Talk:Baby Gender Mentor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Medicine (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article was selected on the Medicine portal as one of Wikipedia's best articles related to Medicine.
WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 
Former featured article Baby Gender Mentor is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 13, 2007.


Thoughts[edit]

John, I got your message. This is very interesting. I was not even aware this test existed. A few thoughts: I think that the section break line so close to the top of the article is a bit distracting; I'm not sure it's needed. Also, I can see why you would have essentially quoted the company's claims, not wanting to unconsciously skew them in any fashion, but I think it makes the article a little clunky. I think we can probably safely summarize what they claim the test does ourselves and then just add a link to where people can see for themselves how they phrase the claims.

I also think that there needs to be more discussion of just how early this test claims to work, as compared to the other current methods, for folks who may not be familiar with just what other options currently exist. I also think this line needs a bit of tweaking: Even though the Food and Drug Administration doesn't regulate the test because it is classified as non-medical, some parents may use the test as a basis for determining whether or not to get an abortion as a means of gender selection. With that language, Wikipedia is pronouncing ourselves that some parents will use this test to do gender selection. What we need to say is that "critics of the test fear that some parents may use the test".... you see what I'm saying. It would be even better to refer to a specific critic.

May have some other thoughts later, those are what came to mind at first blush. · Katefan0(scribble) 15:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Hi Kate, thanks for your excellent suggestions, as always. I have also received some good suggestions over at Wikipedia:Peer review/Acu-gen/archive1. I will see what I can do to implement these suggestion to the article over the weekend. Best, Johntex\talk 19:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I have to say I found this article excessively long, and after forcing myself to read through it, felt it was needlessly so as well. It reads like an advertisement for the company designed to appear unbiased, but in reality is not. Possibly shortening the article and being more concise would avoid that feel. Just a thought. SINsApple 05:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Could you explain in more detail how it seems like an advertisement when a signifcant portion of the article is devoted to controversy and criticism of the product? As for length, is there any specific information that you feel should be removed? Johntex\talk 21:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

GA concern[edit]

I found this article clear and interesting, and I admire your research. After my copyedit, I have only one concern before calling this a Good Article. (Anybody can do that, right?) That's the format of the references. The two NPR broadcasts listed under "Sources" should have the same format, ideally the same as the way they're listed under "references". And you might want to rethink the format for the references. At a minimum they need a word or some puncutation between the title and the source (e.g., "The Gender Flap". The Washington Post). I didn't want to format them myself because this has been your article (and I have other things to do), but this site has some examples of newspaper references that you might be able to adapt for radio news.

By the way, my personal opinion is that the law firm shouldn't be mentioned. They're just trying to drum up business, and are you prepared to vouch for them or to keep checking whether any other firms competing for the same clients, so you can add them for fairness? Just a suggestion. —JerryFriedman 01:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jerry, thank you very much for your review and your suggestions. I will work on the references this weekend. I've learned a lot about reference styles since I originally wrote this article, so I am sure I can do better if I revisit them.
I will also re-examine the bit about the law firm. Since creating the article I have had the article on my watchlist. Since that time, on about 3 or 4 occasions someone has tried to add more specific advertising for the law firm mentioned. ("If you have used this product, call us at...) I always revert that when I see it. So far, I haven't found any other law firm trying to bring a similar case. I think it is useful information for the reader to know that a suit has been filed, but clearly we don't want to allow advertising. Perhaps a good compromise is to say that a firm has filed a suit but not name the firm within the text? Johntex\talk 15:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, the suit hasn't been filed yet, right? When it has, I think naming the firm would be fine, but for now, it's all just tentative, if I understand the article correctly. So yes, I do like your suggestion of not naming the firm yet and letting readers do their own research if they want. Anyway, John, thanks for accepting my changes and suggestion in the spirit they were offered in, and I'll be back on Wikipedia next week. —JerryFriedman 16:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jerry, I just wanted to let you know I didn't have time to work on Wikipedia this past weekend, but I hope to address these issues this week. Thanks, Johntex\talk 15:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Looks like a lawsuit has been filed.[1] I'll add this new info to the article. Johntex\talk 23:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi Jerry, I believe I have fixed the references and I have also been able to expand the article since new information is now available. I look forward to your thoughts. Thanks very much, Johntex\talk 03:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
A couple things on my proofreading: I changed things like Bioethicist Dr. Analia Bortz, as if Bioethicist were a title like Doctor, because I hate that and that style wasn't used elsewhere in the article. However, I realize some people are taught that method, so if you decide to go back to the way you had it, that won't affect my GA review. Same with my slight reorg of combining the two sentences about what the user does. —JerryFriedman 00:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I have no objections to that at all. I think I accidently restored "Bioethicist" in one of my edits, but I took it back out after reading your note. My re-inclusion of it was inadvertant. I don't immediately see what your other change was - I'll check the page history to see. Johntex\talk 18:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I see now. Your wording is far better than mine. It doesn't make sense just to say the user puts the blood in the kit. The reference to the card is much better. Do you think I should add one more image to illustrate this? I don't want to go overboard with using too many fair-use images, but I think an image of the kit in use would be easily justifiable in that section. Please let me know your thoughts. Best, Johntex\talk 18:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the new image is great, and I think the whole article is now excellent. —JerryFriedman 23:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jerry, thank you again for all your help in improving this article. You have really helped it to improve. Best, Johntex\talk 00:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Availability, other comments[edit]

In the section "Warranty and availability", the article mentions that "As of July 2006, the Pregnancy Store.com reported that the test was 'currently out of stock.'" If this is important to the article (I'm not sure), it should be brought up to date. At the moment, the Pregnancy Store website doesn't have any information about the Baby Gender Mentor at all, and the page linked as a reference for the above statement comes back as "Page not found." On the other hand, BabyGenderMentor.com still appears to be selling the test.

Also, please be consistent in spacing and capitalization when referring to the Pregnancy Store website, and double-check spelling in general throughout the article. FreplySpang 17:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. I brought the section about warranty availability up to date. I also just completed a spell check in my word processor so I think I have fixed all the typos - inlcuding any new ones introduced today as I addressed the other comments from the FA reveiw. I will now check for consistency in spacing when refering to the websites. Johntex\talk 18:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I think I have now fixed all these points. Thanks again for the suggestions. Johntex\talk 19:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Semi-automated peer review script[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  1. Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
  2. There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  3. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.[?]
  4. Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): Can't.
  5. Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

Reply:
  1. I think that the important wikilinks have all been added. The article tends to stick to the same terms, or to use plain English words that do not seem beneficial to link.
  2. I can't find an appropriate infobox.
  3. This suggestion puzzles me. I don't see any location in the article where such a conversion is made. Perhpas someone else can spot it?
  4. Contractions - I have search the article for every instance of the (') character. They all seem to be indicating a possessive, or else they are inside a direct quotation. I don't see any contractions in the article except in quotations.
  5. The article has had multiple peer reviews, as linked above. Johntex\talk 00:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Agree with the author of this section. Quite a few errors. Albeit minor (to most), they distract me to say the least. I've corrected a few, but still many left. Cheers. ~ UBeR 02:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Article confusing[edit]

At least 40 women have come forward to say their Baby Gender Mentor tests predicted the wrong gender.[26] According to a National Public Radio (NPR) report, the company has explained certain inaccurate results as being the result of a vanishing twin, a fetus that stopped growing soon after fertilization.[11] Vanishing Twin Syndrome ...

Does this mean that all 40 women have had twins predicted but ended up with only one baby? Because surely the whole vanishing twins thing is irrelevant if a boy was predicted but you ended up with a girl (or vice versa) because the test is supposed to be able to report if you have fraternal twins Nil Einne 01:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

  • The article is not saying that all wrong results have been attributed to Vanishing Twin Syndrome. Those two sentences are talking about the same general topic (allegedly incorrect results) but not necesarily the same cause. They are attributed to different sources. If you look at the footnote 26, it says:

But now parents are raising concerns about the test -- on Monday 40 people who purchased the kit filed a class-action lawsuit in Massachusetts claiming incorrect test results.

So, we know at least 40 women are suing because they allegedly got incorrect results. We do not know what explanation, if any they each got from the manufacturer. Johntex\talk 19:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Well the wording was rather unclear. And regardless, the explaination doesn't work for having a boy predicated but ending up with a girl or vice versa since the test is supposed to be able to predict fraternal twins. In any case, it seems this has been improved now Nil Einne (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Broken ref link[edit]

The sentence "In February 2006, Wang said, 'We don't mistakes [sic]. Period,'50" in the Warranty and availability section, the link to the source cited does not work. ~ UBeR 02:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Scientific method[edit]

"The medical community is not in agreement about how frequently vanishing-twin phenomena occurs.[27] The scientific method relies on the existence of a falsifiable hypothesis. This means that if it is not possible to observe a counterexample which disproves the claim, then the claim is not scientifically testable. If vanishing twins can be reabsorbed so completely that they leave no evidence, then it is not possible to prove whether they were ever present. This would make it impossible to ensure that all cases have been recorded.[28]"

This is a misunderstanding of the scientific method. This theory is easily falsifiable.

In order to be true: A twin must be observed early (real early) in pregnancy, disappear, and leav little or no trace of its prior existence.

To falsify: A twin will be observed early on. Some trace will remain. There will likely be an intermediate trace prior to the "vanishing" of the bulk of the foetal matter.


This theory relies on no trace. If there is a trace left (an observable counterpoint), this hypothesis is falsified.

  • H1 No Twin Foetus. (vanishes?) No trace. (unobservable, but default position - Occam)
  • H2 Twin Foetus. Vanishes. No trace. (requires observation of early twin and no recordabale trace)
  • H3 Twin Foetus. Vanishes. Trace. (falsifies H2 through observation of a trace)
  • H4 Twin Foetus. Doesn't Vanish. Significant trace. (normal twin pregnancy)

--ZayZayEM 04:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is that in some cases the only evidence that a male twin ever existed is the result from the Baby Gender Mentor test. If they say they detect a male baby and the mother delivers a girl, they can say that there were originally fraternal twins (one male, one female) at the time the Baby Gender Mentor test was given. Johntex\talk 21:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't talking just about how Baby Gender Mentor is using the idea (they are definitely fudging dodgy science). Just contesting that the general idea of vanishing-twin is not unscientific, and is essentially falsifiable. However it needs a little bit of actual evidence first (Baby Gender false positives are not genuine evidence, they could be used as motivation for research, but in themselves they show nothing until confirmed to be showing what they say they show).--ZayZayEM 07:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
They claim they can predict fraternal twins. Therefore if vanishing twins occured they should have predicted that rather then a boy or girl and gotten it wrong. It seems that this has been correct in the article now but I think it's worth understanding why multiple people raised this area as a concern on the talk page Nil Einne (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

May someone please semi-protect this article[edit]

seems to be vandalism going on Bladesofhalo 04:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection should be redrafted or not? Please help form consensus at Wikipedia talk:Main Page featured article protection#Consensus. DrKiernan 11:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ticker?[edit]

Does this company have a stock ticker? 66.30.166.58 18:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No, they are a private company. If you read the sources, you will infer that they have only a handful of employees (<10) though this is never directly stated, as far as I know. 68.8.72.3 18:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. 66.30.166.58 18:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

A Main Page FA?[edit]

Okay, this only the second time I have ever complained about the Main Page FA, and the first complaint inspired me to register my account. While I can appreciate the work that went into the article and its FA nomination, in my humble opinion this reads as spam. It is not NPOV, it promotes the product in question, and I believe that the above comment about "How can I buy their stock?" only proves the point. Again, this is just my opinion of reading the article. I am disappointed. I'll move on tomorrow. Teke 05:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Basically, my problem is that this article reads just like any random drug advertisement I've seen on TV.
  • This is what our product does
  • This is how our product works
  • This is our disclaimer/side effects
Only not in that order. Teke 05:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree, see my comments below. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 05:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree. After reading this entire article, I fail to see why this is notable enough for an article, let alone an FA. This strikes me as a long ad on our main page.--Alabamaboy 12:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Ditto. Seems an extraordinary choice for a FA. AndrewWTaylor 18:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
FA's can be on any subject, from Solar System to Spoo. Besides, the article is hardly a glowing endorsement of the product when it details numerous controversies and legal actions pertaining to the product. What makes you say it reads like an advertisement when it is a very balanced article stating multiple sides of the story? 68.8.72.3 18:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
See my three points above. Don't get me wrong, Shoe polish is a damn great article. Teke 03:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this could be taken to read like an ad, when large parts of the article are devoted to questioning its scientific validity and possible unethical nature. --Delirium 19:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No publicity is bad publicity. Carcharoth 21:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I know a little about how drug marketers work. While I will assume good faith on the part of WP editors involved in the decision making to post this page, I certainly won't attach the same level of good faith for the marketers whose job it is to promote this product. I have no evidence to support the idea that WP has been had, but I think there a definite possibility of a coordinated action to get this page put up. My $0.02. Ronnotel 22:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

From my perspective, the article addresses man valid concerns about the technology and I believe its inclusion is both timely and appropriate. From the perspective of a United States resident, it seems like a trivial issue, but in most of the developing world, gender selection is a serious issue. Not only that, but using blood samples to identify sex chromosomes is only the beginning of what is coming online in terms of fetal testing. I applaud the authors for writing a fair and balanced look at the current state of affairs. 67.149.103.119 23:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Opening paragraph POV concerns[edit]

I am concerned that certain claims appearing in the opening section are speculative, opinion-based, and not supported by authoritative references. Namely, this section claims that reasons for use of the test include "getting a head start on shopping for baby clothes or decorating the nursery" or "preparing themselves or the baby's siblings for gender-specific issues." These two claims are apparently based on single, anecdotal interviews in popular press reports. The statement that "50–70% of expectant parents would like to know the gender of their child ahead of delivering the baby" is further used to support the presumed use of the device. Yet gender is easily and accurately determined by routine prenatal care methods (ultrasound) several months before term. The real purpose of the test is to determine gender very early in the pregnancy, and the motivations of the majority of this company's clients for doing this is unclear. The concern about gender-selective abortion is relegated to a worry of "bioethicists", yet there is no evidence to suggest that this is not a common use of the test in actual practice. I would propose that the opening paragraph be trimmed to state the reasons for ordering the test as:

"Women may have many motivations for using a test to learn the gender of their fetus early in pregnancy, including mental preparation, gender-specific purchases, or (more controversially) gender-selective abortion. The actual motivations of most users of the Baby Gender Mentor are unknown."

More (anecdotal) detail could possibly be included in a later paragraph about "non-controversial" uses of the device, but should not be in the opening paragraph, IMHO - otherwise this article risks uncritically parroting the company's marketing claims. Since this is a featured article, I will wait for comments before making this change. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 05:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Linking to the discussion at Featured article review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I read the discussion at Featured article review. As you stated there, "Main page exposure may help address the issues in this article and encourage better examination of sourcing by FA reviewers." I hope this is true b/c this article's sourcing, er, sucks. For example, the source for the lead comment "An estimated 50–70% of expectant parents would like to know the gender of their child before it is born." is a now non-existant advertisement for this product (link was at [2]). The reference for "Parents might like to know this information early in order to get a head start on shopping for baby clothes or decorating the nursery" is a single news column which reads as if the author copied directly from advertising copy.--Alabamaboy 12:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Note: I've made some changes to the lead to address these issues.--Alabamaboy 12:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
One motivation for women to seek alternatives to ultrasound is that the procedure is not entirely without risk to the fetus, and in fact the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists does not recommend the procedure for routine use in every pregnancy. (see PMID 16949653, the ACOG pamphlet, and Mothering Magazine). The last source also points out that by having an ultrasound exam, some women receive information they don't want (for example, information that severely tests their opposition to abortion). Mike Serfas 13:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Your first reference discusses theoretical risks of ultrasound, extrapolating from animal models, and determines that they are very small. To my knowlege, there is absulutely no direct evidence that prenatal ultrasound causes any risks in humans. ACOG reccommends that ultrasound be "offered" to all pregnant women for fetal abnormality screening. Regardless, this is far too technical a discussion to appear in what should be a concise, non-POV, non-controversial opening paragraph. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 18:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - "not entirely without risk" may have been a stronger phrase than I intended, and I'm pleased with how the final edit came out. Mike Serfas 14:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

One giant advertisement[edit]

How does a passage like this end up in a Featured Article? (my bolding):

"The company says that the accuracy of the test exceeds that of conventional methods, such as ultrasonography, amniocentesis, or chorionic villus sampling techniques, and that their test offers "unsurpassed accuracy, unrivaled earliness, and uncompromised promptness".[4] Acu-Gen has chosen not to release details of how the test works or proof of its accuracy"

So basically an unproven claim has been allowed to stand in a featured article - a claim that makes nice advertising for the company. That this has been promoted to Featured Article status SUCKS. Now every company will get their PR people to write a nicely-worded, generally positive article for their products and Bingo! Millions of dollars worth of free advertising. Shame on you, Wikipedia people. 81.152.168.172 13:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

They already do. Have you seen some of the Feature articles foisted on Wikipedia? Every couple of days it's an ad for a video game that's due to be released next month (because the article is most "stable" when no one has had the opportunity to dispute the manufacturer's claims...) At least this article incorporates some substantial criticism (and doesn't even spin it off to a separate sub-article!) and mentions competing products. I would have voted against it anyway, but I didn't vote... there's one problem. Mike Serfas 13:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Slander! Video game featured articles usually show up only every couple of months at the most part. (And I agree with the statements posted below.) Brutannica 01:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

And now it's even featured. That's really advertisement. I am quite disappointed with Wiki here.

I had just the other impression: Quoting the manufacturer's claims made it very clear to me that this company is suspicious. Without the claims, it might have seemed like a nit-picking issue, but the article as presented was very compelling and balanced at the same time. Good work! Ben 14:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Ben. I am very surprised anyone thinks this reads like an advertisement. The controversies surrounding this product, including allegations of fraud, are clearly explained in the body of the article and mentioned in the lead. Johntex\talk 18:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course we should be discussing how the product is marketed. The article wouldn't be comprehensive if it didn't state that the company insists that it's completely accurate, despite several false results. If we actually said that this stuff was true, it'd be an issue. But it's completely appropriate to discuss the company's claims in the proper context. This doesn't look like an ad at all. ShadowHalo 18:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Who said "no publicity is bad publicity"? Seriously. If the claims are bogus, the company doesn't need an article. 4500 people have bought the product? That is a vanishingly small number. Carcharoth 21:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course it warrants an article. The product has received attention from reliable third-party sources. ShadowHalo 22:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Remind me which sources those are again? Carcharoth 22:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Checking the references, one finds that the article cites stories from The Today Show, NPR, and Science, among others. Johntex\talk 15:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I suppose one could question why the article is titled Baby Gender Mentor rather than Blood-based prenatal sex determination or something similarly generic, given that this company is only one of several labs offering a similar service. I agree that this is the most publicised & well-known company, and maybe it does deserve its own separate page, but right now I think it is a valid concern that Wikipedia seems to be promoting one company (if you agree that any publicity is good publicity) over others. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 15:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
None of the other companies that do "blood-based prenatal sex determination" have received any sort of widespread publicity at all. I had to dig to even find them, and I dug them out just to make this article as complete as possible. In my view, our Coca Cola article should absolutely mention Pepsi and vice versa, but that does not mean both of those articles should be merged into Soft drink. We are clearly not promoting this product just because we have an article on it; not if our article is an un-biased view of the product. Johntex\talk 16:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • A new kit called "Pink or Blue" is getting some media attention this week. I've added it to this article for now. It may merit its own article in the future and/or the coverage on this new test may help us created an article on the more general topic. Interestingly, a good portion of the press reports on "Pink or Blue" are calling it the "first test of its kind", so obviously they have not done their homework! Johntex\talk 16:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sherry Bonelli[edit]

I would be interested to here if Sherry Bonelli's child was indeed a girl...has anyone heard anything about this?Trottsky 13:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

sex vs. gender, a little bone to pick[edit]

I wanted to mention a small issue regarding the use of the word gender in this article. Accu-Gen claims this product determines the "gender" of a fetus, but this is misleading. The proper (i.e. scientific and academic rather than colloquial) use of the word gender refers to how one convceives of begin masculine, feminine, or both. Gender is widely accepted to be a social construction. Thus it does not refer to the sex of an individual, i.e. being male or female in a biological sense. This article does not address this glaring issue, and I plan on noting the issue and changing gender in all cases where appropriate. I think Wikipedia should use academically and scientifically accepted forms of words where applicable, albeit noting common/colloquial usages. Obviously, I won't change the name of the product! It's name is it's name and that can't be changed :) JeffreyN 15:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe this is the article to discuss these issues. Has anyone made this complaint in a notable source? If not, I'm removing it, for two reasons: 1, information in the lead section should always be expanded upon in the article main, and 2, lack of sources. I don't mean a definition in a dictionary, that's original research by wikipedia's definition. I mean a source of someone complaining. Until then, I'm removing it from the lead. Fieari 16:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
This isn't a purely semantic issue - for example, in cases of testicular feminization the test will say "male" and the doctor will say "it's a girl!" - who's right is a philosophical question. Mike Serfas 16:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
You are correct Mike Serfas; this is an issue of semantics (though situations such as testicular feminization make things more complex). In this case, I wish to keep things simple. I don't wish to make a "discussion" of these issues in the article, I simply wanted to denote that the product's name uses the word "gender" in a colloquial, non-proper manner. What I mean to say is that: while sex and gender might be used interchangably in popular culture, scientific and academic circles generally use them in a much more specific manner. If you don't want this info in the lead section, then I can put it somewhere else. I didn't want this info to be in its own section as I don't feel it warrants a new section. It is simply a short note about the wording and context of the product's name.
Also, where does Wikipedia policy say that a reputable dictionary is not a proper source? (I say this NOT to provoke, but because I never knew this to be the case). Are you looking for a peer reviewed journal article specifically on the semantic differences between gender and sex? This might be harder to find though there are hundreds of other sources on the issue. I have no doubt there are many psychology and sociology textbooks that address the issue, and I think these would be considered proper sources. If you wish me to find a source like this, then that can be done. In the meantime, I will cite a dictionary or some other similar source. JeffreyN 17:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Just to illustrate my point, the WHO defines gender and sex in the way I have outlined [3]. I know there are better sources out there and that this would not classify as a proper source for Wikipedia. But I wanted to use this as an example. I feel that the WHO is a VERY reputable organization which can be looked to for generally accepted information. JeffreyN 17:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
The point I'm making is that the fact that this is an issue at all is original research without a source of someone else saying it. This is practically the very example given here: WP:OR#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position. In our case, the position in question is that the product's name is "Incorrect". To back up this position, the definition of "Gender" is used. The synthesis of these two positions is thus original research. Fieari 18:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I understand your point and reference to policy, but at what point does an assertation become so obvious that 1) no research would be ever be done into the specific issue and 2) such issues are not intended to be covered by this Wikipedia policy. Also, I toned down the original text by saying that the name implies the test is for gender. In fact, it does more than imply as the website for the product explicitly says it tests for fetal gender. This case is much more clear and less "synthesizing" than the one given in WP:OR#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position. The company defines that they do in regard to the specific word "gender". There are mutiple sources for one definition of gender. The two do not match. This is clear, simple, and uncomplicated and thus I reference the two points I make above. The policy cited is given to prevent people from making very arguable assertations that are up for debate and thus need clear and reliable sources to back up any claims made. This is not the case here. JeffreyN 19:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this deserves much, if any, treatment in this article. For the majority of the world, their sex is the same as their gender. The company does not make a distinction between the two, and none of the people commenting on the product refer to the distinction. We link to sex and we link to gender. Articles such as those are the more appropriate place to discuss this issue. Johntex\talk 19:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
While you are correct that the words "sex" and "gender" have distinct, specific definitions in the field of sociology, the word "gender" is widely used to refer to biological "maleness" or "femaleness" in popular usage and by many medical authorities & researchers (see for example, this reference[4] which uses the terms interchangably). I'm not sure you have the authority to say that this common usage is universally "wrong".-RustavoTalk/Contribs 19:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
For the majority of the non-scientific world, the two are many times used interchangably. The point is that the scientific community that deals with these issues almost universally defines the terms as I have outlined. I simply want to make this point clear as Wikipedia is to be used to make all aspects and definitions of a word/issue clear, esp. regarding scientific definitions and points of clarifications. If Wikipedia is to authoritative, it must contain both universally accepted definitions as well as those that are accepted in scientific communities that study specific issues. As to the fact that the medical community sometimes uses gender to refer to biological maleness or femaleness, this is sometimes the case, though as I have said incorrectly (and I would agrue, though with no proper evidence, rarely the case). However, the pyschology and sociology communities which specifically deal with the issue have sought to clarify the definitions as they apply to all scientific fields, medical or otherwise. If you all feel that the definition does no warrant clarification, then I will cease to argue my case as long as all references to the word gender are changed to sex (except of course in the case of the name itself or citations/sources). JeffreyN 20:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Look, I understand your point, but I completely disagree that your definition of the term "gender" is relevant to the usage on this page. If this article dealt with issues of "gender identity," than using those terms in the strict sociology/psychology usage would be an important goal, but it is absolutely clear to purchasers of the product, as well as readers of this page, that it is a test for "biological sex" or (as it is commonly used in medical and non-medical contexts) "biological gender". This page simply isn't the right place to be advancing a politically charged semantic debate without relevance to the topic at hand. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 20:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Rustavo. It's a valid point for discussion on some other article, it is not relevant here. Johntex\talk 15:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
While I didn't like the original sentence added to the lead, I think this point has to be relevant to this article. "Gender" is in the name of the article (and product); the product is a test for biological sex (which occurs 107 times in PubMed vs. 20 times "biological gender", FWIW). Though the two words are synonymous in common usage, that is irrelevant - what matters to this article is the scientific and medical usage. A brief, restrained statement clarifying the difference would be appropriate under "Test Methodology", for example: "As the test examines DNA, what it determines is the biological sex of the fetus, rather than its sexual differentiation or gender identity." If you say WP:NOR I say WP:IAR - you shouldn't need a reference to infer that a test for a Y chromosome will not perceive androgen resistance or other hormonal abnormalities. Mike Serfas 16:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
What Mike Serfas sounds great to me. As I said, I do not wish to make a huge issue of this in the article itself. I realize this is not the forum for the issue to that degree. My interest is only in clarifying (as Mike Serfas seems to want as well (let me know if this is not the case!)) in a technical, scientific way the terms used by the company and in this article. For me, that means in some way clarifying the difference between gender and sex as defined by relavent scientific fields. I don't think that this necessarily has to be "politically charged", and I apologize if my initial edits seemed so. JeffreyN 20:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Americans United for Life[edit]

Americans United for Life argues that women disappointed by the result of their test would find it easier to have an abortion if they get the results early. They say that women who want to have a specific sex will be learning the results at a time when it is safer for them to have an abortion, without the complications associated with aborting later in pregnancy.

Unless AUL is seriously arguing in favour of killing off women who opt for abortion, doesn't this seem like a pro-abortion argument? Or am I misreading it? Soo 15:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

AUL is essentially stating that a woman shouldn't know the baby's sex early, because that way she'll be too far into the pregnancy to abort it. That's how I read it, at least. ShadowHalo 18:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that is how I read it also. Or, to re-phrase it slightly: AUL does not believe women should be getting abortions, and they don't like anything that might make an expactant mother more likely to choose an abortion. Johntex\talk 18:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thread on Main Page talk[edit]

There is a thread on the Main Page talk about this article. Carcharoth 16:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Quick Question[edit]

Has anyone followed up the references provided by the Acu-Gen web page? I haven't had a chance to do so, is there any mention of how Acu-Gen ensures that only foetal cells undergo QT-PCR? Any maternal cell contamination would clearly interfere with the results. I am unaware of any technique which allows for the selection of foetal cells over adult cells with 100% accuracy... Alexjcharlton 01:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Most (possibly all) of the references given by Acu-Gen are not specifically about the Baby Gender Mentor test. They are about RT-PCR in general, or about the use of AmpliSensor technology as applied to different problems (but not to sex selection). The founder of Acu-Gen is also an inventor of AmpliSensor. They have not published peer-reviewed papers going into detail specifically about Baby Gender Mentor. The article states that they have declined to publish such informaiton until the technigue is patented. Johntex\talk 19:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Decision Process[edit]

How does one go about verifying the transparency of the decision process for front page nominations. I'm not making any claims here, I'd just like to know how WP decides what gets put up on the front page. Ronnotel 22:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, first it is made a featured article. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Baby Gender Mentor. Then Raul (the Featured Article Director), queues the articles to appear on the front page. See this month's queue at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 2007. The choice of articles from the backlog to appear in the queue is done at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests, though as that page says, the final decision is taken by Raul. Carcharoth 22:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Current availabilty info[edit]

I've e-mailed Acu-gen Biolabs on this question and they replied, saying the product is "currently being offered".--Pharos 03:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Interesting. I will try again to purchase the product. Twice in the past they have said it was "out of stock". I will report back what I learn. Johntex\talk 21:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The Pink or Blue product appears to no longer be for sale on the DNA Worldwide website Kert01 (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Tagging DYZ-1 etc.[edit]

This discussion uncovered some sourcing problems in Baby Gender Mentor #Test methodology. That section makes claims about fetomaternal microchimerism, polymerase chain reaction, and DYZ-1, but the cited source (O'Crowley 2005[5]) doesn't support those claims. For now I added some fact tags. Eubulides (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing edits -- June 2011[edit]

  • I removed edits sourced to or related to PregnancyStore.com. The removed information needs to be discussed here and sourced per WP:RS before being readded to the article. The article appears to be the victim of rampant, equal-opportunity abuse and questionable sourcing. Flowanda | Talk 08:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I also removed the unrelated competition section that sourced to company websites or news articles that had nothing to do with the subject of this article. Discuss the edits here and show a clear connection to this company and legitimate sourcing. Flowanda | Talk 08:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent meta-study[edit]

Am I correct in assuming that this meta-study (doi:10.1001/jama.2011.1114; lay summary) relates to Baby Gender Mentor? Gabbe (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)