Talk:Fetus/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5


The flickr images are not a reliable source. I've deleted them.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

They are not all from Flickr, as you would know if you seriously examined the images. And you have not indicated or suggested anything inaccurate about any of the images. Wikipedia uses many images from Flickr. When the ultrasound images were vague and showed practically nothing, you sought to put them in a more prominent place in this article.[1] Now that the images are of higher quality, you delete them. Your POV is continuing to wreck this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Pardon me? Stop with the accusations. Flickr has never been a reliable resource when it comes to medical images.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Since when? Do you have any basis for blacklisting Flickr? And why do you insist that all the images you deleted were from Flickr?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Varying definitions

The following has been deleted today from the footnotes.[2] "Some authorities suggest that the embryonic stage may last only seven weeks. See Encyclopedia Britannica: "In humans, the organism is called an embryo for the first seven or eight weeks after conception, after which it is called a fetus." Also see The Columbia Encyclopedia (Sixth Edition). Retrieved 2007-03-05: "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."

Is there some reason why we don't want readers to know this? Absent any explanation for this deletion, I object to the deletion.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


The page is now protected for seven days. During this time, please try and find common ground and arrive to a version that all can live with. If you cannot, this is a good time to pursue dispute resolution such as third opinions or requests for comments. If you are ready to resume editing or to contest the protection, place a request at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Alice, I realize that you are pro-choice, and that you want this article to portray the fetus in the most non-human manner possible. However, Wikipedia has policies of verifiability and neutrality. It is not your prerogative to delete accurate information simply because you do not like it.

I will be inserting an NPOV tag on this article. You have consistently slanted it, as you have yet again today.[3] You won't even allow a descroption from Gray's Anatomy to be included here.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ferry, please don't start accusing me of bias. This will not make the article better. I will be removing the NPOV if your only specific objection is that you think I, personally, am biased.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Ferry, could you lay out your reasons why this article is POV? Setting aside debates about political issues, I find it difficult to believe that we can't make a medical article NPOV, since there's nothing like the mass of literature available to us for these type of articles. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This talk page is full of criticisms of the unilateral changes that have been forced on this article without consensus. The developments today are only the most recent example. I mean, if we can't include obviously accurate information from Gray's Anatomy, and instead we delete the parts we don't like, how could this article ever approach NPOV?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Let me see what you're describing. I may not agree with everything you do, but I know you've done some good things to this article. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I could write a summary if it would be helpful. I've already spent so much time going around in circles here. The Gray's Anatomy thing just seems to speak very nicely to all of the stuff that has been going on at this artice.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I haven’t even yet tried to address IAA‘s many edits from July 8 to July 16. She has decided that “age is measured from gestation”, whatever that means. She has removed the section heading “Condition at start of fetal stage” so now it is difficult for a reader to differentiate the starting condition of a fetus from later events. She has removed the statement that “the heart is beating”, and instead writes that the organs “have minimal operation”, whereas this cited source doesn’t say anything about the heart (or any other organ) operating minimally. She regularly deletes language that was the product of consensus, for example changing "According to current data, fetuses are not capable of feeling pain...." to "fetuses are not capable of feeling pain...." These are just responses to the first few of IAA's many edits from July 8 to July 16, and barely scratch the surface of those edits. And I've listed many objections above to her previous edits. Maybe instead of getting bogged down in a long history, it would be best to just focus on today's perversion of Gray's Anatomy, because it is really a very good example of what's been happening.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Given the incredible divergence of perceptions of everything relating to the very concept of the fetus that often relates to individual views on reproductive-rights/abortion, it seems safe to say that there likely is not any version of this article that would seem neutral to all reasonable readers and as such the NPOV tag can serve a useful purpose of reminding readers of this difficulty. To pretend that we would be able to provide an article on this topic that all reasonable readers would regard as neutral seems to me to be absurdly unrealistic.Zebulin (talk) 05:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Usually though, in subjects such as this, we tend to put {{controversial}} on a talk page, rather than leave the article itself eternally tagged with what is essentially a cleanup template. Imagine if this article was ever brought up to FA quality - simply having a cleanup template on an article often causes it to fail FAR, or even GAR. Once this particular dispute is resolved, it's probably best to just put a {{controversial}} tag at the top of this talk page. (talk) 09:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of image from Gray's Anatomy

This recent edit has removed a drawing that has been in this article for years, while moving a photo to the top of the page from a position lower on the page. The edit summary says, "I don't remember ever seeing this photo."

This edit summary makes no sense. Whether the editor remembers seeing the photo or not, what bearing does that have on the position of the photo in the article? And what bearing does it have on whether a completely different image (i.e. a drawing that has been in the article for years) should be deleted? If no explanation is given, then I'll revert, so that both the drawing and the photo remain in the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The editor in question has now restored the image from Gray's anatomy.[4] Perhaps one day she will explain why we cannot caption it as Gray does?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

And perhaps someday you will be civil.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I said nothing uncivil. For an example of actual incivility, see here.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what all the fuss is about, but there is no question that the photograph of a real fetus beats an old, blurry drawing any day, no matter how long it has been in the article or a standard feature of antiquarian medical books. Just because someone put it here long ago is no excuse for it remaining the top image if a better illustration of the subject is available. --Gilabrand (talk) 06:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. First of all, I have no objection to that photo being in the article, and I left it in. Another editor removed it. If it goes back in, that's no reason to delete other images that are okay in the article too, such as the image from Gray's Anatomy that accurately diagrams and labels things. The photo that you inserted also has no age indicated, so it's impossible for a reader to figure out how far along it developed, or why it died, so it really raises more questions than it answers. Additionally, that photo was in the article a long time ago, and many people said at the time that it should not go at the top of the article, because it's basically a picture of a dead human being which might be off-putting at the top.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Since the objection is with removal of the Gray's Anatomy image and not with the photograph, I'm going to put it back in article. -Neitherday (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Disputed Tag

Ferrylodge, I went through and looked at the history. You are correct, you didn't put the Disputed tag on the page until August, 2008. And since then you have refused to list he parts of the page that are in dispute. You accuse me of not being willing to discuss issues in the talk page, and then are completely uncivil and unreasonable when I engage the talk page. Would you please list the parts of the page that are wrong or problematic without attacking anyone including me?--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

For starters, Alice, you need look no farther than the previous section of this talk page: "Perhaps one day she will explain why we cannot caption it as Gray does?" For years, the caption of that image stated (as Gray did): "Human fetus at eight weeks. A small part of the placenta is shown at the bottom, while the fluid-filled amnion surrounds it." The "eight weeks" should not be removed, because that is what is shown in the image. Yet you repeatedly insisted on removing it.[5]Ferrylodge (talk) 01:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I have stated before that the image dates to the early part of the 1800's, and is not an accurate representation of a fetus at 8 weeks. We have a duty to explain that to the reader. Is that your only objection?--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Alice, many things were discovered before the 1800's that are still considered true. If you will not concede the accuracy of the Gray's image, and if you can offer no justification other than your own personal opinion about the Gray's image, then we have nothing more to talk about.
You have consistently omitted and rewritten material in this article, in order to portray the fetus as you would like it to be, rather than as it actually is. You can look at many other sections of this talk page for examples that I've described, including the section preceding the last one.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

First, stop attacking me.
Second, this is a photo of an embryo 7 and a half weeks after conception:
Here are photos of embryos at 8 weeks after conception:
This is an accurate artist drawing:
These images are very different from the Gray's photo which is wholly inaccurate since it claims to depict an 8 week embryo, but it is clearly a fetus at a much later stage of development. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 06:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Please stop saying that I'm attacking you every time I disagree with you. See the word "please"?

And I do disagree with you again. You have selected images at 6 weeks after fertlization, not 8 weeks as in the drawing from Gray's Anatomy. Your images from Texas all use gestational age rather than age from fertilization.[6] [7] Same for your image from Georgia.[8] Same for your image from "babycenter".[9]

If you want to see what a fetus looks like 8 weeks after fertlization (i.e. at 10 weeks' gestational age), here's a large and detailed image. It's an approximate drawing of a fetus eight weeks after fertilization, i.e. at the beginning of the ninth week after fertilization. This is equivalent to a gestational age of about ten weeks, i.e. at the beginning of the eleventh week of gestational age. This drawing can be compared to other online images of a fetus at approximately the same stage of development, including the following images:

I. Drawing and movie of fetus at eight weeks and two days after fertilization, from the Endowment for Human Development;

II. Motion-picture 4D ultrasound of fetus at eight weeks and two days after fertilization, from the Endowment for Human Development;

III. Photograph of fetus during ninth week after fertilization, from Thomas W. Sadler, Langman's Medical Embryology, page 90 (2006) via Google Books;

IV. Photograph with detailed annotations at 8 weeks after fertilization, from online course in embryology for medicine students developed by the universities of Fribourg, Lausanne and Bern (Switzerland) with the support of the Swiss Virtual Campus;

V. Drawing of fetus at ten weeks’ gestational age, from which has a medical review board;

VI. Drawing of fetus at ten weeks' gestational age, from Michigan Department of Community Health;

VII. Drawing of fetus at ten weeks' gestational age, from A.D.A.M. via

The image from Gray's Anatomy is fine.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

We use gestational age in this article, not fetal age. But more importantly, it seems to me that your references support my claim rather than yours. The Grays' photo was created in the early-to-mid 1800's. It appears to depict a fetus in the late second and early third trimester. And it is the case, Wikipedia articles on medical topics do not use photos that out-of-date to illustrate a topic.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Gray's Anatomy is the most reputable medical text ever written. Please show me a reliable source that remotely supports your assertion that it shows, "a fetus in the late second and early third trimester".Ferrylodge (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Are you actually making the claim that Gray's Anatomy has not been revised since the early-to-mid 1800's? And, why do you not answer the question: is this your only objection to the article? The Gray's Anatomy lithograph remains on the page, so is there any reason to object on your part?--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
It would be misleading and pointless to display images without proper captions. We should not have a caption that says the image is "Bugs Bunny", or a caption that says that it is "a fetus in the late second and early third trimester" as you allege, or that does not say what it is. As you know, I've said that this issue is the tip of the iceberg. I pointed you, for example, to not only the previous section of this talk page, but to the section before that, and many other sections of this talk page. I really do not see the point in going into a lot of other matters with you at this point, if we cannot even address this most obvious matter. You claim that the Gray's image shows "a fetus in the late second and early third trimester", but you do not provide one single reliable source that says or suggests that you are correct, and your allegation is contrary to the half-dozen corroborating reliable sources that I provided above, plus your assertion is contrary to the undisputed information from Gray's. The caption should convey the information that Gray's caption conveys.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Nor do you provide a single, reliable source that says an artist's depiction that is 150 years old is correct. In fact, we have both supplied photo evidence to the contrary.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I very much disagree that the photo evidence I provided proves that Gray's is wrong.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No other editors are weighing in about this. It is improper to unilaterally declare that Gray's Anatomy is not a reliable source on this point, without citing any supporting authority. Another editor has removed the POV tag, and I replied at that editor's talk page.[10] Accordingly, I will remove the tag. A POV tag should not be removed merely because there is a stalemate. If people want the POV tag removed, then they should help resolve the dispute.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

"the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved….if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed."Ferrylodge (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, the POV problems with this article are pervasive, and the distorted caption of the Gray's Anatomy image is just the tip of the iceberg. I said above: "I haven’t even yet tried to address IAA‘s many edits from July 8 to July 16. She has decided that 'age is measured from gestation', whatever that means. She has removed the section heading 'Condition at start of fetal stage' so now it is difficult for a reader to differentiate the starting condition of a fetus from later events. She has removed the statement that 'the heart is beating', and instead writes that the organs 'have minimal operation', whereas this cited source doesn’t say anything about the heart (or any other organ) operating minimally. She regularly deletes language that was the product of consensus, for example changing 'According to current data, fetuses are not capable of feeling pain....' to 'fetuses are not capable of feeling pain....' These are just responses to the first few of IAA's many edits from July 8 to July 16, and barely scratch the surface of those edits. And I've listed many objections above to her previous edits. Maybe instead of getting bogged down in a long history, it would be best to just focus on today's perversion of Gray's Anatomy, because it is really a very good example of what's been happening."

I'll replace the tag. I'm hopeful that this article will reach a condition where the tag can be removed. I still think that the best place to start would be by discussing the image caption, since it very obviously distorts the actual caption in Gray's Anatomy. There are no other editors who are interested in expressing an opinion about it?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Removal of 'According to current data' is absolutely correct, it's weasel words. You might have a point on organ function ... is there a citation about heart beat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Re. heartbeat, see Greenfield, Marjorie. “Dr." ("The embryonic heart starts beating 22 days after conception, or about five weeks after the last menstrual period, which by convention we call the fifth week of pregnancy.") Ferrylodge (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Re. pain, it's important to indicate that science is in flux. 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 "Although there is a political and moral component to this particular debate, questions about the nature of pain, pain perception and the mechanism of pain have been ongoing for years. For example, it was once widely believed that infants do not experience pain, a belief now shown to be incorrect. At the same time, allodynia, a condition in which even a gentle touch becomes painful, and congenital insensitivity to pain, or an inability to feel pain under any circumstance including injury, illustrate the bizarre and still-elusive nature of pain."Ferrylodge (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Fetuses are not just human

The statement at the start of this article says that it is only about human fetuses. However, Fetus (disambiguation) refers to this article as being about the stage of mammalian development. Either this article needs to be broadened, or a separate article needs to be created covering non-human fetuses. — crism (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This article covered other species up until November 30, 2008 at which time it was changed without discussion. Feel free to change it back. This article is not NPOV, so I don't want to work on it as if it were.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Crism, I've created a revised draft article here. It not only restores and expands the info about non-human fetuses, but also returns much of the article to its condition before the long edit-wars that occurred. If no one objects, I'll install this revised draft. It's not perfect, but I think it will allow us to move beyond NPOV disputes.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I installed the revised draft, and revised it a bit more. Hopefully it will stick.  :)Ferrylodge (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I think that Human foetus warrants its own article. It certainly occupies a disproportional amount of this one. Perhaps it could be moved to its own page and a summary section inserted here? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 16:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Non-vertebrate foeti

Can the term foetus apply to the offspring of live-young-bearing invertebrates, such as the onychophora? If so, the article should reflect this.

Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 16:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of material about human fetus

I do not support removal of all the material about a human fetus, to a new article. Please discuss here first. Thanks.

If anything, we should keep this article about the human fetus, and remove the material about non-human fetuses to a new article. But that seem premature, since this article does not seem long enough yet to justify chopping it up. See WP:Summary style.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not? (See note in section above) If we have a section here about the human foetus, we should also have one of a similar length about the cow fetus, the rat fetus, the whale fetus, ....
The human fetus distracts from the topic (feti) by giving an unusual example. It's certainly worth covering in its own right, but the sensible place for this is on a page on its own.
Can you give a strong reason to keep it here?
Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 16:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
A new article called what? "non-human fetus"? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
First, please try to post comments elsewhere than in the middle of the comments of others, unless it's really necessary. It makes the discussion very difficult for third parties to follow, because the signatures are separated from what people write.
There are tons of Wikipedia articles that reserve the main article for humans, and cover the non-humans in separate articles. See, for example, Pregnancy. The reason for this is simply convenience for Wikipedia readers. Most readers will look for an article with reference to humans. That may be discriminatory against other critters, but it's the way it is.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, there was an edit conflict. So we should go for 'Fetus (non-human)'? My point is that the two topics are very distinct and don't really sit comfortably in the same article. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
No problem. When we get enough material to justify creation of a separate article, I would support creating an article titled "Fetus (mammals)" just like we currently have an article titled "Pregnancy (mammals)".Ferrylodge (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
As far as a biologist is concerned, a fetal stage is a stage in development; therefore it makes more sense to have a page called fetus (non-human) than to have a fetus(mammal) and fetus (onychophoran) and fetus (fish) and fetus (anything else viviparous I've not thought of. I'll create and expand that page now. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up after me, and sorry I made a bit of a pigs ear of the move! Best, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted your page move for the purpose of merging page histories. The talk page history is here at Talk:Fetus and the vast majority of the content in this article was originally created here. Therefore, I felt the page history needed to stay here. The new article doesn't need all the page history for all this stuff. I've made a note that the new article is a spinout article from this (even if that isn't 100% the case). -Andrew c [talk] 18:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

my two cents

I don't know, I don't think it's too bad. As of today's version, anyway. I understand that it was for mammalian fetus and I thought it strange at first that it shifted to homo sapiens fetus, but the material presented was informative and I imagine that's what a lot of readers were looking for. I would say, if there are fascinating things to note about feline fetus or pachyderm fetus, that that should just be included as well, without chopping it up into seperate articles. --APDEF (talk) 12:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


This discussion has relocated to WT:WikiProject Biology#Naming of article about the human fetus. Please make further comments there.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I disagree with turning Fetus into a disambiguation page. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation:

When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article.

It should be adequate to have Fetus (disambiguation).Ferrylodge (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I have moved the page back. If someone can make a really good case why the article should be at Fetus (human), ok, but I can't see one. If there is an overwhelming primary use of the term, it gets the "undisambiguated" title, with a dablink at the top (George Washington, New York, England, etc). --B (talk) 07:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the current article should be at 'human fetus'. I think this because the article is restricted in scope to the human fetus [more general discussion of the fetus in general being available at fetus (biology)]. The somewhat clumsy explanation currently of this at the top of the article, restricting the scope to humans, could be avoided by changing the page title. If, as argued above, viewers expect to be presented with the human fetus when they enter 'fetus', then this page should be a redirect to human fetus (rather than a disambiguation page). Leaving the page at 'fetus' gives it a false generality; if any page is at fetus it should be fetus (biology), but that's outside the scope of this discussion. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 02:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I've adjusted the hatnotes per your recent changes. The current title of this article seems okay to me, especially since this article covers more than just biology (e.g. etymology, legal issues, et cetera). So, I agree with B about that.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I like Martin's suggestion and am somewhat persuaded by it. Having the dab page at fetus is an unquestionably bad idea. I'm slightly more inclined towards Martin's proposal, but the problem with changing it is that there are around 1200 inbound links and so making any change here is going to be an exercise in creating work. --B (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I like the title as-is, and not just because changing it would create a lot of work. Changing it would also raise questions about lots of other Wikipedia article titles, such as Pregnancy. If any article title ought to be changed, I think it might be best to consider changing the title of Fetus (biology). For non-humans, I'm not sure that there are a lot of biology texts that distinguish between embryos and fetuses, so it might be best to re-name that article something like Prenatal life. We could also merge Prenatal development (non-human) into Prenatal life.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
There are other WP articles which use the human prefix for articles about human things; I remember there was a similar discussion at anus which resulted in details of the human anus being moved to its own page. There are no precedents on WP - there's a WP:page somewhere to this effect, I'm sure. If changing this would raise questions elsewhere, maybe they are questions which need to be raised.
I don't think the 'creating work' argument holds water - there are bots to fix double redirects (which I think the WP software can now support anyway) and as fetus would continue to redirect to the same content (under a different name) the links would not need changing.
The title of fetus (biology) is a different matter; I suggest that we discuss it at Talk:fetus (biology), perhaps after we've got this sorted out. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 00:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
There was an extensive discussion about all of this at Wikiproject Biology. I suggest that that remains the best place to discuss it.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of reliable sources

I see that IronAngelAlice has made many edits to this article today, without talk page discussion. IronAngelAlice has not participated in talk page discussion for more than five months (i.e. not since September 17). hi amna IronAngelAlice, are you also Anarchangel? Your name and editing style are very similar. I asked Anarchangel the same question, but without response.[11]

Some of the edits by IronAngleAlice today include the following:

Deleting this image by Da Vinci that has been in this article for years, without any explanation.

Deleting the following statement and removing the cited source, without explanation: “The fetus is not as sensitive to damage from environmental exposures as the embryo was, though toxic exposures can often cause physiological abnormalities or minor congenital malformation.” Source:Drews, Ulrich. Color Atlas of Embryology, page 360 (Thieme 1995).

Deleting the following statement without explanation: “Fetal growth can be terminated by various factors, including miscarriage, feticide committed by a third party, or induced abortion. Throughout the fetal stage, the fetus continues to be connected to the placenta by the umbilical cord, which supplies the fetus with oxygenated, nutrient-rich blood from the placenta, and conversely returns the deoxygenated, nutrient-depleted blood to the placenta. The fetus is surrounded by amniotic fluid, which (among other things) cushions against blows to the mother's abdomen, allows for easier fetal movement, promotes muscular/skeletal development, and helps protect the fetus from heat loss.”

Keeping the following sentence, but deleting the cited sources without explanation: “The following timeline describes some of the specific changes in fetal anatomy and physiology by fertilization age (i.e. the time elapsed since fertilization). Obstetricians often find it convenient to instead measure gestational age from two weeks earlier than fertilization, but the term “gestational age” is often ambiguous, and there is no uniform method for counting it. Source #1: 'Dorland's Medical Dictionary. Source #2: "Mini-Review: Prenatal ages and stages - measures and errors," Teratology, Volume 61 Issue 5, Pages 382-384 (2000). Source #3: Rahman, Anika et al. “A Global Review of Laws on Induced Abortion”, 1985-1997, International Family Planning Perspectives, volume 24 (1998).

Keeping the following sentence, but deleting the cited sources without explanation: “Embryologists typically measure age from fertilization.” Source #1:Segen, J.C. The Dictionary of Modern Medicine, page 187: "obstetricians calculate gestational age; embryologists are more correct as they calculate the ovulation or fertilization age." Source #2: Dudek, Ronald et al. Embryology. Source #3: Drews, Ulrich. Color Atlas of Embryology.

Deleting the following sources and accompanying text without explanation: Source #1: Butterworth, George and Harris, Margaret. Principles of developmental psychology (Psychology Press 1994). Source #2: Valman, H. and Pearson, J. "What the Fetus Feels", British Medical Journal, (January 26, 1980). Retrieved 2007-03-04 Source #3: “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 Source #4: Collins, Vincent et al."Fetal Pain and Abortion: the Medical Evidence", Studies in Law and Medicine, No 18 (1984) Source #5: Anand, K. "A Scientific Appraisal of Fetal Pain and Conscious Sensory Perception", written testimony to Congress (2005).

Because these are all reliable and relevant sources that have been removed from this article without explanation, I will revert. Please notice that my revert will not remove any sources. Perhaps we could take one thing at a time, and discuss at the talk page?Ferrylodge (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's been over a year and no one has responded, so maybe it's safe to assume that everyone agrees with me? I'll edit the article accordingly in a few days. Note that my username is now different.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Never mind. I don't feel that I can substantially edit this and related articles without running into charges of disruption.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Repetitive Information

Why is there so much repetition in the "Development" section? The sub-sections titled "19 to 28 Weeks" and "29 to 40 Weeks" are identical word-for-word.

The Developmental section is also incredibly sparse. I am sure there is more information that could be placed there. (talk) 22:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent modifications in error

Can someone please revert the article? It seems someone has been playing around here. ElderHap (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Main (top) image

Does anyone know what stage this fetus is at? I think it would be good to include that info in the caption.--TyrS (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that would be helpful, as articles are supposed to answer questions not raise them. I think properly documented illustrations is a norm for any encyclopedia, by that I mean images that include details about the content. It's not a subject I know a lot about, I am just commenting here as a reader. User:DMSBel (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I found this site, which gives lots of helpful information [[12]], I'd say going by their pictures around 10 or 11 weeks old.User:DMSBel (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Etymology and spelling variations

Interesting that the etymology and spelling variations are carefully explained here: this must be one of the rare occurrences where the American spelling is actually the correct one. It's therefore a pity that the countless other occasions where Americans ride roughshod over spelling traditions and standards (and simply invent their own, slightly lazier versions of words) aren't explained in as much detail (if at all) in Wikipedia. However, given the manifest bias towards America that's often evident here, perhaps one shouldn't be too surprised.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I also agree that it is a rare pleasure to see the spelling variations explained - However, I must point out that while the US spelling is closer to the original Latin, that is not in itself a reason to choose the US spelling as the dominant one in the article. The combined English-speaking population of the Commonwealth countries must exceed that of US English speakers, so the majority spelling should be dominant. If representative spelling was chosen on the basis of historical reference, then the vast majority of Noah Webster's arbitrary changes would always be treated as subordinate. IMHO! --621PWC (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
There are far more native English-speakers in the USA than in the rest of the world combined. See List_of_countries_by_English-speaking_population#List_in_order_of_native_speakers. If we consider both first and second-language speakers, then things get a lot more uncertain, depending on what degree of proficiency we require, and how we classify countries like India, Pakistan and the Philippines. Grover cleveland (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm -- so by your lights I suppose we should "correct" Economics to Œconomics? In this case, the whole English-speaking world has "ridden roughshod over spelling traditions and standards" in order to be lazy -- but we aren't allowed to say this because of manifest bias towards contemporary English-speakers!! Grover cleveland (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Fetus amniotic sac.jpg Nominated for Deletion

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Fetus amniotic sac.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Fetus amniotic sac.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Separate Fetus (human) and Fetus (biology)

I support this separation, because Fetus (biology) is comprehensive enough to justify being a separate article from this one, while this article is almost entirely about the human fetus. Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I can see the propser's point. A more practical option would be to rename this article to Foetus (Human) and create a parent article Foetus. The parent article would have a link to this article and any general foetus content will be moved from this article to the parent article. Op47 (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Foetus is a relatively recent mispelling, a bastardized "Greek" spelling of Fetus, and is used primarily by the British press. Medical sources do not use this spelling. This has been discussed many times in the past. See Talk:Fetus/Archive_1#foetus, for example. Remember that we pick one spelling and stick with it. KillerChihuahua 16:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Since I am British then I just automatically used the spelling that I knew. Apart from slagging off my spelling, can you please make a constructive comment about the matter in hand (i.e. splitting the article) please! Op47 (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Apologies, I meant no insult or rudeness. I misread your post to suggest we not only split the article but also change the spelling. I disagree with separating the articles, I think we should be considering merging more than splitting again. Humans are mammals and there is no appreciable difference between a human fetus or any other mammal. I suggest instead we trim the human-specific bits, and bring the article more in line with a general overview of fetuses. We already have Prenatal development for the human-specific content, as well as Embryo which also shows a human-other imbalance. KillerChihuahua 15:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Cartoon of baby/fetus in stomach

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)

Right proportions

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"?

Should be removed. --Maryna Ravioli (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

YesY Done 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)