Talk:Pregnancy/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Nudity and social norm

User Ludwigs2 said above: "Nudity is irrelevant - it's the unnecessary violation of social norms that irks me. Society has its norms: you should change social norms and bring the results to wikipedia, not use wikipedia to change social norms." Valid point. However, this argument does not support the removal of the nude lead picture, on the contrary. I claim that the social norm makes it fully acceptable to have a nude picture in an encyclopedia article on pregnancy, and Ludwigs2 and others invoking similar arguments to his are yet to produce valid evidence to the contrary.

The vast majority of people - whose opinion collectively makes the social norm - will not find the image in the least objectionable. As an example, in the Spanish Wikipedia, Image 1 (clothed version) was replaced with Image 2 (nude) in June (see [1]) without the slightest objection and no revert whatsoever. Image 1 was similarly replaced with Image 2 on the French Wikipedia in February, without any reaction. Image 2 was introduced in the Italian Wikipedia in June, and no one objected. In the Dutch Wikipedia, Image 1 was changed to Image 2 in September 2008, and the edit was flagged as a Minor change (see [2]), causing no protest at all. If Image 2 were a "violation of social norm", these changes would have triggered at least some reaction, as the social norm is not very different in Spanish, in French, Italian or Dutch, in particular given that there are very large communities speaking those languages, which are also well represented in all places of the world where English is spoken.

The trouble with Ludwigs2, and the contributors who use similar arguments, is that they want the rest of us believe that the point of view of a fringe group of individuals who get hyterical as soon as they see a nipple in a picture represents the social norm. It simply does not. There is also a greeat deal of confusion in their argument, since they equate walking naked in the streets of a city, which is indeed everywhere against the social norm, with having a plain and factual picture showing the body of an expecting woman in an encyclopedia article on pregnancy, which is fully compatible with the social norm. Dessources (talk) 13:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Dessources - There is a difference between 'being objectionable' and 'violating a social norm'. The three pertinent considerations are as follows:

1. The image offends a minority of people
2. The image (whether or not it's offensive) violates the norm of behavior in the vast, vast majority of social situations
3. The image adds very little actual knowledge to the article

The first two points are inarguable, and Wikipedia does not go out of its way to offend people just because they are minority groups nor violate social norms without due cause. The first two points would both be allowable IF the last point was incorrect and the image had encyclopedic value. However, what you're arguing now seems to be - and pardon me for highlighting this, because it's so deliciously foolish - that nipples represent a vitally important piece of encyclopedic knowledge. That just takes the cake.

This is really what the issue has come down to, in light of the picture I posted above - you guys insist on having nipples in the lead image, and moreover you think that everyone who opposes you must be anti-nipple fringe lunatics. I swear, you're like the nipple equivalent of NAMBLA, trying to legitimize anti-social behavior as an acceptable norm. --Ludwigs2 14:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

And it's also come down to you being anti-nipple- that's the only argument against the current image. You've discounted every subjective-type argument and thus have rejected the obvious because it can't be defended on scientific/explicative grounds. And the obvious is that this image adds a lot to the article. It adds something which the other images do not, and that something summarizes pregnancy in a way that the other images do not. So you're pitting one subjective argument, dislike of nipples, against another. And you're acting like one subjective argument is rational and the other subjective argument is irrational.

Now, I'm not disowning any rational arguments above for or against the picture. But the two subjective arguments (against nipples because they offend and for the image because of its fuzzy qualities) are equal. The rational arguments are what we should be listening to, without confusing the issue with the subjective arguments. I'm saying to please stop acting like your subjective argument is rational. It's not only subjective- it's against policy. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 15:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

B.C. - I expect you to have a bit more astute reasoning than some of the other people on your side, so please don't insult me. My argument is that breasts are not conventionally shown in public and there is no overriding reason to show them in the lead of this article. This is not a subjective argument about the aesthetics of teats; this is an observation that outside of museums, strip clubs, carnivàle, and spring break in Mexico, breasts are rarely displayed in public. That is an objective fact, and I don't really care whether the world should be like that; it is. Only a complete moron would translate that argument into some kind of 'anti-nipple' sentiment, and you're not a complete moron, so don't go there.

What we have here is a handful of adolescents who have decided (in standard adolescent style) that they are too cool to play by the rules that everybody else in the world plays by, and not only are they going to bust the rules, they're going to rub everyone's nose in the fact that they can bust the rules with impunity. They are a higher-class version of the kind of people who draw pictures of penises in bathroom stalls, spray-paint graffiti on bridges, play their music at 200dbs in public parks. They need to grow up, and part of growing up means learning that they do not get to have their way just because they are vile-temperedly self-righteous about it. This has nothing to do with nipples, except that your friends on the tit-squad are determined to keep as much T&A in articles as possible just so they can prove how stupid everyone else is. That is not the way to run an encyclopedia. --Ludwigs2 17:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, you're representing anti-tit sentiment on this page. And that sentiment is subjective, just as pro-tit sentiment is (it objectively exists, but it's a subjective sentiment). So we should decide based on other concerns. You admitted above that the clothed image has less information. BTW, there are more possibilities than currently in discussion [3] or [4][5][6]. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 17:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems rather intuitive to me that the level of "convention" that might be expected in a museum is similar or equal to what should be expected in an encyclopedia. siafu (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Why yes, I hadn't thought of that :D B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 18:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

No, BC, I'm representing the conventional viewpoint - the one you're going to find in almost every public setting in the world. This is not subjective, it's the way 8 or 9 billion people live their daily lives. If you continue to call me (and those other 8-9 billion people) anti-tit, then you are boxing yourself into the role of a pervert: someone whose obsession with mammaries drives him to act out in socially unacceptable ways. Is that really the box you want to crawl into?

And please read wp:NOT - wikipedia is not a museum, a repository of images, or a gallery of individual artwork. It's an encyclopedia. Wikipedia has articles on 'museum-type' subjects (painting, sculpture, photography, etc) and appropriate nudity is entirely acceptable on those pages. However, this is not an 'art' type article, there is no particular reason why a nude image is required in the lead (it adds little if any knowledge about the subject), and an art nude is well outside the conventional norms for this topic. --Ludwigs2 18:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Suggesting that wikipedia is like a museum in some ways is hardly claiming that it is a museum in all ways. This is an article on a topic covered by biology, physiology, and medicine. In all these venues, nudity is perfectly appropriate, as a nude image most accurately represents the topic at hand-- not sure why an "art" type article would warrant a nude more than a "science" type article (like this). That's why a nude image is appropriate in the lead, and in the article in general. You seem to be trying very hard to turn this argument around and place the burden back on those supporting the inclusion of the image, when at this point the burden really falls on you: pregnancy is a primarily physiological phenomenon, showing the physiology is certainly called for. You're being asked to put forward a reason why it would be better for the article to hide some of the relevant information when we could just as easily not do so.

Also, citing "conventional norms" is not a very strong argument, for two reasons. Firstly, "conventional" is quite culture-specific. In Canada, Germany, and many other places (many of which are likely to produce users of English wikipedia), showing nipples in public is legal and acceptable. Secondly, wikipedia is also not a physical place where identifiable and physically present individuals interact-- the fact that showing nipples in such venues is sometimes forbidden doesn't seem to hold too much relevance. A more appropriate analogy, though a similarly weak one, would be citing the fact that nipples aren't shown in print very commonly-- though this is obviously a culturally specified "norm" as well since uncovered magazine stands in Europe commonly show nipples, breasts, naked people, etc-- since at least it would be equating notionally similar media. siafu (talk) 18:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: There is, FYI, no section on "not a museum" in WP:NOT. The "repository of images" section is also not relevant, since it refers to images with no accompanying text. It would be very difficult to argue that the image is not relevant in that sense. siafu (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Variable - please list all the places you can think of where the public presentation of nude imagery of any sort is acceptable. You can cite any place in the world you like, and if you do a really good job you'll convince me that there is no universal social norm about nudity, then this conversation will be over. I'll wait… --Ludwigs2 19:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I already listed a few, and we certainly don't have room for all of them. We can, of course, always start right here at wikipedia, with articles like breast, nudity, sexual intercourse, etc. Many other countries, as mentioned, are much less strict about the presentation of nudity in public, so I guess you can add to the list every single newsstand in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and a host of other countries, as well as museums covering any topics relevant to the human body in America itself (e.g., the Field Museum of Natural History in my hometown of Chicago) and elsewhere, encyclopedias the world over (look up Brittanica's entries on body parts, as an easy target), anatomical diagrams, statues and paintings personifying justice (like the one in the Justice Dept. building in Washington, D.C.) and liberty... the list goes on. As for a "universal social norm", there are relatively few of these in the world. The Himba, for example, have no problem with this. But really, what are we going to gain by exhaustively listing all the places where "the public presentation of nude imagery of any sort is acceptable"? All that matters is this place, wikipedia, for this discussion. siafu (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Variable - We can exclude wikipedia (since part of the issue here is that people are using wikipedia to violate social norms). Beyond that, what I hear you saying is there are restricted locations where nudity is accepted (some newsstands in Europe, museums and some public statuary (where it is considered artistic), encyclopedias (assumedly only in places where it is informational - not many encyclopedias contain art nudes), anatomical drawings (assumedly in textbooks). However, let's look at the places where you never see nudity: workplaces, supermarkets, stores, public streets or government buildings (aside from occasional statues), public schools, private schools, town council meetings, 99% of the books in stores, television (except for some late-night programming on channels like HBO), movies (except for infrequent toplessness in some R-rated films). And that's in the US and Europe, where things are fairly liberal - head for a conservative country (China, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, India), and it's even rarer. In fact, it's fairly easy anywhere in the world to go weeks without seeing a naked breast (aside from the wife's/girlfriend's) without even trying to avoid it. This is what constitutes a social norm. Sure, if you want to pick just those areas where people try to push the limits of conventional norms for love/profit the world looks different, but that's a very skewed perspective on how the world really is. --Ludwigs2 15:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

We can't exclude wikipedia, because 'that is the venue we are discussing', and the policies and norms of wikipedia are what are relvant to the discussion, not the norms of various cultures. Moreover, you are continuing to conflate social situations with textual media, in addition to ignoring the examples-- "some newstands" really is just about all of them, for example. The public schools where you "never" see nudity are places where you can find encyclopedias and textbooks, both containing nudes when appropriate (e.g. in an article about PREGNANCY)-- I went to such a public school, complete with its own small library which include both Brittanica and World Book, both of which had nude images in them. Wikipedia is not a public school, it's not a place at all, it is an information sharing medium, more like a book. Nobody is trying to "push the limits of conventional norms", just trying to use an appropriate image the represents the subject matter. The invoking of "social norms" is a real canard here. siafu (talk) 16:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Siafu, I excluded wikipedia because that is circular reasoning, a logical fallacy: It's like that old Lincoln quip about hypocrisy, which he defines as a man murdering his parents and then asking for lenience because he's an orphan. Unless you're trying to argue that wikipedia has a culture of its own which it is rightfully trying to impose on the rest of the world, let it go; it's not a huge issue, I just don't want to confuse things with circular logic.

With respect to your other thought, no one is disputing that people can find nudity if they search for it. The point is that the social norm almost everywhere is not to display it except in specific locations where it is considered acceptable (for aesthetic, educational, or other reasons). You won't find high school text books with gratuitous nudity in them; you won't find gratuitous nudity in encyclopedias; you won't generally find gratuitous nudity in shops or stores or markets (I say generally because there are a few restricted exceptions to that), and you won't generally find gratuitous nudity in workplace environments. I suspect that if we managed to have a real poll of wikipedia editors (not the self-selecting groups that attend RfC's like this) we'd find that a large majority of editors, while significantly more liberal than the general populace, would still oppose gratuitous nudity on project as a rule. (Unfortunately, Wikipedia's decision-making system is maybe the stupidest thing I've ever seen; all our decisions are made on the input of radicalized participants. but still…) --Ludwigs2 17:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You're the one making a circular argument here; we can't exclude wikipedia because that is what we are talking about, specifically because wikipedia does not conform to a particular national culture-- this is the exact reason why it has to have policies instead of just telling users to rely on the cultural norms they already know. Of course it has a "culture of its own" in this sense, but there is no attempt to impose this on the world at all.

As for the second point, you started this discussion by asserting that the nudity in this article is gratuitous because of these supposed social norms. I am pointing out that A) these norms are not nearly so universal as you claim, and B) it doesn't matter because wikipedia articles are in no way analogous to social situations, they are articles, and are analogous to other media and not social behavior. You won't generally find nudity in workplace environments, because workplace environments are not encycplodia articles about pregnancy. You will generally find nudity in articles on pregnancy, reproduction, anatomy, etc., in encyclopedias and textbooks. The social norm argument is still a canard for this very reason; it doesn't matter how many users say they do or do not walk around naked at work, or display gratuitous nudity in the workplace, public school, or the street, because no one is proposing such a thing. What is being discussed is a nude image in an encyclopedia article, and whether or not it is appropriate. siafu (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Dude, we are talking about the way wikipedia impacts on social norms in the real world. It's a violation of logic to point to wikipedia as an example of the social norms it itself is supposedly violating. It would be like suggesting that someone is stealing money from himself - how could that make sense? get it? yeesh...

Second, I did not assert that "the nudity in this article is gratuitous because of these supposed social norms". I asserted that there was no need for a nude image in the lead of this article, and it is a violation of social norms to present nudity anywhere except in particular instances where it is useful/desirable. You fail to understand the logic once again, so let me spell it out for you in simple terms:

• If there were some obvious and reasonable encyclopedic value to leading this article off with a nude image, I wouldn't blink at it twice.
• There is no obvious and reasonable need for a nude image (at least no one has come up with one yet, just a lot of hubbub about nipples).
• Therefore, we shouldn't use it, because it is not standard practice in society (any society) to show nudity gratuitously.

You keep pointing to the exceptions (exceptions I am well aware of) and insisting they should be treated as the rule, which is specious argumentation. There are good arguments you could make for using the image (I know, because a couple of people have made them on this page, though they have been lost in all the hubbub about nipples). So why don't you stop trying to tell us that nudity is a normative experience for most people (which simply flies in the face of observable reality), stop trying to redefine wikipedia so that it fits in some category where you're sure you can defend any use of nudity (which would pull us away from being a serious encyclopedia), and get back to the decent arguments that can be made here. Even the decent arguments don't fly all that well, mind you, but the irrationality of your current position renders the entire discussion absurd. --Ludwigs2 20:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not getting the impression that you're actually reading my comments here and, AFAIK, no one is claiming that the exceptions should be treated as the rule, nor did I anywhere claim that public nudity is a normative experience; I am pointing out the exceptions to make clear that the "rule" you feel is so important and relevant to this discussion is not actually as much of a rule as you think it is. I presented these examples as 'a fortiori' as a corrollary (i.e., in order to beat the "social norm" idea to death just in case it's not clear from what comes next) to the more important argument, which is that whatever the rule may or may not be is not relevant. The good arguments that I could make I have already made, specifically that this is an article about pregnancy (a phsysiological phenomenon, with social and emotional aspects) and as such, it is best demonstrated with an image that actually represents that as clearly and plainly as possible. This is an encyclopedic argument, and you are blinking at it, in fact, outright ignoring and/or rejecting it out of hand. Don't get sidetracked by nipples.

Secondly, we are talking about what to do with this page and what image to use on it; the discussion of social norms is, as I have repeatedly stated, is a complete canard because we're not trying to change the real world, we're trying to decide on an image to include in this article. At least I am.

Thirdly, if you look to the top of this section, you will see yourself being quoted: "Nudity is irrelevant - it's the unnecessary violation of social norms that irks me. Society has its norms: you should change social norms and bring the results to wikipedia, not use wikipedia to change social norms." It is the nudity that is the violation of the "social norms", and "gratuitous" is a synonym of "unnecessary". The error in your logic is the application of social norms from very different situations (i.e., public spaces with actual people) and applying them to an encyclopedia article about pregnancy. Moreover, whatever wikipedia does, it is not attempting to change social norms-- no more than the AMA is in putting pictures of unclothed people into its textbooks and journal papers. Whatever people do in polite society is not particularly pertinent, since people in polite society are not representative of an encyclopedia article; examples of such articles or, as I have insisted on being more general, "analogous media", overwhelmingly show that a nude image is perfectly accepted in such a situation. Whether you agree or disagree, I challenge you to tell what is irrational about this position. siafu (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Siafu - Ok, so you accept that nudity is ab-normative (not abnormal, just outside the norm) for public spaces, except in specialized contexts. Good, this is progress. Now next step: once we have acknowledged that nudity is ab-normative (except in certain contexts), then there are only three ways we can take this argument in order to justify using an art nude image.

1. To argue that the image is sufficiently important to the article to justify doing something ab-normative.
2. To argue that Wikipedia is a context in which ab-normative behavior is generally expected and acceptable.
3. To argue that normative contexts are (for some reason) unworthy of being respected.

With respect to the first: This is an art nude image, not a clinical photo or anatomical drawing. The mere fact that pregnancy is 'physiological' does not require nudity - eyestrain is physiological as well, but we wouldn't need an image of a nude model to lead off that topic. This image by itself does not explain or teach us anything about pregnancy - aside from the belly, it would require a reasonable amount of writing to point out which features of the body a naive reader should be focusing on, because the image is not annotated or sufficiently clinical for such observations to be obvious. Now, you could make a case for the image of the belly (which is a unique feature of pregnancy, and obvious in the photo), but when I offered a compromise image that showed just that prominent feature I met resistance from people who were annoyed because it left out the breasts (despite the fact that the image is not remotely clear about what relationship there is between the breasts and pregnancy). two things to take from this: (1) aside from the belly the image is not in any way informative about pregnancy, and (2) the people trying to retain it are defending it for reasons that have nothing to do with the topic of pregnancy. The only conclusion from this is that the image lacks any real significance to the article.

With respect to the second: That's not an argument that can credibly be made under policy. Wikipedia is not the encyclopedia of counter-culture rebels, nor is it a place where we generally allow people to act out in ab-normative ways. Now, if you want to make the case that Wikipedia is more "arty" than factual, then we could probably include the image for its aesthetic value, but that's not really what the project is about. In a real encyclopedia you would not find this image, or any nude image that was not presented out of factual necessity.

With respect to the third: This is the conventional argument offered by NOTCENSORED proponents, and may be the most solid of the three arguments, but I find it fatuous and insultingly ignorant. What is basically amounts to is "whoever owns wikipedia gets to set the standards" position - pure realpolitik. Any position that holds that any of our readers are unworthy of respect is about as far from the intentions of wikipedia as can be imagined. It's prejudice. What it basically says is that even though people conventionally don't expose themselves to gratuitous nudity in the real world, on wikipedia we're going to force them to because - honestly - we don't really give a shit about what they want. that's unconscionable. --Ludwigs2 00:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

---

It seems Ludwigs2 is constantly moving the goalpost and is getting more and more incoherent as this discussion persists. Just above, he tries to teach me a lesson, telling me that there is a difference between 'being objectionable' and 'violating a social norm.' However, when I used the expression "violating a social norm", I was just quoting his own words. He is the one who said "Nudity is irrelevant - it's the unnecessary violation of social norms that irks me" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pregnancy&diff=prev&oldid=451264760) and "The question here is why are we violating conventional standards in order to present a nude picture when there is no real reason to." (see [7]). It seems that he refers to violating social norm when it suits him, while criticising others for doing the same when it doesn't (not realizing that they are actually quoting him). With such lack of logical rigor, it's clear that the discussion may drag on for ever, unproductively. When you wipe away all the subjective noise in Ludwigs2's arguments, only one thing is left invariant: the persistent anti-nipple sentiment, of which all the other arguments are nothing but different clothes used to disguise it. I find this a bit pathetic.

Dessources (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

And if you actually bother to stop and think, dessources, you'd realize that I have made two distinct arguments which are in no way incompatable. (1) that we should not offend any group, no matter how small, without good reason, and (2) that we should not violate conventional social norms (those held by the vast majority of our readership) without good reason. The only truly incoherent arguments I see on this page come from you (remember, you were the one who suggested that it sexist not to display a nude image). And now you've just fallen to ad hominem trolling. shame on you.

As I said, I'm fairly certain we're headed for arbcom (because I'm fairly certain that at a least a couple of you are going to behave badly when the RfC comes back against the image), so you might as well save your breath for that. --Ludwigs2 18:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Threatening to "bring down the ArbCom" is not much better than threatening to "bring down an admin". Anyone who is familiar with how ArbCom proceeds would also likely find this to be similarly ridiculous, so the end result is that you are injecting an adversarial tone to the discussion when one is not necessary. What are you gaining from this? siafu (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain we're headed for arbcom, is not a threat, and you're an idiot for suggesting that it is. enough said. --Ludwigs2 19:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't usually feel the need to point these out, but stepping way over the line of WP:NPA is not a good idea for you, for the discussion, or for the project in general. siafu (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but if you accuse me of making threats with no justification, that is more than enough justification for me to accuse you of stupidity. It may not be nice, but it's accurate. --Ludwigs2 15:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPA is not flexible. Read it. The ArbCom mention also does constitute a threat, albeit indirectly, since it was an attempt to get people to "behave" the way you want them to by supposedly pointing out some nebulous consequences from what you see as the wikipedia equivalent of law enforcement. It's not a serious threat, and I didn't take it that way, but I don't see how I was wrong to question that tactic. You gain nothing by it except antagonism, which, congratulations, you have achieved. I believe you will find that it will not serve you in this discussion or in others, nor will calling your fellow editors idiots cause anyone to stop and say, "OMG! How wrong I was!". If anything you are hardening the opposition. siafu (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

If somehow this does go to ArbCom, it will have to be explained why, in contravention of explicit policy, people here have insisted on making this about offensiveness, rather than solely discussing the Wikipedia-relevant aspects. This, even after repeated calls to leave the offensiveness issue aside and focus on other issues. Also, the incivility and baiting will have to be explained. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 19:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

BC, if this goes to arbcom it will not be about the content (arbcom doesn't legislate content), it will be about behavioral matters and the use or misuse of the project. I'd love to see this go to arbcom, because it will give me a chance to systematically curtail the all-to-frequent abuses of NOTCENSORED, and establish that the project is, in fact, not to be used as a platform to change society. As to the rest - whatever. --Ludwigs2 15:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

As pointed out by Becritical, Ludwigs2's two distinct arguments are equally irrelevant, as they are clearly in breach of the WP:NOTCENSORED rule, which addresses both of them:

• Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so (see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer). Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms.
• ...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.

So, what's the point of continuing this discussion, Ludwigs2, repeating the same things like a broken record, simply raising the incivility level with each new iteration?

Dessources (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Two reasons:

• I keep hoping (against hope) that you will calm down and start using some common sense,
• I don't want your (absolutely ridiculous) perspective on the world to be the dominant theme that uninvolved editors see. If you can't see common sense, they should at least be given the chance.

good enough?--Ludwigs2 15:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

""Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." Albert Einstein 144.85.140.166 (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Ignorance is what happens when people aim at brilliance, and miss. --Ludwigs2 16:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Ludwig keeps telling us that social norms mean we don't see nipples in a public place, and nobody walks naked down the street. Where I live (officially the World's Most Livable City) naked people in the street are quite rare, but nipples are very common in pictures in magazines and books in stores and magazine stands on those streets, and in the local library. The Pregnancy article in Wikipedia much more closely parallels the material in the book shop, magazine stand or local library than a person walking down the street. HiLo48 (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

HiLo - topless women are common in magazines? what magazines are those? I live in Northern California (arguably a very liberal place), and I'd still have to search to find magazines with frequent casual nudity. Tell me where you live - I may move there if what you say is true - but I feel certain that you are misrepresenting something.

As for Wikipedia being like the material in "the book shop, magazine stand or local library"… This is exactly the problem that I am trying to avoid. commercial magazines, glossy 'art books', and tabloid newspapers are trying to sell books, and so they sometimes use titillating images to draw in customers - look at the old 'pulp fiction' covers from the 50's. Even there, they rarely go all the way to casual nudity (preferring revealing outfits and suggestive postures - nudity would hurt sales). Wikipedia does not need titillating images to attract readers, and that is not the kind of thing a serious encyclopedia would do regardless. As I said on my talk page, your attitude leads inevitably to a white-trash encyclopedia, where nobody cares how squalid and disorganized the information is so long as they can have a greasy pinup tacked to the wall.--Ludwigs2 15:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Ludwig - you have just made you most revealing post so far on this page. YOU find the image titillating. Now we're getting somewhere. Can you tell that it's not intended to be titillating? Perhaps someone in a titillated state is not going to be thinking about things objectively. So, what do we do about the fact that Ludwig is titillated by this image? HiLo48 (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no. if you want an example of images I find titillating, you should look here NSFW!. When I used the word titillating I was referring to tabloids and pulp fiction, which was clearly indicated in my post. but thank you for pointing out how desperate you are to get away from rational discussion to some kind of ad hominem attack. It speaks volumes about your character (or rather, lack thereof). (I'm doing my best not to call you an idiot - trying to mend my evil ways… - but you're making it damned hard). --Ludwigs2 21:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for misunderstanding. Perhaps it was a vain hope that you had finally responded to the frequent pleas by several here for you to be honest enough to say what YOU thought, rather than insisting that your concerns are on behalf of some nameless "others". HiLo48 (talk) 22:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

And I have been telling you what I think, over and over, but each time you seem not to hear it. Would it make your life easier if I put this in personal terms? ok.

• I am offended by YOU (and dessources, and several others) for your complete and arrogant disregard of the feelings and interests of others
• I am offended by YOU for your petulant refusal to be reasonable about what should have been a trivial issue
• I am offended by YOU for the way in which you screw logic to the wall like it was a two-bit whore

The image I can take or leave - I think we could make a lot of people in the world more comfortable by removing it, and that removing it would do no measurable harm to the article, and that seems to me to be the right thing to do; but I'm open-minded on the issue. You guys, however, you fucking take the cake. Is that clear enough? --Ludwigs2 00:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, you are losing control of yourself. I suggest you stay cool (see WP:DISENGAGE) and take a break.Dessources (talk) 09:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

And I suggest you get a life. HiLo asked a foolish question and insisted on an answer, and that is never a wise thing to do. Now you're compounding his error.

Let me be perfectly clear: trying to make this about me rather than about the content - as you and HiLo have been doing almost exclusively for the last day or two - is against talk page guidelines, and will not have any effect except to increase the contempt I have for your intelligence. --Ludwigs2 15:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Ludwigs2, I'm pretty sure that if any editor on the other side of the debate wanted to block you for gross incivility, it would be an easy call for an admin. I applaud the fact (as far as I know) that no one's done that as a mere tactic for shutting you down; the participants here, while often crusading for causes and giving in to emotions, are all making a good-faith effort to take the discussion seriously. I see this as a very worthwhile debate, with good points on both sides, but it's rapidly headed for the lame hall of fame. You are not alone among disputants who could benefit from cooling off, though. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are good points on both sides. I believe all this energy would be better spent on a push to change policy however, since current policy clearly addresses this kind of issue, and comes down explicitly on one side of this debate. And behaving badly during an attempt to circumvent clear policy isn't something I'd want ArbCom to see. I would support a push to change the policy, since such a push could only strengthen WP, either by making the reasons behind current policy clearer, or by changing to another policy. As long as that policy change had wide community input. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 18:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

@Cynwolfe - it is a lame conversation, yes, but it's primarily lame because if one removes the lame elements there aren't many valid arguments to retain the image, and that weakness is triggering a lot of emotions. What would the image supporters say if they did not attack the people who want to remove the image? The substantive arguments are weak and have been refuted several times on this page, the policy arguments don't really hold water… The only thing left to do is to claim that anyone who wants to remove the image is a nipple-fearing wacko trying to sanitize the encyclopedia. I'm surprised no one has gotten around to calling me a tit-nazi yet.

If you want my opinion of blocking practice on wikipedia that's a conversation we can have elsewhere: suffice it to say that if I were an admin watching this page I would have stopped the nonsense way back on September 5th, when people first started accusing other editors of censorship and prudery. Once that cycle of demeaning other editors gets started, it will follow its natural course, meaning either that editors will leave the page to avoid the nastiness (which several of the original participants have done, or they won't (which throws the page into a downward spiral).

@ BC: I've actually tried to change NOTCENSORED twice to make it a bit less prone to abuse, and ran into the same kind of specious argumentation I ran into here. Apparently the project has a smallish group of editors who are dead-set on any civil restrictions to their behavior (I'm not sure why, exactly, and the reasons probably vary from editor to editor). I'm willing to try a third time, but I can't see why that would be any different; I suspect only an arbitration ruling will manage it. And please do not make blanket claims like current policy clearly addresses this kind of issue; 'current policy' on this issue is paper thin and highly interpretable, and the problem we're having is that some people are adamant about putting the worst possible interpretation into effect. --Ludwigs2 19:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The current policy looks extremely clear to me. ArbCom doesn't change policy, but merely interprets it sometimes. I don't believe you've dealt with the opposing arguments here, or recognized the weaknesses in your own arguments. But anyway, look at these [8] [9] B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 19:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm always willing to address the weaknesses in my own arguments, but I don't see where the weakness in "Let's not be rude to people where we don't need to be" lies. Seems pretty straight-forward, IMO. If you'd care to clue me in on what I am supposedly missing, maybe we could get somewhere in this mess.

I understand that the relevant policies seem extremely clear to you. I also understand that your interpretation of it is dramatically different than mine, and I'm pretty sure that mine is the less radicalized interpretation. That means either that policy is not as clear as you think or that one of us is grossly misunderstanding it, and I don't think the latter is true. --Ludwigs2 20:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Another image

Pregnancy/Archive 6

B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 20:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

What on earth do those numerals on her belly mean? Cynwolfe (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I like the second one, which I think we should include in the article somewhere. The first one, though… without debating it's encyclopedic merits, it kind of gives me the willies. It looks like she's fed up with the whole thing and about to punch the sketch artist in the nose. Is that pregnancy related? --Ludwigs2 20:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

ROTFL. Ludwigs, you are projecting. Cynwolfe, how the heck should I know? I just wish people would try to come up with a creative solution that no one could call less informative or claim that it's preferred merely for the sake of censorship. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 20:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the numbers correspond to the loops in the lower diagram - the top edge of the uterus in each month. --Ludwigs2 21:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I get it now. But yeah, I find the top image both creepy and dated. I prefer the current nude photo illustration, and while I also like the clothed image under consideration, I have indeed wondered whether an anatomical drawing like the lower image here could resolve the dispute, and very much appreciate the effort. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thx. Hey, how about this, no naughty bits there. Lol. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 22:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Or this [10] or this as part of a collage B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 22:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Bcritical, Your efforts are appreciated but I think you are trying to solve a non-existent problem. No image will be right for everyone but there is no consensus to change the current image at all. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but considering all other options is essential for consensus, even consensus for no change. We do not yet have anything better than the current image in my opinion either. The image at right is too confusing for a lead image. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 13:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the RfC is 27:18 to change the image as of this moment, which is clearly a consensus (remember, consensus does not mean unanimous agreement). Martin is a fanatical supporter, and so we cannot reasonably expect that he will recognize that there is any serious opposition to what he wants, but the rest of us ought to keep things in perspective. --Ludwigs2 14:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

That tally doesn't seem in line with the discussion here, which seems more evenly divided. Also, consensus is not a matter of voting. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh wait. You're surely not serious about the nude couple kissing? What does anybody think about the animation? Cynwolfe (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion here is partisan driven - all heat and no light. As I have pointed out repeatedly, if the angry drivel is removed there is really no strong argument in favor of keeping the image. That doesn't prevent people from repeating the weak arguments ad nauseum, obviously, but certainly no one has presented a credible argument sufficient to demand inclusion

The whole purpose of the RfC, remember, was to get opinions from others outside the invested participants on the page; you don't get to dismiss the (assumedly) unbiased opinions of the community because partisans are bleeding text all over the talk page.

I don't like the animation - it's too busy, and not really informative enough to justify the distraction. (and yeah, let's not even talk about the couple kissing - 70's flashback…). --Ludwigs2 15:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

If you discount the Ivotes that are all about offense/nudity, there is probably no consensus to change. And BTW, I was an outside vote, I have no historical attachment to this page. And of course we don't need a good argument to keep it, the question is whether we should change it. So we need a good arguments for the other image that don't depend on lack of nudity. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 15:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Except we are not going to be discounting the perspectives of other editors - that will most certainly give me reason to open an arbcom case. I do not tolerate liars and cheats. You know for a fact that if this RfC were going in your favor I would abide by it, and I expect you to do the same. If you don't, you demonstrate that you are nothing more than a fanatic hell-bent on getting your way, and I will start invoking IAR left and right on the grounds that that kind of fanatical single-mindedness is damaging to the encyclopedia.

The thought of it is actually improving my mood; I love political dog-fights. --Ludwigs2 19:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:CON we do indeed discount perspectives that don't abide by policy. That doesn't mean they're completely ignored, they just have a lesser impact than do arguments that actually abide by policy. These continued threats of ArbCom action are counterproductive and have no place here; especially considering your own continued behavior and threats here. Dreadstar ☥ 19:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC) I mean, my own behavior hasn't been too stellar here either, but at least I stopped.

I wrote most of what's in CON, and I can tell you point blank that trying to use consensus policy to enforce a minority viewpoint in an RfC is absurd; almost as absurd as using NOTCENSORED to retain an unnecessary image against consensus. As I said, I will IAR any efforts to subvert policy simply to maintain the image against the outcome of the RfC, and I will take it to arbcom if you guys decide to strong-arm it. --Ludwigs2 21:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

If you wrote consensus, then you should be well aware that it is not a 'head-count, majority-rules' policy, so there is no "minority viewpoint" in the way you're attempting to define it. Majority doesn't rule here, it's more complex than that. Sorry you feel that my view on consensus and policy is a 'strong-arm' tactic, it's not. Your continued threats are the real strong arm tactics here. Dreadstar ☥ 23:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S., that's not a threat, that's what I'm going to do. I'm going to settle this stupidity once and for all, regardless of the trouble I might get in, because I am tired of putting up with this bull every time someone has a panic attack over censorship. I am going to pull the teeth on this radicalized nonsense if it kills me. --Ludwigs2 21:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

See threat, what you're saying is a classic threat. Dreadstar ☥ 23:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

And honestly, I don't know why you're making all these threats right now, the RFC isn't over. If someone does something you don't like after that, then you can take action. Right now, it's just silly to be saying "if this, then I'll do that", over and over and over; what is that accomplishing? Dreadstar ☥ 23:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Dread, for the first, I am aware of that, but - as I keep pointing out - all the reasonable arguments are on the removal side. If you want to go by the arguments, the image should be removed; if you want to go by the head-count, the image should be removed. the only argument for retaining the image is a hyped-up emotional diatribe about censorship and ravening hordes of maniacal anti-nipple-people that only makes sense if you make yourself dizzy and squint. I'm not about to let the issue be decided by a hyped-up emotional assault, thankyouverymuch.

With respect to the other - I don't care. I'm simply trying to inform you all of what I'm going to do if that's the way the world starts to turn. If you don't want to hear it, ignore it. If you feel threatened by it I think that's absurd, and I do not consider it to be my problem. I would think that you would all want to know where this is heading, but if you don't, don't ask me to play ostrich. I mean seriously… --Ludwigs2 23:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

There are actually reasonable arguments on both sides, so apparently we'll have to disagree. Dreadstar ☥ 23:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

In response to your PS: What would you have me do when even editors I consider to be reasonable (like BC) are blithely talking about subverting consensus and abusing policy to retain this silly image? serious question. --Ludwigs2 23:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Ignore it until it becomes actionable; say the RFC removes the image, then an edit war starts....that's the time to 'do' something. Not continually make threats (yes they're threats, how can you not even see that simple truth?) This page is for discussing the editorial content of the article, not these side, behaviorial and 'what-if' questions. As you so recently pointed out to someone else. Just leave it alone. This is way off-topic per WP:TPNO and even WP:NPA. Just let them make their 'blithe' comments and save your ammo for when it's really needed. If you can't wait, then take it to their user talk pages and have it out there, but not here; not any more. Dreadstar ☥ 23:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Becritical for his efforts to propose alternative pictures. Each suggested image actually strengthens the case of the current nude image (Image 2), which compares very favorably to all the proposals so far. The recent images suggested by Becritical would deliciously make Wikipedia anachronic and look like an encyclopedia of the 18th or 19th Century - a nice return to the roots. If we look hard enough, I am sure we might eventually come up with a better picture, which would provide as much information as the current nude image, if not more, and would have other additional qualities. However, I do not consider esthetic qualities - being a more "beautiful" picture - a determining factor. If an image is of acceptable quality and does the job well of providing factual information in a plain way, then I would see no need to replace it with a more beautiful picture - it's a domain where more is less, or where, as Voltaire said, the better is the enemy of the good. The current image has those basic qualities, and it seems to be resisting quite robustly in its confrontation with proposed replacement images.

Dessources (talk) 23:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there's nothing better so far. Ludwigs introduced a good image of a belly, but even the sketch has more information. In a summary image it would be wrong to ignore that pregnancy is whole-body and also a psychological experience. Which leaves us with the two original images to choose from, and we should pick the most holistic and informative picture. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 00:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

...and this is the current image (Image 2), we agree, as do most commentators who have not referred to the "nudity-is-offensive" argument. The problem with many of those who invoke the "nudity-is-offensive" argument is that they realise that this may not be enough to compensate for the loss of information and/or has the flavour of nudity censorship, and they tend to put forward a second argument, such as that Image 1 is of better quality than Image 2 - which, when we look closely, is not the case in many ways. If one needs two reasons to make a decision, it shows that each one is weak and not sufficient to justifiy the decision. Dessources (talk) 07:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the remark about "whole-body experience"; I prefer either the clothed gravida or the current nude to a dehumanizing photo that chops off the woman's head and thereby reduces her to a belly and boobs. That to me is far more offensive than the current nude, which shows a woman actively contemplating her condition and possibly her future role as a mother. Either focus solely on physiology by using an anatomical drawing, or preserve the "whole-body experience." Cynwolfe (talk) 13:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's an odd and disturbing assessment. So, you believe that the 'belly only' picture (psst, there are no 'boobs' in the picture i posted, which is if you'll remember the primary complaint against it) is an act of dehumanizing virtual violence. I believe that the original image is dehumanizing in a different way, in that if forces our readers to view nudity in a context where they would normally nor expect it (as well as reducing women to public objects, where it is expected they will bare all at the slightest whim of the viewer - that is the upshot of the 'whole-body experience' you're referring to). So since we are now being considerate of people's feelings, shall we go with the clothed gravida image? --Ludwigs2 14:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between being considerate of people's prejudices and biases, and being respectful of their potential educational takeaway. We are supposed to be most respectful of the informational value of the image, and that includes all aspects of pregnancy, not just the belly. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 15:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

BC - as has been said numerous times on this page, the original image is an art nude, that doesn't contain any particular information about pregnancy, except (perhaps) for the obvious belly. none of the other features of pregnancy are highlighted in the image or have comparative views that would allow a reader to understand them from the image - they would all have to be explained in text to be informative, and the lead is not the place to go into that kind of detailed explanation. your argument is entirely specious. Now, are you going to ignore this line of reasoning like you have the last six times it was presented, or are you going to explain why you think it's wrong? and yes, if you ignore it, I will take that as final proof that you have no argument against it, and you are ignoring it because it's inconvenient to your position. --Ludwigs2 16:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I hope it will not come as a revelation to anyone that a pregnant woman's breasts change because they are preparing to produce milk to feed an infant; I'm baffled that breasts in their most highly functional state are considered in any way obscene or offensive, or unrelated to pregnancy. As I said, I like the current nude because the woman seems engaged with her condition. A woman looks at her pregnant belly and thinks; if the pregnancy is welcome, this is incredibly empowering, though never without anxieties, and I think the woman's expression here lends itself to these multiple psychological interpretations, depending on the viewer. Perhaps I'm the only one here who's actually carried a child and given birth, but I contemplated and marveled at my belly a lot. Of course I also looked at it a lot because I was trying to find my feet to buckle my boots. Again, the "whole-body experience" seems to me a preferable way to illustrate the article, unless an anatomical drawing could be an acceptable compromise. I like the clothed gravida, but I find the current nude more informative about the changes that occur in the body. (And by the way, if you think this is an "art nude," you don't know the difference between art photography, which is an expression of the individual artist, and a photo illustration, as it's called in journalism in contrast to documentary photography; this is a photo illustration, because it illustrates the subject matter but tells us next to nothing about the photographer.) Taking readers' sensibilities into account is not censorship, but I have trouble seeing why this image is offensive, gratuitous, or non-illustrative. Every night, American TV dramatizes women's bodies (always attractive women) bloodied, tortured, raped and murdered, but never do we see a woman's breast as she nurses an infant. I guess the violent images are not obscene or offensive, because no nipples or genitals are shown, but the nursing mother is? At any rate, these seem to be the kind of "social norms" we're concerned about. I certainly don't know what to make of them. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Both the clothed and nude pictures in question are "art." I don't know what's wrong with art. If it were paint, no one would say "It's art, we can't use it." If it were a sketch, no one would say "It's art, we can't use it." Which art better summarizes pregnancy? Which is a better quality image? Which image has more information? Why should we cater to some people's prejudices and not other people's? And why wouldn't we show breasts in the lead, since they're such an integral part of the process? That's why it's a good summary image. Because it summarizes the whole-body experience of pregnancy, especially by the belly and breasts. 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.

Re your argument about how we can't explain all the details in the lead, notice it's a summary image, and should show each aspect of the details below. Thus: belly and breasts at least, and the face to the extent that social aspects are also discussed. We don't need to explain everything, but we do need a visual summary which doesn't obscure the relevant details. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 17:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

@ Cynwolfe: Let me be clear: I am talking about the information the picture provides in and of itself, not the information the reader already has in his/her head. Most readers already know that breasts are used for the production of milk, and many users may know what changes pregnancy may make in breasts for this purpose. For those who do not know these things already, this picture is not going to inform them. They are just breasts, and there is nothing in the picture which tells me that they are different than any other breasts I've seen in my life. I am not an artist, so I will bow to whatever distinctions you make between different kinds of photography, but the point I am trying to make is that it is not a picture that was designed or intended to provide clear and accurate information about pregnancy. It's an emotive portrait, not a clinical one, and while there is a potential value in stirring feel-good emotions in our readers, doing so is not providing them with information

I'll add that there are a lot of things that perplex me, as well. It perplexes me that people would be offended by this image, it perplexes me that our society is so much more tolerant of violence than sexuality, it perplexes me that people go out of their way to snub others for no real gain. It seems to me that most people want to be part of the cure for these perplexities (not everyone, but most people), but that few people understand that being too aggressive about the cure makes you part of the problem. The very innocuousness of this picture is why it's probelmatic. When someone goes to the 'penis' page where there are images that significantly violate social norms, we can say: "It's an article about the penis - we don't necessarily like showing these images, but we need to for the sake of the article". that's an argument anyone can understand, whether they like it or not, and there's no getting around that reasoning. But for this image we lose that moral high-ground. We cannot honestly say that the picture is needed, and that opens up a huge question about why we are violating a widely held social norm. And those suspicions about our motivations as editors reflects badly on the project.

@ BC: I think you're simply making up this concept of a 'summary image'. can you point to some place in policy where that's outlined? As I understand it, the introductory text is supposed to summarize the body of the article. I can't even make sense of the concept of a 'summary image' except as a sort of collage of all the other images in the article, and I'm sure that's not what you mean. In fact, images on wikipedia ought to be visual content designed to illustrate particular points discussed in text; there would be no value (for instance), in having an article entirely composed of images with no text to give them meaning and context. Further, wp:images#Offensive_images says: "However, images that can be considered offensive should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner. Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available.". Now while I doubt this would be considered obscene except by real fanatics, I suspect that there is at least a largish minority (if not a full fledged majority) of wikipedia readers who would consider its use vulgar. In fact, the editors you want to exclude from the RfC are all editors who consider the use of this image to be vulgar, no?

Beyond that, I agree that both the clothed and nude images are 'art'. I'm not opposed to art in articles, I'm opposed to art being treated as informational content (except on articles about art, obviously). All due respect to Keats, but he was a poet, not an encyclopedia editor. --Ludwigs2 18:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Well that's an argument for not including any summary image at all.

I assume that an image in a lead should be a visual summary. The concept of "illustrate" is informative here, because illustration is not necessarily a completely technical thing. It's more like a memory aid because we are visual creatures. As such, if we are going to go with "illustrate" as what we want the lead image to do, then we should illustrate "pregnancy" as a holistic concept. Lack of detailed analysis of a lead image cannot be construed as unencyclopedic treatment.

The editors objecting about nudity here seem to find the image offensive.... for someone else. So do the IPs who complain.

If we were to consider offense at all, we would have to make a judgment call as to whether someone bothered by this image would care much if it's the lead image or further down. That makes your minority even smaller. (And I find that vulgarity of this type is most always bad for the other guy, not one's self.)

The crux of this bit of the argument is the concept of "summary image." I simply assume that if we have an illustration in the lead, it is supposed to summarize the entire article as best we can in an image (and if so my other arguments above apply). It's supposed to capture as many of the physical and mental and social aspects of pregnancy as possible. There might be better images, and some of them might be clothed, but I don't think the clothed image proffered, or only a body part, is better than the current image.

As a technical aside, your guideline quote says we should aim at the typical Wikipedia reader. We shouldn't aim at the people who think that Burqas or images of partial birth would be lead-appropriate. I can't see where this isn't being treated in an encyclopedic manner, and I can't see where the average WP reader would be offended. Do you, really?

If you want to argue for no lead image, that might have something to be said for it. You could say pregnancy is too complex to summarize in an image and we aren't here to provide prettiness. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 19:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

To my mind a lead image is not a summary of anything, it's a mnemonic device (your memory aid in its simplest form). we add an image to orient the reader to the topic visually, so that it will be easier for him/her to solidify the written material that follows. Taken as a mnemonic device, however, we need to be cautious of extraneous meanings. For instance, the Duck article has an image of a duck in a more-or-less natural setting. it does not have an image of a wooden duck, a mounted duck, duck l'orange or peking duck, or a dead duck dangling from an Irish setter's mouth. All of those are perfectly valid images of ducks, but they all imply something beyond mere 'duckness'. (In fact, I'd even quibble with the given duck image because buffleheads are atypical ducks - a mallard would have been better).

The issue here (from my perspective) is that nudity is not remotely like a 'natural setting' for pregnant women (at least, I am not aware that pregnant women habitually lounge around in the nude, only donning clothes again when they go into labor; some things are mysteries to bachelors). it is creating a misleading mnemonic, where pregnancy must somehow equate with beautiful nudity. honestly, the nudity is the most salient feature of that image because it's the most atypical feature, and that really gives the pregnant/nude relationship a great deal of weight. I'm not saying that's a bad thing to imply, but it is clearly an extraneous meaning being added to the article for no really good reason.

aside: I don't understand what you're getting at with the whole 'no image' scenario. I don't object to it, I just don't understand the logic of it.

Last point, and this is more advisory than anything else. You seem to place a lot of stock in the idea that people who aren't here to argue for themselves (or who belong to 'unsavory' groups, or who are 'atypical' in your eyes) don't matter. that is troubling. The phrase 'typical wikipedia reader' does not refer to some mathematical average; it simply means that we shouldn't be doing things that run the risk of putting-off large swaths of people (typical in the sense of 'conventional', not in the sense of 'medial'). No one has suggested an aborted fetus or a woman in a burka for this article, and I don't expect we'd have any trouble agreeing not to use something like that. Further, as other editors have pointed out, there have been reasonable numbers of editors who would like this image removed because they find its use in some way vulgar (ten or twelve from the archives and over a score in this RfC). You keep asserting that your view is typical and they are all aberrant loners who should be disregarded - how many aberrant loners would it take to get you to wonder whether you are the aberrant loner and they are the typical norm? This line of argumentation is non-productive for a number of reasons (which I will explain if you like); I wish you would stop using it. --Ludwigs2 21:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, what we agree on is that the current picture isn't ideal, and could be replaced by a clothed image.

I don't think we should be discussing offensiveness, because that's basically people's POVs. And I'm very sure, myself, that the POV that likes to see nudity or isn't personally offended by it is the vast majority. But since I don't have any more statistics on that than you have on the offended faction, I don't use that argument. Nevertheless, if we consider offensiveness, we have to consider the happiness it gives people to see the current image. It's valid to say that some people will be offended and driven away from the article, but it's also valid to say that some people will learn more because they're attracted to the article by nudity. That's why we're not supposed to be discussing this.

There's also the argument that wikipedia is an expertise-driven encyclopedia, and experts would tell us that the nude image conveys more to the reader. You know they would.

My ideal image might be an African tribal image, because that draws on deep historical time. Nudity or partial nudity has been the historically natural state of pregnant women, but is not the current natural state. Our argument might be very different if we had more and better images to choose from. Clothing is not -or should not be- the deciding issue as I see it. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 06:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, C'mon BC, don't weasel me:

1. you can't blithely dismiss IMAGE policy as though it were irrelevant, and no one has ever suggested that wikipedia has an obligation to make individual editors happy. not offending people in not logically equivalent to not pleasing them (no one is going to not read the encyclopedia because there isn't nudity, and people who come to the encyclopedia only to see nudity are not our target audience)
2. experts - e.g. medical doctors and academics, as I discussed earlier - do not use casual nudity in their practices or their teaching. No one is debating that they use nude images where necessary to illustrate particular points, but you would not find an expert who introduces the topic of pregnancy by using a nude image just because it's pretty. That would be deeply unprofessional.
3. African tribal images? Really? I mean, I appreciate the whole retro 'National Geographic' vibe, but leading off this article with an image of a topless dark-skinned woman with a bone through her nose is even worse than the current image (it denotes pregnancy as a backwards, primitive condition, and having the only woman-of-color on the page be… well, let's just say we'd have to rename wikipedia to the 'Jim Crow Project').

This is why debates on wikipedia frustrate and anger me: unlike the real world, there's never any incentive here for people to admit that they lost an argument. There are a few (like me) who are honest about it, but almost everyone else either does:

• what you're doing here: qualify and re-qualify and re-re-qualify - wiggle, weasel, buck, and balk - as though rational thought should never be allowed to interfere with one's heartfelt desire
• what Dessources is doing below: asserting that intelligent discussion is too long and boring, then shouting out whatever mindless thing he believes people should swallow whole-cloth as though it were a God-given truth

You've lost the argument, at least for now. You should admit that, regroup, and see if you can find a better argument in the future. I mean, you can continue to defend the point if you like; no one can change your mind except you, and not even you can change your mind if you refuse to face the conclusions of rational discussion. But I urge you, for once, in this place, to listen to the reasoning voice in your head not the clinging one in your heart. It would make life so much better for both of us. --Ludwigs2 15:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no violation of WP:IMAGE that I know of. I already addressed your argument about what doctors use on their walls: didn't you see that? And as to having a tribal image be backwards and primitive, what's backward and primitive about history, what's less primitive about the average modern woman except that she might be able to read, and what's more primitive about having a bone through your nose or ear than a piece of metal? B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 17:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

BC, my respect for you is decreased. It is (apparently) a waste of time trying to reason this issue out with you, so let's just drop it until the RfC is closed and see what happens then. I expected better from you, and I'm disappointed. --Ludwigs2 18:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Becritical, rest assured that Ludwigs2 actually lost the argument long ago, when he was the first one to bring Hitler into the debate, in a typical Reductio ad Hitlerum argument, when he ironised on contributors who do not consider the current image offensive, by saying that "it's time we made a new project - an uber-Freedom version of wikipedia where people could add whatever material they felt like, without any normal social inhibitions. 5:1 that the pregnancy article there would lead off with an image of a pregnant Jesus being saluted by Hitler." (see[11]) We have a case here where we can apply the well known corollary to Godwin's Law, which states that when someone in a debate uses an analogy referring to Hitler and/or the Nazis, the discussion is over and the one using the analogy has lost the debate, for his argument has become irrational. Furthermore, it doesn't seem to have occurred to Ludwigs2 - who has a high esteem of himself, of his ability of always being right, and his concern not to offend in the slightest way some hypothetical people - that his reference to uber-Freedom and Hitler in the context of this debate is a shocking trivialization of nazism, which I find extremely distasteful and offensive, for personal reasons which have no place on this talk page.Dessources (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

This discussion between Becritical and Ludwigs2, which goes on and on, is a bit boring and surely isn't representative of what the majority of contributors think, who have already expressed their views and do not feel the need to endlessly repeat it - I supect most of them have gotten tired of this discussion, which is running idle. The case is settled. There is no consensus to modify the current image, and no need to replace it, as this image is quite suitable and has encyclopedic value. Indeed, on several Wikipedia sites in other languages, the clothed image was replaced with the naked image. Dessources (talk) 11:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

YES to all of that post. HiLo48 (talk) 21:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, when you say "The case is settled" you actually mean "My opinion is obviously the correct one", since the RFC is still ongoing and has not been closed. Kind regards, Nandesuka (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

No, Nandesuka, this is neither what I mean nor what I said. I mean that, given the narrow nature of the issue under consideration here, and given the fact that new contributions keep repeating arguments that have been made before, one can reasonably conclude that the set of all possible arguments has been exhausted, and that the summary of the arguments made so far provides a reliable assessment of all potential views, which is very unlikely to undergo a radical change, even if this RfC remained opened for another year. There is nothing special nor highly subjective about my conclusion; it's based on the same approach that is used in ecology to estimate population size and is used by lexicographers to estimate, for example, the number of English words which Shakespeare knew, i.e. the mark and recapture estimation method. If, when recapturing a random sample of animals in a wild population, you observe that they were all previously marked, you have good ground to infer that the entire population has been marked, an inference which is reinforced if the same observation is made with each new sampling. I hope this provides the clarification you were asking for. Dessources (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

There are some users in the RfC who give reasons other than offensiveness for changing the image. But when the offensiveness/nudity opinions are discounted, there may be consensus to keep the current image. Any admin who properly closes the RfC has to do so on accordance with policy, and thus will discount such reasoning. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 22:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, BC, we are not going to be doing that. that would violate wp:consensus in that it disenfranchises editors by disallowing the expressing of considerations that are perfectly valid under wp:IMAGE#Offensive_images. You do not get to stuff the ballot box by telling everyone who thinks the image is vulgar that their opinion doesn't count. --Ludwigs2 23:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, consensus does not include violations of policy, and there is no way in which the current image is being treated in an unencyclopedic manner, and a typical Wikipedia reader would not find the image offensive- quite the opposite, per even the "change" votes- several are even trying to make sure they say how much they like it. I also forgot to mention that a lot of the "change" votes appear to be based on what I think is an out-dated reason, namely that the woman might not like/have consented to the picture to be here. Oh, and the RfC question was mangled from the start. You take either of those out and there's no consensus, and you take them both out and you probably have consensus to keep. Oh, and 18 to 26 is hardly consensus anyway. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 00:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, you do not get to exclude people who are expressing an opinion about the vulgarity of the image. That is an allowable consideration under IMAGE, and removing such from the discussion is an obvious effor tot restrict the discussion to people who agree with you.

But let's make it simpler: why don't you just just stop bringing it up. As a partisan you should not be trying to dictate who's input matters and who's doesn't. The closing admin will make these decisions on their own, based on reasonable perspectives. This is not your page, this is not your decision to make, and every time you try to assert it as a truth you force me to point out in no uncertain terms that you are talking through your hat, and that's going to get us nowhere. fair enough? --Ludwigs2 00:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in getting into a shouting match with anyone. Rather, I was just observing, as an editor and administrator who has participated in and closed numerous RFC, that an issue is not "closed" simply because one or more partisans thinks they can shout louder than everyone else. This is an open issue. This RFC is ongoing. Anyone is free to opine that "The issue is closed", and people thus opining are, objectively, quite wrong. Until this RFC is closed, this issue remains open for discussion and we will continue working towards a consensus. Wrongly attempting to short-circuit this process, in favor of any decision, is tendentious editing, and should be avoided by all participants in this discussion. I politely suggest that those of you who cannot assume good faith of your fellow editors sit back and let those of us who can finish our discussion. Good day, Nandesuka (talk) 00:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the main thrust of Dessources comment was meant to assert that the case, that is the argument has been settled to an objective observer by having been thoroughly hashed out. No attempt is being made to short-circuit the process, but I have mentioned some considerations which a closing admin might take into account. Certainly Wikipedia policy isn't as clear as it could be on many counts, but since it represents the community consensus quoting and interpreting it is worthwhile. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 01:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I promise you, based on my experience, that whomever closes this RFC will note that 3 or 4 editors are responsible for over 95% of the edits to the page, and will apply the appropriate fractional multiplier to avoid letting quantity outweigh quality.

You guys are free to continue sniping at each other in public, if you like, but I'll politely suggest that maybe you -- and you know who you are -- should take a breath and let some other editors lead the discussion for awhile. Nandesuka (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I was also under the impression that cooly and reasonably discussing contentious topics was to be commended on Wikipedia, and that I had not broken with that best practice. Yet I can't see how your post does not include me, since I'm a leader in this discussion as regards volume. Re the closing admin on the RfC, your own highly reasoned "vote" shows that editors could have taken a stand for the image change that does not rely upon nudity/offense. If they had, there would be no question of how to close the RfC. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 01:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I will take the cue and bow out now, and will come back to this after the RfC is complete. --Ludwigs2 02:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a perennial problem on WP to which there is no solution. We are supposed to reach a consensus, which is in theory at least, not decided by a vote. So what do we do? We can carry on discussing, but in my time on WP I have never (maybe once) seen an editor change their mind as a result of discussion. In the end a random admin turns up and makes an arbitrary decision based, more or less on whim but with the bias generally being towards no change. In the end it may come down to wikilawyering, wikitactics, and who can keep their cool for the longest so that they do not get banned. I think this is a significant weakness in the way WP works. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Maternity clothes

If anyone wants to work on it, here are some sources that might be useful to build an article on Maternity clothes, which ought to be summarized here.

This 1972 sociology paper saying their purpose is to signal the woman's culturally desirable status of being pregnant and 1976 paper that it is to pamper her, but 1999 book says that before then, they used to be designed to conceal it and "keep the secret". Now they indicate that the woman's increasing girth is not merely because she is getting fat and may be skin-tight.

This paper says that the change from maternity clothes to a hospital gown is symbolic of the medicalization of pregnancy.

How stores choose to display maternity clothes depends on the socioeconomic class of their target customers. Ads tend to show the woman looking down and smiling slightly (like the art nude being discussed above) to emphasize her innocent, dependent, feminine nature (p. 135). Pregnant models are not supposed to look at the camera, which would show independence and strength.

"Infantilizing" is not an uncommon term for describing such designs, and designs in previous decades often featured childish prints (like sweet little pastel bows). Dark or bold colors were restricted to business wear (p. 131, previous source); for social or casual wear, pregnant women were expected to choose something that evoked little girls, because this is a culturally acceptable version of being female.

These 1939 and 1948 LIFE magazines briefly describe changes to maternity clothing designs. It would be interesting to know whether anyone has written about the earliest mass media discussions of maternity clothing.

Finally, information about maternity clothing in non-Western wear might be interesting. I'm not sure that special "maternity saris" even exist, and the outward appearance of a burqa is probably about the same (although the construction of it would be slightly different, to make sure that it had more fullness where required). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the maternity clothes article, and I'm trying to figure out how to fit this material in without changing the tone of the article. there's a feminist/class-socialization slant to everything you've given above (which is fine, though some of it - like the claims of 'infantilzation' - I'm a little leery to add without balancing arguments). Should this be a separate section on cultural and social aspects of maternity clothes? --Ludwigs2 16:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Having felt through a pregnancy very acutely (not my own, obviously), I flatly deny that pregnant models looking down rather than in the camera has anything to do with infantilisation. This may be a minor side-effect, but the major point is clearly that pregnant women (especially first time pregnant women, surely the main target group) tend to be rather self-centred as they keep being surprised by what their bodies are up to, and from some point on there is actually a lot to hear and feel, too. This does not apply only to the women, either. Do a Google Images search for "pregnant couple" or something similar, and observe where most of the fathers look. It's definitely not the camera. Hans Adler 07:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we would be best to have a very short section on maternity clothes here with a link to an article on the subject if anyone thinks that is worthwhile. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• Hans, please try reading it all over again. Notice that "looking down" is associated with the words "innocent, dependent, feminine nature". Notice that "infantilization" is described in a completely separate paragraph, because it is dealing with a completely separate idea.
• Ludwigs, maternity clothes in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s [NB the words "previous decades"] frequently featured pastel printed patterns, little-girl ruffles, and designs that would have been appropriate on children, not an adult woman. Infantilization is a common complaint from those decades. Have a look for yourself: This looks like a design for pre-teens. This shows an adult wearing rompers, a style you'll associate with someone who isn't old enough to walk. If you can find a "balancing" source that thought dressing pregnant adults up in little girl styles wasn't infantilizing, then please feel free to add it, but NB that there are multiple that make this claim, and I've never yet seen a single source that said the opposite. Assuming that women thought dressing up in pastel floral tops and baby-style rompers affirmed their adulthood is going to violate WP:GEVAL. The closest we can come is noting that sometime in the 1990s, the designers finally quit doing this (probably because the pregnant women finally quit buying them). Current fashions are body-hugging, sexy (NB that this draws serious complaints from feminists), and dark or intensely colored, although I've seen one prediction that white dresses are supposed to be fashionable for pregnant women next summer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

This would seem to be a subject in its own right. Would you support having a separate article on the subject? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

On Maternity clothing (which exists, but is incomplete), yes. On the horrors of 1970s fashions, probably not.  ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I think Maternity clothing would be the best place for the points you have made on the subject. Here I think we are best to have a section with a short general discussion of the subject link to the main article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 173.173.10.73, 18 September 2011

The article on Pregnancy, located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy, Terminology section. Please change "An in-progress pregnancy, as well as abortions, miscarriages, or stillbirths account for parity values being less than the gravida number, whereas a multiple birth will increase the parity value." to "An in-progress pregnancy, as well as abortions, miscarriages, or stillbirths account for parity values being less than the gravida number. Mutliple births (as in the cases of twins and triplets) are considered one pregnancy (gravida) and one delivery (para). The number of fetuses in the womb have no bearing on the parity value."

If sources are needed please check: "It is possible for a multigravida not to be a multipara since, in this system, the para number can be less, but never more, than the gravida number." pg. 578 Varney, H., Kriebs, J., and Gegor, C. (2004) Varney's midwifery (4th ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Learning. pg 578. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=c5dn3yh4V5UC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

"Multiple births, twins, and triplets count as one pregnancy (gravida) and one delivery (para)." pg. 627 Lindh, W., Pooler, M., Tamparo, C., and Dahl, B. (2010) Delmar's comprehensive medical assiting: Administrative and clinical competencies (4th ed.). Clifton Park, NY: Delmar, Cengage Learning. pg 627. retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=AUhJKmKJ_eEC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

173.173.10.73 (talk) 22:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Why not register and make the change yourself, you seem to know about the subject? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Based on your proposal, I have changed it using a different formulation that tries to give the issue less weight while still being accurate. Hans Adler 11:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll agree with Adler. Register, then edit, with SOURCES provided. My wife's first pregnancy was proved to be twins by ultrasound, to lose first one, then the other, after a car accident that APPEARS to be hypoglycemic induced. As the first aborted in the hospital, evidence is a bit lacking in FULL trend.

Later pregnancies proved rather toward that hypothesis.

Her later pregnancies were beyond difficult, especially after the first two successful.

Total of 16 pregnancies, two successful.  :/Wzrd1 (talk) 06:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Martin, it's not as simple as "register". To edit this article, you have to (1) register, (2) make ten edits to other pages, and (3) wait four days after registering. All three of those steps must be completed to reach WP:AUTOCONFIRMed status and be permitted to edit a WP:SEMI-protected article like this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks as though Hans Adler has made the requested changes, perhaps 173.173.10.73 could confirm this. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

My knowledge on the subject is a result of being in nursing school, however I did provide easily accessible sources. I'd have edited it myself but it is semi-protected. I actually just popped by here because I was scanning the page quickly for info and saw that the change was made and wanted to say thank you to Hans Adler. I appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.173.10.73 (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Lead image offensiveness RfC

I am hatting this section because there is already an outstanding RFC involving this image, and the presence of a second one is going to needlessly confuse outside editors, who are the reason an RFC exists in the first place. I respectfully request that editors allow the first RFC to reach its conclusion before throwing more things at the wall to see which ones stick. Nandesuka (talk) 01:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
{{rfc}} Default size of images in infoboxes Several editors have indicated on this talk page that this image of a nude pregnant woman is offensive to some people. If this is the case, then it is proposed to add it to Bad image list and prohibit it by technical means from being displayed inline on pages, placing {{Badimage}} on the image talk page. There can be three possible types of comments: 1) Support proposed change, without exception; 2) Support proposed change, but allow use of the image in the Pregnancy article; and 3) Reject proposal. Dessources (talk) 00:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC) I've tagged-out this RfC. If this is a serious proposal, then it belongs on the image page rather than here. If this is not a serious proposal (as seems likely from the introduction) it violates wp:POINT. Either way it has no relation to the discussion on this page, and simply disrupts things unnecessarily. Dessources, please do not start RfC's inappropriately. --Ludwigs2 00:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC) We already have an ongoing RFC about this image. Opening a new RFC on the same topic is not only confusing, but flirts with tendentiousness. Please stop. Nandesuka (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Support proposal Support proposal, but make an exception for the Pregnancy article Reject proposal Reject proposal. This is not a bad image: it is not sexually explicit and not even sexually suggestive, and is therefore not offensive. Its pertinence with respect to the context in which it appears should be the only criterion guiding its use. Dessources (talk) 00:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Images are definitely important in article leads and the current one is definitely better than no image. Also agree with the importance of avoiding censorship. I do not think the current image should be removed from the article expecially now that we have cleared up copyright and improved the background. Just that it would fit better in the section specifically dealing with the medical aspects of the second trimester. This image should definitely not be labeled as bad.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin to close RfC

Since the RfC is close to ending, we should get an uninvolved admin to review the material take the appropriate actions. It would be nice to have someone who commits to the task beforehand, rather than simply posting a notice on wp:AN and getting the first random person who decides to get involved. If one of the admins following this discussion has already decided to take on the job, could you indicate that here? If not, we should take some steps to find someone. --Ludwigs2 16:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't really understand, it sounds like you're wanting to vet the admin? Since you don't want a random one? B^e——C_ritical 01:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Not me. It's just that there's enough garbage on this page without adding yet another thing for people to squabble over. Whatever admin closes it is going to have to explain his decision to one side or the other anyway; better if s/he claims the responsibility up front, so we know whom to direct questions to. Do you have an issue with that? --Ludwigs2 02:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My issue is that it sounds like you're planning to post even more of your opinion here. I do hope you realise how much you have repeated yourself in this discussion. Most of us showed the wisdom and maturity to step back once we had made our points. It's you who has already made the closing admin's job far harder than it should be through your unstopping tsunami of posts. I strongly suggest that you step back now and let normal process run its course. It may even help your case if your name isn't seen here for a while. HiLo48 (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Guys, I'm simply asking for an uninvolved admin. Please AGF. --Ludwigs2 02:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm probably too involved to act as an administrator in this case, but will both of you KNOCK IT OFF. Ludwigs, don't hat someone else's comments critical of you, and HiLo48, don't be a dick to Ludwigs.--Tznkai (talk) 03:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Dispute has now managed to find its way onto my user talk. If another admin could look over my shoulder, I'd much appreciate it.--Tznkai (talk) 04:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

---

The RfC has now automatically closed, with at numerical 3:2 margin (29:20) in favor of changing the image. Is an admin here taking on the task of finalizing it one way or the other, or shall I ask for someone over at AN? --Ludwigs2 14:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yet again, an inappropriate, provocative, unhelpful post. WE DON'T VOTE HERE!!!! (And yes, I mean the shouting.) Can you not let normal Wikipedia processes run their course? HiLo48 (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Easy there buckaroo. The RfC has closed so an uninvolved admin can now look at the discussion and the votes in order to reach a decision on the RfC. That admin can simply volunteer here, or we can go to AN and ask for and admin to look at the RfC. No need to be perturbed, just the next step in the process. Lets not escalate this discussion. Best wishes.(olive (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC))

Yes, thank you Olive. If an admin doesn't pick it up today, I'll post over at AN tomorrow morning. And HiLo: this is the normal wikipedia process, to the extent that wikipedia has processes that can be considered 'normal'. I simply want the process to move along - we've already wasted a month on this. --Ludwigs2 22:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Counting votes IS NOT normal Wikipedia process! And describing the time as wasted is a criticism of Wikipedia processes. Are you sure this is the right place for you? HiLo48 (talk) 22:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I am rapidly losing faith in the dispute resolution process here. Admins are not police or judges or juries, they are simply editors with access to certain administrative tools whose job it is to carry out community decisions when they require the use of admin tools. The problem is, how does the admin determine community opinion? here are there ways I have seen, none of which is entirely satifactory.

1) Just count votes and go with the majority, or require a certain proportion in favour to implement a change.

2) Try to assess the strength of the arguments on each side to reach a decision. The problem with this is that an admin is no more capable of doing this than any other editors, who have so far failed to agree. Whatever they may thing there assessment of argument strength will depend on their personal POV.

3) Ignore votes and arguments and make the decision themselves.

I think we need a better method. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Possibly. However, the hope in this particular method is that an uninvolved admin will be able to see the question with an open mind in a way that partisans can't. I have never expected you or the others on your side of the debate to come into agreement with me (it was clear that that was an impossibility about day 3 of our discussion). The point was to lay out reasoned arguments that would convince an independent third party. It's a pity we allowed it to get distracted by petty fighting, but hopefully the closing admin will overlook that. --Ludwigs2 23:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

At least vote counting is democratic. After all we would not think much of a country where votes were assessed for their value by an independent administrator before they could be counted. Counting votes might not be perfect but nobody has yet found a better way of running most things. The loosing side cannot complain too much if they are outvoted. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

But this is more like Congress passing a law which is then vetted by the Supreme Court. We are not voting for a politician, we are voting on law: that's a better analogy. B^e——C_ritical 21:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that everybody has the law, or in this case WP policy, on their side, or at least they think they do. Vote counting is not perfect but at least everybody knows how it works. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Counting votes removes the requirement for participants in a discussion to put some decent thought into their arguments. It gives a majority of people the right to impose their will on a minority, without discussing or even thinking about broader implications. Many times in my life I have been in a minority, and right. HiLo48 (talk) 22:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This discussion should probably take place in another forum but it should certainly take place somewhere, some recent admin closes (not this one) seem positively perverse.

Suggesting that the weight of the arguments should be taken into account seems fine until you realise that no human has the power to objectively assess the weight of arguments. If you or I were closing the discussion we would see the clear superiority of the 'oppose' argument. On the other hand if, say, Ludwigs were closing the discussion, the superior arguments of the 'support' editors would be quite obvious. At present admins are intended to be normal editors with access to tools that can be used to implement community wishes. They are not intended to be judges, juries, or special decision makers. As it is I think admins should have a very clear and, universally accepted as obvious, reason for going against a vote. The alternative would be to set up juries of some kind, selected by the community in some way. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that many of those who have been involved in this are counting votes, and saying they are is neither her nor there. In the end the uninvolved admin or editor will simply asses the situation and come to a judgment based on the arguments and on the votes which I'm sure she will count for herself whether someone involved counts them or not. We all have opinion on how well Wikipedia runs, just an opinion and like noses we all have them.(olive (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC))

The key word is uninvolved, not admin. If I remember any uninvolved editor can close an RfC. There is no judge or jury because this isn't a place where anyone has done wrong... Its a place for editors to air their views. Perhaps we are all too heavily invested in a situation where what is under discussion and is producing all of this heat is a couple of images. Life is short. We have a process. Lets go with it and move on to something more important. (olive (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC))

And sorry not meaning to preach.(olive (talk) 23:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC))

Generally speaking, all else being equal, an RfC that close will be closed as no consensus. Which means go back and try resolving your troubles like grown ups again. without the use of questionably functional Wikipedia processes.--Tznkai (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

@ Olive: I don't mind who resolves the RfC, so long as they are uninvolved. However, given the level of tendentiousness from all side on this page, it would probably be wise to have an admin do it, because an uninvolved admin has the power needed to back up his decision against the people who will inevitably disagree with it.

@ Tznkai: You have already stated that you are not uninvolved, so I'm assuming that your statement above is not a formal decision about this RfC. If in fact you are unilaterally closing this as no consensus, you should make that clear. With respect to your opinion, however, (and just speaking strictly about the count) a 3:2 majority is enough to override a presidential veto or change the Constitution in the US; that can't be discounted as meaningless. Consensus is not unanimity, remember. Of course, I respect the idea that an RfC is not about the votes per se, but neither you nor I (as partisans) are qualified to evaluate the arguments that have been given. That's why we need someone uninvolved to review them. --Ludwigs2 23:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Not a formal decision no, more of a general statement on how I've seen things go in the past, as an FYI. And seriously, (US) Presidential vetos involve little things like a written constitution, which we don't have here. Oh, and an actual government running an actual state, with an actual monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. Which is to say its not relevant here.--Tznkai (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

And yet again Ludwig mentions votes. They support his opinion. Just an observation. HiLo48 (talk) 23:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

@Tznkai:Ah, yeah, the dream of utopian anarchy. First rule of politics, Tznkai: The absence of formal structures of power leads to the proliferation of informal structures of power. Both states are brutally oppressive; balance is called for. but that's a discussion for somewhere else.

I totally agree with you there Ludwigs, but where is the appropriate place to discus this? Martin Hogbin (talk)

@HiLo: I'd mention them if they supported your position as well. --Ludwigs2 23:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

NPA and CIVIL

In the last 3 edits there were two personal attacks, by Dessources and HiLo48. I've removed the first, and the second is in an edit summary. You all need to have a nice cuppa tea, calm down, and become very, very civil now. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Model release

I think we need a model release for this image too. Dreadstar ☥ 08:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:Lame

Well, I added this whole fiasco to wp:LAME, as that was what this debate was---lame. 600K+ of discussion to reach a compromise position that was fairly simple and straight forward. The close made the most sense of any of the proposals here---move the controversial image down. This is a stance that most reasonable people can live with---only the fringes choose not to see the inherent logic there. But please, let's not get into another LAME debate over which image should replace the old image... if you don't like the Latino woman, put another IMAGE in the spot, but don't be WP:POINTY about it. Oh yeah, if you can't see the humor in the ridiculousness of this 600K+ debate over a picture, then you probably need to step back.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 13:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It is funny. Your summary of the two sides was very accurate, thanks (: B^e——C_ritical 21:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks... I tried to be fair to both sides... I don't want wp:lame to become another battlefield, I just see 600k+ of discussion as overkill.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Haste makes waste

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.

Until this issue is cleared up per the quote above by the closer, I'm not sure why the image was changed, an overly hasty change given that most involved in this discussion would have felt the permission issues had been dealt with, and those who had been reading the threads would have been aware that both the photographer and his wife had given permission for use and any kind of formal permission would have been, given that permission a mere, well, formality. I believe we've been hasty.(olive (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC))

The RfC was closed as "change the image," only because of the consent issue. This is what a closer is supposed to do, that is to consider the arguments and policies, not just the votes. Without the consent issue, the RfC was "no consensus" on votes and "keep the current picture" on policy. Clear up the consent issue, and the picture will be returned to the lead. I agree that the consent issue is a formality which has been cleared up beyond a reasonable doubt, but reasonable doubt is not perhaps sufficient in this case. I'm fairly sure it will get changed back in due course. If there is still an argument after the consent issue is cleared, then the policy considerations need to be put forward. Mkativerata said on issue (3) "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." S/he then went on to include (3) in the consensus to change; thus an explanation is necessary if there is any further question of the consensus/nonconsensus after the consent issue is cleared. I count Daniel Case, NCurse, Saibh', SDY, 108.28.148.58, and Dr meetsingh, at least as being arguments based purely on nudity. B^e——C_ritical 18:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

BC: the fact that you choose to ignore all arguments except the ones you yourself offer does not mean you're correct under policy. I sincerely hope that you do not go looking for excuses to reinstate this contentious image in the lead. If you must dispute this result, please bump it up the ladder to ArbCom and leave them to decide; don't force us to go back into this fruitless mess of a dispute all over again. --Ludwigs2 20:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Gawd, I hope it doesn't come to that... this remains a tired debate over a rather trivial issue. That being said, if BC doesn't like it, ArbCOM is NOT the place to take it. ArbCom does not address content disputes and that is ultimately what this is... a silly content dispute.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 20:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am assuming at this point that BC is objecting to the procedure by which the decision was reached, rather than the decision itself, and that is more in ArbCom's bailiwick. At any rate, I'd prefer he took it there on those grounds rather then spin us back into the useless talk page dispute where we will all end up at ArbCom on behavioral grounds. That would suck. I'd really prefer we all just moved on, as would you, but… --Ludwigs2 21:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment on admin's decision

I am puzzled by some bits of Mkativerata's explanations. First, it seems to me that, when he says that the "consensus is in support of the proposal", he misuses the term consensus. The situation that he describes does not correspond to the definition of a consensus, as there was no real mitigation or resolution of the objections of those who opposed the proposal - he rather refers to the majority rule, which I am prepared to accept, even though I personnally disagree with the outcome that such rule has produced in this particular instance, and do not feel my arguments have been mitigated. His motivations are also somehow inconsistent. As the proposal in the RfC was to keep the nude picture and move it down, not to remove it, I do not see how Mkativerata's arguments 1. (whether the nude photo is properly licenced) and 2. (whether the woman in the photo has consented to its use, and whether that matters) could be of any relevance, since these two arguments do not depend on where the picture is located on the page - if the picture is not proprely licensed, it must not be shown at all - actually, moving it down makes things worse as it gives the impression that we want to reduce its visibility in order not to get caught! Mkativerata should have simply pointed out that these two arguments are irrelevant, rather than discussing them at length.

Although the decision will not make me sleepless, I still feel some concern that the current debate - far from a fiasco, but a fairly fundamental and at times fascinating discussion (even if it dragged on at the end) - and the subsequent decision may illustrate a worrying move within the English version of Wikipedia that is well captured by the pictures at the top of [12]. I simply hope my fear is unfounded...

Dessources (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Coming back to my comment just above, even the majority rule does not support the RfC. The RfC gathered 31 statements of support. Out of them, 8 objected by exclusively using the nudity-is-offensive argument, which Mkativerata found "non persuasive", 4 other contributors supported the proposal exclusively on the licensing and consent issue, which is irrelevant, as the RfC is to keep the nude picture, which would leave those objections intact, and therefore of no relevance for the choice to be made. If one excludes those 12 non persuasive and non pertinent contributions, the RfC gathers only 19 supporters, versus 20 supporters who indicated that they favor keeping the current image. Clearly, not only is it wrong to say that there is a consensus, it is also wrong to say (as I said above) that the majority is in favor of the RfC. I would kindly ask Mkativerata to re-consider his decision in the light of the above comment. Dessources (talk) 18:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You are misquoting. I say the argument was "not persuasive in and of itself". Those who had concerns about nudity per se were not disregarded. As I said in my closing statement (which you haven't quoted), those arguments were "powerful and subtle". They were taken into account in assessing the consensus; it is just that they alone didn't tip the balance. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Mkativerata, for the explanation. If I understand, you are saying that the argument was inherently not persuasive, although powerful and subtle ... I have problem following your logic, but never mind. You did not address the issue of the irrelevant character of your issues (1) and (2). This seems a crucial point, especially as you say that, if issue (2) would disappear, "there would be no consensus in this discussion." So it seems you are saying that the "consensus" is built on an irrelevant issue. Again, this logic is hard to grasp. Could you be kind enough to clarify what you mean.

Dessources (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

That point is addressed directly in my closing statement: "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." --Mkativerata (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Just as I said, the vagueness, subjective, unilateral, and rather contradictory aspect of this argument shows clearly that your conclusion that there was a "consensus" for moving the image is, to say the least, on a rather shaky ground. When these waeknesses are factored in, there is no place for saying that there is a consensus - in the real sense of the term. Would it be possible to get a second opinion on this matter? Dessources (talk) 09:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I'd volunteer for a review of my close if a number of editors (especially uninvolved editors) raised well-founded concerns. But you're the only one who seems to have a problem and it's not well-founded. You could go to WP:AN to seek a consensus to have the close overturned, but that's about it. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks you for your explanation. Let us agree to differ on the well foundedness of my objections. For sure, I'm not satisfied with your arguments, and remain unconvinced that there was a consensus (unless the word consensus is taken in an abusive sense - an issue you have carefully avoided). As I said, I can live with your decision. There are more people thinking like me, but I guess everybody is tired of this argument, and I'm perhaps the only one who did not immediately throw the towel. But this is because, in addition to the issue which we debated, the whole thing has been an interesting learning exercise for me. Dessources (talk) 15:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to say that the only basis on which an admin can logically make a decision is that of counting votes. This may sound rather crude but the idea that one person can somehow neutrally sum up pages of arguments and reach some kind of magical 'consensus' is absurd to me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe what you are saying is that even a closing admin can't help but be subjective in assessing discussion, but that is the nature of a collaborative project-people and the input of many people, and dealing in the best way possible with how to asses how a group speaks, rather than what our indvidual preferences are. If we were only interested in the more objective value of votes (even they are based on subjective criteria), the votes themselves would have to be given with out comments, which are additional subjective elements. Having a neutral editor come in and look at the discussion is our best option so far on Wikipedia. I think Mkativerata assessment was as fair as could be expected from anyone and better and more thoughtful than most, but we do have a technical issue to deal with in terms of permission which may change the RfC's present outcome. Just a comment on the situation with no solutions in sight.(olive (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC))

I tend to agree about the voting, but that was at least partly caused by what was allowed to happen in this process. This was the worst structured RfC process I've seen on Wikipedia. I pointed out several times through the discussion that the wording of the RfC had changed on several occasions. I cannot see how that can be even allowed. I also cannot see how votes, or any discussion, can resolve an issue of consent and/or licensing. I didn't comment on that matter because it seemed a nonsense. An image either has consent or licence, or doesn't. To decide that by consensus or votes is totally ridiculous. I'm not arguing for change now. I accept the decision. I don't accept the process. We need to do better in future. HiLo48 (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

In humans

We do not tag medical articles stipulating that this or that deals with humans as that would be weird. "Gout in human" Strep throat in human" is not done. All article can have a section at the end labelled "In other animals" thus I do not think we should do it here.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Article requirements

There are several tags in this article asking for sources and more content; considering the over-zealous attacks on the lead image, why are these sections still in place? Surely all the participants who have advocated the image change over and over and over again must have the time and energy to fix those issues. Or was the probem merely that she was naked, and the actual content doesn't really matter as much. Yeah, I know.....she's nekkid!!. Dreadstar ☥ 17:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

wp:AGF, please. I've had my own troubles, and frankly need a break from the blithering nonsense of the image dispute. Do you think I'm anxious to be yelled at once again as a nipple-fearing censorious prude? If you like I will give the page some attention this evening, but if I am subject to even one personal attack over it; forget it, it's not worth it. --Ludwigs2 18:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I wan't talking about you. Try not to take things so personally. Dreadstar ☥ 19:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps I'm a bit hyper-sensitive these days. at any rate, I will do some work on it this evening. --Ludwigs2 19:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I have been thinking of improving things but will wait until the ongoing edit war has resolved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. There are lots of less hostile environments available, so this one is low on my list for improvements at this time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

revising the complications section

I did some preliminary googling to work on the 'complications' section, and realized fairly quickly that there's not a lot of good sources on it (mostly, I think, because all but a handful of pregnancy complications are minor). About the best I found (on a quick search) was this - women's health advice, which seems to have drawn its statistics from the British and US departments of health. their material is also better organized that ours, so I'm thinking we might just crib from them. It might not be sufficiently global (the minor complications are probably reflective of world-wide percentages, but more serious complications may have lower incidence in the US and UK because of better prenatal care). also, there's a secondary question of whether we should just stubbify this section and rework the complications article (which is listed as the main article). thoughts? --Ludwigs2 04:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

OTRS Ticket

I'm going to point out that the OTRS ticket on the image File:Pregnancy 26 weeks.jpg resolves the licensing and someone has now sent in an email (ticket 2011101210017241) that would seem to indicate consent (depending on whether people also wish to require me to force the provision of a photo ID too). I can't parse this entire talk page to determine whether the image was removed from the article due to lack of consent or for editorial reasons. – Adrignola talk 16:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The image was not removed. It was only relocated, from the lead down to the Pregnancy#Second_trimester section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Per the closing admin on the recent RfC on the use of this image in the lead:

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.

(olive (talk) 17:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC))

So the question is whether we need photo ID to determine consent. It sounds like Adrignola doesn't think this is necessary. I think it was fairly obvious from a common sense level that consent was there to begin with, but I understand the legalistic need for formal consent. B^e——C_ritical 17:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that the image was moved down. I looked at global usage for File:Pregnancy 26 weeks.jpg rather than the derivative that was made, File:Pregnancy 26 weeks 1.jpg. The Foundation when discussing consent, only required assertion by the uploader. This email was not from the uploader. So I do have concern that it could be just anybody writing in. I will, however, contact the original uploader, for whom I have an email address, and see if they show any recognition when I mention the name provided in the most recent email. If I were paranoid I might wonder if the uploader had registered a free email address and written in under that other email and so of course would pretend to recognize the name. This is new ground (consent, versus copyright) for the permissions queue within OTRS, so I'm winging it at the moment. Maybe I can get a photo ID or a signed statement of consent. No promises. – Adrignola talk 18:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Cool. They must be rolling their eyes at us by now....oh....wait... that was months ago... B^e——C_ritical 18:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• If the image's use was deemed impermissible due to the lack of subject consent, then it cannot be used anywhere in Wikipedia. Dreadstar ☥ 17:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

  However, since you've gone and tried to remove the image entirely I'll state what I do know. The original uploader has stated that the image is of his wife and taken with her knowledge and consent. It's likely that's all you'll get because he is understandably annoyed and has stated as such to me. I also received no response from the second contact that I can only assume must be his wife. If you feel the uploader's assertion is not good enough, you should nominate yet again for deletion at Commons and also seek a Foundation-level policy change as well as a full shift in the burden of proof that Commons administrators and OTRS agents must require. – Adrignola talk 19:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

  By that logic, then there is no reason not to use it in the lead section. It's either permissible or it's not. With the closing admin's comments, it's not permissible. Dreadstar ☥ 19:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

  I state that this image has consent consistent with the resolution on images of identifiable people passed by the Wikimedia Foundation on May 29, 2011. You have now removed this image from the article entirely and not just from the lead. – Adrignola talk 19:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

  Again, by that logic, it should be restored to the lead per the instuctions of the closing admin. Dreadstar ☥ 19:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

  While I find Dreadstar's actions to be somewhat pointy, I hafta agree here. IF the question surrounding the issue of consent is met, then the closing admin indicated that there would be no consent and that consent would be required to make a change. (And I personally believe that editorially it would make more sense to move it... this entire discussion shows how the image is NOT the best one to have in the lead.)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 20:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

  Adrignola: the Foundation resolution talks about the kind of consent that is usually sufficient. In the closure of the RfC, it was made clear that part of the consensus was formed on the absence of consent in light of the nature of the photo (ie, a nude). The Foundation resolution is already malleable to the different circumstances of different photos. But those are just observations. The RfC close explicitly left it to OTRS, in its experience and wisdom, to determine what would be sufficient consent in this case. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but it sounds like you are saying that OTRS (Adrignola) has determined that consent has passed under the resolution on images of identifiable people, and it would seem that now the original image should go back in the lead per the RfC? Dreadstar is right that if it doesn't have consent it shouldn't be anywhere. B^e——C_ritical 04:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

This image has consent consistent with the resolution on images of identifiable people passed by the Wikimedia Foundation. As Mkativerata describes it above, my position representing the OTRS team would therefore justify the determination on my part, so this would seem to be supportive of your position. – Adrignola talk 04:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I just wanted to make sure. B^e——C_ritical 04:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

So now we should return the nude photo to the top of the article. Binksternet (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Current image has majority support. Please get consensus before attempting to return it. Consent was not the primary issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

"Majority" does not equal Consensus. You need to find consensus for your preferred image. Dreadstar ☥ 04:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Both images have spend substantial time in the lead. Thus You need to find consensus for your preferred image.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not how consensus works, and you need to re-read and understand the closing admin's comments: "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" OTRS has verified that proper consent has been obtained, therefore there is no consensus in this discussion and the nude photo should be returned.", which is has. Stop edit warring over it. Dreadstar ☥ 05:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Doc, have you been following the discussion above? The closing admin was very clear: "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." B^e——C_ritical 05:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

There was an obvious (de facto) majority against the use of the nude image in the lead. PLEASE make an argument here before restoring the nude image against that (de facto) consensus. talk it out, don't fight it out in the article. --Ludwigs2 05:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good, but really there's nothing more that needs saying here: the RfC was closed with a specific result, and people need to abide by it. Not doing so, as you made extremely clear earlier on this talk page, is a matter of editor conduct. B^e——C_ritical 05:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Amazing. It appears to be that the RfC is no consensus thus "my image" should be in the lead... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Why, was "your image" one of the versions of this image? B^e——C_ritical 06:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The closing statement was clear. With OTRS's satisfaction, which is now met, the image may be restored to the lead. Absent the consent issue, there was no consensus. No consensus = status quo = nude in the lead. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The other image was in the lead for 3-4 months. Yet was removed. Both images have spent time in the lead. Thus there really is no default to go to when no consensus is reached.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 16 October 2011

The section titled "prenatal" period is actually the "perinatal" period as defined in the "DEFINITIONS AND INDICATORS IN FAMILY PLANNING, MATERNAL & CHILD HEALTH, AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH USED IN THE WHO REGIONAL OFFICE FOR EUROPE" at http://test.cp.euro.who.int/document/e68459.pdf. Either remove this definition or replace it with an appropriate definition. This definition of "perinatal" ironically is used correctly in the "Prenatal development" Wikipedia entry at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_development. So this could be used as a reference and standard.

Typheous (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Although I see no problem with the general change, it's a little more complicated than that, as then we'd have duplicate sections "Perinatal period". It seems that the current "Prenatal period" section was titled "Perinatal period" until 18 July 2010, and then the existing "Perinatal period" section was added about 11.5 days later. Should we effectively revert both of those edits, or should we merge them in some other way? Feel free to re-add {{edit protected}} once consensus is reached. Anomie⚔ 00:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Debatable source and content

If this article is meant to be more of a medical article this source may be non Wikipedia compliant. I have no opinion either way at this point.(olive (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC))

Post-menopausal pregnancies

With technology developments cases of post-menopausal pregnancies have occurred. A 61-year-old Brazilian woman with implantation of a donor egg, expected her first child September of 2011.

Unless there is a split, the article should cover every conceivable angle and type of mention found in reliable sources. That means it can include much more than just "medical" matters. If the article gets too big, then we could consider splitting it. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry missed your comment. The article is categorized as a medical article so WP:MEDRS would seem to apply. I'll revert but I'm not convinced of your argument. If its categorized as a medical article the reader should expect to find a medical article. I don't care either way and have no knowledge in the area so can't argue further than that.(olive (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC))

As an added comment. RS is not a general term it depends on context, that is, what is the source a RS for. Is a newspaper article a reliable source for a medical claim?(olive (talk) 23:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC))

That the woman is pregnant isn't really a medical claim. I've added some stuff to the section. I think the idea of "post-menopausal pregnancy" is worth adding to the article, but I don't know that the specific case cited is particularly notable. SDY (talk) 23:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Principle of least surprise

This phrase has been kicked around a little bit, and it's one of the primary arguments for removing the current image. Obviously, it's a vague phrase that could be interpreted in a variety of ways, and I think it'd be useful to discuss what it means and how it should be implemented in this instance. This is a fairly new concept (the foundation resolution was in May, if I remember right), and it's obviously the discretion of the actual editors to make a decision how it should be used, absent office actions. I'd be shocked and amazed if they decided to get involved in this particular dispute. What are people's thoughts on the topic? SDY (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I found the link. I'd like to hear how people are interpreting that to apply to the nude image. B^e——C_ritical 23:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Plainly put, my first response on seeing the image was "what the heck is that doing there?" Given that most cultures have nudity taboos, I don't think I'm alone in being surprised at a nude image out of the blue. Some topics are going to have controversial content and no one would be surprised to see it based on the title of the article. For example, having examples in an article on pornography shouldn't really shock anyone. Labia minora is not surprisingly going to include some images that people find naughty. Pregnancy has no such expectations. In this particular case, the image that is most likely to shock the reader is the first thing a user sees, before context can be established. This isn't about "nudity is bad" this is really about "OMG she's nude". We should avoid, as best as we can, any possibility that the reader's response to the opening is "OMG". SDY (talk) 00:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I congratulate you SDY on being one of the first editors here to express that kind of concern in the first person. This Talk page has been full of editors saying things like "It doesn't worry me personally but I know some others will be offended by this image." My view of those posts is that many were dishonest, and the editors involved were really seeking censorship. NOBODY had the courage to say "I am offended by the nudity." Maybe I come from a different culture, but my view on seeing the image was along the lines of "Isn't that wonderful! We're not trying to conceal anything under someone's individual perspective of what won't offend anyone." I like the nude pic. I prefer it. It has bothered me all along that it could be replaced because of some editors' alleged concern for others' alleged sensitivities. You must realise that those who are comfortable with nudity in such situations will be somewhat astonished if Wikipedia finds it necessary to cover up such a beautiful, natural thing. I'm not going to push my view any harder. I just want to emphasise that this is now simply a debate about whether or not tasteful nudity is too astonishing in this context. The earlier RfC, clumsy as it was, found that it wasn't a significant issue. HiLo48 (talk) 01:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Save your congratulations, I said nothing of the sort. Please don't use my comments to attack other editors. SDY (talk) 02:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Apologies. I know your point is about astonishment. Didn't mean to imply otherwise. I'm still pleased you wrote in the first person. It's a good thing! HiLo48 (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Is that a cut and paste of your previous, similarly formatted message from the previous discussions? If so, then I wonder how you missed the comment immediately under it, in which an editor said "I'm offended by the use of said picture" and goes on to discuss his reasons for being offended. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why this image has to be in the lead. In the lead I think we would be better off with a sleek high quality picture like this which is unlikely to cause controversy. That said I take serious issue with the idea that the supposed surprise in seeing a naked woman when learning about pregnancy is something that should effect our use of images at Wikipedia. Have any of the people making this claim actually learned about pregnancy in any formal context? If you have you'd know that a picture like this is par for the course, and indeed is on the low end of "shocking." As I said already I see no reason to keep the image at the top, but whatever you do don't delete it based on an unreasonable premise.Griswaldo (talk) 02:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

In a formal (i.e. medical school) context, nudity wouldn't surprise anyone. In a general-use encyclopedia, it's more likely to be an issue. This is a conversation I've been bouncing around regarding target audiences for wikipedia articles, particularly medical articles, where "top importance" and other entry-level articles should really be as accessible as possible, written for a very non-medical audience (the article obviously has other problems on that account). Honestly, this whole thing just leaves me confused, I have no clue why people are so insistent on having a nude image in the lead when it causes problems and serves no clear purpose. Anyhow, I bowed out of this discussion before, and I think I'll do so again, this is making very little sense to me. SDY (talk) 03:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about a "medical school" context at all actually. My wife is due any day and we have, like most expecting Americans taken birth classes, done some reading online, viewed a few videos, and read a few books. That image isn't even close to being shocking in any way shape or form. I should also add that like many American 8th graders I had to watch a documentary when I was that age called "The Miracle of Life," which was far more graphic. I also had to take health class in high school. You do not not have to be in a medical context, or even in a biological science context to encounter images of naked pregnant bodies. These images are part of learning about human health, human development, etc. and they are ubiquitous. It doesn't have to be the first thing you see, like I said, but it should be in the article.Griswaldo (talk) 03:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I was much more favorably inclined toward SDY's post, but couldn't define why. I guess it's because the real issue is frankly acknowledged. I've already said all I have to say on this subject, and would like an answer to my first question, about how the Resolution is being specifically applied here, Especially in the light of this kind of tradition/policy on Wikipedia.

Again, please everyone here read this. B^e——C_ritical 02:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

"Sleek" to me says decorative. And the question I would have about the picture you are linking to is, is it informative enough to transcend decorative. If not it probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia where we need to be succinct and to the point excluding content pictorial or text that doesn't inform? This is a very real question, and not a rhetorical one.(olive (talk) 02:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC))

Like I said, I do not object to the image being in the entry, indeed I think it would be strange if an image like it weren't in the entry, however why does it have to be in the lead? I see no convincing argument for that at all. It serves no extra educational/informational purpose at the top of the page. We should always consider practical and stylistic concerns as well, and just because an image could be OK for an entry or for the lead of an entry doesn't mean it's actually the best choice. I think people get really caught up in the fact that the disagree strongly with the reasons why another group wants to make a content change and stubbornly stick to the existing alternative to that change because of that opposition, and instead of rethinking the situation and asking themselves, is this really necessary. What about the image I linked above? I think it is much more striking and attention grabbing without offending anyone. Let's not cling to using a poor quality image simply because we object on principle to the idea of moving it. Let's think about the entry pragmatically. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo: I actually like that picture - you have my vote (not that it's a vote… )

My two cents on the Foundation resolution: The whole thing about astonishment is not so much that readers will be astonished/shocked/stunned/etc at the picture itself, but rather that the reader would be astonished/shocked/stunned/etc at the fact that wikipedia would use that picture in that context. What the foundation is trying to avoid (IMO) is having people stop and wonder about the motivations of the project, because the project is not supposed to have motivations. Someone sees a nude image on this page, it strikes them as odd, they start wondering why Wikipedia is using it, and next thing you know they decide that the project kinda likes nudie pics, which is not the reputation a 'serious encyclopedia' wants to have.

As I've said all along, I've got nothing against this image in itself - nice pic, maybe not the greatest, but not too bad - but I really think it's an odd choice for a lead image. It makes me wonder what was going through the head of the editor who first posted it, and if it makes me wonder it makes other people wonder. Most of those other people won't recognize that it was done by a specific editor, and will just think it was wikipedia's choice. --Ludwigs2 03:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I see lots of heat and relatively little light in the section above. I am not in favor of inserting things into Wikipedia articles for shock value alone. However, pregnancy is perhaps the most profound and unique of the bodily functions, since ultimately it involves three people's (or more in the case of multiple births) bodies rather than only one. It begins (usually) with at least partial nudity and ends (usually) with at least partial nudity. I am the father of two young men and accordingly have helped initiate two pregnancies and was there when both of those babies came into the world. Treasured moments. An image of a nude pregnant female body is far more illustrative of this topic than an image of a clothed pregnant female body, in my opinion. The disputed image is illustrative and tasteful, in my opinion. I respect and honor the views of those who disagree, but I think that the nude image is entirely appropriate for this encyclopedia that we all ought to agree should not be censored. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, here is another first-person report. A few days ago I was sitting in my office in the Kurt Gödel Research Center in Vienna, which I share with several other mathematicians of both sexes and various cultural backgrounds. (We currently have even a member from Iran, but he is in a different office.) For some reason, when going to read up on this discussion after my vacation, I unthinkingly opened the article first and immediately felt embarassed. My colleagues had no reason to think that I am interested in pregnancy, and in the short time that this image appeared huge on my screen they were unlikely to notice that the woman is pregnant. However, any colleague who looked at the time cannot have missed that there was an image, roughly 5 in x 3 in, of a nude woman on my screen.

Not a big problem, but certainly surprising, and I can't deny that it did embarass me. If I feel like that, in relatively relaxed Central Europe, then there certainly is an element of inappropriate surprise here. Hans Adler 06:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It violates the expectations of the reader and does not adhere to the principle of least astonishment. When I visit an article on the topic of a pregnancy, I expect, as a reader, to see an image illustrating a cross-section of the vital organs, just as every major book has presented the subject for the last century. Why is there a naked woman on my screen? Note, I think an image of a naked woman with a cross-section image superimposed upon her body would work great. Viriditas (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that you don't expect to see a naked woman front and center when you first look at the entry, or a naked woman at all anywhere in the entry? If people are OK with this photo, or another photo or illustration of a naked woman somewhere else in the entry I suggest being a bit clearer about that, because these "surprise" arguments seem a tad extreme to me as stated, and would therefore add fodder to the notion of purging the entire entry of all nudity. If that is not the aim be more careful please. I'm also curious ... would a photo like the one on this webpage or that webpage be OK? If so why those depictions but not this photo? (Note: I think another photo should go at the beginning myself, but I think it flat out ridiculous to purge all nudity from an entry on the results of human procreation.)Griswaldo (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I won't clarify, because I addressed the issue directly and succinctly and I don't have the time to waste talking about this for the next five months like you do. I have never, at any time, said that Wikipedia should be purged of nudity, so that's either your failure to understand what the POLA is all about, or you bringing something to this discussion that isn't here in the form of a "gotcha". Go play those games somewhere else. Both of the science images you link to are great and are exactly the kind of images we need. Viriditas (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow thanks for the assumption of good faith. I never even suggested that you said Wikipedia should be purged of all nudity, I said it isn't clear if you meant that you expect no nudity in this entire entry or not, and no offense but it really isn't clear in what you initially wrote at all. Understanding POLA has nothing to do with it and there is no "gotcha" anything here. If you don't object to nudity in other parts of the entry then great, we probably agree entirely. The reason I linked those other images is that they also contain nudity, but as illustrations not photos. If there is a line between illustrations and photos it would be a good thing to articulate. If the current photo had an illustrated cross section overlaying the belly would that be appropriate? It is a legitimate question if we're going to say certain images would work and others wouldn't. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, please note that I had not seen your addition to that post when I responded. So maybe any photo or illustration as long as there is a cross section? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The lead image of this article should say to me "pregnant woman" and no more. The current image has me looking at someone's pregnant wife, naked in her bathroom. I'm uncomfortable with the voyeuristic aspect of that, even if she and he are not. The proposed edit has the bathroom tiles erased which helps a little. It is still obviously an amateur photo. A professional photograph taken of a professional model objectifies the subject, in a good way. The photographer's job is to make the image, "pregnant woman" or "pregnant belly", and have no other distracting thoughts enter the viewer's mind. The other proposed image isn't brilliant. It does look old-fashioned, she's having to hold her dress in to show the shape, and it is rather low resolution (only 2 inches high at 300dpi).

We should take the lead from other professional sites and publications that have a general audience. A common image is of a cropped top showing a bare swollen belly, but that's just one of many possibilities. If we don't have such an image on Commons, why don't we ask for someone to donate an image? There are loads of pregnancy magazines and I'm sure they must have many images they've used and won't re-use. Perhaps they would be willing to give us one. They might also have some professional artwork for the diagrams. Colin°^Talk 13:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

We already have a great image in Commons, and I've linked to it several times now but people are too caught up in their arguing to comment on it either way. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I just found this debate after it was mentioned here and I'm surprised that so many people find a pregnant woman's body offensive :O The nude image adds more emotional value to the topic, since she is looking at her belly, not at the reader, like the clothed lady does. It also looks more natural. (Although I concur in it would be nice to have some ethnic diversity.) (also, FYI Colin, you're looking at someone, not someone's wife, I'm not trying to nitpick, but it caught my eye...) – Alensha ^talk 02:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I know she's someone in her own right. I chose those words because that's an aspect I'm uncomfortable with and what pops into my mind. Perhaps knowing the photographer is her husband makes this occur to me but not someone else. These issues should not be complicating the lead image for the reader. Colin°^Talk 07:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Notice of related ArbCom request

I have requested a clarification from ArbCom on some of the issues raised in this discussion. Due to the pervasive nature of these issues I have listed no parties, but merely seek clarification on the core problem. Please feel free to add your opinion at the request page:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Controversial_images.2C_NOTCENSORED.2C_and_Foundation_principles. --Ludwigs2 02:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

There are fifteen active arbs, and six have already voted to decline this request. As a result (assuming none of them change their minds), it is no longer mathematically possible for the request to be accepted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

What about this image?

I have now linked to this image several times above but gotten very little response about it. I'd like to hear opinions from more people. I admit that my own general opinion here is that we're best off with a non-nude photo in the lead, while retaining the nude photo further down in the entry.

• 
  What about this image?

I think this is a better alternative than the other non-nude image for at least three reasons. 1) It is much more visually striking in its emphasis of the pregnant belly specifically, 2) as silhouette it doesn't normalize any particular ethnicity, and 3) it doesn't have to be mirrored (which apparently is against policy). What do people think about this image, or any other one? I think we are stuck in too much of a black and white proposition with the RfC going on above and should start thinking about other suggestions. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Hypothetical new look - Here is what the article would look with this image - hypothetical new look.Griswaldo (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks dark and foreboding. I don't like it. I would prefer having no image at the top to having this one. Binksternet (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a fair criticism. I don't agree personally, but the whole point here is to think of alternatives (and no image is another alternative) instead of being stuck in the argument over that nude image, which to me seems to have much less to do with what's best for this entry, and much more to do with ideological differences at this point.Griswaldo (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't like it, the woman looks fat not pregnant. The arms(?) are lost in the torso of the body and just make her look overweight with bad posture.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 18:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

She looks fat not pregnant? I mean I can't argue with your subjective perception but I really don't see it. It's clearly not a perfect image, but what would make it better? Hypothetically if a nude were out of the question what would a good intro image look like?Griswaldo (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been following this page for a few days, but now I feel I must speak up even though I am not an editor for this article. First, I loved the nude. It's been quite some time since I first saw it, but it made me feel so proud of Wikipedia that "they" chose such a great image. For me it expressed so much more than a pregnant woman, it showed a mother's love for her unborn baby as is common for a mother-to-be. On the other hand, I can accept that it may bother some editors...as far as I can tell, most of you seem to be men - women may feel differently. I have no problem with the other photo that has been suggested for the lede, but would really like the nude included as well. But this one - I hate it! I can imagine that it is lovely and meaningful for the woman and her partner, however for our article it is dark, foreboding, not encyclopedic, and...ugly. Gandydancer (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. What type of image would be better? Let's say, for the sake of argument that a nude is out of the question, is there a type of image you would prefer?Griswaldo (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in my imagination I see a beautiful dark-skinned woman dressed in bright clothing with a headdress to match. But since that's not going to happen, I felt that the alternate image was OK. ;-) Gandydancer (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd also love to have an image like this. There are several hundred million African mothers, and we have zero pictures of them in this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think the uterus used on the german version is ideal.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Griswlado. I feel the image you're suggesting is too dark and it difficult to identify the body parts to be educational, but I wanted to thank you for trying to reach a compromised version . Be critical below has also added an image. What do others think about that one. Its a compromise between totally unclothed and clothed which should, satisfy more editors.(olive (talk) 03:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC))

All fair criticisms. I think the new image below has more potential and appears to be unopposed thus far.Griswaldo (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Which photo should we use in the lead?

• 
  Proposed image
  Image 1
• 
  Proposed image
  Image 2

Which photo should we use in the lead? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Breast changes during pregnancy 1.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Breast changes during pregnancy 1.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I have the permission for this image from the author.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You're having it doesn't fulfill the requirements, have the author jump through the proper hoops (eg contact the powers that be over at Commons) or it will end up being deleted if it is indeed a copyrighted image.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 14:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes have sent a email to the person who tagged it. My internet is poor right now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Other suggestions

I am a supporter of Wikipedia being the best it can possibly be, which will be achieved by us ALL following its policies and procedures. This process is moving us away from both those goals. What some here are calling compromise is actually a lowering of standards. HiLo48 (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I am absolutely compromising my personal standards to collaborate. What other concrete suggestions do you have to deal with the image situation.(olive (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC))

HiLo, this is why compromise is compromising. B^e——C_ritical 22:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Several editors have had strong and uncomfortable first responses to the nude photo. It's reasonable to assume that Wiki readers will have those same uncomfortable responses, even if we don't think they should feel that way. I like the nude photo but think in creating an encyclopedia reader response is important to consider. I believe that some parents will not want their school aged kids to use this article because of the nude photo. Even if we don't think the parents should feel that way, I think it is the reality. The latest, second photo displays the pregnant condition and would be acceptable to a wider readership. It would be a good compromise.Coaster92 (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Some have suggested that the intro nude photo should have a practical informative value. Since first posting here, I have looked at other WP articles and find that nudity is part of the wikipedia community. I agree that some parents, etc. may be concerned and steer their young away from Wikipedia because of the use of nudity. However, WP should value art and artistic appeal. Nudity has been part of art for centuries. The current nude photo's value in the intro, IMO, is for its artistic value. Quite a few {respectful} pictures of nude pregnant women, of various appearance, would have such an artistic appeal. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not really sure how to format my response to Donald, how many colons or asterisks to use. Anyhow, I agree that the nude photo has a true artistic value. Again, I personally like the photo. But I read the tone of this article as informative and factual, a reference article to go to for a school paper or to become informed on the topic. So an artistic photo might not quite match the tone of the article, at least in the lead. That still does not keep me from appreciating and admiring the photo but other editors have asked for a compromise and giving consideration and understanding to their perspective, the article has its value without the nude and the asian women in the bandeau top is a good compromise photo. The nude would work well in a section on pregnancy in art, a study of the form of a pregnant woman.Coaster92 (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Completely and utterly disagree with you here. Moving the nude pregnant woman down would not be a lowering of standards. Writing is an art. The editorial process is an art. With editorial decisions there are a certain degrees of subjectivity to the decisions. The nude picture is a fabulous picture, I love it. That being said, if it detracts from the article, then it detracts from the article. The lead sets the tone for the article and the picture is often the first impression a person has of the article. It is not a question if this is the best picture, but rather is this the best picture for the lead of this article? If the lead or lead image strikes the wrong tone, then you have failed at your job of embracing the readers. You have failed to capture them and to compell them to read on. The fact that this discussion has generated nearly a gigs worth of discussion (here and elsewhere) is testimony to the fact that this is a controversial image IN THE LEAD of THIS ARTICLE.

Those are two key factors. In another article, the nude pregnant lady might not be a controversy; but in this article are people expecting to see that as the lead image? No. Do reasonable people expect the possibility of nudes appearing in an article such as this? Yes. It's simple as that.

"But it's censorship!" So what? Seriously. So what? Every article on Wikipedia is censored. Try adding the line "He was the worst president in US History" to any recent president and it will be reverted. Try to put a picture of a sobbing widow as the lead image on a page about a branch of the military. Try putting a cartoon depicting a clergy member as a pedophile as the lead image on a church group. They would all be reverted and rightly so. Wikipedia is not censored in the sense that A) the WMF doesn't (generally) get involved with content and B) we don't have a general ban on what isn't accesptable based upon specific cultural/religious ideologies. We won't remove something simply because somebody doesn't like something. BUT you are kididng yourself if you don't think "censorship" doesn't occur here every day. More importantly you are kidding yourself if you think strict adherance to "NOTCENSOR" is a better standard than a collaborative process.

One of the most important questions publishers encounter is what to put on the cover of a book. We constantly hear, "don't judge a book by its cover." But the reality is that publishers know that the cover, title, and author of a book have huge bearings on whether or not a book would sell. Would a publisher writing a book on pregnancy use this image? Possibly. But in doing so, the publisher knows that he will lose a certain percentage of readers (while capturing some others.) The question becomes, which gets the most exposure pun intended. The nude will target a certain population strongly, but a non-nude will target a larger more generic population.

You may like the nude, I LIKE the nude, I think it is one of the most beautiful tasteful pictures I've seen of a pregnant woman (clothed or unclothed.) But that doesn't diminish the fact that for many it sets a tone that is counter the best interests of this article. Wikipedia's mandate is not to target specific populations strongly, but to appeal to a broader spectrum. So an editorial decision has to be made---which IS by definition censorship---do we use an image that appeals to/offends limited segments strongly or one that everybody can live with? IMO, the answer is obvious, the later.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 14:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

What an excellent, thoughtful post. I find it hard to believe that anyone could argue it (though I suppose they will!). Yes, if I were in the bookstore in the childbirth section and saw a book with the nude, I would assume that it is about natural childbirth, I'd most likely be correct, and that's the one I'd buy. So yes, in that sense a nude is not representative for pregnancy. Gandydancer (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Excellent example! If this were an article on natural childbirth, then having a nude in the lead would absolutely not be controversial. A nude woman would almost be a given. It is all about whom you are targetting. So is this article targetting a small subset of the population or the general public?---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

But it's NOT an "image everybody can live with". There are some conservative groups that will object to almost any bare flesh. Every proposal here is still going to offend somebody. So, why is a particular amount of clothing OK, but a little bit less not OK? It's almost always a cultural judgement. And I really find unhelpful comments like "I'm not offended by Pic X, but out of consideration for some hypothetical group of people who I think will be offended, I think we should use Pic Y". Why worry about THAT hypothetical group? Who are they? Really? Why does their hypothetical opinion matter? HiLo48 (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

"I'm offended by the use of said picture"

Seen that comment yet? I can add blink tags next time, if that would help.

And now that you've got proof that an editor directly and definitely was offended by the picture, can you tell me why you believe that offensiveness is the only valid reason for objecting to this use of a nude image? You've had dozens of editors tell you that other uses are more educational or more appropriate, and you keep fussing about the number of people who are offended by it, while completely ignoring the many other kinds of objections to it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

If you ARE offended by it, then you're not the target of my comment. HiLo48 (talk) 01:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

If you click the diff, you'll see which editor made that comment (it wasn't me).

Now will you answer my question? Why is that editor's claim to be offended important to you, by my belief, and the belief of many editors, that using the image lower with a detailed caption would be far more educational is irrelevant in your mind? Aren't you here for the purpose of maximizing educational value, too? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Either image will illustrate pregnancy but the nude one does so more clearly. Censorship, and that is what choosing the clothed image would be, must be justified by evidence, not prejudice. There is only one way to distinguish justified restriction from prejudiced censorship and that is evidence of harm. There is not a shred of evidence that nudity causes harm to anyone of any age. There is strong evidence that the attitudes associated with prudery do. Even a glance at the international comparisons of attitudes and outcomes and the causal links demonstrates that. Advocates for Youth (a USA not for profit) publish "Teenage Sexual Health, USA and Europe, why the difference?" or some similar title which gives a good introduction to the issues. Sorry, don't have the link to hand but it is available online. Also British Naturism (see Health and Well-being of Young People). Choice must be base on evidence of harm/benefit, not myth and prejudice. Otherwise Wikipedia contributes to the harm. Malcolm.boura (talk) 23:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the guideline at Wikipedia:Offensive material says that you're wrong: choosing less-offensive images over more-offensive images is good editing practice and not a form of censorship. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

A fundamental issue is that what is offensive is subjective. I most certainly find some images on Wikipedia offensive but others think they are necessary. Before this guideline can even be applied what is offensive must be determined per the community as a whole.(olive (talk) 01:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC))

Indeed. The problem with classifying something as "offensive" is that any image might be found offensive by someone. Also, WP:Offensive material explicitly limits the remit of its guidance to "When multiple options are equally effective at portraying a concept" -- and it is my contention that the nude image is more effective than any of the proposed alternatives. Powers ^T 20:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not myself clear exactly what about the nude image makes it more effective, however, and would welcome any information as to why it is considered to be so. For what little it might be worth, I myself would prefer, in general, a more photographic image of any human rather than a similar shadow/outline image, because it has a greater sense of "reality". And I would include this sort of image in that grouping. However, I believe that there are a number of Christian fundamentalists, Muslims of various types, and others who would find a naked image of a human female objectionable, and I cannot see how the project benefits by specifically including material which we are, more or less, sure will offend a small, but significant, percentage of our potential users without a clear and obvious need. So far as I can tell, there is nothing so clearly necessary about seeing the image with the exposed nipples (the only thing that really is so far as I can tell objectionable about the image) at the very top of the page, where people who would object to it would be confronted with it. Including it later, where it can be described in greater detail and thus made more relevant to the text, seems to be a reasonable compromise. John Carter (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Christian fundamentalists could find this image "objectionable". We should not compromise our editorial standards to appease a nebulous group of easily-offended "others". Powers ^T 13:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

LtPowers, John asked for an explanation of your claim that one image is "more effective" than another. Do you think you can do that? Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 13:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Seriously LtPowers? You can't tell from a discussion that is now going onto 3 months, has been broached numerous times in the past, involves nearly a 100 editors, and taken up almost a gigs worth of data that this image is controversial? Seriously, enough evidence hasn't already surfaced to convince you that it is controversial? What will it take to get you to realize that some people are offended by it, other are uncomfortable, and others simply think it set the wrong tone in the lead?

The primary argument used for keeping it in the lead is that it would be censorship to move it; but so what? Again, editorial decisions (aka censorship) occur every day on Wikipedia. Decisions as to what is best for an article are routine; NPOV/UNDUE are both forms of censorship. While you may brandish the term about as the ultimate evil, censorship is NOT necessarily a bad thing! In America we decry the term because we believe in the freedom of speech, and we brandish the "censorship" label as a trump card when somebody wants to make an editorial decision we don't like. A radio station refuses an add because it contains sexist/racist language---that's censorship. A TV station rejects an add because it is too religious---that's censorship. A newspaper chooses not to run a story because it doesn't have room for it---that's censorship. Wikipedia edits a derogatory comment from an article on the President---that's censorship. An editor tones down the rhetoric in an article---that's censorship. Censorship, in this context, is nothing more than an editorial decision that somebody doesn't like.

The question is, what does the image bring to the article? It brings a beautiful image of a mother that some people really like (including myself.) It also offends some. It sets a specific tone and gets people to wonder about the rest of the article. It immediately raises questions about NPOV, and gets people to read the article with a question of objectivity. Specifically, has the article been unduly influenced by Natural Childbirthers? It may not be work/school safe for some people/circumstances. Editorially, there are plenty of justifiable reasons to move this image---the prime argument to keeping it where it is is "censorship."---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe I've used the word "censorship" once on this page. My argument has always been that the current image is better than any proposed alternative because it shows the biological situation of pregnancy as completely as possible while retaining artistic merit. Powers ^T 17:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all of Balloonman's comments above; very well said. --JN466 02:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Favor the asian women in the bandeau top: The new second photo seems like a reasonable choice and an equally suitable available alternative to the nude in light of the Wiki policy on offensive material which states in part:

Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers[nb 1] should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available.

Here we have a suitable alternative to a photo that is considered offensive by editors who are typical Wiki readers. Changing the photo does not cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate.Coaster92 (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You substituted the word "offensive" for "vulgar" or "obscene". The image in question is neither vulgar nor obscene, no matter how many people find it offensive. Powers ^T 23:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

"Typical Wikipedia readers" seems an unhelpful term. Without formal definition, a typical Wikipedia reader would probably be 60% male and 40% female. Editors who use the term probably mean "people who think like I do." Remember, we are a very diverse lot. HiLo48 (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

One synonym for obscene is indecent. So I think "obscene" is the subjective response of those finding the photo offensive. The complaint is that the model is nude and the image generates an uncomfortable response, ie, that it's indecent. It does not have to be pornography to be indecent or obscene. I am not saying the photo is obscene, from my perspective, but it is to others and the discussion seems to fall within the Offensive Image policy and that there is a suitable alternative.Coaster92 (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

@LtPowers: You have been asked Griswaldo earlier in this section to eludicate exactly why you make the statement that the nude photo is "more effective" than the other. To date, I have not seen you offer elucidation regarding that matter, although you have made another comment above which seems to be basically repeating your comments without offering the clarification requested. On that basis, I am now repeating Griswaldo's request that you offer a clear response to support your assertion that the disputed photo is "more effective" than the other alternatives presented. Thank you in advance for directly addressing this matter. John Carter (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I contend that the current image is neither vulgar nor obscene (or indecent). No one so far has stated that it is vulgar. I claim that it is not obscene either. According to the Wikipedia article on obscenity, an obscenity is "any statement or act which strongly offends the prevalent morality of the time" (emphasis mine). The article further indicates that, according to Merriam-Webster online dictionary, "that which is obscene (i.e.: an obscenity) is quite simply defined as repulsive, or disgusting to the senses." We probably all agree that the current image is neither repulsive nor disgusting to the senses - over the months that the current debate has lasted, no one has used such expressions to describe the image. Therefore the image cannot be considered obscene in the way the word is defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. In the current discussion, let us apply the same rigorous approach we use when editing articles: using reliable and authoritative sources. Let us base our definition of obscenity not on our individual point of views, but on the criteria devised by the Supreme Court of the United States - which can be considered a reliable and authoritative source. The Supreme Court (in Miller v. California) established a three-tiered test to determine what was obscene, called the Miller test (or the Three prong obscenity test). Quoting the article on the Miller test, it has three parts:

• Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
• Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law,
• Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

The work is then considered obscene only if all three conditions are satisfied. Clearly, the current nude image does not satisfy any of these three conditions, let alone all three of them.

Therefore the image cannot be considered obscene. Being neither vulgar nor obscene, it cannot be considered offensive.

The image has the nice encyclopedic qualities of being plain, factual, informative, with no distracting element. It shows what happens to a woman's body during pregnancy by showing the body of a pregnant woman - what else? The posture of the woman also nicely suggests that pregnancy is not simply a state that affects the body, but also the mind of the expecting mother. The mother seems to be communicating with her baby. How could some people find that offensive is beyond me... Dessources (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

And that is your opinion. I personally agree, I think it is a beautiful picture. But regardless of what we think, A) people are offended by it, B) even those who aren't offended by it recognize that it sets a tone not conducive to the article, and C) the fact that it isn't obsence is not justification for keeping it in the lead when there are tangible reasons to move it down.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 04:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

A) is true, but some people would be offended by any bare skin, and we're not going to ban that. B) is an opinion with which I disagree. C) is weird. Throughout this discussion I have never understood how, if one is offended by a picture, it's OK if one encounters it by scrolling. HiLo48 (talk) 04:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

SMH... shows how little you comprehend the issue. Point B is not an opinion, *I* for one am a person who has repeatedly stated that I like the picture, but think it's in the wrong place. Others have said the same thing---in fact that is the majority of the people who want to move it want to do so because they believe the current image hurts the article in the lead. But you seem to think that the only reason why people advocate moving it is because it offends them... which isn't the case.

As for C... Seriously, I'm having trouble even responding to your point C. When you write, you want to follow and understand plot/article/debate construction. A story which starts out with a couple having wild pationate sex has a completely different tone than a story that ends with the same scene. If you write a book/movie with this scene, you have to decide if you want to shock the viewer immediately and put the sex scene at the start? Or do you want to build up to the scene so that when it happens people aren't surprised, but see it as a natural progression of events. Both can be legitimate approaches, but depending on the nature of the story, one might be more beneficial than the other.

Similarly, in formulating an argument, you have to consider the placement of the key point---especially if it might be controversial. Do you want to surprise people with the controversial idea up front? Or do you want to build up to it? Do you want to put people in the position where their defenses go up? Ot do you want to lead them down the path, where each step of the way, they slowly accept each premise of your argument, until you hit them with controversial piece--at which point you've already eroded their possible objections?

You're point C basically says, it doesn't matter where you put a controversial idea---but it does. When you write, you build trust with the reader. Hopefully, the reader reads the article and accepts that it is NPOV, reliable, and accurate. If you do your job well, controversial notions will be better accepted later on because they've come to accept the premise that the author knows what he is talking about.

People who see the nude may immediately start asking questions: 1) Is this article NPOV? 2) Does it advocate a specific perspective on pregnancy (namely natural childbirth)? 3) What was the agenda of the authors that chose this image? If you move it down into the article, you bypass these concerns. The reader is given the chance to judge the article on the articles merits, not a controversial image. You get the chance to build trust, the image no longer sets the tone, and can convey something meaningful.

What the wp:NOTCENSOR people don't seem to understand is that moving the image isn't censorship, but rather a means to get the reader to accept the image without having a viceral gut reaction. That editorially, the best choice to make this article the best it can be is not to shock the reader up front, but to entice them to read further.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 08:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The point which is missed by Balloonman and many others is that while some people may be offended by the current lead image, the image is not offensive, in the sense that this word has when it is not followed by an prepositional phrase. Being offensive is very different from being offensive to someone. We all agree that some people may find the current image offensive (my bet is that it's is a fringe - but vocal - group of people). Clearly, as HiLo48 said, some people will find the "compromise" picture of a woman which shows her bare abdomen offensive, even if her breast is covered. Some people will even find a picture of a clothed but unveiled pregnant woman offensive. Some will find the mere representation of a woman where one can recognize elements betraying her identity offensive. The spectrum is wide. When one opens this Pandora's box and gives way to such kind of requirement, there is clearly no limit indicating where to stop. Once the principle is accepted to reject a picture on the ground that it may offend somebody, the fanatic will never rest satisfied and will demand its application until his or her requirements are met, no matter how absurd they may be. The definition of "obscenity" rightly refers to the "prevalent morality of the time". I propose to stick to such definition and use the three-tiered Miller test to assess whether the image is offensive, which in the present case means obscene, since the image is not vulgar. I contend that all good-faith editors will agree with me that the image does not meet the Miller test. It is obviously not obscene and therefore not offensive. The discussion based on the offensive character of the image is therefore baseless. Dessources (talk) 09:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Facepalma gigs worth of discussion and the perponderance of people will say otherwise. THe ONLY argument promulgated by the "keep the nude" is that WP:NOTCENSOR and to call the other side closed minded prigs. No effort has been made to actually address the issues raised nor the fact that people obviously disagree with you. Nobody has yet to respond to repeated request made by several people that try to give an editorial reason beyong, "NOTCENSOR" to have the nude in the lead.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 13:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This. Nandesuka (talk) 13:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh wait, I forgot they have given one more reason WP:ILIKEIT.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 13:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

"THe ONLY argument promulgated by the "keep the nude" is that WP:NOTCENSOR" Come on, Balloonman, stop this baloney. "No one is blinder than he who will not see." Clearly, you are blind to the numerous arguments presented by those who want to keep the current image. You seem only able to see the side that fits your point of view, and treat as non-existent or wipe away as irrelevant any other argument. I, for my part, took the trouble of exposing above in detail some of my arguments (which were also formulated by many other contributors), and you dismissed them contemptuously, saying simply (see above): "And that is your opinion. I personally agree, I think it is a beautiful picture." Just cataloging what I said as "my opinion" seems to you sufficient reason for not considering it. And when you add that you agree that it is a "beautiful picture", you further misrepresent my point, since I did not say that it is a beautiful picture (it isn't - if the picture were presented at a photo contest, it wouldn't even pass the first round). I said that the picture is effective at providing information on pregnancy, since it shows the changes that happen to the body of a pregnant woman by actually showing the body of a pregnant woman, it is factual (and contains no distracting element), and it is plain (in the sense that it does not fall into any unnecessary esthetic trap). I finally said that it expresses one more thing: that pregnancy is also a state of mind, and that the mother already communicates with the baby she carries. In brief, I said and I repeat that this is the ideal encylopedic illustration for an article on pregnancy which, furthermore, has a clear medical connotation. Dessources (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I said it's a beautiful picture, and I stand by that statement, it is a beautiful picture. But you've made a few arguments here: 1) "it shows the changes that happen to the body of a pregnant woman." Really? It shows the changes that happen to a pregnant woman? How does it do that? There is no 'before' image to compare it with, thus there are other images that would do that better. For all I know, she could be fat to begin with. So, it fails your first argument. 2) "it is plain (in the sense that it does not fall into any unnecessary esthetic trap)." I don't know how to respond to that because A) it makes no sense and B) if there is an esthetic trap that it falls into it is one that it puts some ill at ease or sets a tone contrary to the best interests of the article. 3) "it expresses one more thing; that pregnancy is also a state of mind"? WTF? Pregnancy is a state of mind? Please show that to me in a medical journal? Last thing I knew, man meets woman, they have sex, and voila a baby is conceived---a persons state of mind has nothing to do with their getting or being pregnant. But now you are telling me that a pregnant woman has a specific "state of mind?" That becoming pregnant will induce some sort of euphoria over a person? Man, if that isn't POV stance on pregnancy, then I don't know what is! If that were true, then the abortion issue would disappear overnite! But perhaps it is this "state of mind" portrayal that sets people ill at ease with the image because it is a notion advocated by certain political circles. 4) "In brief, I said and repeat that this is the ideal encyclopedic illustration." Really? If this were clearly the ideal encyclopedic illustration then we would not have had over 100 people and a gigs worth of discussion over the past two months. "The ideal encyclopedic illustration" would not have this much controversy and if it were ideal then the consensus would have come down solidly in favor of it. 5) "clear medical connotations"... are you talking about the euphoric state pregnant women encounter that you referenced above?---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 03:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I should have my head read, getting back into this midden, but there is a germ of validity in the point that it is hard to show changes in a single picture. OK, I concede the point. I regrettably don't have a first trimester nude model to hand, but if matching pictures, similar in their merits to the current nude picture, were available or could be prepared in the forthcoming months, then I reckon we should post a series of say 3-6 of them across the page. Or of course, if we wish to emphasise another dimension, we could simply publish both the current nude and clothed pictures. Dimensions are dimensions. But really, the value of a meaningfully representative series is hard to beat. Still, you know, though I understand the need for good-faith exchange, I find it hard to control my sheer nausea at the subject of this so-called debate. Whether looking at it zoologically, humanistically, medically, morally, artistically, or simply logically, the very concept of the school of objection recalls the idea of people bathing in a garment in case the Good Lord sees them nude... I dunno... Also a certain University rector (in the 20th century no less) who tried to bully the medical faculty into forbidding female medical students from working on male cadavers. (They politely told him to get stuffed. No names, no pack drill!) Well well, my sensitivities hardly matter, but I wish some others could examine their own, and think deeply on the implications of what it is that they are raging against, before catting into the wind. JonRichfield (talk) 10:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• If there weren't as much anti/pro-nude accusations, the talkpage wouldn't be this long. If anyone is considering the nipples offensive, the Pregnancy#Physiology section would-of been the most argumentative.

Here is just a simple example of what a generally-expected public view would look like. The lead image should be more informative (called "introductory image") than educational, as Wikipedia is NOT a medical book. We should add that in WP:NOT, :p jkjk. The more educational parts, which includes more details, already has their own sections like Pregnancy#Physiology and Pregnancy#Third_trimester. That's where you see the comparative uncovered images, because it simply has an educative reason.

Seriously, I've seen a couple valid arguments against the clothed image but nothing against the last Asian image till now, IMO.

Can we please show some real arguments against the Asian image, without hiding behind WP:ILIKEIT and WP:CENSORED? ~ AdvertAdam ^on-mobile 07:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The real point is that we shouldn't even be considering it. There was an RfC decision a month ago. To re-open discussions so soon shows very poor faith. HiLo48 (talk) 07:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Was the Asian image involved in the previous RfC? ~ AdvertAdam ^on-mobile 08:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I cannot remember and should not have to check. And really, I don't care. Content of articles should not be based on persistent editors with nothing better to do ignoring the umpire's decision and pushing POV against policy. There was a valid decision. It should stand. HiLo48 (talk) 08:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

If somebody had closed it 3 weeks ago when this RFC was opened, I would have fully supported that decision. If you note, I've called this discussion an abuse of process several times, but nobody (AFAIK) took it to ANI or got a non-involved admin (or even the original closer) involved in this RfC. 3 weeks later, numerous editor input, and 200K of discussion later, gives legitimacy to this RfC.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Absolute rubbish. It gives legitimacy to nothing. It demonstrates that some editors will do anything, with no regard to rules and principles, to get what they want. And please subtract from your total of 200K any posts like mine and Desources' saying this should not be occurring. HiLo48 (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)