Talk:Blood type

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article Blood type was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
December 28, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
July 3, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Blood type:

Strike through when completed:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Article requests : To add information regarding distribution of different blood types based on population as a whole, including regional information if available.
  • Expand : Add Japanese, Chinese, Asian countries and perhaps Basque, and others to the blood group table for a more holistic view.
  • Verify : * The "serology" section
  • Wikify : Check number, distribution and accuracy of links
  • Other : * Archive talk page
    • repair image 2

There exists a z negative blood type

The Heredity of blood[edit]

I wonder whether the author(s) would like to add a sub-topic on how blood is inherited from parents. A simple guide to, For example: If my parents are O+ & O- what blood type am I likely to be, sort of thing. If this is already in the article then improved indexing is needed. Wikipedia is about finding simple to understand answers to questions with access to further reading and greater understanding. I could not easily find the answer to this question in this lengthy in depth text. Thank you for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianmurray5 (talkcontribs) 14:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

See main articles ABO blood group system and Rh blood group system. — RFST (talk) 05:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Argentinian blood stats[edit]

The reference for this data is a page written in Spanish, which unfortunately I can't read, but does anyone think that there's something wrong with the statistics on blood types in Argentina? I'm not an expert, but ABO genes and Rhesus genes are independently assorted, so you'd expect that to be reflected in the percentages of each type. So for example, Denmark's population has 35% O+ and 6% O- blood compared to 37% A+ and 7% A- blood, so the per-centages of O and A types that are Rhesus negative are 14.6 and 18.9 respectively, and the difference may well be exaggerated by rounding. In Argentina's case we have 85.4 & 8.4 and 34.26 & 0.44%, ie 8.95% are negative if they're O types compared to 1.27% of A types.Umbl (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, having looked at the reference again and jammed it through an online translator, it looks like a careless misuse of data. The numbers given for O-, A-, B- and AB- are in fact all the per-centages of Rhesus D negative for a sample of Argentians, but the 4 are noting how it combines with Rhesus C/c and E/e antigens - nothing to do with the ABO groups at all. These number have then, logically, been subtracted off the overall values for the ABO groups to give the O+, A+, B+ and AB+ figures. So all the Argentinian figures are wrong. Since the reference does give the overall % for O, A, B and AB, and the overall % for Rhesus D negative (9.1%), I think I'll correct the table with figures assuming idealised independent assortment, as this will be much closer to the truth than is on there now. A better reference will need to be found.Umbl (talk) 07:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

O (oh) vs 0 (zero)[edit]

It appears that there is some national variation in the usage of O (oh) vs 0 (zero). According to ABO blood group system#Nomenclature in Europe and former USSR, "parts of Europe the "O" in ABO blood type is substituted with "0" (zero), signifying the lack of A or B antigen." However, looking at the references, it appears that O (oh) is the dominant term in English text. If there is a question, the WP:ENGVAR policy states a preference for "retaining the existing variety". This article started using the O (oh) and appears to have used that term for most of its history. I'm therefor reversing [recent edits] and restoring the prior nomenclature. (Other editors have undone some of these changes already.) -- Tcncv (talk) 02:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The 0 (zero) variation is also acknowledged in the ABO blood group system section of this article. -- Tcncv (talk) 02:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I've actually got an answer directly from the "Austrian Federal Ministry of Health" [1] regarding the controversy on the usage of "0" (zero, number) vs "O" (oh, letter) about the blood types; they confirm the original terminology used by dr. Karl Landsteiner in 1901 for the classification is "0" (Zero); and the "O" (oh) variation is a probable mistake due to the similar shape between the number 0 and the letter O. I can also give you the contact to talk directly with the Professor who sent me the answer. Francesco Crimella (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

It's no surprise that an organization that favors "0" favors "0", just as it is no surprise that an organization that favors "O" favors "O". See, for example, this paper Also sprach Landsteiner - Blood Group 'O' or Blood Group 'NULL' that concludes "Confusion [arose] because of the early papers of von Dungern and Hirszfeld. It was resolved in favor of the letter O by Landsteiner working in the US National Research Council, and by Schiff with the League of Nations. Conclusions: There was concurrence of all parties who were involved in the original dispute that it is proper to use the letter O for the blood group and not 0 or NULL." which I thinks stacks up favorably against the assertion of an unnamed professor working for an agency that disagrees. - Nunh-huh 11:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The correct term is 0 (zero) but because of the use O (oh) to say zero, like double O seven (007) the confusion started long ago and now its just impossible to correct it!

The first paragraph states: "People who are blood type A will have Anti-B antibodies, blood type B will have Anti-A antibodies, blood type O will have both Anti-A and Anti-B antibodies, and blood type AB will have neither. ". This contradicts the diagram at the top of the page for the types O and AB. juglugs (talk) 06:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't contradict corresponds exactly to the diagram. Perhaps you've misread it, or mixed up antigens with antibodies? - Nunh-huh 10:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The first diagram asserts that people with type A red blood cells have anti-B antibodies. If a type A person has never been exposed to type B blood, why would they have any anti-B antibodies ?Eregli bob (talk) 12:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This is explained in the article in the section titled "ABO and Rh blood grouping". After birth an infant's gut becomes colonized with normal flora that express A-like and B-like antigens, causing the immune system to make antibodies to the antigens that the infant's red blood cells do not express- Nunh-huh 21:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

African stats[edit]

How about adding some stats about African countries to the chart ( (talk) 05:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC))

If you can find links to some reliable stats, go for it. Umbl (talk) 07:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe there are not good stats on African countries--there are hospitals, there are doctors and researchers, there are patients, there is bloodJenglish20 (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

sometimes its more a manner of "is there enough money to do the study, and then, to report it in a way that others can access" :-) Fuzbaby (talk) 04:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Added South-Africa to the blood type's Shaiesto (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Section 8 is biased[edit]

The last sentence of the section "Cultural beliefs and pseudoscience" is very biased, with insufficient citations to back up its strong opinion. "exploited for profit the lay public's knowledge about serotypes" is a biased statement, derived from one writer's opinion (according to the citation). I suggest more information on the possible correlation between serotype and diet be added to this article, as well as a non-biased rewrite of the aforementioned sentence. --Kangabell (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no more "information on the possible correlation between serotype and diet" to be added, because there is no such correlation. I suppose there are more items that could be added, but they probably belong in an article on irrational beliefs about blood types rather than this one. Here are some pertinent references, if anyone cares to find a place for them.
The Nazis made use of blood types to further their racist agenda, insisting that types A and O were superior, and B was inferior. In 1927 the Japanese government, seeking to breed better soldiers, adopted the theory of the superiority of certain blood types. [2] In 1937 it was urged that Japan should appoint only men with "superior" blood type O to the diplomatic corps. [3] This scientifically baseless course of action did not result in Japanese victory in World War II, and the blood type craze faded. It was revived in the 1970s by broadcaster Masahiko Nomi, becoming immensely popular. [4] Japanese are routinely discriminated against on the basis of blood type, to such an extent that a word was coined specifically for such "blood-type harassment": bura-hara[5][6] - Nunh-huh 03:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
If there is no information on the correlation between serotype and diet, then why is it even mentioned? Perhaps this: "Western self-help books authors have exploited for profit the lay public's knowledge about serotypes to make unsubstantiated pseudoscientific claims that people of different blood types would benefit from different diets.[66] It is not known whether a blood type affects personality" should be removed altogether. --Kangabell (talk) 05:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
It's mentioned so we can educate our readers that it is known whether blood type affects personality: it doesn't, despite disreputable claims to the contrary. - Nunh-huh 12:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Nunh-huh on this. The fascinating references below demonstrate both the prevalence and the potential nastiness of this particular superstition. At least in the US it hasnt affected people beyond a silly diet fad. alteripse (talk) 01:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
"...[I]t doesn't, despite disreputable claims to the contrary." Is there evidence for this? I'm not eager to agree with Nazis or Japanese imperialists, but the mere fact that they said something doesn't automatically make it wrong. Nor does the fact that a belief could inspire injustice make it automatically untrue. If we're going to educate readers that "it doesn't," shouldn't there at least be a scientific study to that effect? The absence of scientific evidence either way doesn't prove that a correlation can't exist.0nullbinary0 (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I found at least a couple of studies that looked and found no psychological correlations when I looked at the links and references for this very article. You could do the same and add them in. alteripse (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

There is "no evidence" of any dietary link to blood type because no one in the medical or nutritional academic establishment has EVER studied the question in a scientific fashion, probably because it would be politically incorrect and professionally self-defeating to do so. The key point is that no scientific research has either proven or dis-proven these theories. The theory of loose dietary correlation relates to a much larger but also scientifically undocumented (so far) theory linking genetic makeup and dietary differences. The reference at the end of this section is a weblink to one M.D.'s self-published opinion piece that reads more like a book review and is mostly meant to promote universal vegetarianism (god bless, I am a vegetarian). This is hardly evidence of a groundswell of skepticism although I expect that many "professionals" like him with some type of vested interest will naturally express skepticism. Agree with writers above that this section fails the neutrality test, and inserted small changes trying to strike a more neutral tone. Jrgilb (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It's up to those who make scientific claims to do so on the basis of empirical evidence; that blood type diet advocates don't have evidence but make the claims anyway makes them pseudoscientific claims. Extraordinary claims aren't "true until disproven": it's up to those making the claims to support them with the appropriate studies. - Nunh-huh 06:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Dear Nunh-huh, the word "pseudoscience" is NOT a synonym for "scientifically unproven." Rather, the label of "pseudoscience" is inherently pejorative and connotes the absence of testability as required by the scientific method. The THEORY of dietary linkage to blood type has certainly not been proven, but it very likely IS testable if a credible nutritional scientist could ever muster the courage and take the career risk to conduct such tests. The fact that no one has tried before now does not make the theory untestable, and it does not make this particular theory "pseudoscience." This topic is another example of a comparatively "new" theory being shouted down by others who have a vested interest in preserving the conventional wisdom on which they have based their life's work. Worse yet, for this very reason, the early advocates of such theories (like Mr. D'Adamo) tend to exaggerate and oversell them, so the sympathetic publications do come off sounding faddish and unscientific. None of which negates the theory in question. It would be quite unfortunate if Wiki cannot serve as a neutral reference source on such "emerging" disciplines simply because certain skeptics would summarily delete an entire article because they do not agree with it, or because the advocates of such theories would use Wiki as a platform for naked boosterism. In this section, the word "pseudoscience" is anything but neutral, and the word "many" is also unsupported. : )) Jrgilb (talk) 02:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


  1. ^
  2. ^ "Japanese blood type theory of personality". Retrieved 14 July 2009. The discovery of blood types in 1901 has been hailed as one of the greatest advances in medical history, but the breakthrough was then used by the Nazis to further their eugenics program, and claim the superiority of Germans -- mostly types A and O -- over Jews, Asians and others with a larger proportion of type B blood. The theory reached Japan in a 1927 psychologist's report, and the militarist government of the time commissioned a study aimed at breeding better soldiers. The craze faded in the 1930s as its unscientific basis became evident. It was revived in the 1970s with a book by Masahiko Nomi, an advocate and broadcaster with no medical background. 
  3. ^ Press, Associated (June 25, 1937). "Japan Is Urged to Select Diplomats by Blood Type". New York Times. [Dr. Niigaki] added that only "superior" men like Prince Fuimaro Konoye, the Premier, who possesses "O," type blood, were fitted to fight Japan's diplomatic battles. 
  4. ^ Picker, David (14 December 2006). "Blood, Sweat and Type O: Japan's Weird Science". New York Times. In Japan, using blood type to predict a person’s character is as common as going to McDonald’s and ordering a teriyaki burger. The association is akin to the equally unscientific use of astrological signs by Americans to predict behavior, only more popular.  also "Can any of these correlations be scientifically supported? The medical community does not think so. Even in Japan, they are accepted on faith." and "“There’s absolutely no evidence that you can predict batting average by blood type or that there are different character traits that you can define by blood type,” said Marc Siegel, an associate professor of medicine at the New York University School of Medicine. “To me, it lines up with astrology. Some people will say if you’re a Gemini, you’re more aggressive. I know a surgeon that will only operate on certain phases of the moon. But there’s absolutely no scientific evidence.”
  5. ^ "Bura-Hara: Japanese term for blood-type harassment". The New York Times. 5 March 2009. Matchmaking agencies provide blood-type compatibility tests, and some companies make decisions assignments based on employees’ blood types...Not all see the craze as harmless fun, and the Japanese now have a term, bura-hara, meaning blood-type harassment 
  6. ^ McCurry, Justin (4 December 2008). "Typecast - Japan's obsession with blood groups". The Guardian. "It has been blamed for bullying among kindergarten children, denying jobs to otherwise ideal candidates and ending happy relationships, all because of an imagined haematic mismatch." "Even though psychologists and scientists have denied the relationship between blood type and personality, many Japanese are still naive about the connection. 

Need to remove the following link:

This is some sort of crank site with significant racist undertones. More importantly the 1959 list of blood types by so called nationalities or races is pure garbage. It includes Hindus as a category!

Article with similar topic[edit]

The article refers to Human blood group systems to list the currently acknowledged blood group systems by ISBT. However, this linked article Human blood group systems has many errors and does not contribute much else to the topic that has not been explained much better here in Blood type. Therefore, I would like to ask the question whether it was not better to include this table of currently 30 blood group systems here and link 'Human blood group systems' to this article here. What do you think? --Firefly's luciferase (talk) 04:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Rh blood group system[edit]

As mentioned above, this article here looks very good. With the target to bring this article back to the GA with some updates and corrections, I started reading through more closely. I realized that RhD has been used thru the article to refer to the D antigen of the Rh blood group system (see ISBT table). Although this is used colloquially very often, it does not reflect the standardized terminology of the blood group systems (see ISBT tables). One may use Rh D (with space) or only D antigen to refer to the D antigen of the Rh blood group system. Furthermore, there is no Rhesus blood group system although very often the Rh system is called this way. This is another misnomer that may be mentioned in the article but should not be used generally (see again official terminology). --Firefly's luciferase (talk) 03:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

In the table showing distribution of ABO blood types and Rh factors, in some cases adding the corresponding Rh+ and Rh- percentages for each ABO blood type rounds to a whole percent. This indicates the Rh+ and Rh- distributions were calculated rather than measured in the original sample. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtaniwaki (talkcontribs) 22:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Plasma compatibility[edit]

My question concerns the table in the section Plasma compatibility. Isn't the right version the one shown in this revision of the article? Both the text and the diagram seem to indicate that the compatibilities are exactly opposite to those of the red blood cells. But frankly I don't know a lot about this topic, so if someone could confirm (or not) and make the appropriate changes. Thanks. AurélieM Hi! 21:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You are right. Thank you for the comment. The pictures are correct, the plasma compatibility table was wrong in the recent version. I corrected this table for the new version. The reason for this opposite correlation is that the blood group is defined by the cells (also for the plasma for consistency). Therefore, O plasma has antibodies against A and B, called anti-A and anti-B while AB plasma has no antibodies against A or B. Therefore, AB plasma can be given to all ABO types while O plasma can be given only to people with blood group O. This is in contrast to the red cells. --Firefly's luciferase (talk) 04:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I would add that we have what appears to be a contradiction: "individuals of blood group O can receive plasma from any blood group; and type O plasma can be used only by type O recipients." Yet in Blood cell compatibility we have: "Therefore, a group O individual can receive blood only from a group O individual, but can donate blood to individuals of any ABO blood group" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The charts are wrong. Type O is the universal donor, AB the universal recipient. See lots of charts here: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eur (talkcontribs) 19:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The linked charts refer to red blood cell compatibility only. The "contradiction" comes from assuming that red blood cell compatibility and plasma compatibility are the same thing, but there is a subtle difference: red blood cell compatibility is dependent on the antigens the RBCs carry, while plasma compatibility is dependent on the antibodies the plasma carries. RBCs can't be put into blood where donor's blood cells will be attacked, while plasma can't be put into blood where it will attack the recipient's blood cells. It's this difference that results in the converse compatibility charts. (talk) 02:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Blood type "Z"[edit]

It looks like the Bovine blood groups include Z amongst their collection. The polymorphic systems in cattle include the A, B, C, F, J, L, M, S, and Z polymorphisms. -- Idyllic press (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Blood Type Evolution[edit]

I have zero knowledge on this subject but have heard some wild claims to the effect that certain blood types are the result of alien engineering, etc. Despite the fabulousness of such claims, I think a Darwinian perspective on the evolution of blood types would not be uninteresting to the lay reader, as well as some insights into their biological significance, if any. I understand research is most likely ongoing. (talk) 08:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if a history of the development of the the blood types were given. I have read a lay account giving rough dates for A, B, and AB mutations. I have no idea if this is supported by research, but I'd really like to know.Kdammers (talk) 04:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

== Why Isn't China In the Totals List ==I

China has about 1.6 billion people. Why isn't this nation in the results of blood type totals?

Prevalence of B+ in Russia?[edit]

It seems hard to believe that the percentage of people in Russia with blood type B+ accounts for 80% of the population, is this an error? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's clearly wrong, as the B allele isn't even that common. I don't read Russian; I wonder if someone has confused the number of ethnically Russian Russians (which is about 80%) with a blood type. In any case, I'll comment it out in the article and perhaps someone can chase down a correct figure. - Nunh-huh 09:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Can one sell their blood?[edit]

I have donated my blood and was wonder about a few things.. first of all one of my clients had to have a kidney surgery, she was billed twenty thousand dollars for three pints of blood... It is the same type that I have. That was just for the blood, storage and carrying process. My friends daughter has the same type and sells her platelets. She lives in Wyoming. Is their a market that could help me acquire some money. Times are a struggle for me and I just want to know is there somewhere I can find out if it would be a service that I could offer and I sure could use some financial help at this time... I have heard that their is a market for my blood type... It is in the RHnegative arena. L M Horstman

Hmmm, well in my country all medical expenses are covered by the government, so all blood is effectively free. Therefore, the sale/purchase of blood really wouldn't work here. I think it's sad that your country makes you pay 20 grand for 3 pints of blood.Davez621 (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I have been in blood banking (donor) for the past fifteen years. Federal law prohibits monetary payment of any kind for blood or blood components which are intended for use as a transfusable (in other words to be given to a human). There are however plasma donation centers where "industrial plasma" is collected and the donors are "compensated for there time". This plasma is used for a myriad of things such as the production of testing solutions and reagents for testing equipment, cosmetics and shampoo (if you have ever used "high protein shampoo" that's where the protein comes from. The primary reason you won't get paid for your blood at a true donor center is that you will be asked a series of questions in a screening process and some are rather personal and considered to be high risk inquiries. If a donor is being paid they have an incentive to not be completely honest with their answers. This has been policy since the discovery of HIV and the various types of viruses that cause Hepatitis.

In Germany (at least through the '90s), blood and blood plasma "donations" were reimbursed financially by some public (university hospital) and some private companies. Kdammers (talk) 04:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Blood groups and disease[edit]

doi:10.1182/blood-2010-01-261859 is a general review looking at the association between blood groups and particular diseases. I'm confident that it can be useful here. JFW | T@lk 19:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hong Kong Stats[edit]

The current Hong Kong SAR statistics only add up to 70% or so - must be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

positive and negative[edit]

what exactly does + / - mean after the standard A,B,O,AB signify and does it affect matching? Bloodkith (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The + or - indicates status with regard to the Rh_blood_group_system; see that article for its importance in transfusions. - Nunh-huh 21:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

This sentence is more than strange. "Despite the claims of people such as Dani Volk and the chart below, O+ is the universal blood donor type." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


I posted this link so technical writers can use it in this article. I'm not an expert in this area, so it's better if some one else use the link. • SbmeirowTalk • 00:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The actual letters are behind a paywall:

- Nunh-huh 02:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I've added it in, to Other Blood Type Systems using the article, which was originally published by the University of Vermont. I think the actual details are maybe more appropriate for inclusion on Human blood group systems. I'd like to fit a mention of ISBT, but I can't see how to fit it in. Rich(Contribs)/(Talk to me!) 01:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

ABO and Rh distribution by country[edit]

  • Weighted mean

- looks like error in calculations. Calculating the total population (excluding Ukraine because of incomplete statistics) I reached 2,364,017,000 people. The article stated "(total population = 2,261,025,244)". If this was taken as 100%, this error must propagates into the all "Population-weighted mean" percentage.

Possible reason - more countries were added in the table but formulas have not been updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I have been worried about this table for some time. The sourcing is not always to high-quality sources. I think we should be looking for a better source to support the entire table, or consider dumping the whole thing. JFW | T@lk 08:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
The table data is mostly inaccurate and outdated, and the sources aren't completely accurate. I think it should just be removed. - M0rphzone (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

final sentence in lead[edit]

"Sometimes it can be lethal for fetus called hydrops fetalis.[3]" < Does that make sense to anyone? ◦◦derekbd◦my talk◦◦ 17:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

RBC unnecessary jargon[edit]

The use of the abbreviation RBC for red blood cell is probably accurate but it seems a little clunky and is unnecessary jargon that doesn't add much to the clarity of the article. Using the actual words would make many of the statements more self explanatory. I know the abbreviation is defined at the top, but why not use the simple words instead? The article switches between the two - sometime using "RBC", sometimes using "red blood cell". Pick one for consistency and pick the actual words for clarity. ;) (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Maps of blood groups Errors[edit]

According to "Map of blood group o", in Brazil there are 90-100 percent of population that has the O blood type. According to the "ABO and Rh blood type distribution by nation" table, in Brazil there are 36%+9%=45% percent of population that has the O blood type. The results are not matching... This is only one example.

Am I missing something? (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope. The O distribution map (or legend) is nonsense. (The distributions start at 50 to 60 percent; i.e there's no place on earth where the population is less than 50%?) Seipjere (talk) 12:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
The picture captions were wrong - digging down to original pictures show that the pictures actually represent the occurrence of certain alleles (A, B and O) among the local native populations. Captions fixed accordingly. Andsam (talk) 09:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Reader-friendly and recent edit[edit]

A recent edit added incomplete information about the ABO system and the Rh(esus) factor. It seems to be a good-faith attempt to put this basic and key information into the lede of an article that is too dense with information while at the same time leaving out what many -- most? -- readers are probably looking for. So, could some-one replace this recent edit with a similar one that is both complete and easy to read> Please.Kdammers (talk) 01:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Evolutionary background?[edit]

The evolutionary development and its reasons appear to be entirely absent from this article, despite the topic's considerable importance. -- (talk) 00:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's few articles on it:
Seems like the research is in babysteps but at least there's some further implications on clinical significance.--Custoo (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Blood type. 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.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

many type of blood are — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

No Secton on rare blood groups?[edit]

Why is this article silent on the rarer Blood groups like the hh etc...?

Adm365 07:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Blood type. 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.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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) 01:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Paragraph regarding pregnancy and fetus blood types in lede[edit]

Hey there! The second paragraph in the lede, beginning with "Many pregnant women..." appears to contain some great information. However, it doesn't seem pertinent to be in the lede as it applies to a very specific circumstance, and not about blood types in general. To put it more simply, it's not one of the first things someone would need to know when researching blood types.

As I'm not a subject matter expert on this, I'm not sure if there's a more appropriate place in the article for this. I believe it would fit best in a new section under "Clinical Significance," but I'm open to additional thoughts! Thank you! RedLinkJ (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, don't I feel silly. There's already a "Hemolytic disease of the newborn (HDN)" section under Clinical Significance. This strengthens my opinion that the 2nd paragraph doesn't need to be in the lede, but I'm unsure how to merge the lede paragraph with the one in the article. I'll take a stab at it, but please feel be to revert if you feel it's best. RedLinkJ (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


In the history section there is nothing on blood transfusions for the injured during war. When did it become standard to include blood type on identification? The success rate of transfusions in WW1, WW2 and Vietnam?--Mark v1.0 (talk) 07:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

HH blood group (rarest blood group)[edit]

Hello authors,

Please include a note on HH blood group, which is the rarest blood group. Thank you Probeen (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The Bombay Phenotype is already mentioned in the article. - Nunh-huh 20:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)