Talk:Feticide

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, which collaborates on articles related to abortion, abortion law, the abortion debate, and the history of abortion. To participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page.
Stub	This article has been rated stub-Class on the assessment scale.

1 Fetocide vs. Feticide
2 Requested move
- 2.1 Survey
- 2.2 Discussion
3 dictionary definitions

[edit] Fetocide vs. Feticide

This is rediculous. I have asked for a 3rd opinion and posted on the language reference desk and Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. I believe it is POV pushing to say that a common variant spelling used by professionals is simply a spelling mistake. --Andrew c 15:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not a national varieties of English usage issue. The words ending in -cide follow a strict pattern which is determined by the Latin or Greek work that they come from. Latin words ending in "us" like suus fungus foetus end in "-icide" (suicide, fungicide, foeticide). Greek words ending in "-os" like genos, ethnos etc. take "-ocide" (genocide ethnocide). Fetocide is just wrong and it is not in any dictionary. There is the further complication that it may have been changed deliberately to sound like "genocide" according with the anti-abortion POV that the phenomenon of abortion is a genocide/holocaust (the Silent Holocaust theory). If there is anyone who is trying to remove POV it is me. Zargulon 15:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The Unabridged Oxford English Dictionary lists Foeticide as prefered, Feticide as an alternative. Neither -ocide version appears. I'm afraid that unless you can show a dictionary given the -ocide version, I have to agree with Zargulon. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

But how does saying a commonly used variant spelling is actually a spelling mistake help the encyclopedic content of the topic at hand? Including that information does not seem appropriate. We have cited references of medical professionals using that spelling. Is it our place to in a topic about feticide to call them wrong? I do not believe that is the purpose of this article, nor wikipedia. I believe it is good enough to cite reliable sources (scholarly journal articles) that use that spelling, and just say that it is sometimes spelled "fetocide". There is no need to add the comment that some wikipedians couldn't find it in their dictionaries. Ununoctium isn't in any of my dictionaries, nor the OED online. Should we make note of that in the article itself? Of course not, because we have citations from reliable sources of its use. Wikipedia's policy is verifiability. I believe the spelling fetocide is verifiable under out guidelines. It says no where that dictionaries get the last say on matters of verifiability.--Andrew c 16:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Not on matters of verifiability but on matters of spelling. Zargulon 16:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a common variant spelling used by professionals, as this clinical link illustrates. The OP is not asking to move the article to a new name, rather that the word 'fetocide' be acknowledged as an acceptable variant, rather than a spelling error. Anchoress 16:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly.--Andrew c 16:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Citing individual instances of usage, even by professionals, neither illustrates that fetocide is "common" nor that it is not a misspelling. It is an uncommon misspelling, as illustrated clearly both by the morphological argument and by its complete absence from dictionaries. Zargulon 16:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

But it probably is a spelling error. It's an easy-to-misspell word, after all, and not a particularly common one. If it appears in any dictionary or textbook, by all means call it an alternative.Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

But unless you can prove that it isn't a common variant, you can't say that either. How about a compromise? If you or Zargulon can find a legitimate reference stating that it is a mis-spelling, you can say that in the article. If Andrew finds a legitimate reference (not necessarily a dictionary) stating that it is a variant, he can say that it is. Otherwise it stays out of the article. How do you two feel about that? Anchoress 16:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea. Removing the mention of it seems better than calling it a mispelling. Even with it in, it doesn't really futher the understanding of the concept.--Andrew c 16:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't accept your premise Anchoress. I don't feel there is any legitimate reason not to say that fetocide is a misspelling. I feel the proof I have already given is more than adequate. The misspelt "comittee" gets over a million google hits.. it is absurd to demand that it say somewhere "comittee is a misspelling".. the fact that it does not occur in any dictionaries is sufficient proof. Zargulon 16:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but I doubt 'comittee' shows up as the consistent spelling in very many medical journals published by Oxford University. You seem very obstinate about this, and I'm not sure why, but I really don't see that it is appropriate to call it a spelling mistake ('comittee' isn't listed as a mis-spelling in the committee article). I stand by my original suggestion, which is essentially that the word stays out entirely unless claims about it can be backed up. I really don't know how you can disagree with that. Anchoress 16:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand what you are trying to say, and I have nothing further to add.. my arguments seem to me as water-tight as ever whereas you seem not to have any and are therefore calling me names... Zargulon 16:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What names have I called you? What I'm saying is that a) there is no more logic to calling 'fetocide' a mis-spelling in this article than there is to calling 'comittee' a mis-spelling in the committee article; and b) my solution is actually very logical: the word and the description of it (either an error or a variant) stays out without a reference supporting the description. Anchoress 16:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You called me obstinate, an unhelpful epithet which I suppose you apply to anyone who won't submit to your will. On the other points, I won't repeat myself. Zargulon 17:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not call you obstinate. I said you seem obstinate about this issue. Your comment above, on the other hand, is both personal (unlike mine) and uncivil. I have no will in this matter, I'm only forwarding a suggestion that seems to me like a good and neutral compromise. I suggest you try to be less personal in your communication, and not to make judgements about other editors' motives and MOs without sufficient evidence and reason. You can reject my suggestions (which were made in good faith in order to be of service) without disparaging me. Anchoress 17:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You did use the word obstinate to describe me; please don't insult my intelligence further by condescending hair-splitting. Since you have no bias (according to you), I suggest you recuse yourself rather than continuing to create a pointless secondary conflict.. one is quite enough. Zargulon 17:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

<sigh>. Listen. A) It's not a matter of 'recusal', this isn't a hearing. B) I only came here because I am a helpful type person and an editor posted asking for help. C) I was actually already on my way out, but I felt that you had maligned me by accusing me of name-calling, and I felt a need to defend myself. D) I stand by my observation that you seem obstinate. E), I strongly suggest in future you take my advice not to be personal. Anchoress 17:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

When Strong Opinions Collide: Coming soon to a Wikitheatre near you! So realistic you'll feel you're bound up in the action! Can a one-letter change affect your life? You'll be surprised! Shows daily at random articles over issues you'd never expect to feel strongly about. May result in a need to calm down, and/or climb the Reichstadt in a Spiderman costume to gain attention for your point. Rated P-13G: All parents must have the guidance of a sensible pre-teen to point out if you're behaving foolishly.

Google results:

Foeticide: 187,000 - overwhelmingly the most popular spelling
Feticide: 75,800 - Common alternative
Fetocide: 10,300 - Rare, possibly a mistake
Foetocide: 229. DEFINATELY not accepted.

Feotocide is completely wrong, Fetocide less than half a percent of the sample. Suggestion: Move article to Foeticide, mention Feticide, and don't bother mentioning Fetocide at all. Sound good? Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, this is a little facetious, but... Andrew made a typo, "rediculous", in his first line. As I had been trying to think of a common title for a straw-poll comparison, I've used it:

Ridiculous: 37,200,000
Rediculous: 2,070,000

The proportions are roughly the same for this typo vs. the correct spelling as for fetocide vs. Foeticide. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Lol agree to move. Weakly in favour of retaining -ocide, insist, if mentioned, it is described as a misspelling. Zargulon 16:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I sidestepped the issue: I changes the citation used to a more neutral one with a more accepted spelling. If fetocide doesn't appear, we needn't mention it as a spelling or alternative. Huzzah! Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but isn't it a little premature to change the regional variant spelling used in the article. It's ok to list in the first sentene alternative spellings, but I think, especially in light of the ongoing discussion, that introducing a new alternative spelling into the article body was out of process.--Andrew c 17:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Aye. I apologise for that. I'm studying biology in Edinburgh, so the "Feti-" spelling looks rather strange to me (though I know fetus is valid), and so I presumed that as fetus is far more common than foetus, but foeticide more common than feticide, that it was one of those exmples of inconsistancy in spelling that you get. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello all. I am jumping into this from the Talk:MOS, which asked for an outside opinion. I got the gist of your debate and stopped reading at that point. This is so as not to overly influence my comments with what ever passions are expressed in the body of the debate. Also note that while I am not an English language academic, I am a practitioner of practical logic (computer science) and a web designer (who cares about communicating with people). When it comes to spelling English words I have two fixed standards: (1) New Oxford American Dictionary, 2nd Edition and (2) Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (1989). Both of these list "feticide" as meaning "noun. destruction or abortion of a fetus.". The Webster's also states, right in the feticide entry that "foeticide" is a an alternate spelling. The NOAD2 mentions "foetus: noun. variant spelling of fetus (chiefly in British nontechnical use)" and "foeticide" is a derivative. Based on these sources I have determined that "fetocide" is not a proper spelling. There maybe professionals that spell it "fetocide", but the Wikipedia readers will not understand what is meant by this spelling. If a quote from credible source spells it "fetocide", then leave it in that spelling. That is my outside opinion on this matter, and it will not change until sources on par with the two I use include "fetocide". --Charles Gaudette 19:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Likewise, I saw this point on WP:MOS. Foeticide is by far the most common spelling, and has the benefit of being in accordance with the World Health Organization's preferred way of spelling things too. Unless this article is particularly directed towards a US audience (and I'll leave the authors to determine what their target audience is), it would be best to use foeticide, jguk 22:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. -- tariqabjotu 22:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Feticide → Foeticide — Far more common according to google, though both are valid. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''' on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Oppose, the google test isn't a good enough reason to change an article's spelling. While fetocide may not be a regional variant, foetus vs. fetus clearly is and this new proposed move, I believe, goes against our regional variant policy.--Andrew c 16:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: How? Both regional variants are valid, but it may as well be under the more-used one. The regional variant policy merely says that both should be mentioned in the text. Having it at Feticide is no different. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Weak support, see below Zargulon 16:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose: Why fix what ain't broke? BTW, I believe that the regional variant policy says that if an article is started using one variant, editors should stick with that regional spelling unless there is a serious reason to change. So, I think Andrew is right. Interestingly, both spellings are used in the article, and footnote 2 uses the feticide spelling. -- Ssilvers 17:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose: As the policy states, we don't move (or change spellings in the body) for no reason. Unless you want to argue that f[o]eticide is a uniquely British concept, we defer to the first major contributor, which would be Avb (talk). The relevant edit (Avb's last) is here. Tesseran 12:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak support, Foeticide is more common, so that probably is what the title should, but as long as there is a redirect and the spelling ambiguity is explained upfront, there's no incredible need to move it as of yet. -Porlob 18:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong oppose. Where regional spelling varies, Wikipedia respects the spelling choice of the first major contributor, unless the subject is specific to a region. ("Political Favours in the United States" or "Royal Colors of England" would just look dumb, but this is not such a case.) Robert A.West (Talk) 20:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments: My only reservation is that (a/o)e->e does tend to divide along national lines: Americans prefer "fetus/hemoglobin/medieval" whereas British prefer "foetus/haemoglobin/mediaeval". Googling seems to indicate that foe- is more popular even in the U.S., but be ready for some irate American to demand that it be moved back. Zargulon

Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

In addition to what is stated above, this new proposed spelling fails the pubmed test.

feticide - 28208
fetocide - 33
foeticide - 23
foetocide - 2

--Andrew c 16:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure the pubmed test applies, since, as the article suggests, the word is in highly common usage both in general political discourse and in the legal community. I go with google and Adam. Zargulon 17:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter much, though, either way. It's perfectly acceptable in either namespace, as long as both forms are listed. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What's a vote going to prove? Whether the Americans or the Brits are better at mobilising voters?

Decide what the target audience for this article is, and then choose whatever style is most appropriate for that audience!!!! Please! jguk 13:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of the policy wasn't to choose what sort of English made the most sense for the article (unless it is a new article), but instead to accept regional variant spellings, and simply use the variant of the earliest contributor (this way, avoiding edit wars over spelling, and discussions such as this). Majority usage is not a good enough reasons to change for me, otherwise we'd loose Fertilisation and Aubergine. As a side note, is it possible that feticide and foeticide mean two different things? Clearly, at pubmed, feticide is the more common term by far. However, on the google, foeticide is. Maybe feticide refers more often to the medical usage, and foeticide to the legal usage (or the political debate over abortion)? --Andrew c 15:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this interpretation, that feticide is more common in medical circles, and foeticide elsewhere. It would be nice to say this in the article, but unfortunately it probably counts as original research. Zargulon 15:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] dictionary definitions

All I have to say is:

American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary - Cite This Source

fe·ti·cide (ft-sd) n.

Destruction of the embryo or fetus in the uterus. Also called embryoctony.

and

feticide

Destruction of the embryo or foetus in the uterus.

Origin: L. Fetus + caedo, to kill

We are not accurately representing our sources when we specify "fetus" or not include "embryo". There is nothing wrong with being general to accommodate our sources. We even have a source that says "or causing an abortion." Our wording is similar to that, and doesn't exclude any of the 7 definitions. -Andrew c 01:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Andrew C., six of the seven cited definitions do not mention anything about an embryo, and define feticide in terms of killing a fetus. The word “feticide” itself is obviously derived from the word “fetus” rather than from the word “embryo”. I think our article should at least mention that most definitions of the word “feticide” do not mention anything about an embryo. I'll give it another try, and we'll see what you think. Your quoted definition from the American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary is the exception rather than the rule.Ferrylodge 01:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I quoted 2 definitions. So it's 5 out of seven.-Andrew c 01:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok here is the problem. The article said that "feticide" is sometimes used synonymously with "abortion". You changed this to say (paraphrasing) "feticide sometimes refers to an abortion after the embryonic stage". None of the definitions say this. You changed the original wording that feticide and abortion CAN be synonymous to say that feticide sometimes refers to a specific type of abortion. I restored the original meaning, and we have been reverting each other left and right. The fact of the matter is, the majority of the definitions do not mention abortion. They say "death of a fetus". So here is my suggested compromise:

"The term feticide may generally refer to the death of a fetus, although it can sometimes be used synonymously with abortion."

What do you think?-Andrew c 01:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Andrew C., if you look at the seven definitions provided by the footnote in the article, you will see that only one explicitly suggests feticide may be synonymous with abortion, and only two explicitly mention an embryo. Six of the definitions explicitly refer to an intentional act causing death or destruction, and the seventh (which explicitly mentions abortion) is a non-medical dictionary that was probably referring to induced abortion (i.e. spontaneous abortion is not within the primary non-medical definition of "abortion").

Your suggested compromise is not limited to intentional acts causing the death of a fetus. Your version includes spontaneous abortions. Therefore, I would suggest this: "The term feticide usually refers to causing the death of a fetus, although this term can sometimes be used not just regarding a fetus but an embryo as well, including an induced abortion of an embryo."Ferrylodge 02:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think your wording is unnecessarily verbose and redundant. I also do not believe that "dictionary.reference.com" is an accurate source on how terms are "usually" used and would suggest using less specific language that doesn't take sides on which use is most dominate. Adding the word "causing" is helpful because of the wording used in the definitions (and I was surprised to find out that my version left that word out). Adding the word "induced" to my version may clear up some of your concerns, but I see no reason to mention embryo (not once, and definitely not twice). I believe your second half of the sentence could be summarized to "this term can sometimes be used to mean induced abortion" or something along those lines. -Andrew c 02:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Try this: "Although the term 'feticide' may refer to legal induced abortion, this term is often used only in relation to a 'fetus'." Clearly, four of the definitions at dictionary.com do not include causing death of an embryo. That's just a fact.Ferrylodge 02:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've modified it some. Your version implies that the term "feticide" means an abortion during the fetal stage. I believe my wording clearly represents the definitions, without adding extra meaning. Check out the article and tell me what you think.-Andrew c 15:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)