Talk:Pregnancy/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Embryo at 4 weeks image

The image of the "4 week" embryo is actually a 6 week embryo, according to the cited source, ref 41. A four week embryo does not have a humanoid shape, eyes or limb buds. 99.235.4.123 (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it's correct as written. The caption in the article specifies four weeks after fertilization; the source specifies six weeks after a last normal menstrual period (and silently assumes that all women always have a predictable menstrual cycle of 28 days in length, and they always conceive on the 14th day of that cycle). Consequently, these are the same dates. The LMP system that the source is using declares the pregnancy to begin two weeks before conception.

LMP sometimes produces idiotic results in the one-third of women who don't have menstrual cycles that are consistently about 28 days in length, but it's what the men decided to use in the 19th century, so we're apparently stuck with it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Copyright issues

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is this really an argument about nudity or is it about copyright and having the consent of an identifiable person? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Per Dreadstar above: "There are no licensing issues. The licensing was confirmed by an administrator/reviewer and was kept per two different deletion discussions."[1][2]. (olive (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC))

Thanks. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

{copied from above} There is no licensing issue with the current lead image, it was verified by an administrator/reviewer in 2006 [3] and was kept per two different deletion discussions[4][5] - including keep votes by the person purporting to be the photographer. Please read the comments made in both deletion discussions by the photographer, Inferis. Dreadstar ☥ 15:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

While the photographer and the subject (per the photographer) is fine with Wikipedia using the image he has stated he has never released it under a license that allows commercial use. And upon further questioning that he does not wish to release this image under a license that allows commercial reuse. If this get to FA this image will be a problem. Wikipedia requires that uploaders of images allow commercial reuseDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the reviewer/administrator's comment says exactly the opposite of your assertions, that the image was indeed released under licensing that allows for its use in Wikipedia: [6]. And from the photographer's comments, he may be willing to re-upload the image and release it under whatever WP licensing needed; but it appears that this is not necessary since all indication are that appropriate licensing was established in 2006. Dreadstar ☥ 17:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Per the uploader:

"I'm not going to change the license because Wikipedia "requires" it. I never posted the photos to Wikipedia, but I'm fine with them being used. If there's any problem using the pictures now because of the license on flickr, so be it. Like I said, I don't mind them being used on Wikipedia, but I'm not going to change the license for everyone. Inferis (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Besides, as far as I can remember, the license has always been non-commercial. Inferis (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)"

[7] So yes there are concerns regarding the interpretation of this users comments. IMO it appears that he is okay with Wikipedia using it but does not lease it under a license that allows commercial reuse by anyway. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, the permissions were established to be appropriate in 2006, and I'm not convinced that your conversation with the 'uploader' contained sufficient information, (e.g. your own comments, which change the context from this one image to all of the photographer's images on flickr; as well as displaying your own uncertainty about licensing issues:[8][9]. Dreadstar ☥ 17:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

If the uploader says it's "OK for Wikipedia" but has not explicitly allowed commercial reuse, then not only is it not fit for this page, it must be nominated for deletion as it does not comply with our image use policy: "Licenses which restrict the use of the media to non-profit or educational purposes only (i.e. non-commercial use only), or are given permission to only appear on Wikipedia, are not free enough for Wikipedia's usages or goals and will be deleted." It will therefore have to be nominated post-haste since it can't be on Commons, and I don't see anything remotely resembling a fair-use rationale being possible when there are plenty of replacement free images already, assuming we even wanted another nude pregnant woman. The existing permissions were not appropriate even in 2006 ("Wikipedia-only" licensing has been disallowed since May 19, 2005); it's just that the policies enabling its enforcement (policies, ironically, that I was critical enough about at that time, and still am ...) weren't agreed on until about late summer 2006). Daniel Case (talk) 01:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Let ask the uploader to clarify if he is willing to have this image under a creative commons license which allows commercial reuse... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe it's already been released under the appropriate license per the 2006 review; and I've already written the photographer off-wiki to find out more. Dreadstar ☥ 19:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Great and I have asked for him to comment here [10] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully he'll respond to the off-wiki request so we can make certain we have the right person. You also might want to add more details, like the links to the copyright and OTRS pages; and the fact that he retains the copyright of his work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. The free license only concerns copyright, and the owner still has the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc... Things I included in my email to him. Dreadstar ☥ 19:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to add this to my comment please do.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. One would hope you'd want to include the details so they could make a truly informed decision, but I guess not. Also, I don't know that we can rely on that talk page, have we confirmed that's the actual photographer? And no matter what the response from there, it's hard to get around the failed deletion request based on your same assertions about lack of licensing. If the photographer or his wife objected to the image being used on WP, then for the sake of sensitivity, I'd recommend its removal immediately - but that's clearly not the case. Dreadstar ☥ 19:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not allow people to upload images "for only Wikipedia's use" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

And no one, to my knowledge, has claimed that here; and the image is clearly marked and has been verified as being under Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0). Dreadstar ☥ 20:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Doc, as a newcomer here I am puzzled as to how the, 'proposal ... to move the current image (image 2) lower in the article to the section on second trimester and replace it with what some have deemed a better quality image...', would resolve any licensing problems. Could you explain please? Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't and unless this issue is addressed the image will need to be removed from commons and thus from all the projects. I do not have an issue with a similar image however lower in the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not follow you. You are proposing to move the lead image lower down. What is the reason for this? As you say it is nothing to do with licensing. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I hope the issue of licensing can be cleared up. But let's assume the photographer did originally post the images to Flickr with a licence that allowed commercial re-use, and has subsequently fixed this because that was never his intention, and has now stated that he doesn't not want the images to be used commercially. People make mistakes. Wikipedia and Commons should do the right thing and remove the images. Yes, the licence is irrevocable, which means if it has been or does get used commercially, then the photographer can't complain. That doesn't mean we should perpetuate the mistake and make commercial use more likely by continuing to host/use it. If the folk at Commons want to have their deletion discussions in an ethical vacuum then that's up to them. Wikipedia doesn't have to behave that way. Particularly as this is an image of a person, and not just some flower or bird. Colin°^Talk 20:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• Apparently, it's no problem with User:Inferis: [11]. Dreadstar ☥ 21:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

That all seems clear to me then, technically we are allowed to keep the image and the uploader has confirmed that they are happy with it remaining here. Or have I missed something? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you have it down perfectly, Martin! Dreadstar ☥ 22:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

No, you don't:

• In this instance, the photographer was not the uploader.
• Neither the uploader nor the photographer are (so far as we know) the subject, and both en.wiki and commons (relatively new, compared to this photo) privacy policies require that the subject of any nude photo consent to it being uploaded to WMF projects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• Agree with WhatamIdoing per Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. Colin°^Talk 18:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Ah, I see permission has been requested and sort-of given ("Knows its on WP" isn't strictly enough). We should really have a formal set of questions to make sure everyone is fully aware of what they have given away and allowed. Colin°^Talk 18:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

This whole RfC is a pointless mess. It's obvious to me that its wording has changed at least twice since the discussion began. (Possibly more times.) Comments from editors therefore address different proposals. Any chance we can start again please, WITHOUT any changes to what we're discussing? HiLo48 (talk) 05:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

<sigh…> This is what I hate about wikipedia. Everyone gets so hyped up and paranoid about silly points. RELAX. Trust your fellow editors to do the right thing in the long run. I they don't, try, try again, but calmly please. It's either that or you might as well give it up as a lost cause and go play pinochle. --Ludwigs2 06:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually concerned that I have made posts of my own here that bear no relationship to the current wording of the RfC. Should I go back and delete them, or strike them through? That would just increase the mess. But leaving them there is nonsensical too. HiLo48 (talk) 08:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The wording has always been regarding the proposal to move the image lower in the article and this has never changed.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The wording has changed considerably, with strike-throughs and other changes. Many early posts were made in response to different wording. Discussion has been scattered over nudity, quality of the image, copyright, "Is it really who it say it is?", "Has she really given permission", "It's a nice maternity shirt, and we should mention that too", etc. It's a mess! HiLo48 (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It was always a mess. The situation changed, and the summary of the issue started out biased. The current question doesn't give a summary of the situation or pose a question beyond "which image do you want." At least the real issue was well stated here. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 23:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

OTRS permission confirmed in ticket 2011090610017471; full release text seen at WP:CONSENT and verifiable link between emailer and Flickr user. – Adrignola talk 15:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyright issues

I do not think closing discussion of copyright issues was particularly helpful. It does seem clear that the copyright issue has nothing to do with the position of the disputed image within the article and thus is not relevant to the principle subject of the RfC, which is over the position of the image. That is why I have started a completely separate section for this subject.

I also agree that this page may not be the right place to discuss the wider licensing/copyright/privacy issues that have been raised here and I would support a consensus to move it elsewhere, however it has been discussed here and there does seem to be some unfinished business which might be better discussed somewhere rather than just pushed aside where it will continue to hamper the RfC discussions. Clearly if the disputed image is found to be in breach of WP policy on licensing/copyright/privacy then it will have to be removed regardless of the outcome of the RfC, however it is important not to conflate the two issues. Can I therefore suggest that all discussion regarding licensing/copyright/privacy is kept to this section, or whatever better home is found for this subject, and completely out of the RfC. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I contacted Inferis to ask him about the privacy issue, and he says the model is his wife and aware of it's use on Wikipedia. Hopefully this will resolve the policy issues.--H_Talk 16:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Also, off topic, but I'm the user known as Honeymane, I've just recently changed my username. I realize this might cause some confusion.--H_Talk 16:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that pretty much nails it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

That resolves the permission issue but not the copyright issue. I have not seen a statement from him anywhere that confirms he has granted permission for any and all commercial reuse of the image, or for modification in any way. Both of those conditions have to be met for it to comply with our image use policy. He has said he's "OK with it being used on Wikipedia" ... that is not enough, and hasn't been enough since 2005. Daniel Case (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I see that he has assented to dropping any NC restriction. But he should be further asked to clarify he has no problem with the derivative works aspect ... i.e., that anyone may modify it any way they want. Daniel Case (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

OTRS permission confirmed in ticket 2011090610017471; full release text seen at WP:CONSENT and verifiable link between emailer and Flickr user. – Adrignola talk 15:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

That, I presume, really is the end of the copyright/permission/privacy argument? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

This is the result of my off-wiki communications with the actual photographer and his wife, the subject of the image. This definitely puts all copyright and living-person considerations to rest. Now it's just a matter of WP:CON and abiding by Policy. Note that the objections due to her being nude fall under WP:NOT and are therefore invalid under WP:CON, they only operate under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Dreadstar ☥ 22:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Ahem. That's pretty much akin to declaring "You suck! I win!" First, I reiterate the earlier objections to characterizing our position as an objection to nudity per se ... if it were, this RfC would be taking in plenty of other pictures used as lead images. The fact that it is specific to this article moots your argument.

And secondly, of course, many of us have stated that we have no objection to the picture remaining in the article, just to its use as lead image (see, as noted, the German article for how this might be done).

My objection is, once again, not to the nudity ... it's to using it where it is not clear it is necessary to do so, and in such a case as might make female editors working on articles, who come across this, or female readers who might be considering taking the plunge, feel that their overwhelmingly male coeditors are a bunch of overgrown frat boys they're better off not wasting their time with. When I talk about creating a hostile work environment, I need to clarify that I am talking about Wikipedia as our work environment, not about people leaving this article on their monitors at work (there are many other articles and pictures that could give rise to that issue at workplaces, and that's not within our control nor should it be).

Nor is it the case that the issue is as clear-cut as you would like it to be. It is true we are faced with an editorial decision regarding an image that is not easily accounted for by any policy. There have been other times when we considered whether the display of an image that otherwise was within our policies was disruptive enough to our community that we should consider displaying it differently. The fact that we did not choose to do so at that time, and haven't since, does not control what our consensus should be here. Daniel Case (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but that just sounds like a fancy, complicated way of saying "I object to the nudity." And the comparison made isn't apt, the Muhammad cartoon controversy was a completely different kettle of fish. Dreadstar ☥ 22:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but that just sounds like a fancy, complicated way of saying "I don't have any sensitivity to the legitimate concerns of others that they might be made to feel unwelcome as members of this community, because hey world, I'm making a big statement against 'censorship'." And it was a similar issue. No matter how much you try to pretend it isn't.

It's about the metamessage. If the picture was one of a clothed pregnant female wearing a T-shirt with "White Power!" clearly visible on it and the hair on the side of her head shaved into a swastika, even if it otherwise conveyed the same information and was adequately hi-resolution, I'm sure you'd understand why some people might want to replace it with one of the ample supply of other images. I am not equating nudity with neo-Naziism, rather just trying to use an analogy that, I imagine, would be coarse enough to make it clear how I am framing the issue. Daniel Case (talk) 04:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but you'll have to do much better than this hatchet-job on my comments. Please re-frame the issue without the attempt to frame me with an incomplete understanding of comments I redacted and modified before you commented on them. Try again, because right now, it's still you saying "I object because it's nudity". You first equated this 'no-nudity' issue with a highly volatile religious issue, a wild comparison which is completely ludicrious; then followed that up with an inflammatory and totally unrelated racial issue; "white power"? You're kidding right? Dreadstar ☥ 04:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you're cherry-picking here, and you can't or won't see the forest for the trees.

After rereading your reply, I think I'm done arguing the point with you since you categorically reject any argument which relies on the woman being nude, and not entertain the idea that there is an intellectually valid distinction between "I object to nudity per se" and "I object to nudity in this particular instance because ...".

If so, I'd like to see you explain why we don't use this picture as the lead image in Bicycling. Daniel Case (talk) 04:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

LOL! Now you're just being silly Daniel. Thanks for the laugh.  :) And just to clarify, I've never argued that this image is better because it's nude; I'm merely responding to those objections which are based on the simple fact that she's naked. WP is not censored, so that's an invalid argument IMHO and per WP:NOTCENSORED. Dreadstar ☥ 19:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

If the image isn't better because it's nude, then what are we having this whole argument for, then? If the other image will make the point, let's use it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

From the beginning, I've given my reasoning as to why the current image is superior, none of which have to do with the state of the person's clothing - so no, I don't think the other image makes the 'point' as well as the current image. Dreadstar ☥ 16:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The answer is obvious, and goes back to the core of this matter. Pregnancy dramatically changes the shape of the woman's body, in a way best shown in a nude picture. Cycling doesn't. Thank you for presenting this opportunity to make that point. HiLo48 (talk) 05:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

If you want to show how pregnancy changes the shape of a woman's body and not just the size and shape of her belly you need a before picture. This has been explained to you and others about a dozen times. Thank your for presenting this opportunity to make that point (again). --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 12:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

'Before' and 'after' pictures have their place but the lead image should show the subject as a whole. I think the current image does this well. It shows what a pregnant woman looks like. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Martin Hogbin. We don't need a before and after image, because we know the before image quite well. It's actually illustrated (with a nude image) in the article on Sex differences in humans. I'd like to add that Image 1 (woman with clothes) shows in a suggestive way only the most obvious body change that characterizes pregnancy. In every day life, when we see a person who physically looks like that, we naturally assume she is pregnant. The image brings no additional information compared to what we already know. Image 2 shows how the body changes, by showing the body itself. This clearly adds information. A woman who wonders how she will look like when she will be pregnant will not find Image 1 of any interest, while she will get useful information from Image 2.

Dessources (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I honestly think most women have some idea that their bellies will swell if and when they get pregnant. Any woman who needs to go to Wikipedia to find that out probably couldn't figure out how to get pregnant in the first place. Daniel Case (talk) 04:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure, they have some idea, this is exactly my point, but the image transforms the some idea into an exact image that translates some idea into a precise concrete manifestation. Clearly, Image 1 suggests that pregancy is associated with a body change affecting the abdomen, without showing the body itself (it could be a fake). Image 2 shows how this change affect the body, by showing the body itself. It therefore provides more information, at a cost which is negligible, since no one has complained that he or she was personally offended by the image in the context of such a medical article related to human reproduction and sexuality, all the objections referring to some hypothetical people in some cultures that could be offended.

Dessources (talk) 08:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

By that argument, all those articles that describe things that "most" people already know should be deleted. Silly. HiLo48 (talk) 04:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

No one is advocating here that images describing things that most people know already be deleted. That would indeed be silly. The only people advocating that an image be deleted are those who want Image 2 removed.

Dessources (talk) 08:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Which, as I have repeatedly stated, I'm not. I just think it doesn't need to be the lead article, since most pregnant women do not walk around naked and the salient aspect of pregnancy can be conveyed more than adequately by image 1. Only in the Ferengi Wikipedia would I find the encyclopedic value of the image of a nude pregnant female to be significant enough to put it in the lead. Daniel Case (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• I mean no offence, but I've not been quite able as to understand why someone would bring up a RfC over copyright issues or permission issues where in dispute or generally unclear. But I can't see how this is the case with this particular image. I mean, not only have the licences been checked before, the photographer is on wikimedia itself. It took me maybe 60 seconds to compose a message asking him about the subject, and he replied far more promptly than I had originally expected him to do. My point is that this isn't some mystery picture with no history or individuals that are difficult to get a hold of. You could have very easily asked him yourself.--H_Talk 23:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mother?

A pregnant woman is not necessarily a mother. Ignoring the potential for pregnant men, many pregnant women have no children, and do not go on to have children. They are not mothers and do not necessarily become mothers. Unfortunately, the most proper alternative is either the unpleasant "gravida" or the lengthy "pregnant woman." Thoughts? Triacylglyceride (talk) 05:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Most sources—and most pregnant women—refer to pregnant women as mothers. When the source assumes that the pregnancy is not going to be terminated, the practice of calling pregnant women "mothers" is almost universal. Wikipedia follows the sources in these things, not editors' personal preferences or political positions.

Also, your assertion that the "unborn baby" is always an embryo is wrong. There are multiple stages of development, and the embryo stage only lasts for a few weeks. Mercury can harm development in any of the stages, not just between weeks one and eight. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I object to your stating that I asserted this. I did inaccurately correct "unborn baby" to "embryo," and I thank you for catching it, but that was not the assertion that you have characterized it as. I have changed it to "embryo or fetus." It is also irrelevant to the topic "mother?" and I suggest you start a new topic for it if you have further objections. (I will have further rebuttals.)

On the topic of the word mother, let me reply to your points in order.

Yes, most sources refer to pregnant women as mothers. Most sources that deal with pregnancy are referring to pregnancies that are intended to be carried to term. The Wikipedia article on abortion at no point refers to pregnant women as mothers. Do you feel it should?

It is irrelevant that you feel most pregnant women refer to each other as mothers. Most pregnant women who are referring to themselves or each other in ways that disclose their pregnancy status are intending to give birth. You have a confirmation bias.

This is both a personal preference and political position, but it also follows the sources. This article cites the American Heritage Medical Dictionary, which states that a mother is "1. A woman who conceives, gives birth to, or raises and nurtures a child." A pregnant woman has conceived an embryo or fetus, not a child. Triacylglyceride (talk) 03:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, the idea that the pre-birth developmental stages—which, forgive me for being pedantic, encompass more than merely "embryo" and "fetus", so your change is still inaccurate; the failure of the medical community to come up with a word that means "whatever that genetically distinct organism is, from conception to delivery, but not overlapping even slightly with neonate" is exactly why we, and other reliable sources, are stuck with unfortunate phrases like "unborn baby" or "unborn child"—somehow do not constitute "a child" is itself a political position.

As for the dictionary definition, I'm actually not sure how one conceives "a child", if by "child" you mean only post-birth humans. I know how one conceives a zygote, which is the first of those developmental stages that you've been ignoring. In fact, I think the definition here plainly indicates that "a mother" is "a woman who conceives", and that she attains that status from the very moment of conception. I believe that if they meant something like, "a previously pregnant woman, beginning after the birth, but only if the pregnancy wasn't deliberately terminated", then they would have said something like that. Oh, and you might like to look up how your dictionary defines "child", in definition #2: "An unborn infant; a fetus." I think we can assume that its use of words is internally consistent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

According to prenatal development, "the embryonic period in humans begins at fertilization (penetration of the egg by the sperm) and continues until the end of the 10th week of gestation (8th week by embryonic age)." I don't mind your being pedantic, but I would like you to be more specific: the only developmental stage you feel we're omitting that you mention is the zygote. In this context, though, we're discussing a set of cells that has a developing nervous system. I do not think that a zygote can be reasonably said to have a "developing nervous system." Why are we still discussing this here?

I did look that up and see that definition, but that hardly helps your argument, unless you support replacing all instances of the word "fetus" with "child." It's also moot because the dictionary this article uses is the American Heritage Medical Dictionary, which has it as: "1. A person who has not yet reached puberty. 2. A son or daughter; an offspring. 3. A person not of legal age; a minor."

I recall the dictionary that had the definition which you mention (which, for some reason, I'm not seeing at the moment -- I can't explain why, as I was seeing it earlier) also included as an example the phrase "with child," meaning pregnant.

Your points on conceiving children are semantic. If a pregnancy is not carried to term, was a child conceived? I can say that, "Dan, a forty-year-old man, was conceived in 1970," but that doesn't mean that he was conceived as a forty-year-old man. I feel they include the conception part for two reasons: one being to account for gestational surrogates, and the other being that, as a dictionary, they are trying to reflect common usage, which includes, as we've discussed, expecting mothers who intend to carry a pregnancy to term. See mother for further difficulty in definitions here.

I was initially approaching this question as a cost-benefit analysis of accuracy vs. accessibility, and we've ended up debating accuracy. At what point do you think a woman becomes a mother? Conception? Implantation? Triacylglyceride (talk) 06:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The source says she becomes a mother at the point of conception. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Please be specific. Which source? Triacylglyceride (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The source you quote above, namely American Heritage Medical Dictionary. It defines mother as "1. A woman who conceives, gives birth to, or raises and nurtures a child." If a mother is "a woman who conceives", then she becomes a mother at the point of conception. (She may additionally become a mother at the point of giving birth, if she can somehow do this without conceiving, or when she raises and point of nurturing a child, if this somehow [e.g., through adoption or step-parenting] precedes both conception and giving birth.) The definition is phrased in terms of or, rather than and, and therefore any one of these conditions is adequate to define a woman who meets any single condition as being a mother. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

By the definition, a mother is not "a woman who conceives," but "a woman who conceives... a child." (This is a grammatically sound assertion: if they meant to include conception of anything, they would have written "a woman who conceives, or gives birth to or raises a child.") And, as we've discussed, pregnant women have not necessarily conceived children (any more than they have conceived forty-year-old humans), they have conceived embryos and fetuses. (And blastulas, and morulas, and zygotes...) Unless you support referring to all of these nascent entities as children, which I am assuming you don't.

And remember that you've already asked how one can ever conceive a child, and the answer is by conceiving a zygote that then becomes a child. One can conceive a forty-year-old human in a similar fashion. Triacylglyceride (talk) 01:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The same dictionary defines "child" as encompassing "an unborn infant; a fetus". Making their definition of mother not including any woman whose egg was just fertilized inside her body requires twisting their words out of recognition. Note that I don't require you to agree with their definition; I'm merely telling you what that source's definition is. As far as I'm concerned, you can define mother in any way you want, including as a class of green Martians that lay eggs. Your personal beliefs really don't matter to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like you agree with my assertion that defining "mother" to include women who are pregnant but have had no past births is predicated on defining "child" as including fetuses and embryos. Additionally, as we've discussed before, the dictionary gives an example of that use as "she is with child" -- it is clearly a colloquial use. As using "child" to mean "fetus" is an inaccurate and politically charged choice of phrasing, I assert that using "mother" to mean "pregnant woman" is similarly charged.

Re: green Martians: you're bringing the level of this discussion down. Mother, as is clearly discussed on its page, is very difficult to define. Ultimately, it's something of an identity that people choose for themselves: some pregnant women feel like mothers, some don't. I assert that we should not make that assignment for them on this page. Triacylglyceride (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Worldwide, more than half of pregnant women have already given birth, and so are already mothers irrespective of the current pregnancy.

I do not agree with your opinion that it is inaccurate to use the word child to refer to an unborn human. That word has actually been used that way for centuries, and its use is supported by the medical dictionary you name. I suppose it might be uncomfortable for the small subset of readers who are thinking about pregnancy primarily in terms of a voluntary termination, but that's not actually our problem. Wikipedia isn't censored, not even to the extent of telling people that some diseases normally result in death, or that a baby is statistically the most common result of a pregnancy.

On your broader point, it would be just as inappropriate for us to "deny" a pregnant woman recognition as a mother as it would be to "assign" that label on a pregnant woman who does not identify with it. There is no good solution here: we must use some term, and whatever term we choose will offend some affected women. I recommend that we therefore not worry about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

We are not denying recognition to pregnant women who consider themselves mothers. We are not saying, "pregnant women, who are not mothers." We are saying, if anything, "pregnant women, some of whom consider themselves mothers and some of whom do not." Realy, we're just saying, "pregnant women." When a woman is called a "person," it is not denying her womanhood; when a pregnant mother is called a pregnant woman, it is not denying her motherhood.Triacylglyceride (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

This discussion really should be limited, as Triacylglyceride requested at the beginning, to the use of the term "mother". The separate issue of "fetus" (etc) vs "child" should be discussed separately. Regarding using "mother" to refer to pregnant women, one reason (apart from inaccuracy) not to do this is because not all pregnancies result in a live baby. Therefore even a pregnant woman prematurely calling herself a "mother" can be setting herself up for even more disappointment/sadness should a miscarriage occur. This is a compassionate as well as realistic motivation for avoiding the premature use of "mother". It is, moreover, simply and quite obviously inaccurate to refer to a woman as a "mother" solely because she is pregnant.-- TyrS  chatties  00:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

That's your opinion. The source that Triacylglyceride quoted above defines the woman as being a mother from the moment of conception—and it is far from the only source to do so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Glad to hear I have some support. TyrS. Triacylglyceride (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with the uses of 'mother' and 'child' in this article, no need to further remove things by changing 'mother' to 'woman'; or debating the definition or exact point of conception/motherhood/fetus/baby/child/etc. The sources are clear, as is general use of the terms. I can't agree with changing "exercise...is recommended for healthy pregnancies" to "exercise....is said to have ...health benefits. "Said to have" is an unnecessary qualifer and does not match the sources, it seems to cast doubt on the value of exercise, which may be a disservice to our readers. Dreadstar ☥ 04:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is that relevant to this thread? Triacylglyceride (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Because someone chose to combine the two into one edit. Dreadstar ☥ 00:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Nudity

Nudity in the context of such an article is not objectionable, but rather natural. It's enough to see the images retrieved by Google when searching for "pregnancy": the majority of them have an element of nudity in them, either total or partial. What I find really objectionable , on the other hand, with the images chosen to illustrate the Pregnancy article is that all women represented are of the white Caucasian type, and therefore fail to be representative of the diversity of the human species. Further, many arguments advanced here to remove the picture from the top seem inconsistent with the action proposed, which is to place it lower in the article. So, the arguments about licence issue, image quality and image of identifiable people do not fit with such action. Which leaves only one common denominator among the proponents of removing the image: undeclared censorship of nudity. Dessources (talk) 11:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

That last point is much the same conclusion that I have come to. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

All those editors claiming that a clothed picture can tell us just as much may want to read this. How would know whether or not a person in a clothed image was wearing one of these? HiLo48 (talk) 22:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh God ... we're really reaching for straws here. Daniel Case (talk) 00:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. Those claiming "We know what's under the clothes" are applying a particular cultural perspective. (That there's only one layer of clothes there?) And one that's pretty silly for an encyclopaedia. There is a point in everyone's lives where they don't know what a pregnant lady looks like. That's where Wikipedia comes in. And there are better "pregnancy suits" than the one I've shown there. They are used in professional theatre, TV and movies, and are quite undetectable to most viewers WITHOUT undressing, getting very close, or touching. HiLo48 (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Heavens to Betsy, you are being ridiculous! This is not an issue about whether the model in question is really pregnant. This is an issue about whether the image in question gives a decent depiction of pregnancy. As I said above (jokingly, because I didn't believe anyone could seriously go down this road) that picture of a naked pregnant woman could easily be a picture of a man photoshopped to look like a naked pregnant woman. I could do that myself (though I don't have the skills to do a quality job). If we are going to start questioning the veracity of images at this trivial level then it should be obvious to everyone that nakedness is no guarantee of veracity, because someone skilled with digital images could make Saddam Hussein look like a naked pregnant woman. Now lets drop this silly line of argument and get back to substantive points, please. --Ludwigs2 05:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You have missed my point entirely, and gone close to being abusive there. I'm not sure I have the energy to try to explain it any further. As I have said earlier more than once, this is already an appallingly structured conversation, and every time I make a thoughtful post, someone misinterprets it or changes the subject. The poor level of discussion convinces me even more that the real motivation of some is simply a cultural (and hence non-rational) objection to nudity. HiLo48 (talk) 08:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)I didn't miss your point at all. You are making the argument that we need to show a naked picture rather than a clothed picture so that people can 'really see' what pregnancy looks like. But that's not an argument that stands up under water. FOr instance, pregnant women often get swollen feet, hemorrhoids, acne, extra layers of fat: shouldn't we have a picture where people can 'really see' those as well? I suspect if we had such a picture you'd be arguing against it, because it would offend your sensibilities. Like many people (this is endemic in modern culture) you miss the distinction between information and trivia, as though everything you personally want to know - no matter how vain or trivial - should be a matter of public record. It's the same reasoning that makes tabloids, gossip columns, and the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition so wildly popular. Is that the level you want Wikipedia to operate on?

The main value this nude picture has is that it is emotionally stirring (you can read that in the warm and fuzzy 'it's touching' sense or in a more prurient sense, as you like). You are arguing that the emotional stir you feel should take precedence over the negative emotional stir other people feel, by misrepresenting that emotional state as information. That's poor logic, and it degrades the value of the emotion. --Ludwigs2 16:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You have STILL missed my point AND changed the subject, by introducing swollen feet, hemorrhoids, acne, and extra layers of fat. Thank you for proving my point. HiLo48 (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for HiLo, but personally I do not like pregnancy or am at best ambivalent about it. Nor do I think that the picture in question is very appealing. I don't want to come off as horrible to those who feel warm and fuzzy, but please don't think that it's about that emotion for everyone here. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 16:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is. It's a "we don't put pictures of nude people up in the place where we work because we are mature adults who don't feel the need to constantly be titillated" cultural thing. It's not a "we don't like nude photos" thing ... this is actually a very nicely done photo. If we were to have an article on cultural attitudes towards pregnancy, or something like that, then I would support its inclusion there, perhaps as lead image even, because it would convey the same information as the famous Demi Moore Vanity Fair cover without the fair-use issue. Daniel Case (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

So it's not just about nudity, it's about thinking that nudity must be about fetishism. Got it. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 16:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow Dessources, you put it so well. Agree on all points. And please, stop trying to pretend this is not about nudity: that's blatantly obvious. Everyone knows, as HiLo48 said "There is a point in everyone's lives where they don't know what a pregnant lady looks like." That is exactly the audience which an encyclopedia should address. We shouldn't be making assumptions about what the reader already knows, and therefore what we can afford to not show due to cultural bias. Let's not get side-tracked by the arguments concerning pregnancy suits. This should be about which picture best represents pregnancy as a pictorial summary of the subject for the lead. Inserting clothing between the subject (the pregnant body) and the viewer is simply a denial of information to the reader. We might not even know what information they're getting. No one can believably deny that the naked image conveys more information, and is a better summary of the subject, than the clothed image. This is all about nudity. If it's not about nudity, then will people be accepting of a brown-skinned nude woman? That's about the only valid point I see here for changing the current lead image. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 15:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

B - First, I can and do reasonably deny that the naked picture has more information. You cannot reasonably argue that it does, not in any way that cannot be reduced to pure aesthetics. Second, you seem to be saying that Wikipedia should enforce your cultural bias over everyone else's. In most cultures, a question about what a pregnant woman looks like will lead to someone pointing out a clothed pregnant woman on the street, and further inquiries about what one 'really' looks like will result in instructions to get married and find out for oneself. Even in California, people would not answer a child's question about this by hiring a pregnant woman to come by their house and strip down, and yet you are essentially arguing that this is what wikipedia needs to do.

Your argument seems to be that absolutely nothing should ever be left to the imagination (at least not where the human body is concerned). Not only is that impossible in any realistic sense, I question the wisdom of it, and I question motivations behind it. --Ludwigs2 16:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

That's right, as an encyclopedia, we don't leave things to imagination. And nudity isn't a cultural bias. Clothing is. Nudity is what you have when you don't have culture, and is thus NPOV. That's another argument here, that clothing is automatically not culturally neutral. Also, your argument applies to so many other things in WP that it should either be withdrawn or you should make it on all those other articles. Re your observation that questions about what a pregnant woman looks like are going to lead to being pointed to a clothed woman, that's true and that's when the asker turns to the internet, and to WP in particular when they want accurate info. And are you saying we should not have the image at all? Because the choice here is whether to have it in the lead, and so the decision is about which image better summarizes pregnancy. A question about whether a person at this article is going to see the nude picture isn't relevant. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 17:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that what you believe isn't a cultural bias - only people different from you have cultural biases. and I take it from your opinion that you live in a nudist colony where people only wear clothes to keep warm? please… --Ludwigs2 17:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Never said that. But nudity isn't a cultural bias because nudity is pre-cultural. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 17:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess this entire discussion makes no sense to me at all. We don't want the nude picture in the lead, but its OK further down. Nude breasts are apparently not acceptable in the lead but once again they're ok in other places. We don't want a picture of pregnant woman because it might titillate, but fetishes aren't the norm and we are not going to start censoring images on Wikipedia in case some one with a fetish comes along. Its ok on Wikipedia to show other body parts like a sprained ankle with out socks on [12] because that gives us information about what is going on in the body, but here a picture of a pregnant body, a significant physical change, must be covered. One editor suggested the emotional qualities in the photo were important but that was idea was stepped on despite the fact that if human offspring are not given physical care they die and if not given emotional care will be damaged emotionally. The picture in place gives us an over arching sense of human pregnancy which include both physical and emotional information. We take for granted information in our culture that has become so common place and so integrated into the culture that we no longer need the information itself but understand the information through a symbol. The picture of a woman with a bump under her shirt is symbolic of pregnancy in our culture. It is not necessarily informative to those who do not have the initial information that underlies the symbol. I can understand personal concerns about depicting nudity which none of us has a right to judge, but that isn't an argument for excluding an informative image in my opinion. Is it necessary to delineate personal concerns from the need of the article to inform?(olive (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC))

Olive, The issue of nudity on wikipedia is tangled mess. As far as I can tell we have:

• editors who oppose the inclusion of nudity on moral/cultural grounds
• editors who advocate for the inclusion of nudity on prurient or aesthetic grounds
• editors who oppose the first group because of moral principles about freedom of expression and censorship

In other words, we have three groups arguing from deep-seated emotional attachments to utterly incommensurate ideological precepts, and it's not always possible to tell who's making which argument at any given moment. it's a wonder the entire project hasn't gone up in flames.

The obvious solution to my mind is to take the middle road - include nudity only where there is a clear and obvious need to do so, and where no non-nude picture will suffice. And in fact, I'm pretty sure this is the right solution because every time I suggest it I seem to piss off practically everyone (I have some people convinced I'm a censoring prude and others from different discussions who think I'm a licentious perv; a situation that clearly calls for some pithy phrase that can only be properly expressed in French). However, I think we are stuck with the misbegotten compromises that we come up with because there are just too many people working out their personal issues using Wikipedia as a form of drama-therapy.

Ugh. I obviously need more coffee. --Ludwigs2 17:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an educational forum. If I wanted children to understand pregnancy I would indeed show them a picture like the ne in the lead over one that is clothed. Children know that it is appropriate to clothe the body in public. How they view that body whether seeing shame or sexuality or anything else is taught. But as a disclaimer I have drawn nudes most of my life. I see a body as a beautiful working machine imbibed with human awareness that to draw and know it I have to see it. I don't see bodies as shameful, or something to be hidden, so my view may not be the norm. (olive (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC))

Good points Ludwigs. Not that I agree, :o) but points well taken... Thinking about the pithy phrase in French.(olive (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC))

honestly, if I had kids I'd do the same thing. I'm just worried about using wikipedia to impose that as a norm for everyone. and if you find any good phrases, let me know. I swear, I have a French soul trapped in an American's mind, which I'm pretty sure constitutes a new circle of hell. --Ludwigs2 17:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Littleolive, I think your view is more the norm than you think, especially outside some parts of the US. Most northern European countries would have no problem at all with the nude image and even the relatively prudish UK would find the nude image quite appropriate for educating children. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

And would they choose the clothed image for teaching children? If not, why not? B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 17:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I suspect they would not, because a clothed image would not show the children what a pregnant woman looks like, it would show them what clothes on a pregnant woman look like. Martin Hogbin (talk)

"And nudity isn't a cultural bias. Clothing is. Nudity is what you have when you don't have culture, and is thus NPOV. That's another argument here, that clothing is automatically not culturally neutral." That is so strikingly funny! Becritical, you made my day.
But to be sincere: I really don't think that we impose our culturall bias on anyone when we show the nude image in the lead of the article. Or if we do, we do it with the blue dress too. The three important questions are the educational value of the image, the image quality and the principle of least surprise.
As I stated above I don't think that a picture of a tastefully depictured nude woman in an article about pregnancy is surprising anyone - at least not in the englisch Wikipedia. Both images are well photographed, but the blue dress image has a low resolution. It is not better or more eductional than the nude one so we should not use it. Olive wrote "Nude breasts are apparently not acceptable in the lead." I think this is just wrong. Adornix (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs, I agree that with, 'include nudity only where there is a clear and obvious need to do so' in fact I would state more generally that we must always balance the need for encyclopedic content with its potential for harm. Also we do not have to do something just because we can. In this case, however, from my UK cultural perspective, I get the balance very different from you. The potential harm is very small and the encyclopedic value is obvious. So in your list above you have missed out, 'people who agree that there is always a balance between causing harm and adding useful content but get a different answer from you'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Olive, you say that "If I wanted children to understand pregnancy I would indeed show them a picture like the ne in the lead over one that is clothed". That's fine: I think most of us would do that.

But would you absolutely refuse to show them any images at all of a pregnant woman wearing clothes? Because that's the situation we have here: a steadfast refusal to include even one image of a pregnant woman who is fully clothed (and a refusal to move this very useful image to a part of the article where we could really use it to point out the features of the second trimester development, rather than as decoration for the lead). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

This is where I would insert the argument about the implicit objectification of women that's rampant through this discussion. But that will tweak too many people into angry rhetoric to be worth the effort… --Ludwigs2 19:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It is a truism that people who engage in objectification are unaware that they are doing so. If they were capable of recognizing that behavior in themselves, they wouldn't be doing it. We are doubtless all blind to at least some of our own faults. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The two sides of this debate seem to be totally talking past each other. Very few of the people supporting the new image have a problem with including nudity in the article, yet 90% of the people arguing against it are talking about how there's nothing wrong with nudity. Are any of you actually reading the arguments of the opposing side? Kaldari (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we're just reading them more closely and seeing that it's really all about nudity. Read the entire debate and you'll come to the same conclusion, which is that limiting nudity is the primary underlying objective. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 21:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be a biased reading of the debate, in my opinion. I could also read the debate and come to the conclusion that the supporters are arguing that the image must be nude, but I don't think either of those are accurate. Kaldari (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's really about nudity at all. I think the people arguing against the new picture are mostly arguing against what they see as censorship - as though they feel the removal of the image will be a victory for narrow-minded conservative prudes. It's silly, really, but there's no way to explain to them that the liberal perspective can be just as narrow-minded and repressive as the conservative perspective. And so it goes: people must see nudity if nudity is in any remote way justifiable, because doing otherwise violates fundamental civil liberties and leads to the end of democracy as we know it.

Really, the senselessness of it just astonishes/depresses me. Haven't you all got better things to do than fight tooth and nail to keep one questionable picture on the project? --Ludwigs2 22:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

@WhatAmIDoing. I've never implicitly or explicitly suggested that a clothed figure is not acceptable in this article, and I don't see anyone else saying that either. In fact I think both the clothed figure and unclothed one would make a good pair in the lead. If we want to show progression of the pregnancy I would suggest a sequence of images so comparison is apparent and possible.(olive (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC))

Kaldari, what convinced me that there was an unstated objection to nudity was that several editors seemed to be using any argument to get the nude image removed from the lead. If you read the wording of this RfC it talks about moving the image to later on in the article but also claims that there are copyright/privacy issues. This makes no sense. If there is found to be licensing/privacy problem (which looks extremely unlikely to me) the image has to be removed completely. Many of the people who wanted the image removed from the lead also kept raising the copyright/privacy issue plus other things like lighting. It seemed to me that there was some some undeclared reason that they wanted the image removed. Now this issue is more out in the open you will see more objection to nudity. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, I don't see what wouldn't be served with merely an exposed belly. I view this idea that somehow we need to see a pregnant woman naked as inexplicable in this context. Do we need, by extension, to show full frontal nudity of someone with Kaposi's sarcoma in either that article or AIDS, because after all it has often covered the entire body of patients with the latter disease? No, I don't think so.

I will meet you halfway here and suggest that a montage of images of bellies of women at various stages of pregnancy might even be the better image (Or even a video of an expanding belly, something akin to this, of which there are many examples (but none as far as I know freely licensed). Daniel Case (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

But no 'naughty bits' on view? I find the idea offensive that certain body parts are inherently bad. It all depends on the context and here, in an article about pregnancy,the nude image is totally appropriate and serves and encyclopedic function. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Intelligent design is the theory of evolution with cultural clothes. Dessources (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You can use all the "naughty bits" you want, but it would be nice if the photos were decent quality and actually illustrated a mature pregnancy (or multiple stages). Nudity for the sake of nudity is absurd, and the argument that clothes obscure the pregnancy is also absurd. Kaldari (talk) 01:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

@Ludwigs:No no and no... Its not about censorship and the American way or I guess that would be the un American way. Its about information. An ankle cannot be seen through a sock, a pregnant woman cannot be seen through a top. Simple. I've said this in as many ways as I can trying to explain my position, so yes, much more is a waste of time.(olive (talk) 23:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC))

"a pregnant woman cannot be seen through a top". That's about the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. I get far more information about pregnancy from image #1 than I do from the current image. Image #1 shows the full extent of a mature pregnancy and also shows what maternity clothes look like. Pregnancy isn't just a medical issue after all. Kaldari (talk) 01:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

What Littleolive says seems self evident to me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Its nice you can get so much information from the image you prefer, but no need to ridicule someone else's experience and opinion... Tsk.(olive (talk) 01:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC))

Seeing that I have added another image of nudity to the pregnancy page I have no idea how people can claim I wish to reduce nudity? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

So please tell us, what is the reason exactly that you wish this image to be removed from the lead. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

As stated in the RfC I consider the proposed image to be more professional looking ( better background rather than someone standing in the shower, better lighting, has some color as most of the page is tones of grey ). Also as mentioned it adds ethnic diversity to our encyclopedia making it ever so slightly less western centric. There is some places where nudity is required (like Breast cancer) and where there is a battle to keep appropriate images present. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

So are you saying that the 'nudity' is not relevant at all and that this whole heated discussion is all about background and lighting? (I think the ethnicity of the subject is irrelevant, let us just get the best picture regardless). Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Olive: an ankle can be viewed by anyone without discomfort or titillation (at least since the end of the 19th century). The same is not true of more or less full nudity. I have no issue with displaying images of (say) breasts where they are clearly needed (as on the breast page, or further down where the changes in breast structure are discussed). but please consider the following:

• Nudity is clearly not necessary in the lead, where all we need to do is give a depiction of pregnancy. the clothed image works fine for that.
• Using a nude image in the lead focuses attention in the wrong directions, highlighting aesthetic/emotional issues, and adding an unfortunate emphasis on the sexuality of the act (not necessarily in a perverted way, but the intent of this kind of image is to portray the woman as beautiful and desirable).
• Using a nude image is clearly distracting, as evidenced by the enormous amount of babble this RfC has inspired.

Sometimes we need to do things on project that might offend people, but we should not offend people without due cause. I don't see due cause here. we can argue back and forth about the 'informativeness' of nudity all day long, but even you have to admit that it's not essential to portray a nude woman in the lead of this article (not, for instance, the way it is essential to show a penis or a breast in the leads of those respective articles). If it's not essential and it is offensive to some, why are we showing it? Wikipedia aims to educate, yes, but education is not a social engineering project to 'liberalize' readers. We are not here to make the world a safe place for nudity; we are here to give people information in a form that is useful for them, and we cannot do that if we go out of our way to make our articles unpalatable to them. --Ludwigs2 04:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs I don't agree with you. I'll try and explain my position again and then leave it at that.

• Nudity does not equal sexual and titillation.
• A clothed image does not show a physiological change.
• Aesthetic and emotional issues are evident in the photograph , they are not the major focus of the image. The image is visual and what is concrete and visual is likely to be what is 'seen' first. The more subtle emotional issues will generally be realized second and for some people not at all. Not everyone is sensitive to these other aspects of the photo which is fine.
• I have yet to see an RfC on Wikipedia that was not complicated by a whole lot more than the issue at hand. It is by no means clear that the issue here is nudity per se.
• Suggesting that I or anyone else is discussing this to make to world free for nudity is probably unfair even if humorous. While I'd like to be someone who is making the world safe for something, I am actually, just like you, expressing my opinion.
• Its unclear to me how a nude in the lead will shock but to move the same image a little ways down which many people will be able to see with out even scrolling, is acceptable.
• I don't know what the intent of this photograph is, but I did look at many of the photographs which this woman's family have posted. They document the growth of a family. The family is Dutch. In general those in the Netherlands and Holland are much more relaxed with nudity than Americans. That the photographer happened to catch his wife at a point where her emotional involvement with the event that is shaping her life is obvious does not equal for me that he intended to capture an image of his wife as desirable.
• To summarize:A clothed figure does not give enough information about a physiological change. A clothed figure with the unclothed one would be a good compromise. Alone, the clothed figure because it is not informative is decorative.

I disagree in a very fundamental way with some comments here, and that's fine. We are all entitled to our opinions.(olive (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC))

Olive, there are only two points I would comment on in the above (aside for apologizing for my tendency towards sarcastic hyperbole).

First, nudity does not imply sexuality or titillation for you (or me), but you cannot make that assertion about the majority of the people in the world. And more to the point, we do not need to reduce this to some form of perversion: the appeal of a nude image of this sort lies in its semblance of physical intimacy, which always has a sexual aspect to it. it's not porn (which aims at kind of solipsistic sexual arousal), but the fact that it's not porn does not mean that it's non-sexual. I don't think you can simply deny that this image has a sexual/affective element: it is clearly not an image designed to be used in an obstetrics textbook. You can say that it's a healthy, inoffensive sexuality and I would certainly agree with you, but i don't think you can say that everyone would agree with you.

Second, you misrepresent my argument. I'm not saying that the picture is offensive and should be removed (that would be overly simplistic). I'm saying that the picture does not add enough to the article to justify the offense it will undoubtably give to someone. It's a cost benefit analysis:

• We use the nude picture in the lead, a debatable and debated improvement that's a sure bet to peeve someone
• We use the clothed picture, which doesn't cost the article much (if anything) and doesn't give anyone grounds for distress

Do you see what I'm getting at? I don't see the point in tweaking people just because, and I don't see any concrete addition that the picture makes to the lead. --Ludwigs2 19:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with this submission to political correctness which consists in requesting that the lead picture be replaced with a sanitized version. The clothing not only removes information which is very pertinent and is treated in the rest of the article, but it adds irrelevant information, as clothes are always interpreted as a social, cultural, ethnical and religious code, on top of expressing the esthetic views of the person wearing them. Image 2 consolidates in one picture two images found later in the article, one showing the breast transformation (picture of nude breast), the other showing the abdominal change. The picture therefore give an overview of the changes covered later in the article. Apart from the most extremist bigots, I don't see who could be offended by such an image, especially in an article which has a clear medical connotation. If we make a concession to those bigots, surely they will not rest satisfied and will then request that we sanitize the lead images of articles such as Human penis, Erection, Vulva and Vagina - parts and functions of the body which have collaboratively contributed to the pregnancy - because those pictures could also, by the same token, be considered unnecessarily offensive and crude, and could be replaced with classical drawings of the organs, as is seen in the Testicle article. Let us not open the Pandorra box. Dessources (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

That is a tremendous line of bull. This is not 'sanitizing' or 'political correctness', this is simply avoiding insulting people needlessly. Your argument about interpretations is entirely specious (since it asserts that no one will make 'interpretations' about the choice to use a naked image) and the assertion that the lead images acts (or is supposed to act) like some kind of 'overview' of later images is entirely without justification. and your claim that anyone is going to rush off to remove the pictures from other articles is simply a paranoid fabrication (don't get me wrong, the paranoia is not that someone might try to do it, but rather that they might somehow succeed - all the pictures you cited seem necessary for the encyclopedia).

You guys are the only bigots here. all this bull about 'information' is just a self-righteous effort to thumb your noses at people you think are closed-minded. Wikipedia is not the place for you to make the world more open-minded than it already is, so why don't you restrict yourself to defending the use of nudity where it is unambiguously necessary (like on those other pages you mentioned) and stop trying to cram it in every place you can think of? --Ludwigs2 20:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, do you realize that it is not the lead image of this article which is "insulting people needlessly," it's you who are insulting other contributors to this discussion when you say "You guys are the only bigots here." Note that for my part, I have not insulted anybody: I have only stated my opinion, which is that only an extremely small minority of people might find the image offensive, minority which may be confined to the extreme bigots. I gather that none of the contributors to the current discussion find the image personally offensive. Some contributors are simply concerned that the image could "risk giving offense to those who might be offended by it." This is all very hypothetical, and this whole debate might be based on an unfounded assumption, for which no evidence has been provided so far. I am perhaps also wrong: even radical bigots might have no objection against having a picture of a nude women illustrating the notion of pregnancy in an encyclopedia article! Actually, nudity associated with pregnancy is so accepted that large distribution magazines, such as Vanity Fair and Vogue have used full page pictures of nude pregnant women on their covers (see [13] and [14]).

Dessources (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Dessources: basically your entire argument above is "only extremist radical bigots would object to this image, and wikipedia can ignore what extremist radical bigots think". Basically you've set up the situation so that you can accuse anyone who objects to the image of being an extremist bigot and tell them to piss off. that is, however, the behavior of a bigot - i don't know what else you'd call it. would you like me to choose different terminology to get at the same thing? My argument all along is that we do not insult people where we do not need to insult people. This goes for people you decide are radical bigots as much as it goes for anyone else. Now as far as I can tell, the naked image is at best a trivial improvement to the article (and may not even be that). we don't need it in the article, and we know that some people are offended by it, and so we shouldn't use it. It does not matter if the people who object to it are 'radical bigots' - we still don't want to insult them unless we need to to develop the article correctly.

You can waffle around this all you like, but I'm not going to allow you to designate some group of people as "those idiots wikipedia shouldn't give a fuck about". I don't care how much you disrespect them personally, as a project we should respect their views as much as we can without compromising the encyclopedia. so long as you continue to isolate one (or more) group(s) of people as being unworthy of basic respect and consideration, I will continue to accuse you of bigotry, and I will feel perfectly justified in doing so. --Ludwigs2 06:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Hypocrisy is paroxysmal when one finds nudity offensive in an article that belongs to projects WikiProject Medicine / Reproductive medicine and WikiProject Sexuality!

Dessources (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Look, Dessources, I'm going to explain the problem you're confronting (once again) because you keep tripping over it. You simply cannot argue what you want to argue without asserting that some groups of people is too ignorant/extremist/bigoted/hypocritical (or what you will) for wikipedia to respect their feelings. Your entire argument rests on your ability to say "we are not going to listen to the complaints of those people because there's something wrong with them that makes them unworthy of being heard." If you don't say there's something wrong with them, then you don't have a reason to ignore them, and then you actually have to produce a compelling reason why the offending thing needs to be done (which is this particular case is fairly difficult). you can talk all the shit you like, but when push comes to shove I'm going to force you to say "We should have this content in the article because…", and I'm going to prevent you from finishing that statement with "...the people who oppose it are unworthy."

You cannot temporize enough to avoid where this debate always ends: Either we respect nobody's feelings and allow the law of the jungle to determine article content (I can point to numerous pages where this is the status quo), or we respect everybody's feelings and interact in a civilized, considerate fashion. which do you want? --Ludwigs2 02:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a fundamental problem with morality based discussions. If you have two groups, one wanting a more open, uncensored approach, and one wanting the more conservative approach, the ONLY solution that won't offend either group is the more conservative approach. That approach, however, while fully satisfying the conservatives, is a compromise for those wanting a more open approach. The conservatives get what they want. The less conservative folks don't. In other words, trying to consider everybody's feeling inevitably leads to a more conservative approach. HiLo48 (talk) 02:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but I think you've got the wrong use of the term 'conservative' in your head. Conservative in its simplest sense merely means a slow and deliberate approach to change: the term was originally used in opposition to the massive destruction of the environment and dislocation of peoples caused by rampant liberal-advocated industrialization (we still use conservationist for the first purpose). As I read the core principles of the project we should be trying to present information on topics as clearly and completely as possible without taking sides on the politics, and unfortunately not taking sides on the politics often means we need to pay attention to the status quo.

The only winner from these debates should be the encyclopedia - not left or the right or the crazies who show up from some different dimension, but just the encyclopedia. When there is no way to present a topic clearly and completely without doing something that will be disapproved of by one side or the other, then we do what's best for the encyclopedia (hopefully without indulging). Otherwise we just stick to the slow and steady route and give people information; don't let any side drag us into an effort to revise the way people think. It's painful for me to say that (because I'm a die-hard progressive who'd love nothing better than a platform to knock some sense into people's heads), but if we're going to take the project seriously for what it idealistically is, I think that's what we have to do. --Ludwigs2 03:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. I do wish you could have responded without debating definitions, and introducing political terms like left and right. I think you know what I meant by conservative (although it could vary around the globe). And I introduced the issue as a moral, not political. You really haven't discussed my point at all. HiLo48 (talk) 03:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

well, I meant to. perhaps I don't understand what you mean by the word. Or if I do, I don't understand why you would be upset by the more closed approach. being social means respecting limits.

I was just reading that in San Francisco, where it is apparently allowable to hang out in certain areas of town completely nude, the city supervisors are trying to pass a law requiring people to drape some sort of cloth over surfaces they sit on. it's framed as a matter of public health, but it's generally acknowledged that it is a legal enforcement of basic consideration for others. there is that kind of civic-minded restraint even in SF, and wikipedia is not SF. so what is the problem that you're worried about? --Ludwigs2 04:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

That effectively proves my point. You think that the "nudists" should show basic consideration of others. In what way are those others showing any consideration at all for the perspective of those who like to be nude? My point is that as soon as any concession is made to those "others", those with a more open perspective lose out. HiLo48 (talk) 05:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

again, what is your actual problem with this? You are the one who is casting this as win-or-lose and so you are the one insisting there must be a loser, whereas it strikes me that basic respect for others is a no-loser situation. In fact, it's incredibly open-minded and considerate of the people of SF to indulge people who want to walk around naked in the first place. Are you arguing that there should never be any restrictions on people's actions? for a world in which freedom means the ability to shit, piss and fuck anywhere you want to, and no one can say don't? because that doesn't seem like freedom, that seems unsustainably infantile.

being part of a community means observing certain norms. You may not like those norms, you might argue about them and try to change them, and if you're young enough or rich enough you might get away with flouting them (because people put up with the young and the rich being stupidly self-centered), but most adults place a value on maintaining mutual regard with their neighbors. It can't go too far of course, otherwise it gets oppressive, but within reason most adults will willingly refrain from doing things they know annoy others around them because a peaceful neighborhood is more valuable to them. That's not losing; that's gaining a world fit to live in.

I mean I get it. The internet has in its short history proven to be a world dominated by adolescence, filled with pugnacious, self-righteous, self-centered avatars, where normally civilized adults can say all the stupid crap they would never say in their real lives because saying it in their real lives would disrupt their real lives with needless conflict. No one on the internet values a peaceful neighborhood (or at least, those who do value it are ignored/berated by those who don't). It saddens me that I make the simple and reasonable suggestion that we should not irritate our readers if we don't have to, and run into this much flak from people trying to find some (any) justification that will allow them to step on people's toes anytime they damned well feel like it. --Ludwigs2 11:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the essay, but again you ignored a critical point of my short post, so I will ask it again. In what way are those who cannot deal with nudity showing any consideration at all for the perspective of those who like to be nude? HiLo48 (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

If you are talking about San Francisco, those with a distaste for nudity (as I said) are showing tremendous consideration by allowing people to go nude in certain parts of the city, which is well outside the norm for most communities, urban or otherwise. Go strip down in a city park in Kansas City Missouri, Butte Montana, London, or Tel Aviv and see what happens.

If you are talking about nudity on wikipedia, those with a distaste for nudity will have to accept it on articles where it's needed to convey actual information (e.g., as in an image of a penis that labels the various parts so that people can see how it is constructed).

Images such as the one under discussion here - which was clearly intended to be an 'art nude', not a descriptive image - can only be construed as eye-candy for the article, and while I generally approve of making articles more beautiful where possible, I do not think we should prioritize mere aesthetics over civil consideration for the feelings and beliefs of others. There are other ways to make the article beautiful. --Ludwigs2 23:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Cultural issues: What do the other wikis use?

Per Martin Hogbin's remark here, I decided to look at what image some of the other-language wikis use to see if cultural factors come into play.

The article has featured status on both the Afrikaans and Macedonian Wikipedias. The former doesn't use either of the images under discussion, and all the pregnant women shown are clothed. The latter uses a different picture that we don't even have in the other article; with Image 2 down illustrating the sections on the second and third trimesters.

In the wikis with the greatest articles after English, the Spanish, French, Italian, Dutch and Polish Wikipedias use Image 2. The German and Japanese wikis use Image 1. The Russian Wikipedia uses a different image entirely (one by someone who apparently thinks soft focus and makeup is needed for encyclopedic value) and the Portguese article has no lead image at all.

More on this later; I have to have dinner. Daniel Case (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm back.

In other relevant languages ... we mentioned Northern Europe, by which I imagine tolerant Scandinavia is included. The Wikipedias reflecting national languages in those countries—Denmark, Sweden and Finland—use Image 2. The Icelandic wiki uses the same image as the Macedonian article; the Norwegian article uses a photo of an embryo in the lede with Image 2 down below, easily visible below "the fold".

On wikis from large Asian languages, the Hindi and Bengali articles use Image 1, the Chinese wiki Image 2, and the Korean wiki no lead image at all, and neither image elsewhere in the article.

The most prudish treatment probably comes from the group of languages representing large Muslim populations. Arabic gives us a male doctor examining a mostly clothed pregnant woman and Farsi Image 1 with the one from the Russian wiki further down (as well as some other less modest ones). The Indonesian and Urdu wikis have short stubs without pictures, whereas the Turkish Wikipedia gives us a compromise: an obviously naked woman in silhouette.

And Hebrew, not to leave it out, uses Image 1.

I can see two takeaways from this. Yes, it demonstrates that there are cultures out there where the consensus is that female speakers of that language are either comfortable with pregnancy being represented this way, or are beyond complaining (however, that should be qualified by noting that we cannot say, outside of the Dutch, French, Scandinavian, Polish, Spanish or Italian WP user communities (all of which are fairly active and busy enough that they could arguably reflect cultural opinion on this) to what extent those image choices reflect broader cultural values). However, I would also note that it does not suggest that the nude image is indispensable in the lede, either. Daniel Case (talk) 03:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

What I would take from it is that absent cultural bias against nudity, the nude image is preferred. I just tested this by clicking on the ones I thought would not have something against nudity, and found that every single one use the nude image. Then I clicked on the links to those cultures I knew had something against nudity, such as Hindi, and found that many of them did not use the nude image. I think that's revealing. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 06:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

B: I'm sorry, but you are straining credulity here. you are saying one of the following:

• That cultures which have a taboo against nudity prefer not to display pictures of naked people (which is a mindless tautology that doesn't bear repeating)
• That cultures which have a taboo against nudity are regressive and biased, and so should be ignored (which is pretty clearly nothing more than bigotry on your part)

If you are really arguing that cultures which have different values than your own are too stupid to care about, please say so explicitly so we can dispense with all this waffling. --Ludwigs2 07:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The situation is actually much simpler, some US editors (I do not know how representative of US opinion this is) have an aversion to the display of certain body parts, which they refer to as 'nudity'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay Ludwigs: cultural biases against nudity have no place in Wikipedia. Happy yet? Thus the relevance of the cultural bias, which shows that the nude image is the better one, when cultural bias is not included as a factor. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 13:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and as for bigotry, it's not bigotry to say that cultural biases should be ignored in a venue which is dedicated to presenting unbiased information. Also, ignoring bigotry is not bigotry. If you would say it is not bigotry to ignore bigotry against particular types of clothing or styles, for example head scarves or dreadlocks, why would it be bigotry to ignore bigotry against nudity? Wikipedia is supposed to be as culturally neutral as we can get. That means we do not censor clothed images, but we do not censor nude ones either. What this section's evidence supports is that the judgment of Wikipedia editors favors the nude image when that judgment is not culturally biased against nudity (unless you are going to argue that there is cultural bias for nudity at play here). Your position makes no more sense than the illogical positions you often rail against. You want to embrace cultural bias, instead of just picking the image which best portrays the subject, and then you call me bigoted for saying we should leave cultural bias aside. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 15:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs, who exactly is offended by this image? Not you it seems, and not the Doc. I am hard pushed to find anything offensive about it at all. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

B: The very definition of bigotry is imposing your own cultural bias as a universal truth, and then demeaning those who don't share it. You have developed this opinion that nudity is 'natural' for humans (despite the fact that you'd probably have to go back to Homo Erectus to find social groups that habitually went unclothed), and then you assert that everyone who does not share your opinion that nudity is natural and unobjectionable must be guilty of a bias and ignored. You even misrepresent Wikipedia policy here - neutrality on project means accounting for all biases fairly, not in trying to determine what the correct 'unbiased' position is. if we were to take a poll you and I both know that the result would be something along the lines of "nudity is not such a bad thing, but shouldn't be splashed all over the place", with a wide deviation (varying by culture) from people who don't think naked bodies should ever be seen in public to people who think clothing ought to be entirely optional in all contexts. the fact that you and I are a standard deviation towards the latter end of that spectrum is a given; the difference is that I want to accommodate the people on the other end as much as possible without compromising the encyclopedia while you want to dismiss them as though they were irrelevant. I don't understand why you want to dismiss them. maybe if you could explain that, I'd understand your argument better. --Ludwigs2 19:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I may have said something like "nudity is 'natural' for humans ", but that is not actually my considered opinion, for the reason you state and because "natural" is not necessarily historical, and because "natural" is often or usually not the best thing and is anyway of more value to advertisers than thinkers (rant over). However, the reason I want to dismiss the feelings of those people is that we aren't at the Pregnancy article to talk about/show/accommodate or otherwise consider cultural/family values. We're here to give the best, most informationally valuable description of the subject. If there is even a slight suspicion that image A might convey more or better information than image B, we should use image A. We aren't here to be negative, neutral or positive to anyone's feelings, we're here to convey the best, most reliable information without consideration of anyone's feelings ever. That doesn't mean we are oafs. It just means that considering people's cultural biases isn't our job. And if we are considering such bias, we are not doing our jobs unless you have that rare instance where there is not even a whiff of difference in informational value between our choices. Show me one instance of Wikipedia policy (outside BLP) where it says that we should consider cultural bias in our choices as editors. Not there? There's a reason it's not there, and that reason is that we are to focus on information value and not cultural bias. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 20:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, in fact, that does mean we're being oafs - insensitive, inconsiderate, pointlessly offensive oafs. The fact that you would simply disregard the feelings of others in the pursuit of some (as near as I can tell) imaginary increase in information places you one step above a troll, and means that you have such a poor understanding of the concept of neutrality that you are a positive detriment to the encyclopedia. However, I must thank you: you have effectively given me permission to disregard your feelings and attitudes entirely, since it is clear that your perspective is too impoverished to be taken seriously.

If that's the way you want this show to be run, then let's run it that way. I can do agonistic democracy, even though I think it's a perversion of the form. --Ludwigs2 01:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs, I do not think that vague threats and attacks on other editors are very helpful to this discussion. Who exactly do you think will be offended by showing a woman's breasts (which is actually what this is all about) in an article about pregnancy? Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Martin, don't be an idiot. --Ludwigs2 15:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Hah! I feel like I'm watching a show; let the eye-poking begin! Dreadstar ☥ 20:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

rofl! I don't know why people never figure out that even though I despise 'Jerry Springer' style debates, I'm really good at them. In fact, that's part of why I despise such debates. But whatever: let 'em take the high road or the low road as they will. I'll follow where they lead (as I always do), and with luck they will eventually learn that the low road is not going to work out for them they way they might hope. or not; no skin off my nose either way. --Ludwigs2 23:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do not attack or insult other editors. Why not just answer my question? Who would be offended by the image. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Because your question is idiotic. even a casual perusal of this talk page, the image talk page, or the internet in general would answer it, so the question can't be anything except purely argumentative. In fact, the only thing more stupid than asking a question like this would be taking a question like this seriously and trying to answer it. understood? --Ludwigs2 19:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

For almost any image or text there will be some people who would be offended. If we worked on that basis we would not be able to do anything. Is there any sizable group of people who would be offended by that image and who are they? Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

again, the question is badly conceived. The only reason to ask who is offended is so you can say "That person/group is not worth listening to", which is pure prejudice. You clearly accept that someone will be offended by this (and you assumedly have a good idea who those someones are, if you haven't been living in a cave the last 20 years). Now the question is why we would want to insult them in this particular case. You guys present a bunch fiddly, highly debatable, hair-splitting justifications that may or may not improve the article in some vanishingly trivial way and use that to argue for something that you know is going to piss someone off. why would you do that? You're like those guys who drive around in their cars blaring out whatever music they happen to like at 200 decibels, with an arrogant disregard for what everyone else in the neighborhood wants. Is that who you want to be? --Ludwigs2 21:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

As I said, someone is going to be pissed off by almost everything but we need to judge this in the context of WP as a whole. I find it very hard to believe that, considering only those who are not offended by WP as a whole, there is a significant proportion who will be offended by an image showing a woman's breasts in an article about pregnancy. Who do you suppose these people might be? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

And as I said, you are simply trying to identify an easy target that you won't feel guilty about telling to fuck off. do you expect me to respect you for that effort? --Ludwigs2 22:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The larger issue is the question of why we should consider anyone's feelings in the process of creating a source of accurate information. That's not something the Wikipedia community has put into its code of conduct or tradition except in saying that editors should be civil to each other and to a small extent BLP. I've just been through the Campaign for "santorum" neologism debate, and what that made clear is that there is no way to take such things into account in specific cases (barring consensus) a) under current policy and b) without hurting the project in general (as far as I have been able to determine). Act only on a maxim whereby you can will it should become a universal law. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 00:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

BC, if you're going to quote Kant then you should take care, because the Categorical Imperative in the hands of the wrong people turns into Realpolitik at its worst. Yes, in fact, there are people in the world who would will as a matter of universal law that the strong should always forcibly dominate the weak, because they are convinced they will always be on the side of the strong. It's the kind of moral philosophy that lets brutal dictators sleep well at night.

But back to the point. You can only hold this opinion by failing to distinguish information from trivia. Every teacher learns quickly that education is constrained by two factors:

1. One has to limit oneself the most pertinent and useful information, because one simply cannot teach everything
2. One has to avoid introducing material that will distract away from more pertinent knowledge, and this often means that one must avoid introducing things that people are fascinated by (because people, like crows, are often fascinated by shiny trivialities).

To give an example, there was a theory floated out ages ago that social power among men is correlated with penis size. The theory didn't really pan out, as I remember, but if I had to teach this theory the things that I would have to avoid talking about would be exactly the scurrilous nonsense that students would want to see (e.g. what the penis size of various actors, athletes and political figures actually is, preferably with visual aids or photographs if possible, and how does penis size relate to sexual success, and etc.). throwing that overly-detailed content in would be technically justifiable - and would certainly make the class more entertaining - but it would add nothing really important to the concept and would in fact prove to be a decided distraction from the topic. This is (as far as I can tell) exactly what is happening here: you are introducing an image of marginal value to the discussion that's very eye-catching; you are entertaining the students at the cost of offending any number of people and adding a distracting element to both the article and the talk page. If you are really concerned with wikipedia as an information source, then you would be working to improve the signal and keep this kind of noise out.

As far as not being concerned about the feelings of others goes - are you willing that as a universal law? because as I said above, if that's the universal law you want implemented then I no longer need to be concerned for your feelings, and I have a large number of very choice words that I am willing to share with you about you attitude. Don't assert that morality and politeness are irrelevant and then expect me to treat you in a high-minded and civil fashion. You choose the rules and I'll play by them. Choose wisely. --Ludwigs2 01:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Show a little good faith Ludwigs. I am not asking you to set up some minority group so that I can insult them. My point is this: we already have images of bare breasts in WP and this may offend some people. I cannot see that we will offend any more people by having image 2 in this article. I would agree that in an article on hairstyles or contemplation, for example, the image might be considered gratuitous but breasts are intimately connected with pregnancy and I cannot imagine anyone being offended or astonished by seeing images of breasts in this article. We should not cause unnecessary offence but neither should we seek to 'sanitise' articles.Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

So your argument is this: that since we already offend people on a few articles where it is necessary to do so, we can now feel free to offend people on articles where it is not necessary? Is that what you're saying?

This is the logic I'm supposed to 'have a little good faith' about? --Ludwigs2 15:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

No, that is your logic. Almost anything will offend someone and there is very little that can be deemed absolutely necessary. My argument is that in this specific case the minuscule additional offence caused by the display of a woman's breasts is outweighed by their direct relevance and intimate connection with the subject of the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's not at all what you said in your previous posts. your new argument is more rational, but still doesn't fly. obviously, those who have strong preformed opinions will be unable to balance the needs of the article against respect for different communities: people offended by nudity will never accept the validity of its use anywhere, and firebrands such as yourself will elevate every negligible point into a matter of dire necessity in an effort to mandate inclusion. this is why we have RfC's, so that people without preformed opinions can make reasonable decisions where deeply invested participants cannot. --Ludwigs2 15:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

You have yet to give a reason that "respect" needs to be shown to "different communities." So far as I can tell, Wikipedia is set up specifically to not consider such things. We do not, for example, show respect to the creationist community, nor to the myriad other religious positions. Why are we supposed to show respect in this case in particular? Showing such respect as a general rule sounds nice, but would utterly destroy the encyclopedia. We aren't here to be politically correct. As has been shown many times, such correctness is generally corrosive to reliability and informational transfer. You are arguing purely from the perspective that people's likes or dislikes are relevant to Wikipedia. You have no policy backing for that, and you have no intellectual backing, since making informational transfer subject to cultural bias is manifestly not a good idea. Your position boils down to a defense of IDONTLIKEIT as a basis for deciding content in WP. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 19:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand that this is how you understand wikipedia, and all I can say to it is the following:

1. you either have not read or have not understood NPOV or the five pillars
2. the things you point to as positive examples (the rudeness that is shown to numerous religious beliefs, and etc) are broadly considered to be continuing sources of shame for the project

Your assertion that we cannot give a decent accounting of a topic and be considerate of people's feelings at the same time is ridiculous. Your assertion that wikipedia is not supposed to consider such is nothing more than a power-play that allows you to assert your feelings as an unspoken truth and deny everyone else's feelings as a falsehood; that allows you to ram through your own ideals while still looking superficially like you have the project's interests at heart.

bad faith...

To be perfectly blunt, if you need someone to explain to you why it's important to be respectful of other people's feelings on project, then you are too immature to be taken seriously in a discussion of this nature. Sorry, but we are not playing this by high school rules. --Ludwigs2 21:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs, my argument has always been the same, which is that the balance between encyclopedic content and the potential for harm or offence (which principle we both subscribe to) is best served by image 2. You seem to be arguing from a very narrow perspective of an unspecified group who find the complete exposure of a woman's breasts offensive in almost all circumstances but who do not find image 1 offensive. There are individuals and groups who would find any significant exposure of skin, especially on a woman, improper. What is your excuse for offending such people? On the other hand there are cultures where exposed breasts are the norm. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit break

Well, those who think that the picture of the nude pregnant woman is offending, look at the picture of the nude obese men (of mediocre quality) in the article on Obesity at [[15]]. How shocking, isn't it! I'm sure you will immediately ask that it be removed too. Showing nude men doesn't add any information. This is a gratuitous attempt at offending some people in some cultures who resent nudity as blasphemous. Dessources (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

That's not a nude image; it's a partially dressed image. The man is wearing light grey shorts or trousers, which are plainly visible. Additionally, a fully nude, genitals-showing image might be entirely appropriate, if we happened to have one, because the effect of obesity on the panniculus in relationship to the genitals is not at all obvious in the fully dressed male.

And I remind you: no one is talking about removing the image. We are talking about adding just one image of a fully dressed, non-white pregnant woman (to the lead) and (to make space for it and to better use the existing image) moving the existing lead image to a different location, where it will still be fully present and 100% visible in the article (but with a far more specific description). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

"no one is talking about removing the image" - not true! Ludwigs2 is proposing exactly that. See his coment above (under Nudity): "the naked image is at best a trivial improvement to the article (and may not even be that). we don't need it in the article, and we know that some people are offended by it, and so we shouldn't use it." (emphasis mine)

86.197.188.189 (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The obese man on the left is totally naked and nudity occupies over 95% of the body area of the picture on the right side - you have to look twice to realize that the man is not fully naked. As far as I am concerned, the current lead picture of the Pregnancy article illustrates perfectly the subjet of the article. I would even say that if I saw the picture before reading the title of the article, my spontaneous inference would be that the article is about pregnancy. And I am convinced that if we were to run a survey and show the picture a wide sample of persons from a wide array of cultures, telling them that it illustrates an encyclopedia article and then asking them what the article is about, I would guess that more than 95% of the people would associate the picture with "pregnancy". The picture has a generic and universal illustrative quality with respect to pregnancy that makes it ideally suited as the lead picture.

Dessources (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Good point, I don't think that had been brought up before in precisely that way. I said it is a summary of the subject in pictorial form, but you bring it home. Do you think the same universal message is conveyed by the the new proposed lead picture? B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 22:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so, because clothes are automatically intepreted by our intuitive brain as a clue which it uses to make a first, rough categorization of the person, such as his/her social class, culture, ethnicity, region of origin, taste, etc. This is actually the reason why people choose their clothes so carefully. In the proposed example, the dress may be seen by some readers as a bit old fashioned and not very pretty, by others as an indication of social status, and it is this aspect that will struck their minds first, leaving pregnancy in the background. Because we are so much used to instinctively decode the signification of clothing.

See Cutural aspects of clothes.

Dessources (talk) 01:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

What do other Wikis use? Um, see WP:WAX. Dreadstar ☥ 19:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

You're stretching that one. This isn't a deletion discussion, and since cultural values had been cited on both sides of the discussion, I thought it was only prudent to research the issue. Daniel Case (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, since an image is so offensive and a vigorous and occasionally emotional debate is ongoing, we should consider who may be offended in other points. Some conservative types object to the ENTIRE ARTICLE. Should we move for deletion? Some religious groups consider only one source valid for information about the world, their religious texts. Should we move for deletion of ALL of Wikipedia? I view articles for information, I view them from the perspective of complete ignorance on a topic, like, for a lack of a better word, a space alien preparing to visit the planet for the first time and finding access to the internet. In THAT light, the unclothed picture is informative in ways that ten thousand words cannot impart. Wikipedia already has image blocking, should one elect to utilize it. Hence, the entire argument is an utter waste of time and IS highly POV for those arguing removal or even moving the image. Either we have encyclopedic information or we do not. If not is desired, the project has utterly failed.Wzrd1 (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Except that the claim that anyone at all is offended by the existence of the article is pure speculation, but we have received dozens of actual, documented complaints about this particular image, beginning immediately after it was added to the article without any discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Image 1 is inferior to image 2 for the lead because it faces right. But the German article shows how to solve this problem: by using the mirrored image, which is at File:PregnantWoman.jpg. The re-oriented image is also crisper. With that out of the way:

• Both images are of suitably high quality.
• Image 1 is acceptable in all cultures, while image 2 can be regarded as inappropriate in some.
• Image 2 is more informative than image 1. It gives a better idea of the changed body shape (you can see that it's not just a bigger belly, but there are also some additional slight bulges on the belly – I think caused by the child's extremities). Also, while the model's areola's are probably within the range of what is normal for a non-pregnant woman (especially when using the pill), it is still obvious that they are significantly larger than average.
• Image 1 was taken in a studio setting. Image 2 appears to have been taken in a medical setting, possibly while the woman was standing on scales.

The lead of the article requires an image that is symbolic for all aspects of pregnancy. Irrelevant details unrelated to pregnancy divert attention from the main message. The white wall in the background of image 2 (especially the thick, dark vertical line) is one such detail, but more importantly the nudity distracts from the main message. That's because nudity, not wearing clothes, is the marked case in practically all cultures, i.e. the one that people notice as unusual. (On the other hand, odd and politically incorrect as it is, in most cultures a 'white' ethnicity as that of the woman in image 2 is the unmarked case, whereas the woman in image 1, who looks to me as if her features are close to the global average, would be the marked, 'unusual' case, sometimes even where she would be close to the local average. But I am not too sure about these things, and I certainly don't think we should use the unfair and obsolescent bias for 'white' images as an argument in favour of image 2.) Overall the mirrored version of image 1 is the best fit for the purposes of the lead. That image 1 does not offend [expletive self-censored]s who are offended by nudity in this context did not even factor into my opinion, but is an additional benefit of choosing image 1.

Further down, the requirements become different. The article is rather long, and it's good to have many images , so long as they are manageable and not too redundant. While the entire article should be about all aspects of pregnancy (there is definitely not enough about cultural aspects), most of it is written from a medical angle. In that context the advantages of image 2 become more important. Even the apparent medical setting of image 2 becomes an advantage. Many women who are pregnant for the first time think about their health a lot, and in industrialised countries there are pregnancy screening programmes that make them see a physician relatively often. The photo was taken in the 26th week, i.e. towards the end of the second trimester. The section Pregnancy#Second trimester is rather short and currently does not have a picture. Image 2 should be added here. I am sure the resulting layout problems (image may be too big for the section) can be solved, preferably by adding noteworthy information to the section.

The result of this change (image 2 moved into Second trimester section, mirrored image 1 in lead) will be that a clothed pregnant woman will invite the reader to the article (she is looking into the camera), while further down in the medical context there will be a more intimate and more informative photo of a naked woman contemplating her belly. If we ignore that the women in the two images are different, this is precisely as it is in the real world: Almost always you see someone in clothes before you see them naked. Following the logic of the real world in this way creates a more coherent overall impression of the article. Hans Adler 09:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I tend to support Hans Adler's POV. Move the image further down in the article. That should solve the problem. If anyone still has a problem with the image because of nudity issues, they need to grow up and take their bias elsewhere. To the pure all things are pure, and to the impure even such a sterile and sober image is a problem. Not much hope for them with their filthy minds. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Maternity clothing

I find it strange that this article makes no mention whatsoever of maternity clothing. Kaldari (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

This reads like it was primarily developed by the WP:MED people. Which is certainly not a bad thing, but as I have suggested above we could probably do with an article on Cultural attitudes to pregnancy, Social aspects of pregnancy or something like that. Daniel Case (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not even sort of close to complete from WPMED's perspective, and there basically isn't any non-medical information. In fact, like many of the major articles on subjects seen as "women's issues", it's appallingly incomplete. There are whole print-based encyclopedias on pregnancy (e.g., ISBN 9780754816126, ISBN 9780316906166, ISBN 9780816073511); the subject is enormous. Wikipedia's articles on Manchester United F.C., FC Barcelona, and Arsenal F.C. are both longer and much better written. This is a natural consequence of having six times as many male editors as female editors at Wikipedia.

"Cultural attitudes" and practices is certainly a notable subject. See, e.g., this news story. There are dozens of good journal articles, and I would expect it to be addressed in a good nursing textbook about childbirth and postpartum care. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply it was even complete by WP:MED standards, just that (as you said) all the information in it was completely medical (It looks like some information was just added by a drive-by editor who thought something needed to be in there, added a sentence or two with a source, and left it to others to develop it or integrate it into the article. Only, there weren't any others. Daniel Case (talk) 03:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

BTW, as a side part of my investigation into what images the non-English wikis use, I just found that the German Wikipedia's articles does have a section on cultural aspects. Might be worth translating and using as a blueprint. Daniel Case (talk) 03:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. See Pregnancy#Cultural aspects. It's not perfect, but it's a start. Also, I have added mention of maternity clothing to the 2nd trimester section, because that's when women typically start wearing it. Hans Adler 13:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Respect for cultural bias

Do you consider cultural bias when determining Wikipedia content? What I mean is, you might choose the least offensive option among equally informative content, but do you choose less informative content to avoid offense? B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 19:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

If there is no loss of information, overwhelmingly yes. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to be absolute truth, but to come up with a useful encyclopedia. When cultural values get in the way of utility, they're definitely something we should consider, so long as no meaningful information or interpretation is lost. Someone who is offended will not be informed, and our objective is to inform. SDY (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed: so long as, per consensus, no meaningful information is lost (or other deleterious effects such as extremely circuitous writing), it is a good idea to consider cultural bias. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 20:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I admit that your question says more to me about how disturbed you are by the prospect of leading the article with a fully dressed woman rather than a nude, but let me answer it anyway: Sometimes, we do choose less informative content. As an example, at Sexual intercourse, there are zero photographs of humans engaging in sexual intercourse. We have such photographs readily available, and some people might believe that a photograph would be more informative—but we don't include them, and we haven't for years. It's all ancient artwork, and two images of animals mating.

We have two reasons for making this choice: One is that (according to some people), the amount of information lost by using drawings rather than photographs is relatively small. The other is that the presence of such images alienates our audience and drives away readers—readers who would then receive zero educational value from the page, rather than (say) 95% of what could be provided (if you think that photographs would represent 5% of the educational value of the page).

Every article on Wikipedia needs to be written with the needs of the audience in mind. We don't censor Wikipedia in the sense that we don't refuse to present verifiable information: we tell people that some diseases are fatal, that certain body parts exist, that people engage in sex. However, we don't knowingly and avoidably offend our audience for trivial benefits, such as putting a nude image at the top of an article with a vague caption rather than in the middle of the same article with a detailed description. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing - well said. --Ludwigs2 21:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

What you say has very valuable and true elements. The principle that "you have to try not to alienate your audience" is noted and may be true in some cases. I'm sure that leading with a nude image which shows all the body parts and how they work in sexual intercourse, but having that image be in paint, made some people's hides chap less. I say "may be true in some cases," because for the most part an informational article can't beat around the bush -no pun intended- and be adequate for an encyclopedia. To apply the principle to this particular instance, you have to make the case that moving the image down a little is going to cause significantly less offense, so much less that it's worth not using the best summary image. Otherwise, you'll forgive me and others for thinking it's just the thin end of the wedge in an anti-nudity campaign which perhaps already took over the human sexuality article. But we all know that to those who are going to be offended, moving the image is not going to cause much less offense, if any. I don't think the harm to the article is worth the dubious prospect that the article will be less offensive.

Most people are some form of creationist, but that does not mean we show them respect on the evolutionary theory article. That article, I'm sure, would be more informative to the average reader if such consideration were taken. But I don't see you arguing for that. You are, basically, applying your principle selectively. I would argue that this is overall a detrimental principle for Wikipedia, and can only be justified in individual cases with an obvious and compelling justification. In this particular case, many editors are arguing that the nude image is not very offensive, and further is more informative. Thus you don't have a compelling case even if we accept your principle as proper for Wikipedia. I personally don't accept such a principle, but rather the principle that we create the most informative article possible, and only consider cultural bias when the offense is known to be substantial and the detriment to the informative value is negligible. Perhaps we're saying the same thing. But in this particular instance, you have no case for action. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 21:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

See, this is the problem: you have an agenda. You simply want to deny the people who would be offended by this image any satisfaction (assumedly because you think they are bad people for some reason), and so you fabricate all sorts of arguments to include material you know will offend them regardless of its value to the encyclopedia. You just want to push their buttons. do you think that's a reasonable way to edit an encyclopedia? --Ludwigs2 22:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think you should show respect for creationists at articles on evolution. "Show respect" is not the same thing as "say whatever they want to hear", just like "listen to" does not mean "agree with". For example, I don't think an article on evolution should say that creationists are ignorant and illogical or that the current theories about evolution are all perfect and all criticisms by creationists are nonsense, because that's disrespectful. Showing respect for creationists means presenting factual information, addressing questions that part of our audience might have, and acknowledging legitimate criticisms of the existing theories.

As for moving the image reducing offensiveness, I think you've overlooked two important facts:

1. The first is that some readers will never get past the first screen. They either didn't want to be at this article in the first place or they were after a specific piece of information (or a link) that was available very early in the article. One study a while ago (not Wikipedia-specific) showed that a quarter of users didn't scroll past the first screen. If those numbers hold true for this article, then we cut our risk of alienating readers by one quarter simply by moving the image.
2. Second, what we're supplying now is basically a sweet little decoration for the article. People are more likely to be offended by gratuitous just-because-we-can nudity (or gratuitous medical gore, or gratuitous violence, or...) than by the same image if it's used to communicate specific content in a relevant section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I prefer more informative content if there is a choice, which is why I support replacing the current image with image #1, as it shows the full extent of a mature human pregnancy and also provides an illustration of typical maternity clothes. Kaldari (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

And I don't think that people with something against the nude pregnant form should be shown any less respect: they should be presented with factual information addressing questions that part of our audience might have. Specifically, the pregnant form without interference, if that's the most factual way of presenting a summary of the article in pictorial form. So that also addresses your second point about a decoration: if we should include it at all, it should offer a pictorial summary, not a sweet decoration. Else leave it out. And I don't know what to say about your first point about reducing the risk of offense by 25%... without any offense intended, I think it's a lame reason for deciding things for an encyclopedia, but I don't quite know how to quantify that lameness.

There was a point raised above, too, about why we should show respect to those who dislike nudity, but not to those who like it. If we are going to respect one group, we should respect the other. I think that it's a tiny minority which truly dislikes the nude image or prefers the clothed one. If we're considering our audience, hey, let's be real about it. This illustrates why I don't think we should consider such things, but if you want to consider people that way, I think it undermines the argument for moving the image in a very big way. Thanks to HiLo48 for that reductio ad absurdum argument. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 00:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• I think that WhatamIdoing and Ludwigs2 have eloquently explained the objection to the nude image in the lead, and I endorse their comments. I would add that the framing of this discussion seems off to me. We seem to be taking it as a given that a thoughtful, open-minded person would choose the nude image, and that people objecting to it must suffer from cultural biases or prudishness. I'd look at it differently. I think that the standard, for serious, respectable English-language reference works, would be a clothed image. It seems to reek of a cultural bias to me to insist on a nude image (I won't try to characterize the cultural bias that leads people to insist on nude illustrations of every human condition, but whatever you call it, this bias seems overrepresented on Wikipedia in comparison to the general population). MastCell ^Talk 00:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Sheesh, well maybe you're right. If you are, then it just shows why we shouldn't be using cultural bias as a criteria. It's basically using our own ideas about culture to decide what other people would think about culture, without any real data. All these different opinions questioning the basic assumptions mean we need other criteria. But I do repeat that if we're going to consider one group's bias, we should consider the biases of other groups. What are we going to do, majority rules? B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 00:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to address your last point, I think you have to acknowledge the difference between action and inaction here. the default position in almost every place in the greater world (as MastCell pointed out) would be to avoid using nude imagery for something like this. Anatomical drawings, yes; belly pictures, yes; but most encyclopedias (and other forums) would shy away from art nudes. You object (and rightfully so) to people who run around actively trying to remove all nudity from the project, but the position you take (so it seems to me) actively defends nudity where a typical reader would not normally expect to see it. Looked at in a certain way, neutrality is a form of inaction - we try to describe something without pushing the reader towards a particular interpretation of the subject. so to be inactive that way we have to avoid both of the extremes: not asking the encyclopedia to be more closed-minded or more open-minded than readers would generally expect. --Ludwigs2 01:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm just looking at the other Wikipedias, and for the majority of the world, Turkish, Chinese, various European, they use nude images. The Turkish one uses this [16]. It seems to me that people can't object much to these images. We just don't have any data. One of the Muslim ones uses an image which their traditionalists would consider nude I guess. And anyway, the principle of trying to be overly considerate when no one has even complained would be detrimental when extended to the whole encyclopedia. I can only stick to what I've been saying all along, that is that we need to stick to the informational value and leave these swamps alone. Censorship (and we have no idea whether it's actually censorship or not) in the other encyclopedias such as the Hindi one may have been done by an active minority: we don't know. We may be dealing with a world which actually prefers the nude images, and will be more likely to read the article as a result of our using them. So not only are we making assumptions about other cultures and what the individuals within them actually think, we are doing so at the expense of exerting a possibly detrimental principle and possibly a detrimental effect on the article. The whole thing stinks. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 04:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Yet, confirmed: only complete removal would satisfy those complaints, so if we're going to have nudity at all we should give it up and use the best lead image. Thanks for the correction. One might have an argument for complete removal based on such complaints, but not for merely moving the image. And not without a good swimsuit/bra/panties image to replace it with. I'm not "for nudity" in WP, just for a good summary image. I wish we could get a woman from each continent. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 01:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean, "no one has even complained"? Have you looked at the archives? There are complaints all over the place. We get nothing except complaints about this image. These [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] are just from the year when the image was first added. I've never yet seen a spontaneous compliment about any of the images in this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, at least things are getting clearer now. User MastCell, you have said it well: the issue concerning the nude image in this article is part of a greater plot to make Wikipedia more "respectable" by expurging its images of nudity, as the standard of respectability is "clothes images". Thanks for expressing the issue so frankly. One may however be concerned that people following your line of thinking will not rest satisfied once they obtain that Image 2 be removed from this article. On the contrary, they will see it as an encouraging sign in their crusade to have all images of nudity removed, to attain this standard of respectability that you propose, by correcting the effect of "the cultural bias that leads people to insist on nude illustrations of every human condition" that you say is plaguing Wikipedia. That this last point of yours is a straw man argument has probably escaped your attention, as, in reality, all illustrations of human conditions on Wikipedia represent human beings in clothes (and nobody is insisting that they be replaced with nude images), except for a very small number of articles which have a clear medical character, where medical conditions affecting the body are illustrated by showing how the body is affected, which cannot be done if the body is covered with clothes. (Note that Pregnancy is indicated as a medical condition.) Finally, could you explain what makes you say that this bias seems overrepresented on Wikipedia in comparison to the general population. Looking at the images returned by Google when doing a search on the word "pregnancy," nudity appears to be overwhelmingly present.

Let us face it, an encylopedia having an article on masturbation in which there are pictures showing how to masturbate will never be "respectable", at least for some people in some cultures. There are some people in some cultures who even find the very existence of Wikipedia offensive.

Dessources (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It isn't about "respectability" it's about utility. If the article cannot be used without modification in things like Wikipedia for Schools (this is clearly the kind of article we'd want to include), and honestly the utter lack of argument for keeping the image other than the straw man argument of "you're trying to censor us" is just ridiculous. Wikipedia is not about the editors, free speech, or some abstract philosphical idea, it's about the readers, and this is a better article for the readers without the distracting nude image. SDY (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I keep learning and being amazed at how conservative things must be in the USA. (I'm assuming it's the USA we're talking about. They're the writers who generally don't tell us what country they're talking about when the subject is obviously related to just one country. Apologies if that assumption is wrong.) I teach Health and Science in an Australian High School. Naked images are quite common where relevant. The nude photo would be perfectly normal. So again, we seem to have one person/group imposing conservative social values on another. HiLo48 (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes it's about utility, and also don't we have to be real about it? How is moving the image lower going to make it more acceptable to people who don't like nudity? B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 20:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)You guys simply don't get it, and I am tired of arguing with you when there is clearly no chance that you ever will get it. So I'll try one more time, and then rest on the fact that the RfC is currently 2:1 in favor of removal.

B.c - the fact that other wikipedias use nude images in not a sign that we should as well. The general population in a relatively conservative Muslim nation like Turkey may tolerate an art nude image (Turkey is relatively cosmopolitan, and cosmopolitan peoples quickly learn that New Yorker trick of keeping your eyes straight forward and walking past things you dislike), but suggesting they approve of it is ridiculous. As I've said elsewhere, wikipedia by its nature attracts loud-mouthed people with axes to grind, and the problem with issues like this is to keep axe-grinders from both sides of the spectrum at bay so the decision can be made on the grounds of reason and ethics. Normally I would agree with you that we need to stick with the informational value of the image, but that your conception of valid information is so skewed by your anti-conservative zealotry that it is utterly meaningless.

Dessources - Thank you for making it clear that you're not really considering this image in its own light, but rather fighting this hard so that the people you see yourself at war with get no encouragement. This image has apparently become part of a rear-guard action against encroaching hordes of anti-nudity crusaders, who - if they gain this foothold - will use it as a staging ground for assaults on more prominent positions, threatening to conquer vast regions of the project. That would all be very chilling and thrilling, and I would commend your military strategy, except we're talking about a frigging encyclopedia! Do not fight your wars here.

(Please note that I was simply parodying what user [User:MastCell|MastCell]] said in his comment above. Dessources (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC))

I swear, you people give progressives a bad name. Trying to make the world a more enlightened place by pissing on people you think are regressive is never going to work, and if you can't see that… pfft.

@ SDY - yes. --Ludwigs2 16:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

But Wikipedia isn't really about the readers either, it's about knowledge, and trying to provide an in-depth and comprehensive article on whatever the subject is at hand. And in order to do that, Wikipedia can't be censored. But more importantly, the idea that we need to make this article 'functional' or 'child safe' for schools is somewhat absurd, for two reasons. Firstly, (although I'm not familiar with the particulars of that project) I imagine almost every article has to be modified, if only in terms of formatting, before it can be put into Wikipedia for Schools or similar projects. But secondly, and I shall say categorically that this is the more important of the two objections, is that we are not removing nudity from this article. For example, even if we removed the lead image from the lead, that doesn't necessarily mean we've have removed it from the article, and even if we did we wouldn't have removed something like [26] from the article. In other words, even if we removed the image we'd still have nudity in this article.

Finally, the argument "Wikipedia isn't censored" isn't intended as a argument, so much as it's a plead to ignore an irrelevant aspect of an section or picture when deciding whether or not to use it in any article. To quote the policy:

"However, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content." From

The question is not, nor should it be, whether or not to take one picture over another picture on the basis of whether or not it contains nudity. Rather, the question should be, which picture best illustrated the concept of pregnancy, which image might we call the distilled nature of this article's concept in image form. Whatever our arguments are for image one or image two, the fact that one image involves a nude woman is meaningless- or should be- to this discussion. As I've expressed before, image two is the better image for the lede image of this article, at least over the proposed image of the woman in blue, or the image of breasts in isolation. And as I've said before, should a better image be produced (such as an illustration or what have you) that's what we should use. Yet in all the years I've said this, not one person has produced an image of that sort. Indeed, the discussion has been almost eternally between the current image, and this woman in blue, or that black-and-white image. (or other, really poor quality images).--H_Talk 17:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Well put. Yes, the arguments from utility or respectability fall flat if we don't remove the image entirely. I think this needs to be taken to a noticeboard to get wider participation from experts in this sort of thing. Although it started out as a small simple issue for this article, it's expanded to matters of overall principle. However, let it be noted that the issue is nudity, no one is denying that anymore. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 18:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

No, the primary issue is not nudity, so please stop trying to reframe it. The original rational for the RfC (which were deleted as POV) was that Image #1 is a better image: "more professional quality image (better lighting, better background)". There was no mention of nudity whatsoever. There was also a copyright concern, but that has been addressed. The NOTCENSORED brigade has continually trolled the nudity issue, quite successfully. But there are many people who believe that the primary issue here is not nudity (or culture), but simple image quality and illustrational value. There are also people who object to the nudity, but that was not the original reason for this discussion. I agree that nudity is a small part of the issue here, but it is not the main concern. It seems, however, that is it impossible to discuss the value of a nude image on Wikipedia without it devolving into a "notcensored" vs. "cultural sensitivity" debate. That is certainly an important debate for Wikipedia, but I think there are other issues that deserve to be discussed here as well, which have largely been ignored. Kaldari (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

If it wasn't about nudity to begin with it is now and has been for some time. I always thought the excuses about "better image" were laughable, since they are obviously untrue. The nude image is much better and much clearer since it's larger. As to the NOTCENSORED trolls, you will find that the defenses of censorship -if that's what we call wanting to remove nudity from the lead- are what framed the issue. Without such defenses, the issue would not have become about nudity. So, to put in my take on the "quality" issue, the clothed image is flavorless, the kind of thing you'd see on a brochure or something, but not encyclopedic or medical. It does not convey as much information as the nude one, and is therefore of lesser quality for an encyclopedia. It's too small when we have a choice. The one thing it might have going for it is race, but "black" racial features are no more representative than white: what you really need is asian or Indian. It has on a dress which seems Western ethnic, which is just as bad as a white skin. So you'll excuse me for originally assuming it must be about nudity since the "quality" argument was so unbelievable. Anyway, I saw a diff of Doc saying that lack of nudity was an "added advantage" so I knew from the start that nudity was a big part of it. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 20:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The only time that size is considered an issue for lead images is if the image is smaller than the typical thumbnail size. Both images are quite clear and understandable at either full size or thumbnail size. Zooming into a single square inch is not going to help you understand pregnancy. And since when is "flavor" a valid reason for supporting a lead image? This is an encyclopedia, not a fashion magazine. The issues are image quality and illustrative value (i.e. informational content). On both counts the proposed replacement image is clearly better. It shows a woman with a mature pregnancy wearing typical maternity clothes in a tastefully lit and composed photograph. The current photo looks like an amateur snapshot of someone's wife midway into a pregnancy (which is what it is). Kaldari (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Aren't you contradicting yourself? First you say subjective things like flavor are not relevant, then you talk about "tasteful." "Tasteful" is "flavorless" with the opposite spin. You say it's not a fashion magazine, then say how one image is better composed. "Image quality" in the sense you speak of, is not separate from taste, flavor and all other subjective things. If it weren't subjective, then being able to zoom would make the nude image better, since that's an objective measure of image quality. But informational value is, so that's all we should consider. And BTW, I didn't know that the clothed image is more mature, which is a very good indication that the image actually does need to be nude. I didn't know because I couldn't see, and I couldn't see because of the clothes. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 21:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I was specifically talking about tastefulness as it relates to lighting. Lighting is widely acknowledged to be a valid criteria for assessing quality of photographs on Wikipedia (see WP:FPC), as is composition. "Flavor" is not. And regarding the clothing, I'm very sorry you cannot tell the difference in abdominal distention between the two photographs, as it is readily apparent from a cursory view. Kaldari (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not unless you know these things. And that's the point. "Very sorry" doesn't cut it with our readership, we aren't supposed to make info hard to get. If I didn't get it, then why would someone else who also hasn't noticed much about pregnancy? You're just making it clear how you're position assumes prior knowledge- and doesn't care about those who don't have such knowledge. And I assure you, the lighting is perfectly good on the nude. We aren't looking for a featured picture, but an illustration. The clothed image specifically fails the FPC criteria, as it is not high resolution [27]. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 21:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

B - the idea that one needs to see a naked image to understand that there is abdominal distention is simply absurd. That will be obvious to any reader with an IQ over 84 (and to most of those with IQs below that). Further, you are so subjectifying the concept of knowledge and information as to render the terms meaningless, and are doing a very good job of dragging us down that epistemological rabbit hole after you. It's offensive. Tell us one solid, concrete, non-subjective piece of information pertinent to the lead that cannot be gotten from the clothed image, or give it up trying to weasel the image in. --Ludwigs2 03:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

My IQ is 83. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 03:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it isn't - your IQ is noticeably above average. Someone with an IQ of 83 (a standard deviation below the mean) would be able to follow your arguments for the most part, but would probably be incapable of crafting them. Your issue is that you're a firebrand: firebrands are strong-willed idealistic people, but they have often have trouble picking their battles and generally overreach their proper target. You keep failing to understand that I would be on your side if you didn't draw the line for your side so ridiculously far out in left field (pardon the mixed metaphor). There is nothing I hate more than having to argue with people I agree with who go too far. --Ludwigs2 03:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, did I just get hit over the head with an olive branch? I feel that you haven't engaged my arguments, and have instead resorted to incivility. Which disappointed me because I think it undermines your position on WP and you have too many good ideas to waste that way. I value consistency, and I think that if we try to be nice to one group, we should try to be nice across the whole wiki: and we're not and I think we shouldn't. The current general principle is that we don't sacrifice information to be nice. But more importantly, I'm tenacious on this subject because I can see that the drive to move the image is actually motivated by dislike of nudity, and yet moving the image will not accomplish anything of note in making the article more acceptable to conservatives (whatever called). I would have expected you of all people to see the underlying themes here and how twisted they are. Nearly every argument I've made here has some merit, but as is usual there is no way to do meta-analysis to forge them into a single powerful whole. Yet considering that moving the image won't even work to make people significantly less offended, I would have thought you'd see the light. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 04:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

While its uncommonly dangerous to get between those fighting, and I could of course be bitten, still, I'd like to make a suggestion. This has degraded into angry, personal attacks and it might do everyone well to take a 24 hour break... drink some coconut juice, take a walk, watch a movie ... coconut juice is great for heat and anger.... and come back and try again. Maybe no one noticed but this isn't going anywhere. Ok, just a thought, and running away as fast as I can.(olive (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC))

I'm going to change the image first, and then do as you suggest. good advice, really… --Ludwigs2 00:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Good advice, were everyone to follow it. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 00:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

So you're going to continue--and exacerbate--the disruption and then walk away? Methinks the point of olive's post has sailed rather far over your head. Try reading it again. → ROUX ₪ 00:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Pfft. --Ludwigs2 01:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

That is exactly the thoughtful and carefully-reasoned response I have learned to expect from you. Well done. → ROUX ₪ 01:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You deserve nothing less. --Ludwigs2 01:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

A possible solution?

Frankly, I'm sick of this multipage waste of time- but I'm also fairly sick of people proposing this Lady in Blue picture. While I support the current image, I only ever intended to support it until a better image came along. Yet in all my time of waiting, this hasn't happened.

So it occurs to me that the best course of action might be to just go out into the wide world and get something that's better and satisfies the general purpose of a lede image better than what we have currently.

What I'm proposing is this. I will be willing to commission an artist (from, say, DeviantArt (or if others have suggestions for places to go for artists) and try to get some sort of animated anatomical diagram illustrating the course of a pregnancy and it's effects.

The reason I haven't done so yet is A) I'm not sure how wikipedia addresses this sort of thing with it's image use policies- they talk mostly about making an image yourself. Assuming I can secure the appropriate rights/and the artist knows what's going on and is okay with it, does anyone see any particular policy issues that will prevent this? Secondly, is there any chance we'll agree to this? I daresay my pocketbook isn't unlimitedly deep and I'd rather not waste money.

I realize this is, likely, not the ideal solution, but it is a sort of a solution.--H_Talk 01:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

If you commissioned the artwork in a work for hire capacity, you are basically considered the author for legal/copyright purposes. You may want to have the artist send a note to OTRS to be safe. Kaldari (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Good idea.--H_Talk 02:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

This is an excellent suggestion. you might ask for an artist who will do it gratis and release it under creative commons with attribution - the artist gets a wiki-bump for his protfolio, which will probably be payment enough. --Ludwigs2 01:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

What a great idea (: B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 02:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me state now that I would be very offended if the current image were 'sanitised' because of pressure from a minority group not to show a woman's breasts. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

In Autofellatio we had a RfC to replace the photography with a drawing, but the available drawings were not of good enough quality. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree that a drawing won't be perfect, but hopefully if I proceeded with this, I'd be able to get the image pretty damn close to perfect. --H_Talk 20:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Nude Picture and Florida state law

Has anyone thought whether showing a nude picture online without a consent to age agreement per the policy of Wikipedia could be a violation of Florida state law? Per Wikipedia policy, all entries on this website need to abide by all applicable laws in the state of Florida...that also means all Federal laws as well as the state of Florida is also subject to Federal jurisdiction. The reason for this policy is the servers that are used for Wikipedia are located in the state of Florida and the website does not wish to face prosecution for violations to Florida state law.

If the inclusion of the picture is in violation of laws enforced in the state of Florida, all arguments over the decency and copyright of the picture in question are mute.

I suggest we remove the picture until someone can definitely verify that it does not violate Florida state law in any way. If we do find that the picture in no way violates Florida state law, then it can be edited back into the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.148.58 (talk) 22:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

There is vigorous debate on the image below. Copyright and other information on the image was vetted in 2006. There is even vigorous debate on the image on cultural and religious terms. Frankly, there are some who are offended by the article topic alone, should we delete the entire article? Obviously not, regardless of what one does, someone, somewhere will be offended. But, the image, as I said, was already vetted long ago.Wzrd1 (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

That still does not address the issue whether current Florida state law deems it legal to have such an image where children can access it on a page where one would not expect nuditity. That is not to say nudity on wikipedia is illegal, but having it on such a page that has no connection to pornography or sexual human anatomy may be a violation for Florida state law. Wikipedia has set a basis for removal of all content deemed in violation of Florida state law due to fears of criminal prosecution against this website, its owners, and its financial supporters and it will probably not stop at just them but the IPs within the state of Florida responsible for the violation if the edits are from Wiki editors in the state of Flordia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.148.58 (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no such law in Florida. The very idea that only "pornographic-related" or "sexulal human anatomy related" subjects or sites can contain a nude image is ludicruous, and a violation of Free speech. Dreadstar ☥ 21:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to understand what free speech is...it is actually quite limited in the laws of the United States and can get one in serious legal trouble for not adhering to those guidelines. Since Florida follows Federal Law, there is a Federal Law in place dealing with the internet and those under the age of 13 the image violates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.148.58 (talk) 01:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

So, Mr Winston must obey what the party demands is "free speech", vs what IS free speech, lest Big Brother take all?

Do you REALLY want to take that image to court on pornography charges? If so, 90% of the artistic masters are to be burned upon arrival in the grand nation of Florida. Since Florida is NOT a nation, but a state, said STATE is governed by the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.Wzrd1 (talk) 06:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

And? Federal Law has this as a violation. Freedom of Speech is not as free in the United States as you people make it out to be. With the Feds, they don't even need to take it to court. They'll do whatever they want really. 108.28.148.58 (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Lead image RfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There are essentially four arguments in this discussion: (1) whether the nude photo is properly licenced; (2) whether the woman in the photo has consented to its use, and whether that matters; (3) whether preferring a nude photo to a clothed photo is damaging to the page's accessibility; and (4) otherwise, which of the two pictures better portrays the subject of the article (ie. pregnancy).

(4) was the most common argument on either side. Those in favour of the proposal argued that the clothed photo was of a superior quality and that the portrayal of a mixed race pregnant woman should be preferred to that of a white woman. These are valid arguments. Those against the proposal suggested that a nude photo demonstrates more about the subject than a clothed photo can, and that the particular nude photo in question better describes the physical and psychological aspects of pregnancy. These arguments are equally valid. Because these arguments are subjective it is not appropriate for me to prefer one to the other. The numbers were roughly even, perhaps marginally greater on the "remove side".

Issue (1) is not a game changer. Few in favour of the proposal made much of it. Those arguing against the proposal validly pointed to the multiple determinations on Commons that the image was properly licenced for our purposes at the time of its publication, and that that is sufficient.

On Issue (2): those in favour of the proposal raise valid and compelling concerns about the extent to which the subject of the photo has consented to having her nude body displayed on a prominent wikipedia page. This issue, unlike the licensing issue, wasn't discussed at any length at Commons. Steven Walling points to a Foundation resolution that "The evidence of consent would usually consist of an affirmation from the uploader of the media, and such consent would usually be required from identifiable subjects in a photograph or video taken in a private place". The "consent" in this case comes from a Commons editor purporting to be the uploader of the photograph and the spouse of its subject. There has been no compelling argument from those against the proposal that this consent is sufficient in light of the nature of the photo.

Issue (3) is a more powerful and subtle argument than one that can be battered back by saying WP:NOTCENSORED. All other things being equal, editors are entitled to prefer one image over another on the grounds of accessibility. However, this argument is not persuasive in and of itself. It is a stretch to call the photo "controversial content" (such that this resolution applied).

When issues (2), (3) and (4) are taken together there is a rough consensus in favour of the proposal. Issue (2) -- the concerns about consent -- would ordinarily compel removing the image entirely; however, there is simply no consensus for that. I think there will need to be a continuation of this discussion in one respect: better efforts should be pursued to obtain the direct consent of the photo's subject and, if such efforts are fruitless, a debate may be had about removing the photo from English Wikipedia articles entirely.

If properly verified consent is obtained directly from the subject, issue (2) would disappear and there would be no consensus in this discussion. On the principle that consensus is required to change the long-standing state of an article, the nude photo should then be returned to the lead. Consent would ordinarily come through OTRS for privacy reasons, so I would leave it to OTRS to determine whether such consent is sufficient. I'm sorry this detracts from the "finality" of this discussion, but the consensus (or, with consent out of the way, the lack thereof) can't be ignored just for the sake of finality.

For the time being I will leave the proposer of this RfC to make the necessary changes to the article arising from the outcome. The consensus is in support of the proposal: that is, the current infobox image (the nude, image 2 below) is to be moved to the section on Second Trimester and replaced in the infobox it with image 1 (the woman in the blue dress). --Mkativerata (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Update: OTRS has determined the consent to be sufficient.[28] As the original closing statement says, that issue being removed, there is no consensus to change the article. The status quo prevails, that being the nude image in the infobox. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• 
  Image 1, mirror image
  not allowed
• 
  Image 2
• 
  Image showing breast changes, proposed image
  Image 3

This proposal is to move the current image (image 2) lower in the article to the section on second trimester and replace it with image 1. Concerns in the past have been raised regarding the importance of showing breast changes however the current image does not show breast changes and a better image has been subsequently found to illustrate this point (added lower in the article). There is also a potential issue with the current image licence as discussed in greater detail below. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I strongly object to your non-neutral RFC statement, which violates RFC "Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue below the template", your RFC statement above is in no way neutral, presenting your POV about the images and cherry-picking an item out many in this dispute. I suggest that any 'consensus' that comes out of your biased and incorrect RFC statement would be flawed and therefore invalid. Dreadstar ☥ 17:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Thanks for addressing my concerns about neutrality. Dreadstar ☥ 21:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• There is no licensing issue with the current lead image, it was verified by an administrator/reviewer in 2006 [29] and was kept per two different deletion discussions [30][31] - including keep votes by the person purporting to be the photographer. Please read the comments made in both deletion discussions by the photographer, Inferis. Dreadstar ☥ 15:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

You are not a neutral party thus please do not edit my comments. Thanks.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

You're not a neutral party either, and you certainly shouldn't be making your argument in the RFC statement to begin with. Look to your own inappropriate behavior before criticizing good faith efforts by others to follow Wikipedia guidelines and instructions. Fix the RFC statement and make it neutral. Dreadstar ☥ 17:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I second the objections to this RfC. No neutral editor can come in, see the RfC text, and offer an opinion. The RfC text was highly biased, and as currently edited acts as if the concerns are mainly about breast changes. I suggest that the current RfC be thrown out, and another take its place with a neutrally stated question. I did not object earlier, although I wanted to, and refrained from saving edits which either stated the RfC text was non-neutral or edited it. I didn't want to cause trouble. But Dreadstar is right, and no RfC can be legitimate which starts out with an extremely biased question. Also, changing the text mid-way through an RfC makes former opinions obsolete. I'm sorry this comes so late in the process. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 21:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to hear that you believe your fellow editors are so gullible. I suggest that you assume the typical editor is just as capable as you of making his own decision. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the assumption of good faith in my willingness to research former discussion, but I might in fact offer an opinion based only on the question were I to come here. I usually feel that the obvious conclusion is probably the right one, and might well depend on the phrasing of an RfC. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 05:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• I just added the original image for the 'current' photo, there is a definite quality difference between the edited version and the original. The edited version looks washed out, at least on my monitor. Dreadstar ☥ 17:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted the edited image to its previous version, which was less contrasted, and will not suffer of the washed-out problem - the main difference between the original and the edited version is now the background. Dessources (talk) 23:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Please quit changing the image in the middle of the RFC. We can discuss it afterwards, if there is a need. Dreadstar ☥ 00:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Support change

• Support as person starting this RfC. Another issue with the current image is its licence. The person who took the picture states that he has never released this image under a license that allows commercial reuse.[32] Concerns in the past have been raised regarding the importance of showing breast changes however the current image does not show breast changes and a better image has been subsequently found to illustrate this point (added lower in the article). --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
• Change image: Seems like a better image all around. The current image would not be needed - it can be removed, and should be removed if there are licensing issues. --Ludwigs2 00:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support as the new image is higher technical quality, does a fine job of showing the most obvious physical signs of pregnancy, and adheres to the principle of least surprise which was outlined as being officially supported in a recent Board resolution. Also note that the full image of the naked woman does not strictly adhere to our resolve to have consent of images of identifiable people. The original photo seems have to been deleted from Flickr ([33]) and it's thus unclear that it is morally acceptable for us to display such an image not knowing whether we have the consent of the subject to be displayed in such a prominent venue. Steven Walling • talk 02:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
• Change lead image, but move elsewhere in the article. I want to move the current image from the lead down to the un-illustrated ==Second trimester== section, where we can use it to illustrate the specific, relevant concepts, rather than merely to decorate the page with a "beautiful" or "emotional" image. Past opposition appears to have focused on the idea that any one-time image can show nine months' worth of changes to the breast (it can't, and furthermore, most of the changes happen in the months after this image was taken) and an apparent aversion to including even a single image of a pregnant woman that isn't a European or American in a state of undress. There's a whole world out there that isn't white: at least Image 1 would begin to acknowledge this fact. We might also be able to get images like these snapshots, but the multi-racial woman in the blue shirt is fine with me.
  (If anyone's up for a photog commission, at the moment, my ideal image for the lead would be a well-composed, well-lighted picture of a racially mixed group of pregnant women, at different stages of pregnancy, possibly including one shortly after birth (with her baby), rather than an image of any one woman—something like this, but preferably with faces and more women.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support change No really solid reason has been given for why we need to see a pregnant woman in the altogether. Issue of nudity per se and censorship concerns are a red herring here; gratuitous nudity is a problem if it makes a not-insignificant portion of our community uncomfortable that would not otherwise be uncomfortable with nude images where such have a clear encyclopedic purpose. Daniel Case (talk) 05:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Daniel Case - I just followed the link behind your text "...makes a not-insignificant portion of our community uncomfortable". It's to an article called Hostile environment sexual harassment, which is all about posting pictures of pornography in employee's cubicles, dirty jokes, sexually suggestive remarks, asking for dates, and derogatory terms with a sexual connotation. That has absolutely nothing to do with this topic. Not a helpful contribution at all. HiLo48 (talk) 07:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does have everything to do with this topic. You don't get this at all. I repeat: Not only is there no encyclopedic reason for this, in this context it becomes gratuitous nudity, which can be part and parcel of a hostile-environment claim, or the whole claim, depending on the situation (Question: Assuming you do not work in a doctor's office, or even if you do, is this something you would put up where visiting members of the public would see it?). Daniel Case (talk) 00:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes HiLo48 (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

OK. You are aware, I take it, that most workplaces have rules against that? Daniel Case (talk) 02:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Where? I've seen pics like that in public places where I live, but it might be a less conservative place than where you live. Given such diversity, why should the more conservative view prevail? HiLo48 (talk) 04:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe most workplaces have rules against web-surfing at work period. Dreadstar ☥ 17:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support change. Higher quality with the added benefit of less nudity. JFW | T@lk 06:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
• Strong support. Most important reason being that it is unclear if the (easily identifiable) woman in the pic consents to our use of the pic. See comment by Steven Walling. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 10:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support change: There are so many pictures representing pregancy as such without identifiable person in the image. Why not having such a picture in the lead so then we wouldn't have these debates. NCurse _work 11:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support change: As I said above, the use of a nude woman, over a clothed one, seems entirely to be about wanting to seem mature and a gut negative reaction to any sort of "censorship". Pregnancy is about both the psychological and physical aspects of the image--and I believe that a nude image focuses on mostly the physical. All physical changes are going to be apparent in a clothed image as well. Others, like breast sizes, can not be accurately depicted without a before and after image. There is room for nude images later in the article as well. Saibh (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support: The fact that the pregnancy article is NSFW does not put Wikipedia in a positive light. Also, the first image is tasteful, well done, and better quality. I'd also kill someone if my photo showed up of me naked on Wikipedia...and the source link for that photo is dead. SarahStierch (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support: Really unnecessary to have a naked female. Plus all the reasons stated above. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support change : I am very concerned that the nude woman photo lacks consent and the source on Flickr is gone. Also, not sure the nudity is needed in the lead image. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 01:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Appears we do have consent [34] so I think the image is okay copyright-wise, but still think nudity is not needed in the lead image. This or another image showing breast changes would be okay, in my opinion, elsewhere in the article -- just not the lead image. --Aude (talk) 01:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support: File:Pregnant woman.jpg seems a little better for the lead image, although the image in use is tasteful also. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support Proposed image is more appropriate. The current lede image is okay, but like Aude, I don't think it should be in the infobox. Bejinhan talks 13:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support. The proposed image is far better quality, demonstrates that pregnancy happens to races other than Caucasian, shows a more mature pregancy, and also demonstrates maternity clothing (which amazingly isn't mentioned anywhere in the article). Kaldari (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Doc James, Saibh, Kaldari. Gamaliel (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support change. Information like this is likely to be used in school environments, and adding gratuitous nudity makes it unacceptable for that use. "Not censored" is great and all, but this is a distraction and an annoyance and makes the article not fit for use in many educational settings. If it diminishes utility to readers and has no obvious benefit other than mindless pounding of the free speech drum, it should go. This is a lead image, it's not there to illustrate a specific point in the text or other content of the article. If someone can make a persuasive argument why this provides useful information it might be more important, but as it is it's just "oh hey let's put a naked girl in here to stick it to the man." SDY (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
• I'd support deleting the current image altogether, but only because I have a much stricter than normal opinion on personality rights and the issue of subject consent. In the absence of evidence that the woman in the image consented, the personally identifiable image of her should be removed. On the other hand, Wikipedia is a reference work; in the same way as we demonstrate other physical phenomena with clear illustrations, we should do so on pregnancy. Since pregnancy is a phenomena of the human body, and the human body does not naturally occur clothed, it makes sort of obvious sense that the article would include some nudity. The proposal here is not to remove the nudity, merely to move it. That means those people who support the proposal accept that an image of a nude pregnant woman is a natural element of the pregnancy article. That out of the way, let's examine why the image is better down the page than at the top. Sarah argues that it makes the article safe-for-work; as a Wikipedian, the idea that our articles should be evaluated and modified on a "SFW" basis (and, using Sarah's milieu, assuming that safe for work means safe for work in an academic environment in the United States) is troubling. Speaking generally, I think it makes sense to use the least-surprise principle as a guide for selecting images; but in this context, we've already agreed that the image of a nude pregnant woman on the pregnancy article is not surprising. So in order to justify moving it with the least-surprise principle, we must argue that it is not surprising that the image is present, only surprising that it's near the top of the article. I don't find that to be a particularly persuasive argument for moving the image (not least because I think we're underestimating the proportion of people who will scroll down, if only to look for images...). Lastly, here's an open question - why has no one proposed replacing the photographic image with a drawing? Would that be substantially different, or substantially the same, and why? Nathan ^T 02:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support. We need to be damn sure about the nature of consent here, and we aren't, so it has to go. I have no idea why people think there is a connection between nudity and pregnancy here, but there isn't. Per Daniel Case, there simply is no good reason for the nudity here and we have other options to choose from, so let's do it. Why this is in any way controversial is beyond me. Let's use some common sense here, please. Viriditas (talk) 07:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Support If editors are prevented viewing a wiki page for whatever reason because some editor decided he wanted to make a point about censorship, then Wikipedia is going against its policy of providing access to information. I would prefer censorship of nudity on Wikipedia rather than having the content blocked altogether. You don't win a censorship battle when people can't even view the page. 108.28.148.58 (talk) 22:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• • Right, so now we're back to discussing consent to use the image. Bloody ridiculous. I thought it was about the nudity, or the maternity clothes, or copyright, or art, or stretch marks, or..... Exactly what IS this RfC about? Without a simple answer to that question, there is absolutely no way anybody can draw a sensible conclusion from this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 08:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
    • You must be very insecure in your position if you feel the need to hijack every RfC support. The original uploader appears to have deleted the image from flickr. Is this true? They also have claimed that all of their images are non-commercial, including this one. Is this true? Further, they claim that the image is of their wife, and we have to take them on their word. So, we have an image that was taken from flickr and uploaded to commons under a non-free license, where it has been allowed to remain since 2006. How strange. Finally, we have editors who seem to think that the topic of pregnancy must necessitate showing the fully nude body of a woman, and can only be represented by such a photo. This RfC appears to be about the use of a nude, non-free image being used to represent the topic of pregnancy, a topic that does not require nudity of any kind since it takes place inside the body. Viriditas (talk) 08:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, you're absolutely right. I'm totally insecure. Thanks you for the psychological advice..... What utter crap! HiLo48 (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
    • For those who are confused by the "stretch marks" comment, supporters of the art nude have claimed that the image shows pregnancy-related stretch marks on the woman's buttocks. This claim was apparently based on their previous ignorance of what stretch marks look like during pregnancy. This image shows what stretch marks look like during pregnancy; nothing even remotely similar appears in this image. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support the proposal, i.e. moving image 2 down (preferably to Pregnancy#Second trimester) and instead putting image 1 into the lead. However, I am assuming that the mirrored version of image 1 will be used for layout reasons and because it is crisper. I have explained my reasoning in detail in a separate section below. Hans Adler 15:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Would vastly prefer a nude image; because the point is that a women's body changes significantly during pregnancy (and this is easiest to demonstrate nude), but the proposed clothed image is much "nicer" quality & pose. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support Change but keep image somewhere on the page. This issue has already accumulated over 300KB of discussion and as pointed out by Whatamidoing, has been the subject of repeated complaints discussions "These [35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43] are just from the year when the image was first added." That alone should be enough to show that this image is not the best image for the lead as it garners too much controversy. The arguments for keeping it are 100% "I like it." Personally, I LOVE the image, but I don't think it belongs in the lead.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support Change. Both images are OK, it having the nude one further down in the article would be OK, and a good compromise I think. If both images are in the article, it's not really that important an issue I guess. It's a philosophical issue and I suppose the contention between the Nudies and the Clothesies can't really be solved. A couple points in favor of changing the image: 1) [[Balloonman's point above is well taken -- can we settle this and not have to spend so much time on it? I think that changing the image and including the existing image further down is most likely to do this. 2) All in all, since it's not really that important or solvable, it's probably better to come down on the side of the Principle of Least Astonishment (even though the current image isn't very astonishing) and also, look, some people don't like the image, and we shouldn't just blow them off. It's a data point. There's nothing much gained here by using the existing image. If it was matter of principle we would stand by principle, but it's not. If it was a matter of one image being clearly much more informative than the other, we would stand by encyclopedic value. But that's not the case here. Herostratus (talk) 18:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support Change but keep the nude image somewhere on the page. This is a really close decision to me, because they are both fine pictures, there are editors I respect on both sides of the debate, and I don't consider a nude image at all inappropriate here. Nude depictions are popular in high-quality educational material on sex and pregnancy, creating good precedent. Licensing concerns for the nude image seem to have been resolved. However, given that all images presently in the article are of Caucasians, I find the idea of leading with a non-Caucasian woman attractive, as a counterbalance; and I can see merit in leading with (but not restricting ourselves to) a clothed image, as it reflects the way pregnant women are most commonly seen in daily life. --JN466 01:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support change per Jayen466. Move current image lower down and use clothed image in lead. No deletion of current image. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support Change This is an encyclopedia and the nude image can be shown in medical books or in teaching medical professionals but when it comes to give knowledge to general public some restrictions should be here showing these nude image because we have minors who also use wikipedia.  Dr meetsingh  Talk  19:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support Change for the following reasons: (1) Image #1 is of much higher photographic quality than image #2 (image #2 has "higher resolution" if you're just counting pixels, but Image #1 has better composition, better color balance, much better lighting, and is overall "punchier", making it more appropriate as a lede image.) (2). By depicting maternity clothing, Image #1 encapsulates additional aspects of pregnancy. Contrariwise, by depicting a woman on a doctor's scale, image #2 immediately focuses the readers' attentions on the idea of pregnancy as a medical event, which is only a small part of what this article is about. (3) Image #1 depicts a person of color, which I think is relevant given the overall imbalance in en.wikipedia towards eurocentric images. I think using Image #2 elsewhere in the article would be perfectly appropriate, but it is a notably inferior image in terms of having a role in the lede. Nandesuka (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how image #2 is a 'medical' image, it looks like a personal image; nothing to do with a 'doctor's scale', she's looking down at the life she carries within, not a scale! Image #1 strikes me more as a 'medical image', it's more sterile and posed - image 2 conveys much more emotional information to me than does image 1. And image 2 isn't very descriptive of maternity clothing, and merely obsures what we're acually showing - a pregnant woman. Dreadstar ☥ 17:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This begs an additional question, do doctors weigh their pregnant patients in the nude? Dreadstar ☥ 17:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support Change Take picture No. 1 as lead and move pic No.2 down to another section. I fully agree in reason with Nandesuka.Tinly (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support changing the lead image and moving the current one down. Both are good and both can be used. AIRcorn (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Support keeping current image in the lead

• Keep current image or replace it with an image which is equally informative. [Note to the closing admin: please consider WP:NOTCENSORED and disregard any argument based on nudity/the offensiveness of the image. It isn't our job here to change a longstanding WP policy, per Level of consensus; also, several votes were based on whether the woman would be offended by having her image here, and that is an invalid/out-dated concern.] We need to ask ourselves, "what is a picture of pregnancy as a whole?" and notice that in any answer we can't isolate body parts, and clothes only get in the way. There are many reasons for keeping the current image which have been discussed on this page (too many to list here), and most of the opposition to the nude image is purely a matter of dislike of nudity. Example arguments: I can't fully imagine what's under the dress, and certainly no one who hadn't already seen a naked pregnant woman could do so. Photo quality is irrelevant if it's a good illustration of the subject, but the current image is much higher quality. Having a black racial image is no better than a white. Nudity is not undignified. It is traditional in WP to present nude images for articles on the body, see Human body. And the full image should be first with other images used to illustrate details: it's a summary image, and belongs in the lead. And many other reasons. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 00:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Seeing that I have added many images showing nudity this is not an accurate claim. I have no issue with nudity just there is a better image. I have found and acquired a license which allows our use of an image that actually shows the breast changes of pregnancy.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep current image, for many of the same reasons I outlined in at least two previous discussions about these same images here and here. The original image is superior to the new photo. The original image is very descriptive of the subject, it is a dignified and beautiful picture, that to me at least, conveys a sense of warmth, of motherhood…like she’s responding to that which she carries…it’s contemplative, lovely and not at all obscene or even titillating…I think it’s just perfect for the lede. I agree with BeCritical's comments above. There are no licensing issues. The licensing was confirmed by an administrator/reviewer and was kept per two different deletion discussions [44][45]. Dreadstar ☥ 02:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why you are not taking into account the statements of the person who actually took the photo per here [46]? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Dreadstar, as you pointed out here we have no way of knowing if Inferis is the actual photographer. More importantly, we have no way of knowing if the easily identifiable woman in the picture really consents to our use of that picture. Yes, she posed for that photo. This doesn't mean that she wants her photo used on Wikipedia.

Why hold on to a picture that has provoked so many different objections in the past? I read the arguments that the nude, lower-quality image is "dignified and beautiful," that it should stay because physicians don't treat patients through their clothes, and that more skin equals a better understanding of pregnancy, or as one editor put it, a better understanding of how the body is "deformed and changed" (as if picture 1 and the other images in the article don't do the job and as if physical "deformation" is the most important aspect of pregnancy). These arguments are not convincing, to put it very mildly. The suggestion that editors who want to replace the current image are prudes is unconvincing and uncivil.

Bottom line is: Picture 1 (pregnant woman in blue looking into the camera) is of higher quality than picture 2 (pregnant woman in the nude). Picture 1 shows the most visible signs of pregnancy. Picture 1 doesn't come with the same licensing/commercial reuse uncertainty as picture 2. Picture 2 doesn't add any relevant (yes, we see stretch marks on the hips, cellulite, we see breasts etc. but who says that the stretch marks, cellulite, breast size, Areola coloring etc. are related to her pregnancy and weren't there before her pregnancy?) information that we don't get from picture 1. Picture 1 adds ethnic diversity to an article that lacks images of women of color... Picture 1 is a better option all around. So what is the problem here? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Hat off-topic part of discussion. Dreadstar ☥ 14:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
That's not proper use of this section, this section is for iVoting, if you want to discuss, then take it below; otherwise, short answer is: I disagree with all your points and have addressed each of them elsewhere; well, except for some of the insulting bits on the image, which I find your comments to be distasteful and unnecessary. Dreadstar ☥ 23:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Could you post a link to a policy that states that editors must not reply to "ivotes"? Thanks. I saw that other editors were replying to ivotes and classifying them as not helpful contributions at all and I was led to believe that comments, if not uncivil edit summaries, were okay. After reading all comments twice, including your arguments that the current picture is "dignified and beautiful", that there is no licensing issue, and that it is diffusely more informative, I don't see how you have replied to my points or the points of the other editors who have voted in favor of replacement. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia:STRAW#Sample_survey, where it says "Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed." I'd say your post falls under 'extended', not 'brief,' eh? There's no bright-line policy on this, but it's an accepted and widely used format. The bottom line is, that if you want to discuss the particulars with me, then I've told you exactly where to go. Dreadstar ☥ 00:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Thank you, Dreadstar. Quote from the page: "Note that this is purely a sample of one way to organise such a survey—different circumstances may call for different approaches." Note: One way, not the way. I was thinking more in terms of real dos and don'ts like WP:NPA and WP:AGF (AGF, NPA...? Continued suggestions that certain editors are prudes come to mind). I asked you similar questions in the discussion section. So far you wrote that you think that the current image is "precious and beautiful" and that it "truly represents the article's subject". You'll excuse me if I don't reply to the "precious and beautiful" argument. But I am still waiting for an explanation why you believe that the current picture does a better job representing the article's subject than the proposed new image. Please provide an explanation. In this section, the discussion section, on my talk page, anywhere. Thanks. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 01:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC) LOL! I don't really give a damn what you're waiting for. Move your WP:TL;DR comment to the discussion section and revise your disrespectful comments or be prepared to be ignored. Dreadstar ☥ 01:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC) WP:TL;DR obviously doesn't apply. I asked you the same questions in the discussion section. You have not replied which leads me to believe that it's really not about moving this discussion to another section. Accusing editors of prudery and editing their talk page comments is disrespectful. But I didn't do that so... If you want to scold people you should pick another editor. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Do not put words in my mouth and do not distort my actions. Your comments here are becoming increasingly disruptive, I suggest you follow the protocols I've outlined. Dreadstar ☥ 14:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep image currently in place. The first and critical criteria for an image encyclopedic article is that it be informative. Pregnancy is physiological, not about fashion and not about symbolism. In western culture the front 'bump' has become the accepted symbolic image for pregnant women. But in fact the clothed image only tells us something if we know what the symbol means. It tells us little if we have never seen a pregnant body. Information that is outwardly informative includes the position of the child in relation to the hips, the height at which the baby might be carried, the size relative to breast size, and I could go on and on. Information is available in the nude body. The clothed body tells us almost nothing. Its for the most part decorative. And imagine if someone from another country whose clothing was not like ours saw the clothed image. How much information are we giving them. Very little. Why bother with an image that tells us Westerners what we already know and anyone else, nothing (olive (talk) 03:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC))

Or to put part of your post another way, the reader's question is: what does a pregnant woman really look like, and it's our duty as an encyclopedia to answer that question directly. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 04:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you two seriously suggesting that image 1 doesn't show the reader what a pregnant woman really looks like? MastCell ^Talk 05:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, it chooses to hide certain aspects for presumably cultural reasons, so, no. HiLo48 (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Yes, MastCell, that's what we're saying. Drop the information you already have, and ask how much information you'd get from a clothed image. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 06:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd get about the same amount of information I get from an unclothed image. But that's just me. I don't really feel the need to view images of naked cancer patients, or children, or Republican Presidential contenders to gain an encyclopedic understanding of what they look like, either, despite the fact that all three of those conditions are marked by distinct physical characteristics. Anyhow, you've answered my question. MastCell ^Talk 06:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The "cancer" one would be the only one relevant here, since there are pedophilia concerns with pictures of children. I've seen cancer up close, and I assure you that we ought to have a nude picture of a cancer patient. It's one of the most informative images that sticks in my mind, and is definitely encyclopedic. What is the distinct feature of nude Republicans? B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 06:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Possibly about the same as Old age, where we also don't show nude images, despite many visible changes.

A nude picture of a cancer patient is only informative (for the general article) if you confuse 'having cancer' with 'having end-stage invasive cancer' or 'having cancer wasting syndrome'. The majority of people who have cancer don't have a distinctive appearance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

That's true about cancer, but an illustrative image would show a body which showed effects. You're right that the old age article, as with the pornography article, does not have nude images. But is that the most informative we can be? I find pictures like these very informative. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 05:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

IMO a biased image would show a person with severe cancer wasting. The median cancer patient looks nothing like that, and an NPOV-compliant image would show what's typical, not what's extreme.

Also, complete nudity isn't even remotely necessary to illustrate cancer wasting. Wasting can be seen in lightly clothed person. An image like this adequately illustrates wasting despite not showing the man's genitals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, complete nudity is not necessary for cancer wasting (although having seen it, I disagree that the image you found is a very good illustration, they look more like Nazi prison camp pictures). And really, I don't think it's biased to show extreme cases, that's just illustration. You don't show mild cases of starvation, for example, you show extreme cases. Like the picture at malnutrition [47] and those at Acute myeloid leukemia, you show a picture of the subject when there's something to see. But in the case of pregnancy, breasts and genitals are such a large part of the process that not showing them, or showing them in isolation would be remiss. Pregnancy is a whole body change particularly involving the belly, breasts, and genitals, and we should have at least one whole body image without interference from clothing. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 21:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you see anyone saying "Let us not have any whole-body, fully nude image at all?" Or do you only see people saying, "Let us put this picture lower in the article, where we can usefully describe the specific features that are (and are not) seen in it, in detail, rather than wasting it as something decorative with a vague caption at the top"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Specific features are better described using specific images, like the before/after breast pictures. This is good specifically in the lead, because it's a pictorial summary of the subject. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 18:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. This image could easily have a caption that says, "During the second trimester, the expanding uterus creates a visible "baby bump". Although the breasts have been changing since the beginning of the pregnancy, most of the changes appear after this point, so the areola is still much lighter than it will be. When the fetus is active, its movements can be felt through the abdominal wall."—or any material along those lines. This image could easily illustrate all of those concepts. We don't need specific images to show general concepts. In the lead, this image is being wasted as mere decoration. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep image currently in place ...at least until a sensible RfC is made. The suggestion to "replace it with another image" is too vague. Does the proposer object to the nudity, the licencing issues, the quality of the image, or something else? This leads to a confused discussion covering all of those matters. All pretty pointless really. HiLo48 (talk) 05:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The proposer objects to the licensing issue and the quality of the image. These objections where removed by user Dreadstar in these edits here [48] and I am not sure why.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Doc - I think these comments were refactored rather than removed - they were argumentation in the RfC description, which should be reserved for a neutral statement of the issue. --Ludwigs2 05:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Ludwigs, that's exactly the point: "Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue below the template", the RFC statement above by James is in no way neutral. I will again attempt to remove the POV commentary and cherry-picking by James. Dreadstar ☥ 16:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep For reasons stated in all the other discussions about this picture. On that note, however, I find it odd that we're discussing whether or not there's licensing for the picture, it's something that never stuck me as being a problem before, since I'm pretty sure the permission to use the picture was clear. --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 16:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

  Wikimedia's standards for licensing have changed since the image was reviewed about five years ago. In particular, back then, we really only cared about copyright, our policies on preserving the privacy of the subject have been dramatically strengthened. So the copyright is probably okay, but we have no idea if the identifiable individual in the image agreed to this. Wikipedia:Image use policy#Privacy_rights defines "Nudes, underwear or swimsuit shots, unless obviously taken in a public place" as images that require not only a suitable copyright license from the photographer, but consent from the subject. (The consent required is not just for the image to be taken, but for the image to be used on Wikipedia.) The privacy rights policy on en.wiki was added less than two years ago/several years after the image was uploaded. There is no "grandfather clause" that says it's okay with us to invade someone's privacy so long as you did it before the en.wiki policy addressed privacy directly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep It serves an encyclopedic purpose and the licensing seems not to be a problem. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep (or replace with a similar image) ...we should be be wary of rampant censorship. It starts in an apparently very innocuous way, invoking what seems sensible requirements, but once the genie is out of the bottle... Dessources (talk) 09:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Summary of my reasons for opting for keeping the current image (Image 2b - which I simply propose to replace with Image 2a - a minor change):

• Image 2 is superior to Image 1 as a document. It has better information content, since it illustrates the change that happens to the body of a pregnant woman by actually showing the body of a pregnant woman.
• Image 2 is of greater photographic quality, in the sense that its resolution is higher than the resolution of Image 1.
• The fact that some people consider Image 1 slightly superior from an esthetic point of view is purely subjective - if one takes realism as an esthetic norm, Image 2 is esthetically superior.
• Image 2 has encyclopedic quality: it is plain and factual.
• It seems that apart from the notion of nudity which basically distinguishes the two pictures, the two pictures illustrate the same thing: a pregnant woman at the end of the second trimester. They are consequently redundant, and there is no need to have both of them: only the most informative should be used.
• Image 1 is more a portrait of a pregnant woman than an illustration of pregnancy: the woman's face and the fact that she looks at the viewer are the most striking elements of the picture.
• Image 2 illustrates pregnancy in two ways, as a condition which changes the body, but also as a state of the mind.
• I admit that Image 1 has one advantage over Image 2: it shows a non Caucasian woman, in an article where all other illustrations show only Caucasian-type women. However, this is in my view not sufficient to offset the advantages that Image 2 has.

Dessources (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Not all slopes are slippery ... Daniel Case (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

This one is. It's all about nudity, read the "keeps" above and discussion. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 01:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not about nudity per se, and it's not censorship ... we are not calling for the image to be deleted, nor (in some cases) for its removal from the article (though I have some separate concerns about its free-image status which, granted, would result in its deletion if acted on). It's about the placement of the image within the article, and whether that is a wise decision. The encyclopedic need to show a pregnant woman naked has not been adequately established, and the given justifications for doing so have been challenged without response. We, the support voters, have asked those who favor retaining the image to consider that, in light of the doubtful utility of this image, to consider whether having a nude picture of a female of dubious encyclopedic value is really the way to make female contributors, both potential and actual, feel that Wikipedia is not the men's locker room or the garage (I don't care that the image is tasteful, and that the woman involved consented. Those are not the issues involved here.

Abusum non tollit usum. The fact that such images are removed or replaced from places other than Wikipedia for irrational reasons does not mean that no rational reasons for doing so exist. We do not need to fight censorship by putting nude photos of people in articles about medical conditions with slim justification (in fact, IMO, that helps the censor's side of the argument). If that's your justification for this, then this should be the lead image for baldness. Daniel Case (talk) 02:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Would anyone mind if this discussion were moved into the 'discussion' section?

Daniel, you say, 'The encyclopedic need to show a pregnant woman naked has not been adequately established'. To me the advantages of this seem self-evident. On the other hand, the need to remove, reduce, or limit nudity within WP has not been established at all . Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Is saying it's "self-evident" another way of saying that we need to show pictures of BIG HAPPY B(•)(•)BIEZ? WhatamIdoing has argued repeatedly that:

• not all women experience breast-swelling during pregnancy
• and in those cases the changes to breast size are not so significant that they would be adequately demonstrated in a photo taken at that range (And I would say one picture alone doesn't demonstrate mammary swelling ... you'd need two pictures)

I have not seen anyone offer any effective rebuttal to this. I have barely seen anyone try despite multiple opportunities. Therefore the need to use this picture as the defining image of pregnancy has not been demonstrated. Daniel Case (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep current. I honestly don't think a naked pregnant woman in the lead is surprising anyone. Images of pregnant women are ubiquitous in the media (Demi Moore for example) and noone in the english speaking world will be shocked or surprised. The image is decent and appropriate for this article and not at all "erotic" or pornographic. And by the way: the alternative image with the blue dress has a resolution of 400 × 616 pixels only. This is not about censorship or nudity or prudeness or whatever it is or at least should be only about the best image. The blue dress image is not better for this purpose. If there is a better alternative I might !vote otherwise. Adornix (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• keep current. Dunno if anyone has brought this up before, but I especially like that the woman is not looking at the viewer but at her belly - the picture transfers way more emotions than the other. Pregnancy is more than just a bodily phenomenon and this picture expresses this very well. The other picture would be well placed in a to-be-written section about maternity clothes. --Elian ^Talk 16:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Good point. See my remark below under Discussion.

Dessources (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep current - The image would be inappropriate if it were obscene, or if its purpose were to titillate. But it is a rather benign , candid image, that illustrates the topic of the article perfectly. Readers of WP come here for information, and on health-related articles, we should not shy away from providing informative photos. Does the article on Human penis show a man with pants on? I don't think so. Of course, WP:NOT CENSORED is not a license to promote pornography, but in a health-related article I think we should err on the side of presenting candid (but not obscene) photos. The suggestion to move it down to the middle of the article is a tempting escape valve, but it would be caving in to political correctness. --Noleander (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

This isn't about political correctness, it's about using a better image to lead the article. Last time I checked, WP:NOT CENSORED does not require us to lead every article about humans with a nude image. We can actually decide based on a variety of criteria, not just whether or not the image is nude. Kaldari (talk) 23:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep current - It is just the best image we have available to illustrate the subject of changes to a woman's body during pregnancy - in addition to the emotional aspect mentioned by Elian. --Versageek 23:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
• keep current the dressed picture conveys less information and obscures what it's trying to depict. Pictures of conditions of the human body shouldn't have the condition covered by material that hides it from view. I can't think of any reason for using a less informative picture on the lead, apart from censorship of naked pictures. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - obviously. Per various others above and my own arguments far below. → ROUX ₪ 01:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep issue seems more clear with this image, looking at the linked discussions, the photographer has given all relevant permissions from what I can tell of the discussions. If we really need a ticket from his wife too, we can request that. Hobit (talk) 12:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep current image. Tasteful and informative; unlike the proposed replacement it shows that pregnancy is something that occurs in a woman's body, rather than being an item of clothing one might wear. Infrogmation (talk) 02:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep or replace with an equivalent (read: nude) image of higher quality. A clothed image is less appropriate for this topic as the clothing manages to hide all the relevant details here. Also, as has been pointed out repeatedly, WP:CENSOR makes it clear that we need not be concerned with cultural limitations, especially since, as pointed out in WP:Sexual content, images of nudity are not, in and of themselves, considered sexual content (and certainly not in this case). I'm having a very hard time seeing the opposing arguments as anything other than an opposition to a nude image; certainly it could be larger or higher resolution, but on my monitor (1600 x 900), the image is plenty large enough (~2.5"x4.5") and detailed enough to illustrate the topic, so this complaint seems more than a little overblown. siafu (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep current The arguments in favour of replacing the image are based on the nudity-is-offensive (using the euphemism "nudity is unnecessary"). I think nudity is absolutely necessary in an article about a medical change affecting the belly/breasts of the pregnant woman. Medical textbooks from the 1950s have them, so I don't see why Wikipedia shouldn't. There have been no arguments presented here that give any justification beyond squeamishness at the sight of nipples. This is an encyclopedia, which I don't think should have content determined on a subjective, emotional distaste of imagery that serves a scientific purpose. Arguments comparing an encyclopedia entry to public nudity on the street is misleading and ridiculous. OttawaAC (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep current; voting to counteract poor or irrelevant votes in the support section that have been influenced by canvassing. LegrisKe (talk) 08:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep current. The image is perfectly suitable and neutral. Binksternet (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep current. No real problem with the current image. The proposed replacement seems good just for a commercial, not an ecyclopedia. NotANumber (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

  Note: This is this user's first edit on en.wikipedia. Nandesuka (talk) 01:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

  True, but that is only due to the fact that I just got control of this username, which I hold on it.Wikipedia since 2006, after a login unification procedure. And why would this matter anyway, considering that the Requests for comment page clearly says that even IP (unregistered) users can contribute to a RFC? (NotANumber (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC))

  it is merely something to be considered by the closing admin. contentious debates sometimes fall victim to meatpuppets, sockpuppets, or inappropriate canvassing, and admins need to be aware of such potentialities with participants who have very small edit counts. Of course, if you've been a regular editor since 2006, you probably are aware of this already; sorry if I'm covering known material. it would help if you gave a link on your user page to the other account that you've been using for the last five years; that would immediately clear up any untoward suspicions. --Ludwigs2 21:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

  I will link the edit history of my account on it.wikipedia (you can check, it's the same account as the en.wikipedia one) when the Italian wikipedia resumes normal operation, now suspended in protest against a law being discussed in the Italian parliament that would make wikipedia potentially illegal (more info: [49]) NotANumber (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

I want to make a comment to frame the issue as I see it. I happen to like the original picture - it's well-done, tasteful, and all around pleasantly artistic. However, I think we all recognize that the image is not to everyone's tastes; some people object to depictions of nudity on any of various grounds. The issue at hand, then, is whether the picture itself adds enough value to the article to justify the risk of offending some people. In this particular case that is a close call: the nude picture does not seem to offer much more to the reader than the non-nude picture in terms of information. It is a bit more artistic, though somewhat lower quality; it may show more detail, but it would be easy enough to find an image that exposes a woman's belly without straying into actual nudity.

In my judgement - nice as the picture is - it doesn't add anything to the article that cannot be achieved with pictures that would cause no one offense. If we can achieve the same result without the risk of offense, why take the risk? --Ludwigs2 05:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a big "If". I have a pretty good idea of what's under a pregnant woman's clothes, but if we assume that position of all of our readers, there's no point in having a picture at all. Clothes hide things. (That's the goal of those who don't like nudity.) We shouldn't hide things in a picture of a pregnant lady when the purpose is to give the best possible information. It forces those who don't know to guess. Encyclopaedias shouldn't force readers to guess. HiLo48 (talk) 06:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs, you put it well. I would object that "offending people" is not a consideration that an encyclopedia takes into account. And as I and others argued above, one gets almost nothing from the clothed picture, but a lot from the nude one. You framing the issue so well actually shows how the only reason for not using the image is that it's nude: and I don't think that should be a consideration unless there it is the only factor to consider; even a small amount of extra information would be sufficient to justify the use of the current image. Personally, I think that it adds a lot. In the way that people say "a picture is worth a thousand words" I would say "a complete picture is much better than an incomplete one," even while it is difficult to thoroughly quantify the difference (although olive tried above).

Agree with HiLo48 B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 06:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

How do you know what's under the shirt MastCell? We are not viewing the pictures of anyone here for gratuitous reasons which seems to be implied. This article should inform those who do not know what pregnancy looks like. What modern physician treats a patient through their clothes? How can he see the body? How can he inform himself? What physician is trained by looking at bodies through clothing? With respect to the idea that we want to err on the side of safety, there is nudity in the article and Doc wants to add more...I'm not sure why we should be protecting the reader in the lead picture, but not in the rest of the article. Do we put bras on the breast pictures? Why not? I'm an artist. I was trained to draw the human body by looking at the human body. I couldn't have been trained properly on a clothed body-not enough information, and frankly had I been presented with a clothed model, I would have been offended. Our readers need information. Can we put ourselves in place of a reader who has never seen a pregnant body?(olive (talk) 14:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC))

As a point of policy, it is not necessary for the image to be real. A watermelon under the shirt is perfectly acceptable, so long as it looks like a real pregnancy: "images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, even if they are not provably authentic images." A real pregnancy that does not look like a pregnancy (e.g., all women during the first month) is useless; a fake pregnancy that looks like a real one is just fine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) B - Frankly, the argument "offending people is never a consideration for an encyclopedia" strikes me as a perversion of logic and common sense. There are obviously times when we have to present content that some people find distasteful in order to properly and fully explain a given point, but if we present such material as matter of unquestionable policy then we turn the entire project into one of those tactless, self-righteous oafs. You know who I mean: those people who feel entitled to be rude to anyone who's not like them, because they are convinced anyone who's not like them must be ignorant.

I disagree with the assessment that one gets almost nothing from the clothed picture but a lot from the nude one. what exactly are you getting? The nude one shows a lot more skin, sure, but skin is not really relevant to the issue. The fact that you cannot quantify the difference you're talking about is a clear sign that the difference is emotional rather than intellectual, but if it's an emotional difference… why should your emotions on this matter outweigh the emotions of people who disapprove of the image? Olive does make an interesting argument, but I would counter by saying that we could physicalize the image without sexualizing it. Almost every pregnancy website has images of a women's exposed bellies that don't involve nudity; why are we different?

Please note that I am not making a moral argument about nudity here. I'm fine with nudity as a rule. The moral argument I'm making is that we should not tweak people's noses for no good reason. Sure, one has to be a hell of a prude to object to this image, but wikipedia should not as a matter of policy assert that prudes are too stupid to pay attention to. Prudes are people too, and as an encyclopedia we ought to respect all of our readership. --Ludwigs2 14:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Nudity is not sexuality, in my opinion anyway. Muscle, skin, position of weight per hip placement, position of baby per spinal position. What does the belly actually look like. we can't see any of that under clothes. Pregnancy is not just about the belly, it is a huge whole body change, and you can't see that under a top. We have to inform otherwise why bother. The reader is dealing with a physiological change and has to be able to see it prude or not. I guess I'll agree to just disagree.(olive (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC))

Olive, a physician trying to diagnose a patient is a very different context than a general-purpose encyclopedia reader seeking information about pregnancy. That analogy seems so far afield to me that I'm a bit pessimistic about reaching a consensus here. Actually, though, Ludwigs2 expressed my viewpoint more articulately than I could, so I'll just agree with his comment of 14:35 4 Sept, above. MastCell ^Talk 17:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Mastcell, the issue is information. A reader in a general purpose encyclopedia needs information, so does a physician, so does an artist. While an MD may need more of a certain kind of information than a WP reader, both need information. No none is suggesting that the reader needs to understand disease , but the reader does deserve to have a minimum amount of information pertaining to the human body in this physiological state. (olive (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC))

Possible interpretation stemming from the masking problem. Dreadstar ☥ 22:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm… I see. we need a picture of a naked woman to be sure she's not faking pregnancy with a watermelon. but then, how do we know that the nude image is not a non-pregnant woman with some artful photoshopping? How do we know it's not a photoshopped picture of a man? The mind boggles...

Seriously, though, I'm not buying the 'we need nakedness because it's informative' argument. I could see that argument with respect to a bare belly, but extending it to full nudity is a real stretch (no pun intended). These images are not intended to add to content so much as give visual foci to orient the reader to the subject - neither picture explains what pregnancy means in any real way - and so using an informativeness argument is a bit odd. --Ludwigs2 00:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

LOL! Well, that's not my argument, I merely find that the current image is a precious and warm display of motherhood, the bare bones of mother and child captured in what to me is such a meanginful way that it truly represents the article's subject. Dreadstar ☥ 00:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

You think the current image is "precious and warm." You like the image. Okay.

Now let's get serious here. Why do you believe that the current image is a better representation of the article's subject? Please be as specific as you can. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with Dread's assessment: I think it's a nice picture. The place where I disagree with Dread and and others is over the following

• Is the image anything more than aesthetically pleasing?
• Is the aesthetics of it sufficient cause to risk giving offense to those who might be offended by it?

Some people have argued that it's more, some have argued the aesthetics is enough, I tend to think not on both grounds. There's room for debate. --Ludwigs2 03:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Dreadstar that it's a beautiful picture. But the "I like it" argument is not good enough to keep the picture.

"I tend to think not on both grounds." Agree (with this and all your other comments on this talk page so far). --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 10:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

but the reader does deserve to have a minimum amount of information pertaining to the human body in this physiological state Pregnancy is more than the sum of the physical changes during pregnancy but okay...

Be so kind and explain why you believe that the current image gives more relevant information about pregnancy. As I wrote elsewhere, it is true that we see more skin. We see stretch marks, cellulite, breasts, nipples, and Areola coloring etc. Women don't need to be pregnant to have stretch marks, cellulite, the same breast size and coloring. Can you prove that the woman in the picture didn't have the same stretch marks, cellulite, breast size, coloring etc. before her pregnancy? If you are interested in the physical tranformation you need a before picture. If we focus on the belly, I don't see how the current picture offers more information about pregnancy than the proposed new picture. The nude woman covers her belly and we only see her left side. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's a nasty, insulting post, and it distorts the comments by editors here. I'd suggest you try and restrain yourself. Dreadstar ☥ 00:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I quoted one editor, olive. Please provide evidence that I misquoted him/her.

I find the suggestion that editors who want to replace the current image are prudes distasteful. I find the suggestion that women's bodies are "deformed" during pregnancy distasteful. I find rewriting, moving, and otherwise editing other editors' comments distasteful. But I certainly don't find my request for more specific explanation nasty and/or insulting. Please be so kind, Dreadstar, and explain specifically and in detail why you believe that the current picture offers more information about pregnancy. You have been very unclear on that so far. Can you prove that the physical attributes that I described and that you find so nasty are related to her pregnancy? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Ludwigs2 that "offending people is never a consideration for an encyclopedia" is wrong, we always have to consider the wider picture. However in this case I would say that the encyclopedic value of retaining the original picture far outweighs the offence that might be caused to a minority of readers. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is not about getting ride of the image just moving it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Getting rid of it from the lead, is what it's about. Dreadstar ☥ 18:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's become pretty obvious that the only major reason for moving the image is that it's nude. If it were a porn image, there might be something more to this argument, since porn is specifically meant for a different purpose than simple information. But the arguments for a nude image in the lead are, again, that there actually is more information in the unclothed image, if only to show what is not there. Olive did a good job of saying specifically what is there, but we are forgetting that the overall form is obscured by clothing. The relationships of the parts and how they stretch amazingly is a large part of the information, and very much obscured in the clothed image. The relevant information exists in what the image lacks, that is a believable support structure, and thus the nude image gives an idea of how drastically the whole body is deformed and changed, which the clothed image does not. And it is the informational value that we are trying to maximize, without regard to cultural bias unless there is no informational price. So again, why have that image in the lead specifically? Because it's a summary of pregnancy in picture form, and the lead is supposed to be a summary. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 19:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the image is fine in the lead. It is picture of the subject of the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

And I argue that the only reason to keep the image is because it's of a nude woman. You are wrong to say that the image is more informative because she is nude--the only difference that a person could actually say for sure had changed is her stomach. The rest requires a fairly good image of what she looked like before. I argue that a nude image focuses more on her physical changes, while a clothed image would focus on both emotional and physical. Saibh (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Sonicyouth86, are you saying that if we were to procure a high quality image of a woman who met all our other criteria- good illustration and good photo quality etc., that it would be okay if she happened to be nude? Because that's not what I'm getting from the discussion. I'm getting that nudity itself is an issue for people. That hasn't been a hidden part of the discussion. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 00:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain why you believe that "nudity is an issue" for me or for the other editors who have voted in favor of replacing the current image?

You wrote here that nude pictures show how a woman's body is "deformed" during pregnancy. I pointed out that if you want to focus on the physical changes during pregnancy (not just the belly) you need evidence that the physical attributes of the nude woman are really due to her pregnancy. It is possible that the woman had the exact same topographic skin changes on her hips (apparently, I am not allowed to say cellulite) before pregnancy. So why illustrate the topographic skin change on her hips if it is unrelated to her pregnancy?

If you focus on the one obvious sign of her pregnancy, her belly, then there is no reason to believe that the current image offers more information about pregnancy than the new image.

The fact that the new image is of better quality and of a woman of color... more advantages. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 01:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a matter of how the evidence of pregnancy relates to the rest of the body. Not necessarily the changes of the body. As to the issue of nudity, it's there in the top of this discussion, and other places. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 01:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

"It's a matter of how the evidence of pregnancy relates to the rest of the body." I'm not sure if I understand. Do you mean proportions? I really don't think that an average Wikipedia reader needs to compare the size of the belly to the size of other body parts in order to understand pregnancy. I doubt that readers will go: "Oh look, Nancy, that is one mighty big belly. It's twice as big as her head. Now I understand pregnancy, finally!" Moreover, the new proposed image is not worse in this regard. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 10:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Um, yes, the clothed image is worse in this regard, as you say. And actually, your thought process seems to me fairly accurate. That's how humans think, and that's why we're able to deal with the real world, whereas robots have extreme difficulty dealing with real-life situations but are nevertheless good at chess or math. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 21:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The fact the the woman in Image 1 looks at the viewer activates our mind's eye movement detection engine, which is instinctive, and we tend to give undue importance to the face and the look of the subject, which we try to subconsciousyl intepret, and this tend to obfuscate the pregnancy element of the picture. On the other hand, the women in Image 2 contemplates the part of her body that contains her baby: the picture is not only a representation of pregancy as a physiological state, it's an excellent representation of pregnancy as a state of mind. Dessources (talk) 09:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Any image showing the woman's face represents pregnancy as a state of mind. The introspectiveness of the nude woman is not the only state of mind, and I'm not sure that it's even a typical one. The state of mind for some infertility patients is likely to be near-manic joy. The state of mind for some unmarried women is likely to be dominated by fear.

This image shows something more like the idealized Western notion of a Good™ pregnancy: a pure, innocent, intimate, warm response to something so special, so holy that the viewer cannot be acknowledged. I don't dislike the image on these grounds, but it's a Hollywood notion of pregnancy—the culturally approved response to pregnancy, which demands that the pregnancy be planned and the child "wanted"; that the woman be financially stable, married, in her late 20s or 30s, and white; and that the woman be healthy, in awe of carrying a child, and "already in love" with the baby. This is not reality for most of the world's pregnant women. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Well put, this isn't a very good picture. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 01:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

If you believe that it isn't a very good picture, then why do you keep insisting that it lead the article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, you seem to be extracting far more information out of the nude picture than I could possibly do. For my part, I just said that it expresses that pregnancy is also a state of mind, without venturing into saying which particular state of mind (I can't read minds) - such states of mind are very subjective and vary widely. You make reference to your culture when interpreting it; I'd suspect a woman from Abidjan will see it very differently.

Dessources (talk) 11:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Basic art criticism doesn't require mind-reading skills. It requires looking at and reacting to the artwork, and knowing a little bit about the artist's (not every possible viewer's) culture. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting point raised at the Gendergap List. (The following is my riffing on this and I'm not claiming to speak for anyone but myself.) The whole article is too medical and not enough cultural. For instance: you have to wear a whole different wardrobe when you're pregnant and the clothes are different that what you're used to. This is pretty important. And the clothed image depicts this, to an extent. Look at the woman (in the clothed image): she's wearing a special pregnancy top! How does that make her feel? Does she have to wear cheaper clothes than she's used to, because they're just temporary? How does that affect her self-image? Etc. That's a lot more important than whether the image shows every indentation of the bump, medically. That's my opinion and it's arguable, but I'm just saying, let's not assume that the more "medical" image is necessarily showing the most important aspect of pregnancy. Herostratus (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article is too medical, there is much more to the subject. On the other hand I do not believe we need 'medical' justification to show a tasteful image of a woman without clothes. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.