Talk:Anencephaly/Archive 2

Warning?
The images on this page seem to be there for a good reason. But, since they are there, do we really need a warning on the external links section? Somebody having read the article would have seen the images and thus would already know what to expect in the external links. Thomasiscool 00:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[gdfpgo f=pfdhgoi 09r8 0q34lrgj pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.234.2.56 (talk) 03:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The external ones are certainly more varied and, arguably, more graphic. 24.205.50.170 (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm usually not bothered by things like this, but I must say, I was somewhat startled when the main picture on this article suddenly popped up upon the page being loaded. I wasn't expecting it at all. Compared to just about any other article on WP, this one has a couple of truly graphic images. I'm sure most readers would find the pictures quite disturbing. I hardly think that a warning for the external link is necessary. How about a warning for the internal links?

I say with very real, very genuine feeling that I may have nightmares. I just clicked on a link and I came here. Is there any way to move the pictures somewhere where interested parties can see them, but they won't surprise the unsuspecting? -71.161.223.246 (talk) 08:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

i have to agree that the page needs a warning and/or a link to the images instead of directly displaying them. i understand the concerns of censorship and accurate information,, but those must give way to basic human decency. and it's INDECENT to display photos of badly deformed dead infants. to show them without warning is not averting censorship, it is only addign shock value, and i doubt (hope) that is not what Wikipedia is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.84.222 (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Images
I realize "Wikipedia is not censored" but for what its worth the images prevent me from reading the entire article. I would like to know more about the topic, but I do not feel comfortable looking at the images for a long enough time to continue reading. At times when I can desensitize myself enough to look at the images, I still find them too distracting to read the text of the article. I have already read numerous discussions about objectionable images and understand the logic behind including them, but consider that it also prevents certain people from accessing the information in the article. The harlequin ichthyosis article seems to have found a suitable solution in using a medical drawing. At the very least, it should be acknowledged that embedding the images among the main text, instead of, say, at the bottom of the page, makes it hard for a lot of people to read that relevant information.--Vlad the Impaler (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You can disable images if you register: WP:NOIMAGE ChaosE (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * How is this a solution? This is disturbing as fuck, can someone remove the stupid image or change it to something less shocking?

I agree with Vlad. Users who aren't registered and have found the image setting should be able to approach Wikipedia for answers without being put off by shocking images. I'm not for censorship either, it's just that viewing these images should be optional. Right now, everyone has to see them, until they register and disable images. By then it's probably too late for most people who just happened to end up here after googling. And besides, why should one have to disable all images when one could instead get a link to the images - with a warning? /P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.176.236.195 (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that users shouldn't have to register to avoid being subjected to such an upsetting photo. My sister's fetus was diagnosed with anencephaly, and I came here to learn more. Thanks God she didn't do the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.8.34.218 (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it be possible for Wikipedia to implement some sort of "hide spoiler" system that a lot of other wikis, forums and messaging boards have? That way the images could be kept, yet make the article readable without looking at them and give people the choice to seeing them or not. One could also include warnings of offensive and/or graphic material.

I must admit that even I have difficulty ignoring the picture as I read the article. A system like the one I just mention would (I think) be greatly appreciated. Nederbörd (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I found the pictures to be pretty gross, but I thought the same for other wikipedia pictures (like the one for necrosis), especially medical pictures. But I would vehemently oppose altering the display of such images. I think they should remain as the main picture, and should not be removed/hidden. Yes lots of people dealing with this topic personally will be horrified to see these images, but lots of people won't be. Another user who commented below had what I thought was not a bad idea: If you are squeamish, cover the offending pictures yourself, like with your hand, or a sticky note or something. Would that be inconvenient? Yes. Would it be inconvenient for the majority of people to have to jump through some level of hoops so that they can see a picture associated with article? Yes. Wikipedia should not be tailored to sensitive users. The pictures should not be chosen to be purposefully or solely disturbing, they should be chosen to be accurate and informative. When I go to an article about a disturbing condition, I appreciate seeing a disturbing picture. Jake Papp (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The pictures are disturbing, but it is in truth a disturbing condition. Arguments may be made about how useful a graphic illustration of the condition is to understanding it, but removing the pictures because they are distressing seems inappropriate. There are parents who briefly had children like this, who perhaps loved them, and suggesting that such children should be hidden from view seems to me a shameful thing.137.111.13.167 (talk) 07:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The pictures are very off-putting and actually prevent me from reading the article. At the very least, the pictures should be near the end of the article. I just want to read about the condition. I'm not a sadist and I don't enjoy the images. Ewick12 (talk) 23:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that anyone who supports the inclusion of the pictures is sadistic?137.111.13.167 (talk) 05:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Uh, yeah... I'm pretty sure you don't have to be a 'sadist' to want to get a better idea of the physical effects of this condition. >.> I agree with JakePapp's solution to the images. I understand that they might be disturbing for some people, however different people find different things distasteful. You could end up with half the wiki images covered. 10.7.12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.5.70.1 (talk) 07:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hellow just wanted to note that I was moving th disturbing image of the baby without a head to the bottom of the article where it will be minimized with a warning sign if anyone would like to view the image they only have to hit the show button. Sunfishtommy (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

While editing I decided to keep the image in the same location but still incorporated the minimize content box with a warning. Sunfishtommy (talk) 04:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

There are so many images of anencephalic babies that are dignified, like images of a loving mother holding their newborn. I agree that the more unbecoming images should be retained for purposes of information and education, but there should also be images of babies with these conditions being loved, because (in my opinion) these babies are persons. --Zxop9 (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Can I second/third/fourth that the images can be hidden? I'm not normally a "sensitive" person but I mean... dead baby pictures?! Come on. 93.63.6.231 (talk) 09:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Please somebody remove the picture of the dead anencephalic baby. Imagine if that was your child, would you want a picture of it on Wikipedia for people to gasp at? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.191.205 (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Human Rights Groups
I saw the following line in the article, and thought it seemed very odd.

"In 2012, Brazil extended the right of abortion to mothers with anencephalic fetuses. This decision is, however, receiving much disapproval by several religious and human rights groups.[30]"

Why would human rights groups offer disapproval on this? Reading the cited reference, there is no mention of human rights groups at all, only 'radical religious groups'. This statement should be corrected, or an appropriate reference cited.

--Weegiekev (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * FixedCFCF (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Image move

 * While the images should by all means remain, consensus seems to be that those of very graphic nature should not be the ones featuring the article. I have moved the images to the additional images section in accordance with WP:NOTANARCHY, WP:DEM, WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY.
 * I have further added a disclaimer concerning the images, so that it is easy to find the images if you want to, but not necessary to see them to read the article. CFCF (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Also WP:NOTCENSORED gives a very good account advocating against incorporating the images in the text. As per:
 * "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."
 * and
 * "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. For example, editors selecting images for articles like Human body have thousands of images of naked bodies and body parts available to them, but they normally choose images that portray the human body in an unemotional, non-sexual standard anatomical position over more sexual images due to greater relevance to the subject―the more sexual one is not given special favor simply because it is more offensive. Similarly, editors at articles like Automobile do not include images of vehicles with naked women posing near them, even though such images exist and 'Wikipedia is not censored', due to concerns with relevance. Wikipedia is not censored, but Wikipedia also does not favor offensive images over non-offensive images."
 * -- CFCF (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Of the two images that you put inside a collapsed table, I believe that File:Anencephaly side.jpg is perfectly acceptable, as is its sister image File:Anencephaly front.jpg. These two images show the deformity in a way that is not only clear to the reader but also respectful to the image subject (i.e., the fetus/baby being photographed). In my view, these two images are not unnecessarily shocking and I would favor their continued prominent display.

However, I have previously argued that File:Anencephaly.jpg is not an appropriate image for Wikipedia, not because of its graphic nature (which would be immaterial under WP:NOTCENSORED) but because it is demeaning to the image subject and additionally because it was likely taken without proper permission. If you look at the archives of this talk page, I believe that File:Anencephaly.jpg is almost entirely responsible for the offense that various readers have taken. That offense has been generally met with a response of WP:NOTCENSORED, but as I have repeatedly tried to make clear, that is not a sufficient response to the charges that I am leveling against this image.

I strongly encourage people to read the extended discussion of this issue that took place last December. The discussion was not finally resolved because the item ended on a technicality, and I was advised at the time that the proper recourse was a WP:Request for comment here on the article talk page. Since then, I have not had the personal energy to organize such an RFC, but perhaps now is the time to do it. Would anyone be interested in helping to support such an effort?

I would suggest that such an RFC be accompanied by a notification to the personal talk page of every user who has ever commented on this talk page. This should be general enough to avoid falling afoul of WP:CANVASSING but would also account for the fact that many users may not follow this article, and may not even be frequent WP editors who would see the normal RFC alerts, precisely because they are frustrated and disgusted by this image's continued presence on Wikipedia. Just to be clear, that is not a value judgment on my part, but simply an interpretation of the comments that have appeared in this space over the years. Any comments welcome. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * To a certain degree I agree with you, but WP:NOTCENSORED states:
 * "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."
 * As it stands there may be some loss in clarity because of the move of File:Anencephaly side.jpg. Maybe it can be the main image if for example it was in a smaller format so as not to display too much detail, which might be slightly 'less astonishing'. While File:Anencephaly.jpg is by far the most graphic I find File:Anencephaly front.jpg to be a tad harsh as well.
 * Having searched quite extensively for a free non-photographic image of anencephaly I can not find one that is public domain, but that would be the most ideal solution in my mind.
 * My suggestion is to see if any voices are heard arguing against the current form of the article, and if so instigating an RFC.CFCF (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The image on this page would be ideal, and I will try to see if it is possible to acquire a license: http://www.cmfblog.org.uk/2013/10/15/defending-the-indefensible-twenty-reasons-to-think-twice-about-aborting-a-baby-with-anencephaly/ or http://www.teindia.nic.in/mhrd/50yrsedu/q/6J/BM/6JBM0802.htm (both found off google)
 * If not it may be a viable option to create a free image with these two as reference. CFCF (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I have raised the subject on Wikipedia talk:MOS CFCF (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Moved to Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles.
 * The edits made are also in line with Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles which states:
 * "Shock value: Some images of medical conditions or procedures disturb some readers, e.g., because of visible deformities or the presence of blood. Potentially disturbing images should be not be used for their shock value, for decoration, or merely to add an image. A detailed caption that identifies specific features may simultaneously increase the educational value of the image and reduce the likelihood of disturbing readers. Placement in a highly relevant section, rather than in the introduction, is also likely to reduce the shock value to readers. Offensive material offers additional advice."
 * -- CFCF (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

We do not typically hide images. This option has been put forwards for a number of images including those on the Rorschach and has been turned down generally by the community. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way were is the consensus to hide the image? I do not see a RfC support this move. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Why does the image have such small eyes?
Why does the cartoon image I keep seeing pop up in this article have such small eyes, unlike the real images? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 15:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The medical illustration is most likely of a milder case, with a larger part of the brain-stem intact, where the child could live longer. The image File:Anencephaly.jpg is a dead new-born so most likely a severe case where it was unable to live beyond the first hours due to lack och brain stem and no autonomous breathing. I don't think the eyes in the image are that large, just the rest of the head is severely underdeveloped. (theorizing) CFCF (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Are photos of anencephalic newborns relevant to the article?
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 CFCF (talk) 10:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Yes LT910001 (talk) 05:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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. ) while signing a reply, thx 14:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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. ) while signing a reply, thx 16:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * So why are we sacrificing quality for a misleading drawing? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 16:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * To discuss semantics; a good definition of a controversial image could be an image that gives rise to the discussion seen around Talk:Anencephaly. 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Still non consensus to move the image. Please get consensus before it is moved again. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * I was able to update the infobox, with both images in the lead. Still awaiting response concerning suggestions of removing File:Anencephaly.jpg now that we have so many high-quality alternate images.CFCF (talk) 09:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * As far as discussion goes that was not what the dispute was about, I recommend restoring as this page does not have moved images, but an updated infobox. CFCF (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 ? -- CFCF (talk) 09:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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. KDS 4444 Talk  00:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)
 * Not really a suitable reference. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Anencephaly. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://poynter.indiana.edu/publications/m-beresford.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)