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)

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)

• 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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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[5][6]. 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)