Talk:Fetus in fetu

More information.
A Fertilized cell; having been split, begins to cylindrically contort. In the midst of this process the other developing cell has unnaturally tranfered within too close a range to avoid being embraced by the primarily progressing cell. Thus giving a never fully mature embryo that parasitically deprives its host of nutrients along whith the sharing off other functions.

moralhoward8403@yahoo.com


 * That's a version of the parasitic twin theory of origin of fetus in fetu. Una Smith 06:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Another example?
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26048903-401,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.79.49 (talk) 08:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Why was this redirected?
Since fetus in fetu is almost a hybrid between a tumor and twinning, it doesn't seem right to simply stick it inside the teratomas article. I think it deserves its own page.ChristinaDunigan 23:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the full distribution of reported fetus in fetu (by any of its several names), the twinning theory doesn't hold up. I think fetus in fetu either needs its own page, or should be a section on the teratoma page. I put it on the teratoma page because its other names (dermoid cyst and fetiform teratoma) are connected with teratoma. Regardless, fetus in fetu needs a fuller discussion; at this point, it is a stub. Una Smith 06:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Resurrection
Following this afd, Fetus in fetu's coverage in other articles was judged to be inferior, and there is sufficient reason that this article should stand on its own. The text from the AfD'd article has thus been merged here.  AK Radecki  19:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The AFD in question is to delete the Alamjan Nematilaev article. The AFD has nothing to do with whether fetus in fetu should be on its own page. Re the AFD, I agree that further exploiting Alamjan Nematilaev, a child, is inappropriate. There are many published reports of fetus in fetu. I suggest deleting all mention of this child. Una Smith 21:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The rest of the article is mighty thin, and portions of the text there now probably belong elsewhere (on the teratoma and parasitic twin pages). I am not opposed to a page on fetus on fetu, but its main utility is in serving as an interwiki anchor for pages on other language wikipedia. Una Smith 21:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * First, the AfD's principle result was to merge. Teratoma and parasitic twin covered the subject poorly, and there's plenty of references, and the article is far beyond a stub, so that a page of its own is easily justified by policy and guidelines.  AK Radecki  23:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

1 in 500,000
''The condition occurs in 1 in 500,000 live births. ''

Removed from article. MSNBC is not a primary source. Una Smith 20:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm restoring. You are correct, it is not a primary source, it is a third-party source, and secondary sources are preferred (this is official policy – see WP:V.  AK Radecki  23:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've yet again restored this citation. You had removed it saying that it wasn't "original" to MSNBC. Do you not understand the meaning of "secondary" sources? I have repeatedly told you about Wikipedia's policies to use secondary, not primary sources. You either do not understand this concept, or you are deliberately ignoring it. Please do not remove this source again. If you disagree with the figures, that's fine. Find your own source and add text to the effect off "other sources state that the rate is...." That's how you handle conflicts of information.  AK Radecki Speaketh  16:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Ad hominem remarks such as "You either do not understand this concept, or you are deliberately ignoring it" are inappropriate. --Una Smith 16:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

MSNBC, a TV channel, is not a reliable source of medical and scientific information WP:MEDRS. I gather Akradecki is unable to find a scholarly, authoritative source for this information. That is Akradecki's problem, not mine. Attention-grabbing information does not belong in Wikipedia unless it is verified. Note that verifying a source does not necessarily equal verifying information. Akradecki cites a source that is online and I can verify that the source claims 1:500,000. But that is irrelevant: for all we know, the 1:500,000 may be a wild guess by someone without relevant expertise. I will once again remove the text from the article pending confirmation. --Una Smith 16:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There are a few journal references that quote the incidence 1 in 500,000. However I believe that they all derive from a 1969 paper by Grant and Pearn. In my opinion, MSNBC is not a reliable source for this specialized medical information. Far better to use a peer-reviewed medical journal. Axl 19:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I traced it there too. Grant P, Pearn JH Foetus-in-foetu. Med J Aust. 1969; 1:1016-1020.  But I would recommend not citing it without first reading it.  However, as this is contentious, I'll edit the reference to reflect the indirect reference. --Una Smith 20:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, refining the reference seems like a good idea. We can perhaps then use the estimate of incidence with a proviso about the doubtfulness of the source (if you can explain what that doubt consists of). This is far better than removing the information. --John 20:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Parasite kills host
''The parasitic twin sometimes grows large enough to kill its host twin, in which case both twins die. ''

Removed from article. I find no scholarly source supporting this claim. --Una Smith 02:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Restored, and formal warning issued. Do not remove properly sourced material. It has been explained to you already, but we rely on secondary, not primary sources on Wikipedia. If you disagree with this practice and want to change it, take it up at WP:RS, not here; removing sourced material just to prove a point will ultimately get you blocked.  AK Radecki Speaketh  02:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Akradecki, once again: the text is not properly sourced. You have had over 2 months to find a WP:RS and you have not done so. A TV news story is not a reliable source re matters of medicine. --Una Smith 03:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You clearly don't understand what "properly sourced" on wikipedia is. We want secondary sources that do repeat information, not primary sources. This is clearly spelled out in the policy and guideline links I've given you. ABC News is considered a reliable source. I get the clear impression that you believe that fetus in fetu is not a legitimate subject for an article. Please declare your motives, because at this point it looks like you're pushing your particular POV.  AK Radecki Speaketh  16:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "For information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context. For example, news reports often fail to adequately report methodology, errors, risks, and costs associated with a new scientific result or medical treatment."WP:RS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.138.129 (talk) 10:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Is the twin inside the host alive
I was wondering that when they take the fetus out, does it still live or does it die? Cause there is a sentence saying that when they pulled it out, it was a living half creature. What does that mean? Aka Paradox 05:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's unclear from the source about the Indian man who was 36 years old and had his – LIVING – twin brother inside him. This human organism lived inside a man for 36 years? That is crazy to imagine, and I can't even begin to understand it. Maybe we could find more sources about this particular case?--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 05:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to rely on mass media stories, because there is a large medical literature on fetus in fetu. See teratoma for some links. A fetus in fetu is alive in the sense that any healthy organ is alive. Its cells are alive, and its organs have a working blood supply from the host. However, a fetus in fetus is not capable of self-sustained life: as a rule, it has no (or no functional) brian, heart, lungs, gastrointestinal tract, or urinary tract. A fetus in fetu looks vaguely like a fetus, but it is a long way from being one. This is why some experts think fetus in fetu is not a parasitic twin but rather a variant of fetiform teratoma. --Una Smith (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * A fetus in fetu can be considered alive, but only in the sense that its component tissues have not yet died or been eliminated
 * "yet" seems inapropriate here, as it implies that the fetus in fetu tissues are bound to die or be eliminated, while the rest of the article seems to say the opposite : that it normaly "lives" indefinitely. --Musaran (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Twin theory of development
''Fetus in fetu starts to develop very early in a monozygotic twin pregnancy, in which both fetuses share a common placenta, and one fetus wraps around and envelops the other. The enveloped twin becomes a parasite, in that its survival depends on the survival of its host twin, by drawing on the host twin's blood supply. Invariably the parasitic twin is anencephalic (without a brain) and lacks some internal organs, and as such is unable to survive on its own. The parasitic twin sometimes grows large enough to kill its host twin, in which case both twins die.

Sometimes, however, the host twin survives and is delivered. It continues to survive until it grows so large that it starts to harm the host, at which point doctors usually intervene. The condition causes the host to look like they are pregnant (since they technically are) and can occur in both males and females.''

All of the above is unsupported by primary sources. The sources given are a sensationalistic TV news story and a blog. Una Smith 21:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, our policy is to use 2ndary, 3rd-party sources. We don't prefer primary sources. See Use of primary sources in Wikipedia (though it's not active, it still represents current approaches). Also see No original research: Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, which is active. ABC News is hardly "sensationalistic", and is generally viewed as a reliable 3rd party source. The Kircher Society is technically a "blog", but a reputable one, not one as described in WP:V. Please don't remove sourced information. If you question the source, you're welcome to add not verified tags.  AK Radecki  23:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The news story in question was without question sensationalistic. With regard to science, primary sources are indeed preferred. Do you know the primary source of the claim, which you repeat citing a TV news story, that the incidence of fetus in fetu is 1:500,000? Una Smith 19:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Primary sources are preferred? May I remind you that WP:NOR is policy? Primary sources are not preferred on Wikipedia, and I challenge you to point to any policy that says so.  AK Radecki Speaketh  21:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The claim that the incidence of fetus in fetu is 1:500,000 needs a primary scholarly source, meaning a scholarly source that provides data, and does not simply repeat a claim made elsewhere. Una Smith 23:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good grief...how many times do I have to tell you that primary sources are not preferred on Wikipedia? If you don't like that, fine, but that's the way the system works. Please respect it.  AK Radecki Speaketh  16:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Una, rather than removing this claim, can you make an effort to find a better source please? Thanks. --John 17:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've done that. Please, let's work together on improving the article rather than getting into a sterile dispute. --John 17:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Reverts
Akradecki, I think it is really uncool that you persist in reverting my edits. See WP:DR. Una Smith 03:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you think it's uncool, but you keep removing large chunks of legitimate, sourced information, which is a big no-no around here. That's what makes your comment very ironic...you're complaining that I'm reverting your edits, but your edits are specifically to cut out large bits of sourced, cited text...you're doing the very thing you're complaining about. Further, you don't seem to understand our policies on which sources we give preference to. What is your issue with this article anyway? Do you doubt that the phenomenon exists? Do you think this is just some sensationalistic exercise? This is an encyclopedia, and the subject of this article is both legitimate and, by our definitions, notable. The text on the examples, especially the youth, is carefully crafted to conform to our BLP standards.  AK Radecki  05:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the reason for the last revert is that you stuck an image-related template smack in the middle of the text, a template that had no application to anything in the article.  AK Radecki  05:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Akradeki, the chunks of text in question you took from the teratoma page, and they are not relevant specifically to fetus in fetu. I should know:  I wrote most of those chunks myself.  I put them back where they belong.  Re your argument that some of the text is sourced, your sources are inappropriate.  TV news programs are not authoritative in relation to the subject at hand (Reliable sources)  when the subject is basic science. Una Smith 19:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Dispute over sources
I want to sort out once and for all the dispute there has been over sources. Una, I've archived your AN/I report as this is not a matter requiring administrator attention but a content dispute revolving around sources. Obviously, the best would be if we could find new sources that satisfy everybody. Is that possible, do you think? --John 16:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Examples
The second to last example has information that is also mentioned elsewhere in the article, the passage seems to just be directly copied form the GMA news website and should probably be revised. Feyre 11:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The last example is crazy. There are no sources and with such a vague date it seems unreliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.38.221 (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

add this has pic too
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1273232.ece shitty source but maybe it can get bettered kthxbye —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.212.38 (talk) 22:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

two "theories"
Firstly, these two potential causes are not scientific theories by the definition therein, so the use of the word theory in a scientific article is misplaced. They are at best hypotheses.

Secondly, I can imagine that both possible causes might be accurate in different cases. Are they even necessarily mutually exclusive? This needs to be addressed too. I am not a dog (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Cases outside human
I suppose there are cases in animals that should be mentioned. For example (in Indonesian): A case where a sacrificed bull had a fetus inside its stomach, despite the journalistic sensation of the word "beranak" (gave birth). Kembangraps (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Examples in fiction
I think it's another examples in fiction Conjoined Fetus Lady — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.230.198.171 (talk) 04:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Flash Game
I highly doubt this is a very trustworthy source, but there is a Newgrounds flash game about this. http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/542658 -MisaTange (talk) 01:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Question posted in August 2012
... by 182.185.99.67, then auto-deleted.

Parasitic twin theory:

as the fetus in fetu gets in to the body of the host,it should must tske some peritoneal coverings of its host while going inside or there should be a marking on skin or on the body wall explaining this inward movement of fetus? is there any explanation to this?

Recovered from log by Varlaam (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fetus in fetu. Please take a moment to review [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=757535855 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011012449/http://annals.edu.sg/pdf/34VolNo10200511/V34N10p646.pdf to http://annals.edu.sg/pdf/34VolNo10200511/V34N10p646.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090209190502/http://www.gazette.com:80/articles/brain_44861___article.html/sam_doctor.html? to http://www.gazette.com/articles/brain_44861___article.html/sam_doctor.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Fetus in fetu
In 1954 I was born with fetus in fetu which I was operated on when I was 4 to have removed in Scunthorpe England my name is Michael Shaw 81.101.37.165 (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

"Sanju Bhagat" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sanju_Bhagat&redirect=no Sanju Bhagat] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)