Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Una Smith (talk | contribs) at 23:02, 13 June 2007 (→Twin theory of development: cite evidence). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

More information.

A Fertilized cell; having been split, begins to cylindrically contort. In the midst of this process the other developing cell has unnaturally tranfered within too close a range to avoid being embraced by the primarily progressing cell. Thus giving a never fully mature embryo that parasitically deprives its host of nutrients along whith the sharing off other functions.

moralhoward8403@yahoo.com

That's a version of the parasitic twin theory of origin of fetus in fetu. Una Smith 06:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Why was this redirected?

Since fetus in fetu is almost a hybrid between a tumor and twinning, it doesn't seem right to simply stick it inside the teratomas article. I think it deserves its own page.ChristinaDunigan 23:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the full distribution of reported fetus in fetu (by any of its several names), the twinning theory doesn't hold up. I think fetus in fetu either needs its own page, or should be a section on the teratoma page. I put it on the teratoma page because its other names (dermoid cyst and fetiform teratoma) are connected with teratoma. Regardless, fetus in fetu needs a fuller discussion; at this point, it is a stub. Una Smith 06:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Resurrection

Following this afd, Fetus in fetu's coverage in other articles was judged to be inferior, and there is sufficient reason that this article should stand on its own. The text from the AfD'd article has thus been merged here. AKRadecki 19:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The AFD in question is to delete the Alamjan Nematilaev article. The AFD has nothing to do with whether fetus in fetu should be on its own page. Re the AFD, I agree that further exploiting Alamjan Nematilaev, a child, is inappropriate. There are many published reports of fetus in fetu. I suggest deleting all mention of this child. Una Smith 21:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The rest of the article is mighty thin, and portions of the text there now probably belong elsewhere (on the teratoma and parasitic twin pages). I am not opposed to a page on fetus on fetu, but its main utility is in serving as an interwiki anchor for pages on other language wikipedia. Una Smith 21:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

First, the AfD's principle result was to merge. Teratoma and parasitic twin covered the subject poorly, and there's plenty of references, and the article is far beyond a stub, so that a page of its own is easily justified by policy and guidelines. AKRadecki 23:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Junk reference

The condition occurs in 1 in 500,000 live births.

Removed from article. MSNBC is not a primary source. Una Smith 20:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm restoring. You are correct, it is not a primary source, it is a third-party source, and secondary sources are preferred (this is official policy - see WP:V. AKRadecki 23:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Twin theory of development

Fetus in fetu starts to develop very early in a monozygotic twin pregnancy, in which both fetuses share a common placenta, and one fetus wraps around and envelops the other. The enveloped twin becomes a parasite, in that its survival depends on the survival of its host twin, by drawing on the host twin's blood supply. Invariably the parasitic twin is anencephalic (without a brain) and lacks some internal organs, and as such is unable to survive on its own. The parasitic twin sometimes grows large enough to kill its host twin, in which case both twins die.

Sometimes, however, the host twin survives and is delivered. It continues to survive until it grows so large that it starts to harm the host, at which point doctors usually intervene. The condition causes the host to look like they are pregnant (since they technically are) and can occur in both males and females.

All of the above is unsupported by primary sources. The sources given are a sensationalistic TV news story and a blog. Una Smith 21:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, our policy is to use 2ndary, 3rd-party sources. We don't prefer primary sources. See Misplaced Pages:Use of primary sources in Misplaced Pages (though it's not active, it still represents current approaches). Also see No original research: Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, which is active. ABC News is hardly "sensationalistic", and is generally viewed as a reliable 3rd party source. The Kircher Society is technically a "blog", but a reputable one, not one as described in WP:V. Please don't remove sourced information. If you question the source, you're welcome to add {{not verified}} tags. AKRadecki 23:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The news story in question was without question sensationalistic. With regard to science, primary sources are indeed preferred. Do you know the primary source of the claim, which you repeat citing a TV news story, that the incidence of fetus in fetu is 1:500,000? Una Smith 19:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources are preferred? May I remind you that WP:NOR is policy? Primary sources are not preferred on Misplaced Pages, and I challenge you to point to any policy that says so. AKRadecki 21:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The claim that the incidence of fetus in fetu is 1:500,000 needs a primary scholarly source, meaning a scholarly source that provides data, and does not simply repeat a claim made elsewhere. Una Smith 23:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Reverts

Akradecki, I think it is really uncool that you persist in reverting my edits. See WP:DR. Una Smith 03:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think it's uncool, but you keep removing large chunks of legitimate, sourced information, which is a big no-no around here. That's what makes your comment very ironic...you're complaining that I'm reverting your edits, but your edits are specifically to cut out large bits of sourced, cited text...you're doing the very thing you're complaining about. Further, you don't seem to understand our policies on which sources we give preference to. What is your issue with this article anyway? Do you doubt that the phenomenon exists? Do you think this is just some sensationalistic exercise? This is an encyclopedia, and the subject of this article is both legitimate and, by our definitions, notable. The text on the examples, especially the youth, is carefully crafted to conform to our BLP standards. AKRadecki 05:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the reason for the last revert is that you stuck an image-related template smack in the middle of the text, a template that had no application to anything in the article. AKRadecki 05:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Akradeki, the chunks of text in question you took from the teratoma page, and they are not relevant specifically to fetus in fetu. I should know: I wrote most of those chunks myself. I put them back where they belong. Re your argument that some of the text is sourced, your sources are inappropriate. TV news programs are not authoritative in relation to the subject at hand (Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources) when the subject is basic science. Una Smith 19:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

1. "Chilean boy born with fetus in his stomach", MSNBC, November 24, 2006, accessed June 4, 2007
2. "Fetus in Fetu", The Proceedings of the Athanasius Kircher Society, April 23, 2007, accessed June 4, 2007
3. Cite error: The named reference abc1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).