Talk:Giant pelvis

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... (your reason here) --Folkplace (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my process of correcting small mistakes I re-edited several times. If you will take the short time to review all the old medical literature on this subject you will see that my rendition of the facts are exactly correct. In other words all the editing was done by myself and there is no hoax and no misrepresentation of any facts and it is as accurate as humanly possible. Contact me with anything that does not match these facts.

folkplace

Because most other doctors today pay very little attention to a Giant Pelvis... due to it not causing major problems, there are few recent articles on the subject. You will just have to search the older literature for articles like I offered a picture of. Sorry there is so little new information.To help understand this, notice that office type pelvimeters are not even designed to be large enough measure a pelvis so large as to be classified as a giant pelvis... as OB doctors are only interested in the dangers of a small pelvis... NOT a Giant Pelvis. However those few with this condition may be interested in this article as it does have a few complications and problems they could discussed with their OB doctors.

The original early medical restriction of 24 cm for pelvic oblique diameter across the ileopectineal line most likely was related to the lower average value of that measure. It is very easy to see that since the early average value was quite lower than now (at 12 cm) that the 24 value is exactly twice that value. At the time this made a ratio to average of 2. More modern and largest anthroporphic studies of pelvic size are still too small to have a single value of pelvic index of 200 or a ratio of 2 to average.

I understand why this 2 value is what they tried to use for minimum giant pelvis size. In light of this the present 150 pelvic index value for minimum required value would still limit the incidence to only about one adult woman in 3,000... so it is a less restrictive value for definition. Not many obstetricians would even deliver 3,000 babies so 1.5/1 or a pelvic index of 150 is much more reasonable a value.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Folkplace (talk • contribs) 19:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forlkpace — Preceding unsigned comment added by Folkplace (talk • contribs) 19:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article should be merged into justo major pelvis

Says it in the title. They cover the same topic, and that article actually has reliable sources, whereas this one has none.—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 23:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]