Talk:Haemophilia in European royalty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Physiology (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article has been classified as relating to blood.
 
WikiProject Medicine / Medical genetics (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Medical genetics task force.
 

Doctor Who Stuff[edit]

I strongly feel we should delete doctor who stuff. It is totally irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fangfufu (talkcontribs)

Watch the episode first. It touches at the end on the subject of the article Will (E@) T 17:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well,I watched it. It is pretty much nonsense. It is not scientific at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fangfufu (talkcontribs)

The popular culture section would make more sense if there were more popular culture references included, or if the Doctor Who reference were linked to an article about the specific Doctor Who episode. Given the historical significance of the topic, it seems silly to end it with a detailed Doctor Who reference. Anirvan 22:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Just because it's mentioned in an episode of a science fiction television show doesn't mean that it should be included in a discussion about something in an article about history and science fact. The Doctor Who section is an unnecessary distraction and should be included in the pertinent article discussing that Doctor Who episode. 147.70.242.39 00:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Third opinion: I'm afraid the Doctor Who stuff, although interesting, is irrelevant for this factual article - it's speculation with no basis whatsoever in fact. It'd be a good thing to put in a trivia section of the appropriate episode, though. --Scott Wilson 15:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Car accidents[edit]

How weird that three of them died in car accidents. Statistically, that is quite strange. Perhaps haemophilia impairs one's ability to drive... 70.20.211.100 (talk) 14:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, perhaps that could be said for Alfonso and Rupert, but in the car accident that lead to Gonzalo's death, his older sister, Beatriz was the driver. Some people think Beatriz was a carrier on the fact that her youngest daughter Olimpia, had a son who died young, but we'll probably never know unless something official shows up. Morhange (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ferdinand Soltmann[edit]

Take a look at this thread at the Royals Portal, which mentions one of Queen Victoria's descendants, Ferdinand Soltmann, being a haemophiliac. The people that post at this board are trusted historians (Artuno Beeche, Marlene Eilers Koenig, etc) and are in contact with several royal families, including the Langenburgs. Should this be included as a modern-day descendant of QV affected by the disease? Morhange (talk) 03:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Family tree error[edit]

Just thought I'd point out that Alice, daughter of Leopold, should be highlighted in red. I would do it for you but I have no idea how to do that. Sorry. Lucy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.176.83 (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Princess Alix of Hesse and by Rhine[edit]

The bulleted paragraph about Alexei states that the sister who carried the mutation causing hemophilia was "thought to be Maria by American researchers and Anastasia by Russian researchers...[1]" This is incorrect. Page 18 of the Supporting Online Documents for the footnoted 2009 paper in Science by Rogaev et al identifies the Grand Duchess in question as skeleton #6; this skeleton was believed to be Tatiana by the Americans and Anastasia by the Russians.

The probable reason the previous Wikipedia editor(s) incorrectly named Grand Duchess Maria is that the Americans and Russians disagreed about the identification of two sets of the skeletal remains found in 1991: Not only did the two teams disagree about skeleton #6, they also disagreed about skeleton #5, which the Russians believed to be Tatiana, while the Americans believed her to be Maria.

I recommend changing "Maria" to "Tatiana" in the third sentence of the paragraph, and also deleting the final sentence completely, since Maria’s tonsillectomy is irrelevant. BlueSockMonkey (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Well if there is a descrepency it should be noted, especially since there are two good sources saying two different things. Beefcake6412 (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, there is no discrepancy in the Science paper by Rogaev et al. The earlier Wikipedia editors simply misunderstood what that paper said--possibly they did not read the Supporting Online Information. BlueSockMonkey (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC) EDITED TO CLARIFY: The earlier editors and I are citing the same paper by Rogaev et al. The main body of the Rogaev paper simply refers to the daughter in question as Anastasia, and never suggests it might be Maria; the Wikipedia editors (knowing there were disputes about the specific identifications of the bodies in 1991) inferred--incorrectly--that the hemophilia carrier must be either Anastasia or Maria. The Rogaev paper's own Supporting Online Information is where Rogaev et al specified it is skeleton #6, which is either Anastasia or Tatiana. I apologize for not making all of this clearer in my earlier posts. BlueSockMonkey (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Alexei Nikolaevich, Tsarevich of Russia[edit]

Tsarevich Alexei definitely did not die of haemophilia, and Prince Maurice of Battenberg died in combat, so I am removing them from the list of people who died from haemophilia. Tad Lincoln (talk) 05:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Tsarevich Alexei certainly bled to death, but you are right that it is probably misleading to attribute this to haemophilia. However, with regard to Prince Maurice, dying in combat and dying of haemophilia are not mutually exclusive. According the the New York Times account, he was not killed instantly, but died later of his wounds, meaning he may have bled to death from a would that would not have killed a non-haemophiliac, and his death would qualify just as those killed in car accidents that would not have killed a person with normal clotting. Agricolae (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not actually sure Maurice was a hemophiliac. He's often mistakenly attributed as being one, but a hemophiliac would not be allowed to serve in a combat position, especially not a grandchild of Queen Victoria. Prince Waldemar of Prussia and Maurice's brother Leopold were both hemophiliacs who were given desk positions during the war because their hemophilia prevented them from serving. That Maurice was allowed to serve a combat position suggests he probably wasn't a hemophiliac (or had a very very mild case like Kraft of Hohenlohe) and died of normal combat injuries. Morhange (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough, but then maybe he shouldn't be shown as a hemophiliac on the pedigree. And as long as we are talking about the pedigree, if we conclude that Kraft inherited a mild hemophilia, then his great-grandmother shouldn't be shown on the pedigree as a definitive homozygous normal (can Christmas Disease even manifest itself in a mild form, or does this this mild phenotype in and of itself show this to be a new spontaneous mutation?). The fact is, we can't tell the genotype of any females not known to be a carrier. Only the Czar's daughters have been explicitly determined, an even there, the identification of which was which is not perfectly certain. Any other female could either be homozygous normal or heterozygous and just didn't happen to pass the mutant allele in a manner that allowed it to be detected. Agricolae (talk) 00:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Possibility of a female sufferer?[edit]

The description currently states, "Despite frequent inter-marriage among royalty, no case of such double inheritance is known among Queen Victoria's descendants. However, it is possible that such cases have gone undocumented . . . ." Is this really possible? For this to occur, it takes a very special intermarriage, involving a haemophiliac male and a female, each with an exclusively female-line descent from Victoria or from a Victorian haemophiliac male. None of the intermarriages of which I am aware involved this specific combination. Is there any source that mentions this possibility specifically with regard to Victoria's descendants, or is it simply based on generalities regarding haemophilia? Agricolae (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Today section - BLP[edit]

We have a big problem with the Today section. It is revealing the medical condition of a living individual, and currently the only reference given is a dead link. This needs to be shored up or deleted, because it is clearly in violation of WP:BLP as it stands. Agricolae (talk) 01:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

this link? It still works for me, you have to be a member of the forum to view it, I believe, but it's not a dead link. Morhange (talk) 06:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, I can't see it - is it something that would qualify as a WP:RS? Or is it just a discussion of the issue on a forum? Wikipedia is particularly careful about this kind of thing, and as much as it may add to the article, having this kind of personal information on a living person is problematic without extremely good (reliable in the Wikipedia sense) sourcing. Agricolae (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I would consider it a reliable source. It's a forum post, but the people who contribute to this forum (and supplied the information) are well known royal historians--Marlene Eilers Konig and Arturo Beeche, for example, who wouldn't post any information, publicly or privately, without permission from these families. Marlene's books about Queen Victoria's descendants have been cited as sources for a number of articles on Wikipedia, but I understand the hesitation when it comes to forums. Morhange (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if this would be considered up to standard or not. Do you know who, exactly, made this particular contribution? You mention two, "for example". Did these two supply that information or are they just examples of the type of people who participate? Maybe I will float it on BLP/N. Agricolae (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I ended up going to WP:RSN instead. Agricolae (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
The relevant comments were all made by Beeche, with some additional comments from Marlene Koenig. Morhange (talk) 01:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
We don't use forums as sources for anything except perhaps an article about the forum, and then probably not. We certainly wouldn't use it for a WP:BLP. I've deleted the section and removed it as a link to another statement. WP:RS says "There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material." Dougweller (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I'll add that I agree with not using forums, even though I belong to some academic forums where there are some really interesting comments I'd love to use. Dougweller (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

SNPs[edit]

What are the snps of the mutation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.233.232 (talk) 10:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Introduction is contradictory - number of Victoria's children[edit]

Victoria had 9 children, not 7 as the introduction states. Princess Alice was NOT the only carrier, Princess Beatrice was also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.42.125 (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Re-read the paragraph. It says that had Victoria only had seven children, Alice would've been the only known affected child without Leopold and Beatrice being born. Louise was childless and Helena's surviving sons were unaffected and her daughters childless, so whether or not either of them were carriers will likely never be known. But the intro paragraph is only saying that Alice was the only known affected child out of Victoria's first seven children and had she stopped at seven, historians might assume it was a mutation from Alice rather than being from Victoria. Morhange (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I wrote that, and that's exactly what I meant. The known carriers were Victoria's third, eighth, and ninth children. If she'd stopped at seven kids - in other words, had Leopold and Beatrice never been born - nobody would know that the mutation hadn't taken place at Alice's conception.
My real point in writing that was to show the very real possibility that the mutation might have taken place at Victoria's conception or at the conception of her mother. It's very bad science to assume that a mutation like this one has to immediately show up without fail in the next generation. Victoria's mother only had three children: to pass on one specific gene to only one out of three children would not be unusual. (Interestingly, had Victoria and Albert stopped at two we would never know that Victoria carried the hemophilia B gene.)
Now off to knock sense into people who think hemophilia is a sign of or has anything to do with inbreeding.... --NellieBly (talk) 18:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC) (carrier of Hemophilia A gene, btw)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Haemophilia in European royalty. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)