This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Stillbirth article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Stillbirth.
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rgonzalezrios, Blu65, Crystalnguyentan, Yalda22, Inshaqari.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 10:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Why is the first piece of information in this article that stillbirth means "quiet birth"? If there's a more complicated etymology than meets the eye, I'd sincerely be interested, but the present bit of information does nothing for the article in my opinion. However, an fuller explanation of the origin would justify its presence. MagnesianPhoenix ( talk) 06:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC) [signed retroactively]
G'day all. First things first, I would like to point out that I have archived some very long discussions which took place on this page prior to last year. If you would like to see those discussions, there is a link at top right of this page.
Now, I'd like some opinions. Sudden antenatal death syndrome has a notability flag on it, which I'd like to remove. However the article as it stands is really not strong enough to stand on its own, and has close links with the stillbirth article.
Therefore, I would like to propose that the content from Sudden antenatal death syndrome be merged into Stillbirth. I welcome your thoughts. Cheers, Basie ( talk) 04:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
"Sudden Antenatal Death Syndrome" gets zero hits on PubMed. Before merging it into Stillbirth, I would want to see a reliable source. -- Una Smith ( talk) 05:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to disturb, but I redirected the SADS article based on PMID 11876571 which mentions the term. -- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 23:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I have heard that Dr. Collins is the expert in umbilical cord accidents. Where can I find info on his research? Maybe we should post some of his research in this article. -- Why Are ( talk) 07:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I find that making the effort to state "(Except Cannabis)" when referring to the fact that drugs may cause cannabis indicates that we KNOW that cannabis does not cause stillbirth. The article cited doesn't include a journal name, and I've been unable to locate it. As such, I'm removing the statement as I feel it may mislead readers into thinking that cannabis use is safe in pregnancy, which I'm pretty sure it's not. If good evidence is provided to the contrary I'd have no problem with my edit being reversed. Icomeau ( talk) 23:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
What sort of moron would take cannabis whilst pregnant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.202.244 ( talk) 13:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
"This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. See the talk page for details. WikiProject Medicine or the Medicine Portal may be able to help recruit an expert. (November 2008)"
I think most experts on the subject are excluded from contributing on the subject because it violates thier insurance agreements. Otherwise-this article is very sound despite "inexpert" sources. Recommend above quote be struck. GESICC ( talk) 17:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)GESICC
Please consider adding www.finleysfootprints.com to the list of external links FinleysFootprints ( talk) 08:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC) finleysfootprints (declaring conflict of interest so have not posted myself)
The stillbirth rates quoted for the UK are not referenced and are, apparently, wrong. The latest results I can find suggest the rate is 3.5 per 1000 births (about 1 in 285) and this is widely reported in the UK media. Unless anyone objects I will update these figures and provide references. Tripper ( talk) 20:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It's gross. For people younger than the age of 14 (How old I am) coming on this page to read about this, it can definitely stay in your head for a while. Disgusting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.22.90.198 ( talk) 03:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
B-b-but think of the CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I don't want MY KIDS to be... GROSSED OUT! Cinimodder ( talk) 22:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm a complete novice at wiki, but this article states South Asians have a higher prevalence of still births, could it be edited in by someone with more knowledge, because i'd just completely mess it up. http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/study-finds-more-stillbirths-among-south-asian-women/story-fnet08ck-1226463820255 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.198.39 ( talk) 09:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
the image is too disturbing. i remember some image hide/show function on wikipedia but don't know how to use. can you hide please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.177.230.211 ( talk) 16:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Stillborn#Redirect czar ♔ 18:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Don't most stillbirths induce lactation in the mother? If they don't dry up naturally, don't those mothers have to be treated with drugs or milk pumps or the milk may cake while still in the breast? The only article I have found that covers the subject even partway is Lactation suppression. I think this should be covered under the Treatment section. -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 18:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Stillbirth. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I am glad to see there is a section on society and culture in this article but I would like to encourage those who know more about stillbirths than I do to please expand on that. I think we need more information on the historical development regarding how a society sees stillbirths (from something that happened "all the time" - "get over it quickly" to something very tragic - parents are allowed to grieve). Also it would be important to highlight the difference with developing countries where stillbirth rates are still much higher than in wealthy countries and where the support that grieving mothers get is much less. So it would be great to have more on history, psyochological impacts on mothers/fathers, how that has perhaps changed over time and the situation in developing countries. Thanks. EvMsmile ( talk) 00:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3g0_RxvTx4 EvMsmile ( talk) 00:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
First pregnancy is a risk factor. Not sure why this was removed? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Ooops it does "Primiparity". [1] Sorry @ Doc James:. You're correct. Ear-phone ( talk) 19:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
It’s true @ Doc James: that being first born is a risk factor for stillbirth, but it might not be causal. Take autism as an example. It is generally more common among those born first, the main reason why this is so is because once parents have a baby with autism they are less likely to have a second baby. An example:
Take couple A – they have a first baby who does not have autism, then they have a second baby (who may or may not have autism).
Take couple B – they have a first baby who has autism and they decide not to have a second baby.
Because having a baby with autism (or stillbirth) can alter substantially the decision to have a second baby, this is why first borns (pregnancies) appear to be mainly affected by autism (stillbirth). In conclusion, I don’t think it’s apt to place first pregnancy ahead of established causal factors for stillbirth because lay readers can misinterpret it as being causal. And we know what people read can influence their behaviour. Ear-phone ( talk) 11:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Doc James: Carrying a cigarette lighter is a risk factor for developing lung cancer, but does not cause lung cancer. I feel it is important to clearly state what is causal and what is a risk factor where possible. Ear-phone ( talk) 11:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Have removed this case control study [5]. We should be using reviews. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
This is a primary source "case-control study" Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 14:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
But seriously User:Ear-phone why did you not just use this review? [6] I will add it. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
"all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge."(from the opening paragraph of WP:MEDRS). You do see the word "secondary" in there, don't you? If you want to add biomedical claims based just on primary sources, you'd better have a good reason to explain why guidance that enjoys community consensus shouldn't apply to you. -- RexxS ( talk) 22:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
"This to me means primary sources can at times be useful. Curiously enough, Wikipedia has a lot of primary sources."Then you've not understood the guidance at WP:MEDRS. Of course a lot of Wikipedia content is based on primary sources, but none of that content consists of biomedical claims, which are only based on secondary sources.
It seems the content disagreement has been amicably sorted out. Can the third opinion request be closed? -- G ( talk) 10:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Along with the new material about arginine at the article I found: Related to arginine is N-carbamylglutamate NCG has support as improving pregnancy and neonate well being at a variety of veterinary references. "Maternal NCG supplementation significantly increased the number of total fetuses and live fetuses on day 28 of gestation by 1.32 and 1.29, respectively (P < 0.05), with a significant decrease in embryonic mortality (P < 0.05)." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26290006 I do not know of any human studies yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treonsverdery ( talk • contribs) 00:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
There are also studies supporting supplementation with the amino acid glutamine to increase the number of live births. "Dietary glutamine supplementation reduced abortion, decreased fetal deaths, and enhanced neonatal survival. [of infected mice]" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22086211
We are a group of four 2nd year pharmacy students who are going to be working on improving this article over the next 2 weeks. I will be:
Peer Review:
Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? Yes, added prevalence section with clear structure, balanced content, neutral tone, and good sourcing (CDC and WHO). Also edited previous sections following guiding framework.
Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? Yes, updated epidemiological statistics to reflect current numbers, added prevalence section to show differences among different populations.
(1) Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify… Yes, everything revised and edited have neutral POV; utilized objective data collected by CDC. Lauren.chen ( talk) 21:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
(2) Yes, added information has good sourcing (World Health Organization and CDC) that is easily accessible. Clphan ( talk) 21:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
(4) No, information is paraphrased correctly. Each of the of the edits are paraphrased very well and meet the requirements set by Wikipedia. Additionally, every edit has a source other than the grammatical errors that are being corrected. Kelventran ( talk) 21:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
-- Inshaqari ( talk) 16:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)== Foundations II Group 3A Goals ==
Goals 1) correct grammar and syntax to reduce reader confusion 2) include wiki hyperlinks for relevant topics
Goals 1) check for grammatical and syntax errors to improve the readers understanding and minimize confusion.-- Inshaqari ( talk) 02:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
"A stillbirth can result in the feeling of guilt or grief in the mother." Well, of course! Why is this sentence necessary at all? What does this add? Without that sentence, would anyone reading this think, "I bet mothers who have stillborn children are overjoyed because of it." No, nobody has ever thought this. What does it contribute? Cinimodder ( talk) 22:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
This article covers only human stillbirths, is it not called "stillbirth" if it happens to an other animal? ★Trekker ( talk) 07:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Stillbirth article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Stillbirth.
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rgonzalezrios, Blu65, Crystalnguyentan, Yalda22, Inshaqari.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 10:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Why is the first piece of information in this article that stillbirth means "quiet birth"? If there's a more complicated etymology than meets the eye, I'd sincerely be interested, but the present bit of information does nothing for the article in my opinion. However, an fuller explanation of the origin would justify its presence. MagnesianPhoenix ( talk) 06:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC) [signed retroactively]
G'day all. First things first, I would like to point out that I have archived some very long discussions which took place on this page prior to last year. If you would like to see those discussions, there is a link at top right of this page.
Now, I'd like some opinions. Sudden antenatal death syndrome has a notability flag on it, which I'd like to remove. However the article as it stands is really not strong enough to stand on its own, and has close links with the stillbirth article.
Therefore, I would like to propose that the content from Sudden antenatal death syndrome be merged into Stillbirth. I welcome your thoughts. Cheers, Basie ( talk) 04:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
"Sudden Antenatal Death Syndrome" gets zero hits on PubMed. Before merging it into Stillbirth, I would want to see a reliable source. -- Una Smith ( talk) 05:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to disturb, but I redirected the SADS article based on PMID 11876571 which mentions the term. -- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 23:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I have heard that Dr. Collins is the expert in umbilical cord accidents. Where can I find info on his research? Maybe we should post some of his research in this article. -- Why Are ( talk) 07:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I find that making the effort to state "(Except Cannabis)" when referring to the fact that drugs may cause cannabis indicates that we KNOW that cannabis does not cause stillbirth. The article cited doesn't include a journal name, and I've been unable to locate it. As such, I'm removing the statement as I feel it may mislead readers into thinking that cannabis use is safe in pregnancy, which I'm pretty sure it's not. If good evidence is provided to the contrary I'd have no problem with my edit being reversed. Icomeau ( talk) 23:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
What sort of moron would take cannabis whilst pregnant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.202.244 ( talk) 13:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
"This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. See the talk page for details. WikiProject Medicine or the Medicine Portal may be able to help recruit an expert. (November 2008)"
I think most experts on the subject are excluded from contributing on the subject because it violates thier insurance agreements. Otherwise-this article is very sound despite "inexpert" sources. Recommend above quote be struck. GESICC ( talk) 17:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)GESICC
Please consider adding www.finleysfootprints.com to the list of external links FinleysFootprints ( talk) 08:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC) finleysfootprints (declaring conflict of interest so have not posted myself)
The stillbirth rates quoted for the UK are not referenced and are, apparently, wrong. The latest results I can find suggest the rate is 3.5 per 1000 births (about 1 in 285) and this is widely reported in the UK media. Unless anyone objects I will update these figures and provide references. Tripper ( talk) 20:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It's gross. For people younger than the age of 14 (How old I am) coming on this page to read about this, it can definitely stay in your head for a while. Disgusting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.22.90.198 ( talk) 03:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
B-b-but think of the CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I don't want MY KIDS to be... GROSSED OUT! Cinimodder ( talk) 22:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm a complete novice at wiki, but this article states South Asians have a higher prevalence of still births, could it be edited in by someone with more knowledge, because i'd just completely mess it up. http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/study-finds-more-stillbirths-among-south-asian-women/story-fnet08ck-1226463820255 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.198.39 ( talk) 09:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
the image is too disturbing. i remember some image hide/show function on wikipedia but don't know how to use. can you hide please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.177.230.211 ( talk) 16:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Stillborn#Redirect czar ♔ 18:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Don't most stillbirths induce lactation in the mother? If they don't dry up naturally, don't those mothers have to be treated with drugs or milk pumps or the milk may cake while still in the breast? The only article I have found that covers the subject even partway is Lactation suppression. I think this should be covered under the Treatment section. -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 18:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Stillbirth. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I am glad to see there is a section on society and culture in this article but I would like to encourage those who know more about stillbirths than I do to please expand on that. I think we need more information on the historical development regarding how a society sees stillbirths (from something that happened "all the time" - "get over it quickly" to something very tragic - parents are allowed to grieve). Also it would be important to highlight the difference with developing countries where stillbirth rates are still much higher than in wealthy countries and where the support that grieving mothers get is much less. So it would be great to have more on history, psyochological impacts on mothers/fathers, how that has perhaps changed over time and the situation in developing countries. Thanks. EvMsmile ( talk) 00:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3g0_RxvTx4 EvMsmile ( talk) 00:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
First pregnancy is a risk factor. Not sure why this was removed? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Ooops it does "Primiparity". [1] Sorry @ Doc James:. You're correct. Ear-phone ( talk) 19:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
It’s true @ Doc James: that being first born is a risk factor for stillbirth, but it might not be causal. Take autism as an example. It is generally more common among those born first, the main reason why this is so is because once parents have a baby with autism they are less likely to have a second baby. An example:
Take couple A – they have a first baby who does not have autism, then they have a second baby (who may or may not have autism).
Take couple B – they have a first baby who has autism and they decide not to have a second baby.
Because having a baby with autism (or stillbirth) can alter substantially the decision to have a second baby, this is why first borns (pregnancies) appear to be mainly affected by autism (stillbirth). In conclusion, I don’t think it’s apt to place first pregnancy ahead of established causal factors for stillbirth because lay readers can misinterpret it as being causal. And we know what people read can influence their behaviour. Ear-phone ( talk) 11:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Doc James: Carrying a cigarette lighter is a risk factor for developing lung cancer, but does not cause lung cancer. I feel it is important to clearly state what is causal and what is a risk factor where possible. Ear-phone ( talk) 11:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Have removed this case control study [5]. We should be using reviews. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
This is a primary source "case-control study" Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 14:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
But seriously User:Ear-phone why did you not just use this review? [6] I will add it. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
"all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge."(from the opening paragraph of WP:MEDRS). You do see the word "secondary" in there, don't you? If you want to add biomedical claims based just on primary sources, you'd better have a good reason to explain why guidance that enjoys community consensus shouldn't apply to you. -- RexxS ( talk) 22:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
"This to me means primary sources can at times be useful. Curiously enough, Wikipedia has a lot of primary sources."Then you've not understood the guidance at WP:MEDRS. Of course a lot of Wikipedia content is based on primary sources, but none of that content consists of biomedical claims, which are only based on secondary sources.
It seems the content disagreement has been amicably sorted out. Can the third opinion request be closed? -- G ( talk) 10:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Along with the new material about arginine at the article I found: Related to arginine is N-carbamylglutamate NCG has support as improving pregnancy and neonate well being at a variety of veterinary references. "Maternal NCG supplementation significantly increased the number of total fetuses and live fetuses on day 28 of gestation by 1.32 and 1.29, respectively (P < 0.05), with a significant decrease in embryonic mortality (P < 0.05)." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26290006 I do not know of any human studies yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treonsverdery ( talk • contribs) 00:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
There are also studies supporting supplementation with the amino acid glutamine to increase the number of live births. "Dietary glutamine supplementation reduced abortion, decreased fetal deaths, and enhanced neonatal survival. [of infected mice]" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22086211
We are a group of four 2nd year pharmacy students who are going to be working on improving this article over the next 2 weeks. I will be:
Peer Review:
Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? Yes, added prevalence section with clear structure, balanced content, neutral tone, and good sourcing (CDC and WHO). Also edited previous sections following guiding framework.
Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? Yes, updated epidemiological statistics to reflect current numbers, added prevalence section to show differences among different populations.
(1) Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify… Yes, everything revised and edited have neutral POV; utilized objective data collected by CDC. Lauren.chen ( talk) 21:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
(2) Yes, added information has good sourcing (World Health Organization and CDC) that is easily accessible. Clphan ( talk) 21:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
(4) No, information is paraphrased correctly. Each of the of the edits are paraphrased very well and meet the requirements set by Wikipedia. Additionally, every edit has a source other than the grammatical errors that are being corrected. Kelventran ( talk) 21:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
-- Inshaqari ( talk) 16:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)== Foundations II Group 3A Goals ==
Goals 1) correct grammar and syntax to reduce reader confusion 2) include wiki hyperlinks for relevant topics
Goals 1) check for grammatical and syntax errors to improve the readers understanding and minimize confusion.-- Inshaqari ( talk) 02:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
"A stillbirth can result in the feeling of guilt or grief in the mother." Well, of course! Why is this sentence necessary at all? What does this add? Without that sentence, would anyone reading this think, "I bet mothers who have stillborn children are overjoyed because of it." No, nobody has ever thought this. What does it contribute? Cinimodder ( talk) 22:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
This article covers only human stillbirths, is it not called "stillbirth" if it happens to an other animal? ★Trekker ( talk) 07:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)