Talk:Pregnancy

Nude Picture and Florida state law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mother?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead image RfC

• 
  Proposed image
  Image 1
• 
  Current image
  Image 2
• 
  Image showing breast changes, proposed image
  Image 3

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

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

• There is no licensing issue with the current lead image, it was verified by an administrator/reviewer in 2006 [1] and was kept per two different deletion discussions [2][3] - including keep votes by the person purporting to be the photographer. Please read the comments made in both deletion discussions by the photographer, Inferis. Dreadstar ☥ 15:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Support change

• Support as person starting this RfC. Another issue with the current image is its licence. The person who took the picture states that he has never released this image under a license that allows commercial reuse.[4] Concerns in the past have been raised regarding the importance of showing breast changes however the current image does not show breast changes and a better image has been subsequently found to illustrate this point (added lower in the article). --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
• Change image: Seems like a better image all around. The current image would not be needed - it can be removed, and should be removed if there are licensing issues. --Ludwigs2 00:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support as the new image is higher technical quality, does a fine job of showing the most obvious physical signs of pregnancy, and adheres to the principle of least surprise which was outlined as being officially supported in a recent Board resolution. Also note that the full image of the naked woman does not strictly adhere to our resolve to have consent of images of identifiable people. The original photo seems have to been deleted from Flickr ([5]) and it's thus unclear that it is morally acceptable for us to display such an image not knowing whether we have the consent of the subject to be displayed in such a prominent venue. Steven Walling • talk 02:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
• Change lead image, but move elsewhere in the article. I want to move the current image from the lead down to the un-illustrated ==Second trimester== section, where we can use it to illustrate the specific, relevant concepts, rather than merely to decorate the page with a "beautiful" or "emotional" image. Past opposition appears to have focused on the idea that any one-time image can show nine months' worth of changes to the breast (it can't, and furthermore, most of the changes happen in the months after this image was taken) and an apparent aversion to including even a single image of a pregnant woman that isn't a European or American in a state of undress. There's a whole world out there that isn't white: at least Image 1 would begin to acknowledge this fact. We might also be able to get images like these snapshots, but the multi-racial woman in the blue shirt is fine with me.
  (If anyone's up for a photog commission, at the moment, my ideal image for the lead would be a well-composed, well-lighted picture of a racially mixed group of pregnant women, at different stages of pregnancy, possibly including one shortly after birth (with her baby), rather than an image of any one woman—something like this, but preferably with faces and more women.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support change No really solid reason has been given for why we need to see a pregnant woman in the altogether. Issue of nudity per se and censorship concerns are a red herring here; gratuitous nudity is a problem if it makes a not-insignificant portion of our community uncomfortable that would not otherwise be uncomfortable with nude images where such have a clear encyclopedic purpose. Daniel Case (talk) 05:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Daniel Case - I just followed the link behind your text "...makes a not-insignificant portion of our community uncomfortable". It's to an article called Hostile environment sexual harassment, which is all about posting pictures of pornography in employee's cubicles, dirty jokes, sexually suggestive remarks, asking for dates, and derogatory terms with a sexual connotation. That has absolutely nothing to do with this topic. Not a helpful contribution at all. HiLo48 (talk) 07:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• • Right, so now we're back to discussing consent to use the image. Bloody ridiculous. I thought it was about the nudity, or the maternity clothes, or copyright, or art, or stretch marks, or..... Exactly what IS this RfC about? Without a simple answer to that question, there is absolutely no way anybody can draw a sensible conclusion from this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 08:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
    • You must be very insecure in your position if you feel the need to hijack every RfC support. The original uploader appears to have deleted the image from flickr. Is this true? They also have claimed that all of their images are non-commercial, including this one. Is this true? Further, they claim that the image is of their wife, and we have to take them on their word. So, we have an image that was taken from flickr and uploaded to commons under a non-free license, where it has been allowed to remain since 2006. How strange. Finally, we have editors who seem to think that the topic of pregnancy must necessitate showing the fully nude body of a woman, and can only be represented by such a photo. This RfC appears to be about the use of a nude, non-free image being used to represent the topic of pregnancy, a topic that does not require nudity of any kind since it takes place inside the body. Viriditas (talk) 08:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, you're absolutely right. I'm totally insecure. Thanks you for the psychological advice..... What utter crap! HiLo48 (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support the proposal, i.e. moving image 2 down (preferably to Pregnancy#Second trimester) and instead putting image 1 into the lead. However, I am assuming that the mirrored version of image 1 will be used for layout reasons and because it is crisper. I have explained my reasoning in detail in a separate section below. Hans Adler 15:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Would vastly prefer a nude image; because the point is that a women's body changes significantly during pregnancy (and this is easiest to demonstrate nude), but the proposed clothed image is much "nicer" quality & pose. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support Change but keep image somewhere on the page. This issue has already accumulated over 300KB of discussion and as pointed out by Whatamidoing, has been the subject of repeated complaints discussions "These [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] are just from the year when the image was first added." That alone should be enough to show that this image is not the best image for the lead as it garners too much controversy. The arguments for keeping it are 100% "I like it." Personally, I LOVE the image, but I don't think it belongs in the lead.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support Change. Both images are OK, it having the nude one further down in the article would be OK, and a good compromise I think. If both images are in the article, it's not really that important an issue I guess. It's a philosophical issue and I suppose the contention between the Nudies and the Clothesies can't really be solved. A couple points in favor of changing the image: 1) [[Balloonman's point above is well taken -- can we settle this and not have to spend so much time on it? I think that changing the image and including the existing image further down is most likely to do this. 2) All in all, since it's not really that important or solvable, it's probably better to come down on the side of the Principle of Least Astonishment (even though the current image isn't very astonishing) and also, look, some people don't like the image, and we shouldn't just blow them off. It's a data point. There's nothing much gained here by using the existing image. If it was matter of principle we would stand by principle, but it's not. If it was a matter of one image being clearly much more informative than the other, we would stand by encyclopedic value. But that's not the case here. Herostratus (talk) 18:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Support keeping current image in the lead

• Keep current image or replace it with a similar image which is properly licensed. A clothed image would only obscure the subject of the article, which is the entire female body during pregnancy (and that's why the full-body photo should be in the lead). There are many reasons for keeping the nude image expressed above, and most of the opposition to the nude image is purely a matter of dislike of nudity. Photo quality is irrelevant; nudity is not undignified; it is traditional in WP to present nude images for articles on the body, see Human body, breast, buttocks Human penis and vagina. And the full image should be first with other images used to illustrate details: it's a summary image, and belongs in the lead. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 00:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

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

• Keep current image, for many of the same reasons I outlined in at least two previous discussions about these same images here and here. The original image is superior to the new photo. The original image is very descriptive of the subject, it is a dignified and beautiful picture, that to me at least, conveys a sense of warmth, of motherhood…like she’s responding to that which she carries…it’s contemplative, lovely and not at all obscene or even titillating…I think it’s just perfect for the lede. I agree with BeCritical's comments above. There are no licensing issues. The licensing was confirmed by an administrator/reviewer and was kept per two different deletion discussions [16][17]. Dreadstar ☥ 02:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why you are not taking into account the statements of the person who actually took the photo per here [18]? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree, complete nudity is not necessary for cancer wasting (although having seen it, I disagree that the image you found is a very good illustration, they look more like Nazi prison camp pictures). And really, I don't think it's biased to show extreme cases, that's just illustration. You don't show mild cases of starvation, for example, you show extreme cases. Like the picture at malnutrition [19] and those at Acute myeloid leukemia, you show a picture of the subject when there's something to see. But in the case of pregnancy, breasts and genitals are such a large part of the process that not showing them, or showing them in isolation would be remiss. Pregnancy is a whole body change particularly involving the belly, breasts, and genitals, and we should have at least one whole body image without interference from clothing. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 21:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The proposer objects to the licensing issue and the quality of the image. These objections where removed by user Dreadstar in these edits here [20] and I am not sure why.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good point. See my remark below under Discussion.

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

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

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

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

• Keep current The arguments in favour of replacing the image are based on the nudity-is-offensive (using the euphemism "nudity is unnecessary"). I think nudity is absolutely necessary in an article about a medical change affecting the belly/breasts of the pregnant woman. Medical textbooks from the 1950s have them, so I don't see why Wikipedia shouldn't. There have been no arguments presented here that give any justification beyond squeamishness at the sight of nipples. This is an encyclopedia, which I don't think should have content determined on a subjective, emotional distaste of imagery that serves a scientific purpose. Arguments comparing an encyclopedia entry to public nudity on the street is misleading and ridiculous.

OttawaAC (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright issues

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

---

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

Per Dreadstar above: "There are no licensing issues. The licensing was confirmed by an administrator/reviewer and was kept per two different deletion discussions."[21][22]. (olive (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC))

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

{copied from above} There is no licensing issue with the current lead image, it was verified by an administrator/reviewer in 2006 [23] and was kept per two different deletion discussions[24][25] - including keep votes by the person purporting to be the photographer. Please read the comments made in both deletion discussions by the photographer, Inferis. Dreadstar ☥ 15:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Actually, the reviewer/administrator's comment says exactly the opposite of your assertions, that the image was indeed released under licensing that allows for its use in Wikipedia: [26]. And from the photographer's comments, he may be willing to re-upload the image and release it under whatever WP licensing needed; but it appears that this is not necessary since all indication are that appropriate licensing was established in 2006. Dreadstar ☥ 17:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Per the uploader:

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

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

Again, the permissions were established to be appropriate in 2006, and I'm not convinced that your conversation with the 'uploader' contained sufficient information, (e.g. your own comments, which change the context from this one image to all of the photographer's images on flickr; as well as displaying your own uncertainty about licensing issues:[28][29]. Dreadstar ☥ 17:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Great and I have asked for him to comment here [30] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Apparently, it's no problem with User:Inferis: [31]. Dreadstar ☥ 21:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

No, you don't:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nudity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I guess this entire discussion makes no sense to me at all. We don't want the nude picture in the lead, but its OK further down. Nude breasts are apparently not acceptable in the lead but once again they're ok in other places. We don't want a picture of pregnant woman because it might titillate, but fetishes aren't the norm and we are not going to start censoring images on Wikipedia in case some one with a fetish comes along. Its ok on Wikipedia to show other body parts like a sprained ankle with out socks on [32] because that gives us information about what is going on in the body, but here a picture of a pregnant body, a significant physical change, must be covered. One editor suggested the emotional qualities in the photo were important but that was idea was stepped on despite the fact that if human offspring are not given physical care they die and if not given emotional care will be damaged emotionally. The picture in place gives us an over arching sense of human pregnancy which include both physical and emotional information. We take for granted information in our culture that has become so common place and so integrated into the culture that we no longer need the information itself but understand the information through a symbol. The picture of a woman with a bump under her shirt is symbolic of pregnancy in our culture. It is not necessarily informative to those who do not have the initial information that underlies the symbol. I can understand personal concerns about depicting nudity which none of us has a right to judge, but that isn't an argument for excluding an informative image in my opinion. Is it necessary to delineate personal concerns from the need of the article to inform?(olive (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC))

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ludwigs2, do you realize that it is not the lead image of this article which is "insulting people needlessly," it's you who are insulting other contributors to this discussion when you say "You guys are the only bigots here." Note that for my part, I have not insulted anybody: I have only stated my opinion, which is that only an extremely small minority of people might find the image offensive, minority which may be confined to the extreme bigots. I gather that none of the contributors to the current discussion find the image personally offensive. Some contributors are simply concerned that the image could "risk giving offense to those who might be offended by it." This is all very hypothetical, and this whole debate might be based on an unfounded assumption, for which no evidence has been provided so far. I am perhaps also wrong: even radical bigots might have no objection against having a picture of a nude women illustrating the notion of pregnancy in an encyclopedia article! Actually, nudity associated with pregnancy is so accepted that large distribution magazines, such as Vanity fair and Vogue have used full page pictures of nude pregnant women on their covers (see [33] and [34]).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cultural issues: What do the other wikis use?

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

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

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

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

OK, I'm back.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

bad faith...

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

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

Edit break

Well, those who think that the picture of the nude pregnant woman is offending, look at the picture of the nude obese men (of mediocre quality) in the article on Obesity at [[35]]. How shocking, isn't it! I'm sure you will immediately ask that it be removed too. Showing nude men doesn't add any information. This is a gratuitous attempt at offending some people in some cultures who resent nudity as blasphemous. Dessources (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See Cutural aspects of clothes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maternity clothing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respect for cultural bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm just looking at the other Wikipedias, and for the majority of the world, Turkish, Chinese, various European, they use nude images. The Turkish one uses this [36]. It seems to me that people can't object much to these images. We just don't have any data. One of the Muslim ones uses an image which their traditionalists would consider nude I guess. And anyway, the principle of trying to be overly considerate when no one has even complained would be detrimental when extended to the whole encyclopedia. I can only stick to what I've been saying all along, that is that we need to stick to the informational value and leave these swamps alone. Censorship (and we have no idea whether it's actually censorship or not) in the other encyclopedias such as the Hindi one may have been done by an active minority: we don't know. We may be dealing with a world which actually prefers the nude images, and will be more likely to read the article as a result of our using them. So not only are we making assumptions about other cultures and what the individuals within them actually think, we are doing so at the expense of exerting a possibly detrimental principle and possibly a detrimental effect on the article. The whole thing stinks. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 04:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

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

What do you mean, "no one has even complained"? Have you looked at the archives? There are complaints all over the place. We get nothing except complaints about this image. These [37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45] are just from the year when the image was first added. I've never yet seen a spontaneous compliment about any of the images in this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But Wikipedia isn't really about the readers either, it's about knowledge, and trying to provide an in-depth and comprehensive article on whatever the subject is at hand. And in order to do that, Wikipedia can't be censored. But more importantly, the idea that we need to make this article 'functional' or 'child safe' for schools is somewhat absurd, for two reasons. Firstly, (although I'm not familiar with the particulars of that project) I imagine almost every article has to be modified, if only in terms of formatting, before it can be put into Wikipedia for Schools or similar projects. But secondly, and I shall say categorically that this is the more important of the two objections, is that we are not removing nudity from this article. For example, even if we removed the lead image from the lead, that doesn't necessarily mean we've have removed it from the article, and even if we did we wouldn't have removed something like [46] from the article. In other words, even if we removed the image we'd still have nudity in this article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, it's not unless you know these things. And that's the point. "Very sorry" doesn't cut it with our readership, we aren't supposed to make info hard to get. If I didn't get it, then why would someone else who also hasn't noticed much about pregnancy? You're just making it clear how you're position assumes prior knowledge- and doesn't care about those who don't have such knowledge. And I assure you, the lighting is perfectly good on the nude. We aren't looking for a featured picture, but an illustration. The clothed image specifically fails the FPC criteria, as it is not high resolution [47]. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 21:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Summarizing?

This discussion seems to be winding down (please god), and at the risk of being pelted with nasty names and pigeonholed I wanted to suggest that the fundamental premise that one image is as informative to one as to another is subjective and so not true for everyone. Building up arguments based on that false premise and shaky foundation can only yield arguments that are questionable. As and aside: If I were to walk into an art class and suggest to students that they can see the physiology of pregnancy as well on a clothed model as on a nude, I'd be laughed out of class, and probably have an unpleasant meeting with the department chair. I consider the clothed image, #1 to be without much information, and decorative , and the other, #2 more informative and as tasteful as we can get with out adding clothing. Will some readers find the nude image uncomfortable. I don't know. I'd be guessing one way or the other. Our mission is information not decoration, and we need to convey information as accurately as possible and as tastefully as possible. One image comes closer to doing that than the other.(olive (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC))

I agree completely with your sentiments, except for the issue of which image is a more informative illustration. The proposed replacement image shows the full extent of a mature human pregnancy and also provides an illustration of typical maternity clothes. And since I took drawing in college, both nude and non-nude, I can tell you that pregnancy is pretty hard to miss, whether depicted with or without clothes. We're not talking about shingles here. Besides, pregnancy is not a disease, and it's more than a "physiological condition". Treating pregnancy as if it were nothing more than a medical condition is disingenuous. Kaldari (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Olive, you bring up several good points, and let me also summarize some: We don't know that the nude image is actually offensive to any but a very few, as the other Wikipedias mostly use nudes and we have no data; we are not trying for image "quality" (not to say the nude image is of lesser quality), but illustration; the clothed image is only arguably of better quality, and there are good arguments that the nude image is of better quality; the nude image has more information; the clothed image does not improve the racial problem, because of the dress and because swapping black for white doesn't solve the problem, it should be Asian/Indian; the clothed image is smaller; we are being asked to show consideration for those who dislike nudity, but we have as much reason to believe that some like it, and why aren't we considering them?; We aren't trying to be like other encyclopedias, but rather we are trying to be as informative as we can be; it's not a believable argument that we can increase readership or make the article more acceptable to children or in classrooms by having the nude image further down the page: we'd have to remove it entirely; there is no justification within Wikipedia policy for using cultural biases of any kind as a criterion for Wikipedia content, and such a principle would be destructive if applied overall. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 20:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Olive, I agree completely with your summary. I'd like to add that, having worked on both images with Photoshop (which resulted in my improvement of Image 2 - see new lead image), I can testify that the picture of the nude pregnant woman is of far greater photographic quality, in the sense that its resolution is much higher than the resolution of Image 1, which gets rapidly fuzzy when you enlarge it. I would say that Image 2 is certainly superior to Image 1 as a document. It has better information content, since it illustrates the change that happens to the body of a pregnant woman by actually showing the body of a pregnant woman (in the spirit of similar article with a medical orientation). Clothes play an obstructing role in such a context. Image 1 could be considered slightly better from an esthetic point of view, but this is a matter of personal taste, and people who like realism in photography will prefer Image 2. For my part, being a great admirer of Lucian Freud, I prefer Image 2 on artistic ground as well - but I gather that this is irrelevant. Dessources (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Olive, I agree with you about the subjectivity of the information in this - there's no concrete improvement in the content of the article with either image unless one happens to believe there is. If this were an art class then I would agree with you that the nude image is superior; if the nude image were on the art nude article, then there would be no question of removing it at all. However, the purpose of this article is to discuss pregnancy, and leading off with a art nude image is (IMO) inappropriate to the topic. Now we could have a reasonable discussion about whether that assessment is correct if people were willing to argue reasonably, but frankly I am deeply annoyed at the logic shenanigans going on here. trying to recast an art nude image as though it were intended to be a clinical graphic with valuable information is insultingly absurd. The extreme intolerance of conservative worldviews and the pointlessly combative attitude evidenced by some of the supporters here is sufficiently bad that I'm beginning to think topic bans are called for. Hell, I have never found myself in a position where I had to defend conservative views this strenuously - normally I'm the one reducing conservative arguments to rubble - and the fact that I feel I have to should give some idea of how ridiculously out-of-line the pro-art-nude position is here. Can you maybe convince the other people on your side of the debate to stick to the kind of reasoned arguments that you make? that would help a lot. --Ludwigs2 03:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs, I'm not on a side, I just have an opinion that's all. The reason art students draw nudes is because they have to see what the body is doing, how it is constructed. If the argument is that enough of that 'construction' can be viewed through clothing for the reader to get the general idea, and that's enough, then I would disagree. I don't know that filtering out tastefully presented information serves the reader. You know, Wikipedia is so unpleasant in so many places, I'm afraid that to debate this further is not something I feel I want to deal with. My points may be useful or not. Just adding a thought or two. And no bans needed. Nudity and how we view it is so engrained in many people, its part of who they/we are. So discussion is not about nudity necessarily but may be about aspects of personalities that create editor individuality. So sure argument becomes vehement when your protecting, even unconsciously, yourself. (olive (talk) 03:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC))

Olive, you may not be on their side, but they certainly think they are on yours. an eternal misunderstanding, perhaps. I don't know (or really care) which is the truth, so long as conversation wends its way back to the rational. As far as I'm concerned, any image in the lead of an article is mainly there to orient the reader, not to provide detailed information (that's for images in section, where details are discussed). both images are adequate for that purpose, and the clothed image doesn't aggravate anyone. I agree that if this were about the details of form that define the pregnant body, the nude image would be better (though I think there are better images than this art nude piece for that). I just don't agree that that level of detail is necessary for the purpose. We have a dual responsibility to inform the reader without alienating them from the topic unnecessarily, and a non-nude image will work better for that purpose.

I am on a sour streak with wikipedia - I'm tired of arguing over stupid points endlessly, and sick of editors who think it's their god-given duty to be unforgivable bitches - and so as soon as this debacle is over I'm going back on wikibreak until I have a better attitude (which may be never). I would just like for once to crack through all the stupid shit and get people to behave like normal, reasonable adults. You manage that, but you're a rarity. If that can't happen as a rule, then the project is just a waste of time: one more area of the internet where mindlessly opinionated people bash their heads against each other out of some primal. futile urge towards dominance. it sickens me.

but, whatever… --Ludwigs2 05:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Sidestepping the thread that's developing and trying to address the original point

what information is presented in the nude image? Article lead images are somewhat decorative, but the primary objective is to confirm to the reader visually that they're in the right place (maybe irrelevant for this article, though I'm certain there's an album by some crappy garage band somewhere called Pregnancy (album)). Nudity isn't necessarily offensive, and honestly when you start talking about bodily changes you're going to have to show some bodies, but there in context it's obvious why we're doing it and it wouldn't shock anyone. Obviously the truly prudish will still disapprove, but even then they're probably going to disapprove of the word "breasts" in print as well and they're a lost cause. The lead image is like a book cover: it doesn't have context, it's there for identification of the subject. Call me silly, but aren't most of the pregnant people you run into clothed? The image is distracting, because it rapidly becomes about nudity, not about pregnancy, and our focus is lost. SDY (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Compromise idea: nude woman, but more cover-up?

This is nice. It might be a compromise lead image. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 15:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see the response to that one. It is, in my opinion more sexually provocative, than the current image, even though it shows less. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that a good compromise picture would be a nude woman, but covering herself up somehow, e.g. the current nude image, but with the woman's hand over her breasts. That might be a good middle ground. On the other hand, as Martin suggests, the particular picture posted by BeCritical above is a bit too cheesecake. Question: Does anyone know of an available image that shows a nude pregnant woman, but that is less revealing than the one currently in the article, and is less cheesecake than the one from BeCritical? --Noleander (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Noleander, in what respect is the current image too revealing? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

@Martin: I don't feel the current image is too revealing (I !voted to keep the current image at the top of the article). I was just suggesting that a more modest photo may be a good compromise. I cannot speak for the persons that object to the current photo, but perhaps a hand covering the breasts may be acceptable to them? --Noleander (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Damn buddy, you do like art nudes, don't you? alright, here are a couple of alternates to try (they're on a remote site - I'll upload them to commons if there's call to).

• [48]
• [49]

--Ludwigs2 17:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I like Ludwigs2's first option (9350). The second is too "artistic." SDY (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think any of those are very good illustrations for the article. The soft focus one is just ridiculously cheesy, the 2nd one is too tightly cropped to give you much context, and the 3rd one is probably too artsy. I do like though that these are all mature pregnancies, which I would strongly prefer for a lead image. Keep looking though, there might be something out there. Kaldari (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

What "context" is missing? I mean, the entire problem is that the "context" included in the original photograph causes problems for using the photo in certain settings, so I don't think we want more "context." SDY (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

lol - context… that's got to be the funniest rationalization I've heard on this page yet. --Ludwigs2 19:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't saying the image has to show full frontal nudity, I was saying it would be nice if it's easier to tell what we're looking at. Personally, I think a fully clothed image would be fine as long as it is a high quality photograph and clearly depicts pregnancy. Kaldari (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• All the "compromise" pictures proposed in this section are unsatisfactory. The current image is clearly much better. Its superiority is acknowledged by the fact that it is used in over 40 different wikis, showing that it enjoys quite a wide degree of support across many cultures in the world. The current debate is a waste of time, since it's essentially based on the point of view of a small minority of contributors, who object to the image, speculating that some people in some cultures may find it offensive, a consideration which is irrelevant as per Wikipedia rules. There is no need to find a compromise, because there is actually no substantive issue. Dessources (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

  And it's this kind of idiocy that makes editing wikipedia such a pain. Dessources, keep it up and I will ask an administrator to sanction you for disruptive behavior.--Ludwigs2 00:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

  Regarding image use on other wikis, most smaller wikis take their cue from English Wikipedia rather than vice versa, so I think this would be circular logic. Kaldari (talk) 00:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Lol, the image I suggested is more "art," or whatever you call it, cheesecake, than the other, but it's not "nude," and it shows enough that you truly can see what's going on. There's a lot of irrelevance, the snow, the gloves etc. Ludwigs' suggested images aren't bad. The lack some of the advantages of the current image, but they do show the subject material without undue interference. If the fully nude image is to be shown at all, then we are not actually placating anyone outside WP: let there be no doubt there, any nudity in the article will be completely unacceptable to anyone against nudity (like the complaints WhatamIdoing posted yesterday). But these would be good compromise images. This image is best compromise image. The current image is still the best we have of course. Ludwigs, don't threaten Dessources, I agree with him basically and he is not being disruptive. It's just that I'm always up for a legit compromise. Ludwigs is the one who has a history of being disruptive on this page, and threatening other editors is beyond the tolerable limits. I greatly respect Ludwigs, but that doesn't mean I'll tolerate too much disruption and incivility when it's not merely aimed at me. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 03:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

B - the one thing you will never hear me say is "There is no need to find a compromise". Compromise is always a consideration when there is a dispute, and anyone who sits down to the discussion with the attitude that there compromise is a waste of time is explicitly disruptive (because they are making it clear that they will argue without listening to the other side, and will purposefully block any discussion or action they don't approve of). I can be an ass, but I am rarely an unreasonable ass, and that's a huge difference.

I'll add that if you are going to start referring to valid administrative solutions which I have perfect right to request as 'threats', then you're delusional. I don't know whether any admin will agree with me, but if D is going to continue trolling this page then I am going to try to get him blocked or topic banned. If you don't like it, too bad. Story, but I'm fed up with his crap. --Ludwigs2 05:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The thing is that I ignore a lot of rhetoric which has no chance of having any actual effect. I guess saying you won't compromise would be disruptive if that's what he meant. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 06:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I am all for compromise when the issue is real. Here the issue is a non issue, as Wikipedia rules out removing an image simply because some readers may find it offensive. What's left is the information content of the image, and nothing proposed so far comes even short of the current image.

Dessources (talk) 06:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

"I will ask an administrator to sanction you for disruptive behavior." Ludwigs, you live in a different world than I do. A world in which the simple appearance of a breast in a medically oriented image creates a frenzy of censorship, a world in which you feel free to denounce me to the authorities for "disruptive behaviour," while I am simply exercising my freedom of opinion and speech. Have you read 1984, by George Orwell, which describes such a world quite well.

Dessources (talk) 06:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

No, D, you live in a bizarre world, one where:

• An art nude photograph can be construed as a 'medically oriented image'
• Opposition to an unnecessary image constitutes a 'frenzy of censorship'
• You can defend your right to 'free speech' by insisting that no one else has an opinion worth listening to

In other words, you hold that you are free to say whatever senseless thing comes into your head and the rest of us are free to agree with you, and no other condition is possible. What are you, a Tea Party member? --Ludwigs2 14:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Have we now finally reached the point where the ONLY opposition to the naked image is the nudity aspect? The nature of this compromise proposal would suggest that. HiLo48 (talk) 07:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that was actually the case all along. In fact it is specifically the showing of a woman's breasts that is the issue. This seems to be to be a case of a small and unspecified but vocal minority trying to impose their views on WP; something that should be firmly resisted. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The actual issue - all along - has been that we should show respect to the preferences of others, where possible at least. I would make, and have made, this same argument on pages that have nothing to do with nudity (with the same kind of mindlessly vituperative opposition), it's just that the 'respect' issue here involves some people's preference not to see nudity if they don't have to. The problem is that the advocates for the image are constitutionally unable of showing anything like human decency towards people they are obviously prejudiced against, so they can only imagine the issue as one of nudity and censorship.

The issue is that we are dealing with adolescents who've got it stuck in their head that they have to push the boundaries of that 'uncool' world those dumb adults live in, and like adolescents everywhere they get crotchety and aggressively self-righteous when someone tells them 'no'. --Ludwigs2 14:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe that those views are those of a small minority. As I have said before almost everything we do will offend someone but I believe that the offence caused by showing a woman's breasts in an article about pregnancy will not be found offensive by the vast majority of WP readers. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Martin, I know what you believe. I also know that if you silk-screened that image onto a t-shirt and walked around your home town in it, then (unless you live south of Market in SF, or on the strip in Vegas) you'd get a much clearer idea of how the general public feels about gratuitous nudity, and possibly a stiff fine for public indecency. Just because this is the internet (where you can hide in anonymity) doesn't mean people agree with you; it just means that they have no way to give you the nasty looks they would give you if they met you face to face. --Ludwigs2 17:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

You have completely ignored the context. I am not suggesting we show the image on the street or even on the main page of WP, but someone who is looking up 'Pregnancy' must surely have some expectation of finding images that they might not expect to find elsewhere.

I might add that I am offended by people who demonise body parts so I actually would be offended if the image were replaced by a clothed one simply because breasts are considered 'bad'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

They just need to grow up and understand what is appropriate and not for a general article thread. It is something for someone to look up an article about breasts and which case, a nude picture would be expected. Another for an article where a nude picture is not needed nor expected for such an ordinary topic. The editors who insist on keeping the nude picture are nothing more than perverts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.148.58 (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't support the inclusion of any artsy images in this article. I don't mind nude images—if the nude image we use for anatomical illustrations were pregnant (see File:Woman labeled.jpg, I'd support its inclusion—but I don't support art nudes or art semi-nudes or even "art fully dresseds". This is Pregnancy, not Artistic interpretations of pregnancy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

So it's NOT about the nudity? This really is a stupid discussion. Those opposing the nude photo present their case as if it's on someone else's behalf. Someone else who I should make allowances for. I ask again, what allowance is that someone else making for MY position? And it seems I'm being accused of being an adolescent. Ha ha. Nothing could be further from the truth! And a pervert! That is a purely offensive personal attack. Pathetic really. That post should be condemned by ALL other editors here. Feeling comfortable with nudity is NOT a perversion. I am willing to put MY views forward for myself, as a mature, thoughtful person. I don't hide behind the pretence of protecting some other anonymous person's sensitivities. HiLo48 (talk) 17:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

"Someone else who I should make allowances for. I ask again, what allowance is that someone else making for MY position? And it seems I'm being accused of being an adolescent. Ha ha. Nothing could be further from the truth! And a pervert!"

Well, uh, whatever, but you certainly have opened yourself up to the charge of being a narcissist. Daniel Case (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

And how much more personal abuse do you plan to dish out in this collaborative exercise. I think I'll start cataloguing that made against me. I see both pervert and narcissist just in recent posts. Going well guys. HiLo48 (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Feeling comfortable with nudity is not a perversion; this is true. Insisting that everyone else be as comfortable with nudity as you are, however, is perverse, self-centered, and arrogant (i.e., the attitude of a typical adolescent). This is one of those social rules that shouldn't need explaining: if you want to have sex on your own dining room table, that's fine, but you don't get to assert your right to have sex on everyone's dining room table, no matter how comfortable you are with dining room table sex.

I swear, it's like that story from (I think) Brecht's 'Caucasian Chalk Circle', about a judge who habitually farts after formal dinners, because it seems right to him to do so, and everyone else is too politic to ask him to stop. is that how we do things at wikipedia? --Ludwigs2 18:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

HiLo48, a brief glance at the talk page's archives will show many complaints about nudity. However, there are multiple reasons why editors oppose this image for the lead, just like there are multiple reasons why editors support this image for the lead. I am telling you "as a mature, thoughtful person" who is not "hiding behind the pretense of some other anonymous person's sensitivities" that I personally oppose any and all forms of "artsy" images for this article.

This is a completely separate, independent issue from nudity: I oppose artsy nudes, artsy semi-nudes, and artsy images showing zero skin whatsoever. Every single one of the "compromise" images was chosen because it is artsy. None of them, and nothing like them, will have my support. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that very artsy images aren't appropriate for this article. Still, any image of a healthy woman will appear somewhat artsy, and we shouldn't pic images specifically to have no appeal. What I mean is, it might take some artistry to make an image appear non-artsy, and we shouldn't require that. The current image isn't ideal, as you say, and we need to keep looking for alternatives. Women try to make themselves appear artistic and thus any candid image will have some artistic elements most of the time, see himba for examples. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 20:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that women try to make themselves appear artistic: I'm a woman, and I make no such effort. Furthermore, I see nothing "artistic" in the image of the nude woman at Human body, or in any of the other images in this article. Perhaps you meant "women who are vain" rather than "women". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. I just asked a woman "do women try to make themselves look artistic?" She said "Of course, that's all they do. What do you think beauty and fashion mean? Billions of dollars and shows based on it." So I guess you're an unusual exception. Certainly, I see few women on the street who don't try to make themselves look "good." And nothing artistic about the woman at "human body??" What about the hair? Makeup? Shaved crotch? The current image is much less artsy than most. It may be an "art nude," but not more so than you'd get with almost any woman, and probably a lot less- certainly less than the one at Human body. And that's my point: one would be hard pressed to take a picture of a healthy pregnant woman and have it appear less artistic than the one we already have (even if she made zero effort to make herself artistic). So I'm just saying that having the requirement that our image not be artistic isn't realistic. Women make themselves up artistically, and even if they don't they'll often appear as "art nudes" if they're healthy. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 02:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The things you identify as making the woman "artistic" in the lead image at Human body apply equally to the man: shaved crotch, styled hair, photoshopping... Do we conclude from this that all men also try to make themselves look artistic?

I don't object to images being "pretty". I object to them being self-consciously and intentionally artsy. A naked, pregnant supermodel standing in the anatomical position is fine with me. A piece of artwork whose primary purpose is to communicate emotion is not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

"Do we conclude from this that all men also try to make themselves look artistic" Yes of course, why wouldn't we? Nearly all. I wasn't personally aware that the current lead pic was more than the personal documentation of a pregnancy. I have no reason to believe they did anything consciously or professionally to convey emotion. I also have a large suspicion that any emotion conveyed there is mostly generated by the viewer, in the way the Mona Lisa is a neutral image. Do you think it was purposely emotional? B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 19:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

We can't legitimately consider nudity or people's dislike unless we are entirely sure we are not sacrificing informational value in the process. That's why we can consider compromise images here, because if one is found which gives equal or greater information value then we can use it for reasons other than the assumed cultural bias which is the main reason given so far for moving the image (though such bias would not be placated). We can consider the biases of Wikipedia editors because we want to form consensus, as long as the informational value is not sacrificed. That's the main reason why I oppose the original clothed image: I do not think it gives a good pictorial summary of pregnancy. But we should consider any image which gives equal information. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 18:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

So, the upshot is that you've manufactured an entirely subjective set of 'information' (which you are incapable of specifying in concrete terms) and are using that to c%ck-block any and all other considerations. How specifically does the clothed picture depict pregnancy worse than the nude picture? specifics, please - if you hand-wave on this I'm going to crucify your logic. --Ludwigs2 19:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

And you have no statistics showing that more than a few people object to the current image. The complaints I saw were mostly from people who would be unsatisfied till all nudity is purged from the article. You don't have any reason to believe that having the nude image moved is any significant improvement when it comes to making conservative people more comfortable. That's not only subjective on your part, it's unreasonable. Now, as to subjectiveness and information, you are asking for something that is entirely impossible without a scientific study and averages. I can tell you that I couldn't imagine from the proposed image what the belly underneath looked like, but it's up to you to decide whether you believe me or whether you think my imagination is even more impoverished than a) most people and b) those who haven't seen pregnant women naked. I'm also simply saying that you should give credence to the arguments of other editors, who are more experienced (as with art), and say that there is more info in the nude image even though it's hard to quantify. Also, I'm not opposed to a compromise, which I have made clear above. Finally, few know more than I do how easy it is to crucify information which is not supported by hard statistics; but that does not always make crucifying such perception a reasonable option. It might be more reasonable if you had more to back up your own argument besides hand waving about respecting an unquantified conservative audience which may not care about the proposed remedy. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 20:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

You know what's missing from this discussion? Someone saying "I am offended by the nudity". HiLo48 (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing posted a bunch above, but in reading them I noticed that they were rather radical, like complaining that it would get kids addicted to porn. That's why I say we're not going to satisfy such people. What we don't have is any reason to believe that moving the image will help at all. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 20:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

No, my point was that nobody has come to THIS discussion to say "I am offended by the nudity". All we have had is some editors saying "I care about those OTHER people who might be offended" Very difficult to debate what those hypothetical others really think. HiLo48 (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm offended by the use of said picture. As stated below in the discussion on viewing this at work, I can't even view this page because of the nudity and I don't have the ability to block pictures using this computer. I find the picture to be in low taste and to be honest, quite sexist. No one has made a good case for why the image should remain; there is no scientific value to the inclusion of that nude picture, all it shows is a nude woman who happens to be pregnant. It is not about censorship. For all those who say it is censorship, how would people react to seeing someone nude on the street? Not too well I would guess. It is really no different in this case. Just because Wikipedia is a public internet site, does not give us reason to break the norms of society; Wikipedia editors should aim to respect the zeitgeist and also not try to blatantly abuse wikipedia policy in the pursuit of their preaching on censorship or other controversial issues. ""Being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content, but objectionable content should not be retained solely because of this policy." Lord Hawk (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that post Lord Hawk. It's good to see someone finally have the courage to put it in the first person. However, you lost me with "...how would people react to seeing someone nude on the street? Not too well I would guess." That's yet another hypothetical, about what you think others would think. Then you spoke of "the norms of society", and I ask "Which society?" I come from a culture where such an image in this context would not be seen as being in low taste and sexist. You must worry about my society. HiLo48 (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought Australia was quite uptight about these sort of issues seeing as how much content we get in the United States is actually banned in Australia. Lord Hawk (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting comment. I didn't have that impression at all. In fact, I felt things were the other way round. What examples did you have in mind? Anyway, the important words in my post were "in this context". I am certainly not advocating public nudity. Just highlighting that I see places where nudity is appropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 03:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

See Censorship in Australia. Australian television has less censorship than the US but more than Europe. Beyond television, there are many other problems when compared to the US. Films and books are still banned in Australia. Freedom of speech, for example, is not protected in Australia, and advertising is highly regulated, as only one example. Viriditas (talk) 03:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It isn't actually necessary for someone to be "offended" by nudity to think that nudity is inappropriate for the lead image of this article. For example, see the comment from the anon above, "They just need to grow up and understand what is appropriate..."

Additionally, one can—and many of us do—oppose having that image in the lead because it is not, in our editorial judgment, the best we can do. I don't have to "be offended" by any image in any infobox to believe that another image would be better in the lead or to believe that this image would be better used like it is in de.wiki. "Being offended" is strictly optional. For example, there's nothing even remotely "offensive" about the images discussed at Talk:Pulse_oximeter#Images_in_lead, but editors differ in their views on which is best. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

motion to change lead image

Ok, here's what I see:

• B.C. admits there are no concrete, objective reasons why the nude picture must remain (in his 20:09, 13 September post), only subjective, artistic ones.
• B.C., HiLo, and Dessource, the main image proponents (excepting Olive) use as their primary argument the assertion that the people who have clearly complained about the image are all representatives of a radicalized minority that should be ignored, a position which lacks both evidence and ethics (and which I personally consider specious and offensive)
• The current RfC is standing at 17:9 in favor of removal

With that in mind (and barring some better, last-ditch argument on their part) I move we replace the current image with the new image. If there is a radical change in the RfC or the discussion we can always reinsert it, but for now all the tides are against it.

I'll make this change in an hour or so; I'm just giving fair warning so that the image proponents have time to clear their heads so that they do not start an edit war over the change. --Ludwigs2 22:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous position to take, and an absolutely incorrect summary, certainly of my views. This has been an appalling discussion, almost totally random and unstructured. The original proposal changed several times. And these things must be decided on the TRUE merit of the arguments, not a vote count from an aggressive supporter of one side of the debate. HiLo48 (talk) 23:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

You did not counter (or even disagree with) any of the three points I made. If those three points hold, I have more than sufficient justification to change the image pro-tem. If you disagree, you must give a more concrete reason for disagreement than the weak procedural issues that you gave. We have had plenty of time to discuss this; if the discussion was confused in your eyes, focus it now or let it go. --Ludwigs2 23:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree with HiLo, the original RfC was deeply flawed, and we can't really know what people were responding to. The false and distorted characterization above is not good reason for changing the image. The reasons for changing the image are even more subjective than those for keeping it, which is something Ludwigs apparently wants to ignore. So no. Don't try to ram this change through without proper procedure and without finding good arguments for change. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 23:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The RfC was fine, and I will be going ahead with the image change despite your objections (unless you come up with a better argument in short order). further, I have left a notice at wp:AN#Pregnancy_-_extra_eyes_requested so that uninvolved admins can monitor the situation. There's no need to drag the argument over there; I just wanted you to be aware that I had made that request. --Ludwigs2 23:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

More importantly, as far as I can tell, there's no '17' people who are supporting the removal of the image from the article- more than one of them say it should be moved elsewhere in the article, for example. You've drawn a conclusion not supported by the data at hand. Further more, as I said before, a number of the arguments being made (such as we can't have nudity in the article because of the principle of least surprise or because it makes it unusualible without modification in other wikiprojects) are demonstrably wrong. --H_Talk 23:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me for speaking loosely. What I should have said is that I will be replacing the current lead image with the alternate. If it reappears lower in the article, that is something we can have a separate debate about, if needed. --Ludwigs2 23:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Better argument: pregnancy is marked by physiological changes. As such, a naked body is far more educational than a clothed one. → ROUX ₪ 23:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

You all should check -for example- page of Naturism in reference to pics.Fakirbakir (talk) 23:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yup, as expected: naked bodies. OH NO. Clearly civilization will fall. Come on, guys and gals. This is censorship, pure and simple; opting for a less educational image to illustrate a concept simply would not fly anywhere else on Wikipedia. But oh noes! There are boobs involved. This is childish, and kowtowing to those who cannot handle the concept that a naked human body is not intrinsically a sexual thing. → ROUX ₪ 23:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Roux, that argument doesn't work. The mere fact of nudity is not any more or any less educational than a clothed body for the issue of pregnancy. If one wanted an educational image, then one would look for an anatomical drawing or an image from a physiology text, not what is self-evidently an art-nude photograph. I think this is the third time I've dismissed this argument, so please read the discussion.

Fakir, naturism is about nudity - not having a nude image there would be bizarre. Pregnancy is not about nudity (it is, in fact, entirely possible for a woman to come to term and give birth without removing anything more than her underwear), and while there are biological and anatomical aspects of it that need covering they are (again) not well-handled by what is self-evidently an art-nude photograph. --Ludwigs2 23:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

If you can explain how a fully-clothed image is more illustrative of physiological changes (e.g. stretch marks, heavier breasts, as well as the obvious) than a nude one, I am all ears. → ROUX ₪ 00:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you offering an image that shows stretch, heavier breasts, and etc in a way that is clearly annotated? This image doesn't seem to show stretch marks, I have no idea how heavy that woman's breasts were before the pregnancy, and the belly is self-evident in both naked and clothed pictures. In fact, unless one already knows the effects of pregnancy, that image tells absolutely nothing. For all we know, that woman was actually bigger before the pregnancy and lost weight to get to this size.

Again, this argument holds no water whatsoever, and I've already been over it several times. This is not an educational picture, it's an art-nude. do you understand the difference? --Ludwigs2 00:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The nude image in question doesn't do a very good job of illustrating any of the aspects you listed, even "the obvious". I think there are plenty of clothed images that show clearer abdominal distension than the image we are using now. Kaldari (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Your claim that the argument holds no water is not the same as an objective assessment. Art-nude and educational are not mutually exclusive prospects. Perhaps you have a poor monitor, because I can quite clearly see stretch marks on her buttocks, as well as the characteristic blue veins in her breasts. So, again, can you please explain how a fully-clothed image is more educational than a nude one? I'm still waiting. → ROUX ₪ 00:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry buddy, that is a factual assessment - the image will not tell anyone anything about pregnancy that they don't already know, so it has no more educational value than the clothed image. And no one ever said that the clothed image was more educational, just that if the two are roughly the same there's no reason to put people out by using a nude. --Ludwigs2 00:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

As I pointed out in an above argument, Ludwig, nudity is not going to be removed from this article if the lede is changed. They'll be put off whether or not that picture is in this article- especially if the lede is merely transplanted elsewhere in the article. --H_Talk 00:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

That might matter if I thought this was simply an issue of nudity. It's not (at least not for me - I can't speak for what hang-ups other people have). --Ludwigs2 00:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming that this is entirely about censorship. You are quite wrong, of course; for someone who has never seen a nude pregnant woman that image is significantly more educational. But since this is about censorship, there isn't a single argument anyone can muster to change your... oh let's say retrograde and puritanical mind. → ROUX ₪ 00:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

@Ludwig: It is not true that "no one ever said that the clothed image was more educational". I've said this about a dozen times, and cited various reasons, but apparently no one is listening to me. Kaldari (talk) 00:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry Kaldari, apparently I missed that. I've been a bit miffed here. can you supply me with a diff or a general area of the page? --Ludwigs2 00:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. There you go again... an argument doesn't hold water and is dismissed because you say so, I am allegedly acting like an idiot because you say so. Are you familiar with the concept of projection? Or the saying "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"? You may wish to (re)acquaint yourself with those ideas before commenting further. The bottom line is that as a physiological phenomenon, pregnancy (or, for that matter, acne, to pick a random and non-loaded example) is best illustrated by showing the relevant parts of a body undergoing the process. Hiding all of that is de facto less educational. Period. You have not refuted that statement, you have merely dismissed it--the usual tactic of people who cannot refute a statement. Once again, I invite you to explain how the less educational option is superior in an uncensored educational work. You have claimed, erroneously, that the image won't tell people anything they don't already know. This is blatantly dishonest, and you know it. Try again. → ROUX ₪ 00:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Your inability to distinguish reasoned argument from opinion-mongering is not really something I need to concern myself with. If you cannot understand that it is impossible to show a change through the use of a single image then I cannot help you. As I have said at least eight times in this discussion (which you apparently refuse to read, despite your interest in arguing about it)

1. the difference in the content-relevent information each image offers is trivial at best (the older image is an art nude, not an educational image)
2. the nude image has generated a number of complaints, and would generally be outside the expectations a typical reader would have for an article on this topic.
3. On balance, the nude image produces too much affront to justify whatever negligible advantages it might have over the other image. changing images will remove no concrete information and very little subjective information, and will keep from annoying people needlessly.

I don't expect you to accept this argument, but I'm quite sure you can't refute it. --Ludwigs2 01:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

And again, you seem to think that because an image is artistic, it cannot be educational. This is obviously false. I don't really give a damn about complaints; get over the fear of nudity or seek life elsewhere on the internet. → ROUX ₪ 01:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I support the motion to change the image (and possibly move the old one to the section discussing 2nd trimester). It appears that roughly 2/3 of the participants in the discussion support replacing it, and although both images are acceptable illustrations, I think the replacement is higher quality and has better illustrative value (as it is showing a mature pregnancy). Kaldari (talk) 23:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

About the above: I don't see any stretch marks in this image. This doesn't surprise me, because not only is it a fairly low-res and soft-focus photo, which would tend to obscure stretch marks, but also because stretch marks in pregnancy are most likely to appear in the three months after this picture was taken, and they normally don't appear on the buttocks of a woman with a singleton pregnancy who has not gained too much weight, especially during the second trimester.

So for those who want to take another look at the image—and here I'm going to assume that you're all good-faith but still unfortunately guys—please note that stretch marks that could be attributed to a current pregnancy will be pink or red. White == old stretch marks (e.g., from a previous pregnancy or a growth spurt as a teenager). It usually takes stretch marks most of a year to fade to the shallow, white-ish lines that the average guy associates with stretch marks. If you want an example of what current stretch marks look like, look at this picture. I think we will all agree that nothing like that appears in this image. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the creative claim about seeing an allegedly "characteristic blue vein" in her breasts is similarly the product of misinformation. File:Big_nipple.jpg and File:Breast of Japanese.jpg have both clearly never been pregnant (or not beyond the first few weeks; the pale areolas are the medical sign for this), but both of these women have visible blue veins in their breasts. Visible veins are typical in light-skinned women. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

'Creative claim'? How charming. Veins in the breasts become more prominent as they gear up for milk production. But, hey, whatever. Your purpose here is quite clear. → ROUX ₪ 01:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Ludwig - you say to me above - "You did not counter (or even disagree with) any of the three points I made." I have countered almost everything you have said, several times, further up in this very messy discussion. I should not have to repeat my points just because you have now so badly misrepresented them. Many other people made many other valid points. It's an arrogance beyond comprehension that you can claim to distil it so narrowly. You are not collaborating. You are bullying. HiLo48 (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't really care, HiLo. I gave my summary of the situation, and solid reasons why I'm going to change the image. you are free to counter my summary, or not, or just to whine about it, as you choose. The only meaningful option you have, however, is to explain yourself. If you can't, or won't… <shrug…> --Ludwigs2 00:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I was right. Arrogance ("I don't really care") and bullying ("I'm going to change the image"). You should care. HiLo48 (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

When you make an argument, I'll care. You're just whining now because you can't make an actual, concise argument, and I'm not really interested in listening to that. --Ludwigs2 00:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, I have already presented many arguments. You have disagreed with some, and ignored others. That doesn't make you right. And there is no point in me repeating my arguments here. Your unacceptable behaviour and attitude will obviously not change HiLo48 (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

a few more minutes and I'm going to change the image - is anyone going to edit war over it? --Ludwigs2 00:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs, a warning: stop being disruptive. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 00:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

There is quite clearly significant opposition to such a change. Attempting to summarize the endless discussion above shows very little consensus on the issue; it's interesting that you see a consensus which just happens to align with what you want. I must agree with Critical: you are being disruptive (and possibly pointy), and you should absolutely not change the image unless and until someone clearly uninvolved has summarized the discussion above. → ROUX ₪ 00:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

And regarding editwarring: if you make a change and it is reverted, it will be you causing an editwar. You may wish to reacquaint yourself with WP:BRD. → ROUX ₪ 00:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

So what you're telling me is that if I change the image (in accordance with the current state of the RfC), you are going to revert it? Is that what you're saying? --Ludwigs2 01:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You missed a few words there. Allow me to help: "in accordance with what I idiosyncratically see as the current state of the RFC." As such, absolutely yes I will revert such a change, as it is not in line with consensus. → ROUX ₪ 01:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

And Ludwig, if you revert, I will revert your revert, making sure you breach 3RR before anybody else. HiLo48 (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow. How childish. Is your side so low that you resort to threats? @Roux. Nice edit warring.

And that response might have carried some weight if whoever put it there had thought of signing it. HiLo48 (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Why should I waste time putting a signature down when Wiki does it for me automatically? Answer me that. I know you won't have a good answer, but I know your type. You always have a stupid answer to give. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.148.58 (talk) 01:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Just noting: Ludwigs ignored the objections here, preferring his involved version of consensus. I reverted the image change, and welcome an uninvolved party to summarize the RFC. Though that may require some time, as obviously people are still commenting here. I have no intention of reverting again; Ludwigs' rather rude "is anyone going to edit war over it" above would be more accurately directed at himself, as any further reversions would be him starting an editwar. I am quite comfortably within the WP:BRD convention, and we are now at D. → ROUX ₪ 01:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Good revert, there's no consensus to change the image. Dreadstar ☥ 04:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Edit warring is not the way to go Ludwigs. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

RfCs are normally supposed to go for 30 days (see Wikipedia:RFC#Ending_RfCs). This one has only been open 11 days. There is no rush. I suggest we wait for 30 days and then go from there. --Noleander ([[User talk:Noleander |talk]]) 13:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes lets give this the full 30 days and than base the decision on which has the greater support. These calls that this method is somehow invalid and that those who have come here to provide an opinion have been mislead when they disagree with one side or another is poor form.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm interested in what you mean by "greater support". I hope you don't mean counting votes. These matters should be decided by someone not strongly involved (rules me out) and based on the quality of the arguments, not the quantity. HiLo48 (talk) 08:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

We shall leave that up to the independent person who summarizes the discussion. It seems like here we have people discounting the arguments of those they disagree with as unfounded.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, RFCs run until the dispute is resolved. Most content RFCs are resolved in less than 30 days, but the community has a poor track record of removing the RFC tag and the bot isn't able to tell the difference, so we've set a default of 30 days.

It is my standard advice that any people who believe that they will "win" the RFC should favor leaving it open. It is very rare for an RFC discussion to change directions after the first week, but early closings usually result in complaints from the "losers", who frequently cling to the hope that another few days will result in radical changes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A possible solution?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A positive reason to keep the image.

Now it is clear that the opposition to the image is because it shows a woman's bare breasts, let me give a reason why the current encyclopedic image is particularly appropriate for this article.

Breasts have a sexual aspect, and for this reason, in most cultures, they are generally kept covered in public. Pregnancy represents a time when the way breasts are perceived, by both men and women, changes, from primarily private and sexual to including a shared and nurturing nature. The US, to its great shame, has one of the lowest rates of breast feeding in the world and one reason for this is that women are made to feel embarrassed or ashamed about their breasts.

The current image nicely shows a woman who is clearly not ashamed of her breasts and who might be though of as contemplating the changes to her body and the way in which it might be used in the future. It is ideal as a general representation of the subject of this article. That should not be spoiled by a minority with an obsession about body parts. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but as it can't be quantified I'm afraid it won't meet the criteria set by some of the other editors here. But I do hope it may persuade if people come here from outside. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 13:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Editors that are ashamed of the human body may prefer editing the Pregancy article on conservapedia: http://www.conservapedia.com/Pregnancy. It has no images at all. --Noleander (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, though, if you look at other websites about pregnancy, very few of them include nudity, and Wikipedia is unusual in that regard. The objective of an encyclopedia is to inform, not to persuade, and while de-objectifying the breast is a noble cause and all that, it does not inform the reader about pregnancy (nominally the reason they're reading the article). If we try to spoon-feed our values at the reader of an article, we're just as bad as conservapedia. SDY (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also very unusual in the scope of its pregnancy article and in its strictly non-commercial and non-advocative educational nature. Hans Adler 17:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Pregnancy is about change. A single image of breasts cannot adequately display change. Women come in all shapes and sizes, so it's hard to tell how much if at all a woman's breasts have changed. The belly is different. The shape is distinct and unique and you wouldn't see a woman have a shape normally like that, even if obese. As such the bare breasts in the lead serve no actual purpose. There is no 2 picture context to show how greatly her breasts have changed during the pregnancy. All those demanding nudity in the name of education should be able to demonstrate what the bare breasts actually demonstrate.--Crossmr (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, good heavens, thank you, Crossmr! All these "It's about change" arguments are just plain weird considering that a single image doesn't depict change. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC) 

I am not under the impression that there is much support for removing image 2 altogether. The RfC proposal is to move it further down, and that seems to be what is getting most support at the moment. I think for many the issue isn't so much that the article shows nudity, but that they feel it does so in a gratuitous way. The reason why public breastfeeding is acceptable in all civilised societies is that it has nothing to do with sexuality and one has to be perverted to feel otherwise. Context is everything. If you take a photo of a woman who is breastfeeding and put it into a sexualised context, then that will be even more offensive than a random photo of a naked woman.

The problem at this article is that some people live in a subculture in which nudity is such a strong taboo that the general encyclopedia context of an article about pregnancy is only barely enough to justify it. They will tolerate image 2 if they encounter it further down in the article, but if it gets extra stress by being the lead image, they will feel it's only there to display nudity gratuitiously. And seeing how some editors here argue against moving image 2 down, I certainly can't blame them, even though I don't mind it myself. Hans Adler 15:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you're turning the opposition into a straw man here... Most of us just don't want nudity if it adds nothing to the article, it doesn't bother us if there's a specific reason for it. Blame the Puritans, if you must. Nudity isn't a "bad thing" but we shouldn't shock or surprise our readers, and nudity will be shocking or surprising given the other content on the web on the topic. The image farther down showing breast changes has gotten no resistance whatsoever, and that's because it clearly shows something that the text is talking about and there's really no basis for calling it gratuitous. SDY (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure that you are really contradicting me. The only real difference seems to be that you feel that image 2 doesn't give additional information, while I feel that it does: The bulges on the belly from the baby's extremities pressing outward (I think) cannot be seen on image 1, and the overall impression of the body is also clearer and quite typical. When you say it doesn't add anything to the article, then I guess you mean that even for the subsection "Second trimester" of the section "Physiology" it doesn't add nearly enough to justify the nudity.

As to other content on the web, most of it seems to be more advice-oriented than our article, and most of it is commercial in nature. Commercial content providers try to optimise the returns for their advertising customers, while we have an educational mission. As Martin Hogbin explained above, it is reasonable to see the (non-gratuitous) display of nudity as part of our mission. If some women have been conditioned to think of nudity as so unnatural that it prevents them from breastfeeding, then we should certainly do our part towards setting this right. Hans Adler 16:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the nude image is the best we have, but there is no necessity to keep the nipples, which is what most people perceive as "nudity" as far as I can tell. We could just black out the nipples and that would preserve almost all the emotional and informational value of the image while making people more comfortable. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 15:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

That would just suggest that the image is sexualized and/or shocking, which is counterproductive. Honestly, I just don't understand what the "emotional and informational value" of this image is. Line drawings are probably better from an informational standpoint (unless I'm the only one without x-ray vision), and we can show things like stretch marks and breast changes and other visual details in more specific photos. The concept of "emotional" value bothers me: there should be nothing artistic or sentimental in the overview, and if we want to show cultural aspects of pregnancy there are better images. SDY (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I find this proposal revolting because it would sexualise the image. If I were the model I would probably be offended if this were done. If you can't understand why, think of a photo of a 3-year-old girl, sitting in a bath tub. Totally harmless. Now imageine putting black bars over her nipples. This would turn it into child porn, or at least something very close to it. Hans Adler 16:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Much of the discussion on this page is because some people are Shocked -SHOCKED- that nudity might go on in an encyclopedia. Obviously, they've already sexualized it. Yeah, I'm not attracted to pregnancy either, but for many people it is a highly emotional experience. From what I gather on this page, the current image conveys something of this experience. It seems to me it's encyclopedic to cover, even in an image, both the technical and emotional aspects. Yes, I've seen mothers who are devastated by their pregnancies, taking birth control in order to try to abort the baby et seq. But I don't think that's the average experience. And I don't see why the emotional aspects shouldn't be covered. There's nothing in WP rules that says we don't cover all aspects of a subject or don't show all sides of it in images. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 16:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Hans. That is an offensive idea. It both sexualises the image and demonises body parts. The image is a natural image of a human being and I find it offensive that some parts should need to be erased from view. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to say. The typical positive experience with pregnancy is completely different from what is conjured up by black bars over nipples. That's the problem. One is a mixture of an overwhelming sense of intimacy, of feeling part of nature, of knowing the purpose of one's life (at least for the next year or so), and maybe in some cases a small amount of 'clean' sexuality. The other is raw sexuality, viewed as something dirty, connotated with words such as "smut" and "porn". Porn in the wider sense of censorable nudity, far from being an "aspect" of pregnancy, or a "side" of it, has nothing whatsoever to do with pregnancy, and by bringing the two together in this way you would create cognitive dissonance in practically all readers. Granted, for sexuality these 'dirty' connotations make no sense, either, but in that case they are almost ubiquitous. For pregnancy they are not. Hans Adler 17:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm just trying to find a freakin compromise. There have been a few complaints from people thinking we're teaching children to like porn by using this image. Some editors here think they are respecting such individuals and other "conservatives" by moving the image. I personally think the image is fine. I could be improved, but nudity is not an issue. We should rather focus on having a summary image which represents pregnancy well and is a pictorial summary of the subject. I think this nude image is the best we have at the moment. But people are trying to get it moved because of the nudity. So I'm trying to find some compromise that doesn't involve casting it aside for that lousy alternate image which has less informational value. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 19:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that it appears that some people are defending it because they specifically want the nudity, either from some soapbox crusade to change popular perceptions of nudity or slavish obedience to WP:NOTCENSORED. If it's useful, sure, let's keep it, but someone's going to have to explain why it isn't just gratuitous nudity, and I mean specifics, not "oh it's so wonderful." Most of the pregnant women I've encountered are clothed, so having the one in our article lead be clothed seems appropriate for illustrating the topic. SDY (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

SDY, your argument makes no sense. Ignoring the whole "most pregnant woman I've encountered' thing, you're ignoring the fact that even if this picture where to be removed from this article, we would still have a nude image on the page.--H_Talk 20:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Right, but those nude images are in context and explain specific things: their informative value is obvious. The one in the lead doesn't explain anything, it's just a picture. SDY (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

that's what I've been saying all along, but the argument seems to fall on deaf ears. I'm not sure why. --Ludwigs2 01:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Not Safe For Work

I want to say that I think this is a beautiful and tastefully done picture of the human body. I have zero problem with it being on Wikipedia or being used on this article. The image is not sexual in nature. I think it shows more than what a clothed image might and does add value to the article that is not achieved without it.

That being said, I do think the image should be moved from the lead. Why? Because depending on where one works and what one does, it might not be safe for work/school environments.

Now some might immediately ask, "If it's not safe for work/school environments, what difference does it make to have it in the lead or in the body of the article?" The answer is simple. When I pull up a webpage (not just Wikipedia, but any webpage) it may come up immediately or it may take a minute or so. Sometimes while the webpage is loading, I will do something else and forget that I started loading a specific page. Some of the programs that I run will shut down or minimize themselves after they are finished. While I have no problem with this image, if I were to return to my desk after lunch or a break and found this image sitting on my desktop where who knows who saw it, I might be mortified. Did my boss walk by? Did my bosses boss? Did the prudish person in the department see it? Did one of the people I supervise see it? Is my desk where a customer might have seen it?

As the lead image, this is the first image that you see and if it pulls up on the screen, you may not realize that it is there when it loads and you aren't monitoring the screen---so it might create embarrassment. As an image elsewhere on the page, you only have yourself to blame if you left the image on the screen---because that means you loaded the page and left it on the image. Is it because it is a naked women? Yes. Again, I have no personal problem with it, but others might. Personally, I question why do we have to have an image of a pregnant women in the lead at all? I think this image from the German Wiki best illustrates pregnancy and would be better for the lead.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 20:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

This is reasonable. I would go for a compromise which eliminated the lead image. What I don't like is having a lead image which is as lousy as the one proposed. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 20:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I just wasted a lot of time looking for the place where you explain why you think image 1 is "lousy". Haven't found it. I only found remarks of yours that the woman is "brown-skinned". Could you elaborate or provide a pointer? Hans Adler 23:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The place to start addressing the issue of nudity on Wikipedia as it relates to your boss, the workplace, your kids, your grandmother, etc., is here, not on this article. Make it a wider discussion. I question why we can't have an image of a nude pregnant woman in the lead, and the apparent answer is the same..."because I don't like it, or think someone else won't like it", that's the real bottom line here. The current image is the best illustration that I've seen suggested here, because it conveys so much emotional and human impact - it's not a sterile image, it is beautiful and meaningful. The image transcends the actual photo. Dreadstar ☥ 21:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I have followed that suggestion here. I don't think the intent of WP:NOTCENSORED is that discussions of removing objectionable content because it is objectionable are inherently forbidden, just that objectionable content is permissible in the first place. SDY (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

One can only image the upcoming POV Wars over what, eactly, is gratuitous and what is not...and to whom...and when... Dreadstar ☥ 21:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Now that is pure rubbish... your argument is strictly WP:ILIKEIT. Read your own words: "best illustration... conveys so much emotional and human impact... sterile image... beautiful... meaningful...transcends the actual photo." Those are all emotional responses. Not a single one of them deals with why is it the best beyond, "I like it." Frankly, I like it too. But it is not the best image for the lead. The simple proof of this is the volumes of debate spurred by the image. If it truly was the best image for the lead, it would not have generated over 300KB of data THIS TIME AROUND! The fact that it has over 300KB of discussion in just THIS discussion, is proof that not everybody agrees that it is the best image for the lead.

Again, I prefer the image of anatomy model which shows what is going on and the way the German article uses the image in an explanatory manner---as compared to letting it just sit there.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It's volumous debate because of those who see the value of the image discussing it with those who don't like it because, "by god, she's naked!", so any rubbish, my friend is in your court. I'd suggest moderating your tone if you want to have a civil discourse with me here. It's the best image because it conveys the very concept of pregnancy in many aspects, not just some sterile image of a plastic person. Dreadstar ☥ 21:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Way to try to deflect the fact that this issue has been raised numerous times and has probably garnered over a gig worth of discussion. If this were objectively the best image available, then it would not have the controversy that surrounds it. Your praise for the image transcending the photo and in some way emotionally uplifting, is your opinion. Ones that I share, but are not the foundation for inclusion or retention in the lead.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Based on what policy? Let's take a good look at that, mebbe I'm wrong. And no deflection, I think I've hit right on the core of the long running issue. It's the same thing, over and over, censorship. Dreadstar ☥ 22:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen a single statement arguing for censorship. Dreadstar, why does support for changing the image appear to be coming from women (~seven by my last count), medical students and medical professionals? Are they trying to censor the human body? And why does support for keeping the current lead image of a nude woman appear to be coming solely from young males? What does this mean? Viriditas (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you want historical calls for censorship, or current? "picture is just as good ( but with clothing ))", from the above RFC: "Higher quality with the added benefit of less nudity", "Really unnecessary to have a naked female", etc. I'm not sure why 'medical students and professionals' have any higher status here as voters than anyone else. And no, I don't think there's any significant opinion generated by the titillation of 'young males'....of which, I am certainly not - thank you. Dreadstar ☥ 22:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Those aren't arguments for censorship. One does not have to be naked to illustrate the subject of pregnancy in the lead. Medical opinions are highly relevant as the practice of medicine has strict guidelines about the use of photographs depicting patients and they have some experience dealing with this issue and illustrating medical topics. I am curious, how many women (rough count is fine) support the current lead image? Viriditas (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? "How many women...support the current lead"? Do we count races and ages next? Country of origin? Are you of drinking age? Legally in the country you're posting from. Yes each comment complaining the nudity is censorship. Classic. And yeah, I have one really important female supporter for you, the subject of the image herself. Dreadstar ☥ 22:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments criticizing nudity in the context of this discussion are not censorship. Could you tell me how many female editors in this discussion support the current lead image? I count at least seven that do not. Viriditas (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you can't see the underlying censorship here, but it's very clear to me. And no, I don't count votes by 'sex', but by strength of argument. That's another form of censorship, it's called Discrimination. How many females indeed. Dreadstar ☥ 22:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no censorship at all here, and it is not "discrimination" to observe that there does not appear to be any women on Wikipedia supporting the image in the lead. I have asked you why this is but I have not received any response. Why is that? Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm male. And gay. I await your explanation of exactly how my opinion should be weighted, as I neither possess the body parts in the image, nor do I have any prurient interest in them. → ROUX ₪ 01:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you get pregnant? Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course not. How is that even remotely relevant? Unless you are suggesting that one may only opine on articles which can directly affect one. → ROUX ₪ 02:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

How is it relevant? The gender gap is one of the primary criticisms of Wikipedia, namely, that Wikipedia is a "male-dominated web site" that might be "skewed by men".[50][51] And, although less than 15 percent of contributors are women, they have more representation in higher degree programs than men. Previously, I asked above, "why does support for changing the image appear to be coming from women (~seven by my last count), medical students and medical professionals? Are they trying to censor the human body? And why does support for keeping the current lead image of a nude woman appear to be coming solely from young males?" I have seen little to no effort by the editors promoting the lead image to attempt to understand the reasons and arguments of those arguing to replace the images. All I see are attacks and accusations of "censorship". That's not a reasonable, civil discussion with editors carefully weighing both sides, it's a street fight where the editor who can shout down the other editor the loudest "wins". Viriditas (talk) 02:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

"Can you get pregnant"?? Are you kidding?? This is the world of "we are pregnant." The gender-gap doesn't apply here, neither does "street-fight". Make a real argument, eh? I expected more than, "oh, it's male teenage erection material". Dreadstar ☥ 05:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

That's not the kind of response I would expect from an administrator who is supposed to be a role model for the community. Sampling and data collection are not "arguments" so you're a bit confused. Out of the seven or more women that appear to have contributed to this discussion, none have supported the inclusion of the image of a naked pregnant woman in the lead. Why is that? More to the point, your responses in this discussion have violated most of the talk page and civility guidelines. For an administrator, that is highly unusual. Viriditas (talk) 05:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you need a reality check, there have been women supporters, and honestly, I don't think that really matters as much here as does strength of argument and Policy, which reflects the commmunity and not one particular group that you find solice in attempting to call on. You don't like my comments, well, take it up the chain. In the meantime, make an argument that follows reality and Policy. As for 'admins' and 'unusual', start up with the POV RFC that an admin started here, then walk it up the path to purity. Find me at the end. Thanks. Dreadstar ☥ 05:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I will once again request that you refrain from the continued stream of insults, accusations, and general incivility. Your reading comprehension is also at fault, as I have not said anything about liking the content of your comments. Need I remind you that Wikipedia:Civility is a policy? You were asked a question: Why are there no women supporting the inclusion of the naked pregnant woman in the lead? You answered, "there have been women supporters". Could you point me to their comments on this talk page? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 05:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Fine, I agree and I've redacted some of my over-the-top comments, but the points about about this "count-voters-by-sex" I and others have made still stand, it's inappropriate. And I'll let the females here identify themselves, thank you. I know who I'm talking about, but I'm not going to point them out just because you demand it. Geez. Dreadstar ☥ 09:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Censorship is a mighty big word and the crux of the argument for keeping the image seems to center around WP:NOTCESORED and WP:ILIKEIT. Well, the argument for keeping it based upon the later is still rubbish (just as the argument for removing it is rubbish.) It doesn't matter if you (or I) think it is a beautiful picture that is tastefully done. I think it is---but that doesn't mean it belongs in the lead.

So what about the cry of "censorship?" There are two aspects that have to be explored. You are looking at one half of the equation. That is the side that says, "We do not remove material simply because it may be objectionable to some". The other half of the equation is, "We do not keep material simply because it may be objectionable to some." Censorship and creative freedoms work both ways. By imposing your view (to keep an image) with the rationale that "to remove it is censorship" is a form of censorship.

IMO the question as to whether or not this image is the best picture for the lead in an article comes down to one thing: Is it objectively the best picture possible?

While I like it, is it objectively the best image we can have? If it were objectively the best image available, then we would not have the constant controversy that surrounds the image. The persistence and breadth of the controversy is proof that the image is not the best possible image... regardless of what you or I may individually think.

At some point, we have to weigh does the value added to the page outweigh the controversy that it creates or the potential problems that may arise? At what point do the numerous complaints start to demonstrate that a consensus is forming that there is a better way to handle it?

Is there a way to lessen the controversy without capitulating to "censorship?" Is there a better way to present the image than as the lead image? If by moving it down, can we better present the image so as to make it less offensive? If so, then we should do so rather than dogmatically hold to a position because you don't want to succumb to another position, is censorship---just in another manner.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 22:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

My argument is certainly not based on WP:ILIKEIT, those are your interpretations of my comments because you obviously want to censor the lead image. Show me the Wikipedia policy that backs your argument, as I've asked you before, because right now your argument is that she's naked, which violates policy. Dreadstar ☥ 00:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

No, that is not my position. My position is that if this is objectively the best possible photo that could be used on this subject, then it owould not have garnered 400KB of discussion THIS GO AROUND. The fact that this photo is so controversial on a benign subject speaks to the subjective nature of the image. Personally, I like the image, but I do not think it is the right image for the lead. The lead image on a neutral subject like pregnancy should not be one that has garnered close to half a gigs worth of discussion. Moving it down from the lead accomplishes two goals. First, it keeps a great photo and second it silences the objectors. As for censored, you are censoring others in your adamant position that it has to remain. Collaborative efforts have to be two way, but you want your way or no way. That is censorship, not collaboration. WP:CENSOR does not dictate that we use a photo explicitly because it is controversial, which is the argument that you are making.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 03:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

"WP:CENSOR does not dictate that we use a photo explicitly because it is controversial, which is the argument that you are making.", um, no, that's not the argument I'm making at all. I think I've made that clear; but apparently the "But she's naked!!!!" concept has completely distorted the ability of some to correctly view and interpret all oppositional arguments that don't abide by that that particular concept - including your argument and opposition. Yeah, think about it, sure, my argument is surely.."use it because it's controversial." Yeah...fly with that misinterpretation if you like; I'll happily remain grounded in reality. Dreadstar ☥ 04:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Not Censored only covers that nude images may be used, it doesn't state that they must be used, and in this case, no one has demonstrated what covered breasts give us over uncovered ones. You can't show change in a single image, there is nothing for reference. The most pertinent part is the belly. Covered breasts would do nothing to diminish the education value.--Crossmr (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

(undent) Not that counting of votes matters, but it's helpful to have a headcount of who's where on the discussion. This isn't really an issue of censorship, it's mostly a question of bad writing. The current image is wonderful as a piece of art, but it gives us a heaping helping of controversy for no real information (i.e. non-artistic value). Does a profound artistic statement about pregnancy really help in what's intended to be a reference document? I don't think it does, and among many things Wikipedia is not an art gallery (probably filed under WP:BEANS), so no matter how wonderful an image it is, the question is whether it makes sense for the article. Given the problems that it causes and that no one can explain in mundane terms what information (again, non-artistic) is presented in the image, I'd say get rid of it. That's not censorship, that's making intelligent choices about writing an encyclopedia article. SDY (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly SDY... it's not about censorship, it's about is this the best image for the article and the best way to present it? The volumes of controversy surrounding it (on repeated occassions) says it isn't.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 22:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Bad writing? What? Headcount, what? Please show me the policy that outlines the criteria you're claiming isn't being used here, and we'll discuss that. Or can't you provide the outline for your claims? As far as it being a perennial dispute, plenty of invalid arguments come up again and again, why is this censorship issue any different? Plenty of disputes come up over and over and over, that doesn't mean those that dispute are right. And in this case, they're wrong. Dreadstar ☥ 00:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Even if all you say is true and my argument is based on WP:ILIKEIT, then you really need to show why a picture of pregnant, naked woman isn't suitable for the lead; besides the fact that she's naked. This difference is because we have WP:NOTCENSORED, not in spite of it. It's a perfectly acceptable picture of pregnancy, the only objection that I can see here is that she's naked. We have a policy against that kind of censorship. Show me a policy that contradicts that. Dreadstar ☥ 01:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Dreadstar - NOTCENSORED was intended to keep people from removing images that are offensive but necessary to the description of a topic; it was not intended as carte blanche to add offensive images everywhere. Please don't take the ridiculously over-simplified perspective that the others in this debate have taken - namely that this is all about nudity. This is a balancing act between the value of the image and the offense it causes, and unfortunately that balance works against the image (since there is no real concrete value to the image). I'm tired of listening to people make the dumb arguments; can we please raise the level of the conversation? --Ludwigs2 01:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

An image of a pregnant naked woman is perfectly suitable for the lead of this article, there is no doubt of that. The only objection raised here is the "it's offensive because she's naked" argument, which violates WP:NOTCENSORED whether you like it or not. It's all about the nudity, and censorship thereof. You're tired of my point, I'm tired of yours...but really, I have Policy on the side of my argument...those that object to nudity do not. Can't get more basic or clearer than that. Unless you're someone who wants to compare 9/11 to pregnancy like the below 'editor'.. Hmph. Dreadstar ☥ 01:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You actually don't have policy on your side. By advocating this picture on behalf of censorship per wiki's policy of censorship, you are in violation of that policy by using the policy to advocate a particular position. That is clearly against the policy of censorship on wikipedia. 108.28.148.58 (talk) 02:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

LOL! Thanks, I needed a laugh, that's great circular logic to try and prove your own point. You have it wrong, tho; try again. I'm not advocating based on WP:NOTCENSORED, I'm saying the opposers are advocating their position based on censorship. Dreadstar ☥ 02:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Dreadstar, please read my arguments before continuing on this line. as I said, you are over-simplifying. My position is that Wikipedia does not offend people without due cause. Where there is due cause, NOTCENSORED applies, but the burden of showing causation is on the people wanting to add the material. one does not get to add an image that some find offensive but otherwise adds no value to the article and defend it under NOTCENSORED - doing so is stupid. There is nothing wrong with this image as an image, and there are articles where I would defend this image's inclusion against all opponents, but on this article the image adds very little by way of actual content and generates a number of complaints. If you cannot see the problem with that, you're squeezing your eyes closed.

I understand the interpretation of NOTCNSORED you are using - it's a common enough interpretation among both decent editors and trolls. All I can say is that it is an ignorant interpretation that should be stamped out with prejudice. Do you want me to whip out wp:IAR here? Wikipedia should not have policies that are used as tools to offend readers for no good reason.

IP - hunh? --Ludwigs2 02:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I read and understand your arguments too, I just disagree, I see a number of determined editors who object to the nudity because it's offensive to them, or perceived to be offensive to others. This is an insufficient argument. There's nothing offensive about the image, really...if so, then there are far more offensive images on the project that aren't necessary to illustrate their subject. Are we really saying a full-color, high-resolution image is necessary to illustrate an erection? Apparently, so. And, in the end, consensus has to say this image is offensive enought to be removed, and mere nudity doesn't cross that threshold on this project. Several have asked here, 'why does the pregnant woman have to be nude?', well, my answer is, 'why not?'. Just because she's nude? Nah, I'm not buying it in this situation. I'm sorry. Dreadstar ☥ 02:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused: you disagree with the statement that Wikipedia should not offend people if it doesn't need to do so for the benefit of articles? That seems to suggest that Wikipedia should offend people gratuitously as a matter of policy, which sounds… I'm not sure what the best word here is. Yes, there are other pictures that are worse cases than this; If you're suggesting that we deal with those as well, I'm open to the idea. but we are dealing with this image, now, so let's evaluate it in it's own light. --Ludwigs2 02:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it is impossible not to offend someone, no matter what we attempt to do - there will always be someone offended; and the concepts of 'need to,' as well as 'benefit' are purely judgment calls in vitually all cases unless proscribed by law. Even 'law' has its limiting factors, depending on jurisdiction. No one is suggesting we offend on purpose because we can, that's a total spin on the arguments here and most unwelcome. I'm not suggesting we deal with the worse-case scenario images (if I've even truly touched on those, the ones I've linked to are mild, I think). I am suggesting we evaluate this image in its own light, and it is certainly an appropriate image, one which, to me, best illustrates the subject of this article. Nude or not. The fact that it's nude isn't a limiting factor per this project, the opinion that it is offensive is certainly a judgment call that has limited value in this particular case considering the extraordinary reach one must have to judge it offensive. Hopefully this better clarifies what I'm disagreeing with here. Dreadstar ☥ 04:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Dread, using absolutes is not helpful. obviously there is always going to be someone who's offended; the issue is not political correctness but an ethical balance. to make what is perhaps a clearer example, many people are deeply offended by the idea that Jesus and Mary had a sexual relationship. There are some articles on project where we discuss the idea despite the offense (because we have to) and many other articles where we do not discuss the idea even though we could (because it's not necessary). Why should we have a different standard for nudity? Why should a nude image be rigidly protected even where it's mostly gratuitous, just because it's nude? That's the standard being applied here, you realize: people like Roux and HiLo will always argue that nude images must always be retained regardless of their value to the article.

This image is mostly gratuitous nudity. it's an attractive photo, sure, but it's not really informative. So why are we using it over objections? --Ludwigs2 06:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Nah, I'm not using absolutes, it's a sliding scale all the way around. Who sets the bar for the level of the offended versus the non-offended? Why is the nude image ok in the body, but not in the lead; do we expect the highschooler to only view the top part of the article? Where does the censorship end? Obviously it's a slippery slope. And quit spinning my viewpoint, I'm certainly not "rigidly protecting...because it's nude," I'm defending against the rigid attack that it's unacceptable because it's nude. There's a difference. It's no way gratuitious, no matter how many times you repeat the phrase. It's perfectly acceptable to have an image of a nude, pregnant woman in the lead to represent the article. Dreadstar ☥ 06:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, Dread, the nude images farther down in the article are (arguably) relevant to content since they illustrate particular points given in the text. The nude image in the lead has no such justification - it's just an art nude added for decorative purposes. As for where the bar is set, that's a matter that's open to discussion, but discussion is not possible where zealots insist that nudity must be preserved on project at all costs. Had I noticed this image going in when it was first added, I could probably have kept it out just by raising the kind of common sense issues I've raised here. But since it's been in the article for a bit, those same arguments suddenly draw out all the rabid anti-censorship war-mongers, and you see the crap that happens.

And as a matter of basic facts, something can be acceptable and gratuitous at the same time. Please look up the definition of 'gratuitous'.

I'm not interested in your spin-doctoring. I do not oppose the image because it's nude, I oppose the image because it's offensive without justification. You yourself acknowledge that it's offensive to some; you yourself acknowledge that the justifications for using it are incredibly weak; what's your problem? I am not stupid, and i would prefer that you didn't attribute stupid arguments of that sort to me. Please deal with the arguments I actually give, and not with the arguments given by the moron you wish you were arguing with. --Ludwigs2 18:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Really. Well, now if wishes were fishes, we'd all cast our nets. No idea where you're getting all these 'insights' into my motivations or wishes, and indeed your spin on my comments make one's head quite an interesting place. I've argued the exact points being made here, and I cannot ignore the basic argument that the picture is unacceptable because it's nude...no matter what degree of POV "offensiveness" you choose to put on it. It's unfortunate that you can't seem to see your points are opinion-based and quite subjective. No, I don't think you're a moron, quite the opposite - extremely bright, but your level of brightness and intelligence can also lead to distortion of reality. Been there, done that. I think you and I have about exhausted this discussion, so I leave you to it with great respect. Dreadstar ☥ 19:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm very insightful. That's not a matter of pride, mind you, it's a curse, and I'd give a hell of a lot to be rid of it. I'm also very idealistic, which is a different curse, and (if you knew me) would explain a hell of a lot about my life. c'est la vie. Yes, I recognize that I am arguing from a perspective, but I like to imagine that I am arguing from a compassionate, humanistic perspective - one in which we are simply trying to give knowledge to everyone, without asking for them to pay a price for the privilege. I'll cast my net regardless, even if all I get for it are moldy old boots.

The picture is problematic (to my mind) because it adds little value and causes distress. it causes distress because it contains nudity, yes, but the reason for the distress is not important to me. It's the fact of distress that gets me. And here's where I'm stuck. Yes, I understand the urge to open people's minds and make these kinds of images more acceptable (because images like this aren't at all offensive to me). but that seems to much like using wikipedia to fix what's wrong with the world, and that's not what we're here for. Or at least, I don't think it is. so… --Ludwigs2 06:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: What's best for the lead of the article Bear: A bear in its natural environment, a bear in a zoo (more details visible), or a bear riding a bicycle (very high quality photo, with a good view on many relevant anatomical details)? What would be most suitable for the lead of the article New York? A photo of New York's skyline, a photo of a plane hitting the World Trade Center, or a photo of Ground Zero? The reason that a bear on a bicycle is not appropriate for the lead of the Bear article, and anything having to do with 9/11 is not appropriate for the lead of the New York article, is that a lead requires an image that is emblematic for the article's subject and avoids distraction. While a bear in a zoo is almost as good as a bear in its natural habitat, a bear on a bicycle or a bear wearing clothes are no good for the lead. You can test whether an image is good for the lead by asking a random person what it depicts. If the person says "It's a bear", "It's New York", or "It's a pregnant woman", then the image is good. However, if the person says "It's a bear wearing clothes", "It's New York on 9/11", or "It's a nude pregnant woman", then this response will tell you precisely what must be changed about the image to get a suitable one. Hans Adler 23:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

This was not a good post for the same reason that it attempted to explain. By choosing an example that is highly charged for some people, I drew attention away from what I wanted to say. I will try to be more careful in the future. Hans Adler 09:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hat the off-topic thread I started.  :)Dreadstar ☥ 08:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ah, it's you that made the Twin Towers comparison. Nice. Unfortunately, Ludwigs took the initial heat for that grotesque and unfortunate comparison. Hope you felt a part of that heat....I assure you I certainly feel the heat...especially at this 10 year point. My apologies to Ludwigs. Dreadstar ☥ 01:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC) No, I did not feel any heat. In fact, this night was certainly not warmer than usual and I slept rather well, thank you very much. Also, WTF are you talking about? It doesn't seem to be related to this section, so a pointer would be nice. Hans Adler 06:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC) Also, this comparison is certainly not grotesque. You don't want to see the terrorist event at the top of the New York article? Some people have similarly strong feelings that they don't want to see nipples at the top of the pregnancy article. I have no problems with either, but I am against offending people unnecessarily in this way. When editors start resorting to the Chewbacca defense, something about my argument must have been right. Hans Adler 06:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC) Actually, I've decided to let it drop for now. But I will contend that your use of 9/11 is paramount to the nazi card, and strikes such emotion in me that I am tempted to take you to places you've obviously never been before. Stay happy, my friend, no one really wants to lurk on the edges of man's most darkest hours...and then compare them to...this simple image. Dreadstar ☥ 04:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC) Apart from an inappropriate oblique threat that I seem to be seeing in your post, you are just confirming that 9/11 is a very strong taboo for you. Nudity is a very strong taboo for some ultrareligious or ultraconservative types. That was the point of my example, and you are merely confirming that the example is apt. Images with strongly distracting elements are not a good choice for the lead of any article. That's why a nude picture is a bad idea, it's just one reason why it would be even worse with black bars added, and why this is totally inappropriate (as winter, outdoor seminudity and silly clothing are all competing to distract from pregnancy – it's worse than a bear on a bicycle). Hans Adler 05:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC) "Oblique"? What threat is that? Bring it to my talk page and we can certainly escalate any threat you think I've made, glad to help! Taboo isn't the core of this, it's more along the lines of pulling the nazi card to win an argument. If you don't want to drop it, then by all means...let's take it up the chain. There's nothing 'oblique' about me. I don't appreciate your comparison of this simple nude image to 9/11, where I lost friends and co-workers and barely got out of it myself. Play your word games elsewhere and with somone else. Otherwise I look forward to seeing you at AN/I or ArbCom where you can outline the threats you perceive. My "threat" is to educate you on the feelings of grief and survivor's guilt, do you think that's an offense per WP? Perhaps I'll be banned for that? Let's see. Take it there, my friend. Dreadstar ☥ 06:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree. I can't view this page because I use a public computer and don't want anyone to get a negative impression of me by thinking I am looking up pornography. When we can't even view a wiki page as mundane as pregnancy for fear of being seen as a pervert, there is a serious problem. It is inappropriate and that is that...enough of this BS about free speech or censorship. Those who say that is the reason we should keep it sound like rebellious teenagers. Seriously there are more important issues dealing with free speech and censorship than nudity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.148.58 (talk) 01:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, god forbid you should click on Human penis, Erection, Vagina or even Ejaculation if someone thinks this article is porno. And while there may be more important free speech issues than nudity, it's certainly a link in the chains that bind us that cannot be ignored. Dreadstar ☥ 02:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, noodly one, don't make this into some bizarre righteous stand against the evils on the internets. WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND is an obvious call here, and if this really is about stopping any possibility of censorship and the article is just being used as a staging ground for sticking it to the man, we should just have no image in the lead and wait around until we get one we like. This article isn't in great shape anyway, lacking an image for the lead would hardly be the worst problem it has. SDY (talk) 02:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The opinion of those who think that looking at that picture makes me a pervert is not worth respecting. HiLo48 (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile, back in the real world, a reader could be asked to leave if they are in a certain establishment or institution and the image is on the screen. We should not be creating roadblocks to access, but rather widening it. The burden is on those who wish to add a controversial image that could restrict access to readers. Question: can kids in high school see our article on pregnancy with or without the image? Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

A reader who is prevented by a ridiculous society from seeing this article has problems much worse than not being able to see the article. We can't fix the societies of Saudi Arabia and the theocratic part of the US by forcing images with nipples on people where it's not the best choice, but what you are proposing does sound like the kind of censorship that we also don't want. Hans Adler 06:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

No, the burden is on those using a hypothetical ("a reader could be asked to leave") to justify their position to find real world evidence. HiLo48 (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The point that you're missing is that it is the content that is important, not the image. If the image is preventing people from reading the material (per the comments by 108.28.148.58 above), then the image should be replaced. Viriditas (talk) 03:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

108.28.148.58 actually presented no evidence. It was all about what he THINKS other people will THINK of him. HiLo48 (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

His evidence, while anecdotal, is certainly reasonable. You need to focus more on the arguments rather than on other editors. More listening and less talking will help. Viriditas (talk) 04:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) HiLo, no amount of evidence is going to satisfy you if you are going to refuse to accept common sense. You know as well as anyone that this image will fall afoul of net-nanny software put in place at libraries, school, some corporations, not to mention parental censorship by parents who won't let their children browse wikipedia because of images like this. This is not a hypothesis that needs to be proved to anyone except someone who is conveniently blinkering themselves for the purpose of an argument. I'm a bit embarrassed for you that you would go there - you might as well say you need us to prove that someone can find porn on the internet. --Ludwigs2 03:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think ridiculous censoring software is a valid reason to change anything. The commercial websites cannot afford to be censored, so they have to self-censor in ridiculous way. We are the most important non-commercial website in this respect, and if we also engage in this kind of ridiculous self-censorship, then the censoring software is never going to be fixed. Hans Adler 06:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. --Ludwigs2 07:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not. If it were, I would argue to use image 2 in the lead. As it is, I am arguing for using image 1 in the lead instead and moving image 2 further down to the second trimester physiology section, where it makes perfect sense and the nudity is fully justified by the context, as opposed to the arguable gratuity of nipples in the lead image of this article. Hans Adler 19:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Uh, where'd that come from? I'm mostly advocating that it's distracting and limits the available audience, but doesn't actually provide any useful information. If you want to turn me into some sort of bizarre straw man so you can fight your righteous struggle, please find another forum to do so. The purpose of this talk page is to discuss improvements to the article. SDY (talk) 02:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

SDY - the argument in favor of the image all along has been a prejudicial one - that some people are too (insert derogative) to be listened to. They are going to cling to that argument to the end of time, unfortunately. --Ludwigs2 02:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Anyone who thinks I am a pervert for looking at that image is definitely not worth listening to. (Please note that I have been accused of just that on this page.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually you'll often find that in a public education setting, there is a zero tolerance for this kind of thing. In many schools, if a student was caught with a nude image on their screen they'd be suspended and that would be that. Those wishing to keep it have yet to demonstrate what educational value is conveyed by bare breasts.--Crossmr (talk) 04:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you raised that. I happen to be a high school teacher in Australia. It's very common for our teaching materials in Science and Health classes (precisely where things like pregnancy are discussed) to include nude images. Because we are used to using them, we would feel quite restricted without such images. Are you speaking from an American perspective? Perhaps only one part? Obviously there are cultural differences. My point all along has been that those wanting less nudity need to be able to understand and accept that others DO want that nudity, for good educational reasons. So, I have given explicit examples where nudity is actually preferred. Is that OK with you? HiLo48 (talk) 04:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

And those educational reasons are what? You cannot show anything educational about the breasts without at least 2 photos to show change. Once again you've repeated the party line "Education" without actually say what the educational value is. Pregnant breasts are not that unique when put up against say fat, or naturally large breasts. They don't take a special shape like the belly does. Taken alone, I doubt anyone could definitely pick out pregnant breasts, vs fat breasts, vs naturally large breasts. As such they serve no education purpose in the lead image.--Crossmr (talk) 05:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

And contrary to your assertion, you have never (Through a quick scan of your comments using find on your username) actually said what that educational value is.--Crossmr (talk) 05:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Crossmr, I agree, but this point has already been made at least a dozen times. No one has seen fit to address it so far, and I sincerely doubt that HiLo will address it this time. I'll put ten bucks on it, if you're up for the bet. --Ludwigs2 05:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Unfortunately, that's a specious argument. If you want to use a nude image in your education process, they are plentiful and easy to find, and you can get much better quality nudes than this without half trying. If you don't want to use them, they are difficult to avoid. Losing one nude image on wikipedia will not inconvenience you one jot, but placing an unnecessary nude image on an article is a fairly large impediment in some locales. You seem not to understand that American school systems block these things not because of any puritanical urges, but because they don't want to get sued by opportunistic parents.

In short, we get that you want to have access to nudes. But regardless of what wikipedia does you will have access to nudes; no one is denying you nudes (we'd have to burn down the entire internet for that). On the other hand, you are making it impossible for people who want information without nudity to get access to the information in this article. There's only one English wikipedia; if you put unnecessary nudes here, then people can only suffer through the nudity go buy a Britannica. You are essentially holding the information in this article hostage to force people to conform to your moral standards, which is not true of the converse. --Ludwigs2 05:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that the American legal system is sufficiently out of control to allow religious extremists to take state schools hostage. OK. Sounds like a serious problem that needs to be fixed. And your 'solution' is to censor Wikipedia? I am in favour of moving the image down, but this is the point where you lose me and I am about to join the anti-censorship crowd. We cannot censor Wikipedia just because one country is fucked up. Hans Adler 06:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Heh.."unnecessary nudes," now there's a concept...can I be on that decision-making panel? Prolly not..<sigh>  :) Dreadstar ☥ 06:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

No, what I'm saying - again, and again, and again, apparently - is that there is no point being rude to people without cause. What I keep hearing back from people are variations on the same theme:

• Some people are too stupid/evil/uptight/whatever to be polite to
• Even the slightest more trivial cause is sufficient be rude to people
• Wikipedia doesn't care about being rude to people, as a matter of policy
• Not being allowed to be rude to people is rude to me
• We're all too ignorant to know what 'rude' means, so we have to be rude by default

It's like discussing Kant's Categorical Imperative with petulant twelve year olds. My apologies, but you guys are not scoring high on any metric of moral development I've seen (and I've seen most).

Now in one sense, I understand. This is wikipedia, and wikipedia is dominated by rude, loud-mouthed people. That's the law of the jungle here: if you don't tighten your sphincters and polish the chip on your shoulder you don't survive well on project. I don't mind so much that we are all major bitches to each other, but I think it's a violation of project principles to extend that bitchiness to our readers. I don't expect us to find tolerance for the people we disagree with on-project (that would be very un-wikipedian, judging by standard practices), but if we can't find tolerance for the people who disagree with our opinions in the greater world, then we are not writing an encyclopedia, we are engaged in propaganda.

Seriously, as far as I can tell all the people I'm arguing with here are bound and determined to make sure that this article leads off with an art-nude image, not because the image adds any real value to the article, but because it's a symbolic, ideological victory over some presumed (dare I say imaginary) forces of oppression. That's just fucking nuts.

But whatever... Debating this is getting to be annoying - there's only so many times I can repeat the same argument without anyone listening - so let's all just shut up and let the RfC continue. With luck, rational people will prevail and the image will get replaced; if not, it's not a huge problem (just one more LCD - Lamest Common Denominator - article among thousands, and not the worst by far). It will be disappointing, but my opinion of the project gets lower on almost a daily basis so that's ok. --Ludwigs2 07:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Nudity in a context where it is totally normal and acceptable in most societies is not rude. Nudity in the lead image of the pregnancy article has this status in many societies, but there are enough in which it can still offend to avoid it if not necessary. (And it isn't. Image 1 is just as good for the lead as image 2, and in fact better because it shows a pregnant woman, not a nude pregnant woman, or a pregnant woman on a bicycle, or a pregnant woman with a poodle, or a pregnant woman eating icecream etc.) But a high-quality, non-sexualised nude photograph of a second trimester pregnant woman is very much the kind of image that you would expect in the second trimester physiology section. The number of societies in which this is still seen as inappropriate must be tiny by comparison to those where the same image in the lead is inappropriate. It is not rude to ignore such fringe positions. The people holding them are used to being offended by the mainstream all the time, so there is no point in falling over backwards to accommodate them. Hans Adler 19:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Ludwig, how could anybody sue if there WEREN'T puritanical elements at play in US public education? You are clearly saying that there ARE people wanting censorship, and you're taking their side. What an appalling reason to censor Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 08:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

and that is a ridiculous misinterpretation of what I just said; so ridiculous, in fact, that it's just not worth responding to. Are you doing that on purpose just to make the discussion difficult? --Ludwigs2 08:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You said "American school systems block these things not because of any puritanical urges, but because they don't want to get sued by opportunistic parents." If it's not because of puritanical elements of the system, on what basis can they be sued? Genuine question. Not being American I am keen to learn more about your system. HiLo48 (talk) 09:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I said that your efforts to villainize a segment of society as 'puritanical elements' so that you can justify being rude to them is ridiculous, immature and reprehensible. What part of that are you having difficulty understanding? --Ludwigs2 14:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I specifically put to you the question about what the education value was of bare breasts and you've failed to answer it. Can I assume that means you cannot prove any educational value?--Crossmr (talk) 09:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I can provide plenty. How much educational and pedagogical theory can you deal with? Or are you simply one of those people who is a self appointed expert on education because you went to school when you were young? Real teachers find such "experts" rather painful. HiLo48 (talk) 09:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

That's twice you haven't answered the question. Either answer it or admit you have no foundation for your assertion that a single image of bare breasts out of context provides any education value that wouldn't better be served by images in a different area, in context. Your tone is beginning to wander into the uncivil territory and if you can't support your argument without doing so, it really tells me everything I need to know about your position.--Crossmr (talk) 10:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

and make sure to focus your answer to how this image of these breasts in this context actually provides anything educational about pregnancy.--Crossmr (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Crossmr, it's starting to look like you owe me $10. I take PayPal… He's not going to answer the question. There's no way he can answer it without suffering a major setback in his delusionary war against those 'puritanical elements' he talks about so often. --Ludwigs2 14:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I did not introduce puritanical elements to this discussion. Ludwig did, in one of his attempts to attack me. To simplify, and it's a massive simplification, it's the whole woman that's pregnant, and to artificially conceal part of the woman would fail to show the whole woman. I've only just realised that what the more conservative (American?) posters here are scared of is the nipples, and the rest is OK. Maybe that was obvious to other Americans, but not me. I'm not obsessed with nipples, There is obviously a real cultural difference here. As for being uncivil, I don't think I've done that here. I certainly try hard to avoid it, and apologise if I have crossed the line. (But again, cultural differences obviously make that line hard to define.) And, as for uncivil behaviour, so far in this thread I have been call adolescent (in a derogatory way), a pervert, a narcissist, and delusionary. Totally unacceptable attacks like that don't encourage me to respect those who disagree with me. Nobody has apologised for it, and nobody on the opposite side from me has criticised anybody for such attacks. HiLo48 (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

As a Brit, I too see a real cultural difference here. Compared to Europe, the UK and Oz, the US seems to have a much greater emphasis on body parts rather than looking at the image as a whole. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

That's it? "The whole woman is pregnant"? That's the educational value of the breasts in this photo? There is absolutely nothing you can tell about the breasts in that photo without context of an earlier phoot. If she's standing there with breasts out or her arm over her breasts, the educational value is the same. The discussion of pregnancy and breasts is better served in another section with at least 2 (preferably 3) photos showing a before, middle, and near end size of breasts to show change brought about by pregnancy.--Crossmr (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I meant that the US seems to base it opinion on what is offensive more on specific good/bad body parts. Many other places look at the picture as a whole, the pose, the intent, the context, and to a lesser extent, what parts are visible. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

As soon as you use some artifice - folded arms, blurring, black bars - to conceal the bit that horrifies you, you actually put the attention ON that part of the body, those scary nipples, rather than letting the whole body tell the story. This is about how an image is processed by the brain. HiLo48 (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I never said nipples were scary, I simply took you to task to explain your continued position and you've utterly failed to do so. Your false assumptions and hyperbole aside: What is the educational value of bare breasts in the lead photo? All I'm seeing are insults, hyperbole, false assumptions, misdirection, and ducking the issue. You claimed mountains of evidence to support this position and all you came up with was probably the weakest thing I've ever heard of. You might as well have claimed that we needed to show her breasts because you were wearing blue pants.--Crossmr (talk) 04:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Scared of nipples? Your argument is that we have to show an art nude image because the 'whole woman' is pregnant, and nipple-phobics can't prevent us from presenting the immensely important information we will glean by contemplating this woman's teats? And you honestly don't see what a stupid, stupid argument that is? --Ludwigs2 04:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs, if you cannot say who will be offended by image 2 it might be useful if you could tell use exactly what is offensive about the image; I find it very hard to see anything. 'Nudity' is too vague and culturally dependent to be useful in this context. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Martin, if you refuse to use common knowledge, then there is no sense in taking to you. You know that a large majority of the world's population would prefer not to have nudity attached to everything they see and do - that's just the nature of human society almost everywhere. For most of them it's a preference without a lot of emotional value; for a smallish minority it's a matter of great importance, but in either case why they are offended doesn't matter. The only reason to ask why someone is offended is so that you can propose the argument that they should just suck it up and get over it, and that's not what an encyclopedia does. If your attitude is that everybody who disagrees with you should just suck it up and get over it, then you can go suck it up yourself. --Ludwigs2 15:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The point is that it is not common knowledge that the image is offensive it is your opinion, for reasons that will not state. You refuse even to say what you mean by 'nudity'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit break (NSFW)

I think NSFW is actually perhaps the weakest argument in this entire discussion. It assumes a pretty narrow range of cultural environments for work, for one, and it also is a principle that could potentially gut all kinds of legitimate content - not just images, but written text as well. Users are responsible for their own cultural environment, and as a global project, Wikipedia can't adhere to hundreds of wildly varying cultural milieus. Nathan ^T 19:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. WP cannot render itself acceptable for any possible environment. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

@HiLo48: There are quite a few people who do not support the current image for reasons other than "being afraid of nipples". Personally, I strongly favor an image of a mature pregnancy to lead this article (rather than a 1st or 2nd trimester image). I would also love to see more racial diversity in the article, but that is a secondary consideration. Unfortunately, all the people with any opinion other than "NUDITY GOOD" or "NUDITY BAD" have been completely ignored in this discussion and thus left long ago. Kaldari (talk) 01:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You're right. There have been many very different issues raised here. Too many to make this a sensible RfC discussion. It's been one of my concerns from early on. I'm happy to pause, apart from one thing. Every now and again one of the no nudity campaigners declares that there are more votes for his point of view. That non-Wikipedia approach needs to be highlighted when it happens. HiLo48 (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

So, you agree that many editors have made a case for moving the image out of the lead image. What case then, have those who support keeping the image in the lead section, made? I ask, because I do not see one other than WP:ILIKEIT. Clearly, those who support moving the image have made many different arguments. Is there any reason we still have the image in the lead? Further, why hasn't a compromise "mosiac" image presentation been offered, similar to those found in many other image discussions? Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The mosaicized/covered image has been proposed, but has basically been ruled out since it is self-defeating: it makes the picture more problematic by drawing attention to the controversial parts. I've disengaged from this, the argument has ceased to even attempt to discuss what's good for the article and has become some bizarre battlefront in the culture war. Forcing the poor user who has to close this thing to wade through another 300k of rehashing the same discussion is just abusing a fellow wikipedian. On an unrelated note, I've made some changes (clarifications, really) to WP:NOTCENSORED and given that many people here seem to have very strong opinions on the topic, it'd be helpful to get more eyes on the topic. The change has already been quoted on this page by another user, which actually sort of bothers me since I didn't really expect to directly influence this specific discussion. SDY (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not supporting or opposing the mosaic proposal, but I know from experience that it would not draw attention to the controversial parts, but draw less due to the smaller image size required. Viriditas (talk) 03:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

SDY, after reading this discussion again, it occurs to me that you don't understand what I mean by a mosaic, and you are using the term differently to refer to a type of self-censorship. The mosaic I am referring to is really a montage. Here is a good example of what was put together after a disagreement about a lead image. Viriditas (talk) 09:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

HiLo, let me point out the truly typical wikipedia thing you are doing here: you are confronted with an RfC you don't like, you pour a ton of different overly-emotional arguments into it so that the discussion gets all tangled up, and then when you realize you're losing. you start complaining that the RfC is confused and thus invalid. That kind of politicking is thoroughly disgusting, and it's just going to lead us down the road to ArbCom. don't go there. --Ludwigs2 04:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Absolute crap. Several of the early posts I made here were about the already tangled up state of the discussion, and the fact that the wording of the RfC had already changed several times. Then I tried tackling some of what I saw as poor arguments in the various sub-topics that already existed. I still believe that the changes to the RfC should have led to it being restarted, so that those comments talking about the old forms of wording were no longer here, creating confusion. Now, having read the changes since I last posted, I'm becoming even more curious. Exactly which part of the woman's nudity is a problem? Is it only the nipples? Is it her bum? Anyone with any awareness of different cultures around the globe and throughout history will know that there is never going to a common global view on this. This is a genuine question. I suspect it's a very narrow objection to the nipples, not the nudity as such. Perhaps if those who are offended can tell me exactly what they're offended by, and why, we can proceed with better knowledge. Before answering, please note that this sub-section is the "Not Safe For Work" bit. It would be nice to stay on topic. HiLo48 (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, she's naked, how can we get past that in 'true wikipedia thing' style. Well..mebbe attack the editor?. Sure, why not. Um...well....I guess that's self-explanatory mebbe? Dreadstar ☥ 04:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

tough call for me, actually. it's not in my nature to let a bad argument stand, but few people are up to the task of distinguishing between their arguments and their selves. I'm not always up to it, honestly, so sometimes I am more uncivil than I need to be. But in point of fact what HiLo is doing is a very standard occurrence on wikipedia - intentional or not, it becomes a tremendously low-brow way of subverting the system. Once people render our decision-making processes moot by casting every aspect of them into confusion, what do we have left? --Ludwigs2 06:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I feel ya man, I've fallen to the same demons, unfortunately. Apparently a common affliction.  :) Dreadstar ☥ 06:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The picture is quite nice and fitting and I personally can’t understand why it created so much upheaval. Given the strong and emotional reaction along this discussion, I believe we can take it for granted that some people feel offended by this picture. Others seem to feel offended by removing it altogether, which I can also understand. I therefore suggest to follow along the lines of Hans Adler’s compromise: “using image 1 in the lead instead and moving image 2 further down to the second trimester physiology section“. Sounds like a good and reasonable suggestion. --Tinly (talk) 06:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I still question the value of using an art nude picture for what ought to be a clinical discussion of pregnancy. I mean, the compromise solution is better than the current state of affairs, but does a 'pregnancy cheescake' photo really add anything meaningful? If you need a third trimester image, the photo I suggested above would work just as well, or there is likely a better solution than this out there somewhere. --Ludwigs2 15:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

As to the question, if the picture adds anything meaningful: I believe, the use of a picture is to illustrate something. Your picture of course also illustrates what is to be ilustrated, but the old one also does that. So, the question is: what does exchanging one fitting picture for another fitting picture add? Nothing. To me, the situation is as follows: We do have two parties, namely one consisting of those who have a problem with nudity of any kind for whatever reason and those who consider it as something quite normal. The problem here is, that we are not talking about what is factually correct regarding the picture or not, but are dealing with personal emotional reactions that people have when looking at the picture. Therefore, the discussion becomes very emotional, depending on whether one sees the picture as shockingly pornographic or an innocent depiction of a pregnant woman. Depending on one's own cultural background and whether nudity is tabooed in it or not, people will therefore react quite differently. For me, it's actually hard to imagine how such a picture can be considered shocking, (which it apparently is for some), but would rather conceive of it as picture demonstrating the beatitude of pregnancy, far removed from any sexual connotation ... (that's the emotion the picture triggers off in me, but this will naturally differ from person to person). I believe, that an undertaking such as Wikipedia requires a great deal of ability for compromises on either side, that's why I again suggest to go for a compromise rather than attempting to pull through one's own emotional stand on the picture, whatever it is.----Tinly (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC) 16:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Tinly, please try to avoid exaggerations. One does not have to consider nudity to be "shockingly pornographic", or have "a problem with nudity of any kind" to not want to see it as a matter of daily life. Most people prefer the fact that everyone wears clothing most of the time - it's not prudery, just a comfortable social convention. The question here is why are we violating conventional standards in order to present a nude picture when there is no real reason to. This is not even a debate in real life: if you go to a public park and strip down to the buff in order to sunbathe, neither the cops who wrestle you into their cruiser 10 minutes later nor the judge you see after a night in jail are going to be impressed by your argument that it is other people's inhibitions which are the problem. You only get away with that argument on wikipedia because wikipedia is structured in such a way that adolescent solipsism generally wins out; and no, that's not a good thing. --Ludwigs2 17:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• The current picture is not only the one which is most informative about the state of pregnancy and about how it changes the body, by showing an image of the body itself, it is also the one which has the highest educative value, taking into account the definition of education given by Wikipedia: "any act or experience that has a formative effect on the mind, character, or physical ability of an individual." This is exactly the type of image I would show to school children in order to achieve that formative effect on their mind, taking advantage that they are still for most of them quite open minded and free of the prejudices that plague many adults.

Furthermore, the current image has one additional advantage: it shows the body of a woman in a context where there is no ambiguity and no possibility of a sexual connotation, i.e. this image does not show the woman as a sex object, as it is immediately apparent that what is shown is her pregnancy. Actually, I find a form of sexism in the position of those who want the image removed because they find it offensive. For them, the image of a nude woman has necessarily a sexual connotation, no matter in what context it appears. They seem unable to accept that a woman and her body could be anything but a sex object. This perverse form of sexism is insulting to women.

So far no valid reason has been given to remove Image 2 from it lead position - all reasons invoked, whether to remove it completely or to move it down so that it loses visibility, are basically censorship dressed in various clothes, often tainted with sexism.

Dessources (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Dessources: your inability to hear anything that doesn't come out of your own mouth doesn't mean the rest of us aren't making good arguments, and your implication that we must show a nude women otherwise we are being sexist is a disgusting perversion of reason. How anyone can unintentionally make such crude and idiotic claims so consistently is beyond me, so I am forced to conclude that you are simply being a troll just to rile people up. You should be ashamed, but trolls rarely are.

I think it's time I looked into having an admin deal with you. --Ludwigs2 17:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Admins are not police. siafu (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

archiving off topic material
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I know they are not, and I think it's a shame. I mean, I can play by the "Law of the Jungle" ruleset if I have to, but I dislike it. With admins acting as cops we could have a civil discussion; without them, well… I shoot at people who shoot at me, and I'm usually a better shot. --Ludwigs2 19:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC) Bullshit Ludwigs. You've been shooting at me and I didn't shoot at you at all. You're undermining all the good things you've done on Wikipedia, including the Sheriff project. Be——Critical__Talk 19:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC) While you do seem to be abiding by the "Law of the Jungle" (you know the jungle creed, where the strongest feed, on whatever prey they can...), that's not the "law" of wikipedia, nor is it generally a good guideline to conducting discussions. Being a "good shot" is also not likely to win you any friends, as is threatening some nebulous administrative action against those who happen to be disagreeing with you. Stick to the issue at hand or just stop. siafu (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC) Ludwigs2, seriously, stop hat-covering these comments. If you want to remove the remove the off-topic comments, you'll have to go rather further up (i.e., including your comment dated 17:51 16 September). Just removing the responses to your off-topic threats is quite disingenuous, really. siafu (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Dessources. Ludwig, your characterization of Image 2 (in another post just above) as "pregnancy cheesecake" is pretty offensive, shows a clearly prurient bias, and makes me wonder if an Admin should be looking at your vitriol and personal attacks. My two cents on this debate : keep the image. There is nothing there that I can see that suggests it was either posed or published with the intention of provoking sexual arousal. All it does is illustrate the natural state of a biological phenomenon. There are other articles on Wikipedia that contain photos of genitals to illustrate something, those are not "safe for work" either; but then, that depends upon the standards where the reader works, and all employers are different. My employer has stringent firewalls and filtering software in place to block Web content categorized as "shopping", "distasteful", "nudity", "arts and culture," "streaming media", "social networking", "gambling", and a number of other criteria that they continuously update. If something isn't safe for work, folks, you should be abiding by the office rules set down by your employer. Including, but not limited to, Youtube, Facebook, etc. If that includes nudity, don't browse Websites that contain it (or work elsewhere). OttawaAC (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd characterize one of the alternative proposals (the woman standing in the snow in gloves and a scarf) as pregnancy cheesecake.

The rationale for using this in the second trimester section is primarily because it's the best option we've got right now for calling out certain features of the second trimester. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

@ Ottowa: You don't know me son, so I'll let your comment about prurience slide (I also think you've used the wrong word for what you meant to say, but…). At any rate, your argument seems to be "People in locations that block nudity shouldn't be viewing wikipedia anyway" - that's maybe the most ridiculous, unencyclopedic argument I've ever heard. You believe that the encyclopedia should be safe for nudity even if it means that we have to drive away large numbers of readers? can we have a reality check please?

Your response is typical of the narrow-minded, egocentric attitude I've come to expect on project. You believe that this is your wikipedia, in which you get to dictate what you think is right without interference from all those stupid people who just read it. Wikipedia is not your personal blog, nor is it the correct venue for you to change the way everyone else in the world thinks. If that's what you want to use the project for - go away!

@whatamIdoing - yeah, I'd have to agree with that assessment about the other picture. I'm nowhere near as averse to using this for the second trimester photo (though I think we can do better than an art nude for that), but I think we should set that aside as a separate issue after the main RfC is done. --Ludwigs2 19:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

For editors who are coming here to offer a fresh perspective, I wonder whether someone could put together a little gallery below that shows the image options under consideration? This is a lot of text to review, and having the images to compare side-by-side has been helpful in other discussions I've been in where consensus on a top image was hard to achieve. I haven't formed an opinion yet. I "tested" the current image on my 14-year-old daughter, who didn't find the nudity embarrassing or inappropriate, but thought "something more scientific" would be better. My biggest concern with the illustrations as a whole is that they're not global: they're all "Caucasian" women with similar skin tones and hair color, which collectively suggest a "norm". (It seems that a different set of images is now in play from the gallery at the top of the page.) [User:Cynwolfe|Cynwolfe]] (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Pregnancy#Lead_image_RfC. The first two are the primary options under discussion.

The third is shown because some people thought that any single image from the second trimester could show pregnancy-related changes to the woman's breasts, which is nonsensical; the pair of images is now included to show changes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ludwig2: I don't understand why you want to push censorship, which goes against the basic spirit of Wikipedia. I don't understand why you want to censor the information/images seen by Americans, within the United States, based on possible objections from people in foreign cultures. You also don't say which cultures you're talking about -- I guess the ones where women can't go out in public without burqas, because in many other places, public breastfeeding is kind of common, and I doubt anyone there would block the entire Wikipedia based on the nipples visible on the pregnant woman in Image 2.... The U.S. military is shedding blood in Iraq, fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, to protect freedoms that you want to take away from the American people. And you want to do this, and push this censorship onto Wikipedia, because governments in those countries might want to impose their own views onto the information that Americans access? Your views seem incredible to me.

General objections to image censorship in this case: I have some conjecture to make regarding filtering software. Images can be blocked without blocking Wikipedia in its entirety, I believe. Articles could be filtered out based on offensive keywords -- at work, I can view a news Website, but I can't open specific articles if the headlines are blocked by the filtering software. So would a foreign government block the entire Wikipedia because of this picture showing a woman's nipples? Or is it the belly that's raising eyebrows?

And I have a fact-based concern -- has Wikipedia really, actually been banned anywhere because of nude images, and the one of this pregnant woman in particular? I thought foreign governments involved in blocking Wikipedia did it for political reasons based on the written content of articles, like China regarding Taiwan. Are the fears of offending foreigners and getting Wikipedia banned by other governments based on facts? OR imaginary fears?

OttawaAC (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ottowa: The definition of censorship you (and others) rely on is so distorted that it is effectively meaningless, so how can I respond to this? You seem to be holding on to some weird perspective where you can do anything you want to other people and no one has a right to say no to you, and that's just disturbing. Wikipedia already has effective censorship in place in a number of arenas - In articles we censor BLP material, hate speech, propaganda, commercial efforts, unreferenced material, and several other kinds of additions. On talk pages we censor (sometimes) things like flaming and outing and uncivil behavior. We do these things because (a) we want the encyclopedia to avoid inaccuracies and offensive statements, and (b) we want to try to maintain a reasonable environment to work in.

The question I originally asked (and which I keep asking) Is very simple: whether we need an art nude image as the lead image in this article. If the answer to that question is "no", then removing it is not censorship, removing it is simply removing an unneeded image. If this was the tire article and I asked whether we needed a particular image of a tire in the lead, would that be an unreasonable question? But here, a few editors are so hung up on the censorship issue that they are incapable of considering the question of whether a nude image might not be the best lead image: nude images have intrinsic value for them simply because nude images are their way of striking out at censorship, and so they will defend the nude image for no other reason than that it is nude. it's a ridiculous position to take from the perspective of the encyclopedia, and it fucks the conversation royally.

As far as your last point goes: I don't know. but I am quite sure that people have not gone to pages like this because they don't want the image stored in the server logs where all of their bosses can see what they've been browsing. do you disagree? --Ludwigs2 03:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs, one definition of censorship would be the imposing one person's definition of 'offensive' on others. This is exactly what you are doing here, except that the perspective you are trying to impose is not even clearly stated and represents the opinion of an undefined audience. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Ludwig2, you may disagree with my definition of censorship, but that's fine, I don't accept your definition of it either.

You're also saying that employees have some kind of inherent right to browse the Web looking at whatever on their employer's dime (and on the clock), but they don't; the employer may give them access to recreational Web surfing as a perk and a privilege, but if they don't want employees looking at anything unrelated to their actual job, employers have that legal right in the U.S., do you disagree? OttawaAC (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

@Martin: This exactly the mistake that all of you are making here. The nature of a LIBERAL SOCIETY is to balance the interests of one person/group against others in order to prevent anyone from being oppressed. This often means that individuals don't get what they want because what they want would be an unreasonable imposition on other segments of society. For instance, in the US we have very liberal gun laws, but almost everywhere in the US there are laws against discharging a firearm in populated areas - that is to prevent the accidental death of someone else while you are playing with your gun. This is why you're confused by my perspective: you think I'm arguing in favor of a particular side (one that you can't identify), when in fact I am trying balance the interests of all sides.

@Ottowa: Your argument is Wikipedia can be unsafe for work because people who browse the internet at work are bad people who break company rules? Leave aside that employee/employer relations in most places in the world are based in 'personal contracts' not 'legal rights'; it is against Wikipedia's purpose to inhibit people from reading the encyclopedia. We write this encyclopedia as a public service, but what is the value of a public service that tells people to suck it up or go piss off? --Ludwigs2 15:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Summary of proposals

Here is a summary of proposals so far: Hans Adler 22:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

A Status quo

Lead/infobox

B Move (RfC proposal)

Lead/infobox

In 2nd trimester physiology section

C Replace

Lead/infobox

D Replace by something else

A number of other images have been proposed, either showing a belly only, or an almost-naked woman in the snow. They were not discussed all that much.

E Censor status quo

Keep the current lead image, but put black bars over the nipples.

F New suggestions for lead image

Default size of images in infoboxes

Default size of images in infoboxes

• I suggest this. It needs a bit of touchup, but you get the idea. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 22:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you please try to be serious? Hans Adler 22:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

? B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 22:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey now. Lets not start this new discussion by assuming another version isn't a serious attempt to find a solution. Lets just include it in the above and let editors make their choices without attacking each other. AGF please.(olive (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC))

BeCritical, look at it here. That's the size it would display as. The embryo/fetus images are the size of a pencil eraser. Nothing except the one woman's face is easy to see. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

But look at it here, which is a doable size. There are several things which make this a compromise image till there's something better: no one can say there is gratuitous nudity, because all nudity has already been acknowledged to be informational. It has more information than any other image. Further, it retains the warm feelings that people value to at least some extent, because of the background image. I'm aware it's not appealing, but it may be a good compromise, that will allow us to move beyond the nudity debate. Remember it can be tweaked, captions added etc. And everyone knows to click for a large image. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 23:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Default size of images in infoboxes

Default size of images in infoboxes

Continued Discussion here

BeCritical, I appreciate your good faith attempt to help here but firstly, you are trying to solve a non-problem. No editors here appear to find the current image offensive, some are saying that an unspecified group of people will find it offensive for some unstated reason. That is no basis for change. Secondly it is just plain ugly, but as Olive suggests, we can include it in the options of you like. Please also explain what you mean by 'nudity' There is still plenty of bare skin visible. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's just the kind of thing that might make everyone equally mad, and therefore may be a good compromise: it eliminates "gratuitous" nudity people complain about because "nudity" here is all about teats, and now the ones which weren't "informational" are covered. But it does include bare teats, so that makes the anti-teat people mad. It's ugly, so that makes the warm-feely people mad. But it includes the warm-feely element to some extent, which maybe makes the anti-art faction mad. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 23:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you are quite right. Nobody is going to like it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes..... and of course ILIKEIT isn't a factor here...... B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 00:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

A There is no reason to change and encyclopedic image that describes many of the physical and emotional aspects of the subject well. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The clothed image addresses my concerns about creating a false "Caucasian" norm, but I do find the nude more illustrative of the pregnant body. I don't find it either prurient or disrespectful, but I also don't think it's "censorship" to consider how best to serve the needs of likely readers depending on the article: an image should support the article, not be a distraction, which the nude might be. However, my ideal image for the infobox would be an anatomical drawing that shows both the characteristic profile of the woman's body and the positioning of the fetus within it. We seem to have nothing remotely like that on Commons; is anyone looking for a public domain image of that kind? The montage won't do; too detailed for the scale, and too cluttered to read well. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The collage can be redone to show that, if someone will point me to the appropriate image to transpose, maybe this or whatever. The point of this exercise, this discussion in this section, is to find a compromise. It's a call for more creativity, not an up or down vote on the collage I made. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 00:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do not produce any more patchwork images that have no chance of use due to their extreme lack of professionality. The graphic you have found is fantastic, though, and I have added to the second trimester section. Hans Adler 10:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Hans Adler: the drawing is exactly what I had in mind, as more informative. If there is no other way to resolve the controversies surrounding the use of a live model, could it be used in the infobox? Cynwolfe (talk) 12:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Offence cuts both ways

I do not doubt that the current image will cause offence to some people, almost everything will cause offence to someone but this is not simple a trade-off between offensiveness and encyclopedic quality. All the alternative images will cause offense to someone. I, and I suspect many others (especially from outside the US) would be very offended by images with certain body parts obscured because it both sexualises the image and demonises body parts. Some would even take offence at the use of a clothed image because it smacks of censorship in an article so intimately related with the human body.

I appreciate the good faith attempts to be creative and to find a compromise but we should all be aware that a less revealing image is not necessarily less offensive to everyone. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Censoring body parts is offensive because it sexualises. Using a clothed image in the lead cannot possibly be offensive to a reasonable person. That's a ridiculous claim. Hans Adler 12:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Use of a clothed image where a nude one might be more appropriate offends people who object to what they see being decided by others. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

And many people are upset because they are not allowed to punch people in the nose when they really, really want to. Many of our actions are restricted in the interests of society - this is normal and good (within limits). The fact that you really, really want a nude image in this article does not outweigh the interests of other who do not want to have that image enforced on them, nor does it outweigh normal considerations of the value and function of the image in the article. sorry.

maybe 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. --Ludwigs2 15:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Protecting the eyeballs of children argument

I already voted, but this point is still aggravating me, so here I am adding more to this longgg discussion: If you are in the women's changing room of a public swimming pool -- and there must be thousands of them across the U.S. -- children are in there with their mothers and grandmothers and so on. (I'm female, I've been at public swimming pools, and it's fine with me.) Along with women of all ages and physical conditions, with naked breasts and all. Pregnant breasts and bellies, elderly ones, obese ones, skinny ones, adolescent ones, and young kids being changed. No one raises a hue and cry over exposing childrens' eyeballs to the nudity in that context. And it's an everyday occurrence. So if there are educators out there who want to shield children's eyeballs from the sight of naked breasts used for a medical article like this, in my view that's a clueless decision. I don't want Wikipedia tailored to accommodate what I view as ignorance on the part of some teachers. If there are parents who want to shield their children from nudity in any context, that's their own issue.

Well, I have the same view of adults who want to parse the Wikipedia for nipples and conceal them. The fact that no one is running around trying to cover the nipples in the Adam and Eve article images, or Peter Paul Rubens paintings, etc., leads me to the conclusion that there is a revulsion here against the nude pregnant body specifically for whatever reason, and I do not hold the view that there is something exceptionally grotesque about naked breasts or bellies belonging to women who are pregnant. I think it's terrific that there are 'compromise' image alternatives being discussed in that it shows the community wiling to work together for a solution, but the only decision I am personally willing to support in this instance is the option to keep the lead image as is, or use another image that does not conceal the breasts and/or belly, because compromise to me in this case implies supporting censorship - to some I know that sounds a bit extreme, and it just one photo in one article, but I think the underlying issue is too significant to let it slide uncontested.

OttawaAC (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with your first paragraph, though I disagree in part with your conclusions. What you say about children in changing rooms makes perfect sense because this is a non-sexualised context. But context is a tricky thing. I guess many of the women who are comfortable with the situation you describe would not be comfortable at a women's only nude beach, and even less would be comfortable there if the small children were also present. Or imagine one of the women in the changing room strips completely, stays that way, and is photographed by another. In either case it's deliberate nudity, and in most Western societies that's strongly associated with sexuality, causing an unwanted perceived sexualisation of the context for at least a considerable fraction of those present.

The situation with the current infobox image is similar. Pregnancy comes with a lot of connotations. The article is currently way too heavy on medical stuff and is ignoring topics such as pregnancy clothes, maternity protection, reproductive rights etc. A reader who does not know this and comes here with the expectation to find an article that covers all aspects adequately will at first be surprised by the nudity. Linguistics can help us to understand what's going on: We have a choice between an image of a pregnant woman and an image of a naked pregnant woman. Wearing clothes is the unmarked (we don't seem to have an article on this linguistic concept), i.e. 'normal' case that goes without saying. Being naked is the special case that will always be mentioned. Nudity is in no way a defining property of pregnancy, hence the surprise.

In a purely medical context it's different because there is a socially accepted non-sexual reason for the nudity. That's why the image would work much better further down. Hans Adler 12:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Hans, the first pregnancy marks a milestone in the life of a woman (and usually of the father) when things change. Certain things come more into the open, the mother's parents now know that their dear daughter has actually had sex with a man, for example. The nude image, to some degree, represents this change. I think the 'Let's keep sex out of pregnancy' campaign is doomed to failure. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with keeping sex out of pregnancy. That would be ridiculous. But for anyone who is not obessed in some strange way, nudity and sexuality are not among the first things that come to mind when thinking about pregnancy. (And if parents can't figure out that their daughter has sex long before she gets pregnant, then she is either a bit young, or the parents are exceptionally dense or excessively strict. I don't see what this is supposed to have to do with anything here.)

The milestone business is a valid point not yet represented in the article text. The current lead image is OK at representing it, although an image of a couple gazing at the woman's belly would be better. But how is an aspect that nobody has bothered to mention in the article yet so important that a photo can be ruled out for not depicting it?

What do you think about the lack of nude pictures on the marriage article? Is that the effect of a 'Let's keep sex out of marriage' campaign? How about school? Many children have their first sexual experiences while in school, often with other children attending the same school. Is the lack of nude pictures in the school article natural or not? Hans Adler 13:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Above I ask whether the anatomical drawing couldn't be used in the infobox. The only question is which image bests illustrates the article, considered in the context of serving the needs of readers. In my daughter's sex education class in 5th grade (age 10), they were shown an animated graphic of a penis becoming erect. The fact that this wasn't an actual penis is what made it acceptable (and let me note that parents viewed this in advance, and we live in a conservative, church-going community in the U.S. Midwest). It was presented as physiological information. I find the nude image more informative about the physiology of pregnancy than the clothed one, but I find the graphic more informative than the nude. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

My comment 'Let's keep sex out of pregnancy' was a little lighthearted but its serious point was that we should not try to expunge all reference to sex from this article.

My milestone point does relate to sex. As another example, I remember first going with my wife to ante-natal classes. For the first time in my life I felt that I was being spoken about sex to as a real adult. All the women in the class were pregnant so there was a certainty that we all must have some first hand experience of sex and this enabled some subject to be openly discussed without embarrassment, breast feeding for example.

I agree that we do not want to push sexual imagery in the face of our readers. For example, although I do not find it offensive, I think this image is too sexually charged for the lead, even though it shows less in body part terms than the current one. On the other hand it might serve a purpose lower down in the article to show the joy of pregnancy, and that a woman might still consider herself attractive whilst pregnant. We must stop thinking of pregnancy as some morbid medical condition that justifies 'medical nudity'. It a natural and joyous state for many women that the current encyclopedic image helps to show. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

That image is just silly and counter-factual (every pregnant woman knows you don't need a hat when it's cold), and I don't know why people keep referencing it. It's kooky and fun but utterly lacks any encyclopedic value. Pregnancy is indeed a natural and joyous state, I am happy to attest for those of you named "Martin" and "Hans" and so on; however, this is not what an encyclopedia article on pregnancy is about. Readers come to it for information about pregnancy, not personal insights. Editors need to stop using this talk page as a forum for expressing their feelings about nudity and pregnancy, and focus on how best to illustrate the article. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree we must stick to the subject of the article but many editors have stated that pregnancy covers much more that just the anatomical facts. To get back to the point, the current image is a good encyclopedic overall representation of subject as a whole and there is no reason to change it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope. It gives undue weight to the minor aspect of sexuality, making it distracting for a considerable portion of our readership. Yes, pregnancy covers much more than anatomy, but most of the additional stuff is unrelated to sex.

What you are saying about antenatal classes suggests to me that you are basically arguing from very personal experience that is not shared by the vast majority of readers. I don't remember sex coming up in that context except in the form of general comments that it's fine, that in the later stages some caution is obviously required, or that cushions might be helpful. Sex also tends to come up a lot at wedding parties or in schoolyard discussions. So I ask again: Do you agree that not having nude pictures at marriage and school is exactly as it should be? And if so, what exactly is special about pregnancy that it requires them?

The current lead image evokes roughly 40% pregnancy, 40% nudity and 20% various ideas such as beauty or oneness with nature. That's not appropriate for the lead. The proposed alternative evokes roughly 70% pregnancy and 20% ethnicity. That's much better. Other readers may come to different numbers, but the undue weight of nudity is clear. This is only a problem in the lead, however, where the image is not sufficiently contextualised. Hans Adler 15:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't find the current nude inherently un-encyclopedic. On the other hand, I'd say it's most "natural" for the vast majority of the world's population to see pregnant women clothed, and a preference for the clothed image need not be disparaged as a desire to "censor" nudity. If illustrating pregnancy as a physiological state is the primary purpose of the article, then to me the order of preference is (1) anatomical graphic; (2) nude; (3) clothed. If, however, the primary purpose of the article is to describe pregnancy more broadly in terms of its sociological, psychological, and cultural aspects, then the text of the article should be the first concern of editors, as it doesn't really do that. Translating a section from the German article is circular, since the German article itself lacks sources in the "Cultural" section. I'm more concerned about that than the choice of infobox image. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I did the translation. It's not circular as the German Wikipedia cannot possibly be used as a source here. It is simply unsourced. Everybody is of course invited to expand, improve, replace or source the material. But there has been almost a decade (I guess; the article history is incomplete) for such material to be added. As this has not happened yet, it seemed wise to place a condensation nucleus. Hans Adler 15:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)