Talk:Pregnancy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

NUDE IMAGES

Stale

Dido

I Agree if some like it and others don't we should just take it down.

Not only that but What purpose does it have? This is supposed to be a info site not an art site. Definitly not a porn site. What's the deal here not. Can't I click on something without having to see a nude woman? I mean there are already sites for that. This also narrows our viewing base. Not to mintion a lot of countries ban it. You are cutting off viewers.

Please put new comments at the bottom of the talk page (or at least the bottom of the relevant section) and sign your comments with four tildes (~). (the above comments were added before mine) Kuronue 19:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, The image of the nude women is not in good taste at all, please remove it soon. bobsmith319

Hi Bobsmith...there's been quite a discussion on this already - and I don't think that you'll get too far, even with polite demands. If the issue can't be resolved through a compromise, one side giving up, etc., we may want to bring in some arbitration from administrators. --Tim D 02:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Tim, expect more. We'll keep getting people (who haven't noticed that there is extensive prior discussion) pointing out their belief that the image is "inappropriate". :( Because who reads all previous discussion before posting? I, for one....er, I better not admit anything... Poweroid 16:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

No...pleez keep it. What a wonderful moment it is when a pregnant woman looks at herself...nude or part-nude. It's so beautiful it made me shed a tear. I'm a single mother of a baby boy and shared that moment with a new man in my life. I'm glad some men aren't deterred by how I've looked, because he told me it's the most feminine thing to happen to me :-D I never got any support from my ex-bf, though family and friends are there for me. -Natalie

Well, see here's the thing...while to some people it may be beautiful and generate emotion, that's not the purpose of this article. We have to look at the educational value of any content put on the page. This picture doesn't provide the value that a two-way comparison picture would, and it doesn't provide any more value than a slightly covered (or "less offensive" in some eyes) picture would. --Tim D 20:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, we are talking about removing the image, it isn't right to have it up there. If you would like, go ahead and find a photo that looks like that, and put it up. bobsmith319.

I find it peculiar that because one or two people's sensibilities are affected by an image that we write thousands of words trying to make them see that their version of 'offensive' is not what the majority (the silent majority in this case) appear to find to find offensive. Perhaps user_talk:bobsmith319 could spend his time visiting the pornographic links in WP and using his efforts there, rather than picking on something so absolutely natural as a naked woman appearing within an article about Pregnancy. This appears to be his personal crusade. As I have indicated before, this photo is FAR more educational than a clothed body. Maustrauser 23:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I said it before and I'll say it again: comparison pictures >> single nude picture. How about someone get something going on that. Let's not bring this down to a simple issue of definitions of decency. --Tim D 00:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on it Tim. It does take some effort though! An in the meantime this is a comparison photo. Most of us know what a naked woman looks like under normal circumstances and therefore this is a comparison photo. Anyway, to make complainants happier I am planning uploading a series of three photos, 10 weeks, 26 weeks and 40 weeks. I can't see user_talk:bobsmith319 liking it though as the woman is still unclothed. Maustrauser 00:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Are they of the same person? I'm not saying that there should be a picture of some random non-pregnant woman, if that's what it sounds like! Maybe if you get those up there, a notice could be placed at the top of the page saying that there are unclothed pictures later in the article. --Tim D 04:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Relax! They are all of the same woman. The delay in getting them up is they need a bit of photoshopping and we need to find some time to do it. I don't think we use disclaimers on WP regarding nudity. I've never seen it anywhere else. I still think if you look up 'pregnancy' you need to expect that you might see a naked body.Maustrauser 04:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, it's all good. Just trying to be sensitive to the the young'uns and the "can't let the boss see a naked lady on my monitor" folks :) --Tim D 05:20, 3 October 2006

(UTC)

Please cease from putting inapropriate images in Wikipedia. bobsmith319.

G'day user_talk:bobsmith319. You have never attempted to explain why a discreet photo of a naked woman is so objectionable to you. Perhaps you should go and visit a few other parts of WP and discuss your notion of what is offensive with a few other editors. Try: Daniel Lorenz Johnson, Naked, Nudity and children, Spencer Tunick, Public nudity, Terri Sue Webb, Naturism, and People in social nudity just for starters. Maustrauser 14:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, bobsmith319.

Maustrauser, thanks for those links to explain your point. Do you have any more? Poweroid 15:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Only kidding, only kidding! :-) Poweroid 15:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I was going to suggest a before and after picture, or even before, during and after as the time goes on. Nude or non nude, if someone thinks they have a good pictures, post the link of pictures here. Anyone having a baby?--WhereAmI 05:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Please DO NOT send links of pictures of naked women, this is NOT ok to do. However, adding pictured of pregnant women that are clothed are perectly fine. bobsmith319.

huh does the link missing from bobsmith319 name mean he has been banned? yay. Again, please see my post above asking for some timing pictures. If you think they are good, post them to flickr(if they are non-nude at least) an leave the link here so we may discuss if the change is good or not, considering there is controversy.--WhereAmI 05:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)--69.210.132.68 05:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it means he's not using four tildes but instead typing his username to sign- it's been like that since the beginning. note the lack of wikilink on his name when you edit this page. Kuronue 16:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow! How offensive that you want me banned. Anyway, I don't know how to sign with the link. I if someone could show me that would be great. Thank you! bobsmith319.

Hi Bobsmith - you sign your name with four tildes (~~~~). It automatically throws everything in after you save your comment. -- Tim D 22:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

People who don't want to see pictures of the human body should not be reading articles on medical topics! Note that, by policy, Wikipedia is not censored. An article on pregnancy certainly benefits from an image of the pregnant human body. I agree that having several comparison photos might be useful, but it might take up too much space and certainly won't address Bobsmith's concern (quite the contrary, I suspect).

Someone mentioned adding a disclaimer or warning. There is a policy (or guideline) against disclaimers on articles. The disclaimers are located here, and the specific disclaimer on content is Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. There are legal issues with putting disclaimers on individual articles. In particular, if we add such disclaimers or warnings, we can be held liable for failing to do so if someone leaves one off an article. Collecting all the disclaimers together in one place prevents this.--Srleffler 05:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I still think that little is benefited without a comparison picture. I don't think that two would end up taking too much space. Now, my personal opinion is that a topless model does not add significantly more than one who is not topless, but that's just me. But basically, a comparison would be best, clothed or not; it would be educational, while the current image just satisfies a curiosity at best. -- Tim D 06:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tim, I think a comparison photo would work, but to make things less complicated, I think the person in the image should be clothed. user:bobsmith319

Colleagues, As promised, I have finally got around to including a comparison photograph. I hope you find it acceptable and illustrative of the concept. I have also taken the liberty to remove the clinical and not very helpful German illustration. As it had no explanatory text the reader couldn't quite work out what all the lines meant. User:Bobsmith319, would you be so kind as to sign your name properly. You have been asked on many occasions to do it and for some reason you find it objectionable. It is simply Wikiettiquette that people can easily see your talk page and your contributions to the encyclopaedia. Your continual refusal to have a live link suggests that you have something to hide or you continue to delete comments from your talk page and I'm certain that isn't true. Maustrauser 23:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That looks great, Maustrauser, thanks for going through the trouble! Congratulations on the upcoming (or current?) bundle of joy, by the way :) -- Tim D 04:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Tim. The woman in the photo is not my partner, but a friend. It was a splendid birth and she is very happy! Cheers, Henry. Maustrauser 05:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing to hide you are right. I do not have anything against signing that way at all, and I will begin to sign corectly right now. bobsmith319.

Hello Maustrauser, The photos are great, just what the article needed! Congrats to your friend who just had her child! bobsmith319.

I don't have anything to add to this dicussion, but I did notice something. �Bobsmith never explained his reasons for finding the picture offensive. He always overlooked the question. Also I find it kinda weird that an educational picture was removed just to make one person happy, especially a person who is known for forcing his views on other people. (This is a test, bobsmith. If you just happen to "forget" to answer why you found the nude picture offensive, then we'll know you're trying to avoid the question)

A nude photo is definately appropriate - the article concerns changes to the body, so an unobstucted-by-clothing picture of the body helps to illustrate the changes. Trollderella 02:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with Trollderella - the comparison picture, whilst certainly helpful, perhaps doesn't cover all of the physical changes that occur within the body during pregnancy (as it's more than just the belly getting bigger). Furthermore, the photo provided, whilst a nude, was tasteful enough; the whole reason for taking it down seems to have been one user's aversion to nudity which, whilst unfortunate, doesn't seem to be a particularly good excuse for censoring an encyclopedia, IMHO.--Joseph Q Publique 06:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC) (Comment edited - --Joseph Q Publique 06:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC))

I don't understand how there can be any discussion to begin with; WP:NOT clearly states the wikipedia is not censored--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 02:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Trollderella, You are one of the rudest wikipedians I have met so far. I don't have to answer to you about why I find the image offensive. However, i think I will anyway. Wikipedia is a factual site, not a porn site, and I think the picutre has very little educational value. I will remove the picture. I don't push my ideas on others. Please don't form opinions about a person you don't even know! I find those comments about me extermly offensive and I will take action to get you suspended. bobsmith319.

With all due respect Bob, Removing a very good picture is far ruder then anything Trollderella has said. I ask you to not vandelise anymore pages. Wikipedia is not Censored, and frankly, it is a fact that humans have a body belong these fabrics we wear. Nudity is not porn. It never has, and never will be.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 03:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I find that incorrect, if we let one inapropriate image slide by, more serious problems will occur in other places throughout wikipeida. I have a right to remove the image if I would like, and if I am ruddly harrased by other member pushing their opinions on me, I will. This image is wildly inapropriate and should never have been put on Wikipedia in the first place. bobsmith319.

You may find it incorrect, but Wikipedia is not censored. This is the policy and your personal opinion does not overrride that. You like all editors are required to abide by this rule. Please stop vandalizing this article by removing a perfectly appropriate and relevant image from it. Thanks, Gwernol 12:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Really, This is laughible, this image should be the least of any issues you have with Wikipedia's policies. I'm guessing you have yet to view This article.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 23:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a right to do so if I like. Anyway, please look at my contributions and you will see that I have not edited the actual pregnancy article in several months. Please don't accuse people of something if you have no prrof, that is extremly rude, and if I have to, I will report you. Thanks and Happy Holidays... bobsmith319.

Well, apart from this edit on December 22 and this edit from today on both occasions deleting the image. But, yes if we ignore all the times you've removed the image from the article, you have never removed the image from the article. Please feel free to "report" me wherever you feel fit. I'm not the one who's been trying to censor Wikipedia against policy and against the consensus on this page. Gwernol 18:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

No you don't have the right to do such; Wikipedia is not censored, nor is it a one man/woman/Human show. I think you would find a great deal of trouble if you tried to report someone from Fixing your vandalism.

While a comparason image would be useful, we do not have that, we did, but it was copyrighted and thus removed some months ago. However, I think you would object to that image (it was an animated gif file) also, because she was naked (althought it was drawn). This image came from a medical site. I do not think you will ever be able to make up believe that this image is wrong for Wikipedia. If you can not handle it then please leave, do not vandelise people's hard work just because you believe that you are right.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 23:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your cooperation! I don't think there will be a need to report you at the moment. bobsmith319.

Good to see the 'naked' woman is back. It is a good photo that does provide some useful context to pregnancy. I always felt a bit bad about removing it once the comparison photo was completed. It seemed somewhat disrespectful to the woman. I am disappointed to see that Bobsmith319 seems to be using sock-puppets now to impose his view on WP. Maustrauser 23:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I never have or will use other usernames, I am an honest person and would never do such a thing. bobsmith319.

I'm laughing at that comment Bobsmith made about how he'll take steps to suspend Trollderella. You are in no position to be threating to get other Wikipedians suspended, Bob. You keep removing the image of the naked women without permission and refuse to listen to the Wikipedia policy of articles not being censored. If someone going to be suspended, it probably will be you Bob.

P.S. If you don't like the image, then don't look at this article. There is no reason you have to check out a pregnant article all the time unless you have a fetish or something.

Instead of a completely nude photo, how about this shadow image. --66.218.12.113 04:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

And its not porn, but its not appropriate. -66.218.12.113 04:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

What isn't Appropriate and why?--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 05:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The shadow photo is a very nice artistic photo, to be sure, but in my mind isn't really clear enough in it's depiction of the physical effects of pregnancy for it to be included in an encyclopedia, IMHO - there's more than just the bump going on, after all. And surely if the nude photo isn't porn, then it becomes appropriate for an article illustrating biological changes, as that is the only reason that I can think that a nude depiction of pregnancy would be inappropriate. Again, I feel quite sincerely that a user's personal aversion to nudity is not a sufficient reason to remove a nude photo from an encyclopedia, especially if it a tasteful photo present to illustrate physical changes in the body. The nude photo that is currently on the page would not look out of place in a medical textbook, after all.--Joseph Q Publique 12:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

We're not STILL discussing this, are we? <Sigh>Poweroid 18:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I say no to the shadow.--WhereAmI 03:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It's all been said before. WP is not censored. The shadowed picture REDUCES information thus it's not acceptable. MangoMango 22:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 23:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I too agree.--WhereAmI 02:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I also strongly agree. The body of pregnant women is nothing wrong, it's a miracle of life that's comming. Hviezda14 16:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I know Wikipedia isn't censored, but since this page is pubicly accessable, by kids, we should let it up to the parents to look at this stuff. Plus, check the Pornographic movie articles, I believe some of them actually show nudity. I know Wikipedia isn't censored, but we should take this at a encyclopedic stand point, not a horny schoolboy approach. -66.218.23.154 03:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ummm... who exactly is being a 'horny schoolboy' here, as you put it? Plenty of people (including myself) have actually put forward arguments as to why this picture does belong in an encyclopedia and why there is merit in putting a nude picture in an encyclopedia article. I'm afraid of sounding like a cracked record here, but I'll repeat it - pregnancy involves more physical changes than just the belly swelling (including changes to the breasts, for one), and it's important to have an image which demonstrates these changes, which this image does IMHO. This picture would not look out of place in any medical or scientific encyclopedia - and as for whether the pornographic movies articles show nudity, that's completely irrelevant for this article. As for concerns about kids and parents, I fail to see how this picture - which is quite tasteful, it must be said - could cause any serious offense or damage to any parent or child outside of the exceptionally prudish. This is an article about physical changes in the body - as such, it's hardly unreasonable for people accessing it (parents included) to expect there to be pictures of the human body in it.--Joseph Q Publique 09:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, To the user who put that pic up there, don't you dare put it up on the article. It maybe a little better, but you can still see some revealing parts that should not be seen. Don't forget: Wikipedia is NOT a porn website.

((subst:unsigned2|04:50 23 February 2007|12.214.61.17}}

I am withdrawing my comment and apologise for creating more animosity rather than trying to discuss this issue reasonably. It is just a touchy issue for me. I will refrain from further discussion on this issue. 12.214.61.17 00:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

also removed comment 12.214.61.17 01:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.214.61.17 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 23 February 2007  (UTC)

NOTE:Blocking user per WP:LEGAL please do not respond to this post any more. KillerChihuahua^?!? 05:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Bring it on. Oh and please sign your post. Maustrauser 05:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Who would sue Wikipedia? (asides from the fact that A)Medical textbooks/posters almost always have the same sort of stuff, B)this be the interweb's tubes, there are no laws, except for the local website's ones, such as wikipedia, which clearly state other wise on this matter of nudity. Also, Wikipedia's survers are located in California, which apparently has no laws on this.

I agree with Maustrauser, Bring It On--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 05:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

 *sigh* This always comes up, again and again and again. One nipple isn't a threat to national security. The naked body is not an ugly, threatening, shameful, or even an evil thing, and I'm always dismayed by the number of people who seem to think it is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and that means we aim to provide knowledge; anyone who's ever read medical texts or taken health classes can tell you: drawings and sketches don't show you half as much as real, actual photos. The real photo is more educational. If people want nudie porn shots, Wikipedia is frankly a very boring place to get them. When I was a kid, you know where I went for nudie porn pics? Let me tell you: as sure as the sky is blue, I wouldn't have gone to Wikipedia or any site like it, because there are much, much easier ways to get porn on the web. I hate to shatter anyone's innocent mind, here, but compared to what's out there, this is incredibly tame, and calling it "pornographic" is frankly laughable. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well of course you didn;t go to Wikipedia, computers are fairly new, and nobody cares where yo got porn photos, that is not the issue at hand. Please talk about that kind of crap somewhere else! --bobsmith319 02:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't you need a nude photo to show the changes that occur to the breast during pregnancy. Bobsmith, with your huge adversion to nudity, you should be glad they don't have a before and after for that (though they really should for purposes of truely showing changes in the female body during pregnancy). The one nude picture they put up is nothing compared to the "obscene" images that are truely needed to explain all the different changes a body goes through during pregnancy. Quit trying to censor the world because you find it gross to look at a nude woman. Perhaps you should work on yourself (not that you should enjoy it or not enjoy it that doesn't really matter, your problem is that you are so offended by it that you are trying to take away from people educational information.) And if you are worried about your kid running into the picture and thats why you want it censored, then what you should do is PARENT YOUR CHILD!!! Don't leave it to the rest of the world to protect your child from what you want to keep him/her away from! (and if your kid is looking for nude pictures, Wikipedia is probably the last place they will be looking) 198.133.139.5 12:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Listen, this isn't the issue at hand! This section is to debate about whether or not to remove this increibly RUDE image. Please don't pick on me, and don't attack my very helpful thoughts. I'm not trying to get the world to censor images from my kids. Please watch what you say as it could be offensive. I may need to take action to report you to Wikipedia for being uncivil. --bobsmith319 01:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not really a debate, it's a minority complaining about nude images, the rest of telling them not to make such edits, and you threating everyone that your going to report them. This latest user is merely an ip address, there's not a whole lot they can do.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 03:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

What does the picture of the nude woman do that one wearing, for example, a bra and underwear, wouldn't? 24.234.140.140 04:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's all explained in the debate above and in archived section. Please read them. Gillyweed 04:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I find it funny that Bobsmith thinks he is in the right position to report people. 71.178.16.39 (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Two things

1. You all are(Those who WANT this) making excuses to have something nude to look at and have pictures scar small children, a curious 5th grader could come at this and scroll down, he sees it. He goes back, but he wants that "Feeling" more and get him addicted to porn.

2.This is Wikipedia...You should NOT see NUDE PEOPLE unless you directly look for it, If you search "Penis/Vagina" Etc, you would expect nude pictures...Here is an article that at MOST would have Dirty text for the youth, you're just over-sensitive women(I've read all of the above) who think your own feelings about this "Work of Art." surpass the fact little kids can get sexual disorders from this kinda of stuff, put in the porn article for god sake, Wikipedia doesn't have to have nude pictures everytime you search something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.21.38 (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to say this is one of the funnier comments I've encountered on Wikipedia. Tvoz |talk 04:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent Revert

You know, I actually think I might have a source for that, belive it or not... when I get home I'll see if I can find it. More proof that sex ed is needed Kuronue 15:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, now that I have time, this is what was added:

"Many school girls believe that one can become pregnant in the act of touching a boy on the arm, or even talking to them. The term "Devil's Spawn" has been used for any girls who choose to undertake such disgusting activities."

Here's what I have from Reviving Ophelia by Mary Pipher, page 208-209, which might be a little outdated as it was copyright 1994:

"As we sat around the table for our first group, I was struck by how young these girls were, how unsophisticated and how uttelry ignorant they were about sex. They swore like longshoremen, but they knew little about their own bodies, contraception or pregnancy. One girl announced that "you can't get pregnant without oral sex cuz that's when the sperm goes into your belly." Another girl, who had been pregnant, said earnestly, "I really never had sex." Sex education had been the movies and telelvision. Sex education had been their lessons on the streets"

So it's not the same, but should there be a mention of misconceptions about pregnancy, or at least a mention of how one gets into this condition of pregnancy? Kuronue 19:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would say that there's anything gained by including misconceptions. But maybe there should be some more elaboration about how one becomes pregnant. There is info there, but it may not be enough for those who know absolutely nothing about intercourse, fertilization, etc. -- Tim D 01:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing to hide you are right. I do not have anything against signing that way at all, and I will begin to sign corectly right now. bobsmith319.

Contradictions

Stale

In Pregnancy#Determining the beginning of pregnancy and predicting date of birth, there are some apparent contradictions, or at least places were different pieces of text don't mesh well together:

• "Fewer than 10% of births occur on the due date..." vs. "Approximately 3.6% of all women deliver on the due date predicted by LMP, and 4.7% give birth on the day predicted by ultrasound." This isn't technically a contradiction since 3.6% and 4.7% are both less than 10%, but these statements should be harmonized. It needs to be clear what the sources for these statements are, and which method of finding due date is assumed. If the passage that begins with the 10% figure is just less precise than the other passage, it should be removed.
• "An early ultrasound can determine the age of the pregnancy fairly accurately." seems to contradict the rest of the paragraph following it, which indicates that the age is never known that accurately and is usually dated from the last menstrual cycle. Is this because early ultrasounds are not typically done or is there some other explanation?
• The paragraph on Naegele's rule says "...or 37 weeks (259 days) from the date of fertilization", which conflicts both with the Merck manual paragraph and the article on Naegele's rule, both of which say 38 weeks (266 days) from fertilization.

--Srleffler 06:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Pregnancy information

Resolved

FAQ about pregnacy

off topic, resolving Kuronue | Talk 02:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Foods & Nutrition during Pregnancy

Resolved

Pregnancy Diet: I attempted to include 20 lines on "pregnancy diet", including what is needed (folate, calcium, iron...) and what is harzardous (Listeria, Toxoplasma) and how to deal with it (Dec.6, 2006). I'm professor in human nutrition and food hygiene in Toulouse Vet school (France), and I tried to include true facts, and to write them in simple terms. Seems useful to pregnant women, no?

Text was removed few hours later by Tdowling because: "unencyclopedic". What does this mean? What do you think of that? Corpet 13:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Appologies - I don't think it means much except that that user does not like it. Let's put it back, in the absence of any specific compaint, and see if Tdowling can expand on his / her objection. Trollderella 22:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I had a read of it and I think it is useful information but was written in too an informal tone. How about it be reinstated but perhaps written a little less informally? Maustrauser 22:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly what I meant, and why I mentioned that it should be moved to the talk page. It's good information, but it was kind of written like a pamphlet, which doesn't really fit with how the tone should be. I believe that the addition was also lacking in references. Hopefully no offense was taken in the revert. -- Tim D 23:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure no offense was taken, but it is helpful to offer some constructive suggestions when removing material that is obviously contributed in good faith, and has some value - let's work on the version below. Thanks! Trollderella 23:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks to all contributors. I fully agree with the idea of writing it in a more "formal" way. Let me try, hoping you won't "kill" the poor Frenchie onces more! ;o) Corpet 17:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Tim, I reverted "my" formal text back to "article" (and thus deleted it from below: is this Wik-unethical?). However, I did not add references: I am a scientist, and almost each word in "my" text might be supported by several refs. I guess it would be boring to the readers, No? If most people think references are a must, I will choose one or two selected refs for each statement. Corpet 18:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Revert of edits 21st Jan 2007

Resolved

I have reverted Ferrymans series of edits of 20th/21st Jan 2007. They form original research interpretation:

• removing mention 9 months
• Trimesters are medically useful, and not just some idle rule of thumb for women to categorise their symptoms. Fetal development is largely completed in the 1st 12 weeks, not the first 6. Hence pregnant women are advised to take folic acid supplementation until 12th week of pregnancy, until spinal cord development is complete and risk of spina bifida has been reduced. 12th week of pregnancy = 10 weeks after fertilisation. The start of the second trimester at around 24 weeks roughly coincides with point of viability, so suggesting that all that happens after 6 weeks is some continuos uniform process is an original research point of view.
• The change of "In medicine, pregnancy is defined as beginning when the developing embryo becomes implanted into the endometrial lining" as instead "In medicine, pregnancy is defined as the period from conception to birth. However, it is not uncommon for doctors to say that pregnancy begins after conception, when the developing embryo becomes implanted into the endometrial lining" is incorrect, conception is not the same as the date of the Last Menstrual Period, nor is it the same as fertilisation. Conception, to me, means not some floating fertilised egg (that can occur in a lab with In Vitro Fertilisation), but rather "established pregnancy" - i.e. that implantation has occurred and that it has done so successfully, with hormonal levels having built up so that endometrial shedding of the next period has been averted - i.e. conception is when pregnancy is established with the date of the missed period = 2 weeks after fertilisation = 4 "weeks of pregnancy".
• Counting from start of previous period is not an alternative concept in medicine, it is the standard method of counting the weeks of pregnancy, but in no way alters medicine's view of when pregnancy starts (i.e. with implantation). Medicine does not consider a women to be pregnant during the time from 0 to 2 "weeks of pregnancy", i.e. pregnancy starts at a value of 2 weeks. Hence:
  • Last Menstrual Period = 0 "weeks of pregnancy"
  • Fertilisation = 2 "weeks of pregnancy"
  • Implantation = 2 weeks + few days of pregnancy = the women is now pregnant, but yet to prove that fully established
  • Missed period = 4 "weeks of pregnancy" = when a women (without aid of science/medicine) could state as having conceived and is in "established pregnancy"
  • Expected Date of Delivery = 40 "weeks of pregnancy"
  • Where a women's natural menstrual cycle is not the average or default value of 28 days, then ovulation and fertilisation is assumed to occur 14 days prior to the missed period (2 weeks of pregnancy point). The 0 weeks of pregnancy is then calculated from this and the Expected date of Delivery as 38 weeks beyond this. David Ruben ^Talk 04:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Here are the edits I made. I’ll address our disagreements one by one, Dr. Ruben.

I. First, my user name is Ferrylodge.

II. Regarding the "9 months" that you say I removed, I did not touch the portion of the article that says, "human pregnancy is approximately 266 days from the date of fertilization. This is 38 weeks, or 9 lunar months." However, perhaps you would like to remove that sentence, since you dispute that pregnancy begins when a viable zygote is formed at fertilization. I would say that you are the one with unusual opinions here, not me. I did rewrite the following sentence "Human pregnancy lasts approximately 9 months between the time of the last menstrual cycle and childbirth (38 weeks from fertilisation)." As I said in the comments, this sentence was ambiguous as to whether it was referring to the START or the END of the last menstrual cycle. Therefore, I edited it to say: “Human pregnancy lasts approximately 38 weeks from conception to childbirth.” I did not insert any new information at all. I merely deleted an ambiguous phrase. Can’t you see that the former quoted sentence is ambiguous as to whether it is referring to the start or the end of the last menstrual cycle? If it is referring to the START of the last menstrual cycle, then the correct number would be 40 weeks = 10 months, right?

III. Regarding trimesters … Dr. Ruben, you say, “Trimesters are medically useful, and not just some idle rule of thumb for women to categorise their symptoms.” The sentence in question has now been reverted (by you, Dr. Ruben) so that it begins with this statement which I did not write: “In many societies' medical and legal definitions, human pregnancy is somewhat ARBITRARILY divided into three trimester periods, as a means to simplify reference to the different stages of fetal development” (my emphasis). So, it was not I who said that the trimester division is somewhat arbitrary. Dr. Ruben, is your argument with me, or is it with whoever wrote the sentence just quoted? Dr. Ruben, you say, “Fetal development is largely completed in the 1st 12 weeks, not the first 6” and “12th week of pregnancy = 10 weeks after fertilisation.” I never suggested that fetal development is completed in the first 6 weeks = 4 weeks after fertilisation. You accuse me of suggesting that “all that happens after 6 weeks [i.e. after 4 weeks from fertilisation] is some continuous uniform process.” I NEVER SAID ANY SUCH THING. All I did was add to the above-quoted sentence (emphasis added): “In many societies' medical and legal definitions, human pregnancy is somewhat arbitrarily divided into three trimester periods, as a means to simplify reference to the different events and symptoms during the pregnancy. However, in terms of prenatal development, human pregnancy is instead broken up differently (i.e. into a pre-implantation period of two weeks from CONCEPTION, an embryonic period of six MORE weeks, and a fetal period until birth). Nevertheless, the trimester framework is useful in describing pregnancy from the pregnant woman's point of view”. If you will look at the Wikipedia article on Fetal Development (to which I linked), you will see in the Table of Contents that pregnancy is not divided into trimesters, but rather is divided into pre-implantation, embryonic, and fetal periods. I was merely trying to explain that this is how biologists treat fetal development, whereas the trimester framework is not the primary framework of developmental biology. Do you think it is the primary framework of developmental biology? Maybe the way I wrote it could be rephrased, but do you actually think the article on Fetal Development needs to be totally rewritten in terms of the trimester framework?

IV. I changed, “In medicine, pregnancy is defined as beginning when the developing embryo becomes implanted into the endometrial lining of a woman's uterus” to instead “In medicine, pregnancy is defined as the period from conception to birth. However, it is not uncommon for doctors to say that pregnancy begins after conception, when the developing embryo becomes implanted into the endometrial lining of a woman's uterus. Alternatively, obstetricians often date weeks of pregnancy from before conception, i.e. from the start of the last menstrual period which means that conception would typically occur at the end of the 2nd week of pregnancy.” You say that this is incorrect. You say, “conception is not … the same as fertilisation.” You say, “conception is when pregnancy is established with the date of the missed period = 2 weeks after fertilisation = 4 ‘weeks of pregnancy’.” Please note that the Wikipedia page on fertilisation begins by saying that fertilisation is also known as conception. How can it be original research on my part if I merely go by what the fertilisation page says? But since you apparently have a quarrel with whoever wrote the fertilisation page, I will take this opportunity to weigh in on their side. Many medical dictionaries say that conception means “formation of a viable zygote”. I agree with you that the viability of the zygote will not be knowable by doctors such as yourself until implantation occurs, but still the fact remains that the zygote is formed at fertilisation. Right?

V. You say, “Counting from start of previous period is not an alternative concept in medicine, it is the standard method of counting the weeks of pregnancy.” But don’t embryologists frequently count from fertlisation instead of from 2 weeks before? All I was trying to explain is that there are two alternative ways of counting. I’m not the one who wrote Fetal_development#Fetal_Development, and yet there are obviously two alternative ways of counting presented there.

VI. You say, “Medicine does not consider a woman to be pregnant during the time from 0 to 2 ‘weeks of pregnancy’, i.e. pregnancy starts at a value of 2 weeks.” Don’t you agree that this is an odd concept that needs to be explained? Don’t you agree that the present article is blatantly incorrect when it says, “Human pregnancy lasts … between the time of the last menstrual cycle and childbirth …”?

VII. Perhaps you will agree with me that pregnancy begins at conception. If you’ll research the matter, you’ll find that conception means “formation of a viable zygote” which can only occur at fertilisation, although the viability will not be known at least until implantation. That is what the long-standing fertilisation article says, and I agree with it.

VIII. After your reversions, the article now says, “Before pregnancy begins, a female oocyte (egg) must join, by spermatozoon in a process referred to in medicine as ‘fertilisation’, or commonly (though perhaps inaccurately) as ‘conception.’” The last parenthetical is vague, without even an explanation of why it is vague, or what the uncertainty is all about. Do you think that’s a good way to write an article?Ferrylodge 06:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Medical Conditions during Pregnancy

Stale

Would the poster please provide sources for the bit about broken bones in the neonate incurred during birth? I am a midwife and haven't heard of this except in very rare occurrences caused by the obstetrician or midwife. the In fact, areas of human neonates' bones are not completely calcified at birth, which has the benefit of greater flexibility and durability. I wonder if there's another phrasing for the "ripped internal and external flesh" bit, as well. There certainly are complications which can occur during birth, but these two are perhaps not the most important, nor quite accurately worded. Jazapp310 07:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Swiss ball home exercise programs for pregnant women.

Resolved

I think this is a good link for home exercise programs for pregnant women:

• Swiss ball home exercise programs for pregnancy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.67.3.103 (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

off-topic, resolving Kuronue | Talk 02:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Question about terminology

Resolved

In the article the "Estimated Date of Delivery" (EDD) is referenced, I'm on my second kid and have never heard it referred to as anything but "Estimated Date of Confinement" (EDC) by my wife and the various doctors and midwives. I actually came to this page hoping to shed some light on the origin of this term. Captain Rotundo 17:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

off topic, resolving Kuronue | Talk 02:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Sexual aspects of pregnancy

Resolved

I came upon a web site deals with questions, issues and solutions on sexual activity during pregnancy. I don't know this is considered appropriate, but every pregnant woman and her partner has the right to know. It's important to consult your physician/ob-gyn on the safety of sexual intercourse, and some couples may find the idea not comforting or unfit for them (like religious belief and cultural morality). In the majority of married couples involving a pregnant woman, sex is generally safe and not risky, but a pregnant woman may feel discomfort, or she might enjoy her love-making better than before. 63.3.14.1 22:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Questions on sexuality in pregnancy...this may contain mature content.

Sex isn't an inappropriate topic, particularly in regards to pregnancy, which occurs as a result of sex! Thanks for the idea! Do you have any sources such as newspaper articles that you would like to include in the article? Joie de Vivre 21:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

drive-by ad, resolved Kuronue | Talk 02:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"Embryo", "fetus", "human",

Stale

The dispute is here: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, diff 5, diff 6.

The phrase "female human" is adequate. "Human" can be used appropriately as a noun in this circumstance. In contrast. I don't think if I showed you a clot of blood with a 1-day old embryo in it and a clot of blood without one in it that you'd be able to tell me which clot contained the "human". The word "organism" is entirely appropriate when describing the medical terminology of pregnancy, it's not necessary for describing an adult human.

I'd like to point out that using the non-medical term "baby" when describing an embryo is against consensus; which is why we use the medical terms "embryo" and "fetus". The only reason we aren't using the terms "embryo" or "fetus" here is that we are describing the meanings of those words themselves. The fact that we cannot use medically accurate words to describe themselves does not create an opportunity to use medically dubious terms in what seems to be a pro-life POV-push. From Organism:

In biology and ecology, an organism (...) is a living complex adaptive system of organs that influence each other in such a way that they function in some way as a stable whole.

This sounds like a much more appropriate term for an embryo than the noun human.

I am not interested in a long argument with you, Ferrylodge. Joie de Vivre 23:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Joie, first I would like to mention that (as I have recently learned myself), it is not okay to write a comment and then substantially edit it, which you have done here. According to Wikipedia guidelines, "Even if no one has replied, someone may still have read what you have written — so think before you speak! If you wish to amend your statement, use strike-through or a place holder to show it is a retrospective alteration."

You say that you are not interested in a long argument with me. I don't want a long argument with you either.

You stated "I'd like to point out that using emotionally charged terms like ‘baby’ when describing embryos is against consensus". That is a red herring. I did not suggest using the term “baby’, did I? If this is the kind of argument you want to make, then we will get nowhere.

Joie, you say that I am using “medically dubious terms in what seems to be a pro-life POV-push.” Since when is the word “human” a medically dubious term? Or do you insist on falsely accusing me of proposing the term “baby”?

Instead of providing multiple diffs, I would say that the dispute is only here. In other words, the only dispute is that Joie would like to edit the article as follows: “The medical term for a pregnant female human is genetalian, although this term is rarely used in common speech. The terms for the human organism within her are embryo, used during the initial weeks, and fetus, until birth.”

In the edit summary, I explained why the word "human" should not be crossed out: “I think it would be better to use a different term than ‘organism’ to denote the unborn fetus and embryo, especially if it is considered inappropriate to call the pregnant woman an 'organism’”.

The word “organism” is not commonly used by doctors (or by others) to describe a fetus that may be viable. The word “human”, however, is commonly used by doctors and by others to describe both a fetus as well as an embryo.

Prior to today, the article stated: “the medical term for the baby is 'embryo' (early weeks) and then 'fetus' (until birth)".

On 1 January 2007, the article said: “the medical term for the baby is embryo (early weeks) and then fetus (until birth).”

On 1 January 2006, the article said, “the medical term for the unborn human is an embryo (early weeks) and then "foetus" (until birth).”

On 1 July 2005, the article said, “the medical term for the unborn human is embryo and then fetus.”

So, until today, the article used terms like "baby" and "unborn human". I will revert to the longstanding term "unborn human" until we reach a consensus.Ferrylodge 00:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Politics aside, I'm opposed to the "organism within her" phrasing because it is terrible, terrible, terrible writing. It's clumsy, convoluted, and reads poorly. As a staunch supporter of reproductive rights I don't see anything wrong with the term "unborn human" (What's the alternative? Unborn dog?) I think that especially if you want to change the text to something that reads poorly, the onus is on you to get consensus first, Joie. Nandesuka 00:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nandesuka. Gillyweed 09:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, what I said is not a red herring, because I never said that you used the word "baby". The article said "baby" before I initially edited it (diff), which is why I pointed out that that word was not appropriate. I do not want to spend any more of my time debunking extrapolation as to the intent of my words.

That said, "organism" is an appropriate term for use in a sentence that details medical terminology. The words "embryo" and "fetus" cannot be used to describe themselves. We must use another word. However, this is not an appropriate situation in which to insert emotionally laden terms POV terms such as "unborn (whatever)". This is especially inappropriate in a sentence detailing medical terminology. The word "unborn" certainly has to go, mostly because of its emotional charge, but particularly because embryos are frequently miscarried and would never have been born. The word "developing" can replace "unborn". But we're not going to agree on the term "human". I think it's entirely inappropriate, because this word is never used in medical terminology to describe an embryo. What is wrong with "organism"? Joie de Vivre 18:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Joie, I restored the article to the longstanding version which used the term unborn "human", instead of your new term "organism". I also explained why. There is no consensus for your edit. Please stop reverting until there is a consensus. Thx.Ferrylodge 18:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with "organism"? Joie de Vivre 18:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Joie, I already explained, as have others. If you again insist on a word like "organism" (or if you instead insist on "creature" or "parasite" or "thing" or whatever) that is not commonly used to describe an unborn human, then there will be no consensus. Thx.Ferrylodge 18:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No doctor would use the word "organism" in this context, which makes your appeals to "medical terminology" all the more poignant and amusing. For the record, the Medline medical dictionary defines "fetus" as:

an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the 
basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing 
human from usually two months after conception to birth.[1]

The definition for embryo uses similar language ("developing human individual"). Therefore, to summarize, "what's wrong with "organism"" is that its use in this context is, as near as I can tell, a neologism invented by you. You certainly haven't cited any reliable sources that use that term to describe a fetus in the context of human pregnancy. Nandesuka 19:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, a doctor would not use the word "organism" if the grammatical circumstances allowed them to use the words "embryo" or "fetus". The only reason we can't use those words here is that we are describing those words. But this circumstance is not an opportunity for anyone to push POV language. The phrase "unborn baby" is emotionally weighty and thus inappropriate, especially for a sentence defining medical terms like "embryo" and "fetus". Until just recently, Ferrylodge was pushing for the similar phrase "unborn human". I'm glad that we can get past the inappropriate use of the word "unborn". But this still leaves the problem of what word to use to describe an embryo or fetus. Others have a problem with "organism". I have a problem with using the noun "human" to reference something barely visible to the naked eye.

I'm saying this mainly to illustrate that, as I am sure you are aware, whether an embryo should be considered fully human is a subject of intense political, philosophical and theological debate. The opening paragraphs of the Pregnancy article is not an appropriate forum in which to hash out such a debate, and it's certainly not a place to take sides without further comment on the complexity of the issue. Any subtle POV-pushing of any kind must not be tolerated. So, I think a better sentence for our NPOV encyclopedia article would be:

"The term embryo is used to describe the product of conception during the initial weeks, and the term fetus is used from about two months of development until birth."

In this way, we can tactfully avoid wording that will cause dispute, while still maintaining accuracy. I personally would like to agree on this compromise. I really don't want to argue at length, my goal is to uphold WP:NPOV. I think this sentence does that. What do you think? Joie de Vivre 16:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that we cannot make up unique usages just to push our own political agendas. My point, above, is that a neutral, reliable source uses both the terms "unborn" and "developing human". At this point, I think the only acceptable change would be to another term that you can demonstrate has equal common use in reliable sources. If you can find a neutral reliable source that describes a fetus as a "product of conception" then I'm willing to agree to that change. So far, I haven't found any such source. Nandesuka 16:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if there is a neutral reliable source that uses the term "product of conception" for a possibly viable fetus, the terminology "unborn human" is much more common to describe a fetus and embryo, and the latter term is also much more longstanding in this article (as described above). The only reason to reject the term "unborn human" is to advance an agenda according to which a fetus is not human. Therefore, I don't support introduction of the term "product of conception" in this context.Ferrylodge 17:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, that's a big red herring: you're using "human" as an adjective. As I've said, whether or not an embryo is a human being is a subject of intense debate. The opening paragraphs of the Pregnancy article is not an appropriate forum in which to hash out such a debate, and it's certainly not a place to take sides without further comment on the complexity of the issue. Referring to an embryo as "a... human" is fraught with unheard commentary, and including it is POV.

The words "embryo" or "fetus" (or "unborn child" or "preborn American") will almost always be used as opposed to "product of conception", depending on where you look, but I've included my sources below. Again, the fact that we must use a different word to define "embryo" and "fetus" does not create an opportunity to default to a certain POV. Referring to an embryo as "a developing human" is far more POV in nature than referring to an embryo as "the product of conception". Joie de Vivre 20:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Google returns over 40,000 results for "product of conception". The government of New Zealand uses the phrase multiple times in its glossary provided by the Health Information Service: [2]. Pope John Paul used the phrase [3]. The Texas Administrative Code uses the phrase: [4]. The phrase "product of conception" to describe an embryo or fetus is factually accurate, it is neutral, and it is the phrase that should be used. Joie de Vivre 20:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is there any debate in a reputable textbook or medical journal about whether or not an embryo is a human?Ferrylodge 20:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean to infer that you, who in the last few weeks has made numerous contributions to Beginning of pregnancy controversy, Fetus, Fetal pain, Template:Abortion, and Roe v. Wade, have never heard of the Stem cell controversy? Joie de Vivre 20:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Joie, no I have never before visited the Wikipedia article that you mentioned. However, I just visited it, and it says: "Many scientists believe that homo-sapien life only begins when brainwaves and heartbeats develop, which is during the 9th week of pregnancy, so embryos are not humans."

Notice the thingy at the end that I inserted. Also, please note that Wikipedia is not "a reputable textbook or medical journal". I agree with Nandesuka about this, and I wish we did not have to spend so much time going in circles here.Ferrylodge 20:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

A source that states that embryos are not humans only supports my claim that the noun "human" should not be used. Joie de Vivre 20:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia may not be a source for Wikipedia. Please review WP:RS. Nandesuka 21:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

(de-indenting). While I'm aware that issues of terminology are very important to POV warriors, this is the first I've heard that referring to a fetus as a "human fetus" is viewed as pushing a particular view (compare and contrast to describing a fetus as a "person," for example, which is hotly debated, and I agree that the term "baby" may carry some emotional weight). I understand that you are asserting that "human" in this context pushes a particular POV. However, I disagree that it does. I think you are, quite simply, boxing shadows here. I absolutely support the use of neutral language. However, I equally oppose the use of clumsy and convoluted language to replace language that, to me, already seems perfectly NPOV. Unless you're seriously arguing that the Medline dictionary is written by pro-life fanatics, which I would find hard to believe. Nandesuka 20:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again, using the noun, "human", as in "a human" to describe an embryo is inherently problematic. Yes, whether or not a fetus is a person is debated, and so is whether or not "an embryo" is "a human". We must not take sides in this article. Joie de Vivre 20:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Joie, If you are trying to argue with a straight face that calling an embryo a "developing human" is pushing a POV, I think you will continue have an uphill battle. It is commonly accepted medical usage. If you have any sources at all that support your singular contention that "developing human" is a politically charged term to describe a fetus, now would be a good time to share them. Nandesuka 20:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this would be a better time for you to prove that the phrase "product of conception" is somehow inappropriate. I've already made my point crystal-clear. Stem cell controversy details the problems inherent in referring to an embryo as "a human", whether "developing", "unborn" (as this article said previously), or otherwise. Joie de Vivre 20:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've already provided my reliable source (the medline dictionary). You still haven't provided yours. (A wikipedia article is not a reliable source according to Wikipedia policies.) Nandesuka 21:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Did the entirety of the Reference section escape you? Joie de Vivre 21:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it sure did. Please share a reliable source that supports your contention that referring to an embryo as a "developing human" is a politically charged term. Nandesuka 21:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Joie, which one of those references states that many scientists believe a "human embryo" is not a "human"? I doubt there are more than a dozen scientists in the whole world who believe that. Please understand that there is nothing contradictory between acknowledging that an organism is a "human" while at the same time supporting destruction of that human.Ferrylodge 21:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, one could easily accept that something is not a "human", but yet is a "developing human." Lastly, one can accept that something is "human" but not a "person." Regardless of these many options, the point is that we need to provide not our own personal opinions, but those of reliable sources. At the present time, Joie, you seem to be on a crusade to push your own opinion in to the article. Directly providing a reliable source (rather than vaguely waving your hand and saying "Go read those 50 articles over there that may or may not support what I'm saying") would be a simple way to disabuse me of that notion. Nandesuka

Pregnancy etiquette

Resolved

I want to include the web link to pregnancy etiquette in the external links. I found this on AOL search, since pregnancy etiquette has hundreds of web pages on the subject...and better yet I can make a new topic on pregnancy etiquette. To ask sexual matters or this sort of thing to a pregnant women is definitely rude! I call it a type of bad manners and some people's innocent but unwelcome actions/comments, and remarks may be forms of Pregnancy discrimination or harassment in many US states and countries. California state law has a highly-detailed thing against pregnancy harassment...but unable to find or link it, maybe we should contact the state government on what it clearly states. 63.3.14.1 12:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

CBS news.com Pregnancy etiquette - What to say/not say to a pregnant woman.

as it stands, this looks like a drive-by ad; pity that, since it seemed so useful to ad to the article. Kuronue | Talk 02:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Natural Abortion

Resolved

Sorry if this is a stupid question.

Can I mother naturally abort a child? By this, I mean she would never get an abortion, but with all her might she doesn't want to have a child, and thus her body poisons the fetus. (Through no conscious effort or ill-actions taken on the mother's part.) JimmmyThePiep 16:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Mothers can miscarry, which is generally considered a spontaneous abortion. There is no research that I'm aware of that demonstrates that the mother's desires or mental state in any way affects the likelihood of miscarriage. So the answer to your question is "yes, natural abortion happens all the time, in fact frequently" but "no, no one has demonstrated that the specific mechanism you propose happens." Nandesuka 11:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

off-topic and answered, resolved. Kuronue | Talk 02:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Fetus

Stale

The article says that the fetus does not even begin to take a recognizable shape until sometime during the second trimester. This is incorrect. Additionally, there are no images at this page that show the recognizable shape of the fetus at the very beginning of the fetal stage. Instead, there are some blurry ultrasound images, as well as some illustrations wherein the fetus is too infinitesimally small to discern anything.

I suggest addition of the following image. This seems like a better article for this image than the fetus article, since the other images here are not particularly clinical. The following image has a life-size replica of a fetus at 8 weeks after fertilization (i.e. the beginning of the fetal stage). The replica itself is a useful image for this article, and the relative size to an adult hand is also useful.

There have been objections to this image because the adult hand is a "married white male", and I hope that such crude comments will not reappear.

Ferrylodge 04:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't misquote other editors. I objected to the image on March 5, 2007 for the following reasons (note the plurality):

"A picture of a plastic model of a fetus isn't helpful to the article, especially since it's not a particularly good model. Ceci n'est pas un foetus. The hand gives no sense of dimension, is distracting (especially given that my eye is drawn to the shiny, gold wedding band, not the model), and, frankly, the undertones of the composition are something which one might expect to find on a poster or on the cover of a pamphlet. In short, it isn't encyclopaedic."

Other users raised objections to the image on Talk:Fetus. The only comment which actually did make reference to a "married white male" was 03:55, 7 March 2007 by SheffieldSteel:

"When I look at that picture, I see the hand of a white, male, married adult. I do not see any 'help' in judging the size of the fetus model."

The objection is clearly to the fact that the hand does not help in determining size — not because the hand is that of a "married white male." But, regardless, an image of a model of a fetus cradled in somone's hand would still be POV no matter what the person's race or marital status. -Severa (!!!) 05:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Severa, your accusation that I "misquote other editors" is as mistaken as the rest of your comment. I would suggest that you try to be civil, and assume good faith, however difficult that may be for you.

In my comment above, I said: "There have been objections to this image because the adult hand is a 'married white male.'" I did not mention who said that, and frankly I did not recall. But now you point out that SheffieldSteel said that she saw the hand of a "white, male, married adult." To accuse me of misquoting other editors is therefore manifestly absurd.

As to your complaint that Ceci n'est pas un foetus, I agree that the image above is not a fetus. Likewise, there are no pregnant women in the pregnancy article - only images of pregnant women. So what?

You offer no explanation why you think the pictured model is not "a particularly good model." The purpose is to show that it has a recognizable human shape (which is a lot more than can be said for the other images of a first trimester fetus presently in this article) and to give an idea of size. Do you think that the multiple images of a first trimester fetus currently in the present pregnancy article are adequate even though you cannot make out a head or arms or legs?

I stand by my contention that it is crude to mention the race, gender, or marital status of the person holding the replica. And I would also suggest that the image illustrates the humanity of an 8-week fetus, which does tend to support one POV more than another POV. Facts are funny that way. They often tend to support one POV or another. Is that a good reason to suppress the facts?Ferrylodge 05:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, have you seen the cover of Time Magazine for February 27 of this year?[5] Do you think Time Magazine is POV pushing?Ferrylodge 06:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

here is the edit I made to the image per the last RfC concerning this image (the one where a number of the commenters said the image would be better with a more neutral size scale, like a ruler). That said, I object to the use of this image and the original, unedited version, to illustrate pregnancy. A crude plastic model is just that, a crude plastic model, and the hand does not serve any encyclopedic purpose that a neutral ruler doesn't serve better. On top of this, the original image is pro-life propaganda (the creator of the image is pro-life, and clearly illustrated by Ferrylodge's last paragraph (second to last due to the edit conflict), the image is "aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of people.") This image is not neutral, nor encyclopedic, and it is basically off topic at this article. Side note, I also found no mistakes in Severa's last post.-Andrew c 06:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

As for Time Magazine, yes the cover is POV. Those are actual models that a crisis pregnancy center uses for the sole purpose of trying to convince pregnant women not to have an abortion.-Andrew c 06:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, undent) Ferrylodge, characterising the relevant objections of other editors as "crude" in your first post, and doing so again in your second post, isn't civil. You misquoted other editors because you presented what was actually said out of context, even if the misquoting was simply the result of an oversight. No one actually objected to the image on the basis of the race, gender, or marital status of the person behind the hand. ShieffieldSteel's comment was only that he saw a hand, a "white, male, married adult" hand, and that this hand did not help in in determining the size of the model. In short, ShieffieldSteel did not object to it being the hand of a "white, male, married adult," but because the hand did not aid the viewer in determining the size of the model. In the future, I'd suggest checking over past debates, if you intend to make reference to them in another line of discussion.

There isn't really a comparison between the images in this article and the image of the fetus model. The images in this article depict actual pregnant woman, aside from the diagrams, whereas the fetus picture is a picture of a model. A picture of a model is not helpful, especially if the majority of the image is actually the hand holding the model, and if the model would be harder to resolve from the hand at smaller resolutions due to the similarity in tone. -Severa (!!!) 06:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c, I take it that you are endorsing Severa's accusation that I have misquoted other editors. And to top it off, you call me a propagandist. Thanks so much for your civility and your assumption of good faith.

Yes, the person who made the image is pro-life. That does not make the image propaganda by any stretch of the imagination. There are no fallacies in the image, nothing misleading, no glittering generalities, no intentional vagueness, no slogans, no stereotyping.

Moreover, I do not know what or who you are quoting when you write that the image is "aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of people." If I said that, I do not recall where. Would you kindly explain what or who you are quoting, please?

The present article says that the fetus does not even begin to take a recognizable shape until sometime during the second trimester. This is incorrect. The image I've suggested shows the opposite. This article presently includes some blurry ultrasound images, as well as some illustrations wherein the 8-week fetus is too infinitesimally small to discern anything. How you can think that these highly misleading statements and useless images are superior to the image of the fetus in hand is completely beyond my understanding, and for you to suggest that correcting false and misleading information is "off topic" really strains credibility.

If a Crisis Pregnancy Center informs a woman of facts in order to dissuade her from getting an abortion, that does not make the facts POV, and it certainly does not mean that Time Magazine was taking a POV when it published its 27 February cover.[6]

Severa, if an editor had objected to an image with the observation that it includes a "black lesbian" then that would be crude, and I would make no apologies for saying so. There is nothing any less crude about objecting to an image while observing that it includes a "white, male, married adult" and I make no apologies for criticizing the use of race, gender, and sexual preference in this way. Such things should be irrelevant to this discussion, and it's regrettable that you have chosen to conduct an extended discussion about them. As I said in my initial comment, "I hope that such crude comments will not reappear." If you continue to divert this discussion into matters of sex, race, and sexual preference, then that is your prerogative but I strongly object.

Blurry ultrasound images, with illustrations wherein the 8-week fetus is too infinitesimally small to discern anything, are most unhelpful. Together with the false statements in the present article, they are extremely misleading. All of this misinformation would be quickly and easily corrected by insertion of the truthful and accurate image that I've pasted above.Ferrylodge 07:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I don't want to get diverted into an argument about gender, race, and sexual preference. Therefore, I've deleted my responses on those topics.Ferrylodge 08:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I was quoting our propaganda article, hence the wikilink. As Nandesuka pointed out, "It uses iconography that has been used by a specific political movement for many years, and should not be used in this article." I had a friend over a few weeks back. I didn't say anything except "check out this image that someone wants to include on the fetus article." My friend isn't a wikipedia editor, doesn't know our policies or NPOV, but her first reaction was "Oh my gosh, how is that neutral". Despite our failure (or refusal) to pinpoint one specific concern over this image, it is clear that, generally speaking, it has strong connotations associated with political positions. I also agree that the ultrasound images are an important part for this article. The vast majority of pregnant women in western countries get ultrasounds during their pregnancies. While they may not be the best image source for fetus, they clearly belong in this article. And if we can find a more neutral image of a fetus, all the better, but no need to attack the ultrasound images.-Andrew c 16:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

(unindenting) My opinion: the "hand" image is clearly unencyclopedic, POV-pushing, and absolutely inappropriate. It uses iconography that has been used by a specific political movement for many years, and should not be used in this article. The "ruler" version, while slightly better, still has the hallmarks of a highly manipulated image. I'm therefore opposed to using it in this article. The fact is that what image we choose of a fetus will have a political meaning: we can select a fetus that looks "like a little baby", or we can select a fetus that looks like a tadpole. We can select a fetus that (like this one) is artificially clean and pink, or we can select a fetus that is covered in blood, amniotic fluid, and ichor. Whatever choices we make here will have unavoidable political impact. Therefore, I think we need to be extremely conservative (in the editorial sense) about what we choose. To me, that means avoiding overly manipulated images (these images are manipulated), preferring pictures that show the actual subject in a common setting (fetusses are typically not held in the palm of a hand or measured against rulers), and avoid at all costs the use of iconography. The "blurry ultrasound photos" actually do a better job of presenting a variety of perspectives on what actual, real fetuses look like to expectant parents and their doctors than does this image. As a side note, of course the Time Magazine picture adopts a strong point of view. All of Time's cover pictures are designed for maximum emotional impact. The editors of Time wouuld be the first to tell you that: they want to sell magazines. We have an entirely different portfolio. That the hand images parallels a Time Magazine cover may be the best argument yet that it is designed to influence or cause strong emotion in the viewer. This image is absolutely inappropriate for the article. Nandesuka 11:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that the fetal stage begins at 8 weeks, and this is an anatomically correct model. If people are opposed to an anatomically correct model of a fetus at 8 weeks, then the current version of the article is fine.Ferrylodge 14:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Your induction here is false. It is incorrect to conclude that because other editors are opposed to the use of one particular inappropriate anatomically correct image that they are opposed to all anatomically correct images. I think you need to accept that this image is a terrible choice for an encyclopedia, and move on. Nandesuka 22:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I will move on, because I have no intention of requesting that the photograph be retaken so that the replica is covered in "blood, amniotic fluid, and ichor", unlike the current tadpole-like drawings now in the article.Ferrylodge 22:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the existing drawings (the vector drawings) are pretty terrible. Unfortunately, their existence doesn't make the propaganda image you proposed any less terrible. Nandesuka 17:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

An anatomically correct 8-week fetus in an anatomically correct adult hand is not propaganda. It is an anatomically correct 8-week fetus in an anatomically correct adult hand.Ferrylodge 00:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, the consensus here disagrees with you. Kind regards, Nandesuka 01:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously. Every image in this article has a blurb with it describing the image. Can a decent blurb be written for this image? For example: "A pro-life depiction of a fetus at 8 weeks from conception. The image is technically accurate except for detailed coloring." The article already contains a pro-choice depiction that makes the human in question appear to be a tadpole.Ferrylodge 02:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Ferrylodge 01:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

(de-indenting) It's more effective to simply not include inappropriate images than to include them and try to write captions to explain away their inappropriateness. Nandesuka 11:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Vector Drawings

Resolved

I would like to delete the pro-choice, tadpole-like images that were recently inserted into this article. Nandesuka points out that they are "terrible." At seven months, according to the present article:

Ferrylodge 02:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The model image didn't take at Fetus. 3/4 editors here agree that it isn't suitable for this article either. It's unlikely that anyone will be convinced otherwise by continued fault-finding with the images currently present in this article. The vector drawings aren't intended to show fetal development in detail; they're basically intended to allow viewers to roughly compare fetal size, positioning, and womb expansion over the months. In this regard, they're useful, although they'd probably be a lot better combined into an animation than left as a sequence of stills. Reading politics into a perfectly neutral, if not perfectly useful, series of images is indicative more of the mindset from which the images are being approached from than any political nature actually present in them. Under Ferrylodge's line of thinking, the photographs of pregnant woman would have to be removed, too, because they are even less assistance in judging fetal appearance than the vector drawings. I agree with Nandesuka. Time to concentrate on something else. -Severa (!!!) 03:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus for inclusion of the vector drawings. I think they're terrible, and another editor does too. The phtographs of the women are fine and accurate. The vector drawings are grossly misleading.Ferrylodge 03:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The vector drawings were inserted eleven (11) days ago, by an anonymous user, with no discussion. See here.Ferrylodge 03:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The images are useful for the purpose they're intended to serve, which is giving a basic idea of fetal size, positioning, and womb size. They're like any other simplified anatomical drawing in that regard. Frankly, one user's opinion that these images are "pro-choice" is no grounds for their removal, no more than a single editor's opinion about the nude pregnant woman image has been grounds for its removal in the past. I'll see what I can do about combining these images into an animation so that they don't take up so much space and interupt the flow of the article. -Severa (!!!) 04:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Nandesuka said above, "I think the existing drawings (the vector drawings) are pretty terrible." You know that. So why do you pretend that this is just "one user's opinion"? And why do you pretend that these vector drawings are not for the purpose of illustrating fetal evolution? That's the section they're in, after all. The images are lousy and misleading, and animating them will not change that. If you want to illustrate fetal size, please just use a ruler....or text....but not a grossly misleading image.Ferrylodge 04:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I said that you're the only one who had labelled the images "pro-choice." And you are. This article shouldn't be treated as an extension of the abortion debate, but, given the history at Fetus and Stillbirth, I am not surprised that it is being so. The images are based off these ones, as it says on the description page, and they're already in use on several other-language Wikipedias. -Severa (!!!) 05:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

My chief objection to these images is not that they are "pro-choice". My chief objection is that they are terrible (as Nandesuka put it above). By repeatedly reinserting these images into the article, you are ignoring the lack of consensus for them. And, yes, I believe you are pro-choice and that your edits at Wikipedia are primarily intended to advance that viewpoint. However, my main objection to these images is not that they are pro-choice or pro-life. The person who put these images here said they were intended to illustrate "fetus evolution" and they do an amazingly bad job of that.

To the extent that these images copy the copyrighted material to which you link, they are also illegal. However, I do not believe they are illegal, because they do not copy the material you link to. Instead they distort the material you link to. If someone would create an accurate image like this one from the site you link to then I would have no objection.Ferrylodge 05:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The only view that should be advanced on Wikipedia is neutral point of view. If there is promotion of a view afoot, I don't care whether it's from a user trying to promote a pro-life view, like User:Goodandevil or User:214.13.4.151, or a user tring to promote a pro-choice view, like User:Alienus or User:Pro-Lick. It's all the same to me. -Severa (!!!) 07:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

(de-indenting) Turning these into an animated gif (so that they don't take up half a page) would address my largest concern. Nandesuka 11:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. The images do a good job of showing things like how the fetus presses on a woman's bladder, but the placement is a little graceless. But I don't see how they're pro-choice any more than showing a few sonogram images is pro-life. Neither set of images is about gaining converts; they're both about conveying information.Darkfrog24 00:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly see how they're 'pro-choice' either, and they're good enough for showing basic information. It would be nice to have ones where we didn't have to have the 'fetus shape is inaccurate' disclaimer, though.--Joseph Q Publique 05:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I changed "fetus shape is inaccurate" to "simplified illustration", which gets the point across while not refrencing controvercy. Neitherday 12:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This looks fairly resolved to me, so resolving. Kuronue | Talk 02:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Stale

• 1st revert: 02:25, 22 April 2007
• 2nd revert: 03:42, 22 April 2007 (reverting User:Severa)
• 3rd revert: 04:56, 22 April 2007 (reverting User:Gillyweed)
• 4th revert: 05:20, 22 April 2007 (reverting User:Severa).

That's three reverts, Ferrylodge, after two different users restored the images. -Severa (!!!) 05:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not intend to revert again, but I also do not intend to do nothing while you yourself run roughshod over Wikipedia policies.Ferrylodge 05:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the one who crossed 3RR, Ferrylodge. You should have stepped back and after Gillyweed restored the images. Instead you reverted twice more. -Severa (!!!) 06:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I have not reverted since you kindly brought this matter to my intention. You, however, have repeatedly reinserted these new images despite objections from myself and from Nandesuka that they are terrible images. Flouting the Wikipedia rules on consensus is not an appropriate way to edit.Ferrylodge 06:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

What consensus? Nandesuka only said that the images weren't very good. He never suggested that the images should be removed. You took it upon yourself to remove them — then reverted when two different editors restored them. Even allowing for the assumption that Nandesuka doesn't want the images in the article, Gillyweed agrees that their inclusion is acceptable, so that's 2 in favour and 2 against — hardly a "consensus." You can't claim a consensus where one does not exist. You also have not addressed the fact that the images are already included on several other-language Wikipedia articles. Why are these images unsuitable for use on English language Wikipedia when they've been approved for use on other language Wikipedias? -Severa (!!!) 06:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly: "What consensus?" There is no consensus for inserting these images. They were inserted very recently (on April 10) by an anonymous user without discussion. There needs to be a consensus to INSERT them, not a consensus to REMOVE them. And please stop misrepresenting what other editors have said. Nandesuka characterized these images as "terrible." Not a glowing endorsement. And, Gillyweed is uncertain. Hmm, two users think they're terrible, one is uncertain, and Severa loves them. Even if we include the anonymous editor who has not spoken up for himself, that's still not a consensus to include the images.Ferrylodge 06:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't want my view misrepresented. I think these images provide useful information. I would like clearer drawings but in the absence of anything better, I think they are fine. Gillyweed 06:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing a view, Gillyweed. You and Severa think the images are fine. Nandesuka and I think the images are terrible. Does that seem to you like a consensus to include them?Ferrylodge 06:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, I'd appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth. I've never suggested that I "love" the diagrams. I personally think that they could be better, but, they do the job, and they are certainly more informative than nothing at all. The fact that they're in use on other-language Wikipedia articles demonstrates that other users find them helpful enough for inclusion in Wikipedia articles too. -Severa (!!!) 06:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Because an anonymous user may have slipped these images into a few foreign-language Wikipedias is not relevant. The consensus necessary for inclusion in this article involves editors working on this article. The images portray a 7-month fetus as a blob. You have just finished excoriating me for trying to insert an accurate depiction of a 2-month fetus into this article (Andrew c even characterized the accurate depiction of a 2-month fetus as "pro-life propaganda"), and now you are making every effort imaginable to insert a grossly inaccurate image of a 7-month fetus that portrays it as a blob.

It comes down to this: a consensus is needed to insert these images, and no such consensus exists. You said yourself: "what consensus?"Ferrylodge 06:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

While the 3RR itself was resolved, this looks to have just died out over time, thus, marking stale. Kuronue | Talk 02:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Section Name Without Anyone's Username In It

Resolved

I'm sure that many of your edits and edit summaries for this article are very helpful. However, please reconsider the wisdom of this edit summary: "I actually DO think these images aren't very good -- and I'm reverting them back in because I object to Ferrylodge brandishing my name around like a club. Stop." See WP:Point. Don't edit articles to make a point. And, if you don't like being quoted, then you ought to consider being silent. Thanks.Ferrylodge 17:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I don't object to being quoted; I object to your misuse of the quote. Hope that helps. I agree with you that my edit summary could have been better. What I should have said is "Ferrylodge's edits are the most base sort of tit-for-tat POV pushing, and such behavior is completely unacceptable. Edits like that should be reverted on sight."

In any event, now that the pictures have been trimmed to not use so much space, and now that the captions accurately indicate what the illustrations are illustrating, I withdraw my earlier objections. Nandesuka 19:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to spare my feelings. Nice section header, by the way.  :-) I agree that modifications to the captions can render the images acceptable. So, I withdraw my earlier objection. I also deny POV pushing. I am accuracy pushing.Ferrylodge 19:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This is why Nandesuka edited the heading: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, "Never address other users in a heading." -Severa (!!!) 21:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I wasn't aware of that. Thank you for mentioning that, Severa.Ferrylodge 21:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

As we're on the topic of WP:POINT, looks like another 3/4 consensus has proven insufficient. -Severa (!!!) 03:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You're watching me very closely, Severa. However, if you look even closer, you'll see that I am part of that consensus: "I think that Miraceti has given a good explanation, and that Samulili is correct." (I hope you're not offended that I've joined a unanimous consensus against one of your edits.)Ferrylodge 03:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This appears to have been a personal spat to begin with, rather than a valid editing concern; marking resolved. Kuronue | Talk 02:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Image of Pregnant Girl

Resolved

An image of a pregnant five-year-old girl is repeatedly being inserted into this article, without explanation. The picture does not seem to contribute any useful information to this article. There were no edit summaries, and no explanation here at this talk page. Therefore, I will revert again, and would kindly ask that some explanation be provided.Ferrylodge 23:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If she is in fact five years old, she is probably not pregnant. The swollen belly is likely due to Kwashiorkor. In any case, this article dow not need this inmage. —Gaff ^ταλκ 21:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe I spoke to soon. Reportedly this girl is the youngest mother in history. Still looks like a hoax to me. —Gaff ^ταλκ 21:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)::::This is not a hoax. This child's pregnancy has been documented by various sources. Check out http://www.snopes.com/pregnant/medina.asp for a list. Sjc80 16:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

As no explanation was ever given, marking this resolved. Kuronue | Talk 02:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Pregancy Symptoms

Stale

This section is overloaded with misinformation. It needs to be rewritten, preferably not as a list that everybody and their mother (no pun intended) will tack another unsourced and random symptoms onto. I propose a paragraph detailing the most common symptoms with references replace this mess. —Gaff ^ταλκ 20:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

i'm all for removing the part about random defecation. even the non-pregnant have accidents, and i dont think that it's a common enough occurance to attribute it to being pregnant. "morning sickness" was enough for me to avoid risking pregnancy in my youth; i think if spontaneous pants-pooping were that prevalent, teen pregnancy would be non-existant. 76.238.60.13 17:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Poor choice of images (I'm not surprised)

Resolved

Why are all these images of whites?? This article needs to be more multi-ethnic. Are white women the only ones capable of childbirth? Just curious. Panda

Images used in articles must have licenses that are compatible with use on Wikipedia, generally including public domain, Creative Commons, or GNU. I don't think there was a conscious effort to select only images of women of one ethnicity. Looking through Category:Pregnancy at WikiCommons, there are two images of one expectant mother, who appears to be of Hispanic descent (see Image:Pregnant_woman.jpg and Image:PregnantWoman.jpg). Nude images are a different matter, as the availability of these is likely to be dependent on a pregnant Wikipedia user taking a picture of herself and allowing this to be freely used, and all such pictures currently available for use on Wikipedia are of Caucasian women. -Severa (!!!) 17:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Good question, all human women regardless of race have babies the same way. The choice of images are random, but would be thoughtful to depict a small but descriptive variety of human women who are pregnant or had children. It's a very common, but highly anticipated event in every culture for millions of years, and contributes to the growth of both the family, their tribe or community, and humanity in general. If we need to show a Caucasian, African, Asian and other racial women in pregnancy, may well be a good idea...but there's no real necessity as the used images are fine. 209.247.21.245 23:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of the time Wikipedian's have no choice, we have to use what we can get.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 05:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Question was answered; no images were forthcoming. Resolved. Kuronue | Talk 02:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Smoking

Resolved

I think there should be a section on the effects smoking can cause the unborn baby during pregnancy.--Sugarcubez 12:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It's here -PhDP ^(talk) 03:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolved. Kuronue | Talk 02:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Beginning of pregnancy controversy

Stale

Does this article need to be linked so many times? I think the first link in the intro section is appropriate, but the second (in the section on determining dates), regarding the term conception, is somewhat redundant and also somewhat irrelevant. Ironically, this same paragraph declares that pregnancy begins at implantation, ignoring the controversy. --Ginkgo100^talk 22:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject

Resolved

A WikiProject for pregnancy and childbirth related articles has been proposed. For more information and to express interest, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Pregnancy_and_childbirth. Thanks! --Ginkgo100^talk 16:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

not really an issue, just a little in-wiki advertising, thus, resolved. Kuronue | Talk 02:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

New Pictures

Stale

Some new pictures have been uploaded, including this one. As I said here, thanks for uploading this picture. However, you did not provide much information. This image is apparently from the following website:

http://www.3dpregnancy.com/static/pregnancy-week-10.html

That web site says the picture is by Melchior Meijer for 3dPregnancy.com Can you please provide some info about how Melchior Meijer made this picture? Was it drawn based upon medically reliable sources? It appears to be accurate, but still it would be good to include some reasons to trust the accuracy of the image.

Also, would it be possible to also upload the companion picture having the following link?

http://www.3dpregnancy.com/pictures/pregnancy-week-10.html

I think the companion picture is good too. Also, I notice that the web site 3dpregnancy.com does not seem to have an "About Us" section. Is there some background info available about this organization? Thanks.Ferrylodge 15:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, stretch marks

Resolved

Someone keeps putting in a link to a Pregnancy Stretch Marks Article. This seems somewhat tangential to the present article. There's a separate article in Wikipedia about Stretch marks, and that link would probably be more appropriate there instead.Ferrylodge 18:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday I blocked the user for repeatedly adding this link (based on various editors' actions and comments, consensus is that it is indeed spam). They used a different IP to add it today, and I blocked that one too. If the spamming continues after the blocks expire, I'll try longer blocks. --Ginkgo100^talk 20:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking this highly persistent user. I have reverted the stretch marks spam at least 20 times on lots of different related articles - pregnancy, child birth, stretch marks, scars etc. Gillyweed 22:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I also semi-protected this article today after the link was added by the third IP address in as many days. I'll add the other pages they like (from their contribs) to my watchlist and take action as necessary. --Ginkgo100^talk 15:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

spam led to semi-protect, thus, resolved. Kuronue | Talk 02:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Maternity corset

Resolved

Maternity corset is a fine invention, but where can you write about that?Håbet 18:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Postpartum Maternity Belt

Resolved

tell about Postpartum Maternity Belt: Håbet 21:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This and the above are rather vague and probably advertisement, thus, resolved. Kuronue | Talk 02:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Gender neutral language

Resolved

Changing to "gender neutral language" in an article like this is not consistent, in my opinion, with the Manual of Style. It is disruptive to do so unilaterally and distracting to the text, as it makes for some very convoluted and confusing wording. "Woman" a medical term rather than an identity term in an article on a medical topic such as this one, and readers understand that the biological information applies equally to a genetically female person who identifies as a man. --Ginkgo100^talk 23:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Let's move this discussion to the section, below. Photouploaded 13:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

discussion moved to section below, marking this resolved Kuronue | Talk 02:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

POV and accuracy dispute

Stale

It is unecessarily exclusive of men with XX chromosomes to discuss in this article as though all female-bodied persons identify as "she". See Transman; there are thousands upon thousands of people who were born with female bodies, who transition to a male gender role. I know many people I who were born XX, who identify as something other than female, who intend to give birth (or who already have). Matt Rice, former partner of Pat Califia, is the birth parent of a son, Blake. Rice gave birth to his son while living in the male gender role that he had maintained for many years, which he maintains today.ref This is not a case of editing grammar based on theoretical possibility. There are actual human beings who are being excluded by insisting on female-gendered speech in this article. There are probably far more than you realize. Photouploaded 13:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Your POV is vanishingly small. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The size of the issue may weigh upon how we go about addressing this, but to pretend the issue does not exist is unacceptable. To give no weight to this at all is a form of exclusion that backpedals against the ideals of Wikipedia. Photouploaded 13:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

While I'm all for transgender rights, that seems a bit... silly. At some point we have to make a choice; I think it'd be a bad idea for an encyclopedia to be rather wishywashy. Choosing a gender of pronouns is what they call in the acting and literary worlds a "strong" choice - pandering to a minority with "he or she" or, worse, "one" and "they" makes it seem like we have no idea what's going on. Here, I have an idea that should cover the minority who may be offended while not shoving gender equality issues down the throat of anyone who wants information about pregnancy. Kuronue | Talk 13:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

... what is that idea? It's a good start. Let's see what others have to say. Photouploaded 13:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but can you stop editing the page in the meantime? Not entirely, I mean, but since we're "waiting to see", can we not change the pronouns until we've decided what we're doing about it? I know you're all eager to fix it, but... it kinda bugs me when people go on pushing their version while it's under debate. We're aware now that something should be done - let's talk about what to do and establish consensus first. Also, I put in a request for a template to do this sort of thing - there HAVE to be other pages where this is an issue, so if we could put a template on the top and pick a pronoun it's easier to maintain consistency. Ideally, english would have a third-person gender-neutral pronoun and we could just implement that encyclopedia-wide and be done with it, but.. Kuronue | Talk 13:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I thought my edits were minor (the image captions, and the cleanup of the hatnote), but let's seek consensus. Photouploaded 13:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

First, as I pointed out above, "woman" is used in this article as a medical term, not an identity term. Second, KillerChihuahua is correct in pointing out the problem with undue weight. For every transgendered XX man who might be offended, there are thousands of XX women (such as myself) who are offended by having an article on a women's issue refuse to use the word "woman". Third, in terms of style, the convoluted wording to achieve gender neutral language in an article like this makes for horrible writing. --Ginkgo100^talk 13:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, "female" or "female human" are biological terms. Whether or not someone is a "woman" or a "man" is a matter of identity. Many/most transwomen and transmen identify as "women" and "men", respectively. Second, to claim this as a "women's issue" accomplishes what, exactly? To exclude trans and gender-variant people, it seems. Third, the "horrible writing" may not actually be grammatically incorrect, but merely unfamiliar, as so many people insist on boxing things within gender, it makes them feel uneasy when those boxes are not immediately apparent. Photouploaded 13:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This is correct. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 13:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ginkgo (and others), what do you think of using a template at the top? That way, we can avoid verbosity (because it IS bad writing to be overly verbose while dancing around the topic of gender) and still give a nod to the minority who do it differently. And it IS a woman's issue; it's just also a transman issue, but that doesn't make it any less a woman's issue than saying a grape is green makes it less round. Kuronue | Talk 13:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) It doesn't matter how I self-identify; I must be a female in order to be pregnant. Medially, and this is an article about the medical condition, a pregnant human is a woman no matter how the individual self-identifies. Please note that Wikipedia works on consensus (link is to the policy) and your method of coming in guns blazing and insisting that the article be your way or else "totally disputed" is not assisting any of us in discussing this with an eye to ensuring Wikipedia has the best possible article on Pregnancy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding: I support the template addition you made, Kuronue. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua, you are mistaken. Being biologically female does not make someone "a woman". Identifying as a woman makes someone a woman. Sex does not necessarily correlate with gender identity. The word "female", when used as an adjective, is better, but with intersex conditions, even that can be incorrect. Photouploaded 13:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, we disagree - which does not translate to me being mistaken. Gender identity is not necessarily applicable in this article; if it is not, then self-identification is completely moot. You stating aggressively that it is not moot does not persuade. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that my statement was in any way "aggressive", and I encourage you to read the gender identity article for an illustration of what I've said. Photouploaded 13:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

<RI> I know that undue weight clause of the NPOV rules is subjective, but the numbers of pregnant mothers who have lived as he's are so small as to truly be rare. There are thousands of articles on Wikipedia that necessarily ignore exceedingly small or "vanishingly rare" situations; if we keep making changes to the articles to meet every rare situation, we will have an unwieldy and frankly unreadable project. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 13:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Orangemarlin, Are you saying that it is appropriate to "ignore" transpeople and omit their experiences from articles at Wikipedia? Regarding "if we keep making changes...", how is this a slippery slope? Photouploaded 13:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It is against policy to include tiny minority views, regardless of who holds them. Transgender people are clearly not ignored on Wikipedia - but that does not mean that we must add some complex non-gender-specific verbosity to every instance where we are uncertain how a person might or might not self-identify. Pregnancy in humans is confined to the female. If that female self-identifies as male, it is still a case of a pregnant female. Your twisting this into a case of "ignoring transpeople" is a straw man of the first order. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You are conflating the phrase "a female" with the phrase "a woman". Female is a discrete biological category, being female or not female is determined by sex chromosomes. The fact that people also use the word "female" to refer to a person's gender identity is a restriction of the English language. Freely exchanging the phrases "a female" and "a woman" based on this restriction is entirely inappropriate. In instances where the gender identity is unknown or unclear, it is far better to use the phrase "biologically female", to make it absolutely clear that the word "female" refers only to the person's biology, not the person's gender identity. Photouploaded 14:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

What you have to understand, photo, is that if we want to make this an encyclopedia about transgendered people, everything except biography and fictional biography pages will need weasel words, which have been labelled as bad. "When eating a breakfast cereal, the eater sometimes adds the by-product of bovine lactation, often in an effort to enhance the flavor of the cereal" - because it'd be bad to say either he or she, as that excludes genderqueers, and cow naturally refers only to bovines who identify as female, and in any event is also a perjorative.... see what I mean? We have to draw some lines. But that's not to say we should exclude transpeople from the articles any more than we should exclude lesbians from articles about mothers; just that some concessions have to be made for editor sanity. Hence my idea of the note: it acknowledges that transpeople exist and are relevant, while allowing readability, because we've mentioned (in my original draft) that we're using "she" for simplicity as it covers 99% of cases, but we're aware that in rare cases the proper pronoun would be "he". Kuronue | Talk 13:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Gender is irrelevant to a person's ability to eat breakfast cereal, Kuronue. In the breakfast cereal article, it would be perfectly acceptable to swap back and forth between "he" and "she" in different sections that talk about people eating cereal, just for variety. In the Pregnancy article, however, using the female pronoun and the word "woman" excludes ALL people who become pregnant who do not identify as "female" or "woman". The gender exclusion absolutely IS relevant in this case. I am not calling for abolition of gendered pronouns. I am calling for awareness of when choosing one or the other excludes actual experiences and compromises factual accuracy. Photouploaded 13:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur that gender is relevant to pregnancy, because only female humans become pregnant. I see absolutely no reason to confuse the issue by using medically inaccurate terminology in an instance where we are quite certain of the physical reality of the correct gender. That a tiny minority of these people may self-identify as the gender which they are, in fact, physically not, is not only confusing and inaccurate but against policy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Currently, there is no way to determine someone's gender by physical tests. The biological sex can be determined via physiology, chromosomal tests, etc. Gender is up to the individual. Perhaps one day we will have more sophisticated brain-imaging techniques that will unlock the secrets of what makes a person identify as female, as genderqueer, as male, or as anything else. Currently the only way to determine a person's gender is to ask them.

Furthermore, what you call this "tiny minority" is actually an enormous group of people, many of which are organizing into political action committees to create legislation that protects these individuals at their workplaces, in health care, with regards to child custody, and so forth. Photouploaded 14:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

And all I'm calling for are some limits for the sake of sanity - if we have NO limits, we'll end up with breakfast cereal being as above. Again, the template: it adds in a note indicating that we're aware that in a tiny percent of cases the article is incorrect, and pointing the reader to other articles which discuss those cases in more detail, as they're outside the scope of this article. Which I keep saying and you keep not responding to. I mean, we don't remove the word "quadruped" from the article dog because some dogs may have had a leg cut off, ya know? Kuronue | Talk 13:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

When you suggest that being inclusive of gender-variant people and transpeople treads into the realm of "insanity", it is a deeply harmful thing to say. It is a concept you have repeated four times, in this diff, its summary, and in this diff and its summary. Transpeople have a difficult enough experience with being told they are mentally ill. Interestingly, the DSM-IV lists gender dysphoria as a mental disorder, but the prescribed treatment is not mental health care, but hormone therapy and surgery to change their body to fit the so-called "disorder". Perhaps you can understand my frustration, then, at the suggestion that recognizing these people borders on the insane.

Your example about a dog really trivializes the issue. I doubt that any dogs would feel their personal experience as a three-legged dog being eradicated by the word "quadruped". In contrast, many transpeople are made to feel that they do not exist or should be shunned, when the pronoun which does not include them is exclusively enforced. Furthermore, it is simply not accurate to insist that biology indicates gender. It doesn't! That is why we have the word "woman" and "man", and we don't have gender-based words for other animals -- because gender is a separate concept from biological sex. Photouploaded 14:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Good LORD. I never said recognizing transgendered individuals is insane, I said that if we have to sit here and police every edit, introducing weasel words and writing to avoid pronouns or use gender-neutral phrasing, we'd spend so much time working on the exact, politically correct phrasing we'd lose our minds without making a single productive edit! Kuronue | Talk 15:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

And I never said that you said that. Read more closely, please, I said that transpeople already have to deal with being called insane for existing, and that it adds insult to injury by then claiming that working them into our parlance borders on the insane.

Furthermore, I am sorry to hear that you feel you would "lose your mind" by using inclusive, accurate language. I'm more likely to lose mine, trying to educate people about things that have become second nature to me. Photouploaded 15:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm all for respecting transgendered individuals and people's rights to live their lives and define themselves and their identities as they choose to see fit, and I don't wish to trivialise their choices, but I can't help but find this debate somewhat absurd. It is a biological and medical fact that only those humans who are biologically and physically female, irrespective of how they choose to consider themselves, can become pregnant. The use of terms like 'woman' and 'she' in an article such as this only indicate that the subject being discussed is a physical / biological female and therefore capable of becoming pregnant - how they choose to define themselves beyond this simple fact is utterly irrelevant to the focus and scope of this article, and to start playing around with gender identifiers in light of this in my view seems to be over-sensitive and only serves to unnecessarily confuse and cloud an otherwise straightforward issue, and will only lead to madness for editors and readers alike.--Joseph Q Publique 14:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Just "somewhat" absurd, Joe? :P

I'm British. We're masters of understatement. :-)--Joseph Q Publique 15:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

What people seem to be having trouble grasping here is that not all people who are biologically female are women. Some people who are biologically female are men. It is inappropriate and terribly rude to refer to someone who is a man, with the word "woman" or the pronoun "she", and it is wrong to pretend that biologically female men not only do not become pregnant, but do not exist. Photouploaded 14:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I am not only having trouble grasping that, I utterly reject it, from a medical perspective. I would never refer to anyone who self-identified as female as "he" or who self-identified as male as "she" regardless of their biological gender. However, this article is not the transgender article, this is the pregnancy article, and you are conflating self-identification with biological fact. Only a female human can become pregnant. A woman is a female human. Pronoun for female human is she or her. Unhappy as it may make a very tiny few pregnant females that they are, in biological fact, female, it does not change these facts. Your desired edits are to use non-gender-specific pronouns in order not to insult the vanishingly small percentage of biological females who self-identify as male who might or might not be pregnant, is that correct? Then you need to make a case for when a biological female is ever referred to, medically, not psychologically, using male pronouns - and it needs to meet WP:UNDUE. This is about the uterus, not about the id. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It is simply not accurate to insist that biology indicates gender. It does not. That is why we have the word "woman" and "man" to describe humans, and we don't have gender-based words for other animals–because gender is a separate concept from biological sex. All animals, including humans, have a sex, whether female, intersex, or male. Humans are the only animals known to have a gender. She/her/her and He/him/his are pronouns which, while they may be applied to animals to indicate sex, in humans, they indicate gender. This is why their use can be problematic, because it can exclude people whose gender does not match their sex. The words "woman" and "man" are used exclusively to indicate gender, and really should not be used unless the gender is verified. Photouploaded 15:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) What are you talking about? Dog and bitch, bull and cow, boar and sow, buck and doe, rooster and chicken. The list is nearly endless. And what you keep not addressing is that this is a medical article, and medically speaking, a pregnant human is female. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Those words still indicate the sex of the animal, not the gender identity of the animals (if such a thing exists in animals, we cannot confirm it). The important point is that a biologically female human is not necessarily "a woman", and should not necessarily be called "she". Photouploaded 15:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I would also take issue with the assertion that 'woman' and 'man' are used to exclusively identify gender, not biology. In any case, the whole focus of this article is biology.--Joseph Q Publique 15:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, that was not entirely accurate, some people use the words in a biological sense to refer to sex, which I disagree with. But "woman" and "man" are far more gendered words than "female" and "male", the latter of which are more strictly biological terms, referring to sex. Consider the phrases "she's all woman" and "he's a real man", for instance, which signify far more about gender than do the phrases "she's female" or "he's male". Photouploaded 15:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Any chance we could take this entire discussion out and have it shot? Reason: Crimes against Sanity. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Photo, you are frankly redefining the English language. From the article woman: "A woman is a female human." From Wiktionary: "An adult female human being." At Dictionary.com, the first four definitions have nothing at all to do with identity. Clearly in general usage, "woman" refers to a biologically female adult human. In topical usage, as with scholarship about gender issues, it equally clearly refers to an identity rather than a biological situation. This article is not about gender issues and uses the general (and medical) definition. You may want to remake the English language to make the common use of "woman" refer to identity rather than biology, but Wikipedia is not the place to push such a point of view. --Ginkgo100^talk 00:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Template

Does anyone have significant objection to putting a notice on the top of the page and leaving it at that? If the notice mentions that we merely use "she" in a medical way to refer to a biological female, as those are the one ones who can become pregnant, is that enough to appease the perceived offensive bias? We can replace "woman" with "female" like in medical texts if preferred, but again, let's just make it clear that we're talking biology, not sociology or psychology, and that biological females are the only ones to whom this article applies, and leave it at that. Kuronue | Talk 15:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't think it's necessary, but I don't have any significant objections to it.--Joseph Q Publique 15:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's better than nothing, a minimal nod to this complex issue. Photouploaded 15:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

how about something like:

Note: Throughout this article, female pronouns "she/her" are used to refer to a biological female, regardless of gender identity. For examples of pregnancy in biological males, see male pregnancy; for biological females who identify as male, see transman.

and then change "woman" to "female" to fall in line with medical practices. Kuronue | Talk 15:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be a decent compromise for now. I think you might be able to use my gender-free version as a starting point, making sure to add the good edits since then, and then switching the pronouns to female, while leaving the word "woman" out of it. May I suggest the phrases "female human" instead of "female". The word "female" is better used as an adjective, unless we are talking about animals, i.e. "the females have darker feathers than the males". In animals, there is no concern of gender-related offense, while referring to a transman as "a female" would likely ruffle feathers, so to speak. Photouploaded 15:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't concerned with "ruffling feathers", merely with accuracy. Transmen already are covered by the note. It still sounds awkward in some places, but all I did is remove every instance of the word "woman" - some phrases still need reworking. Kuronue | Talk 16:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not an improvement. Now we are talking about human beings solely with sex, referring to someone as "a female" is no improvement at all. Photouploaded 16:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Then we might as well put it back the way it was before, and give it a week or two for due input from others, because you barely have any support (actually, I would say it is more accurate to say it is "no objection" rather than "support") and you certainly don't have consensus. This is a complete rewrite of a significant article, undertaken in the course of a day, with undue haste. Almost none of the regular contributors to this article have had a chance to voice their opinion, and I for one would not object if they revert to pre-rewrite and discuss this thoroughly on the talk page before committing to a single change. One puppy's opinion, but you're running roughshod over people and acting hastily and with great arrogance. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a complete misappraisal of the situation. I made the initial gender-neutralizing edit, it was reverted, so I placed the POV template and began the discussion. I did not edit-war. The edits I have done since then were to improve the hatnote, to remove applying gender assumptions affixed to actual people in the photos, and since then, they were content edits related to capitalization, a repeated paragraph, a "should" statement (i.e. "people should do this") which was POV, and finally, a statement about the necessity of caesarean sections. None of these were inherently related to gender. I did go along the guidelines given when I edited these sections. I thought these edits well within the boundaries of propriety. You are name-calling and misrepresenting me. Please stop. Photouploaded 17:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I have called you no names, nor have I accused you of edit warring. I have merely noted that a fundamental change in the way this article is written is being undertaken, primarily by you, without securing or even approaching consensus by the primary editors of this article. I find this hasty and arrogant, and if you object to those appellations, I suggest you proceed with more deliberation and respect for the regular editors of this article, and give such major changes sufficient time to ensure consensus has been achieved. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua, I'm offended at the suggestion. I have made no major changes to this article. The new set of words were put into place by Kuronue in this edit. The majority of my edits were outside of the scope of this issue, as I explained here. The one exception to this is the photo captions, from which I removed gendered speech per WP:BOLD (changing "a pregnant woman near the end of her term" to "pregnancy, near the end of term" and similar). I thought this was important enough to do because those are actual human beings who may be being misrepresented. If you are going to be so bold in vilifying me you should back it up with some examples of what you think I have done that is so wrong. I have actually only made minor changes to the article. Photouploaded 19:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how advising you to seek consensus is "vilifying" you. Kuronue's edits were a direct result of your tagging and editing the article and the subsequent discussion here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not responsible for anyone's edits but my own. Kuronue's edits were the result of their decision to make them, nothing more. Your claim that someone else's behavior is somehow a "result" of something I did is laughable. Photouploaded 19:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Photo, you are extremely concerned that the term "woman" is exclusionary and offensive to transmen. Well, I will say personally that replacing the term with "female" or even "female human" is offensive to me, as I find it depersonalizing. It makes the person into an object. Alternate constructions such as "woman or man" or "woman or transman" are not effective. Certainly the term "woman" can be replaced with "patient" where appropriate, and the other suggestions from WP:MOS can be followed as well, but I strongly prefer the term "woman" over "female" where such terms are appropriate. --Ginkgo100^talk 00:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

For reference, here is the diff that demonstrates ALL of the changes that ALL users have made to the article since before I made my initial edit. The column on the left shows the article before I made my initial edit (to use gender-neutral language), which was quickly reverted. The column on the right shows the article in its current state. This includes any and all changes that anyone has made to the article. I can't see how this is seen as major, by any stretch. The biggest change is the chunk missing from Line 80, which was a duplicate paragraph that was removed because it was identical. Again, this is not my changes, it's everyone's changes: diff. Photouploaded 19:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

sanity

Moving down here for ease of finding. Let's take an example: the following excerpt

In practice, doctors typically express the age of a pregnancy (i.e. an "age" for an embryo) in terms of "menstrual date" based on the first day of a woman's last menstrual period, as the woman reports it. Unless a woman's recent sexual activity has been limited, the exact date of fertilization is unknown. Absent symptoms such as morning sickness, often the only visible sign of a pregnancy is an interruption of her normal monthly menstruation cycle, (i.e. a "late period"). Hence, the "menstrual date" is simply a common educated estimate for the age of a fetus, which is an average of two weeks later than the first day of the woman's last menstrual period. The term "conception date" may sometimes be used when that date is more certain, though even medical professionals can be imprecise with their use of the two distinct terms. The due date can be calculated by using Naegele's rule.

Now, that would have to be rewritten like so:

In practice, doctors typically express the age . . . based on the first day of a woman or man's last menstrual period, as the individual reports it. Unless the individual's recent sexual activity . . . is an interruption of his or her normal monthly menstrual cycle...

I'll finish it up when I get home, I have to leave now (parking garage), but you get my drift. It's madness. Kuronue | Talk 15:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems like you chose the most cumbersome possible example. That could easily be rewritten thus:

In practice, doctors typically express the age of a pregnancy (i.e. an "age" for an embryo) in terms of "menstrual date" based on the first day of the most recent menstrual period, as the patient reports it. Unless recent sexual activity has been limited, the exact date of fertilization is unknown. Absent symptoms such as morning sickness, often the only visible sign of a pregnancy is an interruption of the normal monthly menstruation cycle, (i.e. a "late period"). Hence, the "menstrual date" is simply a common educated estimate for the age of a fetus, which is an average of two weeks later than the first day of the last menstrual period. (end of gendered terms)

There are minimally noticable ways to address this, we need not rely on the cumbersome "she or he". Photouploaded 15:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Photouploaded here, "his or her" is too convoluted and verbose. Far better to remove the pronouns where possible, and use "she" or "her" where not possible, trusting in the hatnote. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I just want to avoid constructions like I often see in articles and essays about gender, in which the lay reader can hardly make heads or tails of what is being discussed for all the backpedaling and weasel words. If you want to try and remove pronouns entirely, that's less sanity-compromising, but I don't want to be policing an article in which no pronouns are allowed, nor an article which resorts to awkward phrasing to avoid offending a very small minority. It's not about not wanting to include them, it's about not wanting to twist a pretty good article around to incorporate a tiny percentage of pregnancies. Kuronue | Talk 16:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Outside view: - the vast majority of cases referenced, this is not an issue. A better treatment would be a note at the top, to the effect

• "This article references biologically pregant individuals as female and uses the pronoun "she". In some cases this may not always be accurate."

Or perhaps:

• "This article discusses biologically male and female human beings, as related to pregnancy. Transgendered people or others who have legally or otherwise changed gender may not fit neatly into these categories."

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Another outside comment. I believe changing the photo-captions are a bit much. One is a picture of a man's wife. I can understand, to an extent, the desire to change the language in the article, but when we have specific examples of individuals who DO identify as women, then there is no need to alter that. These images are unambiguous cases of pregnant women, and we shouldn't have issues with identifying the subject of the photos as such. I also believe that adapting clunky language should be avoided, but if it is possible to rephrase a sentence so it doesn't mention gender, I could support that. I'll try to reply more later.-Andrew c ^[talk] 18:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you verify that each of these individuals in the photos identify as women? Until this is done, no assumptions should be made. Photouploaded 19:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for others, but there seems to be an element of WP:POINT in this. Image selection is not really where a discussion about "recognition and profile of transexual and gender-varied people in society" should be taking place. This article is about pregnancy, which at heart, is a process that happens to a large number of mammals, most of which are biologically, and in other ways, female, and a very small minority of whom are not. The debate does need to acknowledge the latter, and recognize it, but does not need to be made to hinge on it, or center about it. It doesn't, either in "real life" or in other ways. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Accuse me of disruption all you want. Those are photos of real people. You do not know how they identify, if they are bisexual, gay, straight, married, single, genderqueer, cisgendered, intersex, or anything else. No such assumptions should be made. Photouploaded 20:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, with a bit of research, we DO know a bit about these individuals. The second woman is Tom Adriaenssen's wife, Katrien. As you can see from the flickr page, many users call her a "woman" with not a single one being corrected. On top of that, the image is placed in the pool category "the Picturing the woman", while also being tagged "woman". This first image is user Petercantfail's wife. When it was uploaded, it was Peter's "Girlfried" as shown by the deleted page history. Both of these terms strongly connote (if not outright denote) womanhood. Now, do you have any evidence that these individuals do not identify as such, and thus need to accommodate their personal desires in the image captions? I'll repeat my first post. I can see a use to making article text more gender neutral, but there is no need to alter the language of image captions of individuals who clearly are women by multiple means of evidence.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

As with anything we put on Wikipedia, verifiability is of the utmost importance. The burden is not on me to prove that your guess is wrong. It is still a guess. The burden is on you to prove the content you wish to include in the article. One must verifiably prove that the word "woman" is accurate description of their gender, until that is done, gender-neutral captions are appropriate. Photouploaded 22:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you prepared to try to implement this wiki-wide? According to your reasoning, no caption anywhere should employ gendered pronouns unless the person in the caption is famous enough to have been written about in a verifiable source - images depicting ordinary people enacting a verifiable subject should have no pronouns ever; if it's wiki-wide it should be a guideline. Kuronue | Talk 22:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yerifiability matters. But we don't take that to extremes as suggested. That would be disruptive, and its purpose would be to make a point. We do not need to obtain a WP:CITE for every time a person in some article is referenced as a gender pronoun, to prove that it's a pronoun they would consider applicable. We do not need to trawl every bio article, or every article that discusses a male or female entity, to find a cite to support the selected pronouns. The purpose of CITE is statements a usual, reasonable person would consider open to challenge. It is not intended that we may not use the word "he" in relation to George Bush or "she" in relation to Queen Elizabeth II without a footnote confirming some reliable source or they themselves consider themselves male and female respectively. Insisting on that, for a case that is a fairly small minority, is akin to gaming the cite system to make or illustrate a point. We know there are people for whom classic gender identity is imapplicable. We agree it can be acknowledged. But it is still a rather tiny minority of males/men (by any definition) who can or will become pregnant. As others have pointed out, WP:UNDUE applies. Nobody is saying that you are acting in bad faith. But Wikipedia is WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and its articles are not intended to be a platform to highlight a tiny minority aspect that's already loooking to be dealt with quite sensibly in the article by common agreement. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Queen Elizabeth comment, see the new section, here. Photouploaded 18:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Another outside comment I think both the letter and spirit of WP:UNDUE offers a relevant compromise. While I think it is a fair assumption that the vast majority of our readers will come to this article with the common knowledge of pregnancy involving "women identifying females", I think the fact that Transmen do go through pregnancy should be noted but kept in context to the uncommon nature and rarity of the event. I believe the article should maintain the feminine pronouns and woman identifiers throughout the article (since this is the element of least surprise for the reader) with the exception of a section of Transman pregnancy in which the proper masculine pronouns and male identifiers would be used. Per WP:LEAD, this section would also merit mention in the lead section but I think the NPOV weight is kept in context with this rare, but factual and encyclopedic event being contained with one dedicated section to it. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Concur with the idea of a specific section on it. Transgender/gender change/transsexual related matters to do with pregnancy and related issues are relevant and useful. They probably merit a section of their own, since there is more than one sentence to say and many people will lack relevant knowledge, which is certainly encyclopedic. It's specialized and a sub-topic of its own, but perspective and balance is needed; it's still a side-issue (albeit a notable one) compared to "pregnancy in general". (WP:UNDUE). This would work well. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I recommend it be discussed in either transman or male pregnancy, since we already have entire articles about both and they're linked to from my note at the top. Kuronue | Talk 21:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Summary style - a summary section with {{main|Transman|Male pregnancy}} at the top. A short section is directly relevant here. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

that works well, want to go ahead and implement it? Kuronue | Talk 23:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I don't like the note at the top. Notes at the top of the article are more effective for more "meta" topics like disambiguation; gender issues is really part of the topic of the article. A discussion of the topic would be much better integrated into a section of the article as has been suggested, with an appropriately weighted mention in the lead section. --Ginkgo100^talk 00:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, while the debate about transgendered pregnancies belongs in the article, anything talking about the article itself is meta, and the note talks about the pronouns used in the article itself, and the choices made by wikipedia editors. Kuronue | Talk 01:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I now know why loons like Andy Schlafley thing Wikipedia is a hyper-liberal site. Everyone, take a deep breath, get a cup of something potable, reread these comments, smell the inanity. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh my gosh...Can we get any more PC and any more ridiculous?--Filll —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 00:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Please give me your consent

Resolved

Hi gang, how's it going? I just took a first gander at this messy debacle, and would like to propose a nice escape route for everyone.

To begin with, let's deal with the notes at the top of the article first and foremost. Leave everything else until the notes at the top are settled.

Regarding the notes at the top, here's what they currently say:

“ This article is about human pregnancy. For pregnancy in other mammals, see Pregnancy (mammals). For a broader view, see Gestation. For the field dealing with pregnancy, see Obstetrics. Note: Throughout this article, female pronouns "she/her" are used to refer to a biological female, regardless of gender identity. For examples of pregnancy in biological males, see male pregnancy; for biological females who identify as male, see transman. ”

Whoa, Nelly! This is way too verbose. We'd all get Fs if this were high school!

Let's start with the easy stuff. Get rid of the sentence about gestation. The article about gestation is barely more than stub, so why advertise it at the top? Do we even know what the difference is between gestation and pregnancy? Let's get that sentence out of the top notes, and wikilink to gestation later.

As for the rest of the notes at the top, I suggest we rewrite:

“ This article is about human pregnancy in biological females (hereinafter “her” or “she” or “woman” regardless of gender identity). For pregnancy in other mammals, see Pregnancy (mammals). For the field dealing with pregnancy, see Obstetrics. For pregnancy in males, see male pregnancy. ”

Can we do this? If no objection, I'll leap into editorial action.  :-) Ferrylodge 02:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll copy my comment from above, since this discussion is confusing to follow: I have to say that I don't like the note at the top. Notes at the top of the article are more effective for more "meta" topics like disambiguation; gender issues is really part of the topic of the article. A discussion of the topic would be much better integrated into a section of the article as has been suggested, with an appropriately weighted mention in the lead section. --Ginkgo100^talk 02:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the note....see my edit summary. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 02:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

(undent)Actually, there is still a note at the top, and it can be improved. There's no reason why Obstetrics can't be mentioned and wikilinked in the lede instead of the top note. And let's get rid of the sentence about gestation. The article about gestation is barely more than stub, so why advertise it at the top? Do we even know what the difference is between gestation and pregnancy? How about:

“ This article is about human pregnancy in biological females (hereinafter “her” or “she” or “woman” regardless of gender identity). For pregnancy in other mammals, see Pregnancy (mammals). For pregnancy in males, see male pregnancy. ”

Will that do the trick?Ferrylodge 02:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Are there any objections now to the notes at the top? If not, let's move on to the ridiculous elimination of the word "woman" from this article. The top note already establishes that the word "woman" is okay here. If it was up to me, I'd also use the word mother for a pregnant woman, but let's get woman back into the article and worry about "mother" another time.Ferrylodge 02:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have restored the word "woman." Plus, I slipped in mother and father just once. Please humor me, and allow an article about pregnancy to mention the mother and the father, okay? Click on mother and you'll see that it's often used by medical authorities with reference to a pregnant woman. Thanks.Ferrylodge 03:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I also did some copy-editing of the lede. No substantive changes.Ferrylodge 03:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

BRAVO! Gillyweed 04:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

Are we STILL having a dispute about nutrality? I thought we resolved that. Photo? Care to explain? Kuronue | Talk 17:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone (I didn't see whom) jumped the gun on starting the POV dispute, which is not related to the other dispute above. See below. Photouploaded 17:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The photos, assumptions about the identity of the individuals depicted

Stale

FT2 argued that it would be impossible to implement gender-neutrality Wiki-wide, asking whether and how it could be appropriate to question that George Bush identifies as a man, or Queen Elizabeth as a woman. George Bush and Queen Elizabeth have the luxury of a high profile. If they wished to make it known that their gender identity did not match their biological sex, it would be simple for them to do so. Not so with the subjects of these photographs. I am not sure how we would even track these individuals down to ask them how they identify, or if they are even aware that they are being labeled thus. While the odds may be that they are cisgendered, it really isn't appropriate to assume, particularly when gender neutral captions ("Pregnancy, at 26 weeks") can be easily substituted. Thoughts? Photouploaded 18:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the image caption for the image that originated from flickr, I thought we cleared this up above. The author places the image in category "woman". How can it be ok for that author of the image to place his own wife in the category "woman" but it not be ok to mention that she is a woman here on wikipedia?-Andrew c ^[talk] 18:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The image claims to be owned by two people... how do you know where it originated? I am not very familiar with Flickr, would you explain?

And now someone goes ahead and labels the other photo with the word "woman". How is this OK? If this said something like "A white woman at 26 weeks gestation", would that be all right, even if we had not confirmed her ethnic background? Would it be all right to call this person 'white'? What if, eventually, they were to show up here and say, "actually, I am biracial, not white, and I am very offended that you saw fit to label me 'white', based on looks alone."? It is the same issue. You cannot tell by looking what someone's gender is, any more than their race. Photouploaded 18:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

We have a Gender identity article. Why not take this discussion there? It's udderly irrelevant here. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Photuploaded - I don't like being mis-quoted or your choice of what you think I might have said put in my mouth. I said nothing about the possibility or impossibility of any matter Wiki-wide. What I said about these examples was precisely this:

"The purpose of CITE is statements a usual, reasonable person would consider open to challenge. It is not intended that we may not use the word "he" in relation to George Bush or "she" in relation to Queen Elizabeth II without a footnote confirming some reliable source or they themselves consider themselves male and female respectively. Insisting on that, for a case that is a fairly small minority, is akin to gaming the cite system to make or illustrate a point. We know there are people for whom classic gender identity is imapplicable. We agree it can be acknowledged. But it is still a rather tiny minority of males/men (by any definition) who can or will become pregnant. As others have pointed out, WP:UNDUE applies [...] Wikipedia is WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and its articles are not intended to be a platform to highlight a tiny minority aspect that's already loooking to be dealt with quite sensibly in the article by common agreement."

This has everything to do with policy, practice, and weight..... and zero to do with what may or may not be able to be "implemented wiki-wide". Do not misquote people. Thank you. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I will copy a comment I made above, as I feel it applies here. Photo, you are frankly redefining the English language. From the article woman: "A woman is a female human." From Wiktionary: "An adult female human being." At Dictionary.com, the first four definitions have nothing at all to do with identity. Clearly in general usage, "woman" refers to a biologically female adult human. In topical usage, as with scholarship about gender issues, it equally clearly refers to an identity rather than a biological situation. This article is not about gender issues and uses the general (and medical) definition. You may want to remake the English language to make the common use of "woman" refer to identity rather than biology, but Wikipedia is not the place to push such a point of view.

Gender identity is a secondary definition of the word "woman". Contextually, the use of "woman" here is appropriate because the individuals are clearly biologically female adult humans. --Ginkgo100^talk 18:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

Stale

Ferrylodge has set about replacing many technical terms with colloquialisms and non-technical terms, namely, the word "woman" they replaced with "mother" (to refer to a pregnant woman), the words "woman" and "man" with "father" and "mother" (in a sentence that discussed infertility, indicating that the people are neither pregnant nor parents), the word "uterus" with "womb", and the word "fetus" they replaced with "baby" and the phrase "unborn child". I am starting to see this as POV-pushing.

Editors at the Abortion articles appear to have reached a general consensus that referring to a fetus as a "baby" or "unborn child" is inappropriate, and that referring to a pregnant woman as a "mother" is inappropriate. While the pregnancy article does not focus on abortion, it necessarily does not only refer to pregnant women who intend to carry their pregnancies to term. The article also describes the state of pregnant women who either will or must abort, or who will miscarry. Furthermore, there is nothing inaccurate or questionable about calling a fetus and a pregnant woman by those terms, they carry no POV at all, whereas Ferrylodge's terms do.

Exceptions: I do think that in the section about prenatal nutrition that the phrase "expecting mother" would be fine, and that, of course, the word "mother" and "baby" are appropriate when describing situations where childbirth is completed. Thoughts? Photouploaded 17:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Photouploaded is mistaken. I inserted the word "mother" once, here. Other than that, I merely restored the article to what it had been prior to Photouploaded's disputed overhaul of the article, and that restoration may have reinstated the word mother to its longstanding use in this article. Moreover, please consult the mother article for information about its technical use in the context of pregnancy; it's a perfectly legitimate technical term, and deliberately omitting it from this pregnancy article reflects a POV, much like the POV displayed in the abortion article.Ferrylodge 18:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support Ferrylodge's return of the article to nearly the condition it was in before Photo started his or her one-person overhaul. No consensus nor even support has been found for these edits, which have been highly disruptive. (Note: someone take a snapshot, I think this is the first time I have wholeheartedly agreed with Ferrylodge, and that should certainly say something about the situation.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Support that in most cases "man" and "woman" are likely to be best, regardless who edited what. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I also support the use of language that is more encyclopedic and technical, and the removal of less technical or emotionally loaded terms. "Man", "woman", "embryo", "fetus", and "uterus" are preferable to "father", "mother", "baby", "unborn child", and "womb". --Ginkgo100^talk 18:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Gingko100, I'll disagree with you here. According to Wikipedia guidelines, we are supposed to "Write for the average reader and a general audience—not professionals or patients. Explain medical jargon or use plain English instead if possible."

Your statement that "Man", "woman", "embryo", "fetus", and "uterus" are preferable to "father", "mother", "baby", "unborn child", and "womb" runs counter to this Wikipedia policy, and it also (perhaps unintentionally) favors a point of view, thus violating WP:NPOV. If and when words like mother, baby, child, and womb are technically accurate, then they should not be blacklisted. Doing so tends to dehumanize the child and tends to minimize the parent-child relationship. Obviously, these terms will not always be technically accurate, but when they are they should not be avoided like the plague.

Speaking in plain and accurate English is the preferred course according to Wikipedia policy, and I happen to agree with that policy. I have no problem using words like "Man", "woman", "embryo", "fetus", and "uterus" in Wikipedia articles, but words like "father", "mother", "baby", "unborn child", and "womb" should not be frowned upon when they too are technically accurate. Good writing often involves using synonyms and a wide vocabulary, instead of using the same words over and over again.Ferrylodge 19:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, no violation of NPOV, just simple statements of medical fact (although womb is not frowned upon medically) without the actual POV that is inherent in "father", "mother", "baby", "unborn child". Remember that plain English is not necessarily dumb English. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This discussion continues in #Technical language is not preferred. The most recent version uses "mother" in place of "woman", "father" in place of "man", "unborn child" and "baby" for "fetus", and "womb" for "uterus". Photouploaded 17:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment

First, I would like to caution Photouploaded to stop deleting my comments at this talk page.

(insert comment) And I would like to caution you not to take advantage of the fact that I had not yet placed the NPOV dispute section here. You hijacked my placement of the template. Photouploaded 18:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

A POV tag has recently been added to this article by Photouploaded. According to guidelines, "the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved." There has already been considerable discussion above about these issues, which have consumed a lot of time and energy that could be better spent improving the article (e.g. providing references and footnotes).

Photouploaded continues to edit the article against consensus, and therefore the article at this point is unstable. Instead of prolonging the discussion even more, can we measure the NPOV/POV nature of this version of the article? Without much additional discussion, how about if we simply mark whether we agree that it is POV for the reasons provided by Photouploaded? If you feel compelled to discuss, please limit to one sentence or put in separate subsection after the two choices.Ferrylodge 18:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Arguments above indicate article has a NPOV

Agree. It is neutral because the hatnote gives an adequate nod to gender identity issues, and words like "woman" (and "mother") need not be eliminated from this article. Ferrylodge 18:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate hijacking of the NPOV dispute section

I placed the POV tag, then composed a section called NPOV dispute. When I went to create the section, I found that Ferrylodge had already created a section called NPOV dispute. That is not how it is supposed to be done, the person with the issue creates the section, not someone else. I tried to rename this section with the word "comment", which Ferrylodge reverted. I feel people are being misled. Photouploaded 18:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Photoupload, I've been watching this discussion develop. Enough at this point. This has gone beyond making your point, and become disruptive for some time now. Gender self-identification issues do not trump WP:Consensus. Nor are these WP:NPOV issues. See WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. Time to stop it. ... Kenosis 18:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I started a section titled "NPOV Dispute" when there was no other section with that title. This vandal, Photouploaded, then deleted everything I wrote, and now he's accusing me of hijacking the title "NPOV Dispute" which I created in the first place.Ferrylodge 18:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It took me just a few minutes to fix the grammar of what I had prewritten for the section! You swooped in and hijacked the discussion by creating a talk section first! Photouploaded 18:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

See my previous comment.Ferrylodge 19:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Photo, "hijacking" doesn't work like that. You canNOT delete someone else's comments like that, for ANY reason. The appropriate thing to do is to add your comments to the same section. Kuronue | Talk 19:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Freud would have a field day here. And probably get a new Beemer from the proceeds. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Photos

Stale

I don't know what to do. People seem to be perfectly willing to foist their own ideas on other people. We have no idea how the people in those photos identify, but everyone seems content to call them women. it's this kind of attitude that leaves babies with ambiguous genitalia getting genital surgery as infants. People want everyone to just cram nicely into those tiny boxes, "male" and "female", and if you don't fit then fuck you, we're labeling you anyway. humans have a long way to go. Photouploaded 19:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's time to stop this. First, make a list of notable, reliable sources which discuss pregnancies in persons with ambiguous biological gender, and/or reliable sources that discuss pregnancy by persons with alternative gender self-identification. Then please consider a brief section in the article, after the basics have been presented, about alternative POVs regarding gender ambiguities and gender self-identification. But first, the reliable sources will be needed in keeping with WP:NOR and WP:VER. ... Kenosis 19:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

We have bent over backwards for you, Photouploaded. In response to your concerns, it now says way up at the very top of the article: "This article is about human pregnancy in biological females (hereinafter 'her' or 'she' or 'woman' regardless of gender identity)." Thus, right from the start, readers are informed about gender identity issues, and we explain the limited use of the word "woman" in this article. What you ought to do is accept that as a fair outcome, or at least as an outcome that is supported by a substantial majority here.Ferrylodge 19:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Photo, I'm HIGHLY offended that you associate me with western doctors; you don't know me from Eve, so don't fucking judge me. Some of my best friends are gay, transgender, or bi. I have no problem with mentioning transgendered individuals. But all research indicates that these photos are of women. The burden of proof is on you to prove that they were mis-catagorized by the people who took the pictures themselves. If it was my photo I'd feel insulted that you assumed that I'm a man! Stop with the personal attacks - I get the sense you're stirring up shit just to stir up shit, like so many crusaders do. Bad things happen. LGBT people don't have equal rights. That doesn't give you the right to take it out on innocent editors of wikipedia who go out of their way to do research so that they can be sure. We've got proof of woman-hood; can you prove they're NOT? Kuronue | Talk 19:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

What is very clear in this ridiculous argument is that Photouploaded is grinding a massive axe that has little to do with the article in question. Frankly I think that he/she has been pandered to too excess, and even the present disclaimer at the top of the article is needless baggage. Are we to edit every page in Wikipedia with a caveat about its use of gender? How about US Soccer MNT? Have we checked with all those in the team they're happy being identified as men? How about Women's sports?

The issue that Photouploaded has concerns about are covered adequately elsewhere, until it is a notable issue in pregnancy then it does not belong on this page, far less determining an edit of every second line or a lead at the top.

The photos used in this article identify generic females as women. What that particular individual may, or may not, personally identify themselves as is irrelevant in this context. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree highly, and so does WP:NPOV#Undue weight. I already had removed the ridiculous disclaimer even before you mentioned it. --Rehcsif 00:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

EO, you should probably have used "he/she/it". &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

marking several sections stale, and good riddence. They can stay that way, IMO. I've no desire to go back to the bickering. Kuronue | Talk 02:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Technical language is not preferred

Stale

According to Wikipedia guidelines, we are supposed to "Write for the average reader and a general audience—not professionals or patients. Explain medical jargon or use plain English instead if possible."

Thus, words like "man", "woman", "embryo", "fetus", and "uterus" are not necessarily preferable to "father", "mother", "baby", "unborn child", and "womb". Favoring the former words over the latter runs counter to Wikipedia policy, and it also (perhaps unintentionally) favors a point of view, thus violating WP:NPOV. If and when words like mother, baby, child, and womb are technically accurate, then they should not be blacklisted. Doing so tends to dehumanize the child and tends to minimize the parent-child relationship. Obviously, these terms will not always be technically accurate, but when they are they should not be avoided like the plague. For example, the word mother is very often used in medical contexts (click on mother and look at the footnotes).

Speaking in plain and accurate English is the preferred course according to Wikipedia policy, and I happen to agree with that policy. I have no problem using words like "Man", "woman", "embryo", "fetus", and "uterus" in Wikipedia articles, but words like "father", "mother", "baby", "unborn child", and "womb" should not be frowned upon when they too are technically accurate. Good writing often involves using synonyms and a wide vocabulary, instead of using the same words over and over again.Ferrylodge 19:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop. Man and woman are technical? Embryo, uterus and fetus are known to anyone who can read on an eight grade reading level. Would you prefer plain English for penis and vagina? Come on, this is an article about a medical condition, we don't need to dumb it down. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I said I have no problem using words like "Man", "woman", "embryo", "fetus", and "uterus" in Wikipedia articles. Why do you think words like "father", "mother", "baby", "unborn child", and "womb" are dumb?Ferrylodge 21:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Not dumb, loaded. Is the father the biological father, or was the sperm donated (or "donated", wink-wink)? Is the mother the biological mother, was it in vitro from a donor, is she a surrogate? (besides, are they really either as we're discussing a fetus, and...) A fetus is not a baby until it is born. Unborn child as opposed to "not-yet-dead-but-working-on-it" human (the current status of everyone on this planet)? Besides, you can't count your unborn child as a dependent on your taxes -- why? because it hasn't been born yet and a fetus can't be claimed. Let's just stick with the medical decriptions. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

concur with Jim - "womb" is archaic as well. Why use loaded terms with less accuracy, when one can use neutral terms which are more accurate? No good reason. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be useful to focus on one of your disfavored terms at a time. Does that seem like an agreeable plan to you? If so, I'll let you all pick one to start with.

Killerchihuahua, the notion that the word "womb" is archaic does not wash. See here.

And Jim, it is patently obvious that the word "mother" is much more precise than the word "woman". A mother is, after all, a particular sort of woman, whereas a woman is not a particular type of mother.

Why not just forthrightly say that you prefer terms that the pro-choice community will feel more comfortable with? That's the plain truth isn't it?Ferrylodge 22:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"Womb" is archaic. That it is in use means nothing. "Uterus" is the correct term for the organ in question. "Mother" is loaded. Many pregnant women do not desire to be, nor do they consider themselves, nor do they become, mothers. "Mother" has long-range and emotional connotations, and is not neutral. This has nothing to do with pro-choice; this has to do with neutral terminology. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope you will re-read what you have just written. Whether a word is archaic has nothing to do with whether it is in use? I'm sorry, you'll have to do better than that. A word cannot be archaic if it remains in common use.

Many women do not desire to be pregnant, but that does not mean they are not "pregnant", according to the standard English definition of that term. Nor does it mean they are not "mothers".Ferrylodge 02:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Using the terms "mother" and "baby" to refer to a pregnant woman and a fetus drags us into the abortion debate, as if one is a "mother" before the first child is born that assumes the pregnancy is equivalent to a child that has already exited the womb; since we strive for NPOV, using "pregnant woman" keeps us out of that debate entirely. Really, it's kind of silly, but since it's such a touchy subject today, we need to strive to keep out of it. Same with "Father". In sections about post-birth events, the terms would be appropriate, however, as nobody disputes that the parents of a child that has been born are a mother and a father, as long as they identify as the parents (a sperm donor would only be a father if he wanted to be). It has everything to do with the abortion debate - we want to avoid any indication that a fetus is anything but a fetus, or we'll be seen as pro-life, but we don't want to say that a fetus is not a baby, because that'd be pro-choice; we just want to talk about a fetus, a pregnant woman, and perhaps a father-to-be or mother-to-be (expectant mother?) to indicate that while their status is unclear while pregnant, post-birth they will be a mother and father (if all goes well). If a pregnant woman is a mother, if she miscarries and thus has no living children, is she still a mother? We don't want to raise those questions, that's for society to decide and us to reflect. Kuronue | Talk 05:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

FL, Womb is not archaic in the lexicographal sense, but it is not used by the medical profession (every heard of a woman having "womb cancer"? No, it's called uterine cancer).

And no, one is not a mother until the fetus can be classified as a baby, and that only happens with birth.

Kuronue is correct: stick with the neutral technical/medical terms. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Blacklisting words from this article is fine if the words are not applicable. However, blacklisting applicable plain English terminology is against guidelines (as I described above). And, Jim62sch, no one has suggested using the word "womb" as an adjective (e.g. in the expression "womb cancer") in this article, so that's a red herring. As for the word "mother", it is often used in the present context:
MedicineNet.com (defining placenta as a "temporary organ joining the mother and fetus");
American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary (placenta permits "metabolic interchage between fetus and mother", and also defining quickening as "signs of fetal life felt by the mother");
Encyclopedia Britannica Concise ("nutrients and oxygen in the mother's blood pass across the placenta to the fetus");
On-Line Medical Dictionary, Department of Medical Oncology, University of Newcastle Upon Tyne ("movement of foetus in the womb perceived by the mother");
Medilexicon (defining quickening as "signs of life felt by the mother as a result of fetal movements");
Wordnet, Princeton University ("mother first feels the movements of the fetus");
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary ("motion of a fetus in the uterus felt by the mother").

A couple days ago, I restored dozens and dozens of occurrences of the word "woman" to this article. Just as that word should not be blacklisted here, neither should a word like "mother." I don't deny that the word may have connotations to some people, just like the word "womb" may have connotations. But the complete removal and absence of such terms has connotations too. If words are accurate and applicable, they should not be blacklisted. Wikipedia does not have a policy favoring cold, clinical terms over warm, fuzzy terms. Actually there are policies against such blacklisting, as I've described above.

I have to be away for the day, but will try to revisit this discussion tonight.Ferrylodge 14:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

In reference to your comment about the terms you would like to replace being the preferred language of the pro-choice community, I would point out that politically, I am extremely pro-life. On Wikipedia, however, I follow the NPOV policy. While "unborn child" is rejected, so is "anti-choice" and other loaded terms. "Baby" is actually used colloquially even by doctors to refer to a fetus; it's an imprecise term. Before ten weeks gestation (eight weeks post-fertilization), it's an embryo; from that point until birth it's a fetus; after birth it's an infant, neonate, or newborn. Likewise, "womb" is colloquial (not really "archaic") and is not an encyclopedic term. You complain about words being "blacklisted", but word choice is important in maintaining an encyclopedic and neutral style. Wikipedia should use neutral, precise, understandable terms in relevant articles. Terms like "womb" and "biologically female person" do not meet these criteria as well as, respectively, "uterus" and "woman". --Ginkgo100^talk 18:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent comment, Ginkgo. I just also wanted to point out that FL raised this same issue regarding "blacklisted" words on Talk:Abortion, and I replied to that issue there (see Talk:Abortion#New_paragraph_and_technical_language). I only point to that discussion so I don't have to repeat my comment here. Thanks. -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

And what of the word "mother", Ginkgo100? Should that word be verboten in this article, as well? And have you looked at Wikipedia guidelines: "Write for the average reader and a general audience—not professionals or patients. Explain medical jargon or use plain English instead if possible." Why do you think colloquial language is inappropriate here? I find it absolutely preposterous that any sane person would ban a word like "womb" from an article like this. It is incredibly biased and nonsensical. National Geographic can use the word in one of the great documentaries of all time, but we cannot utter it once in this article? Please.Ferrylodge 03:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying "woman" is medical jargon? KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No I am not. And I have no objection whatsoever to this article using the word "woman", as you know. I am the one who restored the word "woman" dozens of times to this article.

Ginkgo100 was making the argumnent that technical jargon like "uterus" is preferred over the word "womb", and I was arguing that both of those two words are suitable. If the word "womb" cannot be used in this article even once, then there is no article in Wikipedia where it could be used, and it would effectively be banned from the world's largest encyclopedia. I very strongly oppose such an outcome, and I support using a variety of words without banning a word that is perfectly well-known and precise.

As for the word "woman", why must it be used in this article to the complete and total exclusion of the word "mother"? I find this kind of debate pointless and distracting, when we could instead be improving the article by supplying much-needed references. The word "mother" is often more precise (and hence no less appropriate) than the word "woman". The word "mother" is explicitly used in countless medical sources with reference to a pregnant woman. See the list of links I provided above. Just because a woman may not wish to be pregnant does not mean she is not pregnant. Shall we replace the word "pregnant" throughout this article with "pregnant and possibly pre-abortive"?Ferrylodge 14:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Ok, thanks for clarifying. Womb is not precise. Womb is not used in medical articles, not in this encyclopedia or any other SFAIK, and its not "medical jargon" - it is the more accepted term. "Mother" vs. "woman" - we all agree (except for the rather fringe view of Photo) that the pregnant person is a "woman", yes? But we don't all agree that "mother" is a good choice, because "mother" carries connotations which are not desirable in all instances. Examples given above are a woman who miscarries or has an abortion or is a surrogate mother. Further, some mothers are never pregnant, as in the case of adoptive mothers. "Mother" is not always, therefore, accurate. "Woman" is. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is an idea, if the intention is to include some variation in language, we could use the phrase "expectant mother". By modifying the term "mother" we make it clear what is meant. Furthermore, the term itself is quite common (over half a mil google hits). This way, we can still use the 'm' word while addressing the concerns over ambiguity and accuracy.-Andrew c ^[talk] 20:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(undent)The word "womb" is not imprecise at all. It is a synonym of uterus, and thus is no less precise than "uterus." There is no reason to use only one of those two words, to the complete exclusion of the other. Uterus is the more common medical term, but womb is common in ordinary language. The word womb is used in plenty of scholarly articles, and even if it weren't we are supposed to "Write for the average reader and a general audience—not professionals or patients. Explain medical jargon or use plain English instead if possible." Plain English is preferred to medical jargon, so let's please not banish a perfectly acceptable and precise word from this article merely because it is not preferred in medical treatises (or because it has connotations which some of us do not like).

And just as you incorrectly assert that the word "womb" is imprecise, you also assert that the word "mother" is not always accurate. A leading definition of the word mother is: "A woman who conceives, gives birth to, or raises and nurtures a child." The conjunctive is "or", so a woman who does any of those things falls within the definition. A woman is a "mother" if she raises and nurtures a child, even if she didn't give birth to or conceive the child. A woman is a "mother" if she gives birth to a child even though she did not conceive and will not raise the child. If the word were inaccurate, as you say it is, then I doubt it would be frequently used in medical texts:
MedicineNet.com (defining placenta as a "temporary organ joining the mother and fetus");
American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary (placenta permits "metabolic interchage between fetus and mother", and also defining quickening as "signs of fetal life felt by the mother");
Encyclopedia Britannica Concise ("nutrients and oxygen in the mother's blood pass across the placenta to the fetus");
On-Line Medical Dictionary, Department of Medical Oncology, University of Newcastle Upon Tyne ("movement of foetus in the womb perceived by the mother");
Medilexicon (defining quickening as "signs of life felt by the mother as a result of fetal movements");
Wordnet, Princeton University ("mother first feels the movements of the fetus");
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary ("motion of a fetus in the uterus felt by the mother").

Regarding Andrew c's suggestion to replace all occurrences of the word "mother" with the words "expectant mother", I have no objection to using the words "expectant mother" occasionally in this article. Good writing means using a variety of words. However, I do not think it is necessary or desirable to make that replacement in all instances. None of the medical sources that I've just linked to have felt such a thing necessary, and I've already explained that the word "mother" is commonly defined to include any pregnant woman regardless of whether she ultimately gives birth. If language is accurate, then please let's tolerate it even if it may carry connotations that some of us might not personally like. The omission of such language carries connotations too.Ferrylodge 03:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Then I nominate you to personally deal with the shitstorm when someone over at any of the abortion articles notices we're using pro-life language and holds us responsible for the entire abortion debate. We don't HAVE to cater to EITHER side, but you seem dead-set on using pro-life language (fetus = baby, therefore pregnant woman = mother) rather than using more neutral, less emotionally-loaded words. It's not technical accuracy, it's neutrality. Kuronue | Talk 13:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't even gotten to the word "baby". I haven't looked it up in dictionaries, or looked at medical literature, or taken all the other normal steps to figure out how the word is normally defined and used. So far, the discussion has focussed on the owrd "mother" and the word "womb" both of which some of you want to completely eliminate from this article.

I agree that we should be neutral, and being neutral means not adopting cold, clinical, or technical words favored by one faction or another, to the complete exclusion of other words that have been used for centuries (and are still widely used) to discuss subjects like this.Ferrylodge 13:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. And please note that there has not been a "shitstorm" at this pregnancy article, in which words like womb and mother, et cetera have been used for years.Ferrylodge 14:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, you cannot possibly be comparing pregnancy to abortion - one is part of reproduction and the continuation of the species, and is almost completely non-controversial. The other is, as you well know, one of the most controversial issues we have to deal with. Comparing the two is either disingenuous or naive, I'm not sure which. I think perhaps you didn't think that post through carefully. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

KC, please stop suggesting that I may be "disingenuous or naive". Personal attacks are not appropriate here. If you would please read above, you will see that I was replying to Kuronue who said: "Then I nominate you to personally deal with the shitstorm when someone over at any of the abortion articles notices we're using pro-life language and holds us responsible for the entire abortion debate" (emphasis added). He borought up abortion. Am I supposed to ignore that he brought it up?Ferrylodge 14:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"Womb" is more commonly used than "uterus" in everyday speech? I don't know anyone who uses "womb" at all, unless quoting something. And "mother" is laden with connotations, which you seem intent on ignoring. You have not addressed the concerns about the connotations and imprecision of "mother" - no one is saying that it is not one of the definitions of "mother", and indeed the most common one, as "one who has a child or children" but this does not address adoptive mothers or the connotations. As Kuronue states clearly, using "mother" is slanting the article in a pro-choice direction. Using "womb" is just plain incomprehensible to me. I don't know of anyone who does not understand "uterus" and who does understand "womb" so why use an out-of-date and non-medical term for a body part? Should we use "loins" for the reproductive organs as well? "Womb"s most common definition is the uterus, but it can also mean the belly, or any cavity. Uterus has no such confusion or imprecision. There is no reason to argue for using these emotion-laden, pro-choice slanted, imprecise and outdated terms when we have simple, clear terms to use. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Honest question: how are the words "mother" and "womb" pro-choice-slanted? Photouploaded 02:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent what I say, KC. I said that "womb is common in ordinary language." I did not say more common or less common. It is common. Do a google search on womb, and you'll see that it is a very commonly used word. Even if it were used only 10% as much as uterus, that would be no justification for insisting on using uterrus 100% in this article.

You also erroneously say that I did not address concerns about imprecision of the word "mother," but you're incorrect. I went into detail about its various meanings. I explicitly said above that, "A woman is a 'mother' if she raises and nurtures a child, even if she didn't give birth to or conceive the child." How on Earth does that argue for entirely striking the word "mother" from this article? There are literally tens of millions of "women" in this country who will never conceive, or give birth to, or raise a child --- so according to your odd logic we would have to strike the word "woman" from this article.Ferrylodge

Sorry, my error. btw surely you know me well enough to know I don't EVER "misrepresent" - if I get it wrong, its because I misread or misunderstood - I would appreciate you not accusing me of "misrepresenting" you when it is a simple misunderstanding. I mis-read your post to say "more common" as opposed to "common" - so if its not more common, what is your argument there? It is common, but no assertion of being more common, so I'm missing whatever your point is - please clarify. And I think we're talking at cross purposes here on "mother" - you have not (so far as I have seen) addressed the concerns raised about the "mother" bias, and that although all pregnant people are "women" not all pregnant people are or will become "mothers" and not all "mothers" were ever pregnant - so "woman" is always accurate, but "mother" isn't. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

KC, I really must go to work and earn a living, but will try to revisit this tonight.

Let's say there are two synonymous words X and Y. Let's suppose that X is used more commonly than Y. Does that mean Y should never be used in a Wikipedia article? If that were so, then Wikipedia would never use any synonyms at all, and yet that seems to be the end result of the argument you are making. Perhaps I misunderstand.

And I disagree with your assertion that "not all pregnant people are ... 'mothers.'" A leading definition of the word mother is: "A woman who conceives, gives birth to, or raises and nurtures a child." Virtually every pregnant woman falls within that definition.Ferrylodge 15:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

But not all "mothers" are or were ever pregnant, yes? Regarding the synonym argument: not as a hard and fast rule, certainly. However, few synonyms are precisely the same meaning. Womb means "belly" or "abdomen" as well as "uterus", rendering it less accurate. Further, "uterus" is the correct medical term for a body part. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

KC, it is true that not all "mothers" are or were ever pregnant. It is also true that not all "women" are or were ever pregnant.

Therefore I am perplexed as to why you want to completely eliminate the word "mother" from every Wikipedia article related to pregnancy, and replace it with the word "woman."Ferrylodge 14:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It is clear to me that the way to avoid accusations of slanting this or any article is to use clear, technical language that has no suggestion of POV-pushing. There can be no argument against "uterus" as the completely understandable and correct medical term, nor is there any debate possible that "woman" is in any way pushing any POV - it is simple biological fact. So it seems clear to me by this very dispute here on talk that we need to use the proper terminology and not the words that are code for a point of view. Tvoz |talk 18:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I entirely support the usage of the term "uterus", not "womb". In the absence of support for language that supports gender-variant people, I support the term "woman" as being as neutral as on which we can agree, certainly far more neutral than "mother". There is still the issue of referring to people who are not parents as "mother" and "father", and the instances where the fetus is referred to as a "baby" and an "unborn child". Again, I see these as entirely inappropriate. Photouploaded 18:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Just thought you guys might like to know, ferrylodge is trying out the same nonsense at Stillbirth. ornis (t) 14:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend that any admins who are watching go to the Stillbirth article and see about blocking Ornis for disruption.Ferrylodge 14:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Definitions and Wikipedia policy

Stale

Regarding the suggestion that the word "womb" should be eliminated from Wikipedia, and replaced in all instances by the more clinical word "uterus", I disagree. There is room for both words in Wikipedia.

The word "womb" has been in this article long before I ever touched this article. There is no consensus for completely removing it.

The words "womb" and "uterus" are synonymous. This article can use both the words "womb" and "uterus." The latter is a more clinical word, and the former word is in common use. Wikipedia guidelines say: "Write for the average reader and a general audience—not professionals or patients. Explain medical jargon or use plain English instead if possible." There is nothing inappropriate about using the word "womb" in this article.

Following are several dictionary definitions that demonstrate "womb" is synonymous with "uterus":

From Medicine-net.com....

"Womb: The womb (uterus) is a hollow, pear-shaped organ located in a woman's lower abdomen between the bladder and the rectum. The narrow, lower portion of the uterus is the cervix; the broader, upper part is the corpus. The corpus is made up of two layers of tissue."

From Encarta:

"uterus of woman: a uterus, especially a woman's ( not in technical use )"

From the US National Institutes of Health:

"The small, hollow, pear-shaped organ in a woman's pelvis. This is the organ in which a baby grows. Also called the uterus.

From the Meriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

"1 : UTERUS"

From Dictionary.com:

"the uterus of the human female and certain higher mammals."

From American Heritage Dictionary for "uterus" (via Dictionary.com):

"A hollow muscular organ located in the pelvic cavity of female mammals in which the fertilized egg implants and develops. Also called womb"

From WordNet (via Dictionary.com):

"Womb: hollow muscular organ in the pelvic cavity of females; contains the developing fetus [syn: uterus]"

From American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary (via Dictionary.com):

"womb (wm) n. See uterus."

From Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary:

"Main Entry: womb Pronunciation: 'wüm Function: noun : UTERUS"

Both the words "womb" and "uterus" are perfectly acceptable in this article. The word "womb" has been in the article a long time (long before I ever edited this article). It would be either POV or a mistake to completely remove and bar the word "womb" from this article, and from Wikipedia.Ferrylodge 14:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts. Ferrylodge, there is a lot that I agree with you on. At a personal level, I think its nonsensical to try to politicize words like "womb" and "uterus" by entangling it into the abortion debate. I am staunchly pro-choice but I just don't see how words like baby/fetus and womb/uterus need to have the supposed "power" that some people want to invest in them. There are bigger issues to the abortion debate then what we try to pigeon-hole into these words. That said, I think the deciding factor in this article should be context rather then politics. That is truly the only NPOV way of going forward. To advocate the exclusion or inclusion or either term based on any other reason is to interject you own POV and politics into the article. While "uterus" is the more medically correct term, "womb" is undoubtedly the more common term. Both Wikipedia policies and common sense implores us to look at the context of each usage and decide which one is one appropriate. There are 9 instances where the word "uterus" is used currently in the article with no usage of the word "womb". In the section below I listed them with my opinion on their context. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Context of womb/uterus

Stale

1. In the lead "In many societies' medical and legal definitions, human pregnancy is somewhat arbitrarily divided into three trimester periods, as a means to simplify reference to the different stages of prenatal development. The first trimester carries the highest risk of miscarriage (natural death of embryo or fetus). During the second trimester, the development of the fetus can be more easily monitored and diagnosed. The beginning of the third trimester often approximates the point of viability, or the ability of the fetus to survive, with or without medical help, outside of the uterus."
2. Determining the start of pregnancy and predicting date of birth "In the post-implantation phase, the blastocyst secretes a hormone named human chorionic gonadotropin which in turn, stimulates the corpus luteum in the woman's ovary to continue producing progesterone. This acts to maintain the lining of the uterus so that the embryo will continue to be nourished. "
3. Medical signs "Implantation bleeding, light spotting that occurs at implantation of the embryo in the uterus, in the third or fourth week after LMP"
4. Symptoms "Increased urination is caused by pressure of the growing uterus against the urinary bladder."
5. Sexuality during "Sex during pregnancy is a low-risk behavior except when the physician advises that sexual intercourse be avoided, which may, in some pregnancies, lead to serious pregnancy complications or health issues such as a high-risk for premature labor or a ruptured uterus."
6. Terminology "There are likewise finer distinctions between the concepts of fertilization and the actual state of pregnancy, which starts with implantation. In a normal pregnancy, the fertilization of the egg usually will have occurred in the Fallopian tubes or in the uterus."
7. Terminology "(Often, an egg may become fertilized yet fail to become implanted in the uterus.)"
8. Terminology "If the pregnancy is the result of in-vitro fertilization, the fertilization will have occurred in a Petri dish, after which pregnancy begins when one or more zygotes implant after being transferred by a physician into the woman's uterus."
9. First trimester "In medicine, pregnancy is often defined as beginning when the developing embryo becomes implanted into the endometrial lining of a woman's uterus."

• With the exception of maybe the lead usage, I think in each of these context the more medically correct term of uterus is most appropriate. In my own personal context, I think of a benchmark of whether or not this would be a discussion between doctors or in a classroom or a discussion with a pregnant mother. One if more of a medical based discussion while the other is more of a common casual discussion-in which case the more common usage is the most appropriate. But in a primarily medical discussion context, the opposite is true. If there was a line in the article about "The mother can feel the baby kicking in her....", I think without question that womb would be the most appropriate term. But in looking at the current state of the article and the current context of each usage I can't really advocate the use of womb over uterus. However that certainly doesn't exclude its future use in the article if better context was added where it was appropriate. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Preference: Womb vs. Uterus

Stale

In all languages, words and usages change. English is no exception. Although womb might have been more common at one point, I believe that the more technical and modern word uterus is gaining currency for several reasons, and is to be preferred on Wikipedia.

• the increasingly common expression in utero makes it clear that we should be using uterus. Does anyone use a counterpart to this expression that uses "womb"? (in wombo??)
• the increasingly common references to "uterine cancer" make it clear we should be using uterus. Does anyone use a counterpart of this expression that uses the word "womb"?
• "uterine prolapse" is another phrase that uses some version of "uterus", and not womb. Who ever talks about "womb prolapse"?
• uterus is at least not as complicated as endometrium (the lining of the uterus).
• It is still a general word that most people understand. Us using it is helpful because it can help people trying to understand medical writing.
• the word womb has many other meanings as well, so it is basically confusing. Uterus is far more specific and useful.--Filll 21:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Besides, something like "gestation takes place in the womb (in wombo?)" just sounds plain dumb. Might as well just make it "the before-birth growth of the baby happens in the womb" -- all nice Anglo-Saxon words, but blatently stupid and childish unless we're writing for five-year-olds. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with these ideas. "Uterus" is widely used and understood, so there is no reason not to use it; conversely, there are reasons not to use "womb" (it is colloquial and rarely used in a medical context). As an analogy (which someone mentioned earlier), Wikipedia does not use colloquial words to refer to human genitals, even where they are perfectly clear, understandable, and not vulgar in context. --Ginkgo100^talk 23:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

A clear, concise and logical commentary by Ginkgo. This should never be discussed again. It was silly from beginning to end, save for the logical statements by about 20 different editors opposing one POV-warrior.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree - well put, Gingko. Just one point of anecdotal evidence: in the 18 months that I was pregnant, I never once heard the word "womb" from anyone other than an elderly great-aunt. Tvoz |talk 00:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, as long as we're trading OR, I never heard it in the nearly 29 months I was pregnant (all three were "late".) Nor did I hear it from my mother-in-law, who had 8 children. Last person I heard use "womb" was my paternal grandmother, who talked like the KJV. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It is OR as well, but growing up in both urban and Bible belt sections of the midwest the term "womb" was quite common. Though my ex-husband had a penchant for the term "Babypot belly". :) Agne^Cheese/^Wine 06:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

From an Australian perspective, nearly all childbirth education classes use 'uterus'. Womb is a shortened form of wombat. Gillyweed 07:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Wombat? That's funny. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Womb-Uterus debate: central location proposed

Resolved

As this has enveloped multiple articles, I propose we choose one location for the debate, post accodingly on the talk pages of all involved articles, and hash it out in one place. There has been a good bit of repetition, as well as edit warring on articles where there is little or no discussion on the talk pages. IMO we can work it out ourselves, but if not, we can move to mediation if desired. I suggest Talk:Pregnancy/Womb-Uterus debate. I am cross posting this on all involved articles. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

further debate moved to link. Kuronue | Talk 02:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

When does pregnancy end?

Resolved

The definition of pregnancy used in the lead bothers me a little, but I didn't want to touch it without asking if this has already been discussed. It currently reads (emphasis added):

Pregnancy is the carrying of one or more offspring, known as a fetus or embryo, inside the body of a female mammal such as a human, between conception and birth.

My question is regarding how we define the end of pregnancy. The above would imply pregnancy only ends at birth, but what about the case of abortion or miscarriage? We could fix this by completely dropping the "between conception and birth" clause (which would be NPOV and avoid the whole beginning of pregnancy debate). Alternatively, we could perhaps write "between conception and delivery" and let delivery imply any possible end of pregnancy, or we could explicitly say "between conception and birth, abortion, or miscarriage", but I think that is a bit wordy. Are there any objections to just striking that clause? - Hoplon 20:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "between conception and birth or abortion", since "abortion" technically refers also to spontaneous abortions, i.e., miscarriages. Or would that be confusing, since most people think only of induced abortions when they see that word? --Ginkgo100^talk 21:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I did think about that possibility before posting, and agree that "abortion" can technically be taken to mean miscarriage, but I thought it would be too easy to misread so I didn't propose it. May I ask your opinion on simply deleting the whole clause? - Hoplon 01:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually that sounds like a good solution, since it's really redundant. Furthermore it avoids the sticky issues regarding controversy over the beginning of pregnancy. --Ginkgo100^talk 01:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd go along with that, but if it doesn't fly how about "between conception and birth or termination" - that would cover both miscarriage and abortion. But I'd prefer leaving out the clause completely as it doesn't really add anything. Also, come to think of it, what about in-vitro fertilization and implanted fertilized eggs? That woman is just as pregnant as if conception took place in her body - so we should really avoid this whole conundrum, I think, and delete the clause. Tvoz |talk 08:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Since no objections were raised, I'm removing the clause. Tvoz |talk 07:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I hadn't even thought about the in-vitro example. Regardless, the clause wasn't adding anything. - Hoplon 18:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree - sometimes the best solution is to rethink the sentence as you did, rather than try to bend it into a pretzel to fit all possibilities! Tvoz |talk 22:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

yay, another resolved after all those stales. Kuronue | Talk 02:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Overblown See also

I see no basis for such a huge See also. What it is doing is duplicating the Pregnancy category which does a more effective job. I should like agreement to thin this down to key links. TerriersFan 08:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. TerriersFan (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverted. I don't think a consensus of one constitutes a consensus. Besides it's highly POV. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

alright, I'll prune it with comments on everything removed, shall I?

At first glance I spot: Birth defect - if anything, should be linked from birth, or in text if we refer to birth defects. Who would go to pregnancy looking for birth defect info? Ectogenesis - the complete OPPOSITE of pregnancy. Why the heck would someone seeking info on pregnancy need to go there? Contraception - again, people can find that just fine without a link lost in a sea of others in pregnancy. Father - linked in the article, or if it's not it should be. Health care issues in pregnancy - why on EARTH are we linking to the main article on health care?! If it was an article specifically about prenatal health care.... Mental illness accompanied with pregnancy - same issue, and that now sounds rather offensive. Oh yes, because pregnancy makes women crazy?? Parent - same reasoning as Father Pica (craving) - see mental illness. if someone wants to know about pica they can look up pica, if they want to know about pregnancy we ought not to promote the idea that every pregnant woman will develop a disorder. If it had some context in the article maybe. Taboos concerning pregnancy in many cultures - again, it's hardly a pregnancy-specific article. "LOL, there are taboos, let's link that!" Pelvic girdle pain during pregnancy or postpartum - can stay, but the article needs a serious cleanup.

alright, now that that's done let's look at the things that at least ARE pregnancy related. Pass two I'm removing: Belly cast Doula Lamaze Pregnancy in science fiction as being too... unnessicary. The odds that someone wants to find them...they can always go to cat:pregnancy. Also removing: Twin and Multiple birth Unassisted childbirth Wrongful abortion Natural childbirth Low birth weight paradox Birth control Fertility as belonging better on birth or abortion instead. I left childbirth and abortion linked, though; if you're looking for topics about those, you can find them from their respective pages instead. It's still WAY too long, but it's a start.

Kuronue | Talk 15:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

(oh, how did I miss this on the first pass? Sex during pregnancy gone.)

Semi-protection

Looking at the edit history for the past few days, it looks like around 40% of edits are from various IPs and immediately reverted. That's a pretty high rate. Per WP:PP and WP:ROUGH, I semi-protected the page for a week to see what happens. If vandalism picks up again right away after a week, I think indefinite semi-protection should be considered. --Ginkgo100^talk 19:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)