Talk:Hailey–Hailey disease

Killed

I've killed these two edits:

Unfortunately, there is not much that really helps when the outbreaks come, except to suffer through them, "suffer" being the key word here, since the outbreaks are often extremely painful.

Pemphigus is not Benign Familial Pemphigus, usually called Hailey-Hailey disease.

Some medical books refer to Hailey-Hailey Disease as 'Benign Familial Pemphigus' but it is not true pemphigus. Hailey-Hailey is not an autoimmune disease as is pemphigus, it is genetic. There are some similarities in the blisters, but Hailey-Hailey is not caused by an auto-antibody, as in PV. For more information see www.bad.org.uk/patients

for being unencyclopedic in tone (and unsourced). To the first writer, if you can find a more formal way of saying that, and you can find a source that agrees with you, then go right ahead. To the second editor, the word pemphigus means "blister." Any disease involving blisters can be legitimately described as a kind of pemphigus. It happens that the most common versions are now understood to be autoimmune diseases, but that doesn't mean that BFP is an inaccurate name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Edits: 09OCT2010

Edits were made to wording to more resemble the meaning found in the citation. Previous wording alluded to too much patient responsibility for symptoms. As the President of the HHD Society, manager of the support site that includes over 400 patients - the largest single gathering of HHD patients in the world, and a HHD patient myself, I took offence to the previous wording. ATP2C1 is an enzyme, wording was change to more accurately reflect this. A small paragraph on diagnosis taken from a citation was included.Julesmcn (talk) 18:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)julesmcn

Added Photo 16JAN2013

Added photo from HHD Society stock of R Axilla. Julesmcn (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Clarification Needed in Article Hailey–Hailey disease

I believe greater clarification needs to be made in the article regarding the use of the terms familial benign chronic pemphigus and familial benign pemphigus. Pemphigus is an autoimmune disorder that occurs when the body's own immune system mistakenly attacks healthy tissue, but Hailey-Hailey disease is not an autoimmune disorder and there are no autoantibodies. There has been a lot of confusion about this over the years in medical literature and at least some clarification should be included in the article.Dr. James Schultz (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

wikiproject med question

[1] and [2] perhaps these two references can help us?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

See also [3], which outlines a bit about this confusion... Seems there could be a lot more information in this article in any event. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I did clarify the issue in the article. I noticed this distinction was already present in the Pemphigus article. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 22:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The issue is raised above, and as WAID alludes, 'pemphigus' (from the Greek pemphix='bubble') seems to have originated as just a term for a blister in the late 18th century. In more recent times, pemphigus vulgaris and pemphigus foliaceus and similar, less common conditions have been identified as autoimmune diseases. It is hardly surprising that literature pre-dating the mid-1960s (when autoimmune disorders began to be understood) would use terms like 'familial pemphigus' to describe a genetically-transmitted condition characterised by blisters. Unfortunately Wikipedia is not a vehicle to 'right great wrongs' so if the literature routinely uses (or seemingly misuses) a term, it's not our place to correct that. There do appear to be good sources associating Hailey–Hailey disease with the term 'familial benign chronic pemphigus' and variants, so we can't drop the terms from our article. The article on the NORD site is a good source for a description of the point you raise IMHO and there's no reason that a brief, neutral summary of the Introduction section of that article would be a sensible inclusion in this article. --RexxS (talk) 23:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

No one is attempting to "right great wrongs", but the distinction is addressed in the Pemphigus article, modern usage recognizes that distinction and the recognized authorities and organizations that are addressing these different disorders (Phemphigus and Hailey-Hailey disease) have well established positions on the issue. IPFF, for instance does not offer assistance for Hailey-Hailey and likewise the HHD Society does not assist individuals with Phemphigus. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The issue raised above isn't regarding any need for clarification, but the removal of edits that were "unencyclopedic in tone (and unsourced)".Dr. James Schultz (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion in the article

I've moved the discussion of this issue out of the lead. The lead is an introduction to, and overview of, the main part of the article. Although it would benefit from expansion in this case, it should not be summarising topics not discussed more fully elsewhere in the article. I've created a section for Classification as I think this discussion revolves on how H-H disease and pemphigus are classified. We need to be writing in a concise, encyclopedic tone, so I've excised the phrase "It should be noted that ..."; we really ought not to be addressing the reader, even indirectly, like that. We make terms bold that are alternative titles for the article's subject (to help searchers see that they have arrived at the correct page), so 'pemphigus' (not a proper noun, so not capitalised) definitely should not be in bold text. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 23:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@RexxS: I genuinely feel the article needs to reflect the modern consensus and clarify a distinction that already pretty much exists across the board, but I do understand why you would feel the lead is the wrong place to discuss it, so I moved it down th the newly created Classification. Hope that resolves your reservation. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@RexxS: Apparently Wikipedia is having major server issues. Your final edit that had the Classification section was not showing up on the page and PHP errors keep popping up. That was why I reverted your initial edit. Had your second edit showing my information in the Classification section been visible, I would have been satisfied. In any event, I'm fine with how you reorganized things. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 23:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You have a lot to learn and I don't take kindly to edit summaries like your Revert was uncalled for and unjustified when you're so far out of line. I've tried to be helpful by fixing the problems your lack of competence in editing Wikipedia has generated, but if that's the way you reward other editors' efforts to fix your problems, you're not going to last long here.

Did you read the point about tone above? If so, why did you insist on returning to the "It should be noted ..." nonsense?

Have you read the Manual of Style for medical articles, WP:MEDMOS? I thought not, otherwise you'd have spotted the section on General tone and the section on Diseases or disorders or syndromes which outlines the recommended order of sections appropriate for medical articles. Classification comes first by our conventions.

If I see you reverting helpful edits again, or restoring text that breaches our policies or guidelines without good reason, I will take you to WP:AN and ask for a topic ban for you from medical articles. --RexxS (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but you seem more than a bit out of line here, RexxS. Since when is it appropriate to call anyone here "incompetent"? Ormr2014 | Talk  02:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)0

RexxS I took the liberty of looking at the history of this and it really looks like you're making a big deal out of nothing. It's pretty obvious Dr. James Schultz made a mistake, but it's also obvious you're taking things personal and your tone is anything but civil (you may want to read WP:CIV) Calling him a liar seems much more severe an insult to me. That he said "I genuinely feel the article needs to reflect the modern consensus" is a pretty good indication he really didn't see your Classification section. Just 13 minutes later, he seems to have noticed a problem. That he did so prior to your response indicates to me he was telling the truth. Ormr2014 | Talk  13:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@RexxS:, did you seriously call me incompetent and a liar in the same response??? To quote, the note on your edit said "Reverted to revision 688145772 by RexxS (talk): Rv to last good version." There was nothing about moving the content I added to a Classification section and when I looked at the article after your edit, I saw no "Classification" section there. Furthermore, the reason I said the revert was "unjustified" was because you didn't offer any explanation in the notes. Take offense at that if you want, but spare me your disrespectful ego-babble. You have followed me around here like some kind of wikinazi, griping about trivial bullshit in most of my edits. Even on articles you previously had no interest in until you saw I had made an edit there.

And as for your threat to ban me from editing medical articles, do what you want because I'm through editing on Wikipedia. It's true I'm not fluent in the hundreds of pages of wikipedia editing protocol, but I can guarantee I'm more qualified to write about medicine than many of the folks doing so on Wikipedia. Not only do I actually practice, I have a pretty extensive background in dermatopathology, and have authored or co-authored literally hundreds of papers now recognized in the medical industry as authoritative. I came here to help and contribute, but it's obvious to me that you and many others here value protocol over accuracy. Have a great life and enjoy your dictatorship on Wikipedia. You can have it... Dr. James Schultz (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Best practice for translation?

I would like to have this page translated into a Danish version.

However, I do not have the skills to translate such academic language.

Is there a Wikipedia process or tools for translations?

Cckring (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)