Talk:Birth/Archive 1

Archive 1

Nascent

Nascent doesn't only mean newly born. It's also used a term used for a chemical being liberated from a komplex and begining to function. For example RNA polymerase II is nacent after TFIIH has phosphorylated it's polypeptide tail. I think nascent needs it's own wiki-page.

• Nascent can also mean opposing, can't it? Look at the front-page article. --67.181.131.193 20:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and quote that, since it won't be the front-page article forever...

The Polish-Soviet War (February 1919 – March 1921) was an armed conflict between Soviet Russia and the Second Polish Republic, two nascent states in post-World War I Europe.

~ Booya ^Bazooka 21:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Early notes

Birth is too generic a term to be wholly classified as the biological process of childbirth. The Birth page has several pages linking to it and not all of them view birth as childbirth. Jay 16:18, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks Tarquin, for correcting the typo with Christian. The first line, again, talks about birth as the biological process of mammals bringing forth their young. That is what childbirth is. Birth is a generic literal term thats about bringing forth or creating anything, not just babies. Guess I'm a purist here, but that is why I had consciously given definitions to all terms except 'birth'. Jay 05:31, Aug 17, 2003 (UTC)

Now this does look like a wiki page, with all the headings and all ! I wanted to put in "Noble birth", which I could link to Lineage but such a page has not yet been made. Jay 23:21, Aug 29, 2003 (UTC)

What on earth does this "disambiguate"? The actual meaning of birth and its figurative meanings? Who would want to wiki-link birth to mean anything except childbirth? This is not a disambiguation page: it's a "List of phrases containing the word 'birth'". - Nunh-huh 07:03, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This page was vandalized by a racist! Please keep an eye on it. Thanks! Qupqugiak 23:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

legal matters are subject of the various countries, and should not be included in this article.

Cleanup

Back on 30 Jul 2004 (!), User:Nunh-huh posted above as follows: 'What on earth does this "disambiguate"? The actual meaning of birth and its figurative meanings? Who would want to wiki-link birth to mean anything except childbirth? This is not a disambiguation page: it's a "List of phrases containing the word 'birth'".' That comment remains accurate more than 3 years later! This page does not contain enough content to be a Wikipedia article, nor does it conform to WP:MOSDAB for disambiguation pages (although, to be fair, it does contain one or two valid disambiguation entries). It needs to be cleaned up already! --Russ (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this page wants to be a general article about birth (maybe lots of {{Main entry}} sections would be appropriate?). I've moved the purely disambiguation bits back to Birth (disambiguation). Ewlyahoocom 10:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You're really good at making those "main entry" articles. I'd like to see more. Dekimasuよ! 10:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I've posted a note on the DAB wikiproject, hopefully someone'll know what to do - the page isn't really a DAB page, but it's not a proper wikipage either. WLU 13:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added some cleanup tags. It needs a complete rewrite, in my opinion. We need to get the attention of some content people, rather than just the Wikignomes. SlackerMom 21:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Photo

The photo is extremely cute, but it is heavy POV...not everyone believes that "babies come from "God""...article needs a more appropriate photo! bcatt 16:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed...very opinionated...anyone have a cute baby and a camera? Bkrausz 18:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The picture is supposed to illustrate childbirth; its purpose is not to be "cute." For an article on birth, a photo of a one-month-old is about a month too late. I've replaced it with a more suitable photo, copied from Infant. ~ Booyabazooka 23:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Considering the current image is mine, which I took in '84 with a non-digital camera and then scanned, the quality is a tad bit on the low side...and since it's been replaced by user Ernest F's technically and visually superior photo in the infant article, we should probably do the same here. Not to mention the new picture actually demonstrates the process of birth even better, it is a more suitable image for this article. --Mad Max 21:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a very appropriate image of non-graphic birth of a live baby and umbilical cord attached (mild vernix, limited blood) available. This image is not only one I took, but it is my child also, however I am too new of a member to upload the image. Until I have the privilages I'm fine if someone else would like to post it for me, or I can just wait. It's for Wiki to use.--Jynuine (talk) 04:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you have to wait to upload on Commons which is where all free-use image are normally these days and still can be used in Wikipedia articles. Bidgee (talk) 04:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal of image

Recently the image linked here was removed:

right|thumb|Mother touching her first child, just born at home, 2001.

I support this removal, but I did not do it myself. Wikipedia is not censored, but we can do without nude images where possible. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see the use of it either, the page already has three images. WLU (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we at least keep that image on file? I had never seen how the human body looks right after birth and well, how non-conventional methods of birthing actually look. I found the image quite interesting myself! 23:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC) m0u5y —Preceding unsigned comment added by M0u5y (talk • contribs)

It is pathetic for this article not to include an actual picture of an actual birth. And this article would be exactly where "nudity" of sorts is appropriate... The image that was censored out is better than any of the current images (but still overly tasteful, considering the subject matter). If you can't stomach human reality, at least let's have some pictures of animal birth! -69.87.199.239 (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the IP above: the image is absolutely appropriate in this article, and in no way offensive. On the contrary, it's hard to imagine an image of childbirth more tender and beautiful. If I knew how, I would put it back. Awien (talk) 22:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

More than mammals; shark reproduction

I've added something about the origins of live birth going back to the placoderms. It looks a little out of place because the surrounding paragraphs are very sparse in details. I hope that someone will beef them up rather than removing mine.

The part about shark reproduction mentions a placental structure, but live birth can be accomplished with an umbilical cord to a yolk sac, no placenta needed! I will try to find a better reference for our biology facts than Busch Gardens & Sea World, but if I don't get around to it, please feel free to investigate and modify. Monado (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)