Talk:Fetus/Archive 2

message: A note - a look at Ferrylodge's contribution's show that his efforts are concerned with promoting a pro-life agenda, not improving the encyclopedia. His edits must be viewed in that light. His edits in this article are designed to show a fetus showing various characteristics at as young an age as possible.
:Citicat, first, please try to remember to sign your comments.  Second, if you believe that the article is not factually correct, then provide specifics.  If there is a particular fact in this article that is accurate, but which tends to support one point of view or another, that is not a sufficient reason for objecting to it.  For example, this article states that a fetus may not be able to feel sensory pain until 26 weeks.  That fact tends to support a pro-choice argument, but still it is a fact that should not be removed from this article unless someone establishes that it is inaccurate.
:Also, as far as POV vandalism is concerned, this looks like a good example. Ferrylodge 15:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to drop out of this discussion now, while you may feel I'm attempting to take the other side of the abortion discussion, I'm actually just trying keep articles adhering to Wiki guidelines. Good luck on your future editing. Citicat 15:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Vassyana, I have no problem if you would like to address other sections of the article as well.  It might be helpful, though, if we could take one thing at a time, but of course it's up to you.  In medicine, there is a longstanding distinction between physiology and anatomy.  That's why I thought it would be helpful to divide up this article along those lines.  Would you prefer that everything be mixed in together?  I'm not sure that would be such a great idea, especially since the article is already divided up (at least to some extent) according to this distinction.  
The link "main: prenatal development" should, in my opinion, be changed to "see also: prenatal development".  The two articles overlap, but one need not (and should not) merely be a summary or subset of the other.Ferrylodge 02:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have left the title intact, due to the division you point. I have reverted the link to a main article link, because this is nothing but a summary of information from that page. Vassyana 10:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Actually, there is info about fingerprint formation in that section that is not in the "main link".  Do you advise that we put such additional info into the article at the "main link", whenever we put such additional info into this section?  Also, I was hoping to get around to inserting footnotes for the various info in this section, but maybe that's not necessary if you decide to retain the "main link" designation.  What do you think?Ferrylodge 15:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. I know I can be a PITA sometimes, but I do try to take into account the views of other editors. I am only one among many after all. Actually, I would advise that any additional info that we add here be added to the main link article. It treats the subject in a similar fasion, but in much greater depth. I'd also agree if we keep it based on the main article, we could avoid references here, though we should provide them in the main article. Sound good? Vassyana 00:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I may have mentioned elsewhere, I agree with Severa, who said: "I'd suggest developing Zygote, Embryo, and Fetus to include more detailed information on these stages, and then using fetal [i.e. prenatal] development as a top-tier hub to summarize those sub-articles (in this case, placing all the 'eggs' in one basket would be a good thing)." Now, it's very possible that she may change her opinion (especially seeing as how I've endorsed it!), but still I would agree that the prenatal development page should be a top-tier hub.  Additionally, I really did not see much info about a fetus at prenatal development that is not also mentioned at this fetus page.Ferrylodge 00:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see that reasoning. I'm going to solicit the various pages for opinions and see what consensus we can build, if that's cool by you. We can keep the main discussion to Talk:Prenatal development and just direct people from the talk pages of the other three to the dicussion there. Seem agreeable to you? Vassyana 01:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, that would be fine.  But first I'd like to know something.  Do you think I'm some kind of "POV-pusher", and if so, why?Ferrylodge 03:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anatomic development

message: I removed the abortion statistic for a couple of reasons. It focuses on abortion to the exclusion of other kinds of fetal death. It is a United States-centric factoid. There is no context to the claim (why they were performed, under what conditions, under which laws, et cetera). Taken together, this strongly argues against inclusion. I hope this clarifies the removal. Vassyana 00:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense.  I'll leave it removed for now.  However, I do not think this information slants the article,  certainly not in any political way.  Perhaps it might be useful to discuss in the article how often this and the various other types of fetal death occur (e.g. in contrast to the various types of embryonic death).  Unfortunately, the statistics may not be readily available for many countries; even if they are only available for the U.S., then those statistics could still give an idea of how often fetal death happens, and why.  Must worldwide statistics be presented?Ferrylodge 03:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abortion factoid removed 

message: Andrew C., I will not reciprocate by calling you a "bully", or say that you are "freaking out".  However, I will say that you are being unfair.  People can read my previous comment for themselves, and see that your characterization is false.
You say, “It’s a double standard to expect that your additions can sit in the article, exempt from a talk page defense, but expect us to defend every single change to the article.”  You have reverted plenty of edits that I have made to this article in the past, and the very recent edits have done likewise.  All I've asked is for some slight explanation of very substantial changes.
You say, “what is worse, you clearly state that some of the changes are helpful, but reverted them anyway...”  That is false.  What I said was, “As far as ‘breathing-like movement’, it would be helpful to mention its purpose: it is vital for normal fetal lung growth”.  This is a link that I found, because the recent edits did not explain what the purpose of “breathing-like movement” is. Please check more carefully before you assert what I have "clearly state[d]".
Also, contrary to what you accuse me of doing, I never edited this fetus article to say anything about brain activity “in the embryonic stage”.  That edit was made here.  Please check more carefully before you attribute quotes to me.
What I said in the article was, “Brain stem activity has been detected 54 days after conception.”  Singer said: “fifty-four days after conception, when the first brain stem activity has been observed....”  I don't see how I could have been more honest about it.
As to whether this article should use gestational age or fertilization age, I suggest that we pick one or the other and stick to it, and be clear about it.  Right now the second paragraph very clearly states that “In humans, a fetus develops from the end of the eighth week after fertilisation.”  Indeed, people usually say that the fetal stage begins eight weeks after fertilization, so I don’t see a problem with consistently adhering to that method of referring to age.  The Anatomic Development section could certainly be clarified in that regard.  
Regarding brain stem activity, I think saying 54 days is just as understandable as saying 8 weeks.  Unlike terms like "motor development", most people are familiar with days and weeks.  The main point is to be clear about what those days and weeks are measured from (e.g. fertilization).  You edited the article so it said that “Brain stem activity has been detected as early as the 10th week....”  Up until that sentence in the article, only fertilization age had been used, so a reader of normal intelligence would read your version and infer that brain stem activity was detected sometime between 70 and 77 days after fertilization, instead of 54 days as Singer said.  Perhaps this is another innocent mistake on your part. 
I agree with you that Wikipedia is not a soapbox for POV.  Therefore, as explained above, I find it disheartening that you continue to engage in name-calling (saying I am a “bully” who is “freaking out”),  that you pretend there’s something wrong with me asking for any slight explanation of major edits, that you pretend I am guilty of some “double standard” by reverting this article,  that you say I have “clearly state[d]” things that I never actually said, that you accuse me of edits I never made, et cetera. 
The article on fetal pain says up front: “Fetal pain is a subject of intense political and academic debate. The ability of a fetus to feel pain and suffering is often part of the abortion controversy.  Determining the stage of pregnancy at which a fetus is able to feel pain or suffering could have a significant effect on the abortion debate as well as abortion laws and practices.”  I think that this fetus article could use a similar statement at the beginning.  The facts of fetal development are relevant to the abortion debate.  Perhaps that is why you continue to fill this discussion thread with accusations, falsities, and innuendo.  In any event, this article should forthrightly say that it’s part of the abortion debate, which of course is tragic, but nevertheless true.
And I submit that "Distinct motor patterns" is not plain English.  It is medical jargon.  Fetuses do not have motors, so there is no need to use such jargon.  Ordinary people will not understand it.  But perhaps that is what you are aiming for.  After all, the facts of fetal development have been recognized even by staunch abortion-rights supporters like Judith Jarvis Thompson as supporting the humanity and personhood of a fetus: “we shall probably have to agree that the fetus has already become a human person well before birth. Indeed, it comes as a surprise when one first learns how early in its life it begins to acquire human characteristics. By the tenth week, for example, it already has a face, arms and less, fingers and toes; it has internal organs, and brain activity is detectable.”  I am not saying that these exact words should be included in this article.  What I am saying is that we ought to speak in plain English, since this subject is of more than merely academic interest.
I agree with you that this article shouldn't be a battleground, and I regret that you insist on making it one.Ferrylodge 04:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to Andrew C.

message: Andrew C., you have recently edited the article to insert the following italicized language:
:"The breathing-like movement of the fetus is necessary for stimulation of lung development, rather than for obtaining oxygen or intake of amniotic fluid into the lungs. REF: Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, Preterm Birth: Causes, Consequences, and Prevention (2006)."
The cited source says the exact opposite of what you say it says: "Fetal breathing movements begin as early as 10 weeks of gestation, and the breathing of amniotic fluid in and out is essential for the stimulation of lung development."  You are incorrect to say that breathing-like movements are not necessary for intake of amniotic fluid.   
I previously reverted this exact same false language, here.  I explained in the edit summary:
“according to cited source, breathing-like movements bring amniotic fluid into lungs”.  Instead of responding to that explanation, you simply revert without explanation.
Because you have reverted without explanation, I ask you to please explain next time.  In the mean time, I will delete the incorrect language about amniotic fluid that you have reinserted.Ferrylodge 00:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You make so many edits to this article, you can't blame me when I don't go through and see the diff for every single one of your edits. I'm sorry I missed your commentary about the amniotic fluid. I had just assumed that it was deleted in a sloppy revert (you know what they say about those who assume...) Anyway, the reason why I used that language is because of Prechtl, Moreover, breathing movements do not lead to an influx of amniotic fluid into the fetal lungs. So now we have a case of conflicting sources. Well, actually, Prechtl was the source for both statements. The one from the Butterworth/Harris text is in reference to a 15 week fetus, where the one from the Kalverboer/Gramsbergen text is in reference to a 10 week fetus. So perhaps we should insert some time information, or mention that the breathing movement emerges before the actual intake of fluid into the lungs? What are your (or anyone else's) thoughts?-Andrew c 23:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The development section of this article currently says nothing about intake of amniotic fluid.  If you think it's important to mention intake of amniotic fluid, then go ahead, as long as you're accurate.  However, I am curious why you would like to insert such info into this article, rather than into the prenatal development article.  You have insisted that the prenatal development article contain a detailed timeline, and that this article merely summarize that article.Ferrylodge 01:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you inserted the reference to begin with. I was just editing your edit. Would you have rather me just removed any new content you add and said "Take it to the development article"? I'm trying to work with you. In this case, I read your text, read the source, and made some adjustments. And you came back and made some adjustments, and added new sources, and its been a back and forth (generally to positive results). -Andrew c 01:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Andrew C., I never put anything into this article about intake of amniotic fluid, did I?Ferrylodge 02:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverting Re. Breathing of Amniotic Fluid

message: This article has reached an impasse, and further work here is impossible without input from more editors.  Previously, user Severa said to me: "I'd suggest developing Zygote, Embryo, and Fetus to include more detailed information on these stages, and then using prenatal development as a top-tier hub to summarize those sub-articles" (actually she said "fetal development" but that's since been renamed to prenatal development).  I also think Severa's suggestion was excellent, regardless of what she may think about the issue now.  It makes excellent sense to make this article the main article for fetal development, and then summarize developmental info from this article over at the prenatal development article. 
Therefore, at this talk page, I wrote: "So, if there is no objection, I will proceed on the basis that this will be the main article for developmental info about the fetus, and that the prenatal development article will summarize what's at this article."
I proceeded on this basis, putting a lot of work into the present article (though a lot remains to be done), and then a couple days later Andrew C. objects at this talk page:
:"The main article issue: it is a tough situation. Should an article devoted to development be the main article (although it includes info on the first 8 weeks), or should an article devoted to the fetus, with one section out of 8 or so being devoted to development be the main article? I prefer to have the development article be the main article because it is only about development. We have a lot more to discuss here than just development. While it is true that the development article discusses more than just the fetus, it really only discusses 1 more topic. (again, we need more opinions here because 2 editors disagreeing gets us nowhere)."
This is extremely frustrating.  If such a basic issue cannot be resolved, then this article is a complete waste of my time.  I look forward to input from other editors.  We do have a lot more to discuss at the present article than just development, but development is the bulk of what we have to discuss here.  Why put the primary info about fetal development at a page that also covers the development of the zygote and embryo?  Either way this is resolved, it must be resolved, or else writing this article will continue to be a total nightmare.  Thank you.Ferrylodge 00:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that the natural place to discuss prenatal development would be in prenatal development. What would be the purpose of that article otherwise? SheffieldSteel 01:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea is that prenatal development would summarize the more detailed content contained in zygote, blastocyst, embryo, and fetus. It would be like a time line with 4 stages summarized and spinout articles for the more in depth details of each individual stage. -Andrew c 02:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood. It does make sense to break the development into four articles, then. That will allow more space to go into detail in each one. SheffieldSteel 02:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that could work if we had an article about fetal development, and embryo development, etc. However, the fetus article covers so much more than just development that I personally favor the "prenatal development" article being the more detailed article, and the fetus, embryo etc articles containing the summary. -Andrew c 02:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In answer to request for comment, would make sense to split all pre-natel development into its own article - if that becomes too big, then have sub-articles on that for the four stages. This article on Fetus should not cover development in too much depth - have a section with a paragraph or two summarising it, and link to development article.Cheers Lethaniol 13:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Seems to me that, if anything should be removed from this article and moved to a separate article, it would be the non-human stuff rather than the human stuff.Ferrylodge 02:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't understand that.  "Fetus" is a much more general topic than "Fetus (human)," and there's practically nothing in this article except information about human fetuses and their development.  For example, it'd be interesting to know what generally defines "fetus" for other animals.  Do fetuses generally have a certain amount of morphological similarity to their adult form, compared to embryos that do not?  Gnixon 02:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All I meant is that "fetus" is not only a much more general topic than "Fetus (human)," but is also a much more general topic that "Fetus (non-human)".  That raises the question whether it would be better to create a new additional article titled "Fetus (human)" or a new additional article titled "Fetus (non-human)", or both, or neither.  As between the first two options, I would think that a new additional article on "Fetus (non-human)" would be more appropriate, since most people looking for info about "fetus" would be looking for info about the human fetus rather than the non-human fetus.  The article "Fetus (non-human)" could examine whether various other species have a certain amount of morphological similarity to their adult forms.Ferrylodge 02:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment: Will This Article Be the Main Article for Fetal Development?

message: I pulled this out of the article:-
:Fetal growth can be terminated by various factors, including miscarriage, feticide committed by a third party, or abortion chosen by the pregnant woman.
My main reason was that I don't think it's really necessary to point out that since a fetus is alive, it can die. Secondly, the text uses rather muddy logic (miscarriage can occur for several reasons, including abortion). Finally, the presence of an actual link to feticide seems rather telling - it might be seen as an attempt to provoke an emotional response.
I don't think Wikipedia has a page, for example, stating that a newborn child's growth can be terminated by various means, including Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, infanticide, or drug overdose. SheffieldSteel 01:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this sentence is pretty weird. But I ask you to look at Infant#Infant mortality. They do not mention infanticide, or say that infants could be murdered, but it does mention real issues associated with infant mortality and SIDS. If we were to parallel that article, we could remove the sections about human caused death. The "Variation in growth" section basically says everything we need to say regarding this matter.-Andrew c 02:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies if I gave the wrong impression. I didn't mean to imply that there was no page that detailed infant mortality; rather that it would be unusual for a page on infant development (or the development of other life-forms, for that matter) to list selected causes of death in such a way. Sorry again if I caused offence. SheffieldSteel 04:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to reinsert the sentence back into the article.  I agree that it could possibly be removed improved by rewording it, and I urge SheffieldSteel to take a crack at rewording it.  But I don't think an adequate reason has been given for completely deleting it.  According to Wikipedia policy, "If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly."  You have not asserted that the sentence in question contains no valid information.  And, it seems to me that it is valid for an article on this subject to mention the ways in which fetuses can (and very often do) fail to reach a live birth.  Also, if feticide is mentioned, why  not link to it?  Abortion is linked, but you don't object to that.  And, if you don't think that the phrase "abortion chosen by the pregnant woman" is worded properly then try something else, such as: "abortion chosen by the mother" or "induced abortion" or something else that you find more palatable.Ferrylodge 05:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this sentence should be moved to the "Variation in growth" section. We mention "Maternal, Placental, and Fetal". The 3 things in this sentence all seem to fall under the "external" banner. Maybe we could mention that (however, a citation would be nice because this is moving into the realm of OR, if it isn't already there). I would propose after moving the sentence, replacing it with a more generalized sentence about "Fetal growth can be affected by a number of internal and external factors". That way, this paragraph acts as a good introduction to the coming section, and the reader can read about all the variations in growth in one section. I also changed it to "induced abortion" per Ferrylodge's suggestion above. That was a good idea.-Andrew c 23:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Changing the language to "induced abortion" is fine.  However, I would prefer to not get into endless rearrangement of this article without compelling reasons.  I do not see any problem with the sentence where it is.  It involves termination of growth and development, not variations.Ferrylodge 00:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed sentence 

message: I'd like to propose this paragraph:
The subject of fetal pain is controversial. The ability of a fetus to feel pain is often part of the abortion debate, and there appears to be no consensus among experts about when the sensation of pain starts. Different sources have estimated that the earliest point for this may be seven weeks after conception, or after 20, 24, or 26 weeks gestation, or after the second trimester, or months after birth.[insert all the references you can eat]
My reasoning is as follows. As the Fetal Pain article is edited, the summary here will inevitably get out of sync. Given that both pages are contentious, it will be difficult to achieve the consensus to carry out the necessary edits to provide an accurate summary here. I think it would be better to provide a summary of that material which is unlikely to change - the relevance of fetal pain to the abortion debate - and put all mention of actual studies in the fetal pain article itself.
Thoughts?SheffieldSteel 21:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks fine to me.  I would only change the first sentence so that it mentions suffering.  Just speaking about fetal pain, without mentioning the broader topic of fetal suffering, is kind of missing the forest for the tree.  Pain and suffering ought to be wikilinked.  No need to mention ejaculation, though.  :-)  Ferrylodge 22:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you source the statements that refer to seven weeks, 20 weeks, etc.? Citicat 00:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fetal pain article sources quite a few statements by medical experts; Glover says fetal pain may occur at 17 weeks, Collins is certain it occurs at 13 1/2 weeks, and a figure of 20 weeks is mentioned by White, Ranalli, and Johnstone.Ferrylodge 07:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph above mentions seven weeks. Is there a source for this? Citicat 18:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't find an authoritative source for this claim online, other than what is stated at ReligiousTolerance.org.  So, I have adjusted this article and the fetal pain article to avoid this claim.  I haven't got time to go to a medical library in order to resarch it further right now.Ferrylodge 00:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S. After second trimester = after 24 25 weeks.Ferrylodge 22:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked up seven sources at random, six said the third trimester begins in week 27 or 28,       and one said week 25  Citicat 00:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake.  The correct number is 25.  If SheffieldSteel would like to keep "second trimester" in her sentence, that's fine with me. The main reason why some sources say the second trimester ends at 27 weeks instead of 25 weeks is because they are using weeks from beginning of last menstrual period, instead of weeks from fertilization.Ferrylodge 00:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I find that paragraph rather poorly phrased. It lists way too many dates, and is too ambiguous. It would work better if it said something like "Most researchers agree that a fetus cannot have a meaningful experience of pain until the end of the second trimester, although some argue that a fetus can feel pain as early as 7 weeks and some argue that a fetus cannot feel pain until after birth." It gets rid of half a dozen different numbers and doesn't make the issue seem MORE controversial than it is.-Andrew c 03:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Andrew c, why do you not think that SheffieldSteel's suggested language is appropriate?  Your statement about "most researchers" is unsupported, and does not correctly summarize the fetal pain article, which says: "Most scientists believe that a fetus is able to feel pain sometime during the pregnancy."Ferrylodge 03:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, when did "the end of the second trimester" stop being "sometime during the pregnancy" :p-Andrew c 03:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of being sarcastic, why don't you find something in the fetal pain article that says "most researchers" agree that a fetus cannot have a meaningful experience of pain until the end of the second trimester?Ferrylodge 03:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok go here and you will read "Many scientists believe that a fetus is able to feel pain [1] sometime during the pregnancy usually after 26 weeks gestation although the question of exactly when pain might be possible is disputed." In fact, that whole paragraph is basically what I was suggesting. It's like I was paraphrasing it, which is a good idea for a summary section that has a main article.-Andrew c 03:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Notice where the footnote is placed.  The footnote is placed after the statement "Many scientists believe that a fetus is able to feel pain".  There is no footnote to support the rest of the sentence: "sometime during the pregnancy usually after 26 weeks gestation...."  Perhaps that is why this unsupported material is no longer in the fetal pain article.Ferrylodge 04:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fetal pain 

message: I agree that we shouldn't go into too much depth about fetal pain here. Ferrylodge gave me this idea. The summary section of fetal pain over at abortion has been stable for some time now, has been well sourced, it is a good summary of the content of fetal pain, and has had a large number of different editors working on and reviewing it. I suggest that we use those 3 paragraphs, modify them to be less about the abortion debate, and use them for our summary section here for fetal pain. What does everyone think?-Andrew c 23:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The immediately preceding section dealt with "fetal pain", so I'm not sure why a new section has been started.  I disagree that the summary section at abortion is a good summary, and so how about we discuss the matter over there, instead of here?Ferrylodge 23:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fetal pain, summary section 

message: You have no images of an actual fetus here.  Why?  These drawings and images of a rat fetus are so vague ... who is it that is so afraid of the actual image?  There are many available.  I'm surprised at your obvious "disconnection" with the actual subject matter here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.177.47.129 (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have discussed images extensively in the past. However, wikipedia's image use policy is that all images should have a free licence or a fair use rational. Currently, we have a handful of ultrasound images and a human fetus in a jar image and that's about it. While there are many images of fetus, not all of them are 'available' for use on wikipedia. Perhaps you could suggest a specific image, or help out in finding a GFDL image for us?-Andrew c 15:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: The article doesn't quite cover the spelling diff atm.  My understanding is that foetus is the majority English usage as it describes the long 'e' sound.  Logically this doesn't persist because it's an error (as the article implies).  Unfortunately I don't have a copy of OED to cite this.  Maybe someone else has... Hakluyt bean 00:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've shortened this part of the article a little bit, so that it says: "The preferred spelling in the United States is fetus, but the variant foetus or fœtus persists in other English-speaking countries, and in some medical contexts, as well as in some other languages (e.g. French)."  I hope that's okay.Ferrylodge 01:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: the spelling foetus describes the long 'e' sound??  Does this mean that words like 'foe', 'toe', 'doe', 'hoe', 'woe', or shortened forms of names like 'Joe', 'Moe' and 'Zoe' would all be expected to have a long 'e' sound?  How on earth does the spelling foetus in any way describe the long 'e' sound?Zebulin (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  etymology 

message: I removed some text concerning the Etymology of the word Fetus. It was mentioned twice and this wasn't needed. I removed the text outside of the etymology section. This additional text seemed out of place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.223.169.153 (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: Regarding the circulation figure, I think we should try to format the figures so they don't slop into the next section on all screens.  People can always click on a figure if they want to enlarge it.
Also, I think we need to create either a new section, or a section of external links, that details where a reader can find good, high-quality figures and drawings of a fetus.Ferrylodge 21:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree regarding a section on fetal images. My point regarding figures is that I'm not sure which screen size we should be using as our guide. Invariably, the images will slop into the next section on some screens; the wider your screen, the more likely will the image be to cover the next section, too. What should our standard be? Antelan talk 21:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I checked WP:MOS and it's of some limited help regarding images. I think that the "When using detailed maps, diagrams or charts" guideline may be appropriate to apply to the cardiovascular image. Antelan talk 21:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Generally speaking, thumbnails are the best way to display images." See Wikipedia:Picture_tutorial#Thumbnailing. The first figure looks silly as a thumbnail, but all the other figures look okay.Ferrylodge 21:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. My focus is simply on the cardiovascular drawing, since the details (ductus arteriosus, etc.) are lost when the image is displayed so small. It is like the first image in that, when viewed as a thumbnail, the text is unreadable. I would like to make the CV image larger. Antelan talk 21:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think it's really necessary to make that one bigger, then go ahead, although it increases the likelihood of slop-over into the next section.  You might want to alternatively consider writing "click to enlarge" in the caption.  Won't some of the text remain unreadable even after the figure is considerably blown up?Ferrylodge 21:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Because the image is relevant to the 2 sections following the cardiovascular section, I think that slop-over is acceptable in this case, so I've enlarged the image. Antelan talk 22:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Figures and drawings

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 00:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed WikiProject 

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?!? 11:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Womb-Uterus debate: central location proposed

message: Nothing can be printed out except the first page, which probably means there's a corrupting token somewhere in the file. Icarus530 (talk) 14:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Printing issues