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 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology 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.
I propose the removal of the cartoon baby/fetus as it is unscientific. It is an artists conception of a very well developed fetus. It looks too much like a baby.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Support removal, agree with rationale. KillerChihuahua 16:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
"Articles listed are normally discussed for at least seven days" says Wikipedia guildlines, so in seven days?--Mark v1.0 (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
No argument to keep the cartoon , and it has been a week so I am removing it.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
The claim, in section Weeks 17 to 25, that "At week 19 [...] The arms and legs are in the right proportions to each other and the rest of it’s body." is not supported by the source given. It is also inherently unverifiable – what are the "right proportions"?
YDone I Checked and this is not mentioned in the source in any way. KillerChihuahua 03:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I checked the history, and the editor who added that also added a lot more OR and poor writing. I've restored the text which existed prior to those edits, removing OR falsely sourced. KillerChihuahua 03:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Had that feeling as well, but my developmental biology background is decades old and I am a bit fuzzy on detail. The one sentence just struck me as carrying no factual information whatsoever. Maryna Ravioli (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, it was even worse than that, once I started looking at the edits, at one point they added verbiage describing the fetus at another stage of development as "more normal" and the word "baby" was used at least twice, which only applies post delivery. So thank you so much for posting that here, I missed all those non-encyclopedic edits, and apparently everyone else who watches this page did too! KillerChihuahua 13:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
The hatnote at the top of this article explains that this article is specifically about human fetuses. However, the lead section of this article seems to imply that the article is about both human and non-human fetuses, even though this contradicts the hatnote at the top of the page. Should this article be renamed to "Human fetus" so that this article's topic will be less ambiguous, and there will be no confusion about the scope of this article? Jarble (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
A brief mention/implication concerning non-humans, or even a few mentions/implications concerning non-humans, doesn't make humans any less this article's focus. But if you are that worried about such mentions/implications, which it appears that you are, one solution would be to alter the hatnote so that it uses the word "primarily," as in "This article is primarily about the stage of human development." What I think of such moves has already been stated in the discussion you started at the Pregnancy article. I've informed WP:MED of this fetus discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 02:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
wp:MOSMED skirts the issue somewhat by deferring to TA, but we are inconsistent about whether or not to give precedence of title to the human-focussed article over the more general alternative. Hence we have Human brain, Human heart, Human leg, Foot and Arm as human-focussed articles. These show various hatnotes as appropriate.LeadSongDogcome howl! 13:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not seeing the problem, actually. The first sentence tells you what the word means. Everything after that is about humans. We don't need to absolutely exclude all mention of non-human fetuses to have people figure out the subject of the article. In fact, a well-written article would include some comparative embryology. Sure, you'll have to read a couple of sentences or glance at the table of contents to be absolutely certain that the article is about humans, but this isn't a serious problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Not needed, per that edit summary, responses to Jarble above, and similar responses to Jarble any time Jarble wants an article to be less human-centric. Flyer22 (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I also found the lead section pretty confusing. I'm inclined to agree with renaming based on MOS:PRECISION (particularly the part about "natural disambiguation"). I disagree that “fetus” is analogous to “pregnancy”. If someone said “let's talk about pregnancy”, I would assume they meant human pregnancy, but if someone said “let's talk about fetuses”, I would ask “Human fetuses?”. I've clarified the lead section, but still think a rename or merge should be considered. George Makepeace (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not here to get into debates about abortion, but the Legal issues section seems slightly biased towards the legal aspects while ignoring the illegal aspects; neglecting the fact that large parts of the world have substantial legal restrictions on abortions, as clearly seen in this image: File:Abortion_Laws.svg. The piped redirects seem a bit misleading as well: leading with a blue link saying "Abortion of a human pregnancy is legal..." can be more honestly stated without the sneaky link. (Read an equally correct alternate: "Abortion is largely illegal in many parts of the world with various exceptions...") A simple Main articles: Abortion law and Fetal rights hat redirect would be more neutral and transparent. If abortion is to be discussed at all in this article, for the sake of balance the following text might be added, and then leave it up to the other articles to explain in depth:
"Abortion is generally illegal with various exceptions for rape, maternal life, health, mental health, and/or fetal defects in Africa, West Asia, Southeast Asia and South America, and is illegal in nearly all cases in Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, and Malta" --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I suggest that the spelling ought to be foetus. To say that "The word fetus .... The British, Irish, and Commonwealth spelling is foetus, which has been in use since at least 1594" is highly misleading. It implies that the American spelling automatically overrides the spelling used in all other English-speaking countries. I realise that Americans rule the internet, but the international language is English, not American.Royalcourtier (talk) 07:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
No. In this case 'fetus' is the correct spelling, and is widely used by scientists and universities in the UK. In practical use, I have recently spent a lot of time in a 'Fetal Medicine Unit' in an NHS hospital and have been for 'fetal heart scans' in another. Jon.baldwin (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)