Jump to content

Talk:Anencephaly

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 76.14.85.215 (talk) at 00:47, 21 February 2016. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconMedicine: Neurology C‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Neurology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
WikiProject iconPhilosophy: Ethics C‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Ethics

Don't make stats US-specific

How does the annual incidence in the US translate into per 1000 pregnancies?

YouTube video

Is this it? Maybe add it to the external links? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2N_ivaTe588&NR=1

RfC: Are photos of anencephalic newborns relevant to the article?

Closing per WP:SNOW and at request at WP:ANRFC. At this time, there is clearly no support for the proposal to remove any of the images, to implement a collapsible gallery, or that x-ray alternatives would be preferable. Discussion about what images are best suited in infobox or elsewhere were not a part of the proposal, and will not be examined in this close. I, JethroBT drop me a line 02:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Do the images which show newborns, one of which also contains a vast amount of blood on this page give reasonable help in understanding the subject as apposed to the shock they instill? Should X-ray and non-photographic images be prefered? Is a compromise to place them in collapsible galleries? See above discussion and discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Collapsible galleries concerning content of difficult nature in medicine CFCF (talk) 10:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Snowball Yes The issues raised here have been extensively discussed and settled. Yes, graphic images should be used where they help the reader to understand the article subject. No, we should not confine our resources for educating the reader to non-photographic images and/or to collapsible galleries.
I want to be clear that this RFC has nothing to do with the more focused and nuanced questions that I have proposed for discussion. The only possibly-useful point that is being brought up here is the guideline that "Potentially disturbing images should be not be used for their shock value, for decoration, or merely to add an image," which may be useful as a secondary argument against File:Anencephaly.jpg if it is determined that there are sufficient alternate images that lack its deleterious features. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes images of a disease are relevant to articles about a disease. Efforts to hide depictions of a condition as the condition is unpleasant is anti encyclopedic IMO. And we have discussed this issue many times before. If you do not want to see disturbing diseases 1) do not look them up on the Internet 2) turn you images off and just read text (there are lots of options available to do this). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes LT910001 (talk) 05:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So far consensus seems to point that the images should be retained. I found a high-quality image from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities which is public domain. I have replaced this image as the main image for the article. The other images are still available under the Signs & Symptoms section so have not been removed. Is this acceptable? CFCF (talk) 10:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The decision should be made on the basis of which images is the most instructive. The CDC image you mention is a drawing that does not show a particular illuminating angle and generally has no advantage over a photograph, so I agree with the user who undid your edit. I might suggest that this image, which you previously suggested, might be the basis of an instructive diagram if someone redrew it and put it into the public domain. It might even be instructive enough to be at the top of the article, as I think it makes clear what is going on better than any photograph I've seen, though I would see whether there is consensus on that before taking action. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions. Why are we adding drawings when we have images of the real thing? Why couldn't this have been discussed at WT:MED? Why was a RfC wise? Can the person who started it just close it? It cheapens the process to leave things like this open, IMO. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 14:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this RFC was unneeded and that User:CFCF should close it. However, I would cut some slack to User:CFCF on that, as well as on the choice of venue, as I think s/he is acting in good faith and is not particularly experienced. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was suggested to start an RfC by several sources, and did so because I felt there were things here that could be improved, and were not possible to improve without discussion.
As to why drawings are added. They explain the subject matter in very high clarity and as per WP:GFFENSE they respect:

Controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article.

To not admit that these images are controversial is to dismiss the discussion above on this talk page.
-- CFCF (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the close. I believe "we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article" (my emphasis of that). In this case, it is a reader expectation that pictures will be shown, and cartoon images are lower-quality. I don't like the word controversy period. So I don't know what a controversial picture is, to be honest. Is there an accepted definition for the term controversial picture? What would it be? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So why are we sacrificing quality for a misleading drawing? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To discuss semantics; a good definition of a controversial image could be an image that gives rise to the discussion seen around Talk:Anencephaly#Image. Conventional expectation in medical literature is not to show the most gruesome image concerning the subject. I would be very surprised to see an image of a bloody dead new-born if I picked up my pediatric pathology book or embryology book such as the image in File:Anencephaly.jpg.
I previously stated that an image such as http://www.cmfblog.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/anencephalicinant.jpg is very good at explaining the subject, but I am still looking for a free alternative of said image.
Lastly we are most certainly not speaking of a "cartoon" or a "misleading drawing", but of a high quality medical illustration sufficient in explaining the subject on the website for the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
By using this image as the main image we should be able to down-tone some of the controversy brought up in preceding discussions.CFCF (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also as per WP:GFFENSE

Especially with respect to images, editors frequently need to choose between alternatives with varying degrees of potential offensiveness. When multiple options are equally effective at portraying a concept, the most offensive options should not be used merely to "show off" possibly offensive materials. Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not preferred over non-offensive ones in the name of opposing censorship. Rather, they should be judged based solely on other policies for content inclusion.

-- CFCF (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CFCF, now that you're being pushed, you have stopped talking about File:Anencephaly side.jpg and File:Anencephaly front.jpg and are only discussing File:Anencephaly.jpg as too "controversial" to be in this article. I have previously given very specific reasons for the inappropriateness of File:Anencephaly.jpg, which I have already argued is nearly solely responsible for the "controversy" you mention, and I have to say that I'm a bit miffed that you went ahead with this much less nuanced and less focused RFC that (I'm afraid) has reduced the potential traction of the RFC that I previously proposed.
Regarding your quote from WP:GFFENSE, it appears to be a consensus that File:Anencephaly side.jpg and File:Anencephaly front.jpg, though they are graphic, are more "effective at portraying the concept" than any of the alternatives that you have proposed. Thus, they should be included under that policy.
Finally, CFCF, you need to be careful about edit warring. Even if you have not violated WP:3RR, your behavior is bordering on disruptive, and that could lead to consequences (I'm not an admin, so please take this as nothing more than friendly advice). It's become clear that your views are not those of the majority, so you need to focus your activities on the Talk page. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Suggesting illustration File:Anencephaly-web.jpg be main image, others under signs and symptoms in small gallery, and File:Anencephaly.jpg removed from article, both as per WP:GFFENSE, and as the illustration is a high quality medical illustration of a living new-born and not a fetus as File:Anencephaly side.jpg & File:Anencephaly front.jpg.
-- CFCF (talk) 10:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to have both File:Anencephaly-web.jpg & File:Anencephaly side.jpg in the side panel as in other articles?(I was unable to do this in the editor with this type of side-panel). They are both high quality images that illustrate different aspects of the subject (fetus vs. child). File:Anencephaly.jpg on the other hand does not really give anything that isn't already available, while the other images hold better when WP:GFFENSE is taken into account. CFCF (talk) 10:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The side image is excellent and belong in the lead IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you on that, it wasn't what the last question was about.
On many pages such as Human heart there are multiple images in the lead. When trying to add that here I am unable to do so, I suggest the side image along the illustration.
And then there is the question of removing File:Anencephaly.jpg from the article, which I believe should be done.
-- CFCF (talk) 11:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But yet you keep (over and over) moving the images. Stop it, it is getting disruptive. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As far as discussion goes that was not what the dispute was about, I recommend restoring [1] as this page does not have moved images, but an updated infobox. CFCF (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have moved the images to the bottom again when they should be in the signs and symptoms section. The drawing is not as good as the side view and thus should go lower in the article IMO (ie were it was before). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Got edit-conflict while submitting the exact edit you made. I feel this has a good explanatory quality, but I still suggest File:Anencephaly.jpg be removed because it does not add to the article. CFCF (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The image is sort of fussy. And it does not really add anything the other two do not. I am neutral on this. Try a RfC on this question maybe. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doc, did you just say that you're neutral about removing File:Anencephaly.jpg? If so, then I might venture to say that there is consensus to do it. I'm not taking action yet, though, until I am sure that that is the case. Do you really think the time and trouble of an RFC is necessary? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe a little more time for others to weight in is all that is needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Anencephaly is a disturbing condition, and (possibly unfortunately) images are essential to understanding - to avoid the "what do you mean, the head isn't there?". We should attempt to use the highest quality images when available, even when unpleasant. Canada Hky (talk) 02:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC was closed because the question posed was too broad. By discussion it has been narrowed down to if File:Anencephaly.jpg should remain when we have other better images. If only asked about this what do you say Canada Hky? -- CFCF (talk) 09:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still say yes. I am only in favor of removing images when we have inaccurate / misleading images that are the best we can do, and then we come across better, more accurate images. In this case, while the other images are higher quality, I think this one shows an accurate depiction of anencephaly, and has a place in the article. Canada Hky (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from this discussion has delved into how big the images should be, and I personally can see that the current article is not at all as controversial as compared to a manner of weeks ago when that image took up a large part of the article. -- CFCF (talk) 09:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deletion nomination of File:Anencephaly.jpg

So with regards to the image File:Anencephaly.jpg, it's graphic nature aside, the image also appears to be inadequately sourced and is almost certainly not the work of the uploader (as claimed). The image is of mediocre quality in terms of clarity (more evidence of not being the work of the uploader), and was most likely an Internet dredge-up. I have gone ahead and nominated it for deletion because it is not adequately sourced and there is no evidence of its copyright being freely licensed. Though it is hard to not stare at it. KDS4444Talk 00:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is their evidence that it was published elsewhere first under a closed license? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Increased incidence reported in Washinton (state

On February 15, 2015, the Seattle Times reported a observed spike in anencephaly cases in Central Washington. For more see: http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2025702440_birthdefectclusterxml.html Ottawahitech (talk) 00:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a suitable reference. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anencephaly&oldid=706026866"