Talk:Pregnancy

Hormonal changes

Under the subtopic Hormonal Changes it states "Levels of progesterone and oestrogens rise continually throughout pregnancy, making the mother a huge bitch and suppressing the hypothalamic axis and subsequently the menstrual cycle. The woman and the placenta also produce many hormones." Is this a professional opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.130.145 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 7 April 2009

Once again, image in lead

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

---

{{

• 
  Image 1
• 
  Image 2
• 
  Image 3
• 
  Image 4

I know Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. But can we use some common sense here? I imagine there are some pretty young kids researching for school reports who are going to find the image shocking. Perhaps we can move that image further down or make a gallery section? NYyankees51 (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Which image? The profile shot of an apparently naked pregnant woman? Are you serious? Can you explain why it would be shocking to someone researching pregnancy, apart from yourself? Greglocock (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I agree - that person has GOT to be kidding... "Shocking?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.212.149 (talk) 05:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes we have discussed this a lot before. Opinion is fairly divided. Some feel that image 1 is simply a better image with as much educational content. I also consider image 3 and 4 to also be superior. That moving image two to latter in the article would improve the page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• 2 3 or 4 make sense. I'll leave the aesthetics to those who care. Woman modelling maternity blouse (image 1) is not a useful representation of the article's subject. Greglocock (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Ideally four would be placed side by side and have the background changed to white. But this one provides both an AP and L of pregnancy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Human pregnancy is not only clinical. A first picture, like the one in place now, running parallel to the lead in the article, that like a lead gives a sense of the overarching aspects of the topic/pregnancy, and that includes a recognizable human being and her responses to her child, is both emotional and clinical (ie, human), more inclusive than "headless" images, and carries more information. Not sure why that should be changed. There may be room for most of the other photos later in the article (olive (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC))

• I came here from the RfC listing, and I actually don't care very much which image is used. But reading olive's comment just above mine, it occurs to me that Image 1 has the advantage of putting the emphasis on those overarching aspects, whereas the others focus more narrowly on the clinical aspects. I don't buy the argument made above that it is just modeling apparel. After all, pregnant women do not typically spend their pregnancies walking around naked. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• This has been going on for years. Every so often, someone gets all sensitive and worries about the kiddies seeing a naked woman and then we all have to bow down to their worries and discuss the issue all over again. Where do kids think they came out of? Oh horror! Olive is right. Pregnancy is not a clinical condition but a human one. Image 2 has been the consensus image for the past few years. There is no reason to change it now. Gillyweed (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Pregnancy affects the entire body and those changes are not visible with clothing...This is a consensus version and unless there is a clear new consensus I can't see a change is appropriate... As an aside: you'd be surprised at what pregnant women get up to when they've put on 40 pounds and they're carrying a kicking ten pound basket ball around on their fronts.(olive (talk) 23:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC))

Different cultures, as well as different families' moral beliefs and religious beliefs consider different things to be offensive. While I don't see any reason to change this image, I also don't see any reason why it would be silly not to. If people determine there is enough need to change the image, which is clearly scientific in nature, then sure, change it. Many families do not teach their children about sex and differences between the bodies at an early age. So yes, it would be shocking for these children. There is also an issue that nobody can look at this article in public, even if it is purely clinical. A topic that is more safe--pregnancy--doesn't have to have a nude subject. Unlike looking up different sexual organs, which most people are smart enough not to look up in public. Most kids only learn about the intricacies when parents discuss it with them. I am talking about children under the age of ten, of course, and you would be surprised how young children are when they start surfing the net.

In any event, the point of the matter in this instance is more adults who find it offensive. But because this photo is clearly clinical, the photo itself has no issues. Now its use in the article is debatable, and Wikipedians who might not want to see this article in public are limited because the only answer is, "Don't look at WP in public." --Henriettapussycat (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• On this subject, I have to agree totally with the argument made above stating that an article on human pregnancy should focus on more than clinical aspects of the subject. Neither image is ideal in this situation, but I think that Images 2,3 and 4 should not be used because they do not provide a complete image of the social aspects of pregnancy (as mentioned by Tryptofish). Furthermore, I believe that using images 2/3/4 may cause readers to look at human pregnancy purely from a medical aspect. Parakoopa72 (talk) 05:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems that different edits pick different images based on the same justification.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the addition of a piece of clothing is overarching or gives any kind of information. By 'overarching', I meant a picture in which much of the body can be seen with the physical changes pregnancy induces, as well the emotional aspect - the woman's obvious emotional connection to the child she carries. Covering the body leaves us with a shirt with a bump, and that bump could be anything. Pregnancy is about the human body. If we want an article on 'foot', how could we see the foot, and know what it looks like with a shoe on it.(olive (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC))

I came back here to see if there were any response to my comment, and I guess I have to agree with the observation that different editors find the same justification leading to different images, and that's indeed quite ironic. Anyway, please do take to heart what I said about me not really feeling strongly about this at all. Please don't let what I said have too much influence on what you decide. Happy editing! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Image 2 is a perfect representation of a pregnant woman. It is in no way prurient. It should stay. Rebel1916 (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• There is no profanity in any of the later 3 images. These images depict the natural condition of pregnancy (external manifestation, physical changes, etc), to which image 1 alone would not be able to do justice. If these are to be removed based on argument of children visiting wikipedia, then much of the other contents of wikipedia needs to be deleted as well. There are wikipedia articles on human sexual activities, and even on various paraphilia. Wikipedia is not a children's encyclopedia. - Subh83 (talk | contribs) 21:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course, there's no profanity, because profanity requires words.  :) I think you meant obscenity. But I agree with you, if we're worried about children, then we'd have to censor 75% of the project. Not going to happen. I believe that there have been discussions about this photo for five years (give or take). Unless there's a substantial consensus to remove it or change it, this discussion is a huge waste of time. There will never be a change, unless there's a significant change in policy regarding images of nudes, or this image is in violation of Wikipedia's licensing rules. Seriously, this discussion is inane, and there are so many other things to be done with this article. Someone below suggested adding stuff about subsequent pregnancies. That's more useful. But I'm sure someone in the future will come here complaining about the photo, and we'll spend tons of bandwidth discussing it, and nothing will change. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah.. you are so very correct! :) May be the outcome/consensus can be placed at the top of the page in a permanent box so that this is not started again. Don't know if that's possible in talk pages though. - Subh83 (talk | contribs) 22:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• I recommend putting Image 1 in the lead and Image 2 under ==Second trimester==, along with a more complete description of the changes to the mother's body during that time. Someone recently used the phrase "adolescent glee" to describe the attitudes of some editors who argue for the most prominent possible placement of nudity, and that resonates with me. Just because we can (and IMO should) include this image somewhere in the article does not mean that we should make it be the first and largest image—or that we should have zero images of pregnant women who aren't in a state of undress. If you want to present pregnancy as a part of normal life, then showing exclusively images of women who are undressed isn't the way to go about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• I have and continue to support the inclusion of many controversial images (including ones of nudity ). However completely agree with WhatamIdoing's comments here and her suggestion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• I like Image 2, it's fine. Image 1 is OK too. Images 3 & 4, enh, they're OK too but not as aesthetically pleasing in my opinion. I do kind of want to support Image 1 on these grounds: 1) snotty teenagers are not pleasing to me, and 2) their jejune attitudes and tiresome insults are not helpful to the the Wikipedia, in the sense of making for a better community and, ultimately, attracting and retaining editors, which 3) is important, and so 4) not rewarding this kind of thing is a valid consideration. So take that as you will. From a purely technical standpoint, either 1 or 2 are fine. I slightly prefer 2. I don't have a problem with the nudity in this context. Herostratus (talk) 06:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• I came here from the RFC. Image 2 is the best, clearest, and most succinct, and it should therefore be the first and most prominent one. I really don't think considerations of "adolescent glee" do or should enter into it. Oreo Priest ^talk 01:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• I fully support the use of such images in wikipedia, and in this article, but I feel that the nude image being right at the top of the article, and so prominent is a bad thing. It means that I really couldn't go on this wikipedia page at work, for example. It should absolutely be included, but further down the page, and less prominent. I really don't understand the logic of showing a nude image so blatantly in an article in which the female body is really only a secondary topic. The nell 87 (talk) 10:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• Photograph 1 is clearly of much higher quality than the other photos. It looks professional — well composed, with even lighting, and a pleasant non-distracting background. Plus it's nice that it adds some racial diversity to the article (and Wikipedia). The other photographs look like low quality snapshots. Plus, the woman in the 2nd photo looks like she's only slightly pregnant (Yes, I know that is impossible) :) Kaldari (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• The article for Woman doesn't start with a big picture of a naked woman. I vote for image 1. I've been pregnant, and I usually wore clothes. If people constantly raise issues with image 2 obviously it's a problem. --Spacefem (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• Photograph 1 might be of higher quality but I feel that the main picture must show a naked abdomen, much like the current picture in the Third Semester section. Moreover as mentioned earlier, the picture should not be cropped below the head, we are not showing a clinical case as detailed by Olive. 82.66.206.198 (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• for goodness sake, if its so much of an issue as to whether its actually an issue or not, just use a cross sectional line diagram instead of a photograph! --BuddhikaD (talk 14:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
• I'm not sure why the main image needs to be unsafe for work.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• I'm of the mind that the only reason to use a picture of a nude woman is deliberately to seem more mature and "encyclopedic", as it provides no more information than that of a clothed woman. One might argue it's more difficult to discern breast size, but that's irrelevant if there are no before/after pictures, and even that could still be done with a clothed image. I agree that this is a topic likely to be researched by elementary-aged students. I see no reason to use this image (which is of fairly mediocre quality to begin with) when other, better images are available that cause absolutely no controversy. A clothed image focuses more on the mother and less on the physical change of her body, while still not hiding that. Saibh (talk) 05:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree it does seem to be an issue of nudity for nudities sake.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You're not going to be able to see typical breast changes even with before-and-after images. The typical change is half a cup size, which amounts to an increase of just 2cm in the total circumference. So unless you've worked in a lingerie department for so long that you can spot the difference between a 36B and a 38B bra size at a glance, then there are no typical images that will show you that level change. If we needed to illustrate it, we'd need to get a pair of images that showed abnormally large growth (which is not impossible: some women see zero change; others see dramatic change). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a good image here [1] which also show the change in size of the areola and the change in pigmentation. But the image in the lead does not show this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are suggesting. There are multiple changes with pregnancy. I don't think a single picture can illustrate them all. I would think a best scenario is to have a picture that gives an overview for the reader first coming to the article just as the lead does, then move on to more specifics. (olive (talk) 03:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC))

Agreed. The lead image doesn't have to cover all aspects of pregnancy. It should just show a high quality image of a typical pregnancy. It doesn't make any sense that the lead image be required to be nude (which seems to be the only reason anyone supports the current image). Why isn't anyone discussing the actual quality of the photographs? Kaldari (talk) 03:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, we do talk about it the poor technical qualities of the lead image, and everyone agrees that it has problems, but we have a couple of people who like its emotional content, and a couple of people who seem just determined that the article contain zero images of fully dressed women, so they don't really care about the poor lighting, etc.

I'd like to see this one moved to ==Second trimester==, and use it to actually illustrate the content of the article, rather than merely to decorate the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• No, kids are not going to find this image shocking at all. There is no reason to censor Wikipedia to cater to what amount to religious views. Wikipedia is one of the tamer places on the web, and anyone who wishes to censor their children's web viewing experience has software options to help them. The current image, image 2, has its problems, notably that it is of a white woman, when it should be of an Asian or Indian (per the percentage of world population), but it's apparently the best we have. Why do we show women undressed when discussing pregnancy? Because clothes serve to hide the subject matter, which is the state of the human body during pregnancy: they are therefore both irrelevant and detrimental to our description of the subject. Why do we keep the nude image at the top in the most prominent place? Because it is the best image we have to illustrate our description of the subject. Censorship, especially censorship which actually pretends that it's kids, not grownups, who are shocked by nudity, is inappropriate on Wikipedia. And no, woman does not start with a big picture of a naked woman: it starts with a small one. Keep image 2, per Gillyweed, Subh83, olive, et al. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 15:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• I don't find the image sexual or shocking. And I think children would only find it shocking if they family has not taught them about sex and the differences between men and women from the get-go. But because famlies like that are in an extreme minority (my parents taught me about sex and such at the age of three), I can see your point. It's not actually to do with kids so much as to do with the parents who will say their kids cannot look at the page. But in all honesty, I feel like those parents would not let their kids look at a page on pregnancy to begin with, as well as Wikipedia to begin with. And those who consider Wikipedia to be tame are obviously not looking up certain articles that Wikipedia covers.

I also disagree with the people who are paranoid about censorship concerning sex and nudity. For the most part, humans are a smart lot, and the people who argue that this is probably paranoia about nudity are probably paranoid themselves about certain issues they find important, or may even have ulterior motives.

I ALSO disagree that a photo of a nude model must be used. That simply isn't true. Even if I don't find the image offensive or sexual, that's just not true.

In any event, the picture, as determined by me, is harmless, and children whose parents are bothered by it probably do not let them surf Wikipedia to begin with. There are more pressing concerns with photos, like the one that illustrates vagina, which is not a medical photo but obviously porn to anyone who has seen hardcore porn--including myself. This photo passes the Miller test, and is not obscene or overtly (or even suggestively) sexual. Someone might say that is not the point--female nudity is much more accepted than male nudity. This is true. But that is a social issue, and wiping out all female photos that have nudity, even those that demonstrate a scientific phenomenon in a non-sexual way, should be censored, is extreme in my opinion. It's more case by case.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Some kids will be shocked, others won't. For that matter, some adults will be shocked. More than 5,000 people look at this page each day. The only thing we can guarantee is that they will not all have the same response.

I disagree that this image is the best we could put in the lead, but I share your concerns about the lack of racial diversity and the apparent commitment of some editors to show strictly light-skinned women in a state of undress. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I don't care if children see nude images or not. And I strongly oppose any religious views influencing the content of Wikipedia. In fact, I oppose censorship so much that I founded WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship. However, I still think that image #1 is a better choice than our current lead image. Kaldari (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Despite the fact that I am not of any practicing or traditional religion, I still find it a little offensive that people are assuming that people raised this conversation because they are of a certain religion. This is seriously prejudiced to be "othering" like this. I don't think the person's religion matters in accordance to their views. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• I totally agree with the remarks made by WhatamIdoing at 02:29 on 6 April 2011 [2]. Therefore I recommend using Image 1 in the lead and Image 2 under ==Second trimester==. I have nothing further to add. Rubywine . talk 19:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I have permission from the person who created the image of breast changes in preg to release it under a CC3.0 license and thus use it here on Wikipedia. Will upload it letter today. Hopefully this addresses the remaining concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you clarify what concerns are being addressed. This discussion seems to be an ongoing one on a whole- body image of a pregnant woman. I 'm not sure how breast images can solve concerns in that discussion. Have I missed something?(olive (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC))

Any chance of getting something like this? Doesn't address the racial issue, but it seems pretty good. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 22:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Um, isn't that sort of image exactly the problem here? The issue is not about whether we should show a nude image because people will get offended by nudity, it's whether the nudity is gratuitous and unnecessary. And I think WhatamIdoing has hit it on the head ... there's no real reason to depict the woman's breasts in the lead since there's nothing they could effectively illustrate. Exposed belly, yes. Breasts, no. Daniel Case (talk) 05:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Breast changes during pregancy

This image shows breast changes during pregnancy much better than the current lead. Thus its addition will hopefully address these concerns.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with adding the new mages to the article in an appropriate spot. The image which parallels the lead must be a whole body image.(olive (talk) 11:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC))

Agree that it should be the whole body. Thus am proposing image 1 for the lead. Image 2 lower in the article and this image to show breast changes. Seems to be support here fore that.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Per OrangeMarlin above: No consensus for change of current image.(olive (talk) 12:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC))

There is definitely no consensus to change the image. See, the problem with getting too technical here, is that you are trying to opt for a pregnant woman with clothes, thus hiding what we're talking about, or for other less-than-full depictions. If not clothing, then break the pregnant body/form/shape into different images. But it seems people are trying to avoid the subject, which is the pregnant body. That includes the head, feet, breasts, knees, belly and everything surrounding them. Having a picture of a pregnant woman without any interference and without dividing the pregnant body up into separate pictures is exactly what we need here. Give the whole body first, then the closeups of the different parts for purposes of illustrating changes or giving higher resolution. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that is going to be better than showing the subject of this article without interference. And that subject is pregnancy, that is the carrying of offspring inside the womb. And what is "carrying inside the womb?" The womb alone? Clothes? Breasts? No... it's the whole human body which carries, and the whole human body, as effected by pregnancy, is the subject of the article. Showing anything less than the female human body, without interference, is inappropriate to this article. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 19:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The argument is for a more professional looking image for the lead. Concerns where raised that we needed to show breast changes in pregnancy. Thus an image of these changes was found addressing this. Will return to another RfC.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with the comments of Doc James, WhatamIdoing and the rest of the folks who spoken up here calmly and clearly about the need for better image. Photo 1 is clearly preferable for a whole host of reasons. It's higher quality even just on a basic photographic quality level when you compare light levels, contrast, and balanced composition. There is plenty of room in the rest of the article for any nude images which may be necessary to describe specific physical changes of pregnancy, but it is more dignified and educational for Wikipedia to depict a pregnant woman in the infobox as you are most likely to encounter a pregnant woman: wearing clothes. Steven Walling • talk 22:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

There are multiple arguments in this thread which began months ago on what kind of photo should be in the lead. I'm afraid we can't now dismiss those comments and concerns, and there is no consensus so far that overturns the majority view. Professional is a very subjective term, and does not only include the more suoerficial elements like lighting but also the impact including the emotional impact a photograph has. The photograph in place as has been said many times before describes the change in the human body which pregnancy is, and includes a sense of the emotional quality of the mother. Descriptive of that physical change is not a blue top under which could be anything, even a watermelon. The reader should see what pregnancy looks like. If we were looking at an article on 'foot' would we hide the foot in a shoe. Doubtful.(olive (talk) 23:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC))

The "quality" objection is not relevant, Steven Walling: photo quality is irrelevant unless the subject is not easily discernible, because we are illustrating, not trying to have a beautiful or artistic image. And please reveal to us how a lack of clothing is "undignified." We should not be basing Wikipedia content on cultural biases. The only argument that has some basis is that in real life one is more likely to encounter a pregnant woman clothed; but the same argument could be applied to breast and arm and buttocks penis Human penis and vagina. Looking at those articles, I think your "dignity" argument thoroughly refuted for WP purposes. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 00:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Mother?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Embryo at 4 weeks image

The image of the "4 week" embryo is actually a 6 week embryo, according to the cited source, ref 41. A four week embryo does not have a humanoid shape, eyes or limb buds. 99.235.4.123 (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it's correct as written. The caption in the article specifies four weeks after fertilization; the source specifies six weeks after a last normal menstrual period (and silently assumes that all women always have a predictable menstrual cycle of 28 days in length, and they always conceive on the 14th day of that cycle). Consequently, these are the same dates. The LMP system that the source is using declares the pregnancy to begin two weeks before conception.

LMP sometimes produces idiotic results in the one-third of women who don't have menstrual cycles that are consistently about 28 days in length, but it's what the men decided to use in the 19th century, so we're apparently stuck with it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Lead image RfC

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

This proposal is to move the current image (image 2) lower in the article to the section on second trimester and replace it with a more professional quality image (better lighting, better background). Concerns in the past have been raised regarding the importance of showing breast changes however the current image does not show breast changes and a better image has been subsequently found to illustrate this point (added lower in the article). Another issue with the current image is its licence. The person who took the picture states that he has never released this image under a license that allows commercial reuse.[3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Support change

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

• Support change. Higher quality with the added benefit of less nudity. JFW | T@lk 06:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
• Strong support. Most important reason being that it is unclear if the (easily identifiable) woman in the pic consents to our use of the pic. See comment by Steven Walling. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 10:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support change: There are so many pictures representing pregancy as such without identifiable person in the image. Why not having such a picture in the lead so then we wouldn't have these debates. NCurse _work 11:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Support keeping current image in the lead

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

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

• Keep current image, for many of the same reasons I outlined in at least two previous discussions about these same images here and here. The original image is superior to the new photo. The original image is very descriptive of the subject, it is a dignified and beautiful picture, that to me at least, conveys a sense of warmth, of motherhood…like she’s responding to that which she carries…it’s contemplative, lovely and not at all obscene or even titillating…I think it’s just perfect for the lede. I agree with BeCritical's comments above. There are no licensing issues. The licensing was confirmed by an administrator/reviewer and was kept per two different deletion discussions [6][7]. Dreadstar ☥ 02:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why you are not taking into account the statements of the person who actually took the photo per here [8]? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The proposer objects to the licensing issue and the quality of the image. These objections where removed by user Dreadstar in these edits here [9] and I am not sure why.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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