Talk:Pregnancy/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Pregnancy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Summarizing?

This discussion seems to be winding down (please god), and at the risk of being pelted with nasty names and pigeonholed I wanted to suggest that the fundamental premise that one image is as informative to one as to another is subjective and so not true for everyone. Building up arguments based on that false premise and shaky foundation can only yield arguments that are questionable. As and aside: If I were to walk into an art class and suggest to students that they can see the physiology of pregnancy as well on a clothed model as on a nude, I'd be laughed out of class, and probably have an unpleasant meeting with the department chair. I consider the clothed image, #1 to be without much information, and decorative , and the other, #2 more informative and as tasteful as we can get with out adding clothing. Will some readers find the nude image uncomfortable. I don't know. I'd be guessing one way or the other. Our mission is information not decoration, and we need to convey information as accurately as possible and as tastefully as possible. One image comes closer to doing that than the other.(olive (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC))

I agree completely with your sentiments, except for the issue of which image is a more informative illustration. The proposed replacement image shows the full extent of a mature human pregnancy and also provides an illustration of typical maternity clothes. And since I took drawing in college, both nude and non-nude, I can tell you that pregnancy is pretty hard to miss, whether depicted with or without clothes. We're not talking about shingles here. Besides, pregnancy is not a disease, and it's more than a "physiological condition". Treating pregnancy as if it were nothing more than a medical condition is disingenuous. Kaldari (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Olive, you bring up several good points, and let me also summarize some: We don't know that the nude image is actually offensive to any but a very few, as the other Wikipedias mostly use nudes and we have no data; we are not trying for image "quality" (not to say the nude image is of lesser quality), but illustration; the clothed image is only arguably of better quality, and there are good arguments that the nude image is of better quality; the nude image has more information; the clothed image does not improve the racial problem, because of the dress and because swapping black for white doesn't solve the problem, it should be Asian/Indian; the clothed image is smaller; we are being asked to show consideration for those who dislike nudity, but we have as much reason to believe that some like it, and why aren't we considering them?; We aren't trying to be like other encyclopedias, but rather we are trying to be as informative as we can be; it's not a believable argument that we can increase readership or make the article more acceptable to children or in classrooms by having the nude image further down the page: we'd have to remove it entirely; there is no justification within Wikipedia policy for using cultural biases of any kind as a criterion for Wikipedia content, and such a principle would be destructive if applied overall. B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 20:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Olive, I agree completely with your summary. I'd like to add that, having worked on both images with Photoshop (which resulted in my improvement of Image 2 - see new lead image), I can testify that the picture of the nude pregnant woman is of far greater photographic quality, in the sense that its resolution is much higher than the resolution of Image 1, which gets rapidly fuzzy when you enlarge it. I would say that Image 2 is certainly superior to Image 1 as a document. It has better information content, since it illustrates the change that happens to the body of a pregnant woman by actually showing the body of a pregnant woman (in the spirit of similar article with a medical orientation). Clothes play an obstructing role in such a context. Image 1 could be considered slightly better from an esthetic point of view, but this is a matter of personal taste, and people who like realism in photography will prefer Image 2. For my part, being a great admirer of Lucian Freud, I prefer Image 2 on artistic ground as well - but I gather that this is irrelevant. Dessources (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Olive, I agree with you about the subjectivity of the information in this - there's no concrete improvement in the content of the article with either image unless one happens to believe there is. If this were an art class then I would agree with you that the nude image is superior; if the nude image were on the art nude article, then there would be no question of removing it at all. However, the purpose of this article is to discuss pregnancy, and leading off with a art nude image is (IMO) inappropriate to the topic. Now we could have a reasonable discussion about whether that assessment is correct if people were willing to argue reasonably, but frankly I am deeply annoyed at the logic shenanigans going on here. trying to recast an art nude image as though it were intended to be a clinical graphic with valuable information is insultingly absurd. The extreme intolerance of conservative worldviews and the pointlessly combative attitude evidenced by some of the supporters here is sufficiently bad that I'm beginning to think topic bans are called for. Hell, I have never found myself in a position where I had to defend conservative views this strenuously - normally I'm the one reducing conservative arguments to rubble - and the fact that I feel I have to should give some idea of how ridiculously out-of-line the pro-art-nude position is here. Can you maybe convince the other people on your side of the debate to stick to the kind of reasoned arguments that you make? that would help a lot. --Ludwigs2 03:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs, I'm not on a side, I just have an opinion that's all. The reason art students draw nudes is because they have to see what the body is doing, how it is constructed. If the argument is that enough of that 'construction' can be viewed through clothing for the reader to get the general idea, and that's enough, then I would disagree. I don't know that filtering out tastefully presented information serves the reader. You know, Wikipedia is so unpleasant in so many places, I'm afraid that to debate this further is not something I feel I want to deal with. My points may be useful or not. Just adding a thought or two. And no bans needed. Nudity and how we view it is so engrained in many people, its part of who they/we are. So discussion is not about nudity necessarily but may be about aspects of personalities that create editor individuality. So sure argument becomes vehement when your protecting, even unconsciously, yourself. (olive (talk) 03:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC))

Olive, you may not be on their side, but they certainly think they are on yours. an eternal misunderstanding, perhaps. I don't know (or really care) which is the truth, so long as conversation wends its way back to the rational. As far as I'm concerned, any image in the lead of an article is mainly there to orient the reader, not to provide detailed information (that's for images in section, where details are discussed). both images are adequate for that purpose, and the clothed image doesn't aggravate anyone. I agree that if this were about the details of form that define the pregnant body, the nude image would be better (though I think there are better images than this art nude piece for that). I just don't agree that that level of detail is necessary for the purpose. We have a dual responsibility to inform the reader without alienating them from the topic unnecessarily, and a non-nude image will work better for that purpose.

I am on a sour streak with wikipedia - I'm tired of arguing over stupid points endlessly, and sick of editors who think it's their god-given duty to be unforgivable bitches - and so as soon as this debacle is over I'm going back on wikibreak until I have a better attitude (which may be never). I would just like for once to crack through all the stupid shit and get people to behave like normal, reasonable adults. You manage that, but you're a rarity. If that can't happen as a rule, then the project is just a waste of time: one more area of the internet where mindlessly opinionated people bash their heads against each other out of some primal. futile urge towards dominance. it sickens me.

but, whatever… --Ludwigs2 05:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Sidestepping the thread that's developing and trying to address the original point: what information is presented in the nude image? Article lead images are somewhat decorative, but the primary objective is to confirm to the reader visually that they're in the right place (maybe irrelevant for this article, though I'm certain there's an album by some crappy garage band somewhere called Pregnancy (album)). Nudity isn't necessarily offensive, and honestly when you start talking about bodily changes you're going to have to show some bodies, but there in context it's obvious why we're doing it and it wouldn't shock anyone. Obviously the truly prudish will still disapprove, but even then they're probably going to disapprove of the word "breasts" in print as well and they're a lost cause. The lead image is like a book cover: it doesn't have context, it's there for identification of the subject. Call me silly, but aren't most of the pregnant people you run into clothed? The image is distracting, because it rapidly becomes about nudity, not about pregnancy, and our focus is lost. SDY (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The answer to your overlooked question about hat this shows that a non-nude doesn't show is: nothing.

The claims that have been put forward are:

Showing breasts at one point in time shows how they changed in size and the color of the areola—except that no single picture can show "change", because the readers have no idea what this woman's breasts looked like before pregnancy. Also, most of the changes appear in the four months after this image was taken (yes, four, because breast changes happen after birth, too).
Showing her naked buttocks at one point in time shows that she has gained fat tissue—except see "no single picture can show change", etc.
Showing her naked breasts shows alleged pregnancy-related changes to the prominence of a blue vein in the side of her breast—except see "no single picture can show change", etc., plus the fact that equally prominent blue veins are trivially found in a quick scan of non-pregnant breasts on Commons, plus the fact that this change (not exactly universal) is more prominent among breastfeeding mothers than women in their sixth month.
Showing her naked buttocks shows alleged pregnancy-related stretch marks—except that there aren't any. That claim disappeared after editors were provided with verifiable information about what pregnancy-related stretch marks actually look like.
She's got a "baby bump"—except that you can see that in a fully clothed image, and it's even more obvious in a third-trimester image.
Her stance suggests that her center of gravity has shifted slightly—except that you can see that in a fully clothed image, too.

What this image does add is one art photographer's interpretation of the non-physical/emotional side of pregnancy (well, plus another unnecessary picture on Wikipedia of what someone called "naughty bits", which has drawn nothing but complaints from readers/newbies since the month it was added). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Compromise idea: nude woman, but more cover-up?

This is nice. It might be a compromise lead image. B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 15:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see the response to that one. It is, in my opinion more sexually provocative, than the current image, even though it shows less. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that a good compromise picture would be a nude woman, but covering herself up somehow, e.g. the current nude image, but with the woman's hand over her breasts. That might be a good middle ground. On the other hand, as Martin suggests, the particular picture posted by BeCritical above is a bit too cheesecake. Question: Does anyone know of an available image that shows a nude pregnant woman, but that is less revealing than the one currently in the article, and is less cheesecake than the one from BeCritical? --Noleander (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Noleander, in what respect is the current image too revealing? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

@Martin: I don't feel the current image is too revealing (I !voted to keep the current image at the top of the article). I was just suggesting that a more modest photo may be a good compromise. I cannot speak for the persons that object to the current photo, but perhaps a hand covering the breasts may be acceptable to them? --Noleander (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Damn buddy, you do like art nudes, don't you?

alright, here are a couple of alternates to try (they're on a remote site - I'll upload them to commons if there's call to).

[1]
[2]

--Ludwigs2 17:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I like Ludwigs2's first option (9350). The second is too "artistic." SDY (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think any of those are very good illustrations for the article. The soft focus one is just ridiculously cheesy, the 2nd one is too tightly cropped to give you much context, and the 3rd one is probably too artsy. I do like though that these are all mature pregnancies, which I would strongly prefer for a lead image. Keep looking though, there might be something out there. Kaldari (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

What "context" is missing? I mean, the entire problem is that the "context" included in the original photograph causes problems for using the photo in certain settings, so I don't think we want more "context." SDY (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

lol - context… that's got to be the funniest rationalization I've heard on this page yet. --Ludwigs2 19:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't saying the image has to show full frontal nudity, I was saying it would be nice if it's easier to tell what we're looking at. Personally, I think a fully clothed image would be fine as long as it is a high quality photograph and clearly depicts pregnancy. Kaldari (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

All the "compromise" pictures proposed in this section are unsatisfactory. The current image is clearly much better. Its superiority is acknowledged by the fact that it is used in over 40 different wikis, showing that it enjoys quite a wide degree of support across many cultures in the world. The current debate is a waste of time, since it's essentially based on the point of view of a small minority of contributors, who object to the image, speculating that some people in some cultures may find it offensive, a consideration which is irrelevant as per Wikipedia rules. There is no need to find a compromise, because there is actually no substantive issue. Dessources (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
And it's this kind of idiocy that makes editing wikipedia such a pain. Dessources, keep it up and I will ask an administrator to sanction you for disruptive behavior.--Ludwigs2 00:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Regarding image use on other wikis, most smaller wikis take their cue from English Wikipedia rather than vice versa, so I think this would be circular logic. Kaldari (talk) 00:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Lol, the image I suggested is more "art," or whatever you call it, cheesecake, than the other, but it's not "nude," and it shows enough that you truly can see what's going on. There's a lot of irrelevance, the snow, the gloves etc. Ludwigs' suggested images aren't bad. The lack some of the advantages of the current image, but they do show the subject material without undue interference. If the fully nude image is to be shown at all, then we are not actually placating anyone outside WP: let there be no doubt there, any nudity in the article will be completely unacceptable to anyone against nudity (like the complaints WhatamIdoing posted yesterday). But these would be good compromise images. This image is best compromise image. The current image is still the best we have of course. Ludwigs, don't threaten Dessources, I agree with him basically and he is not being disruptive. It's just that I'm always up for a legit compromise. Ludwigs is the one who has a history of being disruptive on this page, and threatening other editors is beyond the tolerable limits. I greatly respect Ludwigs, but that doesn't mean I'll tolerate too much disruption and incivility when it's not merely aimed at me. B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 03:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

B - the one thing you will never hear me say is "There is no need to find a compromise". Compromise is always a consideration when there is a dispute, and anyone who sits down to the discussion with the attitude that there compromise is a waste of time is explicitly disruptive (because they are making it clear that they will argue without listening to the other side, and will purposefully block any discussion or action they don't approve of). I can be an ass, but I am rarely an unreasonable ass, and that's a huge difference.

I'll add that if you are going to start referring to valid administrative solutions which I have perfect right to request as 'threats', then you're delusional. I don't know whether any admin will agree with me, but if D is going to continue trolling this page then I am going to try to get him blocked or topic banned. If you don't like it, too bad. Story, but I'm fed up with his crap. --Ludwigs2 05:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The thing is that I ignore a lot of rhetoric which has no chance of having any actual effect. I guess saying you won't compromise would be disruptive if that's what he meant. B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 06:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I am all for compromise when the issue is real. Here the issue is a non issue, as Wikipedia rules out removing an image simply because some readers may find it offensive. What's left is the information content of the image, and nothing proposed so far comes even short of the current image.

Dessources (talk) 06:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

"I will ask an administrator to sanction you for disruptive behavior." Ludwigs, you live in a different world than I do. A world in which the simple appearance of a breast in a medically oriented image creates a frenzy of censorship, a world in which you feel free to denounce me to the authorities for "disruptive behaviour," while I am simply exercising my freedom of opinion and speech. Have you read 1984, by George Orwell, which describes such a world quite well.

Dessources (talk) 06:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

No, D, you live in a bizarre world, one where:

An art nude photograph can be construed as a 'medically oriented image'
Opposition to an unnecessary image constitutes a 'frenzy of censorship'
You can defend your right to 'free speech' by insisting that no one else has an opinion worth listening to

In other words, you hold that you are free to say whatever senseless thing comes into your head and the rest of us are free to agree with you, and no other condition is possible. What are you, a Tea Party member? --Ludwigs2 14:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Have we now finally reached the point where the ONLY opposition to the naked image is the nudity aspect? The nature of this compromise proposal would suggest that. HiLo48 (talk) 07:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that was actually the case all along. In fact it is specifically the showing of a woman's breasts that is the issue. This seems to be to be a case of a small and unspecified but vocal minority trying to impose their views on WP; something that should be firmly resisted. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The actual issue - all along - has been that we should show respect to the preferences of others, where possible at least. I would make, and have made, this same argument on pages that have nothing to do with nudity (with the same kind of mindlessly vituperative opposition), it's just that the 'respect' issue here involves some people's preference not to see nudity if they don't have to. The problem is that the advocates for the image are constitutionally unable of showing anything like human decency towards people they are obviously prejudiced against, so they can only imagine the issue as one of nudity and censorship.

The issue is that we are dealing with adolescents who've got it stuck in their head that they have to push the boundaries of that 'uncool' world those dumb adults live in, and like adolescents everywhere they get crotchety and aggressively self-righteous when someone tells them 'no'. --Ludwigs2 14:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe that those views are those of a small minority. As I have said before almost everything we do will offend someone but I believe that the offence caused by showing a woman's breasts in an article about pregnancy will not be found offensive by the vast majority of WP readers. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Martin, I know what you believe. I also know that if you silk-screened that image onto a t-shirt and walked around your home town in it, then (unless you live south of Market in SF, or on the strip in Vegas) you'd get a much clearer idea of how the general public feels about gratuitous nudity, and possibly a stiff fine for public indecency. Just because this is the internet (where you can hide in anonymity) doesn't mean people agree with you; it just means that they have no way to give you the nasty looks they would give you if they met you face to face. --Ludwigs2 17:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

You have completely ignored the context. I am not suggesting we show the image on the street or even on the main page of WP, but someone who is looking up 'Pregnancy' must surely have some expectation of finding images that they might not expect to find elsewhere.

I might add that I am offended by people who demonise body parts so I actually would be offended if the image were replaced by a clothed one simply because breasts are considered 'bad'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

They just need to grow up and understand what is appropriate and not for a general article thread. It is something for someone to look up an article about breasts and which case, a nude picture would be expected. Another for an article where a nude picture is not needed nor expected for such an ordinary topic. The editors who insist on keeping the nude picture are nothing more than perverts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.148.58 (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't support the inclusion of any artsy images in this article. I don't mind nude images—if the nude image we use for anatomical illustrations were pregnant (see File:Woman labeled.jpg, I'd support its inclusion—but I don't support art nudes or art semi-nudes or even "art fully dresseds". This is Pregnancy, not Artistic interpretations of pregnancy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

So it's NOT about the nudity? This really is a stupid discussion. Those opposing the nude photo present their case as if it's on someone else's behalf. Someone else who I should make allowances for. I ask again, what allowance is that someone else making for MY position? And it seems I'm being accused of being an adolescent. Ha ha. Nothing could be further from the truth! And a pervert! That is a purely offensive personal attack. Pathetic really. That post should be condemned by ALL other editors here. Feeling comfortable with nudity is NOT a perversion. I am willing to put MY views forward for myself, as a mature, thoughtful person. I don't hide behind the pretence of protecting some other anonymous person's sensitivities. HiLo48 (talk) 17:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

"Someone else who I should make allowances for. I ask again, what allowance is that someone else making for MY position? And it seems I'm being accused of being an adolescent. Ha ha. Nothing could be further from the truth! And a pervert!"

Well, uh, whatever, but you certainly have opened yourself up to the charge of being a narcissist. Daniel Case (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

And how much more personal abuse do you plan to dish out in this collaborative exercise. I think I'll start cataloguing that made against me. I see both pervert and narcissist just in recent posts. Going well guys. HiLo48 (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Feeling comfortable with nudity is not a perversion; this is true. Insisting that everyone else be as comfortable with nudity as you are, however, is perverse, self-centered, and arrogant (i.e., the attitude of a typical adolescent). This is one of those social rules that shouldn't need explaining: if you want to have sex on your own dining room table, that's fine, but you don't get to assert your right to have sex on everyone's dining room table, no matter how comfortable you are with dining room table sex.

I swear, it's like that story from (I think) Brecht's 'Caucasian Chalk Circle', about a judge who habitually farts after formal dinners, because it seems right to him to do so, and everyone else is too politic to ask him to stop. is that how we do things at wikipedia? --Ludwigs2 18:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

HiLo48, a brief glance at the talk page's archives will show many complaints about nudity. However, there are multiple reasons why editors oppose this image for the lead, just like there are multiple reasons why editors support this image for the lead. I am telling you "as a mature, thoughtful person" who is not "hiding behind the pretense of some other anonymous person's sensitivities" that I personally oppose any and all forms of "artsy" images for this article.

This is a completely separate, independent issue from nudity: I oppose artsy nudes, artsy semi-nudes, and artsy images showing zero skin whatsoever. Every single one of the "compromise" images was chosen because it is artsy. None of them, and nothing like them, will have my support. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that very artsy images aren't appropriate for this article. Still, any image of a healthy woman will appear somewhat artsy, and we shouldn't pic images specifically to have no appeal. What I mean is, it might take some artistry to make an image appear non-artsy, and we shouldn't require that. The current image isn't ideal, as you say, and we need to keep looking for alternatives. Women try to make themselves appear artistic and thus any candid image will have some artistic elements most of the time, see himba for examples. B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 20:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that women try to make themselves appear artistic: I'm a woman, and I make no such effort. Furthermore, I see nothing "artistic" in the image of the nude woman at Human body, or in any of the other images in this article. Perhaps you meant "women who are vain" rather than "women". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. I just asked a woman "do women try to make themselves look artistic?" She said "Of course, that's all they do. What do you think beauty and fashion mean? Billions of dollars and shows based on it." So I guess you're an unusual exception. Certainly, I see few women on the street who don't try to make themselves look "good." And nothing artistic about the woman at "human body??" What about the hair? Makeup? Shaved crotch? The current image is much less artsy than most. It may be an "art nude," but not more so than you'd get with almost any woman, and probably a lot less- certainly less than the one at Human body. And that's my point: one would be hard pressed to take a picture of a healthy pregnant woman and have it appear less artistic than the one we already have (even if she made zero effort to make herself artistic). So I'm just saying that having the requirement that our image not be artistic isn't realistic. Women make themselves up artistically, and even if they don't they'll often appear as "art nudes" if they're healthy. B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 02:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The things you identify as making the woman "artistic" in the lead image at Human body apply equally to the man: shaved crotch, styled hair, photoshopping... Do we conclude from this that all men also try to make themselves look artistic?

I don't object to images being "pretty". I object to them being self-consciously and intentionally artsy. A naked, pregnant supermodel standing in the anatomical position is fine with me. A piece of artwork whose primary purpose is to communicate emotion is not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

"Do we conclude from this that all men also try to make themselves look artistic" Yes of course, why wouldn't we? Nearly all. I wasn't personally aware that the current lead pic was more than the personal documentation of a pregnancy. I have no reason to believe they did anything consciously or professionally to convey emotion. I also have a large suspicion that any emotion conveyed there is mostly generated by the viewer, in the way the Mona Lisa is a neutral image. Do you think it was purposely emotional? B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 19:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

If everyone is "artistic", then no one is. That sort of definition makes the term useless.

Of course I think the artistic qualities in the image are intentional. It was not a purely personal documentation; it was part of a series (e.g., this, taken the same day, in the same place) by a prolific amateur art photographer using a single-lens reflex camera. This is not merely some snapshot. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

We can't legitimately consider nudity or people's dislike unless we are entirely sure we are not sacrificing informational value in the process. That's why we can consider compromise images here, because if one is found which gives equal or greater information value then we can use it for reasons other than the assumed cultural bias which is the main reason given so far for moving the image (though such bias would not be placated). We can consider the biases of Wikipedia editors because we want to form consensus, as long as the informational value is not sacrificed. That's the main reason why I oppose the original clothed image: I do not think it gives a good pictorial summary of pregnancy. But we should consider any image which gives equal information. B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 18:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

So, the upshot is that you've manufactured an entirely subjective set of 'information' (which you are incapable of specifying in concrete terms) and are using that to c%ck-block any and all other considerations. How specifically does the clothed picture depict pregnancy worse than the nude picture? specifics, please - if you hand-wave on this I'm going to crucify your logic. --Ludwigs2 19:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

And you have no statistics showing that more than a few people object to the current image. The complaints I saw were mostly from people who would be unsatisfied till all nudity is purged from the article. You don't have any reason to believe that having the nude image moved is any significant improvement when it comes to making conservative people more comfortable. That's not only subjective on your part, it's unreasonable. Now, as to subjectiveness and information, you are asking for something that is entirely impossible without a scientific study and averages. I can tell you that I couldn't imagine from the proposed image what the belly underneath looked like, but it's up to you to decide whether you believe me or whether you think my imagination is even more impoverished than a) most people and b) those who haven't seen pregnant women naked. I'm also simply saying that you should give credence to the arguments of other editors, who are more experienced (as with art), and say that there is more info in the nude image even though it's hard to quantify. Also, I'm not opposed to a compromise, which I have made clear above. Finally, few know more than I do how easy it is to crucify information which is not supported by hard statistics; but that does not always make crucifying such perception a reasonable option. It might be more reasonable if you had more to back up your own argument besides hand waving about respecting an unquantified conservative audience which may not care about the proposed remedy. B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 20:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

You know what's missing from this discussion? Someone saying "I am offended by the nudity". HiLo48 (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing posted a bunch above, but in reading them I noticed that they were rather radical, like complaining that it would get kids addicted to porn. That's why I say we're not going to satisfy such people. What we don't have is any reason to believe that moving the image will help at all. B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 20:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

No, my point was that nobody has come to THIS discussion to say "I am offended by the nudity". All we have had is some editors saying "I care about those OTHER people who might be offended" Very difficult to debate what those hypothetical others really think. HiLo48 (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm offended by the use of said picture. As stated below in the discussion on viewing this at work, I can't even view this page because of the nudity and I don't have the ability to block pictures using this computer. I find the picture to be in low taste and to be honest, quite sexist. No one has made a good case for why the image should remain; there is no scientific value to the inclusion of that nude picture, all it shows is a nude woman who happens to be pregnant. It is not about censorship. For all those who say it is censorship, how would people react to seeing someone nude on the street? Not too well I would guess. It is really no different in this case. Just because Wikipedia is a public internet site, does not give us reason to break the norms of society; Wikipedia editors should aim to respect the zeitgeist and also not try to blatantly abuse wikipedia policy in the pursuit of their preaching on censorship or other controversial issues. ""Being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content, but objectionable content should not be retained solely because of this policy." Lord Hawk (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that post Lord Hawk. It's good to see someone finally have the courage to put it in the first person. However, you lost me with "...how would people react to seeing someone nude on the street? Not too well I would guess." That's yet another hypothetical, about what you think others would think. Then you spoke of "the norms of society", and I ask "Which society?" I come from a culture where such an image in this context would not be seen as being in low taste and sexist. You must worry about my society. HiLo48 (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought Australia was quite uptight about these sort of issues seeing as how much content we get in the United States is actually banned in Australia. Lord Hawk (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting comment. I didn't have that impression at all. In fact, I felt things were the other way round. What examples did you have in mind? Anyway, the important words in my post were "in this context". I am certainly not advocating public nudity. Just highlighting that I see places where nudity is appropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 03:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

See Censorship in Australia. Australian television has less censorship than the US but more than Europe. Beyond television, there are many other problems when compared to the US. Films and books are still banned in Australia. Freedom of speech, for example, is not protected in Australia, and advertising is highly regulated, as only one example. Viriditas (talk) 03:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It isn't actually necessary for someone to be "offended" by nudity to think that nudity is inappropriate for the lead image of this article. For example, see the comment from the anon above, "They just need to grow up and understand what is appropriate..."

Additionally, one can—and many of us do—oppose having that image in the lead because it is not, in our editorial judgment, the best we can do. I don't have to "be offended" by any image in any infobox to believe that another image would be better in the lead or to believe that this image would be better used like it is in de.wiki. "Being offended" is strictly optional. For example, there's nothing even remotely "offensive" about the images discussed at Talk:Pulse_oximeter#Images_in_lead, but editors differ in their views on which is best. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

motion to change lead image

Ok, here's what I see:

B.C. admits there are no concrete, objective reasons why the nude picture must remain (in his 20:09, 13 September post), only subjective, artistic ones.
B.C., HiLo, and Dessource, the main image proponents (excepting Olive) use as their primary argument the assertion that the people who have clearly complained about the image are all representatives of a radicalized minority that should be ignored, a position which lacks both evidence and ethics (and which I personally consider specious and offensive)
The current RfC is standing at 17:9 in favor of removal

With that in mind (and barring some better, last-ditch argument on their part) I move we replace the current image with the new image. If there is a radical change in the RfC or the discussion we can always reinsert it, but for now all the tides are against it.

I'll make this change in an hour or so; I'm just giving fair warning so that the image proponents have time to clear their heads so that they do not start an edit war over the change. --Ludwigs2 22:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous position to take, and an absolutely incorrect summary, certainly of my views. This has been an appalling discussion, almost totally random and unstructured. The original proposal changed several times. And these things must be decided on the TRUE merit of the arguments, not a vote count from an aggressive supporter of one side of the debate. HiLo48 (talk) 23:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

You did not counter (or even disagree with) any of the three points I made. If those three points hold, I have more than sufficient justification to change the image pro-tem. If you disagree, you must give a more concrete reason for disagreement than the weak procedural issues that you gave. We have had plenty of time to discuss this; if the discussion was confused in your eyes, focus it now or let it go. --Ludwigs2 23:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree with HiLo, the original RfC was deeply flawed, and we can't really know what people were responding to. The false and distorted characterization above is not good reason for changing the image. The reasons for changing the image are even more subjective than those for keeping it, which is something Ludwigs apparently wants to ignore. So no. Don't try to ram this change through without proper procedure and without finding good arguments for change. B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 23:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The RfC was fine, and I will be going ahead with the image change despite your objections (unless you come up with a better argument in short order). further, I have left a notice at wp:AN#Pregnancy_-_extra_eyes_requested so that uninvolved admins can monitor the situation. There's no need to drag the argument over there; I just wanted you to be aware that I had made that request. --Ludwigs2 23:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

More importantly, as far as I can tell, there's no '17' people who are supporting the removal of the image from the article- more than one of them say it should be moved elsewhere in the article, for example. You've drawn a conclusion not supported by the data at hand. Further more, as I said before, a number of the arguments being made (such as we can't have nudity in the article because of the principle of least surprise or because it makes it unusualible without modification in other wikiprojects) are demonstrably wrong. --H_Talk 23:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me for speaking loosely. What I should have said is that I will be replacing the current lead image with the alternate. If it reappears lower in the article, that is something we can have a separate debate about, if needed. --Ludwigs2 23:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Better argument: pregnancy is marked by physiological changes. As such, a naked body is far more educational than a clothed one. → ROUX ₪ 23:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

You all should check -for example- page of Naturism in reference to pics.Fakirbakir (talk) 23:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yup, as expected: naked bodies. OH NO. Clearly civilization will fall. Come on, guys and gals. This is censorship, pure and simple; opting for a less educational image to illustrate a concept simply would not fly anywhere else on Wikipedia. But oh noes! There are boobs involved. This is childish, and kowtowing to those who cannot handle the concept that a naked human body is not intrinsically a sexual thing. → ROUX ₪ 23:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Roux, that argument doesn't work. The mere fact of nudity is not any more or any less educational than a clothed body for the issue of pregnancy. If one wanted an educational image, then one would look for an anatomical drawing or an image from a physiology text, not what is self-evidently an art-nude photograph. I think this is the third time I've dismissed this argument, so please read the discussion.

Fakir, naturism is about nudity - not having a nude image there would be bizarre. Pregnancy is not about nudity (it is, in fact, entirely possible for a woman to come to term and give birth without removing anything more than her underwear), and while there are biological and anatomical aspects of it that need covering they are (again) not well-handled by what is self-evidently an art-nude photograph. --Ludwigs2 23:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

If you can explain how a fully-clothed image is more illustrative of physiological changes (e.g. stretch marks, heavier breasts, as well as the obvious) than a nude one, I am all ears. → ROUX ₪ 00:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you offering an image that shows stretch, heavier breasts, and etc in a way that is clearly annotated? This image doesn't seem to show stretch marks, I have no idea how heavy that woman's breasts were before the pregnancy, and the belly is self-evident in both naked and clothed pictures. In fact, unless one already knows the effects of pregnancy, that image tells absolutely nothing. For all we know, that woman was actually bigger before the pregnancy and lost weight to get to this size.

Again, this argument holds no water whatsoever, and I've already been over it several times. This is not an educational picture, it's an art-nude. do you understand the difference? --Ludwigs2 00:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The nude image in question doesn't do a very good job of illustrating any of the aspects you listed, even "the obvious". I think there are plenty of clothed images that show clearer abdominal distension than the image we are using now. Kaldari (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Your claim that the argument holds no water is not the same as an objective assessment. Art-nude and educational are not mutually exclusive prospects. Perhaps you have a poor monitor, because I can quite clearly see stretch marks on her buttocks, as well as the characteristic blue veins in her breasts. So, again, can you please explain how a fully-clothed image is more educational than a nude one? I'm still waiting. → ROUX ₪ 00:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry buddy, that is a factual assessment - the image will not tell anyone anything about pregnancy that they don't already know, so it has no more educational value than the clothed image. And no one ever said that the clothed image was more educational, just that if the two are roughly the same there's no reason to put people out by using a nude. --Ludwigs2 00:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

As I pointed out in an above argument, Ludwig, nudity is not going to be removed from this article if the lede is changed. They'll be put off whether or not that picture is in this article- especially if the lede is merely transplanted elsewhere in the article. --H_Talk 00:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

That might matter if I thought this was simply an issue of nudity. It's not (at least not for me - I can't speak for what hang-ups other people have). --Ludwigs2 00:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming that this is entirely about censorship. You are quite wrong, of course; for someone who has never seen a nude pregnant woman that image is significantly more educational. But since this is about censorship, there isn't a single argument anyone can muster to change your... oh let's say retrograde and puritanical mind. → ROUX ₪ 00:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

@Ludwig: It is not true that "no one ever said that the clothed image was more educational". I've said this about a dozen times, and cited various reasons, but apparently no one is listening to me. Kaldari (talk) 00:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry Kaldari, apparently I missed that. I've been a bit miffed here. can you supply me with a diff or a general area of the page? --Ludwigs2 00:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. There you go again... an argument doesn't hold water and is dismissed because you say so, I am allegedly acting like an idiot because you say so. Are you familiar with the concept of projection? Or the saying "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"? You may wish to (re)acquaint yourself with those ideas before commenting further. The bottom line is that as a physiological phenomenon, pregnancy (or, for that matter, acne, to pick a random and non-loaded example) is best illustrated by showing the relevant parts of a body undergoing the process. Hiding all of that is de facto less educational. Period. You have not refuted that statement, you have merely dismissed it--the usual tactic of people who cannot refute a statement. Once again, I invite you to explain how the less educational option is superior in an uncensored educational work. You have claimed, erroneously, that the image won't tell people anything they don't already know. This is blatantly dishonest, and you know it. Try again. → ROUX ₪ 00:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Your inability to distinguish reasoned argument from opinion-mongering is not really something I need to concern myself with. If you cannot understand that it is impossible to show a change through the use of a single image then I cannot help you. As I have said at least eight times in this discussion (which you apparently refuse to read, despite your interest in arguing about it)

the difference in the content-relevent information each image offers is trivial at best (the older image is an art nude, not an educational image)
the nude image has generated a number of complaints, and would generally be outside the expectations a typical reader would have for an article on this topic.
On balance, the nude image produces too much affront to justify whatever negligible advantages it might have over the other image. changing images will remove no concrete information and very little subjective information, and will keep from annoying people needlessly.

I don't expect you to accept this argument, but I'm quite sure you can't refute it. --Ludwigs2 01:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

And again, you seem to think that because an image is artistic, it cannot be educational. This is obviously false. I don't really give a damn about complaints; get over the fear of nudity or seek life elsewhere on the internet. → ROUX ₪ 01:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I support the motion to change the image (and possibly move the old one to the section discussing 2nd trimester). It appears that roughly 2/3 of the participants in the discussion support replacing it, and although both images are acceptable illustrations, I think the replacement is higher quality and has better illustrative value (as it is showing a mature pregnancy). Kaldari (talk) 23:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

About the above: I don't see any stretch marks in this image. This doesn't surprise me, because not only is it a fairly low-res and soft-focus photo, which would tend to obscure stretch marks, but also because stretch marks in pregnancy are most likely to appear in the three months after this picture was taken, and they normally don't appear on the buttocks of a woman with a singleton pregnancy who has not gained too much weight, especially during the second trimester.

So for those who want to take another look at the image—and here I'm going to assume that you're all good-faith but still unfortunately guys—please note that stretch marks that could be attributed to a current pregnancy will be pink or red. White == old stretch marks (e.g., from a previous pregnancy or a growth spurt as a teenager). It usually takes stretch marks most of a year to fade to the shallow, white-ish lines that the average guy associates with stretch marks. If you want an example of what current stretch marks look like, look at this picture. I think we will all agree that nothing like that appears in this image. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the creative claim about seeing an allegedly "characteristic blue vein" in her breasts is similarly the product of misinformation. File:Big_nipple.jpg and File:Breast of Japanese.jpg have both clearly never been pregnant (or not beyond the first few weeks; the pale areolas are the medical sign for this), but both of these women have visible blue veins in their breasts. Visible veins are typical in light-skinned women. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

'Creative claim'? How charming. Veins in the breasts become more prominent as they gear up for milk production. But, hey, whatever. Your purpose here is quite clear. → ROUX ₪ 01:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Ludwig - you say to me above - "You did not counter (or even disagree with) any of the three points I made." I have countered almost everything you have said, several times, further up in this very messy discussion. I should not have to repeat my points just because you have now so badly misrepresented them. Many other people made many other valid points. It's an arrogance beyond comprehension that you can claim to distil it so narrowly. You are not collaborating. You are bullying. HiLo48 (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't really care, HiLo. I gave my summary of the situation, and solid reasons why I'm going to change the image. you are free to counter my summary, or not, or just to whine about it, as you choose. The only meaningful option you have, however, is to explain yourself. If you can't, or won't… <shrug…> --Ludwigs2 00:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I was right. Arrogance ("I don't really care") and bullying ("I'm going to change the image"). You should care. HiLo48 (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

When you make an argument, I'll care. You're just whining now because you can't make an actual, concise argument, and I'm not really interested in listening to that. --Ludwigs2 00:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, I have already presented many arguments. You have disagreed with some, and ignored others. That doesn't make you right. And there is no point in me repeating my arguments here. Your unacceptable behaviour and attitude will obviously not change HiLo48 (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

a few more minutes and I'm going to change the image - is anyone going to edit war over it? --Ludwigs2 00:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs, a warning: stop being disruptive. B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 00:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

There is quite clearly significant opposition to such a change. Attempting to summarize the endless discussion above shows very little consensus on the issue; it's interesting that you see a consensus which just happens to align with what you want. I must agree with Critical: you are being disruptive (and possibly pointy), and you should absolutely not change the image unless and until someone clearly uninvolved has summarized the discussion above. → ROUX ₪ 00:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

And regarding editwarring: if you make a change and it is reverted, it will be you causing an editwar. You may wish to reacquaint yourself with WP:BRD. → ROUX ₪ 00:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

So what you're telling me is that if I change the image (in accordance with the current state of the RfC), you are going to revert it? Is that what you're saying? --Ludwigs2 01:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You missed a few words there. Allow me to help: "in accordance with what I idiosyncratically see as the current state of the RFC." As such, absolutely yes I will revert such a change, as it is not in line with consensus. → ROUX ₪ 01:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

And Ludwig, if you revert, I will revert your revert, making sure you breach 3RR before anybody else. HiLo48 (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow. How childish. Is your side so low that you resort to threats? @Roux. Nice edit warring.

And that response might have carried some weight if whoever put it there had thought of signing it. HiLo48 (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Why should I waste time putting a signature down when Wiki does it for me automatically? Answer me that. I know you won't have a good answer, but I know your type. You always have a stupid answer to give. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.148.58 (talk) 01:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Just noting: Ludwigs ignored the objections here, preferring his involved version of consensus. I reverted the image change, and welcome an uninvolved party to summarize the RFC. Though that may require some time, as obviously people are still commenting here. I have no intention of reverting again; Ludwigs' rather rude "is anyone going to edit war over it" above would be more accurately directed at himself, as any further reversions would be him starting an editwar. I am quite comfortably within the WP:BRD convention, and we are now at D. → ROUX ₪ 01:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Good revert, there's no consensus to change the image. Dreadstar ☥ 04:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Edit warring is not the way to go Ludwigs. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

RfCs are normally supposed to go for 30 days (see Wikipedia:RFC#Ending_RfCs). This one has only been open 11 days. There is no rush. I suggest we wait for 30 days and then go from there. --Noleander ([[User talk:Noleander |talk]]) 13:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes lets give this the full 30 days and than base the decision on which has the greater support. These calls that this method is somehow invalid and that those who have come here to provide an opinion have been mislead when they disagree with one side or another is poor form.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm interested in what you mean by "greater support". I hope you don't mean counting votes. These matters should be decided by someone not strongly involved (rules me out) and based on the quality of the arguments, not the quantity. HiLo48 (talk) 08:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

We shall leave that up to the independent person who summarizes the discussion. It seems like here we have people discounting the arguments of those they disagree with as unfounded.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, RFCs run until the dispute is resolved. Most content RFCs are resolved in less than 30 days, but the community has a poor track record of removing the RFC tag and the bot isn't able to tell the difference, so we've set a default of 30 days.

It is my standard advice that any people who believe that they will "win" the RFC should favor leaving it open. It is very rare for an RFC discussion to change directions after the first week, but early closings usually result in complaints from the "losers", who frequently cling to the hope that another few days will result in radical changes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

A positive reason to keep the image.

Now it is clear that the opposition to the image is because it shows a woman's bare breasts, let me give a reason why the current encyclopedic image is particularly appropriate for this article.

Breasts have a sexual aspect, and for this reason, in most cultures, they are generally kept covered in public. Pregnancy represents a time when the way breasts are perceived, by both men and women, changes, from primarily private and sexual to including a shared and nurturing nature. The US, to its great shame, has one of the lowest rates of breast feeding in the world and one reason for this is that women are made to feel embarrassed or ashamed about their breasts.

The current image nicely shows a woman who is clearly not ashamed of her breasts and who might be though of as contemplating the changes to her body and the way in which it might be used in the future. It is ideal as a general representation of the subject of this article. That should not be spoiled by a minority with an obsession about body parts. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but as it can't be quantified I'm afraid it won't meet the criteria set by some of the other editors here. But I do hope it may persuade if people come here from outside. B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 13:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Editors that are ashamed of the human body may prefer editing the Pregancy article on conservapedia: http://www.conservapedia.com/Pregnancy. It has no images at all. --Noleander (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, though, if you look at other websites about pregnancy, very few of them include nudity, and Wikipedia is unusual in that regard. The objective of an encyclopedia is to inform, not to persuade, and while de-objectifying the breast is a noble cause and all that, it does not inform the reader about pregnancy (nominally the reason they're reading the article). If we try to spoon-feed our values at the reader of an article, we're just as bad as conservapedia. SDY (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also very unusual in the scope of its pregnancy article and in its strictly non-commercial and non-advocative educational nature. Hans Adler 17:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Pregnancy is about change. A single image of breasts cannot adequately display change. Women come in all shapes and sizes, so it's hard to tell how much if at all a woman's breasts have changed. The belly is different. The shape is distinct and unique and you wouldn't see a woman have a shape normally like that, even if obese. As such the bare breasts in the lead serve no actual purpose. There is no 2 picture context to show how greatly her breasts have changed during the pregnancy. All those demanding nudity in the name of education should be able to demonstrate what the bare breasts actually demonstrate.--Crossmr (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, good heavens, thank you, Crossmr! All these "It's about change" arguments are just plain weird considering that a single image doesn't depict change. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not under the impression that there is much support for removing image 2 altogether. The RfC proposal is to move it further down, and that seems to be what is getting most support at the moment. I think for many the issue isn't so much that the article shows nudity, but that they feel it does so in a gratuitous way. The reason why public breastfeeding is acceptable in all civilised societies is that it has nothing to do with sexuality and one has to be perverted to feel otherwise. Context is everything. If you take a photo of a woman who is breastfeeding and put it into a sexualised context, then that will be even more offensive than a random photo of a naked woman.

The problem at this article is that some people live in a subculture in which nudity is such a strong taboo that the general encyclopedia context of an article about pregnancy is only barely enough to justify it. They will tolerate image 2 if they encounter it further down in the article, but if it gets extra stress by being the lead image, they will feel it's only there to display nudity gratuitiously. And seeing how some editors here argue against moving image 2 down, I certainly can't blame them, even though I don't mind it myself. Hans Adler 15:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you're turning the opposition into a straw man here... Most of us just don't want nudity if it adds nothing to the article, it doesn't bother us if there's a specific reason for it. Blame the Puritans, if you must. Nudity isn't a "bad thing" but we shouldn't shock or surprise our readers, and nudity will be shocking or surprising given the other content on the web on the topic. The image farther down showing breast changes has gotten no resistance whatsoever, and that's because it clearly shows something that the text is talking about and there's really no basis for calling it gratuitous. SDY (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure that you are really contradicting me. The only real difference seems to be that you feel that image 2 doesn't give additional information, while I feel that it does: The bulges on the belly from the baby's extremities pressing outward (I think) cannot be seen on image 1, and the overall impression of the body is also clearer and quite typical. When you say it doesn't add anything to the article, then I guess you mean that even for the subsection "Second trimester" of the section "Physiology" it doesn't add nearly enough to justify the nudity.

As to other content on the web, most of it seems to be more advice-oriented than our article, and most of it is commercial in nature. Commercial content providers try to optimise the returns for their advertising customers, while we have an educational mission. As Martin Hogbin explained above, it is reasonable to see the (non-gratuitous) display of nudity as part of our mission. If some women have been conditioned to think of nudity as so unnatural that it prevents them from breastfeeding, then we should certainly do our part towards setting this right. Hans Adler 16:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the nude image is the best we have, but there is no necessity to keep the nipples, which is what most people perceive as "nudity" as far as I can tell. We could just black out the nipples and that would preserve almost all the emotional and informational value of the image while making people more comfortable. B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 15:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

That would just suggest that the image is sexualized and/or shocking, which is counterproductive. Honestly, I just don't understand what the "emotional and informational value" of this image is. Line drawings are probably better from an informational standpoint (unless I'm the only one without x-ray vision), and we can show things like stretch marks and breast changes and other visual details in more specific photos. The concept of "emotional" value bothers me: there should be nothing artistic or sentimental in the overview, and if we want to show cultural aspects of pregnancy there are better images. SDY (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I find this proposal revolting because it would sexualise the image. If I were the model I would probably be offended if this were done. If you can't understand why, think of a photo of a 3-year-old girl, sitting in a bath tub. Totally harmless. Now imageine putting black bars over her nipples. This would turn it into child porn, or at least something very close to it. Hans Adler 16:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Much of the discussion on this page is because some people are Shocked -SHOCKED- that nudity might go on in an encyclopedia. Obviously, they've already sexualized it. Yeah, I'm not attracted to pregnancy either, but for many people it is a highly emotional experience. From what I gather on this page, the current image conveys something of this experience. It seems to me it's encyclopedic to cover, even in an image, both the technical and emotional aspects. Yes, I've seen mothers who are devastated by their pregnancies, taking birth control in order to try to abort the baby et seq. But I don't think that's the average experience. And I don't see why the emotional aspects shouldn't be covered. There's nothing in WP rules that says we don't cover all aspects of a subject or don't show all sides of it in images. B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 16:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Hans. That is an offensive idea. It both sexualises the image and demonises body parts. The image is a natural image of a human being and I find it offensive that some parts should need to be erased from view. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to say. The typical positive experience with pregnancy is completely different from what is conjured up by black bars over nipples. That's the problem. One is a mixture of an overwhelming sense of intimacy, of feeling part of nature, of knowing the purpose of one's life (at least for the next year or so), and maybe in some cases a small amount of 'clean' sexuality. The other is raw sexuality, viewed as something dirty, connotated with words such as "smut" and "porn". Porn in the wider sense of censorable nudity, far from being an "aspect" of pregnancy, or a "side" of it, has nothing whatsoever to do with pregnancy, and by bringing the two together in this way you would create cognitive dissonance in practically all readers. Granted, for sexuality these 'dirty' connotations make no sense, either, but in that case they are almost ubiquitous. For pregnancy they are not. Hans Adler 17:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm just trying to find a freakin compromise. There have been a few complaints from people thinking we're teaching children to like porn by using this image. Some editors here think they are respecting such individuals and other "conservatives" by moving the image. I personally think the image is fine. I could be improved, but nudity is not an issue. We should rather focus on having a summary image which represents pregnancy well and is a pictorial summary of the subject. I think this nude image is the best we have at the moment. But people are trying to get it moved because of the nudity. So I'm trying to find some compromise that doesn't involve casting it aside for that lousy alternate image which has less informational value. B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 19:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that it appears that some people are defending it because they specifically want the nudity, either from some soapbox crusade to change popular perceptions of nudity or slavish obedience to WP:NOTCENSORED. If it's useful, sure, let's keep it, but someone's going to have to explain why it isn't just gratuitous nudity, and I mean specifics, not "oh it's so wonderful." Most of the pregnant women I've encountered are clothed, so having the one in our article lead be clothed seems appropriate for illustrating the topic. SDY (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

SDY, your argument makes no sense. Ignoring the whole "most pregnant woman I've encountered' thing, you're ignoring the fact that even if this picture where to be removed from this article, we would still have a nude image on the page.--H_Talk 20:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Right, but those nude images are in context and explain specific things: their informative value is obvious. The one in the lead doesn't explain anything, it's just a picture. SDY (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

that's what I've been saying all along, but the argument seems to fall on deaf ears. I'm not sure why. --Ludwigs2 01:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Not Safe For Work

I want to say that I think this is a beautiful and tastefully done picture of the human body. I have zero problem with it being on Wikipedia or being used on this article. The image is not sexual in nature. I think it shows more than what a clothed image might and does add value to the article that is not achieved without it.

That being said, I do think the image should be moved from the lead. Why? Because depending on where one works and what one does, it might not be safe for work/school environments.

Now some might immediately ask, "If it's not safe for work/school environments, what difference does it make to have it in the lead or in the body of the article?" The answer is simple. When I pull up a webpage (not just Wikipedia, but any webpage) it may come up immediately or it may take a minute or so. Sometimes while the webpage is loading, I will do something else and forget that I started loading a specific page. Some of the programs that I run will shut down or minimize themselves after they are finished. While I have no problem with this image, if I were to return to my desk after lunch or a break and found this image sitting on my desktop where who knows who saw it, I might be mortified. Did my boss walk by? Did my bosses boss? Did the prudish person in the department see it? Did one of the people I supervise see it? Is my desk where a customer might have seen it?

As the lead image, this is the first image that you see and if it pulls up on the screen, you may not realize that it is there when it loads and you aren't monitoring the screen---so it might create embarrassment. As an image elsewhere on the page, you only have yourself to blame if you left the image on the screen---because that means you loaded the page and left it on the image. Is it because it is a naked women? Yes. Again, I have no personal problem with it, but others might. Personally, I question why do we have to have an image of a pregnant women in the lead at all? I think this image from the German Wiki best illustrates pregnancy and would be better for the lead.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 20:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

This is reasonable. I would go for a compromise which eliminated the lead image. What I don't like is having a lead image which is as lousy as the one proposed. B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 20:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I just wasted a lot of time looking for the place where you explain why you think image 1 is "lousy". Haven't found it. I only found remarks of yours that the woman is "brown-skinned". Could you elaborate or provide a pointer? Hans Adler 23:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The place to start addressing the issue of nudity on Wikipedia as it relates to your boss, the workplace, your kids, your grandmother, etc., is here, not on this article. Make it a wider discussion. I question why we can't have an image of a nude pregnant woman in the lead, and the apparent answer is the same..."because I don't like it, or think someone else won't like it", that's the real bottom line here. The current image is the best illustration that I've seen suggested here, because it conveys so much emotional and human impact - it's not a sterile image, it is beautiful and meaningful. The image transcends the actual photo. Dreadstar ☥ 21:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I have followed that suggestion here. I don't think the intent of WP:NOTCENSORED is that discussions of removing objectionable content because it is objectionable are inherently forbidden, just that objectionable content is permissible in the first place. SDY (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

One can only image the upcoming POV Wars over what, eactly, is gratuitous and what is not...and to whom...and when... Dreadstar ☥ 21:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Now that is pure rubbish... your argument is strictly WP:ILIKEIT. Read your own words: "best illustration... conveys so much emotional and human impact... sterile image... beautiful... meaningful...transcends the actual photo." Those are all emotional responses. Not a single one of them deals with why is it the best beyond, "I like it." Frankly, I like it too. But it is not the best image for the lead. The simple proof of this is the volumes of debate spurred by the image. If it truly was the best image for the lead, it would not have generated over 300KB of data THIS TIME AROUND! The fact that it has over 300KB of discussion in just THIS discussion, is proof that not everybody agrees that it is the best image for the lead.

Again, I prefer the image of anatomy model which shows what is going on and the way the German article uses the image in an explanatory manner---as compared to letting it just sit there.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It's volumous debate because of those who see the value of the image discussing it with those who don't like it because, "by god, she's naked!", so any rubbish, my friend is in your court. I'd suggest moderating your tone if you want to have a civil discourse with me here. It's the best image because it conveys the very concept of pregnancy in many aspects, not just some sterile image of a plastic person. Dreadstar ☥ 21:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Way to try to deflect the fact that this issue has been raised numerous times and has probably garnered over a gig worth of discussion. If this were objectively the best image available, then it would not have the controversy that surrounds it. Your praise for the image transcending the photo and in some way emotionally uplifting, is your opinion. Ones that I share, but are not the foundation for inclusion or retention in the lead.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Based on what policy? Let's take a good look at that, mebbe I'm wrong. And no deflection, I think I've hit right on the core of the long running issue. It's the same thing, over and over, censorship. Dreadstar ☥ 22:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen a single statement arguing for censorship. Dreadstar, why does support for changing the image appear to be coming from women (~seven by my last count), medical students and medical professionals? Are they trying to censor the human body? And why does support for keeping the current lead image of a nude woman appear to be coming solely from young males? What does this mean? Viriditas (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you want historical calls for censorship, or current? "picture is just as good ( but with clothing ))", from the above RFC: "Higher quality with the added benefit of less nudity", "Really unnecessary to have a naked female", etc. I'm not sure why 'medical students and professionals' have any higher status here as voters than anyone else. And no, I don't think there's any significant opinion generated by the titillation of 'young males'....of which, I am certainly not - thank you. Dreadstar ☥ 22:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Those aren't arguments for censorship. One does not have to be naked to illustrate the subject of pregnancy in the lead. Medical opinions are highly relevant as the practice of medicine has strict guidelines about the use of photographs depicting patients and they have some experience dealing with this issue and illustrating medical topics. I am curious, how many women (rough count is fine) support the current lead image? Viriditas (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? "How many women...support the current lead"? Do we count races and ages next? Country of origin? Are you of drinking age? Legally in the country you're posting from. Yes each comment complaining the nudity is censorship. Classic. And yeah, I have one really important female supporter for you, the subject of the image herself. Dreadstar ☥ 22:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments criticizing nudity in the context of this discussion are not censorship. Could you tell me how many female editors in this discussion support the current lead image? I count at least seven that do not. Viriditas (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you can't see the underlying censorship here, but it's very clear to me. And no, I don't count votes by 'sex', but by strength of argument. That's another form of censorship, it's called Discrimination. How many females indeed. Dreadstar ☥ 22:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no censorship at all here, and it is not "discrimination" to observe that there does not appear to be any women on Wikipedia supporting the image in the lead. I have asked you why this is but I have not received any response. Why is that? Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm male. And gay. I await your explanation of exactly how my opinion should be weighted, as I neither possess the body parts in the image, nor do I have any prurient interest in them. → ROUX ₪ 01:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you get pregnant? Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course not. How is that even remotely relevant? Unless you are suggesting that one may only opine on articles which can directly affect one. → ROUX ₪ 02:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

How is it relevant? The gender gap is one of the primary criticisms of Wikipedia, namely, that Wikipedia is a "male-dominated web site" that might be "skewed by men".[3][4] And, although less than 15 percent of contributors are women, they have more representation in higher degree programs than men. Previously, I asked above, "why does support for changing the image appear to be coming from women (~seven by my last count), medical students and medical professionals? Are they trying to censor the human body? And why does support for keeping the current lead image of a nude woman appear to be coming solely from young males?" I have seen little to no effort by the editors promoting the lead image to attempt to understand the reasons and arguments of those arguing to replace the images. All I see are attacks and accusations of "censorship". That's not a reasonable, civil discussion with editors carefully weighing both sides, it's a street fight where the editor who can shout down the other editor the loudest "wins". Viriditas (talk) 02:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

"Can you get pregnant"?? Are you kidding?? This is the world of "we are pregnant." The gender-gap doesn't apply here, neither does "street-fight". Make a real argument, eh? I expected more than, "oh, it's male teenage erection material". Dreadstar ☥ 05:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

That's not the kind of response I would expect from an administrator who is supposed to be a role model for the community. Sampling and data collection are not "arguments" so you're a bit confused. Out of the seven or more women that appear to have contributed to this discussion, none have supported the inclusion of the image of a naked pregnant woman in the lead. Why is that? More to the point, your responses in this discussion have violated most of the talk page and civility guidelines. For an administrator, that is highly unusual. Viriditas (talk) 05:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you need a reality check, there have been women supporters, and honestly, I don't think that really matters as much here as does strength of argument and Policy, which reflects the commmunity and not one particular group that you find solice in attempting to call on. You don't like my comments, well, take it up the chain. In the meantime, make an argument that follows reality and Policy. As for 'admins' and 'unusual', start up with the POV RFC that an admin started here, then walk it up the path to purity. Find me at the end. Thanks. Dreadstar ☥ 05:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I will once again request that you refrain from the continued stream of insults, accusations, and general incivility. Your reading comprehension is also at fault, as I have not said anything about liking the content of your comments. Need I remind you that Wikipedia:Civility is a policy? You were asked a question: Why are there no women supporting the inclusion of the naked pregnant woman in the lead? You answered, "there have been women supporters". Could you point me to their comments on this talk page? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 05:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Fine, I agree and I've redacted some of my over-the-top comments, but the points about about this "count-voters-by-sex" I and others have made still stand, it's inappropriate. And I'll let the females here identify themselves, thank you. I know who I'm talking about, but I'm not going to point them out just because you demand it. Geez. Dreadstar ☥ 09:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Censorship is a mighty big word and the crux of the argument for keeping the image seems to center around WP:NOTCESORED and WP:ILIKEIT. Well, the argument for keeping it based upon the later is still rubbish (just as the argument for removing it is rubbish.) It doesn't matter if you (or I) think it is a beautiful picture that is tastefully done. I think it is---but that doesn't mean it belongs in the lead.

So what about the cry of "censorship?" There are two aspects that have to be explored. You are looking at one half of the equation. That is the side that says, "We do not remove material simply because it may be objectionable to some". The other half of the equation is, "We do not keep material simply because it may be objectionable to some." Censorship and creative freedoms work both ways. By imposing your view (to keep an image) with the rationale that "to remove it is censorship" is a form of censorship.

IMO the question as to whether or not this image is the best picture for the lead in an article comes down to one thing: Is it objectively the best picture possible?

While I like it, is it objectively the best image we can have? If it were objectively the best image available, then we would not have the constant controversy that surrounds the image. The persistence and breadth of the controversy is proof that the image is not the best possible image... regardless of what you or I may individually think.

At some point, we have to weigh does the value added to the page outweigh the controversy that it creates or the potential problems that may arise? At what point do the numerous complaints start to demonstrate that a consensus is forming that there is a better way to handle it?

Is there a way to lessen the controversy without capitulating to "censorship?" Is there a better way to present the image than as the lead image? If by moving it down, can we better present the image so as to make it less offensive? If so, then we should do so rather than dogmatically hold to a position because you don't want to succumb to another position, is censorship---just in another manner.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 22:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

My argument is certainly not based on WP:ILIKEIT, those are your interpretations of my comments because you obviously want to censor the lead image. Show me the Wikipedia policy that backs your argument, as I've asked you before, because right now your argument is that she's naked, which violates policy. Dreadstar ☥ 00:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

No, that is not my position. My position is that if this is objectively the best possible photo that could be used on this subject, then it owould not have garnered 400KB of discussion THIS GO AROUND. The fact that this photo is so controversial on a benign subject speaks to the subjective nature of the image. Personally, I like the image, but I do not think it is the right image for the lead. The lead image on a neutral subject like pregnancy should not be one that has garnered close to half a gigs worth of discussion. Moving it down from the lead accomplishes two goals. First, it keeps a great photo and second it silences the objectors. As for censored, you are censoring others in your adamant position that it has to remain. Collaborative efforts have to be two way, but you want your way or no way. That is censorship, not collaboration. WP:CENSOR does not dictate that we use a photo explicitly because it is controversial, which is the argument that you are making.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 03:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

"WP:CENSOR does not dictate that we use a photo explicitly because it is controversial, which is the argument that you are making.", um, no, that's not the argument I'm making at all. I think I've made that clear; but apparently the "But she's naked!!!!" concept has completely distorted the ability of some to correctly view and interpret all oppositional arguments that don't abide by that that particular concept - including your argument and opposition. Yeah, think about it, sure, my argument is surely.."use it because it's controversial." Yeah...fly with that misinterpretation if you like; I'll happily remain grounded in reality. Dreadstar ☥ 04:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Your argument is essentially, that we can't get rid of it, because if we get rid of it that would be censorship. My point is that if this issue amounts to over 600K of discussion, then it is clear that this is not the best photo around for the lead... regardless of the reasoning. 600K on one photo? That's ridiculous. If there were an irrefutable justication/need for any specific photo, then it would not garner 600K worth of discussion. The length of this debate is proof that this is not the best image. Simple logic.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 01:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that we have not yet reached the day when volume of posts proves anything. HiLo48 (talk) 02:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. That is certainly not even close to the essence of my argument, please re-read my reasons for keeping this image.[5][6] My response to the 'replace-image' arguments that are based on the fact that she's nude, is that this indeed is censorship. 600k of discussion is no indication that the image must be replaced - that's ridiculous on the face of it, it's the quality of the commentary that counts. Further, no one said there was 'irrefutable justification/need' for anything, only consensus to change the image, and that nudity isn't a sufficient argument to remove or replace it. Your 'simple logic' is actually highly illogical. Dreadstar ☥ 02:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Not Censored only covers that nude images may be used, it doesn't state that they must be used, and in this case, no one has demonstrated what covered breasts give us over uncovered ones. You can't show change in a single image, there is nothing for reference. The most pertinent part is the belly. Covered breasts would do nothing to diminish the education value.--Crossmr (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

(undent) Not that counting of votes matters, but it's helpful to have a headcount of who's where on the discussion. This isn't really an issue of censorship, it's mostly a question of bad writing. The current image is wonderful as a piece of art, but it gives us a heaping helping of controversy for no real information (i.e. non-artistic value). Does a profound artistic statement about pregnancy really help in what's intended to be a reference document? I don't think it does, and among many things Wikipedia is not an art gallery (probably filed under WP:BEANS), so no matter how wonderful an image it is, the question is whether it makes sense for the article. Given the problems that it causes and that no one can explain in mundane terms what information (again, non-artistic) is presented in the image, I'd say get rid of it. That's not censorship, that's making intelligent choices about writing an encyclopedia article. SDY (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly SDY... it's not about censorship, it's about is this the best image for the article and the best way to present it? The volumes of controversy surrounding it (on repeated occassions) says it isn't.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 22:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Bad writing? What? Headcount, what? Please show me the policy that outlines the criteria you're claiming isn't being used here, and we'll discuss that. Or can't you provide the outline for your claims? As far as it being a perennial dispute, plenty of invalid arguments come up again and again, why is this censorship issue any different? Plenty of disputes come up over and over and over, that doesn't mean those that dispute are right. And in this case, they're wrong. Dreadstar ☥ 00:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Even if all you say is true and my argument is based on WP:ILIKEIT, then you really need to show why a picture of pregnant, naked woman isn't suitable for the lead; besides the fact that she's naked. This difference is because we have WP:NOTCENSORED, not in spite of it. It's a perfectly acceptable picture of pregnancy, the only objection that I can see here is that she's naked. We have a policy against that kind of censorship. Show me a policy that contradicts that. Dreadstar ☥ 01:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Dreadstar - NOTCENSORED was intended to keep people from removing images that are offensive but necessary to the description of a topic; it was not intended as carte blanche to add offensive images everywhere. Please don't take the ridiculously over-simplified perspective that the others in this debate have taken - namely that this is all about nudity. This is a balancing act between the value of the image and the offense it causes, and unfortunately that balance works against the image (since there is no real concrete value to the image). I'm tired of listening to people make the dumb arguments; can we please raise the level of the conversation? --Ludwigs2 01:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

An image of a pregnant naked woman is perfectly suitable for the lead of this article, there is no doubt of that. The only objection raised here is the "it's offensive because she's naked" argument, which violates WP:NOTCENSORED whether you like it or not. It's all about the nudity, and censorship thereof. You're tired of my point, I'm tired of yours...but really, I have Policy on the side of my argument...those that object to nudity do not. Can't get more basic or clearer than that. Unless you're someone who wants to compare 9/11 to pregnancy like the below 'editor'.. Hmph. Dreadstar ☥ 01:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You actually don't have policy on your side. By advocating this picture on behalf of censorship per wiki's policy of censorship, you are in violation of that policy by using the policy to advocate a particular position. That is clearly against the policy of censorship on wikipedia. 108.28.148.58 (talk) 02:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

LOL! Thanks, I needed a laugh, that's great circular logic to try and prove your own point. You have it wrong, tho; try again. I'm not advocating based on WP:NOTCENSORED, I'm saying the opposers are advocating their position based on censorship. Dreadstar ☥ 02:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Dreadstar, please read my arguments before continuing on this line. as I said, you are over-simplifying. My position is that Wikipedia does not offend people without due cause. Where there is due cause, NOTCENSORED applies, but the burden of showing causation is on the people wanting to add the material. one does not get to add an image that some find offensive but otherwise adds no value to the article and defend it under NOTCENSORED - doing so is stupid. There is nothing wrong with this image as an image, and there are articles where I would defend this image's inclusion against all opponents, but on this article the image adds very little by way of actual content and generates a number of complaints. If you cannot see the problem with that, you're squeezing your eyes closed.

I understand the interpretation of NOTCNSORED you are using - it's a common enough interpretation among both decent editors and trolls. All I can say is that it is an ignorant interpretation that should be stamped out with prejudice. Do you want me to whip out wp:IAR here? Wikipedia should not have policies that are used as tools to offend readers for no good reason.

IP - hunh? --Ludwigs2 02:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I read and understand your arguments too, I just disagree, I see a number of determined editors who object to the nudity because it's offensive to them, or perceived to be offensive to others. This is an insufficient argument. There's nothing offensive about the image, really...if so, then there are far more offensive images on the project that aren't necessary to illustrate their subject. Are we really saying a full-color, high-resolution image is necessary to illustrate an erection? Apparently, so. And, in the end, consensus has to say this image is offensive enought to be removed, and mere nudity doesn't cross that threshold on this project. Several have asked here, 'why does the pregnant woman have to be nude?', well, my answer is, 'why not?'. Just because she's nude? Nah, I'm not buying it in this situation. I'm sorry. Dreadstar ☥ 02:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused: you disagree with the statement that Wikipedia should not offend people if it doesn't need to do so for the benefit of articles? That seems to suggest that Wikipedia should offend people gratuitously as a matter of policy, which sounds… I'm not sure what the best word here is. Yes, there are other pictures that are worse cases than this; If you're suggesting that we deal with those as well, I'm open to the idea. but we are dealing with this image, now, so let's evaluate it in it's own light. --Ludwigs2 02:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it is impossible not to offend someone, no matter what we attempt to do - there will always be someone offended; and the concepts of 'need to,' as well as 'benefit' are purely judgment calls in vitually all cases unless proscribed by law. Even 'law' has its limiting factors, depending on jurisdiction. No one is suggesting we offend on purpose because we can, that's a total spin on the arguments here and most unwelcome. I'm not suggesting we deal with the worse-case scenario images (if I've even truly touched on those, the ones I've linked to are mild, I think). I am suggesting we evaluate this image in its own light, and it is certainly an appropriate image, one which, to me, best illustrates the subject of this article. Nude or not. The fact that it's nude isn't a limiting factor per this project, the opinion that it is offensive is certainly a judgment call that has limited value in this particular case considering the extraordinary reach one must have to judge it offensive. Hopefully this better clarifies what I'm disagreeing with here. Dreadstar ☥ 04:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Dread, using absolutes is not helpful. obviously there is always going to be someone who's offended; the issue is not political correctness but an ethical balance. to make what is perhaps a clearer example, many people are deeply offended by the idea that Jesus and Mary had a sexual relationship. There are some articles on project where we discuss the idea despite the offense (because we have to) and many other articles where we do not discuss the idea even though we could (because it's not necessary). Why should we have a different standard for nudity? Why should a nude image be rigidly protected even where it's mostly gratuitous, just because it's nude? That's the standard being applied here, you realize: people like Roux and HiLo will always argue that nude images must always be retained regardless of their value to the article.

This image is mostly gratuitous nudity. it's an attractive photo, sure, but it's not really informative. So why are we using it over objections? --Ludwigs2 06:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Nah, I'm not using absolutes, it's a sliding scale all the way around. Who sets the bar for the level of the offended versus the non-offended? Why is the nude image ok in the body, but not in the lead; do we expect the highschooler to only view the top part of the article? Where does the censorship end? Obviously it's a slippery slope. And quit spinning my viewpoint, I'm certainly not "rigidly protecting...because it's nude," I'm defending against the rigid attack that it's unacceptable because it's nude. There's a difference. It's no way gratuitious, no matter how many times you repeat the phrase. It's perfectly acceptable to have an image of a nude, pregnant woman in the lead to represent the article. Dreadstar ☥ 06:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, Dread, the nude images farther down in the article are (arguably) relevant to content since they illustrate particular points given in the text. The nude image in the lead has no such justification - it's just an art nude added for decorative purposes. As for where the bar is set, that's a matter that's open to discussion, but discussion is not possible where zealots insist that nudity must be preserved on project at all costs. Had I noticed this image going in when it was first added, I could probably have kept it out just by raising the kind of common sense issues I've raised here. But since it's been in the article for a bit, those same arguments suddenly draw out all the rabid anti-censorship war-mongers, and you see the crap that happens.

And as a matter of basic facts, something can be acceptable and gratuitous at the same time. Please look up the definition of 'gratuitous'.

I'm not interested in your spin-doctoring. I do not oppose the image because it's nude, I oppose the image because it's offensive without justification. You yourself acknowledge that it's offensive to some; you yourself acknowledge that the justifications for using it are incredibly weak; what's your problem? I am not stupid, and i would prefer that you didn't attribute stupid arguments of that sort to me. Please deal with the arguments I actually give, and not with the arguments given by the moron you wish you were arguing with. --Ludwigs2 18:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Really. Well, now if wishes were fishes, we'd all cast our nets. No idea where you're getting all these 'insights' into my motivations or wishes, and indeed your spin on my comments make one's head quite an interesting place. I've argued the exact points being made here, and I cannot ignore the basic argument that the picture is unacceptable because it's nude...no matter what degree of POV "offensiveness" you choose to put on it. It's unfortunate that you can't seem to see your points are opinion-based and quite subjective. No, I don't think you're a moron, quite the opposite - extremely bright, but your level of brightness and intelligence can also lead to distortion of reality. Been there, done that. I think you and I have about exhausted this discussion, so I leave you to it with great respect. Dreadstar ☥ 19:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm very insightful. That's not a matter of pride, mind you, it's a curse, and I'd give a hell of a lot to be rid of it. I'm also very idealistic, which is a different curse, and (if you knew me) would explain a hell of a lot about my life. c'est la vie. Yes, I recognize that I am arguing from a perspective, but I like to imagine that I am arguing from a compassionate, humanistic perspective - one in which we are simply trying to give knowledge to everyone, without asking for them to pay a price for the privilege. I'll cast my net regardless, even if all I get for it are moldy old boots.

The picture is problematic (to my mind) because it adds little value and causes distress. it causes distress because it contains nudity, yes, but the reason for the distress is not important to me. It's the fact of distress that gets me. And here's where I'm stuck. Yes, I understand the urge to open people's minds and make these kinds of images more acceptable (because images like this aren't at all offensive to me). but that seems to much like using wikipedia to fix what's wrong with the world, and that's not what we're here for. Or at least, I don't think it is. so… --Ludwigs2 06:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: What's best for the lead of the article Bear: A bear in its natural environment, a bear in a zoo (more details visible), or a bear riding a bicycle (very high quality photo, with a good view on many relevant anatomical details)? What would be most suitable for the lead of the article New York? A photo of New York's skyline, a photo of a plane hitting the World Trade Center, or a photo of Ground Zero? The reason that a bear on a bicycle is not appropriate for the lead of the Bear article, and anything having to do with 9/11 is not appropriate for the lead of the New York article, is that a lead requires an image that is emblematic for the article's subject and avoids distraction. While a bear in a zoo is almost as good as a bear in its natural habitat, a bear on a bicycle or a bear wearing clothes are no good for the lead. You can test whether an image is good for the lead by asking a random person what it depicts. If the person says "It's a bear", "It's New York", or "It's a pregnant woman", then the image is good. However, if the person says "It's a bear wearing clothes", "It's New York on 9/11", or "It's a nude pregnant woman", then this response will tell you precisely what must be changed about the image to get a suitable one. Hans Adler 23:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

This was not a good post for the same reason that it attempted to explain. By choosing an example that is highly charged for some people, I drew attention away from what I wanted to say. I will try to be more careful in the future. Hans Adler 09:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hat the off-topic thread I started. :)Dreadstar ☥ 08:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Ah, it's you that made the Twin Towers comparison. Nice. Unfortunately, Ludwigs took the initial heat for that grotesque and unfortunate comparison. Hope you felt a part of that heat....I assure you I certainly feel the heat...especially at this 10 year point. My apologies to Ludwigs. Dreadstar ☥ 01:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I did not feel any heat. In fact, this night was certainly not warmer than usual and I slept rather well, thank you very much. Also, WTF are you talking about? It doesn't seem to be related to this section, so a pointer would be nice. Hans Adler 06:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, this comparison is certainly not grotesque. You don't want to see the terrorist event at the top of the New York article? Some people have similarly strong feelings that they don't want to see nipples at the top of the pregnancy article. I have no problems with either, but I am against offending people unnecessarily in this way. When editors start resorting to the Chewbacca defense, something about my argument must have been right. Hans Adler 06:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I've decided to let it drop for now. But I will contend that your use of 9/11 is paramount to the nazi card, and strikes such emotion in me that I am tempted to take you to places you've obviously never been before. Stay happy, my friend, no one really wants to lurk on the edges of man's most darkest hours...and then compare them to...this simple image. Dreadstar ☥ 04:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Apart from an inappropriate oblique threat that I seem to be seeing in your post, you are just confirming that 9/11 is a very strong taboo for you. Nudity is a very strong taboo for some ultrareligious or ultraconservative types. That was the point of my example, and you are merely confirming that the example is apt. Images with strongly distracting elements are not a good choice for the lead of any article. That's why a nude picture is a bad idea, it's just one reason why it would be even worse with black bars added, and why this is totally inappropriate (as winter, outdoor seminudity and silly clothing are all competing to distract from pregnancy – it's worse than a bear on a bicycle). Hans Adler 05:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

"Oblique"? What threat is that? Bring it to my talk page and we can certainly escalate any threat you think I've made, glad to help! Taboo isn't the core of this, it's more along the lines of pulling the nazi card to win an argument. If you don't want to drop it, then by all means...let's take it up the chain. There's nothing 'oblique' about me. I don't appreciate your comparison of this simple nude image to 9/11, where I lost friends and co-workers and barely got out of it myself. Play your word games elsewhere and with somone else. Otherwise I look forward to seeing you at AN/I or ArbCom where you can outline the threats you perceive. My "threat" is to educate you on the feelings of grief and survivor's guilt, do you think that's an offense per WP? Perhaps I'll be banned for that? Let's see. Take it there, my friend. Dreadstar ☥ 06:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree. I can't view this page because I use a public computer and don't want anyone to get a negative impression of me by thinking I am looking up pornography. When we can't even view a wiki page as mundane as pregnancy for fear of being seen as a pervert, there is a serious problem. It is inappropriate and that is that...enough of this BS about free speech or censorship. Those who say that is the reason we should keep it sound like rebellious teenagers. Seriously there are more important issues dealing with free speech and censorship than nudity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.148.58 (talk) 01:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, god forbid you should click on Human penis, Erection, Vagina or even Ejaculation if someone thinks this article is porno. And while there may be more important free speech issues than nudity, it's certainly a link in the chains that bind us that cannot be ignored. Dreadstar ☥ 02:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, noodly one, don't make this into some bizarre righteous stand against the evils on the internets. WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND is an obvious call here, and if this really is about stopping any possibility of censorship and the article is just being used as a staging ground for sticking it to the man, we should just have no image in the lead and wait around until we get one we like. This article isn't in great shape anyway, lacking an image for the lead would hardly be the worst problem it has. SDY (talk) 02:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The opinion of those who think that looking at that picture makes me a pervert is not worth respecting. HiLo48 (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile, back in the real world, a reader could be asked to leave if they are in a certain establishment or institution and the image is on the screen. We should not be creating roadblocks to access, but rather widening it. The burden is on those who wish to add a controversial image that could restrict access to readers. Question: can kids in high school see our article on pregnancy with or without the image? Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

A reader who is prevented by a ridiculous society from seeing this article has problems much worse than not being able to see the article. We can't fix the societies of Saudi Arabia and the theocratic part of the US by forcing images with nipples on people where it's not the best choice, but what you are proposing does sound like the kind of censorship that we also don't want. Hans Adler 06:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

No, the burden is on those using a hypothetical ("a reader could be asked to leave") to justify their position to find real world evidence. HiLo48 (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The point that you're missing is that it is the content that is important, not the image. If the image is preventing people from reading the material (per the comments by 108.28.148.58 above), then the image should be replaced. Viriditas (talk) 03:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

108.28.148.58 actually presented no evidence. It was all about what he THINKS other people will THINK of him. HiLo48 (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

His evidence, while anecdotal, is certainly reasonable. You need to focus more on the arguments rather than on other editors. More listening and less talking will help. Viriditas (talk) 04:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) HiLo, no amount of evidence is going to satisfy you if you are going to refuse to accept common sense. You know as well as anyone that this image will fall afoul of net-nanny software put in place at libraries, school, some corporations, not to mention parental censorship by parents who won't let their children browse wikipedia because of images like this. This is not a hypothesis that needs to be proved to anyone except someone who is conveniently blinkering themselves for the purpose of an argument. I'm a bit embarrassed for you that you would go there - you might as well say you need us to prove that someone can find porn on the internet. --Ludwigs2 03:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think ridiculous censoring software is a valid reason to change anything. The commercial websites cannot afford to be censored, so they have to self-censor in ridiculous way. We are the most important non-commercial website in this respect, and if we also engage in this kind of ridiculous self-censorship, then the censoring software is never going to be fixed. Hans Adler 06:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. --Ludwigs2 07:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not. If it were, I would argue to use image 2 in the lead. As it is, I am arguing for using image 1 in the lead instead and moving image 2 further down to the second trimester physiology section, where it makes perfect sense and the nudity is fully justified by the context, as opposed to the arguable gratuity of nipples in the lead image of this article. Hans Adler 19:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Uh, where'd that come from? I'm mostly advocating that it's distracting and limits the available audience, but doesn't actually provide any useful information. If you want to turn me into some sort of bizarre straw man so you can fight your righteous struggle, please find another forum to do so. The purpose of this talk page is to discuss improvements to the article. SDY (talk) 02:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

SDY - the argument in favor of the image all along has been a prejudicial one - that some people are too (insert derogative) to be listened to. They are going to cling to that argument to the end of time, unfortunately. --Ludwigs2 02:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Anyone who thinks I am a pervert for looking at that image is definitely not worth listening to. (Please note that I have been accused of just that on this page.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually you'll often find that in a public education setting, there is a zero tolerance for this kind of thing. In many schools, if a student was caught with a nude image on their screen they'd be suspended and that would be that. Those wishing to keep it have yet to demonstrate what educational value is conveyed by bare breasts.--Crossmr (talk) 04:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you raised that. I happen to be a high school teacher in Australia. It's very common for our teaching materials in Science and Health classes (precisely where things like pregnancy are discussed) to include nude images. Because we are used to using them, we would feel quite restricted without such images. Are you speaking from an American perspective? Perhaps only one part? Obviously there are cultural differences. My point all along has been that those wanting less nudity need to be able to understand and accept that others DO want that nudity, for good educational reasons. So, I have given explicit examples where nudity is actually preferred. Is that OK with you? HiLo48 (talk) 04:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

And those educational reasons are what? You cannot show anything educational about the breasts without at least 2 photos to show change. Once again you've repeated the party line "Education" without actually say what the educational value is. Pregnant breasts are not that unique when put up against say fat, or naturally large breasts. They don't take a special shape like the belly does. Taken alone, I doubt anyone could definitely pick out pregnant breasts, vs fat breasts, vs naturally large breasts. As such they serve no education purpose in the lead image.--Crossmr (talk) 05:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

And contrary to your assertion, you have never (Through a quick scan of your comments using find on your username) actually said what that educational value is.--Crossmr (talk) 05:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Crossmr, I agree, but this point has already been made at least a dozen times. No one has seen fit to address it so far, and I sincerely doubt that HiLo will address it this time. I'll put ten bucks on it, if you're up for the bet. --Ludwigs2 05:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Unfortunately, that's a specious argument. If you want to use a nude image in your education process, they are plentiful and easy to find, and you can get much better quality nudes than this without half trying. If you don't want to use them, they are difficult to avoid. Losing one nude image on wikipedia will not inconvenience you one jot, but placing an unnecessary nude image on an article is a fairly large impediment in some locales. You seem not to understand that American school systems block these things not because of any puritanical urges, but because they don't want to get sued by opportunistic parents.

In short, we get that you want to have access to nudes. But regardless of what wikipedia does you will have access to nudes; no one is denying you nudes (we'd have to burn down the entire internet for that). On the other hand, you are making it impossible for people who want information without nudity to get access to the information in this article. There's only one English wikipedia; if you put unnecessary nudes here, then people can only suffer through the nudity go buy a Britannica. You are essentially holding the information in this article hostage to force people to conform to your moral standards, which is not true of the converse. --Ludwigs2 05:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that the American legal system is sufficiently out of control to allow religious extremists to take state schools hostage. OK. Sounds like a serious problem that needs to be fixed. And your 'solution' is to censor Wikipedia? I am in favour of moving the image down, but this is the point where you lose me and I am about to join the anti-censorship crowd. We cannot censor Wikipedia just because one country is fucked up. Hans Adler 06:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Heh.."unnecessary nudes," now there's a concept...can I be on that decision-making panel? Prolly not..<sigh> :) Dreadstar ☥ 06:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

No, what I'm saying - again, and again, and again, apparently - is that there is no point being rude to people without cause. What I keep hearing back from people are variations on the same theme:

Some people are too stupid/evil/uptight/whatever to be polite to
Even the slightest more trivial cause is sufficient be rude to people
Wikipedia doesn't care about being rude to people, as a matter of policy
Not being allowed to be rude to people is rude to me
We're all too ignorant to know what 'rude' means, so we have to be rude by default

It's like discussing Kant's Categorical Imperative with petulant twelve year olds. My apologies, but you guys are not scoring high on any metric of moral development I've seen (and I've seen most).

Now in one sense, I understand. This is wikipedia, and wikipedia is dominated by rude, loud-mouthed people. That's the law of the jungle here: if you don't tighten your sphincters and polish the chip on your shoulder you don't survive well on project. I don't mind so much that we are all major bitches to each other, but I think it's a violation of project principles to extend that bitchiness to our readers. I don't expect us to find tolerance for the people we disagree with on-project (that would be very un-wikipedian, judging by standard practices), but if we can't find tolerance for the people who disagree with our opinions in the greater world, then we are not writing an encyclopedia, we are engaged in propaganda.

Seriously, as far as I can tell all the people I'm arguing with here are bound and determined to make sure that this article leads off with an art-nude image, not because the image adds any real value to the article, but because it's a symbolic, ideological victory over some presumed (dare I say imaginary) forces of oppression. That's just fucking nuts.

But whatever... Debating this is getting to be annoying - there's only so many times I can repeat the same argument without anyone listening - so let's all just shut up and let the RfC continue. With luck, rational people will prevail and the image will get replaced; if not, it's not a huge problem (just one more LCD - Lamest Common Denominator - article among thousands, and not the worst by far). It will be disappointing, but my opinion of the project gets lower on almost a daily basis so that's ok. --Ludwigs2 07:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Nudity in a context where it is totally normal and acceptable in most societies is not rude. Nudity in the lead image of the pregnancy article has this status in many societies, but there are enough in which it can still offend to avoid it if not necessary. (And it isn't. Image 1 is just as good for the lead as image 2, and in fact better because it shows a pregnant woman, not a nude pregnant woman, or a pregnant woman on a bicycle, or a pregnant woman with a poodle, or a pregnant woman eating icecream etc.) But a high-quality, non-sexualised nude photograph of a second trimester pregnant woman is very much the kind of image that you would expect in the second trimester physiology section. The number of societies in which this is still seen as inappropriate must be tiny by comparison to those where the same image in the lead is inappropriate. It is not rude to ignore such fringe positions. The people holding them are used to being offended by the mainstream all the time, so there is no point in falling over backwards to accommodate them. Hans Adler 19:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Ludwig, how could anybody sue if there WEREN'T puritanical elements at play in US public education? You are clearly saying that there ARE people wanting censorship, and you're taking their side. What an appalling reason to censor Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 08:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

and that is a ridiculous misinterpretation of what I just said; so ridiculous, in fact, that it's just not worth responding to. Are you doing that on purpose just to make the discussion difficult? --Ludwigs2 08:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You said "American school systems block these things not because of any puritanical urges, but because they don't want to get sued by opportunistic parents." If it's not because of puritanical elements of the system, on what basis can they be sued? Genuine question. Not being American I am keen to learn more about your system. HiLo48 (talk) 09:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I said that your efforts to villainize a segment of society as 'puritanical elements' so that you can justify being rude to them is ridiculous, immature and reprehensible. What part of that are you having difficulty understanding? --Ludwigs2 14:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I specifically put to you the question about what the education value was of bare breasts and you've failed to answer it. Can I assume that means you cannot prove any educational value?--Crossmr (talk) 09:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I can provide plenty. How much educational and pedagogical theory can you deal with? Or are you simply one of those people who is a self appointed expert on education because you went to school when you were young? Real teachers find such "experts" rather painful. HiLo48 (talk) 09:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

That's twice you haven't answered the question. Either answer it or admit you have no foundation for your assertion that a single image of bare breasts out of context provides any education value that wouldn't better be served by images in a different area, in context. Your tone is beginning to wander into the uncivil territory and if you can't support your argument without doing so, it really tells me everything I need to know about your position.--Crossmr (talk) 10:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

and make sure to focus your answer to how this image of these breasts in this context actually provides anything educational about pregnancy.--Crossmr (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Crossmr, it's starting to look like you owe me $10. I take PayPal…

He's not going to answer the question. There's no way he can answer it without suffering a major setback in his delusionary war against those 'puritanical elements' he talks about so often. --Ludwigs2 14:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I did not introduce puritanical elements to this discussion. Ludwig did, in one of his attempts to attack me. To simplify, and it's a massive simplification, it's the whole woman that's pregnant, and to artificially conceal part of the woman would fail to show the whole woman. I've only just realised that what the more conservative (American?) posters here are scared of is the nipples, and the rest is OK. Maybe that was obvious to other Americans, but not me. I'm not obsessed with nipples, There is obviously a real cultural difference here. As for being uncivil, I don't think I've done that here. I certainly try hard to avoid it, and apologise if I have crossed the line. (But again, cultural differences obviously make that line hard to define.) And, as for uncivil behaviour, so far in this thread I have been call adolescent (in a derogatory way), a pervert, a narcissist, and delusionary. Totally unacceptable attacks like that don't encourage me to respect those who disagree with me. Nobody has apologised for it, and nobody on the opposite side from me has criticised anybody for such attacks. HiLo48 (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

As a Brit, I too see a real cultural difference here. Compared to Europe, the UK and Oz, the US seems to have a much greater emphasis on body parts rather than looking at the image as a whole. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

That's it? "The whole woman is pregnant"? That's the educational value of the breasts in this photo? There is absolutely nothing you can tell about the breasts in that photo without context of an earlier phoot. If she's standing there with breasts out or her arm over her breasts, the educational value is the same. The discussion of pregnancy and breasts is better served in another section with at least 2 (preferably 3) photos showing a before, middle, and near end size of breasts to show change brought about by pregnancy.--Crossmr (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I meant that the US seems to base it opinion on what is offensive more on specific good/bad body parts. Many other places look at the picture as a whole, the pose, the intent, the context, and to a lesser extent, what parts are visible. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

As soon as you use some artifice - folded arms, blurring, black bars - to conceal the bit that horrifies you, you actually put the attention ON that part of the body, those scary nipples, rather than letting the whole body tell the story. This is about how an image is processed by the brain. HiLo48 (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I never said nipples were scary, I simply took you to task to explain your continued position and you've utterly failed to do so. Your false assumptions and hyperbole aside: What is the educational value of bare breasts in the lead photo? All I'm seeing are insults, hyperbole, false assumptions, misdirection, and ducking the issue. You claimed mountains of evidence to support this position and all you came up with was probably the weakest thing I've ever heard of. You might as well have claimed that we needed to show her breasts because you were wearing blue pants.--Crossmr (talk) 04:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Scared of nipples? Your argument is that we have to show an art nude image because the 'whole woman' is pregnant, and nipple-phobics can't prevent us from presenting the immensely important information we will glean by contemplating this woman's teats? And you honestly don't see what a stupid, stupid argument that is? --Ludwigs2 04:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs, if you cannot say who will be offended by image 2 it might be useful if you could tell use exactly what is offensive about the image; I find it very hard to see anything. 'Nudity' is too vague and culturally dependent to be useful in this context. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Martin, if you refuse to use common knowledge, then there is no sense in taking to you. You know that a large majority of the world's population would prefer not to have nudity attached to everything they see and do - that's just the nature of human society almost everywhere. For most of them it's a preference without a lot of emotional value; for a smallish minority it's a matter of great importance, but in either case why they are offended doesn't matter. The only reason to ask why someone is offended is so that you can propose the argument that they should just suck it up and get over it, and that's not what an encyclopedia does. If your attitude is that everybody who disagrees with you should just suck it up and get over it, then you can go suck it up yourself. --Ludwigs2 15:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The point is that it is not common knowledge that the image is offensive it is your opinion, for reasons that will not state. You refuse even to say what you mean by 'nudity'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit break (NSFW)

I think NSFW is actually perhaps the weakest argument in this entire discussion. It assumes a pretty narrow range of cultural environments for work, for one, and it also is a principle that could potentially gut all kinds of legitimate content - not just images, but written text as well. Users are responsible for their own cultural environment, and as a global project, Wikipedia can't adhere to hundreds of wildly varying cultural milieus. Nathan^T 19:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. WP cannot render itself acceptable for any possible environment. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

@HiLo48: There are quite a few people who do not support the current image for reasons other than "being afraid of nipples". Personally, I strongly favor an image of a mature pregnancy to lead this article (rather than a 1st or 2nd trimester image). I would also love to see more racial diversity in the article, but that is a secondary consideration. Unfortunately, all the people with any opinion other than "NUDITY GOOD" or "NUDITY BAD" have been completely ignored in this discussion and thus left long ago. Kaldari (talk) 01:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You're right. There have been many very different issues raised here. Too many to make this a sensible RfC discussion. It's been one of my concerns from early on. I'm happy to pause, apart from one thing. Every now and again one of the no nudity campaigners declares that there are more votes for his point of view. That non-Wikipedia approach needs to be highlighted when it happens. HiLo48 (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

So, you agree that many editors have made a case for moving the image out of the lead image. What case then, have those who support keeping the image in the lead section, made? I ask, because I do not see one other than WP:ILIKEIT. Clearly, those who support moving the image have made many different arguments. Is there any reason we still have the image in the lead? Further, why hasn't a compromise "mosiac" image presentation been offered, similar to those found in many other image discussions? Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The mosaicized/covered image has been proposed, but has basically been ruled out since it is self-defeating: it makes the picture more problematic by drawing attention to the controversial parts. I've disengaged from this, the argument has ceased to even attempt to discuss what's good for the article and has become some bizarre battlefront in the culture war. Forcing the poor user who has to close this thing to wade through another 300k of rehashing the same discussion is just abusing a fellow wikipedian. On an unrelated note, I've made some changes (clarifications, really) to WP:NOTCENSORED and given that many people here seem to have very strong opinions on the topic, it'd be helpful to get more eyes on the topic. The change has already been quoted on this page by another user, which actually sort of bothers me since I didn't really expect to directly influence this specific discussion. SDY (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not supporting or opposing the mosaic proposal, but I know from experience that it would not draw attention to the controversial parts, but draw less due to the smaller image size required. Viriditas (talk) 03:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

SDY, after reading this discussion again, it occurs to me that you don't understand what I mean by a mosaic, and you are using the term differently to refer to a type of self-censorship. The mosaic I am referring to is really a montage. Here is a good example of what was put together after a disagreement about a lead image. Viriditas (talk) 09:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

HiLo, let me point out the truly typical wikipedia thing you are doing here: you are confronted with an RfC you don't like, you pour a ton of different overly-emotional arguments into it so that the discussion gets all tangled up, and then when you realize you're losing. you start complaining that the RfC is confused and thus invalid. That kind of politicking is thoroughly disgusting, and it's just going to lead us down the road to ArbCom. don't go there. --Ludwigs2 04:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Absolute crap. Several of the early posts I made here were about the already tangled up state of the discussion, and the fact that the wording of the RfC had already changed several times. Then I tried tackling some of what I saw as poor arguments in the various sub-topics that already existed. I still believe that the changes to the RfC should have led to it being restarted, so that those comments talking about the old forms of wording were no longer here, creating confusion. Now, having read the changes since I last posted, I'm becoming even more curious. Exactly which part of the woman's nudity is a problem? Is it only the nipples? Is it her bum? Anyone with any awareness of different cultures around the globe and throughout history will know that there is never going to a common global view on this. This is a genuine question. I suspect it's a very narrow objection to the nipples, not the nudity as such. Perhaps if those who are offended can tell me exactly what they're offended by, and why, we can proceed with better knowledge. Before answering, please note that this sub-section is the "Not Safe For Work" bit. It would be nice to stay on topic. HiLo48 (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, she's naked, how can we get past that in 'true wikipedia thing' style. Well..mebbe attack the editor?. Sure, why not. Um...well....I guess that's self-explanatory mebbe? Dreadstar ☥ 04:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

tough call for me, actually. it's not in my nature to let a bad argument stand, but few people are up to the task of distinguishing between their arguments and their selves. I'm not always up to it, honestly, so sometimes I am more uncivil than I need to be. But in point of fact what HiLo is doing is a very standard occurrence on wikipedia - intentional or not, it becomes a tremendously low-brow way of subverting the system. Once people render our decision-making processes moot by casting every aspect of them into confusion, what do we have left? --Ludwigs2 06:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I feel ya man, I've fallen to the same demons, unfortunately. Apparently a common affliction. :) Dreadstar ☥ 06:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The picture is quite nice and fitting and I personally can’t understand why it created so much upheaval. Given the strong and emotional reaction along this discussion, I believe we can take it for granted that some people feel offended by this picture. Others seem to feel offended by removing it altogether, which I can also understand. I therefore suggest to follow along the lines of Hans Adler’s compromise: “using image 1 in the lead instead and moving image 2 further down to the second trimester physiology section“. Sounds like a good and reasonable suggestion. --Tinly (talk) 06:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I still question the value of using an art nude picture for what ought to be a clinical discussion of pregnancy. I mean, the compromise solution is better than the current state of affairs, but does a 'pregnancy cheescake' photo really add anything meaningful? If you need a third trimester image, the photo I suggested above would work just as well, or there is likely a better solution than this out there somewhere. --Ludwigs2 15:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

As to the question, if the picture adds anything meaningful: I believe, the use of a picture is to illustrate something. Your picture of course also illustrates what is to be ilustrated, but the old one also does that. So, the question is: what does exchanging one fitting picture for another fitting picture add? Nothing. To me, the situation is as follows: We do have two parties, namely one consisting of those who have a problem with nudity of any kind for whatever reason and those who consider it as something quite normal. The problem here is, that we are not talking about what is factually correct regarding the picture or not, but are dealing with personal emotional reactions that people have when looking at the picture. Therefore, the discussion becomes very emotional, depending on whether one sees the picture as shockingly pornographic or an innocent depiction of a pregnant woman. Depending on one's own cultural background and whether nudity is tabooed in it or not, people will therefore react quite differently. For me, it's actually hard to imagine how such a picture can be considered shocking, (which it apparently is for some), but would rather conceive of it as picture demonstrating the beatitude of pregnancy, far removed from any sexual connotation ... (that's the emotion the picture triggers off in me, but this will naturally differ from person to person). I believe, that an undertaking such as Wikipedia requires a great deal of ability for compromises on either side, that's why I again suggest to go for a compromise rather than attempting to pull through one's own emotional stand on the picture, whatever it is.----Tinly (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC) 16:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Tinly, please try to avoid exaggerations. One does not have to consider nudity to be "shockingly pornographic", or have "a problem with nudity of any kind" to not want to see it as a matter of daily life. Most people prefer the fact that everyone wears clothing most of the time - it's not prudery, just a comfortable social convention. The question here is why are we violating conventional standards in order to present a nude picture when there is no real reason to. This is not even a debate in real life: if you go to a public park and strip down to the buff in order to sunbathe, neither the cops who wrestle you into their cruiser 10 minutes later nor the judge you see after a night in jail are going to be impressed by your argument that it is other people's inhibitions which are the problem. You only get away with that argument on wikipedia because wikipedia is structured in such a way that adolescent solipsism generally wins out; and no, that's not a good thing. --Ludwigs2 17:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The current picture is not only the one which is most informative about the state of pregnancy and about how it changes the body, by showing an image of the body itself, it is also the one which has the highest educative value, taking into account the definition of education given by Wikipedia: "any act or experience that has a formative effect on the mind, character, or physical ability of an individual." This is exactly the type of image I would show to school children in order to achieve that formative effect on their mind, taking advantage that they are still for most of them quite open minded and free of the prejudices that plague many adults.

Furthermore, the current image has one additional advantage: it shows the body of a woman in a context where there is no ambiguity and no possibility of a sexual connotation, i.e. this image does not show the woman as a sex object, as it is immediately apparent that what is shown is her pregnancy. Actually, I find a form of sexism in the position of those who want the image removed because they find it offensive. For them, the image of a nude woman has necessarily a sexual connotation, no matter in what context it appears. They seem unable to accept that a woman and her body could be anything but a sex object. This perverse form of sexism is insulting to women.

So far no valid reason has been given to remove Image 2 from it lead position - all reasons invoked, whether to remove it completely or to move it down so that it loses visibility, are basically censorship dressed in various clothes, often tainted with sexism.

Dessources (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Dessources: your inability to hear anything that doesn't come out of your own mouth doesn't mean the rest of us aren't making good arguments, and your implication that we must show a nude women otherwise we are being sexist is a disgusting perversion of reason. How anyone can unintentionally make such crude and idiotic claims so consistently is beyond me, so I am forced to conclude that you are simply being a troll just to rile people up. You should be ashamed, but trolls rarely are.

I think it's time I looked into having an admin deal with you. --Ludwigs2 17:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Admins are not police. siafu (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I know they are not, and I think it's a shame. I mean, I can play by the "Law of the Jungle" ruleset if I have to, but I dislike it. With admins acting as cops we could have a civil discussion; without them, well… I shoot at people who shoot at me, and I'm usually a better shot. --Ludwigs2 19:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Bullshit Ludwigs. You've been shooting at me and I didn't shoot at you at all. You're undermining all the good things you've done on Wikipedia, including the Sheriff project. B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 19:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

While you do seem to be abiding by the "Law of the Jungle" (you know the jungle creed, where the strongest feed, on whatever prey they can...), that's not the "law" of wikipedia, nor is it generally a good guideline to conducting discussions. Being a "good shot" is also not likely to win you any friends, as is threatening some nebulous administrative action against those who happen to be disagreeing with you. Stick to the issue at hand or just stop. siafu (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, seriously, stop hat-covering these comments. If you want to remove the remove the off-topic comments, you'll have to go rather further up (i.e., including your comment dated 17:51 16 September). Just removing the responses to your off-topic threats is quite disingenuous, really. siafu (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Dessources. Ludwig, your characterization of Image 2 (in another post just above) as "pregnancy cheesecake" is pretty offensive, shows a clearly prurient bias, and makes me wonder if an Admin should be looking at your vitriol and personal attacks. My two cents on this debate : keep the image. There is nothing there that I can see that suggests it was either posed or published with the intention of provoking sexual arousal. All it does is illustrate the natural state of a biological phenomenon. There are other articles on Wikipedia that contain photos of genitals to illustrate something, those are not "safe for work" either; but then, that depends upon the standards where the reader works, and all employers are different. My employer has stringent firewalls and filtering software in place to block Web content categorized as "shopping", "distasteful", "nudity", "arts and culture," "streaming media", "social networking", "gambling", and a number of other criteria that they continuously update. If something isn't safe for work, folks, you should be abiding by the office rules set down by your employer. Including, but not limited to, Youtube, Facebook, etc. If that includes nudity, don't browse Websites that contain it (or work elsewhere). OttawaAC (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd characterize one of the alternative proposals (the woman standing in the snow in gloves and a scarf) as pregnancy cheesecake.

The rationale for using this in the second trimester section is primarily because it's the best option we've got right now for calling out certain features of the second trimester. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

@ Ottowa: You don't know me son, so I'll let your comment about prurience slide (I also think you've used the wrong word for what you meant to say, but…). At any rate, your argument seems to be "People in locations that block nudity shouldn't be viewing wikipedia anyway" - that's maybe the most ridiculous, unencyclopedic argument I've ever heard. You believe that the encyclopedia should be safe for nudity even if it means that we have to drive away large numbers of readers? can we have a reality check please?

Your response is typical of the narrow-minded, egocentric attitude I've come to expect on project. You believe that this is your wikipedia, in which you get to dictate what you think is right without interference from all those stupid people who just read it. Wikipedia is not your personal blog, nor is it the correct venue for you to change the way everyone else in the world thinks. If that's what you want to use the project for - go away!

@whatamIdoing - yeah, I'd have to agree with that assessment about the other picture. I'm nowhere near as averse to using this for the second trimester photo (though I think we can do better than an art nude for that), but I think we should set that aside as a separate issue after the main RfC is done.

--Ludwigs2 19:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

For editors who are coming here to offer a fresh perspective, I wonder whether someone could put together a little gallery below that shows the image options under consideration? This is a lot of text to review, and having the images to compare side-by-side has been helpful in other discussions I've been in where consensus on a top image was hard to achieve. I haven't formed an opinion yet. I "tested" the current image on my 14-year-old daughter, who didn't find the nudity embarrassing or inappropriate, but thought "something more scientific" would be better. My biggest concern with the illustrations as a whole is that they're not global: they're all "Caucasian" women with similar skin tones and hair color, which collectively suggest a "norm". (It seems that a different set of images is now in play from the gallery at the top of the page.) [User:Cynwolfe|Cynwolfe]] (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Pregnancy#Lead_image_RfC. The first two are the primary options under discussion.

The third is shown because some people thought that any single image from the second trimester could show pregnancy-related changes to the woman's breasts, which is nonsensical; the pair of images is now included to show changes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ludwig2: I don't understand why you want to push censorship, which goes against the basic spirit of Wikipedia. I don't understand why you want to censor the information/images seen by Americans, within the United States, based on possible objections from people in foreign cultures. You also don't say which cultures you're talking about -- I guess the ones where women can't go out in public without burqas, because in many other places, public breastfeeding is kind of common, and I doubt anyone there would block the entire Wikipedia based on the nipples visible on the pregnant woman in Image 2.... The U.S. military is shedding blood in Iraq, fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, to protect freedoms that you want to take away from the American people. And you want to do this, and push this censorship onto Wikipedia, because governments in those countries might want to impose their own views onto the information that Americans access? Your views seem incredible to me.

General objections to image censorship in this case: I have some conjecture to make regarding filtering software. Images can be blocked without blocking Wikipedia in its entirety, I believe. Articles could be filtered out based on offensive keywords -- at work, I can view a news Website, but I can't open specific articles if the headlines are blocked by the filtering software. So would a foreign government block the entire Wikipedia because of this picture showing a woman's nipples? Or is it the belly that's raising eyebrows?

And I have a fact-based concern -- has Wikipedia really, actually been banned anywhere because of nude images, and the one of this pregnant woman in particular? I thought foreign governments involved in blocking Wikipedia did it for political reasons based on the written content of articles, like China regarding Taiwan. Are the fears of offending foreigners and getting Wikipedia banned by other governments based on facts? OR imaginary fears?

OttawaAC (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ottowa: The definition of censorship you (and others) rely on is so distorted that it is effectively meaningless, so how can I respond to this? You seem to be holding on to some weird perspective where you can do anything you want to other people and no one has a right to say no to you, and that's just disturbing. Wikipedia already has effective censorship in place in a number of arenas - In articles we censor BLP material, hate speech, propaganda, commercial efforts, unreferenced material, and several other kinds of additions. On talk pages we censor (sometimes) things like flaming and outing and uncivil behavior. We do these things because (a) we want the encyclopedia to avoid inaccuracies and offensive statements, and (b) we want to try to maintain a reasonable environment to work in.

The question I originally asked (and which I keep asking) Is very simple: whether we need an art nude image as the lead image in this article. If the answer to that question is "no", then removing it is not censorship, removing it is simply removing an unneeded image. If this was the tire article and I asked whether we needed a particular image of a tire in the lead, would that be an unreasonable question? But here, a few editors are so hung up on the censorship issue that they are incapable of considering the question of whether a nude image might not be the best lead image: nude images have intrinsic value for them simply because nude images are their way of striking out at censorship, and so they will defend the nude image for no other reason than that it is nude. it's a ridiculous position to take from the perspective of the encyclopedia, and it fucks the conversation royally.

As far as your last point goes: I don't know. but I am quite sure that people have not gone to pages like this because they don't want the image stored in the server logs where all of their bosses can see what they've been browsing. do you disagree? --Ludwigs2 03:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs, one definition of censorship would be the imposing one person's definition of 'offensive' on others. This is exactly what you are doing here, except that the perspective you are trying to impose is not even clearly stated and represents the opinion of an undefined audience. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Ludwig2, you may disagree with my definition of censorship, but that's fine, I don't accept your definition of it either.

You're also saying that employees have some kind of inherent right to browse the Web looking at whatever on their employer's dime (and on the clock), but they don't; the employer may give them access to recreational Web surfing as a perk and a privilege, but if they don't want employees looking at anything unrelated to their actual job, employers have that legal right in the U.S., do you disagree? OttawaAC (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

@Martin: This exactly the mistake that all of you are making here. The nature of a LIBERAL SOCIETY is to balance the interests of one person/group against others in order to prevent anyone from being oppressed. This often means that individuals don't get what they want because what they want would be an unreasonable imposition on other segments of society. For instance, in the US we have very liberal gun laws, but almost everywhere in the US there are laws against discharging a firearm in populated areas - that is to prevent the accidental death of someone else while you are playing with your gun. This is why you're confused by my perspective: you think I'm arguing in favor of a particular side (one that you can't identify), when in fact I am trying balance the interests of all sides.

@Ottowa: Your argument is Wikipedia can be unsafe for work because people who browse the internet at work are bad people who break company rules? Leave aside that employee/employer relations in most places in the world are based in 'personal contracts' not 'legal rights'; it is against Wikipedia's purpose to inhibit people from reading the encyclopedia. We write this encyclopedia as a public service, but what is the value of a public service that tells people to suck it up or go piss off? --Ludwigs2 15:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You make some valid arguments, but they are essentially in the nature of IAR, since policy clearly states that offensiveness is not to be taken as a main criterion in decision making. I would support an attempt to change that policy, if only to allow other a chance to explain why as policy it does not work. But till such a change has been made, I think we are obligated to bow to the consensus of the larger Wikipedia community and decide on other grounds. B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 00:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Summary of proposals

Here is a summary of proposals so far: Hans Adler 22:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

A Status quo

B Move (RfC proposal)

C Replace

D Replace by something else

A number of other images have been proposed, either showing a belly only, or an almost-naked woman in the snow. They were not discussed all that much.

E Censor status quo

Keep the current lead image, but put black bars over the nipples.

F New suggestions for lead image

Default size of images in infoboxes

I suggest this. It needs a bit of touchup, but you get the idea. B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 22:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you please try to be serious? Hans Adler 22:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

? B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 22:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey now. Lets not start this new discussion by assuming another version isn't a serious attempt to find a solution. Lets just include it in the above and let editors make their choices without attacking each other. AGF please.(olive (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC))

BeCritical, look at it here. That's the size it would display as. The embryo/fetus images are the size of a pencil eraser. Nothing except the one woman's face is easy to see. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

But look at it here, which is a doable size. There are several things which make this a compromise image till there's something better: no one can say there is gratuitous nudity, because all nudity has already been acknowledged to be informational. It has more information than any other image. Further, it retains the warm feelings that people value to at least some extent, because of the background image. I'm aware it's not appealing, but it may be a good compromise, that will allow us to move beyond the nudity debate. Remember it can be tweaked, captions added etc. And everyone knows to click for a large image. B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 23:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Default size of images in infoboxes

Continued Discussion here

BeCritical, I appreciate your good faith attempt to help here but firstly, you are trying to solve a non-problem. No editors here appear to find the current image offensive, some are saying that an unspecified group of people will find it offensive for some unstated reason. That is no basis for change. Secondly it is just plain ugly, but as Olive suggests, we can include it in the options of you like. Please also explain what you mean by 'nudity' There is still plenty of bare skin visible. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's just the kind of thing that might make everyone equally mad, and therefore may be a good compromise: it eliminates "gratuitous" nudity people complain about because "nudity" here is all about teats, and now the ones which weren't "informational" are covered. But it does include bare teats, so that makes the anti-teat people mad. It's ugly, so that makes the warm-feely people mad. But it includes the warm-feely element to some extent, which maybe makes the anti-art faction mad. B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 23:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you are quite right. Nobody is going to like it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes..... and of course ILIKEIT isn't a factor here...... B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 00:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

A There is no reason to change and encyclopedic image that describes many of the physical and emotional aspects of the subject well. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The clothed image addresses my concerns about creating a false "Caucasian" norm, but I do find the nude more illustrative of the pregnant body. I don't find it either prurient or disrespectful, but I also don't think it's "censorship" to consider how best to serve the needs of likely readers depending on the article: an image should support the article, not be a distraction, which the nude might be. However, my ideal image for the infobox would be an anatomical drawing that shows both the characteristic profile of the woman's body and the positioning of the fetus within it. We seem to have nothing remotely like that on Commons; is anyone looking for a public domain image of that kind? The montage won't do; too detailed for the scale, and too cluttered to read well. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The collage can be redone to show that, if someone will point me to the appropriate image to transpose, maybe this or whatever. The point of this exercise, this discussion in this section, is to find a compromise. It's a call for more creativity, not an up or down vote on the collage I made. B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 00:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do not produce any more patchwork images that have no chance of use due to their extreme lack of professionality. The graphic you have found is fantastic, though, and I have added to the second trimester section. Hans Adler 10:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Hans Adler: the drawing is exactly what I had in mind, as more informative. If there is no other way to resolve the controversies surrounding the use of a live model, could it be used in the infobox? Cynwolfe (talk) 12:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Well Hans, you being so supercilious about it makes me want to produce a few more images. They may be unprofessional, but not drastically so given the materials available and time spent, and as I indicated they were meant as thought pieces, not necessarily to put in the article as generated. I don't know what you mean about finding a graphic, I used the images already in the article. Being rude here basically indicates that we are unprofessional as Wikipedians. Especially because this page seems to generate strong feelings, we need to avoid it. B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 19:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes this sort of idea is decent and definitely one we should consider. What about using the image of the dark skinned women in the dress with the image showing breasts changes? We should also look at using better quality images of a fetus... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Offence cuts both ways

I do not doubt that the current image will cause offence to some people, almost everything will cause offence to someone but this is not simple a trade-off between offensiveness and encyclopedic quality. All the alternative images will cause offense to someone. I, and I suspect many others (especially from outside the US) would be very offended by images with certain body parts obscured because it both sexualises the image and demonises body parts. Some would even take offence at the use of a clothed image because it smacks of censorship in an article so intimately related with the human body.

I appreciate the good faith attempts to be creative and to find a compromise but we should all be aware that a less revealing image is not necessarily less offensive to everyone. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Censoring body parts is offensive because it sexualises. Using a clothed image in the lead cannot possibly be offensive to a reasonable person. That's a ridiculous claim. Hans Adler 12:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Use of a clothed image where a nude one might be more appropriate offends people who object to what they see being decided by others. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

And many people are upset because they are not allowed to punch people in the nose when they really, really want to. Many of our actions are restricted in the interests of society - this is normal and good (within limits). The fact that you really, really want a nude image in this article does not outweigh the interests of other who do not want to have that image enforced on them, nor does it outweigh normal considerations of the value and function of the image in the article. sorry.

maybe it's time we made a new project - an uber-Freedom version of wikipedia where people could add whatever material they felt like, without any normal social inhibitions. 5:1 that the pregnancy article there would lead off with an image of a pregnant Jesus being saluted by Hitler. --Ludwigs2 15:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

This already exists. See the Pregnancy article at Encyclopedia Dramatica. (I can't link it because it's on the blacklist.) Hans Adler 17:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Protecting the eyeballs of children argument

I already voted, but this point is still aggravating me, so here I am adding more to this longgg discussion: If you are in the women's changing room of a public swimming pool -- and there must be thousands of them across the U.S. -- children are in there with their mothers and grandmothers and so on. (I'm female, I've been at public swimming pools, and it's fine with me.) Along with women of all ages and physical conditions, with naked breasts and all. Pregnant breasts and bellies, elderly ones, obese ones, skinny ones, adolescent ones, and young kids being changed. No one raises a hue and cry over exposing childrens' eyeballs to the nudity in that context. And it's an everyday occurrence. So if there are educators out there who want to shield children's eyeballs from the sight of naked breasts used for a medical article like this, in my view that's a clueless decision. I don't want Wikipedia tailored to accommodate what I view as ignorance on the part of some teachers. If there are parents who want to shield their children from nudity in any context, that's their own issue.

Well, I have the same view of adults who want to parse the Wikipedia for nipples and conceal them. The fact that no one is running around trying to cover the nipples in the Adam and Eve article images, or Peter Paul Rubens paintings, etc., leads me to the conclusion that there is a revulsion here against the nude pregnant body specifically for whatever reason, and I do not hold the view that there is something exceptionally grotesque about naked breasts or bellies belonging to women who are pregnant. I think it's terrific that there are 'compromise' image alternatives being discussed in that it shows the community wiling to work together for a solution, but the only decision I am personally willing to support in this instance is the option to keep the lead image as is, or use another image that does not conceal the breasts and/or belly, because compromise to me in this case implies supporting censorship - to some I know that sounds a bit extreme, and it just one photo in one article, but I think the underlying issue is too significant to let it slide uncontested.

OttawaAC (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with your first paragraph, though I disagree in part with your conclusions. What you say about children in changing rooms makes perfect sense because this is a non-sexualised context. But context is a tricky thing. I guess many of the women who are comfortable with the situation you describe would not be comfortable at a women's only nude beach, and even less would be comfortable there if the small children were also present. Or imagine one of the women in the changing room strips completely, stays that way, and is photographed by another. In either case it's deliberate nudity, and in most Western societies that's strongly associated with sexuality, causing an unwanted perceived sexualisation of the context for at least a considerable fraction of those present.

The situation with the current infobox image is similar. Pregnancy comes with a lot of connotations. The article is currently way too heavy on medical stuff and is ignoring topics such as pregnancy clothes, maternity protection, reproductive rights etc. A reader who does not know this and comes here with the expectation to find an article that covers all aspects adequately will at first be surprised by the nudity. Linguistics can help us to understand what's going on: We have a choice between an image of a pregnant woman and an image of a naked pregnant woman. Wearing clothes is the unmarked (we don't seem to have an article on this linguistic concept), i.e. 'normal' case that goes without saying. Being naked is the special case that will always be mentioned. Nudity is in no way a defining property of pregnancy, hence the surprise.

In a purely medical context it's different because there is a socially accepted non-sexual reason for the nudity. That's why the image would work much better further down. Hans Adler 12:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Hans, the first pregnancy marks a milestone in the life of a woman (and usually of the father) when things change. Certain things come more into the open, the mother's parents now know that their dear daughter has actually had sex with a man, for example. The nude image, to some degree, represents this change. I think the 'Let's keep sex out of pregnancy' campaign is doomed to failure. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with keeping sex out of pregnancy. That would be ridiculous. But for anyone who is not obessed in some strange way, nudity and sexuality are not among the first things that come to mind when thinking about pregnancy. (And if parents can't figure out that their daughter has sex long before she gets pregnant, then she is either a bit young, or the parents are exceptionally dense or excessively strict. I don't see what this is supposed to have to do with anything here.)

The milestone business is a valid point not yet represented in the article text. The current lead image is OK at representing it, although an image of a couple gazing at the woman's belly would be better. But how is an aspect that nobody has bothered to mention in the article yet so important that a photo can be ruled out for not depicting it?

What do you think about the lack of nude pictures on the marriage article? Is that the effect of a 'Let's keep sex out of marriage' campaign? How about school? Many children have their first sexual experiences while in school, often with other children attending the same school. Is the lack of nude pictures in the school article natural or not? Hans Adler 13:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Above I ask whether the anatomical drawing couldn't be used in the infobox. The only question is which image bests illustrates the article, considered in the context of serving the needs of readers. In my daughter's sex education class in 5th grade (age 10), they were shown an animated graphic of a penis becoming erect. The fact that this wasn't an actual penis is what made it acceptable (and let me note that parents viewed this in advance, and we live in a conservative, church-going community in the U.S. Midwest). It was presented as physiological information. I find the nude image more informative about the physiology of pregnancy than the clothed one, but I find the graphic more informative than the nude. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

My comment 'Let's keep sex out of pregnancy' was a little lighthearted but its serious point was that we should not try to expunge all reference to sex from this article.

My milestone point does relate to sex. As another example, I remember first going with my wife to ante-natal classes. For the first time in my life I felt that I was being spoken about sex to as a real adult. All the women in the class were pregnant so there was a certainty that we all must have some first hand experience of sex and this enabled some subject to be openly discussed without embarrassment, breast feeding for example.

I agree that we do not want to push sexual imagery in the face of our readers. For example, although I do not find it offensive, I think this image is too sexually charged for the lead, even though it shows less in body part terms than the current one. On the other hand it might serve a purpose lower down in the article to show the joy of pregnancy, and that a woman might still consider herself attractive whilst pregnant. We must stop thinking of pregnancy as some morbid medical condition that justifies 'medical nudity'. It a natural and joyous state for many women that the current encyclopedic image helps to show. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

That image is just silly and counter-factual (every pregnant woman knows you don't need a hat when it's cold), and I don't know why people keep referencing it. It's kooky and fun but utterly lacks any encyclopedic value. Pregnancy is indeed a natural and joyous state, I am happy to attest for those of you named "Martin" and "Hans" and so on; however, this is not what an encyclopedia article on pregnancy is about. Readers come to it for information about pregnancy, not personal insights. Editors need to stop using this talk page as a forum for expressing their feelings about nudity and pregnancy, and focus on how best to illustrate the article. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree we must stick to the subject of the article but many editors have stated that pregnancy covers much more that just the anatomical facts. To get back to the point, the current image is a good encyclopedic overall representation of subject as a whole and there is no reason to change it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope. It gives undue weight to the minor aspect of sexuality, making it distracting for a considerable portion of our readership. Yes, pregnancy covers much more than anatomy, but most of the additional stuff is unrelated to sex.

What you are saying about antenatal classes suggests to me that you are basically arguing from very personal experience that is not shared by the vast majority of readers. I don't remember sex coming up in that context except in the form of general comments that it's fine, that in the later stages some caution is obviously required, or that cushions might be helpful. Sex also tends to come up a lot at wedding parties or in schoolyard discussions. So I ask again: Do you agree that not having nude pictures at marriage and school is exactly as it should be? And if so, what exactly is special about pregnancy that it requires them?

The current lead image evokes roughly 40% pregnancy, 40% nudity and 20% various ideas such as beauty or oneness with nature. That's not appropriate for the lead. The proposed alternative evokes roughly 70% pregnancy and 20% ethnicity. That's much better. Other readers may come to different numbers, but the undue weight of nudity is clear. This is only a problem in the lead, however, where the image is not sufficiently contextualised. Hans Adler 15:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't find the current nude inherently un-encyclopedic. On the other hand, I'd say it's most "natural" for the vast majority of the world's population to see pregnant women clothed, and a preference for the clothed image need not be disparaged as a desire to "censor" nudity. If illustrating pregnancy as a physiological state is the primary purpose of the article, then to me the order of preference is (1) anatomical graphic; (2) nude; (3) clothed. If, however, the primary purpose of the article is to describe pregnancy more broadly in terms of its sociological, psychological, and cultural aspects, then the text of the article should be the first concern of editors, as it doesn't really do that. Translating a section from the German article is circular, since the German article itself lacks sources in the "Cultural" section. I'm more concerned about that than the choice of infobox image. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I did the translation. It's not circular as the German Wikipedia cannot possibly be used as a source here. It is simply unsourced. Everybody is of course invited to expand, improve, replace or source the material. But there has been almost a decade (I guess; the article history is incomplete) for such material to be added. As this has not happened yet, it seemed wise to place a condensation nucleus. Hans Adler 15:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

It's circular in that Wikipedia can't be used as a source for itself, whether it's from another language or not. My point is that arguments on how to illustrate the article should be based on article content; if it's desirable that the article not be primarily about physiology (I'm not sure it shouldn't be, however), then the time and effort being expended here on the talk page over which image to use might be better spent improving the text. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Cynwolfe: I tend to agree with you, but that's not helpful at the moment. the image is where we're stuck. It's a flaw in the project - too many people more interested in making a point than in writing the encyclopedia. --Ludwigs2 16:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess the making of points started with the RfC itself, which was about moving the current image because it allegedly did not show breast changes. (Among other things, because it changed several times.) Are you opposed to that point having been made? Then a lot of people, yourself included, made points about the nudity itself being offensive to hypothetical others. Was that OK? If nobody had sought a change to the status quo at all, no points would have been made to upset you. HiLo48 (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're suggesting, HiLo. The RfC began because someone thought that the lead image was inappropriate to the article, and various people seem to agree (for a variety of reasons) and disagree (for a different variety of reasons). That seems like reasonable enough grounds for an RfC. the nonsense that this page has devolved into is because people have lost sight of the article itself and gotten incredibly stubborn and uptight over trivial ideological points. You and a number of others are head-butting over this because the image is a token in some larger campaign you're fighting against censorship on wikipedia and closed-mindedness in the greater world; I'm head-butting because (frankly) I find the insensitivity of that attitude irritating and think it's damaging to the project as a whole. So which of us should back off?

What I really think we should do with this page - and this is the 'cold shower' approach to fixing the problem - is toss out all of the images, and then not allow any images to be added back in until the text is developed enough that someone can say "look, we need an image to illustrate this point written in the text. The article goes with no lead image at all until the text is developed enough that we can determine what lead image best fits the text that we've included. would you be amenable to that? --Ludwigs2 19:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I take it the anatomical drawing is not an acceptable compromise in lieu of no image at the top at all? Cynwolfe (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs, I like your idea, my only concern is that the way WP works it gives one side of this argument a political advantage they don't currently have. And I would be fine with an good anatomical drawing for a lead image, with the current image further down the page. The reason I'd be fine with it is that it's of equal or greater informational value with a nude image. My concern has always been that for reasons of censorship people are vitiating the informational value of the lead image. B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 19:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

And does anyone think it's a good idea to do a poll to see how many people want to change the current image and how many want to keep it for lack of a better current alternative? B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 21:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

No! (That's my response to your poll on whether we should do a poll.) It would be a simplistic, unedifying approach to a complex issue that should be decided on the quality of the arguments presented. HiLo48 (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

an anatomical drawing is fine with me, so long as it's actually an anatomical drawing and not a hand-drawn art nude.

B.C. I am no more inclined to let rabid censors take control of the page than I am to let rabid anti-censorship activists take control of it. The only side I have is the side of the project. If you can't let go of your political interests (e.g. your concern over who has the 'political advantage') and evaluate things on the basis of their value to the article, then there's no way we are ever going to get out of bighorn sheep land.

I'm not kidding. politics in its most primal sense is nothing more than the effort to irritate/intimidate your opponent until they leave the field, leaving you with all the spoils and a sense of smug self-righteousness: alpha-male herd instincts with a veneer of respectability. If you play politics, that's where you have to go. --Ludwigs2 21:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Is that why you have become the most prolific poster on this topic? HiLo48 (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

In part, yes. If I'm forced to play politics, I play politics, and I have a hell of a lot of tricks up my sleeve to that end. Don't get me wrong: I prefer civil, rational deliberation, and will always use that where I can. But civil, rational deliberation only works when everyone does it; one zealot with a loud voice and a hostile attitude can smash it to bits without half trying. If that's where it goes, that's what-is - I can play that game, though I find it distasteful and frequently lose my cool when I do it. Simply put, shouting me down is not a viable option (that only works when I'm faced with such a level of arrogant ignorance that I start to feel nauseous, which has happened a few times on project, but it's rare). Other than that...

I meet calm deliberation with calm deliberation, and aggression with aggression. I prefer the former, but I'm flexible. Which would you prefer? --Ludwigs2 01:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is part of the real world, which includes "political" maneuvering. To deny that is to deny reality. You can't realistically not maneuver, you can only do so with a sense of ethics. That means trying to do what a diplomat or ethical politician does, which is to make sure power does not fall into the hands of a faction at the cost of the majority, meanwhile also trying to do what is best for society. B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 22:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is part of the real world, which includes alcohol - should we all edit while drunk? I understand your point, but I also understand much more about the nature of politics (no offense), and I don't think you've looked through things far enough to understand why politics on wikipedia is such a bad idea. Just to give you a taste of it: In the real world nasty politics leads to violence, warfare, and other extremely painful outcomes. That is actually a good thing, because the sheer horror of politics breaking down is what often leads to effective resolutions. On wikipedia there are no comparably painful outcomes, so once politics gets started down a bad path, it never stops. Does anyone really want to spend the rest of their lives on wikipedia fighting the same silly battles over and over? doubtful. and yet, that is what we are inevitably doing to ourselves. think about it. --Ludwigs2 00:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Politics, in the broad sense I mean, never stops. You can't separate power from human interaction, you can only use it wisely or unwisely. I'm interested in principles on WP so that that power can be used wisely. But you can't refrain from the interactions of power. And if you knowingly take a path of any sort, and you see that power will change hands in a certain way, you are abusing power to ignore what you see. So I wasn't ignoring politics/power when I said that if you take out all pictures, then the faction that doesn't want titties in the lead will be handed their wish. It's just a truth-- as I predict it at least. So I was asking you to balance the power. Because the only way in which one can avoid politics is if power won't work. That's the principle behind the Sheriff project, isn't it? B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 01:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

BC - from the academic perspective, it's not so much that power exists (which it surely does), it's the modes of power that matter. There are all sorts of ways to invoke a power relationship: by being bigger and stronger, older and wiser, better educated, more attractive, more staid and conventional, more risk-oriented and dramatic, having law or policy on your side… On wikipedia, ostensibly, the only power that should matter is making the encyclopedia better; that should be the litmus for every decision. Unfortunately, that's both vague and weakly enforced, so we end up with a huge power vacuum in which different people and groups try to exercise power in different ways. What happened on this page was basically three power-gambits trying in turn to preserve the image: the assertion that it has 'informational value' (trying to tie it to the power of the encyclopedic purpose of the project); the assertion that the image cannot be censored (trying to tie it to the power of policy, either as philosophy or legalism); and a generic ad-hominem smack-down (trying to assert power by demonizing opponents as radicals and shouting down their responses). The first is a very weak argument, the second relies on a peculiar and philosophically unsupportable interpretation of NOTCENSORED, and the third I enthusiastically grind to a stalemate wherever I see it.

That initial power-moment seems to have run its course, at least for now, so now is where the reasoned discussion (the appropriate mode of power) can begin if that's what we want to have. Is it what we want, or should we go back for another round or two of power-politics? --Ludwigs2 01:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Well we may disagree on some particulars, but I certainly hope we can bypass the former power struggle. I just didn't want to set it up so that it would recur, and I thought just removing all images would make it recur. I'm just out of the cfsn debate, where people were crying (basically) IAR to get rid of the article. But I felt it was better to stick to the rules as written or use the debate to change the rules. It's just really difficult to run WP except on rules anymore, because even if people were reasonable, reason doesn't get you very far in a very complex or emotional debate. I don't know what to do besides keep the tone civil and quote policy if people have a basic disagreement. For example: if you consider people's feelings as in try not to offend why not consider people's good as in make society less prudish? We might disagree on the scope of consideration, and others would disagree on the good of society. So I prefer to quote community consensus in policy. I don't know how else to do it. B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 03:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Rules are one approach to solving the power-vacuum problem (they are in fact the conventional real-world approach), but as I said above, rules on wikipedia are vague, interpretable, changeable and very weakly enforced. rules on wikipedia rely on people having the good will to apply them fairly and reasonable, and that kind of good will is the first thing to go when people get emotionally involved. Frankly, if you want to have a functional rule-based system on wikipedia, something like the Sheriff's project is a requirement; it's the only way to shift the payouts so that hopped-up people will find it more productive to follow the rules than not.

And don't worry about removing all the pictures. Much as I think it would be a good idea at this point, I recognize it's unlikely to happen. I threw it out there mostly as to shock people into reason. It's one of the few political tactics that rationality can wield over all of the other power-modes: the ability to say "Well, this has all just become a silly mess, so let's wipe the board clean and start fresh." That chills the soul of anyone who's ideologically attached to the issue, because they lose all of their emotional headway and have to start formulating reasons for the things they currently take for granted.

But since things are calm, let's pull a section break and have a rational discussion.--Ludwigs2 15:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

recap, and rational discussion

Here is a list of the concerns that have been raised in the above discussion (without taking a position on them, and with no meaning to the ordering)

The possibility that the nude image will offend readers, or disrupt their ability to use the encyclopedia
The comparative value to the article of the nude and clothed (and other) images
The possibility that one segment of society is using wikipedia to impose its moral values on the remainder (which segment it is depends on the person making the argument)
The concern that the [normally conservative]closed-minded values of the general readership (in whole or in part) represent a censoring influence on the encyclopedia

Have I missed anything? Note that I've aimed for general statements, so make sure that something you think I've missed isn't included as a special case of one of the statements above. If we can agree that this is the comprehensive list of concerns, then we can address them one-by-one, without the kind of tangle that happened above.. comments and additions, please. --Ludwigs2 15:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you have missed an awful lot. HiLo48 (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you say what I've missed, so that we can fix it? --Ludwigs2 22:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You can't say you're trying to open a rational discussion, and then insult "the close-minded values of the general readership" (what is WP for, if not for the people who come here for information?). Your list is not at all focused on which available images best illustrate this article, or how more effective images might be obtained. The desire of some editors to turn this into a battleground for broader issues is completely inappropriate. Look, I work mainly with articles on classical antiquity, when nudity was culturally pervasive; but I've seen many instances on WP where nude or sexualized images were clearly chosen just because juvenile editors got their kicks from it, and not because it was the best way to illustrate the subject at hand. On the other hand, I've spent the last couple of months developing an article with sexually explicit images, because that's what the content required. I don't believe that nudity is inherently sexual, but it isn't always appropriate or best for the article. These things can only be decided based on the specifics of an article, and not on some grandiose campaign against censorship. I myself lean toward the current nude image over the clothed one, not because I want to shove nudity in the face of prudes and teach them a lesson, but because to me it illustrates better the nature of the pregnant woman's body. But the conflict here will never be resolved until the discussion is limited to the pros and cons of how specific images add or detract from the article, without assuming that the decision is a triumph for either censorship or the glorification of nakedness. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Cyn: I'm simply trying to recap the arguments that have been given so far, without prejudgement. I don't like the 'closed-minded' language any better than you do (and I've rephrased it above), but the fact is that some editors have argued that the normal conservatism of most people in the world is something that needs to be changed in the world, not something that needs to be catered to on project. Trust me, I'm in your camp on this, but it's important to give every argument a fair hearing. --Ludwigs2 17:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

P.s. right now I just want to make sure that we all agree on the arguments being presented. we can evaluate them once we've established that. --Ludwigs2 17:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Well said, Cynwolfe. This is exactly my position on the current issue. Thanks for formulating it in such an articulate and clear way. I'm not dogmatically against changing the current image if one was proposed that constituted a clear improvement, but this is far from being the case with all images proposed so far. A better looking nude image would, in my view, not be a better choice, because an esthetic improvement alone would not bring more information, but would rather have a distracting effect. The current image has the nice quality of being both a plain and factual illustration.

Dessources (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to add that I consider the current image to have good educative value for children, as it teaches them to see nudity as a natural phenomenon. It transmits the message that a woman's naked body can be seen as the expression of the state of pregnancy, i.e. as the bearer of a new life. This shows them, with a convincing example, that a woman's body is not only a sexual object. All the motivations provided to remove the image are based on the undeclared assumption that a woman's naked body is by necessity an object that creates sexual arousal, i.e. a sex object - a prejudice that is tainted with sexism. Wikipedia should not participate in the perpetuation of such a prejudice when used for educational purposes.

Dessources (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, nudity should not be the reason to include or exclude an image. There should be other criteria such as information available, or even aesthetics. Offensiveness should be a criteria if all the other factors are equal. So I guess what we're looking for here is a decisive reason to change the image. If we can come up with an image which better summarizes the concept of pregnancy then we should change.

I should also say that there are different ways to see the nudity issue. One is, that we should be respectful of people's biases by attempting to be inoffensive. The other is that we should teach people that nudity is not to be ashamed of by allowing them opportunities to see it and refusing to bend to their prejudices. Another is that we should teach people that nudity is inappropriate, or at least protect people from nudity (for a lot of different reasons). All of these are opinions about how Wikipedia should be relative to people's biases. We can argue over which perspective is right, but is that appropriate for us to argue? Or should we rather ignore such issues as indissoluble and focus on issues which are more concrete? I think the NPOV and RS policies address this. In each of the cases above, Wikipedia is displaying a particular POV, even in the case of attempting to not run afoul of social biases. However, if Wikipedia decides that an image has particular attributes which illustrate an article, this is akin to using reliable sources for the article. Thus, any position taken or POV confirmed or offended is fully in accord with our mission. B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 19:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

B.c., I'm afraid I have to disagree with aspects your reasoning, as follows:

First, you say "Offensiveness should be a criteria if all the other factors are equal", but then you say "we're looking for here is a decisive reason to change the image". However, your first point implies that your second point should be "we're looking for here is a decisive reason to keep the image". If all other things are equal and offensiveness is weighed in, then the image should be removed; we should only keep the image if all other things are not equal.
Second, you blur the line between education and indoctrination. Wikipedia is intended to educate in the sense that it aims to provide people with knowledge (noting that 'knowledge' is a distinctly different concept than 'information'). Wikipedia is not intended as a platform to force people to change their worldviews. In the vast majority of social milieus casual nudity is taboo - there are vanishingly few places in the world where it's acceptable to present even artistic nudity to the public eye - and whether or not we approve of that, it's not our business to change the taboo (neither to make it stronger nor to make it weaker). We're not here to practice aversion therapy on the world at large by forcing people to look at nude pictures so that they will get over their shame responses (and if in fact that's your goal, please not that aversion therapy cannot be used effectively outside controlled conditions; used without therapeutic controls it is more likely reaffirm the aversion than overcome it).

I mostly agree with you, I'm just pointing out that - other things being equal - social norms go against presenting nudity that does not convey actual knowledge. --Ludwigs2 19:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

We do pretty much agree. My post contradicted itself, in that first I said that we should consider offensiveness if everything else is equal, then I said that such considerations are not NPOV. I was thinking it out and came to a different conclusion. Yes, we should have good reasons for keeping any image. Where we might disagree is about whether we should consider offensiveness as a factor. Because Wikipedia is also not intended as a platform for promoting or copying the status quo just because it is the status quo (except expert opinion, and then we'd have to go look at expert opinions on nudity). Since Wikipedia does, in practice, promote expert opinion, we might be able to settle this if we could find a source that discusses, say, children and learning about pregnancy and whether nude pictures are advisable. Then we'd need a source on grownups too, to see what experts believe is most educational. Most educational, not most acceptable. B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 20:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The views stated by Ludwigs above are based on the assumption that all 'nudity' is offensive and therefore there is a balance to be had between (still undefined) 'nudity' and information content. This is invalid because not everyone accepts that all 'nudity' is offensive. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

@ Martin, that is not an assumption I made, nor was it the issue I was trying to address. If you cannot understand my arguments, then your opinion of them is utterly worthless. thanks for sharing, though.

You wrote, 'If all other things are equal and offensiveness is weighed in, then the image should be removed'. If not 'nudity' what offensiveness are you referring to? Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Nudity is irrelevant - it's the unnecessary violation of social norms that irks me. Society has its norms: you should change social norms and bring the results to wikipedia, not use wikipedia to change social norms. --Ludwigs2 04:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do not be so cryptic. Exactly which social norm does the current image violate? Which society are you referring to? What irks me is that there is clearly something about the current image that you do not like but you will not tell us exactly what it is. Also you will not admit that it is you who does not like it but claim that it is some other unspecified social group who object to the image. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

@ BC. We do not necessarily give any weight in articles to common knowledge (since common knowledge is not a particularly reliable source of factual information). But cultural norms are not a form of knowledge, they are standards of interaction. To put a perhaps excessive point on it, it is perfectly fine to discuss the fine points of judo with anyone who wants to listen to you, but it is not acceptable to teach random strangers judo by walking up and attacking them. The latter (of course) would be a reasonably effective way of teaching judo, it's just not socially acceptable conduct. It is not socially acceptable conduct to publicly display nudity anywhere, except in well-defined situations where it is necessary or expected. Is it your argument that wikipedia should behave in ways that the vast majority of readers would consider socially unacceptable? Because if it is, I want to understand why you think that.

"should"? No. But you saying that is rhetorical, as it doesn't relate to what I said. Read the WP:MAINSTREAM essay. That's basically saying that what we're about is information and scholarship. Not social rules, norms, or beliefs except those WP has chose to adopt specifically. Now if it's your belief that experts in the field of pregnancy would say that the best way show us what pregnancy looks like is to make sure the models are clothed, then you should source that. Till we have scholarly opinion on whether the image should be clothed or not, we should not base our decisions concerning it on nudity. You know, one of the main things this page has taught me is that there's a reason WP:NOTCENSORED is so strongly worded. Focusing on offensiveness has gotten us absolutely nowhere except to make clear that we shouldn't be focusing on it. We should never have had this debate, we should have showed the people arguing "nudity" the NOTCENSORED policy, then decided the thing on its merits apart from people's feelings. All that happens when we get into people's feelings is emotional conflict with each side equally valid. It's just as valid to think that people need to see nudity for their edification as that they need to not see nudity or else they'll be addicted to porn (to quote a complaint). It's just as valid to think that the image is warm and fuzzy as it is to think it's embarrassing. And there's no reason to decide by majority rule, which is a statistic we made up (and you know public and private positions on this will probably differ). WP needs another way to decide. B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 22:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, please. You can go to any medical office you like (ObGyn's included), or the office of any professor who teaches sexuality, and you will not find a single art nude image anywhere. You will certainly not find a nude imaged positioned so that it is the most prominent thing one sees as soon as one steps in the office. A professional who did that would lose clients before he ever saw them; an academic who did it would have some lovely conversations with the dean and/or chancellor. That is simply not professional. Doubtless both the medical personnel and the academics have books and files on their shelves which depict the stages of pregnancy, but those will be clinical photos or anatomical drawings, not art nudes. I mean, it's a little creepy to think of some gynecologist whipping out a book of art nudes to demonstrate the stages of pregnancy, isn't it?

You want to ignore social norms because you want to change social norms - it's pure activism, and that is utterly against wikipedia policy. If there was real knowledge-value to this image beyond that activism you'd have convinced me already (i'm open to the idea). What would it take to convince you that there is no real value? We are not going to retain this image solely because it's a nude image - don't think for a moment I will ever agree to that. If you cannot justify including the picture on the basis of concrete knowledge and you refuse allow the picture to be removed, then we might as well give up on rational discussion and open an ArbCom case. Is that what you want to do? --Ludwigs2 23:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

An encyclopedia even an online one is akin to the books on a shelf....not a physician that would be using an encyclopedia, heaven forbid. Wikipedia cannot be compared to the physician herself or her office, or the walls in an academic's office. And I'll bet the physician's ref books have nude body parts in them.There's one very good argument for nudity over clothed figures and that is that the anatomy and physiology of pregnancy is not visible through clothing, unless we hand out xray glasses.(olive (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC))

Olive, the key word in my post was 'professionalism': professionals do not go out of their way to challenge social norms solely for the sake of challenging social norms. If I were looking up information on the penis or vagina, or on leprosy, or on decapitation, then I would obviously anticipate seeing images that some people might find disturbing. This is inherent in the nature of such topics. However, I'm not convinced that pregnancy is of that same order - I would not anticipate searching for information on pregnancy and have the first thing I see be a nude pregnant woman. It doesn't seem to track. I'm not averse to nudity on the page, mind you, but that introductory paragraph and lead image are the equivalent of our main office - whatever is there says as much about us as an encyclopedia as it does about the topic at hand.

You are right that a nude image or anatomical drawing will tell more about the physiology of pregnancy than a clothed one (though if you want to hand out the x-ray glasses anyway, that would be cool). However, we are not discussing the physiology of pregnancy in the lead paragraph, and pregnancy is much more than the physiological changes that occur during pregnancy. an image like this (not this art nude, but something more descriptive) might be useful farther down in the article where physiological changes are discussed. using it as a lead image, however, is inappropriate. Do I need to pull out the feminist arguments about how women are subjugated through physical exposure? --Ludwigs2 00:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Olive makes a very good point. One could add that, conversely, the woman in Image 1 (with clothes) could be wearing a fake pregnancy belly, as advertised and sold here - see another example here. Dessources (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Ludwig - virtually everything you have written in this new sub-section is just a regurgitation of what you have said before. It adds nothing to the discussion except volume. A wise person deciding the result of this RfC would be obliged to ignore it all. I have made my points above. As far as I am concerned you have not refuted them. I do not want to add further volume. I regard this as the more positive approach. I thus rest my case. HiLo48 (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I never said anything like your characterization of my ideas above. Now, the difference between Wikipedia and the office of a doctor is that the doctor has to be as inoffensive as possible because a "professional who did that would lose clients before he ever saw them." The difference between Wikipedia and academia is that "an academic who did it would have some lovely conversations with the dean and/or chancellor." And I am not defending a particular image, I'm saying that considerations of offense usually should not come into our decisions on WP. "You are right that a nude image or anatomical drawing will tell more about the physiology of pregnancy than a clothed one." Yes. And thank you for saying that. Remember that Wikipedia summaries are summaries of the whole article, and the image should be a summary also. Who knows, to capture both the emotional and medical aspects of pregnancy, maybe an art nude is exactly what we need? Again, I'm not defending the current image, what I am doing is defining the difference between Wikipedia and other venues. B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 00:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

If we have a penis article then seems to me by this logic , we'd better put the offending organ into a cod piece. We all know what's under the codpiece. Feminist arguments are probably red herrings. I prefer we pull out the x ray glasses. <|>< (olive (talk) 01:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC))

My comments are just my opinions, and they are meant to expressed in a lighthearted way, with no desire to offend anyone or create a battle ground environment. Life is too short.(olive (talk) 03:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC))

This article is about pregnancy as a whole, not just the medical and anatomical aspects. At present it seems to concentrate rather too much on those aspects. This may be because some readers thing that 'medical nudity' is necessary to justify the current image. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

This article is highly medical in its content, presentation and language - and this is a good thing. This article is rated as Top-importance in WikiProject Medicine projects Reproductive medicine and Sexuality. The current lead image sets the proper tone and is fully consistent with the overall content of the article. If you are looking for something else, I suggest you go to the article on Pregnancy in the Simple English Wikipedia.

I get the feeling of repeating myself. There is no novel argument in this discussion, which seems stuck in a loop. Something needs to be done to get out of it, as it is a waste of many editors's precious time, who could use it much more productively, as there are so many real improvements that are still pending almost everywhere.

Dessources (talk) 10:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not saying that the medical aspect is not important or that anything medical should be removed from the article but there is more to pregnancy than medicine. We are writing for the general public not doctors. My point is the the current image is justified as a good overall representation of pregnancy and not just because of the medical nature of this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Dessources, I have just noticed that you are arguing needlessly with me. You say, 'The current lead image sets the proper tone and is fully consistent with the overall content of the article'. Yes, I agree with you completely, I want to keep the image too Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Sorry, I indeed misunderstood your position.Dessources (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Heavens, this discussion is silly: I haven't seen such thoroughly loopy reasoning since the last time I tried to teach Marxist theory to incoming freshmen. I mean seriously, you seem to be arguing that:

Wikipedia should not aim for a professional tone, but should confront societal norms wherever a few editors have decided they don't like those norms
That an art nude image contains some sort of 'medical value'
That nudity should always be included except where there's a good reason to exclude it (combined, apparently, with the belief that there is never a good reason to remove nudity)
That educating people somehow requires offending them.

There is simply no point in discussing this issue anymore, because too many people here are willing to sacrifice common sense and common courtesy in order to get their way. So, I'm stop responding now and wait for the RfC to run its course. And if the RfC goes against the image, and you people start pulling stupid crap to block the change to the new image, we're going straight to arbitration. I'm fed up arguing with closed-minded fools, and I will leave it to the arbitration committee to deal with you. --Ludwigs2 15:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone here think that there should be an RfC which asks the real question, which is "Should we move the current image down so as not to offend people with nudity?" B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 16:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

But that is not the real question. The real question is: what is the primary purpose of this article, and which image best illustrates it? If no currently available image is satisfactory, what is the ideal illustration, and how can we obtain one? The discussion should deal with this article, and only this article, and should not be a battleground on questions of censorship or "nudity" in general. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure, that's next down the list. But the current RfC answers the question as I stated it... except it's not being put to people that way, so what is the real consensus? What is the current RfC telling us? Why isn't the main concern people have (nudity) mentioned? I'm talking about the way the current RfC question was first changed, and now is not asking the question many people are thinking and arguing about. B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 16:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

No, BC, that's just the question that's stuck in your head. every time I try to pull the conversation away from that to the more sensible issue of the value of the image, you (or someone else) draws it back to the nudity thing. I swear, I think you guys are more obsessed with nudity than the people you think are trying to censor it.

At any rate, I still like the picture I suggested earlier. it's not perfect, but it's better than the art nude. and if not, there's half a gagillion images of pregnant women on the web - we should be spending our time finding one we can all agree on rather than haggling over one we never will agree on. --Ludwigs2 17:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

So how, exactly is your preferred image better than the current one? Is it still a matter of social norms? Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

For some reason, you all seem to think that seeing skin is important in the lead image. I think that's silly, personally, but this is a compromise: it lets you have your skin, but stays at least marginally within the bounds of social norms. Add that it's a better quality picture, that there are absolutely no questions about its licensing, that there are no worries about identifying the model, that it's less of an 'art nude' (it could actually pass as a clinical photo, which the current picture cannot)... what's your objection? --Ludwigs2 21:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Would those be the social norms concerning the display of certain body parts? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Does that matter? --Ludwigs2 00:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Nudity was never in the RfC as the person who proposed it did not and does not have any issue with nudity.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure looks like nudity is an issue with the RFC proposer to me.[7] Dreadstar ☥ 04:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll just briefly return here to emphasise yet again that we haven't even yet decided what this discussion is about. The RfC itself changed several times, and arguments have occurred on far more aspects of this image that the RfC ever covered. The whole discussion is a pointless mess. Anyone ready to start again with a clear, simple, unambiguous RfC? HiLo48 (talk) 04:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Seeing how I proposed http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pregnancy_34_weeks1.jpg after further work on the background takes place I am not sure how you can say this.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

That would be a good option if it can gain support. I was looking at it earlier. I personally hate low res pictures, and this is large. It's a good informational piece. The labeling sucks though. B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 21:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree it would be good to get rid of the labeling.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Recap: arbitrary break

What kind of phrasing would you suggest? B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 06:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)The RfC is a mess because of the emotional attachments of the people involved. There is no way to formulate this RfC so that it does not break down into an ungodly mess, because however we frame it people on your side of the debate are going to be arguing about nudity and censorship, and people on my side of the debate are going to be talking about the inappropriateness of using an art nude to lead off the article. You will not accept the inappropriateness argument - ever - I will not accept the censorship argument - ever - so fussing with the wording is not going to help. The RfC is as good as its going to get, and we can assume that the people who respond to it are smart enough not to get caught up in the bull. Your desire to start another RfC strikes me merely as a delaying tactic (one where you can keep the image active for another month, and then try to challenge the value of that RfC if you start to lose again), and so I would only consider it if the image were swapped out first so that the alternate image (or no image at all) would stay on the article for the duration. we're not going to play king-of-the-hill with this.

Really, though, this RfC is fine, and if you're just angling for a way to dispute it when it tallies up against what you want then let's cut the crap and take it to arbcom right now. I don't want to waste months of my life squabbling with you guys because you've dug in your heels like frigging mules. There are some serious page-ownership issues already in play here - don't exacerbate it. --Ludwigs2 06:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Erm, if the last IS the same person, during pregnancy, that IS fully valid for the context of the article. She exhibits classic signs of pigment change, postural change, belly growth and pigment changes that are ALL associated with pregnancy. The ONLY thing lacking is cervical color differences, which is quite acceptable, as THAT belongs in medical textbooks and experience.Wzrd1 (talk) 06:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that those who want to change the image seem embarrassed to give their reasons for wanting the change. It has become quite clear to me that the reason is that some editors here want the image changed or moved because it shows a woman's breasts. I can see no other reason for preferring the nude image shown above to the current one, unless someone is going to claim that the lighting or background are incomparably better or that the woman's skin is slightly darker or that the foetus has consented to the image being shown in WP.

I see no reason for another RfC, we have already seen that there is no consensus for change. If it is decided that another RfC is a good idea then we should be completely open about the subject of the dispute. The question should be something like, 'Can we show a woman's bare breasts in the lead image of an article on pregnancy?'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Since they won't tell us and we have to guess, I think the "inappropriate" opposers are happy with seeing a lot of bare skin of the breasts. It's that couple of square inches of evil nipples that's the problem. HiLo48 (talk) 09:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It does look that way. There never has been a clearly stated and valid objection to the current image. Until we have one, I think we should move on and leave the current image where it is. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. See also my comment in the section below. Dessources (talk) 13:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Although, to be fair, the rationales from the "move image" editors did include "not safe for work" and "may shock children", which are understandable concerns, but are not very strong compared to the encyclopedic worth of the current, modest image at top. --Noleander (talk) 13:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You are all ignoring what I actually said in order to make up some stupid drivel about nipples. That's the behavior of trolls, or idiots, or FOX News pundits. If you cannot argue intelligently, don't poison the page with your moronic speculations. --Ludwigs2 14:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs, there would be no need for speculation if you would be kind enough to tell us exactly what your objection is to the current image is and who would be offended by it. You have consistently avoided doing this. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I have told you, repeatedly: it goes against conventional norms. This is self-evident, and hardly calls for explanation. I'm not averse to Wikipedia violating conventional norms where there is a good reason to, there just isn't a good reason to do so in this case.

I don't understand why you'd want more specificity than that. are you trying to argue that wikipedia should respect some conventional norms and violate others? So far as I see it, Wikipedia only violates norms where it is required for the writing of the encyclopedia; it doesn't violate social norms as a matter of policy. If you believe that's incorrect, then please state explicitly which social norms wikipedia should violate as a matter of policy, and why those norms should be violated. --Ludwigs2 18:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You are still avoiding the questions. Why does the current image violate these norms and your proposed image not? Whose norms are they? These are simple questions, why not answer them? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you disagreeing that they do? Tell me why you disagree. And p.s. - don't play politics with me. I realize you think you're being tricky, but I'm not going to frame your position for you. if you don't have the balls to say what you mean, too bad. --Ludwigs2 18:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs, you are the one making the claim that the image is violating social norms. I do not think it unreasonable of me to ask what aspect of the image violates the norms and which society you are referring to. Why not just answer? It would save much pointless discussion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I keep seeing the argument that medical texts on pregnancy show a picture very similar to what we have now. I have newer seen a medical text on pregnancy illustrated on the front cover with an image like this. Could someone please link to one? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I, for one, have never made this claim and I do not see any sighn of the claim being repeated by anyone else. This is an encyclopedia article about the subject of pregnancy in general. I thing the current image is a good introduction. What exactly is your objection to it? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Have nothing against the image other than it is artsy. The background has been improved thanks to D but there is still poor contrast between the background and the subject. Thus I support moving the current image to the section on second trimester and using the other in the lead.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not the most artsy image I have seen but in any case why not? This is not, or at least it should not be, a medical article. It is about pregnancy in general and I think the current image suits that subject well. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me self proclaimed art critics. What does artsy mean? And why is it a pejorative? HiLo48 (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Artsy: making a strong, affected, or pretentious display of being artistic. It's a pejorative in most cases because it has a quality of 'fakeness' to it. In this case I think he means it's more style than substance. --Ludwigs2 20:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The reasons to change get ever more bizarre. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Grow up, Martin. --Ludwigs2 23:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)