Talk:Hand of Hope

Signs of life?

The article states that the fact that the baby reached out of the womb implies the existence of life.

In fact life itself is absolutely certain to be there, the only debatable subject should be whether or not it may be considered human.

Edit needed IMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.254.73.103 (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's human ... what else could it be? 1ragincajun (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Subhan Allah! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.105.6.186 (talk) 00:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Ugh

Painfully NPOV, but probably not worth editing. Is this article really necessary? Seems like it could be merged with something else, like the entry for the medical procedure. 71.197.252.169 19:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This article, and this photograph, record an event that went viral when it appeared. During fetal surgery, the photographer took a pic of the fetal boy grabbing the surgeon's finger. Wikipedia is correct in having a separate article for young Master Samual Armas (the then-fetus now preteen shown in the attached photo).

Note that in this recent reprint, the enclosed photo Wikipidia shows is DEFINITELY identified as one of the photos taken by Mr. Clancy, the photographer at the then state-of-the art fetal surgery procedure. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/famed-photographer-michael-clancy-the-earliest-human-encounter-and-the-cove

Note that left-leaning Snopes believes the surgeon's account...and other sources believe photographer Tom Clancy's account. So...the article could reflect the debate, and not (as usually happens on Wikipedia) take the left-leaning side in the lack of more concrete evidence. I personally think I'm seeing a clenched fist--with the small muscles tightened...around a man's finger.

Wikipedia editors surely can make this article more neutral. You have the surgeon saying one thing...the photographer saying another...yet Wikipedia article clearly believes the surgeon. Why not jsut report the controversy? (The photo of the fetus/unborn child grabbing the surgeon's finger is well attested to in various places. So Wikipedia at least can identify it as Clancy's photo and not just some similar procedural photo. )

Wikipedia editors...Note that some academics do NOT let students use your site (at least for serious research) because of your inconsistent and many times lopsided editorial policies. Wikipedia is predictably medium to far left. Wiki should strive for...neutrality.Lindisfarnelibrary (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The picture?

The entire article is about a photograph and yet it lacks the photo itself! Sure it's not for the extremely queasy, but surely it ought to be here.

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Urban legend

Why is this in the urban legend category?

(Also, how can anti-abortion people use this for their propaganda when he was a 21-week old fetus and abortions aren't done at that stage?) – Alensha ^talk 12:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why it's in the urban legend category, however, that is not my concern. My concern is that you are using this page to discuss the article rather than discuss suggestions for improvement of the article. I also don't think you need to bring up your biased opinions about abortion by saying "anti-abortion people use this for their propaganda." I will edit your talk page to talk to you further about the existence of Late-term abortion which occurs at the 21 week stage and even later. Kgromann (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Just because abortion is a frequently debated topic, it doesn't mean that everyone who talks about it wants to enter into debates. My questions were about the article, not its topic, since if it's not an urban legend, I'll remove the category. And as for propaganda, I did not realize it was a biased term; its wiki article defines it as "purposeful persuasion that attempts to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions, and actions of specified target audiences for ideological, political or commercial purposes through the controlled transmission of one-sided messages" which clearly both sides do. Again, I asked this not because I'm for or against of abortion, but because without any sources given, the fact that the photo was used by the opponents of abortion for this reason seemed suspicious to me. I knew about late term abortions but in my country it isn't done without serious reasons (as far as I know), so no one would campaign against it.

(Next time if you answer a several months old post of mine, please would you include the talk page's title in your message? It took some time to find which one were you referring to.) – Alensha ^talk 17:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Related image

in january 2012, we have a similar image, this time most definitely a newborn grasping the hand of a doctor.[1]99.23.80.136 (talk) 06:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Samuel Armas. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.michaelclancy.com/story.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Samuel Armas. 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/20070806223204/http://www.nrlc.org/news/2003/NRL10/an_update_on_samuel_armas.htm to http://www.nrlc.org/news/2003/NRL10/an_update_on_samuel_armas.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130105061737/http://www.azfamily.com/news/Baby-reaching-beyond-womb-picture-goes-viral-185393182.html to http://www.azfamily.com/news/Baby-reaching-beyond-womb-picture-goes-viral-185393182.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 15:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)