Talk:Coffin birth

message: I have just finished revising the entire article. I am open to the idea of moving the entire article to the page Postmortem Fetal Extrusion, as it is the more accurate and modern term, and is gaining academic usage over the older term. Opinions? Boneyard90 (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: leave it here - a redirect is sufficient under the modernn name SatuSuro 02:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Move definately. We train to do this procedure. I have never heard of it called "coffin birth". Seem like calling a neonatologist a "baby doctor". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *Sorry, but you "train to do this procedure"? The topic is not a procedure, it's the possible result or an observable outcome of putrefaction. Perhaps you're thinking of postmortem C-section? Boneyard90 (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes you are completely right... Let me read further :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

text: I like the phrase "baby doctor" better than a neonatologist. --1sneakers6 (talk) 10:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to new page? 

message: The word serendipity is exclusively used for good things. To use it when discussing the death of a woman and her baby is utterly inappropriate, even if it is a quote from some sociopathic doctor. 108.234.224.230 (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The pursuit of knowledge is generally considered a "good" thing. It is in this context that an incident in which an unplanned observation is made which promotes the pursuit of knowledge on a topic is considered "serendipitous".Boneyard90 (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serendipity 

message: Sorry about removing something from there, but it's confusing. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Notes_and_references. And have I miscounted? 36 footnotes, 34 items in the bibliography? Doug Weller (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Re-placed item and repaired some format errors in the bibliography. Not sure what's confusing. Wikipedia format is used and the bibliography is in alphabetical order according to last name of primary author. The count of footnotes versus bibliography items is probably correct. Some footnotes refer to the same source, but different pages. - Boneyard90 (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bibliography" section 

message: Why does the article specify "non-viable"?  Presumably by the time the body of the mother reaches this state, the fetus is dead, regardless of whether it was viable or non-viable at time of death.--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, and thank you for your question. As you said, "presumably" the fetus is dead. And if a reader stops to think about it, of course that makes sense. The "non-viable" was added to remove the need for a reader to puzzle out the implied ambiguity. A couple other reasons include: because doctors and medical professionals can easily mistake this topic for postmortem C-section (see one of the above discussions, which is the mistake one editor made), since, as pointed out in the article, the topic of coffin birth is not covered in modern medical textbooks; and last, "non-viable" is used because, being clinical language though not a euphemism, it sounds better than "dead fetus". However, if the term "dead fetus" is more appropriate, then the terms can be substituted, though the article has been stable on this point for a long time. - Boneyard90 (talk) 14:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "nonviable" 

message: Rare Case of ‘Coffin Birth’ Seen in Medieval Grave — Smithsonian magazine, based on this paper:
: Neurosurgery on a Pregnant Woman with Post Mortem Fetal Extrusion: An Unusual Case from Medieval Italy
Bertux (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  7th or 8th century case