Talk:Amniotic sac

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Amniotic sac has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

1 Too specific to humans
2 twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome occourrence
3 photo
4 AFI
5 Source of Amniotic Fluid
6 TfD nomination of Template:Linkimage

[edit] Too specific to humans

The amnion is present in all reptiles (which cladistically includes mammals and birds/dinosaurs). The article as currently written implies that only mammals (and perhaps only humans) have them.

In fact, the technical name for all reptiles and descendants is "amniotes". Our cousins the amphibians lack the amnion, as do all other animals.

I think you're probably right, but I'm way too far from my biology texts to prove it right now. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 14:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome occourrence

the article states that TTTS is rare:

In rare cases, blood passes disproportionately from one twin to the other through connecting blood vessels within their shared placenta, leading to twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome.

but TTTS article states that

TTTS is believed to affect roughly 1 in 1000 pregnancies.

Something is really wrong! --Melaen 01:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

One in 1000 is rare.

CarlFink 01:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] photo

Talk about a photo that's graphic! -Amit

i second that -Joeyjojo 14:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

wow. that's a little more graphic than i was hoping for. MaxPowar 13:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see these comments as an appropriate discussion that should lead to censorship. Please discuss the reasons for the image not being shown inline. violet/riga (t) 10:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how the definition provided on the article Censorship applies to this case. I'm not suggesting removing the image entirely, just making viewing it voluntary. I've always thought that WP:NOT#CENSOR should be balanced against maintaining readability of an article for readers who do not have an iron stomach in terms of graphic content. Obviously, if four users say the photo is more graphic than it needs to be, perhaps we should err on the side of WP:CON. -Severa (!!!) 11:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't see it as particularly graphic, being an image directly related to the topic. Not including it is, I believe, censorship as we are determining what should and should not be shown. Four users may have said it's graphic, but the first two are merely comments and do not imply that it should not be included, while the third is stating that an alternative might be better. violet/riga (t) 13:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you understand that {{Linkimage}} does not "censor" an image — that is, remove it entirely from the article - it only places a link within a template that the reader can click if they wish. I think sensitivity to graphic content, even in a medical context, poses legitimate concerns for readability. -Severa (!!!) 13:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that I'm completely willing to defer to your judgment. I just think the charge that the edit constitutes "censorship" is off base. That wasn't the intent at all. -Severa (!!!) 15:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I do understand that the linkimage template allows users to choose whether or not to see the image. The problem we've always had is where we draw the line about which images should be hidden in this way. The general consensus is that, unless the image is of a highly graphic sexual nature, it should be included. violet/riga (t) 21:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope that blood and gore are included in that aswell. Mausy5043 10:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're misusing the term censorship. Censorship means the "the removal of information from the public, or the prevention of circulation of information, where it is desired or felt best by some controlling group or body that others are not allowed to access the information which is being censored." Whether or not immediately, the picture remains available to everyone interested, so using linkimage template is no censorship. People may have the right to choose if they only want to read about the topic or they also want to see it illustrated. Why should you force them to do both? Please consider: the opposite of "forbidden" is not "obligatory" but "allowed." There is no point in using the word "censorship" here.

"The general consensus is that, unless the image is of a highly graphic sexual nature, it should be included." Obviously, other kinds of images can be similarly distracting for many -- if it weren't the case, people wouldn't object to it on the discussion page. Adam78 16:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be much better if we did not spend time arguing about definitions here. Censorship can mean "Prevention of disturbing or painful thoughts or feelings from reaching consciousness except in a disguised form" [1], "deleting parts of publications", or "The act of hiding, removing, altering or destroying copies of art or writing so that general public access to it is partially or completely limited"[2]. Now let us avoid pedantics...

While I agree that some images can be disturbing I disagree that we should hide ones such as this. As we appear to be at a deadlock an RfC might be in order. violet/riga (t) 17:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me remind you again that no one wants to delete anything. It's about making something optional, instead of making it obligatory.

Yes, please initiate an RfC. Although I really don't see why you insist on your method which only reflects your preferences and why you oppose a compromise which would suit both parties, making the picture optional. The more developed a program or a device is, the more options it has and so the more user-friendly it is considered. Why reduce the readers' options? Adam78 20:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I do not see the middle point between inclusion of the image and use of linkimage to be actually using linkimage. As you say "no one wants to delete anything" and thus you are not compromising here. The image was there for an extended time before complaints and I believe that the default position here should be that the image is included in the article.

I understand your position and how some people might not especially like the image, but I do not like the idea of random users picking and choosing what they think people shouldn't see. violet/riga (t) 21:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. The compromise or middle point (or NPOV) exists between using an image and not using an image and their middle point is using linkimage. It's a middle point between two default options: we have the picture and we don't have it at the same time, so to say. (Of course, a middle point can be found between any two points, like using normal-sized or huge pictures, or using prepared/schematic or gory pictures, or deleting the picture altogether or just not linking to it, but I chose a middle point between the two basic options, using a picture or not using a picture. I don't think it's so complicated.)

"I do not like the idea of random users picking and choosing what they think people shouldn't see." Why do you think there is no such debate about a picture of playing children? If an image raises debate among several people, don't you think it may have some reason? (I believe it concerns less than 1% of the images in Wikipedia so you don't have to be afraid that Wikipedia would lose its images.) Let me repeat again: everybody is allowed to see the picture, anyway.

Or, to put it differently, "I do not like the idea of random users forcing their will on others, ignoring others' expressed suggestion and request." I like users who leave options and let others decide what they want. And if we know that even some of those few people who resolve to become doctors actually faint at the first dissections, I don't think average people should be exposed to similar images without any prior notice. It's nothing but disrespect for the others, a lack of civility, which I hardly think Wikipedia should afford. Adam78 23:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't misunderstand you at all, and cries of incivility are more inflammatory even than your decision to edit war. We should stick with the image being included in the article while discussions reach a conclusion, including an RfC if necessary. The method used by linkimage is ugly and goes against good web design principles. If someone wishes to look at an article on the amniotic sac then they should expect to see an image of it. Your analogy of doctors fainting is not relevant as seeing things in the flesh (literally!) is a totally different experience to looking at an image. violet/riga (t) 10:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Gaa! Isn't this really a picture of the amnion (minus the chorion), and not the whole amniotic sac? As such, wouldn't this existing image be more representative? --Infrangible 05:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Gray34.png

not quite so bloody

Both images would be better - photographic and diagrammatic more clearly illustrate the article. violet/riga (t) 10:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"If someone wishes to look at an article on the amniotic sac then they should expect to see an image of it." Why do you want to decide for them what they should or shouldn't do and what image they find suitable themselves? Let them decide. They are grown-up people, after all. I'm afraid this way of thinking is a little bit authoritarian.
On the other hand, I agree with the Gray image to be included because it's not a surgery picture. I don't think it's so much difference whether a sight is "in the flesh" or not. By the way, it would be interesting to make a statistics of the other articles of body parts how many of them contain surgery images.
I still do not find anything inflammatory whatsoever about trying to preserve the respect for average readers, and regarding them as adult people with their own specific preferences, instead of deciding for them without asking what they want to see. What I find inflammatory is behaving in an authoritarian way and depriving the readers of their choices. I'm sorry. Let's try to be a bit less authoritarian. Let's try to preserve the freedom of readers. Please. Adam78 11:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You are not treating people as adults by giving them a choice, and your actions (edit-warring) are inflammatory. violet/riga (t) 11:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Image use policy contains an important caveat: "Do not upload shocking or explicit pictures, unless they have been approved by a consensus of editors for the relevant article." WP:NOT#Censor is not an open door to everything; it does not trump all other policies on Wikipedia. In the event that an image is disputed, we should attempt to find a solution by reaching a consensus, per WP:IUP and WP:CON. We should try to find a feasible solution upon which everyone (or almost everyone) can agree. No one owns a Wikipedia article, so no one opinion carries more weight than another. I agree that the linkimage template is a reasonable compromise. If the template doesn't look good, then the solution would be to improve the template's appearance, not reject its use entirely. -Severa (!!!) 12:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Having seen the picture I can imagine that some younger viewers and those with a weaker stomach will appreciate it not being shown on the page itself. I think the current solution is a good one. This is in no way censorship. Perhaps a better warning could be provided though. Any TV-show or whatever will definitely not be rated 'E' if they intend to show this kind of content. I believe that you should consider the picture from such a point of view. How would the picture be rated? If it isn't E or PG it should be linked to as done here. Mausy5043 10:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

@ "If someone wishes to look at an article on the amniotic sac then they should expect to see an image of it." Let's imagine you're an explorative 9-year old. You hear the term "Amniotic sac" and think: "What could that be?" So you go to Wikipedia to find out... I don't want my children to be exposed to such an image without them having been offered a choice, with a clear proper warning. No need to remove the picture (that would be censorship). Mausy5043 07:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

first, and foremost, why is this image even here? it doesn't seem to add anything really to the article, it really jsut looks like a bloody mess, second of all, Wikipedia has a content disclaimer, and that's impotent to remember; any further censoring of the image is against wikipedia's policy towards censorship.

What seems to be misunderstood is that it's not censorship to remove the image if that image fails to add anything to the article, it is cencorship to half remove it so that the people don't see it.

I will support the removal of the image, and I will support the image being in the article, but I will not support the censoring of the image.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 03:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that the image Image:Amnion.jpg adds nothing to the article, and it is used nowhere else on English Wikipedia. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 14:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It's an actual photograph related directly to the article - how can it not add anything?! violet/riga (t) 16:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Because it's showing the sac in a unnatural state and looks like a shock site image--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam}

If it is thought necessary to use the image, it should open in a smaller size, as similar WP images appear; it can then be enlarged if the user wants. Using a perfectly reasonable reasonable image in an unusual way does not provide the information that should have been intended--it is a shock image technique; to AGF, this may not have been realized by those inserting and supporting it. Many things appear strange and unnatura when shown larger than expected. DGG 03:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that the current solution is a good compromise between the opposing interests. In terms of having the image open in a smaller size, as DGG suggested, I'm not sure if that would be possible. The picture displayed on an Image: page is a thumbnail, reduced in proportion to the image's original size, and, being that Image:Amnion.jpg is over a thousand pixels in terms of both width and length, its corresponding thumbnail will be rather wide. I think the only way to have the image open in a smaller size would be to create a second version of the file that was reduced to something like 600 pixels wide. -Severa (!!!) 14:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Not at all - you can specify the size of the image displayed. violet/riga (t) 07:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AFI

A topic on how to calculate the amniotic fluid index (AFI) would be informative!

[edit] Source of Amniotic Fluid

I recall that no one yet understands what organ or process creates (secretes, excretes) amniotic fluid. Sure, the fetus ingests the fluid and cycles it out the urinary tract, but from where does it originate? How do all those components get there? From the mother? Or does junior manufacture it? I always thought it was blood plasma-like substance filtered by the kidneys and out the urethra, but I ain't no MD. --Robertkeller 00:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)