Talk:Fetus in fetu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
Start This page has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale

Contents

[edit] More information.

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)

[edit] Why was this redirected?

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)

If you look at the full distribution of reported fetus in fetu (by any of its several names), the twinning theory doesn't hold up. I think fetus in fetu either needs its own page, or should be a section on the teratoma page. I put it on the teratoma page because its other names (dermoid cyst and fetiform teratoma) are connected with teratoma. Regardless, fetus in fetu needs a fuller discussion; at this point, it is a stub. Una Smith 06:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Resurrection

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)

The AFD in question is to delete the Alamjan Nematilaev article. The AFD has nothing to do with whether fetus in fetu should be on its own page. Re the AFD, I agree that further exploiting Alamjan Nematilaev, a child, is inappropriate. There are many published reports of fetus in fetu. I suggest deleting all mention of this child. Una Smith 21:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The rest of the article is mighty thin, and portions of the text there now probably belong elsewhere (on the teratoma and parasitic twin pages). I am not opposed to a page on fetus on fetu, but its main utility is in serving as an interwiki anchor for pages on other language wikipedia. Una Smith 21:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] text needing reliable sources

[edit] 1 in 500,000

The condition occurs in 1 in 500,000 live births.[1]

Removed from article. MSNBC is not a primary source. Una Smith 20:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)

Ad hominem remarks such as "You either do not understand this concept, or you are deliberately ignoring it" are inappropriate. --Una Smith 16:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

MSNBC, a TV channel, is not a reliable source of medical and scientific information WP:MEDRS. I gather Akradecki is unable to find a scholarly, authoritative source for this information. That is Akradecki's problem, not mine. Attention-grabbing information does not belong in Wikipedia unless it is verified. Note that verifying a source does not necessarily equal verifying information. Akradecki cites a source that is online and I can verify that the source claims 1:500,000. But that is irrelevant: for all we know, the 1:500,000 may be a wild guess by someone without relevant expertise. I will once again remove the text from the article pending confirmation. --Una Smith 16:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)

[edit] Parasite kills host

The parasitic twin sometimes grows large enough to kill its host twin, in which case both twins die.[2][unreliable source?]

Removed from article. I find no scholarly source supporting this claim. --Una Smith 02:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

Akradecki, once again: the text is not properly sourced. You have had over 2 months to find a WP:RS and you have not done so. A TV news story is not a reliable source re matters of medicine. --Una Smith 03:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Is the twin inside the host alive

I was wondering that when they take the fetus out, does it still live or does it die? Cause there is a sentence saying that when they pulled it out, it was a living half creature. What does that mean? Aka Paradox 05:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It's unclear from the source about the Indian man who was 36 years old and had his - LIVING - twin brother inside him. This human organism lived inside a man for 36 years? That is crazy to imagine, and I can't even begin to understand it. Maybe we could find more sources about this particular case?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 05:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to rely on mass media stories, because there is a large medical literature on fetus in fetu. See teratoma for some links. A fetus in fetu is alive in the sense that any healthy organ is alive. Its cells are alive, and its organs have a working blood supply from the host. However, a fetus in fetus is not capable of self-sustained life: as a rule, it has no (or no functional) brian, heart, lungs, gastrointestinal tract, or urinary tract. A fetus in fetu looks vaguely like a fetus, but it is a long way from being one. This is why some experts think fetus in fetu is not a parasitic twin but rather a variant of fetiform teratoma. --Una Smith (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Twin theory of development

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.[2]

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.[3] 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)

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 {{not verified}} tags. AKRadecki 23:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The news story in question was without question sensationalistic. With regard to science, primary sources are indeed preferred. Do you know the primary source of the claim, which you repeat citing a TV news story, that the incidence of fetus in fetu is 1:500,000? Una Smith 19:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] Reverts

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)

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)
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)
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)

[edit] Dispute over sources

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)

[edit] Examples

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)