Talk:Fetus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User talk pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters. See talk page guidelines.
WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance assessment scale
Archive
Archives
  1. Archive 1 (Feb. 2003 - Feb. 2007)
  2. Archive 2 (Feb. 2007 - Nov. 2007)
  3. Archive 3 (Dec. 2007 - Jan. 2008)

Contents

[edit] Grey images?

I don't really understand what's so good about grey. Whenever light shines inside anything with blood, it has a reddish tint. Allow me to make a comparison: Should this featured image have its color removed as well? I think it looks too much like a kangaroo. -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 06:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned previously, I agree.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. Please read the previous, extremely long, discussion that came to a consensus that the images should be gray.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Here's the thing. If they were grey in the first place, I would have no problem with it. It so happens that they were pink. Pink is more accurate, and generally, color illustrations are better than black and white. So why spend the energy to edit them to make them less accurate and less aesthetically pleasing? -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 00:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Because pink is not more accurate.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Abortion providers confirm that, "If the procedure was done while the fetus was alive, its skin would be the pinkish color...." But really, there is lots of inaccuracy in this article, so the color of the images is not of special concern to me.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dismantlement of this article

I would like to object again to the continued dismantlement of this article. One editor, Iron Angel Alice, continues to delete well-sourced and notable information, and I disagree with this. I yet again urge IAA to seek consensus at the talk page before removing longstanding accurate information from this article.[1]

And I also deplore the use of a study about fetal pain to support statements about the voluntariness of movement, or the existence of sentience, or self-awareness, or suffering, or anything else apart from pain. This is WP:OR and it ought to stop.

In rare cases, insensitivity to pain is a disorder that exists before birth and continues after birth. See“Science, politics and fetal pain; Abortion issue muddies real debate on fetal pain perception”, About Kids Health, The Hospital for Sick Children (2006-05-18), via Archive.org. Just because a human cannot feel pain does not imply that the human being cannot make voluntary movements or suffer or be self-aware.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

If anyone cares, please see the notes associated with my edits. These edits were to summarize lengthy sentences, and combine like information. I haven't deleted any sources. I deleted references that were repeated.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
No, you didn't delete any sources today. You just deleted what the sources said.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't delete what the sources said. I combined and summarized. The first trimester section was three times as long as the other sections. It rambled and was disjointed.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course you deleted what the sources said, today. You deleted all mention that "movements include motor patterns, and localized movement of the arms and legs, hiccups, stretches and yawns." You deleted all mention of "sideward bendings of the head, and generalized movements that involve the whole body." You deleted all mention that "the heart is beating." You deleted all mention of "curling toes to move away from an object." All of this was longstanding material, and I object to its deletion.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Ferrylodge, there is still information in the article about all the involuntary movements you just noted. Also, what the sentence said is, "The heart is beating, but not functional." And, frankly, the heart isn't fully formed either. Therefore, I combined information about the heart with information about the other organs that are present.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
No, IAA, you're simply not telling the truth. Anyone can look at the edits I just mentioned, and see that you have completely deleted material from the article. You edit-war, and insert inaccurate edit summaries about there not being any substantive objection at the talk page. The article is now full of inaccuracies and worse. You have attached footnotes to statements that in no way support the statements. It's a very impressive performance on your part, but please excuse me if I do not find it admirable.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
No, FL, you are simply being a conspiracy theorist. I, too, invite others to look at the edits.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Alice, as you know very well, I have never suggested a conspiracy. You are one person, completely rewriting this article on your own.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
"completely rewriting this article" FL, it was one paragraph that was rambling and poorly put together that I reworded and made more succinct. Let's not over-dramatize.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Your edits this week have been very substantial. And they are cumulative with your edits of the past two months.[2]Ferrylodge (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
My edits this week are not "substantial." But I am guilty of disagreeing with you multiple times, on multiple articles. Which obviously makes my edits, wrong, wrong, wrong - and also breaking the rules. heh.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) If you think that the secion on 8-15 weeks is too long, please consider that it is that length because you previously combined it with another section. I objected, but you insisted anyway.[3] How about restoring to the longstanding version in which the condition of the fetus at the beginning of the fetal stage is described in one section, and then its development from 8-15 weeks is described in the next section? That's the way the article was for months, and you changed it to your new version without consensus. Now you're using your own edits to justify cutting out material.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I too am concerned about broad edits to this sensitive article (also at Fetal pain). I haven't looked at the changes in detail, as I can't take part in building a consensus (due to time constraints and the extent of the changes). But if they are left standing, I intend to review them when I have more time (in a couple of weeks) and discuss any concerns on the talk page(s). Avb 12:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
It would be great to get some neutral people involved here. I wish I had more time for this myself.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged Deletion of Sources

IronAngelAlice apparently thinks I've been deleting sources. The only sources I removed were two references to an MSNBC article (in their "Women's health" section), which was itself just a journalist's account of the review published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the reference to which I left in. Given that the relevant parts of the former are nothing but distorted paraphrasings of the latter, nothing is gained by linking to the MSNBC article as well as the JAMA article, apart from a false impression that Wikipedia is citing several sources that independently support the conclusions of Lee et al.. There is no reason to cite the MSNBC article as a source, unless some content is used from it that is not present in the JAMA piece. -- Oliver P. (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

MSNBC is a reliable source. If you feel that they have distorted the JAMA article, you may want to write to them and insist they print a retraction. Until they print a retraction, it is perfectly acceptable to use their summaries here. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Here is another article from MSNBC written on this topic and by a doctor and a researcher: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10238840/
--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You've completely missed the point. The MSNBC article is a journalist's paraphrasing of the JAMA review. Given that we link to the JAMA review already, it's entirely redundnant. I've removed this bit: "At this stage, researchers have concluded the fetus cannot feel pain because pain centers in the brain are not yet present," which cited the MSNBC article. In fact, the MSNBC article doesn't mention "pain centers", so the citation was inaccurate. Furthermore, the subsequent sentence in the article just said the same thing, only more accurately, so the sentence I removed wasn't required. -- Oliver P. (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the article in JAMA, does it really support the statement in the present article that "The parts of the fetal brain that control movement will not fully form until late in the second trimester." Where does it say that in the JAMA study?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Oliver,I haven't missed your point at all. I completely disagree with it. Instead of relying on our personal interpretations of the JAMA article, it's best that we rely on the interpretation of the Associated Press (AP), the author of the MSNBC article, which fact-checks their articles.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
How about we include this article from USA Today? USA Today has fact-checkers too, I believe.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen this before, and the USA today did a good job, I believe. And this article may belong on the Fetal Pain page. The key part to this article is:

Catherine DeAngelis, the journal's editor in chief, said neither Lee nor Drey disclosed their abortion-related work or advocacy to the journal. Though she wishes they had, she said, it would not have influenced her decision to print the report.
DeAngelis said the authors are specialists from diverse disciplines, including anatomy and anesthesia. "This is a peer-reviewed article by five people representing all the pertinent fields," she said. "This is an article meant to educate physicians on the issue of what is known and not yet known about fetal pain. It provides the best available scientific evidence to date." Drey and Lee's affiliations "aren't relevant," she said.
Drey said Wednesday she didn't disclose her role as medical director of the clinic because it's primarily an administrative function. She holds that position, she said, because of her academic expertise.
"I did extra training in family planning, that includes abortion care and research," she said. "I don't see it as a conflict of interest."

In other words, just because the National Right to Life Committee insists there is a controversy, there isn't necessarily a controversy.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I should note that IronAngel Alice removed the USA Today article from both this article as well as the Fetal Pain article.[4][5] I disagree with both removals.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I took it out because the way the article was presented was well-poisoning. Certain sections of the article were given undo weight. If you want to revisit the subect on the fetal pain page, I'd be happy to. But I will continue to disagree with giving certain parts of the article undo weight.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Ferrylodge, look under the "Fetal Capacity for Pain" of the JAMA article to answer your earlier question.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
That section is 1528 words long. Can you please be more precise?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
IronAngelAlice, I didn't interpret the JAMA article. I quoted directly from it. I inserted the following direct quote: "Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester." That is a far cry from, and far more cautious than, the journalist's headline, which was, "Fetus feels no pain until third trimester". It would be preferable not to include that headline, as it is a misrepresentation of what the researchers actually said. And Ferrylodge, that's a good point. If the authors of the review included a medical student who has worked for an abortion rights group and the director of a clinic that provides abortions, that should be pointed out. To be neutral, we have to include the criticisms and opposing views, too. This article is, as it stands, hopelessly non-neutral. -- Oliver P. (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
No Oliver, we don't have to include the controversy since it is a made-up controversy, and as such belongs on the Fetal Pain page. It should not be given the same weight as a scientific article. Do keep in mind this article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10238840/ which was done by a researcher and a doctor.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Ferrylodge, Here is what the conclusion section says about the "Fetal Capacity for Pain" section:

While the presence of thalamocortical fibers is necessary for pain perception, their mere presence is insufficient—this pathway must also be functional. It has been proposed that transient, functional thalamocortical circuits may form via subplate neurons around midgestation, but no human study has demonstrated this early functionality. Instead, constant SEPs appear at 29 weeks’ PCA, and EEG patterns denoting wakefulness appear around 30 weeks’ PCA. Both of these tests of cortical function suggest that conscious perception of pain does not begin before the third trimester. Cutaneous withdrawal reflexes and hormonal stress responses present earlier in development are not explicit or sufficient evidence of pain perception because they are not specific to noxious stimuli and are not cortically mediated.

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Is that your basis for stating in this article that from 8-15 weeks the fetus "moves involuntarily." If not, what is your basis for that statement? And where does your quote from "Fetal Capacity for Pain" say anything to support your statement that "The parts of the fetal brain that control movement will not fully form until late in the second trimester." There are many types of movement besides cutaneous withdrawal movements.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not discussing the movement section, I've been discussing the fetal pain section.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
That's precisely my point: you have cited a study about fetal pain in order to make editorial comments about whether movement is voluntary or not, and about whether the fetal brain can control movement. This study on fetal pain does not address those subjects.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
No I haven't, there are other studies that point to involuntary movement. Because the brain hasn't exactly formed entirely to that point, it would be up to you to prove that the movements are voluntary. No where in the sources you added are the movements voluntary. It was a bit of original research on your part to imply the movements were voluntary.[6] Here are some sources that point to involuntary movement:
--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
No Alice, I did not imply that movements were voluntary. Merely saying that there are movements does not imply that they're voluntary or that they're involuntary. Yet you declared flat-out in this article that they're "involuntary", and you provided no source in the article to back it up.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
It's ironic Alice, that you defend your statements in the article text by citing sources here at the talk page that are not even cited in the article text. Neither "Foundations Of Maternal & Pediatric Nursing" nor "Fetal yawning activity in normal and high-risk fetuses" is mentioned in the article. And even if they were cited in the article, neither of those sources supports your view that all fetal movement is involuntary.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
From the article you just gave me to read: "Do doctors agree that fetuses have the ability to feel pain at 20 weeks in utero? Some doctors do. But some do not. A quick search of the medical literature reveals no consensus at all among physicians and scientists about when a fetus can feel pain. Estimates range from 16 weeks to 28 weeks." And yet you're clearly trying to push the view that there is a consensus that foetuses cannot feel pain until the 7th month. Please go and read up about NPOV. -- Oliver P. (talk) 01:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Oliver, may I also suggest you read WP:WEIGHT. I directed you to the article to point out the difference between controversy and non-controversy. The secondary article should not be given more weight that the JAMA article. In other words, "A quick search of the medical literature" should not trump a meta-data study published in the JAMA.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
If you directed me to the article to convince me that there is no controversy about when a foetus gains the ability to feel pain, then you failed quite spectacularly, because the article you pointed me to clearly states that there is - and I quote - "no consensus at all". I also find it baffling that you are directing me to read about "Undue weight", when you are trying to base Wikipedia's content on the subject of foetal pain on a single meta-study by five authors (who included, as we have seen, a medical student who has worked for an abortion rights group and the director of a clinic that provides abortions). -- Oliver P. (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
As I stated before, when the author states "A quick search of the medical literature" in an article on the MSNBC website, it is a clear indication that the MSNBC article does not trump the meta-data study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) found here [7]. The JAMA says fetal pain doesn't begin until the third trimester. Btw, a metadata study is a study of all the relevant medical studies done over a long period of time. Thus, the JAMA study is more exhaustive than the article from MSNBC, (in which the author states he did "A quick search of the medical literature.") The author of the MSNBC was making a philosophical argument, not a medical one. Oliver, I don't believe using the phrase "Spectacular failure" helps to build a civil discourse. Therefore, I will simply refer you to WP:Weight in the future.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) Alice, I think Oliver is being perfectly civil, contrary to what you've said.[8] And you are making completely unfounded statements when you say that medical experts with whom you disagree are merely making "philosophical arguments". When a reputable medical expert is able to find differing views about an issue during a quick search of the literature, that obviously means that anyone of minimal competence should be able to find the same thing in a longer search.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, I didn't say anything uncivil - your link goes to what I just typed. Ferrylodge, please don't insert yourself into a conversation about personalities. Why don't you discuss the merits of putting the JAMA article ahead of the MSNBC opinion piece?--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Alice, if you say something completely wrong at this talk page, I will feel free to say so. Yes, the link goes to what you just typed, including your edit summary in which you wrongly accused Oliver of being uncivil.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Ferry, nope, I didn't accuse Oliver of being uncivil. I asked him to remain civil. Ferry, if you continue to derail this conversation away from a discussion about the article to a discussion about personalities, I will simply WP:SHUN.
Again, when the author states "A quick search of the medical literature" in an article on the MSNBC website, it is a clear indication that the MSNBC article does not trump the meta-data study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) found here [9]. The JAMA says fetal pain doesn't begin until the third trimester. Btw, a metadata study is a study of all the relevant medical studies done over a long period of time. Thus, the JAMA study is more exhaustive than the article from MSNBC, (in which the author states he did "A quick search of the medical literature.") The author of the MSNBC was making a philosophical argument, not a medical one. Therefore, a referal to WP:Weight is appropriate. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
You can shun me as much as you like. You have already made major changes to this article over my continued objections, so I don't see that shunning me would make any difference at all. And please try to be sane (not that I'm accusing you of being insane, of course).Ferrylodge (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you think I'm unaware of that?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Both of you, stop it. Take it to your user talk pages if you must continue this (but I don't how continuing to escalate this situation will make matters any better. I'd personally suggest both of you cooling off for a bit). Clearly this talk page is not the appropriate venue to discuss any of these interpersonal issues. -Andrew c [talk] 00:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Andrew, agreed. I'm only going to be talking about the merits or demerits of a specific issue regarding the article.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this is not the place for interpersonal comments. Discussing the merits or demerits of specific article issues is what this page is for, and that discussion would be enhanced if it is understood that the article should not then be edited (to insert new material or remove longstanding material) regardless of the discussion, and without consensus.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Andrew c, I'm glad that you dropped by. Suppose that I want to make an edit, by changing longstanding content of this article, or inserting new content. May I do that if only one person expresses an opinion (e.g. IronAngelAlice objects)? And what if positions are reversed, and I am the one objecting? It seems important to get this question answered here, because it has continually arisen at this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Condition at beginning of fetal stage

I would like to reiterate my objections to the deletion of the section that described the condition of the fetus at the beginning of the fetal stage. This section was unilaterally deleted over my objections.[10] It was deleted on January 29 during a revert war,[11] after having been in the article for many months.

The fetal stage begins at 8 weeks after fertilization. It therefore makes sense to at least briefly describe what the fetus is devoloping from. To simply launch into a timeline of development does not give the reader an idea of what's already there at the beginning of the timeline.

Even if there is disagreement about this, the section in question existed for many months, and was removed without consensus.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the specific text you would like to include, and how would it not repeat what is currently there?--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
First of all, it doesn't really matter what I want to include. You removed the section heading, and I replaced it after explaining at the talk page. It is almost never appropriate to re-insert the disputed changes after it has been reverted in good faith.
As to what I would like included in that section, I want all material pertaining to the fetus as it exists at the beginning of the fetal stage. Surely you would acknowledge that it is possible to describe what's there at the beginning of the fetal stage, right? If you want to see the kind of stuff that I think should go there, plese see the section as it existed before you removed the section.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to get into an argument with you. What is it specifically you would like to include?--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I provided a link in my first comment in this thread. And what I specifically want most of all is for you to start respecting Wikipedia rules, which means you do not own this article, but rather you should respect principles of consensus. This talk page is not a forum for people to beg you not to demand everything your way, but rather is a forum to reach consensus about how the article should be changed.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I see you are much more interested in starting a fight and accusing me of edit warring than in discussing the actual article. I will WP:SHUN this section until you are ready to discuss the article.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent)As I said above in this thread, the material I want restored "was deleted on January 29 during a revert war.[12]" If you don't want to discuss that linked material here, then maybe you will in dispute resolution.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

January 29th was over a month ago. It isn't helpful to discuss who has broken what policy, and who is more of an edit warrior (you both don't have my sympathy in that regard). I appreciate that IAA was trying to focus on content by asking what content FL would like to restore. IAA, I know it's been over a month, can you explain in a bit more detail your rationale for removing the section header? FL, your second paragraph in your first post under this topic is good because it focuses on content and why you think the section is important. In fact, your second paragraph makes a lot of sense to me (and it case anyone is confused, I'm referring to It therefore makes sense to at least briefly describe what the fetus is devoloping from. To simply launch into a timeline of development does not give the reader an idea of what's already there at the beginning of the timeline.) Perhaps IAA could respond to why she thinks it is not important to give background before the timeline. Also, just to make things clear, FL, and what content (if any) you would like to be restored?-Andrew c [talk] 15:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure, for many months, there used to be a heading that said: "8 weeks (condition at start of fetal stage)." I would like it restored. You can change the heading to "Beginning of 9th week (condition at start of fetal stage)" if you want, though it's more wordy and means the same thing. Anyway, the material in the article about the condition of the fetus at the beginning of the fetal stage should go into this section. Putting it later, in the development section, gives the false impression that these features were not already present from day one of the fetal stage. So, this section could include things like the crown-rump length of 1.25 inches, the fact that the risk of miscarriage decreases sharply at this point. The fact that all major structures, including hands, feet, head, brain, and other organs are present, but will continue to grow, develop, and become more functional. The fact that the heart is beating. The fact that there are sideward bendings of the head, plus complex and generalized movements, with movements and startles that involve the whole body, et cetera. To the extent that stuff like this is already in the development section, it should be moved from the development section, because these features are already present at the start of the fetal stage. All of the references are in the diff I previously provided above.[13] Having this deleted section restored would also allow addition of additional info by other editors pertianing to the condition at the start of the fetal stage. For example, if there are reliable sources indicating whether this early fetal movement is "involuntary," that info could go in the deleted section too; I have never once objected to inclusion of such sources in this article (when I get a chance I want to investigate whether other reliable sources express the same certainty about the involuntariness of all fetal movement).Ferrylodge (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can we keep stuff about fetal pain in the fetal pain section?

I would also like to reiterate my previous objection[14] to inserting stuff about fetal pain in other sections of the article. The purpose of having the "fetal pain" section is to focus relevant material on that subject under a single heading where people can easily find it and focus on it. Spreading the material around the article seems to defeat the purpose of having a "fetal pain" heading. For example, this sentence is now under an unrelated heading: "Publishing their findings in the The Journal of the American Medical Association, a group of researchers at the University of California, San Francisco concluded that fetuses are likely incapable of feeling pain in the first or second trimester."

This is another instance of changing a longstanding aspect of this article without consensus. So, even if you disagree that information should generally be placed under the most appropriate heading, still the article ought to develop according to consensus, rather than according to who is more aggressive during an edit-war.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is entirely appropriate to keep that sentence where it is because it talks specifically about fetal pain in the first trimester. The fetal pain sentence has been there for at least a month now, maybe longer.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
And I have been objecting to it since it was put there. Even if you disagree that it should go there, if it is reverted in good faith and brought up on the talk page, it is almost never appropriate to re-insert the disputed changes after it has been reverted in good faith.[15] This is all explained at WP:BRD.
If it's just the two of us editing a particular article, and you are seeking to change longstanding material or insert new material, it's not appropriate for you to insist on your changes notwithstanding my good-faith objections. And the sentence in question is discussing a period in pregnancy lasting six months (first and second trimester), which is more than three times as long as the period indicated in the section heading.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to get into an argument about this with you again. The sentence is well sourced, and is germane to the topic. Enough said.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to avoid any ambiguity here, I'll reiterate that the JAMA study is being given undue weight. Not only is the information being repeated in two separate sections of the present article (instead of being only in the "Fetal Pain" section where it belongs), but furthermore the words "Journal of the American Medical Association" are explicitly spelled out in the text of both sections, whereas all of the other publications referenced in this Wikipedia article are in the footnotes only.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fetal stage begins at 9 weeks

The source says the fetal stage begins at 9 weeks after conception. Please do not change "9" to "8" as that is inaccurate.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Alice, if you would please stop edit-warring[16] and discuss this here at the talk page, I would most appreciate it. Why do you repeatedly insist on changing this article by edit-warring, without consensus, and despite what others say at this talk page?
If you would bother to read the cited reference carefully, you would see that it says the fetal stage begins at the start of the ninth week. Let me ask you something, Alice. When you were one year old, were you not at the beginning of your second year?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, I'm not going to get into an argument with you. You've inserted inaccurate information - information that is contrary to what our sources say[17] - and you are not a respectful interlocutor. You revert anything I do [18].--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
That's right, I do not respect editors who demand whatever edits they want, despite what others say. When you were one year old, were you not at the beginning of your second year?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
You are the only objector. The text we have is what the source says - the fetal stage begins in the 9th week. We do not call a "two-year-old" a "one-year old". --IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
To be clear the source says, "The fetal stage is from the beginning of the 9th week after fertilization and continues until birth." - from the Introductory to Maternal Nursing --IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
That's right Alice, the source is correct. When you were one year old, were you not at the beginning of your second year?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:SHUN--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Due to this edit-warring and intransigence, the article now falsely states that the fetal stage begins nine weeks after fertilization.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't appreciate either of your tone, and wish you could just get along better. That said, you are both a little right and both a little wrong. I've made a slight adjustment to the article. It is misleading to list 8 as when the fetal stage begins, as it is misleading to say that 9 full weeks have passed before the fetal stage begins. I think we all agree on when our sources say the fetal stage begins (i.e. the beginning of the 9th week, or after 8 weeks have passed since fertilization), we just need to find a proper wording which doesn't convey that the fetal stage starts in the 8th week, or that the fetal stage starts after 9 full weeks have passed. I believe the current condition of the article should meet the standards of accuracy, but if I've missed anything, or if there are still concerns, please raise them for our consideration.-Andrew c [talk] 15:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Andrew, your edits were great. Thank you.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Ferrylodge has decided to edit war over this.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I really don't like the extra text added to the lead. The i.e. after 8 weeks have passed part. It seems unnecessarily verbose and that it talks down to our audience. I'm also concerned that my name is being attached to edits. If I had intended to add something to the article, I would have done it myself. Seriously. And if I did say something on talk and didn't add it to the article, perhaps I was waiting for more discussion and consensus first. Anyway, does the reader really need to know that 8 comes before 9? -Andrew c [talk] 14:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Andrew c, are you suggesting that this article shouldn't say that the fetal stage begins "eight weeks" after fertilization? This is how a million sources define it. If we just say that it begins at the beginning of the ninth week (which is the same thing) then confusion will ensue. People will misunderstand, and think that the fetal stage begins nine weeks after fertilization. One editor has already tried to insert into this article that the fetal stage begins nine weeks after fertilization,[19][20][21] which is flat-out wrong.

This article has used the words "eight weeks" for years, and I would not agree with removing that.

You said above, "I think we all agree on when our sources say the fetal stage begins (i.e. the beginning of the 9th week, or after 8 weeks have passed since fertilization)." Since we agree about this, let's say it in the article, please.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge is right. "After 8 weeks" is not the same as "at 9 weeks." After 8 weeks is (approximately) the same as at 8.001 weeks, not 9. NCdave (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm saying that we say one or the other, not both. My preference is for the one that is most close to "from the beginning of the 9th week after fertilization" because that is what our source says. If we cited a source that said 8 weeks, then that would be my preference. Really either way doesn't matter that much to me, as long as we are saying what our sources are saying. What matters to me is adding unnecessary language. As I stated above, it is talking down to our audience to say both "at the begging of the 9th week" and "after 8 weeks".-Andrew c [talk] 20:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Our sources quoted in the footnotes say both: "The fetal stage is from the beginning of the 9th week after fertilization and continues until birth" and "The unborn offspring from the end of the 8th week after conception (when the major structures have formed) until birth" and "the fetal stage begins seven to eight weeks after fertilization of the egg, when the embryo assumes the basic shape of the newborn and all the organs are present" and "In humans, the organism is called an embryo for the first seven or eight weeks after conception, after which it is called a fetus" and "beyond the embryonic stage of seven to eight weeks." I don't think it's talking down to people to use both, but my preference would be to use the "8 weeks" which is far far more common than start of the "ninth week."[22][23] Using synonymous expressions is not synonymous with "talking down" to anyone.
As we have seen here at this talk page, the "8 week" and "9 week" figures can be confusing to some people, so explicitly using both will help make the distinction. If you would prefer this formulation, I'd have no objection: "In humans, the fetal stage of prenatal development starts at the beginning of the 9th week.[1] At that point, 8 weeks after fertilization, the major structures have formed,[2] and the fetal stage then lasts until the end of pregnancy." How about that?
If you'd like to avoid additional unnecessary language in this article, I again suggest that we keep the redundant fetal pain info only in the fetal pain section, and that we only explain what gestational age is once instead of twice.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
We disagree on what good prose is then. :) Like I said, I'm not going to argue one way or the other. The current phrasing is supported by one citation (#1) which states nine weeks. Delete that citation and use citation #2 to support a wording such as "end of the eighth week" if you want. But I still feel that your new formulation has redundancy. "At that point" is referencing the previous sentence, and therefore it is unnecessarily wordy to explain that pronoun reference again. This is just my honest opinion of how to use the English language, and it very well may be wrong. I just think your formulation reads better without "8 weeks after fertilization".
Also, please stay on topic for this thread. Your last paragraph has nothing to do with 9 vs. 8 weeks. If you have made a proposal elsewhere, there is no need for you to repeat it and hijack this thread. If no one has commented, and you've given time for people to respond, then be bold and make your proposed changes. If people have commented, and there isn't consensus yet, keep working on reaching a compromise. But please don't overflow those discussions into other threads.-Andrew c [talk] 00:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, Andrew c, but I don't think there's any reason to use inflammatory words like "hijacking". I simply pointed out an additional way to avoid unnecessary language, which you said (in this thread) was your goal. If that was going off topic, then fine, I apologize, but it was not "hijacking" according to any use of that word I'm familair with.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More deletions

And now IAA has made an additional edit, which I will revert. The quotes in the deleted footnote very obviously support the statement in the text.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Instead of a revert, the change you made was a nice compromise. Thank you.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're referring to. You made an edit here. I completely reverted it here.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
In other words, I am glad you did not revert the entirety of my edit. Thank you.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Alice, would you please explain what you are referring to. Eeverything that you did in this edit I completely reverted in this edit. What is it that you think I did not revert?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More unsourced statements

Again, I object to the following statement in the present article: "The parts of the fetal brain that control movement will not fully form until late in the second trimester." Nothing in the cited sources says anything like this. The cited source says, "Cutaneous withdrawal reflexes and hormonal stress responses present earlier in development are not explicit or sufficient evidence of pain perception because they are not specific to noxious stimuli and are not cortically mediated." This is very different from what is stated in the present article. I objected previously to insertion of this into the article,[24][25] but to no avail (as usual), since I was overruled by IronAngelAlice.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If an editor is being difficult, there are ways to deal with or report the user (3RR for edit warring, wikietiquette alerts, various noticeboards, etc). It doesn't help to bring up accusations at other editors here on the talk page. How do you think IAA will respond to this? Should IAA ignore the personal attacks and not defend herself, and instead just focus on content, overlooking the side remarks aimed at her? FL, your comment would have been just fine without the last sentence. Can you see how your last sentence is problematic? Talk pages will be more productive and civil if users are not always on the offense and defense on personal issues. (and I apologize for being a hypocrite by discussing editors' behavior here on an article talk page). That said, if a statement is unsourced, it really shouldn't be in the article. I see the disputed sentence already has a fact tag on it (which would have been my first suggestion), so that's good. Let's see if anyone can source this sentence, and if not, it should go.-Andrew c [talk] 15:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
What might help would be for an admin to kindly mention here that when two editors are working on a Wikipedia article, one editor really shouldn't insist on putting new material into the article over the objections of the other editor. If an admin would simply say that here, then that would probably help to resolve 99.999% of the difficulties that have been occurring at this talk page.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
That admin would be violating basic wikipedia principles. Consensus is not the same as unanimity.Zebulin (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it's good to have this discussion here, because it's at the core of the problems occurring now. If there are two editors, and only two editors editing an article, then you're saying it is fine for one of those editors to insist on including new material even after the other editor objects and reverts? It seems to me that edit-warring to include new material is against Wikipedia policy, no? Ferrylodge (talk) 00:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
IronAngelAlice (a/k/a Bremskraft, Ladeda76 & RebelAcademics) might be emboldened to do the things she does by the knowledge that the rules do not apply to her. I recently warned her on her talk page that she had just done 3 reverts on another article (all were full reverts, done by clicking "undo," over a period of less than 5 hours). Her reply (five minutes later) was "...please stop spamming my talk page." One minute later she defiantly did revert #4, followed over the next hour by many additional reverts (including blanking over 40% of the references in the article). It is hard to imagine a more blatant and deliberate 3RR violation, but the report on the 3RR noticeboard resulted in nothing at all. NCdave (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Please consider removing this comment. It has nothing to do with Fetus and is personally attacking another editor.-Andrew c [talk] 15:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
It is not personally attacking anyone, Andrew. It simply states what happened. It is a specific reply to your message,
"If an editor is being difficult, there are ways to deal with or report the user (3RR for edit warring..."
The point, in case I wasn't clear, is that your suggestion has already been tried, to no avail. WP:3RR only applies to some editors, and not to others. NCdave (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] USA Today article

I would like to reiterate my previous objections to the deletion of the longstanding sentence about the USA Today article. It was deleted here. I objected and I reverted here, only to be overruled by IronAngelAlice. Another editor has agreed with me that this info should remain in the article. I will attempt to restore it into this Wikipedia article, where it existed for many months prior to its unilateral deletion over my objections.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

And along comes OrangeMarlin to revert without discussion here at the talk page.[26]Ferrylodge (talk) 02:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you doubt the truth of anything in the USA Today article, OrangeMarlin? And why do you think that something should be removed from this Wikipedia article without consensus, if it was in this Wikipedia article for many months?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
FYI, I have raised this issue at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll rephrase the footnote. Instead of saying "The authors of the study published in JAMA have been accused of bias," it would instead read "The journal's editor said she wishes two of the authors had disclosed their affiliations, but the editor says it would not have influenced her decision to publish the report." USA Today is certainly a reliable source for this information. It's a nationwide mainstream US newspaper. Additionally, the accuracy of this news article has not been disputed by anyone.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

And OrangeMarlin reverts again, without so much as a word at this talk page. Two authors didn't disclose their affiliations, the editor of the journal says they should have, and OrangMarlin wants to make sure that Wikipedia readers don't find out about their affiliations either. Just wonderful.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, this matter was reported in numerous reputable publications in addition to USA Today. For instance:

A) Norra Macready, “Criticism of US fetal pain study escalates”, British Medical Journal, (2005-09-10).

B) “JAMA Editor Defends Publishing Fetal Pain Review Despite Criticism for Not Disclosing Authors' Abortion-Related Work”, Medical News Today (2005-08-29).

C) Denise Grady, “Study Authors Didn't Report Abortion Ties”, New York Times (2005-08-26): “The editor, Dr. Catherine D. DeAngelis, of The Journal of the American Medical Association, said in an interview that had she been aware of the activities, the journal most likely would have mentioned them. But she added that the disclosure would not have kept the article from being published, because editors and outside experts who had read the manuscript before publication had found it scientifically sound.”

D) “Fetal Pain Unlikely Until After 28 Weeks' Gestation, Review Says; Critics Claim Authors Have Politically Motivated Bias”, Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy (2005-08-24).

E) Arthur Caplan, “Policy and Politics: No Method, Thus Madness?”, Medscape Today (2006-03-29).

But now, Wikipedia evidently can't mention this matter anymore, because two editors have unilaterally decided to remove longstanding information from this Wikipedia article without consensus for the removal.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The previous wording "The authors of the study published in JAMA have been accused of bias." is problematic because there is no attribution of the accusation, as J Readings pointed out at the noticeboard. I think finding more sources outside of USA today is good, and a reword is obviously better. With just the USA source, I can see how weight can be a concern, but as you have demonstrated, there are other sources which picked up this story which may establish the notability a bit more (what do others think?) I think if we make it clear that "antiabortion" groups raised the criticism, and make it clear that the editor in chief would have published it anyway because the science is sound (though would have liked a fuller disclosure), we might be able to come to an agreement. Part of me thinks that this discussion belongs at fetal pain and shouldn't be carried over into this article though. But let's see if anyone else will comment, and perhaps come up with a proposed wording here on talk before editing the article further (and I think if we use one of these other citations instead of USA today, it would help any reliable sourcing issues).-Andrew c [talk] 15:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The National Right to Life Committee was the main force behind the criticisms. Here's an article that explains more: http://health.dailynewscentral.com/content/view/0001560/40/. I agree with Andrew that these criticisms are best dealt with on the Fetal Pain page. There just isn't enough space to deal with it on this article. Also, it is important to keep in mind that the principle complaint of the JAMA article (according to NYTimes article, etc) is not the actual science behind the JAMA article, the objection is to the people doing the science. The controversy, therefore, is a little made-up - the "controversy" is a logical fallacy in the form of an ad hominem attack.
Here are a couple of other articles: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/26/health/26pain.html?_r=1&oref=slogin and http://www.slate.com/id/2125299/
Now, I'm not saying we shouldn't include the controversy on the fetal pain page. After all, these are verifiable sources. What I am saying is that any discussion of the "controversy" should be tempered by a discussion of controversy in the form of an ad hominem attack.
--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
According to these sources that I've provided (USA Today, NY Times, British Medical Journal, et cetera), the editor of JAMA wishes that two of the authors had disclosed their affiliations, in which case the editor of JAMA would have disclosed those affiliations when the article was published in JAMA. In other words, the JAMA article ought to have included the affilations, according to the editor-in-chief of JAMA. No matter who launched these criticisms, the fact remains that this was a big issue in the mainstream media as indicated above. All I am asking is for a brief mention in our footnote, not even in the main text of this "Fetus" article. All I am asking for is a very brief sentence in our footnote, such as: "The affiliations of two of the co-authors were not included in the JAMA article.[27]." You see that I am now in the position of requesting this. However, no one requested that this longstanding information be removed from the present article, and instead this longstanding information was removed without consensus and over my objections (as explained above). I believe this is an additional reason why the information ought to be restored here and in the fetal pain article.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Also please note that this JAMA article is cited by more than one section of this Wikipedia article (not just the fetal pain section).Ferrylodge (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
In addition to the sources already mentioned, a LexisNexis search turned up the same coverage in the following newspapers: The Chicago Tribune, the Independent (London), The Gazette (Montreal), Herald News, Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN), Chattanooga Times Free Press (Tennessee), Belfast Telegraph, Akron Beacon Journal (Ohio), The Advocate, Aberdeen American News (South Dakota), The American Spectator, Philadelphia Inquirer, and Slate Magazine. Of course, it was also covered extensively by partisan sources (e.g., National Right to Life News). This is a fair amount of domestic and international coverage of the issue, no? I would be surprised if a small neutral sentence in proportion to the length of the article could not be added, choosing from a few of the more mainstream newspaper sources here (or above) for support of the accusation. But, it really should be attributed to whomever is making the accusation against the JAMA authors for the sake of clarity and accuracy, I think. J Readings (talk) 11:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
That would be okay, although I would prefer to frame it as a fact rather than as an accusation. Everyone acknowledges the fact that the affiliations of two of the co-authors were not included in the JAMA article, and that those affiliations probably would have been included in the article if they had been disclosed to JAMA, so I would frame it as a fact rather than as an accusation. But if you'd like to frame it as an accusation then that would be okay too. The main thing is just to briefly make our readers aware of this notable aspect of the JAMA article.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Just some quick initial thoughts: I actually didn't have time last night to re-read carefully all of these articles in full. To be honest, I still haven't. That said, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "disclosure" in this instance because that suggests that the JAMA authors intentionally tried to hide something. I'm not saying that they didn't, it's possible that they did (I simply haven't re-read the articles yet). But, again, that take on the issue needs to be cited to (preferably) multiple independent third-party sources confirming the fact of some kind of duplicity in failing to disclose their former affiliations, so as to avoid POV slants in the Wikipedia article. Otherwise, if that fact cannot be directly cited, the best course of action is likely to attribute direct quotes to mainstream newspapers to the accusing parties in the hope that the reader (if interested) will look into the issue further and make up his or her own mind. J Readings (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Draft sentence for footnote: "Two authors of the study published in JAMA did not report their abortion-related activities, which pro-life groups view as a conflict of interest; the editor of JAMA says the journal probably would have mentioned those activities if they had been disclosed, but still would have published the study. Denise Grady, “Study Authors Didn't Report Abortion Ties”, New York Times (2005-08-26).
Ferrylodge (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Who removed this from the article? It was in this article a few hours ago, but now is gone. Who took it out, and why?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "How can we verify that both are currently healthy?"

Andrew asked...

Q: "how can we verify that both are currently healthy?"

A: Just click on the reference links, which are already there:

  • "Weighing just 1 lb. 6 oz at birth, James is now a stocky young man standing about 5'9" who enjoys rugby, diving and fast cars."[28]
  • "After nearly four months in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) at Baptist Children's Hospital, baby Amillia is going home healthy and thriving."[29]


User:rangemarlin, since you deleted that, will you please restore it?

Or, is your concern that these kids might someday contract ailments (perhaps unrelated to their early births) which would make the "currently healthy" description no longer accurate? If so, perhaps you would prefer a different wording. How about something like this? "Despite their premature births, both developed into normal, healthy children."

What do you think? NCdave (talk) 02:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Since the first link is 2 years old, and the second a year old, it doesn't verify the previous wording. However, your new proposed wording seems much better, thought I'm not sure the word "normal" is necessary. -Andrew c [talk] 04:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've added that version, minus the word "normal." NCdave (talk) 06:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fetal movement

FYI, there is a separate article on Fetal movement. Seems like we need a summary section on that subject in this article. Then everything about fetal movement can be moved into that summary section.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense to holistically discuss the development all in the same place, instead of forcing the reader to find out about different topics in separate sections. Looks like you already made the changes without waiting for feedback here though. Anyone else have an opinion on moving the movement stuff out of the chronology and into a separate section?-Andrew c [talk] 22:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:Summary style seems to indicate that we should have summary sections in this article. If we're going to summarize fetal movement and fetal pain in separate respective sections, should we repeat that same stuff in a way that's mixed in with the chronology? That seems kind of repetitious. Incidentally, for many months the fetal pain info was arranged in a fetal pain section, without repeating it in the chronology, and it seems like the same approach would be appropriate for fetal movement too.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Andrew C. This move was done in haste, and doesn't make sense out of the context of the developmental stages.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Placement of ultrasound images

We previously discussed the placement of ultrasound images. IAA wanted to move them up in the article, so we moved them up over my objections. Now, the ultrasound images are 3D instead of 2D, so they actually show a discernible fetus. And so IAA has now decided to move the images down.[30]

I object to this shuffling of images depending upon how informative they are (i.e. the more informative the farther down in the article they go). Nevertheless, I will not move the ultrasound images myself, and instead will merely move the Da Vinci image back up (it was previously moved down to make room for the ultrasound images).Ferrylodge (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ferry, please assume good faith. I moved them down because they were smack dab in the middle of the text. If you would like to replace the drawings with the images, I have no problem with that. But we shouldn't let the images take over the entire page.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The links I provided speak very well for themselves.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I like where you have moved them. I hope this issue is resolved.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said above and in the edit summary, I object to this shuffling of images depending upon how informative they are, but if they're going to be moved then they should be moved properly.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Numerous recent edits

I again object to recent POV edits. See this edit, for example. Up until that edit earlier today, this Wikipedia correctly cited “Insights into Early fetal Development” for the statement that purposive movement begins MONTHS BEFORE birth. This Wikipedia article correctly quoted that source in a footnote: "Purposive movement depends on brain maturation. This begins at about 18 weeks and progressively replaces reflex movements, which disappear by about 8 months after birth." The aforementioned edit summary from earlier today claims the source has somehow been “misrepresented.” Because of that alleged misrepresentation, this Wikipedia article has now been edited to say that “Voluntary movement will not occur until AFTER birth” (emphasis added). This is a blatantly false distortion of the source. Both myself and another editor have objected against this distortion.

I am frankly extremely tired of going in circles here. When other editors ahve objected and reverted, it is not appropriate to jam the material right back into the article. That goes double when the reinserted material is blatantly false material supporting the POV of the Wikipedia editor. How many times is it necessary to restate this obvious fact?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


What the source says is this:

Reflexes are very different from purposeful voluntary movements which develop during the first year of life. Such movements are dependent on the maturation of the central nervous system, and in particular on myelination, which starts from around 18 weeks’ gestation. In fact, all primitive reflexes have to be lost before voluntary movement can be mastered. Reflex activity usually disappears in normal babies by about eight months of age but may persist in those with neurological damage.

So just stop it Ferrylodge.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

We're making progress here. We now have a discussion going. Here is the entire relevant material:

“ Purposive movement depends on brain maturation. This begins at about 18 weeks and progressively replaces reflex movements, which disappear by about 8 months after birth....Reflexes are very different from purposeful voluntary movements which develop during the first year of life. Such movements are dependent on the maturation of the central nervous system, and in particular on myelination, which starts from around 18 weeks’ gestation. In fact, all primitive reflexes have to be lost before voluntary movement can be mastered. Reflex activity usually disappears in normal babies by about eight months of age but may persist in those with neurological damage. (Emphasis added) ”

Nothing here supports the sentence that you have repeatedly inserted into this article (over the objections of multiple editors) that: “Voluntary movement will not occur until AFTER birth.” Purposeful movements develop during the first year of life, but that does not mean that they begin during the first year after birth.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Everything you just quoted directly supports what I added.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
If "Purposive movement .... begins at about 18 weeks and progressively replaces reflex movements" then that very obviously and directly contradicts your statement that "Voluntary movement will not occur until after birth."Ferrylodge (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Purposeful is not the same as voluntary. Purposeful could simply mean lungs moving to spur development. There is, therefore, no contradiction with following sentence that voluntary movement does not begin until after birth. Ferry, you should probably try to get out of the habit of doing original research.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Your bolded text above refers to "purposeful voluntary movements." There is no sentence in the source stating that voluntary movement does not begin until after birth.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I can't help you if you can't see the the phrase, "which develop during the first year of life" in the sentence, "Reflexes are very different from purposeful voluntary movements which develop during the first year of life."--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Then you take the position that everything that develops during the first year after birth did not exist beforehand? The human develops during the first year after birth, so no human existed beforehand? Such a position seems plainly incorrect to me, and it also blatantly contradicts the source: "Purposive movement .... begins at about 18 weeks and progressively replaces reflex movements."Ferrylodge (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More massive edits with disparaging edit summaries and no discussion

This kind of thing is getting very tiresome.

Now we have the Stanley reference being used to support the statement that “Control of movement is limited at birth, and purposeful voluntary movements start to develop in the first year after birth” instead of being used to support the previous statement that “Control of movement is limited at birth, and purposeful voluntary movements develop during the long period up until puberty.” And what does the Stanley reference actually say? It actually says that, “Motor competance at birth is limited in the human neonate. The voluntary control of movement develops and matures during a prolonged period up to puberty….” Thus, Stanley is now being distorted, since Stanley discusses the period up to puberty, rather than the first year after birth, and Stanley says nothing about purposeful voluntary movements starting to develop after birth. IAA’s edit summary asserts that she was deleting “editorial” comments, but what she has actually done is distorted the cited reliable sources.

Likewise, we now have the Becher reference being used to support the statement that “Control of movement is limited at birth, and purposeful voluntary movements start to develop in the first year after bith” instead of being used to support the previous statement that, “According to an overview produced by the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, purposive movement begins at about 18 weeks' gestation, gradually replacing reflex movements, and purposeful voluntary movements then develop further after birth.” And what does the Becher reference actually say? It actually says that, "Purposive movement depends on brain maturation. This begins at about 18 weeks and progressively replaces reflex movements, which disappear by about 8 months after birth....Reflexes are very different from purposeful voluntary movements which develop during the first year of life." Thus, Becher is now being distorted also, since Becher says that purposeful movement begins at 18 weeks’ gestation rather than after birth. IAA’s edit summary asserts that she was deleting “editorial” comments, but what she has actually done is distorted the cited reliable sources. And in order to hide this distortion, IAA has deleted the excerpt of Becher that was quoted in the footnote. There is no trace of good faith editing here. IAA, you inserted this Becher reference into this article in the first place, right? Then why can't we quote and accurately describe what it says?Ferrylodge (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology

This article presently says (emphasis added):

Foetus is an English variation on the Latin spelling, but has been in use since at least 1594, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, which describes "fetus" as "etymologically preferable ... but in actual use ... almost unknown", and gives foetus as the standard spelling. The variant foetus or fœtus may have originated with an error by Saint Isidore of Seville, in AD 620.[6] The preferred spelling in the United States is fetus, but the variants foetus and fœtus persist in other English-speaking countries and in some medical contexts, as well as in some other languages (e.g., French).

It seems that this would be confusing to a reader. We quote the OED as saying that the f-e-t-u-s spelling is "almost unknown." But then we go on to say that the f-e-t-u-s spelling is the preferred spelling in the United States. This makes little sense.

Here is what the OED says: "The etymologically preferable spelling with e in this word and its cognates is adopted as the standard form in some recent Dicts., but in actual use is almost unknown." This is a very vague statement, and I suggest we steer clear of it. Both the f-e-t-u-s spelling and the f-œ-t-u-s spelling include the letter e, so it's unclear what the OED is referring to. I'll modify the article accordingly.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's an English dictionary, not US-English. Also, perhaps the source of the confusion is that œ is not e. However, that still doesn't provide a consistent picture, because the non-US spelling tends to be foetus, not fœtus, as far as I know - though it could well be fœtus in Australia. ETA The current text is probably as non-confusing as it's likely to get. I suggest we quit while we're ahead. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Fetus is an Americanised spelling, like "color". The correct spelling just isn't the most-recognised one, due only to the sheer pervasiveness of American culture and it's influence on language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.75.182 (talk) 00:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Earth Calling

Can those contributeing to the article, please take the time and trouble to research what they are writing, as so much of the article has little relevence outside of the USA, which is only one country, theres a big wide world out here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.67.15.96 (talk) 23:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but please be specific.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)