549:, The problem with this title is that it is the law that defined the term, this phrase has little independent existence apart from the law itself, so any controversy around "Fetus farming" is inextricably linked to the Prohibition Act that invented/popularized the term. Moreover, a more general article on the use of embryonic cells or tissues in medicine (such as
574:
and include a subsection in that article on the Fetus
Farming Prohibition Act. I'm not wedded to this idea, but several of the articles referenced are more recent, so this is liable to become an issue again, I fear, if we merely refer to the act without leaving room for additional developments. (I'm
223:
I wrote the article and it is not intended as an attack upon anybody or anybody's rights or ideas. Both the people who support and oppose this use of fetuses/babies appear to be using this term now. If someone has a better or less POV name, that is not unreasonable. But: this is clearly not the same
431:
is correct that the page name itself is POV. The best solution, I think, would be to create a Fetus
Farming Prohibition Act article and place the content there. The emphasis of the article would need to change to the act itself, but I think it would change for the better. An article that discusses
426:
are one particular type of cell that are used. So-called "fetal farming" refers to entire tissues and organs, not individual cells. Bioethical considerations are closely tied to biological complexity. Unlike the difference between an embryo and a fetus, the difference between cells and tissues is
290:
The term is clearly notable enough to deserve its own article: it has been used by CNN and the New York Times, and "fetal farming" is banned under that name in a bill that became law in 2006. However the current article does not say any of the things that actually make the term notable. See
624:, the notability of this term comes almost entirely from the act. As a procedure is it purely hypothesised, and not practiced. The term outside the act was created and used to stir up controversy about a theoretical procedure therefore does not warrant its own article.
195:. This material rightly belongs in an article of that scope. As for BloodGrapeFruit2's suggestion, I think any "X controversy" article is asking to become POV ridden while an article about a particular act of government would have no concerns with notability or NPOV.
422:. No exact instant occurs during the eighth week that distinguishes an embryo from a fetus. The change in labeling is just a matter of convention to approximate the time that major structures and organs are all formed. However, the second difference is more important.
498:
seem to use this term in reference to a particular law, not an area of technology. I agree that since the term "fetal farming" is used in this law to refer to the creation of embryos as a source of either cells or tissues then a redirect to
224:
thing as stem cell research (which uses embryos, not fetusses); this is an entirely different matter, whether you support or object to it, and it has been covered widely as a different thing by the mainstream media.
413:
is correct that so-called "fetal farming" issues are completely distinct from stem cell issues. There are two related reasons for this. The first that's already been raised is the semantic difference between an
432:
conservatives saying one thing and liberals saying another about a procedure that isn't being done seems a bit silly, but the law does exist, and the name of the law is in government records. Like the
312:
I added information about the ban. I can add more, but I fear someone will then suggest that I'm adding POV, so if others would like to add more about the ban, please do so.
436:, the fact that the name of the law is POV is not our concern. With this name, the article could also continue its current tack of being centered on the issue in the USA.
427:
distinct. This is a separate procedure, separate science, and a separate issue that deserves its own article. Cells are not tissues, so this is not a POV fork. However,
119:
455:
495:
664:
I've relisted because the current consensus would result int he creation of a broken redirect. Can someone make clear if that is the actual intent?
207:
180:
390:
365:
86:
81:
90:
17:
354:
The term "farming" has too negative of a connotation when used with something like Fetal, it is a somewhat widely used term.
73:
698:
678:
621:
491:
192:
47:
681:. The consensus is pretty clear, but I think everyone is expecting someone else to actually write the targeted article.
597:. Redirecting to the source that made the term notable seems a good way of dealing with such inherently biased titles.
580:
537:
475:
376:
330:
748:
36:
553:) or even an article on the controversy surrounding such technology could not use an emotive term as its title.
747:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
525:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
594:
433:
385:
360:
202:
175:
733:
729:
716:
687:
672:
656:
633:
606:
584:
562:
541:
512:
481:
445:
395:
370:
342:
321:
304:
282:
261:
247:
233:
213:
186:
154:
135:
55:
576:
533:
529:
500:
441:
317:
229:
164:
145:
725:
380:
355:
602:
571:
558:
550:
508:
629:
590:
528:, with a discussion of the act, the technology and viewpoints from both sides? To redirect this to
131:
338:
300:
197:
170:
77:
278:
257:
243:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
532:
would be POV, even if unintentional, as it would suggest that the two are directly linked --
437:
410:
313:
225:
724:
this seems to be a very controversial topic and looks like it can be expanded a lot more.
710:
598:
554:
504:
625:
472:
428:
127:
52:
334:
296:
69:
61:
682:
666:
650:
274:
253:
239:
149:
107:
703:
292:
643:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
464:
423:
415:
524:
but not after the
Prohibition Act, as that seems too narrow. Maybe
191:
Looking over the discussion below I think the redirect should go to
419:
677:
At some point tonight or tomorrow I intend to get working on the
741:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
575:
aware of
Crystal Ball; I'm just raising a note of caution).
114:
103:
99:
95:
648:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
126:Very POV, even the page name has POV connitations
252:We know. Xe said so in xyr first five words. ☺
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
751:). No further edits should be made to this page.
494:, since the majority of the reliable sources
456:list of Medicine-related deletion discussions
8:
450:
148:and can probably be covered better there.
238:This user is the creator of the article.
454:: This debate has been included in the
405:to Fetus Farming Prohibition Act and
7:
570:It might make sense to redirect to
24:
144:This seems to be a POV fork of
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
699:Fetus Farming Prohibition Act
679:Fetus Farming Prohibition Act
622:Fetus Farming Prohibition Act
589:I notice as a precedent that
492:Fetus Farming Prohibition Act
377:Fetus Farming Prohibition act
331:Fetus farming prohibition act
193:Fetus Farming Prohibition Act
48:Fetus Farming Prohibition Act
168:. This is a POV coattrack.
329:I agree that a redirect to
768:
734:05:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
717:03:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
688:02:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
673:00:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
657:00:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
634:12:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
607:15:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
585:04:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
563:16:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
542:04:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
513:03:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
482:22:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
446:17:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
396:20:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
371:02:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
343:02:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
322:02:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
305:02:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
283:01:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
262:12:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
248:01:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
234:01:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
214:18:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
187:01:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
155:00:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
136:00:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
56:13:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
526:Fetus farming controversy
333:woul be a good solution.
744:Please do not modify it.
722:Strong Keep, no redirect
32:Please do not modify it.
595:Defense of Marriage Act
434:Defense of Marriage Act
295:for more information.
593:already redirects to
551:Fetal tissue implants
530:Stem cell controversy
501:Stem cell controversy
165:Stem cell controversy
146:Stem cell controversy
572:Fetal tissue implant
503:would be incorrect.
591:Defense of Marriage
701:if it is created.
44:The result was
695:Keep and redirect
659:
618:Keep and Redirect
488:Keep and redirect
484:
459:
759:
746:
715:
713:
708:
706:
685:
669:
653:
647:
645:
577:BloodGrapefruit2
534:BloodGrapefruit2
467:
460:
393:
388:
383:
368:
363:
358:
210:
205:
200:
183:
178:
173:
152:
117:
111:
93:
34:
767:
766:
762:
761:
760:
758:
757:
756:
755:
749:deletion review
742:
711:
709:
704:
702:
683:
667:
651:
641:
478:
465:
391:
386:
381:
366:
361:
356:
208:
203:
198:
181:
176:
171:
150:
113:
84:
68:
65:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
765:
763:
754:
753:
737:
736:
719:
692:
691:
690:
661:
660:
646:
638:
637:
636:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
515:
485:
476:
448:
429:User:Bacchus87
400:
399:
398:
349:
348:
347:
346:
345:
285:
268:
267:
266:
265:
264:
218:
217:
216:
157:
124:
123:
64:
59:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
764:
752:
750:
745:
739:
738:
735:
731:
727:
723:
720:
718:
714:
707:
700:
696:
693:
689:
686:
680:
676:
675:
674:
671:
670:
663:
662:
658:
655:
654:
644:
640:
639:
635:
631:
627:
623:
619:
616:
608:
604:
600:
596:
592:
588:
587:
586:
582:
578:
573:
569:
566:
565:
564:
560:
556:
552:
548:
545:
544:
543:
539:
535:
531:
527:
523:
519:
516:
514:
510:
506:
502:
497:
493:
489:
486:
483:
479:
473:
470:
469:
468:
457:
453:
449:
447:
443:
439:
435:
430:
425:
421:
417:
412:
408:
404:
401:
397:
394:
389:
384:
378:
374:
373:
372:
369:
364:
359:
353:
350:
344:
340:
336:
332:
328:
325:
324:
323:
319:
315:
311:
308:
307:
306:
302:
298:
294:
289:
286:
284:
280:
276:
273:per Animate.
272:
269:
263:
259:
255:
251:
250:
249:
245:
241:
237:
236:
235:
231:
227:
222:
219:
215:
212:
211:
206:
201:
194:
190:
189:
188:
185:
184:
179:
174:
167:
166:
161:
158:
156:
153:
147:
143:
140:
139:
138:
137:
133:
129:
121:
116:
109:
105:
101:
97:
92:
88:
83:
79:
75:
71:
70:Fetal farming
67:
66:
63:
62:Fetal farming
60:
58:
57:
54:
50:
49:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
743:
740:
726:Nicholas.tan
721:
694:
665:
649:
642:
617:
567:
546:
521:
517:
487:
463:
462:
451:
406:
402:
375:Redirect to
351:
326:
309:
287:
270:
220:
196:
169:
162:
159:
141:
125:
46:redirect to
45:
43:
31:
28:
599:Tim Vickers
555:Tim Vickers
505:Tim Vickers
438:Flying Jazz
411:HommeFatale
314:HommeFatale
226:HommeFatale
424:Stem cells
379:per below
626:Bacchus87
293:this item
128:Bacchus87
53:Lankiveil
407:redirect
352:Redirect
335:Looie496
327:Followup
297:Looie496
271:Redirect
163:back to
160:Redirect
142:Redirect
120:View log
684:AniMate
668:MBisanz
652:MBisanz
568:Comment
547:Comment
409:there.
310:Comment
288:Comment
275:Acebulf
254:Uncle G
240:Acebulf
151:AniMate
87:protect
82:history
522:Rename
418:and a
416:embryo
403:Rename
115:delete
91:delete
705:Tills
480:: -->
420:fetus
387:drink
362:drink
209:Space
182:Space
118:) – (
108:views
100:watch
96:links
16:<
730:talk
712:Talk
630:talk
603:talk
581:talk
559:talk
538:talk
520:and
518:Keep
509:talk
496:link
471:<
466:G716
461:-- —
452:Note
442:talk
382:Lets
357:Lets
339:talk
318:talk
301:talk
279:talk
258:talk
244:talk
230:talk
221:Keep
204:From
199:Them
177:From
172:Them
132:talk
104:logs
78:talk
74:edit
697:to
620:to
490:to
392:Tea
367:Tea
732:)
632:)
605:)
583:)
561:)
540:)
511:)
458:.
444:)
341:)
320:)
303:)
281:)
260:)
246:)
232:)
134:)
106:|
102:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
80:|
76:|
51:.
728:(
628:(
601:(
579:(
557:(
536:(
507:(
477:C
474:·
440:(
337:(
316:(
299:(
277:(
256:(
242:(
228:(
130:(
122:)
112:(
110:)
72:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.