Talk:Mother

Mama and Ma

The words Mama, Mom and Ma are used in all Dutch speaking countries around the world. Not just The Netherlands. I'm from the Flemish part of Belgium (Dutch-speaking), a neighboring country of The Netherlands, that's how I know. The words are also used in South Africa, and many of the former colonies of The Netherlands. Marjolijn 15:48, 15 November 2007 (CET)

Youre right! the part about synonyms is wrong "mum or mummy, is used in the UK, Netherlands, Australia.", ive never heard anyone saying "mum" in dutch! we say "mama". anyway im not too sure about editing the page, so maybe someone else will.

It would be nice if this can be changed by someone who is autoconfirmed or higher. Ma/Mam/Mammy(mammie) is used in all Dutch speaking countries, not Mum —Preceding unsigned comment added by Recadra (talk • contribs) 18:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes could someone please edit this? Mama / Ma / Mam / Mammie is used in Dutch. We do not use the english terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annerosa (talk • contribs) 16:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Photos

Looking at this page again, I think there is a disconnect between the text and the illustrations. Clearly the text is almost completely about mother as the "female parent of a human being" whether biological or surrogate. There is virtually no text about non-humans, and none about ducks and goats. So why do we have pictures of ducks and goats? I see no discussion here about this, so am removing them. Tvoz |talk 06:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Why the migrant mother image as the lead? Odd. She does not represent motherhood in any archetypal sense, in fact, it's vaguely propagandist and a poor choice. She looks depressed. Why not go whole hog in true wiki fashion and show some woman having an abortion? Motherhood is a choice right ^_^ 81.133.168.56 (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The lead image for this article is a featured picture. Durova^Charge! 22:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree that "Migrant Mother" is an inappropriate picture. The featured picture for Father displays a happy emotional connection between father and child--AS IS PROPER FOR HEALTHY CHILD DEVELOPMENT. "Migrant Mother" is not representative of typical motherhood and should be replaced with another featured picture. (Origen01 (talk) 09:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC))

I agree. Choice of migrant mother is disgusting, a slap in the face to the concept of motherhood and the supreme bond between human children and their mothers. Also, quite an ugly image. 92.251.80.224 (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Use of the Migrant Mother image is discussed at some length in Self-promotional image removed below. I support its retention as a quality image which depicts the need children have for their mother. It also satisfies WP:NPOV criteria. -- Trevj (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Mom/Mum in Canada

I'm from Canada and have never encountered anyone here who spells the word with a "u" as in UK and Australia. "Mom" is taught in schools throughout Canada (including Eastern Canada, which the article states is a "u" hotspot). I edited this out, but if there is a minority of people (other than immigrants from U-spelling areas) who actually are taught to spell it this way, someone should add that. Also, since Canada uses "mom" just as much as the US, is saying that it is used "especially in the US" irrelevant? (also lol@ the post above mine) M.nelson (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we Canadians all spell it "Mom" but we do generally say "mum"... the long-o of "moooom" you hear on commercials still sounds very American. --Saforrest (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I must agree. Perhaps the people around me are "unique" but here in Hamilton (ON) almost everyone I know says "mum". As in "how is your mum?" or "come to mummy" or "let me ask my mum". Although, "mom" is quite prevalent in use as well. I actually spell the word as "mom" or "mum" interchangeably although the the way I was taught it in primary school was, indeed, mom. Celynn (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Ma/Mam/Mammy in the UK

I have corrected the fact that Ma, Mam and Mammy is used in the UK as well as in Ireland, as most people I know refer to their mothers as Mam or Mammy as well as Mum and Mummy. Basilbrushfan (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Self-promotional image removed

I've removed Image:Daisy Romwall from Morro Bay, United States.jpg from the article. It could be a picture of anyone (an aunt, a sister, a friend, a social worker) so it adds nothing to the article. It's a nice pic for a family photo album or a userpage, but according to the image use policy, "These images are considered self-promotion and the Wikipedia community has repeatedly reached consensus to delete such images." Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken, it is not a user created image. Rather it was transferred from Flickr by User:Lamilli who is German and a prolific contributor to Wikimedia Commons. I'll be putting it back in since the policy you cite does not apply and because it does add substance to the article to actually have a photo of a mother in it. —Ashanda (talk) 09:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what being German has to do with anything.

Look at the description on the image page: "I love her, with all my heart, and if ever I knew love, this is it." Obvious self-promotion. And, as I said, it doesn't add anything because for all we know that's an aunt, a cousin, a social worker, etc. Adds nothing to the article. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 13:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"Self-promotion" has to do with trying to sell something here, using wikipedia like it was the classified ads. In this case, what are they trying to sell? For money, I mean. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That's simply not correct. From the Image Use Policy: "Images with you, friends or family prominently featured in a way that distracts from the image topic are not recommended for the main namespace; User pages are OK. These images are considered self-promotion and the Wikipedia community has repeatedly reached consensus to delete such images."

Nothing about making money there. It's vanity; a cheap way to wiggle an image of oneself into a Wikipedia article. If an image of a mother is really so important, I'm sure there are plenty of PD images of notable classical subjects that can suffice. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 20:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is one such example. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 20:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Those are ugly-looking images, and they distract from the topic. How does a picture of an actual mother-with-child, as opposed to ancient weird-looking artwork, distract from the topic? If they hadn't had the gushy stuff and instead simply said "a mother with her child", would that have been OK? What is it about that image that you find specifically "distracting" from the topic? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems the image was uploaded by a user who is not the subject (that's what the "being German" has to do with this conversation: The image is supposed to be a mother from Morro Bay USA - the uploader is from Germany). So the self-promotion (which I agree does not simply apply to commercial motives) does not apply since it is not a self or family/friends photo here. It may have been self promotion of Flikr but that does not transfer when it's chosen by an unconnected editor.

I also agree with Baseball bugs that the classical images you suggest are not that great and don't illustrate the article nearly as well. -- SiobhanHansa 22:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You also point out in your edit summary that it's not the uploader's photo, so how it can be "self-promotion" is mystifying. Also, the argument that it could be an aunt rather than a mother - well, those antique artworks are of a mythical goddess, and a Madonna respectively, so there's no evidence that those are "real" mothers either. The former is from someone's imagination, and the latter could be any woman with any child. Maybe it's the nose ring that the complainant doesn't like? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's probably the nose ring that the tattooed, goateed, Metallica-fan complainant doesn't like. Give me a break. Keep to the discussion, and don't start going after me personally. I also have no idea what edit summary you're referring to; because of the description on the image page and its title, I'm not at all convinced that the uploader isn't the subject. Do you have a diff for that claim? The original copyright holder is the one who took the picture and uploaded it to Flikr, but the Wikipedia uploader can certainly be the subject of the photo. There's no reason a person from Germany and a person from California can't be friends.

The image I gave was just a quick example, used because it has two examples in one. There are lots of others. Pretty much anything published pre-1922 will be free and would avoid the appearance of blatant self-promotion, and the use of a notable mother-son or mother-daughter pairing would avoid the appearance of simple vanity. There are lots of famous pairs in history and mythology; this very article lists several of them. Whether you believe in the virgin Mary or not it's a notable mother-child depiction and I'm sure you can find a good example from Rembrandt or something. There are probably even free images of Jackie Kennedy with JFK Jr., or Queen Elizabeth with Prince Charles, if you're worried about "real" examples. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 12:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You are the one claiming it's self-promotion. What's your evidence for that? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The title, the description, and the pointless inclusion. In the end, though, I don't need any evidence at all. It makes perfect sense to replace it with a better one. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 14:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The title is just what it was uploaded as and has no bearing on whether it is appropriate for the article - the description (which was horrendous) has been changed to something much ore appropriate. If you have a better image to suggest please do. I think that for a general subject like this the lede photo should be a contemporary, realistic image such as the photo you removed rather than an historical one. -- SiobhanHansa 14:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Says who? There's no basis in policy for that. For a general subject, the lead photo should be a good one, most importantly. The lead images in articles like sibling or other general articles like automobile aren't exactly contemporary examples. On the contrary, they show a classical example because it helps avoid modern cultural bias. By the way, I think the images in the father article are blatantly inappropriate as well. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 14:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well that might be why I put "I think" at the start of that opinion. I would also note that your assertions are not acked up by policy either. This would be editorial judgment that we need to discuss and agree upon as part of Wikipedia's collaborative editing process.

I quite like the current Image:Lange-MigrantMother02.jpg though I would prefer a color image. On the example articles you give my opinions would be: siblings - awful illustrations; automobile - I like the way they lead through an historical timeline, not something that could be done easily with "mother"; father - I like the illustration they have, it's certainly a lot better than the siblings article, though it could use extra images elsewhere to cover a greater range of portrayals. -- SiobhanHansa 15:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

My feelings about the other pic are based on policy: the image use policy on self-promotion, as I've already said. It's obvious vanity, and it shouldn't be used. The fact that the uploader is German is irrelevant; the self-promotion policy extends to friends as well as oneself. I've explained that enough. I think it's obvious that I don't have a conflict of interest here, either with that particular uploader or with the picture I replaced it with, so there's no reason not to assume my change was made in good faith. The migrant mother is a featured picture, which means it's one of the best Wikipedia has to offer, and black & white vs. color is a pointless argument (as is your characterization of The Princes in the Tower as an "awful illustration"). My stance against that other photo is based on clear rules in the IUP, and none of the arguments against that have been anything but speculation and opinion. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 16:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You have presented no evidence that it is, in fact, "self promotion". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) As Baseball Bugs notes you are quoting a policy that you have been unable to show applies and which other editors have shown does not apply. There is no basis for assuming there is a connection between the uploader and the picture subject. I don't assume your change was made in "bad faith" or that you have a conflict of interest just that you misapplied a policy which initially resulted in a poorer article. Mistakes are made - it does not mean others should not point out those mistakes or correct them.

On the Migrant mother photo I've already said I like it - I expect I like it for many of the reasons it gained featured photo status. That said, color is not "pointless", in general color photos are better illustrations when realism is desired. I am merely saying that if we can find an otherwise equally good photo that is also in color it would be better. Being a featured photo is a good indication that the quality of an image is one of the best available but it does not automatically make it an ideal (or best) illustration for a particular article.

Also, slightly off topic but I hope this will help explain some of my reasoning and help push this discussion into more useful territory, in my characterization of the images on siblings I was meaning in the context of illustrating the article - not as an assessment of the illustrations as portraits. I do not see that the images in that article are particularly illuminating to the subject there, especially since the intricacies of 19th century portraiture (and the story of the princes in particular) is fairly irrelevant to the article. The first 3 images in that article are all 19th Century paintings of privileged Europeans and all boy/all girl couplings at that. I think that lack of variety and applicability to the article fails to illustrate such a broad subject well. -- SiobhanHansa 17:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs doesn't get to decide whether policy is correctly applied. Neither do you. If it appears to be self-serving (which it certainly does, and I have given evidence - the title and the description on the image page) then it shouldn't be used. I don't need incontrovertible evidence of it. I don't even know what that would consist of - how could one possibly make it more clear? I replaced it with a far better picture—not just by my own standards, but by Wikipedia's standards. The policy does apply.

I've said all I need to say about this. If anyone has further problem with that they are more than welcome to start dispute resolution. It's such an obvious conflict of interest between uploader and subject that it would be an absolute waste of time for either of you, and I can't imagine how replacing such a crappy photo would serve anyone's interests in any way. But by all means, bring it to the community if you feel up to it. Otherwise, I'm done here. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 15:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The bit of the policy you quoted states it refers to image uploaded by their creator. This image was uploaded from a flikr page by an editor who uploads a lot of images from many different flikr pages and there is no indication the uploader is in any way connected to the image creator or its subject. The title and descriptions were taken directly from the flikr page they are no indication that the image was uploaded to Commons in a self-promoting manner. Bring what to the community exactly? There's now an adequate photo on the page - I'm not a dick trying to make pointy edits. I'm simply letting you know (along with the other editors who have commented on this thread) that your reasoning is incorrect so you don't repeat it in the future. -- SiobhanHansa 17:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

He has failed to demonstrate any conflict of interest, that's just his theory based on nothing. The current black and white photo is definitely a better illustration than some Egyptian goddess, though. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Photograph of mother

The photograph currently being used in the article is famously known for the distress of a mother during the United States Great Depression, and while it is, in fact, a photo of a mother, it is synonymous with hardship. Associating motherhood with hardship fails the NPOV test, so new image(s) are needed.

The goal should be to have one or more photographs of mothers which are, as much as possible, unencumbered with other connotations, celebrity, or added complexity (meaning unrelated to the article of Mother) to what should be a simple illustration of a mother. The child or children should also be in the photograph to illustrate motherhood, although the mother should have equal or greatest visibility. Also they should be easy to view and understand and meet the other standard requirements of photographs of Wikipedia.

Here are some I nominate from Wikimedia. I think two to three of various mothers are probably in order to avoid future wp:edit warring.

Photos of mothers

Mother 1	Mother 2	Mother 3	Mother 4

I'm interested in hearing your opinions and/or seeing any additional nominations. Thanks. DavidBailey (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That's quite a stretch. The main photo doesn't necessarily impart any point of view. If we're going to read that much into a photo, the ones you're suggesting are associating motherhood with kindness, closeness, and happiness... which by your rule would also be unacceptable. Yes, POV can be read into any photograph, but in reality all the photos - including the main one - are fine. I think the other ones would be a reasonable addition elsewhere in the article; there's plenty of room for more than one photo, but the main one should be an objectively good one. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 15:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Not as much of a stretch as you might think. That photograph is considered iconic of hardship and despair. It is well known. It is the celebrity that causes it to fail the NPOV test. DavidBailey (talk) 10:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It's famous for depicting the despair of the Depression, not the despair of being a mother. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 14:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Which is precisely why it is the wrong photo for the mother article. DavidBailey (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It has to do with the Great Depression, so it's inappropriate? That doesn't even make any sense. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 16:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Your assertion that a photograph that is widely associated with a separate and non-relevant issue is most appropriate for a representative photograph on a unrelated article is what doesn't make sense. Please read and consider Wikipedia:Relevance of content. Thanks. DavidBailey (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The photo that is the lead now goes back to the old discussion; how do we know that's a mother and daughter? Could be an aunt. Could be a teacher. Could be a grandmother. The other one is an iconic mother-child relationship, so we know. It's also more likely that it's self-promotion. Obviously I didn't take the Migrant Mother picture. It wasn't my first choice for the article, either (my first choice was something even more timeless, like Mary or Isis) but that one works. The only objective standard we can use for a lead image is its status with the rest of the community; Migrant Mother is a Featured Image. The others are not.

Photos can show more than one thing. In this case, the photo does show the emotional effects of the Depression. It also very strikingly shows children clinging to their mother, rather than a mother clinging to her child (as all those other ones do). It's an important distinction, and it's relevant even if someone is completely unfamiliar with the context of the photo. If I went on and on about the Depression in the caption, that would be irrelevant. But nobody is doing that. You're just inferring it because you know the context of the picture. The article isn't about indigenous people in Brazil, either, but the picture of the mother with the tank top is still okay. And a fit, blond haired, upper class mother with nice skin is by no means representative of mothers the world over. Fine to keep it in the article, but the lead photo should be the best one we have. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 15:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I apologize, Kafziel for not understanding your rationale. Photographs can, of course, show more than one thing, but the reason the photo was chosen as a Featured Image was not as a representative of motherhood, but rather because it well illustrates the despair related to the Great Depression. The featured picture description states that a featured picture is "among the best examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer." In other words, it is the best picture to illustrate the Great Depression. We need photographs which are unencumbered with such affiliation if we are to meet the NPOV. For example, if I choose to put the lead picture in Christianity as Satan, even if it is an amazing picture, intricately detailed, and wonderfully colored, it is still not appropriate as the primary representation of Christianity. Or perhaps as a better example, if you have a wonderful photograph of the Hindenburg going down in flames, it will not be the best lead photo in the aviation article, regardless of how excellently it illustrates the Hindenburg disaster. As to as whether the images in question are actually mothers and children, I am taking the word of the author. In fact, we cannot verify that the woman in the Migrant Mother photograph is actually the mother of the children near her either. We are taking the word of the photographer. If you can explain to me why your chosen photograph is the "best one we have" to illustrate what a mother is, I would be happy to understand your reasoning. DavidBailey (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, you're stretching. We're not talking about putting a picture of Satan as the lead in the Christianity article. We're talking about putting a picture of a mother as the lead in the mother article. And I'm an admin, so you can rest assured I'm somewhat familiar with basic policies like NPOV. This has nothing to do with that, and bringing it up again just smacks of wikilawyering. Let's not do that. What would the supposedly POV message even be? That motherhood can be challenging sometimes? That's not a point of view. That the Depression happened? Not a point of view. That some mothers have been poor at some point in history? That's not a point of view.

Look: Featured images don't get featured for just one reason, any more than featured articles get featured for just one reason. They are debated and discussed at length when necessary, not just about the subject but the composition, the focal length, the f-stop, the saturation, the contrast... In this case, the decision was unanimous, and the image is featured across four different Wikipedias. Images aren't featured for a specific use; they are featured on their own merits and then used as the community sees fit. It's not a picture of the Depression - it's a picture of a mother and her children. I don't see any bread lines in the background. I don't see any stockbrokers jumping out of windows. In fact, it didn't even say anything about the depression until you added it (quite unnecessarily) to the caption. It's a notable, verifiable, featured-quality example of a mother. The others simply aren't. And, no, we're not just taking the photographer's word for it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I really don't understand your hostility. I also don't understand your perspective. Famous photographs obviously have meaning beyond what they specifically show. They have meaning implied by the event they are associated with. Public relations consultants make a living off this. You see the swoosh, you think Nike. You see the a target, you think Target Stores, etc. That photograph is a famous representation of a woman during the Great Depression. You see the photo, you think Great Depression and all the difficulties that went along with it, not "Mother". That's the POV. It's not neutral. I understand that featured pictures are judged on other criteria, but becoming a featured picture doesn't automatically mean that anything shown in the picture would be best served by that picture. Are we going to use it on the article for blankets because the photograph contains one? I am trying to assume good faith, but I don't understand why you are so insistent on having it be the primary photograph of the article. Could you explain to me why you feel it is so important that *this particular* photograph is the lead? I am willing to compromise with other photos. Why aren't you? DavidBailey (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Because this one is good, and those aren't. It's really as simple as that. I'm not trying to be hostile; I'm just telling you what I think. And, in that case, I'm right. You said we had to take the photographer's word for it, and we don't. If you have another featured image you think would be better, I'd be willing to take a look, and if the subject of the image is confirmed by independent reliable sources to be a notable example of a mother (as this one is), that would be a start. And it's 100% free use. Maybe you see the photo and think of the Great Depression, but that's not all it means to all people. And again, you're stretching by trying to compare this to a logo. It's apples and oranges. This isn't a copyrighted, universal icon. It's a good photo, and to some people (with a particular POV based on western culture and a knowledge of 20th century history) it might conjure up images of poverty and hardship... and, again, I say, so what? Photo 2 conjures up images of poverty in the Peruvian Andes for me, but it would still be okay. NPOV doesn't stand for "No Point Of View". The idea that motherhood has its hardships is by no means undue weight. All the pictures you offered up are good. Migrant Mother is just better. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 05:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Why you would select a photograph with such an unpleasant connotation as the primary photograph for the Mother article is beyond me. As we are at an impasse, would you be opposed to mediation? DavidBailey (talk) 13:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Mediation isn't necessary. One photo is an amateur shot of what may or may not be the photographer's wife and kid. If the photographer doesn't know the subject, then for all he knows it's an aunt, a sister, a social worker, etc. If the photographer does know the subject, it's self-promotion under the image use policy. I'd be willing to keep it in either way, as long as it's not the main picture.

The other photo is a famous, featured, public domain image of a notable subject that is verifiably a mother. It doesn't necessarily have an unpleasant connotation. It has a realistic connotation. NPOV has nothing to do with hiding reality. So mediation isn't going to help your case, it's just going to waste someone's time. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 16:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Having strong opinions doesn't make you right. DavidBailey (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

No, being right makes me right. I have yet to state an opinion about the image; that's all you. All I've said is that the community feels it is an excellent photo, that policy requires verifiability and frowns upon self-promotion, and that you're trying to apply NPOV incorrectly. Those are facts, not opinions. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Careful my friend, there's a fine line between confidence and arrogance. Let's involve mediation shall we? DavidBailey (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you think mediation is? It's no different than Baseball Bugs saying the photo is fine, as he already has. There's your WP:3O, from a guy who (as you can see from the above discussion) is clearly not a fan of my work. You have your opinion, I have the rest of Wikipedia. I've already shown my willingness to compromise (I think those other photos, despite their lack of sources, are okay to include in the article, and if you can come up with other featured-quality, sourced images I'd be willing to discuss them for the main photo) and meanwhile you've done nothing but argue. I'm not going to waste anyone else's time on this. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I've not only been through mediation, I've led mediation. I know exactly what mediation is. It's not about being a fan of your work or anyone's work. It's about creating the best articles with most informative, relevant content on the topic. DavidBailey (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Mediation is about clarifying talking points as they relate to policy. Anything else is a matter of opinion, and mediation doesn't do that. You've ignored all my talking points, so there's nothing to mediate. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

In any case, I have added Mother 1 and Mother 4 to the article, and also left the existing photo, as well as edited the content into sections. Please help me in continuing to add relevant and useful content to the article. Thanks. DavidBailey (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

They're all good. Here's another twist on it. In some of the old WB cartoons, just as a character is going through "death throes", sometimes the last thing he does is look into the camera (i.e. at the audience) and whimper, "Mother!" Maybe a still of The Draft Horse mouthing the word would convey yet another meaning. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh, no. DavidBailey (talk) 13:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Starting over

I don't want to get into a tangential argument about mediation. Mediation is way premature at this point, so I'm unindenting here so we can start over, back on track. My points:

1. The Image Use Policy frowns on self-promotional photos, which #1 and #3 almost certainly are. That's okay, so long as they're not given such prominent placement as to distract from the subject.
2. Photos 2 and 4 are completely unverifiable through use of reliable sources. How do we know it's a mother and child? We don't. That's not necessarily unacceptable, provided nobody has a problem with them (I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt). But they are clearly set in the same (or worse) socioeconomic climate as "Migrant Mother", so any supposed POV projected by the latter would also be projected by the former. Poor people are allowed to have their pictures on Wikipedia.
3. In fact, "Migrant Mother" does not project any particular point of view about motherhood. Some people—those who are familiar with western culture and the historical context of the photo—might feel it resembles hardship, but "hardship" is not a point of view. It's a condition, and a very common one at that. NPOV does not mean "No Point Of View"; it means "Neutral Point of View". To show an image that might imply (to some) that motherhood requires a certain strength of character is by no means undue weight. Is your position that motherhood is always easy? Is that anyone's position?
4. "Migrant Mother" satisfies WP:V, WP:N, WP:PD, and WP:RS. It is also a Featured Image on four different Wikipedias. It's even been made into a postage stamp. If all other things are equal among the five photos, it is clearly the best one from an objective, policy-based standpoint.

I'm not opposed to other suggestions that satisfy the same basic qualifications of verifiability, free use, and featured status. I also think the other four photos are acceptable for use in the article, just not as the main image. Since we have a good image, we should use it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

To respond to your points:

1. Please explain how #1 and #3 are self-promotional. I don't know the photographers. I don't know how they can be self-promotional.
2. I'm sorry, but this argument just seems trite to me. If the photograph looks like a mother and daughter and it's unencumbered with restrictive licenses, and is crisp, clear, and relevant, why wouldn't it be appropriate? Also, it's not about socioeconomics, it's about the fame of the photograph and popular association with the Great Depression.
3. Associating the primary photograph for the article of Mother with the Great Depression most certainly is a point-of-view. Please read my above comments about using the Hindenburg going down in flames as the primary picture for the Aviation article. It's not just about featured-status, it's about relevance. No one thinks Motherhood is easy, but at the same time, neither is it equivalent to the despair of the Great Depression.
4. Perhaps, except for a few things. Firstly, black and white photograph is not preferable to a color one, unless there is no other choice. A photograph famously associated with a significant event, such as the Great Depression, is not appropriate for an unrelated article.

I hope this helps you to understand my concerns about your selection. If you don't like the ones I've selected, how about giving me some examples of pictures that meet both of our criteria for a good photograph? DavidBailey (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

1. - Whether you know the photographer/subject doesn't matter. The nature of the wiki is that anyone can change any photo, so what matters is the original uploader (in this case, whoever uploaded the photo to Flikr/Wikimedia).
2. - "If the photograph looks like a mother and daughter and it's unencumbered with restrictive licenses, and is crisp, clear, and relevant, why wouldn't it be appropriate?" I don't know. You tell me. That's what I've been saying all along.
3. - I say again - this is not a picture of the Great Depression. It is a picture of a woman during the Great Depression, just like photo 1 is a picture of a woman in the 21st century, photo 2 is a picture of a woman in modern-day Peru, etc. Just because you associate it with that doesn't make it a singular, universal fact. You've been trying add your POV (that it represents hardship) since this discussion began, but the photo itself doesn't have one. It's just a photo.
4. - a)Please point to the guideline that says color photos are preferable to black and white. I'd be very interested in seeing that. b) It is not unrelated. This is the mother article. The picture is of a mother. It's right there in the title. Its fame doesn't matter; look at the lead images for sibling. An English history buff would associate that painting with the sad story of the Princes in the Tower, but it's still a good picture of siblings.

I'd be delighted to give you some alternatives, but I have yet to find any that are as good. The alternative I offered before I found this one was this one (or a variation of it). But it pales in quality to Migrant Mother. Again, I am willing to take a look at any featured-quality, verifiable images anyone can produce. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 23:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I would agree with David. Using migrant mother for an article on motherhood as the lead photo makes no sense. By doing so, you equate the Great Depression and motherhood. Just because it is featured is also not an excuse. Geoff Plourde (talk) 07:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

In response to Kafziel above:

1. I reject this argument. It would disqualify any modern photograph from Wikipedia. Take a look around at some other articles. You seem to be the only one hung up on this point.
2. Great! We agree on something!
3. I disagree with you on this point. It is the fame of the photograph which disqualifies it. It is the lead photograph of the article, the Great Depression. If you do a Google Image Search on Great Depression, it is returned as the second and fifth results. The photograph is encumbered with the popular association of the Great Depression. This is fails the NPOV test.
4. I agree that your proposed alternative is probably worse than what is there right now. I believe that the problem is that you have placed additional restrictions on selection of the lead picture which Wikipedia policy does not impose. This is limiting you to a very small selection of less-than-optimal pictures.

Sorry, but whether or not you are willing to take a look is irrelevant. It is the duty of all Wikipedia editors to find the best and most relevant content, based on Wikipedia policy and frankly common sense, to write the best encyclopedia articles. If you (and even others) stand in the way of this, either you or ultimately Wikipedia, must fail. DavidBailey (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

1. No it wouldn't. Just the ones in which the photographer's family or friends are the main subject. And that's exactly as it should be, per the IUP. I'm not making this up.
2. Migrant Mother looks like a mother and daughter and it's unencumbered with restrictive licenses, and is crisp, clear, and relevant. That's not my opinion - that's the FI consensus.
3. Show me a guideline that says fame disqualifies photos for use in certain articles.
4. You ignored my previous request for a guideline that says color is superior to B&W. Still waiting.

In fact, show me any guideline, anywhere, or any precedent on any photo that shows any support for your stance. And I don't mean support you can squeeze out of something by twisting unrelated policies like NPOV; I mean explicit support. Explicit as in, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."

Quote me a policy. A guideline. Anything at all. I've given you several for mine. Give me one for yours. Let's start with that. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 04:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's try this.

1. The policy states the following, and I quote: "Images with you, friends or family prominently featured in a way that distracts from the image topic are not recommended for the main namespace;" None of this applies to any of these photographs. I have no relationship to the photographers in any of these cases. The photographer has no relationship with these subjects. They agreed to be photographed at a festival. (I'll share the email if you like.) If you don't believe me, I'm happy to pick others from other photographers.
2. Great. It's a great picture for the Great Depression article, not for this one.
3. It falls under WP:NPOV. You can't associate the main picture of the Mother article with the Great Depression and say there's no POV here. It can't be done.
4. Unfortunately, there isn't any official policy or guideline related to the quality of the photograph. Aside from saying it should be high-resolution and the image formats, it really doesn't touch on the issue. As far as color goes, color is added richness that increases the amount of information in the photograph. WP policy only states that a photograph should not rely only on color to make its point, as color is not always available. However, it makes sense that you would want photography of the highest quality available today to illustrate a topic, if available, and if it meets the other criteria, unless a historic photograph is needed to illustrate the topic. If you were to put a photography book together today of a topic, you wouldn't expect black and white photography unless it added to the artistic expression of the photography. In fact, using your argument, the caveman charcoal drawings on the ceilings of caves should be used in the Buffalo or Gazelle article.

Sorry, when it comes to preference of a photograph or a way to state things, discussions such as we're having is supposed to resolve the issue. Since you aren't willing to budge, we need to form a consensus of editors. If you like we could conduct a straw poll. DavidBailey (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

So, cutting through all the nonsense here, what you're saying is that you don't have any policies that support anything you've said. Okay then. That's what I thought. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 23:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

That's your take. As I've said before NPOV and undue weight perfectly support my position, even if you don't think so. DavidBailey (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

So your argument is "does too!" Okay then. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 15:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Here are some comments from someone not previously involved in this discussion: I think the Depression photo of a mother is a very good photo. It illustrates one aspect of motherhood and puts it in a particular historical context. I don't see a good reason why it should be banned from the article. On the other hand, it is hardly THE archetype of motherhood everywhere. I particularly like the Guajajara mother with her son--not because all mothers around the world belong to this particular ethnic group, but because of the pose the two have. The other (still captionless) photo strikes me as a bit kitschy-soft-focus-sentimentalizing, but it is good that the mother and daughter are looking each other in the eye to show the relationship the two have.--Bhuck (talk) 11:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI- I've never advocated banning the photo from the article, just moving it down into the article and letting a more representative photograph be the lead photograph. I'm actually asking for very little change here. DavidBailey (talk) 14:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, nothing is THE archetype of motherhood everywhere. Nobody is claiming that. "Migrant Mother" is just the best photo we have for free use on Wikipedia at the moment. To be honest, I like the Peruvian one the best. But it's not quite the same level of quality, and (most importantly) it doesn't meet WP:V. Anything that can't be independently verified by a reliable source can be removed. So liking one or the other doesn't really matter. Only "Migrant Mother" meets verifiability and, since it is a notable picture, it avoids any appearance of vanity or self-promotion. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

True, however, we should strive to find a photograph that depicts motherhood for a majority. Right now, you're insisting on depicting motherhood based on a poor person's Depression Era experience. Quite bleak. DavidBailey (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to have to be the one to break this to you, but the majority of mothers on the planet today are at least as poor as she was. No doubt that Peruvian woman is far worse off; the only difference is that the photographer got her to say "cheese". Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There is some truth in what you are saying for many mothers, however, you have chosen a famous photograph which is associated the Great Depression. This is not NPOV. From your statement above, I get the feeling that your problem with the replacement photographs are the fact that they are smiling? How is this NPOV? DavidBailey (talk) 14:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

And once again, you're completely distorting the purpose of NPOV. The Depression isn't a point of view. It's a period in history. Smiling isn't a point of view. It's an action. Fame is not a point of view. It's a condition. Rich or poor, smiling or frowning, famous or obscure... none of these are points of view. They are facts.

The problem with those photographs - and it's the problem, not my problem - is that they are not verifiable through reliable sources. The end. You're pushing the idea that somehow notability = bad, for which you have no basis in any guideline or policy. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 14:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I know you understand this because I've told you before, but will repeat for those newly joining us: I don't have a problem that the photograph is notable. I have a problem that the photograph is iconic of the Great Depression. Your choice, as the lead photograph, enforces a world view about motherhood which fails the NPOV test. Also, would you please explain again how it is that you think the fact that whether or not they are actually mother and child is relatively unimportant, but the policy of verifiability is critical?

This prattling on is pointless and counterproductive. Are you willing or not to accept the photographs in the article as they stand now? If not, we will need to go to arbitration, because your endless, questionable assertions of policies which always leads to your final and absolute conclusion, regardless of my offers to help find agreeable alternatives including ones other than those above, is not helping this article any and it's wasting my time. DavidBailey (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You know what? Go for it. Request arbitration. You won't get it because it's absurdly premature, but go ahead and try. I'm not worried, because it's not that I think the policy of verifiability is critical. The policy of verifiability is critical. And I know you desperately want notability to equal POV, but there is absolutely nothing to support that idea. Notability and verifiability are the very definition of neutrality. Facts are facts. Facts don't have a point of view. Migrant Mother meets WP:V and WP:N, and those others don't. So go ahead and call whoever you want. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 14:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Kafziel, what other choice do I have? I offer to work with you, and you tell me I'm wrong. I explain my concerns with the photograph in relation to the weight its given in the article, and you refuse to allow it to exist in any other place but the top. I give all editors of the artcle a choice of alternative photographs meeting Wikipedia policy, and regardless of anyone elses' opinion, you manufacture reason after reason why your choice is the only choice. I ask you to accept the opinions of other editors, and you conclude that they are all wrong. I attempt to involve a mediator, and you refuse to participate and request they close it before it even starts. I ask you again, what choice have you left me? If you want a policy that backs this up, read WP:NOTSTATUTE. I can't take any intermediate steps because you refuse to participate. And I love how you twisted my words from why is verifiability critical regarding whether a mother and child are actually mother and child, to verifiability doesn't matter at all. DavidBailey (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You're one to talk about the opinions of other editors. The opinions of the other editors are that Migrant Mother is perfectly fine. You didn't like that opinion, so you tried to go to mediation. And you claim I "refuse to allow it to exist in any other place but the top." Really? How many edits have I made to the article since this discussion began? None. Zero. I haven't changed a single edit you made. So go ahead and request mediation. Maybe you can find someone to tell you verifiability doesn't matter on Wikipedia. Let me know how that goes for you. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 20:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Look, if Kafziel, DavidBailey and I are all willing to accept the placement of Migrant Mother at a lower point in the article (where it was last I looked), then what are we arguing about, anyway?--Bhuck (talk)

I am perfectly happy to have Migrant Mother in the article, labeling it as the famous Great Depression photograph, as long as something similar to one of the four photographs above is the lead. I think Migrant Mother adds to the image of what a mother is, and the challenges, as long as it's not the lead photograph. It's all I've said from the beginning. DavidBailey (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all, no, it's not all you've said from the beginning. You said, "Associating motherhood with hardship fails the NPOV test, so new image(s) are needed." At no point in there did you say anything like, "It's fine, as long as it's not the lead photograph." I, on the other hand, did say the photos you suggested were okay to use in the article. All you've been talking about the whole time is how is "fails the NPOV test" (which, by the way, is not an actual thing). I have yet to see a coherent argument tying it to that policy, or even an answer to my question about what the alleged POV might be. Fame does not equal bias, and you won't find a single guideline that says otherwise.

The main photo should be a photo we can verify with reliable sources. Every schmuck with a family wants to snap a photo and put it in the articles for mother, father, childbirth, and even vaguely-related articles (like this one for swing set or this one and this one for camping). It's embarrassing. Fortunately, we can do something about them. The Image Use Policy leaves room for discussion (whether something "distracts" from the subject), but the Verifiability policy doesn't. If information - including information from photographs - can't be corroborated by a reliable source, it can be challenged and removed. There's no arguing about whether the dispute is valid. Either it's sourced, or it's out. Those are the only two options.

As I've said already, I'm willing to compromise on that and give those pictures the benefit of the doubt, as long as they're not the main one. That way, at least we've met an objective standard of quality for main photos and we can work from there. For the umpteenth time, if anyone has another verifiable photo of a mother that are free use and good quality, by all means make it the main picture. I have no particular attachment to Migrant Mother but, so far, it's the only one that meets the standard. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This, incidentally, is a good start. It will never be a featured picture, and the only comment it has gotten so far backs my entire premise about low quality and lack of verifiability (almost word for word), but it's still a step in the right direction. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Other replacements

Some more suggestions: check out the illustrations in the articles Birth and Childbirth, as well as here and in the various subcategories. How about adding Whistler's Mother, for example?--Bhuck (talk) 11:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I looked at the childbirth photographs and they illustrate childbirth well, but I feel that the photograph for mother should illustrate the role of a mother and the relationship between mother and child. I think getting a young child as opposed to a newborn infant, does a better job of this. I took the four photographs I proposed earlier from the Mother category, so those four come from that pool. DavidBailey (talk) 14:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Showing the moment of childbirth would remove any doubts about the relation between mother and child--something that Kafziel has been problematizing, if I understand correctly. But it is just a suggestion. As is Whistler's Mother.--Bhuck (talk) 21:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, childbirth would certainly resolve that issue, but not Kafziels argument that it's self-promotion. We have a situation where the lead photograph, according to Kafziel, has to be some extremely old, historical photograph, or some other contorted photograph that doesn't best illustrate what a mother is. Why? Because Wikipedia doesn't have policy relating to the appropriateness of a photograph directly relating to a topic, but it does have policies regarding verification and not having self-promotion, and because the photograph was chosen as a featured photograph to illustrate the Great Depression. Note that my peer review request was shot down because the photograph wasn't relevant to the topic. Of course, that doesn't apply to the Migrant Mother photograph, because she is literally and documentedly a mother, and nevermind that the photograph is famous because of its association with the Great Depression. Whistler's Mother is just a famous case of self-promotion, but because it is so famous maybe this doesn't count? Good heavens, it appears the requirements are that a photograph must be of no one living, taken by someone who doesn't know the subject. However, it must be definitively verified by trusted sources, but it can't be copyrighted or encumbered by any rights, such as a professional photographer or journalist who would actually try to verify that someone who says they're a mother actually is one and the child is theirs. It must be technically superior, but cannot be assumed to be photographic quality, and so artistic representations are of equal value, even if stylistic and not realistic. And by the way, motherhood is so challenging that any mother despairing is obviously more relevant than a mother who is smiling, and who is only smiling because they must have been requested to smile by the photographer, because mothers never smile on their own while interacting with their children. So basically, it's impossible to find any photograph other than Migrant Mother, so why are we questioning Kafziel's choice, when he is always right anyway? You know what? I agree with the User:Angr on the nomination for deletion page.[1] Trying to build an article that meets everyone's definition of non-cultural bias, as long as Kafziel and others like him are insisting that their considerations are primary, will be virtually impossible. DavidBailey (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ask yourself this: At what point in this discussion did your considerations take a backseat to anyone else's? You don't like mine, you didn't like Baseball Bugs's, and now you don't like Bhuck's. It should be clear by now that I'm attentive and responsive enough to voice opinions if I have them, and I haven't said a damn thing about any of the labor photos or Whistler's Mother. You did. You don't want to hear about anything but what you've already suggested. I, on the other hand, am open to anything anyone offers that meets the basic requirements. On the bright side, I see you're at least starting to understand some of the parameters:

• taken by someone who doesn't know the subject
• definitively verified by trusted sources
• can't be copyrighted or encumbered by any rights
• It should be technically superior
• artistic representations are of equal value

I can see you're still confused about some of them, and you're obviously not happy about any of them, but I don't care because I didn't make them up. I told you to feel free to take it up the chain, but you know you don't have a case so you'd rather just skulk around here and hound everyone. Well, if all you've got left is cliche personal attacks about how Wikipedia would be oh-so-much better off without me, I suggest you find something more productive to do. Prop 8 is waiting. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 04:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I took all of these things into account, and I haven't assaulted you like you seem to think I have. You're a very unhappy person, aren't you? DavidBailey (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Really? A month and a half later, and all you've got is more personal attacks? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 16:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess it shouldn't be shocking to me that you're a Wikipedia admin. You know how to twist the policies and words of others to get what you want. You have the patience to wait until everyone else goes away and then to put the article back the way you want it, ignoring the opinions and priorities of every other person who has commented. Then, you claim you are being attacked when others point out your abusive behavior. And for the record, I still think you're wrong about this article's content, but I'm not willing to waste the amount of time you are, apparently. This is a perfect illustration of how Wikipedia fails to create the best articles. Maybe someone else will solve this riddle. I've had enough of it. Please refer to Gaming the system for more descriptive information of your actions. DavidBailey (talk) 10:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The use of 'mom' instead of mum in the West Midlands

Granted, I am not from the West Midlands, but I have visited there many times, and have never heard 'mom' used instead of mum. I'm wondering if this is either of POV pushing (I'm not sure how, but anyway....), or perhaps a mistaken opinion due to the accent? Is there anyone from the area who can actually confirm or refute that the non-UK version is used? It seems odd and unlikely. Sky83 (talk) 13:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sky83 is absolutely correct "Mom" is NEVER used anywhere in the Midlands be it West (such as Worcestershire), East (Leicestershire) or any of the Metropolitan towns such as Birmingham/Coventry. If anything, "Mam" is used. With family and friends in the aforementioned towns as well as Harrogate and Lincoln and, as a Brit, I can definitely say that the only place I've heard "Mom" used is in North America. The "add on" sentence should be removed. --Stepneygirl (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I, however, grew up in the Midlands and frequently heard "mom" in place of "mum" - especially in the West Midlands where I regularly saw it written as "mom", too. IndieSinger (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Untrue-I'm from the Midlands and everyone I know says "our mom", not "mum", "mam" or anything else Corporalflashback (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to add a further confirmation as someone that grew up in the West Midlands that the most common pronunciation and spelling, at least in the Black Country, is mom. 79.79.183.12 (talk) 23:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I've lived in Stoke and Birmingham and mom is certainly never used there, so usage must be very localised within the West Midlands region. I won't modify the article but I'm going to add a citation request. --Ef80 (talk) 13:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you think Mom is an American word for Mum and that the latter is the correct spelling in England? Think again. The word Mom is widely used in the Midlands.

"Mom and Mommy are old-English words, words that are stilled used in Birmingham and most parts of the West Midlands, we all use the term Mom and Mommy never Mum or Mummy, as here the correct spelling is Mom and Mommy has been for hundreds and hundreds of years, when people from the West Midlands went to America all those years ago they took our correct spelling with them, hence they use Mom and Mommy and we still do in the West Midlands. Here in the West Midlands the words Mum and Mummy are frowned upon as they look and sound wrong, thankfully our local schools teach our correct spelling of Mom and Mommy and the kids still come home with handmade cards with out correct Mom and Mommy Spelling on.

I believe parts of Scotland use the Mom and Mommy term too, as I have relatives there and whenever I visit them, they and the people I visit or see use the term Mom too, however I'm not sure how widespread its use is.

We in Birmingham and the West Midlands get annoyed when people wrongly think we are using American words, when the word Mom and Mommy aren't American they were British to start with, it's just unlike the West Midlands other areas changed their spelling."

http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/blog/2006/04/mum-and-mom.html --24.94.251.19 (talk) 08:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

In Theory? No.

Currently, with advances in reproductive technologies, the function of biological motherhood can be split between the genetic mother (who provides the ovum) and the gestational mother (who carries the pregnancy), and in theory neither might be the social mother (the one who brings up the child). A healthy connection between a mother and a child form a secure base, from which the child may later venture forth into the world.[1]

In theory? No. It's not a matter of theory. The wording should be changed here. Also, referenced or not, the last line is a bit POV. --68.117.130.98 (talk) 09:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on the first point, and have made the change. As for the second, sourced POV is okay—our goal is not to have no point of view, but to maintain a neutral point of view—but it is kind of a silly statement that really doesn't say much at all. Any suggestions for improvement? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 23:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

change to text: female to feminine in regards to the social mother....... Social Motherhood (must be view from the position of the child) and is not instinctual but it is a acquired skill & ability employing feminine human abilities,,,,,,,,it is not a sexually dependent Human function or ability, there is no scientific / reasoning assertion that it is, religious and cultural conflict over this and all make exceptions allowing traditional Family role reversal today . Self Evident. Although social conditioning / indoctrination may disable males from these human skills and abilities and visa verse in regards to the father social role employing human masculine abilities. The reduction of Human beings to be male (masculine Human abilities)or female (feminine Human abilities) has been the most insidious act of tyrannical rule destroying the family & subjugating the individual. It, Sexual discrimination, should not be supported. Robert Cassel RobertMimiC.Gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.98.83.247 (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

A real mother

Can we have a picture of a pregnant woman, instead of the "migrant mother". And since this is an article about mothers in general, can we perhaps get a real woman replacing the mother of the elephant child? Faro0485 (talk) 08:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Migrant Mother is a real and notable mother, as well as a featured picture. As discussed at incredible length above, most photos of modern mothers are either of lesser quality or are blatant self-promotion.

The picture of Parvati is meant to accompany the "mythical mothers" section. I do think there are probably better pictures to use as an example of a mythical mother, though. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 12:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Title section typo

I can't figure out what was meant here: "...and it is also poneither will serve as the social mother..."--Tyranny Sue (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Typo in the 'Famous Motherhood Figures' Section

It lists Eve, mother of Cain and Able - it should be Abel . This one jumped right out at me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.103.64 (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There was actually quite a bit of needless and incorrect stuff there. The section is for famous mother figures, not famous female figures who also happen to be mothers. Cleaned up. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Statistic should be reworded

"68% of women aged 15 to 44 are mothers in Mississippi..."

Unless it is extremely crowded there, I think this should read "68% of women in Mississippi aged 15 to 44 are mothers." Squidd (talk) 16:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 112.134.32.108, 24 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

si:අම්මා 112.134.32.108 (talk) 08:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done -Atmoz (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

Mediation was requested regarding the lede image of this article. I see no evidence of recent discussion here preceding the request. Is mediation relevant and ripe at this time? Please review Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-10-27/Mother. Thanks Hipocrite (talk) 08:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Mother

Why did we get rid of the picture of the migrant worker mother? 68.50.224.118 (talk) 04:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It was removed unilaterally by Origen01 (talk · contribs) diff. I've restored it since it's a Featured image after all. Ashanda (talk) 04:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Arnation, 8 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} I would like to begin to add a section about Lesbian mothers and motherhood. I have more information about other issues relating to this topic but this is the first section so far

Lesbian Motherhood

Lesbian Motherhood, these two terms are usually at odd against each other. Lesbian vs. Mother, you are either one or the other. The possibility for Lesbians to become Mothers has increased over the past few decades thanks to new techniques and technology. The revolution of motherhood through the Lesbian perspective originally occurred with women who were in a heterosexual relationship and later identify as lesbian. Another way for lesbians to become mothers is by choosing adoption and/or being fostering parents. There is also the option of self-insemination and clinically assisted donor insemination, these are forms of artificial insemination. As technology has advanced it has allowed more Lesbians to become mothers through In vitro fertilization. ..

Example

Just in this last year a movie called The Kids Are All Right (2010) looked at the dynamics of lesbian motherhood and the issues that can arise around insemination and the decision to know the sperm donor. The more the public is exposed to Lesbian Mothers and see how they are like any other mother, the more possibility for understanding and inclusion into society structures.

Social Standing

Lesbian Mothers are currently held lower in relation to other mothers within the social hierarchy partly due to the fact that it is threating to the socially constructed ideas of motherhood. It is the married, white, heterosexual mother who is held at the top of the pyramid. Followed by single mothers, teenage mothers, and foster mothers, who are all considered marginally accepted versus lesbian mothers who are left off.. There is the argument that Lesbian Mothers are “unnatural” because they do not have children through heterosexual relations out of love, which is considered “normal”. They are also seen as unnatural because of the preconceived ideas of whom a lesbian is and who a mother is and that these stereotypes do not go together. As society becomes more aware of Lesbian Mothers and the further stereotypes are addressed that are restricting motherhood from their acceptance, the more socially accepted Lesbian Motherhood may become.

References

Arnation (talk) 07:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done Bold edit request by new user. I expect this to be contested, so prepare to discuss on this talk page. Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I would like to make a few edits to my original post about Lesbian Motherhood and add another section to this topic of Lesbian Mothers and Motherhood

Lesbian Motherhood

Lesbian Motherhood, these two terms are usually at odd against each other. Lesbian vs. Mother, you are either one or the other. The possibility for Lesbians to become Mothers has increased over the past few decades thanks to new techniques and technology. Lesbian motherhood originally occurred with women who were in a heterosexual relationship and later identify as lesbian. Increasingly, lesbians are becoming mothers by choosing adoption and/or being foster parents. There is also the option of self-insemination and clinically assisted donor insemination, these are forms of artificial insemination. As technology has advanced it has allowed more Lesbians to become mothers through In vitro fertilization. ..

Lesbian Mothers are currently held lower in relation to other mothers within the social hierarchy partly due to the fact that it is threating to the socially constructed ideas of motherhood. It is the married, white, heterosexual mother who is held at the top of the pyramid. Followed by single mothers, teenage mothers, and foster mothers, who are all considered marginally accepted versus lesbian mothers who are left off, this is often referred to as 'marginal mothers'. . There is the argument that Lesbian Mothers are “unnatural” because they do not have children through heterosexual relations out of love, which is considered “normal”. They are also seen as unnatural because of the preconceived ideas of whom a lesbian is and who a mother is and that these stereotypes do not go together. As society becomes more aware of Lesbian Mothers and the further stereotypes are addressed that are restricting motherhood from their acceptance, the more socially accepted Lesbian Motherhood may become.

Just in this last year a movie called The Kids Are All Right (2010) looked at the dynamics of lesbian motherhood and the issues that can arise around insemination and the decision to know the sperm donor. The more the public is exposed to Lesbian Mothers and see how they are like any other mother, the more possibility for understanding and inclusion into society structures.

Parenting

Parenting roles in a heterosexual couple is divided between the mother and father but in Lesbian relationship the parenting roles become more united. It is often referred to as co-parenting in which there is less emphasis on the biological mother and a shared caregiver role. In many co-parents they referred to themselves as ‘parents’ rather than ‘mothers’ and the mother was often used to refer specifically to the birth mother . Often times the parenting roles of Lesbian couples are assumed to directly simulate the heterosexual “traditional" roles of mother and father, when in actuality there is a shift away from this towards a transformative model . In these new family structures the role of the sperm donor must be negotiated in terms of whether they will be a part of the child’s life and take part in the parenting. The donor may be included and see the child on a more frequent basis, possibly a few times in one year or not at all.

It has been noted that Lesbian couples have many strengths resulting from the way they structure their parenting such as flexible gender roles, teaching tolerance and acceptance of diversity, and extended supportive kinship network that creates many role models for the kids . Yet there are critics saying Lesbian-headed families are not able to raise children appropriately because there is a lack of or no father figure in the child’s life and it will be harmful to them . Myths about Lesbian mothers parenting abilities include that they fear the kids will be gay when they grow up in a Lesbian–headed household which is negative in terms of the masculine heterosexual dominant society.

Many institutional barriers have been put into place to stop Lesbians from becoming mothers particularly because they are threaten the way traditional family structure by creating their own unique family structure. This includes restrictions on adoptions and fostering abilities, custody rights of the child and even the exclusion from reproductive technologies available such as in-vitro fertilization and clinical insemination .

References

Arnation (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add these section to Lesbian Motherhood

Lesbian Motherhood

Lesbian motherhood, these two terms are usually at odd against each other. Lesbian vs. Mother, you are either one or the other.

Becoming Mothers

The possibility for lesbians to become mothers has increased over the past few decades thanks to new techniques and technology. Lesbian motherhood originally occurred with women who were in a heterosexual relationship and later identify as lesbian. Increasingly, lesbians are becoming mothers by choosing adoption and/or being foster parents. There is also the option of self-insemination and clinically assisted donor insemination, these are forms of artificial insemination. As technology has advanced it has allowed more lesbians to become mothers through In vitro fertilization. ..

Many institutional barriers have been put into place to stop lesbians from becoming mothers particularly because they are threaten the way traditional family structure by creating their own unique family structure. This includes restrictions on adoptions and fostering abilities, custody rights of the child and even the exclusion from reproductive technologies available such as in-vitro fertilization and clinical insemination .

Natural vs. Unnatural

There is the argument that lesbian mothers are “unnatural” because they do not have children through heterosexual relations out of love, which is considered “normal” to the dominant society. They are also seen as unnatural because of the preconceived ideas of whom a lesbian is and who a mother is and that these stereotypes do not go together.

Place in Society

Lesbian mothers are currently held lower in relation to other mothers within the social hierarchy partly due to the fact that it is threating to the socially constructed ideas of motherhood. It is the married, white, heterosexual mother who is held at the top of the pyramid. Followed by single mothers, teenage mothers, and foster mothers, who are all considered marginally accepted versus lesbian mothers who are left off, this is often referred to as 'marginal mothers'. .

As society becomes more aware of lesbian mothers and the further stereotypes are addressed that are restricting motherhood from their acceptance, the more socially accepted lesbian motherhood may become.

Parenting

Parenting roles in a heterosexual couple is divided between the mother and father but in lesbian relationship the parenting roles become more united.

Co-parents

Co-parenting in lesbian relationships consists of less emphasis on the biological mother and more on the shared caregiver role. Many co-parents referred to themselves as ‘parents’ rather than ‘mothers’ and the mother was often used to refer specifically to the birth mother .

Parenting Roles

Often times the parenting roles of lesbian couples are assumed to directly simulate the heterosexual “traditional" roles of mother and father, when in actuality there is a shift away from this towards a transformative model . It has been noted that lesbian couples have many strengths resulting from the way they structure their parenting such as flexible gender roles, teaching tolerance and acceptance of diversity, and extended supportive kinship network that creates many role models for the kids . Yet critics say lesbian-headed families are not able to raise children appropriately because there is a lack of “father figure” in the child’s life it will be harmful to them . Myths about lesbian mothers’ parenting abilities include the fear that the children will be gay.

Family Structure

In these new family structures the role of the sperm donor must be negotiated in terms of whether they will be a part of the child’s life and take part in the parenting. The donor may be included and see the child on a more frequent basis, possibly a few times in one year or not at all.

Example

Just in this last year a movie called The Kids Are All Right (2010) looked at the dynamics of lesbian motherhood and the issues that can arise around insemination and the decision to know the sperm donor. The more the public is exposed to lesbian mothers and see how they are like any other mother, the more possibility for understanding and inclusion into society structures.

Statistics

• According to US census data, an estimated 270, 313 American children were living in households headed by same-sex couples in 2005 .

• According to the Child Welfare Information Gateway, between 8 and 10 million children are being raised by gay parents .

• According to the US Census Bureau of Household and Family Statistics in 2000 One-third of lesbian households and one-fifth of gay male households have children .

• U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study found that just 2.8% of the teens in the research identify as gay or lesbian, consistent with statistics in the general population .

References

Arnation (talk) 07:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

("Social Role") Weakly sourced: Sweeping claim for 1990s peak and later return to "tradition"

I find the last paragraph in the "Social Role" section problematic. It states that: "Also around the 1970s, Western attitudes towards the role of women and mothers in society began to change. Females were given more opportunities within the workforce and this resulted in more females becoming mothers for the first time at a later age. This trend peaked within the 1990s, but has since returned to a more traditional view point of fathers being the main breadwinner and mothers taking responsibility for the home and children."

Although some the first part is pretty uncontroversial, the claim that the trend peaked in the 1990s is not sufficiently substantiated.

The evidence given for the 1990s peak is a single article which only deals with Australia. I would therefore suggest to either

1. Remove the claim
2. Rephrase it to reflect the source (i.e. that it pertains to Australia)
3. Supplement with additional sources that support the claim for a global return to a "traditional view point"
   

(PS. I know that "traditional" is habitually used as a shorthand for the "breadwinner dad/stay at home mom" model, but is this in fact a neutral/fitting/accurate term? Is it, in other words, actually "traditional" that men are "main breadwinners" or is it only "traditional" in the context of the "modern, middle class, Western, nuclear family"?)

Mojowiha (talk) 07:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, the assertion that 'Females were given more opportunities within the workforce and this resulted in more females becoming mothers for the first time at a later age.' ignores the role of the introduction and widespread adoption of birth control (in particular 'the pill') which provided the opportunity to postpone pregnancy until later in life, and thus increasing the chances of a non-domestic career for women. And it is important to remember that working class (not to mention agricultural) women often had to be part of the workforce due to the inability of one wage to support a family, without this necessarily leading to later motherhood. So the mono-causal explanation of more working women = later motherhood is at least an oversimplification.

This last paragraph in particular is woefully under-sourced, so please expand it both in length and with regards to references.

Mojowiha (talk) 09:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

"conceived" in 1st sentence definition

The previous definition, "A mother ... is a woman who has conceived ... a child " was inaccurate given that many pregnancies do not result in a live baby (whether through miscarriage or intentional termination) and many women who have conceived would not consider themselves (and would not be considered by anyone else) a "mother".

The sole citation for this definition was from allwords.com, not an especially reliable (and certainly not a scholarly) source, and it was a verbatim copy of only one of the definitions on the cited page. I have added three more sources, two of them unquestionably reliable (i.e. the Oxfords). -- TyrS  chatties  01:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Etymology

Anyone know the etymology of the word Mother, Mom, Mum, and Mam? --24.94.251.19 (talk) 08:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 December 2011

The most common number of children a mother has in the U.S. is 8.

65.96.43.42 (talk) 00:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)