Jump to content

Talk:Anencephaly: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
Bots
7,532,308 edits
m Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 2 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 2 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Medicine}}, {{WikiProject Philosophy}}.
 
(31 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Reliable sources for medical articles}}
{{Reliable sources for medical articles}}
{{WikiProject Medicine |class=C |importance=Mid |neurology=yes |neurology-imp=Mid}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=
{{WikiProject Medicine |importance=Mid |neurology=yes |neurology-imp=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=low|ethics=yes}}
}}
{{Censor}}
{{Top 25 Report|Oct 5 2014 (21st)}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(30d)
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:Anencephaly/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s
|archive = Talk:Anencephaly/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 2}}
}}
{{Archive box}}


== Don't make stats US-specific ==
== Don't make stats US-specific ==


How does the annual incidence in the US translate into per 1000 pregnancies?
How does the annual incidence in the US translate into per 1000 pregnancies?
01:04, 31 December 2006‎ (UTC) <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.14.85.215|76.14.85.215]] ([[User talk:76.14.85.215|talk]]) </small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== YouTube video ==
== YouTube video ==
Line 14: Line 21:
Is this it? Maybe add it to the external links?
Is this it? Maybe add it to the external links?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2N_ivaTe588&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2N_ivaTe588&NR=1
12:47, 28 April 2007‎ (UTC) <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.14.85.215|76.14.85.215]] ([[User talk:76.14.85.215|talk]]) </small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== Image move ==
== Causes ? ==

::While the images should by all means remain, consensus seems to be that those of very graphic nature should not be the ones featuring the article. I have moved the images to the additional images section in accordance with [[WP:NOTANARCHY]], [[WP:DEM]], [[WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY]].
::I have further added a disclaimer concerning the images, so that it is easy to find the images if you want to, but not necessary to see them to read the article. [[User:CFCF|CFCF]] ([[User talk:CFCF|talk]]) 15:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

:::Also [[WP:NOTCENSORED]] gives a very good account advocating against incorporating the images in the text. As per:
:::<blockquote>Especially with respect to images, editors frequently need to choose between alternatives with varying degrees of potential offensiveness. When multiple options are equally effective at portraying a concept, the most offensive options should not be used merely to "show off" possibly offensive materials. Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not preferred over non-offensive ones in the name of opposing censorship. Rather, they should be judged based solely on other policies for content inclusion.</blockquote>
:::and
:::<blockquote>Controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article. For example, editors selecting images for articles like Human body have thousands of images of naked bodies and body parts available to them, but they normally choose images that portray the human body in an unemotional, non-sexual standard anatomical position over more sexual images due to greater relevance to the subject―the more sexual one is not given special favor simply because it is more offensive. Similarly, editors at articles like Automobile do not include images of vehicles with naked women posing near them, even though such images exist and "Wikipedia is not censored", due to concerns with relevance. Wikipedia is not censored, but Wikipedia also does not favor offensive images over non-offensive images.</blockquote>
::: -- [[User:CFCF|CFCF]] ([[User talk:CFCF|talk]]) 16:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Of the two images that you put inside a collapsed table, I believe that [[:File:Anencephaly side.jpg]] is perfectly acceptable, as is its sister image [[:File:Anencephaly front.jpg]]. These two images show the deformity in a way that is not only clear to the reader but also respectful to the image subject (i.e., the fetus/baby being photographed). In my view, these two images are not unnecessarily shocking and I would favor their continued prominent display.

However, I have previously argued that [[:File:Anencephaly.jpg]] is not an appropriate image for Wikipedia, not because of its graphic nature (which would be immaterial under [[WP:NOTCENSORED]]) but because it is demeaning to the image subject and additionally because it was likely taken without proper permission. If you look at the archives of this talk page, I believe that [[:File:Anencephaly.jpg]] is almost entirely responsible for the offense that various readers have taken. That offense has been generally met with a response of [[WP:NOTCENSORED]], but as I have repeatedly tried to make clear, that is not a sufficient response to the charges that I am leveling against this image.

I strongly encourage people to read the extended discussion of this issue that took place last December [[Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 December 10#File:Enencephaly.jpg|on the Possibly Unfree Files noticeboard]]. The discussion was not finally resolved because the item ended on a technicality, and I was advised at the time that the proper recourse was a [[WP:Request for comment]] here on the article talk page. Since then, I have not had the personal energy to organize such an RFC, but perhaps now is the time to do it. Would anyone be interested in helping to support such an effort?

I would suggest that such an RFC be accompanied by a notification to the personal talk page of every user who has ever commented on this talk page. This should be general enough to avoid falling afoul of [[WP:CANVASSING]] but would also account for the fact that many users may not follow this article, and may not even be frequent WP editors who would see the normal RFC alerts, precisely because they are frustrated and disgusted by this image's continued presence on Wikipedia. Just to be clear, that is not a value judgment on my part, but simply an interpretation of the comments that have appeared in this space over the years. Any comments welcome. --[[User:BlueMoonlet|BlueMoonlet]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonlet|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/BlueMoonlet|c]]) 17:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

::To a certain degree I agree with you, but [[WP:NOTCENSORED]] states:
::<blockquote>Controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article.</blockquote>
::As it stands there may be some loss in clarity because of the move of [[:File:Anencephaly side.jpg]]. Maybe it can be the main image if for example it was in a smaller format so as not to display too much detail, which might be slightly 'less astonishing'. While [[:File:Anencephaly.jpg]] is by far the most graphic I find [[:File:Anencephaly front.jpg]] to be a tad harsh as well.
::Having searched quite extensively for a free non-photographic image of anencephaly I can not find one that is public domain, but that would be the most ideal solution in my mind.
::My suggestion is to see if any voices are heard arguing against the current form of the article, and if so instigating an RFC.[[User:CFCF|CFCF]] ([[User talk:CFCF|talk]]) 20:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

:::The image on this page would be ideal, and I will try to see if it is possible to acquire a license: http://www.cmfblog.org.uk/2013/10/15/defending-the-indefensible-twenty-reasons-to-think-twice-about-aborting-a-baby-with-anencephaly/ or http://www.teindia.nic.in/mhrd/50yrsedu/q/6J/BM/6JBM0802.htm (both found off google)
:::If not it may be a viable option to create a free image with these two as reference. [[User:CFCF|CFCF]] ([[User talk:CFCF|talk]]) 20:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


I came across this article from a crosslink via the ‘fusarium’ page.
::::I have raised the subject on [[Wikipedia talk:MOS#Collapsible galleries concerning content of difficult nature in medicine]] [[User:CFCF|CFCF]] ([[User talk:CFCF|talk]]) 23:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


If this can be confirmed and substantiated, or accepted for inclusion without citation as it has been on the fusarium page, I think it should be included here, as a possible epidemiological factor, as it is very easy for such information to get ‘lost’ in the shuffle of time but, even if only conjecture, it is not insignificant.
:::::Moved to [[Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles]].
:::::The edits made are also in line with [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Images]] which states:
:::::<blockquote>'''Shock value''': Some images of medical conditions or procedures disturb some readers, e.g., because of visible deformities or the presence of blood. Potentially disturbing images should be not be used for their shock value, for decoration, or merely to add an image. A detailed caption that identifies specific features may simultaneously increase the educational value of the image and reduce the likelihood of disturbing readers. Placement in a highly relevant section, rather than in the introduction, is also likely to reduce the shock value to readers. [[Wikipedia:Offensive]] material offers additional advice.</blockquote>
::::: -- [[User:CFCF|CFCF]] ([[User talk:CFCF|talk]]) 23:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
We do not typically hide images. This option has been put forwards for a number of images including those on the Rorschach and has been turned down generally by the community. [[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
::By the way were is the consensus to hide the image? I do not see a RfC support this move. [[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
== RfC: Are photos of anencephalic newborns relevant to the article? ==
{{archivetop| Closing per [[WP:SNOW]] and at request at [[WP:ANRFC]]. At this time, there is clearly '''no support for the proposal''' to remove any of the images, to implement a collapsible gallery, or that x-ray alternatives would be preferable. Discussion about what images are best suited in infobox or elsewhere were not a part of the proposal, and will not be examined in this close. [[User:I JethroBT|<font color="green" face="Candara"><b>I, JethroBT</b></font>]][[User talk:I JethroBT| <sup>drop me a line</sup>]] 02:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)}}
Do the images which show newborns, one of which also contains a vast amount of blood on this page give reasonable help in understanding the subject as apposed to the shock they instill? Should X-ray and non-photographic images be prefered? Is a compromise to place them in collapsible galleries? See above discussion and discussion on [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Collapsible galleries concerning content of difficult nature in medicine]] [[User:CFCF|CFCF]] ([[User talk:CFCF|talk]]) 10:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
*'''[[WP:SNOWBALL|Snowball]] Yes''' The issues raised here have been extensively discussed and settled. Yes, graphic images should be used where they help the reader to understand the article subject. No, we should not confine our resources for educating the reader to non-photographic images and/or to collapsible galleries.
:I want to be clear that this RFC has nothing to do with the more focused and nuanced questions that [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anencephaly&diff=580333577&oldid=580320926 I have proposed] for discussion. The only possibly-useful point that is being brought up here is the guideline that "Potentially disturbing images should be not be used for their shock value, for decoration, or merely to add an image," which may be useful as a ''secondary'' argument against [[:File:Anencephaly.jpg]] ''if'' it is determined that there are sufficient alternate images that lack its deleterious features. --[[User:BlueMoonlet|BlueMoonlet]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonlet|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/BlueMoonlet|c]]) 18:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' images of a disease are relevant to articles about a disease. Efforts to hide depictions of a condition as the condition is unpleasant is anti encyclopedic IMO. And we have discussed this issue many times before. If you do not want to see disturbing diseases 1) do not look them up on the Internet 2) turn you images off and just read text (there are lots of options available to do this). [[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' [[User:LT910001|LT910001]] ([[User talk:LT910001|talk]]) 05:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


From the fusarium wiki page:
::So far consensus seems to point that the images should be retained. I found a high-quality image from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities which is public domain. I have replaced this image as the main image for the article. The other images are still available under the Signs & Symptoms section so have not been removed. Is this acceptable? [[User:CFCF|CFCF]] ([[User talk:CFCF|talk]]) 10:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
:::The decision should be made on the basis of which images is the most instructive. The [[:File:Anencephaly-web.jpg|CDC image]] you mention is a drawing that does not show a particular illuminating angle and generally has no advantage over a photograph, so I agree with the user who undid your edit. I might suggest that [http://www.cmfblog.org.uk/2013/10/15/defending-the-indefensible-twenty-reasons-to-think-twice-about-aborting-a-baby-with-anencephaly/ this image], which you previously suggested, might be the basis of an instructive diagram if someone redrew it and put it into the public domain. It might even be instructive enough to be at the top of the article, as I think it makes clear what is going on better than any photograph I've seen, though I would see whether there is consensus on that before taking action. --[[User:BlueMoonlet|BlueMoonlet]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonlet|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/BlueMoonlet|c]]) 15:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


“Following an outbreak of Fusarium oxysporum that affected coca plantations in Peru, and other crops planted in the area, the United States has proposed the use of the agent as a mycoherbicide in drug eradication. In 2000, a proposal was passed to use the agent as part of Plan Colombia. In response to concerns use of the fungus could be perceived as biological warfare, the Clinton Administration "waived" this use of Fusarium. A subsequent law passed in 2006 has mandated the testing of mycoherbicide agents - either Fusarium oxysporum or Crivellia papaveracea - in field trials in U.S. territory.[13] Use of Fusarium oxysporum for these tests has raised concerns because resistant coca from the previous outbreak has been widely cultivated, and the fungus has been implicated in the birth of 31 anencephalic children in the Rio Grande region of Texas in 1991[citation needed], the loss of palm trees in Echo Park, Los Angeles[14], and eye infections from contact lens solutions.[15] The alternative Crivellia papaveracea is less well known; despite decades of study in the Soviet biowarfare lab in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, the relevant mycotoxins reportedly have not yet been isolated, named, or studied.[13]” [[User:Genetikbliss|Genetikbliss]] ([[User talk:Genetikbliss|talk]]) 22:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
*'''Questions'''. Why are we adding [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Anencephaly&diff=580735106&oldid=580577090 drawings] when we have images of the real thing? Why couldn't this have been discussed at [[WT:MED]]? Why was a RfC wise? Can the person who started it just close it? It cheapens the process to leave things like this open, IMO. [[User:Biosthmors|Biosthmors]] ([[User talk:Biosthmors|talk]]) <small>pls [[Wikipedia:Notifications#Features|notify]] me (i.e. {{[[Template:U|U]]}}) while signing a reply, thx</small> 14:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
::I agree that this RFC was unneeded and that [[User:CFCF]] should close it. However, I would cut some slack to [[User:CFCF]] on that, as well as on the choice of venue, as I think s/he is acting in good faith and is not particularly experienced. --[[User:BlueMoonlet|BlueMoonlet]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonlet|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/BlueMoonlet|c]]) 15:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


== contradiction on feeling pain ==
:::I was suggested to start an RfC by several sources, and did so because I felt there were things here that could be improved, and were not possible to improve without discussion.
:::As to why drawings are added. They explain the subject matter in very high clarity and as per [[WP:GFFENSE]] they respect:
:::<blockquote>Controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article.</blockquote>
:::To not admit that these images are controversial is to dismiss the discussion above on this talk page.
::: -- [[User:CFCF|CFCF]] ([[User talk:CFCF|talk]]) 15:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


in Signs and Symptoms it states:
::::Thanks for the close. I believe "we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers ''for a given topic'' as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article" (my emphasis of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GFFENSE#.22Not_censored.22_does_not_give_special_favor_to_offensive_content that]). In this case, it is a reader expectation that pictures will be shown, and cartoon images are lower-quality. I don't like the word ''controversy'' period. So I don't know what a controversial picture is, to be honest. Is there an accepted definition for the term ''controversial picture''? What would it be? [[User:Biosthmors|Biosthmors]] ([[User talk:Biosthmors|talk]]) <small>pls [[Wikipedia:Notifications#Features|notify]] me (i.e. {{[[Template:U|U]]}}) while signing a reply, thx</small> 16:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


"A baby born with anencephaly is usually ... '''unable to feel pain'''.
::::So why are we sacrificing quality for a misleading drawing? [[User:Biosthmors|Biosthmors]] ([[User talk:Biosthmors|talk]]) <small>pls [[Wikipedia:Notifications#Features|notify]] me (i.e. {{[[Template:U|U]]}}) while signing a reply, thx</small> 16:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


...
:::::To discuss semantics; a good definition of a controversial image could be an image that gives rise to the discussion seen around [[Talk:Anencephaly#Image]]. '''Conventional expectation''' in medical literature is not to show the most gruesome image concerning the subject. I would be very surprised to see an image of a bloody dead new-born if I picked up my '''pediatric pathology''' book or '''embryology''' book such as the image in [[:File:Anencephaly.jpg]].
:::::I previously stated that an image such as http://www.cmfblog.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/anencephalicinant.jpg is very good at explaining the subject, but I am still looking for a free alternative of said image.
:::::Lastly we are most certainly not speaking of a ''"cartoon"'' or a ''"misleading drawing"'', but of a high quality [[medical illustrator|medical illustration]] sufficient in explaining the subject on the website for the United States [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]].
:::::By using this image as the main image we should be able to down-tone some of the controversy brought up in preceding discussions.[[User:CFCF|CFCF]] ([[User talk:CFCF|talk]]) 16:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


Due to the presence of the [[brainstem]], children with anencephaly have almost all the primitive reflexes of a newborn, '''responding''' to auditory, vestibular and '''painful''' stimuli."
:::::Also as per [[WP:GFFENSE]]
:::::<blockquote>Especially with respect to images, editors frequently need to choose between alternatives with varying degrees of potential offensiveness. When multiple options are equally effective at portraying a concept, the most offensive options should not be used merely to "show off" possibly offensive materials. Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not preferred over non-offensive ones in the name of opposing censorship. Rather, they should be judged based solely on other policies for content inclusion.</blockquote>
::::: -- [[User:CFCF|CFCF]] ([[User talk:CFCF|talk]]) 16:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
::::::CFCF, now that you're being pushed, you have stopped talking about [[:File:Anencephaly side.jpg]] and [[:File:Anencephaly front.jpg]] and are only discussing [[:File:Anencephaly.jpg]] as too "controversial" to be in this article. I have previously given very specific reasons for the inappropriateness of [[:File:Anencephaly.jpg]], which I have already argued is nearly solely responsible for the "controversy" you mention, and I have to say that I'm a bit miffed that you went ahead with this much less nuanced and less focused RFC that (I'm afraid) has reduced the potential traction of the RFC that I previously proposed.
::::::Regarding your quote from [[WP:GFFENSE]], it appears to be a consensus that [[:File:Anencephaly side.jpg]] and [[:File:Anencephaly front.jpg]], though they are graphic, are more "effective at portraying the concept" than any of the alternatives that you have proposed. Thus, they should be included under that policy.
::::::Finally, CFCF, you need to be careful about [[WP:EW|edit warring]]. Even if you have not violated [[WP:3RR]], your behavior is bordering on disruptive, and that could lead to consequences (I'm not an admin, so please take this as nothing more than friendly advice). It's become clear that your views are not those of the majority, so you need to focus your activities on the Talk page. --[[User:BlueMoonlet|BlueMoonlet]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonlet|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/BlueMoonlet|c]]) 18:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
*Still non consensus to move the image. Please get consensus before it is moved again. [[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
:: Suggesting illustration [[:File:Anencephaly-web.jpg]] be main image, others under signs and symptoms in small gallery, and [[:File:Anencephaly.jpg]] removed from article, both as per [[WP:GFFENSE]], and as the illustration is a high quality medical illustration of a '''living new-born''' and not a fetus as [[:File:Anencephaly side.jpg]] & [[:File:Anencephaly front.jpg]].
:: -- [[User:CFCF|CFCF]] ([[User talk:CFCF|talk]]) 10:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
:::Is it possible to have both [[:File:Anencephaly-web.jpg]] & [[:File:Anencephaly side.jpg]] in the side panel as in other articles?(I was unable to do this in the editor with this type of side-panel). They are both high quality images that illustrate different aspects of the subject (fetus vs. child). [[:File:Anencephaly.jpg]] on the other hand does not really give anything that isn't already available, while the other images hold better when [[WP:GFFENSE]] is taken into account. [[User:CFCF|CFCF]] ([[User talk:CFCF|talk]]) 10:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
::::The side image is excellent and belong in the lead IMO. [[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
:::::I'm with you on that, it wasn't what the last question was about.
:::::On many pages such as [[Human heart]] there are multiple images in the lead. When trying to add that here I am unable to do so, I suggest the side image along the illustration.
:::::And then there is the question of removing [[:File:Anencephaly.jpg]] from the article, which I believe should be done.
::::: -- [[User:CFCF|CFCF]] ([[User talk:CFCF|talk]]) 11:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


[[User:Ttulinsky|Ttulinsky]] ([[User talk:Ttulinsky|talk]]) 03:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
*I was able to update the infobox, with both images in the lead. Still awaiting response concerning suggestions of removing [[:File:Anencephaly.jpg]] now that we have so many high-quality alternate images.[[User:CFCF|CFCF]] ([[User talk:CFCF|talk]]) 09:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
::But yet you keep (over and over) moving the images. Stop it, it is getting disruptive. [[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
:::As far as discussion goes that was not what the dispute was about, I recommend restoring [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Anencephaly&oldid=581158439] as this page does not have moved images, but an updated infobox. [[User:CFCF|CFCF]] ([[User talk:CFCF|talk]]) 22:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
::::You have moved the images to the bottom again when they should be in the signs and symptoms section. The drawing is not as good as the side view and thus should go lower in the article IMO (ie were it was before). [[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
:::::Got edit-conflict while submitting the exact edit you made. I feel this has a good explanatory quality, but I still suggest [[:File:Anencephaly.jpg]] be removed because it does not add to the article. [[User:CFCF|CFCF]] ([[User talk:CFCF|talk]]) 22:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
::::::The image is sort of fussy. And it does not really add anything the other two do not. I am neutral on this. Try a RfC on this question maybe. [[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
:::::::Doc, did you just say that you're neutral about removing [[:File:Anencephaly.jpg]]? If so, then I might venture to say that there is consensus to do it. I'm not taking action yet, though, until I am sure that that is the case. Do you really think the time and trouble of an RFC is necessary? --[[User:BlueMoonlet|BlueMoonlet]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonlet|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/BlueMoonlet|c]]) 01:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::Or maybe a little more time for others to weight in is all that is needed. [[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
:'''Yes'''. Anencephaly is a disturbing condition, and (possibly unfortunately) images are essential to understanding - to avoid the "what do you mean, the head isn't there?". We should attempt to use the highest quality images when available, even when unpleasant. [[User:Canada Hky|Canada Hky]] ([[User talk:Canada Hky|talk]]) 02:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
::The RfC was closed because the question posed was too broad. By discussion it has been narrowed down to if [[:File:Anencephaly.jpg]] should remain when we have other better images. If only asked about this what do you say {{U|Canada Hky}}? -- [[User:CFCF|CFCF]] ([[User talk:CFCF|talk]]) 09:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
:::I'd still say '''yes'''. I am only in favor of removing images when we have inaccurate / misleading images that are the best we can do, and then we come across better, more accurate images. In this case, while the other images are higher quality, I think this one shows an accurate depiction of anencephaly, and has a place in the article. [[User:Canada Hky|Canada Hky]] ([[User talk:Canada Hky|talk]]) 01:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
::Apart from this discussion has delved into how big the images should be, and I personally can see that the current article is not at all as controversial as compared to a manner of weeks ago when that image took up a large part of the article. -- [[User:CFCF|CFCF]] ([[User talk:CFCF|talk]]) 09:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
{{archivebottom}}


== Notable Individuals ==
== Why does the image have such small eyes? ==


maybe add Jaxon Buell? he survived 5 years with anencephaly [[Special:Contributions/199.180.118.48|199.180.118.48]] ([[User talk:199.180.118.48|talk]]) 03:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Why does the cartoon image I keep seeing pop up in this article have such small eyes, unlike the real images? [[User:Biosthmors|Biosthmors]] ([[User talk:Biosthmors|talk]]) <small>pls [[Wikipedia:Notifications#Features|notify]] me (i.e. {{[[Template:U|U]]}}) while signing a reply, thx</small> 15:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
:{{U|Biosthmors}} The medical illustration is most likely of a milder case, with a larger part of the brain-stem intact, where the child could live longer. The image [[:File:Anencephaly.jpg]] is a dead new-born so most likely a severe case where it was unable to live beyond the first hours due to lack och brain stem and no autonomous breathing. I don't think the eyes in the image are that large, just the rest of the head is severely underdeveloped. (''theorizing'') [[User:CFCF|CFCF]] ([[User talk:CFCF|talk]]) 21:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 05:51, 8 February 2024

Don't make stats US-specific

[edit]

How does the annual incidence in the US translate into per 1000 pregnancies? 01:04, 31 December 2006‎ (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.85.215 (talk)

YouTube video

[edit]

Is this it? Maybe add it to the external links? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2N_ivaTe588&NR=1 12:47, 28 April 2007‎ (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.85.215 (talk)

Causes ?

[edit]

I came across this article from a crosslink via the ‘fusarium’ page.

If this can be confirmed and substantiated, or accepted for inclusion without citation as it has been on the fusarium page, I think it should be included here, as a possible epidemiological factor, as it is very easy for such information to get ‘lost’ in the shuffle of time but, even if only conjecture, it is not insignificant.

From the fusarium wiki page:

“Following an outbreak of Fusarium oxysporum that affected coca plantations in Peru, and other crops planted in the area, the United States has proposed the use of the agent as a mycoherbicide in drug eradication. In 2000, a proposal was passed to use the agent as part of Plan Colombia. In response to concerns use of the fungus could be perceived as biological warfare, the Clinton Administration "waived" this use of Fusarium. A subsequent law passed in 2006 has mandated the testing of mycoherbicide agents - either Fusarium oxysporum or Crivellia papaveracea - in field trials in U.S. territory.[13] Use of Fusarium oxysporum for these tests has raised concerns because resistant coca from the previous outbreak has been widely cultivated, and the fungus has been implicated in the birth of 31 anencephalic children in the Rio Grande region of Texas in 1991[citation needed], the loss of palm trees in Echo Park, Los Angeles[14], and eye infections from contact lens solutions.[15] The alternative Crivellia papaveracea is less well known; despite decades of study in the Soviet biowarfare lab in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, the relevant mycotoxins reportedly have not yet been isolated, named, or studied.[13]” Genetikbliss (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

contradiction on feeling pain

[edit]

in Signs and Symptoms it states:

"A baby born with anencephaly is usually ... unable to feel pain.

...

Due to the presence of the brainstem, children with anencephaly have almost all the primitive reflexes of a newborn, responding to auditory, vestibular and painful stimuli."

Ttulinsky (talk) 03:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Individuals

[edit]

maybe add Jaxon Buell? he survived 5 years with anencephaly 199.180.118.48 (talk) 03:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anencephaly&oldid=1204861083"