Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:29, 6 April 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pregnancy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine: Reproductive Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Reproductive medicine task force (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sexology and sexuality Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pregnancy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 3 months

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

Lede image again

• Image 1
• Image 2

Support image 1 The question is which image should we use. Image 1 is an improvement over image 2 IMO as it has better contrast with the background. Is farther along in pregnancy and thus better demonstrates pregnancy. It also has better lighting of the subject matter. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think that they are both great images. I like the Image 2 the best because it shows more detail, and is photogenically better IMO (expresses the reality of pregnancy in a more emotional way.) Image 1 is good, but the clothing obstructs some of the detail. I don't believe that clothing inherently adds anything pertinent to the topic to the article. There seems to be no evidence that one image is further along that the other image, and that isn't important anyway. For instance, would an image of o woman who was pregnant, but happened to be dilating, or happened to be delivering at the moment of the image illustrate the general nature of the topic better? After all, this is the lede image, not a sub-topic illustration. The lighting seems to be comparatively identical, and the background in neither picture illustrates the topic better or worse. Atom (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Another point -- Image 2 has been in this article for a very long time. As the consensus image, it should not be changed unless there is a much better image that describes the topic available. The desire to use a different image by one or two people should not override the desire by numerous authors to leave the original image in for years. As nice as Image 1 is, if anything it obscures some small amount of detail rather than adding information or demonstrating the topic better. Why change it if it has worked for so long, and the proposed image offers less on the topic?? Atom (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

What detail is hidden in image one that is relevant to pregnancy? I agree that clothing does not inherently add anything but neither does nudity. Image one has been on the page a few months. But agree consensus can change. BTW here is one of the most recent discussions in Sept 2010 We could craft a RfC on the topic if you wish... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

My point is that the consensus image was fine, and that the image you prefer not only removes detail, but does not have consensus by others from what I can tell. Your words try to turn that around. The consensus image should be on the article until you can establish a new consensus. Reverting back to your preferred image over the consensus image is edit warring, and not preferred. I looked at the link you provided, and indeed there are some editors who might favor your proposal, and one that did not. Hardly a consensus. I will change the image back to the consensus image until we can talk through it and sort it out. Atom (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

So I ask again "what detail is hidden"? Remember Misplaced Pages is based on reasoned debate. I have requested further opinions from WP:MED Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not looking for an argument. I am not proposing the the nude image be put into the article. I am asserting that the image that has long standing consensus should remain until another proposed image replaces it by some kind of documented consensus. Atom (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

In terms of the "detail" discussion you seek. If you suggest that the proposed "clothed image" offers more detail, or a better lede for the specified topic, that clearly is not the case. Which image shows the state of pregnancy better? The swelling of the breasts, the curvature and elongation of the abdominal area? The coloration and enlargement of the nipples and areola? Are these absolutely essential in the lede? No, I do not think so or assert that. But the fact that one image clearly shows those things, and the other does not is quite clear. In the image you propose, if you were to evaluate the image by removing parts of the image that are not relevant to the topic, such as the facial expression and then remove all of the blue area that is masked by the blue clothing -- what of substance is left? A general suggestion that the abdomen is distended? Clearly the nude image is superior in illustrating this topic. Atom (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your polite request at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Medicine#Image_at_pregnancy. I welcome other opinions. We should also ask at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Wikipedians_against_censorship too. Atom (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I like the new image. I prefer it because the subject is looking at the camera ( although that might be a little creepy to some). Lets switch it up if only for the sake of taking advantage of this whole wiki thing we've got here. Also, considering WP:BRD, the status quo's advantage isn't all that high around here Atomaton.--Tznkai (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a status quo thing for me, it is a Misplaced Pages policy to follow consensus. The way that we prevent from constantly rotating images as another editor boldy expresses their preference is to discuss and reach consensus. The consensus image has been discussed a great deal in the past. Atom (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Image 2 is a poor example of potential skin changes. This is a good image but do not know the copyright. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'm basically okay with either image, but I like Image 1 better for the top of the article because it's less "arty" and also because it wouldn't be yet another white woman. Racial diversity in our images is a desirable goal. (BTW, File:PregnantWoman.jpg has her facing to the left, which I believe is preferable according to the MoS.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks a little to bright. Maybe we could flip it without the brightness change? If we go with this one I can do that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Support image 2 - No strong opinions here; however, my wife and I prefer the second image. We agree that the lack of clothing gives the reader a better look at the pregnant female. Also, consensus can certain change; however, if there is no clear community favorite determined by this discussion, I would support keeping number 2 in the article as it has been in the article "a very long time." Just some thoughts... ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Image number 1 has been in the article for the last 3 months. There where frequent complaints about image number 2. Atom's was the first concern regarding this one. We will get less vandalism with image 1. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Changing to reduce "vandalism" is not a good argument. I fix vandalism on many articles all of the time, as do others. Also, this new image being in the article for a few months, versus the consensus image not a good argument. I see no problem with "Be Bold", revert, Discuss cycle. I appreciate that you want to propose a new image. But trying to enforce a new image over a consensus image after being reverted is not appropriate. Please continue discussion, and in a few months, we can see if the consensus has changed or not. Atom (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Support Image 1 - No question this is a far better photograph. The composition and lighting aren't even comparable. One photo looks like a professional studio photograph, the other looks like an amateur snapshot. Plus the 2nd picture isn't very good at illustrating a typical pregnant woman. Most pregnant women wear clothes, at least the ones I've seen. Plus, why do we always have to illustrate medical articles with Caucasians? This is the first non-white person I've ever seen in a medical article. Regarding the censorship issue brought up by Atom, I don't see anything in this discussion that has to do with censorship. Nude images are not inherently better at illustrating humans than clothed images. In fact, I would say the opposite is true in most cases. Humans do, after all, have the strange habit of generally wearing clothes. Kaldari (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

"Most pregnant women wear clothes..." That's funny! The article is about pregnancy, not "clothed pregnant women some people know." Atom (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

So you would say that the majority of pregnant women typically do not wear clothes? Regardless, the first image is a huge improvement in photograph quality. Kaldari (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, the point is, which image is best for the lede. Clothing or not, which image (or some other image) best illustrates or evokes the topic? As for the first image, I am all for more diversity; But it does not illustrate pregnancy better, IMO. Atom (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Support Image 2 - this is a far better photograph. While the lighting and composition may not be so good, it illustrates pregnancy in a typical pregnant woman. It shows breast and belly changes. Mind you, it has been removed many times by prudes who are offended by the nudity. I have reverted it many times - so it appears to attract prudes and censorship. That says, I think it is much better than image 1. Gillyweed (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the image really shows "changes" to the breasts. We don't have a "before" picture for comparison, and this woman's "pregnancy-changed" breasts might look like some other woman's "non-pregnant" breasts. The amount of natural variation is enormous.

BTW, is there some reason we can't have both images somewhere in the article, e.g., the multiracial woman at the top, and the nude white woman at the top of ==Physiology==? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Both images show the enlargement of the breasts and belly. Indeed the first photo shows a much more pronounced enlargement of the belly than the second photo. And no one in this discussion is trying to censor nudity. You should actually read the discussion instead of making assumptions. Kaldari (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I made no statements about censorship or nudity except as it helps identify the photos, so I'm going to assume that the last two sentences are directed towards someone else.

I wonder how you know what size these women's breasts were six or eight months before these pictures were taken, such that you can declare that their breasts have definitely enlarged, rather than having always been large (or at least not small: they look pretty typical to me).

Breast enlargement during pregnancy is common, but not universal, and it is typically on the order of half a cup size (=an increase of 2 cm in the woman's body circumference at the bustline, which is a difference of about 2%) if the woman isn't gaining an unhealthy amount of weight. This level of size difference is not exactly something that most people can identify by looking—especially if they've never seen the woman in her pre-pregnancy state. But perhaps you have more information than I do, so you can confidently state that these woman had noticeably smaller breasts before becoming pregnant? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

This image does not show the classic darkening of the aureole seen in pregnancy. Neither is it a good image of the mask of pregnancy. Other than the contour of the abdomen and the holding of the abdomen I do not see anything further in the image that demonstrates pregnancy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: My response was directed to Gillyweed, not you. Kaldari (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• I also support Image 2 for many of the same reasons I outlined in a previous discussion about the same image. 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 don't see any clear consensus in the above discussions to replace the original lede image, so I agree with Atom's reversion to the original. . Please find consensus for the new image. Dreadstar ☥ 03:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll support image 2 as well, for reasons stated by others. I've always said that in the event that a newer, better image came along, that we should use it. But I've yet to see such an image. --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 04:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I researched, as I'd like to be fair. The original image (discussed here as image 2 -- nude pregnant woman) has been in the article since around December of 2006. It was moved to lede in February 2010, but then later replaced by the pregnant women in the blue dress on September 3rd 2010 by user Jmh649 with an edit "image just as good, but with clothing", and has been there since then (a little more than 3 months.) So consensus for having it in the article has been for more than four years, and in the lede for 7 months or so. When it was removed from the lede, two editors complained, quote:

The issue isn't really one of prurience, but one of whether it's a good photo or not. Surely if we want to depict abdominal growth, we'd want a photo without the subject covering the abdomen. Nandesuka (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC) -

Hihi, look the pictures on the article right now. Even a naked belly is controversial it seems... This is a small form of censorship. Tukka (talk) 01:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is a discussion from March 2010 Talk:Pregnancy/Archive_3#Lede_photo discussing that image. Atom (talk) 04:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support image 2 I must respectfully disagree with those advocating the clothed image. We are not looking for professional photography, but for a photo which gives as much encyclopedic information as possible. The nude photo gives much more, for obvious reasons. You see the actual lines of the figure. One would hope for a before/during/after series, but at least the nude one is a step ahead. It shows what happens to the belly and breasts. I disagree with posts like "most pregnant women wear clothes." We are not trying to teach a person how to recognize a clothed pregnant woman. We are trying to show how the human body looks when pregnant, and that is obviously far better done when a nude photo is used. However, it would be much better to have a Chinese or Indian woman, since they are more representative of the human race by numbers. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Support image 2 - IMHO it better represents pregnancy. The woman seems to have an emotional bond with her baby just by the way she is looking at her womb. As a minority myself, choosing a picture because it has a minority in it smacks of reverse discrimination. Ng.j (talk) 06:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh, well we really should have a woman who represents the majority. Asian. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 06:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Support image 2 - Per Atomaton - better represents pregnancy. I'd just recommend the image is polished a bit (the background line seems annoying). --Eleassar 11:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Stupid question, anyone with photoshop and/or research chops able to put together a pregnancy montage? Like a 4 panel depiction of pregnancy at various stages, so the image can show the progression that pregnancy brings? Same person would obviously be sensible, for 4 different women could work as well. Another possibility is a traditional illustrated cross section, which shows the internal changes better than any photo could.--Tznkai (talk) (signed after the fact)

Support image 2. If we look at articles on body parts like a foot, or on an article showing some change in the human body, say a sprain, we don't use pics of the body part or body changes with clothing. So why, one wonders, would we do that here. Tznkai's suggestion is a good one, that is, to show the changes over time that occur with pregnancy, but I would suggest both internal and external changes would be instructive. As far as the nude photo goes, I prefer it because in my mind its a photo that will draw the reader in because it has emotional impact, and is more aesthetic in nature than the other. Pictorial information doesn't have to be clinical and cold to be instructive does it? On the contrary.(olive (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC))

• Support WhatamIdoing's compromise (keep both, image 1 at the top). This seems sensible. JFW | T@lk 20:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Found a couple other ones to consider:

• Image 3 (montage)
• Image 4 (montage) Image 4 (montage)
• Image 5
• Image 6
• Image 7

Images 3 and 4 are both more informative than 1 and 2, but I have to admit I'm not thrilled about them. Image 5 is nice, if a little artsy, but it does emphasize the change dramatically. Image 6 has too much bloom, and I have no idea whats going on with the coat, but captures the emotion quite well.

I have not checked the copyright in depth on these photos, I am assuming that they've been screened over at commons. There are a few more, but these are the ones that caught my eye.--Tznkai (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Added an additional image as image 7 which I discovered by looking at what the other Wikipedias were using, and changed the article lead image to it in the service of being bold, and because I honestly think its a superior image than most of our current options. The photo quality isn't as great as some of the other things, but I think its much more striking than the other photographs.

I disagree. The purpose of the photo is to be illustrative and educational. Hiding everything in shadows removes most of the value the image, no matter how visually striking it may be. Of the others you suggest; the montages are ok, although not ideally proportioned for a lead photo. Image 6 is more artistic than educational. A side profile is clearer. --Escape Orbit 23:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Another option

This image shows both AP and lateral and has had the background cleaned up. There is also a version with less cloths but does not have the background cleaned up. It am happy with either as long as both have clean backgrounds. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I like this one, except for the part where its in... what is that, German?--Tznkai (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. I think focussing in on the belly, to the exclusion of the whole woman a bit.. dehumanising. There's more to the topic of pregnancy than a bump. ("Weken" is Dutch) --Escape Orbit 23:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

However what we are using now has half the belly covered by the hands. Have added an image of pregnancy related pigment changes to the face Melasma Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

As a picture to describe pregnancy I prefer the picture we have now in the opening of the article. It gives a general overarching view of the whole human being including an implied emotional level and does so tastefully. I think the pics Doc has added might be nice later on on the article, but I do agree that as a definitive view of what pregnancy is they are somewhat dehumanizing.(olive (talk) 05:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC))

The language is probably Dutch.(olive (talk) 05:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC))

I like the second one, but obviously the dutch is a bit of a problem.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 00:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hasn't anyone noticed that the currently-used "Image 2" as well as all the images used under the "Another Option" thread here, have been deleted by the flickr user who originally posted them?? Due to her deleting them, it's obvious she might now have some reservations about having her images used on wikipedia. I'm not one for censorship, but seriously, hasn't anyone asked her if she feels okay with us using these photos so publicly? Kikodawgzzz (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

(undent) the person is not identifiable therefore this should not be too much of an issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It would be respectful to ask her. (olive (talk) 02:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC))

They are all still available to all on Flickr, and the Dutch uploader has purposely (we can but presume) given them a licence to make the publicly re-usable. She also may have noticed herself on the Dutch Misplaced Pages article, where she been in the lead for over two years. (You'll also not be surprised that the Dutch WP editors have no qualms at all about this image.) --Escape Orbit 23:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

There's really nothing better here than the image already in the article. But Image 4 (montage) should probably also be included on a temporary basis till something better is found. It is good because it shows the progression. I have a couple of problems with it though. First, it's of a white woman. Second, the background, and third she doesn't look terribly healthy, but more as if she's been eating a typical first-world diet, tending toward the United States rather than European standard. But this is not the worldwide norm. Mostly the other images above are either clothed, thus not showing the full range of body changes, or too dark. The File:Pregnancy 34 weeks.jpg is good but if we use it we need only the frontal one, as we already have a better sideways image in the article. And this is another good frontal. There are other good images we should use on the Dutch article . Also this is good, these, this. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The animated progression is nice, as is the ultrasound...The tubal pregnancy would be termed abnormal. Doc James could probably clarify that... so would need to be in a section on abnormalities in pregnancy, I would think. (olive (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC))

Although I still prefer the original replacement image, I think the animated progression is a good alternative. It probably conveys the most information about pregnancy of any of the proposed images and is thus the most encyclopedic. Kaldari (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm suggesting the animation and ultrasound be used in addition to the image in place now, #2. This gives us a sense of exterior and interior growth and changes, as well as an emotional sense.(olive (talk) 20:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC))

Yes, in addition. I'm wonderin' what people would say on this page if the issue of nekkedness were to be taken out of the thought process. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Tubal pregnancy, a form of Ectopic Pregnancy, is a complication, so 'Tubal Pregnancy with embryo.jpg' can go under the 'Complications' section (although it still is an abnormality, but more specifically a complication).  I think that is a good image for tubal pregnancy, both in the subject and quality.  Fallopian Tubes have tubal cilia (also see Cilium) and it can be seen in the photo, especially above the embryo and near its head.

As for the main image, I am fine with what's up there now.  Using width by height: If it is to be swapped with another to show successive stages of pregnancy, then I would recommend 2x2 (more like a square) instead of 4x1 (much wider); a 1x2 (taller) like 'Pregnancy 34 weeks.jpg' could do even better since it is more proportionate with the whole article (also a tall rectangle).  In case I was not clear enough, 1x2 means two photographs with one of them being directly below the other (but both still part of the same file), and 4x1 means four photographs horizontally one right after the other. Casdmo (talk) 04:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Mark.sinson, 13 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Hello, i would like to add this link to your Pregnancy page. <link redacted> Please review it and add it if possible. There is lot of useful information available on the site.

Would be highly obliged if your gesture is in my favor.

Regards, Mark

Mark.sinson (talk) 09:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

 Not done per WP:ELNO 5 and 13: sorry, but the link provided is for a website that exists only to sell a product (and it has a lot of advertising, including a full-screen rich-media popup on every page), and is a website devoted to a specific subject when the subject of this article is general, which means we can't include the link in the article. Please see WP:EXT for more information. -- gtdp /_(C) 11:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Once again, image in lead

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

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Maths, science, and technology When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

I know Misplaced Pages 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)

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))

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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 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)

Subsequent pregnancies (second, third, fourth, etc.) - need more info

I think there should be more info here about second, third, etc. pregnancies (whether to live delivery or not). In particular Rh disease typically affects only second and subsequent pregnancies. Also second and subsequent pregnancies generally have shorter delivery times and are often "easier". Facts707 (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I would say be WP:BOLD and add it. Just stick with medical, no POV edits about photos, abortion, population control, or anything else that makes people go insane on this page. LOL. OrangeMarlin 20:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class medicine articles
• Top-importance medicine articles
• C-Class reproductive medicine articles
• Top-importance reproductive medicine articles
• Reproductive medicine task force articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• C-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• Top-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment