Talk:Pregnancy

OTRS Ticket

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's not how consensus works, and you need to re-read and understand the closing admin's comments: "If properly verified consent is obtained directly from the subject, issue (2) would disappear and there would be no consensus in this discussion. On the principle that consensus is required to change the long-standing state of an article, the nude photo should then be returned to the lead. Consent would ordinarily come through OTRS for privacy reasons, so I would leave it to OTRS to determine whether such consent is sufficient" OTRS has verified that proper consent has been obtained, therefore there is no consensus in this discussion and the nude photo should be returned.", which is has. Stop edit warring over it. Dreadstar ☥ 05:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Doc, have you been following the discussion above? The closing admin was very clear: "If properly verified consent is obtained directly from the subject, issue (2) would disappear and there would be no consensus in this discussion. On the principle that consensus is required to change the long-standing state of an article, the nude photo should then be returned to the lead. Consent would ordinarily come through OTRS for privacy reasons, so I would leave it to OTRS to determine whether such consent is sufficient." B^e——C_ritical 05:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

In humans

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

Edit request from , 16 October 2011

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

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

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

Article requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

revising the complications section

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

Debatable source and content

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

Post-menopausal pregnancies

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: Which photo should we use in the lead?

• 
  Proposed image
  Image 1
• 
  Proposed image
  Image 2

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

Wikipedia's Readership

• Respect all types of Wikipedia's readership Wikipedia, so far, is a values friendly encyclopedia. Many people studying this encyclopedia adhere to a set of values which would be offended by the showing of bare female breasts. It is wise for WP to not offend those values. (I have not read all the discussion here and assume that this point has already been made.) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Support image 1

• Support Better quality. Improves ethnic diversity of the project.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support, on condition that image two be used further down in the article, as suggested by multiple editors above. Otherwise use image two in the lead. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Yes agree and that is how it was.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment sounds reasonable that way, and, "when in doubt, don't change nuthin'" (non-interventionism, see [Taoism]). GeoBard^Semi-retired 01:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support Better quality image. More representative of our multi-ethnic, worldwide audience than yet another white woman. Unlike placing a nude in the lead, an image of a fully clothed woman complies with the Wikimedia Foundation Board's resolution on the use of images and the principle of least astonishment. It's appropriate for this article to lead with a third-trimester pregnancy, rather than one just five and a half months after conception. The art nude by an amateur art photographer is less encyclopedic. Also, the art nude can be used far more effectively, with a detailed caption, if it's placed lower in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support a) Image 1 is unlikely to attract as many complaints and drama as Image 2, b) better composition of the picture, c) Image 1 adds ethnic diversity, d) Image 1 emphasizes cultural aspects of pregnancy and maternity clothes, e) all pregnant women I've seen in my life wore clothes, and f) the majority of arguments in favor of image 2 in the past RfC were "ILIKEIT". --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Image one is of much better image quality in terms of technique, focus, lighting, and composition, and, by depicting a person of color, provides diversity in which en.wikipedia is sometimes lacking. The nude image would be fine lower down in the article, but is notably inferior in terms of having a role in the lede. Nandesuka (talk) 01:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Objection to this abuse of process. These are same players as before. I guess we'll just keep iVoting until they get their preferred image in place, eh? I strongly object to this abuse of process. Dreadstar ☥ 01:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

  Please assume good faith. I find your doing otherwise fairly offensive. Nandesuka (talk) 01:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

  This wasn't directed at you, it was a general comment about this immediately-repeated-RFC. "Doc James" edited my comment to make it look like I was responding to you, when I wasn't. Another abuse of process by that editor. Nice. Dreadstar ☥ 01:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I think Sonicyouth86 summarized my points from the last RfC pretty well. We could find a better image, but of these two I think this one works better. While I can't uniformly endorse the Foundation resolution since there are technical issues with content control, I do think the "principle of least astonishment" is reasonable, especially when there is no clear educational benefit to the other image. SDY (talk) 01:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support Both images are worthless. Neither tells the reader anything she or he didn't already know, both are simply emblematic of the topic, the kind of images that would accompany a Hello (magazine) article, not an encyclopedia article. Since it seems to be understood in this RfC that the article has to have a worthless gratuitous emblematic image in the lead, I go for this one for WhatamIdoing's rationale (least astonishment). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Image 1 is more what one would expect in an encyclopedia. -- Adjwilley (talk) 05:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Multiple reasons were already provided above. Image 1 is a more encyclopedic having enough meanings for its purpose (the LEAD), as long as the quality is good and there ain't anything scientifically behind a nude image. Also, the skin-color notes are pathetic. ~ AdvertAdam ^on-mobile 06:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support: Image 1 is a better quality image over all. --Ludwigs2 14:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Completely ignoring the nudity (and ethnicity) aspect, it's by far a better image overall. Swarm ^X 21:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Principle of least astonishment. Yoenit (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support, per Yoenit above (the principle of least astonishment)—Image 1 in the lead, Image 2 further into the article. Both images have merit.--Miniapolis (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Miniapolis—Image 1 in the lead, Image 2 further into the article. Both images have merit. --JN466 18:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support I love pictures of naked women as much as anyone, but I'd hate to do an innocent search at work and have the article display an image that's NSFW. Thank god that I didn't check out this discussion at work. I wouldn't have expected a picture of a naked person featured so prominently. Especially since this article is mistitled "Pregnancy". It's not about pregnancy at all, it's about human pregnancy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support Err, yeah, surprised to see the naked women... folks, people have bee hiding their nudity since time immemorial. There's a reason for it. II | (t - c)
• Support per Yoenit, Miniapolis, and JN466. Is this still being discussed? Deliver the kid already! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Image 1 is a better illustration for the article since it shows a full-term pregnancy. It is also just a better quality photograph. Kaldari (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support It's not like there isn't nudity on the page already, but I think that the first lead is more appropriate as a depiction. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Support image 2

• Support; the woman in image 1 could just as well have a pillow under her shirt. Image 2 is a better illustration of the phenomenon. Powers ^T 22:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The person in Image 2 could be John McCain photoshopped to look like a nude pregnant woman. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support. We are all born naked, and we all bathe naked. What's the big deal? This is a perfectly good image, showing very well the effects of pregnancy on the human female body. I think the pose is perfect, her face is contemplative, she appears to be studying the effects of pregnancy. It could hardly be a better shot for the topic. Binksternet (talk) 04:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support*; Image 2 (including the naked-ness is precisely what the article is about! Therefore it is suitable. If issues of ethnic representation or Principle of Least Astonishment or "Female vulgarity" are the issues here, then someone somewhere will always be offended, and there will never be agreement on which image should lead! Put both images in the article, yes, but as for which goes at the lead, it should be the one which openly and honestly portrays the physical condition of pregnancy...without concealment of ANY sort (political or otherwise) I would support image 1, as lead by all means but keep it a truthful and honest depiction like 2! Force3000

So, you support image 2 in the article, but image 1 in the lead?--v/r - TP 13:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, image 2 as lead, image 1 in the article if an additional depiction is thought necessary Force3000 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC).

Don't care

• While I think the first image is actually a better photograph, there is not a lot to choose between them. Pregnancy is after all a social phenomenon as well as a medical and biological one, therefore a clothed illustration is not out of place, any more than an unclothed one is. Rich Farmbrough, 16:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC).
  

• Which is why I think both images should be used. I have no problem with the nude one in the lead, but to avoid further conflict (since some would rather own the article and keep warring until it's totally gone...), I have no problem with the clothed one in the lead and the other one further down. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• I do not think anyone is wishing to removed the image entirely? --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• You've removed it several times over the past year. Dreadstar ☥ 01:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Neither image

(Option added after discussion started)

• Support Changing my !vote from above. Given that there is no consensus to keep the image in the article and it is incompatible with the principle of least surprise, let's just remove it for now until we can find an image we agree on. The proposed alternative does not appear to have any support except as "not the current image." Until we find something better, the article will do just fine without the current image, which is mostly decorative anyway and doesn't show anything particularly important. Using the current image lower in the article isn't unacceptable, but honestly it appears to be an art nude and makes more sense in that article than this one. SDY (talk) 22:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support Both images are worthless. Neither tells the reader anything she or he didn't already know, both are simply emblematic of the topic, the kind of images that would accompany a Hello (magazine) article, not an encyclopedia article. If we have to have an image in the lede, count this as a vote for image #1. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion/2

I propose hatting this, since making a new RfC over an issue just addressed by a recently closed RfC is inappropriate. B^e——C_ritical 06:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Not so fast. My support in the first RFC only applied to keeping BOTH images and doing what I've just suggested in this RfC. My vote must not be used to replace and then delete the original (nude) image. No other votes of that type should be used to do that, but they apparently have been misused. That's wrong. It's too beautiful and useful to just vanish. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You don't understand: the result of the previous RfC was that there were no licensing issues, and that the original (nude) image should be in the lead. This RfC is something akin to canvassing or forum shopping, or dictat by boredom. B^e——C_ritical 06:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not think many of I felt that the main issue was a licensing issue. There where complaints of a procedural nature. Thus the new RfC.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been away from this issue for awhile and when I got back I saw the lead image had been changed to the clothed woman. I thought the RfC had closed with that result. Apparently not. So what was the final decision in the old RfC? Is there still confusion, since there is still edit warring? -- Brangifer (talk) 06:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The conclusion was to keep the image in the lead as in this version. B^e——C_ritical 07:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

No I do not think that was the conclusion. The claim was that there was no consensus. Thus we are back here to develop a clearer consensus.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The closer said "If properly verified consent is obtained directly from the subject, issue (2) would disappear and there would be no consensus in this discussion. On the principle that consensus is required to change the long-standing state of an article, the nude photo should then be returned to the lead.". Talk:Pregnancy#OTRS_Ticket says that, according to WMF policy, the nude image has consent. Thus, the RfC conclusion is to keep the nude image. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

That is pure and unadulterated wikilawyering. --Ludwigs2 13:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Hum, it looks to me like a straight interpretation of a conditional statement: "if X then Y". X has been fulfilled, so Y applies. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

undoubtably it does look that way to you. However, I do not believe that was intended as a conditional statement, do not believe that X has been fulfilled, and do not think that it was an incitement to return the image to the lead, but rather a question of whether the image should be retained in the article at all. You've gone beyond the conditions to make a new assertion, and dismissed the substantive RfC result without cause in the process. --Ludwigs2 17:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Didn't we just have this RfC? I'll add my vote, but I believe that sufficient page ownership issues have been demonstrated to begin an ArbCom case over this. I'll look into that and begin the process later today. --Ludwigs2 12:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. Another RfC on the back of the long, unpleasant, first one seems an overkill and tendentious on this issue, and comments about "my image" is a clear ownership statement. Actually, as I understand consensus Enric is correct. The first RfC was a suggestion to change the long standing image in place. No consensus was reached so nothing changes. That said, why the ongoing fuss over this. Its a photograph. We brought in an uninvolved admin; a decision was reached. Lets return the long standing image, and move on. The article needs work. Dealing with this issue again disrupts the ongoing process of creating a good article.(olive (talk) 13:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC))

Agree with Enric Naval and Littleolive oil, and possibly Ludwigs about the ArbCom, but maybe people could just stop? B^e——C_ritical 14:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the arbs will not view kindly another RfC on the back of a first one in the face of the closing admins comments, so moving on is probably the best action we could all take.(olive (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC))

I think arbitration is the only way to go with this, but I'm torn on the best approach. Part of me wants to suggest that we take this particular problem to mediation - despite flaring tempers, most of the people here are reasonable and that's usually a good indicator for the success of mediation. However, the core problem is really a matter of the way policy is interpreted in light of the project's core principles, which is not something mediation can resolve (particularly since it's a problem that occurs on multiple articles across the project); that will have to be addressed by arbcom or it will never be resolved. We could do both - send this particular problem to mediation and open an arbcom case on the general principle… is that distinct enough not to be seen as forum shopping? --Ludwigs2 14:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Opening yet another RFC immediately after the last one closed is just disruption at this point. Dreadstar ☥ 15:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

No it is certainly not. It seems like a large portion of the people who weighted in during the last one where discounted due to unresolved issues regarding copyright. Thus another RfC. That 2/3 support is being ignored is astounding really. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a load of BS. And just how many RFC's have you put up on this over the past year? Too many. It's purely disruptive at this point. Dreadstar ☥ 15:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Dread, what it comes down to is that the last RfC has now been wikilawyered out of existence. While I think a second RfC is fruitless given the tone of the page, it is perfectly appropriate. --Ludwigs2 15:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree this RfC is disruption. The previous RfC counted all the editors who addressed issues other than permissions. B^e——C_ritical 16:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I reluctantly agree that a second RFC, minus distracting side issues, is not inappropriate. I am reluctant to have this go on for another month or two, but having it cleanly settled would be helpful. Then perhaps we could go a whole year or two without having to re-hash this.

I also add that people who object to such things are often concerned that their "side" will lose if further open discussion happens. Consequently, I encourage people who don't want to signal that they expect to lose to stop complaining about the existence of the second RFC and start piling up their !votes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

This goes too far. For how long will discussion and RfC's go on, on this issue. Any editor can open or reopen and RfC at any time, but lets be clear. Since the earliest days of this article there have been efforts, always unsuccessful to get this image out of this article. And another attempt failed, and yet again, another try. Please don't accuse editors of fearing failure as the reason for preferring to not have yet another RfC, and more of the same, especially given the nasty tone of past RfCs. My concern is disruption and tendentious editing at this point given the history of this discussion page. Sheesh! (olive (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC))

Stacking up !votes is not what consensus building is supposed to be about. Rich Farmbrough, 16:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC).

@ WhatamIdoing, the only reason the "keep the current/nude image" "side" would lose is that people would say there is too much controversy surrounding it, thus the RfC is pushing editors that way. But I guess ArbCom is the only recourse here if all people want to do is keep after this issue till they get their way. This issue is settled as well as Wikipedia can do such things. Even if the outcome were different this time, that's not a better outcome, it's just the result of people wanting to use WP mechanisms till they get their way. B^e——C_ritical 17:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom it is. however, since I'm having exactly this same problem elsewhere (over at talk:Mohammed/Images) I'm going to focus the request on the problem of controversial images more than on this particular page - it's an issue that needs to be resolved before we can make any headway anywhere. however, my wikipedia time is up for today; I won't be able to attend to that until this evening. I'll notify everyone when I've made the request. --Ludwigs2 17:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Contexted that way, it might have some merit at ArbCom or as a broader spectrum RfC on controversial images... While I do not believe that we should censor pictures out of an article/project, I do think we need to be conscious of controversial pictures in the Lead of an article... The lead of an article sets the tone and temper of the article. It establishes how people will view the rest of the article. If the lead (wether through words or images) shocks or dismays people, it may place blinders on the merit the same points/image might have elsewhere in the article. The lead is the most important part of the article and needs to be able to compell people to reading further. The fact that we've now had numerous discussion on this image and over 700KB of discussion, IMO, clearly shows that this image does not do that.

That being said, I have to agree with the people who feel the RfC was closed in a manner to keep the old image. The closing admin ruled in favor of changing the image, but that if concerns over licensing/rights was eliminated that there would be no consensus to change. The closing admin explicitly stated that without a consensus, the old image should stay. And I would oppose reopening a new RfC mere weeks after it closed.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you would be asking ArbCom to decide. The only thing I know of for them to do is to rule on editor behavior and also they might interpret policy. Is interpreting NOTCENSORED what you want them to do? I think that's possible for them, but not likely. B^e——C_ritical 19:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You're right, it would probably be better served by a community wide discussion... if this is a bigger than just this article. I am opposed to an RFC on THIS issue on this article at this point in time due to procedural issues. But if the issue of controversial pictures in the lead is widespread, I could support a discussion on that subject. (While I support NOTCENSORED, I also support the notion of personal sensitivities and think there needs to be a compelling reason to have controversial images in the lead. If there is a solid reason for a controversial image (eg the subject itself is controversial) then I question the editorial value of putting such images in the lead without solid reasons (besides NotCensored and ILikeIt). Again, as I said in my original post, the tactic proposed MIGHT have merit, but only if it can discuss it at a higher level rather than specific issue.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 20:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Quick response between RL things. Community-wide discussion is not going to get us anywhere: I've seen issue go to community-wide discussion: it happened when I pushed an RfC and deletion discussion on the lead image (now long gone) of the Goatse.cx page, and the result was a carbon-copy of the dispute above (the RfC split between supporters endlessly referring to NOTCENSORED and opponents endlessly objecting to the content, with a handful of dedicated advocates arguing with me viciously over the issue). Really, all you need to do is replace 'nude image' with 'goatse image' and it would be the identical argument. The same argument is happening on Muhammed as well (which has nothing to do with nudity), and has been ongoing literally for years. Community-wide discussion is just going to produce the same deadlock that already happens here, there, and everywhere, involving (for the most part) the same individuals. We really need this clarified as a matter of core project principles, and only an arbcom ruling is going to be able to do that. We can go through the motions of a community wide discussion, I suppose, but that seems to fall under wp:SNOWBALL: it will just end up as another problematic, interpretable result.

I think I've just convinced myself to request the case - ArbCom can refuse it if they like. I'll do that in a couple of hours, when I'm done for the day. --Ludwigs2 23:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

A 2/3 majority seems to have been discounted do to the previous issue of copyright. As this has been solved and is no longer an issue hopefully discussion can be more clear and this time we can come to a consensus one way or the other rather than "no consensus". The copyright issue was the justification to petition the closing admin for "no consensus" call by some of those involved [1]. As I stated previously both images have spent a fair bit of time in the lead and their is not really an "original" image to return to.

We are now making some progress. This RfC is a chance to resolved this issue. There hopefully will be no complaints / disruption halfway through regarding the manner in which the question is posed. This will be easier than spending 6 month at arbcom. Image two BTW has also had its background improved. Thus for all these reason please give it another chance. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

James that's a misleading statement on several levels. The nude image is the pre RfC consensus version and has been stable in the article for an extended period of time. The clothed image was added only recently after the RfC closed. There is most certainly an original image and a consensus version, and it is the one that has been stable in the article. The RfC as you know since you opened it was designed to replace the long standing image with another image. Why are you suggesting both images have equal time in the article. Further the copyright issue had been dealt with here as we all know and Dreadstar's comment to the closing admin was simply to suggest that permission as far as we knew had been dealt with, which would revert the closing admins verdict to no consensus per his own closing statement. I don't like what your implying. Now whatever happens with these images and on some level, I for one, doubt they're worth the trouble, the process for Wikipedia's sake, of determining which image we use had better be fair. Please do not mischaracterize further.(olive (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC))

Image one if you look back had been stable in the article for some time too. Yes I agree that the copyright issues has just been dealt with and that it confused the previous RfC such that consensus was not clear. We thus have a chance to clarify it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said and that was not the situation. The closing admin said very specifically that if the permission issue was taken care of the decision was for no consensus The clothed image was the image by default because there were questions concerning permission (not copyright). for the nude image, the stable image. When permission seemed to be granted, the RfC reverted to that no consensus decision. The RfC was posted to replace the consensus image , the nude image, with another image, the clothed image. The closing admin did not find consensus for making that change. (olive (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC))

I am referring to 6 months ago when the clothed image was present for many months.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Diffs please. I don't see it and there's never been consensus for your preferred image, merely your repeated attempts to replace the nude one with a clothed one.[2] This current attempt to skirt around consensus is only your latest and most blatant attempt at censorship. I assume your plan is to just wear out your opponents with RFC after RFC until you get your preferred image in place. Dreadstar ☥ 01:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Well it's a good plan. By making the image so controversial, controversy is now seen as a reason to change it. B^e——C_ritical 02:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You're assuming bad faith while accusing others of assuming bad faith? Interesting hypocrisy. Nobody has made any image controversial. I rather like the nude image. However, I recognize in good faith that other editors do not, and I am open to negotiation over a less controversial image. Are you? Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring

Really, guys: Could we please all agree that getting the Right™ image into the lead today is just not that important? Please? WP:There is no deadline, not even for restoring the One True™ Pregnant Woman Image to the lead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. Stop edit-warring, folks. I've reluctantly protected the article for 48 hours, rather than blocking people for edit warring. The Cavalry (Message me) 02:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You're a bit late to the party, as the blocks should have been handed out to your fellow admin Dreadstar some time ago. This needs to go to arbcom so we can get this sorted out by neutral parties. Viriditas (talk) 03:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I have added a postscript to my closing statement, which should be unnecessary, but anyway: [3] Anyone seeking to remove the nude from the infobox will need consensus to do so and that consensus does not presently exist. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Third the request. I actually managed to get two tiny edits into the Complications section, cleaning it up and fixing links, before the page was locked for edit warring over an image issue for which there is already a discussion on the talk page. Please keep to the discussion and find consensus. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • We already have consensus. There is no consensus for inclusion, so the image should be removed. Viriditas (talk) 02:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Partially Nude

Why does the image have to be fully nude or fully clothed? We can't find any expectant mother to pull her shirt up over her belly for a picture?--v/r - TP 02:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

We seem to have a shortage of plain, undecorated images at Commons:Category:Pregnant women. File:Anna-Kosali-11-7.jpg may be the only one that doesn't contain body painting, weird poses, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

ugh, silliness. This weekend (when I get a chance) I am going to go on the web and flood commons with pictures of pregnant women. God willing my housemate doesn't walk in while I'm doing it, because that will take a hell of a lot of explaining. --Ludwigs2 05:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

ROTFL B^e——C_ritical 05:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Adding quite a few to commons:Category:Growth of the abdomen during pregnancy. – Adrignola talk 16:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, both of the proposed images comes off as activist (one has a conservative, almost mormon quality, the other is vulgarly feminine). An image showing just the woman's belly, as you describe, does seem to cater less to any particular agenda, and is less likely to offend as well.--83.89.0.118 (talk) 05:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The editors attempting to force the nude image into the article against consensus have refused to negotiate in good faith, and will not consider any other image for inclusion. Viriditas (talk) 06:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Whoa there Wally. Please read the remarks from the closing admin. You have it backwards.(olive (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC))

I don't have anything backwards. There is no consensus to include the nude image and it violates the principle of least astonishment. No alternative image has been proposed by those defending it. We don't default to including disputed, controversial images that violate the POLA, we default to exclude. Viriditas (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes we did provide alternatives. There is no consensus to exclude the nude image. And stop accusing people of bad faith because they get fed up after a while. And please read the archives if you're going to proclaim on them. B^e——C_ritical 23:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

No, there were no alternatives presented, and the forcing of the nude image into the article against consensus for its inclusion is called bad faith negotiation—it's your way or the highway. That's not an acceptable form of dispute resolution. Mkativerata's conclusion that no consensus for exclusion is the same as no consensus for inclusion is a fundamental failure to apply the burden of proof in this discussion—a burden which has not been met. There is no consensus for inclusion, therefore the image gets removed. We don't default to inclusion in any discussion about disputed, controversial content. We conservatively default to exclusion. Why an admin like Mkativerata seems to be ignorant of this fact is demonstrative of the problem at hand. This needs to go to arbcom. Viriditas (talk) 02:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

There were multiple alternatives offered in this discussion. Please check the archives. Further, this discussion has become so desperate that the closing admin is now being attacked. Where next? I(olive (talk) 02:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC))

Please don't be disingenuous. If there were multiple alternatives, we would not be talking about a nude image in the lead section of an article on pregnancy. Criticizing the conclusions of a closing admin is not the same as attacking the admin. You must know this, so I can only assume your comment was made in bad faith. On reflection of this entire discussion here and in the archives, this appears to be one of your little tactical strategies, where you consistently refer to the opposing discussion as desperate and ironically attack other editors by accusing them of making attacks that don't exist. That's hardly conducive to good faith discussion. There is simply no consensus for the inclusion of the image in the lead section, and that's not something that needs to be repeated, it's a fact. The burden of proof is on the editor adding content, not removing. Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about Viriditas? The image has been in the article for years, there is no consensus to change it, that's how consensus works; when you talk about 'burden' you're talking about WP:V, not WP:CON. And yeah, go ahead and attack Olive, that really adds to your arguments. Well, not really. Touchstones? Give me a break. You were doing better by asking for alternative images, go back there. What alternatives have you given? There were other alternatives given by others, but none as good as the current lead. I challenge you to find a better one. Dreadstar ☥ 03:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you still here, Dreadstar? I thought you were too busy edit warring in the article to bother using the talk page. That's a great example you've set as an admin, well done. It doesn't matter how long the image has been here, and consensus can change. I've removed vandalism from articles that went unnoticed for years. Should it stay because it was there so long? There have been multiple discussions; no consensus for inclusion of the nude image has been reached, so we default to either an alternative image or no image at all. I've provided a flickr link below to hundreds of free images. Which alternatives will you offer? Viriditas (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Oooh, how clever, certainly no one can have a comeback to that! My regrettable example is only matched by the admin who ignored the RFC results and decided to edit war his own preferred image in. But we won't mention that part, eh? Oh, gosh, you did suggest images? A link to the Internet? That's really good. Or useless. Yeah, the latter. Try to be more specific, eh? And sooner would have been better for your argument here. The current image has been there for years becuse it enjoyed consensus for years. For you to compare that to unnoticed vandalism is humorous. Dreadstar ☥ 03:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no consensus to add the nude image to the lead section. Why is it there? Viriditas (talk) 05:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I assume since you've come into this late you haven't checked the archives. I suggest you do. Don't make comments about the closing admin and then accuse me of Bad faith. That said, I don't have time for inflammatory comments so you're on your own. (olive (talk) 03:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC))

Don't make assumptions. I have not come into this late at all, and I participated in the original RfC. Sounds like you need to check the archives yourself since you aren't familiar with them. And just so we're clear, you've admitted in the archives that your position is based on your own personal POV of the human body, so you're hardly a paragon of neutrality here. For the record, there are hundreds of free images on flickr.[4] So, why is this nude image still in the article? That's right, it's in the article because this page is being held hostage by POV pushers. Viriditas (talk) 03:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no memory of you in the discussions. I apologize. I have nothing more to say to you.(olive (talk) 03:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC))

I have more to say to you. My POV on the human body matches your own. However, I try not to let my POV interfere with Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 03:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I must have presented 4 or 5 alternative images. Now, please stop being disruptive, as it's disruptive to add things to this discussion as if you know what you're talking about when you don't, after people correct you. It may mislead others here and influence their thought process. B^e——C_ritical 04:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The sad irony here, is that the only disruption on this topic is coming from you and Dreadstar, and in fact, the disruption was enabled by you at 01:57, 22 October 2011 with your reinsertion of the controversial image,[5] and accompanied by a false edit summary authored by yourself where you blatantly lied and claimed your reinsertion of the image was "not a controversial change",[6] Now you've apparently taken to misleading others by claiming that any discussion about your disruption is in fact, disruption. I don't know where to begin with your false statements. Should we start with your false claim that the appropriate return to discussion and filing of the RfC was "disruption"? It was entirely appropriate for Doc James to file a new discussion, since you and others have unilaterally decided what's best for everyone else, even though there was no consensus for you to make your controversial change. Frankly, I'm rather disappointed by your attempt to shut down discussion on this page and your enabling of edit warring. Further, you claim that you have "presented" 4 or 5 alternative images, yet we see you returning the same disputed image to the lead section. Why haven't your added one of your 5 images instead? Viriditas (talk) 05:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

My bet is that we will get consensus this time around as a lot of confusion has been eliminated. And not everyone will be happy but oh well.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

That's actually the key to the solution. There either needs to be no image in the lead section, or an image that nobody wants. Viriditas (talk) 05:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, we really need to go to ArbCom if you really want to stand by your posts just now. B^e——C_ritical 05:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You mean the comment where you falsely accused me of misleading people and engaging in disruption?[7] Bring it on. Viriditas (talk) 06:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Support hatting

Because the people who "voted" against the clothed image have refused to "vote" in this new RfC, and this is making the supports pile up for one side of the argument. Then one admin will count the votes like it was a democracy, and the system will have been gamed. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. People refused to vote in this RfC because the issue was settled in the last one and this is disruption. We feel that the system is being gamed in that the issue is continually pushed in various ways, and then "controversy" is a reason to change the image. And further that soeme want to change the image so badly that they will take the time to wear down any opposition over the years. B^e——C_ritical 19:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I feel the process is being gamed here, and see no reason to take part in this, if the process isn't honest and fair. Further, we just went through a very long, unpleasant RfC. Life is way too short to waste on this kind of game playing. My concern isn't the image at this point, its a misuse of the system. (olive (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC))

It seems reasonable to make sure that anyone who wants to participate or any closing admin should be aware of the previous RfC. I don't think that the previous RfC settled much, though. There's clearly no consensus to keep the image, with large numbers of veteran editors strongly opposed to it, there just isn't a consensus to change it. We need an image we can all live with, not one that's forced on the community by the side that screamed the loudest. The new RfC and more screaming isn't going to fix this. I guess my question is: would people who support the current image support any other image, or is this specific image non-negotiable? SDY (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It is appropriate to open new discussions for ones that ended as no consensus. Either participate or not, but don't demand it be closed because you couldn't gain a consensus in your favor in the last one. If there is gaming, it's because those who are in favor of a nude image are not participating and the folks who opened the RFC are not at fault.--v/r - TP 21:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between "no consensus," and "no consensus to change." The latter is how the RfC ended.

(edit conflict)I for one would support various images. We just don't have a better one at this time, and none have been suggested (by me or others) that I thought were better. The current image isn't perfect, it's just that it's better than the alternative, and the reasons for changing it out all boil down to "composition," whatever that means, and nudity[8][9]. B^e——C_ritical 22:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

There was no consensus to keep it either.--v/r - TP 22:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not quite how consensus works: the current image is the longstanding consensus version, or it would have been changed. And there's still no consensus to change it. B^e——C_ritical 22:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's the reason the nude image is still there, it is not a reason to close a new discussion. I know how consensus works.--v/r - TP 22:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Pointless RfC, unless this one overturns the decision of the previous RfC. Nothing has changed that should allow that to happen. All we have is a bunch of dissatisfied editors hoping to keep trying until they get a perfectly valid umpire's decision overturned. This has to be an abuse of Wikipedia's processes. All my comments from the previous RfC stand, and I don't see the point nor have the time to repeat them here. Because there are no new parameters, I would expect a wise admin to read my (and everybody else's) comments in the previous RfC. If this is not done, it will be an RfC decided by shouting the loudest and most often. It will be a failure of process. And bad behaviour by that admin. I do not intend to comment again. HiLo48 (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

If the previous RFC had closed as keep the nude image I might agree with you. As it hasn't, there is no abuse of policy. If you are no longer interested in keeping up with the topic, then that's your call. But don't expect a closing admin to make the effort to take your previous comments into account when you refuse to make the effort to reenforce them.--v/r - TP 23:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I have explained why they should. You give no reason why they shouldn't, apart from the implication that it would make the job too big. That reinforces my point that this would then be an RfC decided on the basis of who shouts the loudest and most often. (And yes, I said I would not comment again, but posts that purport to respond to mine but ignore critical elements cannot be ignored.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Just a little note here: I'm sure you already know by now that closing admins don't look at who shouts louder, rather the individual rationale of each opinion. Wikipedia is not a democracy. ~ AdvertAdam ^on-mobile 20:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I think the image should be changed (basically the principle of least surprise)---but won't "!vote" on this RfC because I too think this is basically a farce. The last RFC was closed less than a month ago with the notes that if the copyright/permissions issue is resolved, then there would be no consensus to change, and if no consensus to change then the long standing image should remain. I think that was a fair reading of the previous RfC.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Balloon - actually, that's a misrepresentation of the RfC closure (and one that irks me). There were two issues conflated in the RfC:

• should the nude image be the lead image?
• is the image usable at all on the article or on wikipedia?

Obviously there is no consensus to remove the image entirely (from the article or the project), and that's fine. but the closing admin did not say that clearing up the licensing issue would also meant that the image should be moved back to the lead. there was a clear, unambiguous result that the image should not be the lead image. I was ok with the image being used farther down in the article. However, since editors Template:Nono misinterpreted the RfC result and moved the image back into the lead, we now need another RfC just on that issue.

Template:Nono let's all let the image go back to the third section where it belongs, so we can all get over it already! --Ludwigs2 15:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs, I very often agree with you, but here I don't. There was a consensus version image in the lead and it was relatively stable. This was /is the nude image. In the history you'll see that one editor in particular made repeated attempts to remove that image and replace it with the clothed image we have now. The closing admin implied, that if the permission issue was cleared up which it was, by default because there was no consensus for change, the article will revert to the consensus version. I, and others I assume, see the consensus version as the stable version, the nude image. I can understand that others may read the closing admin's comments differently, but there is no bad faith on my part ( I do agree with replacing the nude image for now), and I don't see bad faith in others either. Can we all see this as a difference of opinion. As for the RfC: My concern is that multiple attempts over time have been made to remove one image and replace it, with a recent comment referring to "my Image". That 's a concern for me as is the speed with which another RfC was opened following a very long drawn out past RfC. I think we could all do better to assume good faith and work from that platform. I can't vote at this time in this RfC since studying the history of this article leaves me feeling concerned with this new move and process and the way it is being carried out here-not bad faith, just serious concern. Hopefully I'm wrong in my assessment. (olive (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC))

I apologize for the 'bad faith' comment, and have retracted it (that was mostly a product of too much coffee too quickly - Starbucks drive through, argh!!!!!!). However, whatever one may think of image removal, the the RfC was 2:1 (or was it 3:2, I forget) in favor of moving it out of the lead. NOTCENSORED does not apply to placement of the image within the article (that's only for removal of images) so none of the typical gerrymandering arguments (e.g. we're not going to use these votes because they are a minority opinion) are usable. what we're left with is a clear consensus that the image should not be in the lead. Now if you don't want to buy that that's fine, but then you condemn us to having another RfC solely on the issue of moving the image out of the lead. do you seriously have any doubts that the new RfC will reach the same conclusion? --Ludwigs2 16:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Ludwig, please review the closing statement. The closing admin clearly states, "IF properly verified consent is obtained" then "there would be no consensus on this discussion" He left it up to OTRS to rule. The closing admin also stated, "consensus is required to change the long-standing state of an article, the nude photo should then be returned to the lead." As the issue relative to the images consent has been adequately addressed, the image should be returned to the lead. It is not the stance that I prefer, I think it should be moved down, but that is not what the closing admin stated. Opening a new RfC this close to the previous one is thus disruptive.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I can and do dispute that the RfC was no consensus (the only way one can reach that conclusion is by confusing the 'remove' and 'move' aspects of the RfC), but it's really not worth debating endlessly. A new RfC with a clarified question and none of the kneejerk responses to NOTCENSORED seems appropriate to me.

I'll add as a side note, however, that you are effectively reducing consensus to squatter's rights some editor added the image (apparently without much discussion) and by the time discussion gets focused on it the image has somehow acquired the power of law, requiring what seems like an act of God to remove it. that's just perverse. --Ludwigs2 18:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Put me on Coke (Cola) and I'd be the same way. Waaaay too fast. The closing admin dealt with the issues and vote count. I didn't. His comments are the bottom line here, not any other argument. He clearly stated that if the permission issue was dealt with by default we revert to no consensus to change the image, and there was by a general agreement over time consent to leave that nude image in the lead which is why there was an RfC in the first place. If there had been agreement to remove the nude image at any time it would have ben replaced. Believe me there were multiple tries to remove it. Had there been consensus to remove, we'd have another image and no RfC. My concern isn't with the images, either one. My concern is with manipulation of process. And nah (:o), I'm not condemning anyone to anything. I won't support a process that ignores part of the process itself-the closing admin., and I have concerns given the article history about the editor who began both RfCs. While I have a preference for an image, that was never enough reason for me to either spend multiple hours debating it, or now compromise my own integrity in an implied support of something I think is wrong.

In terms of image selection, subjective views on this are so engrained in the editors here, I don't see compromise. We have to realize that there is nothing objective about any of this except the uninvolved comment of the closing admin. Whether I like his comment or not, his word trumps my and any other opinion.... and its all opinion.

I suggest a new image since there was no true consensus per the RfC for either image. what we have inn place is there by default. It takes time and effort to clear new ground but that would be the fair thing to do, not having another RfC. Many editors who voted in the past may not even be aware this is all happening again. And many won't want to deal with it. I'd like to start again given some time. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.(olive (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC))

Well, I think you're right that a new image would be the best approach, but I have concerns (given what I've seen in this debate) that there will always be editors for whom no replacement image will ever be satisfactory (just as there will always be editors who will never accept this image). this page is going to be plagued by fanatical subjectivity no matter what we do. that's kind of why I liked the image being moved down - it seemed like an effective compromise. Oh well…

I hate to say it, but when debates come down to the opposition of subjective viewpoints, they are only resolvable through compromise. I suggest that we change this page dynamic - rather than the two sides we currently have, let's create a center block against the extremes. let's move to the thread below and start with the image Griswaldo suggested: I'd agree to that, if you like it too, and people like B.C., Dreadstar, and etc join in, then we can put that in the lead and move the art nude down again, and the center will be happy. or if not, we'll keep looking. --Ludwigs2 17:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The last RfC was a disaster, totally confused and confusing, guaranteed to deliver a conclusion that could be misinterpreted. Ludwig, however, argued that that the process was fine, that "everyone" understood the issues, and all would be well. That is, until the conclusion didn't go his way. And it didn't, even though he still wants to argue that it did. I said all I want to say on the many aspects of the first RfC. That "many" included the now narrowed topic. I will not repeat my comments. I don't have the time. Another RfC now, demanding MORE comments, is an abuse of process. It advantages those who shout the most often and loudest. I won't play that game. All my comments from before MUST be considered in this new RfC. My views haven't changed, and they don't disappear just because some people here don't have a life. HiLo48 (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, lets not make it personal, naming names, or we sink into swamp territory again. I agree with this,"Another RfC now, demanding MORE comments, is an abuse of process. It advantages those who shout the most often and loudest.", but trying to move on. (olive (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC))

@Ludwigs: I'm thinking about this but at this point the whole thing is pretty wearing, not sure what I want to do.(olive (talk) 02:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC))

I understand, all things considered. --Ludwigs2 03:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Happy to have a compromise if it's a good image. At the least, Ludwigs is right that each viewpoint is too subjective to make an obvious case. B^e——C_ritical 04:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Adding my support for hatting this nonsense on the grounds people like BeCritical have laid down. Frankly, I'm rather offended by the suggestion that the lead image has been reinserted on some sort of wikilawyering grounds. --Xomic_Talk 04:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

@olive. This isn't exactly a new idea- but no one has ever seemed to produce a different image.--Xomic_Talk 04:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose hatting. We have 16 people in support of the "new image" and only three in support of the "old image". Now that the copyright issue is dealt with the community opinion is much clearer. Attempts to end discussion at this point is little more than Wikilawyering.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

If there's any wikilawying going on, it's from you, not "us". The flaws in the original RfC were obvious and well articulated long before that RfC's month was up, yet it only seems to have bothered you when the actual issue upon which the admin who closed that RfC was resolved and there was no consensus.

Furthermore, despite your claims that 16 people are supporting you, a significant number of us who support the current (image 2) (or don't) aren't !voting in this RfC because it's disruptive. It's been filed less than 3 weeks after the last one, run on the heels of it becoming clear that the OTRS had resolved the issue that the closing admin had closed it on, thus restoring the status quo to the article. --Xomic_Talk 12:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The RfC should be scrapped because it is forcing a decision between two poor choices. Why is that image the only alternative?Griswaldo (talk) 11:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You are free to suggest others. Previously none however seem to have achieved much support. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I did suggest another image below. We don't even have to reverse it :). I think there is a very good case to made that the first image should be emblematic and eye catching more so than educational. There is plenty of room in the body of the entry to place educational images. I think it is clear from the discussion that the nude image is too controversial of a choice to be pragmatic. Moving it down into the entry and placing a very high quality and visually appealing image, like the one I'm suggesting, at the top seems like a great compromise. I think it could be good to restart that conversation (with an open mind to other images as well as the one I suggested) instead of staying stuck in this black and white choice between two images, which IMO are both bad. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not feel that one is any better than the two suggested above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Really? I fail to understand, as someone who is arguing against use of the nude image [in the lead], how you don't think this is better than at least that photo. Here are three very practical arguments for it being better than the other non-nude alternative. 1) It is much more visually striking in its emphasis of the pregnant belly specifically, 2) as silhouette it doesn't normalize any particular ethnicity, and 3) it doesn't have to be mirrored (which apparently is against policy). I'm not trying to compete with anyone here, just trying to get us out of this rut. I'm happy to discuss other alternatives as well.Griswaldo (talk) 14:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not arguing against the use of the nude image just that the nude image would be better placed lower in the article.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that, and was addressing that issue specifically all along. Now what do you think about the argument for using this image in the lead? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

oh, hell. I'm just about ready to move the nude image down and replace it with the Asian woman. Yes, I know it will cause everyone to freak out, but this talk page conversation is interminable. it's like this page is suffering from OCD. All the images are fine objectively; can we please go with one that has a marginal chance of satisfying everyone subjectively? --Ludwigs2 14:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

We have to wait till the copyright thing is straightened out before taking any further steps. B^e——C_ritical 17:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I hope you're being ironic, considering how much effort you put into pushing an image with far more questionable copyright status onto the article. You don't get to tell me that I have to follow the rules that you have so vocally broken. --Ludwigs2 17:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The image has been removed, so obviously we can't use it and have to wait for permission and copyright issues to be dealt with as I understand BeCritical's comment. He also posted the new image so I assume he is supporting its usage. Sorry Ludwigs I guess I don't understand your comment.(olive (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs, if you can do it in the next half hour, you have my full support in putting the new image into the lead. Or, you could just assume good faith and note that you can't put in an image which has been deleted. B^e——C_ritical 20:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

lol - hadn't noticed that, but it does serve to prove my point. how long did the current image sit around with abysmal permissions?

Wikipedia is such an irrational place.--Ludwigs2 20:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The nude image never had a copyright problem, it was verified as being properly licensed a long time ago, and re-verified by another commons admin this year. The only question raised was subject consent, which isn't a copyright issue. The OTRS permissions were added to completely shut down any possible copyright argument, but copyright wasn't really a problem prior to that. Dreadstar ☥ 21:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah and I never cared about the copyright disputes anyway. The Asian image already has perfectly good copyright permissions for use at Wikipedia by all rational standards. B^e——C_ritical 21:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Chiming in near the end here. I am probably among those most frequently called "religious" "conservative" around here, FWIW. Anyway, I personally have no particular objection to the inclusion of the nude picture in the article. The question is, basically, how high/prominent in the article. Having looked at both images, the only things I see that are pronouncedly different are the visibility of the breasts and the bone (or maybe cellulite?) at the top of the woman's outer thigh. The breasts are, admittedly, somewhat large, but I don't see myself how having a single image with large breasts is necessarily the best way to show that breasts enlarge. The model may have been well-endowed from the beginning, for all I can tell. If there were use of "before" and "after" pictures together, that might be more useful, but the inclusion of a nude "before" picture is itself I think of dubious encyclopedic use. So far as I can see, the primary use of a photo here is to indicate, basically, that the belly swells up in pregnancy. Most people I think already know this, and those who don't probably aren't really good typists who could find the article anyway. So I can't see any clear encyclopdic benefit from having the image prominently displayed at the beginning of the article. The clothed image conveys the basic point just as well, and maybe a bit better, because it is less titillating. This is not saying that I have any objection to the inclusion of the nude image at all, but do think that it might be better included later, maybe in the section specifically about the biological changes which result from pregnancy. John Carter (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Mirror image not allowed

Note that image 1 is not allowed on English Wikipedia, per MOS:IMAGES where it says "images should not be reversed" for mere layout preferences. The original USDA image has the pregnant woman facing right, not left.

• 
  Image 1, mirror image
  not allowed
• 
  Image 2
• 
  Image 1 original
  from USDA

The RfC cannot rule in favor of a disallowed image. Binksternet (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Facepalm Yes, the wikilawyers will be all over this should the RfC (which I still think is premature in light of the recent one) rule in favor of Image 1... what a clusterf... of course, the MOS does not state that reversed images CANNOT be used only should not be used. Also, the MOS is only a guideline, it is not a policy so it does not have the force of law, thus while the original image is prefered, the MOS does not dictate that it has to be that way.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I suggest you look at File:PregnantWoman.jpg and the file's history; namely that a user flipped the image as the comments were being added. That document doesn't apply to actions taken at Commons. Furthermore, I note that the manual of style is a guideline, calls for common sense, and allows exceptions. And your quoted language states should not, not must not or cannot. In no case would this provide a route to invalidate the latest RfC. Decide on an image, then decide which way it should face. – Adrignola talk 21:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• I believe the RfC to be out of process, but really, just vote and reverse. No one is voting for the image because of the way its facing. And lets assume good faith please, per accusations of wikilawyering. Sheesh! (olive (talk) 22:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC))

It seems to me that it is not right to do a mirror reversion of some person's image without obtaining his/her permission. The reversed image presents as the person's left side what is actually his/her right side. It is therefore (slightly) deceptive, thus this should not be done without the person's consent. Dessources (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• The MoS is a guideline, and one that is, for the most part, only cared about by the people that wrote it. It takes remarkably little for me to advocate ignoring it. Does the image look slightly better mirrored? Yes. Okay, ditch the pathetic micromanaging tome then and get on with it. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Principle of least surprise

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notice of related ArbCom request

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

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

What about this image?

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

• 
  What about this image?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Compromise images

• 
  1

• 
  2

I think the second image meets all our needs as a compromise, as it's asian (the ideal), has a bare belly, high quality image, and clothed. B^e——C_ritical 21:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the second image might work, too. Enough of the body is visible to educate the reader as to how pregnancy effect the external physiology, yet for those concerned about complete nudity, there is enough coverage. Its a compromise-something in between the nude image and the completely clothed one. (olive (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC))

Yes it is not bad. Wondering if the background could be cleaned up? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure, the license said something about no derivatives. But does that include cutting out the background, any more than it includes flipping image one above? B^e——C_ritical 03:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The second image is going to be deleted. The license isn't compatible with Wikipedia policy. Eeekster (talk) 04:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't give up on it, the image N- I mean, the image custodians may delete it but the owner has been emailed. B^e——C_ritical 08:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems as if Image 2 has been deleted? Can someone confirm? Touch Of Light (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It's been deleted, but we may yet get permission. B^e——C_ritical 19:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The Asian image above is back (: B^e——C_ritical 06:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Now if we can just get people to put aside the RfC above and move to on discussing this image, which so far has had no opposition as far as I can tell.Griswaldo (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I like it too. And yes, hopefully we can move to this compromised version of an image which should satisfy everyone.(olive (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC))

I am opposed to this image. Pregnancy is about more than just a swollen belly; it induces changes to the breasts as well, which are best illustrated with a nude shot. Powers ^T 19:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Pregnancy is about more than that. In fact it's 99% about things happening inside the body so I'm not sure why there is such a focus on swollen bellies and changes of the breasts in the first place. I'm also unsure how you illustrate changes in the breasts in a shot that has no context for those changes. People who are unaware of these changes wont learn anything about them from a contextless image in the first place. So I don't see that as useful argument. I'm not opposed to the nude btw, I just think that it's impractical given the concerns raised by others, and the fact is that it doesn't show breast changes because there is no context so I don't think that's a good reason to overlook the concerns. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

For the same reason we don't choose a shot of a woman who's, say, eight weeks pregnant and use that. Even without a comparison image, showing the appearance of a pregnant woman's body is the whole point of the infobox image. Powers ^T 20:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

My point is specifically about the breasts, which you wouldn't know are swollen without a comparison image. You were arguing that somehow it is more informative to see the breasts and I'm saying I don't buy it. The Asian woman depicted above also shows the swollen belly. The noticeable difference is in the breast view. I'd like to hear a reasonable case for the need to show the breasts and I'm not hearing it.Griswaldo (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

There are multiple comments, in weeks-long discussion, in the previous RfC that address full nudity. The focus of this thread was on a compromise image, something between full nudity and the fully clothed image being suggested in the second RfC. Griswaldo and others, could I suggest checking the archives for discussion points about nudity unless you already have, and could we please focus on this next step in the process which is about compromise. Perhaps, if there are further comments about full nudity a new section could be started leaving this thread to deal with the compromise images. The thought of more convoluted discussion is pretty daunting. Thanks for your help in keeping this focused.(olive (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC))

The #2 image is fine and a great deal better than the previous two options. The filename is dreadful however, and should be changed. Can we please move on rather than rehash the same old arguments. Colin°^Talk 22:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the present title is very awkward. How about, Pregnancy: Huang... her last name. Humanizes it a little. Any other ideas?(olive (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC))

To me #2 image looks as if the breasts have been artificially covered exclusively to protect the sensitivities of those who cannot deal with nipples. It's actually a quite unnatural picture. Oh, and #1 is just too vague. Requires too much interpretation. When are the pro-censorship crew going to stop playing this game? HiLo48 (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Who exactly is the "pro-censorship crew?" What I see are editors with varying perspectives coming to some sort of compromise for the good of the entry. It also seems to me, in reading the talk page, that many of the people who are against the naked picture are not for censorship and are, like myself, quite adamant about keeping the nude image further down on the page. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's not mince words. Moving the current picture anywhere would be censorship. HiLo48 (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

People are trying to put aside their ideologies to move forward. Others apparently aren't willing to. Oh well. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Some people may be prepared to compromise Wikipedia's standards and guidelines. I am not. I have not changed my views. I have made them clear several times above. That position must continue to count here too. I have every right to argue against a "compromise". We are pandering to the most persistent and loudest complainers who have more time than I do to repeatedly present a case here. In all this ongoing conversation we cannot ignore ALL the points made by ALL the posters above. Many have eased back on their efforts here due to having a life. The argument must not be won by those who don't. HiLo48 (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The top the woman is wearing is a common-style, strapless top worn in hot weather. We can safely assume many people do not want to be exposed nude all over the internet. No judgment. We 're trying to end a deadlock here so lets move on with that,eh?(olive (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC))

Calling the outfit "common-style" is a cultural judgement. And this is not about asking people "to be exposed nude all over the internet." It's about finding a picture that demonstrates pregnancy well. And we already have one! Any deadlock here has been created by the pro-censorship crew seeking action that breaches Wikipedia guidelines. HiLo48 (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)