Talk:Haemophilia

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 30 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MProvenzano. Peer reviewers: Maryxoxe.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Life Expectancy

I removed this section because it wasn't really true or referenced. From the early 1900s to the 1970s life expectancy went up to almost 65 (which is close to normal) and then HIV lowered it back down to around 25 in the 1980s. There is also quality of life to be considered, and I don't believe you can have any real information on it all at this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by REGULAR-NORMAL (talk • contribs) 13:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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)

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)

Hemophilia and von Willebrand's 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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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

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)[reply]

The medical condition and the fetish have the same word as their technical term. It's just like "Hydrophobia" can either mean rabies or the fear of water. Two different things with the same name.163.11.83.16 20:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
Oppose
  • Oppose. JFW | T@lk 18:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Exploding Boy 18:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose Haemo- came first and still is in use. Laziness is no excuse for omitting letters. Charles 23:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose per David Kernow. I disagree with Charles' reasoning, however. Septentrionalis 02:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose. Jonathunder 15:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support


As a hemophiliac living around NYC I've seen it referred to almost exclusively as "hemophilia" for ~20 years. My first encounter with it as "hae" was finding international articles while searching for things online in the past few years. Treatment companies and such (example: http://www.coramhemophilia.com/ ) all use "he" rather than "hae". -- REGULAR-NORMAL —Preceding unsigned comment added by REGULAR-NORMAL (talk • contribs) 13:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I don't really think so. Random the Scrambled 00:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
OED uses hæmophilia, but I agree that this is irrelevant. Septentrionalis 02:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's the OED?
The Oxford English Dictionary, which see. Septentrionalis 23:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Does Wikimedia Foundation = Wikipedia?  Does Wikimedia Foundation own the contents of Wikipedia?  WP:GFDL?  Curious, David Kernow 15:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm not. 4635785235 15:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't I tell you that I use a proxy server? Random the Scrambled 15:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yep. I'm here too. You're talking to jjjjjj on redscomics.com.Redjohnnykingace 15:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Looking at Mr. E from sonicandpals.com. No relation with Buziollover. Sonicandpals 16:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gamefreakandsmarty, courtesy of Neopets. Ilikeredthings 16:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and all within 2 - 5 minutes of each other! Charles 16:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Requested move

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

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)[reply]
  • Oppose --WS 13:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • For the record, Oppose, just in case anyone actually takes this seriously. Exploding Boy 16:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for same reason as Exploding Boy. Thumbelina 18:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I take that as an admission that there are none. ~ trialsanderrors 17:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are some examples, but if I provided them, I'd be violating WP:POINT. Random the Scrambled 11:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No you're not. ~ trialsanderrors 21:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Britain uses æ. Still awaiting positive evidence. ~ trialsanderrors 21:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
the word we're discussing here is hae/e/æmophilia, not encyclopae/e/ædia. ~ trialsanderrors 04:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Yes, but I'm talking about that "grammar freak" confession... Random the Scrambled 13:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.

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)[reply]

From that article:
"In the UK, ae is used in place of æ, so encyclopaedia is correct in the UK."

Nobody outside of the UK uses that stupid, archaic convention. NOBODY.

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)[reply]

It is incorrect. The American spelling is way more common. NOBODY, but NOBODY outside of the UK uses the stupid ae crap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.100.36.250 (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Haemophilic female

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

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)[reply]

when a carrier and a person with heamophilia have a child together. That child if its aboy will have haemophilia or a girl will be a carrier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.231.108 (talk) 02:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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.

Spelling

Spelling on the page keeps changing from 'haemophilia' to 'hemophilia' and back again. Can we not just pick one and stick with it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.30.81.131 (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I agree with this thought. Any thoughts on which it should be? Whichever we pick, it should be consistent throughout the article, which is why I have been reverting people who only change some of the entries... -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 13:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the best thing is to be consistent with the title of the article. Unfortunately, that's liable to touch off the big debate about what THAT should be again. For what it's worth, I'm a Brit and thus spell it with the A, but if the consensus is to standardise without it, that's OK by me. McNutcase 17:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The British English spelling needs to be changed. It is "hemophilia." Nobody does this "ae" crap except Brits.

Links

Should this page have links to the pages for famous people with hemophilia? (Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich Romanov, other members of british descent) I happen to have severe hemophilia A

Asha'man Nellis, Jearn Rift Sept of the Codarra Aiel 11:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Dunn's Coolness?

"However, Michael Dunn is the coolest hemophiliac that has ever existed...no questions asked."

That sounds like a bit of a joke. Should it be removed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.86.115.184 (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Haemophila → Hemophilia

The UK spelling is WRONG. Most people speaking and writing English do not use the stupid UK "ae" when writing long e words. In print the "ae" is often joined together as if it were a distinctive letter. You give yourself away as a Brit when you use this archaic spelling.

As a person with hemophilia, I find it confusing the the hemophilia page is named "haemophilia", when the World Federation of Hemophilia, the National Hemophilia Foundation, and the Canadian Hemophilia Society (of which I am a part) all spell their name the same way.

  1. This is the most common name and therefore should be used.
  2. As shown in the links above, this is a case of self identity.
  3. Wikipedia is not a democracy.

Thank you. :) -bladebot 23:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, We don't have policy to favour US English spellings over UK English spellings. The UK English spelling is Haemophila. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English Secretlondon 23:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, given that MOST people in the English-speaking and writing world do NOT use the archaic UK "ae" spelling of long e words, the spelling needs to be changed to the conventional "hemophiliac." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.100.36.250 (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I do not understand the connection between your point and my points. -bladebot 00:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are asking to change the title (which is in UK English) to a title in US English. You've given the names of three organisations that use the US Spelling and a google test. I have said that we have a policy not to move pages from UK to US spellings (or vice versa). Wikipedia:Manual of Style (national varieties of English) may help more. Secretlondon 00:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that we shouldn't favour US spelling over UK. Or Canadian spelling over UK. Or the Chinese spelling, or the German spelling, or the Hebrew spelling, or the Japanese spelling... Okay, Russian prefers haemophilia... but the Arabic spelling... I know that many of these languages have their own spelling of the same term, but apparently these are the English spellings that they would use to find hemophilia. Simply changing a title from one dialect to another isn't in itself a ground for not doing so.
  1. It is the most common English term: "We want to maximize the likelihood of being listed in external search engines, thereby attracting more people to Wikipedia."
  2. The World Federation of Hemophilia, being the first international Hemophilia foundation, chose the simpler term. "When naming or writing an article about specific people or specific groups always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations themselves use."
  3. And finally, from the links you gave me: "If there is a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, use that dialect."/"Try to find words that are common to all."
These points make sense to me, but maybe I'm doing something stupid and not realizing it... Sorry for all the boldness... :/ -bladebot 20:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody has any arguments against, then I shall change the article's title (and all subsequent mentions of the disorder) to "hemophilia" for the reasons mentioned. -bladebot 02:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it's made clear that the correct British English spelling is haemophilia, I'm fine with regularising to "hemophilia", if only to put some kind of end to the flames... McNutcase 13:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought flaming refers to messages with hostile intent... I can assure you I have no such desire to hurt. We appear to be using both spellings interchangeably, and instead of looking at the results of the votes, I did what the guidelines in Wikipedia told me to do. I know they are but guidelines, but they are here for exactly this purpose, are they not? -bladebot 00:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All three of your arguments are weak, though. The first ("most common word") point is superficially attractive; but it could be applied to practically every article on a world-wide topic: the US hegemony is strong. Yet the naming conventions still bothers to have that "don't change dialect" rule -- you're obviously far from the first person to notice this; yet the guideline remains. Your second point is irrelevant -- we're writing about the disease, not the organization. And I don't understand your third argument -- there is no strong tie to a specific region / dialect; there is no one spelling that is common to all. Doops | talk 00:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm more comfortable now that there is a debate now. For the first argument, I've already made the point that hemophilia is not only common in the US, but is world-wide, regardless of how much influence the US has in that result... You are correct: The US hegemony is strong. The second point is relevant: If homosexual became a derogatory term, I can assure you that whatever the accepted term among homosexuals is would become the term used for the main article in Wikipedia. A haemophiliac is a person with haemophilia, and haemophiliacs and their families are the people responsible for these organizations. That is why it is self-identification. Third, you are correct, there is no spelling that is common to all; there is only a spelling that is common to most. -bladebot 22:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, there's really no point in changing it. You only should change it if there is a proper reason to. Your point one is valid, but point two is not (we are naming the condition, not the North American-based organisation). Your argument of self-identification is not a strong one at all (see [4]. And anyway, there's no actual point in changing it - so I suggest to keep it as is. -- Boothman /tɔːk/ 13:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
If there isn't already one, we should add a redirect. If there is, there's no reason to complain. You can still find your way here. Oh, and Australia also uses UK spelling. Kamahl 07:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, Bladebot, your argument in essence is that the Wikipedia as a whole should use US spelling by default (perhaps using British spelling for specifically British articles, but no others). As such, it's got a scope far beyond mere Hemophilia and should be discussed elsewhere. Doops | talk 07:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've made valid points. I agree. -bladebot 15:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we at least have a consensus that whichever spelling is eventually decided upon for the article's title, the spelling within the article should be consistent? As I've said, I don't much mind which is chosen for the title, since the other will always redirect, but having the spelling change in the body for no apparent reason is bad form, in my opinion... McNutcase 07:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. All occurrences of "hemophilia" have been changed to "haemophilia", except where "hemophilia" is the title of a reference. -bladebot 05:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find it confusing that a Haemophila article links to Hemophilia A. I feel that this is a case (if there is any precedent at all) where spelling continuity should be kept between articles, not just within one article. -anon 17 August 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.30.136 (talk) 05:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carriers of haemophilia

According to the article "If a female gives birth to a haemophiliac child, she is a carrier for the disease." This is surely only true if there are other affected family members. Should her son be the first case of haemophilia in the family, there is a 20% chance that he has a de novo disease causing mutation. (This according to GeneReviews.)Nyosi 08:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My son has Severe Hemophilia A and I am not a carrier - his case, as with others - was a spontaneous mutation. 76.30.52.19 16:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Treatment

Paragraphs 4 and 5 implicates Baxter and other manufacturers in the infection of patients with HIV, implies negligence on their part, and references lawsuits against Baxter. The article reference (reference 8) is specifically about a lawsuit against Armour Pharmaceuticals (now part of Sanofi-Aventis). This article does not mention any manufacturers other than Armour, and in fact mentions that Armour used a heat-treatment step that was lower in temperature than the other manufacturers. Unless other references are incorporated, these paragraphs should reference Armour only.Ekwhite (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bayer should be up there too —Preceding unsigned comment added by REGULAR-NORMAL (talk • contribs) 05:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brain bleeds

Review doi:10.1111/j.1365-2141.2007.06949.x JFW | T@lk 10:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bayer / Vandalism - Second locking the article

I have been to this page a few times and the bits about Bayer and their role in the 1970's AIDS and Hep outbreak among hemophiliacs keeps getting deleted and added again. I don't see mention about it in the Discussion page and don't believe that there is a Wiki reason for it to be deleted. I am assuming it is being deleted because it makes many people and companies look very bad. Considering the outbreak was to the hemophiliacs what the Atomic Bomb was to the Japanese (infecting so many hemophiliacs with generations of ramifications), it is a pretty big deal and should have more than a small paragraph dedicated to it in this article. At the very least it should have a stub article dedicated to it.

I second locking the article (someone else mentioned it above). This is obviously a controversial article on what is in included, and not included and how it is spelled, and instead of discussing anything, people keep going in and deleted and adding whatever they please without regard to Wiki-Standards. I already put in a request for indefinite semi-locking. Chexmix53 (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I just checked and they denied my request for the page to be locked. Chexmix53 (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Excercises

It is recommended that people affected with Hemophilia do specific exercises to strengthen the joints, particularly the elbows, knees, and ankles. Exercises include elements which increase flexibility, tone, and strength of muscles, increasing their ability to protect joints from damaging bleeds. These exercises are recommended after an internal bleed occurs and on a daily basis to strengthen the muscles and joints to prevent new bleeding problems. Many recommended exercises include standard sports warm-up and training exercises such as stretching of the calves, ankle circles, elbow flexions, and Quadriceps sets.


Is there a source for this? 81.158.186.80 (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Complementary Therapy & Hypnosis

I am a little unsure as to the validity of the claims about the effect of hypnosis on the severity of symptoms. A Web of Science search for "hypnosis AND haemophilia" (or "hemophilia") lists only nine results in total, eight of which are pre-1990's, the remaining one giving me a dead link through Wiley InterScience. Can someone of a pharmacology/psychology bent check out some of these alt. treatments a little further please? I am a little skeptical, although admit this is not my area of expertise and that hypnosis may reduce associated stress responses etc. Thanks, WhirlwindChemist (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I added this section, citation, and information to the article. I believe the University of Maryland Med Center [5] which I provided for a source is a reliable secondary source for this information. I don't think a primary source on the internet is required although more sourcing is always better (I have seen this in books as well). Feel free to search for some, however, I think there are a lot more unsited things that need more research already. Earthdirt (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you Earthdirt. However, I do have reservations that the UoM Med Center source also talks about homeopathy. --WhirlwindChemist (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have access to psychiatry and medical journal databases through work - I searched Psycinfo and OVID Medline using terms 'haemophilia/hemophilia' and 'hypnosis' - I work as Dr in the NHS in Scotland (currently revising bits and pieces for examinations) - there are indeed a handful of papers, mostly from the 1980's and virtually all from the Internatonal Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, that may claim hypnosis had beneficial effects in their abstracts - unfortunately I have absolutely no way of tracking these down as there isn't a paper copy of these journals, anywhere in Scotland at least - what i've found I'll post below for information. These journals pre-date the routine use of electronic journals from 1997, and a quick search of the IJCEH's website shows NO articles relating to haemophilia since this point (haemophilia/hemophilia - whatever you want to call it!? Im british, and speak english, so hey! I searched both terms though! ;) ). One paper refers to findings and problems but I cannot find out what these were!

Personally I have to say I highly doubt these claims and the University of Maryland Med Center website provides NO evidence to support their claims (ie no links to articles to verify these claims, just a statement). The fact that there is nothing in current psychological or medical literature regarding these techniques makes it highly dubious that its an effective therapy - not impossible but very unlikely/

I'm always sceptical of such alternative therapies, and particularly concerned by the often false hope they provide patients - I also have first hand experience of the harm that they can cause to patients both physical and mental - unless someone can provide evidence of benefit i'd suggest either removing this entirely from the article or change the emphasis to show that there is virtually 'no evidence to support this claim but it could be a possibility'. Unfortunately, I would not regard an unsubstantiated claim on any 'medical' website evidence as Earthdirt has done as proof of a claim - who wrote that statement? whats their agenda? whats their evidence? Any sort of scientific data presented for review, would however, back these claims if it can be found - if anyone has access to these articles you might be able to find out EXACTLY what they said/what they found and come to an informed decision on this.

Dr J Beavers, Dumfries, Scotland

PsycINFO Kent, Gerry. Hypnosis in dentistry. [Journal; Peer Reviewed Journal] British Journal of Experimental & Clinical Hypnosis. Vol 3(2) Jan 1986, 103-112.

PsycINFO Swirsky-Sacchetti, Thomas; Margolis, Clorinda G. The effects of a comprehensive self-hypnosis training program on the use of Factor VIII in severe hemophilia. [Journal; Peer Reviewed Journal] International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis. Vol 34(2) Apr 1986, 71-83.

PsycINFO LeBaron, Samuel; Zeltzer, Lonnie K. Research on hypnosis in hemophilia: Preliminary success and problems: A brief communication. [Journal; Peer Reviewed Journal] International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis. Vol 32(3) Jul 1984, 290-295.

PsycINFO Fung, Elizabeth H; Lazar, Billie S. Hypnosis as an adjunct in the treatment of von Willebrand's disease. [Journal; Peer Reviewed Journal] International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis. Vol 31(4) Oct 1983, 256-265.

PsycINFO Sacchetti, Thomas C. Self-hypnosis, stress, and hemophilia: The effects of self-hypnosis training upon stress among hemophiliacs. [Dissertation Abstract] Dissertation Abstracts International. Vol 42(12-B, Pt 1), Jun 1982, pp. 4940-4941.

PsycINFO Ritterman, Michele K. Hemophilia in context: Adjunctive hypnosis for families with a hemophiliac member. [Journal; Peer Reviewed Journal] Family Process. Vol 21(4) Dec 1982, 469-476.

86.27.146.150 (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry earthdirt, just realised the website does have an author and does, it seem list one of the articles ive stated above! Still, given my points above, I don't feel its justified for the article to claim "Scientific studies indicate that hypnosis and self-hypnosis can be effective at reducing bleeds and the severity of bleeds and thus the frequency of factor treatment." given that 1) the source provided through wiki doesn't provide scientific evidence to reach an informed decision in this regard and 2) the claim on the maryland website is based on research that hasn't been looked at further since the 1980's.

I'd suggest re-writing to greatly reduce emphais on this 'treatment'.

86.27.146.150 (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello 86.27.146.150 (Dr J Beavers?). I disagree with you that wikipedia should only cite current primary research. Wikipedia is notand should not be a literature review or medical guide. It is an encyclopedia and a compendium of knowledge. In an encyclopedia citing a large medical information and training center (such as the one cited) is perfectly acceptable and satisfies WP:V. I would be willing to add the word "preliminary" to the statement "Scientific studies indicate..." as the cited source does, but your justification does not merit totally undermining the statement or removing it. Peace. Earthdirt (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also like to add the that the cited source is from the 1990's for hypnosis and 1980's for the self hypnosis. But I didn't know that scientific studies stopped being accepted after they were 20 years old. Perhaps the lack of further research into the subject after this time doesn't indicate a lack of validity to the method, but rather a great increase in the safety of blood products and factor around this time. Think "energy crisis = energy efficient products and research". In any event my resource is much more reliable than whatever an apparent lack of current research might indicate (at least that you could find in your particular database). Furthermore, your search merely proves that there has been a fair amount of research into it. Though I am curious why your search lacks the 1990's article: "LaBaw W. The use of hypnosis with hemophilia . Psychiatr Med . 1992;10(4):89-98." listed in the Maryland Med Center website sources. Peace. Earthdirt (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh and try a PubMed search using hemophilia and hypnosis here for some more recent information on the topic which you did not have above. Also, if you read the abstract here you will see that my rationale above is exactly correct on why no body bothers to do research on non-drug therapy anymore. Earthdirt (talk) 02:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I wasn't suggesting ditching it altogether - far from it actually - If you read what I had written I was simply suggesting changing the emphasis somewhat - which now reads much better. I had initially erroneously stated that the website had no evidence, but then corrected myself that they did cite references

Whirlwindchemist had indicated that the reference you'd stated didnt give enough info on it - i did a search for what information on the topic I was able to find through what I have access to as I agreed with whirlwindchemist that there was a lack of evidence for what was written from the stated reference. I was merely trying to provide more evidence to support or to refute your claim. if you have other references which seem to be more convincing than the original one given, or those that I was able to find (which it seems you do, and please, this was a quick 10 minute search I carried out), then these claims are founded on much better ground.

Regardless, the emphasis changed from, 'this is a treatment' to 'this may have some role/rationale' is entirely appropriate and more in keeping with the evidence available. There is a popular myth that this is what Rasputin did to treat the russian prince for his haemophilia, there is a suggestion from the articles I could find, and the further ones you have listed, that there is some merit to this - great - but possible benefit does not equal the wording in the paragraph that originally appeared

The use of blood products has nothing to do with drug companies (at least in the UK anyway) - if this did truly work I'm sure we'd advocating its use in routine medical practice for a number of reasons. namely, 1) reduce exposure of blood products to patients and thereby reduce risk of infections to them (as your given source suggests?!), and 2) to reduce demand on blood products within the NHS which are a scarce, valuable and expensive resource here in the UK - taking this point alone, if the evidence were that strong we would have NHS managers employing droves of hypnotists to go and hypnotise our patients who are bleeding instead of employing doctors and nurses to give them transfusions/blood products - which work.

I'm not going to drag on about this any further as I feel the changes as made now put across the correct message - what is now written is backed up by the references made - happy.

(86.27.146.150 (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Not completely sure that there should be a statement regarding "preliminary scientific studies" from the 1980s which is then followed in the same paragraph by a phrase saying "however there are no peer reviewed scientific studies to support these claim." According to the Wikipedia Manual of Style for Medicine one should "Use the highest-quality medical sources available" and I'm not sure that several old preliminary studies which have not been reliably reproduced and which have never been supported by peer-reviewed studies can be considered a high-quality source. I think the article would be more reflective of the research done if it said "whilst there exist certain herbal remedies designed to treat haemophilia, none of these treatments have been supported by peer-reviewed scientific studies." Thoughts?

Zchahe7 (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused by the discussion above, because I thought Wikipedia articles were supposed to rely on secondary, not primary sources. Although the inclusion or exclusion of any given source in the category "secondary" may sometimes be a fine judgement, it seems very clear that new research could never be considered secondary. On that basis, it seems to me that most of the section on complementary therapy as it is currently written is not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. This is not to say that information about complementary medicine has to be thrown out of the article entirely, but rather that discussion of it ought to make use of both adequate editorial distance and careful objectivity. Dratman (talk) 04:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hemo, not Haemo

As a hemophiliac who is heavily involved in the hemophilia community, raising hemophilia awareness and advocacy, as well as serving on the board of my state's Hemophilia Foundation, I have to say that I am greatly annoyed and, in fact, offended, that the Wikipedia article on the disability that has affected my life at every level since birth is miss-spelled and has been ordained to be so by people who do not have hemophilia, nor are members of the community or are trained, medical professionals practicing hemophilia treatment. This is tantamount to me going over to the page for AIDS or pregnancy or such and making inaccurate changes to it based on some perceived expertise I have on the subject based on a couple of articles I may have read at some point. This would be completely inappropriate and disrespectful. Therefore, I am proposing a new discussion (I am inclined to simply make the change now, but will respect Wikipedia norms) regarding the inaccurate titling of this article and the need to correct it. Without any real and reasonable excuse for keeping it listed under the wrong title, then I will eventually change it anyway. Comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffus Maximus (talk • contribs) 22:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was surprised that the article uses the British spelling. I read the discussion and see that there has been a lot of controversy. I feel quite strongly that the American spelling would be more appropriate, since it is so much more common world-wide. Note that the links all use the American spelling. Also note that the "fetus" article, for instance, does not use the British spelling "foetus". Also note that the numerous medical words that use the "hemo" root, use "hemo" rather than the British "haemo". Gandydancer (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • While ultimately I don't care what spelling is used. I would tend to agree that the manual of style would actually agree that the original spelling of the "first scientific description" (hemophilia according to the history section of the article), and the self identity (World Federation of Hemophilia) would tend to override the original spelling in the WP article and the fact that is is obviously not a misspelling, despite the fact that the "British" English speakers having changed the name after it's initial scientific description by Otto an American (which typically violates scientific convention). Just a thought. Earthdirt (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree that it makes sense to switch the title to "Hemo" and then switch the British spelling "Haemo" to the parenthetical statement that "Hemo" currently occupies under the title. It would make sense to use the spelling that it is most frequently used (as evidenced by Google results), as well as the original terminology, as well as the one that is currently used for self identity (See above "World Federation of Hemophilia"). I read many statements saying that "Wikipedia is not American" but I do not see any reason that Wikipedia should be British instead. As far as I can tell, the only reason the spelling remained as "Haemo" was because it was originally spelled that way by whatever person started the article.Higgyrun3 (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would point out that the haemo spelling is not just British. All of the haemophiliac societies of Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa have the same spelling. Worldwide, there may be more users of the haemo spelling simply because many former British Empire countries use it. However, some of these countries do not have a vast presence on the internet, so searching google will probably give you more instances of the American spelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.225.191 (talk) 09:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This issue seems to come up about once a year, and every year we decide the spelling is just fine as it is. Once again, I oppose the proposed change in spelling. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to change; either spelling is acceptable, so we should stick with the spelling used by the original author.-gadfium 20:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not planning on fighting this, but the argument that the Haemo spelling was used by the original author holds no weight. I've already voiced my reason for the change, which is that the most commonly used spelling should be the one that is used.Higgyrun3 (talk) 05:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hemophilia "bleeds"

This latest edit brings up something interesting, so I will not "fix" it. I googled "hemophilia bleeds" and came up with nothing. Might this be a term used within a small group only? It seems to me that it may need to be changed... Gandydancer (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • While Googling does bring up nothing this also means nothing, here's a source from the the National Hemophilia Federation in the US in their about section which uses it in the title and here's a page in the UK from the UK Haemophilia Society. Think of the term like "nosebleed" no one says "bleeding from the nose" or a "nasal bleeding episode". The small group that uses it are hemophiliacs and their doctors. It's a lot easier to say "bleed" than "bleeding episode", and this is a major and often all too common point of discussion in a person with hemophilia's life. Peace, Earthdirt (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really just did not know... You've done a great job of clearing it up! Gandydancer (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic and racial background?

I was searching for information on what ethnic groups are more likely to get this. But we DO NOT have any information on that. (At least I can't find it here.) I think someone should enter the following to improve the article: Hemophilia occurs in all races and ethnic groups. Rates of hemophilia among whites, African Americans, and Hispanic males in the US are similar. http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/779322-overview —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.211.232 (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

changed Signs&Symptoms: normal bleeding time

Hemophilia A and B both have a normal bleeding time as tested in the clinic by the template bleeding time test, so I removed the line that said prolonged bleeding is diagnostic of hemophilia. I also added other test details that are part of the clinical signs. Junzibelle (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ISTH definitions paper

doi:10.1111/jth.12672 JFW | T@lk 20:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simplier

IMO this should not be the first sentence "Haemophilia, also spelled hemophilia (from the Greek haima αἷμα 'blood' and philia φιλία 'love'[1])"

We are not a dictionary. The first sentence should get quickly to what the disease is. It should not be a discussion of the etymology of the word itself. Thus I have reverted [6] and moved the etymology lower in the lede. Others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Douglas Harper. "Online Etymology Dictionary". Retrieved 10 October 2007.

Lancet seminar

doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01123-X JFW | T@lk 09:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Haemophilia. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"prevention" 3rd paragraph lede

"Prevention may occur by removing an egg, fertilizing it, and testing the embryo before transferring it to the uterus." It is not evident how this is prevention, and the link doesn't clarify it. --2607:FEA8:D5DF:F3D9:90A5:43E0:2661:3E2A (talk) 16:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If testing shows the embryo to be afflicted, it isn't implanted. WP Ludicer (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

third paragraph

The third paragraph contains the sentence, "Human embryos in research can be regarded as the technical object/process." What does that mean? Could this be rephrased to be more intelligible? WordwizardW (talk) 06:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Haemophilia"