This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Pregnancy 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: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options to not see an image. |
This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
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 Pregnancy.
|
A summary of this article appears in Sexual reproduction. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This:
More specific, the cannabinoid receptor CB1 are at high levels on the blastocyst (fertilized egg), ready to the attachment with the endocannabinoid anandamide, an N-Acylethanolamine, if present at low level (temporary reduction), at the uterine lining (endometrium), which are necessary for the fertilized embryo can attach itself to the uterine wall, i.e. implantation, and without this connection, there will be no pregnancy. [1] [2] [3]
was put into the middle of the lead, and I can't imagine why that level of detail was put in that place. Nobody except a researcher is likely to need to know this level of technical detail. I could imagine it being included in an article somewhere (though perhaps not a general article like this one), but I can't imagine it being needed at the top of the article. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
References
On
5 September
Klisz removed the word woman's
from the lead, though without reason. About
twenty minutes ago,
Crossroads restored it with an edit summary, I then removed it again citing
MOS:GNL and
MOS:SEAOFBLUE. Crossroads has restored it a second time.
With respect to Crossroads' second edit summary, the third bullet point of Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language#Precision and clarity does not apply. We aren't making a direct statement that men can have a uterus. Though that certainly is true for cisgender men (see Persistent Müllerian duct syndrome), trans men, and non-binary people. The fourth bullet point doesn't apply in this circumstance, as when modern WP:MEDRS sources discuss uteri they typically do so without gendered adverbs like woman, though some still use sexed adverbs like female. And the sixth bullet point does not apply, as we are already linking to uterus and the sex and gender distinction is not overly helpful in this regard.
Gender-neutral language issues aside, there is also a
MOS:SEAOFBLUE issue here. That one is pretty clear that When possible, do not place links next to each other, to avoid appearing like a single link
. Because the current text reads "
woman's
uterus", while being two separate links, it appears to be a single one when rendered. If we are going to keep woman here, which as I've said seems not necessary, at the very least it should not be wikilinked there per SEAOFBLUE.
Sideswipe9th (
talk) 00:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
We aren't making a direct statement that men can have a uterus.A stated purpose of the edit is to avoid saying that women have uteri, on the basis that men (and nonbinary people) can too. For the same reason, the sixth bullet point does apply as well.
The fourth bullet point doesn't apply in this circumstance, as when modern WP:MEDRS sources discuss uteri they typically do so without gendered adverbs like woman- this is not correct and easily disproven. 2021 2021 2021 2020 2020 2020 2020 2022 2020 etc. etc. Almost all such sources refer to the people affected by pregnancy as women, straightforwardly.
when possible, it isn't a hard and fast rule. But if that is the issue, then removing the wikilink would suffice. Neither it nor GNL justify removing a word that both experts and everyday readers use commonly, typically, and freely.
remov[e] words such as "woman". This did not succeed after discussion and never has. Crossroads -talk- 00:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
this is not correct and easily disprovenActually, a PubMed search for uterus AND woman, filtered to show only reviews, meta-analysis, and systematic reviews shows 126 papers published in the last five years. However a PubMed search for uterus NOT woman, with the same filters, returns 1,446 results. There is an order of magnitude more papers publish that do not use gendered terminology here than use it. Even if you count all papers published since 1975, uterus AND woman has 562 results, to uterus NOT woman's 5,881. I am very certain that MEDRS do not overwhelmingly use gendered adverbs when discussing uteri. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 00:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. v |
Epilepsy affects over 1 million people who can bear children in the U.S. [8]. A consortium of epilepsy and reproductive care providers have recently consolidated up-to-date research about epilepsy and pregnancy, including related to anti-seizure medications, on a website aimed at both patient and clinician audiences. The site aims to correct misconceptions about safety issues and risks associated with bearing children if you have epilepsy. Adding a section on epilepsy to the Diseases in Pregnancy section of the Pregnancy page would give people with epilepsy and their doctors a reliable place to start researching the implications of getting pregnant while managing epilepsy and medications taken to control it.
− | + | Suggested Text:
By closely working with their doctors, ideally well before pregnancy, people with epilepsy can have healthy pregnancies and healthy babies. People with epilepsy who are not receiving proper medical care may experience breakthrough seizures while pregnant, and their babies may potentially be adversely impacted. Choosing an anti-seizure medication (ASM) with a lower risk for teratogenicity and major congenital malformations, checking medication levels throughout pregnancy, and taking the lowest effective ASM dose can ensure positive outcomes for parents with epilepsy and their babies. [https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01730170 The Maternal Outcomes and Neurodevelopmental Effects of Antiepileptic Drugs (MONEAD)] study showed that with appropriate epilepsy care, people with epilepsy are no more likely to experience an increase in seizure frequency while pregnant than non-pregnant people are.[https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaneurology/fullarticle/2789145] [https://epilepsypregnancy.com/for-clinicians/seizure-control/] Some anti-seizure medications (ASMs) have a higher risk for [[Teratology|teratogenicity]] and major congenital malformations. People with epilepsy should work with their doctors to select an ASM with a lower risk of adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes (e.g., lower IQ or [[Autism spectrum|autism spectrum disorder]]). They should also work with their doctors to identify the lowest effective ASM dosage that will maintain their seizure control. [https://epilepsypregnancy.com/for-clinicians/anti-seizure-medications/] [[User:RobertAtkinson|RobertAtkinson]] ([[User talk:RobertAtkinson|talk]]) 21:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC) |
RobertAtkinson ( talk) 22:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
I've got some concerns about this new section. First of all, it's really long and goes into way too much detail (e.g., telomeres). Secondly, I think that some of it is probably wrong. For example, stress isn't technically a complication of pregnancy. Gestational diabetes is a complication of pregnancy; being stressed because you don't have the financial or social support you need is not a medical complication. I'm going to substantially shorten it. I hope we can find a compromise that includes stress in the article but doesn't rely on primary sources or creating stress by making readers feel like their normal and rational reactions to everyday life is damaging the next generation. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
The children of women who had high stress levels during pregnancy are slightly more likely to have externalizing behavioral problems such as impulsivity.We probably need a source to clarify this is correlation. It’s potentially confounded by other factors (e.g. genes from stressed parents are passed to offspring, or that stressed parents might live in stressful situations that their children are also exposed to). Zenomonoz ( talk) 05:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Pregnancy 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: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options to not see an image. |
This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
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 Pregnancy.
|
A summary of this article appears in Sexual reproduction. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This:
More specific, the cannabinoid receptor CB1 are at high levels on the blastocyst (fertilized egg), ready to the attachment with the endocannabinoid anandamide, an N-Acylethanolamine, if present at low level (temporary reduction), at the uterine lining (endometrium), which are necessary for the fertilized embryo can attach itself to the uterine wall, i.e. implantation, and without this connection, there will be no pregnancy. [1] [2] [3]
was put into the middle of the lead, and I can't imagine why that level of detail was put in that place. Nobody except a researcher is likely to need to know this level of technical detail. I could imagine it being included in an article somewhere (though perhaps not a general article like this one), but I can't imagine it being needed at the top of the article. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
References
On
5 September
Klisz removed the word woman's
from the lead, though without reason. About
twenty minutes ago,
Crossroads restored it with an edit summary, I then removed it again citing
MOS:GNL and
MOS:SEAOFBLUE. Crossroads has restored it a second time.
With respect to Crossroads' second edit summary, the third bullet point of Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language#Precision and clarity does not apply. We aren't making a direct statement that men can have a uterus. Though that certainly is true for cisgender men (see Persistent Müllerian duct syndrome), trans men, and non-binary people. The fourth bullet point doesn't apply in this circumstance, as when modern WP:MEDRS sources discuss uteri they typically do so without gendered adverbs like woman, though some still use sexed adverbs like female. And the sixth bullet point does not apply, as we are already linking to uterus and the sex and gender distinction is not overly helpful in this regard.
Gender-neutral language issues aside, there is also a
MOS:SEAOFBLUE issue here. That one is pretty clear that When possible, do not place links next to each other, to avoid appearing like a single link
. Because the current text reads "
woman's
uterus", while being two separate links, it appears to be a single one when rendered. If we are going to keep woman here, which as I've said seems not necessary, at the very least it should not be wikilinked there per SEAOFBLUE.
Sideswipe9th (
talk) 00:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
We aren't making a direct statement that men can have a uterus.A stated purpose of the edit is to avoid saying that women have uteri, on the basis that men (and nonbinary people) can too. For the same reason, the sixth bullet point does apply as well.
The fourth bullet point doesn't apply in this circumstance, as when modern WP:MEDRS sources discuss uteri they typically do so without gendered adverbs like woman- this is not correct and easily disproven. 2021 2021 2021 2020 2020 2020 2020 2022 2020 etc. etc. Almost all such sources refer to the people affected by pregnancy as women, straightforwardly.
when possible, it isn't a hard and fast rule. But if that is the issue, then removing the wikilink would suffice. Neither it nor GNL justify removing a word that both experts and everyday readers use commonly, typically, and freely.
remov[e] words such as "woman". This did not succeed after discussion and never has. Crossroads -talk- 00:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
this is not correct and easily disprovenActually, a PubMed search for uterus AND woman, filtered to show only reviews, meta-analysis, and systematic reviews shows 126 papers published in the last five years. However a PubMed search for uterus NOT woman, with the same filters, returns 1,446 results. There is an order of magnitude more papers publish that do not use gendered terminology here than use it. Even if you count all papers published since 1975, uterus AND woman has 562 results, to uterus NOT woman's 5,881. I am very certain that MEDRS do not overwhelmingly use gendered adverbs when discussing uteri. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 00:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. v |
Epilepsy affects over 1 million people who can bear children in the U.S. [8]. A consortium of epilepsy and reproductive care providers have recently consolidated up-to-date research about epilepsy and pregnancy, including related to anti-seizure medications, on a website aimed at both patient and clinician audiences. The site aims to correct misconceptions about safety issues and risks associated with bearing children if you have epilepsy. Adding a section on epilepsy to the Diseases in Pregnancy section of the Pregnancy page would give people with epilepsy and their doctors a reliable place to start researching the implications of getting pregnant while managing epilepsy and medications taken to control it.
− | + | Suggested Text:
By closely working with their doctors, ideally well before pregnancy, people with epilepsy can have healthy pregnancies and healthy babies. People with epilepsy who are not receiving proper medical care may experience breakthrough seizures while pregnant, and their babies may potentially be adversely impacted. Choosing an anti-seizure medication (ASM) with a lower risk for teratogenicity and major congenital malformations, checking medication levels throughout pregnancy, and taking the lowest effective ASM dose can ensure positive outcomes for parents with epilepsy and their babies. [https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01730170 The Maternal Outcomes and Neurodevelopmental Effects of Antiepileptic Drugs (MONEAD)] study showed that with appropriate epilepsy care, people with epilepsy are no more likely to experience an increase in seizure frequency while pregnant than non-pregnant people are.[https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaneurology/fullarticle/2789145] [https://epilepsypregnancy.com/for-clinicians/seizure-control/] Some anti-seizure medications (ASMs) have a higher risk for [[Teratology|teratogenicity]] and major congenital malformations. People with epilepsy should work with their doctors to select an ASM with a lower risk of adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes (e.g., lower IQ or [[Autism spectrum|autism spectrum disorder]]). They should also work with their doctors to identify the lowest effective ASM dosage that will maintain their seizure control. [https://epilepsypregnancy.com/for-clinicians/anti-seizure-medications/] [[User:RobertAtkinson|RobertAtkinson]] ([[User talk:RobertAtkinson|talk]]) 21:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC) |
RobertAtkinson ( talk) 22:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
I've got some concerns about this new section. First of all, it's really long and goes into way too much detail (e.g., telomeres). Secondly, I think that some of it is probably wrong. For example, stress isn't technically a complication of pregnancy. Gestational diabetes is a complication of pregnancy; being stressed because you don't have the financial or social support you need is not a medical complication. I'm going to substantially shorten it. I hope we can find a compromise that includes stress in the article but doesn't rely on primary sources or creating stress by making readers feel like their normal and rational reactions to everyday life is damaging the next generation. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
The children of women who had high stress levels during pregnancy are slightly more likely to have externalizing behavioral problems such as impulsivity.We probably need a source to clarify this is correlation. It’s potentially confounded by other factors (e.g. genes from stressed parents are passed to offspring, or that stressed parents might live in stressful situations that their children are also exposed to). Zenomonoz ( talk) 05:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)