Talk:Fetus/Archive 3

Woah!! Pro-life bias - The claims in this article are not backed up by references
We need to look at all the references for the claims made here. The claims come from pro-life sources, the references cited often do not back these claims.

Also, the weekly stages of the fetus development are completely arbitrary. "8-15" weeks is a huge jump.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 18:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please specify what "pro-life sources" you are referring to. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have reverted this edit, and supplied sources in a footnote. Please insert "citation needed" tags instead of deleting longstanding material unilaterally.  Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Photos
The photos drawings are not medical photos, and are not medically accurate. They come from a social website, not a medical website.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There are images in the main abortion article that are not "medical photos". The sketch by Leonardo Davinci in this article is not a "medical photo".  Why is it necessary that all images be "medical photos"?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Because there is no standard by which these photos drawings are medically accurate.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, they are drawings rather than photos. Secondly, is there any particular feature shown in the drawings that you believe is inaccurate?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If these drawings are not medically accurate, then they should be removed. However, you have not indicated anything inaccurate about them. There are many medical illustrations and photos of a fetus available on the internet, and these drawings that you have removed appear to be consistent with those medical illustrations and photos. If you don't have anything to support you claims of inaccuracy, then these drawings should be restored to the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ferrylodge I agree with you. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a medical textbook. I agree that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the drawings, and they bring important detail to the article. I vote that we restore the photos and will do so. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 14:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is conclusive proof that the pictures belong. Here is the drawing from the 3d Pregnancy site at 8 weeks. http://www.3dpregnancy.com/calendar/9-weeks-pregnant.htm Here is a similar drawing http://www.babycentre.co.uk/pregnancy/fetaldevelopment/09weeks/ and here is a sonogram image. http://parentingweekly.com/pregnancy/pregnancy_information/ultrasound/9_weeks.htm The drawings are FINE. I am adding them back to the article. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 14:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Further proof of the innocent nature of these drawings. http://www.babycentre.co.uk/pregnancy/fetaldevelopment/18weeks/ Compare that to the drawing in the article at 18 weeks. They are almost identical. The 3d rotating effect is interesting in our drawings, and brings a greater understanding to the text of the article. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 04:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Please note that none of your sources are from medical sites - therefore, we don't know if the images are accurate, or if they have been altered, etc. We should attempt to get sonograms from medical sites.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 03:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Here are plenty of pictures from a medical site.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

FL, I think that is a step in the right direction. I also think that the link GM made above is a step in the right direction (http://parentingweekly.com/pregnancy/pregnancy_information/ultrasound/9_weeks.htm). Let's see if we can't get sonograms from medical sites (that are not copyrighted). --IronAngelAlice (talk) 04:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There are already sonograms at the pregnancy article. I don't see what use they could be here in this article.  Sonograms are very fuzzy.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's see if we can't get some better quality sonograms.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 04:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Alice, please see WP:Consensus. You do not have consensus to delete the longstanding images that have been in this article for many months.  We can discuss it here at the talk page, but in the mean time PLEASE stop edit-warring.  Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Andrew C did agree. Also, I have been trying to build consensus. As I stated above, these images are not medical images and are generally used to promote your agenda which seems to be pro-life. I think using sonograms, and looking for very clear sonograms is a very good compromise.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 04:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that Andrew c agreed with you about the cittaion regarding brain activity, in the book by Peter Singer. That is different from agreeing with you about the images.  In any event, if two editors think one thing, and two editors think another thing, then that is not consensus.  Moreover, you have cited nothing that indicates the images are medically inaccurate.  And I have given you this proof that the images are medically accurate.


 * This article is intended to present the truth, whether it supports one POV or another POV. I am not pro-life, by the way.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

FL, Andrew C also agreed with me about the images. You reverted his edit.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 07:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Alice, Andrew c did not remove any images, and I did not revert him. The diff you just provided does not involve me at all.  Andrew c's edit is here, and he did not delete any images whatsoever.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You are right. I was confused. He was talking about the brain stem reference.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 07:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Brain stem
It is not important to list world records or other trivial information. We should say what is normal. It is very odd to be listing things that are normal, and then slip in a fact that is abnormal. It shouldn't be a matter of what is the earliest ever recorded, but instead what is normally found. On top of that, there are possible notability issues with the source, and we should describe what it means to have "brain stem activity". I think with new sources, we can add information about when brain stem activity usually starts, and what that exactly means. But for now, the existing sentence is problematic, and I'm not alone in that view.-Andrew c [talk] 19:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Andrew c, as far as I know, fetal development in humans is fairly uniform. Where is there any statement that the measurement in question revealed an abnormality?  Also please note that the author cited in the footnote is extremely pro-choice, so maybe that contributes to credibility?  If you have time, Andrew c, I'd also appreciate if you would please opine about the deletion of the images.  Thx.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Large jumps in weeks / biased information
There are large jumps in the weeks that are presented in the titles. 8-15 weeks as a stage of development is completely arbitrary. To claim that some of the things listed under 8 weeks of development, when they actually happen at the 15th week is absurd. To claim that "The face is well-formed and develops a more human appearance" is not accurate at 8 weeks. Now that I look at it further, that claim is not sourced.

Another inappropriate reference is: "At nine weeks, the fetus is able to bend fingers around an object; in response to a touch on the foot, the fetus will bend the legs or curl the toes to move away from the object." This information is presented as though the fetus has a conscious reaction to stimuli. This couldn't be further from the truth. The response to the stimuli is involuntary.

For these reasons alone, one can successfully argue that the information presented has been put together to project a pro-life point of view. However, one need only go to a pro-life website to see that most of the information placed in this article is actually straight pro-life literature, and the references are placed strategically:

I propose the arbitrary weeks be removed. We should be clear about what happens in a specific week, and to what extent development has occurred. So for example, if we are going to say that a fetus responds to a stimuli at 9 weeks, we should make it clear that this is an involuntary reaction and is not a response to conscious feeling.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with developing Zygote, Embryo, and Fetus articles to include more detailed information on these stages, and then using prenatal development as a top-tier hub to summarize those sub-articles. However, others objected, as you can see here.  The matter is still unresolved.


 * I have inserted two footnotes to support the statement that "The face is well-formed and develops a more human appearance." IAA, you say that is not accurate at 8 weeks. I don't know why you think that is inaccurate.  Do you have any references that say it's inaccurate?


 * You say that the following is inappropriate: "At nine weeks, the fetus is able to bend fingers around an object; in response to a touch on the foot, the fetus will bend the legs or curl the toes to move away from the object." This is from a British Medical Journal article, and it seems interesting and notable, and has been in this article a long time. If you have a source that indicates that such a response to the stimuli is involuntary, then of course we can include that too, although I don't see that the quote implies whether it's voluntary or not.


 * I agree that any "straight pro-life literature" should be removed from this article. However, I do not see that any of the references qualify as that.  Which particular references do you think are "straight pro-life literature"?Ferrylodge (talk) 05:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing to put more information in the article. I think we can create a very informative article together. What I was referring to in the "straight pro-life literature" is that the article's structure comes almost entirely from pro-life websites (in part evidenced by the link above). My objection to this is that I think we should strive to be as scientific as possible with this article.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 08:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that we shouldn't be unscientific, but at the same time we should keep in mind that we are writing for laypersons. If material is scientifically accurate, it should not be excluded from this article merely because it is cited by one political group or another.  As I mentioned recently in another context, pro-life groups often cite the Declaration of Independence, but that does not mean references to the Declaration of Independence should be omitted from all Wikipedia articles about US history.  Likewise, if there is a medical fact that pro-life groups often cite (e.g. a fetus has four limbs), we shouldn't automatically delete that information here.  Instead we should try to add other accurate and notable material to create a balanced article.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Since fetus is an eminently scientific topic, I think that IronAngelAlice is right on in that we should keep the article itself as scientific as possible, since this is the major viewpoint. The fact that we are writing for "laypeople" does not detract from this in any way, and instead enhances it. Just my $0.02. Ante  lan  talk  06:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Images
I particularly take pleasure in reverting Ferrylodge's POV edits in adding these images, but even so, I would revert anyone who places those images. Those images are not medical ones found in standard textbooks on fetal development, pregnancy or other related fields. I have yet to find the provenance of the images, but they are pro-life, in that they attempt to show the fetus in a human form. There are many better images we can employ for this arena. And I'm willing to work with Ferrylodge to come to a consensus on some. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 05:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Those images have been in this article for many months, and you have no consensus to delete them. You have not remotely suggested any particular inaccuracy about them.  As you can see from the discussion above, they are amply supported by medical sources.  They do not represent a POV in the least, any more than the non-medical images in the abortion article represent a POV.  You are violating WP:Consensus by deleting these images, and you know it.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As an outside editor with little interest in this article, I'm wondering why the images were deleted? Is it only because they show a fetus which seems to have human form (that happens with fetuses).  Is there some reason to believe they are religious or anti-abortion propaganda?  If there isn't, and they are accurate, and if they are free in terms of copyright, and if they add something to the article, such as the form of the fetus, why are they being deleted?


 * Looking at the images, I doubt very much they are pro-life, as those people would surely use cuddly or gory images. But the ones FerryLodge is trying to include seem anatomically sound- but they are totally creepy in my opinion.  The first one in particular makes the baby look like a little alien demon.  If I were a mother and saw those, I'd be like "AHHHHHHHH, GET IT OUT! GET IT OUT!"  So, what exactly is the problem here? —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 07:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Far less like an "alien demon" than they actually appear, I'm afraid. Grab a book on fetal development and you'll see what OrangeMarlin is saying. Ante  lan  talk  07:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Antelan, are you really asserting that these medical images are inaccurate?Ferrylodge (talk) 07:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So what you're saying is that those things are actually a whitewash? Oh dear.  Are they not accurate?  Or are they just not ugly enough? —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 07:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Haha, I suppose ugly is in the eye of the beholder. Those images alone could be fine in the right context, especially for a certain audience. I don't want to criticize the images themselves, because simplifications are often used in illustrating scientific concepts. However, I think that OrangeMarlin, and others above, have noted that this article is slanted in a particular political direction. In that context, these images, though pretty (and only loosely accurate in their anatomy), help reinforce one set of politics. Ante  lan  talk  07:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

http://faculty.washington.edu/alexbert/MEDEX/Winter/MCHFirstTrimesterPregnancy/14-3.GIF --IronAngelAlice (talk) 07:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The images that best show a fetus are the images taken from an ultrasound. The images in the link that FL gave us above are embellished for various reasons. The fetus at 8 weeks is  0.61 inches long (1.6cm) and weight is 0.04 ounce (1gm).  Here is an ultrasound that gives a better idea of the length and weight:


 * Yes, I'm sure- in a technical sense of what one is likely to see in real life. But no offense, but they suck.  I can't see anything.  If I came to this article I'd expect to see some ummm, well, not necessarily what you'd see in a wax museum, but something really detailed. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 07:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll try and read the article tomorrow. But just a question: why do you start out with damage and abortion the first thing under "human fetus?" —— Martinphi   ☎ Ψ Φ —— 07:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Largely politics, in my opinion; unless someone actually thinks that those are the most important things that someone should know about the postembryonic human fetus. Sure, that info could be useful, but I think you're right on to notice that they seem out of place in the lead of that section. Ante  lan  talk  08:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The susceptibility to damage has been an intro line in the prenatal development article for a very long time, before I ever touched that article. See here from December of 2006.  I don't think it's anything sinister, it just happened that way, probably copied from the footnoted medical sources.


 * I have been unhappy with this Fetus article for a long time, because I think that Zygote, Embryo, and Fetus articles should be developed to include more detailed information on these stages, and then prenatal development should be used as a top-tier hub to summarize those sub-articles. However, others objected, as you can see here.  The matter is still unresolved.


 * But I must say, Antelan, that the imperfection of this article is no reason to keep out images that you seem to acknowledge would be fine in a "perfect" article.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm glad that all who have commented so far agree on the point re: placement of 'destruction of fetus' info. Regarding the images, I certainly never said anything about their place in a perfect article. By 'fine for a certain audience', I was actually thinking children, no offense intended. Ante  lan  talk  08:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think you ever answered my question, Antelan. Are you asserting that these medical images are inaccurate?  And if you acknowledge that they are accurate, then why do you think they would only be fine for children?Ferrylodge (talk) 09:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I did a double take after reading this post; you asked no question, so how was I to answer one? Ahh, I see that way up in this post you asked a question. I never replied to it; I replied to one of Martinphi's replies to it. In asking me about the appropriateness of images, you linked to the 'Adam' page, but the images that you had added to this page are not the same. Although the Adam images are still oversimplified, they are less 'cutesy' than the ones previously on the Fetus page. Whether better or worse is a matter of audience, as usual. Also, this question may be moot, unless we have permission from Adam to use their images. Ante  lan  talk  09:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * [[Image:10 weeks pregnant.jpg|thumb|right|Fetus at 8 weeks after fertilization.]]The images that were at this page were extremely similar to the Adam images. I do not understand why you think the images that were at this article were "cutesy."  The image to the right appears to me just like the Adam picture.


 * In any event, do you think that the Adam pictures would be only be fine for children?Ferrylodge (talk) 09:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Relative to pictures of the "real thing," yes, these are rather "cutesy." And I don't think many would agree that Image:10 weeks pregnant.jpg and the corresponding Adam image look "just like" each other. (I am comparing these two because 7.5 weeks of fetal 'age' roughly == 9.5 weeks 'pregnant' based on gestational age). Again, I don't think it matters what anyone thinks about the Adam pictures unless you can show me how we're going to get them to release the images under GFDL-compatible license. Ante  lan  talk  09:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This image from ADAM is very much like the one shown to the right. The only reason I mentioned the ADAM pictures is to help verify the accuracy of the pictures that were in this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 10:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, those resemble each other. The thumbnail sized images of unknown provenance look like rounder, glossier, cutesier versions of the copyrighted Adam images. Ante  lan  talk  10:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's another illustration of the same stage. And here's a list of the doctors who reviewed that illustration.Ferrylodge (talk) 10:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't expect to have anything further to say about the images, at least not until the page is unprotected. So, I'll be curious to see how the discussion turns out.  I think it's fairly obvious that they're decent non-POV images that match up well with available medical images.  They're certainly much better than nothing, and much better than fuzzy sonogram images.  They were donated to Wikipedia, and I would have no objection to removing the links to the donor, although the links do provide access to pretty impressive 3D images like this one.  I hope Thatcher won't mind if I quote him here:


 * "I have a problem with the characterization of FerryLodge's conduct as disruptive....These drawings do not come from a partisan pro-life web site but from a commercial site for expectant mothers that seels [sic] advertising. (As such, the links should perhaps be removed, however). Is there a question about there accuracy, and in that case, has anyone tried to find images from medical or scientific sources? The rationale for complaining about these images seems extremely suspect, and the idea that an article on fetus will describe but not illustrate the stages of fetal development seems to be an extreme point of view of its own....I can not see how the article on fetus can not have drawings of different stages of development (assuming they are accurate)...."


 * I support continued inclusion of these longstanding images, but certainly not to advance any POV.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

When you claim that over 200 MDs have "reviewed that illustration," it makes me seriously question what you're trying to accomplish. Ante lan  talk  10:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Antelan, I have no idea which of the doctors reviewed the image. I'm just saying that it seems to be a medical image if it was reviewed by a medical review board, that's all.  What I am trying to accomplish is to disabuse you of the erroneous notion that I have acted in any bad faith here.  The images are the best we've got at this point, so I don't think they should be deleted.  If we get better ones, then fine.  If you're not convinced that these images are reasonably accurate, then I'll go find more images to persuade you otherwise.  I've only tried to help Wikipedia by inserting the images here, and I think they're a heck of a lot better than nothing.  By the way, have you seen the rotating version?  It's pretty amazing.Ferrylodge (talk) 10:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I hadn't the slightest feeling of sour faith until your claim about the 200+ doctors reviewing that image. I think the images you have been inserting are the least accurate of any we've discussed. By 'accurate', I mean 'resembling a real fetus'. Problematically, it appears that all of the images we have discussed are under copyright restriction, so none, including the ones you have been inserting, are viable options for this article. And now that you've shown me the rotating fetus image, it's even more obvious why those images are so 'cute' - they're from a commercial site, and they are meant to appeal to expectant parents, who most want to believe that mom carries something beautiful inside of her. The images you have been posting are probably in violation of copyright; you should delete them. Ante  lan  talk  10:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Antelan, please, I never said anything about "200+" doctors, and I did not mean to suggest that every last one of the doctors on the list had reviewed the images. If you would investigate further, you would see that the pictures that were in this article violated no copyrights at all.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ferrylodge obtained an acceptable Creative Commons license from the copyright holder, which is documented on the image description pages. Encyclopedicness (not a real word) may be an issue (I take no position on it), but copyright is not. --B (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It does seem to me that 1) the text probably needs a lot of revision, and has probably been structured to highlight political concerns 2) that the images are probably the best we have at the moment, and should really be replaced by something more graphic and detailed  3) that we should either keep the images and reform the text, or reform the text and then re-insert the images.  But just deleting them and doing nothing else doesn't seem right.  It seems like making the article less informative and fun.  —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 00:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * For ease of reference:


 * 1. Here's the longstanding image of a fetus at start of ninth week (i.e. at 10 weeks' gestational age). This image was donated to Wikipedia by 3Dpregnancy.com, and there are no copyright problems.


 * 2. Here's a larger rotating image from the same source (3Dpregnancy.com).


 * 3. Here's an image at roughly the same stage, from a medical encyclopedia by ADAM.


 * 4. Here's another illustration of the same stage. And here's a list of the doctors who reviewed that illustration (or at least some of them did).


 * 5. Here's a photo from Langman's Medical Embryology by Thomas W. Sadler, page 89.


 * 6. Here's a drawing from the Michigan Department of Community Health.


 * 7. Here's a motion-picture sonogram of a fetus at eight weeks after fertilization, from the The Endowment for Human Development, which says it is a neutral organization.


 * The tiny image that we have been presenting seems consistent with all of these, and I have not seen any consensus here for removing the longstanding pictures. I have focussed here on only one of the longstanding pictures (i.e. the one at 8 weeks from fertilization=10 weeks' gestational age).  No one has really expressed any reasons for objecting to the other two.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

CNS development does not determine premature viability
Even fetuses born between 26 and 28 weeks have difficulty surviving, mainly because the respiratory system and the central nervous system are not completely differentiated...

CNS development is not a critical component to viability at this stage. What source was this based on? The overwhelming issue for viability is respiratory development.Zebulin (talk) 09:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, Zebulin, that sentence has a footnote at the end: "Moore, Keith and Persaud, T. (2003). The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology'. Philadelphia: Saunders, p. 103. ISBN 0-7216-9412-8." If you're asking which Wikipedia editor inserted that sentence into this article, I think it was Vassyana.Ferrylodge (talk) 10:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A review of the abstract strongly suggested that the article would not be a source on Perinatal viability. In any case CNS development plays a minimal role in viability.  Extremely retarded CNS development is fully compatible with life.  I'll see if I can find the complete article in our library before seeking any modifications.Zebulin (talk) 06:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's a book, rather than an article.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! the article I found in pub med will obviously not be helpful but there is another library I can likely pick up the book and then follow the references if need be at ours.Zebulin (talk) 06:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Recommended
I'd recommend the following: remove the information on fetal death to its own section- yes, it is relevant, but does not belong where it is. It could also be inserted perhaps in one of the existing sections. Remove the Circulatory system information to its own article- it's hard to understand and isn't the general information you'd expect here- way, way too much detail. Summarize the large quote about Viability. And a few other things. Aside from the fetal death thing, what are people concerned about in terms of POV? I do not see any POV pushing except for the sentence at the beginning of the stages section. And of course we need more pics, especially like the National Geographic ones, or the cat embryo one, which is great. —— Martinphi   ☎ Ψ Φ —— 07:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent)Regarding non-human fetus pics from National Geographic, here's a really beautiful image of an elephant fetus at 12 months of its 22 month gestation:

Image:Inthewomb_3.jpg

I'm not sure if we're allowed to use this image in this particular article, however. I personally think (mentioned by others previously) is gross.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that is nice, though it looks computer generated. But the cat pic is awesome.  We aren't really trying to keep people from being grossed out, we're trying to give them information.  If we do that without being political -for instance, a cute, but brused, dead face sticking out of a medical waste bag- then we have made a good article.  Also, no mother is going to go screaming from the cat pic.  If I think it is cute, that just goes to show that we can't pre-determine what will set off people's nerves.  Why not use the elephant pic under the cat pic?  You really need several pics for animals (: —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 08:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That image is not acceptable to use in this article. It's being used under a claim of fair use in an article about the movie (in theory) for critical commentary of the movie.  There would be no such claim of fair use  here - it would just be somebody's picture that happens to show what we want it to and we're using without permission. --B (talk) 14:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I still say the elephant pic is way cool, even if we can't use it. :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record, I have always supported the cat picture.-Andrew c [talk] 14:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm with Martinphi and Andrew c regarding the cat picture, though I think it'd be great to also have human fetal stages pictured here. Ante  lan  talk  19:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Since I have not been able to obtain any better animal pics, and since the rat picture alone is not very helpful, I agree that the cat picture should be included.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Great- so we're at include the cat pic, and find more pictures of human fetuses.

Do you guys want to start changing the article? I can set it up in my userspace. Everyone can edit as they normally would, except that I'll make edit wars useless. If one starts, I'll revert as many times as necessary to the pre-edit war version till it's settled on the talk page. But, at the same time, editing could continue on other areas of the article where there was no war.

So what about moving the information on fetal death to a new section under the stages section? It could be called fetal death and developmental problems, and could include ways of death, as well as diseases and genetic malfunction etc. which shows up at this stage?

And could we remove that animal pic already there? I thought it was a puppy, but is that what you're calling a rat? —— Martinphi   ☎ Ψ Φ —— 03:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Moving the fetal death stuff would be fine. Removing the rat pic (it says "Rat fetus at E17" in the caption) would also be fine. Additionally, installing the cat pic would be fine.


 * Your suggestion to set up a version in your user space seems premature since there is apparently broad agreement about suggested changes thus far. Also, I'm unclear what the pre-edit war version is that you are referring to (i.e. there was edit-warring within the past week, after a long period of stability).


 * I've explained my position about the fetus pics that were removed, and I've provided links to medical sources for substantiatiation. Better human fetus pics or additional human fetus pics would be fine, but as of now I don't see why those longstanding pics shouldn't be restored (while removing the links in the footnotes as Thatcher suggested), and it's unclear what the positions of other people are about that.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * But if you still think that setting up a version in your user space would be helpful, then I won't object.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the pics should be restored, till better ones more like the kitten pic can be obtained. The version I'm talking about would be a hypothetical verion in my user space: if an edit war started, I can revert to the pre edit-war version.  The reason to set it up in userspace, if others also want that, is that we can start editing right away, and it is an environment protected from the potential of edit warring.  We can edit, then install with consensus. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 23:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree that the drawings should be restored. I do support a hypothetical version where we can hash out text and any photos to be used.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OrangeMarlin removed these longstanding images for the stated reason that they "show the fetus as something more than a collection of cells". Is that your reason too, Alice?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't talking about drawings, but computer generated things. Since they are the best we have, and Antelan says they are accurate enough, I don't see why we wouldn't include them.  —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 06:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * While it may be true that some expert on the subject might see some POV pushing associated with the images, I think we need to write the article for the general reader. I don't see what could be pro live or pro choice about them, but I think we need pics, so I would support having them till more pics like the kitten one can be found. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 06:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No. If a subject matter expert considers these images to be POV pushing, this is a major red flag. There is absolutely no harm in leaving the contested illustrations out for now. Ante  lan  talk  19:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a great deal of harm that can result from leaving material out of an article without consesnus, when the material is longstanding and well-sourced. Additionally, I do not understand why Martinphi believes that "it may be true that some expert on the subject might see some POV pushing associated with the images."  The following sources provide ample support that the 8-week image, for example, is an excellent approximation to reality.


 * 1. Here's an image at roughly the same stage, from a medical encyclopedia by ADAM.


 * 2. Here's another illustration of the same stage. And here's a list of the doctors who reviewed that illustration (or at least some of them did).


 * 3. Here's a photo from Langman's Medical Embryology by Thomas W. Sadler, page 89.


 * 4. Here's a drawing from the Michigan Department of Community Health.


 * 5. Here's a motion-picture sonogram of a fetus at eight weeks after fertilization, from the The Endowment for Human Development, which says it is a neutral organization.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And the potential harm is even greater in view of the fact that the longstanding images were removed for the stated reason that they "show the fetus as something more than a collection of cells". Apparently, the images did not show what the removing editor would have preferred they show.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * We've already gone through this once. Let's not rehash the same discussion again? When we can find a more acceptable set of prints, all dissent will wash away. The prints from that maternity website are too far removed from reality. The cat fetus is a good start, and can remain while we look for better photos of human fetuses. Ante  lan  talk  22:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with you, Antelan. See my response below to OrangeMarlin (including a copy of one of my attempts to obtain better images).  ThxFerrylodge (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sonogram Images
I have no problem with including Sonogram images, but I find it curious that we went after the old 2D Sonograms when updated 3D and 4D technology is now available, and are much easier for a lay person to see. Perhaps we can see if we can find some non-copyrighted 4D Sonogram images OR get someone to donate these to wikipedia?Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 07:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57


 * We already have some of these images here on wikipedia at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_ultrasound page. I am sure we can find some images online that find the gestational ages that we are looking for. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 07:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57


 * Here are some examples. http://www.mothercareultrasound.com/images.html. And these, from the folks that produced the National Geographic video "Biology of Prenatal Development." http://www.ehd.org/science_imagegal1.php. These are outstanding, and go from 0-38 weeks. I wonder if they would grant us a license to use them? At the very least, we should external link these. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Sonograms are nice, but they are much less accurate than a good drawing. The main advantage of a sonogram is that it allows a pregnant woman to actually see her own offspring before birth, which of course a drawing cannot normally accomplish. That's why I think sonograms are fine in the pregnancy article, but not so great here in this article. I do not know of any sonogram that comes anywhere near the accuracy of a drawing at 8 weeks after fertilization, and indeed a sonogram may give the false impression that nothing is present at that stage.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've found some 8 week 4D Sonograms that are certainly better than any drawing ever could be. Here is 6 weeks: http://www.ehd.org/flash.php?mov_id=206, 7 weeks: http://www.ehd.org/flash.php?mov_id=205 and 8 weeks: http://www.ehd.org/flash.php?mov_id=204. I had no problem with the drawings, but since other editors are insisting that we use Sonogram images, we need to use Sonograms that reflect the latest in medical technology, and that means the updated 3D and 4D technology, NOT outdated 2D that many times takes special training to read and understand. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57


 * That's an impressive 8-week sonogram, but really it's nowhere near as good as a drawing or photograph. You cannot even discern that the fetus has eyes, in that sonogram.  If you can obtain copyright permission for an 8-week sonogram image like that, then I suppose we could put it in this article.  In the mean time, I will link to it in the footnote for the 8-week drawing (which already links to four other images at that stage of development).  As far as other editors "insisting" that we use sonogram images in this article, I'm not sure there is consensus to include the crummy ones we have now; in any event, my main concern is to have good drawings, regardless of whether sonograms are included.  I'll go ahead and link to the 8-week sonogram at the draft article, in the footnote for the 8-week drawing, and thanks for finding that sonogram.  The 6-week imges aren’t really pertinent here, because they’re of an embryo rather than a fetus.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm with you on the drawings. The EHD site has in womb video of the fetus at the various stages of development, and the drawings are very close renderings of what the Fetus looks like. I like the 3D rotational effect of the drawing that is posted here. My point was that if we are going to use sonograms, then they should be 3D/4D sonograms. I agree with you that there is no consensus on using the outdated 2D sonograms that we have now. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57
 * The sonogram images currently in the article have the website name printed on them, which is really a bad idea for a number of reasons. Under the Creative Commons license, authorship credits for a derivative or collective work have to be at least as prominent as authorship credits for other comparable works.  The "so what" of that is that if we credit one picture in the picture itself, we have to credit all Creative Commons pictures in the pictures themselves. --B (talk) 07:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Draft page
I've created the page to edit here. —— Martinphi   ☎ Ψ Φ —— 06:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've started editing the draft page.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That's what's called POV-forking. Please discuss edits here and use editprotected. Guy (Help!) 19:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Guy, you are mistaken. I was ambivalent about Martinphi creating the draft in his user space, but it certainly is entirely consistent with Wikipedia policy.  User space is often used "to plan large changes to articles, new articles, or allow Wikipedians to draft graphical layout overhauls."


 * "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts." In this case, Martinphi did not create a separate article.  He created a draft of the same article.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I see that Guy has deleted the draft in another editor's user space. That seems like a very bold thing to do, and possibly disruptive.  It means, among other things, that all the edits to that draft are now unavailable, and cannot be copied to this page.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no reason to work on a draft anywhere but here, where all involved editors can have a say. Ante  lan  talk  19:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no huge preference one way or the other, but it seems like deleting the user space page was highly inappropriate.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree (oviously). Past history indicates that creating forks of contentious articles in user space rather than settling differences and agreeing compromise wording on Talk has one of two outcomes: a biased version, because only one side knows it exists; or moving the edit war somewhere else.  Agree what needs to change, use editprotected, or request unprotection. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Would you please paste the code that I inserted into the draft, into this page, so that I do not have to recreate it from scratch? Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Revised footnote for image
Here's a draft revised footnote for the 8-week image:



"'[1]This is an approximate drawing of a fetus eight weeks after fertilization (i.e. at the beginning of the ninth week after fertilization), therefore having 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: (1) photograph of fetus during ninth week after fertilization, from Thomas W. Sadler, Langman's Medical Embryology, page 90 (2006) via Google Books; (2) motion-picture 4D ultrasound of fetus at eight weeks and two days after fertilization, from the Endowment for Human Development; (3) drawing of fetus at ten weeks’ gestational age, from KidsHealth.org which has a medical review board; (4) drawing of fetus at ten weeks' gestational age, from Michigan Department of Community Health; (5) drawing of fetus at ten weeks' gestational age, from A.D.A.M. via About.com.'" I don't see any consensus for removing this longstanding image from this article. Please note that these images were removed immediately prior to page protection, for the stated reason that they "show the fetus as something more than a collection of cells". Apparently, the images did not show what the removing editor would have preferred they show. Additonally, this image is not from a pro-life web site.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And the other changes? You did more than simply reinsert the image. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As I recall, I simply suggested reinserting the image with a revised footnote for it. Then the draft was deleted.  Am I forgetting something?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

'Please note that the draft footnote above has been edited subsequently to many of the comments below. The most recent edit to the draft footnote above was simultaneous with this comment.'Ferrylodge (talk) 10:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Response to Ferrylodge.


 * 1)  ADAM illustration.  Please note the pronounced Notocord and forming vertebral column which is noticeably absent from POV image supported by others.  In this case, the POV image attempts to make the developing fetus into a more human like image, despite the fact that the developing embryo more resembles primitive Chordates at this point in development.  This illustration is biologically accurate, and I would support it's use, if available, in this article.
 * 2) Kid's Health illustration.  This picture is used for children.  I don't think it has relevance here, but I will concur the images are similar though not even close to biologically accurate.
 * 3) Langman's Encyclopedia photograph.  The photo shows a pronounced tail, notocord, and facial features that resemble a reptile or bird, more than a human.
 * 4) Michigan Department of Health.  It appears to be an exact copy of ADAM.  This image is not at all similar to the POV image.
 * 5) EHD is indeed a neutral organization.  However, the echo image is not at all similar to the POV image.  The eyes are sealed closed, and there lacks a facial expression of a fully developed human.

In each case, Ferrylodge has indeed supported my contention that the POV images are in fact POV. They are not medically based, and were developed to provide a more "human" visualization of the fetus. I assume that there might be a small percentage of 9-week old fetuses that have human appearance, but it is rare. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 22:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The maternity website images are clearly the least acceptable of any that have been produced here, save perhaps the children's pictures. Ante  lan  talk  22:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) OrangeMarlin, I agree with you and Antelan that it would be nice if we could use the A.D.A.M. drawings instead. I don't mean to destroy your preconceived notions about me, but I attempted to get permission to use those images. Not that you'll believe the following email is authentic, but here it is anyway (I received no response):

"Tue, 17 Apr 2007 Mr. T.J. Bucholz<BR> Michigan Department of Community Health<BR> 201 Townsend, 7th Floor<BR> Lansing, MI 48913<BR> Dear Mr. Bucholz:<BR> I am a volunteer writer for the free encyclopedia Wikipedia. I presently am working on an article related to the human fetus. Your agency's illustration at http://www.michigan.gov/mdch/0,1607,7-132-2940_4909_6437_19077_19078-45537--,00.html would really improve the article. Specifically, I would like your permission to use the image at: http://www.michigan.gov/mdch/0,1607,7-132-2940_4909_6437_19077_19078-45537--,00.html in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus One way for you to give your permission to use the above noted image is to reply to this email with the statement: We own the copyright to the image mentioned in your email letter and found at http://www.michigan.gov/mdch/0,1607,7-132-2940_4909_6437_19077_19078-45537--,00.html. We grant permission to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, no Back-Cover Texts, and subject to disclaimers found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GFDL <BR> Thank you for your time. <BR> Kindly,"

OrangeMarlin, I am not pro-life, and I am not Christian. Nor do I subscribe really to any organized religion, though my heritage is Jewish. I say all this, because you have accused me elsewhere (repeatedly) of being a POV-pushing, pro-life Christian. I do believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, and that legislatures are entitled, and indeed should, provide much more protection against abortion, especially after an embryo becomes a fetus. Basically, what I am trying to say is that I am a thinking person, not some kind of kneejerk fool. I am not connected with any organization, and I participate in Wikipedia purely as a volunteer activity. My interest here in this article is presenting truthful information.

Now, moving along to the image in question, it is not perfect, but the distinctions you make are subtle, especially for a lay person. The footnote makes clear that this picture is an "approximation" and provides further resources. The image shows a heck of a lot that is correct. For example, it shows that a fetus at this stage is much more than a clump of cells, contrary to what you might prefer it showed. Additionally, you are plainly wrong about the Kid's Health illustration being "used for children" --- look again and you will see that it is explicitly for parents. Anyway, I find myself in the somewhat uncomfortable position of agreeing with JzG/Guy, who says "My opinion is that the images are acceptable, they are no different to the images in our old books from when my wife was pregnant. I would let it go, but work very carefully on the surrounding text and sources." Contrary to what you say, the present image that you removed does not show "a facial expression of a fully developed human." Additionally, you will see eyes visible in the Langman's image. Ferrylodge (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for emailing them. I'm not surprised they didn't write back, but those images would be nice to have license to use. For the time being, I will respectfully disagree that this article is better with the maternity website images. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  23:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, I still have to confirm that the A.D.A.M. pics (and Michigan pics) that I've linked to are 8 weeks after fertilization, as compared to 8 weeks after LMP.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As OM pointed out, the Michigan images are the same as the Rhode Island ADAM images, so I have deleted the link to the Rhode Island ADAM images (see first comment in this section of talk page). Regarding the Michigan images, they're using age from LMP rather than age from fertilization.  Keep in mind that it's well-known that a human at 8 weeks after LMP is .5 to .8 inches (14 to 20 mm), and also a human at 10 weeks after LMP is 1.2 to 1.7 inches (31 to 42 mm).  Therefore, I've changed the link for Michigan (see first comment in this section of talk page); you can confirm that this change is correct by consulting About.com (here and here).Ferrylodge (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, I don't know if it was just in the copy you pasted here or if it was in what you sent him, but the URLs you pasted are wrong. http://www.sxc.hu/photo/322389http://www.michigan.gov/mdch/0,1607,7-132-2940_4909_6437_19077_19078-45537--,00.htmlhttp://www.sxc.hu/photo/322389 is not right - I think you really want http://www.michigan.gov/mdch/0,1607,7-132-2940_4909_6437_19077_19078-45537--,00.html. --B (talk) 07:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi B. I double-checked the email I sent in April, and it seems that it did not copy and paste properly into this section.  I have no idea where http://www.sxc.hu/ came from.  Anyway, I have corrected the pasted email above.  In my April email, I repeated the following URL three times (I don't know why I repeated it three times but I did): http://www.michigan.gov/mdch/0,1607,7-132-2940_4909_6437_19077_19078-45537--,00.html  Feel free to remove this comment and yours, if you like.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok ... you may want to try emailing them again. They may have clicked on the link, not gotten it to work, and ignored your email. --B (talk) 08:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, the email I sent them was okay. I'll forward it to you.  In any event, they perhaps couldn't grant permission for the 10-week LMP drawing, since the image may have originated elsewhere (e.g. their 8-week image originated at http://www.adam.com).Ferrylodge (talk) 08:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Three separate issues, then. First: should we have images of the foetus at the various stages of gestation (I think yes, this is normal in pregnancy books and not in and of itself evidence of an agenda).  Second: do these images pass our copyright / fair use policies (hard to say for fair use, and any release to Wikipedia-only would not work, we can only accept unconditional release under GFDL, which most image sources will not allow).  Third, what kind of image should we use (and here I support the use of line drawings or other artistic work rather than photos or retouched sonograms, which is how it's usually done in the pregnancy books).  For my money, Image:10 weeks pregnant.jpg passes muster.  It's released under CC-By-SA, is of acceptable quality and is representative of the kinds of images typically used to illustrate the subject in books which are not promoting an agenda.  Guy (Help!) 10:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The draft footnote (at the top of this talk page section) for Image:10 weeks pregnant.jpg is huge, but it offers some good resources, and will back up the accuracy of the image. I'll try to put together similar footnotes for Image:20 weeks pregnant.jpg and Image:40 weeks pregnant.jpg over the next couple days.Ferrylodge (talk) 12:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Three images for reinsertion into article with new footnotes for each
Here's a draft revised footnote for the 8-weeks-after-fertilization image:

[1]This is an approximate drawing of a fetus eight weeks after fertilization (i.e. at the beginning of the ninth week after fertilization), therefore having 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: (1) photograph of fetus during ninth week after fertilization, from Thomas W. Sadler, Langman's Medical Embryology, page 90 (2006) via Google Books; (2) 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; (3) motion-picture 4D ultrasound of fetus at eight weeks and two days after fertilization, from the Endowment for Human Development; (4) drawing of fetus at ten weeks’ gestational age, from KidsHealth.org which has a medical review board; (5) drawing of fetus at ten weeks' gestational age, from Michigan Department of Community Health; (6) drawing of fetus at ten weeks' gestational age, from A.D.A.M. via About.com. Note that by the fetal stage, the tail is gone. See Mayo Clinic website. An atrophied embryonic tail bud remains, but typically there is no tail. Additionally, note that a human fetus does not have gills. See Stanley J. Ulijaszek, Francis E. Johnston, M. A. Preece The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Growth and Development, pages 161-162 (1998). Also see James S. Trefil The Nature of Science, page 309 (2003).

Here's a draft revised footnote for the 18-weeks-after-fertilization image:

[2]This is an approximate drawing of a fetus 18 weeks after fertilization (i.e. at the beginning of the 19th week after fertilization), therefore having a gestational age of about 20 weeks (i.e. at the beginning of the 21st 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: (1) photograph of fetus during 18th week after fertilization, from Thomas W. Sadler, Langman's Medical Embryology, page 92 (2006) via Google Books; (2) motion-picture 4D ultrasound of fetus at 19 weeks after fertilization, from the Endowment for Human Development; (3) drawing of fetus at 20 weeks’ gestational age, from KidsHealth.org which has a medical review board; (4) drawing of fetus at 20 weeks' gestational age, from Michigan Department of Community Health. Note that during week 11 of gestational age, the eyelids fuse and remain fused until week 24. See Michele Isaacs Gliksman, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Pregnancy and Childbirth, p. 113 (2004).

Here's a draft revised footnote for the 38-weeks-after-fertilization image:

"[3]This is an approximate drawing of a fetus 38 weeks after fertilization (i.e. at about the typical time of birth), therefore having a gestational age of about 40 weeks. This drawing can be compared to other online images of a fetus at approximately the same stage of development, including the following image: drawing of fetus at 40 weeks’ gestational age, from KidsHealth.org which has a medical review board."

Ferrylodge (talk) 21:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I still contend these images are POV. However, based on Guy's request that I accept them, I will. However, I reserve the right to change my mind if better images are available to us via free use. These images are NOT accurate representations of human fetuses--they are artistic renditions that make the fetus appear more human-like. A 9-week fetus has a visible notocord, eyes sealed shut, usually (but not always) a tail, and other anatomical features. But if you insist, go for it. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 18:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest we go slowly here. I am not trying to "get my way."  OM, please note that the eyes are sealed shut in the 18-week-after fertilization image.  If you study fetal development, you’ll learn that eyelids fuse during the ninth week after fertilization and remain fused until around 25 weeks after fertilization.  Thus, the eyelids are not fused at 8 weeks after fertilization, and they do not fuse until a few days later. The tail typically disappears at 8 weeks after fertilization, and so there's nothing unusual about our 8-weeks-after fertilization image not showing a tail.  Do any of the footnoted images for an 8-week-after-fertilization fetus show a tail?  I didn't observe that, but maybe I missed something.  As for the notocord (also spelled notochord), I don't see that it's any more visible in the footnoted images than in the images for insertion.  Am I missing something?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 40 Weeks: Devotional Guide to Pregnancy by Jennifer A. Vanderlaan, p. 95 (2005): at the end of the eighth week the "tail is gone." The Complete Idiot's Guide to Pregnancy and Childbirth by Michele Isaacs Gliksman, p. 113 (2004): during week 11, the “eyelids have fused and will remain that way until week 24.”Ferrylodge (talk) 21:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Drawings unintentional POV
I agree that these drawings under dispute are POV. Here is why:


 * Most importantly, the drawings provide no perspective on the size of the fetus. From the drawing above, the reader will have no idea that an 8-week fetus is no larger than an inch.
 * The eyes are clearly embellished. They have been given a depth that makes it seems as though an 8-week fetus is "looking" at something. It is neurologically impossible for a fetus at that stage to be able to see anything.
 * The color is strange and unnatural.
 * Also very important to note, these drawings were taken from articles for expectant mothers. They are not intended to be scientifically accurate. They are not intentionally POV, but in the context of this article these drawings can be pro-life POV.  This is especially true when they are coupled with the current text of the article.

The best possible photos we can add are accurate, clear photos of a sonogram. I thought that the sonogram of the elephant, etc. were very good. I am sure there are some sonogram photos here that are not copyrighted (or we can get permission to use), and are clear:

I think that we can move forward with accurate, clear sonograms. But, I think we also have to be intellectually honest with each other about our biases.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Note on POV
Last, I also take issue with Ferrylodge's assertion that he is not POV-pushing. We all have biases, however, FL seems to be pushing a POV with regards to abortion, etc here:
 * FL has tried to insert "abortus" sections on the abortion page. This is discussed in the "fetal pain" section and another section on the talk page here: and here:.
 * FL may be canvassing the user Ghostmonkey (here: ). Ghostmonkey has made repeated disruptive, pro-life edits to the David Reardon page


 * IAA I don't know why you are doing this. I've tried absolutely everything to be civil and go out of my way to work with you. I've done as much as I can do. It's out of my hands now. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 21:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57


 * IAA, if you would read my reasons for the edits that I made on the David Reardon Page, I think you will find that you are mistaken about them. I believe that discussion is better suited there, rather than here. I will tell you, you are mistaken about Ferrylodge. He didn't canvas me. I still don't have my e-mail set up here at wikipedia, and I keep it that way for privacy reasons. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 23:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57


 * I deny your accusations, IAA. What if there is no consensus to remove these longstanding images from this article?  Will you let them be?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin and I agree that these drawings should be replaced with more appropriate, medically accurate photos. Our position is easily accommodated. I'm unsure why you insist on these images. This leads me to the logical conclusion that you like these drawings POV reasons. I will be happy to provide clear sonogram photos that appropriately show the size and actual properties of the fetus. It also seems to me that there is consensus for "better" photos. Martinphi takes this stance.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 21:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OrangeMarlin indicated above that he is willing to accept reinsertion of these images. You have not.  If there is no consensus to remove these longstanding images from this article,  will you let them be, IAA?


 * The proposed footnotes contain numerous links to images. You have not indicated which of those footnoted images you deem preferable, nor have you explained why.  Even if you would find some of the footnoted images preferable to the longstanding images that were in this article, the footnoted images are all copyrighted.  Can you not see that Wikipedia is limited to using images that are not protected by copyright?  Didn't you see above that I requested permission to use some of those images, but was unsuccessful?  In any event, the images proposed for reinsertion are entirely consistent with the footnoted images.  Again I ask you IAA, if there is no consensus to remove these longstanding images from this article,  will you let them be, or not?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record, I am not opposed to the drawings at all, but I personally would like to see that 4D Sonograms are included in the article, either in place of or in addition to the drawings. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

GhostM, I'm simply getting tired of the back-and-forth (on a multitude of pages). We should all be intellectually honest here, and lay our biases on the table. Let's not pretend that our biases don't exist - because anyone who looks at this page can logically deduce motives.

With that said, it looks like we can all move on from this because it seems as though everyone is in agreement that more scientific photos are appropriate. I also think it appropriate, and reasonable that the photos reflect the size of a fetus at the any stage of development.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

e.g.: http://www.baby2see.com/development/ultrasound_sonogram/first_trimester_scans.html#week9 --IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't recall engaging in any back-and-forth. I said my piece on this article, and yet I found today that you had labeled edits on another page something that they were not, and then accused another editor here ofs "canvassing me". There wasn't any back and forth at all. Just accusations that I thought we were past. I agreed that we should use sonograms, provided that they were 3D/4D rather than outdated 2D. However, the current consensus seems to be that the drawings should stay until better ones can be located. (Read the comments of OrangeMarlin, Ferrylodge and Guy above.) Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Summary of opinions
I think this is pretty much where everyone stands so far:
 * B: "Ferrylodge obtained an acceptable Creative Commons license from the copyright holder, which is documented on the image description pages. Encyclopedicness (not a real word) may be an issue (I take no position on it), but copyright is not."


 * Ferrylodge: "the images are amply supported by medical sources.[24] They do not represent any POV."


 * Guy/JzG: “For my money, Image:10 weeks pregnant.jpg passes muster. It's released under CC-By-SA, is of acceptable quality and is representative of the kinds of images typically used to illustrate the subject in books which are not promoting an agenda.”


 * Martinphi: “I agree that the pics should be restored.”


 * Ghostmonkey57: “I am not opposed to the drawings at all.“


 * Orangemarlin: “based on Guy's request that I accept them, I will. However, I reserve the right to change my mind if better images are available to us via free use”


 * Antelan: “There is absolutely no harm in leaving the contested illustrations out for now.“


 * Thatcher: "These drawings do not come from a partisan pro-life web site but from a commercial site for expectant mothers that sells advertising. (As such, the links should perhaps be removed, however). Is there a question about their accuracy, and in that case, has anyone tried to find images from medical or scientific sources? The rationale for complaining about these images seems extremely suspect, and the idea that an article on fetus will describe but not illustrate the stages of fetal development seems to be an extreme point of view of its own."..."IronAngelAlice (talk · contribs) has a history of POV pushing of her own, for example see [49] and is virtually a SPA on feminist topics. I see no reason why Alice should be able to remove those images with an entirely spurious reason (These images are not medically oriented, and are used by Pro-Lifers to show the fetus as something more than a collection of cells.) but FL should be restricted from replacing images which had sat comfortably in the article for 4 months."


 * IronAngelAlice: "I'm unsure why you insist on these images. This leads me to the logical conclusion that you like these drawings for POV reasons."

Sorry if I missed anyone. Also, I just want to add a few words about the provenance of these images. I did not seek out these images, but rather they were initially donated to Wikipedia without my knowledge or involvement. I did become involved soon thereafter, at which time there was some difficulty getting them copied from Wikipedia to Wikimedia. Ferrylodge (talk) 06:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Another Summary
The above opinions were written before I had a chance to further explain my position (it was the holidays after all).

Not only do I disagree with re-adding these drawings, I do not believe you have a consensus to add them back. As OrangeMarlin implied, we should pursue better images. And as Antelan said: “There is absolutely no harm in leaving the contested illustrations out for now.“ Ghostmonkey has a documented pro-life bias, which is perfectly acceptable - but which is also pertinent to this discussion. "B" doesn't seem to take a position. Thatcher didn't take a position on the actual drawings vs. sonograms debate, but rather a position on me and FL.

Here is why I agree with OrangeMarlin that the drawings are not acceptable:
 * Most importantly, the drawings provide no perspective on the size of the fetus. From the drawing above, the reader will have no idea that an 8-week fetus is no larger than an inch is slightly larger than an inch.  While the captions are nice, the drawings still lack the proper visual perspective.  In combination, the drawings next to the captions paint a very strange picture of the fetus in the early developmental stages.
 * The eyes are clearly embellished. They have been given a depth that makes it seems as though an 8-week fetus is "looking" at something. It is neurologically impossible for a fetus at that stage to be able to see anything.
 * The color is strange and unnatural.
 * Also very important to note, these drawings were taken from articles for expectant mothers. They are not intended to be scientifically accurate. They are not intentionally POV, but in the context of this article these drawings can be pro-life POV.  This is especially true when they are coupled with the current text of the article.

The best possible photos we can add are accurate, clear photos of a sonogram. I thought that the sonogram of the elephant, etc. were very good. I am sure there are some sonogram photos here that are not copyrighted (or we can get permission to use), and are clear: Please see the note above on POV-pushing

I think that we can move forward with accurate, clear sonograms that accurately depict size. This is a good example:http://www.baby2see.com/development/ultrasound_sonogram/first_trimester_scans.html#week9 --IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * IAA, your "most important" objection to the drawings is completely addressed by the captions. Please read them.  Additionally, I have no idea why you think the eyes in these images have been "enhanced."  The eyes are only shown in one of the images (at 8 weeks), so I assume that's the one you're referring to.  Do you think the eyes are also enhanced in this footnoted photograph, or in this footnoted drawing?  Regarding the color, I have no idea why you think the colors in these sonogram images are superior to the colors in the drawings that you want to keep out of this article.  Lastly, you object that the drawings are not intended to be scientifically accurate, but that's incorrect.  They are "for educational purposes."  And their accuracy can be easily confirmed by looking at the footnoted images.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

http://www.baby2see.com/development/ultrasound_sonogram/first_trimester_scans.html#week9 Thank you for adding the size of the fetus in the captions of the drawings. I had not noticed that you added new captions. However, I continue to hold the position that sonograms are more accurate than drawings. Last, just as a note, the fetus at 9 weeks is not 1.5 inches as stated in your captions. At 9 weeks, a fetus has a length of 0.9 inches (2.3cm), and weighs around 0.07 ounces (2gm) at 8 weeks after fertilization is 1.22 inches long, not 1.5 --IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that the best depictions are sonograms because they provide the most accuracy and give some idea of the size of the fetus in the photo. As per this example:


 * IAA, there is a difference between age after fertilization, versus gestational age. They are not the same thing.  A human at 9 weeks' gestational age is an embryo, and is not yet a fetus, so I do not understand why you are discussing the size of a human at that point of development.  It is not relevant to this article, and not relevant to the images that you want removed from this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe this is correct. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  06:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The end of tweek 9 is the beginning of week 10, and this constitutes the weight at the beginning of the fetal stage.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 15:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

http://www.baby2see.com/development/ultrasound_sonogram/first_trimester_scans.html#week9
 * At 8 weeks past fertilization the fetus is 1.22 inches long, not 1.5 as is stated in the caption. However, the bigger issue has not been addressed: the best depictions for this article are sonograms because they provide the most accuracy and give some idea of the size of the fetus in the photo, as per this example which includes sonograms of the womb as well 3d photos of the fetus:


 * And the other problems with the drawings remain (repast and added info):
 * Within the drawing, there is no perspective on the size of the fetus. This perspective is achieved in a traditional sonogram.  A 3d sonogram can be placed next to the traditional one to gain more detail of the fetus at a given developmental stage.
 * The eyes are clearly embellished. They have been given a depth that makes it seems as though an 8-week fetus is "looking" at something. It is neurologically impossible for a fetus at that stage to be able to see anything.
 * The color is strange and unnatural.
 * Also very important to note, these drawings were taken from articles for expectant mothers. They are not intended to be scientifically accurate. They are not intentionally POV, but in the context of this article these drawings can be pro-life POV.  This is especially true when they are coupled with the current text of the article.


 * Again, FL, I wonder why these particular images are so important and why a photo of a traditional sonogram combined with a 3d sonogram (as shown above in the example) is not acceptable. The only conclusion one can draw from this (and from your inclusions on the Abortion page) is that these are important an outside, perhaps political purpose.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 07:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * These images are so important because they are manifestly accurate and informative. Please abide by consensus.  Please do not convert factual matters into POV accusations.  Please do not repeat empty arguments like, "I'm unsure why you insist on these images. This leads me to the logical conclusion that you like these drawings for POV reasons."  We already have sonogram images in this article, and I support getting even better sonogram images into this article, but sonogram images tend to be fuzzy, and there is nothing wrong with having drawings too, as textbooks on fetal development and embryology almost invariably do have.  And regarding the abortion article, I agreed with Severa that it should be delisted as a good article, for the reasons explained here.  I hardly see how agreeing to delist that article is relevant here.  Regarding fetal size, perhaps you could elucidate for us how a sonogram provides "some idea of the size of the fetus" whereas a drawing does not.  And regarding precise size of an 8-week fetus, there is a range of sizes, but typical size is about 1.25 inches from crown to rump, and therefore, slightly more from head to toe.Ferrylodge (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(which may or may not have been intentional). With regards to how a sonogram can show size, I will again ask you to look at this example: http://www.baby2see.com/development/ultrasound_sonogram/first_trimester_scans.html#week10 The traditional sonogram shows the womb, and provides a scale next to the fetus.The traditional sonogram coupled with a 3D sonogram, with captions about size and weight, are the most accurate kind of photos we can provide.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, FL, I don't see why we can't be honest with each other. You don't have a consensus, and you have pushed a certain POV on the abortion talk page regarding "fetal pain" here:  and here:


 * "manifestly accurate"? I disagree. The drawings look like Kewpie dolls. The gills are not shown; the eyes are enhanced and/or enlarged; they do not strongly resemble the stages which they are purported to represent. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent)You are incorrect KC, and I hope you will try to rely more on facts here than myth. Neither a human embryo nor a human fetus has any "gills." I hope you will take a look at the image of an 8-week fetus that has been in this article for months, and compare it to the five different medically accurate images that are footnoted. You will not see any "gills" anywhere. And, if you wish to accuse all of those medically accurate sources of being inaccurate, then perhaps you would like to take issue with the following sources as well:

"'In fact, the human embryo never possesses gills or any other appendages that might be required by this supposed development of the human embryo. The gill-like slits that appear are called pharyngeal arches. In fish, these cells do, indeed develop into gills, but in humans they are precursors of the head and neck.'"

That's from James S. Trefil The Nature of Science (2003). And here's more:

"'The pharyngeal grooves, arches, and pouches are not branchial, i.e. this region does not form gills in mammals.'"

That's from Stanley J. Ulijaszek, Francis E. Johnston, M. A. Preece The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Growth and Development, pages 161-162. I find it unfortunate that people are raising objections here without reference to any relieable sources whatsoever.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no need to be condescending FL. Whether you refer to "gills" in colloquial language or "pharyngeal arches" in medical language, the problem with the drawings persists: they are not the best or most medically accurate we can provide.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you find a summary of truthful facts condescending, then so be it. Neither a fetus nor an embryo has gills, nor have you or KillerChihuahua hinted at the existence of any medically accurate drawing that shows a fetus 8 weeks after fertilization with anything remotely resembling gills.  And enough of the absurd edit summaries too, please.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Your use of medical information is welcomed and commendable. But, your tone is not appropriate and bordering on uncivil.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * IAA, I'm glad that you prefer civility to in incivility, and I do too.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've made this point before, and I'll make it again - for an encyclopedia article, it's better to go without images of a human fetus for awhile than to use these glossy pseudo-accurate images from a commercial maternity website. We already have images of a cat fetus, which is a good start. Ante lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  18:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Antelan, those such as KillerChihuahua who have disagreed with inclusion of the 8-week drawing have not pointed to any other drawing that they might find acceptable, nor pointed to any other drawing that shows the mythical features that they desire. Some people might wish that an 8-week fetus looked like a clump of cells, or had a tail, or had gills, but an 8-week fetus does not have those features.  Such people will apparently not be satisfied with ANY medically accurate image of a fetus at 8 weeks after fertilization.  Therefore, why do you think that we would go without images of a human fetus for only "awhile"?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Call me a disinterested third party.. I'm having trouble figuring out what the dispute is, exactly. Is anyone actually objecting to the inclusion of actual photos, assuming suitable ones can be found?  It may be debatable whether the drawings are better than nothing at all, but I can't imagine anyone would object to proper photos here.  Friday (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Friday, there are several different types of photos. For example, there are intrauterine photos of a live fetus.  There are also photos of a dead fetus.  The intrauterine photos are very hard to come by, and they are protected by copyright.  We do have access to a few photos of dead fetuses, but they are not at the beginning, middle, and end of the fetal stage like the drawings that are now in dispute (additionally, many people have objected to presenting "shock images" of dead fetuses at Wikipedia).  Please note that no one who is objecting to these three drawings has pointed to any drawing that they might find acceptable, nor to any photograph that they believe contradicts these drawings.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am going to scan an image from a mainstream college biology book (https://www.ecampus.com/book/0495016543) of an 8 week fetus that is almost identical to the drawing already provided here. That should end this once and for all. Give me a chance to get it uploaded. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57


 * Thanks Ghostmonkey57. But make sure you have copyright permission.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The scan won't be for posting here, but merely for verifying that the image already provided is mainstream and accepted in biology textbooks. The image is almost identical as you will see. Scanning a single page form a several hundred page textbook for an educational purpose is fair use anyway. http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Friday, I think all are in agreement that images would be helpful. The disagreement centers around whether or not these images are desirable or acceptable. Some argue that these images give the reader a mistaken idea of how a fetus actually appears. Others argue that the resemblance is good enough. Ante lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  22:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Antelan, do you agree with others here who say that we must depict an 8-week fetus with gills and a tail, even though an 8-week fetus does not actually have gills or a tail?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In this example, we see how small the fetus is at the given stage of development and there is no artistic embellishment. Eventually, we need to also look at the neutrality of the text in the article as well.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Antelan, I think that is right with one small exception. My objection is that the drawings provide no perspective on the size of the fetus, this in conjunction with text that makes it seem as though a fetus is far more developed than it actually is at 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 weeks.  The text combined with the images create a non-neutral, pro-life perspective.  With this in mind, I suggest we look at the coupled images here: http://www.baby2see.com/development/ultrasound_sonogram/first_trimester_scans.html#week10


 * IAA, you still have not elucidated why it is you think a sonogram provides a better indication of size than a drawing. I do not understand why you continue to make this assertion without explaining it.  The sonogram images alone do not indicate whether the fetus is ten feet tall, or one micron.  Yet, you say the drawings that we have discussed do not show size, and therefore have a non-neutral, pro-life perspective.  This is the most inexplicable argument I have encountered at Wikipedia.  It seems that anything that you do not like has a non-neutral, pro-life perspective.  Also, please note that the drawings we have been discussing have captions describing the size.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The sonograms do provide the context of neighboring structures (i.e., the mother), giving the reader some idea of the relative size. They are also nice in that they are real medical images. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  23:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, we already have sonograms in the article. Put in better ones if you like.  But the sonogram images here do not show the size of the mother, much less the size of the mother in relation to the fetus.  Nor, might I add, do they show gills and a tail, which is one of the stated rationales for opposing the drawings that we've been discussing.  Why do people demand that the drawings show gills and a tail, but not demand that the sonogram images show gills and a tail?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

<unindent< As I said, they show the relative size of the mother and fetus. That is, relative to the mother, you can get a feel for the fetus's size. This imaging modality lacks the resolution needed to capture the gills and tail. They have not, in contrast to other pictures, been left off for aesthetic reasons. Ante lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  01:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Antelan, why do you insist that a human fetus has gills and a tail? Can you point to any images whatsoever of an 8-week fetus that show those alleged features of a human fetus?  By the fetal stage, the tail is gone.  And neither a human embryo nor a human fetus has any "gills."  Did you see gills or a tail in any of the five different medically accurate images that I footnoted?  If you keep insisting that a human fetus has a tail and gills, and you keep refusing to provide anything to support that notion, then why shouldn't I conclude that you are simply on a POV mission here?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * FL, please remember to remain civil and assume good faith. While the fetal tail disappears usually at the end of week 10 (gestational time), the fetal tail is certainly visible at the very beginning of the fetal stage.  Let's not split hairs.  Antelan's general point remains: sonograms show the relative size of the mother and fetus.  While some of the photos you provided above are clear and medically accurate (particularly the one from Langman's Medical Embryology), it does not serve a general audience because it doesn't provide for a visual representation of relative size.  Also of note, the fetus in the Langman's Mecical Embryology still has a fetal tail at 9 weeks (suggesting that it is at the beginning of the fetal stage). The other images you provide are enhanced drawings  - the same objections reiterated several times above are also relevant to the drawings you provided.


 * I continue to believe that the best representation we can provide includes the coupling of traditional sonograms and 3D sonograms with captions about the size and weight. This coupling is demonstrated here: http://www.baby2see.com/development/ultrasound_sonogram/first_trimester_scans.html#week10 --IronAngelAlice (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * IAA, you are repeating yet again your implication that I am not being civil. I would urge you to please consider that falsely implying that another editor is being uncivil is itself uncivil.  Thank you.Ferrylodge (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Types of images

 * Here is what I observe: IAA says " the problem with the drawings persists: they are not the best or most medically accurate we can provide."  That's certainly true.  However, the sonograms are so lacking in detail as to not be much better.  I have a question:  exactly what kind of detailed image would not be POV?  If you show a dead fetus, that could be said to be pro-life, since it is gross and pitiful.  If you show a sonogram, that's not POV, but it's not detailed.  If you show a simplified simulation like what we're discussing, that's apparently not accurate enough and this serves the function of whitewashing what the fetus really looks like.  So can anyone come up with an idea of a detailed image which 1. we're likely to be able to get our hands on, and 2. which isn't POV?  —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 04:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Your comment highlights the benefit to using the best available images. I'll consider 3 types: sonograms, human-made images (drawings, 3D renderings, etc) and photographs. Sonograms are useful, especially in an article like this, where sonograms are the way that doctors actually visualize what is happening in the womb. They're not perfect, but they're the best that are available for imaging live fetuses in utero. Consequently, sonograms are desirable. Human-rendered images, unlike sonograms, are not limited in their quality by technology. There is no reason to settle for low-quality human-rendered images, especially when people such as IronAngelAlice have raised reasonable POV concerns. Finally, photographs are about as real as you can get. With photos, POV becomes less of a possible concern, so long as all parties can agree regarding the provenance of the photos. Concerns about obscenity, appropriateness, etc., may be relevant, but I think you'd really have to overdo it to cross those lines with this subject. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  05:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Martinphi, I have to disagree with your statement that, "...the sonograms are so lacking in detail as to not be much better." The 3D sonograms cited above are quite detailed. (One doesn't have to be a medical professional to see the detail).  Coupling them with the traditional sonogram (as in the example above), gives us a detailed picture of both the fetus and the relative size of the fetus in the womb.  The text should also compliment the photos, and inform the reader about what is happening (and not happening) at a given stage of development. I think the coupling of traditional and 3D sonograms provides the NOPV stance that we are looking for.  Here is the example again: http://www.baby2see.com/development/ultrasound_sonogram/first_trimester_scans.html#week10


 * I agree both that we need photos and that we should keep the sonograms. But we should keep the sonograms because they are examples of what people and doctors are likely to be shown if they are pregnant or have already seen.  They give very little detail, though perhaps IAA can see things which are invisible to me since I have no training.  I have a book, a Readers Digest on the human body, which has a beautifully detailed photo of a fetus at 12 weeks.  No idea how it was taken, but anyway, I know what this article needs does exist.  I think there is consensus on what is actually needed: photos which show detail, similar to the level of detail in the cat pic, though one would hope they don't look as much like dissection.  I have it from various sources that FerryLodg's pics are not really very accurate, or do not appear so to at least one doctor.  Therefore the POV concerns exist (though personally  I can see it benefiting both sides of the debate).  So I have a further question: if we need images of some kind, just how long may we have to hold off before we can find good pics?  —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 08:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Fictional gills and tail
Should this image of an 8-week fetus remain in the article? Yes. Antelan says that the gills and tail have “been left off for aesthetic reasons.” Antelan’s assertion is false, though it has also been made by other commenters here (e.g. OrangeMarlin and KillerChihuahua). A fetus after 8-weeks typically has no tail or gills.

I have repeatedly asked Antelan why we should wait for a more accurate drawing that shows gills and a tail, given that we would have to wait forever for such a drawing because such a drawing does not exist. Antelan has not replied.

I have just added another photograph to the other five medically accurate footnoted images of a fetus at 8 weeks. You can directly view the additional photograph here. You will see that there is no tail, and that there are no gills. This photograph is virtually a perfect match for that we have been discussing. According to the Mayo Clinic, by the fetal stage, the tail is gone. An atrophied embryonic tail bud may remain, but there is no tail, except in extraordinary circumstances.

Moreover, neither a human embryo nor a human fetus has any "gills," according to the most impeccably reliable sources (e.g. the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Growth and Development). There are no gills or tail in any of the six different medically accurate images that I footnoted. If people want to claim that a fetus at 8 weeks after fertilization has gills or a tail, then please provide proof. Please point to an image that shows that. Otherwise, your comments appear to be pure POV-pushing. Thanks. If no one can show that an 8-week-after-fertilization fetus has a tail and/or gills, or that there is any other significant inaccuracy in the images we have been discussing, then I intend to restore those images that have been in this article for many months.Ferrylodge (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Granted that you're almost certainly right about the features. But you can't just restore without some kind of consensus.  Let's see if someone will answer my question above, since an answer would go a long way toward determining whether we should use these pics.  The reason is that they may be better than nothing, but they are not ideal. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 20:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In this section, I've posted further photographic proof that the drawing in question is perfectly accurate. People should look at the proof.  I haven't reinserted the drawing in question yet.  If no one can show that an 8-week-after-fertilization fetus has a tail and/or gills, or that there is any other significant inaccuracy in the images we have been discussing, then I intend to restore those images that have been in this article for many months.  Why should I not do that?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You should not do that because you'll be reverted. Vat- you tinka dis bea abouta da reason? Further, it isn't about the images being "not accurate," it's about the images leaving out detail for the purpose of being more lovable.  That's where people see POV.  If we can't come up with something better, we should probably use them.  If we can, we should not.  Note that there are perfectly accurate pictures, such as the one I have in the Readers Digest book which are not improperly posed but are much much more lovable than what you want to put in- and no one could possibly find anything POV about them.  —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 00:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Martin, what detail do you think the images leave out? Gills and a tail?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ferrylodge, this is not a productive line of interrogation. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  03:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Antelan, let's consider IAA's response that you endorse. You evidently join her in cautioning me to be civil, so please tell me what I've said that's uncivil.  You also join her in saying that the "fetal tail is certainly visible at the very beginning of the fetal stage."  Antelan, why do you disagree with the Mayo Clinic?  And where do you see a tail in this high-resolution image of a fetus at 8 weeks?  And why, Antelan, do you think that the drawings in question are in any way flawed?  Why can't they be presented together with the sonograms that you admit lack resolution?  The fetus in the Langman's Medical Embryology has no more of a fetal tail than the drawing that you want removed from this article, i.e. it has no tail at all. The Langman's photo has an atrophied embryonic tail bud, just like the high-resolution image of a fetus at 8 weeks, and just like the the drawing in question.  I really do not want to believe that there is a concerted effort here to suppress accurate drawings of a human fetus, based on bogus assertions about fetal tails and fetal gillsFerrylodge (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've now struck that out. Pleas feel free to read the main point I was getting at, which I already wrote below. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  04:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, I felt that IAA's response was adequate, so I didn't feel compelled to chime in just to say "IAA's response is what I would have said." Let me specifically answer a question you have been asking. In this post you ask why it is OK for sonograms to fail to show gills and tail when it's not OK for drawings to do the same. My reply used your same wording, "gills and tail," to make it clear to you what I was referring to. The point of my post was that the images from a sonogram lack the resolution to show gills and a tail at any stage of human development, and was not intended to be any claim of fact regarding when the vestigial gills and tail become inapparent. Ante lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  03:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Antelan, why do you think that the drawings that have been in this article for four months are "pseudo-accurate"? Is that an unfair question?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see the benefit to Wikipedia of continuing to respond to such questions from you on this page. You repeatedly asked me to explain a position I took. I have done so, but your personal questions persist. There is a large discussion about these drawings - one that you participated in - during which this question that you are asking me now was discussed ad nauseam. I will no longer answer your questions directed to me personally on this talk page. If you would like to continue inquiring about my personal beliefs, feel free to post on my talk page. Otherwise, let's discuss the article without rehashing longstanding discussions. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  04:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I will assume from your response that you continue to believe that gills and a tail have been “been left off for aesthetic reasons.” I find it most unfortunate that you continue to take that position, because it has absolutely no basis in fact.  I have no personal questions to ask you, and therefore I will not be visiting your talk page in the near future.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Although I feel that I have been trying to tell you this in different ways, let me quote this unambiguously from WP:NPA: Comment on content, not on the contributor. I do not want you stating your assumptions about my beliefs on this or any talk page. As you can see from policy, whether or not something is my belief is irrelevant to any article. If you want to discredit an idea, consider stating the idea and then demonstrating a reliable source that refutes that idea. There is no reason to bring the contributor into the discussion to the degree that you have repeatedly done here. I am only replying so that others reading this in the future don't get the incorrect idea that a non-reply implies an acceptance of your statement about my beliefs. Please do not continue replying in this vein here. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  04:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Antelan, I reject your description of what I have asked you. I have asked you why you want longstanding drawings deleted from this article, instead of remaining in this article together with sonogram images.  That is all I have asked you, and it is a perfectly legitimate question.  You referred to gills and a tail being left off for aesthetic reasons.  I am unaware of any other answer you have given to my question.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The images are glossy, romanticized interpretations of a human fetus. Their color, their selective lack of detail, and the very fact that they are from a maternity website attempting to sell a product to expectant mothers makes me concerned. Remember, I didn't originally suggest their removal. I came here and saw the ongoing discussion. After reading both arguments, and seeing alternative images that you and others have presented, I have come to agree with those who think these glossy pink images should not reappear in this article. The rest of this discussion is already available to be read above. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  05:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What selective lack of detail? What detail has been selectively omitted?  And what color would you prefer?  It would probably be straightforward to convert the images into black and white, though the color versions seem more natural.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question, FL, my information is that the eye in the first one is not supposed to be open, but it is a black dot, and doesn't look anything like what it should. I think perhaps that one should be left out. As far as the others, they leave out a great deal of detail. I don't know they are not accurate, just they don't really present the whole picture (much like the sonograms). But I believe you about the gills and tail, lol.

Antelan, which details have been selected to not show? This is something I don't know. —— Martinphi   ☎ Ψ Φ —— 07:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Martin, what information are you relying upon regarding whether the eyes are open? During week 11 of gestational age, the eyelids fuse and remain fused until week 24. See Michele Isaacs Gliksman, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Pregnancy and Childbirth, p. 113 (2004)] Thus, the eyelids are not fused at the beginning of the fetal stage.  You can see in this textbook photo that the eyes are not covered at 8 weeks after fertilization.  And, you can see in this photo that the eyes are shaped precisely as in the drawing that is being omitted from our article.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That was my information from a doctor. I took him to be a medical doctor. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 01:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone on this talk page have any doubts that the image here is objective, that is, not a POV image? —— Martinphi   ☎ Ψ Φ —— 01:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

What about relative size?--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point, but it would take me about 5 min to put in a paper clip or an image of a ruler or something. And the same thing can be done with a caption. That's not really POV, that's just leaving out a measurement... —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Image is 1.4 inches high, without the caption, and there is a tiny space at the top, so it might be just a bit small. —— Martinphi   ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that picture (the one in Martinphi's link, not the image displayed here) is preferable to the glossy pink graphic that used to be in the article. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  03:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The gray-colored image in Martinphi's link is protected by copyright, and therefore preferring it is equivalent to preferring no image whatsoever of an 8-week fetus in the present article. Additionally, "Life and Liberty for Women" is a pro-choice organization and their website mentions fetal color.  Their website shows an intrauterine photo of a fetus at six weeks, having a predominantly normal skin color, with a reddish tint.  Their website also points out that the color of a fetus after removal from the uterus (e.g. after an abortion) depends upon the method of removal.  Gray skin, as in Martinphi's link, will result from “laminaria through an intra-amniotic injection."  On the other hand, "If the procedure was done while the fetus was alive, its skin would be the pinkish color....", as in the drawing that was removed from the present Wikipedia article.  The image displayed by Martinphi (that was removed from this article) has an appropriate color, and no one has suggested a more appropriate color.  The interior of a uterus is normally pitch black, but that would not seem an appropriate color for a Wikipedia image of this nature.75.27.146.87 (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen another person who agrees with that view edit this page. I understand where you are coming from, but I don't agree with those interpretations. If you would like, perhaps an RfC on this article would be helpful? Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  18:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Skin color can also be adjusted. These are very topical features which people say make the images POV, which we can easily adjust.  So I think there must be some other features which are being called POV.  Could you list them here? —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 22:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and adjusted the skin color (see next section). Regarding the size issue, the captions now address size, and of course the article can also include sonogram images that further illustrate size.  The footnotes accompanying the images address the issue of gills and tails, and also address the issue of when the eyelids fuse, as well as providing links to other images that can be used to confirm accuracy of the present drawings.  As far as I'm aware, these changes take care of the major concerns that have been expressed.  Even before these changes, there was considerable support for these drawings in the article.  If people have further specific concerns, then we can postpone reinserting these black and white images, and can do an RfC if necessary.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We certainly seem to be getting a lot closer. An RfC would be fine if people think it is needed. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 03:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Black and white images
I've uploaded new images that are in black and white instead of color. Abortion providers confirm that, "If the procedure was done while the fetus was alive, its skin would be the pinkish color...." However, some people at this talk page have objected that the pink color makes the fetus look too cute or glossy, so now we have black and white photos instead. For each of the three images, there is a long footnote. The sonogram images currently in the article can remain together with these drawings.



[1]This is an approximate drawing of a fetus eight weeks after fertilization (i.e. at the beginning of the ninth week after fertilization), therefore having 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: (1) photograph of fetus during ninth week after fertilization, from Thomas W. Sadler, Langman's Medical Embryology, page 90 (2006) via Google Books; (2) 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; (3) motion-picture 4D ultrasound of fetus at eight weeks and two days after fertilization, from the Endowment for Human Development; (4) drawing of fetus at ten weeks’ gestational age, from KidsHealth.org which has a medical review board; (5) drawing of fetus at ten weeks' gestational age, from Michigan Department of Community Health; (6) drawing of fetus at ten weeks' gestational age, from A.D.A.M. via About.com. Note that by the fetal stage, the tail is gone. See Mayo Clinic website. An atrophied embryonic tail bud remains, but typically there is no tail. Additionally, note that a human fetus does not have gills. See Stanley J. Ulijaszek, Francis E. Johnston, M. A. Preece The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Growth and Development, pages 161-162 (1998). Also see James S. Trefil The Nature of Science, page 309 (2003).

Here's the footnote for the 18-weeks-after-fertilization image:

[2]This is an approximate drawing of a fetus 18 weeks after fertilization (i.e. at the beginning of the 19th week after fertilization), therefore having a gestational age of about 20 weeks (i.e. at the beginning of the 21st 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: (1) photograph of fetus during 18th week after fertilization, from Thomas W. Sadler, Langman's Medical Embryology, page 92 (2006) via Google Books; (2) motion-picture 4D ultrasound of fetus at 19 weeks after fertilization, from the Endowment for Human Development; (3) drawing of fetus at 20 weeks’ gestational age, from KidsHealth.org which has a medical review board; (4) drawing of fetus at 20 weeks' gestational age, from Michigan Department of Community Health. Note that during week 11 of gestational age, the eyelids fuse and remain fused until week 24. See Michele Isaacs Gliksman, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Pregnancy and Childbirth, p. 113 (2004).

Here's the footnote for the 38-weeks-after-fertilization image:

"[3]This is an approximate drawing of a fetus 38 weeks after fertilization (i.e. at about the typical time of birth), therefore having a gestational age of about 40 weeks. This drawing can be compared to other online images of a fetus at approximately the same stage of development, including the following image: drawing of fetus at 40 weeks’ gestational age, from KidsHealth.org which has a medical review board."

Ferrylodge (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem to use two different measures? Crown to bottom (to which word the caption should be changed), and then on the last one, it must be head to foot.  The head and body can't be 20 inches. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 03:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I clarified the captions.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Where we are
Here's where we seem to be now:

1. The question of whether there are anatomical innaccuracies in the pics have been dealt with. While they are simplified, they are not inaccurate, nor are they leaving out or putting in features which show a POV.

2. The matter of size has been taken care of: either we put the size in the caption, or we put it in the pic itself.

3. The matter of color has been taken care of, by turning the images black and white.

4. We have agreed, I think, that some image is better than none. We have also definitely agreed that better pictures are desirable.

Silence generally equals consensus WP:CONSENSUS, and there has been silence here for a long time. I think the pictures may be re-inserted in the article fairly soon, if no one has any new objections to them. —— Martinphi   ☎ Ψ Φ —— 06:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Technically, the re-saved black and white images have noticeable jpeg artifacts. If there is consensus for these images, I'd gladly re-desaturate the images in order to reduce the compression and artifacts. But as is, the quality has been significantly reduced from the originals (especially in the 8/10 week one).-Andrew c [talk] 14:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Andrew c. I re-saved the black and white images, but wasn't aware of any jpeg artifacts.  How does one determine if there are artifacts? Your software is probably better than mine, so please feel free to re-save them again ( but not like this ).  In the mean time, I agree with Martinphi that they may be re-inserted.  Please note that I filled in a blank spot in the eye.  I would recommend that you create a separate image file, and then we can decide whether to upload a new version here.  Ferrylodge (talk) 15:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I assume that this technical issue doesn't need to be fully resolved before reinserting the pictures in this article. When new pictures are uploaded at Wikimedia, the pictures in this article will automatically be changed accordingly.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have uploaded: Image:Human fetus - 6 weeks - B&W.jpg‎, Image:Human fetus - 10 weeks - B&W.jpg‎, Image:Human fetus - 20 weeks - B&W.jpg‎, and Image:Human fetus - 40 weeks - B&W.jpg‎. I have also reverted the changes to the original images. The staff off 3D Pregnancy donated color images to Wikimedia, and we should respect that. While the images may or may not be appropriate for use in wikipedia articles, they are still entirely valid as color images on the commons. Removing the color removed a significant amount of digital information which was donated graciously to us. So I hope that explains why I restored the original images. If there are any issues with the B&W versions I uploaded, feel free to edit them accordingly (but please try to re-save with the quality setting set as high as possible). -Andrew c [talk] 18:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Human fetus - 10 weeks - B&W.jpg‎|thumb|New version by Andrew c.]][[Image:10_weeks_pregnant.jpg‎|thumb|Old version by Ferrylodge.]]I should note that, after I converted the images to black and white, I notified the staff of 3D Pregnancy, and received the following reply: "Thank you for notifying me. The black and white version as currently online, are fine! Thnx for the change. With kind regards, Wouter."


 * In my novice opinion, the black and white version that 3D Pregnancy approved is sharper than the very light images that you kindly created, Andrew c. Is there any way to make your images darker and more defined, like the ones that 3D Pregnancy approved?  And would you kindly address my question above: How does one determine if there are artifacts? The presence of artifacts seems to be what motivated you here, and I'd like to know how one detects those.  Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Because I was the original uploader at Wikimedia, and because the BW images that I made were approved by the donor, and because some other editors (not myself) found the color images problematic, I'll restore the BW images that I made at Wikimedia. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if you are set on restoring the images you made, please do so over the B&W images I created, so that the original color images are still available on the commons (even if the owner of the images approved of the black and white, they also uploaded the color images, and there is no reason why the commons can't have both). But maybe we can hold off on any more reverting and discuss. As for your request, please read Compression artifact or google it. I'm sorry I cannot explain it myself. It's just something you learn to recognize, and perhaps looking at some comparison images could help you start recognizing it. And here is another idea, perhaps your monitor is poorly calibrated, or just poorly designed in the first place, if it's difficult to notice jpeg artifacts and desire overly contrasty images (are you on a laptop perhaps?). Here is a tip, look for where the edge of the fetus meets the white background. On the images you uploaded, the background, which should be white, has strange differing shades of gray in a typical artifact pattern. It's like there is a halo of artifacts around the fetus. -Andrew c [talk] 19:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I already restored the images over the color ones. I agree that we should hold off on any more reverting and discuss.  The color images remain archived, and anyone is free to download them, and re-upload them at a new place on Wikimedia, if there turns out to be any use for them.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Andrew c, thanks for the info about artifacts. That info says that artifacts are "discernible and objectionable to the user."  On the contrary, I think that the darker B&W image that I uploaded is less objectionable because its features are much clearer.  But I suppose we can include this issue in the RfC toward which we seem to be headed (in view of remarks below by Antelan and KillerChihuahua).  I am currently using a high-quality desktop monitor (not a laptop), and I do not see that the background, which should be white, has strange differing shades of gray.  Even if extremely close inspection might reveal such shades, I feel that the older B&W image is preferable for the reasons stated (and because it has been approved by the donor).  We are not talking about a "Featured Picture" here.  Wikipedia includes many images that might not be suitable for a Featured Picture, even though they include artifacts.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The images, while no longer hot pink, are still less accurate than would be desired for an encyclopedic article. We should strive to use medical drawings, photographs, or scans. I am opposed to the insertion of these specific commercial images, and do sincerely think that the article is better with just the images that are already present than with those plus these. If you do replace these images, it will be over my and several others' objections. The reasons have been elaborated in detail above, and I do not intend to recapitulate the long discussions here. Instead of asking "why", please read up on this talk page. Ante lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  17:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I must disagree with Martin's item 1 - "question of whether there are anatomical inaccuracies in the pics have been dealt with. While they are simplified, they are not inaccurate" No indeed, "simplified" does mean "less accurate", regardless of how this is phrased. For a clear example of what I'm talking about, please see here, scrolling down to the section The Haar function: a simple wavelet example.  I quote directly from the page linked: "We have simplified the image and ... lost some information along the way". I can easily find numerous examples if this one is insufficiently persuasive. This isn't difficult to understand. Lose detail, lose accuracy. I concur with Antelan that the images, now grey and with size indications, are still insufficiently detailed for an encyclopedia. We don't use [http:// www.fotolia.com/id/4882554 this] to illustrate the baby article. Although the difference is not quite so dramatic with the fetus images, the principle is the same. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Although it appears there continue to be objections to including these images in the article, there is also support. So, we may be headed toward an RfC here.  Reading this talk page shows that questions like the following were asked: (1) "which details have been selected to not show?" and (2) "what selective lack of detail?"  I am unaware that there is any selective lack of detail in the drawings at issue.  The drawings at issue are certainly not as detailed as some of the footnoted images, but nothing has been selectively omitted, e.g. for some POV purpose.


 * It seems that the perfect is being used here as the enemy of the good. The drawings in question are good illustrations of the beginning, middle, and end of the fetal stage.  If they are omitted from the article, then the article will contain no images of the beginning, middle, and end of the fetal stage (the Gray's Anatomy image does not even indicate that the fetus has feet or legs).  The drawings are accompanied by huge footnotes which provide links to more detailed images.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, I offered to convert the images to black and white as a cooperative gesture. No one has disputed that, if an abortion is "done while the fetus was alive, its skin would be the pinkish color...."Ferrylodge (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * KC, do you still require that a fetus image include gills?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See this dif which I mistakenly thought you had read. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I did read that diff written by another editor. Are you agreeing with it?  If so, then why do you assert that the statement "a fetus has gills" is consistent with the often-stated scientific fact that a fetus does not have gills?  And why do you assert that an image of a fetus should show pharyngeal arches in order to be included in this article?  Can you point to any image of a fetus anywhere on the internet that shows that feature of pharyngeal arches?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, I would appreciate it if you would cease putting words in my mouth and thoughts in my head. You are inaccurate in your characterizations of me, and I do not appreciate the implications, false assertions (which I have not made) and badgering. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * KC, I would not want to put thoughts in your head.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * More to the point, you cannot - so stop typing statements in which you attribute statements which I did not make to me, thoughts which I do not have to me, and in short focus on the content, and stop being a PITA towards me. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I asked you questions in order to get thoughts from your head, not to insert thoughts into your head. But I guess asking you these sincere and relevant questions will not elicit answers.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You used "When did you stop beating your wife?" type questions. This is harassment and a time waster. Its not sincere, and it isn't relevant. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * KC, I disagree. You previously said that you require a fetus image to include gills.  All I am asking is whether you still do, and if so why.  In answer, you referred me to a [diff written by another editor, so I asked whether you agree with that diff you referred me to.  I can see that virtually anything I say to you will be deemed harassment or badgering or some other such thing, so I decline to continue this conversation.  Good night.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I never said that, and no matter how many times you link t the diff it will not say that I did. Further, it has been made very clear to you that I was employing a colloquial term for "pharyngeal arches". Your repeated assertions that I "insist" on "gills" which are "fictional" is not remotely supported by the facts. You are employing the Fallacy of many questions technique. This is uncivil in the extreme. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Footnote for Gray's Anatomy
I removed the long footnote because it wasn't exactly a footnote, nor was it relevant. The parts about the tail and footnote were only added due to what some editors said on the talk page, and there is no reason for that to be added in a footnote of an unrelated image. The proper place to mention "An atrophied embryonic tail bud" is in the prose of the development section. Not sure we should say anything at all about "gills" in that a developing human never has gills and we don't have a section about what isn't developed during gestation. The part about gestational age seems quite a bit wordy and unnecessary, seeing as we say "eight weeks" in the image caption. Since that is a bit ambiguous, I wouldn't mind modifying it with "eight weeks after fertilization", or changing it to "ten weeks gestational age". But no need to explain all that in a footnote (we already discuss the difference between fertilization age and gestational age at the beginning of the Development section.) Finally, wikipedia is not an online image directory, and I don't see the point in linking to 6 different places online that have non-free images of fetuses. I can understand having a link or two in the external link section, but not six, and not in a footnote for an image. I think this research was not wasted, in that it helped talk page discussion, but I don't think it's appropriate to go live in the article. -Andrew c [talk] 23:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please let us know which external links you would find acceptable.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You know it isn't up to my own personal whim. Please see External links if you need a refresher. Keep in mind: Long lists of links are not appropriate: Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links. We don't need to source pad here. Just choose the best one (or two if necessary). -Andrew c [talk] 23:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * But I'd like your opinion as to which are best.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, here is my two cents, so please take it with a grain of salt. #1 isn't appropriate because it is a link to a copyrighted sample page from google books which IIRC requires registration to view. #2 seems to be from a reliable source, and has quite a bit of detail (though it would be nice if there were cited sources). #3 is nothing but an animation, but it may be worth whole to link to for a more general overview. #4, #5, and #6 are all about the same in my book. I think linking to each page would be too specific for the EL link section of this article, but linking to the overview page might be better. I still have some concerns about whether the content is more detailed than what we already have in the article (except for the images, they don't seem to present more indepth coverage than what we could foreseeably add here). Therefore, I think #2 (and maybe a different link related to #3) would be ok. What do others think? Should we add 6 links with very similar content? If not, are there any preferences for which are the best?-Andrew c [talk] 23:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Decidedly not 6 links and that essay which you quite correctly removed. I have not at this time a strong opinion on which might be best used here; however it seems to me that one, or at most two, should be sufficient, and the commentary should be trimmed or omitted. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict]I also intended to move the tail info to the development section myself. However, the Mayo clinic link did not mention "An atrophied embryonic tail bud". Do you recall the source for that info?-Andrew c [talk] 23:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Image #2 discusses the atrophied embryonic tail bud. Also, I think that image #3 could be appropriately footnoted at the end of the following sentence in the article: "The fetus bends the head, and also makes general movements and startles that involve the whole body."Ferrylodge (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Scanning
Scanning the above, and skipping the nastiness, I see people objecting to the images because they are not good enough- which we all agree on. However, there doesn't seem to be any effort being made by those who don't think the images good enough to get better ones, thus the lack of activity in the last few days. Thus, there is something in the statement that the perfect is being used as the enemy of the good.

I would feel very disappointed coming to this article and seeing the lack of images. I would feel that an article such as this is severely lacking without images. Considering the number of connected people on this page, it seems to me that more effort should be put into getting images.

I also don't see that the problems actually expressed above have not been addressed. If they have not, could someone remind me here?

The only current objection I know of is that they lack detail.

I'd also remind people that the images were removed without consensus, and that in Wikipedia we work forward from consensus. The stable version of the article contained the images. Thus that version of the article is the basis from which we are discussing, not the current edit-warred version. And I'll again say that while I do think we should have images, I don't particularly like these, nor do I have any POV about fetuses, except that they should not be mine.

Do people want to do a RfC or something? —— Martinphi   ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There are already images - drawings to give you an artist's sense of what this might look like, sonograms to let you see how doctors see it, and even a histological section for the pathologist's view. Sure, good additional imagery would be good to have. What ever happened to the cat fetus photo, for example? Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  02:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There is only one image currently in the article that says what stage of development is depicted, and that image (from Gray's anatomy) does not even show that a fetus has legs or feet. The sonograms are extremely fuzzy, and give the impression that there is basically nothing there until 20 weeks.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I was talking about pictures of stages of growth, showing size and shape. The other images are fine, though could be better.  The sonograms are good to have, but do not give enough detail to give the average reader a good idea.  Some are so bad you could interpret them as microscope images of germs. I suggest you replace the uh... rat image with the kitten one.  —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Replace? How about include both? They show substantially different things (a histological section vs an actual fetus), both of which are interesting/informative. Also, since the primary reason to have sequential images seems to be that people can better understand the development of a fetus, it is extraordinarily important to get things right. Misleading images are dangerous to that end. For your interest only (not for this article) check out this (not too great) photo of a real fetus from the Nat'l Museum of Health & Medicine. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  02:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, I see the caption. So yes, it obviously should be kept.    I love your pic, and have an even better one in a book, so I know what the pics ought to look like.  I don't care about inserting those particular pics.  But the way they were taken out doesn't seem to fit with the spirit of Wikipedia.  Also, I don't see where the POV assertions have been upheld, at least with the modifications offered.  To that extent, FerryLodge seems to have been very reasonable.   We're down to whether a less-detailed image is better than none. this image and others like it would be nearly ideal, though there might be good reason to say they are POV in terms of portraying a fetus as rather nasty.  We couldn't get it?  Well, it seems to have a defect anyway, from the tag ): —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 03:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, that's a lovely one. Well, the way I basically come down on the issue of POV is that it's very hard for me to imagine real photos being considered POV. (Obviously we'd want to be clear if there was some visible defect, etc., but that's what the description is for.) I think that FerryLodge has been sincere in offering compromise changes to the pictures he supports, but in the end I think (1) the figures aren't close enough to the real thing, and (2) they all "err" on the side of making the fetus look more cute/attractive. Every artistic interpretation will be off by a bit, but you'd hope that the artist wouldn't systematically skew the appearance of his subject. I think these are systematically skewed, which is why I still don't think they work here. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  03:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you think all three of the drawings are skewed? The last should look like a newborn, and I don't think it looks "cuter" than a newborn.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * And Martinphi, take a look at FerryLodge's question here. (Note that there was an edit conflict; originally, it was just a question without the follow-up sentence.) At face value, it's a reasonable question to ask, right? However, I'm sure you'll agree that by saying "they all err," it should already be obvious that I think that "all 3" are skewed. In that he is asking for repetitive information, it is unproductive and frustrating, and it is similar to how he has asked questions on this page previously. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  03:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I realized after writing the initial question that you had said "they all err". That's why I added the last sentence, because it doesn't make sense to me that you would be criticizing the last image.  I mean, everyone knows what a newborn looks like, and that's what the last image looks like.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, FerryLodge challenges people when it would be better to just let things slide. I'm guessing I could say more, and also say a good deal about KillerC, but I didn't read it. But that's tendentiousness on the part of FerryLodge and others, including I think OrangeMarlin, not a measure of whether he has the facts right or not. I wish we could just get some better pics and drop this. Photos can be POV, but most would not be. Abortion protesters use photos. —— Martinphi   ☎ Ψ Φ —— 03:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hah, well yes, if we showed a photo of someone skewering a fetus, for example, it would be POV (but mostly just because it would be off-topic for this article). Anyway, I was hoping to find some useful CC-licensed photos on flickr, but to no avail... Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  07:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Four brief comments: OrangeMarlin is a doctor, and regards medical misinformation as doing harm, which is a completely supportable position. If he is "tendentious" it is rather hostility towards inaccuracy rather than towards anything else. Secondly, Martin, you make much of how the images were "removed without consensus" yet ignore that they were placed in the article without consensus. The onus is on those wishing to include material to persuade others. Do not reverse the burden. Be bold, fine; if your edits are reverted then it is up to you to discuss and achieve consensus. Clearly, Ferrylodge has failed to do so. Thirdly, IMO it is better not to spam the article with objectionable images while we attempt to locate more acceptable ones. Lastly, if you find any of my statements "contentious" I would appreciate it if you would have a word with me on my talk page rather than make an incomplete half-accusation; that is character smearing, to call me a name without offering any opportunity for discussion on my meaning, or intent, or indeed even specifying what you are talking about. I find your stirring the pot by focusing on your opinions of other editors rather than the issue at hand less than helpful, and your insults without even so much as an attempt to specify or discuss objectionable. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Your points are good, yet the tone here is what I was talking about. Hostility towards innacuracy is still hostility, and doesn't promote consensus.  If OM had found something which was not accurate, I would have been more than willing to say that he was right.  If OM is a doctor, then he is the second one who has said to me that the images were not accurate.  Yet, both doctors seem to have a POV on the general subject, and neither was able to point out exactly what wasn't accurate, except that there is detail missing.  But there wasn't any good argument that such detail was left out for a particular POV, nor that its lack would do the reader any harm.  So, the whole thing leaves me confused as to why this subject seems to be of such emotional import.  —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 22:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * First, Martin and Ferrylodge are on notice with ArbCom decisions about their behavior. These personal attacks will be shown to an uninvolved admin for further review.  Second, KC is right.  These are POV images to sell an anti-abortion POV, and that's not acceptable with respect to a medical article.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 16:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * A few brief items in response.... You're certianly entitled to your opinion OrangeMarlin, but I agree with Thatcher, who said, "These drawings do not come from a partisan pro-life web site."


 * I would also appreciate if you'd clarify your position OrangeMarlin. You previously said about these images, "based on Guy's request that I accept them, I will."  Has that changed?  You said that before the images were converted to black and white, and I thought that changing the images to black and white would be something that you would favor.


 * Finally, I note that you already launched a section at Arbitration enforcement regarding my conduct at this article. If you want to launch another such section, then that's up to you, but I hope you will be specific about what you regard as personal attacks by me. I deny making personal attacks.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Since I live in a free country, I get to change my mind. Basically KC, who's back after a few month hiatus, agrees.  I'll just go present my thinking to Guy for further analysis.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 05:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If images almost exactly similar to these appear in College Level biology textbooks why wouldn't they be likewise useful here. I have hesitated to place a scan from a recent mainstream College Level textbook here, due to the fact that I believed editors were working on a compromise. I guess I have to go through the effort of scanning the image? I do not agree at all that these images advance a POV. If you take that position, then you are going to have to insist that the National Geographic and numerous publishers of College Level Textbooks are part of a grand pro-life conspiracy, as these images are on par with what are used by each. I personally believe that Martin and Ferrylodge went through a lot of effort to work with other editors and meet in the middle. My question is a simple one, exactly what is POV about these images? Do you believe that the National Geographic Society and College Level Textbook publishers are also in on this alleged POV? Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Absent the controversy surrounding the images, I must also ask as to why we are still insistent on including poor quality out of date 2D sonograms rather than the latest 4D sonograms? Some are suggesting that Martin and Ferrylodge are POV pushing because they approve of the drawings. Wouldn't it be easy for someone to claim POV pushing by those who insist on outdated 2D sonograms rather than updated 4D sonograms? Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57


 * Do you have any freely licensed 4D sonogram images? The major concern is that we just can't use any web image willy nilly. We need to make sure images abide by out image use policy. And that means images that are freely licensed, or that fall under fair use. This is also why we can't simply scan a text book and use that image (unless the image is freely licensed). Hope this helps.-Andrew c [talk] 17:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * How about we look and find some freely licensed 4D Sonogram images? We can find some. Additionally, I don't plan on scanning an image from a college textbook to use, only to show that the current images are not POV. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57


 * I don't approve of the images. I basically think they are more informative than nothing, but I don't approve of them or want them as anything but a stop-gap measure; but I'm not even pushing that.  I'll just say here that the tone of FerryLodge, KillerC, and OrangeMarlin on this page are far less than conciliatory.  My hope in saying that would be that they would be inspired to be more conciliatory and diplomatic.  Again, does anyone want to bring in some outside assistance on this, get some new eyes? —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 22:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Outside assistance would be fine.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * And Martin, I appreciate the further personal attacks. Nice.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 05:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If there's any way I personally attacked you, as opposed to stating my perception of your confrontational tone, then you have my sincere apology.


 * Do you want to get some outside eyes? —— Martinphi   ☎ Ψ Φ —— 05:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of sonogram images
The present sonogram images in the article are now unaccompanied by accurate drawings showing fetal development. Therefore, the sonogram images now provide the misleading impression that basically nothing is present until 20 weeks. Unless there is some reason to keep them, I will remove the present sonogram images. I also want to mention how disappointed I am in the conversation above about drawings of fetal development. I doubt that there will ever be consensus to add such drawings to this article, given the various arguments propounded above.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Removing other images because yours have not achieved consensus would strike me as a rather well-thought-out violation of WP:POINT. Please don't do this. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  17:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Antelan, as I said in my previous comment, "The present sonogram images in the article are now unaccompanied by accurate drawings showing fetal development. Therefore, the sonogram images now provide the misleading impression that basically nothing is present until 20 weeks."  Do you disagree?  If so, why?  Information presented out of context is potentially just as misleading as false information.  Would you at least agree that it is probably not a good idea for a Wikipedia article on this subject to give the impression that basically nothing is present until 20 weeks?  See WP:SYN: "even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are also engaged in original research."Ferrylodge (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * When I click on the images, it is very clear where the fetus is, even on the first sonogram. Again, be careful about WP:POINT edits. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  17:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Scan07semanas.png|thumb]][[Image:40_weeks_pregnant.jpg|thumb|left]]Antelan, if I understand you correctly, you contend that people can "see the fetus just fine" in the sonogram to the right, but that the image to the left looks "more cute/attractive" than an actual newborn. In my opinion, excluding the image to the left, and only including the sonogram to the right, is an extreme example of skewing an article.  Please be careful about WP:NPOV.  Additionally, the burden for including material at Wikipedia is on the includer, especially for recently-added material such as the sonogram to the right.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

FL, I have no idea what the appropriate decision here should be. But harassing others and causing trouble, coupled with your probation means that it would probably be prudent to edit other articles, right?--Filll (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Fill, are you going to put this message at every article that I edit, whether or not you have any idea about it?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the 2D Sonogram is very clear. I know many laypeople will NOT be able to pick out where the Fetus is in the 2D Sonograms. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57


 * Does that mean you support removing the the "2D Sonogram" images from the current article?-Andrew c [talk] 22:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I absolutely support replacing the 2D images with 4D images. Short of that, I would support inclusion of the drawings that were being worked on above. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 01:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57


 * Nobody here has said that the 2D sonogram is very clear, so it is not clear with whom you are disagreeing. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  01:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Antelan, you said in this talk page section, "When I click on the images, it is very clear where the fetus is...." It seems certain that Ghostmonkey57 was alluding to that statement of yours.  But since you and Andrew c do not seem to understand what Ghostmonkey57 was saying, we will wait for further clarification.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * My reference was to the "it is very clear where the fetus is" comment. I disagree. The images are not clear, and would not be clear to most people where the fetus was. This is why 4D images are replacing the outdated 2D technology. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57
 * Fine, you disagree. That's really not the point of this at all. The point is that FerryLodge announced his plans to make a WP:POINT edit, and I suggested that he not do it. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  02:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Antelan, if some information A should be put into context B in a Wikiepdia article, but context B is excluded from the article, then there is nothing WP:POINT about wanting to also exclude information A.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said above looks much more like a microscopic image of a germ than anything. I don't want to take sides here, but where is the fetus? Is it the large semi-circular shape or the small black thingy? In pic, the same applies: even looking at it knowing it is a fetus, I can't tell what the fetus is, except that I just assume that where there are some variations that must be it. They are 100% dreadful- (and Antelan, BTW, there are better ITC images than that). Seriously, I do have a POV in this article on this issue. These images are horrible, and if we are going to force this whole debate into pro or anti abortion, one would have to say that they are pro abortion, in that they make the fetus, if one can even figure out where it is, look like nothing. They are, in short, much much much less accurate and detailed than FerryLodge's not-detailed-enough images. I don't know what it is, but something needs to be done. I can see how the images FerryLodge wants are definitely not ideal, but I can also see how including them is informative to the reader- much more so than the sonograms. —— Martinphi   ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you want the truth, or do you want something nice to look at? Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  02:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Truth!Ferrylodge (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Truth. However, those ultrasounds convey the truth of what ultrasound sees, not the truth.  FerryLodge's pics portray much more of the truth than they do.  I have a pic which is a photo of a fetus, seemingly natural color.  And we agreed above on a pic which has the details which this article should really  have.  But the ultrasound is good only as a demo of ultrasound, nothing else. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 05:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The Truth would be something like the National Geographic Society produced in conjunction with the Endowment for Human Development. http://www.ehd.org/prenatal-images-index.php Can anyone find anything POV with the National Geographic Society DVD (http://www.ehd.org/movies.php?mov_id=47&cell=3) If so, What? If not, how do their drawings differ from ours? Ghostmonkey57 (talk)Ghostmonkey57  —Preceding comment was added at 03:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's right. Exactly. —— Martinphi   ☎ Ψ Φ —— 05:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, they have truly beautiful 3D (and 4D) sonograms. Is this the point of the discussion here? No. The point is that we were attempting to dissuade FerryLodge from making a WP:POINT edit, and it looks like that has been successful. Ante lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  16:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Closing the discussion does not seem like a civil response to a reasonable question. Antelan, I join Ghostmonkey57 and Martinphi in asking you "how do their drawings differ from ours?" You have repeatedly declined to identify any specific feature of those drawings that is inaccurate, beyond saying that they are too "cute."

And, Antelan, you are the only one who has suggested anything here about WP:POINT. Regarding WP:POINT, you have not replied to my explanation: "if some information A should be put into context B in a Wikiepedia article, but context B is excluded from the article, then there is nothing WP:POINT about wanting to also exclude information A." It seems that you want to include fuzzy sonograms that give the misleading impression that virtually nothing is present until 20 weeks, while removing drawings that show fetal development at the beginning, middle, and end of the fetal stage (those drawings provide context for the sonograms). Again, I urge you to see WP:NPOV, and WP:CIVILITY as well.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Fetal Pain Comment
I added the following link: http://www.gargaro.com/fetalpain.html

and a comment regarding Dr. Paul Ranalli's outline that a fetus feels pain at least at 20 weeks, and most likely earlier. The commented which included the citing, was removed. Danielchi (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't do the removal, but that website's title is "Pro-Woman Pro-Life - Stop Abortion Choose Life". It's not exactly the neutral, reliable type of source we're going for here. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  21:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

When I click on the site, the website's title is 'Does fetus feel pain. Summary of the presentation ...'

So several Telegraph articles are linked below. Would those be acceptable? Surely Wikipedia does not take the view that every doctor or medical professional who is pro-life is an unrelialbe type of source. Danielchi (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the biggest issue here is that we have a very generalized overview of the debate. We don't get into the specifics here, because we have another article which deals entirely with the topic of fetal pain. Your edit introduced one specific example between generalized sentences. Also, the way you phrased your edit made it seem like the doctors findings were facts. And that doesn't seem to make sense when we have one source which states "there is no consensus among the medical and scientific experts about precisely when a fetus becomes pain-capable" and then we have the next sentence which gives various numbers that doctors have thrown out "during the first 12 weeks or after 20, 24, or 26 weeks gestation, or months after birth." Next, with sourcing, you should read up WP:RS if you haven't already. Self-published sites are normally avoided. Now, if you had a peer reviewed paper that the doctor has published in a notable jounral, that'd be much better. Or if there was an independent secondary source (say a newspaper or science magazine known for good fact checking) which talked about the doctor's findings, we could clearly cite that as well. Anyway, hope that helps. If you want to focus more on the fetal pain issue, I strongly suggest working on that article first. It is normally a bad thing to have a summary section saying things that aren't even in the parent article.-Andrew c [talk] 01:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Danielchi, if you click to the main page of that site, there you will see the title that I talked about above. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  22:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Fetal movement
This sentence is not exactly accurate for its omissions: The fetus bends the head, and also makes general movements and startles that involve the whole body.

This is made to sound like the fetus is in control of its movements, when in fact, the literature cited clearly indicates that these are involuntary movements associated with the development of certain neuropathways. It seems as though medical texts are being cited to develop a certain POV, or at least make the page read as though it is for expectant mothers.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Similar Language is used by the EHD in conjunction with the National Geographic Society. http://www.ehd.org/movies.php?mov_id=47 Surely you don't suggest that the National Geographic Society, the epitome of an unbiased and secondary reliable source, should not be used on this page? Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57


 * Alice, are you aware that when you deleted the footnote for this statement, you also ruined another footnote that relied on the same reference? And, would it be asking too much to look at what the reference actually says?  The reference is Prechtl, Heinz. "Prenatal and Early Postnatal Development of Human Motor Behavior" in Handbook of brain and behaviour in human development, Kalverboer and Gramsbergen eds., pp. 415-418 (2001 Kluwer Academic Publishers).  At page 416: "The first movements to occur are sideward bendings of the head.  These are first seen at 7 ½ - 8 weeks postmenstrual age (counted from the first day of the last menstruation before the amenorrhoea)."  At page 417: "At 9-10 weeks postmestrual age complex and generalized movements occur.  These are the so-called general movements (Prechtl et al., 1979) and the startles.  Both include the whole body, but the general movements are slower and have a complex sequence of involved body parts, while the startle is a quick, phasic movement of all limbs and trunk and neck."  So where is the misrepresentation?  If you seriously think there was a misrepresentation, why not rephrase instead of take a meat ax to the article?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Alice, I see that you choose to completely ignore the preceding comments from myself and another editor, and choose to just completely steamroll this article, implementing your POV without any discussion, ignoring the cited sources, and disregarding just about every Wikipedia guideline in existence. It will be interesting to see whether some of the other editors who have been involved with this article do anything to stop you.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Revised drawings
Per discussion with Andrew c at my talk page, and also some discussion at the Wikipedia graphic lab, the following images are slightly revised to remove artifacts that Andrew c had objected against above. Thank you to Andrew c for helping to remove them.

If you click on each image, you'll see that sources are provided for assessment of accuracy (and a link is provided to the original color version). I'd like to reinsert these images into the article, and I do not object to leaving the existing ultrasounds in the article as long as they are presented together with drawings that provide context (although the 7-week ultrasound should be removed because it's for an embryo rather than a fetus).

Just as a reminder, there was considerable support for including the color versions of these drawings in this article. See here. Subsequently, the drawings have been converted to black and white and then desaturated.

If there are objections to reinserting these drawings into the article, please be specific about what you think is not supported by the sources listed at the image page for each image. We've discussed this for a long time among ourselves, so if there are still objections then I expect to start up an RfC. I would also oppose inclusion of the recently-added ultrasounds, unless they are put in context by including drawings, because the ultrasounds are very fuzzy and would thus be misleading by themselves.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * These are much better than the bright pink ones. What about "Artist's conception" instead of "Rough sketch"? KillerChihuahua?!? 20:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've just modified the captions so they say "Artist's depiction" instead of "Rough sketch."Ferrylodge (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the quotes to "inches."--IronAngelAlice (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Crown to rump length

 * Sorry, "crown to rump" is not correct terminology. Let's just stick to "inches."--IronAngelAlice (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Alice, if you want to dispute facts, why not cite a source? The term "crown to rump" is a very common term.  Wikipedia is supposed to be based on reliable sources, rather than personal opinion.  Do you think that your opinion should prevail over reliable sources?  See Marc H. Bornstein, Michael E. Lamb.  Developmental Science: An Advanced Textbook, page 227 (2005): “At 8 weeks, fetuses measure 3.18 cm from crown to rump (1.25 inches).”Ferrylodge (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that your sources are not reliable. They include the following:
 * http://www.123rf.com/photo_195549.html


 * A page called Making a decision about your pregnancy


 * http://www.babycenter.com


 * http://kei.ki/en/Second_trimester

It seems to me that it is your personal opinion that "crown to rump" is the best terminology. I think that simply labeling the pictures as 1.25 inches is sufficient. This page shouldn't read like a page for expectant mothers because, indeed, not everyone who reads the page will be an expectant mother.

Also, an obscure reference (two hundred pages into the text) to an obscure medical reference doesn't quite constitute appropriate medical terminology. This is cherry-picking at its best. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Alice, I linked to Google search results to show you that "Crown to rump" is a very common term. The only specific source I cited was the textbook by Bornstein et al.  I could site dozens of other textbooks to you as well.  But you would just dismiss them, right?  You have cited nothing to show that 1.25 inches is anything but crown to rump length.  Why do you insist on writing what you want, instead of what reliable sources say?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, I'm not interested in having a debate with you or get in an edit war. Let's just be honest with each other here. The term "head to rump" is terminology used on websites for expectant mothers. The term "head to rump" is not medical or pseudo-medical terminology. All I'm saying is that this page shouldn't read like a page for expectant mothers. Can we at least agree on that?--IronAngelAlice (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Alice, first of all, I am honest, and don't need to be told to be honest. Secondly, if I find a dozen medical texts that all say a fetus is 1.25 inches from "crown to rump", will you simply dismiss those medical texts?  I've already supplied you with one such text, and I do not wish to waste my time providing you with links to eleven other medical texts if you are simply going to replace them with your own personal opinion.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm trying to find places for us to agree. But first I have to say that I see one obscure reference in one medical text that says "crown to rump" for a fetus at that stage. (Though I do sometimes read veterinary texts that say this.) I do not see dozens of medical texts that say it. I see mostly expectant mother websites that say "crown to rump." Now with that said, wouldn't you agree that this page should not read like a page for expectant mothers? Can we agree on that? --IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We certainly can agree on that. Nor should it read as either one of us would personally prefer it to read.  What I am trying to tell you is that standard medical texts often refer to the size of a fetus using "crown to rump" length.  If you would please be so kind as to inform me how much proof you require, then I will provide that proof to you.  Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well look, I think you can provide evidence for your case, and I can provide evidence for my case (that medical texts usual refer to "fetal length" not "crown to rump"). I think this is a perfect case for getting others opinions for consensus. And then Que Sera. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Alice, this is a straightforward factual matter. A typical 8-week fetus is 1.25 inches from crown to rump rather than from head to toe.  It's straightforward biology, and does not depend upon what you think or what I think.


 * You're correct that many medical texts use the phrase "fetal length" when discussing an 8-week fetus, and that means the length from crown to rump, rather than from head to toe. How much proof do you want?  I'll provide that proof to you if you would only be kind enough to tell me how much proof you want.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * UH, is anyone aware that CRL even has it's own article here on wikipedia? Crown-rump length. On top of it all, Crown-rump length is a recognized medical term in medical dictionaries: crown-rump length
 * n. The length of an embryo or fetus measured from the skull vertex to the midpoint between the apices of the buttocks. The American Heritage® Medical Dictionary Copyright © 2007, 2004 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57


 * Thanks for the info, Ghostmonkey57.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ghostmonkey57 here. A search through amazon or google books will find a number of professional or college level texts which define or matter-of-factly use the term "crown-rump length" or CRL. Through my personal knowledge of ultrasonography, there are a number of ways to measure a fetus/embryo in order to estimate gestational age. When you get further into a pregnancy, you can't use CRL anymore because the fetus is too large and won't fit entirely on the screen so you measure just the head (Biparietal diameter or BPD). And when the pregnancy is real early, you measure the size of the whole sac (Gestational sac diameter or GSD). There is also femur length and head circumfrance and surely other measurements as well. I'd be glad to dig up sources, but I suggest just doing a quick pubmed search of any of these terms for verification.-Andrew c [talk] 03:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a point of clarification, the reference on the "Crown-rump length" page are not college texts, but are expectant mother websites. I honestly don't know any researchers or doctors that use "crown-rump" terminology. The American Heritage Medical Dictionary is mostly for non-professionals. Further, I can't find that terminology in the actual book. What page is it supposed to be in? The one article I did find that deals with this specifically is: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7GH2-4C9KGDC-K&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=7a276a884382181f916a746ab418f9fa So, the term does appear to be used. Fetal length is not my specialty, but I had heard few people use the "crown to rump" terminology for human fetuses.

(Btw, I'm not a medical researcher, I don't want to give that impression. I am, however, a graduate student doing work on subjects on research surrounding fetuses and resulting sociological and historical phenomena.)

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 05:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Try this.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the seventh hit is especially good, in that it is from a peer reviewed, technical journal whose target audience clearly isn't expectant mothers, and it clearly illustrates the use of the term in a professional application.-Andrew c [talk] 19:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, and the other 13,799 hits seem good too.


 * Any thoughts about IAA's other massive edits yesterday? I commented below, received no response, and am inclined to revert some of them.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Fetal movement
This edit was accompanied by the following edit summary: "This is a misrepresentation of the work cited; will discuss on talk page." Please discuss, because I'm not aware of any misrepresentation.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see my explanation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fetus#Fetal_movement
 * --IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Alice, two editors have disagreed with your explanation, and yet you ignored that disagreement, and went ahead with this edit. Your edit summary says "mischaracterization; POV problems." Here is the material that you say contained mischaracterization and POV problems:

In addition to sideward bendings of the head, complex and generalized movements occur, with movements and startles that involve the whole body.*


 * Prechtl, Heinz. "Prenatal and Early Postnatal Development of Human Motor Behavior" in Handbook of brain and behaviour in human development, Kalverboer and Gramsbergen eds., pp. 415-418 (2001 Kluwer Academic Publishers): "The first movements to occur are sideward bendings of the head....At 9-10 weeks postmestrual age complex and generalized movements occur. These are the so-called general movements (Prechtl et al., 1979) and the startles. Both include the whole body, but the general movements are slower and have a complex sequence of involved body parts, while the startle is a quick, phasic movement of all limbs and trunk and neck."

Where is the mischaracterization or POV problem? The Prechtl reference is available via Google books, so you can confirm that all the quotes in the footnote are accurate. Do you dispute that they are accurate quotes? If you do not dispute that the quotes are accurate, then why allege mischaracterization or POV? You replaced the above sentence in the text with this sentence: "Generalized, involuntary movements occur as neuropathways start to form.*" Where in the footnoted quotations is there any discussion of "involuntary" movements, or "neuropathways"? Why do you wish to replace material in the cited source with material that is not in the cited source?Ferrylodge (talk) 06:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * They are accurate quotes, but they are NOT in context. You have to let the reader know that the fetus isn't sentient, and that these movements are involuntary and are a result of growing pathways.  Yes, neuropathways are my words (we can also add "growing bodily mechanisms"), but this is a summary.  By making it seem as though the fetus is sentient, you are creating (whether knowingly or not) a POV. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you believe that additional context would be helpful, then how about this: provide context.  Why just delete everything, instead of providing whatever context you think would be appropriate?  And I'm curious to see your reliable source, since the sentience of a fetus is a very hotly disputed topic.  Or do you want to present lack of fetal sentience as undisputed fact?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I did provide context. And I did not "delete everything."  I believe that is what you are objecting to.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As you know, you deleted this well-sourced statement: “In addition to sideward bendings of the head, complex and generalized movements occur, with movements and startles that involve the whole body.” You replaced it with material that you falsely attributed to the footnoted source, regarding "involuntary" and "neuropathways.”Ferrylodge (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, I was giving context, and will be happy to add relevant source documents. There is a certain amount of editorializing on the part of whomever added that sentence and the reference because it makes it seem as though the fetus is capable of command movements, or that these movements are voluntary.  They aren't. A good source for this would be the book Maternal-fetal medicine: principles and practice (around page 357) By Robert K. Creasy, Robert Resnik, Jay D. Iams--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You were not giving context. You were deleting well-sourced material instead of giving context to it.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I also find your later edits to be extremely slanted and biased against the reliable cited sources. For example, your next edit was this one. You replace the sourced statement ("The fetus continues to move in distinct motor patterns, picking up new patterns such as localized movement of the arms and legs, hiccups, breathing-like movements, and stretches and yawns") with your own unsourced statement ("The fetus moves as a result of involuntary movements as organs further develop"). Why do you wish to delete this material, that is fully supported by the cited sources? At the same time, you also deleted this statement: "At nine weeks, the fetus is able to bend fingers around an object; in response to a touch on the foot, the fetus will bend the legs or curl the toes to move away from the object." Do you believe that statement is inaccurate, or uninteresting, or unsupported by cited reliable sources?Ferrylodge (talk) 06:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, they are accurate quotes, but they are NOT in context. You have to let the reader know that the fetus isn't sentient, and that these movements are involuntary and are a result of growing pathways, organs, etc.  Yes, a fetus can wrap a finger around an object, but the fetus isn't sentient, and it not making a conscious movement.  By making it seem as though the fetus is sentient, you are creating (whether knowingly or not) a POV. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you believe that additional context would be helpful, then how about this: provide context.  Why just delete everything, instead of providing whatever context you think would be appropriate?  And I'm curious to see your reliable source, since the sentience of a fetus is a very hotly disputed topic.  Or do you want to present lack of fetal sentience as undisputed fact?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I did provide context. And I did not "delete everything."  I believe that is what you are objecting to.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As you know, you deleted this well-sourced statement: “The fetus continues to move in distinct motor patterns, picking up new patterns such as localized movement of the arms and legs, hiccups, breathing-like movements, and stretches and yawns.” And this one: “At nine weeks, the fetus is able to bend fingers around an object; in response to a touch on the foot, the fetus will bend the legs or curl the toes to move away from the object.”Ferrylodge (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, the statements are accurate, but are out of context. The fetus moves arms, makes breathing-like movements, yawns and stretches because those mechanisms are beginning to form.  NOT because the fetus is sentient and consciously performs those tasks. This should be made clear to the reader.  Again, there is a certain amount of editorializing on the part of whomever added that sentence and the reference because it makes it seem as though the fetus is capable of command movements, or that these movements are voluntary. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You were not giving context. You were deleting well-sourced material instead of giving context to it.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think those quotes would be appropriate if they were to explain that a fetus is not sentient, that those functions are involuntary nd are a result of the bio-mechanisms beginning to form. Please stop representing this as though I'm deleting everything. This is what the paragraph now says (I've bolded my additions):

The head makes up nearly half of the fetus' size. The fetus moves involuntarily as organs develop, though the fetus is not sentient and cannot feel pain. Some breathing-like movements of the fetus are necessary for stimulation of lung development, rather than for obtaining oxygen. Eyelids close and remain closed for several months. In weeks 12 to 14, signs of genitals in females, males, and intersex fetuses becomes apparent. Tooth buds appear, the limbs are long and thin, and red blood cells are produced in the liver, however the majority of red blood cells will be made later in gestation (at 21 weeks) by bone marrow. A fine hair called lanugo develops on the head. The gastrointestinal tract, still forming, starts to collect sloughed skin and lanugo, as well as hepatic products, forming meconium (stool). Fetal skin is almost transparent. More muscle tissue and bones have developed, and the bones become harder. The first measurable signs of EEG movement occur in the 12th week. By the end of this stage, the fetus has reached about 15 cm (6 inches).
 * 8 to 15 weeks


 * Please provide a source saying that "a fetus is not sentient, that those functions are involuntary." If a reliable source says what you assert, then we can include it in the article.  But please do not delete material from this article merely because you cannot find a reliable source that provides the context you would like.  Your marked up version does not show all the material that you deleted, only what you added.  The footnotes at the end of the sentence I just quoted do not support your newly added material, and thus your edits are grossly misleading.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I, too, feel that you have found source material that you liked, have taken that source material out of context, and have therefore given it a POV. By claiming that a fetus has motor function and can "suck its thumb," for example, you have given the fetus sentience by omission - when most of the parts of the brain that are required for sentience (i.e. feeling pain, controlled motor function, higher order thinking, etc.) haven't even begun to form  (i.e. the relevant parts of the thalamus).  Surely you can see how this is a problem.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 05:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sentience and pain and facial formation
Moving along to your next edit (which again was made without any discussion or explanation at this talk page), it was here. Your edit summary says, “editorialization; notably POV when put in this context.” That edit summary described your edited version very well. You insert your opinion that, “the fetus is not sentient and cannot feel pain.” Not only does material about pain belong in the section of this Wikipedia article on fetal pain, but additionally you are misattributing your own views to your cited source. Your cited source is “Collins, Vincent et al.’Fetal Pain and Abortion: the Medical Evidence’, '’Studies in Law and Medicine’, No 18 (1984).” Contrary to what you say, that reference does not rule out sentience or pain during the first trimester. Collins wrote: "because the requisite neurological structures are present at that time and because they are functioning, as evidenced by the aversive response of the human fetus, it may be concluded with reasonable medical certainty that the fetus can sense pain at least by 13 ½ weeks" (emphasis added). How do you infer that “the fetus is not sentient and cannot feel pain” at any particular point before 13 1/2 weeks? You also deleted the following statement from this Wikipedia article: “The face is well-formed and develops a more human appearance.” Do you believe that the cited sources were engaging in POV editorializing? The cited sources (that you deleted) were: George H. Fried and George J. Hademenos, Schaum's Outline of Theory and Problems of Biology ("After two months the embryo takes on a human appearance and graduates to the status of fetus”) and Medline Plus Medical Encyclopedia (From weeks 9 to 12, the "face is well-formed"). Do you think those sources engage in POV editorializing?Ferrylodge (talk) 07:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see the fetal pain page. It's clear that the majority of researchers believe that a fetus feels pain much later in the pregnancy.  Both the British Medical Journal  and the Journal of the American Medical Association have done reviews and meta-analyses, and concluded that pain fetal pain begins in the third trimester. Others have claimed it begins at week 24 - far after the first trimester.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Here notable are the studies:

In 2006, a clinical review published in the British Medical Journal concluded that pain is dependent upon cognitive and emotional developments that occur after birth: "Theories of development assume that the early human mind begins with minimal content and gradually evolves into the rich experience of older children and adults. Although the view of a neonate as a blank slate, or tabula rasa, is generally rejected, it is broadly accepted that psychological processes have content concerning people, objects, and symbols, which lay in the first instance outside the brain. If pain also depends on content derived from outside the brain, then fetal pain cannot be possible, regardless of neural development."

In 2001, a working group of the Medical Research Council (UK) in the United Kingdom suggested that doctors should consider the use of analgesia and sedation for fetuses over 24 weeks of age undergoing surgery. Dr. Eve Johnstone, the chair of that working group, told The Daily Telegraph that a fetus was aware of pain by 24 weeks, maybe as early as 20 weeks, because "[c]onnections from the thalamus to the cortex begin to form at about 20 weeks gestation."

Also in 1997, a "Working Party" appointed by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, a medical group in the United Kingdom, stated that "very early in pregnancy fetuses will react to stimuli, but that reaction does not in itself provide any evidence that the fetus experiences those stimuli." The Working Party further stated that, "Little sensory input" reaches the brain of the developing foetus before 26 weeks, and "therefore reactions to noxious stimuli cannot be interpreted as feeling or perceiving pain." In 2005, Mellor and colleagues reviewed several lines of evidence that suggested a fetus does not awaken during its time in the womb. If the fetus is asleep throughout gestation then the possibility of fetal pain is greatly minimized.

Later in 2005, a meta-analysis (or "review") of existing experiments published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) concluded that the limited available evidence indicates fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester, and that electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in premature infants probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks; this study asserted that withdrawal reflexes and changes in heart rates and hormone levels in response to invasive procedures are reflexes that do not indicate fetal pain.

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Why do you insist on discussing fetal pain in this article before the section on fetal pain? Isn't the purpose of having section headers so that the content of those sections will correspond to the section headers?  And do you have no response at all to the objection that you deleted the following sentence?  “The face is well-formed and develops a more human appearance.”  And do you still insist that the Collins reference (which you inserted into this article) rules out sentience or pain during the first trimester?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Pardon me? I believe you mentioned the subject of fetal pain.  As far as the quote, "develops a more human appearance" seems to me to be extremely subjective.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As you must know, you inserted this statement prior to the fetal pain section: “the fetus is not sentient and cannot feel pain.” Why?  You claim this is supported by the Collins reference, but that is false.  And please let’s not conflate fetal pain with fetal sentience.  Regarding the alleged subjectivity of the phrase “develops a more human appearance", there is nothing subjective about the fact that reputable and reliable sources use this description, and no reliable sources contradict it.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bringing the lack of the link to the fetal pain article to my attention. I corrected this error. Furthermore, the Collins reference does not say that a fetus feels pain at 8-15 weeks. Please do not misrepresent what he said.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As you know, I did not say anything about a lack of a link to the fetal pain article. There has long been such a link in this article, and it is located in the section of this article on fetal pain.  That section is where material about fetal pain belongs.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Genitals
Your next edit inserted the following statement into the article: "In weeks 12 to 14, signs of genitals in females, males, and intersex fetuses becomes apparent." But that's not accurate. According to NIH, genitals appear well differentiated during weeks 9 to 12. Why add weeks to the timeline?Ferrylodge (talk) 07:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * But they do not become apparent. I was actually using your source for that.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not have any idea what source your are referring to. The following statement that you inserted into the article has no footnote: "In weeks 12 to 14, signs of genitals in females, males, and intersex fetuses becomes apparent."Ferrylodge (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't insert the intersex comment, Photuploaded did. I added the correct week that genitals become apparent. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You know very well that you inserted the phrase “In weeks 12 to 14.” You did not provide a source, and I have given you a reliable source that contradicts your statement.  The normal procedure here would be for you to acknowledge the error, or provide a source that contradicts the one I provided.  It is not normal procedure to simply claim that your unsourced statement is correct, and that the reliable sources are incorrect.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks as though it was accidentally deleted. The quote says: "By week 12 to 14, your baby's external genitalia are recognizably male or female, but they're still not completely formed."--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? I used the source that was already there: http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,5276,00.html


 * First of all, that source is not in the article now. Therefore, I had no way of knowing you were relying on that source.  In any event, your reliance on that source is mistaken, because that source uses gestational age.  Subtract two weeks, and you will get the correct numbers for this article.  Please use the correct numbers, and please cite the source.  Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please feel free to correct it. I am having difficulty keeping everything straight.  I appreciate your help on this matter.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 04:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Caplan
I’ll skip over one of your edits, and come to this one. You deleted the following material in the section on fetal pain: “The ability of a fetus to feel pain is often part of the abortion debate. According to Arthur Caplan, in testimony to United States Congress, ‘there is no consensus among the medical and scientific experts about precisely when a fetus becomes pain-capable.’ Caplan, Arthur. Testimony to U.S. Congress, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. "Oversight Hearing on Pain of the Unborn." (2005-11-01).” Your edit summary says, “obvious pro-life agenda of the subcommittee; this is not a scientific body.”  This quote is not from a subcommittee, but rather from a world-renowned doctor testifying under oath. Moreover, your suggestion of pro-life bias is obviously wrong, given that this particular doctor (Arthur Caplan) testified in favor of the pro-choice position that “it is overreaching for Congress to insist on precisely what each provider must say to each woman prior to an abortion or any other medical procedure.” So again, it just seems like you are editing this Wikipedia article willy-nilly to delete information that you do not like.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * A U.S. House subcommittee is not a scientific body. The subcommittee was composed of and for Republican, pro-life Representatives.  A quote that says (paraphrase) "there is no scientific consensus on how early a fetus is able to feel pain" does not represent the full story: the vast majority of scientific literature suggests a fetus is not capable of feeling pain before the 24th week.  Some, however, believe that they feel pain in the third trimester.  --IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * So nothing any scientist ever says under oath can be included in a scientific Wikipedia article? Is that what you are saying?  I have never heard anything so implausible.  What rationale would there be for that?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice straw man. Please see above references to meta-analyses on fetal pain.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you now saying that testimony by a scientist under oath can be included in a scientific Wikipedia article? Then why did you delete the testimony of Arthur Caplan ("there is no consensus among the medical and scientific experts about precisely when a fetus becomes pain-capable") from this article?  Because you would prefer to tell readers that there is consensus in favor of your personal POV?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have never said that, and you are creating a straw man. Please stop name calling and let's speak rationally.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * My previous comment did not call you any names, nor did it make any assertions at all. I asked three questions.  But maybe I can boil it down to one question.  Why did you delete the testimony of Arthur Caplan ("there is no consensus among the medical and scientific experts about precisely when a fetus becomes pain-capable") from this article?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Because it is not notable in relation to the conclusions of a meta-analysis reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the British Medical Journal, etc (see above). Medical researchers believe the ability of a fetus to feel pain starts in the 3rd trimester, with some evidence that it begins in the 24th week, in part because the thalamus hasn't finished forming until then. Moreover, though I stand firm in my belief that Caplan is not notable, the comment that "there is no agreement by doctors on when a fetus begins to feel pain" (paraphrase), has been used in the context of this article to suggest that a fetus may begin to feel pain at any point in pregnancy. Again, research and the meta-analysis does not bear this out. Furthermore, in [his column, he writes that he did a "quick search" of the literature on fetal pain.  He is not an expert in the area. --[[User:IronAngelAlice|IronAngelAlice]] (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Placement of ultrasounds
Earlier today, I placed the ultrasound images immediately before the section on viability (i.e. immediately after the subsection about variation in growth). The ultrasounds were subsequently moved, and I think the resulting format looks bad, with too many images clustered together.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought we agreed earlier that the ultrasounds and the drawings would be used together to represent the fetus.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to including both in this article, but they should not be all clumped together, if that ruins the appearance of the article. Clumping together worked well in the Pregnancy article, but I tried it here and it didn't look very good.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Restoring material
Okay, as best I understand, IronAngelAlice (IAA) is agreeable to restoration of some of the deleted material, provided that it is put in the “context” that she has added. So, I will restore some of the material that was deleted here and here, while tentatively keeping the “context” that was added.

IAA has also agreed to correction of the statement about the appearance of genitals, so I’ll fix that too. And again, stuff about “pain” ought to go in the section of the article on pain.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Unrestoring material

 * Please don't restore the material until we have further input. The material you added is taken out of context from medical books and expectant mother websites.  The way that the material is presented suggests that the fetus is sentient, and that movements are purposeful.  These are not true representations.  I've added appropriate references to put these things back in context.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Alice, I am trying my best to reach agreement and consensus with you, and it's not helping that you are changing what you agreed to here and here. The edits I made inserted the word "involuntary" three times.  Need I say that more times? And please be kind enough to tell me which "expectant mother website" you are referring to.  Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

First, I haven't agreed to any of your edits. Please don't imply that I have. I am reverting until we have formed a paragraph we can agree on. For you to write, "some sources assert that those movements are involuntary" is just silly. No researcher believes that movements at that stage are sentient and voluntary.

Furthermore, the "expectant mother websites" are used as references. Please don't be condescending. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you declining to identify what "expectant mother websites" you are talking about? And declining to provide a reference to support the statement that "some sources assert that those movements are involuntary"?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * First, I'm asking you to be civil. Second, the expectant mother cite before your edit was: http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,4548,00.html

On that website, they talk about "generalized movements." But, this is not the main problem we are having. Why do you keep deleting my references and citations that point to the fact that a fetus at this stage is not sentient and the movements are involuntary, and result from the tissues and neuropathways forming?!?!--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for identifying that "expectant mother website" that you are referring to. Have I recently inserted the "Dr. Spock" reference into this article?  I do not see it in red here.  As you can see from that edit, I did insert three "citation needed" tags.  If you have a citation that you think points to the fact that a fetus at this stage is not sentient and the movements are involuntary, then why not insert that citation in place of the three "citation needed" tags?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm running thin on patience. The Dr. Spock reference was there for months. And I've been adding the JAMA (2005) article for several edits, and you keep reverting it. Please be more civil.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Alice, telling civil people to stop being uncivil is uncivil, wouldn't you agree? The Dr. Spock reference was not inserted by any edit that I made recently, and therefore it is no justification for you to revert any edit that I made recently.  So please stop mentioning that reference as a reason for reverting my recent edits.  Thanks.


 * Regarding the JAMA article, as I said, that can be inserted in place of the "citation needed" tags, which can be done without rewriting large portions of the article. After it is inserted in place of the "citation needed" tags, then maybe we will discuss whether that JAMA article really stands for the propositions for which you cite it.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Um, I haven't re-written "large portions," I've added clarifying clauses. (Your terminology continues to be uncivil.)  Please do look at the JAMA article.  I have the journal right here in my hands.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Alice, please can't we take one thing at a time? We'll get to the JAMA article in due time.  But there are other matters to cover first.  We are already reverting each other way too many times, and needlessly because these matters should be discussed civilly here at the talk page first.  Below, I asked you whether you have better wording for the section on "Legal Issues."  Can't we finish addressing that first?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Legal issues
I am having some difficulty understanding this edit. The edit summary says "making this accurate; adding reference." Here's the original version:

Especially since the 1970s, there has been continuing debate over the personhood of the human fetus. Although abortion of a fetus before viability is generally legal in the United States following the case of Roe v. Wade, the third-party-killing of a fetus can be punishable as feticide or homicide throughout the pregnancy, depending on jurisdiction.

Here's the edited version:

In the United States, some states have laws that impose strict punishments for those who inflict violence that results in damage to a fetus or the unwanted termination of a pregnancy. The severity of the punishment, and the stage of fetal development where laws start to apply vary from state to state.[ref]http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/fethom.htm[/ref]

I do not understand how accuracy is enhanced by deleting all mention of abortion, viability, and feticide. These are key legal issues related to a fetus. How does it enhance accuracy to delete these concepts? And how does it enhance accuracy to delete the distinction between third-party harm versus abortion? Moreover, the reference provided is merely an unformatted URL, unlike all the other footnotes. I'll restore some of this deleted material, and format the footnote, unless someone would like to explain why I shouldn't.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The concepts of "feticide" and "viability" vary depending on the state. Also, I thought the term "unwanted termination of a pregnancy"  made the distinction between abortion and third-party violence clear. Do you have better wording?--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Better wording:

Especially since the 1970s, there has been continuing debate over the personhood or right to life of the human fetus. Although abortion of a fetus before viability is generally legal in the United States following the case of Roe v. Wade, in some states third-party destruction of a fetus can be punishable as feticide or homicide even before viability; the severity of the punishment and the stage of fetal development where laws start to apply vary from state to state.[ref]http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/fethom.htm[/ref]

I'm confused as to why we have to add "right to life" and "personhood"? It just seems unnecessarily added, esp if we are talking about violence against a pregnant woman and the fetus. Those phrases belong in the abortion debate, not on the fetus page.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We are talking about violence against a pregnant woman, and we are also talking about abortion. Both involve legal issues related to a fetus, don't they?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want to talk about both of these subjects, they should be clearly delineated.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Would you like to suggest better wording? It seems to me that the wording I suggested is entirely clear.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The wording I suggest is the wording I added to the section, along with the reference to the National Conference of State Legislatures website that I added.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 09:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the wording you have added. You replaced this:

There are many legal issues regarding injury or death of the human fetus. Such harm may be caused by actions of a pregnant woman, for example during an abortion, or by actions of a third party, for example during a feticide. Especially since the 1970s, there has been continuing debate over the personhood or right to life of the human fetus, and that debate has affected laws regarding abortion, feticide, and other types of harm to the fetus.

Abortion of a fetus before viability is generally legal in the United States following the case of Roe v. Wade. In some states, third-party destruction of a fetus can be punishable as feticide or homicide even before viability, although the severity of the punishment, and the stage of fetal development where laws start to apply, vary from state to state.[ref]National Conference of State Legislatures. (June 2006). "Fetal Homicide". Retrieved January 19, 2007.[/ref]

with this:

"In the United States, some states have laws that impose strict punishments for those who inflict violence that results in damage to a fetus or the unwanted termination of a pregnancy. The severity of the punishment, and the stage of fetal development where laws start to apply vary from state to state.[ref]National Conference of State Legislatures. (June 2006). 'Fetal Homicide'. Retrieved January 19, 2007.[/ref] Abortion of a fetus is legal in Canada, Mexico and the United States."

Would you please explain why the section on legal issues should not mention abortion or feticide or viability or the other material that you deleted without explanation here at this talk page? Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Please use this talk page!!!
Alice, please, please discuss edits before you make big changes to this article, and revert other peoples' edits. Why on Earth do you repeatedly insist on having this article repeat the phrase "head makes up nearly half of the fetus' size." Isn't it sufficient to say this once instead of TWICE????Ferrylodge (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't say that twice. Please stop being uncivil.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 02:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it says it twice. Telling you the truth is not incivility, although it is certainly not a pleasant experience for me.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. The first sentence says, "The head makes up nearly half of the fetus' size," and in the middle of the paragraph gives further detail by saying the fetus is "3 to 6 inches long." No information is repeated. You are being unnecessarily combative.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Alice, would you please do me a small favor? Would you please go to the main article, and use the "find" functionality on your computer to search for the word "half".  Please do that, and let me know what you find.  Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No repeats: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fetus&diff=186951197&oldid=186946189 —Preceding unsigned comment added by IronAngelAlice (talk • contribs) 02:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's right, the diff you just provided shows that you removed the repetition. Would it be possible for you to straightforwardly acknowledge that there was a repetition?


 * And now you have completely overhauled this article again without prior discussion, and it will undoubtedly take me hours to figure out what you have done (and days for me to try to correct it). I assure you IAA, I will do everything I can to prevent you from continuing to own this article, and continuing to game this system.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there was repetition that I honestly didn't see. This is in part because you are also moving things around, we are both moving things around, also because you "own" the article. Please stop this needless antagonism. It's childish. The changes I made were very clear and I documented my reasons in the edit summaries.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 09:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please ease up on the name-calling. Additionally, if you would kindly assume some good faith on my part, instead of simply opposing everything I say, then perhaps we can find some common ground instead of going in circles (as we have in this section).  Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Lee
The study by Lee et al. is now cited more than any other reference in this article (five times total). I have therefore expanded the footnote to provide further background about that study. Even if that study is accurate and relevant and NPOV regarding fetal pain, I think it's overdoing it to cite that study in sections of this article other than the section on "fetal pain."Ferrylodge (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Why has the further background about the study been deleted without discussion here at the talk page?Ferrylodge (talk) 07:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well-poisoning, and giving undo weight to an extreme minority view.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 07:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please explain why it is well-poisoning to include information from USA Today about the Lee study. See Bazar, Emily. "2 Authors of fetal-pain paper accused of bias", USA Today (2005-08-24).Ferrylodge (talk) 07:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Help with article Jack (1996 film)
In this diff, user 65.29.205.217 changed a statement about the central character being born 10 weeks premature to 26 weeks, with the explanation "changed prematurity from 10 weeks to 26 weeks premature, as he was born after a 10 week term". As I understand it, a 10 week term is medically impossible, and the full term is not 36 weeks. However, as I have no recollection of the film, I can't definitively state that a 10 week term is not claimed.

I am wondering if someone here has seen the film and can comment. If the edit is simply wrong, then it's an easy reversion. If the film *did* say 10 week term, then I think someone who knows more than I do should add something to the article to note the medical problem. I would be inclined to say something like "after a 10 week term, a viable birth at this stage is medically impossible", but am unsure whether this would be claimed to violate WP:SYNTH. EdChem (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Combining 8 week paragraphs
Much of the information that's in the "8 weeks (condition at start of fetal stage)" is repeated in or pertinent to the "8-15 week" paragraph. I'm going to take a stab at combining the two.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 06:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree that they should be combined. They address distinct things: what the fetus is like at the beginning of the fetal stage, versus what happens in the following seven weeks.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That can still be handled in the 8-15 weeks paragraph. As it is now, the paragraphs are very repetitive. What are you specific objections?--IronAngelAlice (talk) 07:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The section has been changed to:

8 to 15 weeks
The fetal stage commences at eight weeks when the fetus is typically about 30 mm (1.2 inches) in length from crown to rump and the head makes up nearly half of the fetus' size. . The fetus cannot feel pain, is not yet sentient, and moves involuntarily as tissues, organs and pathways begin to develop. The movements include motor patterns, and localized movement of the arms and legs, hiccups, stretches and yawns, sideward bendings of the head, and generalized movements that involve the whole body. . These movements are involuntary, and the parts of the fetal brain that control movement will not fully form until late in the second trimester, and the first part of the third trimester.

At this stage, the heart is beating but not functional. The hands, feet, head, brain, and other organs are present, but not yet functional. The breathing-like movement of the fetus is necessary for stimulation of lung development, rather than for obtaining oxygen.

At nine weeks the fetus' involuntary movements include curling toes to move away from an object, and fingers are structurally able to bend. During weeks 9-12, the face is “well-formed,” though the fetal head is only one to three inches long. From weeks 9 to 12, the fetal eyelids close and remain closed for several months, and the appearance of the genitals in males and females becomes more apparent. Tooth buds appear, the limbs are long and thin, and red blood cells are produced in the liver, however the majority of red blood cells will be made later in gestation (at 21 weeks) by bone marrow. A fine hair called lanugo develops on the head. The gastrointestinal tract, still forming, starts to collect sloughed skin and lanugo, as well as hepatic products, forming meconium (stool). Fetal skin is almost transparent. More muscle tissue and bones have developed, and the bones become harder. The first measurable signs of EEG movement occur in the 12th week. By the end of this stage, the fetus has reached about 15 cm (6 inches).

As I said, I disagree that these sections should be combined. They address distinct things: what the fetus is like at the beginning of the fetal stage, versus what happens in the following seven weeks. If there is repetition, then such repetition can be identified and removed without altering the structure of the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's see what others think.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 07:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Others can say what they think by looking at your proposals here at the talk page. There is no need to force all of your edits into the article prematurely.  Wikipedia operates by consensus.  Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Why has the 20-week drawing been deleted?
Is there some reason why the drawing has been removed here?Ferrylodge (talk) 07:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)




 * Good lord, relax. It was not done on purpose.  There was a lot of moving around, and edit conflicts. Please assume good faith on my part.  You did excellent work earlier making those images more palatable.  I would not dream of intentionally deleting those images.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 07:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Many mistakes are made when edits are made to the article hurriedly, without consensus, and over the objections of others. Please try to be more willing to discuss edits at the talk page.  Your removal of an image here was not corrected until days later.  Please review your work more carefully.  Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * ???? It shows that it was corrected within minutes...--IronAngelAlice (talk) 07:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

IAA, as described in the first link in this section, you deleted the image on 26 January. It was not restored until 29 January (in response to my request at the beginning of this section).Ferrylodge (talk) 08:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If that was the case I apologize. It is a good thing that Wikipedia is a communal affair so that honest mistakes can be corrected in a polite environment by multiple editors.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 08:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. And I hope that we can discuss and reach consensus about changes to the article in a polite, communal environment as well, instead of one editor forcing changes into the article over the objects of another editor.  Thanks for acknowledging the image error, and restoring the image.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. Okay, so why don't you like my combining of the two paragraphs. It's less repetitive now, and combines similar sentences. The fact that the fetal stage begins at 8 weeks is still clear.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 08:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The first thing I do not like is you edit-warring, as you have just done. I repeatedly stated my objections above, and repeatedly asked you to hold off on the edit, but you continually jam through the changes that you want.  It is very frustrating, impolite, and the opposite of how Wikipedia is supposed to work.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)