Talk:Pregnancy: Difference between revisions

Sexology and sexuality B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

Archives
Archive 1 (April 2005 - Sept. 2006)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(UTC)

Please cease from putting inapropriate images in Wikipedia. bobsmith319.

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

Thanks for your help, bobsmith319.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous user: please use two dashes (-) and four tildes(~) to sign your name properly. Bobsmith319, I can speak for myself when I say I know what you mean, but Wikipedia is a user content site, and users edit it. All of these users here edit, and will continue to edit that picture back in if you, or any others like you remove it without cause. The cause you have stated is it is "pornography." The users here declare it is not "pornography" and shall keep it in the article. Please, drop the subject. Wikipedia Users have spoken how this article shall stay.--WhereAmI 02:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FAQ about pregnacy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I. First, my user name is Ferrylodge.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry if this is a stupid question.

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

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

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

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

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

Ferrylodge 04:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ferrylodge 02:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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