Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:43, 31 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) Archive 2 (Feb. 2007 - Nov. 2007)

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)

Ferrylodge I agree with you. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia not a medical textbook. I agree that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the drawings, and they bring important detail to the article. I vote that we restore the photos and will do so. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 14:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is conclusive proof that the pictures belong. Here is the drawing from the 3d Pregnancy site at 8 weeks. http://www.3dpregnancy.com/calendar/9-weeks-pregnant.htm Here is a similar drawing http://www.babycentre.co.uk/pregnancy/fetaldevelopment/09weeks/ and here is a sonogram image. http://parentingweekly.com/pregnancy/pregnancy_information/ultrasound/9_weeks.htm The drawings are FINE. I am adding them back to the article. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 14:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Further proof of the innocent nature of these drawings. http://www.babycentre.co.uk/pregnancy/fetaldevelopment/18weeks/ Compare that to the drawing in the article at 18 weeks. They are almost identical. The 3d rotating effect is interesting in our drawings, and brings a greater understanding to the text of the article. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 04:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Please note that none of your sources are from medical sites - therefore, we don't know if the images are accurate, or if they have been altered, etc. We should attempt to get sonograms from medical sites.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 03:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Here are plenty of pictures from a medical site.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

FL, I think that is a step in the right direction. I also think that the link GM made above is a step in the right direction (http://parentingweekly.com/pregnancy/pregnancy_information/ultrasound/9_weeks.htm). Let's see if we can't get sonograms from medical sites (that are not copyrighted). --IronAngelAlice (talk) 04:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

There are already sonograms at the pregnancy article. I don't see what use they could be here in this article. Sonograms are very fuzzy.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's see if we can't get some better quality sonograms.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 04:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Alice, please see WP:Consensus. You do not have consensus to delete the longstanding images that have been in this article for many months. We can discuss it here at the talk page, but in the mean time PLEASE stop edit-warring. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Andrew C did agree. Also, I have been trying to build consensus. As I stated above, these images are not medical images and are generally used to promote your agenda which seems to be pro-life. I think using sonograms, and looking for very clear sonograms is a very good compromise.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 04:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Andrew c agreed with you about the cittaion regarding brain activity, in the book by Peter Singer. That is different from agreeing with you about the images. In any event, if two editors think one thing, and two editors think another thing, then that is not consensus. Moreover, you have cited nothing that indicates the images are medically inaccurate. And I have given you this proof that the images are medically accurate.

This article is intended to present the truth, whether it supports one POV or another POV. I am not pro-life, by the way.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

FL, Andrew C also agreed with me about the images. You reverted his edit.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 07:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Alice, Andrew c did not remove any images, and I did not revert him. The diff you just provided does not involve me at all. Andrew c's edit is here, and he did not delete any images whatsoever.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You are right. I was confused. He was talking about the brain stem reference.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 07:48, 27 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)

Thanks for agreeing to put more information in the article. I think we can create a very informative article together. What I was referring to in the "straight pro-life literature" is that the article's structure comes almost entirely from pro-life websites (in part evidenced by the link above). My objection to this is that I think we should strive to be as scientific as possible with this article.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 08:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't be unscientific, but at the same time we should keep in mind that we are writing for laypersons. If material is scientifically accurate, it should not be excluded from this article merely because it is cited by one political group or another. As I mentioned recently in another context, pro-life groups often cite the Declaration of Independence, but that does not mean references to the Declaration of Independence should be omitted from all Misplaced Pages articles about US history. Likewise, if there is a medical fact that pro-life groups often cite (e.g. a fetus has four limbs), we shouldn't automatically delete that information here. Instead we should try to add other accurate and notable material to create a balanced article.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Since fetus is an eminently scientific topic, I think that IronAngelAlice is right on in that we should keep the article itself as scientific as possible, since this is the major viewpoint. The fact that we are writing for "laypeople" does not detract from this in any way, and instead enhances it. Just my $0.02. Antelan 06:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Images

I particularly take pleasure in reverting Ferrylodge's POV edits in adding these images, but even so, I would revert anyone who places those images. Those images are not medical ones found in standard textbooks on fetal development, pregnancy or other related fields. I have yet to find the provenance of the images, but they are pro-life, in that they attempt to show the fetus in a human form. There are many better images we can employ for this arena. And I'm willing to work with Ferrylodge to come to a consensus on some. OrangeMarlin 05:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Those images have been in this article for many months, and you have no consensus to delete them. You have not remotely suggested any particular inaccuracy about them. As you can see from the discussion above, they are amply supported by medical sources. They do not represent a POV in the least, any more than the non-medical images in the abortion article represent a POV. You are violating WP:Consensus by deleting these images, and you know it.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

As an outside editor with little interest in this article, I'm wondering why the images were deleted? Is it only because they show a fetus which seems to have human form (that happens with fetuses). Is there some reason to believe they are religious or anti-abortion propaganda? If there isn't, and they are accurate, and if they are free in terms of copyright, and if they add something to the article, such as the form of the fetus, why are they being deleted?

Looking at the images, I doubt very much they are pro-life, as those people would surely use cuddly or gory images. But the ones FerryLodge is trying to include seem anatomically sound- but they are totally creepy in my opinion. The first one in particular makes the baby look like a little alien demon. If I were a mother and saw those, I'd be like "AHHHHHHHH, GET IT OUT! GET IT OUT!" So, what exactly is the problem here? ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Far less like an "alien demon" than they actually appear, I'm afraid. Grab a book on fetal development and you'll see what OrangeMarlin is saying. Antelan 07:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Antelan, are you really asserting that these medical images are inaccurate?Ferrylodge (talk) 07:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that those things are actually a whitewash? Oh dear. Are they not accurate? Or are they just not ugly enough? ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Haha, I suppose ugly is in the eye of the beholder. Those images alone could be fine in the right context, especially for a certain audience. I don't want to criticize the images themselves, because simplifications are often used in illustrating scientific concepts. However, I think that OrangeMarlin, and others above, have noted that this article is slanted in a particular political direction. In that context, these images, though pretty (and only loosely accurate in their anatomy), help reinforce one set of politics. Antelan 07:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The images that best show a fetus are the images taken from an ultrasound. The images in the link that FL gave us above are embellished for various reasons. The fetus at 8 weeks is 0.61 inches long (1.6cm) and weight is 0.04 ounce (1gm). Here is an ultrasound that gives a better idea of the length and weight:
http://faculty.washington.edu/alexbert/MEDEX/Winter/MCHFirstTrimesterPregnancy/14-3.GIF
--IronAngelAlice (talk) 07:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure- in a technical sense of what one is likely to see in real life. But no offense, but they suck. I can't see anything. If I came to this article I'd expect to see some ummm, well, not necessarily what you'd see in a wax museum, but something really detailed. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll try and read the article tomorrow. But just a question: why do you start out with damage and abortion the first thing under "human fetus?" ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Largely politics, in my opinion; unless someone actually thinks that those are the most important things that someone should know about the postembryonic human fetus. Sure, that info could be useful, but I think you're right on to notice that they seem out of place in the lead of that section. Antelan 08:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The susceptibility to damage has been an intro line in the prenatal development article for a very long time, before I ever touched that article. See here from December of 2006. I don't think it's anything sinister, it just happened that way, probably copied from the footnoted medical sources.

I have been unhappy with this Fetus article for a long time, because I think that Zygote, Embryo, and Fetus articles should be developed to include more detailed information on these stages, and then prenatal development should be used as a top-tier hub to summarize those sub-articles. However, others objected, as you can see here. The matter is still unresolved.

But I must say, Antelan, that the imperfection of this article is no reason to keep out images that you seem to acknowledge would be fine in a "perfect" article.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that all who have commented so far agree on the point re: placement of 'destruction of fetus' info. Regarding the images, I certainly never said anything about their place in a perfect article. By 'fine for a certain audience', I was actually thinking children, no offense intended. Antelan 08:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you ever answered my question, Antelan. Are you asserting that these medical images are inaccurate? And if you acknowledge that they are accurate, then why do you think they would only be fine for children?Ferrylodge (talk) 09:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I did a double take after reading this post; you asked no question, so how was I to answer one? Ahh, I see that way up in this post you asked a question. I never replied to it; I replied to one of Martinphi's replies to it. In asking me about the appropriateness of images, you linked to the 'Adam' page, but the images that you had added to this page are not the same. Although the Adam images are still oversimplified, they are less 'cutesy' than the ones previously on the Fetus page. Whether better or worse is a matter of audience, as usual. Also, this question may be moot, unless we have permission from Adam to use their images. Antelan 09:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The images that were at this page were extremely similar to the Adam images. I do not understand why you think the images that were at this article were "cutesy." The image to the right appears to me just like the Adam picture.

In any event, do you think that the Adam pictures would be only be fine for children?Ferrylodge (talk) 09:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Relative to pictures of the "real thing," yes, these are rather "cutesy." And I don't think many would agree that Image:10 weeks pregnant.jpg and the corresponding Adam image look "just like" each other. (I am comparing these two because 7.5 weeks of fetal 'age' roughly == 9.5 weeks 'pregnant' based on gestational age). Again, I don't think it matters what anyone thinks about the Adam pictures unless you can show me how we're going to get them to release the images under GFDL-compatible license. Antelan 09:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This image from ADAM is very much like the one shown to the right. The only reason I mentioned the ADAM pictures is to help verify the accuracy of the pictures that were in this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 10:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, those resemble each other. The thumbnail sized images of unknown provenance look like rounder, glossier, cutesier versions of the copyrighted Adam images. Antelan 10:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's another illustration of the same stage. And here's a list of the doctors who reviewed that illustration.Ferrylodge (talk) 10:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't expect to have anything further to say about the images, at least not until the page is unprotected. So, I'll be curious to see how the discussion turns out. I think it's fairly obvious that they're decent non-POV images that match up well with available medical images. They're certainly much better than nothing, and much better than fuzzy sonogram images. They were donated to Misplaced Pages, and I would have no objection to removing the links to the donor, although the links do provide access to pretty impressive 3D images like this one. I hope Thatcher won't mind if I quote him here:

"I have a problem with the characterization of FerryLodge's conduct as disruptive....These drawings do not come from a partisan pro-life web site but from a commercial site for expectant mothers that seels advertising. (As such, the links should perhaps be removed, however). Is there a question about there accuracy, and in that case, has anyone tried to find images from medical or scientific sources? The rationale for complaining about these images seems extremely suspect, and the idea that an article on fetus will describe but not illustrate the stages of fetal development seems to be an extreme point of view of its own....I can not see how the article on fetus can not have drawings of different stages of development (assuming they are accurate)...."

I support continued inclusion of these longstanding images, but certainly not to advance any POV.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

When you claim that over 200 MDs have "reviewed that illustration," it makes me seriously question what you're trying to accomplish. Antelan 10:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Antelan, I have no idea which of the doctors reviewed the image. I'm just saying that it seems to be a medical image if it was reviewed by a medical review board, that's all. What I am trying to accomplish is to disabuse you of the erroneous notion that I have acted in any bad faith here. The images are the best we've got at this point, so I don't think they should be deleted. If we get better ones, then fine. If you're not convinced that these images are reasonably accurate, then I'll go find more images to persuade you otherwise. I've only tried to help Misplaced Pages by inserting the images here, and I think they're a heck of a lot better than nothing. By the way, have you seen the rotating version? It's pretty amazing.Ferrylodge (talk) 10:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't the slightest feeling of sour faith until your claim about the 200+ doctors reviewing that image. I think the images you have been inserting are the least accurate of any we've discussed. By 'accurate', I mean 'resembling a real fetus'. Problematically, it appears that all of the images we have discussed are under copyright restriction, so none, including the ones you have been inserting, are viable options for this article. And now that you've shown me the rotating fetus image, it's even more obvious why those images are so 'cute' - they're from a commercial site, and they are meant to appeal to expectant parents, who most want to believe that mom carries something beautiful inside of her. The images you have been posting are probably in violation of copyright; you should delete them. Antelan 10:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Antelan, please, I never said anything about "200+" doctors, and I did not mean to suggest that every last one of the doctors on the list had reviewed the images. If you would investigate further, you would see that the pictures that were in this article violated no copyrights at all.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge obtained an acceptable Creative Commons license from the copyright holder, which is documented on the image description pages. Encyclopedicness (not a real word) may be an issue (I take no position on it), but copyright is not. --B (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It does seem to me that 1) the text probably needs a lot of revision, and has probably been structured to highlight political concerns 2) that the images are probably the best we have at the moment, and should really be replaced by something more graphic and detailed 3) that we should either keep the images and reform the text, or reform the text and then re-insert the images. But just deleting them and doing nothing else doesn't seem right. It seems like making the article less informative and fun. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

For ease of reference:

1. Here's the longstanding image of a fetus at start of ninth week (i.e. at 10 weeks' gestational age). This image was donated to Misplaced Pages by 3Dpregnancy.com, and there are no copyright problems.

2. Here's a larger rotating image from the same source (3Dpregnancy.com).

3. Here's an image at roughly the same stage, from a medical encyclopedia by ADAM.

4. Here's another illustration of the same stage. And here's a list of the doctors who reviewed that illustration (or at least some of them did).

5. Here's a photo from Langman's Medical Embryology by Thomas W. Sadler, page 89.

6. Here's a drawing from the Michigan Department of Community Health.

7. Here's a motion-picture sonogram of a fetus at eight weeks after fertilization, from the The Endowment for Human Development, which says it is a neutral organization.

The tiny image that we have been presenting seems consistent with all of these, and I have not seen any consensus here for removing the longstanding pictures. I have focussed here on only one of the longstanding pictures (i.e. the one at 8 weeks from fertilization=10 weeks' gestational age). No one has really expressed any reasons for objecting to the other two.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

CNS development does not determine premature viability

Even fetuses born between 26 and 28 weeks have difficulty surviving, mainly because the respiratory system and the central nervous system are not completely differentiated...

CNS development is not a critical component to viability at this stage. What source was this based on? The overwhelming issue for viability is respiratory development.Zebulin (talk) 09:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, Zebulin, that sentence has a footnote at the end: "Moore, Keith and Persaud, T. (2003). The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology'. Philadelphia: Saunders, p. 103. ISBN 0-7216-9412-8." If you're asking which Misplaced Pages editor inserted that sentence into this article, I think it was Vassyana.Ferrylodge (talk) 10:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

A review of the abstract strongly suggested that the article would not be a source on Perinatal viability. In any case CNS development plays a minimal role in viability. Extremely retarded CNS development is fully compatible with life. I'll see if I can find the complete article in our library before seeking any modifications.Zebulin (talk) 06:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a book, rather than an article.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! the article I found in pub med will obviously not be helpful but there is another library I can likely pick up the book and then follow the references if need be at ours.Zebulin (talk) 06:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Recommended

I'd recommend the following: remove the information on fetal death to its own section- yes, it is relevant, but does not belong where it is. It could also be inserted perhaps in one of the existing sections. Remove the Circulatory system information to its own article- it's hard to understand and isn't the general information you'd expect here- way, way too much detail. Summarize the large quote about Viability. And a few other things. Aside from the fetal death thing, what are people concerned about in terms of POV? I do not see any POV pushing except for the sentence at the beginning of the stages section. And of course we need more pics, especially like the National Geographic ones, or the cat embryo one, which is great. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent)Regarding non-human fetus pics from National Geographic, here's a really beautiful image of an elephant fetus at 12 months of its 22 month gestation:

Image:Inthewomb_3.jpg

I'm not sure if we're allowed to use this image in this particular article, however. I personally think the cat fetus (mentioned by others previously) is gross.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that is nice, though it looks computer generated. But the cat pic is awesome. We aren't really trying to keep people from being grossed out, we're trying to give them information. If we do that without being political -for instance, a cute, but brused, dead face sticking out of a medical waste bag- then we have made a good article. Also, no mother is going to go screaming from the cat pic. If I think it is cute, that just goes to show that we can't pre-determine what will set off people's nerves. Why not use the elephant pic under the cat pic? You really need several pics for animals (: ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That image is not acceptable to use in this article. It's being used under a claim of fair use in an article about the movie (in theory) for critical commentary of the movie. There would be no such claim of fair use here - it would just be somebody's picture that happens to show what we want it to and we're using without permission. --B (talk) 14:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I still say the elephant pic is way cool, even if we can't use it.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I have always supported the cat picture.-Andrew c  14:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Martinphi and Andrew c regarding the cat picture, though I think it'd be great to also have human fetal stages pictured here. Antelan 19:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Since I have not been able to obtain any better animal pics, and since the rat picture alone is not very helpful, I agree that the cat picture should be included.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Great- so we're at include the cat pic, and find more pictures of human fetuses.

Do you guys want to start changing the article? I can set it up in my userspace. Everyone can edit as they normally would, except that I'll make edit wars useless. If one starts, I'll revert as many times as necessary to the pre-edit war version till it's settled on the talk page. But, at the same time, editing could continue on other areas of the article where there was no war.

So what about moving the information on fetal death to a new section under the stages section? It could be called fetal death and developmental problems, and could include ways of death, as well as diseases and genetic malfunction etc. which shows up at this stage?

And could we remove that animal pic already there? I thought it was a puppy, but is that what you're calling a rat? ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Moving the fetal death stuff would be fine. Removing the rat pic (it says "Rat fetus at E17" in the caption) would also be fine. Additionally, installing the cat pic would be fine.

Your suggestion to set up a version in your user space seems premature since there is apparently broad agreement about suggested changes thus far. Also, I'm unclear what the pre-edit war version is that you are referring to (i.e. there was edit-warring within the past week, after a long period of stability).

I've explained my position about the fetus pics that were removed, and I've provided links to medical sources for substantiatiation. Better human fetus pics or additional human fetus pics would be fine, but as of now I don't see why those longstanding pics shouldn't be restored (while removing the links in the footnotes as Thatcher suggested), and it's unclear what the positions of other people are about that.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

But if you still think that setting up a version in your user space would be helpful, then I won't object.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the pics should be restored, till better ones more like the kitten pic can be obtained. The version I'm talking about would be a hypothetical verion in my user space: if an edit war started, I can revert to the pre edit-war version. The reason to set it up in userspace, if others also want that, is that we can start editing right away, and it is an environment protected from the potential of edit warring. We can edit, then install with consensus. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree that the drawings should be restored. I do support a hypothetical version where we can hash out text and any photos to be used.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin removed these longstanding images for the stated reason that they "show the fetus as something more than a collection of cells". Is that your reason too, Alice?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about drawings, but computer generated things. Since they are the best we have, and Antelan says they are accurate enough, I don't see why we wouldn't include them. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

While it may be true that some expert on the subject might see some POV pushing associated with the images, I think we need to write the article for the general reader. I don't see what could be pro live or pro choice about them, but I think we need pics, so I would support having them till more pics like the kitten one can be found. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No. If a subject matter expert considers these images to be POV pushing, this is a major red flag. There is absolutely no harm in leaving the contested illustrations out for now. Antelan 19:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a great deal of harm that can result from leaving material out of an article without consesnus, when the material is longstanding and well-sourced. Additionally, I do not understand why Martinphi believes that "it may be true that some expert on the subject might see some POV pushing associated with the images." The following sources provide ample support that the 8-week image, for example, is an excellent approximation to reality.

1. Here's an image at roughly the same stage, from a medical encyclopedia by ADAM.

2. Here's another illustration of the same stage. And here's a list of the doctors who reviewed that illustration (or at least some of them did).

3. Here's a photo from Langman's Medical Embryology by Thomas W. Sadler, page 89.

4. Here's a drawing from the Michigan Department of Community Health.

5. Here's a motion-picture sonogram of a fetus at eight weeks after fertilization, from the The Endowment for Human Development, which says it is a neutral organization.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

And the potential harm is even greater in view of the fact that the longstanding images were removed for the stated reason that they "show the fetus as something more than a collection of cells". Apparently, the images did not show what the removing editor would have preferred they show.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

We've already gone through this once. Let's not rehash the same discussion again? When we can find a more acceptable set of prints, all dissent will wash away. The prints from that maternity website are too far removed from reality. The cat fetus is a good start, and can remain while we look for better photos of human fetuses. Antelan 22:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you, Antelan. See my response below to OrangeMarlin (including a copy of one of my attempts to obtain better images). ThxFerrylodge (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sonogram Images

I have no problem with including Sonogram images, but I find it curious that we went after the old 2D Sonograms when updated 3D and 4D technology is now available, and are much easier for a lay person to see. Perhaps we can see if we can find some non-copyrighted 4D Sonogram images OR get someone to donate these to wikipedia?Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 07:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

We already have some of these images here on wikipedia at the http://en.wikipedia.org/3D_ultrasound page. I am sure we can find some images online that find the gestational ages that we are looking for. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 07:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Here are some examples. http://www.mothercareultrasound.com/images.html. And these, from the folks that produced the National Geographic video "Biology of Prenatal Development." http://www.ehd.org/science_imagegal1.php. These are outstanding, and go from 0-38 weeks. I wonder if they would grant us a license to use them? At the very least, we should external link these. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Sonograms are nice, but they are much less accurate than a good drawing. The main advantage of a sonogram is that it allows a pregnant woman to actually see her own offspring before birth, which of course a drawing cannot normally accomplish. That's why I think sonograms are fine in the pregnancy article, but not so great here in this article. I do not know of any sonogram that comes anywhere near the accuracy of a drawing at 8 weeks after fertilization, and indeed a sonogram may give the false impression that nothing is present at that stage.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I've found some 8 week 4D Sonograms that are certainly better than any drawing ever could be. Here is 6 weeks: http://www.ehd.org/flash.php?mov_id=206, 7 weeks: http://www.ehd.org/flash.php?mov_id=205 and 8 weeks: http://www.ehd.org/flash.php?mov_id=204. I had no problem with the drawings, but since other editors are insisting that we use Sonogram images, we need to use Sonograms that reflect the latest in medical technology, and that means the updated 3D and 4D technology, NOT outdated 2D that many times takes special training to read and understand. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

That's an impressive 8-week sonogram, but really it's nowhere near as good as a drawing or photograph. You cannot even discern that the fetus has eyes, in that sonogram. If you can obtain copyright permission for an 8-week sonogram image like that, then I suppose we could put it in this article. In the mean time, I will link to it in the footnote for the 8-week drawing (which already links to four other images at that stage of development). As far as other editors "insisting" that we use sonogram images in this article, I'm not sure there is consensus to include the crummy ones we have now; in any event, my main concern is to have good drawings, regardless of whether sonograms are included. I'll go ahead and link to the 8-week sonogram at the draft article, in the footnote for the 8-week drawing, and thanks for finding that sonogram. The 6-week imges aren’t really pertinent here, because they’re of an embryo rather than a fetus.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you on the drawings. The EHD site has in womb video of the fetus at the various stages of development, and the drawings are very close renderings of what the Fetus looks like. I like the 3D rotational effect of the drawing that is posted here. My point was that if we are going to use sonograms, then they should be 3D/4D sonograms. I agree with you that there is no consensus on using the outdated 2D sonograms that we have now. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

The sonogram images currently in the article have the website name printed on them, which is really a bad idea for a number of reasons. Under the Creative Commons license, authorship credits for a derivative or collective work have to be at least as prominent as authorship credits for other comparable works. The "so what" of that is that if we credit one picture in the picture itself, we have to credit all Creative Commons pictures in the pictures themselves. --B (talk) 07:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Draft page

I've created the page to edit here. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've started editing the draft page.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That's what's called POV-forking. Please discuss edits here and use {{editprotected}}. Guy (Help!) 19:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Guy, you are mistaken. I was ambivalent about Martinphi creating the draft in his user space, but it certainly is entirely consistent with Misplaced Pages policy. User space is often used "to plan large changes to articles, new articles, or allow Wikipedians to draft graphical layout overhauls."

"A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts." In this case, Martinphi did not create a separate article. He created a draft of the same article.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that Guy has deleted the draft in another editor's user space. That seems like a very bold thing to do, and possibly disruptive. It means, among other things, that all the edits to that draft are now unavailable, and cannot be copied to this page.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to work on a draft anywhere but here, where all involved editors can have a say. Antelan 19:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no huge preference one way or the other, but it seems like deleting the user space page was highly inappropriate.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree (oviously). Past history indicates that creating forks of contentious articles in user space rather than settling differences and agreeing compromise wording on Talk has one of two outcomes: a biased version, because only one side knows it exists; or moving the edit war somewhere else. Agree what needs to change, use {{editprotected}}, or request unprotection. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you please paste the code that I inserted into the draft, into this page, so that I do not have to recreate it from scratch? Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Revised footnote for image

Here's a draft revised footnote for the 8-week image:

"This is an approximate drawing of a fetus eight weeks after fertilization (i.e. at the beginning of the ninth week after fertilization), therefore having a gestational age of about ten weeks (i.e. at the beginning of the eleventh week of gestational age). This drawing can be compared to other online images of a fetus at approximately the same stage of development, including the following images:
(1) photograph of fetus during ninth week after fertilization, from Thomas W. Sadler, Langman's Medical Embryology, page 90 (2006) via Google Books;
(2) motion-picture 4D ultrasound of fetus at eight weeks and two days after fertilization, from the Endowment for Human Development;
(3) drawing of fetus at ten weeks’ gestational age, from KidsHealth.org which has a medical review board;
(4) drawing of fetus at ten weeks' gestational age, from Michigan Department of Community Health;
(5) drawing of fetus at ten weeks' gestational age, from A.D.A.M. via About.com."

I don't see any consensus for removing this longstanding image from this article. Please note that these images were removed immediately prior to page protection, for the stated reason that they "show the fetus as something more than a collection of cells". Apparently, the images did not show what the removing editor would have preferred they show. Additonally, this image is not from a pro-life web site.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

And the other changes? You did more than simply reinsert the image. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

As I recall, I simply suggested reinserting the image with a revised footnote for it. Then the draft was deleted. Am I forgetting something?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the draft footnote above has been edited subsequently to many of the comments below. The most recent edit to the draft footnote above was simultaneous with this comment.Ferrylodge (talk) 10:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Response to Ferrylodge.

1. ADAM illustration. Please note the pronounced Notocord and forming vertebral column which is noticeably absent from POV image supported by others. In this case, the POV image attempts to make the developing fetus into a more human like image, despite the fact that the developing embryo more resembles primitive Chordates at this point in development. This illustration is biologically accurate, and I would support it's use, if available, in this article.
2. Kid's Health illustration. This picture is used for children. I don't think it has relevance here, but I will concur the images are similar though not even close to biologically accurate.
3. Langman's Encyclopedia photograph. The photo shows a pronounced tail, notocord, and facial features that resemble a reptile or bird, more than a human.
4. Michigan Department of Health. It appears to be an exact copy of ADAM. This image is not at all similar to the POV image.
5. EHD is indeed a neutral organization. However, the echo image is not at all similar to the POV image. The eyes are sealed closed, and there lacks a facial expression of a fully developed human.

In each case, Ferrylodge has indeed supported my contention that the POV images are in fact POV. They are not medically based, and were developed to provide a more "human" visualization of the fetus. I assume that there might be a small percentage of 9-week old fetuses that have human appearance, but it is rare. OrangeMarlin 22:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The maternity website images are clearly the least acceptable of any that have been produced here, save perhaps the children's pictures. Antelan 22:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) OrangeMarlin, I agree with you and Antelan that it would be nice if we could use the A.D.A.M. drawings instead. I don't mean to destroy your preconceived notions about me, but I attempted to get permission to use those images. Not that you'll believe the following email is authentic, but here it is anyway (I received no response):

"Tue, 17 Apr 2007

Mr. T.J. Bucholz
Michigan Department of Community Health
201 Townsend, 7th Floor
Lansing, MI 48913
Dear Mr. Bucholz:
I am a volunteer writer for the 💕 Misplaced Pages. I presently am working on an article related to the human fetus. Your agency's illustration at http://www.michigan.gov/mdch/0,1607,7-132-2940_4909_6437_19077_19078-45537--,00.html would really improve the article. Specifically, I would like your permission to use the image at: http://www.michigan.gov/mdch/0,1607,7-132-2940_4909_6437_19077_19078-45537--,00.html in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/Fetus One way for you to give your permission to use the above noted image is to reply to this email with the statement: We own the copyright to the image mentioned in your email letter and found at http://www.michigan.gov/mdch/0,1607,7-132-2940_4909_6437_19077_19078-45537--,00.html. We grant permission to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, no Back-Cover Texts, and subject to disclaimers found at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GFDL
Thank you for your time.

Kindly,"

OrangeMarlin, I am not pro-life, and I am not Christian. Nor do I subscribe really to any organized religion, though my heritage is Jewish. I say all this, because you have accused me elsewhere (repeatedly) of being a POV-pushing, pro-life Christian. I do believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, and that legislatures are entitled, and indeed should, provide much more protection against abortion, especially after an embryo becomes a fetus. Basically, what I am trying to say is that I am a thinking person, not some kind of kneejerk fool. I am not connected with any organization, and I participate in Misplaced Pages purely as a volunteer activity. My interest here in this article is presenting truthful information.

Now, moving along to the image in question, it is not perfect, but the distinctions you make are subtle, especially for a lay person. The footnote makes clear that this picture is an "approximation" and provides further resources. The image shows a heck of a lot that is correct. For example, it shows that a fetus at this stage is much more than a clump of cells, contrary to what you might prefer it showed. Additionally, you are plainly wrong about the Kid's Health illustration being "used for children" --- look again and you will see that it is explicitly for parents. Anyway, I find myself in the somewhat uncomfortable position of agreeing with JzG/Guy, who says "My opinion is that the images are acceptable, they are no different to the images in our old books from when my wife was pregnant. I would let it go, but work very carefully on the surrounding text and sources." Contrary to what you say, the present image that you removed does not show "a facial expression of a fully developed human." Additionally, you will see eyes visible in the Langman's image. Ferrylodge (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for emailing them. I'm not surprised they didn't write back, but those images would be nice to have license to use. For the time being, I will respectfully disagree that this article is better with the maternity website images. Antelan 23:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I still have to confirm that the A.D.A.M. pics (and Michigan pics) that I've linked to are 8 weeks after fertilization, as compared to 8 weeks after LMP.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

As OM pointed out, the Michigan images are the same as the Rhode Island ADAM images, so I have deleted the link to the Rhode Island ADAM images (see first comment in this section of talk page). Regarding the Michigan images, they're using age from LMP rather than age from fertilization. Keep in mind that it's well-known that a human at 8 weeks after LMP is .5 to .8 inches (14 to 20 mm), and also a human at 10 weeks after LMP is 1.2 to 1.7 inches (31 to 42 mm). Therefore, I've changed the link for Michigan (see first comment in this section of talk page); you can confirm that this change is correct by consulting About.com (here and here).Ferrylodge (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I don't know if it was just in the copy you pasted here or if it was in what you sent him, but the URLs you pasted are wrong. http://www.sxc.hu/photo/322389http://www.michigan.gov/mdch/0,1607,7-132-2940_4909_6437_19077_19078-45537--,00.htmlhttp://www.sxc.hu/photo/322389 is not right - I think you really want http://www.michigan.gov/mdch/0,1607,7-132-2940_4909_6437_19077_19078-45537--,00.html. --B (talk) 07:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi B. I double-checked the email I sent in April, and it seems that it did not copy and paste properly into this section. I have no idea where http://www.sxc.hu/ came from. Anyway, I have corrected the pasted email above. In my April email, I repeated the following URL three times (I don't know why I repeated it three times but I did): http://www.michigan.gov/mdch/0,1607,7-132-2940_4909_6437_19077_19078-45537--,00.html Feel free to remove this comment and yours, if you like.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok ... you may want to try emailing them again. They may have clicked on the link, not gotten it to work, and ignored your email. --B (talk) 08:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the email I sent them was okay. I'll forward it to you. In any event, they perhaps couldn't grant permission for the 10-week LMP drawing, since the image may have originated elsewhere (e.g. their 8-week image originated at http://www.adam.com).Ferrylodge (talk) 08:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Three separate issues, then. First: should we have images of the foetus at the various stages of gestation (I think yes, this is normal in pregnancy books and not in and of itself evidence of an agenda). Second: do these images pass our copyright / fair use policies (hard to say for fair use, and any release to Misplaced Pages-only would not work, we can only accept unconditional release under GFDL, which most image sources will not allow). Third, what kind of image should we use (and here I support the use of line drawings or other artistic work rather than photos or retouched sonograms, which is how it's usually done in the pregnancy books). For my money, Image:10 weeks pregnant.jpg passes muster. It's released under CC-By-SA, is of acceptable quality and is representative of the kinds of images typically used to illustrate the subject in books which are not promoting an agenda. Guy (Help!) 10:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The draft footnote (at the top of this talk page section) for Image:10 weeks pregnant.jpg is huge, but it offers some good resources, and will back up the accuracy of the image. I'll try to put together similar footnotes for Image:20 weeks pregnant.jpg and Image:40 weeks pregnant.jpg over the next couple days.Ferrylodge (talk) 12:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Three images for reinsertion into article with new footnotes for each

Here's a draft revised footnote for the 8-weeks-after-fertilization image:

This is an approximate drawing of a fetus eight weeks after fertilization (i.e. at the beginning of the ninth week after fertilization), therefore having a gestational age of about ten weeks (i.e. at the beginning of the eleventh week of gestational age). This drawing can be compared to other online images of a fetus at approximately the same stage of development, including the following images:
(1) photograph of fetus during ninth week after fertilization, from Thomas W. Sadler, Langman's Medical Embryology, page 90 (2006) via Google Books;
(2) motion-picture 4D ultrasound of fetus at eight weeks and two days after fertilization, from the Endowment for Human Development;
(3) drawing of fetus at ten weeks’ gestational age, from KidsHealth.org which has a medical review board;
(4) drawing of fetus at ten weeks' gestational age, from Michigan Department of Community Health;
(5) drawing of fetus at ten weeks' gestational age, from A.D.A.M. via About.com.

Here's a draft revised footnote for the 18-weeks-after-fertilization image:

This is an approximate drawing of a fetus 18 weeks after fertilization (i.e. at the beginning of the 19th week after fertilization), therefore having a gestational age of about 20 weeks (i.e. at the beginning of the 21st week of gestational age). This drawing can be compared to other online images of a fetus at approximately the same stage of development, including the following images:
(1) photograph of fetus during 18th week after fertilization, from Thomas W. Sadler, Langman's Medical Embryology, page 92 (2006) via Google Books;
(2) drawing of fetus at 20 weeks’ gestational age, from KidsHealth.org which has a medical review board;
(3) drawing of fetus at 20 weeks' gestational age, from Michigan Department of Community Health.

Here's a draft revised footnote for the 38-weeks-after-fertilization image:

This is an approximate drawing of a fetus 38 weeks after fertilization (i.e. at about the typical time of birth), therefore having a gestational age of about 40 weeks. This drawing can be compared to other online images of a fetus at approximately the same stage of development, including the following image: drawing of fetus at 40 weeks’ gestational age, from KidsHealth.org which has a medical review board.

I still contend these images are POV. However, based on Guy's request that I accept them, I will. However, I reserve the right to change my mind if better images are available to us via free use. These images are NOT accurate representations of human fetuses--they are artistic renditions that make the fetus appear more human-like. A 9-week fetus has a visible notocord, eyes sealed shut, usually (but not always) a tail, and other anatomical features. But if you insist, go for it. OrangeMarlin 18:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

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