Talk:Amniotic sac

Too specific to humans

The amnion is present in all reptiles (which cladistically includes mammals and birds/dinosaurs). The article as currently written implies that only mammals (and perhaps only humans) have them.

In fact, the technical name for all reptiles and descendants is "amniotes". Our cousins the amphibians lack the amnion, as do all other animals.

I think you're probably right, but I'm way too far from my biology texts to prove it right now.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 14:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, not entirely sure about it being called an 'amniotes' in reptiles. I go to the Royal Veterinary College and we're taught here that its called an Amnion. Calling it another name implies its a different organ to the amnion, which it isn't. A hearts a heart, whatever the name. Anyway, this is easily the most valid point to stop it being merged. Its assumes people who use wikipedia are only interested in humans, or at least mammals, which is a wrong assumption. Wikipedia already has enough human-heavy-wrong-to-everything-else-on-earth biology in its archives without adding this to it... Grantnolan (talk) 00:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome occourrence

the article states that TTTS is rare:

In rare cases, blood passes disproportionately from one twin to the other through connecting blood vessels within their shared placenta, leading to twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome.

but TTTS article states that

TTTS is believed to affect roughly 1 in 1000 pregnancies.

Something is really wrong! --Melaen 01:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

One in 1000 is rare.

CarlFink 01:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

photo

Talk about a photo that's graphic! -Amit

i second that -Joeyjojo 14:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

wow. that's a little more graphic than i was hoping for. MaxPowar 13:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see these comments as an appropriate discussion that should lead to censorship. Please discuss the reasons for the image not being shown inline. violet/riga (t) 10:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how the definition provided on the article Censorship applies to this case. I'm not suggesting removing the image entirely, just making viewing it voluntary. I've always thought that WP:NOT#CENSOR should be balanced against maintaining readability of an article for readers who do not have an iron stomach in terms of graphic content. Obviously, if four users say the photo is more graphic than it needs to be, perhaps we should err on the side of WP:CON. -Severa (!!!) 11:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't see it as particularly graphic, being an image directly related to the topic. Not including it is, I believe, censorship as we are determining what should and should not be shown. Four users may have said it's graphic, but the first two are merely comments and do not imply that it should not be included, while the third is stating that an alternative might be better. violet/riga (t) 13:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you understand that {{Linkimage}} does not "censor" an image — that is, remove it entirely from the article - it only places a link within a template that the reader can click if they wish. I think sensitivity to graphic content, even in a medical context, poses legitimate concerns for readability. -Severa (!!!) 13:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that I'm completely willing to defer to your judgment. I just think the charge that the edit constitutes "censorship" is off base. That wasn't the intent at all. -Severa (!!!) 15:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I do understand that the linkimage template allows users to choose whether or not to see the image. The problem we've always had is where we draw the line about which images should be hidden in this way. The general consensus is that, unless the image is of a highly graphic sexual nature, it should be included. violet/riga (t) 21:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope that blood and gore are included in that aswell. Mausy5043 10:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're misusing the term censorship. Censorship means the "the removal of information from the public, or the prevention of circulation of information, where it is desired or felt best by some controlling group or body that others are not allowed to access the information which is being censored." Whether or not immediately, the picture remains available to everyone interested, so using linkimage template is no censorship. People may have the right to choose if they only want to read about the topic or they also want to see it illustrated. Why should you force them to do both? Please consider: the opposite of "forbidden" is not "obligatory" but "allowed." There is no point in using the word "censorship" here.

"The general consensus is that, unless the image is of a highly graphic sexual nature, it should be included." Obviously, other kinds of images can be similarly distracting for many -- if it weren't the case, people wouldn't object to it on the discussion page. Adam78 16:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be much better if we did not spend time arguing about definitions here. Censorship can mean "Prevention of disturbing or painful thoughts or feelings from reaching consciousness except in a disguised form" [1], "deleting parts of publications", or "The act of hiding, removing, altering or destroying copies of art or writing so that general public access to it is partially or completely limited"[2]. Now let us avoid pedantics...

While I agree that some images can be disturbing I disagree that we should hide ones such as this. As we appear to be at a deadlock an RfC might be in order. violet/riga (t) 17:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me remind you again that no one wants to delete anything. It's about making something optional, instead of making it obligatory.

Yes, please initiate an RfC. Although I really don't see why you insist on your method which only reflects your preferences and why you oppose a compromise which would suit both parties, making the picture optional. The more developed a program or a device is, the more options it has and so the more user-friendly it is considered. Why reduce the readers' options? Adam78 20:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I do not see the middle point between inclusion of the image and use of linkimage to be actually using linkimage. As you say "no one wants to delete anything" and thus you are not compromising here. The image was there for an extended time before complaints and I believe that the default position here should be that the image is included in the article.

I understand your position and how some people might not especially like the image, but I do not like the idea of random users picking and choosing what they think people shouldn't see. violet/riga (t) 21:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. The compromise or middle point (or NPOV) exists between using an image and not using an image and their middle point is using linkimage. It's a middle point between two default options: we have the picture and we don't have it at the same time, so to say. (Of course, a middle point can be found between any two points, like using normal-sized or huge pictures, or using prepared/schematic or gory pictures, or deleting the picture altogether or just not linking to it, but I chose a middle point between the two basic options, using a picture or not using a picture. I don't think it's so complicated.)

"I do not like the idea of random users picking and choosing what they think people shouldn't see." Why do you think there is no such debate about a picture of playing children? If an image raises debate among several people, don't you think it may have some reason? (I believe it concerns less than 1% of the images in Wikipedia so you don't have to be afraid that Wikipedia would lose its images.) Let me repeat again: everybody is allowed to see the picture, anyway.

Or, to put it differently, "I do not like the idea of random users forcing their will on others, ignoring others' expressed suggestion and request." I like users who leave options and let others decide what they want. And if we know that even some of those few people who resolve to become doctors actually faint at the first dissections, I don't think average people should be exposed to similar images without any prior notice. It's nothing but disrespect for the others, a lack of civility, which I hardly think Wikipedia should afford. Adam78 23:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't misunderstand you at all, and cries of incivility are more inflammatory even than your decision to edit war. We should stick with the image being included in the article while discussions reach a conclusion, including an RfC if necessary. The method used by linkimage is ugly and goes against good web design principles. If someone wishes to look at an article on the amniotic sac then they should expect to see an image of it. Your analogy of doctors fainting is not relevant as seeing things in the flesh (literally!) is a totally different experience to looking at an image. violet/riga (t) 10:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Gaa! Isn't this really a picture of the amnion (minus the chorion), and not the whole amniotic sac? As such, wouldn't this existing image be more representative? --Infrangible 05:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

{{linkimage|Gray34.png|not quite so bloody}}

Both images would be better - photographic and diagrammatic more clearly illustrate the article. violet/riga (t) 10:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• "If someone wishes to look at an article on the amniotic sac then they should expect to see an image of it." Why do you want to decide for them what they should or shouldn't do and what image they find suitable themselves? Let them decide. They are grown-up people, after all. I'm afraid this way of thinking is a little bit authoritarian.
• On the other hand, I agree with the Gray image to be included because it's not a surgery picture. I don't think it's so much difference whether a sight is "in the flesh" or not. By the way, it would be interesting to make a statistics of the other articles of body parts how many of them contain surgery images.
• I still do not find anything inflammatory whatsoever about trying to preserve the respect for average readers, and regarding them as adult people with their own specific preferences, instead of deciding for them without asking what they want to see. What I find inflammatory is behaving in an authoritarian way and depriving the readers of their choices. I'm sorry. Let's try to be a bit less authoritarian. Let's try to preserve the freedom of readers. Please. Adam78 11:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You are not treating people as adults by giving them a choice, and your actions (edit-warring) are inflammatory. violet/riga (t) 11:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Image use policy contains an important caveat: "Do not upload shocking or explicit pictures, unless they have been approved by a consensus of editors for the relevant article." WP:NOT#Censor is not an open door to everything; it does not trump all other policies on Wikipedia. In the event that an image is disputed, we should attempt to find a solution by reaching a consensus, per WP:IUP and WP:CON. We should try to find a feasible solution upon which everyone (or almost everyone) can agree. No one owns a Wikipedia article, so no one opinion carries more weight than another. I agree that the linkimage template is a reasonable compromise. If the template doesn't look good, then the solution would be to improve the template's appearance, not reject its use entirely. -Severa (!!!) 12:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Having seen the picture I can imagine that some younger viewers and those with a weaker stomach will appreciate it not being shown on the page itself. I think the current solution is a good one. This is in no way censorship. Perhaps a better warning could be provided though. Any TV-show or whatever will definitely not be rated 'E' if they intend to show this kind of content. I believe that you should consider the picture from such a point of view. How would the picture be rated? If it isn't E or PG it should be linked to as done here. Mausy5043 10:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

@ "If someone wishes to look at an article on the amniotic sac then they should expect to see an image of it." Let's imagine you're an explorative 9-year old. You hear the term "Amniotic sac" and think: "What could that be?" So you go to Wikipedia to find out... I don't want my children to be exposed to such an image without them having been offered a choice, with a clear proper warning. No need to remove the picture (that would be censorship). Mausy5043 07:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

first, and foremost, why is this image even here? it doesn't seem to add anything really to the article, it really jsut looks like a bloody mess, second of all, Wikipedia has a content disclaimer, and that's impotent to remember; any further censoring of the image is against wikipedia's policy towards censorship.

What seems to be misunderstood is that it's not censorship to remove the image if that image fails to add anything to the article, it is cencorship to half remove it so that the people don't see it.

I will support the removal of the image, and I will support the image being in the article, but I will not support the censoring of the image.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 03:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that the image Image:Amnion.jpg adds nothing to the article, and it is used nowhere else on English Wikipedia.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 14:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It's an actual photograph related directly to the article - how can it not add anything?! violet/riga (t) 16:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Because it's showing the sac in a unnatural state and looks like a shock site image--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam}

If it is thought necessary to use the image, it should open in a smaller size, as similar WP images appear; it can then be enlarged if the user wants. Using a perfectly reasonable reasonable image in an unusual way does not provide the information that should have been intended--it is a shock image technique; to AGF, this may not have been realized by those inserting and supporting it. Many things appear strange and unnatura when shown larger than expected. DGG 03:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that the current solution is a good compromise between the opposing interests. In terms of having the image open in a smaller size, as DGG suggested, I'm not sure if that would be possible. The picture displayed on an Image: page is a thumbnail, reduced in proportion to the image's original size, and, being that Image:Amnion.jpg is over a thousand pixels in terms of both width and length, its corresponding thumbnail will be rather wide. I think the only way to have the image open in a smaller size would be to create a second version of the file that was reduced to something like 600 pixels wide. -Severa (!!!) 14:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Not at all - you can specify the size of the image displayed. violet/riga (t) 07:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

AFI

A topic on how to calculate the amniotic fluid index (AFI) would be informative!

Source of Amniotic Fluid

I recall that no one yet understands what organ or process creates (secretes, excretes) amniotic fluid. Sure, the fetus ingests the fluid and cycles it out the urinary tract, but from where does it originate? How do all those components get there? From the mother? Or does junior manufacture it? I always thought it was blood plasma-like substance filtered by the kidneys and out the urethra, but I ain't no MD. --Robertkeller 00:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Linkimage

Template:Linkimage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Changing picture of amniotic sac in surgery to regular inline

I realize that this will provoke yet another debate, and I have read the previous one. Please, read my two cents on the subject before reverting.

• Articles like liver and heart have photographs of actual organs depicted. Why should the amniotic sac be any different?
• The article surgery has a photo depicting mitral valve replacement in the OR. Why aren't people shouting at the top of their lungs about this image?
• This image is not overly explicit, unless you can prove the surgeon poured extra fake blood onto the scene before the picture was taken.

Superdix 17:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• This is not a normal state of the amniotic sac. If it were a 3D photograph or an ultrasound picture, it would be OK, but a surgery is not a normal state of any organ, obviously.
  • I've seen the pictures in the articles liver and heart and both show the organ in a natural, neutral state. (Note that even the human heart is not surrounded by ample quantities of blood, and not a single drop is visible, despite the fact it is the very center of circulation in the human body so it would be much more justified for that organ.)
• Those who visit the article named surgery may well expect a picture of a surgery. But neither a liver, a heart, or an amniotic sac automatically involves a surgery.
• The measure how explicit the image has nothing to do with fake blood, it's just whether the amniotic sac is shown in its normal state or in a special state. I guess at least 99,9% of amniotic sacs around the world are not under surgery but they simply function inside the human body, which could be just as well taken photos of.

Adam78 19:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a really hard time following your reasoning. The amniotic sac is not a solid organ, it is, as the name implies, a sac, which is hollow. Unless some plastination technique is available, images like this one is the closest you will ever get to an understanding of what an amniotic sac really is like in the body itself. This picture clearly demonstrates the amniotic sac's elasticity, as well as the fact that the sac may be opened during surgery. If your position is that the image has no place in the article, why didn't you remove it? Why did you revert to the ridiculous situation where it's being hidden behind a link? And why do you think we only should use images people expect to see? The point of using an image must be to improve the quality of the article, no?

One more thing. The fact that you consider the images of liver and heart to be the organs in their "normal, neutral states" tells me you need to take a basic biology course. Those are both dead organs, and taking them out of the body also takes them out of context. In fact, nothing could be more distant from a heart's normal, neutral state than lying on a table with all its vessels cut off. There would be absolutely nothing wrong in using a picture of the organs in the intact body to illustrate the articles in question.

I do, of course, acknowledge that simplified drawings and photographed organs have an educational value. This page already has that, and the photograph only contributes further to the article. Superdix 22:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• If your position is that the image has no place in the article, why didn't you remove it? – First, I didn't say the image had no place in the article; all I wanted is not to force it on people who are content with reading about it and seeing a drawing of it – because I tend to suppose most people are okay with it and because I am quite sure their freedom to choose what kind of information they want to get should be by all means preserved.
  • Let me repeat myself at this point: I still don't see what the problem is about making something optional. If a picture is hidden, all who want to see it can see it and all who don't want to are able to skip it. The more developed technology is, the more things there are in which people can choose and the more comfortable people feel in their everyday lives. I don't see why something should be made obligatory without asking.
• Why did you revert to the ridiculous situation where it's being hidden behind a link? – Very simple, because not all people are born with the guts of a medic. I'm sorry if 95-98% of humankind is ridiculous in your point of view – it can hardly be helped, all we can do is respect it, don't we?
• And why do you think we only should use images people expect to see? – Because people probably type or click certain words in Wikipedia (or Google) so that they should find information about that specific content. Even though I want to learn about amniotic sac, I may not want to learn about the surgery of an amniotic sac.
• You should be aware that visual kind of information is different from textual information. (An example: you may want to read about vomit, for example, but you may not want to see what a specific person vomited at a specific time since you may not be interested in it and you may well feel you are perfectly okay with imagining it for yourself, or you just experienced it yourself, or for any other reason.)
• The point of using an image must be to improve the quality of the article, no? – Yes, and certain pictures may reduce or spoil the experience for some because they do more harm than good to them. That's why it's better to provide a link for it, so both kind of people can be comfortable with it.
• This page already has that, and the photograph only contributes further to the article. Yes, for you, and for certain other readers for sure it does. And at the same time, it adds no positive contribution to the article whatsoever, in the view of certain other people, who are not used to surgeries (and since hardly more than 1-2% of people are doctors, they certainly comprise the majority, whether you like it or not). It's not a big deal if you tend to be self-centered, most people tend to be like that, but sometimes it may be worth becoming more aware of this fact and intentionally trying to overcome it, because, as a matter of fact, not all people are like you (or me or whoever else).

Adam78 15:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

To follow your logic, if I go to the article Britney Spears, then what I should see is a thumbnail hidden behind a link, like the one on this page, and not an image of Britney Spears. Since you can't tell whether I am utterly repulsed by this person or not, but still might like to read the article, then you need to take every possible measure to satisfy me as a potential reader. Right?

You are in fact censoring information, by assuming that a majority of people don't want to see something. The encyclopedic approach to subjects that are, for one reason or another, taboo, provoking and so on, is to present unbiased and NPOV information. That goes for pictures as well as text. The image in question demonstrates some qualities of the amniotic sac as well as how it looks during surgery. It is not overly explicit in any way, it simply documents a real event that takes place all over the world, every day. There is no valid reason not to include it, nor is there a valid reason to hide it. The only basis of your argument is that, "people can't take it". That's not up to you to judge.

You write "for you, and for certain other readers for sure it does. And at the same time, it adds no positive contribution to the article whatsoever, in the view of certain other people, who are not used to surgeries". I can hardly see how this changes anything. If I were to apply this logic to, say, the equations in Quantum field theory, then the equations must be hidden, or removed, since less than .5% of the public are able to understand them.

And please refrain from assuming my opinions are biased. Superdix 19:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, the article Vomit has an inline thumbnail of "vomit in the street". Superdix 19:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Since you can't tell whether I am utterly repulsed by this person or not, but still might like to read the article, then you need to take every possible measure to satisfy me as a potential reader. Right? It would be true if there were roughly the same number of people who are as disturbed to see a picture of Britney Spears as other people who are disturbed to see a surgery. (The same applies to Quantum field theory.) And I assume you are very well aware of this, so I can't see why you pretend not.
• Second, I can see no similar debate on the talk:Britney Spears page (or if there were, this view didn't have much support), so the grounds for your reasoning is entirely imaginary. We have a saying: "if my grandmother had wheels, she would roll." Yes, she would most probably roll in that case. And so what?
• You are in fact censoring information – I'm sorry but this kind of reasoning disqualifies you from a meaningful debate. Please look up the article censorship and only refer to it if you find it actually suitable here. Let's not misuse words, please. Each and every piece of information is still accessible in the article (including the surgery picture) for all the people who can reach the article itself. I wish all censorship in the world could be solved with a single click of an average Internet user...
• There is no valid reason not to include it, nor is there a valid reason to hide it. I'd completely agree with you if we were discussing an option between removing the link altogether and leaving the picture instantly visible in the article. However, this solution is already a compromise between the two. If we take the first option as 0 per cent and the second as 100 per cent (and this supposition seems quite plausible to me, because there are no more options beyond them), then the present version is 50 per cent. I don't see why it doesn't suit you, why you want to make something obligatory when it needn't.
• The only basis of your argument is that, "people can't take it". That's not up to you to judge. First, I'm an editor just like you and we can't wait for Jimbo Wales to settle each discussion. Second, it's not up to you to judge, either, that people can, or rather, should necessarily take it. In my solution, both the people who can and who cannot can be happy (except for an extremely laborious click, though). It's two groups. In your solution, only the people who can take it can be happy. It's one group. Two is more than one, even if put aside the actual proportion of people, and even if we suppose that 6 billion people crave to see surgery pictures and there are only 6 who don't. 6 billion plus 6 is still more than 6 billion.
• In conclusion, I hope we can agree on one thing: having to click one more is still smaller harm than being shocked without prior warning. And it doesn't even depend on the proportion of the people involved.

Adam78 22:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, you are taking your own estimations of how many people are repulsed and applying them to an encyclopedia. That's not encyclopedic. How about the millions of muslims who find Britney Spears utterly disgusting, since she is flaunting her body parts in public, both above and below the waistline? Are they not a significant amount of human beings? By hiding her image, I can apply your logic. Let's say 5 billion people wish to see the image. 1 billion do not. 6 billion people are still more than 5. Right?

Let's look for precedence in Wikipedia. Take vagina for example. Why is this any less shocking than the image in question here? To an astonishing amount of people in the world, finding an image like this in an encyclopedia is unheard of. Still, it's there, illustrating the article. And it should be. Just like this one should.

Now, please make this clear for me. What is your argument for hiding the image? Is it the blood? Superdix 07:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Censorship is the complete prevention of access to information: it is banning Playboy magazine entirely, not keeping it behind the counter, where people must ask first if they wish to purchase a copy for themselves. The value of an image should be determined by the information it contributes to the article, but, this should be balanced against maintaining readability for a wide audience. If the presence of a graphic image turns away sensitive readers, then, you've reached a point of diminishing return, where the informative value of the image itself cannot compensate for the loss of informativeness caused by rendering the article unreadable to a large number of readers. I agree that Image:Amnion.jpg aids the viewer in understanding the elastic nature of the amniotic sac, as Superdix stated, but I also agree with Adam78 that the blood might be off-putting to many. That's why the Linkimage template is such a great compromise: it allows us to preserve information, but, at the same time, makes reception of that information optional. "Other crap exists" isn't the best defense, because although there might be a picture of someone's lunch featured inline on Vomit, similar images are absent from Human feces. WP:NOT#CENSOR does not mandate the inclusion of everything. Content on Wikipedia is still subject to other policies, such as WP:V, WP:CON, and WP:IUP. The past consensus was to keep the Linkimage template in this article. -Severa (!!!) 02:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me rephrase then. This is not censorship, it is reinforcing a cultural idea (blood and cutting the human body is bad and repulses people) which definitely is not encyclopedic. Why hide documentation of a procedure performed every day all over the world? What criteria of shocking or explicit does this image satisfy?

Just because something has been discussed/voted on before, does not disqualify it from a new round of debate. Superdix 07:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, not including human feces in the article on feces is just as wrong. Again, this is reinforcing a cultural taboo, which doesn't help anyone. That having been said, you can hardly compare a good quality photograph of a procedure being performed in an operating theatre to vomit on the street, or human pooh on the street for that matter. Superdix 08:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry that I didn't manage to make it clear. Proportion is secondary. If the number of people who prefer the picture being inline is x and the number of people who prefer the opposite is y, then the number of those who can be OK with the current solution is x + y (except for one click) and those who prefer your solution is y. x + y is at least as much as y, if they are positive numbers. So the present solution suits more people than your suggestion.
• Note that you are arguing against a solution which is already a compromise between the two parties. What makes you think it is fair that a single group should be given 100% and another group 0%? The present method is like 50-50%, so why do you object to it, when opinions actually differ?
• Why is this [a vagina pic] any less shocking than the image in question here? – I can't believe you are serious with your question. If you think a little bit, you can find out the answer yourself: If there are 5 billion adults on Earth, 4,8 billion have already seen a vagina in real life, including all women and all heterosexual men (excluding priests etc. as well as homosexual or asexual men). On the other hand, it may be about one million (0,001 billion) who have seen an amniotic sac during surgery. It's quite different, isn't it?
  • One more thing: the vagina is not shown during surgery, neither is the heart or the liver, so it is possible for the amniotic sac too.
• How about the millions of muslims who find Britney Spears utterly disgusting, since she is flaunting her body parts in public, both above and below the waistline? – The same applies here. At least 95% of Muslim adults have already seen a naked women: either because they are female or because they are heterosexual men.
  • Second, the issue hasn't been raised on its talk page, as far as I know, and if it will ever be, Wikipedians can start discussing it too, but until that time it makes little sense to speculate about it (cf. "if my grandmother had wheels, she would roll").
• reinforcing a cultural idea (blood and cutting the human body is bad and repulses people) which definitely is not encyclopedic – it's not merely cultural, it's common for all human cultures. Average people are not used to seeing surgeries. Just think of the rating of films: codes are given to people so people can decide if they want to see a specific film. People are normally offered this kind of choice with films; why would an encyclopedia be different?
• Why hide documentation of a procedure performed every day all over the world? – Because it's not the reason why people visit the article "Amniotic sac". It can certainly be assumed that they want to read about it but there is no reason to assume they also want to see it during surgery. As I said, the topic of an amniotic sac doesn't automatically involve surgery.
• What criteria of shocking or explicit does this image satisfy? – The answer is simple: blood and dissection. While it's normal for some, it's not normal for others. And it applies independently of culture (so please don't refer to cultural issues again).
• Again, this is reinforcing a cultural taboo, which doesn't help anyone. – No, not a cultural taboo but an ancient repulsion of people from blood because it's been associated with injury, danger, inability, suffering, and death since prehistoric times. It's not the least cultural, it's hundreds of thousands years old. What makes you think you are the one who should forcefully change it in an article that you do not own? If you want to change it, you can create a website for people who want to overcome this "cultural" taboo and they can visit it. However, Wikipedia is not the place for you to promote in an unrequested way what people should do in your opinion.
• Last but not least, you've forgotten to react on this: "having to click one more is smaller harm than being shocked without prior warning." Do you have anything to disprove it?

Adam78 15:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

First, that someone has made a compromise does not automatically make it the ideal situation. Nor does a "consensus" on Wikipedia drawn last week necessarily stay true this week. Your equations ("x+y is more than y") have nothing to do with doing what's right for Wikipedia, so let's keep them out of the discussion.

Second, the fear of blood and cutting is cultural. Look it up and you'll see ancient civilizations for whom blood had a different place in society altogether.

Let's not get into the whole "Wikipedia is not a place for you to" rant. This has nothing to do with my personal opinion. The article in question is a medical article, and as such, should be illustrated accordingly.

The reason why I came with the examples of images on Wikipedia was simply to transfer your own logic so you could see the irrationality of it yourself. I guess you didn't see it.

Unless you can come up with some new medical imaging technique, this is the closest thing we will be of showing an actual amniotic sac on the page. Again, this is a hollow sac, not a solid organ.

The argument that "it's not what people expect to see on the page" does not cut it. Why would I not expect to see an image of an amniotic sac on a page? The article is called amniotic sac for a reason!

Wikipedia policy states that to be disqualified, this image must be shocking or explicit. This is nothing of the sort. It is an image documenting a hospital procedure. Don't compare it to a movie. Superdix 19:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• First, that someone has made a compromise does not automatically make it the ideal situation. – It's true; the only question is why a specific extreme, which is opposed by several people, would be better than a compromise that doesn't hurt any.
• Your equations ("x+y is more than y") have nothing to do with doing what's right for Wikipedia, so let's keep them out of the discussion. – Wikipedia is not for itself but for the people who use it, so why not count with them? It's a bit strange to imagine a consensus without considering how many people prefer a solution.
• And again: why do you prioritize those who have to click one more against those who are exposed to an image they find disturbing? If there is any reason at all, it should be really convincing, but you still haven't mentioned it, despite the fact I'm asking the same thing for the third time.
• Let's not get into the whole "Wikipedia is not a place for you to" rant. This has nothing to do with my personal opinion. – Really? Which Wikipedia policy says editors should force disputed graphic content on readers, disregarding others' obvious sensitivity? (NB, I said "disputed" content, as opposed to Britney Spears' pictures.)
• The article in question is a medical article, and as such, should be illustrated accordingly. – Yes, just like other medical articles like those about liver and heart. That is, without inline surgery pictures. Agreed.
• Why would I not expect to see an image of an amniotic sac on a page? – I'm afraid you're distorting my word. I didn't say that people should not expect a picture of an amniotic sac but a surgery picture of it. Just like any other physical things, including organs, it can be shown outside a surgery situation as well, even if it's thin. It can be removed from the body, just like a heart or a liver, and photos can be taken of it, just like of a piece of cellophane. Have you ever considered the fact that there are a hundred and one ways for cellophane to be displayed, without using blood and/or bodily organs? Yes, it's possible: Google has 49,400 picture hits for the word "cellophane."
• Wikipedia policy states that to be disqualified, this image must be shocking or explicit. This is nothing of the sort. – At least in your opinion. But as you can see on the talk page, there have been several people (like Amit, Joeyjojo, MaxPowar) who found it shocking.
• The reason why I came with the examples of images on Wikipedia was simply to transfer your own logic so you could see the irrationality of it yourself. I guess you didn't see it. – I saw it, and I also noticed something that missed your attention, namely that there was no actual objection to the Britney Spears pictures, even if there could have been or could be some, hypothetically speaking.
• Unless you can come up with some new medical imaging technique, this is the closest thing we will be of showing an actual amniotic sac on the page. – Once again: what makes you think all or most people who visit the article want to see an actual amniotic sac on the page, even at the cost of being shocked?
• As you say, the purpose of a picture is to add extra information. But if it doesn't give extra info to several, because it simply disturbs them, without being able to transmit the intended special information, then what good does it make to have it inline? You are forgetting that people do not necessarily want extra information at the expense of a shock, and if they do decide to have this info, they want to know in advance what they are going to see. When you insist on having the picture inline, you're denying them this right, denying their own right for judgment, and disregarding their preferences, just because you personally don't find the picture disturbing and you see no reason for other people to judge it differently (!) and you expect them not to be bothered about things that you personally don't find bothersome, expecting them to subject themselves to your judgement, independently of how they see things. Don't say "This has nothing to do with my personal opinion." It absolutely has, because you can't state that a picture is not a disturbing one when other people have actually expressed their displeasure. All you can say is that it doesn't disturb you, and that's all. Let me remind you that people don't use your mind, perception, and judgement, but they use their own instead, and it sometimes differs from yours. They don't even need a Big Brother to tell them what they should or should not find shocking, they are quite all right with their own perception and that's what they normally prefer to use instead of yours or any other person's. It may sound outrageous but I can't help it. People are like that.

Adam78 02:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the only argument that came out of those thirty-something lines, is that medical articles shouldn't be illustrated by surgical images. If that is the most reasonable thing I can get out of you then we have nothing left to discuss. I'd beg you to try to understand that an empty amniotic sac lying on a bench (with any traces of blood wiped off, so as to not offend anyone, of course) wouldn't add much to the article, but I guess that's too much to ask. Superdix 18:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is getting slightly off-track. The question being asked here, ultimately, needs to be whether Image:Amnion.jpg is graphic, not whether it is a good idea to define certain imagery as "shocking" in the first place. As for the argument that a Muslim man might find the image at the article Britney Spears indecent enough to warrant its removal, in that scenario, it would be a personal sensibility that would be being disturbed, and there are simply too many such personal sensibilities that it would be impossible to account for them all without shutting Wikipedia down. On the other hand, graphic/violent content can disturb readers on a very fundamental level, leading to nightmares or lost sleep. Although there are certainly cultural taboos related to blood, particularly with regards to a woman's menstrual cycle, overall, fear of blood is not strictly cultural. We have been hard-wired by evolution/God/Mother Nature to be alarmed by the sight of blood, just as we have been programmed to avoid pain, because both are signs of injury. This natural aversion can be overcome by some, but it is difficult, and I think Wikipedia should make an effort to accommodate those who cannot. I do think it is admirable for people to overcome their fears, but, I don't think it is realistic to expect everyone who comes here to have an iron stomach. Some readers will come here ready to view such content, but, for those who are not, I think it is best to err on the side of caution. The link image template is a great compromise, because it preserves easy access to the information, but maintains choice on the reader's part. I think, ultimately, that if readers are given control over when and how they access the information, it will increase the the number of those who do. Allowing readers such choice might actually help to make them more comfortable with medical imagery, because, when and if they do choose to view this image, they will be prepared, and will not be immediately driven away by the unexpected sight of blood in the article about the amniotic sac. -Severa (!!!) 04:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to get the discussion back on track. But you're wrong about blood. Yes, pain receptors in the body tells our central nervous system to discontinue the pain-eliciting activity or remove the stimulus. But the reaction to the sight of blood itself is not programmed by evolution (perhaps except in blood phobia, which is a different discussion altogether).

Citing WP:IUC: Do not upload shocking or explicit pictures. This is the discussion, whether the image is shocking or explicit. Please consider the extremely limited amount of pages using the Template:linkimage template (less than 150, including talk pages!). Is this image really so offensive it warrants hiding? Superdix 18:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• But the reaction to the sight of blood itself is not programmed by evolution – yes, it is. That's why surgery is not normally shown anywhere without prior warning (except for programmes about actual operations).

Saying it is so doesn't make it true. Prove it. That is, provide a reference to a text, where the link between sight of blood and inborn reflex reaction in humans is stated. I will be happy to apologize for my mistake should you be able to cite such a text.

• "medical articles shouldn't be illustrated by surgical images" – not exactly: they can, as long as the access to such images is not automatic but optional. This is "the most reasonable thing you can get out of me."

So you've basically decided all surgery images must be hidden because they're shocking. If that doesn't fit into the definition of censorship, I don't know what does.

• • Anyway, how do you know that all visitors who look up the term "amniotic sac" will know it's a medical concept? Since they can't be expected to have any previous knowledge of it, you can't expect them to be prepared for surgery images, either.

That logic can be applied to surgery as well. Should we hide the image from that article as well? How does one know what to expect from an article on a subject one has no previous knowledge of?

• Is this image really so offensive it warrants hiding? – Why are you asking this again when you already have the answer from those who complained to the image? It sounds like you're doubting the validity of their opinion, their sound perception, or their right to find something offensive. What makes you think it is to be questioned? (I'm afraid that my "thirty-something lines" were still not enough to make the point clear for you... but please disprove me.)

Anyone can say, I feel that image i shocking. That's a personal opinion. If Wikipedia ends up being about personal opinions, then it won't be a repository of useful information, it will be a repository of junk. What editors need to do is look at the issue objectively and weigh the benefits of inclusion versus the drawbacks of hiding information. So far, this discussion has been largely about personal opinion: since x people on the talk page finds the image shocking, it should be hidden. Again, look at the issue objectively, consider the extremely few articles that use the linkimage template, and reconsider. Superdix 13:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Adam78 20:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I've not read any of the comments above, but I just wanted to make my opinion known. The image, I feel, is acceptable and beneficial to the article. However, the linkimage template was used as a compromise between those wanting it included and those wanting it removed. While I would prefer its inclusion I feel the current situation is a better situation. violet/riga (t) 22:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. By measuring what articles actually use the linkimage template to hide images, I am tempted to call the situation we have here ridiculous. The image does add to the article, and we should be grateful such images are available for free use. Thus, I feel it is worth the debate, with an eventual RfC or arbcom request if that should be necessary. Superdix 13:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• That logic can be applied to surgery as well. Should we hide the image from that article as well? How does one know what to expect from an article on a subject one has no previous knowledge of? – First, a surgery picture may be justified in a surgery article but this article doesn't imply surgery. Second, "surgery" is part of the basic vocabulary, even a five-year-old child will know it, while "amniotic (sac)" isn't one of them (you can check it in word frequency lists).

You're cooking up some pretty advanced policy here. According to you, the logic for people expecting to see cutting and blood in the article on surgery is that, surely, they must know what the concept of surgery is when they open the article, since everybody learns this at a young age. Word frequency lists even confirm that this is true (obviously). The thought that someone who doesn't know what surgery is, or who understands the concept but not the english word for it -- yet -- might stumble upon the surgery article obviously didn't cross your mind.

• So you've basically decided all surgery images must be hidden because they're shocking. If that doesn't fit into the definition of censorship, I don't know what does. – The solution is simple: go and look up censorship. – Anyway, look at the illustration of surgery and try to find out how much different it is from the discussed image. – Let me add that I didn't speak about the removal of all images, so you're distorting my words.

There are several definitions on censorship, and Wikipedia should never be your only source for anything. To quote the Center for Media Literacy: "The practice of suppressing a text or part of a text that is considered objectionable according to certain standards". This is suppressing part of a text.

• OK, let's say the image does add to the article for some. However, the picture IS accessible for all and everybody. It is accessible and available, but not obligatory. People can choose. Terrible, isn't it?

Yes, it is terrible, because it is wrong to impose some standards that are considered "objectionable" and suppressing the image, to quote the Center for Media Literacy again. Just because we have the technology to make the article work in a certain way does not make it the right way to present information. It still just makes it a compromise, and it still hides an image.

• I In fact, I don't care how few or many images use the linkimage templates and I don't see why you care. If it's asked by several people, it's a more relevant reason than whether you find it ridiculous or not.

The fact that very few articles have found it necessary to use linkimage to hide an image should make you care. This statistic sets a precedence. It should be used very sparingly, as it obviously is a "censorship light" tool.

• That's a personal opinion. If Wikipedia ends up being about personal opinions, then it won't be a repository of useful information – On the contrary. If Wikipedia doesn't comply with its readers' needs as regards explicit content, it will be a bad encyclopedia – because it cannot fulfil its educatory function properly if its content disturbs readers for whatever reason. Education doesn't involve forcing unrequested content on readers. No education is possible without regard to the audience!

Science doesn't sugar-coat anything. This is what an amniotic sac looks like. To you and some others, mother nature obviously is a bitch. But what is the rationale for glossing things over in a Wikipedia article?

• Anyone can say, "I feel that image i shocking." – Yes, and they have the right to say so and their statement should be accepted. Because THEY comprise the audience of Wikipedia, for whom the content should be optimalized.

Again, personal opinions, which may or may not include blatant disregard for what's best for the article in question.

• What editors need to do is look at the issue objectively and weigh the benefits of inclusion versus the drawbacks of hiding information. – I agree. If a discomfort prevents a considerable number of readers from using the encyclopedia effectively, this discomfort should be helped, in order to transmit the rest of the information. Just imagine: it's still better if a reader reads 100 sentences about the amniotic sac without looking at a picture than if he closes the window immediately, disgusted by the sight. Which education do you think is wiser: if a reader reads 100 sentences or if a reader reads 0 sentence and gets a bad impression of the whole?

Why would someone get a "bad impression of the whole" when presented with factual information? The image is a document of the subject of the article.

• You are basing your whole argumentation on the ignorance to people's approach to certain types of contents. They are adults and they are to be treated like adults, with respect to (rather than doubting and questioning) their actual preferences. Because they comprise the audience of the encyclopedia, they are the group for whom it is written and edited. How could you ignore them?

Adam78 15:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how "they are adults, treat them as such" weighs more heavily on your argument than mine. Superdix 17:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, it is terrible, because it is wrong to impose some standards that are considered "objectionable" – Do you think it's better to impose your standards? Better for whom? For those you want to educate in your own way, despite their will, because it suits your standards better? You may treat your children like that but adults don't need that treatment.
• To quote the Center for Media Literacy: "The practice of suppressing a text or part of a text that is considered objectionable according to certain standards". This is suppressing part of a text. – I'm sorry, it isn't. Just look up the verb "suppress" in Merriam-Webster, and you can see that it's "keeping something from public knowledge" or "keeping something secret." The image is available for public knowledge, just like the article itself. (Let me add that the Center for Media Literacy is less authoritative in Wikipedia than Wikipedia guidelines.)
• This statistic sets a precedence. It should be used very sparingly, as it obviously is a "censorship light" tool. – Again, it has nothing to do with censorship, it's for convenience. On the other hand, I'm still not very anxious for the statistics. I think if there are thousands or millions of pictures in Wikipedia, it's just natural that some of them will always be on the verge. As a rule, it's better to have a superfluous click than a superfluous shock, obviously.
• Science doesn't sugar-coat anything. This is what an amniotic sac looks like.
  • First, you must have had very bad experiences in school if you say such things...
  • Second, "Science" as such doesn't write encyclopedias, but it's people who do it. In fact, everything can be dealt with and displayed in a million way.
  • Third, this is only one image of an amniotic sac, not the only possible way to present it.
  • Fourth, you're not our Big Daddy to make us used to harsh things.
• But what is the rationale for glossing things over in a Wikipedia article? – As I've already told you, Wikipedia is for education, not for shocking. Education can be done in a million way.
• Again, personal opinions, which may or may not include blatant disregard for what's best for the article in question. – I don't see why or how the interests of an article (?!) could weigh more than the interests of the people who want to use it. There are several other Wikipedia policies that show that an optimal article is one that's optimal for the readers – like readability, see e.g. "Wikipedia articles are for people to read." and "There are many things on Wikipedia that can annoy the readers of articles and even frustrate them, rendering some articles inconvenient to read". (NB, it is mentioned as a negative thing, which is to be avoided.)
• Why would someone get a "bad impression of the whole" when presented with factual information? – I don't think we can answer it, just the fact is that things sometimes work like that. Some people just get bad impression when presented with certain kinds of factual information. People are like that. Period. And they do not visit Wikipedia so as to improve their mental endurance, overcome their discomfort, or find its reasons, but they come to Wikipedia for education, just to learn about the world. It's that simple. They may be all right if they only get 95% of all the information available – why would you force the remaining 5% on them?
• I don't see how "they are adults, treat them as such" weighs more heavily on your argument than mine. – I'm not sure I can explain it to you but I'll give you an answer anyway: because people normally have the right to object to certain things, this right of theirs should be respected, and they should be left free to choose. What you're doing is imposing your concept (of adults, of proper and improper fears, of ideal articles, of the ideal way of education, etc.) on them. If you know about the concept of censorship, which deals with the freedom of information, why do you ignore or deny other forms of freedom? I'm afraid this patronizing, authoritative approach is quite a bit outdated today (let alone it has nothing to do with Wikipedia policies).

Adam78 00:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This is getting us nowhere. You're creating your own policies, based on dubious assumptions and referring to articles (censorship) as official policy, which they are not. That something is written on Wikipedia does not make it more correct to reference on Wikipedia, that's dumbing down the entire encyclopedic process. Actually, since Wikipedia does not contain any original research, it usually is wiser to go outside of Wikipedia itself to settle an issue (as long as it doesn't deal with WP policy). For example, if a debate arises over the definition of a word, then external sources is the way to go (check the actual source of information). The only actual policy at hand is WP:IUP.

I suggest you look up medical literature and you will realize my point: science does not sugar-coat. This is a scientific article, on a medical subject, and imposing standards that, according to you, is 'treating adults like adults' by hiding images, is miles away from scientific principles.

I'm not trying to make anyone used to harsh things. That would be placing a shock-site image in full size in the article. This is a thumbnail to an image documenting a medical procedure.

Again, I challenge you to come up with a medical imaging technique that will allow us to visualize the amniotic sac in a good way. You have not. We do, however, have this brilliant image released into public domain for us to use in the article.

Your argument this patronizing, authoritative approach is quite a bit outdated today is yet another argument that is just as valid from my point of view: the authoritative approach of hiding images because a small "consensus" has deemed the image inappropriate has no place in today's world. In fact, that is closer to the policies of Kim Jong Il's propaganda department than the free press in western societies.

What shocks me the most is your reply to "Why would someone get a "bad impression of the whole" when presented with factual information?. According to you, we need to adjust, and hide, factual information so that the people will be happy, and not repulsed. You seriously need to rethink your attitudes towards concepts such as neutrality, science and freedom of speech. If reality shocks people, the problem should be deemed to lie with the person, and not reality. No?

By the way, did you locate that reference to inborn reflex action to the sight of blood? Superdix 08:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• You're creating your own policies, based on dubious assumptions and referring to articles (censorship) as official policy, which they are not. – You can use whatever else source and definition for censorship, they will never ever call this method a censorship, if something is only one click away for every single Internet user around the world.
• I suggest you look up medical literature and you will realize my point: science does not sugar-coat. – But Wikipedia is not written for doctors. Wikipedia is not a medical review but it's a general-purpose encyclopedia aimed at the widest audience. And again, education can be done in a thousand and one ways.
  • I don't see why you underestimate the textual content of the article plus the Grey's Anatomy picture. Why do you think no one can be satisfied with it?
• the authoritative approach of hiding images because a small "consensus" has deemed the image inappropriate has no place in today's world. In fact, that is closer to the policies of Kim Jong Il's propaganda department than the free press in western societies. – You can make sure it has nothing to do with being authoritative if you realize that this request came from below, from the average people, not from any kind of leadership. Have you heard of the concept "democracy"? It has a very ugly and nasty element in it: "demos", i.e. "people" in Greek...
• I challenge you to come up with a medical imaging technique that will allow us to visualize the amniotic sac in a good way. – There is a picture from Gray's Anatomy included. And anyway, it's never obligatory to include a picture at any rate. Where did you get this idea from?
• According to you, we need to adjust, and hide, factual information so that the people will be happy, and not repulsed. – Of course, because it's better to transmit 95% of the information effectively than unsuccessfully trying to transmit 100% of it. I don't see how you can doubt that 95% is more than an actual result of 0% (if people leave the whole page in repulsion).
• If reality shocks people, the problem should be deemed to lie with the person, and not reality. – Reality as such cannot be trasmitted in its entirety. You can present a person by showing his or her face or his or her anus. It's not reality itself that you try to transmit but a specific view of something, which is almost always POV. It's only your personal opinion that this image is so ideal. This is called POV-pushing in Wikipedia.
• By the way, did you locate that reference to inborn reflex action to the sight of blood? – No. I wrongly thought that when a conclusion is false the statement should be false too. But the problem lay in your reasoning so it doesn't depend on whether this cited statement is true or false.

Adam78 17:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

To quote our discussion on June 6: But the reaction to the sight of blood itself is not programmed by evolution. yes, it is. That's why surgery is not normally shown anywhere without prior warning (except for programmes about actual operations). My words in italics, yours are in bold.

Now, fast forward to June 8. Your statement: But the problem lay in your reasoning so it doesn't depend on whether this cited statement is true or false..

Suddenly, it doesn't matter whether this is true or false. Even though your argument for hiding surgery images and video from the public depends on this "fact" which you have yet to prove. How you can blame "my reasoning" for this hole in your logic, I have a hard time understanding. Superdix 08:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I assume you mentioned this ("But the reaction to the sight of blood itself is not programmed by evolution") because you thought it was relevant in the discussion. This was your reasoning. However, I realized it was a side-track in the discussion. I'm sorry for not noticing it earlier and I'm also sorry for making this statement, for which I had no sources. We just went off-topic. The main arguments, however, didn't even depend on this statement or its opposite. The basic reasons are quite different. It's about realizing two facts:

1. shocking normally interferes with effective education,
2. and even if it were theoretically justifiable, readers cannot be forced to see such materials.

That's all. Reconsidering it all, do you have any more doubts about it? Adam78 11:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong about me starting the debate on genetics: But the reaction to the sight of blood itself is not programmed by evolution – yes, it is. That's why surgery is not normally shown anywhere without prior warning (except for programmes about actual operations). Your words in bold. I did not bring this up, Severa did at first, then you said it was so, and even postulated that this is the very reason why we don't show surgery images. Don't blame me.

That being said, I'm glad we're at the core of the debate: whether the image is shocking and/or explicit. What we need is a larger vote on the issue. Superdix 17:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

There are some things wrong in the debate:

• The picture shows not a surgery but an examination.
• Every birth is bloody.

Tomdo08 (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Linkimage template was deleted: now at deletion review

The linkimage template used in this article was deleted (Deletion discussion). It is now up for deletion review at Wikipedia:DRV#Template:Linkimage, should anyone from here want to comment. Lyrl^Talk _C 00:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Amnion – Clarify distinction, or merge

"Some sources consider it to be equivalent to the amnion". Well, are they or are they not referring to the same term? If yes, the articles should be merged. If no, the distinction should be clarified. /skagedal^... 08:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

In the literature I know, both terms describe essentially the same. --Uwe Gille (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I edited the article. Now my four :) pence:

• The amnion is only the membran. The amniotic sac is the 3D-structure, the sac. Talking about the layers of the membrane for example belongs to the article "amnion". Mentioning the "amniotomy" for example belongs to the article "amniotic sac".
• I strongly object to the merge, the articles "amnion" and "amniotic fluid" are already too big. It might be possible to include the article "amniotic cavity" into "amniotic sac", but only if that article is not expanded (which should be done, by the way, it's unclear).
• Instead of the merge there should be stuff redistributed between "amnion", "amniotic sac", "caul" and maybe "amniotic fluid".
• Also each "amnio..."-article should be divided into parts regarding reptiles, mammals, humans & human birth.

Tomdo08 (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree. No merging please.Biophys (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

drawing is wrong

The drawing from Gray's Anatomy is nice, but not correct: The chorion in reality is not sticking to the amnion but to the uterus. Tomdo08 (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The chorion laeve does eventually grow large enough to cover the uterus, but as the embryo is at an early stage diagrammatically I do not think there is an error there. Unless your referring to the other end. The diagram does display the chorionic cavity --> I guess it could be bigger to really emphasise the point that it doesn't 'stick', but what 'cha gonna do... I do believe it's correct though. Silverbhagwat (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You are right; "wrong" is definitely the wrong word here :) What I should have said, is "potentially misleading". The reason for my remark was, that on my search for material I found a lot of wrong descriptions, which put amnion and chorion together or even omitted one of them. I felt, that the drawing is not clear enough to avert such interpretations. But in the end, it's certainly good enough. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Amniotic sac. 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/20080516200040/http://www.health.harvard.edu/diagnostic-tests/amniosentesis.htm to http://www.health.harvard.edu/diagnostic-tests/amniosentesis.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Class Rating

Hi Wolfch! I noticed that you upgraded the article from start-class to C-class for WikiProject Animal anatomy. The article does not actually give much detail on animals, which is why its class rating is lower than for the other 2 relevant WikiProjects. Would you consider moving the class rating back down to start-class? Thanks! Bibeyjj (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok. I tried to use the same class rating for different WikiProjects. I ignored that the same article may have different ratings for different WikiProjects. I restore the edit. Thank for sugguestion--Wolfch (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)