Talk:Fetus in fetu

message: A Fertilized cell; having been split, begins to cylindrically contort. In the midst of this process the other developing cell has unnaturally tranfered within too close a range to avoid being embraced by the primarily progressing cell. Thus giving a never fully mature embryo that parasitically deprives its host of nutrients along whith the sharing off other functions.
moralhoward8403@yahoo.com
:That's a version of the parasitic twin theory of origin of fetus in fetu. Una Smith 06:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More information. 

message: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26048903-401,00.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.79.49 (talk) 08:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another example? 

message: Since fetus in fetu is almost a hybrid between a tumor and twinning, it doesn't seem right to simply stick it inside the teratomas article. I think it deserves its own page.ChristinaDunigan 23:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was this redirected? 

message: Following this afd, Fetus in fetu's coverage in other articles was judged to be inferior, and there is sufficient reason that this article should stand on its own. The text from the AfD'd article has thus been merged here. AKRadecki 19:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, the AfD's principle result was to merge. Teratoma and parasitic twin covered the subject poorly, and there's plenty of references, and the article is far beyond a stub, so that a page of its own is easily justified by policy and guidelines. AKRadecki 23:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resurrection 

message: === 1 in 500,000 ===
The condition occurs in 1 in 500,000 live births."Chilean boy born with fetus in his stomach", MSNBC, November 24, 2006, accessed June 4, 2007
Removed from article.  MSNBC is not a primary source. Una Smith 20:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm restoring. You are correct, it is not a primary source, it is a third-party source, and secondary sources are preferred (this is official policy – see WP:V. AKRadecki 23:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've yet again restored this citation. You had removed it saying that it wasn't "original" to MSNBC. Do you not understand the meaning of "secondary" sources? I have repeatedly told you about Wikipedia's policies to use secondary, not primary sources. You either do not understand this concept, or you are deliberately ignoring it. Please do not remove this source again. If you disagree with the figures, that's fine. Find your own source and add text to the effect off "other sources state that the rate is...." That's how you handle conflicts of information. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: There are a few journal references that quote the incidence 1 in 500,000. However I believe that they all derive from a 1969 paper by Grant and Pearn. In my opinion, MSNBC is not a reliable source for this specialized medical information. Far better to use a peer-reviewed medical journal. Axl 19:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I traced it there too.  Grant P, Pearn JH Foetus-in-foetu. Med J Aust. 1969; 1:1016-1020.  But I would recommend not citing it without first reading it.  However, as this is contentious, I'll edit the reference to reflect the indirect reference. --Una Smith 20:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, refining the reference seems like a good idea. We can perhaps then use the estimate of incidence with a proviso about the doubtfulness of the source (if you can explain what that doubt consists of). This is far better than removing the information. --John 20:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Restored, and formal warning issued. Do not remove properly sourced material. It has been explained to you already, but we rely on secondary, not primary sources on Wikipedia. If you disagree with this practice and want to change it, take it up at WP:RS, not here; removing sourced material just to prove a point will ultimately get you blocked. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 02:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: You clearly don't understand what "properly sourced" on wikipedia is. We want secondary sources that do repeat information, not primary sources. This is clearly spelled out in the policy and guideline links I've given you. ABC News is considered a reliable source. I get the clear impression that you believe that fetus in fetu is not a legitimate subject for an article. Please declare your motives, because at this point it looks like you're pushing your particular POV. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "For information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context. For example, news reports often fail to adequately report methodology, errors, risks, and costs associated with a new scientific result or medical treatment."WP:RS  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.138.129 (talk) 10:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  text needing reliable sources 

message: The condition occurs in 1 in 500,000 live births."Chilean boy born with fetus in his stomach", MSNBC, November 24, 2006, accessed June 4, 2007
Removed from article.  MSNBC is not a primary source. Una Smith 20:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm restoring. You are correct, it is not a primary source, it is a third-party source, and secondary sources are preferred (this is official policy – see WP:V. AKRadecki 23:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've yet again restored this citation. You had removed it saying that it wasn't "original" to MSNBC. Do you not understand the meaning of "secondary" sources? I have repeatedly told you about Wikipedia's policies to use secondary, not primary sources. You either do not understand this concept, or you are deliberately ignoring it. Please do not remove this source again. If you disagree with the figures, that's fine. Find your own source and add text to the effect off "other sources state that the rate is...." That's how you handle conflicts of information. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: There are a few journal references that quote the incidence 1 in 500,000. However I believe that they all derive from a 1969 paper by Grant and Pearn. In my opinion, MSNBC is not a reliable source for this specialized medical information. Far better to use a peer-reviewed medical journal. Axl 19:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I traced it there too.  Grant P, Pearn JH Foetus-in-foetu. Med J Aust. 1969; 1:1016-1020.  But I would recommend not citing it without first reading it.  However, as this is contentious, I'll edit the reference to reflect the indirect reference. --Una Smith 20:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, refining the reference seems like a good idea. We can perhaps then use the estimate of incidence with a proviso about the doubtfulness of the source (if you can explain what that doubt consists of). This is far better than removing the information. --John 20:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1 in 500,000 

message: The parasitic twin sometimes grows large enough to kill its host twin, in which case both twins die."Fetus in Fetu", The Proceedings of the Athanasius Kircher Society, April 23, 2007, accessed June 4, 2007
Removed from article.  I find no scholarly source supporting this claim. --Una Smith 02:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Restored, and formal warning issued. Do not remove properly sourced material. It has been explained to you already, but we rely on secondary, not primary sources on Wikipedia. If you disagree with this practice and want to change it, take it up at WP:RS, not here; removing sourced material just to prove a point will ultimately get you blocked. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 02:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: You clearly don't understand what "properly sourced" on wikipedia is. We want secondary sources that do repeat information, not primary sources. This is clearly spelled out in the policy and guideline links I've given you. ABC News is considered a reliable source. I get the clear impression that you believe that fetus in fetu is not a legitimate subject for an article. Please declare your motives, because at this point it looks like you're pushing your particular POV. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "For information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context. For example, news reports often fail to adequately report methodology, errors, risks, and costs associated with a new scientific result or medical treatment."WP:RS  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.138.129 (talk) 10:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parasite kills host 

message: Fetus in fetu starts to develop very early in a monozygotic twin pregnancy, in which both fetuses share a common placenta, and one fetus wraps around and envelops the other. The enveloped twin becomes a parasite, in that its survival depends on the survival of its host twin, by drawing on the host twin's blood supply. Invariably the parasitic twin is anencephalic (without a brain) and lacks some internal organs, and as such is unable to survive on its own. The parasitic twin sometimes grows large enough to kill its host twin, in which case both twins die."Fetus in Fetu", The Proceedings of the Athanasius Kircher Society, April 23, 2007, accessed June 4, 2007
Sometimes, however, the host twin survives and is delivered. It continues to survive until it grows so large that it starts to harm the host, at which point doctors usually intervene. The condition causes the host to look like they are pregnant (since they technically are) and can occur in both males and females.''
All of the above is unsupported by primary sources.  The sources given are a sensationalistic TV news story and a blog. Una Smith 21:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, our policy is to use 2ndary, 3rd-party sources. We don't prefer primary sources. See Wikipedia:Use of primary sources in Wikipedia (though it's not active, it still represents current approaches). Also see No original research: Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, which is active. ABC News is hardly "sensationalistic", and is generally viewed as a reliable 3rd party source. The Kircher Society is technically a "blog", but a reputable one, not one as described in WP:V. Please don't remove sourced information. If you question the source, you're welcome to add  tags. AKRadecki 23:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Primary sources are preferred? May I remind you that WP:NOR is policy? Primary sources are not preferred on Wikipedia, and I challenge you to point to any policy that says so. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 21:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim that the incidence of fetus in fetu is 1:500,000 needs a primary scholarly source, meaning a scholarly source that provides data, and does not simply repeat a claim made elsewhere. Una Smith 23:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good grief...how many times do I have to tell you that primary sources are not preferred on Wikipedia? If you don't like that, fine, but that's the way the system works. Please respect it. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Una, rather than removing this claim, can you make an effort to find a better source please? Thanks. --John 17:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done that. Please, let's work together on improving the article rather than getting into a sterile dispute. --John 17:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twin theory of development 

message: Akradecki, I think it is really uncool that you persist in reverting my edits.  See WP:DR. Una Smith 03:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry you think it's uncool, but you keep removing large chunks of legitimate, sourced information, which is a big no-no around here. That's what makes your comment very ironic...you're complaining that I'm reverting your edits, but your edits are specifically to cut out large bits of sourced, cited text...you're doing the very thing you're complaining about. Further, you don't seem to understand our policies on which sources we give preference to. What is your issue with this article anyway? Do you doubt that the phenomenon exists? Do you think this is just some sensationalistic exercise? This is an encyclopedia, and the subject of this article is both legitimate and, by our definitions, notable. The text on the examples, especially the youth, is carefully crafted to conform to our BLP standards. AKRadecki 05:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and the reason for the last revert is that you stuck an image-related template smack in the middle of the text, a template that had no application to anything in the article. AKRadecki 05:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Akradeki, the chunks of text in question you took from the teratoma page, and they are not relevant specifically to fetus in fetu.  I should know:  I wrote most of those chunks myself.  I put them back where they belong.  Re your argument that some of the text is sourced, your sources are inappropriate.  TV news programs are not authoritative in relation to the subject at hand (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)  when the subject is basic science. Una Smith 19:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts 

message: I want to sort out once and for all the dispute there has been over sources. Una, I've archived your AN/I report as this is not a matter requiring administrator attention but a content dispute revolving around sources. Obviously, the best would be if we could find new sources that satisfy everybody. Is that possible, do you think? --John 16:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute over sources 

message: The second to last example has information that is also mentioned elsewhere in the article, the passage seems to just be directly copied form the GMA news website and should probably be revised.
Feyre 11:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples 

message: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1273232.ece
shitty source but maybe it can get bettered kthxbye  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.212.38 (talk) 22:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  add this has pic too 

message: Firstly, these two potential causes are not scientific theories by the definition therein, so the use of the word theory in a scientific article is misplaced.  They are at best hypotheses.
Secondly, I can imagine that both possible causes might be accurate in different cases.  Are they even necessarily mutually exclusive?  This needs to be addressed too. I am not a dog (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  two "theories" 

message: I suppose there are cases in animals that should be mentioned. For example (in Indonesian): A case where a sacrificed bull had a fetus inside its stomach, despite the journalistic sensation of the word "beranak" (gave birth). Kembangraps (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cases outside human 

message: I think it's another examples in fiction
Conjoined Fetus Lady  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.230.198.171 (talk) 04:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples in fiction 

message: I highly doubt this is a very trustworthy source, but there is a Newgrounds flash game about this. http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/542658 -MisaTange (talk) 01:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flash Game 

message: ... by 182.185.99.67, then auto-deleted.
Parasitic twin theory:
as the fetus in fetu gets in to the body of the host,it should must tske some peritoneal coverings of its host while going inside or there should be a marking on skin or on the body wall explaining this inward movement of fetus? is there any explanation to this?
Recovered from log by Varlaam (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question posted in August 2012 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Fetus in fetu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011012449/http://annals.edu.sg/pdf/34VolNo10200511/V34N10p646.pdf to http://annals.edu.sg/pdf/34VolNo10200511/V34N10p646.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090209190502/http://www.gazette.com:80/articles/brain_44861___article.html/sam_doctor.html? to http://www.gazette.com/articles/brain_44861___article.html/sam_doctor.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In 1954 I was born with fetus in fetu which I was operated on when I was 4 to have removed in Scunthorpe England my name is Michael Shaw 81.101.37.165 (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fetus in fetu 

message: The redirect Sanju Bhagat has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 01:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Sanju Bhagat]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]