Talk:In vitro fertilisation

message: Through IVF techniques, some old ideas of certain constellations of being "impossible", need to be considered nowadays. In Charis Thompson's book "Making Parents", she points out "Naturalizing Stratgies", that mothers use to justify kinship relations. In the 5th chapter, she points out, that for example mothers who need to use the services of a surrogate mother base their definition of kinship mostly on the given genetic relationship. On the other hand, other mothers who need to use egg-cells from another woman, still consider the baby being "theirs", basing the kinship on the fact of that they carried and gave birth to the child.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonsaipotathoe (talk • contribs) 15:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kinship discussions 

message: Hello Wiki community! I am a student at California State University East Bay, in a post-bacc program bioethics class. I have a few contributions to add to the invitro fertilisation page. Please give your feedback and own edits. I have Modified the ethical decisions in IVF with information and links.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cajjen12 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Student Edit- CSUEB

message: Possible topics to discuss: 
* age - maternal age and decreasing change of conception 
* update success, average cost, insurance coverage, age caps, other guidelines in USA 
* find citation for Israel data - added to Israel section
* drugs that are used in vitro fertilization 
* drug side effects, DDI, monitoring, - or add links to drugs 
* fertilisation vs fertilization? - added this but it got removed
JVIDUYA (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foundations II: P2 -  5B -  Topics and Goals  

message: Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?
* The team added some helpful statistics regarding success of IVF in older populations. 
Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?
Goals were to address:
* age - maternal age and decreasing change of conception - Team 5b added information regarding outcomes of IVF at or over a certain age (more difficult and higher chance of adverse events).
* update success, average cost, insurance coverage, age caps, other guidelines in USA 
* find citation for Israel data - added to Israel section 
* drugs that are used in vitro fertilization 
* drug side effects, DDI, monitoring, - or add links to drugs - Did not address drug drug interactions or drug side effects as their original goal stated
* fertilisation vs fertilization? -  
* Team 5b added: Updated the availability of IVF in different countries: age restriction, funding, statistics for USA with citation. 
Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify… 
* Group 5B edited the article with a neutral point of view. The language they used did not contain any positive/negative or biased tones. Christinewmin (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  UCSF Peer Review of Team 5b by Team 5a 

message: Someone has just added a section headed "Laboratory Requirements", consisting of a list of requirements for environmental control etc. It is completely unreferenced, and it is all very general stuff that could apply to almost any biomedical research or clinical facility. It does not apply particularly to IVF. I think it should be deleted. I was going to go ahead and delete it (WP:BOLD), but I thought perhaps I should mention it here first. Anyone agree with me?  SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section on Laboratory requirements 

message: The article is sprinkled with the word "people" instead of "women". Is this really necessary? I don't wish to offend anyone, but it seems unnecessary, and in some places misleading. There is even an instance of "In comparison with people, men showed less deterioration in mental health ..." - which is frankly stupid. Thoughts?  SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Women" or "people"? 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: not moved.  Favonian (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: In vitro fertilisation →  – Per WP:ACROTITLE, the abbreviation is the WP:COMMONNAME in this case. The abbreviation is not widely known to mean something else. PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Every single hit for '"IVF" "pregnancy"' has 'In vitro fertilisation (IVF)' in its preview.  Also raw hit counts aren't reliable WP:HITS—blindlynx 16:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Blindlynx WP:HITS is about notability and does not argue against determining the primary name. PhotographyEdits (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't change the fact it's unreliable for determining numbers —blindlynx 17:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Blindlynx Then what tool do you suggest? PhotographyEdits (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Google scholar tends to be my go to, but google trends also works but it tends to be a bit more dated.  In order to satisfy WP:ACROTITLE in this case you would have to show that 'IFV' without the full phrase—blindlynx 19:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 
*Oppose.  IVF as a primary redirect is fine, but there's no reason to rename the article. 162 etc. (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 29 August 2022 

message: — Assignment last updated by AuroraRynda (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: LGBTQ Reproductive Health

message: These two terms have just been inserted wholesale into the article in place of "women", on the grounds of inclusivity. I contend that they are not inclusive terms, just gobbledegook. They are obscure. They do not clarify the meaning but conceal it. I have reinstated "woman" and "women". Before my edit is reversed, could we please discuss?  SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "People with uteri" and "gestational bodies"