Talk:Pregnancy/Archive 2

message: 1. You all are(Those who WANT this) making excuses to have something nude to look at and have pictures scar small children, a curious 5th grader could come  at this and scroll down, he sees it. He goes back, but he wants that "Feeling"  more and get him addicted to porn.
2.This is Wikipedia...You should NOT see  NUDE PEOPLE unless you directly look for it, If you search "Penis/Vagina" Etc, you would expect nude pictures...Here is an article that at MOST would have Dirty text for the youth, you're just over-sensitive women(I've read all of the above) who think your own feelings about this "Work of Art." surpass the fact little kids can get sexual disorders from this kinda of stuff, put in the porn article for god sake, Wikipedia doesn't have to have nude pictures everytime you search something.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.21.38 (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I have to say this is one of the funnier comments I've encountered on Wikipedia.  Tvoz |talk 04:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Two things

message: In Pregnancy#Determining the beginning of pregnancy and predicting date of birth, there are some apparent contradictions, or at least places were different pieces of text don't mesh well together:
*"Fewer than 10% of births occur on the due date..." vs. "Approximately 3.6% of all women deliver on the due date predicted by LMP, and 4.7% give birth on the day predicted by ultrasound." This isn't technically a contradiction since 3.6% and 4.7% are both less than 10%, but these statements should be harmonized. It needs to be clear what the sources for these statements are, and which method of finding due date is assumed. If the passage that begins with the 10% figure is just less precise than the other passage, it should be removed.
*"An early ultrasound can determine the age of the pregnancy fairly accurately." seems to contradict the rest of the paragraph following it, which indicates that the age is never known that accurately and is usually dated from the last menstrual cycle. Is this because early ultrasounds are not typically done or is there some other explanation? 
*The paragraph on Naegele's rule says "...or 37 weeks (259 days) from the date of fertilization", which conflicts both with the Merck manual paragraph and the article on Naegele's rule, both of which say 38 weeks (266 days) from fertilization. 
--Srleffler 06:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictions 

message: FAQ about pregnacy
: off topic, resolving Kuronue | Talk 02:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pregnancy information 

message: Pregnancy Diet: I attempted to include 20 lines on "pregnancy diet", including what is needed (folate, calcium, iron...) and what is harzardous (Listeria, Toxoplasma) and how to deal with it (Dec.6, 2006). I'm professor in human nutrition and food hygiene in Toulouse Vet school (France), and I tried to include true facts, and to write them in simple terms. Seems useful to pregnant women, no? 
Text was removed few hours later by Tdowling because: "unencyclopedic".
What does this mean? What do you think of that? 
Corpet 13:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Appologies - I don't think it means much except that that user does not like it. Let's put it back, in the absence of any specific compaint, and see if Tdowling can expand on his / her objection. Trollderella 22:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I had a read of it and I think it is useful information but was written in too an informal tone.  How about it be reinstated but perhaps written a little less informally? Maustrauser 22:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is exactly what I meant, and why I mentioned that it should be moved to the talk page. It's good information, but it was kind of written like a pamphlet, which doesn't really fit with how the tone should be. I believe that the addition was also lacking in references. Hopefully no offense was taken in the revert. -- Tim D 23:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sure no offense was taken, but it is helpful to offer some constructive suggestions when removing material that is obviously contributed in good faith, and has some value - let's work on the version below. Thanks! Trollderella 23:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foods & Nutrition during Pregnancy 

message: Would the poster please provide sources for the bit about broken bones in the neonate incurred during birth?  I am a midwife and haven't heard of this except in very rare occurrences caused by the obstetrician or midwife.  the In fact, areas of human neonates' bones are not completely calcified at birth, which has the benefit of greater flexibility and durability.  I wonder if there's another phrasing for the "ripped internal and external flesh" bit, as well.  There certainly are complications which can occur during birth, but these two are perhaps not the most important, nor quite accurately worded. Jazapp310 07:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical Conditions during Pregnancy 

message: I think this is a good link for home exercise programs for pregnant women:
* Swiss ball home exercise programs for pregnancy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.67.3.103 (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: off-topic, resolving Kuronue | Talk 02:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swiss ball home exercise programs for pregnant women. 

message: In the article the "Estimated Date of Delivery" (EDD) is referenced, I'm on my second kid and have never heard it referred to as anything but "Estimated Date of Confinement" (EDC) by my wife and the various doctors and midwives.  I actually came to this page hoping to shed some light on the origin of this term. Captain Rotundo 17:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: off topic, resolving Kuronue | Talk 02:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about terminology 

message: I came upon a web site deals with questions, issues and solutions on sexual activity during pregnancy. I don't know this is considered appropriate, but every pregnant woman and her partner has the right to know. It's important to consult your physician/ob-gyn on the safety of sexual intercourse, and some couples may find the idea not comforting or unfit for them (like religious belief and cultural morality). In the majority of married couples involving a pregnant woman, sex is generally safe and not risky, but a pregnant woman may feel discomfort, or she might enjoy her love-making better than before. 63.3.14.1 22:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sex isn't an inappropriate topic, particularly in regards to pregnancy, which occurs as a result of sex!  Thanks for the idea!  Do you have any sources such as newspaper articles that you would like to include in the article?  Joie de Vivre 21:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: drive-by ad, resolved Kuronue | Talk 02:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual aspects of pregnancy 

message: I want to include the web link to pregnancy etiquette in the external links. I found this on AOL search, since pregnancy etiquette has hundreds of web pages on the subject...and better yet I can make a new topic on pregnancy etiquette. To ask sexual matters or this sort of thing to a pregnant women is definitely rude! I call it a type of bad manners and some people's innocent but unwelcome actions/comments, and remarks may be forms of Pregnancy discrimination or harassment in many US states and countries. California state law has a highly-detailed thing against pregnancy harassment...but unable to find or link it, maybe we should contact the state government on what it clearly states. 63.3.14.1 12:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: as it stands, this looks like a drive-by ad; pity that, since it seemed so useful to ad to the article. Kuronue | Talk 02:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pregnancy etiquette

message: Sorry if this is a stupid question.
Can I mother naturally abort a child? By this, I mean she would never get an abortion, but with all her might she doesn't want to have a child, and thus her body poisons the fetus. (Through no conscious effort or ill-actions taken on the mother's part.) JimmmyThePiep 16:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mothers can miscarry, which is generally considered a spontaneous abortion.  There is no research that I'm aware of that demonstrates that the mother's desires or mental state in any way affects the likelihood of miscarriage.  So the answer to your question is "yes, natural abortion happens all the time, in fact frequently" but "no, no one has demonstrated that the specific mechanism you propose happens." Nandesuka 11:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: off-topic and answered, resolved. Kuronue | Talk 02:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Natural Abortion 

message: An image of a pregnant five-year-old girl is repeatedly being inserted into this article, without explanation.  The picture does not seem to contribute any useful information to this article.  There were no edit summaries, and no explanation here at this talk page.  Therefore, I will revert again, and would kindly ask that some explanation be provided.Ferrylodge 23:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If she is in fact five years old, she is probably not pregnant.  The swollen belly is likely due to  Kwashiorkor.  In any case, this article dow not need this inmage.  —Gaff ταλκ 21:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, maybe I spoke to soon.  Reportedly this girl is the youngest mother in history.  Still looks like a hoax to me.  —Gaff ταλκ 21:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: As no explanation was ever given, marking this resolved. Kuronue | Talk 02:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image of Pregnant Girl

message: This section is overloaded with misinformation.  It needs to be rewritten, preferably not as a list that everybody and their mother (no pun intended) will tack another unsourced and random symptoms onto.  I propose a paragraph detailing the most common symptoms with references replace this mess.  —Gaff ταλκ 20:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pregancy Symptoms 

message: Why are all these images of whites??  This article needs to be more multi-ethnic.  Are white women the only ones capable of childbirth?  Just curious.  Panda
:Images used in articles must have licenses that are compatible with use on Wikipedia, generally including public domain, Creative Commons, or GNU. I don't think there was a conscious effort to select only images of women of one ethnicity. Looking through Category:Pregnancy at WikiCommons, there are two images of one expectant mother, who appears to be of Hispanic descent (see :Image:Pregnant_woman.jpg and :Image:PregnantWoman.jpg). Nude images are a different matter, as the availability of these is likely to be dependent on a pregnant Wikipedia user taking a picture of herself and allowing this to be freely used, and all such pictures currently available for use on Wikipedia are of Caucasian women. -Severa  (!!!) 17:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good question, all human women regardless of race have babies the same way. The choice of images are random, but would be thoughtful to depict a small but descriptive variety of human women who are pregnant or had children. It's a very common, but highly anticipated event in every culture for millions of years, and contributes to the growth of both the family, their tribe or community, and humanity in general. If we need to show a Caucasian, African, Asian and other racial women in pregnancy, may well be a good idea...but there's no real necessity as the used images are fine. 209.247.21.245 23:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Most of the time Wikipedian's have no choice, we have to use what we can get.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 05:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Question was answered; no images were forthcoming. Resolved. Kuronue | Talk 02:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor choice of images (I'm not surprised) 

message: I think there should be a section on the effects smoking can cause the unborn baby during pregnancy.--Sugarcubez 12:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's here -PhDP (talk) 03:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smoking 

message: Does this article need to be linked so many times? I think the first link in the intro section is appropriate, but the second (in the section on determining dates), regarding the term conception, is somewhat redundant and also somewhat irrelevant. Ironically, this same paragraph declares that pregnancy begins at implantation, ignoring the controversy. --Ginkgo100talk 22:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Beginning of pregnancy controversy]] 

message: A WikiProject for pregnancy and childbirth related articles has been proposed. For more information and to express interest, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Pregnancy_and_childbirth. Thanks! --Ginkgo100talk 16:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: not really an issue, just a little in-wiki advertising, thus, resolved. Kuronue | Talk 02:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed WikiProject 

message: Some new pictures have been uploaded, including this one.  As I said here, thanks for uploading this picture.  However, you did not provide much information.  This image is apparently from the following website:
http://www.3dpregnancy.com/static/pregnancy-week-10.html
That web site says the picture is by Melchior Meijer for 3dPregnancy.com  Can you please provide some info about how Melchior Meijer made this picture?  Was it drawn based upon medically reliable sources?  It appears to be accurate, but still it would be good to include some reasons to trust the accuracy of the image.
Also, would it be possible to also upload the companion picture having the following link?
http://www.3dpregnancy.com/pictures/pregnancy-week-10.html
I think the companion picture is good too.  Also, I notice that the web site 3dpregnancy.com does not seem to have an "About Us" section.  Is there some background info available about this organization?  Thanks.Ferrylodge 15:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Pictures

message: Someone keeps putting in a link to a Pregnancy Stretch Marks Article.  This seems somewhat tangential to the present article.  There's a separate article in Wikipedia about Stretch marks, and that link would probably be more appropriate there instead.Ferrylodge 18:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yesterday I blocked the user for repeatedly adding this link (based on various editors' actions and comments, consensus is that it is indeed spam). They used a different IP to add it today, and I blocked that one too. If the spamming continues after the blocks expire, I'll try longer blocks. --Ginkgo100talk 20:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for blocking this highly persistent user.  I have reverted the stretch marks spam at least 20 times on lots of different related articles - pregnancy, child birth, stretch marks, scars etc. Gillyweed 22:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also semi-protected this article today after the link was added by the third IP address in as many days. I'll add the other pages they like (from their contribs) to my watchlist and take action as necessary. --Ginkgo100talk 15:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: spam led to semi-protect, thus, resolved. Kuronue | Talk 02:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Um, stretch marks 

message: Maternity corset is a fine invention, but where can you write about that?Håbet 18:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Maternity corset

message: tell about Postpartum Maternity Belt:
Håbet 21:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This and the above are rather vague and probably advertisement, thus, resolved. Kuronue | Talk 02:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Postpartum Maternity Belt

message: Changing to "gender neutral language" in an article like this is not consistent, in my opinion, with the Manual of Style. It is disruptive to do so unilaterally and distracting to the text, as it makes for some very convoluted and confusing wording. "Woman" a medical term rather than an identity term in an article on a medical topic such as this one, and readers understand that the biological information applies equally to a genetically female person who identifies as a man. --Ginkgo100talk 23:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your input.  Let's move this discussion to the section, below.  Photouploaded 13:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: discussion moved to section below, marking this resolved Kuronue | Talk 02:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gender neutral language

message: Hi gang, how's it going?  I just took a first gander at this messy debacle, and would like to propose a nice escape route for everyone.
To begin with, let's deal with the notes at the top of the article first and foremost.  Leave everything else until the notes at the top are settled.
Regarding the notes at the top, here's what they currently say:
Whoa, Nelly!  This is way too verbose.  We'd all get Fs if this were high school!
Let's start with the easy stuff.  Get rid of the sentence about gestation.  The article about gestation is barely more than stub, so why advertise it at the top?  Do we even know what the difference is between gestation and pregnancy?  Let's get that sentence out of the top notes, and wikilink to gestation later.
As for the rest of the notes at the top, I suggest we rewrite:
  
Can we do this?  If no objection, I'll leap into editorial action.  :-) Ferrylodge 02:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll copy my comment from above, since this discussion is confusing to follow: I have to say that I don't like the note at the top. Notes at the top of the article are more effective for more "meta" topics like disambiguation; gender issues is really part of the topic of the article. A discussion of the topic would be much better integrated into a section of the article as has been suggested, with an appropriately weighted mention in the lead section. --Ginkgo100talk 02:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I removed the note....see my edit summary.  •Jim62sch• 02:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Are there any objections now to the notes at the top?  If not, let's move on to the ridiculous elimination of the word "woman" from this article.  The top note already establishes that the word "woman" is okay here.  If it was up to me, I'd also use the word mother for a pregnant woman, but let's get woman back into the article and worry about "mother" another time.Ferrylodge 02:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I have restored the word "woman."  Plus, I slipped in mother and father just once.  Please humor me, and allow an article about pregnancy to mention the mother and the father, okay?  Click on mother and you'll see that it's often used by medical authorities with reference to a pregnant woman.  Thanks.Ferrylodge 03:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S. I also did some copy-editing of the lede.  No substantive changes.Ferrylodge 03:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  BRAVO! Gillyweed 04:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Someone (I didn't see whom) jumped the gun on starting the POV dispute, which is not related to the other dispute above.  See below.  Photouploaded 17:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please give me your consent

message: Are we STILL having a dispute about nutrality? I thought we resolved that. Photo? Care to explain? Kuronue | Talk 17:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone (I didn't see whom) jumped the gun on starting the POV dispute, which is not related to the other dispute above.  See below.  Photouploaded 17:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV tag

message: First, I would like to caution Photouploaded to stop deleting my comments at this talk page.  
:(insert comment) And I would like to caution you not to take advantage of the fact that I had not yet placed the NPOV dispute section here.  You hijacked my placement of the template.  Photouploaded 18:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Agree. It is neutral because the hatnote gives an adequate nod to gender identity issues, and words like "woman" (and "mother") need not be eliminated from this article. Ferrylodge 18:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arguments above indicate article has a NPOV

message: I placed the POV tag, then composed a section called NPOV dispute.  When I went to create the section, I found that Ferrylodge had already created a section called NPOV dispute.  That is not how it is supposed to be done, the person with the issue creates the section, not someone else. I tried to rename this section with the word "comment", which Ferrylodge reverted.  I feel people are being misled.  Photouploaded 18:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Photoupload, I've been watching this discussion develop. Enough at this point. This has gone beyond making your point, and become disruptive for some time now. Gender self-identification issues do not trump WP:Consensus. Nor are these WP:NPOV issues. See WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. Time to stop it. ... Kenosis 18:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, I started a section titled "NPOV Dispute" when there was no other section with that title.  This vandal, Photouploaded, then deleted everything I wrote, and now he's accusing me of hijacking the title "NPOV Dispute" which I created in the first place.Ferrylodge 18:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It took me just a few minutes to fix the grammar of what I had prewritten for the section!  You swooped in and hijacked the discussion by creating a talk section first!  Photouploaded 18:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See my previous comment.Ferrylodge 19:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Photo, "hijacking" doesn't work like that. You canNOT delete someone else's comments like that, for ANY reason. The appropriate thing to do is to add your comments to the same section. Kuronue | Talk 19:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Freud would have a field day here.  And probably get a new Beemer from the proceeds. •Jim62sch• 22:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inappropriate hijacking of the NPOV dispute section

message: Regarding the suggestion that the word "womb" should be eliminated from Wikipedia, and replaced in all instances by the more clinical word "uterus", I disagree.  There is room for both words in Wikipedia.
The word "womb" has been in this article long before I ever touched this article.  There is no consensus for completely removing it.
The words "womb" and "uterus" are synonymous.  This article can use both the words "womb" and "uterus."  The latter is a more clinical word, and the former word is in common use.  Wikipedia guidelines say: "Write for the average reader and a general audience—not professionals or patients. Explain medical jargon or use plain English instead if possible."  There is nothing inappropriate about using the word "womb" in this article.
Following are several dictionary definitions that demonstrate "womb" is synonymous with "uterus":
From Medicine-net.com....
:"Womb: The womb (uterus) is a hollow, pear-shaped organ located in a woman's lower abdomen between the bladder and the rectum. The narrow, lower portion of the uterus is the cervix; the broader, upper part is the corpus. The corpus is made up of two layers of tissue."
From Encarta:
:"uterus of woman: a uterus, especially a woman's ( not in technical use )"
From the US National Institutes of Health:
:"The small, hollow, pear-shaped organ in a woman's pelvis. This is the organ in which a baby grows. Also called the uterus.
From the Meriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
:"1 : UTERUS"
From Dictionary.com:
 
:"the uterus of the human female and certain higher mammals."
From American Heritage Dictionary for "uterus" (via Dictionary.com):
 
:"A hollow muscular organ located in the pelvic cavity of female mammals in which the fertilized egg implants and develops. Also called womb"
From WordNet (via Dictionary.com):
:"Womb: hollow muscular organ in the pelvic cavity of females; contains the developing fetus [syn: uterus]"
From American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary (via Dictionary.com): 
:"womb (wm) n. See uterus." 
From Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary:
:"Main Entry: womb Pronunciation: 'wüm Function: noun : UTERUS"
Both the words "womb" and "uterus" are perfectly acceptable in this article.  The word "womb" has been in the article a long time (long before I ever edited this article).  It would be either POV or a mistake to completely remove and bar the word "womb" from this article, and from Wikipedia.Ferrylodge 14:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some thoughts. Ferrylodge, there is a lot that I agree with you on. At a personal level, I think its nonsensical to try to politicize words like "womb" and "uterus" by entangling it into the abortion debate. I am staunchly pro-choice but I just don't see how words like baby/fetus and womb/uterus need to have the supposed "power" that some people want to invest in them. There are bigger issues to the abortion debate then what we try to pigeon-hole into these words. That said, I think the deciding factor in this article should be context rather then politics. That is truly the only NPOV way of going forward. To advocate the exclusion or inclusion or either term based on any other reason is to interject you own POV and politics into the article. While "uterus" is the more medically correct term, "womb" is undoubtedly the more common term. Both Wikipedia policies and common sense implores us to look at the context of each usage and decide which one is one appropriate. There are 9 instances where the word "uterus" is used currently in the article with no usage of the word "womb". In the section below I listed them with my opinion on their context. AgneCheese/Wine 19:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitions and Wikipedia policy

message: # In the lead "In many societies' medical and legal definitions, human pregnancy is somewhat arbitrarily divided into three trimester periods, as a means to simplify reference to the different stages of prenatal development. The first trimester carries the highest risk of miscarriage (natural death of embryo or fetus). During the second trimester, the development of the fetus can be more easily monitored and diagnosed. The beginning of the third trimester often approximates the point of viability, or the ability of the fetus to survive, with or without medical help, outside of the uterus."
#Determining the start of pregnancy and predicting date of birth "In the post-implantation phase, the blastocyst secretes a hormone named human chorionic gonadotropin which in turn, stimulates the corpus luteum in the woman's ovary to continue producing progesterone. This acts to maintain the lining of the uterus so that the embryo will continue to be nourished. "
#Medical signs "Implantation bleeding, light spotting that occurs at implantation of the embryo in the uterus, in the third or fourth week after LMP"
#Symptoms "Increased urination is caused by pressure of the growing uterus against the urinary bladder."
#Sexuality during "Sex during pregnancy is a low-risk behavior except when the physician advises that sexual intercourse be avoided, which may, in some pregnancies, lead to serious pregnancy complications or health issues such as a high-risk for premature labor or a ruptured uterus."
#Terminology "There are likewise finer distinctions between the concepts of fertilization and the actual state of pregnancy, which starts with implantation. In a normal pregnancy, the fertilization of the egg usually will have occurred in the Fallopian tubes or in the uterus."
#Terminology  "(Often, an egg may become fertilized yet fail to become implanted in the uterus.)"
#Terminology "If the pregnancy is the result of in-vitro fertilization, the fertilization will have occurred in a Petri dish, after which pregnancy begins when one or more zygotes implant after being transferred by a physician into the woman's uterus."
#First trimester "In medicine, pregnancy is often defined as beginning when the developing embryo becomes implanted into the endometrial lining of a woman's uterus."
*With the exception of maybe the lead usage, I think in each of these context the more medically correct term of uterus is most appropriate. In my own personal context, I think of a benchmark of whether or not this would be a discussion between doctors or in a classroom or a discussion with a pregnant mother. One if more of a medical based discussion while the other is more of a common casual discussion-in which case the more common usage is the most appropriate. But in a primarily medical discussion context, the opposite is true. If there was a line in the article about "The mother can feel the baby kicking  in her....", I think without question that womb would be the most appropriate term. But in looking at the current state of the article and the current context of each usage I can't really advocate the use of womb over uterus. However that certainly doesn't exclude its future use in the article if better context was added where it was appropriate. AgneCheese/Wine 19:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Context of womb/uterus

message: In all languages, words and usages change. English is no exception. Although womb might have been more common at one point, I believe that the more technical and modern word uterus is gaining currency for several reasons, and is to be preferred on Wikipedia. 
*the increasingly common expression in utero makes it clear that we should be using uterus. Does anyone use a counterpart to this expression that uses "womb"? (in wombo??)
*the increasingly common references to "uterine cancer" make it clear we should be using uterus. Does anyone use a counterpart of this expression that uses the word "womb"?
*"uterine prolapse" is another phrase that uses some version of "uterus", and not womb. Who ever talks about "womb prolapse"?
*uterus is at least not as complicated as endometrium (the lining of the uterus). 
*It is still a general word that most people understand. Us using it is helpful because it can help people trying to understand medical writing.
*the word womb has many other meanings as well, so it is basically confusing. Uterus is far more specific and useful.--Filll 21:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, something like "gestation takes place in the womb (in wombo?)" just sounds plain dumb.  Might as well just make it "the before-birth growth of the baby happens in the womb" -- all nice Anglo-Saxon words, but blatently stupid and childish unless we're writing for five-year-olds. •Jim62sch• 21:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with these ideas. "Uterus" is widely used and understood, so there is no reason not to use it; conversely, there are reasons not to use "womb" (it is colloquial and rarely used in a medical context). As an analogy (which someone mentioned earlier), Wikipedia does not use colloquial words to refer to human genitals, even where they are perfectly clear, understandable, and not vulgar in context. --Ginkgo100talk 23:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A clear, concise and logical commentary by Ginkgo.  This should never be discussed again.  It was silly from beginning to end, save for the logical statements by about 20 different editors opposing one POV-warrior.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree - well put, Gingko.  Just one point of anecdotal evidence: in the 18 months that I was pregnant, I never once heard the word "womb" from anyone other than an elderly great-aunt. Tvoz |talk 00:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as long as we're trading OR, I never heard it in the nearly 29 months I was pregnant (all three were "late".) Nor did I hear it from my mother-in-law, who had 8 children. Last person I heard use "womb" was my paternal grandmother, who talked like the KJV. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is OR as well, but growing up in both urban and Bible belt sections of the midwest the term "womb" was quite common. Though my ex-husband had a penchant for the term "Babypot belly". :) AgneCheese/Wine 06:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: From an Australian perspective, nearly all childbirth education classes use 'uterus'.  Womb is a shortened form of wombat. Gillyweed 07:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wombat?  That's funny.  •Jim62sch• 10:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Preference: Womb vs. Uterus

message: As this has enveloped multiple articles, I propose we choose one location for the debate, post accodingly on the talk pages of all involved articles, and hash it out in one place. There has been a good bit of repetition, as well as edit warring on articles where there is little or no discussion on the talk pages. IMO we can work it out ourselves, but if not, we can move to mediation if desired. I suggest Talk:Pregnancy/Womb-Uterus debate. I am cross posting this on all involved articles. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: further debate moved to link. Kuronue | Talk 02:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Womb-Uterus debate: central location proposed

message: The definition of pregnancy used in the lead bothers me a little, but I didn't want to touch it without asking if this has already been discussed. It currently reads (emphasis added):
:Pregnancy is the carrying of one or more offspring, known as a fetus or embryo, inside the body of a female mammal such as a human, between conception and birth.
My question is regarding how we define the end of pregnancy.  The above would imply pregnancy only ends at birth, but what about the case of abortion or miscarriage?  We could fix this by completely dropping the "between conception and birth" clause (which would be NPOV and avoid the whole beginning of pregnancy debate).  Alternatively, we could perhaps write "between conception and delivery" and let delivery imply any possible end of pregnancy, or we could explicitly say "between conception and birth, abortion, or miscarriage", but I think that is a bit wordy.  Are there any objections to just striking that clause? - Hoplon 20:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps "between conception and birth or abortion", since "abortion" technically refers also to spontaneous abortions, i.e., miscarriages. Or would that be confusing, since most people think only of induced abortions when they see that word? --Ginkgo100talk 21:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did think about that possibility before posting, and agree that "abortion" can technically be taken to mean miscarriage, but I thought it would be too easy to misread so I didn't propose it.  May I ask your opinion on simply deleting the whole clause? - Hoplon 01:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually that sounds like a good solution, since it's really redundant. Furthermore it avoids the sticky issues regarding controversy over the beginning of pregnancy. --Ginkgo100talk 01:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go along with that, but if it doesn't fly how about "between conception and birth or termination" - that would cover both miscarriage and abortion. But I'd  prefer leaving out the clause completely as it doesn't really add anything. Also, come to think of it, what about in-vitro fertilization and implanted fertilized eggs?  That woman is just as pregnant as if conception took place in her body - so we should really avoid this whole conundrum, I think, and delete the clause.   Tvoz |talk 08:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks - I hadn't even thought about the in-vitro example.  Regardless, the clause wasn't adding anything. - Hoplon 18:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - sometimes the best solution is to rethink the sentence as you did, rather than try to bend it into a pretzel to fit all possibilities!  Tvoz |talk 22:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: yay, another resolved after all those stales. Kuronue | Talk 02:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: When does pregnancy end?

message: I see no basis for such a huge See also. What it is doing is duplicating the Pregnancy category which does a more effective job. I should like agreement to thin this down to key links. TerriersFan 08:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. TerriersFan (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted.  I don't think a consensus of one constitutes a consensus.  Besides it's highly POV.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: alright, I'll prune it with comments on everything removed, shall I?
At first glance I spot:
Birth defect - if anything, should be linked from birth, or in text if we refer to birth defects. Who would go to pregnancy looking for birth defect info?
Ectogenesis - the complete OPPOSITE of pregnancy. Why the heck would someone seeking info on pregnancy need to go there?
Contraception - again, people can find that just fine without a link lost in a sea of others in pregnancy. 
Father - linked in the article, or if it's not it should be. 
Health care issues in pregnancy - why on EARTH are we linking to the main article on health care?! If it was an article specifically about prenatal health care....
Mental illness accompanied with pregnancy - same issue, and that now sounds rather offensive. Oh yes, because pregnancy makes women crazy??
Parent - same reasoning as Father
Pica (craving) - see mental illness. if someone wants to know about pica they can look up pica, if they want to know about pregnancy we ought not to promote the idea that every pregnant woman will develop a disorder. If it had some context in the article maybe.
Taboos concerning pregnancy in many cultures - again, it's hardly a pregnancy-specific article. "LOL, there are taboos, let's link that!"
Pelvic girdle pain during pregnancy or postpartum - can stay, but the article needs a serious cleanup. 
alright, now that that's done let's look at the things that at least ARE pregnancy related. Pass two I'm removing:
Belly cast
Doula
Lamaze
Pregnancy in science fiction
as being too... unnessicary. The odds that someone wants to find them...they can always go to cat:pregnancy. Also removing:
Twin and Multiple birth
Unassisted childbirth
Wrongful abortion
Natural childbirth
Low birth weight paradox
Birth control
Fertility
as belonging better on birth or abortion instead. I left childbirth and abortion linked, though; if you're looking for topics about those, you can find them from their respective pages instead. It's still WAY too long, but it's a start. 
Kuronue | Talk 15:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overblown See also 

message: Looking at the edit history for the past few days, it looks like around 40% of edits are from various IPs and immediately reverted. That's a pretty high rate. Per WP:PP and WP:ROUGH, I semi-protected the page for a week to see what happens. If vandalism picks up again right away after a week, I think indefinite semi-protection should be considered. --Ginkgo100talk 19:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection