Misplaced Pages

• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming to newcomers
• Seek dispute resolution if needed

• Neutral point of view
• No original research
• Verifiability

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11

RfC extension

Since Nil Einne has recently notified editors about the RfC it should probably be extended to accommodate any of those editors who wish to vote.(olive (talk) 14:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC))

Please could you, or Doc, or whoever is running this RfC give a clear statement on when and how the RfC will be closed. Thanks, Uniplex (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

RfC's can be extended by anyone at anytime. Because some editors were notified very recently that there was another RfC, I'm suggesting above the RfC remain open for some extended period of time. RfCs are not vote counts, but are decided on discussion and the sense that consensus has been reached. Because of the contentious nature of this RfC, it should probably be closed by an uninvolved admin or highly experienced editor.(My opinion). (olive (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC))

Thanks Olive, but I'm still not clear when the current scheduled end date is for the RfC; has it been extended or not? Whenever it is closed, someone, preferably not an uninvolved admin, should collate the arguments for and against; that then becomes the basis for determining consensus or for further discussion. No, I'm not volunteering. As it seems that Doc started the RfC, he's the obvious first choice. Uniplex (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Te bot removed the RfC tag. By default tags are removed after 30 days. However, there are still votes coming and and discussion is ongoing. If we want an official extension I suppose we'd have to retag the article, but unofficially the RfC is open if some want it to be open. The retag would make sure other uninvolved editors are aware of the ongoing discussions. So, at this point I don't see that the RfC is closed. In this instance, because of the contentious quality of the RfC, I would suggest we leave everything to the closing admin, and not have anyone else summarize. There's too much misunderstanding about what others are saying to think such a process wouldn't ignite more fires. These are my opinions and I don't speak for anyone else, of course.(olive (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC))

Admins don't always have a lot of time; if presented with a mess, they're likely to say "no consensus" which will in this case will result in the guideline "not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic" being invoked. It's in the interests of both sides of the debate to make sure that their argument is clearly presented and thus stand the best chance of being identified the one that represents consensus. Uniplex (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

How about we leave it open until Dec 2nd? Do people feel that is enough time for those notified to comment? I will than post at the AN for an admin to rule on the outcome.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

No amount of time is appropriate. This RfC is an abuse of process. The fact that it was started immediately after the closure of the last one showed an incredible absence of good faith. The whole thing should be closed now. Some respectable amount of time, may three months minimum, should be allowed to elapse now before the censors and conservatives, if they are still so obsessed, should be allowed to commence a new one. (Or even choose to open a new one if they display decent good faith.) HiLo48 (talk) 06:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the rights and wrongs of it, we are where we are. If there's been any breach of process, the closing admin will take that into account. Dec 2nd seems fine, enough time for any polishing of arguments, while prolonging this episode no more than necessary. Uniplex (talk) 11:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I would still like someone to tell me in 100 words or less what new arguments have been presented to change the current image. All I have seen is regurgitation of the same arguments made in the previous RfC. Again, we should not not allow a new RfC without new reasons. HiLo48 (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You know, you keep saying that, and I keep wondering why its relevant. Can you dig up the appropriate bit of policy for me, as a reminder?--Tznkai (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:GOODFAITH HiLo48 (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

A policy you have been playing fast and loose with, along with a few other behavioral ones. But that isn't the point. What policy on Misplaced Pages prevents new RfCs from gauging or building a consensus under whatever circumstances you ascribe to the situation here? The policy of the assumption of good faith in fact tells us to assume that the new RFC is in good faith, and afforded all the courtesy thereof. --Tznkai (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Support image 1

• Support Better quality. Improves ethnic diversity of the project.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support, on condition that image two be used further down in the article, as suggested by multiple editors above. Otherwise use image two in the lead. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Yes agree and that is how it was.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment sounds reasonable that way, and, "when in doubt, don't change nuthin'" (non-interventionism, see ). GeoBard 01:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support Better quality image. More representative of our multi-ethnic, worldwide audience than yet another white woman. Unlike placing a nude in the lead, an image of a fully clothed woman complies with the Wikimedia Foundation Board's resolution on the use of images and the principle of least astonishment. It's appropriate for this article to lead with a third-trimester pregnancy, rather than one just five and a half months after conception. The art nude by an amateur art photographer is less encyclopedic. Also, the art nude can be used far more effectively, with a detailed caption, if it's placed lower in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support a) Image 1 is unlikely to attract as many complaints and drama as Image 2, b) better composition of the picture, c) Image 1 adds ethnic diversity, d) Image 1 emphasizes cultural aspects of pregnancy and maternity clothes, e) all pregnant women I've seen in my life wore clothes, and f) the majority of arguments in favor of image 2 in the past RfC were "ILIKEIT". --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Image one is of much better image quality in terms of technique, focus, lighting, and composition, and, by depicting a person of color, provides diversity in which en.wikipedia is sometimes lacking. The nude image would be fine lower down in the article, but is notably inferior in terms of having a role in the lede. Nandesuka (talk) 01:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Objection to this abuse of process. These are same players as before. I guess we'll just keep iVoting until they get their preferred image in place, eh? I strongly object to this abuse of process. Dreadstar ☥ 01:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

  Please assume good faith. I find your doing otherwise fairly offensive. Nandesuka (talk) 01:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

  This wasn't directed at you, it was a general comment about this immediately-repeated-RFC. "Doc James" edited my comment to make it look like I was responding to you, when I wasn't. Another abuse of process by that editor. Nice. Dreadstar ☥ 01:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I think Sonicyouth86 summarized my points from the last RfC pretty well. We could find a better image, but of these two I think this one works better. While I can't uniformly endorse the Foundation resolution since there are technical issues with content control, I do think the "principle of least astonishment" is reasonable, especially when there is no clear educational benefit to the other image. SDY (talk) 01:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support Both images are worthless. Neither tells the reader anything she or he didn't already know, both are simply emblematic of the topic, the kind of images that would accompany a Hello (magazine) article, not an encyclopedia article. Since it seems to be understood in this RfC that the article has to have a worthless gratuitous emblematic image in the lead, I go for this one for WhatamIdoing's rationale (least astonishment). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Image 1 is more what one would expect in an encyclopedia. -- Adjwilley (talk) 05:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Multiple reasons were already provided above. Image 1 is a more encyclopedic having enough meanings for its purpose (the LEAD), as long as the quality is good and there ain't anything scientifically behind a nude image. Also, the skin-color notes are pathetic. ~ AdvertAdam 06:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support: Image 1 is a better quality image over all. --Ludwigs2 14:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Completely ignoring the nudity (and ethnicity) aspect, it's by far a better image overall. Swarm 21:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Principle of least astonishment. Yoenit (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: What is astonishing? Do you think people who wish to read an encyclopedia article about pregnancy would be astonished to find out that women have breasts? Wondering, -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, I find it sadly astonishing that there are so many prudes in the world. It's not the case where I live. Where do you all come from? Middle America? HiLo48 (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support, per Yoenit above (the principle of least astonishment)—Image 1 in the lead, Image 2 further into the article. Both images have merit.--Miniapolis (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Miniapolis—Image 1 in the lead, Image 2 further into the article. Both images have merit. --JN466 18:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support I love pictures of naked women as much as anyone, but I'd hate to do an innocent search at work and have the article display an image that's NSFW. Thank god that I didn't check out this discussion at work. I wouldn't have expected a picture of a naked person featured so prominently. Especially since this article is mistitled "Pregnancy". It's not about pregnancy at all, it's about human pregnancy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: Your comment that this article might be better entitled "human pregnancy" is a valid observation, but is not relevant to this discussion. A proposal to retitle the page might be made as a separate issue. As to your "NSFW" comment, if someone wishes to read an illustrated article on pregnancy (whether at work or wherever), I don't see how illustrations of female anatomy would not be expected. Infrogmation (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support Err, yeah, surprised to see the naked women... folks, people have bee hiding their nudity since time immemorial. There's a reason for it. II | (t - c)
  • Comment: Yes, there are many cultural taboos in many contexts. Both nudity and pregnancy have long been "hidden" in many cultures. In the United States, the very word "pregnancy" was prohibited from being used for decades per the Hayes Code. I do not think Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic coverage of basic facts about adult topics should be compromised for the sake of prudery. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Yoenit, Miniapolis, and JN466. Is this still being discussed? Deliver the kid already! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Image 1 is a better illustration for the article since it shows a full-term pregnancy. It is also just a better quality photograph. Kaldari (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support It's not like there isn't nudity on the page already, but I think that the first lead is more appropriate as a depiction. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Choice of image must be based on evidence of harm/benefit, not myth and prejudice. Malcolm.boura (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support Under principal of least astonishment but I would prefer a cross-section medical illustration. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support I support the presence of Image 1 in the introduction in the article. I realize that Misplaced Pages is not censored. However, why cause any offense when there is an easy alternative? Proinde, Image 1 should take its place in the introduction. With regards, Anupam 01:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• If you don't want to cause ANY offence, you won't have a picture at all. Some people are offended by bare skin. What you really should have said is "To satisfy MY cultural biases, we should use Image 1." HiLo48 (talk) 02:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support Principle of least astonishment and all that. No one expects to have a photo of a naked woman front and center when they search for pregnancy. The "asian woman" image below is fine too, but I think I prefer this one. Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Generalisations are not a good idea here. I wasn't bothered by the naked woman. It seemed perfectly natural to have such a picture in this article. You know that I am not alone in that view, so why post such rubbish? Your post is pointless. HiLo48 (talk) 07:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Stop being obtuse. (I'd use stronger language, but don't want to get into an exchange of personal attacks.) I certainly did not expect a naked woman when looking at this article, and the vast majority of users would not either (see above comments). Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

What was "obtuse" about my post? You said "No one expects". I pointed out the obvious. You were wrong. That is not being obtuse. HiLo48 (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• I haven't supported until now because I felt that this RfC was out of process... but as it has gone on for almost a month and the arguments have been better formulated I have to support a change. This is largely driven by the primary arguments I've seen for keeping the nude in the lead.

• "it shows the changes that happen to the body of a pregnant woman"---if that were the criteria, then we would need an image with before and after images. You cannot tell what changes happen to a pregnant woman if you don't have a starting point.
• "it expresses one more thing; that pregnancy is also a state of mind"---Pregnancy is not a state of mind. While there are hormonal changes, those changes vary form person to person. This is a romantic view of pregnancy and a specific POV.
• "In brief, I said and repeat that this is the ideal encyclopedic illustration."---if it were the ideal illustration, then this would have been a quick and easy discussion. Not a long drawn out one involving over a hundred editors and a gigs worth of data.
• "clear medical connotations"... which are? The best I can deduce, is that the "clear medical connotations" are relative to the "state of mind" above.
• "to show an image that communicates information and values, and, important among such values, saying that it is not sinful to see the breast of a pregnant woman," No. The role of Misplaced Pages is not to teach morals or to teach that it is not sinful to see the breast of a pranant woman. That is a POV.
• "to breastfeed when in public, as this not only the natural way of feeding a baby"... again a POV. Part of the problem with the image is that it presents a notion that Natural childbirthers would be comfortable with---but that is a POV and the tone of that POV is set by this image in the lead.
• "one that creates a feeling of fullfiilment both in the mother and the baby. An encyclopedia should not obfuscate such a message"... er, the role of the encyclopedia is not to teach that message.

The other major argument that we've seen here is, "We already have an RfC result confirming that there is nothing wrong with the current picture." No, we don't. We had an RfC that ended with no consensus. No consensus <> endorsement. And while I felt starting this RfC was pushing it, I think we've had enough discussion here with several solid reasons to change beyond the fact that the image is a nude. Issues raised by the opposers about what the POV of the nude implies in relation to the subject of pregnancy---which the supporters of the nude acknowledged (as highlighted above.) Issues about princple of least surprise and what people expect to see in the lead. Issues about the tone of the article and objective of setting the right tone in the lead. Through all of this, I've come to realize that the issue is not merely about "censorship" because we are dealing with a nude, but rather that a nude in an article on pregnancy carries a very real and pointed POV (for example Natural childbirth and breast feeding. I also want to clarify that I am NOT calling for he removal of the image, I think it does have value... but the image needs to be presented in context of whole. Standing alone, it sets a specific tone that IMO is detrimental to the article.---Balloonman 15:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

And that is a bad faith post. This regurgitated, out of place RfC is being ignored by many of the earlier participants, for several reason, least of which is that there was no reason for it to even start. You say "This is largely driven by the primary arguments I've seen for keeping the nude in the lead." Well, where are they? Many of those supporting that psoition have gone away. You are considering fresh arguments from one side, while not even seeking fresh argument from the other. You don't want due process. You just want your way. HiLo48 (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the ABF... but no, my arguments above are based upon the fresh arguments that Dessources has provided in the past 36 hours. Des has provided them, and they have provided the foundation for my opposition.---Balloonman 21:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support Image 1 per the cogent arguments of WhatamIdoing. I see nothing that image 2 adds to the understanding of the article that is not in image 1, and thus no reason why it should be given top billing. -- Avi (talk) 05:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support I don't think I could add anything new to the above! SarahStierch (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support; better quality and illustrative image. This is an infobox image so it seems entirely fine to choose something that looks nice. The nude images are important later to demonstrate the physical changes that occur in detail. But in the lead I think we need a good picture of a pregnant woman. --Errant 15:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support I guess I support this option, if only because the anti-nudity crowd is going to litigate this repeatedly forever and everyone else might as well give in to them now to end the otherwise endless argument. Nathan 15:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support For reasons above. CarolMooreDC 16:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Doc James, WhatamIdoing, Sonicyouth86, Nandesuka, and probably a bunch of others once I read their comments. Gamaliel (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support, per everyone else - the principle of least astonishment is a good guide here. Also think that this RFC should settle the issue once and for all. JFW | T@lk 18:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• What on earth do you mean by "everyone else"? If everyone agreed, this page would be empty. I find debates with people who say stupid things very frustrating. HiLo48 (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support Haven't we been though this already. Move the nude one down and put the clothed one in the lead. WhatamIdoing's arguments make sense. AIRcorn (talk) 02:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• And there's the bit I cannot comprehend. If a nude image is unacceptable, how can it be OK for readers to encounter it by scrolling? Makes no sense. HiLo48 (talk) 06:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Are you going to badger everyone that doesn't agree with you? Where have I said that the nude image was unacceptable? I was agreeing with WAID's excellent reasoning. You need to take a step back, you are taking this far too personally. AIRcorn (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support I thought this has been discussed? Whatever happened to the outcome? Bejinhan talks 04:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The last RfC ended in a no-consensus.---Balloonman 19:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support. The nude photo is beautiful and does have its place in the article where it has a closer connection to the text, but not at the top. For the top of the article we need a photo of a "pregnant woman", not a photo of a "pregnant woman on a horse", a "pregnant woman wearing a silly hat" or a "nude pregnant woman". Pregnancy should be the first thing that comes to mind when seeing the top photo, and must not be overshadowed by distracting irrelevant details such as nudity. Yes, the anatomical details can be seen better in a nude picture, which is precisely why the photo should be shown further down. It's a perfect fit for Pregnancy#Second trimester. Hans Adler 08:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support, for just so many reasons (WP:ASTONISH, the failure of the supporters of the nude image to even make a pretense of finding an argument for its encyclopedic necessity that could pass the laugh test ("We have to show how it affects her breasts" ... really, this is what they said, when they said anything), the fact that pregnant women do not generally parade about in the nude in most cultures, and just about every other argument). Daniel Case (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support, per all the reasons Dan Case summarizes. This does not mean we shouldn't have the other photo in the article at all, we should, but per principle of least astonishment, it can be moved down. We certainly should show it to people reading further in the article, but that's not sufficient reason to stick it in the lead. --GRuban (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support: Why is that so important to use a naked picture? Does it mean we should show naked pictures in entries about medical conditions which have visible signs? NCurse _work 19:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, of course, in appropriate context, and in other physiological matters too, such as in pregnancy. It isn't the nakedness that counts as such, but that the picture should illustrate the subject appropriately, much as that one does. For one thing it conveys the realisation that pregnancy is an all-over thing, not a balloon under a dress. What did you think? Was that a serious question? Please be gentle; my leg comes off easily if you pull it too hard. JonRichfield (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Why is it so important to hide nipples? Is it an instruction from God? HiLo48 (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Come off it HiLo, your badgering and cheap shots are starting to border on disruptive.---Balloonman 17:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Mine was a perfectly valid response to a post that asks "Why is that so important to use a naked picture?" I also know that in debates it's important to understand the real motives for the positions taken by others, hence my guess at God. If you cannot tell us what your real problem is with nudity in this context, you're not being honest. If you regard pushing you to think about these issues as badgering, you are not really debating this at core levels. HiLo48 (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

in appropriate context, and in other physiological matters too, such as in pregnancy... therein lies the key. In proper context most of the people who support image 1 have no problem with image 2. The problem is that the lead is not the proper context. The lead image has zero context; thus needs to speak for itself in a neutral manner. If thise were a controversial subject, I could see a controversial image in the lead... but it's not. This is a fairly garden variety article, and the lead image should similarly be garden variety. The fact that some think that a nude is required IN THE LEAD has not been supported by any argument. Arguments to the effect that it is necessary to show the nude because it demonstrates the changes women are perfectly legit---but you need the context. Without the "appropriate context" the image is left on its own, in which case it sets a tone that is contrary to the best interests of the article. Because it is controversial, some might not read the article. But more than that, on an article on pregnancy in particular, nudes often represent a specific philosophical ground for pregnancy. By having a nude in the lead, you leave people wondering if that philosophy influenced the article. So despite HiLo's paranoia, this isn't merely about "nipple"/conservative bigotry/ditates from God---it is about good article development. The argument I'm making (and other have made) isn't "This is porn and should be removed," but rather "Does the value of an unexplained nude IN THE LEAD add to or hinder the article? And if it adds to it, does it do so to such a degree that the merits outweigh the costs?" In this case, I have yet to see a rationale argument made that counters the concerns (both real and imagined) to make me say yes. From an editorial perspective Image 1 the nude does not inherently and unquestionably benefit the article IN THE LEAD. Elsewhere, in "appropraite context" as you put it, yes most definitely. But does it have the appropriate contex in THIS ARTICLE on its own in the lead?---Balloonman 17:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

BM, your clinical attitude does you credit of course, but some aspects of your views are confusing. (Mind you, after responding to UP just below, I admit that you seem a trifle less alien than you did a while ago.) Still, what is all this about badgering? A correspondent expresses certain views and gets contradicted. He is unconvinced, so he presents his views again in different wording in different contexts. Da capo a few times. Now he is badgering? Naughty fellow! He shouldn't do that, should he? After say, the third round he should say: "Hey, that was the third time, I mustn't persist, must I? OK, you must be right after all!"

Ahem! I am missing something?

However, back to the clinic. It is good, I must accept, that you give an impression of such passion over the quality of the article, combined with such dispassion about the clothing of the model. And with such authority too! I admit that it had not occurred to me that the unsuitability of a nude pregnant woman for the lede of an article on pregnancy would be so err... stark, so stark in fact that deadly doubts about the article's philosophy would arise in the mind of anyone opening the site. I am so shaken in my conviction that before i proceed, I should be grateful if you were to explain, in the light of your claim: "But more than that, on an article on pregnancy in particular, nudes often represent a specific philosophical ground for pregnancy" just what "specific philosophical ground" that might be. Not to mention why you deny that the title of the article constitutes a context? Thanks in anticipation; there is nothing like WP discussions for learning radically new points of view. JonRichfield (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

1) RE Badgering... HiLo has essentially admitted that he is not contributing to the discussion on the merits of the image. His contributions are nothing more than 1) this is censorship 2) this was already decided ergo everybody who contributes to the discussion now is doing so in bad faith, and 3) making snide comments about users and their motives. He has added the most to this debate while adding the least amount of merit.

2) Natural childbirth is a school of thought on the subject of pregnancy that is embraced by both the far left and the far right. It is often characterized by people who give birth at home with a midwife as compared to going to the hospital and done so because it is the "natural way." It is a school of thought that Dessources arguments seem to embrace. Pregnancy is a beautiful state of mind that we should all gather around the pregnant woman and sing kumbyah. It is a school of thought that pregnancy is a "state of mind" and a beautiful thing to be embraced. This school of though can be somewhat activist in its approach. Many natural childbirthers believe in breast feeding, no immunizations, natural bonding, and in days gone by communal beds, but I haven't heard that notion recently. Having a pregnant woman in the lead harkens to that stereotype.

But beyond natural childbirth, a nude in the lead has other philosophical influences. Who is more likely to input a nude into the lead? A liberal or a conservative? Let's not get distracted by the image itself, but the very existence of a nude in the lead implies what about the authors of the article? When dealing with the subject of Pregnancy, which can have both a sexual and political ramifications, what does having a nude in the lead say about the people who wrote the article? Therefore what might the article say about abortion? Stem cell research? Natural childbirth? Adoption? etc? What POV might the authors be pushing? A nude in the lead on pregnancy has the potential of saying something that a nude in another article might not because of highly charged issues unique to pregnancy.

Now the immediate question becomes, if a nude says X, wouldn't a clothed woman say the opposite? No. Because people wouldn't be shocked by a clothed woman. A clothed/partially clothed woman would not raise the same barriers/concerns/questions about the authors because a clothed woman is more expected. A clothed/partially clothed woman does not say, "this was written by people with a conservative view on issues surrounding pregnancy" like a nude might.

Here is where "Appropriate context" arrives. The image which in the lead might create controversay, can then be used elsewhere without creating the same barrier. A person who might be offended by a nude in the lead, might not be offended elsewhere for two reasons. 1) Hopefully the writing has built a level of trust with the reader that it is no longer a "shock" but education and 2) Hopefully, the writing has introduced the subject so that the reader now has the appropriate context to interpret the image and understand why it is there. Without the context, the value of the image is lost.

Finally, some people are just going to be offended by a nude/partial nude. Yes; but my argument and the argument of many of the people who want to move the article isn't about them. This isn't about "OMG Nipple" or "OMG it's a nude", but rather about what is actually best for the article? What does this image do to THIS article in the LEAD? How can we reach the most people and educate the most people with this article?

3) As for context, the title is pregnancy not natural childbirth. In natural childbirth, Image 2 would be a no-brainer. People who went to that page knowing what the subject was would not be surprised to see a nude there. The philosophy of natural childbirth would make it acceptable. Pregnancy is a garden variety subject---very vanilla. One does not expect to read the article and be challenged or caught off guard; which is what the nude does (see above).---Balloonman 18:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Natural childbirth has nothing to do with nudity or the lack of it. It refers to interventions especially of western medicine. Pregnancy is physiological . We inform when we show the physiology. The lead has text which educates the reader in a general way so that even if the reader does not read anymore they will have sense of what pregnancy is. The nude image educates in the same way, by giving a visual overview of the physiological state called pregnancy. I can easily say, as this is all opinion that very few readers would find the nude image surprising. Indeed other Misplaced Pages's are using the same image. So they too must think the image is neither offensive nor non informative nor surprising. Bit like many of our arguments this is all opinion and assumption.(olive (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC))

BM, get real! I really am not about to take a census to find out how many readers saw that page and said: "Omigard, this article is going to be about shocking me with natural childbirth." And frankly, with these samples of your creativity to go by, I wouldn't put much credence in any attempt to do so that you might undertake. As for your unique competence to design the right article, pics and all, there is a very simple way for you to demonstrate it and settle the whole fuss at a stroke: copy the text of this article, as amended by yourself to your own taste, pictures and all, into a new article called say, "Female pregnancy". Then see how the acceptance of the two articles differs, after which we could delete the loser. Speaking as a sample of one, the thought of natural childbirth never, really never, even crossed my mind till you raised it. I hav to agree with LO. Sorry 'bout that, mate! JonRichfield (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, can you be any less eloquent in your rationale.---Balloonman 21:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

(EC re Olive)A minority of other wikipedias use the nude (12 of 83 with articles linking here).

As for naked images and natural childbirth---yes the two are related. Being naked during delivery is a common theme among many Natural Childbirthers, particularly those who advocate home births. This motif has been around for generations.

I encourage you to educate yourself on the Bradley Method, particularly a book entitled "Natural Childbirth the Bradley Way" by Susan McCutcheon. This book was first published in 1970 and was once the bible of the Natural Childbirth movement in the U.S. and the revised version is still #22 on Amazon on pregnancy and childbirth. The book is also famous for the fact that just about every pregnant woman is nude and it has paved the image many Americans have of the natural childbirth/homebirth schools of though have.

In the "Business of Being Born" Ricki Lake made a high profile documentary with her naked in a tub giving birth to her 3rd child. This video is widely touted in homebirth natural childbirth circles as it showed a high profile star naked while giving birth.

A UK Natural Chilbirth charity launched a campaign featuring naked women

If you picked up a book on pregnancy with a nude on the cover, I'd be willing to bet that it was a book on homebirth or natural childbirth. So yes, naked pregnant women does carry connotations beyond merely being a nude.---Balloonman 21:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Well BM, it seems that we are getting near the bone, if your increasingly shrill fleeing of the point is anything to go by. "Natural childbirth" by all that is holy...! I doubt that anyone else gave a thought to natural childbirth until the point came up, and if they did, I doubt that they gave it a second thought. If they were looking for it in particular, they would be badly disappointed I am sure, because I have just checked and the text does not even mention natural childbirth, except once obliquely in passing, and not by that name, nor in connection with nudity. For my part I neither thought about it, nor would I have cared if I did. I don't know what you have against natural childbirth apart from its somehow entailing nudity in your mind, but the bellowing wave of horrified readers who have seen (Oh, Lawks-a-mussy!) the nudity and inferred (Wuss and wuss!) the natural childbirth, have not yet materialised, so you calm your curly lil head, drink your hot milk, and go bye-byes! Who knows, that revolting natural childbirther may in the mean time have seen the disgusting error of her ways and put her clothes on again, as the Creator intended. JonRichfield (talk) 09:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support, pregnant women tend to wear clothes—special, pregnancy clothes at that. No problem with the other pic being used further down with suitable discussion. Uniplex (talk) 12:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that pregnant women wear special pregnancy clothes further up, but not further down, and that is why you have no problem putting the picture of the lady not wearing clothes further down? The article is about the women, not about their clothes. The only mention of maternity clothes in the article so far is about a dozen pages down, so if you want the (undoubtedly attractively) clad lady as well, that is where to put her, not the nude. In fact, even there it would be a bit of an indulgence, because the mention is just a link to an article on pregnancy clothing, but it is a nice picture and would do no harm where clothing is mentioned, even though that is not the primary point of the article. If what you are trying to do is to establish the right place for the picture that shows the pregnant woman rather than her clothing, then that accordingly would be near the top, which is where the woman's pregnancy is first discussed, without mention of full dress and medals. I accept that the clothed lady also is nude under her clothing, but that clothing does seem to obscure some details all the same, right? Simple, no? JonRichfield (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that those whose understanding of pregnancy (the topic) may be assisted by a pic, are more likely to recognize it from pic 1: pregnant women tend to wear clothes and tend to be observed wearing clothes. Uniplex (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

UP. I admit it roundly: you have gobsmacked me utterly. I had to read and re-read what you wrote before I could believe that you really meant to write that. This is a matter of... recognition??? Yo makka da choke, yes? Am I to imagine a reader who looks up "pregnancy", poring over the bare pic, scratching his head and saying something like: "Gee that broad must have had a biiig supper; just look at her belly!" The poor innocent! Until he had read a helpful caption, he could have got no idea that the reason she was that shape was because she was pregnant. Or would he be equally incapable of recognising a case of overeating in a woman without clothes? We had better make the captions very simple and display them in a bold font if we don't want to confuse our readers with unfamiliar ontogeny, hm? Unless of course we could obviate the difficulty with an illustration of a fully clad subject; if the same person saw the clothed pic he surely would say: "Gee, that broad sure is pregnant; see how her clothing demonstrates her posture, suggests the phase of her breast development..." and so on. Are you sure you would not like to think it over carefully and try to rephrase again? Be gentle in doing so; you have left me somewhat frail. JonRichfield (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Images#Images_for_the_lead. Here are some of the salient points:

• The image helps to provide a visual association for the topic, and allows readers to quickly assess if they have arrived at the right page. (think about it JR: you can't have visual association without recognition).
• as outlined in the above section on offensive images, the selection of the lead image should be taken with some care with respect to this advice.
• they not only should be illustrating the topic specifically, but should also be the type of image that we would expect readers to envision when they think of the term

Uniplex (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry mate, no change. I come from a culture where a naked pregnant woman looks more obviously pregnant than a clothed one, and in more ways. As for not recognising advanced pregnancy in a naked woman... 'Do me a favour china! They might think that they had gotten to the wrong page because there is a picture of a pregnant woman hm? You could try to sell that idea to BM maybe...? (Are you listening, BM?) And as for offensiveness, even you with your imagination can hardly imagine how offensive I find it that you suggest that a healthy female body (pregnant or otherwise) in a positive presentation should be offensive. (Same for males, really, but pregnancy is more rarely a consideration there, afaik.) Offense is subjective, as I believe someone remarked in this very exchange not long ago, remember? I also boggle at the idea of what a reader might envision if he doesn't know what a pregnant woman looks like. Yeah. No change, except for a growing conviction that you are having me on. JonRichfield (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not a case of recognizable and not recognizable: we choose the one that is more recognizable as representing the article topic. This is easily verified—by checking how sources illustrate the topic (the covers of the two books on pregnancy on my bookshelf suggest pic 1). In the unlikely event that it's determined that the two pics are equally recognizable, the second bullet above can be used to make the choice: of the one that is less-likely to cause offense (however small that potential may be, it still swings the balance). These are not my ideas; they don't need to be sold to anyone: they're WP guidelines, representing community wisdom. Uniplex (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

"...not a case of recognizable and not recognizable..."? Get real! Recognisability was what you spoke of when first you were called, but now you can't sustain the bluff, hmm? So now it is more or less recognisability that counts is it? Pulling in our horns are we? Can't you see it, folks? Here the innocent reader happens on the display: shock! horror! a picture! A errr.... woman! Nude yet! Can't be sure whether she is pregnant just now, but maybe I can get a second opinion later. Pity she isn't dressed, then it would be easier and I could decide whether to be offended. Maybe some of my books on pregnancy would help swing the balance.

There is a balance to swing, hm? Tell me if ever you find it, UP! JonRichfield (talk) 08:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You're still confused between recognising that a woman is pregnant, and recognising the topic of pregnancy. For example: the topic of pregnancy is sometimes depicted by a pregnancy testing kit showing "positive", or a diagram of a sperm meeting an egg, or a sonogram of a foetus, etc. etc. WP reflects the world at large via reliable sources (this is fundamental; if you don't get this, try reading Jimbo's talk-page). Among the first 120 hits for pregnancy books at Amazon, there is not one that has a cover pic similar to pic 2 above. With these sorts of numbers, "which is less offensive?" doesn't even get a look in. Uniplex (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused? That comes well from the original source of the "easier to recognise clothed pregnancy" idea! ;-) , UP, the point of an illustration is to illustrate! I would offer to spell it out for you, but I just have. The topic is pregnancy, in particular pregnancy in human females (though anyone with appropriate material on pregnancy in human males would no doubt be welcome to contribute). Accordingly the illustration chosen has been chosen by one of the authors as an illustration appropriate for illustration of a human female in a state of pregnancy. (I haven't lost you yet, I hope?) If, for a diagnosis of pregnancy, you can think of a source more reliable or convincing than that photograph, do please tell us. My natural helpfulness moves me to me point out to you that the subject of the photograph, being a healthy woman in fine physical condition, there is no doubt that the condition is not dropsy, obesity, nor satiety; nor yet is it a sartorial facade, such as a beach ball that might be camouflaged by a maternity dress of the type depicted in the alternative photograph. It still would of course have been better if instead of a pregnant woman (or man, naturally, or unnaturally) the author had chosen a photograph of the topic of pregnancy instead, and I am sure that s/he is condignly contrite for this shortcoming in the admittedly imperfect illustration, but such subtle photographs are not easy for the uninitiated to come by. I assure you however, that as soon as you abandon your confusion to produce one to everyone's satisfaction, you will have no trouble at all securing a commanding mandate by universal acclaim, for its selection as a replacement. I also accept that in your search for book covers adorned with naked mothers-to-be, you ended up at least bootless, if not actually starkers, but it would be a kindness if you didn't reveal the fact to Balloonman, who, it seems, is convinced that he can tell a natural childbirth manual by the cheesecake on its cover; he would be most disappointed, I am sure. You do however leave me nonplussed with your remark that: "Among the first 120 hits for pregnancy books at Amazon, there is not one that has a cover pic similar to pic 2..." Errr... riiight... I guess so... Er, could someone explain why and for how long WP has been predicating the choice of lede illustrations on the covers of Amazon wares? If I am not confused, someone certainly is. JonRichfield (talk) 15:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

"I haven't lost you yet, I hope?"—you lost relevance when you decided WP:IDHT and based an argument on your own rules rather than WP's. I remind you: the lead pic is to provide a visual association for the topic, and from Jimbo: the proper goal of community consensus should be (generally) to reflect what is in reliable sources. If you can come up with a bunch of reliable topic sources with cover/lead pics per image 2 then great, put them on the table; otherwise, spare us the histrionics. Uniplex (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support Image 1 in the lead, with the option of Image 2 later in the article. The principle of least astonishment is a sound one. I have yet to see any clear assertion that the second image does, in some immediately obviously way, clearly and undeniably convey the thought of "pregnancy" better than the first one. And the guidelines regarding the image less likely to cause offense, while stll conveying the bulk of the relevant information, is a good one, particularly as it is generally agreed that the second image can be used later. And, yes, as we who are not in the immediate family of individual pregnant women generally see pregnant women with clothes, the first image, which includes pregnancy clothes, could be seen as being a better image conveying more relevant information. John Carter (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support image 1 there doesn't appear to be any serious justification for the nudity of image 2 (the only arguments I've seen in favour are breast size and stretch marks, you cannot tell the former without multiple images and the latter isn't present in the image), which is obviously offensive to some people - if the nude image offers no additional value what's the point? While we do have images of penises at penis and vaginas at vagina that is to be expected and noone should be particularly astonished by such images. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back from your failed attempt to win this war at Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not#How to end this so we can all move on?. Not giving up, as recommended, are you? HiLo48 (talk) 09:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you actually have a point to make? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It has quite clearly been made in that second sentence. You lost the argument there. It was suggested to you, very strongly, that there is no point continuing this push, and yet you return here as if nothing happened there. Very poor faith. HiLo48 (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

What argument have I lost? I have no idea what you are talking about. If you claim I have lost an argument please give me enough information to understand what argument/position I have actually lost (ideally something that's been closed by an uninvolved administrator with a consensus against my position) and its relevance towards this article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Support image 2

• Support; the woman in image 1 could just as well have a pillow under her shirt. Image 2 is a better illustration of the phenomenon. Powers 22:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The person in Image 2 could be John McCain photoshopped to look like a nude pregnant woman. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Quite right, and why not, as long as they can make him into a more convincing mother than he has been on the hustings? JonRichfield (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support. We are all born naked, and we all bathe naked. What's the big deal? This is a perfectly good image, showing very well the effects of pregnancy on the human female body. I think the pose is perfect, her face is contemplative, she appears to be studying the effects of pregnancy. It could hardly be a better shot for the topic. Binksternet (talk) 04:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support*; Image 2 (including the naked-ness is precisely what the article is about! Therefore it is suitable. If issues of ethnic representation or Principle of Least Astonishment or "Female vulgarity" are the issues here, then someone somewhere will always be offended, and there will never be agreement on which image should lead! Put both images in the article, yes, but as for which goes at the lead, it should be the one which openly and honestly portrays the physical condition of pregnancy...without concealment of ANY sort (political or otherwise) I would support image 1, as lead by all means but keep it a truthful and honest depiction like 2! Force3000

So, you support image 2 in the article, but image 1 in the lead?--v/r - TP 13:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, image 2 as lead, image 1 in the article if an additional depiction is thought necessary Force3000 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC).

• Support Fully informative - image 1 violates WP:IMAGE as it materially misleads due to it's reversal. Further, stop holding sequential RFCs until you get the result you want. Hipocrite (talk) 15:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

  Can you explain how reversing the portrait of some random, professional model "materially misleads" the reader? Is "The model was facing to the photographer's right in the first image published on the internet (which, for all we know, was reversed before its original publication)" really a material fact about pregnancy? I'd understand the complaint if we rotated it 90 degrees, so it looked like she was standing on the wall, but... really? Which was she was facing actually communicates information about pregnancy to you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

  For accuracies sake. Image 2 is just another pregnant woman, this time at a wellness clinic. We aren't fielding professional images or models in this discussion as far as the information we have indicates (olive (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC))

  "Accuracy's sake" is just what I don't understand. What actual fact about pregnancy is "inaccurate" in this picture? The purpose of this image is to illustrate something about pregnancy, not to document the history of a particular digital photograph. Does the image look less like a pregnant woman because it was reversed? Does it tell you some falsehood about pregnancy? (You might actually want to read WP:IMAGES, especially Misplaced Pages:Images#Pertinence_and_encyclopedic_nature: Images in articles are supposed to look like the subject, even if they aren't provably authentic.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

  Sorry you've misunderstood me. My fault. I'm talking about the accuracy of your statement concerning the model, and clarifying so that no one later gets hung up on the idea that one image is more professional than another. I am not commenting here on the pertinence of any image for the article.(olive (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC))

  I strongly suspect that the unverifiable description on Commons is incorrect, or at least misleadingly incomplete. Do WIC clinics in your area come with full photography backgrounds and professional lighting? Do the clients show up with very carefully done makeup and hair? This is clearly not a random woman walking in to apply for WIC benefits and getting her snapshot taken in the hallway.
  But on the main topic: Hipocrite says that this version of the photograph is materially misleading. I want to know what material facts it misleads the reader about—"material", as in "things that matter". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Keep current image, for many of the same reasons I outlined in at least three previous discussions about these same images here, here and here. The original image is superior to the new photo. The original image is very descriptive of the subject, it is a dignified and beautiful picture, that to me at least, conveys a sense of warmth, of motherhood…like she’s responding to that which she carries…it’s contemplative, lovely and not at all obscene or even titillating…I think it’s just perfect for the lede. I'm distressed that we are being subjected to another RFC immediately after another RFC that failed to gain consensus for a change. This strikes me as an abuse of process, something the closing admin should take into account per Talk:Pregnancy#Broken_decision_process. Dreadstar ☥ 21:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
• Keep current image. A perfectly good image that should not offend the sensibilities of anyone. Replacing it with a clothed figure just to appease the religious/moral/ethical/IDONTLIKETITTIES/whatever reasons of a very vocal few on this project makes absolutely no sense and sets a bad precedent. Heiro 05:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Keep current image. It's a much better, more striking, more immediate, more natural image. The proposed replacement is a nothing picture. Honestly, people. This is an article about pregnancy, bodily changes, etc. The extreme prissiness about the human body manifested above is entirely inappropriate in such a context -- especially in relation to such a gentle, artistic, very humane depiction. This is exactly the kind of image one might expect to find accompanying an article about pregnancy in the features section of a quality newspaper such as The Times, The Guardian, The Independent, etc. I'm not surprised that it is being steadily taken up by other-language wikipedias. Jheald (talk) 10:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Errr, of the 83 (or so) wikipedias that have articles on Misplaced Pages, 12 of them use this image in the lead. The most common, by a long shot with about 40-50% of wikipedias using it, is the one proposed as image 1. The above nude and a blond lady that is in black and white are both used about dozen times and I think the blond is used more than the nude.---Balloonman 20:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support current image - Particularly in health-related articles, candid, frank information is essential. I don't think WP should be perpetuating squeamishness about benign nudity. If the clothed image is used, the naked image should at least be retained further down in the article. --Noleander (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support; much clearer image; shows that pregnancy is a process in women's bodies, rather than a type of clothing (which could be the impression of the first image). -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support - it's a clearer and more informative image. I'm really not seeing an issue with it, nor is it nudity for nudity's sake, as is prevalent elsewhere on the project - Alison 04:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support Pregnancy is most importantly a physiological change, not a change in wardrobe, and the physiology needs to be seen to illustrate what pregnancy is. Although, I believe this RfC represents a misuse of process, I have decide to vote per JonRichfield who said in a thread below, "Whatever happens we cannot afford to permit ourselves to retreat in distaste .... letting the principle go by default." (olive (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC))
• Strong Support Wiki is not censored! It just a boob and below in the article are 4 bare boobs showing. Why is there no argument over that? Demi Moore was naked on the cover of Vogue when she was pregnant. And here on wiki we have closeups of erect and flaccid penises and bird's eye views of vaginas. I stumbled across this debate about 10 days ago and I am AMAZED at what lengths people will go to in order to argue over something that makes no sense whatsoever. This is not a big deal and not is even contradictory as I've pointed out. The behavior here by some is atrocious. And many need to stop being prudes. PumpkinSky talk 03:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support For a very large variety of reasons well explicated for the previous RfC on the same subject. But mostly, because all the alternatives are less informative about this article's subject, and we are about information. All arguments for changing the image boil down to pure subjectivity, and the subjective arguments are just as strong in each direction. The one incontrovertible fact is that a viewer will know more about the holistic state of pregnancy from looking at this image than from looking at the others. B——C_ritical 06:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Yes, YESSSS!!! Please remember that folks; it is about INFORMATION! The rest of the matter can go to hell in a slops bucket; what matters is the quality of the information, and the scope for people to present and access information. For those who don't want information, relax: no one will force it on you; don't you forbid it to those who do want it. JonRichfield (talk) 12:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support better and more clearly illustrates the subject. Hobit (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • How is it better? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support As a matter of taste and technical and instructional value, I think photo 2 is better in plenty of ways, but in particular, I cannot support the attack on WP principles by the bellwethers demanding number 1. Even those nice kittens would be better than that. (Anyone not approving the terminology may exclude themselves and their heirs and assigns from any such category.) JonRichfield (talk) 07:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  • How is it better? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't care

• While I think the first image is actually a better photograph, there is not a lot to choose between them. Pregnancy is after all a social phenomenon as well as a medical and biological one, therefore a clothed illustration is not out of place, any more than an unclothed one is. Rich Farmbrough, 16:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC).
  

• Which is why I think both images should be used. I have no problem with the nude one in the lead, but to avoid further conflict (since some would rather own the article and keep warring until it's totally gone...), I have no problem with the clothed one in the lead and the other one further down. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• I do not think anyone is wishing to removed the image entirely? --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• You've removed it several times over the past year. Dreadstar ☥ 01:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• The current discussion is about moving the image lower in the article.--Doc James (talk ·

• WHICH "current discussion"? There are many, as you have just so helpfully displayed by posting in three different places on this page within a few minutes. It's a mess! HiLo48 (talk) 07:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

contribs · email) 06:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Shoot me, please. Do not care. Suggest that {{Random number}} be used: odds it's Nudie, evens it's Clothie. If we must argue, then... Militating against using Nudie: image does not show her vagina (which the baby comes out of, duh!) and this violates WP:UNCENSORED. Militating against using Clothie: shameful display of bare skin on arms and face violates all norms of human decency. Suggested compromise: picture of kittens. Everyone loves kittens, so win-win! Herostratus (talk) 01:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Neither image

(Option added after discussion started)

• Support Changing my !vote from above. Given that there is no consensus to keep the image in the article and it is incompatible with the principle of least surprise, let's just remove it for now until we can find an image we agree on. The proposed alternative does not appear to have any support except as "not the current image." Until we find something better, the article will do just fine without the current image, which is mostly decorative anyway and doesn't show anything particularly important. Using the current image lower in the article isn't unacceptable, but honestly it appears to be an art nude and makes more sense in that article than this one. SDY (talk) 22:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support Both images are worthless. Neither tells the reader anything she or he didn't already know, both are simply emblematic of the topic, the kind of images that would accompany a Hello (magazine) article, not an encyclopedia article. If we have to have an image in the lede, count this as a vote for image #1. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Neither image is particularly good, although neither is worthless. Ideally, the lede picture will be more of the style of a medical text book image. It should show where the baby is, the extension of the mother's abdomen, and the connection of the uterus to the ovaries and vagina. This is best done with a drawing. I cannot find a current suitable image (https://commons.wikimedia.org/Category:Stratz_-_Die_K%C3%B6rperpflege_der_Frau_%28pregnancy%29 containing the best), but I’m sure one could be created with less effort than already expended. A nude image of a pregnant woman is suitable for the article, though probably not an unlabelled photograph in the lede. Similarly recommended is an image of a (clothed) pregnant woman remaining functional in a social setting (i.e. not medicalized), which would help balance the bias of reference works towards the medicalization of pregnancy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support The hand on the belly of both images is natural, but inappropriate. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's Readership

• Respect all types of Misplaced Pages's readership Misplaced Pages, so far, is a values friendly encyclopedia. Many people studying this encyclopedia adhere to a set of values which would be offended by the showing of bare female breasts. It is wise for WP to not offend those values. (I have not read all the discussion here and assume that this point has already been made.) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Come on DRS, why haven't you read the gigs worth of discussion! ;-) ---Balloonman 01:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I am offended by the idea of covering up when the nudity is not sexual and nobody will be harmed by it. I have a family. Are my values family values? HiLo48 (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion/2

I propose hatting this, since making a new RfC over an issue just addressed by a recently closed RfC is inappropriate. B——C_ritical 06:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Not so fast. My support in the first RFC only applied to keeping BOTH images and doing what I've just suggested in this RfC. My vote must not be used to replace and then delete the original (nude) image. No other votes of that type should be used to do that, but they apparently have been misused. That's wrong. It's too beautiful and useful to just vanish. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You don't understand: the result of the previous RfC was that there were no licensing issues, and that the original (nude) image should be in the lead. This RfC is something akin to canvassing or forum shopping, or dictat by boredom. B——C_ritical 06:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not think many of I felt that the main issue was a licensing issue. There where complaints of a procedural nature. Thus the new RfC.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been away from this issue for awhile and when I got back I saw the lead image had been changed to the clothed woman. I thought the RfC had closed with that result. Apparently not. So what was the final decision in the old RfC? Is there still confusion, since there is still edit warring? -- Brangifer (talk) 06:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The conclusion was to keep the image in the lead as in this version. B——C_ritical 07:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

No I do not think that was the conclusion. The claim was that there was no consensus. Thus we are back here to develop a clearer consensus.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The closer said "If properly verified consent is obtained directly from the subject, issue (2) would disappear and there would be no consensus in this discussion. On the principle that consensus is required to change the long-standing state of an article, the nude photo should then be returned to the lead.". Talk:Pregnancy#OTRS_Ticket says that, according to WMF policy, the nude image has consent. Thus, the RfC conclusion is to keep the nude image. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

That is pure and unadulterated wikilawyering. --Ludwigs2 13:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Hum, it looks to me like a straight interpretation of a conditional statement: "if X then Y". X has been fulfilled, so Y applies. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

undoubtably it does look that way to you. However, I do not believe that was intended as a conditional statement, do not believe that X has been fulfilled, and do not think that it was an incitement to return the image to the lead, but rather a question of whether the image should be retained in the article at all. You've gone beyond the conditions to make a new assertion, and dismissed the substantive RfC result without cause in the process. --Ludwigs2 17:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Didn't we just have this RfC? I'll add my vote, but I believe that sufficient page ownership issues have been demonstrated to begin an ArbCom case over this. I'll look into that and begin the process later today. --Ludwigs2 12:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. Another RfC on the back of the long, unpleasant, first one seems an overkill and tendentious on this issue, and comments about "my image" is a clear ownership statement. Actually, as I understand consensus Enric is correct. The first RfC was a suggestion to change the long standing image in place. No consensus was reached so nothing changes. That said, why the ongoing fuss over this. Its a photograph. We brought in an uninvolved admin; a decision was reached. Lets return the long standing image, and move on. The article needs work. Dealing with this issue again disrupts the ongoing process of creating a good article.(olive (talk) 13:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC))

Agree with Enric Naval and Littleolive oil, and possibly Ludwigs about the ArbCom, but maybe people could just stop? B——C_ritical 14:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the arbs will not view kindly another RfC on the back of a first one in the face of the closing admins comments, so moving on is probably the best action we could all take.(olive (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC))

I think arbitration is the only way to go with this, but I'm torn on the best approach. Part of me wants to suggest that we take this particular problem to mediation - despite flaring tempers, most of the people here are reasonable and that's usually a good indicator for the success of mediation. However, the core problem is really a matter of the way policy is interpreted in light of the project's core principles, which is not something mediation can resolve (particularly since it's a problem that occurs on multiple articles across the project); that will have to be addressed by arbcom or it will never be resolved. We could do both - send this particular problem to mediation and open an arbcom case on the general principle… is that distinct enough not to be seen as forum shopping? --Ludwigs2 14:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Opening yet another RFC immediately after the last one closed is just disruption at this point. Dreadstar ☥ 15:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

No it is certainly not. It seems like a large portion of the people who weighted in during the last one where discounted due to unresolved issues regarding copyright. Thus another RfC. That 2/3 support is being ignored is astounding really. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a load of BS. And just how many RFC's have you put up on this over the past year? Too many. It's purely disruptive at this point. Dreadstar ☥ 15:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Dread, what it comes down to is that the last RfC has now been wikilawyered out of existence. While I think a second RfC is fruitless given the tone of the page, it is perfectly appropriate. --Ludwigs2 15:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree this RfC is disruption. The previous RfC counted all the editors who addressed issues other than permissions. B——C_ritical 16:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I reluctantly agree that a second RFC, minus distracting side issues, is not inappropriate. I am reluctant to have this go on for another month or two, but having it cleanly settled would be helpful. Then perhaps we could go a whole year or two without having to re-hash this.

I also add that people who object to such things are often concerned that their "side" will lose if further open discussion happens. Consequently, I encourage people who don't want to signal that they expect to lose to stop complaining about the existence of the second RFC and start piling up their !votes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

This goes too far. For how long will discussion and RfC's go on, on this issue. Any editor can open or reopen and RfC at any time, but lets be clear. Since the earliest days of this article there have been efforts, always unsuccessful to get this image out of this article. And another attempt failed, and yet again, another try. Please don't accuse editors of fearing failure as the reason for preferring to not have yet another RfC, and more of the same, especially given the nasty tone of past RfCs. My concern is disruption and tendentious editing at this point given the history of this discussion page. Sheesh! (olive (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC))

Stacking up !votes is not what consensus building is supposed to be about. Rich Farmbrough, 16:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC).

@ WhatamIdoing, the only reason the "keep the current/nude image" "side" would lose is that people would say there is too much controversy surrounding it, thus the RfC is pushing editors that way. But I guess ArbCom is the only recourse here if all people want to do is keep after this issue till they get their way. This issue is settled as well as Misplaced Pages can do such things. Even if the outcome were different this time, that's not a better outcome, it's just the result of people wanting to use WP mechanisms till they get their way. B——C_ritical 17:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom it is. however, since I'm having exactly this same problem elsewhere (over at talk:Mohammed/Images) I'm going to focus the request on the problem of controversial images more than on this particular page - it's an issue that needs to be resolved before we can make any headway anywhere. however, my wikipedia time is up for today; I won't be able to attend to that until this evening. I'll notify everyone when I've made the request. --Ludwigs2 17:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Contexted that way, it might have some merit at ArbCom or as a broader spectrum RfC on controversial images... While I do not believe that we should censor pictures out of an article/project, I do think we need to be conscious of controversial pictures in the Lead of an article... The lead of an article sets the tone and temper of the article. It establishes how people will view the rest of the article. If the lead (wether through words or images) shocks or dismays people, it may place blinders on the merit the same points/image might have elsewhere in the article. The lead is the most important part of the article and needs to be able to compell people to reading further. The fact that we've now had numerous discussion on this image and over 700KB of discussion, IMO, clearly shows that this image does not do that.

That being said, I have to agree with the people who feel the RfC was closed in a manner to keep the old image. The closing admin ruled in favor of changing the image, but that if concerns over licensing/rights was eliminated that there would be no consensus to change. The closing admin explicitly stated that without a consensus, the old image should stay. And I would oppose reopening a new RfC mere weeks after it closed.---Balloonman 17:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you would be asking ArbCom to decide. The only thing I know of for them to do is to rule on editor behavior and also they might interpret policy. Is interpreting NOTCENSORED what you want them to do? I think that's possible for them, but not likely. B——C_ritical 19:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You're right, it would probably be better served by a community wide discussion... if this is a bigger than just this article. I am opposed to an RFC on THIS issue on this article at this point in time due to procedural issues. But if the issue of controversial pictures in the lead is widespread, I could support a discussion on that subject. (While I support NOTCENSORED, I also support the notion of personal sensitivities and think there needs to be a compelling reason to have controversial images in the lead. If there is a solid reason for a controversial image (eg the subject itself is controversial) then I question the editorial value of putting such images in the lead without solid reasons (besides NotCensored and ILikeIt). Again, as I said in my original post, the tactic proposed MIGHT have merit, but only if it can discuss it at a higher level rather than specific issue.---Balloonman 20:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Quick response between RL things. Community-wide discussion is not going to get us anywhere: I've seen issue go to community-wide discussion: it happened when I pushed an RfC and deletion discussion on the lead image (now long gone) of the Goatse.cx page, and the result was a carbon-copy of the dispute above (the RfC split between supporters endlessly referring to NOTCENSORED and opponents endlessly objecting to the content, with a handful of dedicated advocates arguing with me viciously over the issue). Really, all you need to do is replace 'nude image' with 'goatse image' and it would be the identical argument. The same argument is happening on Muhammed as well (which has nothing to do with nudity), and has been ongoing literally for years. Community-wide discussion is just going to produce the same deadlock that already happens here, there, and everywhere, involving (for the most part) the same individuals. We really need this clarified as a matter of core project principles, and only an arbcom ruling is going to be able to do that. We can go through the motions of a community wide discussion, I suppose, but that seems to fall under wp:SNOWBALL: it will just end up as another problematic, interpretable result.

I think I've just convinced myself to request the case - ArbCom can refuse it if they like. I'll do that in a couple of hours, when I'm done for the day. --Ludwigs2 23:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

A 2/3 majority seems to have been discounted do to the previous issue of copyright. As this has been solved and is no longer an issue hopefully discussion can be more clear and this time we can come to a consensus one way or the other rather than "no consensus". The copyright issue was the justification to petition the closing admin for "no consensus" call by some of those involved . As I stated previously both images have spent a fair bit of time in the lead and their is not really an "original" image to return to.

We are now making some progress. This RfC is a chance to resolved this issue. There hopefully will be no complaints / disruption halfway through regarding the manner in which the question is posed. This will be easier than spending 6 month at arbcom. Image two BTW has also had its background improved. Thus for all these reason please give it another chance. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

James that's a misleading statement on several levels. The nude image is the pre RfC consensus version and has been stable in the article for an extended period of time. The clothed image was added only recently after the RfC closed. There is most certainly an original image and a consensus version, and it is the one that has been stable in the article. The RfC as you know since you opened it was designed to replace the long standing image with another image. Why are you suggesting both images have equal time in the article. Further the copyright issue had been dealt with here as we all know and Dreadstar's comment to the closing admin was simply to suggest that permission as far as we knew had been dealt with, which would revert the closing admins verdict to no consensus per his own closing statement. I don't like what your implying. Now whatever happens with these images and on some level, I for one, doubt they're worth the trouble, the process for Misplaced Pages's sake, of determining which image we use had better be fair. Please do not mischaracterize further.(olive (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC))

Image one if you look back had been stable in the article for some time too. Yes I agree that the copyright issues has just been dealt with and that it confused the previous RfC such that consensus was not clear. We thus have a chance to clarify it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said and that was not the situation. The closing admin said very specifically that if the permission issue was taken care of the decision was for no consensus The clothed image was the image by default because there were questions concerning permission (not copyright). for the nude image, the stable image. When permission seemed to be granted, the RfC reverted to that no consensus decision. The RfC was posted to replace the consensus image , the nude image, with another image, the clothed image. The closing admin did not find consensus for making that change. (olive (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC))

I am referring to 6 months ago when the clothed image was present for many months.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Diffs please. I don't see it and there's never been consensus for your preferred image, merely your repeated attempts to replace the nude one with a clothed one. This current attempt to skirt around consensus is only your latest and most blatant attempt at censorship. I assume your plan is to just wear out your opponents with RFC after RFC until you get your preferred image in place. Dreadstar ☥ 01:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Well it's a good plan. By making the image so controversial, controversy is now seen as a reason to change it. B——C_ritical 02:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You're assuming bad faith while accusing others of assuming bad faith? Interesting hypocrisy. Nobody has made any image controversial. I rather like the nude image. However, I recognize in good faith that other editors do not, and I am open to negotiation over a less controversial image. Are you? Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Being uninvoled in this issue thus far (AFAIK), perhaps my comments will help. I was concerned when I see another RFC was started so soon after the previous on the same issue was closed since it sounds like an attempt to !vote until you get it right and also risky achieving an outcome by !voter fatigue. But reading what's been said here and checking the RFC, I see the problem. I agree that the outcome of the previous RFC was the nude image should be kept due to the lack of a consensus for a change. However it also seems clear that some people objected primarily because of concern of consent at the time. It doesn't automatically follow that these people will prefer to keep the nude image when consent wasn't an issue unless they clearly expressed such a preference and it seems some at least did not. Unfortunately then, I would suggest the first RFC was a bit of waste of time since it was unfortunately poorly formulated or thought out. People weren't clearly asked to express a preference beyond consent issues and the consent issues were not clarified before the RFC. Perhaps more time lag to allow people to 'recuperate' as well as to search for more images options (since having a new RFC every time a new image is found which some feel is better is problematic) would have been advisable but ultimately in this particular case, it seems that the issue did need to be revisited soonish to see if there was consensus to change the image to the non nude one when consent wasn't at play. Nil Einne (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring

Really, guys: Could we please all agree that getting the Right™ image into the lead today is just not that important? Please? WP:There is no deadline, not even for restoring the One True™ Pregnant Woman Image to the lead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. Stop edit-warring, folks. I've reluctantly protected the article for 48 hours, rather than blocking people for edit warring. The Cavalry (Message me) 02:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You're a bit late to the party, as the blocks should have been handed out to your fellow admin Dreadstar some time ago. This needs to go to arbcom so we can get this sorted out by neutral parties. Viriditas (talk) 03:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I have added a postscript to my closing statement, which should be unnecessary, but anyway: Anyone seeking to remove the nude from the infobox will need consensus to do so and that consensus does not presently exist. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Third the request. I actually managed to get two tiny edits into the Complications section, cleaning it up and fixing links, before the page was locked for edit warring over an image issue for which there is already a discussion on the talk page. Please keep to the discussion and find consensus. KillerChihuahua 14:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • We already have consensus. There is no consensus for inclusion, so the image should be removed. Viriditas (talk) 02:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
    • actually, we never had consensus... the closing admin ruled against the nude until and unless the licensing issues were resolved beyond a shadow of a doubt. Once those lingering issues were addressed, the closing admin declared, then there would be no consensus and the nude should be returned to the lead.---Balloonman 01:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Partially Nude

Why does the image have to be fully nude or fully clothed? We can't find any expectant mother to pull her shirt up over her belly for a picture?--v/r - TP 02:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

We seem to have a shortage of plain, undecorated images at Commons:Category:Pregnant women. File:Anna-Kosali-11-7.jpg may be the only one that doesn't contain body painting, weird poses, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

ugh, silliness. This weekend (when I get a chance) I am going to go on the web and flood commons with pictures of pregnant women. God willing my housemate doesn't walk in while I'm doing it, because that will take a hell of a lot of explaining. --Ludwigs2 05:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

ROTFL B——C_ritical 05:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Adding quite a few to commons:Category:Growth of the abdomen during pregnancy. – Adrignola talk 16:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, both of the proposed images comes off as activist (one has a conservative, almost mormon quality, the other is vulgarly feminine). An image showing just the woman's belly, as you describe, does seem to cater less to any particular agenda, and is less likely to offend as well.--83.89.0.118 (talk) 05:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The editors attempting to force the nude image into the article against consensus have refused to negotiate in good faith, and will not consider any other image for inclusion. Viriditas (talk) 06:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Whoa there Wally. Please read the remarks from the closing admin. You have it backwards.(olive (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC))

I don't have anything backwards. There is no consensus to include the nude image and it violates the principle of least astonishment. No alternative image has been proposed by those defending it. We don't default to including disputed, controversial images that violate the POLA, we default to exclude. Viriditas (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes we did provide alternatives. There is no consensus to exclude the nude image. And stop accusing people of bad faith because they get fed up after a while. And please read the archives if you're going to proclaim on them. B——C_ritical 23:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

No, there were no alternatives presented, and the forcing of the nude image into the article against consensus for its inclusion is called bad faith negotiation—it's your way or the highway. That's not an acceptable form of dispute resolution. Mkativerata's conclusion that no consensus for exclusion is the same as no consensus for inclusion is a fundamental failure to apply the burden of proof in this discussion—a burden which has not been met. There is no consensus for inclusion, therefore the image gets removed. We don't default to inclusion in any discussion about disputed, controversial content. We conservatively default to exclusion. Why an admin like Mkativerata seems to be ignorant of this fact is demonstrative of the problem at hand. This needs to go to arbcom. Viriditas (talk) 02:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

There were multiple alternatives offered in this discussion. Please check the archives. Further, this discussion has become so desperate that the closing admin is now being attacked. Where next? I(olive (talk) 02:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC))

Please don't be disingenuous. If there were multiple alternatives, we would not be talking about a nude image in the lead section of an article on pregnancy. Criticizing the conclusions of a closing admin is not the same as attacking the admin. You must know this, so I can only assume your comment was made in bad faith. On reflection of this entire discussion here and in the archives, this appears to be one of your little tactical strategies, where you consistently refer to the opposing discussion as desperate and ironically attack other editors by accusing them of making attacks that don't exist. That's hardly conducive to good faith discussion. There is simply no consensus for the inclusion of the image in the lead section, and that's not something that needs to be repeated, it's a fact. The burden of proof is on the editor adding content, not removing. Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about Viriditas? The image has been in the article for years, there is no consensus to change it, that's how consensus works; when you talk about 'burden' you're talking about WP:V, not WP:CON. And yeah, go ahead and attack Olive, that really adds to your arguments. Well, not really. Touchstones? Give me a break. You were doing better by asking for alternative images, go back there. What alternatives have you given? There were other alternatives given by others, but none as good as the current lead. I challenge you to find a better one. Dreadstar ☥ 03:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you still here, Dreadstar? I thought you were too busy edit warring in the article to bother using the talk page. That's a great example you've set as an admin, well done. It doesn't matter how long the image has been here, and consensus can change. I've removed vandalism from articles that went unnoticed for years. Should it stay because it was there so long? There have been multiple discussions; no consensus for inclusion of the nude image has been reached, so we default to either an alternative image or no image at all. I've provided a flickr link below to hundreds of free images. Which alternatives will you offer? Viriditas (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Oooh, how clever, certainly no one can have a comeback to that! My regrettable example is only matched by the admin who ignored the RFC results and decided to edit war his own preferred image in. But we won't mention that part, eh? Oh, gosh, you did suggest images? A link to the Internet? That's really good. Or useless. Yeah, the latter. Try to be more specific, eh? And sooner would have been better for your argument here. The current image has been there for years becuse it enjoyed consensus for years. For you to compare that to unnoticed vandalism is humorous. Dreadstar ☥ 03:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no consensus to add the nude image to the lead section. Why is it there? Viriditas (talk) 05:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I assume since you've come into this late you haven't checked the archives. I suggest you do. Don't make comments about the closing admin and then accuse me of Bad faith. That said, I don't have time for inflammatory comments so you're on your own. (olive (talk) 03:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC))

Don't make assumptions. I have not come into this late at all, and I participated in the original RfC. Sounds like you need to check the archives yourself since you aren't familiar with them. And just so we're clear, you've admitted in the archives that your position is based on your own personal POV of the human body, so you're hardly a paragon of neutrality here. For the record, there are hundreds of free images on flickr. So, why is this nude image still in the article? That's right, it's in the article because this page is being held hostage by POV pushers. Viriditas (talk) 03:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no memory of you in the discussions. I apologize. I have nothing more to say to you.(olive (talk) 03:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC))

I have more to say to you. My POV on the human body matches your own. However, I try not to let my POV interfere with Misplaced Pages. Viriditas (talk) 03:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I must have presented 4 or 5 alternative images. Now, please stop being disruptive, as it's disruptive to add things to this discussion as if you know what you're talking about when you don't, after people correct you. It may mislead others here and influence their thought process. B——C_ritical 04:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The sad irony here, is that the only disruption on this topic is coming from you and Dreadstar, and in fact, the disruption was enabled by you at 01:57, 22 October 2011 with your reinsertion of the controversial image, and accompanied by a false edit summary authored by yourself where you blatantly lied and claimed your reinsertion of the image was "not a controversial change", Now you've apparently taken to misleading others by claiming that any discussion about your disruption is in fact, disruption. I don't know where to begin with your false statements. Should we start with your false claim that the appropriate return to discussion and filing of the RfC was "disruption"? It was entirely appropriate for Doc James to file a new discussion, since you and others have unilaterally decided what's best for everyone else, even though there was no consensus for you to make your controversial change. Frankly, I'm rather disappointed by your attempt to shut down discussion on this page and your enabling of edit warring. Further, you claim that you have "presented" 4 or 5 alternative images, yet we see you returning the same disputed image to the lead section. Why haven't your added one of your 5 images instead? Viriditas (talk) 05:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

My bet is that we will get consensus this time around as a lot of confusion has been eliminated. And not everyone will be happy but oh well.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

That's actually the key to the solution. There either needs to be no image in the lead section, or an image that nobody wants. Viriditas (talk) 05:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, we really need to go to ArbCom if you really want to stand by your posts just now. B——C_ritical 05:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You mean the comment where you falsely accused me of misleading people and engaging in disruption? Bring it on. Viriditas (talk) 06:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Support hatting

Because the people who "voted" against the clothed image have refused to "vote" in this new RfC, and this is making the supports pile up for one side of the argument. Then one admin will count the votes like it was a democracy, and the system will have been gamed. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. People refused to vote in this RfC because the issue was settled in the last one and this is disruption. We feel that the system is being gamed in that the issue is continually pushed in various ways, and then "controversy" is a reason to change the image. And further that soeme want to change the image so badly that they will take the time to wear down any opposition over the years. B——C_ritical 19:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I, for one, refuse to vote again on this issue which was settled after a very long, time consuming, and often tedious discussion, with the conclusion that no consensus emerged to dislodge Image 2 from its position in the lead. I support hatting the new RfC. Image 2 is perfectly suitable, is strictly not sexually explicit, is plain, perinent and informative. Dessources (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I feel the process is being gamed here, and see no reason to take part in this, if the process isn't honest and fair. Further, we just went through a very long, unpleasant RfC. Life is way too short to waste on this kind of game playing. My concern isn't the image at this point, its a misuse of the system. (olive (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC))

It seems reasonable to make sure that anyone who wants to participate or any closing admin should be aware of the previous RfC. I don't think that the previous RfC settled much, though. There's clearly no consensus to keep the image, with large numbers of veteran editors strongly opposed to it, there just isn't a consensus to change it. We need an image we can all live with, not one that's forced on the community by the side that screamed the loudest. The new RfC and more screaming isn't going to fix this. I guess my question is: would people who support the current image support any other image, or is this specific image non-negotiable? SDY (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It is appropriate to open new discussions for ones that ended as no consensus. Either participate or not, but don't demand it be closed because you couldn't gain a consensus in your favor in the last one. If there is gaming, it's because those who are in favor of a nude image are not participating and the folks who opened the RFC are not at fault.--v/r - TP 21:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between "no consensus," and "no consensus to change." The latter is how the RfC ended.

(edit conflict)I for one would support various images. We just don't have a better one at this time, and none have been suggested (by me or others) that I thought were better. The current image isn't perfect, it's just that it's better than the alternative, and the reasons for changing it out all boil down to "composition," whatever that means, and nudity. B——C_ritical 22:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

There was no consensus to keep it either.--v/r - TP 22:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not quite how consensus works: the current image is the longstanding consensus version, or it would have been changed. And there's still no consensus to change it. B——C_ritical 22:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's the reason the nude image is still there, it is not a reason to close a new discussion. I know how consensus works.--v/r - TP 22:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Pointless RfC, unless this one overturns the decision of the previous RfC. Nothing has changed that should allow that to happen. All we have is a bunch of dissatisfied editors hoping to keep trying until they get a perfectly valid umpire's decision overturned. This has to be an abuse of Misplaced Pages's processes. All my comments from the previous RfC stand, and I don't see the point nor have the time to repeat them here. Because there are no new parameters, I would expect a wise admin to read my (and everybody else's) comments in the previous RfC. If this is not done, it will be an RfC decided by shouting the loudest and most often. It will be a failure of process. And bad behaviour by that admin. I do not intend to comment again. HiLo48 (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

If the previous RFC had closed as keep the nude image I might agree with you. As it hasn't, there is no abuse of policy. If you are no longer interested in keeping up with the topic, then that's your call. But don't expect a closing admin to make the effort to take your previous comments into account when you refuse to make the effort to reenforce them.--v/r - TP 23:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I have explained why they should. You give no reason why they shouldn't, apart from the implication that it would make the job too big. That reinforces my point that this would then be an RfC decided on the basis of who shouts the loudest and most often. (And yes, I said I would not comment again, but posts that purport to respond to mine but ignore critical elements cannot be ignored.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Just a little note here: I'm sure you already know by now that closing admins don't look at who shouts louder, rather the individual rationale of each opinion. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. ~ AdvertAdam 20:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I think the image should be changed (basically the principle of least surprise)---but won't "!vote" on this RfC because I too think this is basically a farce. The last RFC was closed less than a month ago with the notes that if the copyright/permissions issue is resolved, then there would be no consensus to change, and if no consensus to change then the long standing image should remain. I think that was a fair reading of the previous RfC.---Balloonman 15:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Balloon - actually, that's a misrepresentation of the RfC closure (and one that irks me). There were two issues conflated in the RfC:

• should the nude image be the lead image?
• is the image usable at all on the article or on wikipedia?

Obviously there is no consensus to remove the image entirely (from the article or the project), and that's fine. but the closing admin did not say that clearing up the licensing issue would also meant that the image should be moved back to the lead. there was a clear, unambiguous result that the image should not be the lead image. I was ok with the image being used farther down in the article. However, since editors Template:Nono misinterpreted the RfC result and moved the image back into the lead, we now need another RfC just on that issue.

Template:Nono let's all let the image go back to the third section where it belongs, so we can all get over it already! --Ludwigs2 15:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs, I very often agree with you, but here I don't. There was a consensus version image in the lead and it was relatively stable. This was /is the nude image. In the history you'll see that one editor in particular made repeated attempts to remove that image and replace it with the clothed image we have now. The closing admin implied, that if the permission issue was cleared up which it was, by default because there was no consensus for change, the article will revert to the consensus version. I, and others I assume, see the consensus version as the stable version, the nude image. I can understand that others may read the closing admin's comments differently, but there is no bad faith on my part ( I do agree with replacing the nude image for now), and I don't see bad faith in others either. Can we all see this as a difference of opinion. As for the RfC: My concern is that multiple attempts over time have been made to remove one image and replace it, with a recent comment referring to "my Image". That 's a concern for me as is the speed with which another RfC was opened following a very long drawn out past RfC. I think we could all do better to assume good faith and work from that platform. I can't vote at this time in this RfC since studying the history of this article leaves me feeling concerned with this new move and process and the way it is being carried out here-not bad faith, just serious concern. Hopefully I'm wrong in my assessment. (olive (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC))

I apologize for the 'bad faith' comment, and have retracted it (that was mostly a product of too much coffee too quickly - Starbucks drive through, argh!!!!!!). However, whatever one may think of image removal, the the RfC was 2:1 (or was it 3:2, I forget) in favor of moving it out of the lead. NOTCENSORED does not apply to placement of the image within the article (that's only for removal of images) so none of the typical gerrymandering arguments (e.g. we're not going to use these votes because they are a minority opinion) are usable. what we're left with is a clear consensus that the image should not be in the lead. Now if you don't want to buy that that's fine, but then you condemn us to having another RfC solely on the issue of moving the image out of the lead. do you seriously have any doubts that the new RfC will reach the same conclusion? --Ludwigs2 16:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Ludwig, please review the closing statement. The closing admin clearly states, "IF properly verified consent is obtained" then "there would be no consensus on this discussion" He left it up to OTRS to rule. The closing admin also stated, "consensus is required to change the long-standing state of an article, the nude photo should then be returned to the lead." As the issue relative to the images consent has been adequately addressed, the image should be returned to the lead. It is not the stance that I prefer, I think it should be moved down, but that is not what the closing admin stated. Opening a new RfC this close to the previous one is thus disruptive.---Balloonman 17:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I can and do dispute that the RfC was no consensus (the only way one can reach that conclusion is by confusing the 'remove' and 'move' aspects of the RfC), but it's really not worth debating endlessly. A new RfC with a clarified question and none of the kneejerk responses to NOTCENSORED seems appropriate to me.

I'll add as a side note, however, that you are effectively reducing consensus to squatter's rights some editor added the image (apparently without much discussion) and by the time discussion gets focused on it the image has somehow acquired the power of law, requiring what seems like an act of God to remove it. that's just perverse. --Ludwigs2 18:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Put me on Coke (Cola) and I'd be the same way. Waaaay too fast. The closing admin dealt with the issues and vote count. I didn't. His comments are the bottom line here, not any other argument. He clearly stated that if the permission issue was dealt with by default we revert to no consensus to change the image, and there was by a general agreement over time consent to leave that nude image in the lead which is why there was an RfC in the first place. If there had been agreement to remove the nude image at any time it would have ben replaced. Believe me there were multiple tries to remove it. Had there been consensus to remove, we'd have another image and no RfC. My concern isn't with the images, either one. My concern is with manipulation of process. And nah (:o), I'm not condemning anyone to anything. I won't support a process that ignores part of the process itself-the closing admin., and I have concerns given the article history about the editor who began both RfCs. While I have a preference for an image, that was never enough reason for me to either spend multiple hours debating it, or now compromise my own integrity in an implied support of something I think is wrong.

In terms of image selection, subjective views on this are so engrained in the editors here, I don't see compromise. We have to realize that there is nothing objective about any of this except the uninvolved comment of the closing admin. Whether I like his comment or not, his word trumps my and any other opinion.... and its all opinion.

I suggest a new image since there was no true consensus per the RfC for either image. what we have inn place is there by default. It takes time and effort to clear new ground but that would be the fair thing to do, not having another RfC. Many editors who voted in the past may not even be aware this is all happening again. And many won't want to deal with it. I'd like to start again given some time. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.(olive (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC))

Well, I think you're right that a new image would be the best approach, but I have concerns (given what I've seen in this debate) that there will always be editors for whom no replacement image will ever be satisfactory (just as there will always be editors who will never accept this image). this page is going to be plagued by fanatical subjectivity no matter what we do. that's kind of why I liked the image being moved down - it seemed like an effective compromise. Oh well…

I hate to say it, but when debates come down to the opposition of subjective viewpoints, they are only resolvable through compromise. I suggest that we change this page dynamic - rather than the two sides we currently have, let's create a center block against the extremes. let's move to the thread below and start with the image Griswaldo suggested: I'd agree to that, if you like it too, and people like B.C., Dreadstar, and etc join in, then we can put that in the lead and move the art nude down again, and the center will be happy. or if not, we'll keep looking. --Ludwigs2 17:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The last RfC was a disaster, totally confused and confusing, guaranteed to deliver a conclusion that could be misinterpreted. Ludwig, however, argued that that the process was fine, that "everyone" understood the issues, and all would be well. That is, until the conclusion didn't go his way. And it didn't, even though he still wants to argue that it did. I said all I want to say on the many aspects of the first RfC. That "many" included the now narrowed topic. I will not repeat my comments. I don't have the time. Another RfC now, demanding MORE comments, is an abuse of process. It advantages those who shout the most often and loudest. I won't play that game. All my comments from before MUST be considered in this new RfC. My views haven't changed, and they don't disappear just because some people here don't have a life. HiLo48 (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, lets not make it personal, naming names, or we sink into swamp territory again. I agree with this,"Another RfC now, demanding MORE comments, is an abuse of process. It advantages those who shout the most often and loudest.", but trying to move on. (olive (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC))

@Ludwigs: I'm thinking about this but at this point the whole thing is pretty wearing, not sure what I want to do.(olive (talk) 02:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC))

I understand, all things considered. --Ludwigs2 03:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Happy to have a compromise if it's a good image. At the least, Ludwigs is right that each viewpoint is too subjective to make an obvious case. B——C_ritical 04:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Adding my support for hatting this nonsense on the grounds people like BeCritical have laid down. Frankly, I'm rather offended by the suggestion that the lead image has been reinserted on some sort of wikilawyering grounds. --Xomic_Talk 04:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

@olive. This isn't exactly a new idea- but no one has ever seemed to produce a different image.--Xomic_Talk 04:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose hatting. We have 16 people in support of the "new image" and only three in support of the "old image". Now that the copyright issue is dealt with the community opinion is much clearer. Attempts to end discussion at this point is little more than Wikilawyering.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

If there's any wikilawying going on, it's from you, not "us". The flaws in the original RfC were obvious and well articulated long before that RfC's month was up, yet it only seems to have bothered you when the actual issue upon which the admin who closed that RfC was resolved and there was no consensus.

Furthermore, despite your claims that 16 people are supporting you, a significant number of us who support the current (image 2) (or don't) aren't !voting in this RfC because it's disruptive. It's been filed less than 3 weeks after the last one, run on the heels of it becoming clear that the OTRS had resolved the issue that the closing admin had closed it on, thus restoring the status quo to the article. --Xomic_Talk 12:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The RfC should be scrapped because it is forcing a decision between two poor choices. Why is that image the only alternative?Griswaldo (talk) 11:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You are free to suggest others. Previously none however seem to have achieved much support. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I did suggest another image below. We don't even have to reverse it :). I think there is a very good case to made that the first image should be emblematic and eye catching more so than educational. There is plenty of room in the body of the entry to place educational images. I think it is clear from the discussion that the nude image is too controversial of a choice to be pragmatic. Moving it down into the entry and placing a very high quality and visually appealing image, like the one I'm suggesting, at the top seems like a great compromise. I think it could be good to restart that conversation (with an open mind to other images as well as the one I suggested) instead of staying stuck in this black and white choice between two images, which IMO are both bad. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not feel that one is any better than the two suggested above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Really? I fail to understand, as someone who is arguing against use of the nude image , how you don't think this is better than at least that photo. Here are three very practical arguments for it being better than the other non-nude alternative. 1) It is much more visually striking in its emphasis of the pregnant belly specifically, 2) as silhouette it doesn't normalize any particular ethnicity, and 3) it doesn't have to be mirrored (which apparently is against policy). I'm not trying to compete with anyone here, just trying to get us out of this rut. I'm happy to discuss other alternatives as well.Griswaldo (talk) 14:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not arguing against the use of the nude image just that the nude image would be better placed lower in the article.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that, and was addressing that issue specifically all along. Now what do you think about the argument for using this image in the lead? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

oh, hell. I'm just about ready to move the nude image down and replace it with the Asian woman. Yes, I know it will cause everyone to freak out, but this talk page conversation is interminable. it's like this page is suffering from OCD. All the images are fine objectively; can we please go with one that has a marginal chance of satisfying everyone subjectively? --Ludwigs2 14:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

We have to wait till the copyright thing is straightened out before taking any further steps. B——C_ritical 17:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I hope you're being ironic, considering how much effort you put into pushing an image with far more questionable copyright status onto the article. You don't get to tell me that I have to follow the rules that you have so vocally broken. --Ludwigs2 17:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The image has been removed, so obviously we can't use it and have to wait for permission and copyright issues to be dealt with as I understand BeCritical's comment. He also posted the new image so I assume he is supporting its usage. Sorry Ludwigs I guess I don't understand your comment.(olive (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs, if you can do it in the next half hour, you have my full support in putting the new image into the lead. Or, you could just assume good faith and note that you can't put in an image which has been deleted. B——C_ritical 20:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

lol - hadn't noticed that, but it does serve to prove my point. how long did the current image sit around with abysmal permissions?

Misplaced Pages is such an irrational place.--Ludwigs2 20:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The nude image never had a copyright problem, it was verified as being properly licensed a long time ago, and re-verified by another commons admin this year. The only question raised was subject consent, which isn't a copyright issue. The OTRS permissions were added to completely shut down any possible copyright argument, but copyright wasn't really a problem prior to that. Dreadstar ☥ 21:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah and I never cared about the copyright disputes anyway. The Asian image already has perfectly good copyright permissions for use at Misplaced Pages by all rational standards. B——C_ritical 21:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Chiming in near the end here. I am probably among those most frequently called "religious" "conservative" around here, FWIW. Anyway, I personally have no particular objection to the inclusion of the nude picture in the article. The question is, basically, how high/prominent in the article. Having looked at both images, the only things I see that are pronouncedly different are the visibility of the breasts and the bone (or maybe cellulite?) at the top of the woman's outer thigh. The breasts are, admittedly, somewhat large, but I don't see myself how having a single image with large breasts is necessarily the best way to show that breasts enlarge. The model may have been well-endowed from the beginning, for all I can tell. If there were use of "before" and "after" pictures together, that might be more useful, but the inclusion of a nude "before" picture is itself I think of dubious encyclopedic use. So far as I can see, the primary use of a photo here is to indicate, basically, that the belly swells up in pregnancy. Most people I think already know this, and those who don't probably aren't really good typists who could find the article anyway. So I can't see any clear encyclopdic benefit from having the image prominently displayed at the beginning of the article. The clothed image conveys the basic point just as well, and maybe a bit better, because it is less titillating. This is not saying that I have any objection to the inclusion of the nude image at all, but do think that it might be better included later, maybe in the section specifically about the biological changes which result from pregnancy. John Carter (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Mirror image not allowed

Note that image 1 is not allowed on English Misplaced Pages, per MOS:IMAGES where it says "images should not be reversed" for mere layout preferences. The original USDA image has the pregnant woman facing right, not left.

• Image 1, mirror image
  not allowed
• Image 2
• Image 1 original
  from USDA

The RfC cannot rule in favor of a disallowed image. Binksternet (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Facepalm Yes, the wikilawyers will be all over this should the RfC (which I still think is premature in light of the recent one) rule in favor of Image 1... what a clusterf... of course, the MOS does not state that reversed images CANNOT be used only should not be used. Also, the MOS is only a guideline, it is not a policy so it does not have the force of law, thus while the original image is prefered, the MOS does not dictate that it has to be that way.---Balloonman 21:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I suggest you look at File:PregnantWoman.jpg and the file's history; namely that a user flipped the image as the comments were being added. That document doesn't apply to actions taken at Commons. Furthermore, I note that the manual of style is a guideline, calls for common sense, and allows exceptions. And your quoted language states should not, not must not or cannot. In no case would this provide a route to invalidate the latest RfC. Decide on an image, then decide which way it should face. – Adrignola talk 21:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• I believe the RfC to be out of process, but really, just vote and reverse. No one is voting for the image because of the way its facing. And lets assume good faith please, per accusations of wikilawyering. Sheesh! (olive (talk) 22:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC))

It seems to me that it is not right to do a mirror reversion of some person's image without obtaining his/her permission. The reversed image presents as the person's left side what is actually his/her right side. It is therefore (slightly) deceptive, thus this should not be done without the person's consent. Dessources (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• The MoS is a guideline, and one that is, for the most part, only cared about by the people that wrote it. It takes remarkably little for me to advocate ignoring it. Does the image look slightly better mirrored? Yes. Okay, ditch the pathetic micromanaging tome then and get on with it. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Mirror images are certainly allowed. They are discouraged, but in practice, they are used all over the place, especially in biography articles. Kaldari (talk) 22:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Yeah, and all the MOS says that's it's not required to reverse an image (to have it in the more-desirable position of facing the text), not that's it's not allowed, for goodness' sake. Herostratus (talk) 05:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Support BOTH images

RFC response. I think both images are good and I think they complement each other in general and in the context of the article. Include them both. It is the simplest, most pleasing and most informative option. I cannot imagine the sinkhole behind the eyes of anyone who finds either picture in the slightest degree prurient or offensive, and I cannot support impoverishing the article's content to gratify such people. If anyone is in doubt about options, go and read some of the discussion of the Suicide and Ejaculation articles. A lot of options are kicked around there and I don't see where I am to get the time to deal with every nitwit who gets a guilt complex every time he gets the itches from the sight of human skin or human realities. JonRichfield (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This is exactly the sort of "I'm right, you're stupid" response typical of internet discussions. Grown-up people, who have to face each other the next morning in the office, simply wouldn't behave like this. I'm unwatching. Colin° 21:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The question isn't about supporting BOTH images... both images can go in the article, the question is which one better serves as the LEAD image. The one that has created controversy and offends some or the benign one?---Balloonman 21:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

And there is a point where your argument goes right off the rails. If the picture is offensive, how can it possibly be OK for people to encounter it as they scroll through the article? Logic has failed. Irrational conservatism MUST pushing this. HiLo48 (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Which shows how little you've understood the position being presented.---Balloonman 19:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with Balloonman. I would also point out to all involved that, according to WP:CONSENSUS, and this is a quote: "When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerned." Please note the explicit references to "reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense," because I personally have seen several comments which are, effectively, just impugning others. So Far as I can see, the reasons for inclusion at the beginning of the article are, basically,

• 1) that it is a "beautiful" (which is purely POV, by the way), and that it clearly and explicitly indicates the distended abdomen of the pregnant mother.

So far as I have seen, the arguments against the inclusion of that image at the beginning of the article include the following, with me perhaps rephrasing a little:

• 1) the nude female is a Caucasian, the other is not. Overemphasis of Caucasian types has been questioned before in wikipedia. Also, there is the apparent reality that the majority of pregnant women one might encounter today are not Caucasians, so a non-Caucasian might be more "representative."
• 2) The nude image, by virtue of its nudity, seems to emphasize the visible physical changes in the pregnant female over and above all other aspects of pregnancy, which currently are the content of section 3 and higher of the article. If one thinks that the lead image should "summarize the content" of the article as much as possible, which the lede text is supposed to do, it has basically been argued that the nude image fails to summarize or even indicate all those other aspects. An image which contains more information than simply the nude body of the pregnant female can be seen as being a more effective "summary" of the non-biological aspects of pregnancy than the nude image.

If I missed any substantive arguments in the above, please feel free to indicate them below.

I personally believe that the contention about the lead image made above is a valid one. And, on that basis, I believe that a clothed image, which I believe does a better job of conveying some of these other aspects of pregnancy by demonstrating at least some of the non-biological aspects, does a better job of conveying those social matters. On that basis, I believe it probably better fits in the lead section than the nude image, although that in no way indicates that the lead image might not belong in the article somewhere.

Having said all that, I still see what is to me a rather obvious lack of image in the existing article. So far as I can see, all the images involved are of humans. I think it makes some sense to display at least one or two images of non-human pregnancy, perhaps particularly of four-footed animals, because the physical appearance of four footed pregnant animals is, to a degree, rather different. Can anyone find such an image which conveys the appearance of four-footed pregnancy? John Carter (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The article is about human pregnancy.(olive (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC))

@Littleoliveoil: Sorry for missing that earlier. I stupidly looked over the whole article but missed the hatnote. My mistake. John Carter (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

John Carter - you have failed to state the fundamental argument against the existing image. It is "I CAN SEE HER BREASTS!!!!!" This is often acompanied by comments to the effect that "It doesn't bother me but there are some people I believe it will bother." This is pro-censorship, conservative rubbish. Without that argument this debate would either not exist or would have been a lot shorter. It is NOT an argument that says there is anything wrong with the image. Breasts have never hurt anybody. HiLo48 (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I once again urge the above editor to act according to WP:AGF and not make unsubstantiated allegations regarding the motivations of others, or make remarks which may well seem more incendiary than productive. I also urge him and all other editors to act according to the guidelines I referenced above and address the matter of the reasons given. If you have substantial evidence to verify that your assertion is accurate, please produce it. Otherwise, I urge you to act in accord with WP:AGF. Also, please indicate to me how and why there are no significant objections to the later image, which, so far as I can see, shows little but the breasts. John Carter (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

My allegations of conservatism and wanting censorship are quite well substantiated. They are supported by every post seeking removal of the image which mentioned its offensiveness. If you don't think it is offensive, but still want it removed, will you accept the striking out of every such post? Or are you comfortable accepting the "votes" of the pro-censorship conservatives on your side of the ledger, even though you disagree with them? And as for your attack on my Talk page, it's perfectly valid in a debate to try to ascertain the true objectives of one's opponents. It's more likely then that all parties can achieve their goals. HiLo48 (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

HiLo48, would you leave off the "conservative" and "pro-censorship" schtick already? I'm a left social democrat. I also am not Hu Jintao, Ali Khamenei, or any of their friends or relations. OK? I kind of resent being being boxed into some category to fit your worldview, so would you cut it out and just stick to the matter at hand? Herostratus (talk) 05:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

If the cap doesn't fit, don't wear it. If you have good reasons for your views that don't involve wanting to hide nipples, that's good, but I have very big issues with those editors who do want breasts banned no matter what, and I will continue to defend Misplaced Pages against such views. HiLo48 (talk) 05:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes I to have a very big issue with those editors who do want breasts banned no matter what. At least we are in agreement with this.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)Actually, no, you won't. Misplaced Pages is not your battleground against the forces of conservatism. You have swamped this page and, from what my watch list tells me, at least one policy page in your crusade. You feel strongly about the image. That is fine. You wish to passionately advocate your position. That is great. But you have stepped far past the line. And you still have to answer my question about RfC's above.--Tznkai (talk) 06:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

If that was directed at me, all I need to say is that my posts are all made in response to other posts, to defend the status quo. That's hardly advocating a radical position, nor flooding. HiLo48 (talk) 07:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at the history of this page, and look at the percentage that is you versus anyone else. And the issue isn't radicalism, its whether or not you're hear to fight a battle, or whether or not you're hear to cooperate. Please, read the appropriate policies. They explain it quite well..--Tznkai (talk) 07:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not here to cooperate with those who want to move Misplaced Pages towards Conservapedia. So shoot me. HiLo48 (talk) 07:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• (ec) The world at large → Reliable sources → Misplaced Pages. Our task is purely to collate and summarize reliable sources. There is only one side involved in this task. Uniplex (talk) 08:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC).

Meh. I say again. I have only ever responded on this page. I have not initiated ANY discussions. I reserve my right to treat garbage posts with contempt, as should you. HiLo48 (talk) 09:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The only right you have on Misplaced Pages is the right to leave. Who started it is not relevant. This isn't school.--Tznkai (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Tznkai - I really suggest you have a look at the discussion over at Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not#How to end this so we can all move on? rather than trying to silence me. My points are completely valid and have the support of a broader community. HiLo48 (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Another evasion, true to type. This isn't a popularity contest, or a political one. Misplaced Pages isn't any sort of contest. The validity, or even the soundness of your points is irrelevant. No more using Misplaced Pages as a battleground.--Tznkai (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how defending the status quo point by point can be seen as conducting a battle, even if I do it aggressively. I am not alone. If the status quo is not defended, it will change. You may want that. I don't. HiLo48 (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Have contributors in the previous RFC been notified?

Particularly as the previous RFC had quite a lot of respondents and was so recent, it would IMO be wise to notify them with a neutrally worded message of this new RFC with some explaination for why a new RFC is being held so soon as the previous one (consensus was unclear when concerns over consent issues were excluded and not everyone expressed an opinion if consent issues were resolved). I suggest some discussion be held here over the wording to avoid concerns of WP:Canvassing but it's resonably common to inform previous contributors to an RFC (or similar) on the same issue. Nil Einne (talk) 14:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

No, contributors to the previous RfC were NOT notified. That would only happen if those pushing the ultra-conservative POV here actually wanted due process to occur. Clearly they don't. They just want to win.

If such contributors are now notified, everything posted since that earlier RfC up until now should now be struck out, as it was misplaced, unbalanced comment. HiLo48 (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Although this seems to be work more suited for a bot, since no one else has volunteered and it's becoming an issue in this RFC, I intend to notify those who participated in the previous RFC with the following:

{{ subst:Please see | location=Pregnancy#RfC: Which photo should we use in the lead? | more=You participated in the previous RFC on the lead image, ] }}

See for how it will appear to the user.

If anyone objects to the wording or has any other suggestions, please let me know.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I just realised I copied and paste the wrong version above, it's a bit broken as I linked to the article rather then the talk page. Also I've slightly modified my message to apologise to those who are notified but have already participated as I feel trying to exclude those would just take up too much time. New proposal is below:

{{ subst:Please see | location=Talk:Pregnancy#RfC: Which photo should we use in the lead? | more=You participated in the previous RFC on the lead image, ]. Apologies if you have already joined the new discussion, as I am doing this manually and there is a large number of people to notify, it is difficult to ensure I exclude those who have already participated in the new RFC. }}

Nil Einne (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes if you could do that that would be great. Thnks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

No it wouldn't. It's too late to fix this mess. All discussion since the closure of the last RfC should be struck out. Maybe a new one could start now. I really cannot see why. Nothing has changed. But, if you start a new one, inviting all previous participants right at the start, it could be valid. But, if no good reason for a new RfC is presented, it will just be bad faith editing by poor losers and I will persist in highlighting that. HiLo48 (talk)

It doesn't matter when they are invited provided they are given sufficient time to respond. The fact that they were not invited at the time doesn't invalidate any comments from those who have already participated. If they raise issues that are not addressed by existing participants and those participants don't address them after, that will of course be considered by any closing admin. I believe the discussion technically should close in 4 days or so but I don't see anything wrong with keeping it open for another 8 days+ to ensure those who have been invited have sufficient time to participate. I participated in a recent move discussion for Burma/Myanmar and was similarly invited fairly late in the discussion, there wasn't any suggestion of closing and restarting because of the late invitation. And there's no actual requirement to notify previous participants anyway, although when the previous discussion closed as recently as this one or when it had a lot more participantion it's usually a good idea. In any case, as you haven't raised any objections to the wording or other suggestions relating to the inviation I'll go ahead.

P.S. You're mistaken nothing has changed from the previous RFC. At the time, there were questions over the consent over the nude image which has now been resolved. As the closing admin made clear (i.e. take this up with them if you disagree, not me), there was consensus for changing the image if the consent issue was at play. As the closing admin also made clear, there was no consensus for changing the image if the consent issue was not at play, therefore the default was stick with the nude image, which was done once the consent issue was resolved. As I remarked above, this was the correct course of action. While not remarked on by the closing admin, a read of the previous RFC suggests that a problem was some people did not express a clear cut opinion when consent issues were not at play therefore their a read of the consent without the consent issue was more difficult. As I've said at least twice, this suggests further discussion was merited at some stage to see how people actual feel when the consent issue was not in play. As I've also said, I still consider this was perhaps a bit soon, it would have been ideal to wait a while longer both so that more discussion can be held (e.g. stuff like mirror images ideally should have been sorted before the RFC), other images can be found and considered, like the Asian one, and also to give people a chance to recuperate. Heck, if people had brought this to somewhere appropriate early on, I may have even supported closing the discussion early on. But since this didn't happen, we're left with where we are now and you can't strike out extensive discussion just because you think people should have waited longer before discussing again.

It's perhaps worth remembering discussion in an RFC is almost never struck out except for banned users and occasionally for personal attacks and other OT discussion when it gets out of hand. Instead, any closing admin simply considered the appropriate weight to give to comments, so if someone gives no sound rationale for their preference, their view will usually be basically ignored.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no magic timer for RFCs, just a mindless default for the bot because it can't tell when a discussion is winding down or a dispute is resolved. If people want to let it run longer, then that's just fine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I have completed notifications. I'm pretty sure I notified everyone, including an IP which hasn't edited since September, but didn't double check. You can see the users from my contrib history,

14:38, 17 November 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Jfdwolff

until

15:07, 17 November 2011 (diff | hist) N User talk:NotANumber ‎

were all notifications. (If counting be aware I made a mistake & had to edit NCurse's page twice, and also added a header for the IP so edited twice for them.)

I also notified User:Elian at the German wikipedia (in the previous RFC their talk link links to the German wikipedia) and User:NotANumber at the Italian wikipedia (in the previous discussion they indicated they were more active at the Italian wikipedia although they seem to been mostly inactive since 2009 with one edit in 2011). I created the talk page for User:Saibh & User:Tinly who don't have many contributions. (I'm not saying they're the only ones, simply the ones I noticed due to the lack of a talk page.) If they're more active at another wikipedia, I didn't see any sign.

I excluded anyone who had left any comment in this RFC with the assumption they were already aware of the RFC, whatever they said even if it was simply to indicate a refusal to participate or suggest closure early on. The users I excluded for this reason are:

User:Jmh649, User:Dreadstar (also retired), User:Becritical, User:WhatamIdoing, User:Dessources, User:Ludwigs2, User:HiLo48, User:Sonicyouth86, User:Kaldari, User:SDY, User:Viriditas, User:Balloonman, User:Jayen466, User:BullRangifer, User:Nandesuka, User:Enric Naval, User:Binksternet, User:Littleolive oil

As I ended up making some effort to remove anyone who left a comment already, I ended up removing the apology, but otherwise used the same message as I suggested above.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay I've now double checked so am more certain I notified everyone. I didn't find anyone I did not notify accidentally but did realised I left out two users from the list of people I didn't notify due to participation in this discussion. However, as I did all this manually, I can't guarantee there are no mistakes, particularly if someone's username was very similar to another participant or their signature wasn't obvious (which is probably against WP:Sig) Nil Einne (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW if anyone is interested, from a quick count in the previous RFC, 19 people I notified supported the change, 13 people I notified supported keeping the nude image. 1, User:MastCell did not express a clear cut opinion and possibly doesn't care. I'm counting people as support if they left a comment saying support or equivalent, ditto for keep the nude image. I.E. I didn't read the specific comments, so I would count someone as support even if they clearly specified they only supported it for consent reasons and would support the nude image if the consent issue was resolved. BTW, since I've already spent about 2:30-3h on this today, I probably won't be back. I would suggest this subthread on notification be closed if there are no further comments to make things simpler for any closing admin as I don't think there's anything important here. Nil Einne (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Obviously pregnancy is the only substantial, encyclopaedic subject that could disturb sensitive people, right? (Ejaculation? What could be upsetting about someone ejaculating "Dear me!"? Onanism? Onan was biblical; that can't be offensive. Defecation? Errr... well. Sex... Oh all right!!! Forget what I said!) So it seems that there are maybe several subjects with biological connections that might call for explicit illustration, OK? Then when this pregnancy thing blows over, what is the bet that someone opens the same can of worms elsewhere? What fun, right? Bottom line (if you will excuse the expression): it seems to be a matter of real urgency to make available to sensitive people a mode in which they only need look at graphics if they ask for it. (Sane people who do not opt for the mode could carry on as before, and pant or drool over illustrations of nude giraffes and so on.) We have other useful optional modes, and this one seems to me a simple one to implement. Some folks might ask why we need anything like this in an encyclopedia intended for educated people; we don't What we need is a cheap and simple tool (oops!) for removal of a basis for complaint by the ineducable, so that the rest of us can spend our time more productively. How do I get this proposal (which is surely not new?) into an item on the project list for WP? Or does someone have a better idea? JonRichfield (talk) 07:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought it already existed and was called Conservapedia. HiLo48 (talk) 08:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what I said to give the idea that Conservapedia had anything to do with this. Have you visited it? In response to your remark, I did. Even if it were a reference source, or were free of possible offence, neither of which in in any relevant sense it could aspire to, its existence would not affect our problem here. Otherwise there would be no problem, right? But there really is a problem, right? After all, both of us are wasting time here, right? I spoke of the very contrary of CP, the specific avoidance of watering down content, paltering with truth, or haggling about sensitivities. Please explain how you see CP helping either WP or its editors or readers with any of those problems or the problem of handwringing over explicit pictures of flies mating or human skin. JonRichfield (talk) 09:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED != WP:ONLYUNREASONABLEPEOPLEWILLFINDSUCHTHINGSOFFENSIVEANDWESHOULDSHOVEITINTHEFACEOFEVERYONEELSEORTHEYCANBUGGEROFF.--v/r - TP 17:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh is that why you want it? You should love CP then! What part of siitfoeeotcbo is it when 1: as at present, people have the option of not looking at what they don't want to look at, and 2: when at some time in the future, I hope, they have the option of looking and reading and still not seeing what they don't want to see? DO have a nice day! :-) JonRichfield (talk) 18:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

People dont have the option of not looking at it because there is not a "Warning, this page may contain images that some may deem offensive" prior to opening it. When such as feature, as your crystal ball has imagined it, comes into fruitation then we can just put penises, vaginas, and buttholes as the lead image on any article even remotely related to some abstract of men and women, broadly construed, per WP:NOTCENSORED. I think a big giant penis is needed on the Occupy articles, wouldn't you think? I mean, men are participating so it seems only rational.--v/r - TP 18:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

TP, It might be best to step back a bit and see what it is we are supposed to be discussing. I can't speak for you, but as I see it, there is no point to censoring anything as long as

• The information is of reasonable, and preferably lasting, interest, reliability and informational value to to some class of voluntary readers (roughly speaking, as long as it is encyclopaedic, right?)
• The information is presented in a manner calculated to convey it effectively, relevantly, accessibly and without malicious distraction (sabotage, vandalism etc)

If you don't accept the foregoing, then please say so and we can save each other a lot of sweat and keystrokes, but then I don't know what you are doing here in the first place anyway.

If anyone sees an article saying "Pregnancy" and labours under the impression that it refers to a condition attendant on wind pollination, a condition that only concerns those parts of people that stick out of their clothes, even if they happen to be stark naked under those clothes, then my heart bleeds for their innocence, and if in addition they are prone to panting fits and are wont to ruin their bibs with drool whenever they see skin, I am even more deeply affected, but I still do not see why I should have to put up with downgraded or dumbed-down articles just because subject matter dealing with pregnancy does not suggest to some people that maybe, just maybe, pregnant women might have bellies and breasts, and that accordingly such obscene items might be illustrated in an article on pregnancy.

For my money, the title is quite adequate warning that female physiology and anatomy might be described and depicted in such an article, so that to suggest that readers "dont have the option of not looking at it" leaves me in doubt whether to question your sincerity or your sense. Suppose we did move the pic down three pages. Page 1 shows only the title and an apology for using such an ugly word. Page 2 has the lede plus (copyright pending) "Warning, page may contain images that some may deem offensive if no one has deleted them". Page 3 contains skin, skin, skin!!! Maybe even pubic hair! And guess what? readers dont have the option of not looking at it because how could they be expected to think that we meant the warnings? Warnings after all, don't necessarily adhere to strictly reliable predictions. As for your demand for penes, buttholes etc, hey, whatever blows up your skirts man! As long as you can pass everyday criteria of relevant, encyclopedic, accurate, NPOV, NOR material, go for it! Enter it one handed or two-handed, as you prefer; nobody cares! If your big giant penis is just what someone is panting for above a particular article, you might even get a big award (Yaaay for TP and his big giant penis!!!) But if you were to put your big giant penis on say, my article on teensy weensy penes, or on an article on millinery, you would find it gone pretty soon, even if you tried to justify it by arguing that the hats are just the things for capping a "big giant p...". But please don't take my word for it TP, suck it and see! Only mind your blood pressure. Cheers, JonRichfield (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Jon, it's already in the works. You can read about part of it at meta:Image filter referendum/en. Basically, the WMF board decided last year that they were going to offer the equivalent of Google Images' "Safe search" mode to anyone who voluntarily opted-in. The resolution prompted much squeaking and bellowing by (white) editors about their right to force (Asian, African, Middle Eastern, South American) readers to view images of people engaging in sex/paintings of Mohammed/images of mutilated bodies if they want to read encyclopedia articles or search for just about anything on Commons, but the Board doesn't seem to have backed down.

It will definitely be months, and possibly much longer, before the option is available, but it's supposedly happening. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks WAID, that is something worth waiting for I reckon, and a comfort to contemplate. I wonder what the likes of TP will find to complain about our cramming down their throats after that... Don't have time to speculate though; knowing it's coming I can concentrate on something more constructive than nagging! :-) Cheers, JonRichfield (talk) 12:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Jon: I'm sorry, this is like someone suggesting that they have the right to walk around nude in a public park because other people can buy thick dark sunglasses if they don't want to see. The question here is whether wikipedia should use a gratuitously graphic image; the fact that there are other options available is irrelevant. --Ludwigs2 14:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi L2, I am afraid that I don't quite follow. Are you arguing that people should or should not be allowed to walk round nude in public? Or only in public parks with high walls, where there are signs warning people without thick dark glasses that this particular park permits nudity, but that if you read the signs then you are compelled to go in anyway? What do you mean "gratuitously graphic"? Is "graphic a modern abbreviation for "nude"? You mean graphic as in "Venus de Milo" or as in the giraffe at the head of the giraffe article? "Gratuitously graphic"? You take my breath away... Frankly, I am not sure I don't prefer T2's "big giant penis". If you really mean it that "the fact that there are other options available is irrelevant", then you leave me at a loss to know how to communicate with you. If I were to take you seriously, then I could not use a public lavatory (something that obviously you don't do, if I am to take your communication seriously) because my obscene exposure would visible to any passer-by peeping under the door; the fact that there are other options available, such as simply passing on without peeping, is irrelevant, right? Please rephrase more helpfully. JonRichfield (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Let us just take another vote. There is no effective dispute resolution process on WP. I have never yet seen anyone change their mind as a result of discussion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

We, the undersigned, realize that there is not currently an agreement to remove, add, change or do anything to the current image at the top of the article. As such, we agree that, for a period of six months, we will not participate in any discussion proposing such changes, except to link to this statement. We will shun anyone who proposes such changes and does not stop when informed of this agreement.

1. Hipocrite (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. If there every was a bad faith proposal, this is it.--v/r - TP 22:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

   You appear to believe that AGF is a suggestion. It's not. This is also not a "support" or "oppose" thing, it's a pledge. Hipocrite (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

   Although I may disagree with many folks here, any proposal to simply hold your head high and ignore those who disagree with your point of view in a effort to enforce a "status quo" is bad faith. I'll not back down. Further, I'm not neccessarily opposed to the nude image. I'm just opposed to closing the discussion which is exactly what your proposal seeks to do. At least the above proposal suggest self-imposed break from the subject. Your's involves shunning others. That's not appropriate.--v/r - TP 22:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

   That's not what the proposal says. Please read it closely, again. Hipocrite (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

2. B——C_ritical 22:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

   This not a "support" or "oppose" thing, it's a pledge. Hipocrite (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

   It's gaming, so: oppose. Hans Adler 22:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

3. What is this, the frigging Tea Party? --Ludwigs2 23:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
4. Sorry, error on my part. I have moved what I said (upward to before the pledge sub-heading) JonRichfield (talk) 06:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

• If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Misplaced Pages (Commons does not allow fair use)
• If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)