regarding Haemophilia B. It is first mentioned to be x-linked recessive (paragraph 1 under Genetics), the same as Haemophilia A, and later tagged as autosomal recessive (under Forms). I believe that the former is correct (x-linked recessive), but an expert should probably make the judgment.

I'm not an expert, but I've made the judgment. JFW | T@lk 11:48, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hemophilia and von Wilderbrands disease

What is the difference between a mild hemophilia and von Willebrand disease (vWD)?

Very small, apart from the underlying defect and the potential treatment. Hemophilia also causes a slightly different form of bleeding - it is more in muscles and joints. vWD, in contrast, affects the skin and mucous membranes. JFW | T@lk 21:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Split out?

Most of the content in "Genetics", "Probability", and "Table" seem to better belong in X-linked recessive. Any thoughts about/objections to moving that content there? --Arcadian 06:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Copy it there if useful, by all means. But I don't see why it should be deleted from this article. You may be right on grounds of logic; but we have to think also in terms of usefulness. I suspect that for many readers those are the key parts of the page, in fact. In principle anybody who wants to understand the descent of hemophilia could of course follow a link to x-linked recessive -- but will they actually? I think we should err on the side of being educational -- somebody might actually learn something this way. Doops | talk 07:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I think this material should be summarized, with a link to x-linked recessive. However, I'm willing to have more here than I might otherwise, on account of hemophilia being the example many texts use to introduce this kind of inheritance. My big concern is what seems to be misplaced emphasis (see the note further down the talk page). The discussion of hemophilia is completely dominated by the discussion of inheritance and the history section. Maybe some more discussion of the mechanism of the disorder is in order. Or its treatment. Or, in the history section, we could focus more on medical history (i.e., when the disease was discribed, when the gene was found, when synthetic factor eight was developed, current research in genetic therapys, etc.) -- AK

[edit] Blood Fetish?????

My nephew has Hemophilia and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want him to link to a page discussing 'blood letting' and whatnot. I'm not saying we should rate pages based on it's content or whatever. I'd just like to know how his disease is related to sex acts! Before anyone gives me the "...doesn't necessarily lead to sex" excuse, I'm just ASKING. I don't understand how an illness that doesn't allow a person's blood to clot properly (very dangerous) correlates to deliberately putting oneself in harms way by cutting themself and letting someone else drink it. Even MORE dangerous -- drinking the blood of someone ELSE!

Hey, no offense. If you want to pretend you're a vampire in this day and age, all I can say is GOD BLESS 'YA and be my guest, but what does that have to do with a serious illness such as Hemophilia? I apologize, in advance, for 'shouting', but this upset me just a bit. Please advise.........SBernheart

You are completely right. The Blood fetish page does not even mention this false etymology. If the bleeding condition had not been described before some moron thought blood was sexy, the fetish would have been named that way. But history sometimes makes things more difficult.
On a more policy-related note: Google "blood fetish" & hemophilia yields 41 results, with Wikipedia bang at the top. Alone, "blood fetish" Googles >80,000. There is therefore no need to disambiguate this. Really. JFW | T@lk 22:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missplaced emphasis?

I can understand the extensive discussion of the way hemophilia is inherited. It would be sufficient to omit it and link to a general discussion of sex-linked disorders, but because hemophilia is such a textbook example of sex-linked inheritance, it isn't surprising to find that discussion here. But isn't the extensive discussion and family tree of old european hemophilia cases relatively unimportant? How does this contribute to a naive wikipedia user's understanding of hemophilia? Especially a user who is interested as a patient or a friend of a patient with the disorder?

It is of immense historical interest. Wikipedia medical articles are not sterile reviews about conditions, they should include the maximum of related information in the humanities. Czarevitch Alexei had haemophilia, and his disease caused the inclusion of Rasputin in the royal entourage, with the consequences that are well known. It massively changed public perception of this condition. JFW | T@lk 22:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History

Giangrande, whom I cited extensively in coagulation, has also written usefully on the history of haemophilia[1]. This may be a useful source. JFW | T@lk 21:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alex of Southampton, NY, USA

Hey I just wanted to say that this a great article... Speaking as a high-schooler, and more humanities oriented student, this was really easy to read and digestible. Usually the science articles on Wikipedia are cryptic and difficult so this was a relief. Sorry I just wanted to say thanks.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was don't move, of course. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 14:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Haemophilia → Hemophilia – It's spelled "hemophilia". Where did you get the idea that it's spelled "haemophilia"? — Random the Scrambled 16:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate is no consensus for move. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
[edit] Oppose
  • Oppose. JFW | T@lk 18:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Exploding Boy 18:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per (a) WP:MoS#National varieties of English, specifically the last bullet-point and subsequent paragraph (cf Charles' first sentence immediately below); and (b) WP:POINT. David Kernow 18:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Haemo- came first and still is in use. Laziness is no excuse for omitting letters. Charles 23:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per David Kernow. I disagree with Charles' reasoning, however. Septentrionalis 02:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. WP:MOS is very clear that articles should remain at their original spelling. "Haemophilia" is not mis-spelt, and so should not be changed. --Stemonitis 13:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Jonathunder 15:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Support
  • Strong support. Random the Scrambled 11:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. 4635785235 11:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Buziollover 11:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support KNexpert 00:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Clubpenguinfan 00:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Redjohnnykingace 00:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support per British spellings not being universally accepted. Sonicandpals 12:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support. There are more people who use "hemophilia" than "haemophilia". Ilikeredthings 14:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Wonderfulauthorofsap 12:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment : The users Buziollover (talk • contribs), KNexpert (talk • contribs), Clubpenguinfan (talk • contribs), Redjohnnykingace (talk • contribs), Sonicandpals (talk • contribs), Ilikeredthings (talk • contribs) and Wonderfulauthorofsap (talk • contribs) seem a tad on the new side; check their contribution history. Suggest closing admin might trace IPs and advise likely sockpuppeteer accordingly. Thanks, David Kernow 01:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Sparky5333 15:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Chaoman55 15:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    • More accounts whose only edit is this vote.Septentrionalis 17:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

Mr. Random (talk • contribs) initially tried to move this with a copy & paste. Haemophilia is the [British] English spelling [2]. JFW | T@lk 18:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is it spelled "haemophilia" when there is no "a" sound in the middle? Last I checked, if the digraph "ae" is in a word, then it's the "a" that makes the sound and not the "e". Random the Scrambled 12:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and last I checked, the prefix "hemo" before a word meant it had something to do with blood, and the prefix "haemo" was nonexistent. Random the Scrambled 01:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
"Haemo-" (more accurately, "Hæmo-") is the British English (or "English English") prefix, reflecting its Ancient Greek origin. (Same notion as "Paedo"/"Pædo", etc.)  Regards, David Kernow 18:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This is just racist. Why is the British English spelling used in Wikipedia? I still don't accept Charles' explanation. Please respond. Random the Scrambled 21:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not racist. England is in the west. Wikipedia is not American. In the future, before you attempt to make this sort of move/change, please check a dictionary and the policies of Wikipedia. Exploding Boy 21:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Then what is it? Oh, and I checked the Canadian Oxford High School dictionary and it said that "hemophilia" was the proper spelling. And it said that "haemo-" was almost exclusively British. Random the Scrambled 00:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
There was a long discussion at Color regarding use of the 'u' or not. Fact of the matter is, if the spelling is [recogniz/sed] (which it is now) there is no need to change it to another form, even if that is [also recognis/zed]. Besides, "ae" is a pleasant looking combination :-) Charles 22:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't really think so. Random the Scrambled 00:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Please at least read WP:MoS#National varieties of English, Random. There may be even more pertinent material elsewhere, though I can't recall where or find it right now. "In a nutshell", the English Wikipedia accepts more than one variety of English spelling, as editors' efforts are preferred elsewhere. For instance, get hold of a stub... Best wishes, David Kernow 22:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
"Oh, and I checked the Oxford dictionary and it said that "hemophilia" was the proper spelling."
I doubt this very much, but it's irrelevant. Wikipedia is not American. We don't use American spellings exclusively. There's nothing else to discuss here. Exploding Boy 01:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
OED uses hæmophilia, but I agree that this is irrelevant. Septentrionalis 02:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
What's the OED?
The Oxford English Dictionary, which see. Septentrionalis 23:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I found something out. According to the Wikimedia Foundation page, although Wikipedia is edited by people from all around the world, the Wikimedia Foundation is indeed American (Floridan, to be exact). Wonderfulauthorofsap 12:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Corrected the spelling there for ya, Wonderfulauthorofsap. And I found the page. It's true, Wikimedia Foundation is in America. Random the Scrambled 12:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Does Wikimedia Foundation = Wikipedia?  Does Wikimedia Foundation own the contents of Wikipedia?  WP:GFDL?  Curious, David Kernow 15:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
What are you getting at? That Wikipedia was started by a company other than Wikimedia? Curious as well, Random the Scrambled 16:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

User:4635785235, User:Buziollover User:KNexpert User:Clubpenguinfan, User:Redjohnnykingace, User:Wonderfulauthorofsap all have edit histories and timings that strongly suggest they are mutal sockpuppets - perhaps an admin could check these out ? Velela 15:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not. 4635785235 15:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Didn't I tell you that I use a proxy server? Random the Scrambled 15:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
All us so-called "sock puppets" are here to prove you wrong. Oh, and I'm Mr. E on buziol.pl. Buziollover 15:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Yep. I'm here too. You're talking to jjjjjj on redscomics.com.Redjohnnykingace 15:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
And me, but we don't know who Sparky and Chaoman are... No alternate identity for this bucko. KNexpert 15:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
No sock puppet here. Just Dark Meta from clubpenguin.com. And all you guys, Sparky and Chaoman are my 2 best friends on Club Penguin, just so you know.Clubpenguinfan 15:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Looking at Mr. E from sonicandpals.com. No relation with Buziollover. Sonicandpals 16:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Gamefreakandsmarty, courtesy of Neopets. Ilikeredthings 16:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and all within 2 - 5 minutes of each other! Charles 16:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
No opinion on move for now, but note that google shows 1.2 million uses for haemo and about 4 million for hemo, so it would seem that hemo is more common. JoshuaZ 21:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd use hemophilia myself, if I were writing the article from scratch. But Anglo-American usage wars are inflammatory and divisive. Septentrionalis 23:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation may be American. Jimbo Wales may be American. Many of the editors and readers may be American. But Wikipedia is not American. We do not prefer US spellings. Since you've clearly not bothered to read our policies, here's a small summary: We mostly use US spellings for US-related articles (and other spellings for articles concerning other areas). In the case of articles not linked to a particular English-speaking culture, we prefer to maintain consistency with the original spelling used by the creator of the article. Thus, in an article on a Chinese topic started by a user of British English, we would continue to use British English spellings. This is only a short summary; to learn more, read the relevant policies. Can we move on now? Exploding Boy 08:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) 07:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Haemophilia → Hæmophilia – Increased accuracy. - Random the Scrambled 13:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)}

[edit] Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
Yes, they will. Random the Scrambled 20:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose --WS 13:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Why do you oppose it? Just wondering. No need to prove it (there, now are you WP:POINT people happy?). Random the Scrambled 13:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • For the record, Oppose, just in case anyone actually takes this seriously. Exploding Boy 16:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose for same reason as Exploding Boy. Thumbelina 18:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I never saw any reason from Exploding Boy other than that this proposal is pointless. Was that it? Random the Scrambled 18:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments
  • As you can see from the previous move discussion I proposed, æ is the proper letter setup for this situation. Random the Scrambled 15:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Why do you think this is a joke? Because it's uncontroversial? Well, maybe you're right. We'll just have to wait and see... Random the Scrambled 10:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This entire proposal and associated discussion should be taken as a violation of WP:POINT. I strongly suggest that User:Mr. Random withdraw the proposal and move on. Exploding Boy 16:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. Quick search in Lancet and on JSTOR gives me 100+ hits on haemophilia and zero on hæmophilia. This is completely without merit from an editor who already got caught meatpuppeting. ~ trialsanderrors 21:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Seriously, I don't get it. If WP:POINT says that my question is against WP policy, then either someone vandalized it, or Exploding Boy unreasonably hates me, which I strongly believe. And Trialsanderrors, you got 0 hits on hæmo- because search engines aren't compatible with those kinds of characters. One more thing... How is this proposal violating WP:POINT? And please don't say this is violating it too; I read it. Random the Scrambled 23:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I also did one on h*mophilia and checked the results. Lancet uses ae, Science uses e, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA uses e. Can you maybe move the discussion forward by offering a list of journals that still use æ in the 21st century? ~ trialsanderrors 01:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
If that's what you think, then why didn't you vote for the previous change I requested? And now I'm pretty sure you're violating WP:POINT by asking me to provide examples to prove something. Random the Scrambled 11:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I take that as an admission that there are none. ~ trialsanderrors 17:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
There are some examples, but if I provided them, I'd be violating WP:POINT. Random the Scrambled 11:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
No you're not. ~ trialsanderrors 21:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Fine. I provided one; the one that Wikipedia is aiming to be better than. See below. Random the Scrambled 13:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that this proposal does fall under WP:POINT. You started the proposal to move to hemophilia, then, when you found consensus was against, went on an extended rant about racism and other vaguely defined protests regarding the use of British English, while also ignoring Wikipedia policies on spelling. Now you're once again disrupting Wikipedia with a needless proposal. And I don't hate you, but I don't like this pointless messing around. Can we please get on with editing articles? Exploding Boy 17:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

By needless, do you mean that it doesn't have to change, or it's uncontroversial? (yes, I'm still remembering WP:POINT) Random the Scrambled 11:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Britain uses æ. America uses e. "ae" is just a twist on the original British version to make it type-compatible, which is... Oh, you're right. But David Kernow really has a point. It won't hurt so long as proper redirects are set. Random the Scrambled 11:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Britain uses æ. Still awaiting positive evidence. ~ trialsanderrors 21:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Many encyclopedias, among them (I doubt this is recent, but still...) Encyclopædia Britannica (is that how you spell it?). Random the Scrambled 13:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
the word we're discussing here is hae/e/æmophilia, not encyclopae/e/ædia. ~ trialsanderrors 04:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Side note: Please read my comment on User_talk:Exploding Boy (it's at the bottom of Archive 4). Random the Scrambled 00:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You mean the one where you made the baseless accusation that EB wants to have you blocked from WP? ~ trialsanderrors 21:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but I'm talking about that "grammar freak" confession... Random the Scrambled 13:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Please read

About User:Trialsanderrors's point on æ being archaic above. This article proves my point that æ is indeed used today. Random the Scrambled 12:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

From that article:
"In the UK, ae is used in place of æ, so encyclopaedia is correct in the UK."
You say ae isn't used and æ is, and the article you are putting forward as evidence says the complete opposite. What about this proves your point exactly? Personally, I prefer æ, but to say that ae is incorrect is just plain wrong. Martin 00:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
From same article:
It is common to see it rendered, albeit incorrectly, as "ae", most often by computer users and typewriter users who are unable to render the letter properly due to technological limitations or being unaware of how to do it; a recent example of this is the rendering of the television series/movie title Æon Flux, which often appeared in the media and elsewhere as "Aeon Flux".
If we're both correct, then the article contradicts itself. And if you're looking for another explanation, I'll say it. I found out somewhere that ae is pronounced ai whereas æ is said as mentioned in that article. Does this mean that the British say it differently? Random the Scrambled 14:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The article does not contradict itself. It says that (a) in modern English. ae is often used in place of æ, and (b) when trying to write æ, some people simply substitute ae because they don't know how to type æ. Martin 18:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bleeding in carriers

Female carriers of haemophilia A and B may be prone to bleeding even at moderately lowered coagulation factor levels[3]. JFW | T@lk 21:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Haemophilic female

This article does not mention the myth that Haemophilic females cannot have children. Sandy June 05:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

If they missed it on purpose, then it's because it is a myth, thus being untrue. Random the Scrambled 14:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Does anyone else think that this page should possibly be semi-protected? It's been attacked by quite a lot by vandals recently. Charlie MacKenzie 16:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History, Possible Revert

Seems Haemophilia article has been stripped the picture has been taken off and it seems much less clear, was there a reason or would it be wise to revert? Drew 06:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Bleeding disorder redirect incorrect

Haemophilia is only one type of coagulopathy which in itself is only one of three broad categories of causes of bleeding disorders... in light of this it seems silly for Bleeding Disorders to redirect immediately to haemophilia.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/a/e/Talk%7EHaemophilia_ad1d.html"