Talk:Pregnancy/Archive 8

Discussion at WT:NOT
There is currently an extensive ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not about a proposal that is intended to affect the choice of image(s) on this article. Your comments in the discussion would be welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but also wow! As if enough hadn't been said here already, and multiple attempts made to deal with the situation, we now have another page. Ack! Just saying...(olive (talk) 21:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC))


 * If you have the time, it's worth a look. It's clear that those seeking change have failed in that other forum. HiLo48 (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * HiLo: why is it that so many editors cannot understand the difference between establishing a consensus and asserting one? I respect that you don't want a change; I respect that we disagree; I respect your opinions on the matter.  But I cannot respect this mindless cawing about who has and hasn't 'won'.  make your argument, and if you make it good enough then you'll get what you want and won't need to say a word about it. until that time, stop blathering; you sound like a spoiled kid trying to browbeat his parents.  -- Ludwigs 2  22:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I assert quite the opposite. Those who stretched the rules have got their way in a debate that should never have existed. This issue has not been decided purely on the merits of argument. That's my opinion, but I said I would accept the umpire's decision. I will not damage the structure of Wikipedia any further than has already been done. HiLo48 (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Remove lead image for six months then reassess the images

 * I'm closing this; this proposal evidently isn't going anywhere. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


 * Attack free zone
 * Keep it short ...Yes or No... and a bit...:o)


 * 1) Yes. By pass contention so article can be developed, and  allows for  a cooling down period.(olive (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC))
 * 2) No That's NOT an acceptable step. It's a win to the conservatives and censors. HiLo48 (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Aye A cease fire is not a loss or a victory. Its just a cease fire. Let's pause the battle if we can't halt it.--Tznkai (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A cease fire is always accompanied by a freeze of the current position on the ground. Taking advantage of a cease fire to occupy the other side's territory is a particularly perverse form of agression.Dessources (talk) 10:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) No. This is not a compromise in good faith - it's getting what you want and declaring it a comrpomise. If you want to improve the article in ways that don't involve boobs, do so. If you want to agree not to discuss boobs for six months, agree not to do so, and actually shun people who ignore that agreement. In fact... Hipocrite (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ironic reply given the below proposal and your username.--v/r - TP 22:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * See, the key question is why it's a compromise to get everything you want for six months and then re discuss with a new status-quo, and it's not a compromise for the other side to get everything they want for six months and then re discuss with the same new status-quo. That's probably because it's time for personal attacks and rudeness, right? Hipocrite (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you'll notice, I haven't supported this proposal either. I disagree with both, but I dispute the intentions of yours whereas I know this one is meant to accomplish a positive goal.  I am honest enough with myself to respect the efforts of those I disagree with.  I respect the efforts of Olive and Tznkai.--v/r - TP 22:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes  Be— —Critical  22:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Huh? Hans Adler 22:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) support but weakly... don't like the idea of removing all images, but some have vowed not to "compromise".  If we can get anything through it is better than the stutus quo.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 23:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * How can I compromise on my position? I see nothing wrong with the naked image. You want it removed. I see no compromise position. HiLo48 (talk) 01:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You want it removed... no I don't... I want it moved, because it sets the wrong tone here. Editorially it is the wrong image in the lead for so many reasons; but you refuse to discuss them... let alone discuss them in an open honest manner.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 14:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Sets the wrong tone" Eh? That'a almost laughable. What discussion are you looking at?It's such a culturally loaded, "I don't like it", pro-censorship statement. I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. It is not sexual. It hurts nobody. This MUST be an issue concerning your conservative values. It can be nothing else. And that means you want censorship, which I will continue to aggressively oppose when it is inappropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And you have absolutely zero bias, are completely neutral, and have a worldly view that includes all opinions globally. You, sir, are...are...omg...YOUR GOD!  Yeah, can you stop with the personal attacks against Balloonman, and others?--v/r - TP 21:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am biased against dishonesty. I and others supporting the current image are being presented with nonsensical requests to "compromise" by giving away everything we want to keep. It's a stupid demand. I do wonder about the intelligence or thinking ability of people who propose such ideas. And re the alleged personal attacks, it's important in a debate to understand the true motivations and goals of all participants. I really do wonder about those who cannot deal with nudity in this context. "Conservative" seems a perfectly valid description. How is using such a word a personal attack? HiLo48 (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

contribs · email) 06:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Support: let's remove the object of conflict until we can reapproach the issue with a level head.  -- Ludwigs 2  23:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Most recent consensus is to use the full-term pregnancy image. Why has this not been implemented yet? Am I missing something? Kaldari (talk) 02:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * separation anxiety? you'd have to ask the people who are keeping the current image in place.  -- Ludwigs 2  05:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't be so dishonest. There is no consensus to change the current image. HiLo48 (talk) 06:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What discussion are you looking at? The most recent discussion had over 50 participants and was over 70% in favor of replacing the current image. That generally passes for consensus on Wikipedia. Kaldari (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be lovely if we voted here, but we don't. We look at the quality of arguments. Many times in my life I have been in a minority, and right. HiLo48 (talk) 02:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That is the reason for the current RfC. The previous one was supportive of a change of the image if the copyright issues could not be resolved. The copyright issues where resolved after it closed and thus the close was changed to no consensus as all the people who wished to see a change based on copyright where removed.-- Doc James (talk ·
 * No, the reason for the current RfC is that a number of unethical editors on the conservative/censorship side could not accept the umpire's decision and, in poor faith, began another RfC immediately after the last one closed, without advising those who may have opposed their position. Having supporters with such poor ethics does not say much for the merits of the case. HiLo48 (talk) 07:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice easy way to dispel the arguments of people who were not involved with starting this RfC... if you recall, I initially objected to this RfC... but the fact that it's been going on for about 6 weeks now... you can't discount 6 weeks of discussion because you don't like it. Nor can you discount the positions of others by attacking their morals/ethics.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 07:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. #For a change I agree with L2 (below). What is this all about? Some mechanism I never have read of? Is this a formal or informal vote? Who formulated it? If the idea is a cooling off period, I approve leaving the current lede picture in place for six months and then re-opening the matter. That leaves us with a surprise-free future and the probability that by then the new facility for users to disable image display will be in place and we can all get on with some work. As for the pledge, I don't get it, but I have no problem with it; suit yourselves. JonRichfield (talk) 06:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose but only weakly Either of the two images is better than no image IMO. -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) No; removing the image is not a cease-fire, it's a sneaky way for editors opposed to the current image to remove it under the guise of "compromise". A true "cease-fire" would maintain the status quo.  Powers T 21:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) *I suggested this proposal and I have supported the present image throughout.(olive (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC))
 * 5) **Actually it's a sneaky way for people opposed to the full-term image to avoid respecting the consensus of the last RfC. The discussion was over 70% in favor of replacing the current image, with over 50 people participating. Kaldari (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * the last RfC was closed by an uninvolved admin. with eventual no consensus dependent on an permission issue, then  by default the nude image remained in place.
 * The present RfC has not been closed. Further, results of an RfC are not determined by vote but by discussion per WP:RfC
 * Finally, we have an attempt to provide a place where another option is suggested, just suggested, to see what others think. Come on guys, if you don't like it,  just say no. Assumptions of bad faith not included in the package.(olive (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC))
 * 1) Oppose - The article is better of with at least one image, whichever image it might be. Although I do not know this, maybe a better alternative would be to advertise the discussion on the Wikipedia Signpost to get a more broad based consensus? John Carter (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Temporary censorship is simply a way of making the pill of permanent censorship less bitter - both should be opposed. Dessources (talk) 10:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

A pledge
We, the undersigned, realize that there is not currently an agreement to remove, add, change or do anything to the current image at the top of the article. As such, we agree that, for a period of six months, we will not participate in any discussion proposing such changes, except to link to this statement. We will shun anyone who proposes such changes and does not stop when informed of this agreement.


 * 1) Hipocrite (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) If there every was a bad faith proposal, this is it.--v/r - TP 22:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You appear to believe that AGF is a suggestion. It's not. This is also not a "support" or "oppose" thing, it's a pledge. Hipocrite (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I may disagree with many folks here, any proposal to simply hold your head high and ignore those who disagree with your point of view in a effort to enforce a "status quo" is bad faith. I'll not back down.  Further, I'm not neccessarily opposed to the nude image.  I'm just opposed to closing the discussion which is exactly what your proposal seeks to do.  At least the above proposal suggest self-imposed break from the subject.  Your's involves shunning others.  That's not appropriate.--v/r - TP 22:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not what the proposal says. Please read it closely, again. Hipocrite (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1)  Be— —Critical  22:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This not a "support" or "oppose" thing, it's a pledge. Hipocrite (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's gaming, so: oppose. Hans Adler 22:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) What is this, the frigging Tea Party? -- Ludwigs 2  23:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Sorry, error on my part. I have moved what I said (upward to before the pledge sub-heading) JonRichfield (talk) 06:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Ectopic Miscarriage?
EDIT: now we're talking about another edit I made, so I renamed the section. Triacylglyceride (talk) 02:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Gandydancer removed the line on maternity clothes, with a justification of "I think we can just skip this as many women now just wear stretchy clothes rather than special garments."

I've undone that edit because the maternity wear article contradicts that rationale. Additionally, it provides a multicultural view that I don't think is reflected in Gandydancer's argument. Triacylglyceride (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That is fine with me and on second thought I believe you are correct. As always, please feel free to improve/change my edits.  I made some changes but I believe that the 3rd trimester section is, for the most part, so bad that it needs a re-write.  I am working on it and will present it here before I go ahead and make any changes. Gandydancer (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * However this edit AFAIK is not correct:
 * An ectopic pregnancy may resolve as a miscarriage without medical intervention, but if not medical attention will be required to remove the pregnancy and prevent rupture of the structure into which it has implanted.[31]
 * An ectopic embryo would never be termed a miscarried pregnancy. If it is growing in a tube it either dies and is absorbed or grows and ruptures the tube.  If outside of the womb it could not miscarry.  I don't believe it would "rupture" anything either - perhaps an ovary, but I doubt it.  Perhaps if it implanted on the cervix it could be said to have miscarried.  Where are you getting your information? Gandydancer (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it depend on your definition of "miscarriage"? One definition that source gives is "the unplanned end of a pregnancy".  To the extent that the term means any and all unintentional pregnancy loss before 20 weeks (at which point, it's renamed "stillbirth"), then an ectopic would be considered a type of miscarriage, and in practice that's how it's coded in simpler records (which frequently differentiate induced abortions from miscarriages and stillbirths, but rarely bother with listing ectopics and molars separately).
 * The specific information from that source, BTW, is on page 544, and the ISBN is 9780761148579. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I would not trust information from What to Expect When You're Expecting. A better source is our Abortion article (see "notes").  On the other hand, I did find a Mayo Clinic source that said that rarely a tubal ectopic pregnancy is spontaneously aborted.  By that I assume that they meant that the embryo is expelled, but I may well be wrong. I have assumed that ectopic pregnancies that resolve on their own without the necessity of medical intervention have been absorbed similar to the absorption of tumors, which frequently happens. Should we wait and see if any other editors have any thoughts? BTW, I'd be interested in your info re the site that lists how abortions are listed.   Gandydancer (talk) 04:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Site? Oh, right:  85% of Wikipedia editors are male.  No, this fact is something that basically all adult women and healthcare professionals will be aware of.  The number of pregnancies and their outcomes is a routine question in medical histories up through at least menopause.  (A high number of induced abortions, for example, raises the provider's index of suspicion for sexually transmitted infections.)  See this or this or  or this or this.  As you can see, ectopics and molars are just ignored by most of the standard intake forms.  Ectopics end up being coded as spontaneous miscarriages.  I'm not absolutely certain, but I believe the same is done with molars.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * As a mother of two daughters and a woman that has been a health care professional for most of my life, I am well aware of hospital paper work. I also work on the abortion article and thought that you may have information such as this  that would be useful for that article. Gandydancer (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * By the definition on miscarriage, it seems fine technically. (Also ectopic pregnancy, which is going on my articles-to-edit list, especially its introduction.)  Let me know if you worry that it may be confusing, which is a different conversation!  My initial sentiment is that it's not confusing.
 * The reason I edited it to clarify that is that "resolve" left open the possibility that an ectopic pregnancy may resolve to a uterine pregnancy, or be carried to term.
 * Looking forward to the third-trimester rewrite. Triacylglyceride (talk) 02:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If people find the sentence or terminology confusing, perhaps a compromise would be to change it to something along the lines of:
 * An ectopic pregnancy may resolve without medical intervention, as a miscarriage (usually involving absorption back into the mother's body), but when that does not happen medical attention is required to remove the embryo and prevent rupture of the structure into which it has implanted. --MsBatfish (talk) 05:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd find that fine, but nobody has said that they find it (potentially) confusing at this stage. (Feel free to say that you do!)
 * As I recall, ectopic pregnancies still induce uterine changes of pregnancy, so a cessation of pregnancy would still involve many of the characteristics of an early miscarriage. If ectopic miscarriage were a clinically distinct entity, I'd be more concerned about specifying.  I'm aware that all of that gets a "citation needed," though.
 * (I would suggest saying "woman" instead of "mother" in this case, as the person in question would likely not even know that they're pregnant, and as covered on mother the word is as much about identity as biology. What I'd really like is "gravida," but I know that decreases readability.)  Triacylglyceride (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I just meant that Gandydancer, for one, appeared to find it confusing, and I would assume other readers might, as "miscarriage" is sometimes commonly assumed to involve expulsion of the embryo and other materials. I also agree that "woman" or "pregnant woman" is better than "mother", I thought that right after I posted :-) -MsBatfish (talk) 08:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh! Totally, which is why I was prompting you or Gandydancer to say that you had found it confusing.  It looks like he resolved it below, though.  Plus, ectopic miscarriage does involve expulsion of other materials.  Triacylglyceride (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Gravida == pregnant woman. We can use "pregnant woman" rather than just plain "woman" in such circumstances.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems a little bit like you thought I didn't know what "gravida" meant, which is strange. Readability aside, I think "gravida" is slightly superior to "pregnant woman" because other people than women can be pregnant, such as girls and transmen, plus genderqueer and genderfluid people (Latin gendering aside).  But like I said, I think readability is a valid concern.  Anyway, it's off-topic at this point.  Triacylglyceride (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Socially, sure. Biologically, no.  If you have managed to achieve a pregnancy, then you are biologically a pregnant woman.  Sexual maturity is the biological definition of adulthood, and in humans, being biologically female is a requirement for achieving pregnancy.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Gandy, I suspect that the problem is that you are thinking that miscarriage requires the expulsion of an embryo or fetus. It doesn't.  Otherwise, there'd be no such thing as a "missed miscarriage", i.e., a miscarriage that doesn't result in expulsion.  Miscarriage is spontaneous pregnancy loss before 20 weeks LMP (well, before 18 weeks after conception and/or with a fetus <500 g when the date of conception is unknown).  Expulsion is a normal outcome, but not a required feature.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are correct. I had been thinking that the embryo is always expelled in a miscarriage. I have now realized that I was wrong and hopefully we can move forward. Gandydancer (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

How about this:

Ectopic pregnancy
An ectopic pregnancy is a complication of pregnancy in which the embryo implants outside the uterine cavity. With rare exceptions, ectopic pregnancies are not viable. Most ectopic pregnancies occur in the Fallopian tube (so-called tubal pregnancies), but implantation can also occur in the cervix, ovaries, and abdomen. An ectopic pregnancy is a potential medical emergency, and, if not treated properly, can lead to death.

About 1% of pregnancies are in an ectopic location with implantation not occurring inside of the womb, and of these 98% occur in the Fallopian tubes. In a typical ectopic pregnancy, the embryo adheres to the lining of the fallopian tube and burrows into the tubal lining. Most commonly this invades blood vessels which causes bleeding resulting in the expulsion of the implantation from the tube. If left untreated, about half of ectopic pregnancies will resolve without treatment. These are termed tubal abortions. The advent of methotrexate treatment for ectopic pregnancy has reduced the need for surgery; however, surgical intervention is still required in cases where the Fallopian tube has ruptured or is in danger of doing so. This intervention may be laparoscopic or through a larger incision, known as a laparotomy.

An ectopic pregnancy should be considered in any woman with abdominal pain or vaginal bleeding who has a positive pregnancy test. An ultrasound showing a gestational sac with fetal heart in a location other than the uterine cavity is clear evidence of an ectopic pregnancy.

There are a number of risk factors for ectopic pregnancies, however, in as many as one third to one half of ectopic pregnancies, no risk factors can be identified. Risk factors include: pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility, use of an intrauterine device (IUD), previous exposure to DES, tubal surgery, intrauterine surgery (e.g. D&C), smoking, previous ectopic pregnancy, and tubal ligation. Gandydancer (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Beautiful, and I think it's a valid level of expansion on the topic for this article. Only objection: I don't think that calling IUD a risk factor for ectopic pregnancy is responsible use of language.  They don't cause ectopic pregnancies, they just prevent uterine pregnancies, so if one is pregnant with an IUD it's much more likely to be an ectopic.  This is a fairly common thing in language where English meshes poorly with statistics and cause-and-effect; Wikipedia may have a policy for it, I don't know.
 * I also don't see a reason to highlight D&Cs, especially because scar tissue from abdominal surgery in general can lead to ectopics, and your citation doesn't single out D&Cs.Triacylglyceride (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and I agree that it deserves its own section - it seemed to me that we were trying to condense it too much which was resulting in perhaps confusing and even incorrect statements. As for your suggestions for changes, I will think about them since  for the most part I just used our existing ectopic article and did not check out the sources. Gandydancer (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Looking at our IUD article I find this (from a source)


 * Today's IUDs are about 98 per cent effective, which makes them not all that far off being as good as the Pill (and about as good as the mini-Pill). What this means is that if 100 women use IUDs for a year, then only about two of them would become pregnant. This isn't very much when you consider that if they used nothing, at least 20 of them would get pregnant.  Please note that if you do become pregnant while using an IUD, there's a chance that the pregnancy might be ectopic (in the Fallopian tube).  This is because these devices are good at preventing pregnancies in the womb, but not in the tube.


 * To me this info seems to suggest that an IUD does carry the risk of an ectopic pregnancy. But, that may be just me...  As for abdominal surgery other than intrauterine, would you have a source that states that abd surgery in general can lead to an ectopic?  In the meantime, I will continue to look more closely at sources. Gandydancer (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Not a primary source, but I found some stuff here: http://www.estronaut.com/a/ectopic_pregnancy.htm
 * Super-busy for a while (should be studying right now), but I'll look for primary sources soon, too.
 * IMHO that IUD bit isn't very clearly written. See link to Planned Parenthood, below, for IUD facts.  Triacylglyceride (talk) 00:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "Risk factor" means "something correlated with an outcome", not "something causing an outcome". If women who drive red cars are more likely to have ectopics, then driving a red car is a risk factor.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * But women with IUDs aren't more likely to have ectopics. A woman with an IUD who becomes pregnant is more likely to have that pregnancy be an ectopic pregnancy.  From http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/iud-4245.htm : Women who use IUDs are much less likely to have an ectopic pregnancy than women who are not using birth control. But if a woman does become pregnant while using an IUD, it is more likely to be ectopic than if she was not using the IUD.
 * So maybe there's a thing where women with IUDs, compared to women with perfect condom and OCP use, get more ectopics. It's still not the IUD that's the risk factor for ectopics, it just decreases the risk of uterine pregnancy.  So IUDs are a risk factor for ectopic pregnancy in pregnant women, but not in, say, all sexually active women.  As opposed to PID, which is a risk factor for ectopic pregnancy in all sexually active women.
 * Again, not a primary source, but I believe it to be true. Triacylglyceride (talk) 00:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I get what you're saying. How about if we instead use this Mayo Clinic site  ? With proper use, pregnancy is rare when using birth control pills or an intrauterine device (IUD). If pregnancy occurs, however, it's more likely to be ectopic.Gandydancer (talk) 02:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds good! I've seen the OCP-ectopic thing listed as only progestin-only OCPs, so I'm making a note to myself to dig up primary sources on that in the future.  Triacylglyceride (talk) 07:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, how's this - is it too wordy?

A woman who has had a previous ectopic pregnancy is more likely to have another. The majority of women with ectopic pregnancies have had pelvic inflammatory disease or salpingitis, an inflammation of the fallopian tube. A history of gonorrhea or chlamydia can also cause tubal problems that increase the risk. Endometriosis, a condition that causes the tissue that normally lines the uterus to develop outside the uterus may slightly increase the incidence of an ectopic. The risk is increased in women who have unusually shaped fallopian tubes or tubes which has been damaged, possibly during surgery. Taking medication to stimulate ovulation increases the risk of ectopic pregnancy. When used properly, pregnancy is rare when using birth control pills or an intrauterine device (IUD) however, if it does occur, it's more likely to be ectopic. Although pregnancy is rare after tubal ligation, if it does occur, it's more likely to be ectopic. Gandydancer (talk) 04:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Not in my opinion! Awesome job, go for it.  Triacylglyceride (talk) 06:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I like it too. I think it is much clearer. I had the same opinion with the original phrase about IUDs too (that is was confusing). -MsBatfish (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! When looking for references I did find one with the exact wording that I took from the Ectopic article, so I changed that a little.  Also, interestingly, I found that even in the dictionaries both fallopian and Fallopian are used.  I'm not sure which is correct.  Is it traditional to use caps to honor "Mr. Fallopio" (Senor Fallopio?) in medical terminology?  I think I will change them all to Fallopian. Gandydancer (talk) 16:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thinking more about why one sees both caps or not for fallopian, I think I may have figured out the reason for the confusion. If it would have been named the Fallopio tube it would always be in caps, but since the word is fallopian tube there is confusion. Gandydancer (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Duration of pregnancy
I believe that it is both confusing and not correct to change the duration of pregnancy in the lede from gestational age to dating that uses the number of weeks from conception, since the former is universally used. Gandydancer (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It pains me to say it, but LMP dating is the sad truth of pregnancy care. This article does a good job of highlighting the assumptions made by LMP dating.  We, like the readers, must simply subtract two weeks and move on.  Triacylglyceride (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is sufficiently explained in the article. Or we could always have both. Although it is kind of confusing that one isn't consistently used throughout the article, in the captions, etc. -MsBatfish (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe that it would be a mistake to use both since none of our sources list both. Unless it is stated that date from conception is being used, one is to assume that it is stated in gestational weeks. Gandydancer (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean that we need to use both for every single instance in the article, just that I think it is important that both are mentioned/explained in the lead (I believe they now are). I am not sure what you meant about there not being no sources that state both - did you mean that for specific instances where one or the other is used in the article (and the reference only uses one) that we can't just translate it into the the other like we would with, say, miles and kilometres? I wasn't actually suggesting doing that - since it's my understanding that it doesn't work that way and that we can't necessarily just add/subtract 2 weeks (as Triacylglyceride put it) - but I do think it is important to be as clear as possible to readers and for us all to remember that all sorts of people with varying degrees of understanding about pregnancy read this article and whatever we can do as editors to make it easier to understand is very helpful.
 * I would also like to change my previous comment, when I said "I think it is sufficiently explained in the article" I actually meant to say "as long as it is sufficiently explained in the article", although even then I am not so sure now. I think that you and Whatamidoing bring up some valid issues... -MsBatfish (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * LMP has many limitations, especially for non-wealthy women, whose "LMP" might be "five years and three babies ago". They also don't apply to young women who achieve pregnancy before menarche.  The system has been criticized as exclusionary and demeaning to women with irregular or unusual length cycles.  (And, yes, I can source the word "fiction" as a description of LMP.)  Finally, using "reality weeks" makes the article more accessible to non-pregnancy professionals, like biologists, who are not accustomed to thinking of conception as occurring two weeks after the start of pregnancy.
 * But my major point is that we should never give the "fictional" LMP dates without specifying that they are LMP dates. In the lead, I think it better to choose weeks since conception, which the reader will immediately understand, rather than LMP, but whenever they are used, the units must be labeled. I also believe that they ought to be labeled as LMP dates rather than "gestational" dates, because gestation doesn't physically start until after conception.  There is no need for us to confuse the reader with an unexpected jargonistic use of this normal English word.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a social-justice point: yes, it excludes non-wealthy women who are more likely to be sequentially pregnant, but using gestational age dating excludes the larger group of women who aren't sequentially pregnant, but don't get ultrasound dating on their pregnancies, so LMP is the best they have to go on.
 * Also for our readers, most of them are interacting with a system that uses LMP, so we should strive to be as comprehensible as possible to them. Triacylglyceride (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, for our readers, most of them aren't interacting with any system at all. Our audience is not patients and healthcare providers.  But even if it were, there'd still be value to labeling LMP dates as being LMP dates so that nobody can get confused.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I have never heard of the date of implantation being used as the date of the start of a pregnancy.  Could you please give a source for that information? Gandydancer (talk) 02:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Summary of terms: implantation is defined as the start of pregnancy (i.e., before implantation, a person is not pregnant). But the start of pregnancy is dated from LMP, and the gestational age is dated from conception in embryology and LMP in obstetrics.  LMP is two weeks before conception in an idealized 28-day cycle.
 * To confuse matters, because of the domains of embryologists and obstetricians, there are some who use GA dating until 9 weeks and then switch to LMP dating. So 6, 7, 8, 11, 12... (I don't have a source; it was in a medical school lecture).
 * I've bolded and embiggened this because these questions are coming up all over this discussion, and I thought it would be helpful (let me know if it's not!). Those are the norms as best I know them.  I'll edit this if anybody corrects me so we can maintain a point of reference in discussing what this article should do.  Triacylglyceride (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought that WahatamIdoing was just pointing out that the term "gestational" was potentially confusing as some readers might possibly think "gestation" to be when an embryo has been implanted, while some might think it means from the time of fertilization? (not that either of those would be correct). I'm not sure if my understanding was correct, just explaining what I thought. Either way I think it is important to use the clearest terms possible and make sure the different terms are explicitly defined somewhere noticeable in the article.

Personally, as a layman, I find it strange and confusing that "gestation" is defined as the carrying of an embryo/fetus, yet some "gestational dates/periods/ages" either add an arbitrary 2 weeks to this or go from the actual last menstrual period. And I find it confusing that the article Gestation period says: "the gestation period is the time in which a fetus develops, beginning with fertilization and ending at birth", yet the article Gestation says: "The time interval of a gestation plus two weeks is called gestation period, and the length of time plus two weeks that the offspring have spent developing in the uterus is called gestational age." and the article Gestational age says: "Gestational age relates to the age of an embryo or fetus (or newborn infant). There is some ambiguity in how it is defined", and then goes on to explain that there are a number of different methods of calculating what is known as "gestational age", only one of which is LMP. --MsBatfish (talk) 09:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for posting. The reason that you are confused is because it is confusing!  I thought it was bad enough but looking at various links I found this Beginning of pregnancy controversy and I note that the Implantation article states it as the beginning of pregnancy right out, which certainly raised my eyebrows!


 * However, it is my understanding that the vast amount of literature used both by medical professionals and the literature that the profession uses to explain pregnancy to the public uses "gestational age" terminology even though the actual time that the sperm and egg united, generally considered the moment a new life began (even though there is no unequivocal definition of life either), is actually about two weeks off since they did not unite till midway between ("normal 28day") menstrual periods. See for instance this British article regarding safe induction dates that uses gestational age, never bothering to explain that the fetus is actually two weeks younger because it goes without saying.  I could furnish many similar articles because I work on the abortion article where fetal age is of extremely great importance. Also, I note that as I have looked for refs for this page that offer information to the pregnant woman, they all use the gestational age for the fetus.


 * Do you think we should have a small section titled something like "Confusion over terms used to define fetal age"? While I believe that it is important that readers understand the difference, to feel compelled to constantly repeat it does not seem reasonable to me since almost all pregnancy literature does not handle the issue in that manner. Gandydancer (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * While I greatly respect your edits, I would like to make sure that your statement that conception is generally considered the moment a new life begins does not go unchallenged. Many activists against reproductive rights assert that a life begins at that time, but to those of us on the other side of the aisle, it is a milestone in development, nothing more.  A pretty big, important, and convenient milestone in terms of dates that are useful to talk about, but with no more significance than its convenience.
 * I'm not looking to argue about it; I just want to make sure both views of the importance of conception dating are represented in this discussion. Triacylglyceride (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing it up because I am strongly pro-choice as well. That is why I was careful to state that our Life article shows that even the brightest minds throughout history have been able to "prove" exactly when Life begins.  Does that answer your question? Gandydancer (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't have a question! Just wanted to influence the framing of all this.  (As a complete aside, I took a glance over your talk page, and the "oh look! my new friends are e-mailing me already" bit gave me totally the wrong idea about your views -- that's why I was suspicious about singling out D&C as a risk factor.) Triacylglyceride (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If you're still looking for sources, see this and others, but I suspect that the article you found has answered your question.
 * In practice, it's a political choice: pregnancy starts a week after conception if you need to be able to say without fear of contradiction that it is absolutely impossible for the so-called 'morning-after pill' to cause 'an abortion'.  Using that particular definition, it is impossible for the hormones (taken "today") to end a pregnancy (that won't exist until "next week").  Except for that circumstance, pregnancies are normally said to begin two weeks before conception according to those clinicians whose standards are stuck in the 19th century or at the time of sexual intercourse if you listen to the pregnant women (none of whom have ever believed that they magically got pregnant two weeks before having sex), the infertility specialists (who, in the case of ART, know the time of conception down to the hour), and, of course, every biologist in the world who didn't attend medical school (Sandra Steingraber, for example, writes about having to mentally convert these dates when she was pregnant to reconcile the embryology papers she was reading with pregnancy advice books).
 * The main problem with using LMP dates at all is that "add two weeks to conception" only works for healthy, typical, non-breastfeeding women with well-spaced, naturally occurring pregnancies. They don't line up with reality for up to one-third of pregnant women.  The problem with not using it, of course, is that this sloppy, outdated system is very widely used.  My basic preference is to avoid the problem as much as possible, e.g., by referring to "months" or "trimesters" rather than specific "weeks" whenever that is feasible, and whenever we use weeks, to directly label which system we're using.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that it's a political choice, but I agree that it would be a good idea to have a "dating" section at the start and label our weeks. ("28 weeks LMP" or "26 weeks GA" is the sort of thing that gets used in medical school).  Triacylglyceride (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I am beginning to see how little I know...that I thought I knew... I will let others who seem to be more familiar with the issues come to a conclusion. Gandydancer (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Suggestion: let's make a polished clarification section for the different types of dating, and clarify with each date which type of date we're using.
 * For dates relating to gravid health, "24 weeks LMP" will be preferentially used, because most pregnant people get their dates given to them in LMP.
 * For dates relating to embryology, "7 weeks since conception" will be used, because that's what embryologists do. We'll avoid using "in the seventh week," which means "6.0-7.0 weeks," and instead say, "between 6 and 7 weeks since conception."
 * For dates relating to fetal development, I think we should switch back to LMP, because that's what obstetricians do.
 * I think we should avoid using "gestational age," because embryologists and obstetricians mean different things by it. We should clarify the ambiguity in the "dating" section.
 * (Trying to reframe this to push towards a consensus, please shoot me down if I've trampled over a valid objection that you made, for I did not mean to trample.) Triacylglyceride (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * As long as the dates are labeled (and explained somewhere, so people can figure out what the labels mean), the actual system is not hugely important to me. I don't think that we should have a self-referential section that says "when we say 'X weeks' in this article, we mean...":  we should just label every occurrence.
 * I firmly agree with avoiding the phrase "gestational age" entirely for exactly the reason you give. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Pregnancy fetishism
Hey Anupam, you reverted an anonymous edit of the pregnancy fetishism that gender-neutralized it because women can maiesophiles too. I switched it back, because women can be maiesophiles too. Let me know if you have any questions. Triacylglyceride (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Sexual desire during pregnancy
I am not satisfied with the way the article now reads and I'd like some feedback. It recently read like this: ''Most pregnant women can enjoy sexual activity during pregnancy throughout gravidity. Most research suggests that, during pregnancy, both sexual desire and frequency of sexual relations decrease.[79][80] In context of this overall decrease in desire, some studies indicate a second-trimester increase, preceding a decrease.[81]However, these decreases are not universal: a significant number of women report greater sexual satisfaction throughout their pregnancies.[82]''

I changed it to read: ''Most pregnant women can continue to enjoy sexual activity during pregnancy throughout gravidity.[78] Most research suggests that, during pregnancy, both sexual desire and frequency of sexual relations decrease.[79][80] In context of this overall decrease in desire, some studies indicate a second-trimester increase, preceding a decrease.[81][82] However, these decreases may not be universal. A 2007 study done at Assiut University found that 37.4 women reported an increase in desire during the whole of pregnancy, however the study also reported that 43.7% also believed that sexual intercourse during pregnancy could lead to problems.[83

It was then changed to read: ''Most pregnant women can continue to engage in sexual activity during pregnancy throughout gravidity.[78] Most research suggests that, during pregnancy, both sexual desire and frequency of sexual relations decrease.[79][80] In context of this overall decrease in desire, some studies indicate a second-trimester increase, preceding a decrease.[81][82] However, these decreases are not universal. A 2007 study done at Assiut University found that 37.4% of women reported an increase in desire during the whole of pregnancy. The study also reported that 43.7% of women believed that sexual intercourse during pregnancy could lead to problems.[83]''

Here is the copy from the one and only source which states an overall increase in satisfaction/desire, a study from an Egyptian university: ''The results showed that 37.4% of women had better sexual desire during the whole of pregnancy, 47.9% had sexual satisfaction during the second trimester of pregnancy, and 75.7% felt change in sexual intercourse during pregnancy. A considerable proportion (43.7%) believed that sexual intercourse during pregnancy could lead to problems.''

I changed the wording because I do not believe that one study done in Egypt (a repressive society that does not believe in a woman's abortion rights even when the pregnancy may be the result of rape, the fetus may be malformed, or the pregnancy may threaten the mother's health, and where almost half of the women wrongly believe that intercourse may "lead to problems") is sufficient to state that an overall decrease in desire is not universal.

Rethinking my initial edit in which I attempted to downplay the conclusion of this one study, I now believe that it would have been more accurate to delete this information entirely because Wikipedia medical articles generally expect statements that make an unusual claim to be well-sourced and not based on a few studies, and certainly not only one.

Here is the information that the Mayo Clinic offers to pregnant women, which I believe to be accurate:

''As long as your pregnancy is proceeding normally, you can have sex as often as you like — but you may not always want to. At first, hormonal fluctuations, fatigue and nausea may sap your sexual desire. During the second trimester, increased blood flow to your sexual organs and breasts may rekindle your desire for sex. But by the third trimester, weight gain, back pain and other symptoms may once again dampen your enthusiasm for sex.'' Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It's complicated because "how often" and "how satisfying" are separate issues. I think that much more general statements are warranted.  The details can go in the sub-article.
 * It appears that a decrease in sexual activity during the first trimester (nausea is presumably not conducive) and third trimester (fatigue?), but not during the second trimester (when most pregnant women are feeling well) is generally accepted per . But there appears to be some variation:   (warning:  1984 source) says "Sexual desire increased for a few women both during pregnancy as well as after childbirth."  This (free) paper says "the pregnant woman's libido is often greatly increased" in the second of the four stages they outline.
 * The What to Expect folks have a page about this and assert variations between women in their book (ISBN 9780761148579 p 355). Baby Center, another mainstream pregnancy website, says "There's a wide range of individual experiences when it comes to sexual desire during pregnancy. Some women have a heightened libido throughout pregnancy, while others find they're less interested in sex. Many women find that their sexual appetite fluctuates, perhaps depending on how they're otherwise feeling physically and emotionally."
 * So I think that we can safely consider variation both within a single pregnancy and between women to be a generally accepted fact, with increased libido generally being the less common response. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the info/links. Yes, I agree that general info would be best.  The free study was good, however this statement really did make me wonder about even that one when it discussed  pelvic congestion related to the growing fetus:
 * It is important that couples know about this physical fact because a delay of 48 to 72 hours may be needed for repeated sexual intercourse. It is important to respect this delay, at least for vaginal orgasm. Clitoral orgasm can be substituted, but some women complain of pain radiating to the outer labia.


 * Isn't it pretty well accepted today that all orgasms are clitoral orgasms regardless of whether or not they were achieved through clitoral stimulation or vaginal penetration? At any rate, most (if I remember correctly about 80%) women never did achieve orgasm through penetration in the first place.


 * One thing that I did find in almost every study was that health care workers are not discussing sex during pregnancy with their patients and there is a lot of misinformation due to that fact, and I feel that that could be included in the article. Gandydancer (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It's now widely agreed that it's all the same nerves, but as a matter of practical mechanics, making a distinction is not unusual. It's quicker to type "vaginal orgasm" than to type "an orgasm triggered by stimulating this nerve vaginally".
 * I think including facts about the lack of education would be perfectly fine and easily sourced. It might also be appropriate to include an example of when intercourse and/or female orgasm is contraindicated, e.g., after premature rupture of membranes (when it increases the risk of infection).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you may have missed my point re vaginal/clitoral organism. I have no problem with using the terms and it seems proper to me, I was referring to the physiological aspects.  It seems to me that since they, as far as I know, physiologically involve the same process one would not involve more "congestion" than the other.  At any rate, looking at our various articles related to female sexuality and reproduction, I was rather horrified to find that most of the information is poorly sourced or more often than not, had no sources at all. One article said that menstruation "cleanses" the vagina, and one revealed that pubic hair grows when puberty "hits". :=/  I certainly hope that not too many people are coming to Wikipedia for accurate information.


 * As for including info re sex after rupture of membranes, I'd rather just skip it as it may be getting too specific and I'd agree that we keep our information broad. Gandydancer (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I deleted the Egyptian study. The article states, "Sex during pregnancy is a low-risk behavior except when the healthcare provider advises that sexual intercourse be avoided for particular medical reasons.", which should cover sex after the membranes have ruptured. Gandydancer (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've assumed that the "congestion" referred to vascular congestion, which might well differ between body parts.
 * I think your changes are a clearn improvement. Do we really want the "how to" information about weight on the belly?  The source is weak (unfortunately typical, as you've noticed), and it seems to me that more generalized information ("common sense" or "avoiding any actions that are uncomfortable") might be more appropriate (or, indeed, nothing at all).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Terminology
Just a quick note that if we need to source any basic definitions for this article, Part 1 and Part 2 of this paper might be convenient, since it's free. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Objections to new Exercise section
While I believe that it is a good addition, I have several objections to some claims it makes. Here is the edit:

Exercise

Exercising regularly during pregnancy can lead to both negative and positive fetal adaptations, depending on the gestational period when exercise was maintained. Maternal exercise may reduce the risk for childhood obesity, but may also increase the risk of type 2 diabetes in adulthood. Past research has not documented maternal diet well, which in combination with exercise, can have a great impact on offspring birth size. Exercise in itself may not have a significant impact on offspring. Rather, the body composition of already fit mothers may have a greater effect on offspring. Maintaining exercise earlier in pregnancy and then cutting back in later pregnancy leads to heavier and taller babies. There is evidence that exercising in late gestation can suppress placental growth and reduced birth weight. There is also evidence suggesting that aerobic exercise during pregnancy restricts fetal growth.[84]

Additionally, maternal exercise is thought to prevent preeclampsia, something that benefits both mother and baby. Concerns over fetal stress due to exercise have been researched and are invalid. Exercise may even lower the risk of preterm childbirth. Several studies suggest that maternal exercise leads to longer and heavier babies and increased fetoplacental growth. In addition to fetal benefits, maternal exercise also helps a woman’s pregnancy symptoms.[85]

Fetal injury due to maternal exercise is unlikely. There is no direct evidence of lasting effects of maternal exercise on offspring, even if it does interfere with transplacental transport of certain nutrients. Maternal exercise associations with fetal heart rate and umbilical blood flow are unfounded. Even its association with SGA has not been confirmed and trends that are documented could be due to deficient diets or other factors unrelated to exercise.[86]

Most of my objections relate to the first section.

It makes this statement: Maternal exercise may reduce the risk for childhood obesity, but may also increase the risk of type 2 diabetes in adulthood.

However the abstract for the second section states:

''Exercise in pregnancy is correlated with a decrease in many common problems of pregnancy. In addition, establishing the habit of exercise in pregnancy may decrease the later life incidences of chronic hypertension and type 2 diabetes in women who are predisposed to these illnesses.''

It also states: There is evidence that exercising in late gestation can suppress placental growth and reduced birth weight.

However section two states:

Several studies suggest that maternal exercise leads to longer and heavier babies and increased fetoplacental growth.

It states:

''Exercise in itself may not have a significant impact on offspring. Rather, the body composition of already fit mothers may have a greater effect on offspring.'' Here it contradicts even its own research.

I'd like to just get rid of source #1. One source is not enough if we're going to be making claims that do not seem to be in agreement with most other sources. Source #2 seems better, but I think it should say "decreasing the chance of developing preeclampsia". Source #3 perhaps should state "There is no direct evidence of lasting untoward effects..." That article is available and would perhaps be helpful for this section, though I have not had time to read it yet. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

There has been no feedback so I went ahead and rewrote this section. I will post it here as well for comparison to the previous edit. It may still need a little work but I'm going to go ahead and add it for now.

The Clinical Practice Obstetrics Committee of Canada recommends that "All women without contraindications should be encouraged to participate in aerobic and strength-conditioning exercises as part of a healthy lifestyle during their pregnancy". Although an upper level of safe exercise intensity has not been established, women who were regular exercisers before pregnancy and who have uncomplicated, healthy pregnancies should be able to engage in high intensity exercise programs, such as jogging and aerobics for less than 45 minutes, with no adverse effects if they are mindful of the possibility that they may need to increase their energy intake and are careful to not become overheated. In the absence of either medical or obstetric complications,they advise an accumulation of 30 minutes a day of exercise on most if not all days of the week. In general, participation in a wide range of recreational activities appears to be safe, with the avoidance of those with a high risk of falling such as horseback riding or sking or abdominal trauma such as soccer or hockey.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists  reports that in the past the main concerns of exercise in pregnancy were focused on the fetus, and any potential maternal benefit was thought to be offset by potential risks to the fetus. However, they write that more recent information suggests that in the uncomplicated pregnancy, fetal injuries are highly unlikely. They do, however, list several circumstances when a woman should contact her health care provider before continuing with an exercise program including: • Vaginal bleeding • Dyspnoea before exertion • Dizziness • Headache • Chest pain • Muscle weakness • Calf pain or swelling (need to rule out thrombophlebitis) • Preterm labour • Decreased fetal movement • Amniotic fluid leakage

The Journal for Nurse Practitioners (2007) reports that many pregnant women do not exercise and they advise that moderate exercise should be advised for pregnant women as part of prenatal care. They write that exercise is of benefit for both mother and fetus as well.

A 2006 Cochrane review of prenatal exercise-related studies assessed the effects regular aerobic exercise (at least two to three times per week) on physical fitness, the course of labor and delivery, and the outcome of pregnancy, in healthy women. They concluded that regular aerobic exercise during pregnancy appears to improve (or maintain) physical fitness, however the authors noted that the trials were small and not of high methodologic quality and the data was insufficient to infer important risks or benefits for the mother or infant. The authors suggested that larger and better trials are needed before confident recommendations can be made about the benefits and risk of aerobic exercise in pregnancy. Gandydancer (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The list of when to call a healthcare provider sounds rather how-to to me. I don't think we should include it. In fact, I'd be happy if this section were half its size, with far less detail about which study said what.  The general recommendations are consistent between sources, and that's really all we need to present.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The list is provided by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, word for word, and I see no reason that it should not be included. I'm surprised you object to my rewrite saying it is too detailed in citing "which study said what", when that is exactly what I objected to in the earlier exercise section - and exactly what I wanted to get rid of.  In fact, I didn't use any studies but rather used the recommendations of OB/GYNS from both Canada and the U.S. instead.  Furthermore, if you read more closely you will see that the first paragraph discusses exercise as it relates to the mother and the second paragraph is more as it relates to the fetus.  Then I rounded it out with info from the nursing journal and a Cochrane review.  BTW, I did some copy edits on the article page, so it is an improvement of what I pasted here.  Gandydancer (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Pregnancy, By what I have studied.11156156TX
Fertilization When male sperm and female egg combine, they start a process from the time of conception growth. It takes about 5 days to get through the fallopian tube to get to the uterus to begin to set, which leads to implantation. Once the emplanted, it continues to grow on a daily basis by means of organs,brains and blood,ect... I read somewhere in the article that it took months to implant. It takes about 5 to 7 days, approximately, for implantation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.91.193.250 (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean. What is wrong about the Pregnancy article?  Where does it say that implantation takes months?  Triacylglyceride (talk) 03:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent revert
Hey,

just explaining my recent revert of the following: Weeks 13 to 28 of the pregnancy are called the second trimester. Most women feel more energized in this period, and begin to put on weight as the symptoms of morning sickness subside and eventually fade away. If they don't by week 20, consult your doctor.

That last bit was an odd tone of voice for two reasons: first, it presumes that the reader is pregnant, as opposed to the phrasing, "those who still have these symptoms in the 20th week and later should consult their doctors." Second, it's medical advice, which Wikipedia strives to avoid offering. Better to say, "when these symptoms continue past week 20, it may be a sign of..." (with citations!)

I notice that it's made by a new editor, and I hope they continue editing! Triacylglyceride (talk) 02:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Trans-inclusivity and replacing the word "woman"
While I'm open to arguments for why "female" is better than "woman," I'm a proponent of "woman"/"women" in this article for the sake of humanization and readability. Reverting Terrymon's edits. Triacylglyceride (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Although the vast majority of pregnancies occur among women there are those who don't identify as women- such as genderqueer, transgenders and androgynous. Calling the people who undergo pregnancies by their reproductive-system rather than gender seemed to me as a more accurate and inclusive, non-invasive way of presenting the subject. I'd like to add that in my edit I've only changed "woman" to "female" where the information had to do with pure biology and left the original woman/women where the topic was real people or researches revolving this certain gender. --Terrymon (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * First off, I totally respect the sentiment. I'm really big on gender-neutralization and inclusive language, and actually work in obstetrics so I spend a lot of time balancing gender-neutralization with using language that will make patients (who may not understand the reasons for gender-neutralization or speak English as a first language) comfortable.  Let me therefore open by mentioning that those who don't identify as women don't include genderqueer, transgenders, and androgynous, they include genderqueer people, transgender people, and androgynous people.
 * That's one of the reasons that I think "female" isn't appropriate in this article: it is less inclusive of ciswomen by erasing their humanity and reducing them to their reproductive systems. It's also less accurate, as this article does explicitly address only female human pregnancies (saying "female human" instead of "woman"... see next paragraph).  One option to bypass these that I would recommend over "female" would be to simply say "people," e.g., "Most pregnant people experience a number of symptoms."
 * The downside to "female," or worse, "female human," and to a lesser extent "person" is the loss of readability, which I strongly feel is a very real cost to any Wikipedia article. People are coming to this article for information.  I want to make sure the non-"woman"-identifying person doesn't feel alienated, but I know that using "pregnant person" or (as I once proposed) "gravida" all over the place will take a toll on the article.
 * I'm very happy to continue discussing the reasons for the word choice, but on the off chance that you find my argument sufficiently compelling at this stage, I'd also like to propose another way of achieving our common goal re: trans-inclusivity: something saying, "this article discusses pregnancy in human women. For a biological description of pregnancy in nonhuman mammals, see pregnancy (mammals).  For a sociological description of pregnancy in trans men, see male pregnancy."
 * (Included the mammals bit to be like, "hey, biological difference over here, sociological difference over here," certainly don't want it to sound like transmen are also nonhuman mammals, don't think it does sound like that.) Triacylglyceride (talk) 07:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Some people who get pregnant aren't women, though -- they are girls. (To get pregnant you must be an adult (biologically), but the term "girl" is somewhat vague and does not equate exactly with "non-biologically-adult human female", in general usage.) Also BTW "human woman" is a redundantcy, there are no non-human women. Herostratus (talk) 07:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Good point on "human women" in my sample top-of-the-article-italic-text -- I don't think redundancy is bad, but I do think that sounding like a sci-fi author wrote the article from an alien perspective is bad. Re: "girls," what are you proposing?  Because I have the same defense of "woman": readability.  Triacylglyceride (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * At first I thought repeating the word "people" might confuse people more than asserting to the sex, but after reading your comment I find it most appropriate. I'm still very new to this and unsure about how to direct, link and edit the way you suggested (besides changing the word "woman" to "people" over and over again). I'd love to see this change happen though... --Terrymon (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Anybody else want to chip in on this? Replacing "woman" with "people," when possible, throughout this article?  (I'm still opposed to it for the same reasons as stated above; I would prefer a comment at the top clarifying the gendering choices in the article.)  Triacylglyceride (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

So user:Littleolive oil's edit, with the description "per talk [page]" didn't actually resemble anybody's suggestion and had innovative grammar, so I reverted it. Nobody suggested "adult human female" as a reasonable compromise; I used "human female" as an example of how devotion to precision in language can result in loss of readability. Also, "adult, human-female uterus" is incorrect and bizarre hyphenation. Triacylglyceride (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually the language was suggested by the above "non-biologically-adult human female", and seemed to take into account and compromise on the several issues. The grammar is accurate. I have no problem with reverting, and wish you the best in this discussion. I have no desire for myself, to spend a lot of time discussing something which could be decided quickly and which should not be contentious. I agree its somewhat awkward sounding so tossing it out, is fine, no problem.(olive (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC))

How can the word woman or female be replaced with the word people. I don't understand this idea. Any thought on this?(olive (talk) 02:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC))
 * Well, when discussing someone who could potentially be pregnant, it isn't sufficiently inclusive to say "woman" (transmen, girls) and dehumanizing to say "female." "People" is not precise, as there are people who don't get pregnant (men), but there are also women who don't get pregnant (women)!  So it's not strictly better or worse than saying "woman."  Still, my vote is for the clarification at the top.  Triacylglyceride (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no perfect solution. Among the imperfect solutions available to us, I think we're better off sticking with the plain words woman and mother.  This covers approximately 99.99% of the people who are pregnant, which is sufficient for our purposes.  Furthermore, and more importantly, this is what our reliable sources do, and we should follow the sources rather than our own political opinions.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Due dates source
This isn't a gold-plated source (it's the manuscript for a paper that was apparently rejected by a journal), but it appears to be pretty comprehensive outline of the issues around calculating due dates. Some of the sources it names might be useful to us, and it might help us identify information that we've overlooked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Morning After Pills/Prevention
Should you include more about the morning after pills? Issues involving the pills, especially with health care, have become more prevalent in the media. It is possible many people don't know exactly what they do to prevent pregnancy. For instance, are they abortion pills or are they similar to birth control? Do they affect an already existing pregnancy? Things like that.

Sahummel (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Why would it be better for this to be covered in the pregnancy article than in the emergency contraception article? The pregnancy article also doesn't mention condoms, for example.  Feel free to make a suggestion as to what material would be added where.  Triacylglyceride (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, while issues surrounding this are currently pretty prevalent in the American media, they are not really mentioned elsewhere outside of the US.AerobicFox (talk) 03:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see much point in covering morning after pills in particular. But planning and contraception definitely need more coverage.  They also should not be relegated to the society and culture bin.  Planning for pregnancy is part of recommended medical care, unintended pregnancy leads to significant maternal ill health and poorer pregnancy outcomes.  Likewise, although it is rarer than undesired fertility, infertility is a regular part of family planning and reproductive medicine.  Zodon (talk) 10:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Pregnancy vs human pregnancy
The article is about human pregnancy, as can I see. Since pregnancy not typical of Homo sapiens, should the article be changed to a new title "Human pregnancy", and an article titled "Pregnancy" will deal with all species. For example, we have Penis and Human penis, -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  04:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * See Pregnancy (mammals) (there is a link to it in the lead of this article). So the article you are talking about already exists.  As to the matter of naming, the article names here seem to follow naming guidelines.  Human pregnancy is probably the type of pregnancy that is most talked about (by humans).  So other articles with same name use disambiguation suffix.  (Presumably the penis example could also have Penis (human), e.g.)  I think the existing article names are adequate.  Zodon (talk) 07:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We should definitely leave the article where it is at pregnancy. We have thousands of articles on conditions / diseases from gout to pharyngitis. We are not going to change these to "gout in humans" or " human pharyngitis". We are humans and we thus assume "human" unless we state otherwise in common usage. Also per the WP:MEDMOS we include a potential section called "In other animals" at the end specifically for this reason.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Wrong periods!!!
Attention to embryo pictures and links to sources! The sources show these images for later periods then written under pictures!!! Difference is 2 GOD DAMN WEEKS!!!! Links 42-45 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.73.188.203 (talk) 01:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Attention to unregistered editor: The captions are correct!!!
 * The captions report the times since fertilization, which is an actual, measurable biological event. (Did you notice the words "after fertilization" that appear in each caption?)
 * The source named names the time since the "last normal menstrual period", which is a theoretical construct created in the 19th century by an old man who didn't understand how the female reproductive system works, and which has sadly been followed ever since—despite it having been scientifically proven that this old estimate produces erroneous results in most cases (Africans and Asians give birth a week "too early" according to this white-person-only rule) and laughable results in some cases (women with a series of closely spaced births can be said to have been pregnant for years).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile, maybe the single-entry IP could explain the difference between a standard week and a "g.d." week? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Baby fat
An entry in the disambig page baby fat links to the pregnancy article to refer to the fat that mothers develop during pregnancy. As per the disambig page rules, any entry's link should have a mention of the term anywhere in the article. There is no mention of "baby fat" in the Pregnancy article. Can a statement be added, or is there a better article where this should be added, probably in Maternal physiological changes in pregnancy? Jay (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

New Image for Initiation section of Article
I made this image, and I would like to add it to this page. Let me know your thoughts. --Ttrue12 (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please fix the link for Cit. 84.
The Citation 84: ^ "Prenatal exposure to flame-retardant compounds affects neurodevelopment of young children". Sciencedaily.com. 19 January 2010. Retrieved 25 November 2011. is broken, however I can not fix it (due to being locked). Here is the proper URL for the reference. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100119121434.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatfulbread (talk • contribs) 22:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

grammatical errow
"When used properly, pregnancy is rare when using birth control pills or an intrauterine device (IUD) however, if it does occur, it's more likely to be ectopic."

Maybe...'Pregnancy is rare when birth control pills or an intrauterine device (IUD)is properly used, however, if it does occur, it's more likely to be ectopic.' 67.5.176.247 (talk) 07:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Watermelon mang (talk) 08:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

IVF
The bit about IVF that you're edit warring is biased. You're presenting it as the only two ways to achieve pregnancy, which it isn't. You leave out, for example, the various sorts of artificial insemination as well as all of the non-IVF artificial options, such as GIFT.

I don't think this is hugely important to address there, but if we're going to address it, then let's not have such a narrow notion of the options. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I reworded to say "can" rather than edit war, but I don't see that the content is clearly accurate or needed. I'm happy to remove it all.(olive (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC))


 * I linked the segment to Assisted reproductive technology/fertility treatment, availing those interested in the topic to find further examples there. Mikael Häggström (talk) 12:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Effect of cannabis
Regarding cannabis, I find it appropriate to mention the decreased birth weight found by Fergusson 2002, as I find it to be a careful use of WP:PRIMARY of a topic of which I've found no secondary sources. On the other hand, regarding the previously mentioned apparent absence of effect on perinatal mortality or perinatal morbidity, I agree with Whatamidoing that such a study may not be of sufficient quality to justify mentioning that point, since there may be an effect but the study may be too small (albeit 600 subjects makes it rather large). Mikael Häggström (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think we should remove all of the "single study" claims in this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with WhatamIdoing about removing all single study claims. Gandydancer (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, I pulled three bad sources from that section. It's someone else's turn.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Parity
The definition for parity in the article is wrong. It is not the number of successful life births but the number of times that she has given birth to a fetus with a gestational age of 24 weeks or more, regardless of whether the child was born alive or was stillborn. please check it. Thank you. Gloryndeliverance (talk) 10:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I fixed it. Gandydancer (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I made some small changes, because "counting multiple births as one" sounded like ten separate pregnancies might be counted as one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Pseudo-pregnancy
Please mention and describe pseudo-pregnancy or False pregnancy (do not confuse with Miscarriage) in article body. Wakari07 (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Strange and clumsy wording in Diagnosis section
It begins "The beginning of pregnancy may be detected in a number of ways, either by a pregnant woman without medical testing, or by using medical tests with or without the assistance of a medical professional."

The bit between the two commas is not a "way" of detecting the beginning of pregnancy. It's a "who". And we aren't told what "way" that pregnant woman does it. HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Changed further Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

ADDITIONS TO PHYSIOLOGIC CHANGES
Progesterone has noticeable effects on respiratory physiology, increasing minute ventilation by 40% in the first trimester. HeatherLogghe (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the recommendation. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Minor correction in section 3: Diagnosis
There is a minor error in the fourth paragraph of section three... "giving less false negatives" should be "giving fewer false negatives." I would do it myself, but I am new and the page is semi-protected. Thanks :) Caffeinated42 (talk) 06:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC) hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.43.94 (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Rename article to Pregnancy (human)
Since human pregnancy is not the only meaning of the word pregnancy (which more generally refers to pregnancy in various mammal species), I think this article should be renamed to Pregnancy (human). Then, the article titled Pregnancy should be redirected to pregnancy (mammals), which is the most general sense of the word "pregnancy". (Many articles incorrectly link to this page when they are referring to pregnancy in the most general sense of the word, as opposed to human pregnancy. It would be less counter-intuitive for the article Pregnancy in mammals to be renamed to Pregnancy, while this article would be renamed to Pregnancy (human).) Jarble (talk) 01:57, 25 October 2012‎ (UTC)


 * A couple of people have pushed for this for years now (or is it the same person over and over?). The answer is always no.
 * We do not have a rule that titles reflect the most general use. The goal is for the majority of readers who are looking for something called pregnancy will find what they're looking for on the first try.  More readers are looking for human pregnancy than for non-human pregnancy.  Therefore this page is called plain pregnancy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * My main concern is that the article's title would be potentially confusing: there seems to be no agreed-upon naming convention for articles that are specifically about humans (with titles that suggest otherwise). The article about human eyes follows the opposite convention: it is called Human eye, while the article about eyes (in the general sense of the word, in all types of animals) is simply called eye. Meanwhile, this article's title does not reflect its anthropocentric focus at all, and may be misleading to users who are wikifying the word pregnancy in an article that discusses pregnancy in the general sense of the word (instead of referring to human pregnancy specifically). Perhaps it would be better if this article served as a disambiguation page for Pregnancy (mammals) and Pregnancy (human), since it is likely that a user would be searching for either of those two things. Jarble (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * All articles are typically about humans unless stated otherwise. Yes I know we are a self centered species and like to write about ourselves but we are not changing our 26,000 medical articles to "Gout in humans" "Type 2 diabetes mellitus in humans" etc. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Leave the article titled Pregnancy. There's no need for disambiguation of this article's title, as it is not believably arguable that most people will not be looking for an article about human pregnancy; for those who are not looking for human pregnancy specifically, the Pregnancy (mammals) article is linked at the top of the article. A very important fact is that "pregnancy" is the WP:COMMONNAME. But what I think about article moves of this type can be found in this move discussion at the Vulva article, some of which I also stated at the Vagina article.


 * I also just signed Jarble's first post in this section, so that people will assuredly know who made that comment without checking in the edit history. Flyer22 (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Stem cell collection
Two different types of stem cells can be collected before childbirth: amniotic stem cellsand umbilical cord blood stem cells. The collection of amniotic stem cells is part of the process of amniocentesis. Umbilical cord blood stem cells can be stored in both public and private cord blood banks, The first private amniotic stem cell bank in the US was opened by Biocell Center in October 2009 in Medford, Massachusetts.

No really due weight. Who cares if some private center is collecting stem cells in the USA? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree, but that trivial fact only applies to the removal of the last sentence. Should any of the rest be kept?  (I can't think of any good reason to keep it.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Exercise copyright
Has anyone checked the ===Exercise=== subsection for copyright violations? Most of it has that odd formatting that is common in cut-and-paste problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Could probably use rewriting regardless. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Where to place info on birth control?
The intro currently has a paragraph on rates of unplanned pregnancies and birth control, specific to the US/UK. It's good info, but does it belong in this article at all? If so, where? (Birth control isn't mentioned anywhere further in the article, which means it shouldn't be mentioned *only* in the intro/summary.) I suggest the paragraph be removed, but would be happy with *some* reference/link to birth control (since people might visit this page when they actually want info on birth control, but don't quite know what to search for?) not-just-yeti (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a weird thing to lead with, and I suspect that it reflects the unconscious biases of our editors' demographics. Single young men tend to be more focused on preventing pregnancy than on achieving it.  It would make more sense to lead with statistics about global fertility rates, the percentage of women who ever get pregnant, rates of infertility, the percentage of pregnancies that end in miscarriage, intentional abortion, premature births or full-term births, or things like that.
 * It's reasonable to discuss unplanned vs unwanted, but perhaps that should be under ==Society and culture==. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Merge may be needed
These two articles overlap alot The second already links to the first and thus IMO does not need to be added here as a see also section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Neuromechanical adaptations to pregnancy
 * 2) Maternal physiological changes in pregnancy
 * I read through the medical MOS, and I think it should be revised to explain WHY the see-also is not needed - which I think is because, see-also's for medical topics could range into dozens of articles, so templates that are centrally agreed upon do that job much better.
 * That said, instead of reverting the see-also addition, it would have been better to cite the MOS and the reasoning from the start, perhaps coming here to the talk page to explain why. I was going to revert until I read the MOS in detail and then sorted out why.
 * We should consider adding the Neuromechanical adaptations page to Pregnancy, since it is an orphan and adding it to the template seems to make sense.
 * If you want to propose a merge (I'm not sure if you are proposing that), that should be proposed on those pages, and then the discussion notified here and elsewhere. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Suggested that the two be merged. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I noticed an orphan article and linked it into a couple of "pregnancy" pages, to attract attention of experts, since I am not. Therefore I became a bit agitated when my "microspam" was reverted on formal grounds. While I do understand the reason for the policy of no-see-also, my purpose was to increase the visibility of the orphan, so that an expert may see it and handle it properly. I didn't expect that proper handling was delinking. The strength of wikipedia compared to paper books is high degree of cross-linking.

That said, I support either merging or adding the title to a template. At the same time, from my experience I would suggest to consider a two stage process: (a) merge, to remove overlaps, and then (b) split, since to my uneducated eye the subject "neuromechanical adaptations" is a reasonable subtopic of a more general one, "Maternal physiological changes in pregnancy".

By the way, to my another uneducated eye, the latter title is a bit tautological: "maternal ... in pregnancy". If it is not, then where is the article about "physiological changes in pregnancy" which are not maternal? Staszek Lem (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Have merged the two pages into one. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to mention why it's "maternal..." - it's the differentiation from fetal, although the corollary for this in the fetus is development, not change. And the term maternal is used to indicate the woman in the time after birth. That's how so many pairings of maternal and pregnancy arise. Hildabast (talk) 00:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Immune tolerance
This completely removed the concept and link to Immune tolerance in pregnancy from the article. I don't think this is a good idea. I'm not wild about these specific two sentences (for one thing, the second incorrectly implies that miscarriage is largely immunological rather than developmental), but I think that we should include something about this. Does anyone have any good ideas about how to work it in? I'm thinking that what's important about this is the concept (permits a non-self organism to exist) and the effects on the mother (widely blamed for mothers' increased problems with influenza and other infections during pregnancy). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I was hoping he'd respond. I know he's been quite busy with other projects.  I can't imagine why he removed it.  I support a return.  Gandydancer (talk) 02:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I see the section was moved to Maternal physiological changes in pregnancy. However, I agree it deserves some mention here as well, so I made a summary in the Pregnancy section. Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Complications and management of normal pregnancy
Complications of pregnancy are a critical issue: they are, for example, what differentiates the realm of doctors and midwives in many countries. Whether or not a pregnancy is regarded as complicated affects maternity care in many ways, in fact. There was a section (and there's a separate article) on complications that basically includes any and all symptoms arising from normal physiological changes of an uncomplicated pregnancy as complications. By this way of approaching pregnancy, there would be no such thing as a normal uncomplicated pregnancy. In addition, there is too little information, and there are key gaps. So I have begun the process of separating them out, using standard clinical practice guidelines to guide the separation. I've put this section under management, and have begun the process of filling this out based on reliable sources, although it is far from complete. The list of discomforts/symptoms in uncomplicated pregnancies is, I think, now complete. But the list of important actual complications of pregnancy is not (I have just removed the ones added to discomforts). Hildabast (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this clarification in the article. It will need additional work, but it's a good start. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Legal viability
I'm looking at this edit, which adds a lot of detail about legal fetal viability.

This strikes me as too much detail, and also as being kind of a weird focus. It's reasonable, in discussing the duration of pregnancies and what counts as preterm or full term, to provide some information about preterm births and the likelihood of survival. People probably want to know this: what's the median age at which a preterm baby will survive in a good hospital, and maybe what's the earliest that ever survived. But what we've got now is essentially an outline of the legal fictions imposed by courts and legislatures to regulate abortions and sometimes crimes (if you murder a pregnant woman, did you also murder the baby?). I've never heard of a 16-week-old fetus surviving, no matter what the Norwegian government says. I don't think that we need this much detail here, or anything about legal status. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a bit of a misleading comparison, because there was also a very large table previously, that had numerous inaccuracies and other problems. Overall, the amount of space devoted to this subject is now less - but it's accurate and international, making the legal nature of it clear. It's a fundamental issue to understanding medical perinatal terminology too, as what is a fetal death and so on varies accordingly. There is a huge amount of work that needs doing on this article: whether it's too much detail will be more clear later down the line when the article is more complete. Hildabast (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that I've ever seen a table on fetal viability. Are you sure it was in this article?
 * And my point is that whether or not your preterm baby is likely to live or die is not something of a "legal nature". Could we please talk in this article about actual, real, scientific, biological fetal viability, and not focus on some legal concept?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Duration
This edit adds information that I think is interesting, but I wonder whether it's UNDUE to emphasize a single primary-source study.

They both have the same sources. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see the text in the article now, and I'm ok with that situation, because it only states a range without any standard deviation or prediction interval, so it's not very interesting. With a very large reference group, you get a large range, without any necessary importance. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Anatomical accuracy
The black-and-white diagram (part of the Third trimester section) includes the following: The uterus expands making up a larger and larger portion of the woman's stomach. At left anterior view with months labeled, at right lateral view labeling the last 4 weeks. During the final stages of gestation before childbirth the fetus and uterus will drop to a lower position on the stomach.

Isn't this anatomically incorrect? Shouldn't "stomach" be replaced by "abdomen"?


 * Consider replacing this with "As the uterus expands it occupies more and more space in the abdomen. ... the fetus and uterus will drop to a lower position in the abdomen."

The first para under Third trimester uses different terminology: The woman's belly will transform in shape as the belly drops due to the fetus turning in a downward position ready for birth. During the second trimester, the woman's belly would have been very upright, whereas in the third trimester it will drop down quite low, and the woman will be able to lift her belly up and down. ... The woman's navel will sometimes become convex, "popping" out, due to her expanding abdomen.

Why the use of "belly" when clearly the abdomen is meant? It's only the last sentence where abdomen is used!


 * "The woman's abdomen will change shape as the uterus drops due to the fetus turning in a downward position ready for birth. During the second trimester, the woman's abdomen would have been very upright, whereas in the third trimester it will drop, and the woman will be able to lift her abdomen up and down. ... The woman's navel will sometimes become convex, "popping" out, due to her expanding abdomen."

Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree and done. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Pictures
It is totally inappropriate to put images of naked women on this site that can be accessed by children and teenagers, not to mention of any country. Please remove them. Same with the pictures of the woman in lingerie. There is absolutely no scientific purpose in displaying these pictures. I assure you (as a medical doctor) that they are not useful for educative purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tewfik5 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, Tewfik5. See WP:NOT CENSORED and WP:Offensive material. Going by that policy and that guideline, how do you justify the removal of these images? The side-by-side image in the Physiology section is educational and its omission would cause the article to be less informative. The ones in the Second trimester section are also educational and their omission also seemingly would cause the article to be less informative. As seen in those links, there are only two nudity images in this article. And I would state that the woman you describe as wearing lingerie is simply wearing plain underwear. People too often make breasts a sexual matter, when first and foremost (at least biologically-speaking) they are means to feed babies. Flyer22 (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: . A bot signed your username for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 00:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The naked images used to be in the lead. What we have now is a compromise. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how those images were suitable for the lead; they fit better where they are, with the current lead picture being the better fit for the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 03:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * They probably got to the lead because some of us see no problem with nudity in the context of this topic. Please don't write as if everyone will have the same conservative moral values as yourself. WP:NOT CENSORED is incredibly relevant here. Actors pretend to be pregnant by wearing appropriate padding under clothes. A person wearing clothes may not be pregnant at all. I believe it's better to show children and teenagers the truth, not something hidden and requiring to be imagined. Because that's the point. How CAN they imagine it if they've never seen the real thing? HiLo48 (talk) 03:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

And never confuse nudity with sexual or sexuality.(olive (talk) 03:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC))


 * HiLo48, look above in this section. I also argued WP:NOT CENSORED. I don't have any conservative values (at least not in the context of what is typically considered conservative values, such as being religious; I'm athiest). Do I have moral values? Yes. But that does not get in the way of my Wikipedia editing. I exercise WP:NOT CENSORED where appropriate, often taking WP:Offensive material into account as well. The reason that I dispute the nudity images as being a good fit for the lead is because the context for the lead, except for the fact that one is about how breasts change during pregnancy and the other is about the breasts and stomach at a certain stage of pregnancy, is not there whatsoever for those images. They fit significantly better in the sections they are currently in. Needless to say, your reply is relevant to the editor who started this section. Not to me. Flyer22 (talk) 03:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I cannot see the difference. The nude pics demonstrate pregnancy more accurately and honestly than clothed ones. If they are OK within the article, there can be no harm in showing them at the start, apart from offending some people's sensitivities. This IS a censorship issue, and you are supporting those seeking censorship, at least part of the way. We have different views. Yours is more conservative than mine. At least be honest to yourself and acknowledge that. Privately if you must. But don't pretend to be a full supporter of no censorship and then argue "not suitable for the lead". HiLo48 (talk) 05:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not completely sure what you are talking about. But many at this site can attest that I, as one of the main contributors to Wikipedia sex anatomy and sexual topic articles, understand the need for WP:NOT CENSORED very well. I've made perfectly clear that my aforementioned "lead argument" is not about offending some people's sensitivities. And by the way, WP:Offensive material is exactly about using images appropriately because of possibly offending some people's sensitivities. It's a guideline that we should follow, but I was not applying that guideline to my lead-images argument; among other things, I told Tewfik5, "See WP:NOT CENSORED and WP:Offensive material. Going by that policy and that guideline, how do you justify the removal of these images?" And now I'm telling you the following: You need to read WP:NOT CENSORED and WP:Offensive material, all of it, and understand that we are not supposed to plaster images anywhere simply because we can, whether images of nudity or not. And if you think that you know me better than I know myself, which you clearly do think so, more power to you. Perhaps BullRangifer (Brangifer), who also fully supports WP:NOT CENSORED, but knows the difference between censorship and when best to apply possible offensive images, can inform you where I am coming from on this matter. But again, my argument was never about keeping those images out of the lead because they may offend. Having seen you around, you seem to pick fights with just about everyone. I suppose it's my turn to be on the receiving end of that type of thing. Flyer22 (talk) 05:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I DID NOT propose that we plaster images anywhere simply because we can. Misrepresentation is poor argument. I pointed out that, clearly, nude pictures are the best for demonstrating pregnancy. If we don't use them in the lead, we are applying censorship. It's as simple as that. HiLo48 (talk) 06:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "Misrepresentation is poor argument." Indeed it is. And, no, not using nude images for the lead is not applying censorship in this case. It is only applying censorship if they are not being used solely because they are nude images. WP:NOT CENSORED and WP:Offensive material quite clearly address what is and what is not censorship. Flyer22 (talk) 06:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Too many negatives in there for me to comprehend. I have made my point. It looks like censorship to me. Nothing you have said so far has convinced me otherwise. HiLo48 (talk) 07:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And I don't care what it looks like to you; what I care about is Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and those who actually understand those matters and don't use WP:NOT CENSORED as an excuse to make nude images seem absolutely pertinent in places where they are not. And if you need the last word on this matter, go ahead and get it. Flyer22 (talk) 08:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, since you didn't respond to it, I'll repeat... Clearly, nude pictures are the best for demonstrating pregnancy. If we don't use them in the lead, we are applying censorship. It's as simple as that. HiLo48 (talk) 08:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Further, the precise wording in WP:Offensive material is "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." My point is that, even if a naked body does offend somebody, it provides more information. Moving it, as the conservatives achieved some time ago, makes the article less informative. So using naked images in the lead is completely in line with WP:Offensive material. HiLo48 (talk) 11:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

This awful feminist above me is really irritating, I've never understood feminists' obsession with naked pregnant women it's bizarre. I can agree this guy's use of the word "compromise" with the ignorant Salafi muslim dude at the top sounded like spineless half-censorship but I'm over it. What I'm talkin about is do we have to have to cutest possible picture of a human embryo at 4 weeks?? I'm trying to have an abortion here and you guys are killing me. 24.225.101.164 (talk) 07:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * So I can feel like I contributed something aside universal criticism to the above argument: people wear clothes. Boom. end of discussion. the "truth" that teenagers/children are likely to see is a clothed pregnant woman. If this was an article about pregnant cows we wouldn't show the cow wearing clothes because cows don't wear clothes. In this way the clothed picture is relevant. 24.225.101.164 (talk) 07:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Average length of gestation
The article says "Obstetricians define each trimester as lasting for 14 weeks, resulting in a total duration of 42 weeks, although the average duration of pregnancy is actually about 40 weeks." What about this article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2342739 that posits that a primipara will have a median gestation length of 288 days from LMP and a multipara, 283 days? I don't want to make changes and create an edit war, so I'm posing the question here first. FlowerLyssa (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Williams Obstetrics is a good source. This bit is about defining the trimesters rather than the actual length. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Infobox of disease classifications
I don't think the infobox in the lead is appropriate. This is a disease classification infobox (not that it says that anywhere). Obviously the information is important and should be somewhere but it seems odd to assume in the lead that the article is about a disease called pregnancy. Bhny (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * As I said at Template talk:Infobox disease, it seems odd that anyone would care about something that readers never see. It could be "Infobox 23952u3" or "Infobox spam" and it would still be invisible to the reader.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The box is obviously visible and it is a disease box full of disease codes. I'm not sure why you are missing my point. (your point seems to be that "disease" isn't visible on the box but this only makes it more confusing). Bhny (talk) 06:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with this sentiment. Is there a better infobox that can be used to represent this physiological phenomenon? --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Infobox disease" and "Infobox medical condition" are the same template, as medical condition redirects to disease. I changed the name to be medical condition so that concern should be resolved.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. The appearance of the box hasn't changed at all. I am talking about the way it appears to the reader. Where does the reader see that this is a medical condition?? Bhny (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. Question:  What does the reader see?  Not anything that says pregnancy is a "disease".
 * This is not "a disease box". It is not "full of disease codes".  It's a template that happens to have the word disease in (some, not all) of its titles.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the infobox. It links to some good sources. It specifies the speciality. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Statistics in the lead
Doc James and others, all the statistics material currently in the lead isn't really WP:Lead material since the lead should summarize what's lower in the article. The statistics information is better suited for the Epidemiology section, though a little repeat in the lead of what is there is fine. Flyer22 (talk) 04:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding how many pregnancies occur globally and the number of deaths that occur from pregnancy and why, yes I consider these of great importance to the lead.
 * What percentage are unplanned is also of interest and is suitable for the lead. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not stating that the content is not important to lead; I am speaking of better organization. Again, I mean that the material is in the lead...but is not covered lower in the article. Per WP:Lead, we should summarize in the lead what is already lower in the article, unless it's something minor. The lead and Epidemiology section cite different statistics material, and therefore are not in harmony. We should better format these matters, so that the lead is more so a summary of what is in the Epidemiology section. Flyer22 (talk) 04:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It is now in the body of the article :-) Some of these statistics are also a summary of the "complications" so it is more than just a summary of epidemiology Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * That's better. Flyer22 (talk) 04:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Have added a further breakdown by region of the world and developed versus developing. Much more can be said about the epidemiology of pregnancy. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 04:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Human bias for articles about humans
Hello! You emphasize that this is a human article. All of the content of this article is about humans, and in almost all health articles, the common practice is to not emphasize that the article is about humans. WP:MEDMOS advises that in health articles, anything to be said about non-humans goes at the end, and to presume that health articles about humans. Why do you want to clarify about humans here?  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  20:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Very simply because the previous sentence was inaccurate. Pregnancy occurs in other non-human animals and therefore can not occur in a woman's womb.  Therefore, the sentence must be qualified with "in humans".  Otherwise, the article title should be Pregnancy (humans).  This is not a health article.  It is about the state of an organism's body and being pregnant is not unique to humans.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a health article? There is an entire profession dedicated to pregnancy. We do not start each medical article with "in humans". We do however emphasis humans as we are human ourselves. This article should have a section at the end called "Pregnancy in other animals" which would address your concerns somewhat. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe it should have that section. But, there would then need to be a sentence which conflicts with the opening sentence because dogs, cats, etc. simply do not have a woman's womb.  How would you resolve that conflict?__DrChrissy (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Would do not need women in the first sentence. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Thank you for listening.__DrChrissy (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Pregnancy is a human term. For non-humans, or generically, the terms gestation, linked in the lede sentence, and sometimes gravidity, are used.  Use of "pregnancy" for pets is an anthropomorphism.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really. In 1809, Thomas Taylor translated Aristotle as saying "The mare, also, is pregnant eleven months, but brings forth in the twelfth month." In 1833 An Encyclopedia of Agriculture had no problem talking about pregnancy and horses. Nor the Encyclopedia Britannica in 1780. More currently, the 2010 Sex Determination and Differentiation in Reptiles has a table titled "Temperature selection by pregnant viviparous squamate reptiles compared.", and I can find dozens more cites from modern scientific English, as well as more popular works. Maybe there's some rule for pedants that that is how pregnant is "supposed" to be used, but in actual English, formal and informal, pregnancy is not limited to humans.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

"Alternatives to abortion" redirect page
This page now redirects to the pregnancy article, but pregnancy is not the only alternative to abortion. Should this page be redirected elsewhere? Jarble (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Have removed it. This is not the most important thing about pregnancy and thus should not be the second line. Some pages have dozens of other terms linking to them. Each possible term does not need a line. Birth control is no longer an option once one is pregnant. And birth control is already linked in the lead. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This redirect page still points to the pregnancy article, though? Jarble (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not know. Pregnancy is technically an alternative to abortion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Surely this will not be left as a redirect? Gandydancer (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Pregnancy is not an alternative to abortion. Pregnancy is an absolute prerequisite to abortion.
 * There are basically three outcomes from a pregnancy: intentional abortion, unintentional pregnancy loss, and childbirth.  The first is not an alternative to itself; the second is not an "alternative" as it cannot be chosen; therefore the last is the actual alternative.  I'll go update the redirect.  If someone wants to check Childbirth to see whether it contains a brief statement that giving birth does not necessarily mean parenting the baby (e.g., surrogates do childbirth, but not parenting), then that might be helpful.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes good point. Childbirth/continued pregnancy is the option. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Pregnancy with twins
I'd like to suggest that another article on pregnancy with twins be created. I'm willing to help out with this but it's not my area of expertise. Hexatekin (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Some information is at Caesarean_section.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  20:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:Class assignment
Nbetenia, would you explain what you have planned for this article? It is often important for student editors to discuss such plans with more experienced Wikipedia editors to ensure that the edits are in compliance with WP:Policies or guidelines. This is for reasons noted at WP:Class assignment. For example, it is easy to go overboard with WP:Primary sources. Make sure to read that policy, if you haven't already read it. Also read Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS) and WP:MEDMOS.

With this edit, you added bullet-point style, though, per WP:Prose, prose is usually preferred. And you removed the following: "Despite all the signs, some women may not realize they are pregnant until they are far along in pregnancy. In some cases, a few have not been aware of their pregnancy until they begin labour. This can be caused by many factors, including irregular periods (quite common in teenagers), certain medications (not related to conceiving children), and obese women who disregard their weight gain. Others may be in denial of their situation."

Why did you remove that content? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi! I hope I am responding in the proper format. Yes I read those, thanks for checking.  Although prose is prefered, a bulleted format makes more sense for a list of >10 items (with >100 word sentence).  It is also easier to read and easier to click on the links.  I also removed that text because 1. it was addressed in the paragraph before the list. 2.They are actually discussing symptoms not signs. 3. It did not have a citation. I could rework it back into the first paragraph if you feel like it needs to be there. My plan for the article was originally to just beef up the nutrition and management section, but there was so much work needed on the entire article (citation links don't work or are inaccurate or just lack of citations) that I havent gotten there yet! Let me know if there is anything else you'd like to discuss. @@Nbetenia  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbetenia (talk • contribs) 04:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I see one case of a women in labor who did not realize it. So yes it happens. Happy to help User:Nbetenia. This is a big topic though so go slow and carefully. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 08:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the best student work I've ever seen. The copy edits are beyond excellent.  In this case the bullet list is an improvement, IMO.  Very, very nice work that has greatly improved this article.  Gandydancer (talk) 09:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, that's so nice Gandydancer. Doc James- of course I agree it happens! That exact content is in the first paragrapgh of the diagnosis section (and even better has stats with a good ref). I would't have erased if the topic wasn't already covered! Hope that clarifies. Keep me on my toes :) Nbetenia (talk) 14:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)nbetenia

Here is an example of the work that this editor is doing:

This wording: ''Prenatal medical care is the medical and nursing care recommended for women before  and during pregnancy. The aim of good prenatal care is to identify any potential problems early, to prevent them if possible (through recommendations on adequate nutrition, exercise, vitamin intake etc.), and to manage problems, possibly by directing the woman to appropriate specialists, hospitals, etc. if necessary.''

Was changed to this:

Pre-conception counseling is care that is provided to a woman and/ or couple to discuss conception, pregnancy, current health issues and recommendations for the peri-pregnancy period.

''Prenatal medical care is the medical and nursing care recommended for women during pregnancy, time intervals and exact goals of each visit differ by country. The aim of good prenatal care is prevention, early identification, and treatment of any medical complications. A basic prenatal visit consists of measurement of blood pressure, fundal height, weight and fetal heart rate.'' Gandydancer (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Wiki med peer review
Overall, extremely thorough without being too technical or bogged down by detail. Very comprehensive and informative. Just a few comments below:

Thank you for all the comments Kiyannamw!

Pregnancy Paragraph 1: Correct “Symptom of early pregnancy” to “Symptoms of early pregnancy” done Paragraph 3: Might want to explain what you mean by “term pregnancy” ''Yes great point. Changed to: A pregnancy is labeled as "term" during certain weeks with the assumption that the fetus is fully developed and the pregnancy is complete.'' Overall, good introduction with a lot of information but not too much for the reader to comprehend. Good use of statistical data and definitions-good lead up to the rest of the article.

Terminology Interesting topic to include on the article-while I think it can get a little confusing it makes sense to have it in here to help those who are looking up these specific terms.

Signs and Symptoms Define polyhydramnios polyhydramnios (too much amniotic fluid) Comprehensive list with good explanations

Physiology While this section is likely a little too technical for a good portion of the public that will be reading it I still think it’s necessary and appropriately detailed. I think this statement “The fetus inside a pregnant woman may be viewed as an unusually successful allograft, since it genetically differs from the woman.[34] The main reason for this success is an increased maternal immune tolerance during pregnancy.” could use some clarification. It sounds strange to say this without explaining the physiology of immune responses first-or perhaps you could delete it?

The fetus is genetically different from the woman and can be viewed as an unusually successful allograft.[1] The main reason for this success is increased immune tolerance during pregnancy.[2] Immune tolerance is the concept that the body is able to not mount an immune system response against certain triggers.[1]

Diagnosis Ultrasound: You might consider adding that ultrasound also detects other deformities/abnormalities other than just DS. I think that is clearly stated in the first sentence of the paragraph.

Management Might want to say what fundal height is or provide a hyperlink. good point it is now hyperlinked

Epidemiology Great detail and scope.

Society and Culture I’m not sure if infertility and abortion belong under this heading or would be better suited under a separate heading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiyannamw (talk • contribs) 00:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Nudity in article
I notice that there is nudity in this article. I do not know what Wikipedia's policy is regarding nudity. Should the nudity be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.214.67.173 (talk) 04:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, must be tagged. And a version without this nudity pics (only the words) could be seen by teens.

Content
Not sure about "A pregnancy is labeled as "term" during certain weeks with the assumption that the fetus is fully developed and the pregnancy is complete. "

What part of this ref supports it ? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Are there more doc sources?.--37.29.185.158 (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Added prevention content
I've added content to a new section on the prevention of pregnancy complications. Sometimes I am not so fast and will delay providing the references which shouldn't be hard to find. Be patient with me. Best Regards,
 * Barbara (WVS) (talk) 01:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Duration
The following sentence is incorrect: "It [pregnancy] usually lasts around 40 weeks from the last menstrual period (LMP) and ends in childbirth." This is factually inaccurate as approximately one-half to two-thirds of fertilized eggs result in miscarriage, rather than birth, and these pregnancies usually last considerably less than 40 weeks. https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001488.htm; https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2010/10/earlier-more-accurate-prediction-of-embryo-survival-enabled-by-research.html

It is then also somewhat misleading to say, as the first sentence of the article does, that "Pregnancy, also known as gravidity or gestation, is the time during which one or more offspring develops inside a woman," as the majority of pregnancies do not result in offspring (which Wikipedia defines as "the young born of living organisms").

It would be more accurate to say, "Pregnancy, also known as gravidity or gestation, is the time during which one or more fertilized eggs may develop into offspring inside a woman." And to later say, "One-third to one-half of pregnancies will reach full term, usually lasting around 40 weeks from the last menstrual period (LMP) and ending in childbirth. The remaining pregnancies do not reach full term, usually resulting in miscarriage before the 20th week."

This is important to correct because many women and men do not know how prevalent miscarriage is. About 15 to 20 percent of women who know they are pregnant will miscarry, along with many more who do not ever know they are pregnant. Even though fully one-quarter of women will experience at least one miscarriage in their lives, when women do not know these facts, having a miscarriage can often lead to self-blame and depression. http://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/service/fertility-and-reproductive-health/recurrent-pregnancy-loss

Beside these negative impacts, Wikipedia plays an extremely important role in our society as a repository and purveyor of public information, especially regarding health. For that reason alone, Wikipedia should provide the most accurate and complete information on this—and all—topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magasaurus (talk • contribs) 16:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia, User:Magasaurus.
 * I think that these numbers treat pre-implantation loss as "pregnancies" and "miscarriage", which is not technically true. Losing a fertilized egg before implantation means that there was no pregnancy, and therefore technically no miscarriage.  Can you double-check your sources for these statistics?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Have adjusted to "Childbirth typically occurs around 40 weeks from the last menstrual period (LMP)." as agree miscarriages are very common. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Not possible
1 in 7000 women do not die in pregnancy. Which means 1 in 7000 cannot die from PE in pregnancy so moved here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

" The mortality rates due to blood clots migrating to the lungs affects about 1 out of 7,000 pregnancies and causes 10% of maternal deaths. Prevention of this complication includes the physical interventions of compression stockings, pneumatic leg devices and leg exercises. Medication is administered cautiously so that the benefit of preventing blood clots outweighs the risk of bleeding."


 * " I think you incorrectly evaluated the statement. It does not claim 1:7000 mothers die in pregnancy. It claims that the condition occurs in 1:7000 pregnancies, and such occurrences are responsible for 10% of maternal deaths. For example, say there are 7,000,000 births. That means 1,000 will have a migrating blood clot.   And, of those 7,000,000 births assume 100 maternal deaths. Of those 100, ten of them are due to migrating blood clots.  In other words, of those 1,000 with a migrating blood clot 990 survived and 10 died, contributing to 10% of total maternal deaths from 7,000,000 pregnancies. Jyg (talk) 07:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Male pregnancy
Section about male pregnancy must be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.29.185.158 (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in your source about male pregnancies.
 * Barbara (WVS) (talk)
 * The article head says Pregnancy / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia / This article is about humans. It should be no flaw that an article about human pregnancy does not mention other species with male pregnancy.
 * Naaman Brown (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Male pregnancy needs to be more expressed. It is a possible standard. The article should have knowledge of male pregnancy.Msweezy 3 (talk) 10:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2836374/Male-pregnancy-figures-reveal-54-MEN-gave-birth-Australia-past-12-months.html/ref>

Why is the controversial image necessary?
The image in the lead seems to illustrate pregnancy just fine and we already and we have another image illustrating the breast changes, so it's kind of unnecessary at this point. I don't see why an image that people have repeatedly complained about needs to be there when there's a perfectly reasonable alternative that doesn't upset their sensibilities. I get that Wikipedia is not censored, but when it's causing unnecessary offense and no encyclopedic value is lost in the alternative, why not just go for that alternative? TheDracologist (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * To which image do you refer? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The one of a nude pregnant woman. I don't actually care whether it's removed or not; I'm just curious why people are so adamant about it staying. TheDracologist (talk) 08:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it's all in the talk page archives. I think the general argument was "we should use the most accurate image, period, and in no wise consider anyone's sensibilities, as that's not our remit". Herostratus (talk) 14:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I just don't get what about her being naked would make it more accurate. TheDracologist (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no strong position. Happy to have it in the body of the text. Was just against it being the lead image. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Being naked in this context is more encyclopedic and informative than in clothes. Otherwise there's no difference between natural pregnancy and being stuffed with a pillow, like an actress playing a pregnant woman. Brandmeistertalk  07:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, since there are a lot of cultural aspects to human pregnancy. Anyway, there was a long discussion about this a while back (its somewhere in the archives), and IIRC (I could be misremembering) that was indeed the decision, to have the lead image (not all the images) be clothed, and in fact that's how the article is now (File:PregnantWoman.jpg) and has been for awhile, so now I'm not sure what OP is talking about. Herostratus (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Images are too expressive. Images help understand the topic but some can be too graphic along with the page about women. Msweezy 3 (talk) 10:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm just trying to wrap my head around how her being naked makes it more encyclopedic. I'm neutral about the image, but I don't understand that part. Yeah, the clothed woman could be wearing a pillow and we wouldn't be able to tell, but the naked woman could be photoshopped or wearing a prosthetic belly and we wouldn't be able to tell either. TheDracologist (talk) 02:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess being naked makes it more encyclopedic if you consider this to be mainly a medical article (some do, some don't). It's like in the article Club foot, would you rather show the foot bare or with stockings on, and which shows the condition better. But the lede pic is not naked so I don't even see what's bothering you. Herostratus (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not bothering me. I was just curious about the reasons there were for keeping the image other than the dogmatic accusations of misogyny and prudishness I'd seen thrown around in the archives. TheDracologist (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2018
Please, consider to remove or replace this link 'cause no longer exists: https://www.acog.org/About-ACOG/News-Room/News-Releases/2013/Ob-Gyns-Redefine-Meaning-of-Term-Pregnancy

The new and correct link should be: https://www.acog.org/Clinical-Guidance-and-Publications/Committee-Opinions/Committee-on-Obstetric-Practice/Definition-of-Term-Pregnancy

"Childbirth maturity stages" section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy#Childbirth Note number 46. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy#cite_note-term_definition-46 ALvE (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done The ref now links to the archived version. Simplexity22 (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2018
Post-term pregnancy begins at 42 weeks and beyond, not 41 as stated in the article. 41 weeks and 6 days is the maximum "full term" limit. Daphneporat (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  .  spinten do    18:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Daphneporat is correct (and thanks!). Here is the source:   We got this info correct in the body but I wonder how long this article has contained this misinformation in the lead? Gandydancer (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Why is it described like a disease?
"Pregnancy" is described in exactly the same way as a disease like Infectious mononucleosis or common cold, with the grey box listing symptoms/causes/prevention/treatment/deaths etc. This seems kind of absurd to me, given that it is part of the normal human reproduction cycle. Wikipedia is not a textbook for medical professionals to be used for diagnosing patients. The article on "Ejaculation" does not list "symptoms/causes/treatment/prevention/deaths" (even though lots of pretty graphic images). so why is pregnancy treated in this way, like something abnormal and dangerous? Also, the evidence shows that people don't die from "pregnancy", they die from complications related from giving birth. Sort it out, please. 80.169.129.188 (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Your comparison point of ejaculation is a little odd. Ejaculation doesn't have a (known) mortality rate.  There isn't a rate at which ejaculation leaves people needing blood transfusion.  Thinking of ejaculation as a disease process doesn't really help with anything.
 * Pregnancy has a fairly unusual position in medicine. We spend a lot of effort helping some people achieve it, and other people prevent or mitigate it.  Thinking of (undesired) pregnancy as a disease process is useful -- the way we think about disease prevention and cure can be applied to undesired pregnancies.  The messy world of biology doesn't draw a clear line between disease processes and normal processes.  Is being heterozygous for sickle cell trait a normal process or a disease process, for example?
 * That's not to say that Wikipedia needs to make a statement that pregnancy is a disease. What's important for now is that all of those infobox properties can be applied to it, while they can't be applied to other "normal" processes.  Triacylglyceride (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

It may be useful in a medical context, but like I said, Wikipedia is not a medical textbook, but an encyclopedia. Pregnancy is key to the whole human life process, and a key aspect of women's experience, and has an unusual position in medicine precisely because of this. How it is "treated" depends on what the woman actually wants for herself. Yes, for some people pregnancy is unwanted, but often for the social reasons and the burden having a child brings, rather than simply because of the "symptoms" of pregnancy itself. Given the inadequacy of the medical aspect to really deal with pregnancy in a holistic way I don't see why it is given primacy here. I mean, take the sentence "A woman who has never been pregnant is referred to as a nulligravida. A woman who is (or has been only) pregnant for the first time is referred to as a primigravida" - by whom? I have never heard anybody use this term in general conversation. I assume it must be common among obstetricians but that's not the way the information is presented. "Women who have never carried a pregnancy achieving more than 20 weeks of gestation age are referred to as nulliparous." It's probably not OK to go around calling people "nulliparous" outside of a medical context. Moreover, you mention yourself how often medical professionals are called to assist people getting pregnant, but there is very little mention of this in the main article compared to how often unplanned and unwanted pregnancy is mentioned. Anyone who came on here without any prior knowledge would conclude that pregnancy is essentially a negative thing.

The "society and culture" section I think has a more encyclopedic starting point, although at the moment it is quite sparse and undereferenced. It's probably like that because the article is already bloated with all the medical stuff so people aren't going to add more to it. I think it could be usefully combined with the page on pregnancy in mammals to make something more general. Then if you want to have a medically focused article why don't you do that? You may think all the medical text,book stuff helps you to be "objective" but in reality the implication is that pregnancy is an abnormal, negative thing which in turn reinforces the cultural narrative that women's bodies are abnormal and negative. 80.169.129.188 (talk) 10:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually, as a parent of four and uncle of four, I certainly have heard at least "primigravida" used in general conversation, & I would imagine most women at least of that sort of age are aware of the term. But if not, part of the purpose of an encyclopedia is to explain basic medical terminology to readers, especially as all adult women will be or have been "nulligravida", and might find themselves referred to as such in notes etc.  A polite Victorian euphemism for pregnancy was "in an interesting condition", and though not a disease, it is certainly a medical condition ("... a broad term that includes all diseases, lesions, disorders, or nonpathologic condition that normally receives medical treatment, such as pregnancy or childbirth").  The template used is actually "Infobox medical condition (new)". Johnbod (talk) 12:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


 * IP user, I didn't say anything about how often medical professionals need to help people get pregnant. I don't have numbers off the top of my head, but it's certainly less often than we help people avoid getting pregnant. In fact, since most women spend 30 years being sexually active and fertile, and most want on the order of 2 to 3 children, that means spending 27 years avoiding pregnancy. I agree with what Johnbod says about "medical condition" being an appropriate way to describe pregnancy; neither disease nor "baseline."


 * Having a section that describes the medical terms used in pregnancy (a section appropriately called "terminology") seems entirely appropriate for an encyclopedia.


 * You've expanded the discussion significantly past the infobox, and are suggesting that the entire tone of the article is inappropriate. I disagree with you.  I think that the core problem is that the negative aspects of pregnancy are encyclopedic (generally speaking, it has significantly more health risks than benefits), while the positive aspects of pregnancy are personal (I do not think the article needs a section on the value people find in having biological children).  What changes do you have in mind?  Triacylglyceride (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2018
Waheed222 (talk) 08:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 08:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:LEAD
Stats that the lead should summarize the article as a whole and be about 3 to 4 paragraphs for a topic this size. Restored summary Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Lead revision
I have reverted the lead revision because it is so unusual to have an editor redo a lead of such a widely-read article while he/she still has less than 50 WP edits to their name. Since I did not mention a specific problem with the edit, nor do I here, perhaps I was wrong in my thinking and another editor needs to revert me. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 18:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I am new and learning how to edit accurately in Wikipedia. I was having some technical difficulties with the Visual Editor. I have now fixed the Lead as I had intended. My goal was to remove some redundancy I saw with other parts in the article while being more comprehensive-- not assuming all pregnancies result in birth, as the overall article implied before. Please be patient with me and let me know if there are content or structure concerns. Thanks! Morgainecirce (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The proposed change has many parts. I encourage you to try to edit the article. Newer users are welcome and by your edit you obviously have some insight into this subject.
 * I would like to share a wiki reviewer perspective with you: our editing interface is mostly 1990s software. Some of its features are non-intuitive and challenging, so thanks for your patience. In your edit, you made what I would call 10 substantive changes in one edit. In our review process, we review changes one at a time, but we revert edits in entirety. If instead of making many changes in one edit, and instead you made 1 change per edit, the discussion would proceed much more efficiently. As things are, if someone wants to discuss one point with you, they have to point to your entire edit then explain in text where to look. Smaller edits typically lead to faster progress. Thanks.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  19:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I see you reverted me. My problem is that you do not yet even know how to properly make a talk page indent and yet you are redoing WP leads.  This is not to say that as a newcomer to this page you are not going to pick up on serious mistakes and things that need to be changed, for example I note already that you added morbidity and mortality to the sentence about preterm birth,  while the previous sentence said only "death".  So here I see something that is so important to me, forbidding women to have an abortion at younger and younger fetal development to the point that birth defects are not just possible but likely - while cutting back on funding to assist the parents of these children, etc. - and I never even noticed our error...  Gandydancer (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have restored again. We need page numbers for textbooks, plus a number of other issues.
 * Lead is typically 4 paragraphs. And the TOC occurs after that. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

What was the ref for "Preterm birth is the most common complication of pregnancy that leads to infant morbidity and mortality, and the greatest risk associated with earlier gestation." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2019
The second paragraph says: The second trimester is from week 13 through 28. This is in direct contradiction to the colored time line in the section PHYSIOLOGY that shows the second trimester ending after week 25. Please correct of clarify.

64.201.243.34 (talk) 23:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC) 64.201.243.34 (talk) 23:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done NiciVampireHeart 15:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Ref
Here is the ref https://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/pregnancy/conditioninfo

Second trimester is 13 weeks to 28 weeks.

Colored line may need updating. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what this means?
"A miscarriage or preterm birth would also define the cessation of the trimester."

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Spontaneous
Hello WhatamIdoing, can I suggest that the use of the word 'spontaneous' in front of miscarriage is redundant - there is no such entity as a non-spontaneous miscarriage. --Iztwoz (talk) 11:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I would likewise query induced abortion - in Britain for example loss of a fetus is either though miscarrying - a miscarriage or by way of an abortion; unintentional or intentional.--Iztwoz (talk) 11:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The "redundant" adjective tells readers how we're using these terms in this article. While the original definition of abortion includes all forms of pre-viability loss, at least in the US, physicians have been given firm guidance against using the word abortion to describe a miscarriage.  Since we follow that distinction throughout the article, I think readers need to be certain of how we're using it.
 * Speaking of how we're using language, the word elective has been misused throughout the article. Perhaps you would like to change those to induced.  Induced encompasses both elective (what you might call 'medically unnecessary', except that is itself a different piece of jargon) and therapeutic (health-driven) abortions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

About the reduced scope of articles concerned by medicine or biology.
I hope that someday WP will break the monopoly of medical/biological articles like this by medical/biological field interpretation. It's predictable and not much encyclopledic since many other different views from other disciplines are lacking, like human sciences, other branches of natural science or even religion. I usually avoid to review articles like this in search of that extended coverage. The article is complete in it's specific scope but general scope is unexistent, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.26.81.58 (talk) 05:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2020
Attaching the following systematic review to recommendations for exercise to show that exercise, even vigorous exercise, is safe throughout pregnancy: Noetel (talk) 06:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 13:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Previous edit was not specific. Requested changes, specifically: Noetel (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Add more recent citation to this sentence: women who were regular exercisers before pregnancy and who have uncomplicated pregnancies should be able to engage in high intensity exercise programs.[135]
 * 2) Specify the claim "should be able to engage in high intensity exercise programs" with "should be able to engage in high intensity exercise programs [135] without risk of prematurity, lower birth weight, or gestational weight gain . A systematic review found that exercise leads to slightly decreased risk of prematurity.
 * 3) Given the maternal benefits, need to hedge this risk with the other risks and benefits: "Physical exercise during pregnancy does appear to decrease the need for C-section [133], but even vigorous exercise carries no significant risks to babies and significant health benefits for mothers


 * Noetel, I've made these changes (with slight copyediting).  for the newer sources and the clear directions about what you wanted to have done.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Non-normative pregnancy
Recently the whole following text was taken out. The critique focused on the last part and argued with WP:MEDRS. Beside MEDRS maybe over used here, it does not apply to the first part of the text. I propose to reintroduce the issue more than as a "see also" link.

"===Gender and sex===

Pregnancy is not confined to women, also some non-binary, transgender and in rare cases intersex  persons can get pregnant." Nsae Comp (talk) 04:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * More accurately, its insertion was reverted. And my statement about WP:MEDRS applies to the entirety of it; "medicalnewstoday.com" and NBC News are even worse sources. I and WhatamIdoing explained the previous section that this is WP:UNDUE. The see also link is the compromise and is what makes the most sense here. Crossroads -talk- 06:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Well I do not know how a whole article can exist on the issue, but here is another article and there are even others referenced in the newspaper article if you want more. Its sad how some issues on Wikipedia can have more and more references and still get hidden in seperate articles. Nsae Comp (talk) 07:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * PS: Pregnancy is not just a medical condition. That said, if you dont allow it under medical terms, then just rewrite it as:"Transgender people have claimed..." Nsae Comp (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to write that and the matter is not being hidden in any way. The content still exists; it's just being put in the appropriate article which we link to. WP:NOTPAPER. This article is a medical article; it's not a disease condition, of course, but it is a medical matter. Crossroads -talk- 07:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * You are missing the point. Pregnancy has a social/cultural dimension and this can be at least mentioned in the text about pregnancy. Maybe you want to put it in the cultural section, even though I dont think thats ideal. Write something like or "There is the public issue of transgender pregnancy. ..." and mention the legit newspaper and if you want I look up more "legit" references. Nsae Comp (talk) 08:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunate wording: Describing pregnancy as an illness
Hello, I am writing regarding the wording of this article. By employing words such as "symptoms", "epidemiology" and "diagnosis", the writers of this article compare pregnancy to an illness, which is unfortunate, especially in terms of gender politics. I suggest that someone with the requisite medical knowledge revise this article thoroughly.ThomasBJ (talk) 13:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Phooey! It's a medical condition (or if it isn't, what is it?) and has "symptoms" and needs a "diagnosis". Strictly I think "epidemiology" is correct, but a better word might be used. Johnbod (talk) 04:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

"Women" or "female humans"
Hi, I know the reference in the first sentance uses "woman", but isnt it more precise to say "female human", it would not only include transgender and nonbinary people, but also highlight this article is not about pregnancy of mammals in general. Nsae Comp (talk) 05:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In that case, someone would just make the same objection about "female" as a gender term. Medical sources overwhelmingly say "women", so we follow WP:Due weight. Also, generally, women generally prefer to be called women, not "female human". Crossroads -talk- 05:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, I at least somewhat added/raised the issue in the later part of the article since it seems to not be touched upon anywhere. Nsae Comp (talk) 05:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The phrase female human would exclude intersex people.
 * We should follow the sources in how we talk about this subject. The sources do not emphasize people who do not have a gender identity as a woman.  When that changes, the Wikipedia article will, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * FUchesco, could you please join this discussion, and try to persuade people that "women" should not be mentioned at the start of an article that is not only traditionally about "women", but has also been a major excuse for discriminating against women?
 * Edit warring will get you blocked, but people are willing to listen to you here. We all want the best article that we can have, and I am certain that is true about you, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nbetenia. Peer reviewers: Kiyannamw.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Dates
There are three different sets of dates for when pregnancy "begins". They are:


 * Last menstrual period (pregnancy begins two weeks before ovulation and fertilization)
 * Conception (pregnancy begins at fertilization, which is usually ≤24 hours after ovulation)
 * Implantation (pregnancy begins 5–10 days after ovulation and fertilization)

The last item is especially salient for abortion, because the pre-implantation definition means that Emergency contraception cannot be abortifacient. (There is no implanted blastocyst at that time; therefore there is no pregnancy, and you can't terminate a pregnancy that doesn't exist.) This approach is not especially common outside of abortion discussions.

I think this article would benefit from standardizing on the middle one, as it is the system most closely related to biology. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Added about Trimester origin
I saw the page didn’t mention the actual source of trimesters and I added the sentence in. It could move to Terminology. Did not put in leade as not concise. Thoughts?Manabimasu (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)


 * @Manabimasu, here's what you wrote, which I just removed:
 * The origin of the trimester framework for pregnancy is in U.S. Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade.
 * That court decision was in 1973. Here is a link to a 19th century obstetrics textbook.  It also talks about the trimesters of pregnancy.  The idea of pregnancy being divided into trimesters did not originate in a 1973 court case.  It originated either in this 1888 book (an idea suggested by this book review:  "The author's classification of the signs of pregnancy is especially good.  Dividing this period into trimesters...") or before it.  At any rate, there is no possibility of the trimester framework having been invented by the Supreme Court some 85 years after the publication of this book. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * To perhaps be a little clearer: The SCOTUS in 1973 took the long-existing concept of trimesters from medicine, and declare that this system should be used to determine when abortions would be legal in the US.  "You can apply this long-existing medical idea to law" is not the same as "We're inventing a new idea about how to talk about the different stages of pregnancy in this court decision". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Replace what I wrote with your source on the earliest mention of trimester system since origin seems to be unknown.Manabimasu (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Does this article really need to include information about when someone decided that pregnancy could be measured in thirds instead of, say, halves or quarters? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Pertaining to trimester system, add as a footnote as it could take space.Manabimasu (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Why add it at all? It's kind of WP:TRIVIA. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Third Trimester pregnancy image
I noticed there was a picture for the 2nd trimester but not the third. Here is one for the third with a side and front view. It could be added under the Maternal changes 4.3 section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:3A87:9A00:3E28:B44B:8CBF:87DA (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We already have two third trimester photos. Sectionworker (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Missing chapter about the capacity to become pregnant
Hi, I recently introduced a sub-chapter in Physiology about the development of reproductive organs. Meaning a chapter about variations in sex characteristics and their development, as the basis to be able to become pregnant. This can include cases such as women with partially developed reproductive organs, or other obstacles. But it would be a place to speak about age and pregnancy, in young and old people, as well as trans-gender and intersex cases. The latter are now in the legal/social chapter where it is only partially fitting. The age issue is just as a "further" link at the beinning od that chapter; and fertility is alltogether in the "see also" section. In my opinion also "male pregnancy could fit here as a link.

I would suggest maybe give the issue even an own chapter seperate to physiology, because it has such a delicate social dimension too. So I am for a cromprehensive chapter about "Capacity" or "Fertility" (I cant think of less valueing terms).

What do you think? I think its an important complex that shouldnt be spread out. Nsae Comp (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Are you considering a summary of Fertility and Infertility? Maybe it would be best to improve those articles first, and only then try to summarize them here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)


 * No I do not just suggest to summarize these articles. I am suggesting to have a chapter that deals with the capacity to be pregnant as a young or old person, as an intersex or trans person, or women with different physical conditions that influence their capacity to become pregnant (which would include, but not completely cover the issue of fertility). It is odd that it is even a point of dicussion to have a chapter about the capacity to have ferilization happening and become pregnant. Nsae Comp (talk) 10:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Is not "the capacity to be pregnant" actually the subject of those articles? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Well as far as I understand it (IMHO): no, fecundity seems to be the term that I was looking for. Fecundity as the opposite to sterility, instead of fertility and infertility, the latter two being the capacity to fertilize. So I suggest to introduce a chapter called fecundity, which covers and moves together the above suggested. Nsae Comp (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Ignoring the fact that this article is actually about abortion, are these  the issues that you wish to cover?    Sectionworker (talk) 11:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Please elaborate what fecundity has to do with abortion? But yes reproductive health is an issue also of trans, nonbinary and intersex people. But I am arguing for a particular chapter about the capacity to become pregnant. Nsae Comp (talk) 12:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * She means that the main subject of the cnet.com source she linked is about abortion, but touches on similar subjects – not the main subject of the Wikipedia articles is abortion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I just found the following source that discusses the term, but due to its conclusion I would just call the chapter "Capacity" and then elaborate on the different terms, incl. their opposites (infertility and sterility), and the different cases. Nsae Comp (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Another more contemporary fertility science glossary: Nsae Comp (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

So more then ten years later to the first source I now introduced the terms fertility and fecundity still stand and are differentiated as discussed. So I would as I said still suggest a chapter called "Capacity" and collect all the issues relating it and elaborate on their differences: fecundity (/sterility), fertility (/infertility), variations in sex characteristics in women, nonbinary, transgender and intersex people, as well as the fecundity throughout age. Nsae Comp (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I introduced now my updated version of the chapter. If something is still lacking, please discuss here particularly before reverting the chapter. Nsae Comp (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)