Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:51, 25 December 2007

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Fetus. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Fetus at the Reference desk.

Medicine B‑class High‑importance

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 Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives
Archive 1 (Feb. 2003 - Feb. 2007)

Fetal development

Correction to fetal development. The transition from embryo to fetus is signified by the foundation for all major organ structures having been laid down. It is not that all organ systems are in place as the text inaccurately suggested. I have changed it from "At this point, all major structures, including hands, feet, head, organs, and brain, are already in place," to: "At this point, the foundation for all major structures, including hands, feet, head, organs, and brain, have been laid down."

Secondly, under the age 8-15 weeks, the claim of EEG activity is nonsense. Electric activity occurs in all cells, but actual "EEG activity" is very specifically the graphic representation of electrical patterns of interactions between all parts of the entire brain. This simply is not possible until all parts of the brain are connected, which occurs when the thalamocortical tract finally connects at the end of the 26th week (See lesewhere in the section for references on this. Therefore, I have deleted the part stating "The first measurable signs of EEG activity occur in the 12th week."Steen1962 06:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Steen1962, for taking the time to review the material here and comment. I'll address your two points, taking your second point first.

You deleted the following sentence: "The first measurable signs of EEG activity occur in the 12th week." You also deleted the footnote at the end, which cited: "Singer, Peter. Rethinking life & death: the collapse of our traditional ethics, page 104 (St. Martins Press 1996)." Please note several things. First, I was not the Misplaced Pages editor who first inserted this info about the first signs of EEG activity, although I did subsequently convert gestational age (14 weeks was Singer's figure) to fertilization age (12 weeks). Second, please note that even after your edit, this fetus article still cites the same source (Peter Singer) for the proposition that, "Continuous EEG readings have been observed by the 30th week." Thus, Singer certainly was not saying that continuous EEG readings can be measured at the 12th week, and this fetus article never implied that EEG readings at 12 weeks are continuous. So, I think this fetus article is correct about the 12-week figure. You have not cited any source that contradicts Singer's figure of 12 weeks (fertilization age). However, just to make sure, I checked to verify the 12-week figure, and it does check out. I will add a further reference to the article: "Vogel, Friedrich. Genetics and the Electroencephalogram (Springer 2000)." According to this second source, "Slow EEG activity (0.5 – 2 c/s) can be demonstrated in the fetus even at the conceptual age of three months." This confirms Singer's 12-week figure.

Your first point involved the following edit you made. You changed, "At this point, all major structures, including hands, feet, head, organs, and brain, are already in place, but they continue to grow and become more functional" to instead "At this point, the foundation for all major structures, including hands, feet, head, organs, and brain, have been laid down, but they continue to grow and become more functional." I agree that the article could have been slightly more precise, but I don't think that your language quite gets us where we want to go. Saying that there is a "foundation for all major structures" is very ambiguous, because such a foundation could also be said to have been laid down at fertilization. Here is how a couple reliable sources deal with this issue:

"In humans, the fetal stage begins seven to eight weeks after fertilization of the egg, when the embryo assumes the basic shape of the newborn and all the organs are present. This stage continues until birth. The fetus is protected by a sac of amniotic fluid that also enables movement to occur. The placenta and umbilical cord are the sources of oxygen and nutrients and the means of waste elimination. 1 During the fetal stage, the body grows larger, the proportions of the features are refined, and organ development is completed." ---The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition.

and

"The unborn offspring of a mammal at the later stages of its development, especially a human from eight weeks after fertilization to its birth. In a fetus, all major body organs are present." ---The American Heritage Science Dictionary.

I will go ahead and edit the article accordingly, to say that, "At this point, all major structures, including hands, feet, head, organs, and brain, are present, but they continue to grow, develop, and become more functional".Ferrylodge 08:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

A note - a look at Ferrylodge's contribution's show that his efforts are concerned with promoting a pro-life agenda, not improving the encyclopedia. His edits must be viewed in that light. His edits in this article are designed to show a fetus showing various characteristics at as young an age as possible.

Citicat, first, please try to remember to sign your comments. Second, if you believe that the article is not factually correct, then provide specifics. If there is a particular fact in this article that is accurate, but which tends to support one point of view or another, that is not a sufficient reason for objecting to it. For example, this article states that a fetus may not be able to feel sensory pain until 26 weeks. That fact tends to support a pro-choice argument, but still it is a fact that should not be removed from this article unless someone establishes that it is inaccurate.

Also, as far as POV vandalism is concerned, this looks like a good example. Ferrylodge 15:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I am going to drop out of this discussion now, while you may feel I'm attempting to take the other side of the abortion discussion, I'm actually just trying keep articles adhering to Wiki guidelines. Good luck on your future editing. Citicat 15:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Postnatal pain

References regarding postnatal pain are not appropriate references for the topic of fetal pain. For example, references about pain management are about those already fully developed and born. As mentioned, the topic of fetal pain is controversial. Please use references salient to the topic. Vassyana 01:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've put a little thought into this, and here is what I think (take it as you will). We should not be doing new research and adding new content and new citations regarding fetal pain here. This article is the fetus article, not the fetal pain article. Per wikipedia's spinout policy, we should have a header titled "Fetal pain" then a template:main link to fetal pain and then 1-3 short, concise paragraphs summarizing the most important information at the main topic article. If we happened upon some very interesting research regarding fetal pain, don't add it here. Guess where you should add it... This way, we don't have a little sentence about X that a reader may want to know more about, so they click on to the main article and find nothing about X anywhere. At the very least, if there is something on topic to a summary of fetal pain you want to add, add it to both articles, giving more depth and detail at fetal pain than given here.

As for the specific topic of postnatal pain, it seems off topic here.-Andrew c 01:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Pain and suffering

I intended to update the article on fetal pain to link pain and suffering, and now I have done so.

Linking to the main Misplaced Pages articles on pain and suffering is totally appropriate here too. It is useful for readers to know that pain and suffering can be distinct, and to understand what each term means. These are not links to articles on "postanatal pain" and "postnatal suffering". They are links to "pain" and "suffering".

Therefore, I would like to restore the following brief paragraph, and ask that we reach a consensus that it is relevant.

Generally speaking, pain may occur without being triggered by injury. Moreover, there are types of suffering distinct from pain.

Faithfull, Sara & Wells, Mary. Supportive Care in Radiotherapy (Elsevier 2003), page 161. Retrieved 2007-02-21.

Burchiel, Kim. Surgical Management of Pain (Thieme 2002), page 253. Retrieved 2007-02-21.

It is not useful to search out and erase everything in this fetus article that may have some relation to postnatal life. This article contains a great deal of information about the adult circulatory system, and differences from the adult circulatory system. This article also contains information on postnatal development. Those aspects of the article have a much closer nexus to postnatal life than the two brief sentences in question.

Thanks.Ferrylodge 02:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I intend on addressing other sections of the article as well. Regardless, I am strongly opposed to the reinsertion of those sources and sentances. If you wish to make those claims about fetal pain, please provide references salient to fetal pain, not to references about adult pain management. On that matter, it would be better to make any such additions to the main fetal pain article, not to this one. Also, you are comparing apples and oranges. You are not contrasting fetal pain with adult pain, you are conflating them. The circulatory section, as you mention, contrasts the fetal and adult systems. Vassyana 02:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you strongly opposed to linking the pain article and/or the suffering article in this article? And will you also strongly oppose linking them in the fetal pain article?Ferrylodge 02:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, I did not see anything in the cited portions of references and that limited the discussion to "adults". Have you noticed something there that I didn't? Where did it say that the discussion did not apply equally to infants?Ferrylodge 02:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Even if they did discuss the treatment of infants, they would still not be salient. Infants are not fetuses. To assert that postnatal experience of any stage is equitable to fetal experience without a reliable source is original research, which must be avoided. Contrary to your note on my talk page, putting forth such OR to present a particular view is indeed a POV push, whether it is a conscious intention or not. Again, if you wish to make claims about fetal pain, please provide references about fetal pain, not postnatal treatment and experience. Vassyana 10:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana, I would be grateful if you would humor me by answering the questions I asked. Are you strongly opposed to linking the pain article and/or the suffering article in this article? And will you also strongly oppose linking them in the fetal pain article?

Also, the two sentences in which those links appeared did not make claims specifically about fetal pain; they made claims about pain in general, including in infants. If you want to assert that the nature of pain (e.g. the possibility of suffering that is separate from pain, and the possibility of pain without nociception) changes dramatically and fundamentally immediately after birth, then you should provide a reference. I say this because it is superstititious to believe that the functioning of the human brain changes as if from black to white at the moment of birth.Ferrylodge 15:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I do not oppose that all, provided the statements made are neutral and referenced. In fact, I made the changes to this article to accomodate you desire to include those wikilinks. My concern is simply making OR assertions about the nature and substance of fetal experience. This is a very controversial topic and we therefore need to be more vigilant about WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR. On the last statement, it is intertesting to note that Dr. Derbyshire of the University of Birmingham (UK), who is a noted expert in the processing of pain sensation, states in the British Medical Journal: "This mental development occurs only outside the womb through the baby’s actions and interactions with caregivers." and "The chemical environment in the uterus encourages sleep and suppresses higher-level brain activity necessary for pain perception." So, it is not even entirely agreed upon by researchers and experts whether pain is fully experienced, or even possible, in the womb. Like I said, very controversial topic, so we must adhere closely to standards to avoid POV pushing (intentional or not) from either side. Vassyana 01:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

No, but it does change during development. We researched this quite a bit - I believe it is in the archives of the Abortion article - and the experts diverge considerably on when the neural system is developed sufficiently to register and convey pain. Unless you've found a source which we did not, then that objection to any inclusion of fetal pain - when it begins - stands, as it has not been satisfactorily determined. KillerChihuahua 22:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua, could you please clarify what you mean by "that objection to any inclusion of fetal pain". Thanks. Ferrylodge 22:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Babys DO suffer from abortion! Did you know that in the partial birth abortion the fetus is partioly removed an a SISSCORS,yes, a sisscors, is stuck into the babys head, and a tube is inserted in the hole made by the sisscors and the brains are sucked out,colapsing the head ,killing the baby!!!--Mary divalerio 16:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages are not places to generally discuss the subject matter, nor places to voice your personal opinion on the topic. Please read up on talk page guidelines, and discuss problems or improvements to the article. Thanks.-Andrew c  16:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Anatomic development

Vassyana, I have no problem if you would like to address other sections of the article as well. It might be helpful, though, if we could take one thing at a time, but of course it's up to you. In medicine, there is a longstanding distinction between physiology and anatomy. That's why I thought it would be helpful to divide up this article along those lines. Would you prefer that everything be mixed in together? I'm not sure that would be such a great idea, especially since the article is already divided up (at least to some extent) according to this distinction.

The link "main: prenatal development" should, in my opinion, be changed to "see also: prenatal development". The two articles overlap, but one need not (and should not) merely be a summary or subset of the other.Ferrylodge 02:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I have left the title intact, due to the division you point. I have reverted the link to a main article link, because this is nothing but a summary of information from that page. Vassyana 10:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, there is info about fingerprint formation in that section that is not in the "main link". Do you advise that we put such additional info into the article at the "main link", whenever we put such additional info into this section? Also, I was hoping to get around to inserting footnotes for the various info in this section, but maybe that's not necessary if you decide to retain the "main link" designation. What do you think?Ferrylodge 15:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I know I can be a PITA sometimes, but I do try to take into account the views of other editors. I am only one among many after all. Actually, I would advise that any additional info that we add here be added to the main link article. It treats the subject in a similar fasion, but in much greater depth. I'd also agree if we keep it based on the main article, we could avoid references here, though we should provide them in the main article. Sound good? Vassyana 00:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

As I may have mentioned elsewhere, I agree with Severa, who said: "I'd suggest developing Zygote, Embryo, and Fetus to include more detailed information on these stages, and then using fetal development as a top-tier hub to summarize those sub-articles (in this case, placing all the 'eggs' in one basket would be a good thing)." Now, it's very possible that she may change her opinion (especially seeing as how I've endorsed it!), but still I would agree that the prenatal development page should be a top-tier hub. Additionally, I really did not see much info about a fetus at prenatal development that is not also mentioned at this fetus page.Ferrylodge 00:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I can see that reasoning. I'm going to solicit the various pages for opinions and see what consensus we can build, if that's cool by you. We can keep the main discussion to Talk:Prenatal development and just direct people from the talk pages of the other three to the dicussion there. Seem agreeable to you? Vassyana 01:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, that would be fine. But first I'd like to know something. Do you think I'm some kind of "POV-pusher", and if so, why?Ferrylodge 03:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Abortion factoid removed

I removed the abortion statistic for a couple of reasons. It focuses on abortion to the exclusion of other kinds of fetal death. It is a United States-centric factoid. There is no context to the claim (why they were performed, under what conditions, under which laws, et cetera). Taken together, this strongly argues against inclusion. I hope this clarifies the removal. Vassyana 00:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense. I'll leave it removed for now. However, I do not think this information slants the article, certainly not in any political way. Perhaps it might be useful to discuss in the article how often this and the various other types of fetal death occur (e.g. in contrast to the various types of embryonic death). Unfortunately, the statistics may not be readily available for many countries; even if they are only available for the U.S., then those statistics could still give an idea of how often fetal death happens, and why. Must worldwide statistics be presented?Ferrylodge 03:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverting

I don’t necessarily have objections to some of the many recent changes to this article, but I do believe that some explanation should be given. Therefore, I've reverted the changes, to give Tuckerekcut an opportunity to explain.

The article was previously structured to make a distinction between fetal anatomy as compared to fetal physiology, rather than lumping everything together. While these two categories are not perfectly distinct, they do provide a way to make the subject a bit more manageable, and a way for readers interested in one aspect or the other to hone in on what they’re interested in. It also provides a framework for further growth of the article. What's the problem with that?

Also, the article previously stated that, at the beginning of the fetal stage, the “heart is beating.” This has been changed to “the heart is contracting rhythmically” even though the cited reference uses the term “beating”. Is there any reason to delete ordinary language, other than to make the article less understandable to ordinary readers? Incidentally, the link to Dr. Spock needs to be fixed. The correct link is this. If the cited article had used the term "contracting rhythmically" then I would urge using the term "beating". As it happens, the cited reference uses the term "beating". Waht's the problem with that?

Generally speaking, I hope there can be some agreement that this article is not being written just for medical students or doctors, and therefore it is not useful to insist upon medical jargon where ordinary language will suffice. This may or may not have the effect of portraying the fetus as human, but the facts should be allowed to speak for themselves, shouldn’t they?

I don’t think that the goal of making this article understandable --- rather than filled with jargon --- should be viewed as a POV issue. For example, one of the leading articles in history defending abortion rights said this: “we shall probably have to agree that the fetus has already become a human person well before birth. Indeed, it comes as a surprise when one first learns how early in its life it begins to acquire human characteristics. By the tenth week, for example, it already has a face, arms and less, fingers and toes; it has internal organs, and brain activity is detectable.” This is ordinary language, and our article ought not go out if its way to avoid ordinary language.

Previously, the article stated: “At the beginning of the fetal stage, the fetus is able to hiccup, generally move around, and also perform isolated arm and leg movement.” This has been changed to: “At the beginning of the fetal stage, the fetus begins to move in distinct motor patterns: bending of the head, general movement and startles, localized movement of the arms and legs, episodes of hiccups, breathing-like movement, and stretches and yawns.” Again, we see jargon creeping in. Why “distinct motor patterns”? Is this the kind of language that a young pregnant woman, seeking information about the fetus, would find familiar and understandable? I realize the cited source mentions “motor patterns”, but the cited source also mentions other terms that are much more familiar.

As far as “breathing-like movement”, it would be helpful to mention its purpose: it is vital for normal fetal lung growth.

Regarding the book by Peter Singer, it states at page 104 that the first brain-stem activity has been observed at 54 days. Why has this been deleted? I can think of no valid reason. Aren’t these the kinds of changes to the article that at least merit a few words of explanation?

Just to be clear, I don’t necessarily object to other changes in the article. I just feel that there should be some explanation. Thanks.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ferrylodge (talk • contribs) 08:01, 28 February 2007.

First of all, I think your tactics here are very poor, and this is why I accused you of bullying in the past to get your edits (or WP:OWN). A lot of these things have only been in the article for a month, and they were placed there by you. If someone changes your wording, or removes it completely, you freak out and revert and the articles stays the way you created it. But if I was to revert to a version before you touched the article, would the article stay the way it was before you touched it, or would you come along and revert. A lot of this new content was never discussed on talk to begin with. Its a double standard to expect that your additions can sit in the article, exempt from a talk page defense, but expect us to defend every single change to the article. What is worse, is you clearly state that some of the changes are helpful, but reverted them anyway because you expect us to give an explanation (when you never did that for inserting this content to begin with.)

I made two of the changes you described above (covered in your second to last three paragraphs). The Singer information was wrong. You said "in the embryonic stage". 54 days is the 10th week, gestational age, which is clearly stated in the next sentence of the cited source. I also added more content from the cited source (first EEG readings, and continuous EEG readings) and those points were given in the week range, so I changed the brain stem activity to the week range so the sentence would be more consistent. 54 days is anyway too exact. Different fetuses develop at different rates and you can't always set you calender to fetal development. For a general encyclopedia article covering general development, using the week notation throughout the sentence is easier to follow, 100% accurate, and following our cited source.

"Distinct motor patterns" is the exact language used in the abstract for that section of the book. It isn't some minor term buried pages within the text. It is the topical sentence describing what occurs. All of those words are fairly simply English words. There is no Latin, no uncommon words. Furthermore, I expanded the section to contain more information and accurately follow the source.

Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. While your POV can be shared on blogs (like ) and here on talk, trying to make wikipedia text conform to your POV is not good faith editing. This article shouldn't be another battleground for the abortion debate. We should cite basic college level texts, give a nice encyclopedic overview. Have it professional and sourced. -Andrew c 19:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

To address your comments serially: I was approached by another wikipedian to edit this article, paying special attention to the size/anatomy and physiology timeline sections, and whether that nomenclature was appropriate for the section content. In my opinion it is not. Terms like "anatomy" and "physiology" are not mutually exclusive categories (or at least are so intertwined as to necessitate overlap), and it seems in this article that separating fetal life into these two categories is confusing, especially since they are organized differently and use non-congruent terms (days weeks and months are all mentioned in the anatomy section without explicitly stating a starting point).

I changed the "beating" to "contracting" because the "beating" statement was misleading in two ways. First, I believe that the image of a beating heart is overly reminiscent of a developed beating heart, with associated emotional factors, when the structure itself only crudely approximates an adult heart. Also, the term "beating" suggests that the heart is functionally pushing blood through the body, when really at this stage the ventricles just sacs, and the atria are connected. So while the heart is contracting, it's not really squeezing anything through.

The purpose of this article is to impart information. I feel that some technical words are necessary for precision, and that the answer to this, instead of simplification, is more explanation and more internal linking. Those looking for simple answers can look at the simple English wikipedia.

The quote given above may use simple language, but it is completely subjective. It attaches scientific-seeming words to meaningless coin-phrases. So itt has a face? My watch does too. For most of development, it has phalangeal arches also, does that mean we should say it resembles a fish? And brain activity? That means almost nothing, is it electrical? chemical? metabolic?

I didn't change the hiccup part. And the other specifically mentioned changes must have been from poor cutting and pasting, those were not intentional. /_rekcut 19:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It is troubling to me that we are being forced to respond to this article in such a fashion. This article should be written from a medical, biological, and developmental angle, not treated as though it was a natural extension of the abortion debate. Writing this article by process of reaction is counterproductive and detracts from a real focus on the subject.

I am in agreement with Tuckerekcut and Andrew c. Why are heart function, hiccuping, and movement more worthy of placement in the first paragraph of the "Size and physiology" section of Ferrylodge's version, over other things occurring in the same week, such as nipple and hair follicle development? Of course all those things are encyclopaedic, but, I have difficulty accepting that the inclusion of traits with emotional factors at the exclusion of more mundane traits wasn't a design. -Severa (!!!) 20:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Response to Andrew C.

Andrew C., I will not reciprocate by calling you a "bully", or say that you are "freaking out". However, I will say that you are being unfair. People can read my previous comment for themselves, and see that your characterization is false.

You say, “It’s a double standard to expect that your additions can sit in the article, exempt from a talk page defense, but expect us to defend every single change to the article.” You have reverted plenty of edits that I have made to this article in the past, and the very recent edits have done likewise. All I've asked is for some slight explanation of very substantial changes.

You say, “what is worse, you clearly state that some of the changes are helpful, but reverted them anyway...” That is false. What I said was, “As far as ‘breathing-like movement’, it would be helpful to mention its purpose: it is vital for normal fetal lung growth”. This is a link that I found, because the recent edits did not explain what the purpose of “breathing-like movement” is. Please check more carefully before you assert what I have "clearly state".

Also, contrary to what you accuse me of doing, I never edited this fetus article to say anything about brain activity “in the embryonic stage”. That edit was made here. Please check more carefully before you attribute quotes to me.

What I said in the article was, “Brain stem activity has been detected 54 days after conception.” Singer said: “fifty-four days after conception, when the first brain stem activity has been observed....” I don't see how I could have been more honest about it.

As to whether this article should use gestational age or fertilization age, I suggest that we pick one or the other and stick to it, and be clear about it. Right now the second paragraph very clearly states that “In humans, a fetus develops from the end of the eighth week after fertilisation.” Indeed, people usually say that the fetal stage begins eight weeks after fertilization, so I don’t see a problem with consistently adhering to that method of referring to age. The Anatomic Development section could certainly be clarified in that regard.

Regarding brain stem activity, I think saying 54 days is just as understandable as saying 8 weeks. Unlike terms like "motor development", most people are familiar with days and weeks. The main point is to be clear about what those days and weeks are measured from (e.g. fertilization). You edited the article so it said that “Brain stem activity has been detected as early as the 10th week....” Up until that sentence in the article, only fertilization age had been used, so a reader of normal intelligence would read your version and infer that brain stem activity was detected sometime between 70 and 77 days after fertilization, instead of 54 days as Singer said. Perhaps this is another innocent mistake on your part.

I agree with you that Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox for POV. Therefore, as explained above, I find it disheartening that you continue to engage in name-calling (saying I am a “bully” who is “freaking out”), that you pretend there’s something wrong with me asking for any slight explanation of major edits, that you pretend I am guilty of some “double standard” by reverting this article, that you say I have “clearly state” things that I never actually said, that you accuse me of edits I never made, et cetera.

The article on fetal pain says up front: “Fetal pain is a subject of intense political and academic debate. The ability of a fetus to feel pain and suffering is often part of the abortion controversy. Determining the stage of pregnancy at which a fetus is able to feel pain or suffering could have a significant effect on the abortion debate as well as abortion laws and practices.” I think that this fetus article could use a similar statement at the beginning. The facts of fetal development are relevant to the abortion debate. Perhaps that is why you continue to fill this discussion thread with accusations, falsities, and innuendo. In any event, this article should forthrightly say that it’s part of the abortion debate, which of course is tragic, but nevertheless true.

And I submit that "Distinct motor patterns" is not plain English. It is medical jargon. Fetuses do not have motors, so there is no need to use such jargon. Ordinary people will not understand it. But perhaps that is what you are aiming for. After all, the facts of fetal development have been recognized even by staunch abortion-rights supporters like Judith Jarvis Thompson as supporting the humanity and personhood of a fetus: “we shall probably have to agree that the fetus has already become a human person well before birth. Indeed, it comes as a surprise when one first learns how early in its life it begins to acquire human characteristics. By the tenth week, for example, it already has a face, arms and less, fingers and toes; it has internal organs, and brain activity is detectable.” I am not saying that these exact words should be included in this article. What I am saying is that we ought to speak in plain English, since this subject is of more than merely academic interest.

I agree with you that this article shouldn't be a battleground, and I regret that you insist on making it one.Ferrylodge 04:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Severa

Severa, you say you have "difficulty accepting that the inclusion of traits with emotional factors at the exclusion of more mundane traits wasn't a design". You are correct that I separated out less mundane facts from more mundane facts. That is because I do not think that the less mundane facts should be buried. I am not alone in this regard. I quoted above from a book by Peter Singer, in which he emphasizes fetal brain activity instead of nipple and hair follicle development. Surely, you can see that fetal brain activity and brain development is less mundane than fetal hair follicle development, can't you? And what is wrong with separating out some of the less mundane material and presenting it up front? Not only Peter Singer, but also Judith Jarvis Thompson have singled out certain fetal characteristics, and neither of them is pro-life. They simply recognize that some characteristics are more relevant than others to establishing the personhood or humanity of a fetus. You may want to bury information about fetal brain stem activity amidst details about nipple development and hair follicle development, but that would be a POV attempt to hide and deemphasize information that normal readers would find most relevant.Ferrylodge 04:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that some aspects of development are more important, significant to the average reader than others. However, when describing fetal development, we shouldn't cite political activists, ethicists, and philosophers like Singer and Thompson. We should be citing established, reliable medical texts. Using the former as sources is purposely framing that portion of the article within the abortion debate. Perhaps we could have a section on fetal personhood. We could let the activists and philosophers speak there, but that sort of content should not spill out into the medical aspects of the article. I don't want to see specifically pro-choice arguments in the development part of this article any more than I want to see specifically pro-life arguments in that section. But maybe what this article needs is those POVs in their own section (as suggested above, a section on personhood). How does that sound?-Andrew c 21:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

PS. We already have a small section on this. It could use expanding though.-Andrew c 21:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to use the section on "Legal Issues" to present info about fetal characteristics that may be indicative of humanity, personhood, or the like, then I would think the section should be renamed to something like "legal and moral issues". After all, it's not a "legal issue" if some ethicist says that a young pregnant woman should take certain factors into consideration before she gets a legal abortion.Ferrylodge 03:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

And perhaps the subsection on fetal pain should be made part of the renamed section on "Legal and Moral Issues."Ferrylodge 03:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, a section on "Legal and Moral Issues" might be too broad. How about, "Biological Facts of Legal or Moral Interest"? That way, the article could stick to biology, but have a section focussing on certain biological facts that some people find legally or morally significant.Ferrylodge 03:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC) I've instead added a subsection on "Condition at beginning of fetal stage" which seems to be the better solution. The other sections and subsections can focus on what medical students and doctors might be more interested in.Ferrylodge 07:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted this move because I found myself removing information that was not relevent to the "condition at the beginning". However, I felt that information was important and felt the previous structure worked better. I also removed your study that focused on embryonic cardiac structure in zebra fish. While that study may be important, they do not mention humans once, and the section you placed the info in was the human section. Perhaps we could reword it and place it in the non-human fetus section? I don't see how the creation of the 'beginning' section stemmed from our conversation discussing the political/ethical/philosophical view on the fetus. I think retitling the legal section to "legal and moral.." could be helpful yet, and we could always add more relevent information there. -Andrew c 14:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Andrew C., I suggest we take one thing at a time, since you have decided to revert most of the edits that I recently made. Let's start with the structure of the article. You and Tucker decided that you didn't like the idea of trying to separate out anatomy from physiology. I think that's an unjustified error, but I went along because I like to try to be cooperative. Now, you are also saying that you don't like the idea of trying to separate out the condition of the fetus at the beginning of the fetal stage from developments after that point. This time I will not go along, becuase I think that it is extremely counterproductive. You might as well structure the timeline so it covers week fifteen and then week eleven and then week twenty. I fervently wish that you would try to be reasonable, and not revert edits for no reason. Can't we at least have a subsection in the development section that is devoted to the condition at the beginning of the fetal stage? Is that really asking so much? Wasting all of this time and effort on what should be an extremely straightforward issue is not a wise use of my time or yours.Ferrylodge 16:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that you also continue to insist that the human heart is not "beating" at the beginning of the fetal stage, and instead is only "rhythmically contracting." Not one source has been cited for this distinction. There are literally tens of thousands of sources that say the human heart begins to "beat" in the embryonic stage, and yet I can find none that say it does not. Am I supposed to prove that no such sources exist, in order to restore the previous language in this article that the human heart is already "beating" at the beginning of the fetal stage? This is a perfect example of efforts to obscure, distort, and obfuscate scientific facts in pursuit of what very much appears to be a POV political agenda. As to when the heart begins to pump blood, I quoted an article from Science magazine that says: "The embryonic vertebrate heart begins pumping blood long before the development of discernable chambers and valves....The cardiovascular system is the first functional organ system to develop in vertebrate embryos. In its earliest stages, it consists of a primitive heart tube that drives blood through a simple vascular network." There is nothing in these sentences that limits them to Zebrafish, as Andrew C. contends, and instead these sentences are merely restating what is already known. Andrew C., do you have one single source that suggests these sentences do not apply to the human heart? Is not the human heart a vertebrate heart?Ferrylodge 17:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

1. The 'beating' issue was just a sloppy revert. I went out after my first edit and realized I had missed it and didn't get around to changing it back until now. I was hoping I would have made it back to my computer before you came back to the article, but alas.

2. The intro paragraphs to the development section basically are what you are suggesting, just without the headline, and just without moving it out of the developmental section. The first sentence currently is "When the fetal stage starts." I beleive the way we have it now flows into the timeline It mentions a few attributes that are there at the begining and discusses their development and then bridges into the more detailed timeline. Seperating them is odd because we talk about brain activity weeks and months into the fetal stage, we talk about movements that occur weeks into the fetal stage. You can look through the edit history, I tried to remove the content that dealt with things that occured after the fetal stage began, and I was deleting good information just because it didn't fall under your title. This lead me to believe the previous structure was more effectual and would keep relevent information grouped together. As I have always said, I personally am not opposed to the idea of a seperate anatomy and physiology section. We just need to make sure we aren't putting the wrong things under the wrong heading, such as size under physiology. That said, I personally believe its better to talk about the two concepts together. For example, why talk about the heart's size and development in one seciton, then talk about it's function in another section?

3.The zebra fish study. First of all, this is about embryonic development. The journal article is a primary source, focusing on the zebrafish. If this is such a common knowledge fact, I suggest going to a reliable, college level text on human embryology and finding that same information there to cite. I'd suggest "The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology." It has a whole chapter devoted to the cardiovascular system. But again, that chapter almost entirely deals with embryonic development of the heart. I personally feel like it is enough to say "All major structures... are already in place when the fetal stage begins". Adding that the heart has been beating is ok. Adding more information about the embryo's circulatory system from a primary source discussing zebrafish just seems out of place for multiple reasons. We have a whole section already about the fetal CV system. I believe I am being reasonable. I appreciate your efforts to improve this article and back things up with sources. But that doesn't mean I'll agree with every change. Please don't imply that I am being unreasonable because I removed one of your additions (and missed a few things in my revert). -Andrew c 18:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Andrew C., if I make reverts that are unreasonable, then you can call me on it. I would certainly prefer to be called "unreasonable", instead of being called a "bully" who is "freaking out" (as you have called me). Likewise, if you make an unreasonable edit, then I will call you on it. I cannot read your mind to know that you are being sloppy instead of unreasonable.

And speaking of being unreasonable, we were discussing whether the fetal heart is pumping blood at the beginning of the fetal stage. Tucker is the one who asserted that this is a significant issue, not me. But I agree it is interesting and relevant. If a fact is interesting and relevant, and is discussed in a prominent journal like Science magazine, then you say that's inadequate, if the same fact is not mentioned in a "college level text." That is a very unreasonable bias, IMHO. If you look at the abortion article, you will find dozens of footnotes that are not referencing college level texts. College level texts are directed to pre-med students, and focus on aspects of fetal biology that are especially relevant to the practice of medicine. In contrast, there are many aspects of fetal biology that would be of special interest to a pregnant woman or to an average citizem, that pre-med students really wouldn't care about. I will not press right now for inclusion of the article in Science, since you have fixed your sloppy edit, but I will look into the question of fetal heart operation some more, and perhaps will find a source that you will find more "reliable" than Science magazine.

Regarding the intro paragraphs to the development section, there is stuff in there that occurs after the fetal stage has begun. Likewise, there is stuff later in the section about stuff that is already existing at the beginning of the fetal stage. I suggest that we use headings to clear up the confusion. I don't care if the headings go at the beginning of the development section or before the development section, but something should be done to distinguish between what is existing at the beginning of the fetal stage and what occurs later. This should not be requiring a long, elaborate discussion, IMHO.

You say: "Seperating them is odd because we talk about brain activity weeks and months into the fetal stage, we talk about movements that occur weeks into the fetal stage." Andrew C., again I respectfully submit that this is unreasonable. If there is info about brain activity at the start of the fetal stage, then that ought to come first in a subsection about conditions at the beginning of the fetal stage, and brain activity weeks and months later should come later in the timeline. If we're going to have a timeline, then why not use it?Ferrylodge 18:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, please explain to me what the sentence "the fetus begins to move in distinct motor patterns" conveys that the sentence "the fetus begins to move in distinct motor patterns" does not convey. I consider myself a fairly well-educated and intelligent person, but I have no idea. And is there any high school text in the United States that explains to a student what a "motor pattern" is?Ferrylodge 19:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Tucker

As I understand it, one of your primary reasons for merging sections on anatomy and physiology is that those sections used non-congruent terms, namely, days, weeks and months are used in the anatomy section without explicitly stating a starting point. I agree with you that this entire article would be much more clear if we would adopt either fertilization age or gestational age, and stick with it consistently. I would prefer fertilization age, since people usually say that the fetal state begins at 8 weeks. And, fertilization age is more fetus-centric than gestational (i.e. menstrual) age. But regardless of which time scheme is used, I think that’s an odd reason to merge sections on physiology and anatomy.

The other reason is that anatomy and physiology are so intertwined that, the way it was written before, there was much discussion of physiology ("beating", reports of movement describe physiological landmarks, the analogous anatomical terms would describe the shape of the heart, and the size of the muscles) in the anatomy and size section. It doesn't make sense, from an organizational standpoint, to separate them (even if it were to be done correctly). By merging them, the article became more clear to a casual reader, in my opinion

You are either mistaken, or intentionally misstating what the article said prior to your edits. If you look here you will see that the "beating" of the fetal heart was discussed in the physiology section, not the anatomy section. And you have yet to provide any reference regarding your distinction between a "beating" heart and a "rhythmically contracting" heart. The reference currently cited makes no such distinction.Ferrylodge 19:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I mistook the designations to be anatomy/size and physiology timeline, instead of physiology and size and anatomy timeline. My reasoning still holds true though.

Regarding a “beating” heart, you say that that term is misleading in two ways. First, you say that the image of a beating heart is “overly reminiscent of a developed beating heart, with associated emotional factors, when the structure itself only crudely approximates an adult heart.” Also, you say, the term "beating" suggests that the heart is functionally pushing blood through the body, when really at this stage the ventricles are just sacs, and the atria are connected. You say that the heart is contracting, but it's not really squeezing anything through.

Well, this is interesting stuff, and I suggest a subsection explaining these aspects of the fetal heart, with appropriate references. When does the fetal heart start pushing blood through the body? I think that would really be a fascinating thing to have in the article. When does the "beating" begin? I would urge you to please write a subsection along the lines you have described, with appropriate references. The present references say that the heart is beating at the beginning of the fetal stage.

PMID 10705210 (copy paste these numbers into pubmed to see the articles) shows evidence that the four chambers of the heart are only observable in 44% of 10 week feti. 1892198, 11117081 (graph on pg 130 shows tricuspid pk flow at 0 for wk 10), and 1713802 (again, extrapolate to the axis) show 10 weeks as the limit of measurable cardiac output. One of the problems here is that few investigators have bothered to collect data before week fifteen. 9538551 gives an account of some of the difficulties of measuring these things in the first place. Many of these sources do show a linear relationship between cardiac performance and time though, which is why I suggest extrapolation. I realize that I haven't proven my point, and I'm really not interested in wasting any more time on this. 10 weeks is, in my own final consideration, a grey area for appreciable cardiac output. My other objection to the word revolved around the term "beating" being POV; however, since the word is literally equivalent to my suggested term, I accept that either terminology is useable in this case.

It's not clear to me if this means weeks from the first day of last menstrual period, or weeks from fertilization.Ferrylodge 03:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The Pubmed abstract speaks in terms of "weeks of gestation" so I assume it means weeks from first day of last menstrual period. So, there is measurable cardiac output at the beginning of the fetal stage. Interesting. Thanks for the link.Ferrylodge 03:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the purpose of this article is to impart information. If some technical words are necessary for precision, then I would suggest plain English summaries. You criticize a quote that you say is “completely subjective.... So it has a face? My watch does too.” I’m not sure which quote you are referring to, but the article presently uses the word face only once: “The face is well-formed and develops a more human appearance”. That sentence was also in the version that you and Andrew C. produced. I did not write that sentence. So, I don’t feel like I should have to defend any sentence that you think is “completely subjective.”

There is a distinct difference between stating the presence of a face, and describing a face. Some would say that a 5 week embryo has a face, and the "head end" of an embryo does in fact have structures which resemble those of the human face. However the part that looks like a mouth turns into the trachea and neck, and the part that looks like the nose turns into the palate. The statement that you cite in the article could be more clear, but it is far better to describe the face (well formed) than do state it's existence. The phrase that I was discrediting was the one provided by you, in the above talk section.

Perhaps you could quote it sometime. Was it something that I was suggesting should be inserted into the article?Ferrylodge 19:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"I don’t think that the goal of making this article understandable --- rather than filled with jargon --- should be viewed as a POV issue. For example, one of the leading articles in history defending abortion rights said this: 'we shall probably have to agree that the fetus has already become a human person well before birth. Indeed, it comes as a surprise when one first learns how early in its life it begins to acquire human characteristics. By the tenth week, for example, it already has a face, arms and less, fingers and toes; it has internal organs, and brain activity is detectable.' This is ordinary language, and our article ought not go out if its way to avoid ordinary language."

As I previously said to Andrew C., "I am not saying that these exact words should be included in this article." This article presently says "The face is well-formed," and I agree with you that that is a better phrasing (still using ordinary language).Ferrylodge 04:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I do appreciate you coming here to work on the fetus article. I hope you will stay and help get it into better shape, e.g. by elaborating about the fetal heart and when it starts to beat. I hope you didn't take offense when I requested an explanation of your edits.Ferrylodge 05:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not offended, however I would encourage you to consider that your opinion of how this article should be written carries only the same import as my own, and that of Andrew C. It is clear that I am more knowledgeable when it comes to fetal development, anatomy, and physiology than you. It is also reasonable to assume that your political and moral views preclude you from approaching this topic objectively. Perhaps you will consider these things before erasing my efforts in the future. /_rekcut 18:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, Tucker, I don't see why my opinion should carry as much weight as your own, if it is clear (as you contend) that you are more knowledgeable when it comes to fetal development, anatomy, and physiology than I am, and if it is clear (as you contend) that I am precluded "from approaching this topic objectively." However, neither of those things is clear to me. What is clear to me is hardly printable here.Ferrylodge 19:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Your posts in general are just as important, Andrew. Indeed you probably have more experience writing in full sentences than I do. When it comes to organization and layman's terminology your input can be useful. I believe that my understanding of the discussed topics is superior, but an encyclopedic article takes more than just scientific knowledge./_rekcut 00:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, I want to commend you on how civil you were in the above. While I did sense a little sarcasm in your 2nd round of replies (which may be warranted when someone basically tells you your opinion isn't as important), your tone has improved and you don't come off as harsh and abrasive as in the past. Good work! I'm not opposed to having separate physiology and anatomy section, but we'll have to do better at keeping the right stuff in the right sections (size clearly belonged in anatomy). However, because there are grey areas between the disciplines, it may be more holistic to discuss them together. If we are having a hard time keeping the two concepts separate, how do you think your average reader will take that information? So while I wouldn't oppose have 2 well written split up sections, I personally favor the combination. We already have a section on fetal circulation, so perhaps we could add information on fetal heart development there? If the suggested information is true, the use of the word "beating" may be misleading, but we'll have to see what the sources say. If we start filtering our sources too much, it may run into original research. As for technical language, I think there is a fine line. We should be professional and not dumbed down, but avoid thick jargon. So "kidney function" instead of "renal function", but "abdomen" instead of "belly". I'm not exactly sure if there is a specific guideline, but I believe we should write on at least an upper high school level, and leave the plain talk for the Simple Misplaced Pages. Finally, I prefer gestational age because of the source I read that said always use gestational age. However, I have come across texts on fetal development that do use fertilization age. So I have my preference, but wouldn't oppose either (I would support making it clear which one is to be used, and then using it throughout). I think I touched on everything.-Andrew c 21:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Frustration

I would like to contribute to this page and make it more useful. However, the most obvious and basic points about how to write this article remain unresolved. There has been no agreement that this should be a main page for developmental info about the fetus, and that the prenatal development article should summarize what's at this article. This seems like a very easy point that could be agreed upon, and yet there has not yet been any agreement.

Nor has there been any agreement on the basic point that material about the condition of the fetus at the beginning of the fetal stage should be clearly presented as such, with a heading or subheading to that effect. This would make the article much more manageable.

Nor has there been agreement that there can be material in this article from sources other than college level texts. Not only pre-med students, but also ordinary citizens as well as young pregnant women can be expected to read this article. Many articles, such as the abortion article cite references other than college-level texts. Many ethicists and philosophers, including pro-choice ones like Peter Singer and Judith Thomson, have tended to mention aspects of fetal development that are not mentioned or stressed in pre-med textbooks, because those textbooks focus on information pertinent to medical treatment.

This article was previously structured in a way that distinguished between physiology and anatomy. That was changed, because one editor claimed that gestational age and fertilization age were being mixed up. Gestational age and fertilization age continue to be mixed up in this article, but of course that has nothing to do with any distinction between physiology and anatomy. The other main reason for dropping the distinction between physiology and anatomy was that the anatomy section contained info about the beating of the heart, but actually that info was properly in the physiology section. Anyway, I will not object to the insistence of some editors that this article not be structured to distinguish between anatomy and physiology, because it's not a huge issue affecting the clarity of the article. However, I would ask that we please agree to use fertilization age, with a link to info about gestational age.

So, if there is no objection, I will proceed on the basis that this will be the main article for developmental info about the fetus, and that the prenatal development article will summarize what's at this article. I will proceed on the basis that material about the condition of the fetus at the beginning of the fetal stage will be clearly presented as such, with a heading or subheading to that effect. I will proceed on the basis that material in this article can be from sources other than college level texts, with a preference for sources that are available online. I will proceed on the basis that the article will not be structured to distinguish between anatomy and physiology. And, I will proceed on the basis that we use fertilization age consistently, with a link to info about gestational age. I think it would also be helpful to proceed on the basis that medical jargon should not be used gratuitously, and I will do so.Ferrylodge 22:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

What age calculation to use: I think we should use gestational age because of a source we read that said use only gestational age. So I am going to revert back the age system to including both until we can come to consensus on this point (please, other editors, with 2 people in disagreement, we need more opinions).

The worst of all possible worlds would be to mix the two age systems in one article. Please, can't we tentatively just use one until a decision is made? If we use fertilization age for now, we can always switch to gestational age later. Mixing them together is just a recipe for confusion and errors, IMHO.Ferrylodge 07:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The main article issue: it is a tough situation. Should an article devoted to development be the main article (although it includes info on the first 8 weeks), or should an article devoted to the fetus, with one section out of 8 or so being devoted to development be the main article? I prefer to have the development article be the main article because it is only about development. We have a lot more to discuss here than just development. While it is true that the development article discusses more than just the fetus, it really only discusses 1 more topic. (again, we need more opinions here because 2 editors disagreeing gets us nowhere).

I have started an RfC below regarding the question of whether details about fetal devlopment should be summarized here or at the prenatal development article. I suggest we put everything else on hold until that is cleared up. Let's get resolution on one issue, instead of irresolution on every issue, okay?Ferrylodge 03:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The beginning of the fetal stage: I believe the current solution works well. It's included in the time line as the first step. It's tough because fetuses develop at different rates, and not everything is set in stone as to when it happens. We need to be careful about including information in the wrong section. The only downside to this is that it splits up information into different sections based on the timeline, which the physiology section could have solved (why talk about brain development and movement in 4 different section? I liked the version that kept that information together better).

Andrew C., as you know I supported a division into anatomy and physiology. You objected to it. You invited other editors here who backed you up on this point. So I caved in and said, okay, no separate sections for anatomy and physiology. Please, can't we just stay on one path for awhile? Constantly changing how you want the article structured makes it so much more difficult and time-consuming for me to work on the article.Ferrylodge 07:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

As for the reason behind deleting the physiology section, your summary is inaccurate. Your previous version not only because the ages were being mixed up, but because you had inaccurately separated the content, including anatomical information in the physiology section and vice versa, and because its more holistic to talk about the two concepts in conjunction (they compliment each other). But as I have said, I would not necessarily be opposed to creating these section, but we'd have to be much more careful about keeping things separate.

If you would carefully review the matter, you would realize that I did not inaccurately separate content. Your friend Tucker claimed that I had put information about the beating of the fetal heart in the anatomy section instead of physiology section. He later admitted that I did put it in the physiology section: "I mistook the designations to be anatomy/size and physiology timeline, instead of physiology and size and anatomy timeline." Please get your facts straight, Andrew C.Ferrylodge 07:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Andrew H., please don't tell me to get my fact straight. Tucker's mistake has nothing to do with my assessment. You put size, clearly an anatomical consideration, under the physiology section. You put information on quickening (the mother's POV) and info on abortion/feticide in the physiology section as well. Then there was information about physiology in the 'anatomy' section, but you didn't write that section, just labeled it (incorrectly), so I won't dwell on that matter.-Andrew c 02:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are referring to me, I insist that you use my screen name. The discussion is very difficult to follow when two different names are used for one person. And, yes, I will tell you to get your facts straight. How many times have you already apologized to me for getting your facts wrong? I did not inaccurately separate any content. Quickening obviously has nothing to do with anatomy, and has everything to do with movement of the fetus, and so is more appropriate in a physiology section than in an anatomy section. To say otherwise is incredibly absurd. As for the issue of "size", Andrew C., there are dozens of reputable books online that distinguish between size and anatomy. It’s similar to the distinction between size and shape; surely you understand that size is not an aspect of shape? Many authors do not treat size as an aspect of anatomy. And, I did not put size "under the physiology section" as you falsely claim. I put size under the "size and physiology section." Do you understand the difference?Ferrylodge 03:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I refuse to respond to that. Please do not take that patronize tone with me.-Andrew c 01:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Is that better?Ferrylodge 08:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are so concered for medical jargon, why did you introduce the list of "asphyxia, hypothermia, polycythemia, hypocalcemia, immune dysfunction, neurologic" and then the term "primiparity"? I personally do not think this is problematic (well maybe primiparity because it isn't wikilinked), I just wanted to see why you are so down on medical jargon when you put a bunch of it in the article? I think the article is basically fine with its word use, so do you see any existing 'jargon' issues that need to be cleared up, or is this just something we should keep in mind for the future?

Again, please get your facts straight. What on Earth makes you trump up the notion that I introduced the list of "asphyxia, hypothermia, polycythemia, hypocalcemia, immune dysfunction, neurologic" into this article? Why are you just making stuff up about me? I didn't insert those terms into the article. If jargon is going to be used, it should be explained at first use, and in that regard the present article is vastly in need of improvement.Ferrylodge 07:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize. I misread a diff. That text came up red in one diff where it was not read in the previous column. I hope that explains why I was 'making stuff up about' you.-Andrew c 02:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Finally, sourcing. Look at the abortion article, sources 10-33 (the ones for the medical section). The majority of them are medical sources. There are a few newspaper articles. But it is clear that medical sources are defining the medical section. I believe also the same should apply here. This is not to say we are banning other POV. We just need to create sections about the personhood of the fetus, and the legal issues associated with the fetus, and put the other POV there. I see no reason to mix in political issues with the biology stuff. Keep it separate. Does that make sense?

Look at the RfC below. There is no "POV" in this article. If we're going to have a timeline of development, then it should be completely factual, and should include biological facts of interest to surgeons and obstetricians as well as biological facts of interest to ordinary pregnant women and ordinary citizens. I see reason to provide one timeline for the former group, and another timeline for the latter group.Ferrylodge 07:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

So Gingko100, PubliusFL, and yourself think there is no POV, and Severa, Citicat, and myself think there is, I wouldn't be so hasty in claiming that there IS NO POV in this article.-Andrew c 02:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up the standing issues you have with this article, and hopefully we can all work together to address these things and get this article rolling.-Andrew c 23:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Andrew C., I will respond to your many points soon. In the mean time, this article has just been through an RfC and found to be accurate and without POV. Therefore, I would appreciate if you would leave the article basically as it is until I have had a chance to respond to your many comments. I believe you are incorrect on numerous points, as I will explain shortly.Ferrylodge 23:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC) I have briefly responded above in italics.Ferrylodge 07:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

I posted a {{neutrality}} tag on this article, feeling that the already existing discussion would be enough of an explanation. Ferrylodge removed the tag citing I did not cite what I felt was factually incorrect. So, I'll give an explaination as to why I put the tag on. I feel that Ferrylodge has and continues to use this page to further his own agenda on abortion. His feelings on the subject can be seen in this article and this one both of which have been authored by him. I see his focus on this article as showing a fetus as a person at as early a gestational age as possible. He will delete edits which conflict with his. As he has made 216 edits on the main article and 101 edits on this talk page, I cannot quickly summarize every change he has made and every debate his has entered. I do not necessarily say that Ferrylodge has entered any incorrect information, and I am not stating what his exact position on the abortion debate is, only that his edits on this page are not WP:NPOV. Again, this tag only asserts that the article may not be neutral in it's viewpoint, not that any information is factually incorrect. Citicat 02:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Citicat, it is very telling that you point to not one single edit or group of edits that I have made at this Misplaced Pages article. Instead you resort to pointing at things that I may have written entirely apart from Misplaced Pages. I'm sure that if I knew your real name, and had access to all of your writings, I might find something that demonstrates you have opinions about a lot of things, perhaps even including an opinion about abortion. However, such writings of yours would be virtually irrelevant to whether you insert your personal POV into Misplaced Pages articles.

The only thing you say that comes close to being a plausible grounds for criticism of my work on this article is this: "I see his focus on this article as showing a fetus as a person at as early a gestational age as possible." If there is medically and biologically accurate information that tends strongly to support fetal personhood from the beginning of the fetal stage, then I am against suppressing it. If that information is deleted, then I will restore it. Ordinary people are interested in this type of information. Even prominent pro-choice supporters like Peter Singer and Judith Jarvis Thomson have cited this exact type of info, when discussing when a fetus should be considered as having rights or personhood. They are not afraid of the facts.

The abortion controversy should be based on accurate facts, and I am very troubled by your suggestion that facts should be suppressed at Misplaced Pages if they tend to show a fetus has qualities of personhood at an early gestational age.

Because you have not attempted to "clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why", the tag is not appropriate.Ferrylodge 02:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The point is when I have a strong feeling about a subject, I either avoid editing articles on that subject, or try to stay as neutral as possible. You probably will not believe me, but I do not have a strong problem with your position. I don't agree exactly, but again, that's not the point. I also feel when you edit an article such as Roe vs. Wade, people reading the article would expect that points of view likely will be expressed. However, people reading this article are looking for scientific information, and will treat the article as fact. The main stated fact I feel may be questionable is the start of brain-stem activity. The book you site (Rethinking life & death: the collapse of our traditional ethics) is not written by a scientist, but by a philosopher. I am not saying the fact is wrong, but arguable. Also I would question the inclusion of the "fetal pain" section. The article even mentions the subject is controversial, and I would think the only reason for its inclusion is to influence people against abortion. Anyway, maybe I'm wrong. I won't restore the tag for now, instead I will look for consensus from other individuals. Citicat 03:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

CitiCat, Peter Singer is a world-famous bioethicist at Princeton University. Moreover, he is not only pro-choice, but pro-infanticide as well. You're saying that I inserted info from his book to slant the facts in a pro-life direction? You'll have to do better than that. Facts are facts. Singer thinks that the facts are significant, and I do too.

Regarding the section on fetal pain, there is an article titled fetal pain. Are you saying that this fetus article should not mention the fetal pain article? Another editor started the description of pain in this article (see here). It was expanded from there. The ability of a fetus to feel pain is just as interesting biologically as any other aspect of a fetus, and perhaps more so. The discussion here is very brief, and merely summarizes info from the main article.Ferrylodge 06:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Coming from RfC, I don't think Citicat has justified use of the tag. I'm not making any comment on whether or not the tag is appropriate, but I do think Citicat needs to do more to justify its use. On the other hand, editors should be careful not to hastily remove the tage just because they don't think the article is POVish. I'm making no accusations, just speaking generally! I recommend editors do their best to figure out what the objections are and address them (perhaps just by explaining consensus) *before* removing the tag. Gnixon 16:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Requests for comment

I am commenting in response to the request made by Citicat. I have read only the two sections of the talk page above this, but already it appears problematic that Citicat wants to declare another editor's edits as "POV" without any specific explanations. Not every edit needs to be cited, but a representative few are absolutely necessary for all editors to examine in arriving at an NPOV consensus. Until the POV edits are specifically pointed out, I oppose placement of a {{npov}} tag. --Ginkgo100 03:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't followed the above discussion yet, but, I'd be willing to second Citicat's NPOV concerns. I think the POV issues in this article are rather subtle, but still a definite issue, so it will take us a little time to lay it all out. -Severa (!!!) 03:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I will mention onePOV concern, which is the size of the illustration, intended to immediately give an emotional effect. The human hand does serve to indicate the size, but so would a ruler. . DGG 04:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

An adult human hand is a POV problem? If the size of that photo is decreased, the already-small image of the fetus would be barely discernable, and the extra space created (to the right of the table of contents) would merely be blank. Respectfully, I do not think the photo is a POV problem. An adult hand is just as NPOV as a ruler, IMHO.Ferrylodge 05:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a note on that photo - It was uploaded to the net by Bill Davenport who is the exectutive director of the Valley Care Pregnancy Center, an organization devoted to preventing pregnant women from having abortions. Make of that what you will. Citicat 06:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it was uploaded by me with Davenport's permission, after I came across the picture here. And I support the right of a woman to get a safe and legal abortion for whatever reason she chooses up until the fetal stage. And Peter Singer (whom you think should not be cited in this article) thinks abortion should be completely legal for all nine months. All of which is completely and entirely irrelevant. Please, CitiCat, try to stick to the article and facts presented therein, instead of trying to use innuendo. Thank you.Ferrylodge 06:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You misread my statement. I said it was uploaded to the net (as in internet), not to Misplaced Pages, by Davenport. The is a question as to whether this picture was placed here for psychological impact, and I feel the source of the photo may be relevant to the discussion. Citicat 12:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

(Undent) A picture of a plastic model of a fetus isn't helpful to the article, especially since it's not a particularly good model. Ceci n'est pas un foetus. The hand gives no sense of dimension, is distracting (especially given that my eye is drawn to the shiny, gold wedding band, not the model), and, frankly, the undertones of the composition are something which one might expect to find on a poster or on the cover of a pamphlet. In short, it isn't encyclopaedic.
If you can compare the version of the article from 05:26, 9 December 2006, before Ferrylodge began editing this article, to the current article, you can see the dramatic changes which have occurred since. The particular points of NPOV concern in this article have been noted in detail by several users, including myself, Andrew c, and Citicat, and have been noted above (parts of it which are now in Archive 1), but here's a summary:

• Wording in the "Development" section was, at one time, copied verbatim from a blog post written by Ferrylodge on an advocacy site (see thread, "Recent content").
• The content in "Development" diverges significantly from that at the article fetal development and could be perceived as a POV fork (see thread, "Recent content")
• "Development" is composed of a motley assortment of sources, many of them non-academic, when citing one college-level text book would be a lot better (see thread, "Recent content").
• Certain traits in "Development" seem to have been intentionally selected to convey a specific point. -Severa (!!!) 16:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Severa, I will address your points briefly, because they do not require much response. You previously deleted an image at the top of the fetus page of an actual preserved human fetus. Now you are deleting an image of a precise replica. Your ground is that there is a ring in the image that you find distracting. Others can decide for themselves if you are simply being contrarian. The idea that the adult in the photo should have first removed his wedding ring is silly.

You say that some previous material in the development section (that is no longer present!) was "copied verbatim" from elsewhere. I don't appreciate the insinuation of plagiarism. The material in question consisted of some references (i.e. books and articles) that I encountered at the library while researching fetal development. The mere fact that I mentioned those references online elsewhere before mentioning them online here is not relevant to anything.

You say that the content in "Development" diverges significantly from that at the fetal development article (which was renamed prenatal development). You are the person who said: “I'd suggest developing Zygote, Embryo, and Fetus to include more detailed information on these stages, and then using fetal development as a top-tier hub to summarize those sub-articles.” See here.

You say "Development" is composed of a motley assortment of sources, many of them non-academic. This is absurd. There are at least a dozen highly respected textbooks referenced and linked. If you look at the abortion article which is your main accomplishment here at Misplaced Pages, the sources used in the fetus article stand up just fine. You apparently are not happy with some of the facts presented in the fetus article, and therefore you are criticizing the sources.

Finally, you say that certain traits in "Development" seem to have been intentionally selected to convey a specific point. That is false. All of the traits discussed in "Development" were selected to convey reality, to provide people information that will be of interest to them. That includes info about some traits that various authors (including famous pro-choice authors like Peter Singer and Judith Jarvis Thomson) see as particularly relevant to currently controversial issues like fetal personhood. I don't think facts should be suppressed here.Ferrylodge 17:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

On your last paragraph, this issue is related to NPOV's undue weight section. The idea is that a college level text, summarizing fetal development in the amount of space we have here at wikipedia would mention facts X through Z. If we were to mention more obscure fact not mentioned in X through Z, we would be giving them undue weight. If activists and philosophers think certain facts are more important than others, we can discuss that, but in a section on their opinions, not in the basic development section. This isn't a matter of suppressing facts, its a matter of qualifying and substantiating POVs, and keeping corresponding information in the appropriate sections. "Conveying reality" and interesting our reader aren't the only criteria for inclusion. Because you have specific opinions about the significance of the beginning of the fetal stage, we should be conscious of how important the information really is that you personally find significant. This is why I asked an uninvolved editor familiar with more scientific articles to examine this article. And I'd ask that the uninvolved editors who came here on the RfC to also consider this when reading the development section. I echo Severa's concerns, personally, but generally feel we are in the process of working towards a decent article.-Andrew c 02:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Also coming to this article from the RfC, I have to agree with Gingko100 at this point. I'm having a hard time seeing a PoV in the article, despite the clear PoV of the editor. Also, how does it help the article to have the same picture twice? PubliusFL 18:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Reversion of Photo

I would appreciate if other editors would please comment on the image here that Severa keeps reverting. She also accuses me, in her most recent edit summary, of dismissing objections of CitiCat and DGG, of being uncivil, of edit-warring, et cetera.

Look, I edited the size of the picture to address the concerns raised by DGG. CitiCat only mentioned the source of the photo, rather than the photo itself. Severa previously deleted an image at the top of the fetus page of an actual preserved human fetus. I went to considerable time and effort to find a replacement photo of an exact replica.

Severa's criticism of the photo is this:

"A picture of a plastic model of a fetus isn't helpful to the article, especially since it's not a particularly good model. Ceci n'est pas un foetus. The hand gives no sense of dimension, is distracting (especially given that my eye is drawn to the shiny, gold wedding band, not the model), and, frankly, the undertones of the composition are something which one might expect to find on a poster or on the cover of a pamphlet. In short, it isn't encyclopaedic."

If a photo of a preserved fetus is not acceptable, why can't a photo of a replica be acceptable? The hand absolutely does give a sense of dimension, and to say otherwise is not credible. And to suggest that the adult in the photo should have removed his wedding ring is frivolous. I would appreciate further comments of other editors, because this is becoming extremely frustrating for me. Thanks.Ferrylodge 19:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The coloration of the model seems off, at the least. What's wrong with the preserved one? Too gruesome? Adam Cuerden 20:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the preserved one. Some thought it was gruesome. Incidentally, the coloration of the preserved one is very similar to the coloration of the replica, although I realize that it is possible a live or dead 8-week fetus could have somewhat different coloration from that shown in the replica (e.g. veins could be visible). The size and shape of the replica are exact.Ferrylodge 20:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Some kind of photo would definitely add to the article. It looks strange that Blastocyst and Embryo should have photographs of the subjects of the articles, but Fetus just has 16th and 19th century drawings. The nice thing about the photo of the model is that it gives an idea of scale. I can see the point about the model being held in the palm of a man's hand gives the image something of an emotional dimension -- a ruler would be better, but I don't know where to find an image like that. If consensus is that the image of the model is unacceptable, I think a photograph of an early-stage embryo fetus (typo) in utero should be added to the article. PubliusFL 22:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

My two cents: the hand photo is pretty bad. Because it is an inexact model with little detail, the only encyclopedic purpose of the image is to show scale. There are more neutral ways to show scale, as others have suggested. I believe saying it with words is best "When the fetal stage commences, a human fetus is typically about 30 mm (1.2 inches) in length". We do not need an image to illustrate that concept. The POV issues raised by others associated with the image outweight the encyclopedic value in my mind. That said, I will suggest a compromise. When I get around a computer that has photoshop (probably later tonight), I'll crop out the hand, and insert a ruler showing the size is roughly 30mm. Would that be acceptable to those who want the image included?-Andrew c 00:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I just find this ridiculous. Why is a human hand POV? Has anyone suggested that the hand in the ejaculation article is POV? Why must everything be a battle at this article?Ferrylodge 01:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You inserted text verbatim from your pro-life website, and it was controversial to say the least. Now you insert an image from a pro-life source, and its controversial again. Maybe everything will stop being a 'battle' when content comes from less partisan sources. Anyway, could you answer my question please? Under the assumption that this image is objectable and that removing the hand with photoshop and inserting a ruler would get these critics to pipe down, would you accept that as a compromise solution to this conflict?-Andrew c 01:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Andrew C., you have not even made the slightest attempt to answer the first two questions that I asked: Why is a human hand POV? Has anyone suggested that the hand in the ejaculation article is POV?

Instead, you make despicable insinuations of plagiarism, without providing any links to the material I inserted into this article. I inserted perfectly respectable footnotes into this article, including works by Jerome Lejeune and Lennart Nilsson, and only removed them so that I (like Neville Chamberlain) could appease you. These are reputable authors, whose work I read in a library before quoting tham at a blog that is not "pro-life". I have already stated at this discussuion page that I support a woman's right to abortion for whatever reason she chooses, prior to the fetal stage. I would appreciate if you would cease your bald-faced lies and slander, and I challenge anyone to look carefully at what you've said and conclude that you have not been lying and slandering me. Thank you in advance.Ferrylodge 02:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

And in case it wasn't abundantly clear, the answer to your question is, no it would not be acceptable to me if you crop out the hand and insert a ruler. Why don't you go crop out the hand at the ejaculation page?Ferrylodge 03:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

(un-dent) This sounds like an opportunity perhaps to move forward and gain consensus - or failing that, to understand why consensus is lacking. Ferrylodge, you have stated repeatedly on this page that the intent of the image is to allow the reader to judge the size of the fetus. So, what is it that you find unnaceptable about an image of a model fetus and a ruler? Would it be acceptable if it were a real fetus? Is it the editing of the image that you object to? SheffieldSteel 04:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Outside view

This is my opinion, for what it's worth, in response to further request for comment. I think the most encyclopedic order of photographs would be to start with the Gray's drawing, then the preserved fetus (but please caption with the gestational age), then the fetus model, and finally the Da Vinci drawing. The last two could easily be switched. I prefer not to open with the preserved fetus because while Misplaced Pages is not censored, the opening photo should not be overly graphic. Also, it would be best to replace the fetus model with another illustration, preferably a photo of a real (not model) fetus, with an emotionally neutral scale such as a ruler. However, until one is available (and it may already be either here or on the Commons), I think it serves a purpose. --Ginkgo100 22:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the further comments. Wikimedia does not say the age of the preserved fetus, so I do not know what age to attribute to he/she/it. Also, I do not think that a photo of an "an early-stage embryo in utero" would be appropriate here at a page involving fetuses instead of embryos. However, I do agree with PubliusFL and Ginkgo100 that the photo of the replica (held in the hand) could usefully be placed lower on the page (leaving the drawing at the top), at least until a photo is found of either a dead fetus or a replica alongside a ruler. If there are no objections, I will do that.Ferrylodge 22:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that was a typo. I meant an early-stage fetus in utero -- I confused myself with the comparison to the blastocyst and embryo articles. I agree with Ginkgo100's comments about the order of the images. PubliusFL 23:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say that a picture of an adult hand has no place on this page. Either find a neutral image, or just cut it. It is relatively easy, after all, to write a sentence of the form, "at X weeks the fetus is Y inches long and weighs Z ounces." Rather less than a thousand words. SheffieldSteel 02:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The article currently has pictures of five hands, four of them being the hand of a fetus, and one the hand of an adult. The hand of the adult is for purposes of comparing the size. Why is the hand of an adult unacceptable, SheffieldSteel? We could probably replace all of the three images with written descriptions, but would that really be helpful?Ferrylodge 02:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

(undent)Glossing over the (surely irrelevant) issue of images of fetal hands... When I look at that picture, I see the hand of a white, male, married adult. I do not see any "help" in judging the size of the fetus model. I assume you are not aware that adult hands vary widely in size, and thus do not make particularly accurate rulers. These considerations, coupled with the provenance of the image, lead me towards the position that a more neutral image should be found. SheffieldSteel 03:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok here is what I have come up with: Image:Image-Lifesize8weekfetus-edit.JPG Is this better than the hand? Please comment.-Andrew c 04:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks good to me. Fetus + ruler = size. But see my question above. SheffieldSteel 04:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I think the quality is very poor, so I cannot support insertion of that image into the article. I would also like to know, Andrew c, why you haven't answered my questions: Why is a human hand POV? Has anyone suggested that the hand in the ejaculation article is POV?

I just think this whole thing is incredibly trivial and silly. Yes, the image apparently includes the hand of a "white, male, married adult". So what? Your implication is that the photo would have been fine if the white, male, married adult had instead taken the photograph in the hand of his black, female adopted daughter. This is all completely and utterly irrelevant.Ferrylodge 04:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Why this obsession with ejaculation? The analogy is poor. One reason why a hand might appear in an ejaculation photograph should be reasonably obvious. There is no reason why a hand should appear in a picture of a fetus.

A picture of a real fetus is preferable to a picture of a model. A picture showing an absolute illustration of scale is preferable to one which gives a vague idea of scale. The onus is on the editor(s) supporting inclusion of disputed material to justify it, not on the editor(s) supporting removal. Considering that this section is under the heading of Request For Comment, and initiated by Ferrylodge, it is rather surprising that Ferrylodge has disputed so many of the comments that have actually been made. Apparently only Ferrylodge is insisting that the contentious image must stay. Therefore Ferrylodge ought to make an argument as to why this particular image and no other should be used here. SheffieldSteel 15:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have already followed the advice of the other commenters here, by reducing the size of the photo, by moving it lower on the page, and by inserting a caption to clarify that detailed coloring is not shown. I had no problem with the photo that we previously had of a preserved fetus, but others found it gruesome (plus its age was not known). Therefore, I obtained an image of an exact replica of an 8-week fetus. I agree that a picture of a real fetus is preferable to a picture of a model, but a pic of a dead fetus has already given rise to objections, and a pic of a live fetus in utero would give no sense of its size. That leaves the option of a pic of a replica, and the pic I provided gives an excellent idea of scale, especially in combination with the precise written description in the article.

SheffieldSteel, why do you have an obsession with the fact that the hand belongs to a "white, male, married adult"? Why is that worse than any other kind of hand?

If you prefer not to discuss ejaculation, then I could look for other Misplaced Pages articles having images that include hands, and we could discuss why it would be absurd to crop out those hands. Currently, no such articles come to mind, and you have mentioned none. It seems that the hand in that ejaculation image is meant to counteract the force of gravity, and the adult hand in the fetus pic is performing a similar non-POV function.Ferrylodge 16:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This came from Ginkgo100's usertalk page:

:It looks good to me. I think it is much more neutral. Personally, I liked the hand image, but this is Misplaced Pages, not my own website.

— Ginkgo100 22:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

-Andrew c 23:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that a photo (even if it were of good quality) of a replica of a fetus next to ruler adds anything to the article. The article already gives the length of an 8-week fetus in inches an millimeters. If the fetus-in-hand photo is rejected, then I suggest we have no photo of a replica, for now. The purpose of the fetus-in-hand photo was to show a comparison with an adult, just as we have written material comparing the circulatory systems of fetuses compared to adults.

Regarding that photo of the fetus-in-hand, I cannot strongly enough object to the comments made by some on this talk page that it matters that the adult is white (instead of black), and that the adult is married (instead of single or gay), and that the photo evokes an emotional response (which many factual photos at Misplaced Pages properly evoke), and that an "adult" hand has no place at a fetus article (the fetus article already has sections comparing adults to fetuses), and that the occupation or POV of the person who took the picture somehow matters.Ferrylodge 00:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely with the first paragraph. We say a fetus is around 30 mm at 8 weeks. Having a small image of a rough plastic mock up doesn't help. I was trying to compromise. I too personally prefer not having the image at all, but because group A found the hand controversial and group B thought the image was ok but a ruler instead of a hand would be more encyclopedic, I acted on their suggestion. To me, it is a spectrum. Not having the image is better than my compromise which is better than the full hand image. To you, it seems like you are saying that the compromise is worse than not having the image. I'm not sure where we go from here. I think in the long run we can all agree that we just need to get better images period. And the article can probably be ok without an image until that happens.-Andrew c 03:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Neither the written statement about the size of an 8-week fetus, nor the written statement about the 8-week fetus having various structures present, adequately conveys those concepts. There is absolutely no harm in illustrating those concepts, along with a comparison to adult size. The illustration gets across those statements in a way that the written word does not. The evidence is that so many here had an emotional response to the illustration but not to the written statements.Ferrylodge 23:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverting Re. Breathing of Amniotic Fluid

Andrew C., you have recently edited the article to insert the following italicized language:

"The breathing-like movement of the fetus is necessary for stimulation of lung development, rather than for obtaining oxygen or intake of amniotic fluid into the lungs. REF: Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, Preterm Birth: Causes, Consequences, and Prevention (2006)."

The cited source says the exact opposite of what you say it says: "Fetal breathing movements begin as early as 10 weeks of gestation, and the breathing of amniotic fluid in and out is essential for the stimulation of lung development." You are incorrect to say that breathing-like movements are not necessary for intake of amniotic fluid.

I previously reverted this exact same false language, here. I explained in the edit summary: “according to cited source, breathing-like movements bring amniotic fluid into lungs”. Instead of responding to that explanation, you simply revert without explanation.

Because you have reverted without explanation, I ask you to please explain next time. In the mean time, I will delete the incorrect language about amniotic fluid that you have reinserted.Ferrylodge 00:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You make so many edits to this article, you can't blame me when I don't go through and see the diff for every single one of your edits. I'm sorry I missed your commentary about the amniotic fluid. I had just assumed that it was deleted in a sloppy revert (you know what they say about those who assume...) Anyway, the reason why I used that language is because of Prechtl, Moreover, breathing movements do not lead to an influx of amniotic fluid into the fetal lungs. So now we have a case of conflicting sources. Well, actually, Prechtl was the source for both statements. The one from the Butterworth/Harris text is in reference to a 15 week fetus, where the one from the Kalverboer/Gramsbergen text is in reference to a 10 week fetus. So perhaps we should insert some time information, or mention that the breathing movement emerges before the actual intake of fluid into the lungs? What are your (or anyone else's) thoughts?-Andrew c 23:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The development section of this article currently says nothing about intake of amniotic fluid. If you think it's important to mention intake of amniotic fluid, then go ahead, as long as you're accurate. However, I am curious why you would like to insert such info into this article, rather than into the prenatal development article. You have insisted that the prenatal development article contain a detailed timeline, and that this article merely summarize that article.Ferrylodge 01:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, you inserted the reference to begin with. I was just editing your edit. Would you have rather me just removed any new content you add and said "Take it to the development article"? I'm trying to work with you. In this case, I read your text, read the source, and made some adjustments. And you came back and made some adjustments, and added new sources, and its been a back and forth (generally to positive results). -Andrew c 01:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Andrew C., I never put anything into this article about intake of amniotic fluid, did I?Ferrylodge 02:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Will This Article Be the Main Article for Fetal Development?

This article has reached an impasse, and further work here is impossible without input from more editors. Previously, user Severa said to me: "I'd suggest developing Zygote, Embryo, and Fetus to include more detailed information on these stages, and then using prenatal development as a top-tier hub to summarize those sub-articles" (actually she said "fetal development" but that's since been renamed to prenatal development). I also think Severa's suggestion was excellent, regardless of what she may think about the issue now. It makes excellent sense to make this article the main article for fetal development, and then summarize developmental info from this article over at the prenatal development article.

Therefore, at this talk page, I wrote: "So, if there is no objection, I will proceed on the basis that this will be the main article for developmental info about the fetus, and that the prenatal development article will summarize what's at this article."

I proceeded on this basis, putting a lot of work into the present article (though a lot remains to be done), and then a couple days later Andrew C. objects at this talk page:

"The main article issue: it is a tough situation. Should an article devoted to development be the main article (although it includes info on the first 8 weeks), or should an article devoted to the fetus, with one section out of 8 or so being devoted to development be the main article? I prefer to have the development article be the main article because it is only about development. We have a lot more to discuss here than just development. While it is true that the development article discusses more than just the fetus, it really only discusses 1 more topic. (again, we need more opinions here because 2 editors disagreeing gets us nowhere)."

This is extremely frustrating. If such a basic issue cannot be resolved, then this article is a complete waste of my time. I look forward to input from other editors. We do have a lot more to discuss at the present article than just development, but development is the bulk of what we have to discuss here. Why put the primary info about fetal development at a page that also covers the development of the zygote and embryo? Either way this is resolved, it must be resolved, or else writing this article will continue to be a total nightmare. Thank you.Ferrylodge 00:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the natural place to discuss prenatal development would be in prenatal development. What would be the purpose of that article otherwise? SheffieldSteel 01:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The idea is that prenatal development would summarize the more detailed content contained in zygote, blastocyst, embryo, and fetus. It would be like a time line with 4 stages summarized and spinout articles for the more in depth details of each individual stage. -Andrew c 02:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Understood. It does make sense to break the development into four articles, then. That will allow more space to go into detail in each one. SheffieldSteel 02:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well that could work if we had an article about fetal development, and embryo development, etc. However, the fetus article covers so much more than just development that I personally favor the "prenatal development" article being the more detailed article, and the fetus, embryo etc articles containing the summary. -Andrew c 02:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

In answer to request for comment, would make sense to split all pre-natel development into its own article - if that becomes too big, then have sub-articles on that for the four stages. This article on Fetus should not cover development in too much depth - have a section with a paragraph or two summarising it, and link to development article.Cheers Lethaniol 13:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Coming here from RfC. I'd really recommend either moving this article to "Fetus (human)" or removing the long section on development in human fetuses and adding much more general information. As things stand now, the info in the article that is relevant to "Fetus" doesn't justify anything more than a stub. Just my 2 cents. Good luck! Gnixon 22:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that, if anything should be removed from this article and moved to a separate article, it would be the non-human stuff rather than the human stuff.Ferrylodge 02:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I really don't understand that. "Fetus" is a much more general topic than "Fetus (human)," and there's practically nothing in this article except information about human fetuses and their development. For example, it'd be interesting to know what generally defines "fetus" for other animals. Do fetuses generally have a certain amount of morphological similarity to their adult form, compared to embryos that do not? Gnixon 02:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

All I meant is that "fetus" is not only a much more general topic than "Fetus (human)," but is also a much more general topic that "Fetus (non-human)". That raises the question whether it would be better to create a new additional article titled "Fetus (human)" or a new additional article titled "Fetus (non-human)", or both, or neither. As between the first two options, I would think that a new additional article on "Fetus (non-human)" would be more appropriate, since most people looking for info about "fetus" would be looking for info about the human fetus rather than the non-human fetus. The article "Fetus (non-human)" could examine whether various other species have a certain amount of morphological similarity to their adult forms.Ferrylodge 02:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed sentence

I pulled this out of the article:-

Fetal growth can be terminated by various factors, including miscarriage, feticide committed by a third party, or abortion chosen by the pregnant woman.

My main reason was that I don't think it's really necessary to point out that since a fetus is alive, it can die. Secondly, the text uses rather muddy logic (miscarriage can occur for several reasons, including abortion). Finally, the presence of an actual link to feticide seems rather telling - it might be seen as an attempt to provoke an emotional response.

I don't think Misplaced Pages has a page, for example, stating that a newborn child's growth can be terminated by various means, including Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, infanticide, or drug overdose. SheffieldSteel 01:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, how many assumptions can you see in the phrase, "abortion chosen by the pregnant woman" ? SheffieldSteel 01:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this sentence is pretty weird. But I ask you to look at Infant#Infant mortality. They do not mention infanticide, or say that infants could be murdered, but it does mention real issues associated with infant mortality and SIDS. If we were to parallel that article, we could remove the sections about human caused death. The "Variation in growth" section basically says everything we need to say regarding this matter.-Andrew c 02:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies if I gave the wrong impression. I didn't mean to imply that there was no page that detailed infant mortality; rather that it would be unusual for a page on infant development (or the development of other life-forms, for that matter) to list selected causes of death in such a way. Sorry again if I caused offence. SheffieldSteel 04:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I am going to reinsert the sentence back into the article. I agree that it could possibly be removed improved by rewording it, and I urge SheffieldSteel to take a crack at rewording it. But I don't think an adequate reason has been given for completely deleting it. According to Misplaced Pages policy, "If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly." You have not asserted that the sentence in question contains no valid information. And, it seems to me that it is valid for an article on this subject to mention the ways in which fetuses can (and very often do) fail to reach a live birth. Also, if feticide is mentioned, why not link to it? Abortion is linked, but you don't object to that. And, if you don't think that the phrase "abortion chosen by the pregnant woman" is worded properly then try something else, such as: "abortion chosen by the mother" or "induced abortion" or something else that you find more palatable.Ferrylodge 05:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that this sentence should be moved to the "Variation in growth" section. We mention "Maternal, Placental, and Fetal". The 3 things in this sentence all seem to fall under the "external" banner. Maybe we could mention that (however, a citation would be nice because this is moving into the realm of OR, if it isn't already there). I would propose after moving the sentence, replacing it with a more generalized sentence about "Fetal growth can be affected by a number of internal and external factors". That way, this paragraph acts as a good introduction to the coming section, and the reader can read about all the variations in growth in one section. I also changed it to "induced abortion" per Ferrylodge's suggestion above. That was a good idea.-Andrew c 23:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Changing the language to "induced abortion" is fine. However, I would prefer to not get into endless rearrangement of this article without compelling reasons. I do not see any problem with the sentence where it is. It involves termination of growth and development, not variations.Ferrylodge 00:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Allegation of vandalism by Andrew c

I am very disturbed by the pattern of edits by Andrew C. Most recently, we have this edit in which he has removed an image and replaced it with another, without any discussion. His edit summary says, "restoring cat fetus image after no objection on talk and criticism of the rat image." However, as far as I can tell, there has been no recent discussion at this talk page baout either the rat image or the cat fetus. Thus, it would appear that Andrew C. is not telling the truth.

Additionally, the image of the cat was removed on 26 January 2007, with this explanation: "removed the cat fetus photo, due to the concerns expressed by Lewis and Doron." Andrew C. has not mentioned those concerns, and instead has unilaterally deleted an image about which there were (as far as I can tell) no objections.

It may well be that the cat fetus should replace the rat fetus. I have not formed an opinion about it. But I definitely do have an opinion about dishonesty and vandalism.

I also see that Andrew C. has begun to use what he thinks is my actual name at this talk page, rather than my screen name. I now ask him politely to stop immediately, and use my screen name.Ferrylodge 03:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't help but take this as a personal attack. Anyway, on 26 Jan, there was a talk page discussion regarding the images. I gave my 2 cents. Over 2 weeks later, I asked "There hasn't been any discussion in a while. Would anyone mind if I put Image:Catfetus1.jpg back into the non-human fetus section? And can we maybe compile a gallery of ultrasound images?" and there has been no reply, or any discussion on these images. I waited a month for someone to respond, so if there were specific issues with the cat fetus, we would have thought they would have been raised. As for the criticism of the rat image, that occurred on my talk page Also, the rat fetus image in the fetus article seems to have been posterized to a few shades of purple with an abrupt jump to white, I don't know if you have any idea of how to fix that, but it pretty much ruins the picture; it's not particularly informative as it is. tucker/rekcut 03:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Please familiarize yourself with WP:VANDAL before you accuse a good faith edit as vandalism. Hope this addresses your concerns. As for your name, I thought it was cute that our names are similar. But I see you have removed your e-mail address from your User page, and you have requested that I not use that name, so I apologize and will cease (you should have brought it up on my talk page though, not here). Also, could you please not call me "Andrew C." my user name is "Andrew c", note the lack of capitalization and punctuation. Thanks.-Andrew c 03:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Now that you mention image vandalism. You inserted an image that was specifically removed for a RfC that isn't over yet. Why did you edit the article during a content dispute? Don't you want to give time for others to reply and others to weigh in?-Andrew c 03:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Andrew C., this particular section on this talk page was started not as a personal attack, but as a factual matter. You recently removed an image from this article without the slightest discussion at this talk page, nor in the archives of this talk page. You say that there was some discussion at your own personal talk page, but how am I or anyone else who follows this article supposed to know about discussion at your personal talk page? You were not telling the truth when you said in your edit summary, "restoring cat fetus image after ... criticism of the rat image." Criticism at your personal talk page does not count. I do not support replacing the rat image with the cat image.

Regarding my reinsertion of the hand holding the fetus, I reinserted it at 02:37 on 6 March. At that point, the consensus in the RfC was to reinsert the photo, make it smaller, clarify that detailed coloring was not shown, and place the photo lower on the page. So that's what I did (I also would have reinserted the image of the preserved fetus except that I could not describe its age). You and SheffieldSteel did not join the RfC until 7 March. So go ahead and remove the image (of the fetus in the hand) if you insist, but I would urge you to instead respond to the questions I asked you about it, instead of ignoring my questions.Ferrylodge 04:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

According to Misplaced Pages, "Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Misplaced Pages." I still think it was a bad-faith edit to remove the rat photo with no discussion of the rat photo at this talk page (including at the archives for this talk page), while saying in an edit summary: "restoring cat fetus image after ... criticism of the rat image". The only criticism of the rat image had been at the editor's personal talk page (whereas criticism of the cat image by multiple editors had been at this discussion page). Because the "bad-faithness" here may or may not be "inarguably explicit", I will cross out the allegation of vandalism from the title of this section, but I still think the edit summary was deliberately misleading, and that the edit was disruptive.Ferrylodge 19:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. If I had known about the criticism of the rat image at the editor's talk page, I might not have called the edit "vandalism".Ferrylodge 21:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Non-human photo discussion

Ok, I personally think the rat photo is poor. The quality isn't that good, nothing is labeled, there are significant blown highlights, and I do not find it generally appealing to the eye nor encyclopedic. Tuckercut wrote to me regarding the image:

Also, the rat fetus image in the fetus article seems to have been posterized to a few shades of purple with an abrupt jump to white, I don't know if you have any idea of how to fix that, but it pretty much ruins the picture; it's not particularly informative as it is.

— User:tuckerekcut 03:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Over a month ago, I asked if I could put the cat fetus image back into the article, and no one opposed. The editors who opposed the image never came to discussed solutions on talk. For those interested, this is the image I would like to put in the non-human section to replace the rat image. It is clearly labeled, its a decent quality image, it shows a unique view of the subject, and I believe it is highly encyclopedic. So I ask of other editors, what photo should we use? The rat? The cat? Are there other options? Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c 23:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The rat photo is poor. However, I oppose removing it until a better photo is found to replace it. The cat photo is poor as well, and was deliberately removed by three editors for that reason.Ferrylodge 00:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You won't be able to repair the posterisation on that image. The information is lost - unless you can find a copy of the original (before compression). SheffieldSteel 00:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone was here a month and a half ago. Could you please go into detail about the exact objection to the cat photo. Why is it poor? Who are the three editors who removed the image? If I recall the situation, an anon user (User:89.241.250.250) came along and said the a DIFFERENT cat image was disturbing back in December (the anon's only contribution to wiki, unless their IP address changes. but the more important part, keep in mind, since this was in December, the anon was referring to Image:Cat fetus.jpg). Another editor, Doron, commented in January that the fetus in a jar image was disturbing as well. (again, before the new cat fetus image was even on the article). You, on 13:32, 20 January 2007 with the stated reason of I don't think this photo is helpful. The quality is not good (dark background). Credit is supposed to be given to "Elizabeth Roy". removed the old cat fetus image. Severa introduced the new catfetus image. In response, to Doron's concern (again, which was raised before the new catfetus image was even put on the page) you made the images smaller, and Severa removed the images completely for the sake of discussion. Keep in mind, no one edited the article to remove the new cat fetus image, and no one made any comments about the new cat fetus image (the closest thing we have is an anon placing a disputed tag on the non-human fetus section that was removed by you). So I have no idea where you get the idea that 3 editors don't like the new cat fetus image which is why I am asking. I gave my two cents to the image discussion on talk back in late January, saying I thought the new cat fetus image was the best non-human image we had at our disposal (you in essence said you didn't want to choose which image was best because we could use a gallery instead). I waited 2 weeks. I then proposed that I put it back into the article. There was no opposition. So I waited a month and put it back into the article and you call me a vandal. So here we are. Why is the cat fetus image disturbing, and does anyone who is here now personally object to the image (not that anyone ever objected to it in the first place)?-Andrew c 01:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks a bit... icky. But then, that is me being squeamish. This is biology, hence it is icky. So I have no objection. SheffieldSteel 01:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Give me a few days, please. It would be helpful to have more animal fetus pics for us to choose from, and therefore I intend to get some more pics into Wikimedia. The "ickier" the picture is, the more likely it is to be removed at some point. There are lots of animal fetus pics that are not "icky", especially if it's an in-utero pic (some of which are actually quite beautiful). Also, we should try to get a pic for which we know the age of the fetus. Moreover, why pick a cat? Lots of kids visiting this page have pet cats, so it might be better to select a more exotic species that will not provoke an emotional response that you all say is so unencyclopedic. Given that there are so many species to choose from, I'm not quite sure why we want an animal pic to begin with, but since we have a nasty looking rat pic, we may as well find a better pic to replace it with. Can you give me a few days, please?Ferrylodge 02:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure take your time. I wish you would have spoken up when we were discussing the 'disturbing' images the first time, but its fine. However, I will not wait a month this time through ;)-Andrew c 03:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This is probably the best link to pictures of animals in the womb. It might be sufficient to just include this link, instead of having a pic of an animal fetus.

Also, it might be nice to describe in the article how long the fetal stages are for various animals (a table perhaps). The entire gestation periods for various animals are as follows: Elephant = 624 days, Kangaroo = 40 days, Horse = 336 days, Human = 270 days, Dog = 6o days, Cat = 60 days, Mole = 30 days, Lion = 106 days, Giraffe = 450 days, Mouse = 20 days, Bear = 230 days. Horsfall, Peter et al. Science Web Scientific Enquiry Investigations Pack 1 (2001 Nelson Thornes). Does anyone know how long the fetal stages are for these animals?Ferrylodge 04:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've emailed National Geographic to request permission to use one of their elephant fetus pics. Elephants have the longest gestation of any land mammal. But again, no one has explained why an "icky" pic of a dead cat fetus, or indeed any pic of any non-human fetus, is needed or desired in this article.Ferrylodge 22:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

JAMA

In an ongoing effort to address issues with this article, I did a Google search on Fetal Pain, one of the controversial sections. The second hit is a summation of articles on the subject in the Journal of the American Medical Association, from August of 2005. I feel this article would benefit from the inclusion of two sentences from that article (in rewritten form) - "Fetal awareness of noxious stimuli requires functional thalamocortical connections. Thalamocortical fibers begin appearing between 23 to 30 weeks’ gestational age, while electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks." and the conclusion - "Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester. Little or no evidence addresses the effectiveness of direct fetal anesthetic or analgesic techniques. Similarly, limited or no data exist on the safety of such techniques for pregnant women in the context of abortion. Anesthetic techniques currently used during fetal surgery are not directly applicable to abortion procedures.", unless there is newer information available. Although, I would consider not putting in the part about anesthesia as the follow up indicated it is still up to debate. Due to the ongoing debate over this article, I felt it best to put it here first for comment rather that immediately edit the article. Citicat 00:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent source, good academic standard... what's not to like? One caveat: I think it might be best to include mention of uncertainty regarding anaesthetic rather than leave it out. If that's the best picture we have of the state of scientific knowledge, I say go with it. SheffieldSteel 01:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd ask you to review the fetal pain article, and the 2006 BMJ article ]/] for an even more recent discussion on the topic. I think one thing to watch out for is that we don't include information here that can't be found at fetal pain. The basic gist of things that I have gathered from all my research is that most everyone agrees that a fetus doesn't have all the necessary bits and pieces to 'feel pain' until sometime between 19-26 weeks, and even then, a fetus cannot have a meaningful experience of pain until 26-32 weeks (some sources go so far to say that this doesn't happen until months after birth). If the article is clear that is the consensus, and that there are some who disagree, especially for political/religious reasons in the abortion debate. Do you think the current summary conveys these ideas in a NPOV manner, or do you think the section could be reworked?-Andrew c 02:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, here's a downloadable link to the article you are referring to, and here's the page with the link on it (I wasn't able to see anything on your links without a subscription, maybe I'm missing something). This would probably merit inclusion, but I would also like to know if there are conflicting scientific articles. I think the current section leaves too much to individual interpretation, and would benefit from clarification. Citicat 03:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Please start with the fetal pain article CitiCat. The section on fetal pain here in this article only summarizes what's at that article. If something is missing at that article, then you can propose including it. Then if it's included, we can talk about whether it should go in the summary here in this article. Thx.Ferrylodge 08:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. While I may or may not choose to edit that article, My neutrality concerns are with this one. I will consider moving relevant parts of this disussion to that page if they are not already there. However, that certainly does not preclude any edits to this page. And please stop capitalizing the second c in my name. Citicat 13:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I am going to revert this edit. First, the footnote is just a URL. But even if the proper footnote in the fetal pain article were copied to here, there would still be problems. The edit says, "evidence suggests that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester." This contradicts the fetal pain article, which says, "it is disputed whether pain becomes possible as early as seven weeks after conception, or only after 26 weeks gestation, or only after the second trimester, or only after birth." According to fetal pain, the cited JAMA article acknowledges that pain "may exist even in the absence of physical stimuli," and conversely "nociception without pain" exists as well.

There are also problems with citing the JAMA article in a summary of fetal pain, because the JAMA article has been the subject of considerable controversy. According to fetal pain, one of the authors "directs an abortion clinic at San Francisco Hospital, while the lead author undertook legal work with NARAL Pro-Choice America for six months." It would be one thing to cite objective scientific facts from the JAMA article, which can be verified by consulting other studies, but it is quite another thing to favorably cite a general conclusion about fetal pain before the third trimester, even if that general conclusion were provided in quotes (which has not been done here).Ferrylodge 04:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop making your own rules for reverting edits. I'll put the edit back, and include the controvesy over the article. The alternative is to delete the entire section on fetal pain until a consensus can be reached Citicat 04:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Citicat, the fetal pain section of this article has been stable for awhile, and you don't have a consensus to change it. I have already explained the problem. Your edits do not accurately summarize the fetal pain article, and do not accurately reflect the various medical positions on this question.

You are presenting a slanted view. You are inserting the view that "evidence suggests that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester." But that view is extremely controversial, and there is plenty of evidence suggesting otherwise. "There appears to be no consensus among experts about...what point in the pregnancy the sensation of pain starts." Many premature infants are born a month or more before the third trimester, and you are inserting the POV that such premature infants feel no pain. Consider this: "The head of a government-appointed expert group said a foetus was definitely aware of pain by 24 weeks, perhaps as early as 20 weeks, according to a review of the latest research." Highfield, Roger. "Very premature babies may need pain relieving drugs," The Telegraph (2001-08-27).

I will revert your edit again, because you do not have consensus for the edits.Ferrylodge 06:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The entire section is controversial. I have attempted to make it as neutral as possible. While there is controvery over the JAMA article, JAMA, a respected major site for medical research, stands by it as an acceptable peer reviewed article. If you wish, we could include the article Andrew c listed instead, which is more one-sided. Also, the Fetal Pain article which you refer to contains much more controversial sources as relates to this subject (a member of Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Sciences and Dr. Paul Ranalli who is a member on the Advisory Board of the deVeber Institute for Bioethics). As for consensus, other than you, who clearly has bias, who else opposes this edit?Citicat 13:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Citicat, you completely ignore the links I provided, you engage in unsubstantiated accusations of bias, and you cite no one who supports your edit. You may well succeed in slanting this fetus article, but I oppose it.Ferrylodge 19:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

(undent) I'm on record as supporting the inclusion of the JAMA article. SheffieldSteel 21:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the original summation of the JAMA article, without altering statements commenting on it. Citicat 00:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind having that whole second paragraph removed. We have a link to the main article. We don't need to go into that much detail here. And there seems to be too much back and forth and lack of stable content. These issues should be taken up at the Fetal pain article. I thought the version from a few days back worked fine here, and wasn't screaming "expand me".-Andrew c 03:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Fetal pain

I'd like to propose this paragraph:

The subject of fetal pain is controversial. The ability of a fetus to feel pain is often part of the abortion debate, and there appears to be no consensus among experts about when the sensation of pain starts. Different sources have estimated that the earliest point for this may be seven weeks after conception, or after 20, 24, or 26 weeks gestation, or after the second trimester, or months after birth.

My reasoning is as follows. As the Fetal Pain article is edited, the summary here will inevitably get out of sync. Given that both pages are contentious, it will be difficult to achieve the consensus to carry out the necessary edits to provide an accurate summary here. I think it would be better to provide a summary of that material which is unlikely to change - the relevance of fetal pain to the abortion debate - and put all mention of actual studies in the fetal pain article itself.

Thoughts?SheffieldSteel 21:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That looks fine to me. I would only change the first sentence so that it mentions suffering. Just speaking about fetal pain, without mentioning the broader topic of fetal suffering, is kind of missing the forest for the tree. Pain and suffering ought to be wikilinked. No need to mention ejaculation, though.  :-) Ferrylodge 22:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you source the statements that refer to seven weeks, 20 weeks, etc.? Citicat 00:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The fetal pain article sources quite a few statements by medical experts; Glover says fetal pain may occur at 17 weeks, Collins is certain it occurs at 13 1/2 weeks, and a figure of 20 weeks is mentioned by White, Ranalli, and Johnstone.Ferrylodge 07:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph above mentions seven weeks. Is there a source for this? Citicat 18:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find an authoritative source for this claim online, other than what is stated at ReligiousTolerance.org. So, I have adjusted this article and the fetal pain article to avoid this claim. I haven't got time to go to a medical library in order to resarch it further right now.Ferrylodge 00:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. After second trimester = after 24 25 weeks.Ferrylodge 22:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked up seven sources at random, six said the third trimester begins in week 27 or 28, and one said week 25 Citicat 00:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. The correct number is 25. If SheffieldSteel would like to keep "second trimester" in her sentence, that's fine with me. The main reason why some sources say the second trimester ends at 27 weeks instead of 25 weeks is because they are using weeks from beginning of last menstrual period, instead of weeks from fertilization.Ferrylodge 00:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I find that paragraph rather poorly phrased. It lists way too many dates, and is too ambiguous. It would work better if it said something like "Most researchers agree that a fetus cannot have a meaningful experience of pain until the end of the second trimester, although some argue that a fetus can feel pain as early as 7 weeks and some argue that a fetus cannot feel pain until after birth." It gets rid of half a dozen different numbers and doesn't make the issue seem MORE controversial than it is.-Andrew c 03:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c, why do you not think that SheffieldSteel's suggested language is appropriate? Your statement about "most researchers" is unsupported, and does not correctly summarize the fetal pain article, which says: "Most scientists believe that a fetus is able to feel pain sometime during the pregnancy."Ferrylodge 03:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait, when did "the end of the second trimester" stop being "sometime during the pregnancy" :p-Andrew c 03:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Instead of being sarcastic, why don't you find something in the fetal pain article that says "most researchers" agree that a fetus cannot have a meaningful experience of pain until the end of the second trimester?Ferrylodge 03:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok go here and you will read "Many scientists believe that a fetus is able to feel pain sometime during the pregnancy usually after 26 weeks gestation although the question of exactly when pain might be possible is disputed." In fact, that whole paragraph is basically what I was suggesting. It's like I was paraphrasing it, which is a good idea for a summary section that has a main article.-Andrew c 03:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Notice where the footnote is placed. The footnote is placed after the statement "Many scientists believe that a fetus is able to feel pain". There is no footnote to support the rest of the sentence: "sometime during the pregnancy usually after 26 weeks gestation...." Perhaps that is why this unsupported material is no longer in the fetal pain article.Ferrylodge 04:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Fetal pain, summary section

I agree that we shouldn't go into too much depth about fetal pain here. Ferrylodge gave me this idea. The summary section of fetal pain over at abortion has been stable for some time now, has been well sourced, it is a good summary of the content of fetal pain, and has had a large number of different editors working on and reviewing it. I suggest that we use those 3 paragraphs, modify them to be less about the abortion debate, and use them for our summary section here for fetal pain. What does everyone think?-Andrew c 23:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The immediately preceding section dealt with "fetal pain", so I'm not sure why a new section has been started. I disagree that the summary section at abortion is a good summary, and so how about we discuss the matter over there, instead of here?Ferrylodge 23:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Images

You have no images of an actual fetus here. Why? These drawings and images of a rat fetus are so vague ... who is it that is so afraid of the actual image? There are many available. I'm surprised at your obvious "disconnection" with the actual subject matter here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.177.47.129 (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

We have discussed images extensively in the past. However, wikipedia's image use policy is that all images should have a free licence or a fair use rational. Currently, we have a handful of ultrasound images and a human fetus in a jar image and that's about it. While there are many images of fetus, not all of them are 'available' for use on wikipedia. Perhaps you could suggest a specific image, or help out in finding a GFDL image for us?-Andrew c 15:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

etymology

The article doesn't quite cover the spelling diff atm. My understanding is that foetus is the majority English usage as it describes the long 'e' sound. Logically this doesn't persist because it's an error (as the article implies). Unfortunately I don't have a copy of OED to cite this. Maybe someone else has... Hakluyt bean 00:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I've shortened this part of the article a little bit, so that it says: "The preferred spelling in the United States is fetus, but the variant foetus or fœtus persists in other English-speaking countries, and in some medical contexts, as well as in some other languages (e.g. French)." I hope that's okay.Ferrylodge 01:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

the spelling foetus describes the long 'e' sound?? Does this mean that words like 'foe', 'toe', 'doe', 'hoe', 'woe', or shortened forms of names like 'Joe', 'Moe' and 'Zoe' would all be expected to have a long 'e' sound? How on earth does the spelling foetus in any way describe the long 'e' sound?Zebulin (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Trimester?

I think all references to a "trimester" should be removed from this article. I may or may not do this myself, but here are the reasons: 1. Not an actual reflection of human fetal development. The concept of a "trimester" has nothing to do at all with the actual physiological development of a human fetus. Nothing in particular happens in the 12th or 24th week. This is a concept that came out of the Roe v Wade case and so it is... 2. US centric. I have no idea if other countries have adapted this phraseology or not but it certainly originated from a supreme court case in the United States and so may not be a universal word. So, for these reasons I feel as though the word "trimester" is unscientific and does not belong in a scientific article about fetal development. 69.207.175.213SBoyce

Etymology

I removed some text concerning the Etymology of the word Fetus. It was mentioned twice and this wasn't needed. I removed the text outside of the etymology section. This additional text seemed out of place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.223.169.153 (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Figures and drawings

Regarding the circulation figure, I think we should try to format the figures so they don't slop into the next section on all screens. People can always click on a figure if they want to enlarge it.

Also, I think we need to create either a new section, or a section of external links, that details where a reader can find good, high-quality figures and drawings of a fetus.Ferrylodge 21:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree regarding a section on fetal images. My point regarding figures is that I'm not sure which screen size we should be using as our guide. Invariably, the images will slop into the next section on some screens; the wider your screen, the more likely will the image be to cover the next section, too. What should our standard be? Antelan 21:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I checked WP:MOS and it's of some limited help regarding images. I think that the "When using detailed maps, diagrams or charts" guideline may be appropriate to apply to the cardiovascular image. Antelan 21:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"Generally speaking, thumbnails are the best way to display images." See Misplaced Pages:Picture_tutorial#Thumbnailing. The first figure looks silly as a thumbnail, but all the other figures look okay.Ferrylodge 21:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Right. My focus is simply on the cardiovascular drawing, since the details (ductus arteriosus, etc.) are lost when the image is displayed so small. It is like the first image in that, when viewed as a thumbnail, the text is unreadable. I would like to make the CV image larger. Antelan 21:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

If you think it's really necessary to make that one bigger, then go ahead, although it increases the likelihood of slop-over into the next section. You might want to alternatively consider writing "click to enlarge" in the caption. Won't some of the text remain unreadable even after the figure is considerably blown up?Ferrylodge 21:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Because the image is relevant to the 2 sections following the cardiovascular section, I think that slop-over is acceptable in this case, so I've enlarged the image. Antelan 22:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject

A WikiProject for pregnancy and childbirth related articles has been proposed. For more information and to express interest, please visit Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Pregnancy_and_childbirth. Thanks! --Ginkgo100 00:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Womb-Uterus debate: central location proposed

As this has enveloped multiple articles, I propose we choose one location for the debate, post accodingly on the talk pages of all involved articles, and hash it out in one place. There has been a good bit of repetition, as well as edit warring on articles where there is little or no discussion on the talk pages. IMO we can work it out ourselves, but if not, we can move to mediation if desired. I suggest Talk:Pregnancy/Womb-Uterus debate. I am cross posting this on all involved articles. KillerChihuahua 11:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Printing issues

Nothing can be printed out except the first page, which probably means there's a corrupting token somewhere in the file. Icarus530 (talk) 14:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Woah!! Pro-life bias - The claims in this article are not backed up by references

We need to look at all the references for the claims made here. The claims come from pro-life sources, the references cited often do not back these claims.

Also, the weekly stages of the fetus development are completely arbitrary. "8-15" weeks is a huge jump.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 18:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Please specify what "pro-life sources" you are referring to. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted this edit, and supplied sources in a footnote. Please insert "citation needed" tags instead of deleting longstanding material unilaterally. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Photos

The photos drawings are not medical photos, and are not medically accurate. They come from a social website, not a medical website.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

There are images in the main abortion article that are not "medical photos". The sketch by Leonardo Davinci in this article is not a "medical photo". Why is it necessary that all images be "medical photos"?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Because there is no standard by which these photos drawings are medically accurate.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, they are drawings rather than photos. Secondly, is there any particular feature shown in the drawings that you believe is inaccurate?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If these drawings are not medically accurate, then they should be removed. However, you have not indicated anything inaccurate about them. There are many medical illustrations and photos of a fetus available on the internet, and these drawings that you have removed appear to be consistent with those medical illustrations and photos. If you don't have anything to support you claims of inaccuracy, then these drawings should be restored to the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Brain stem

It is not important to list world records or other trivial information. We should say what is normal. It is very odd to be listing things that are normal, and then slip in a fact that is abnormal. It shouldn't be a matter of what is the earliest ever recorded, but instead what is normally found. On top of that, there are possible notability issues with the source, and we should describe what it means to have "brain stem activity". I think with new sources, we can add information about when brain stem activity usually starts, and what that exactly means. But for now, the existing sentence is problematic, and I'm not alone in that view.-Andrew c  19:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c, as far as I know, fetal development in humans is fairly uniform. Where is there any statement that the measurement in question revealed an abnormality? Also please note that the author cited in the footnote is extremely pro-choice, so maybe that contributes to credibility? If you have time, Andrew c, I'd also appreciate if you would please opine about the deletion of the images. Thx.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Large jumps in weeks / biased information

There are large jumps in the weeks that are presented in the titles. 8-15 weeks as a stage of development is completely arbitrary. To claim that some of the things listed under 8 weeks of development, when they actually happen at the 15th week is absurd. To claim that "The face is well-formed and develops a more human appearance" is not accurate at 8 weeks. Now that I look at it further, that claim is not sourced.

Another inappropriate reference is: "At nine weeks, the fetus is able to bend fingers around an object; in response to a touch on the foot, the fetus will bend the legs or curl the toes to move away from the object." This information is presented as though the fetus has a conscious reaction to stimuli. This couldn't be further from the truth. The response to the stimuli is involuntary.

For these reasons alone, one can successfully argue that the information presented has been put together to project a pro-life point of view. However, one need only go to a pro-life website to see that most of the information placed in this article is actually straight pro-life literature, and the references are placed strategically:

I propose the arbitrary weeks be removed. We should be clear about what happens in a specific week, and to what extent development has occurred. So for example, if we are going to say that a fetus responds to a stimuli at 9 weeks, we should make it clear that this is an involuntary reaction and is not a response to conscious feeling.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with developing Zygote, Embryo, and Fetus articles to include more detailed information on these stages, and then using prenatal development as a top-tier hub to summarize those sub-articles. However, others objected, as you can see here. The matter is still unresolved.

I have inserted two footnotes to support the statement that "The face is well-formed and develops a more human appearance." IAA, you say that is not accurate at 8 weeks. I don't know why you think that is inaccurate. Do you have any references that say it's inaccurate?

You say that the following is inappropriate: "At nine weeks, the fetus is able to bend fingers around an object; in response to a touch on the foot, the fetus will bend the legs or curl the toes to move away from the object." This is from a British Medical Journal article, and it seems interesting and notable, and has been in this article a long time. If you have a source that indicates that such a response to the stimuli is involuntary, then of course we can include that too, although I don't see that the quote implies whether it's voluntary or not.

I agree that any "straight pro-life literature" should be removed from this article. However, I do not see that any of the references qualify as that. Which particular references do you think are "straight pro-life literature"?Ferrylodge (talk) 05:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference Singer was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• B-Class medicine articles
• High-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages