Talk:Pregnancy/Archive 3

First trimester
The sectino about the first trimester tells almost nothing about the signs and symptoms of it. It can be more informative. Undead Herle King (talk) 05:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

First sentance query
Why does the first sentance specify that pregnancy only refers to humans? The word pregnancy can apply to any placental mammal (just double checked this with one of my text books - Cambell & Reece's Biology, 6th Edition). I realise there is a seperate article discussing animal pregnancy but even that uses the term pregnancy in reference to animals. I'm not suggesting we change the whole article to deal equally with all relevant species, but it does seem odd to have an inaccuracy in the very first sentance of an otherwise well written article. Danikat (talk) 11:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Having worked through the various related articles again I'd suggest altering the first sentance to acknowledge that pregnancy can also refere to other mammals and providing a straight link to the article Pregnancy (mammals) rather than leaving anyone not looking for information on humans to muddle their way through the current trail of links via the Gestation article.
 * Something along the lines of: Pregnancy (latin graviditas) is the carrying of one or more offspring, known as a fetus or embryo, inside the uterus of a female viviparous mammal. The term is most commonly applied to humans, for information on other species see Pregnancy (mammals). Danikat (talk) 11:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

POV issue: Terminology, "symptoms"
In this edit, I changed the word "symptoms" to other phrases, such as "health effects", with the rationale that pregnancy is not a disease, and that "symptoms" is inappropriate terminology to describe the effects of pregnancy. Orangemarlin immediately reverted this edit, stating that the word "symptoms" "is not used exclusively for a disease state".

While technically the word "symptom" may be used to describe a mere change in state, the fact remains that the word "symptom" is primarily used to mean "an indication of disease". Merriam-Webster's first definition of "symptom" is "subjective evidence of disease or physical disturbance; broadly : something that indicates the presence of bodily disorder". Is this the light we want to cast upon pregnancy, that it should be considered a "bodily disorder"?

See this Google definition search, where 21 definitions describe the word "symptom" as meaning "an indication of disease", while only 3 refer to the word as a value-neutral indication of a change in state. Even our own Symptom article begins with this: "A symptom is a medical sign indicating the nature of the disease." Thus the word carries a negative connotation.

Certainly, pregnancy should not be referred to as having "symptoms", as it is not a disease. Any effects or detriments to health that come as a result of pregnancy are their own entities to be treated. They should not be described as "symptoms" of the pregnancy, as the pregnancy itself is not a disease with symptoms. To uphold NPOV, I suggest that we build a consensus to refrain from using the word "symptom" to refer to the natural effects of pregnancy. I refer you to this version, which suggests use of the word "effects". Response? Photouploaded (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please learn how to use Wikipedia templates. This is hardly a POV issue.  It is a definition.  Since I am a doctor, and you are what???  The word symptom is used much more loosely than a bullshit amateur dictionary uses it.  Moreover, until the something is definitive, the patient could have cervical cancer and present with many of the same fucking symptoms.  But if you're so fucking upset about it, then revert.  I don't fucking care all that much.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 16:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I made an edit, you reverted it, and so I placed a dispute template in the article and calmly brought up the issue on Talk.  You responded with foul language in your above comment and its edit summary.


 * Your response surprised me. I don't think this use of a dispute template was problematic. Personally, I like it when people use dispute templates, because it alerts readers and allows us to find and weigh in on discussions.  I understand if you found placing the template to be unnecessary, but I think that swearing at me is completely uncalled-for.


 * I would like to build an actual consensus with you and the other editors, so if you feel the issue is unresolved. Per your consent above, I will change it now, but if you would like to discuss it civilly please reply here.  Thank you.  Photouploaded (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't do civilly. I do discuss honestly and rarely in these fucking talk sections.  So here are my points, in as civil manner as I can digest:


 * There is no consensus here, since only you, me and about 500 vandals care. Oh, there was some putz about a year ago that has a community ban for edit warring here, but we're over that.  So, since only you and I care, let's get this done.
 * Get over the swearing. That's the normal way of talking in my world, which is made up of MBA's, MD's, CPA's and tons of smart people.  Oh and in the United States Navy, where I worked for a number of years.
 * So, now we get passed the crap, and move into the real points. The template is flat wrong.  I would suggest you spend some time reading WP:NPOV, and I am not someone who does not read them, there are no POV disputes.  The only POV dispute would be say I thought Pregnancy was an act of God, and you thought Aliens cause pregnancy.  Luckily, neither of us is saying that.  Remove the POV tag, to be honorable.  Or don't, and I'll have an admin take care of it.
 * I removed Symptoms per your constant pushing of that POV. You are using symptoms in a negative way, per a non-medical dictionary.  However, according to the Oxford English Dictionary a symptom is:  "A phenomenon or circumstance accompanying some condition, process, feeling, etc., and serving as evidence of it; a sign or indication of something."  However, to make you happy, and frankly it is a minor point, I'm not going to push it any further.
 * WP:MEDMOS is the manual of style of Wikipedia that covers medical related articles such as this one. You are using Diseases/disorders/syndromes in a negative sense.  Yes, pregnancy is NOT a disease or disorder, but it is arguably a syndrome.  Pregnancy is one of the rare significant medical changes to a person that is not a result of a pathogen or other immune system problem (I guess aging, puberty, and a few others would work).
 * I do appreciate what you are trying to do. However, the whole point of WP:AGF is that you presume that I'm trying to do the right thing too. The article is a medical article, not some philosophical treatise on the state of being a woman.  That deserves an article, but not here.


 * OK, I hope you understand my attempts here. Please remove the POV tag.  It's not very useful.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 20:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes per Diseases/Disorders/Syndromes section of WP:MEDMOS
Since hir recent expletive-filled response to the concern I raised above, Orangemarlin has made major changes to Pregnancy, in alignment with the format set forth in the Diseases/Disorders/Syndromes section of the Wikipedia Manual of Style for medicine-related articles. I find this reorganization to be troubling, in light of the above discussion. Orangemarlin, would you please explain your recent edits? Photouploaded (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Orangemarlin, your changes to this article are drastic. Please come to the talk page for discussion.  Photouploaded (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I did. You don't own the article.  It is a medical article.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 20:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What the fuck does this mean? You think I'm stupid?  Or maybe you jump the gun, and keep conflicting with my edits.  Try to be patient, will you?   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 20:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:CIVIL. Please stop using foul language.  I would be more interested to explain if you would cool your jets. Photouploaded (talk) 23:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Cultural differences in measuring age
There was an edit on 02:50, 23 July 2007 that added Japan to a list of countries that measure a person's age from conception (rather than birth). Such that someone is born 9 months old (rounded up to 1 year). While I can't speak for the other countries (Korea, China & Vietnam), I live in Japan and can say that this is not true here. A child is zero until its first birthday.

Personally, the whole thing screams 'urban legend' to me, I can't find any corroboration on-line, and can see a few sites that imply it's not true(i.e. Chinese oriented sites talking about the importance of a baby's first birthday). However, I'm only taking out Japan because it's the only one I'm certain of. The Zig (talk) 16:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It has no references cited to help verify, so I've added tags. As for "In the context of personal treatment, bedside manner generally dictates that doctors make sparse use of clinical language like "fetus" and "embryo," and instead simply use the word "baby." likewise seems spurious to me - most doctors in the UK that I've encountered would (when then think before speaking) choose not to use emotive term such as "baby" in discussing with a women an inevitable spontaneous miscarriage, and a deliberate use of of "embryo" would be prefered, or indeed state that the "pregnancy has ended" and make no direct mention of the loss of a hoped for embryo -> fetus -> baby -> child -> offspring. Fact tag applied again here. David Ruben Talk 02:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It is definitely true among some Chinese culturues, e.g. it is the case amongst many Chinese in Malaysia. East Asian age reckoning suggests you are mistaken about Japan. I think you're confusing the difference between the modern method of counting the age, used in most contexts in East Asian societs such as Japan and the tradiational method still used in some contextx such as fortune telling and in some other contexts. There is not surprsingly a big difference betweem what people use in every day life and a tradition which is still maintained in some contexts. You may want to ask people who should know in Japan and make sure you aren't perhaps mistaken Nil Einne (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate reverts
Orangemarlin, this diff is an example of a very inappropriate revert. Reverting someone's edit and adding an edit summary explaining you are guessing wastes your time, the prior editor's time, and the following editor's time. If you don't know something, please either look it up or leave it alone. --Una Smith (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Immunological Tolerance
Hi. I just noticed that one of the sections of this article had been cut and pasted from a different Wikipedia article's,sub-section. I have no idea what Wikipedia policy on this is. It's not plagiarism as it's the same website, though it does seem somewhat redundant. But then, it is relevant information for this article. Anyway, it had been wrongly cut and pasted across such that it included reference numbers and not actual references. Subsequently it had been tagged as needing references. I decided the best way to resolve this was re-cut/paste the same material in a way that included its actual references, which I've done. I also removed the 'need reference' tag, and replaced it with a 'main article' link. If this was the wrong way to handle this, do what you gotta do with the article, and let me know what I did wrong. I'm new here.The Zig (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Seminal fluid
One study, with only 28 women, which resulted in minimally useful data is hardly mainstream. Strongly suggest striking the seminal fluid cervix ripening as a violation of WP:UNDUE and probably of WP:FRINGE. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * After being accused of "stalking", I have removed the offending sentences. E kala mai. --Ali&#39;i 20:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Orangemarlin apparently now agrees with the sentences and has replaced them. I'm confused. Should this be included or not? --Ali&#39;i 21:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. It appears that OM is simply reverting to the compromise I put in place pending some kind of consensus on this issue. I didn't see it as an endorsement of including the statement, but rather as trying to stabilize the article. I could be wrong, of course. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, he reverted with the comment "Matches source. Not sure why it's contentious to anyone." Although I thought my edit to delete the sentences about seminal fluid, but leaving the sentence about the efficacy remaining uncertain would have been a good compromise. Either way... Mahalo. --Ali&#39;i 21:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I reverted to the version by KC. That's all.  sorry I missed this conversation.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 19:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not at all; glad you're here now - Drrem made some unsourced edits, Ali'i tried to source them, I objected to the source as not supporting the edits (or at any rate not very well) and in general the source says no mechanism which is not mechanical or chemical is efficacious so I am concerned about undue weight. Meanwhile, Drrem has posted in the section below, without any sources other than his own knowledge. So that's the situation currently. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * But why would you knee-jerk revert to KillerChihuahua's version? ;-) I had removed the seminal fluid bits, but left the sentence stating that the efficacy remains uncertain. Here's the rub... intercourse is a widely distributed (although perhaps old-wives tale-ish) method of induction (repeated by old-wives and OB/GYNs/midwives alike). The problem is the lack of rigorous, "standardised" clinical studies (as noted). So, where do we go from here? I think it must be noted somehow, but obviously have no problem stating that the efficacy remains unclear. Mahalo. --Ali&#39;i 20:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Pregnancy page: regarding characteristics
The information given is confusing at the best of times if not incorrect and misleading (the use of archaic terms does not help). Let me try to explain. The use of lunar months to measure a pregnancy is certainly confusing to the lay-person. It is sufficient to say that a human pregnancy lasts, on average, 40 weeks or 280 days. This is the time lapse between LMP and EDD. This is the clinical evaluation that an Obstetrician or Midwife performs. It is certainly also true that the correct duration of human pregnancy is 38 weeks when considering the average time lapse between fertilization and EDD; this however is usually not clinically evident and so not utilised by O's or M's - except for women who have ovarian cycles that last 35 days or more. International agreement is to consider duration of pregnancy as being, on average, 40 weeks or 280 days. I propose leaving out the bit about lunar months (confusing and pointless).

On the page "term" is defined, incorrectly, as being from 37 to 43 weeks. This is an extremely serious error: the correct and universally accepted (I'd like to point out that there are very few points in medicine that are universally accepted but this just happens to be one of these) definition of term is from 37 weeks up to 41 weeks + 6 days (i.e. 259 days to 293 days). As I did point out, in the edits I inserted, this derives not only from mathematical and statistical considerations but also from biological and medical facts. Complications to fetus and mother are considerably higher from 42 weeks on (294 days). Telling laypeople that term lasts up until 43 weeks is very dangerous and irresponsible.

On the page the word "term" is incorrectly defined as pointed out above but correctly utilised. It is plain logic that prior to 37 weeks events are preTERM (NOT premature) and after 41 weeks + 6 days events are postTERM (NOT postmature). The word mature expresses a biological concept, not a temporal one. Therefore it is best avoided. For this reason O's and M's use term, preterm and postterm. (Premature can be used in other Obstetrical context such as premature rupture of membranes).

Ripening of the cervix is a biological fact, Obstetrical necessity and correct medical term.

I believe that this can be enough to be getting on with for the time being even if there are many other points to be clarified (don't have enough time). drrem Drrem (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've just put back as much as I could of what you wrote.
 * You do sound like you know what you're talking about - more than I do, I'm sure. But the problem with what you wrote was that it was presented totally unsourced. Everything has to be repeated from a reliable source for Wikipedia. Experience means nothing here, as anyone can edit. So everything needs a cite. It's just the way it works. Honestly, if Einstein were resurrected for one hour and just barely managed to type in his "theory of everything" here, it'd be deleted by some teenager with - "WP:OR". So if you don't want to be reverted, try to include a reference or three. More the better really.
 * I imagine you'd have some better sources on this than me, most the medical journals are subscription, so if you add information again, please put up some references to show people that you're really not some kid making it all up!
 * Hope I put back enough to address your above concerns. Cheers! The Zig (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see any reason why measuring pregnancy by lunar months is confusing to the lay person. For anyone who is using a lunar calendar, they may very well be more familiar with the idea that a pregnancy last 10 lunar months instead of 280 days. Remember this is an encylopaedia, not a medical text book and it is intended for anyone that reads English not just people who uyse the gregorian calendar Nil Einne (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Pregnancy
MOVED from User talk:KillerChihuahua 19:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, KC, I don't want to have a big kerfuffle here, so, please hear me out: I accept, for now, that the hatnote reads "female humans". But I don't think it's accurate to use the word "males" to glom together biologically male animals, and female-bodied, male-identified humans. It's an odd, catch-all use of the term to say "males", meaning "animals which are biologically male and humans who are biologically female yet identify as male". My intent is simply to make a distinction between the use of "male" to refer to biology and "male" to refer to gender identity. The meanings are different. What do you think? Photouploaded (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Pregnancy is a biological function. The biological term applies. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * But... if you're saying that "males", in that instance, means "those who have male biology", then having the hatnote read "males" is inaccurate. The people in question have female biology (or biology that is intersexed).  Photouploaded (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Photo, there are several issues here: One, that pregnancy is a biological process, and two, your desire to have a distinction made in a hatnote concerning gender identification. You started a war about this before, which, if I recall correctly, darn near got you blocked. You were a newbie then. You're not now. Attempt to gain some kind of support or consensus for making this change before starting this up again on the article itself. Its not being bold when you know the last consensus was unanimously against you; its edit warring against consensus and that is disruptive. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Photo, you did cause a kerfuffle about this previously, so I'm glad you don't want to do so again. What I'm missing is what are you trying to say?  Are you concerned that the biological and medical description of pregnancy is going to be confusing somehow?  You keep trying to make these changes, but I guess I don't understand "why".   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 19:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * My concern is that in the hatnote, the word "males" is being used in a way that doesn't make sense. I think it's odd enough that seahorses are being lumped in with pregnant transmen at Male pregnancy, but at least the language is accurate: the adjective "male" can be interpreted to mean gender identity OR biology.  That simply isn't the case when you use the plural noun, "males", as you insisted upon in the hatnote.  What sort of "males" are these?  Biologically male organisms?  No, that isn't correct.  The humans in question have female biology.  My suggested version reads: "For pregnancy in male animals and male-identified humans, see Male pregnancy."  The other version reads: "For pregnancy in males..." -- is this really more accurate?  Photouploaded (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What's a hatnote? Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 19:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, female is a biological term, not a psychiatric term (or psychological or sociological). In humans, except under some very very rare (which means, I can't think of one of the top of my head, so it's probably impossible), only human females can become pregnant.  I don't think you're making a point there.  With regards to "male pregnancy", I'm actually beginning to see your point.  But the problem isn't this article, it's Male pregnancy which is an odd one.  Other than getting long and complicated terminology in the hatnote, maybe it should be deleted, since from a biological and medical standpoint, only humans that are female can get pregnant.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 19:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, because even females that self-identify as males are still biologically female. And like Orangemarlin states, the only humans that can become pregnant are females (whether they identify as such or not). --Ali&#39;i 20:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * But why mention male pregnancy at all with respect to this article, since it is physiologically impossible, except in some bad movies. Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 01:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You should be happy you've found common ground! Which makes all of us - everyone who has weighed in so far, at least - just like last time. Photo, you are in a minority of one. You have zero support for your desired changes. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Again and again with the personal remarks, KC, but no clear answers. What does "males" mean, in the hatnote?  Photouploaded (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Term, preterm and postterm
Thank you for understanding the necessity to change what was written in the "characteristics" chapter. I fully realise that all must be double-checked and referenced but you must appreciate that I cannot have that much time to dedicate to your pregnancy page (besides the many errors on the page, much of what I read was also non-referenced or referred to insignificant literature). My sources are RCOG,ACOG,SCOG guidelines and journals such as BJOG, AJOG, EJOG, Clinical OG and I try to put my time to best use possibile.

The page is better as it now stands but still allows for much improvement. AGAIN, premature and postmature in this context are best forgotten (they belong to medical history - archaic). I also edited a minor detail directly on the page (term is attained at 37 weeks, NOT beyond).

I also favour dropping the bit about lunar months as that has no clinical significance and is confusing to most people. One could just as well measure the length of pregnancy in X nanoseconds or Y light-years. What is the point? It's just a curiosity that doesn't actually add anything to a person's knowledge of important facts on pregnancy. I honestly cannot envisage an Obstetrician or Midwife - or anyone else for that matter - basing a clinical decision upon the gestation age in lunar months. Sorry. Drrem (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. One thing though - this is your pregnancy page as much as it is mine or anyone else's. No-one's being paid for this! In my opinion, really wasting your time here is writing a comprehensive, clear, balanced and accurate piece, and then failing to source it. Because you leave it at the mercy of the next layperson who rolls along - someone almost certain to know less about this than you do! And a LOT of Wikipedia editors seem REALLY keen on deleting un-sourced stuff nowadays. So a far better use of your time is to write a few sentences that are reliably sourced - cos at least they'll still be there next time you look.
 * As for the stuff about pre-term - premature, I'd love to put this in the article, it sounds true and relevant, but I can't. I looked last night, and I can't access any reliable sources that discuss this. If I add it, chances are someone will assume I'm talking out of my arse and revert it. If you have any sources on this, share them here in this talk page so that someone maybe can build it into the article. Or add it yourself with sources. As knowledgeable as you sound, I can't take your word on this and add it, and then expect other people to take my word on your word - this is the internet nobody should trust anyone!!!
 * cheersThe Zig (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ps. I agree about the lunar months stuff, it's not really helpful. If it's still here next time I feel motivated, I'll take it out. By the way 'light-years' is a measure of distance, not time. (this ps comment was added by the zig I presume)


 * As I said above, it seems to be you're guilty of cultural bias. A lot of people do use lunar months, particularly I suspect many traditional cultures still use lunar months significantly (it's removes the need to keep track of each day). And lunar or lunisolar calendars are still a part of life in many less traditional cultures who've adopted the Gregorian calendar for everyday use but where it has been traditional used, e.g. much of East Asia, South Asia and many Muslims and I believe Jewish people. Since pregnancy is something which affects everyone it seems relevant to me. As I said above, this isn't a medical text book or a guide for midwives/obstrecians, it's an encylopaedia intended to inform everyone and yes this includes people who use lunar months and people who don't use lunar months who may be interested in the fact. 10 lunar months is no less or more natural then 9 gregorian calendar months both are artificial human constructs used in everyday life by people. Aand yes, it would be silly for us not to mention the fact that a pregnancy lasts approximiately 9 gregorian calendar months given that in general terms this is what people tend to think but thankfully we do mention it lasts about 9 months + 6 days (but the 9 months is there which is a key part)and you haven't decided it's a useless piece of information. Your comment on nanoseconds is frankly just plain silly and offensive since no one keeps track of such a long period of time in nanoseconds. The nanosecond of course being an artificial construct as well. Nil Einne (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually it occured to me that it didn't make sense because a lunar month isn't that different from a normal month. After checking lunar month it appears someone thought it was a good idea to use a sidereal month, but this is dumb no one uses them in real life. They may have some meaning in some cultures, but lunar calendars always measure time by the synodic month which is as I've said, close enough to the month in a gregorian calendar that 280 days doesn't come out to 10 months (it's nearly exactly 9.5 synodic months). So I agree it should go, but not for the reasons you mentioned Nil Einne (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The word premature
The word premature has all but disappeared (thank heavens) from use in Obstetrics when talking about events prior to 37 weeks. When the acronym PROM was coined it was used, erroneously, as the abbreviated form of "Premature Rupture Of Membranes". In this context modern day Obstetrics has correctly replaced the word premature with the word PRE-LABOUR, and quite rightly so. Even the original use of PROM (where the P signified premature) the Obstetrican INTENDED pre-labour. This has, at last, been rectified. As things stand today PROM is "translated" as prelabour rupture of membranes and NOT premature.

There are two forms of PROM, according to when PROM happens. If PROM occurs at term (i.e. at 37 weeks or after) it is called tPROM (term prelabour rupture of membranes). If PROM occurs prior to term (i.e. before 37 weeks) it is called pPROM (preterm prelabour rupture of membranes).

Premature is best forgotten altogether in the field of modern day Obstetrics. Use of premature should be avoided. Drrem (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)(forgot to sign) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drrem (talk • contribs) 17:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see some citations for that. And I'd like to know if what you're insisting is utilized in the US. Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 17:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that "premature" has two senses here: premature as in a baby younger than 37 weeks gestation (this term is common, although imprecise), and premature as in the ordinary sense of too soon. PROM is Premature Rupture of Membranes but the premature is in the ordinary sense, meaning only rupture of membranes before onset of labor. pPROM is Preterm Premature Rupture of Membranes. Although with respect to babies premature and preterm are almost the same, they are not exactly the same and some people (such as NICU nurses) take great care to distinguish between them. A preterm baby is younger than 37 weeks gestation. A premature baby is a baby born too soon, ie before it is able to survive outside the uterus without intensive medical care. Some term babies are premature; some preterm babies are mature. Delivering a premature baby is one of the more important risks of an elective C-section. --Una Smith (talk) 08:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Cervical ripening
To those who don't like the term, those who don't remember the term and those who, on the basis of having reproduced, think that they should have already heard of the term had it existed.

Please visit the Royal College OG's site (rcog.org.uk) and check out Evidence-based Clinical Guideline Number 9 dated June 2001: subject matter "Induction of labour". Table 3.1 on page 15 defines cervical ripening. As I did previously say, cervical ripening is not only a correct medical term but it also expresses a necessary biological function, without which we would all be extinct. Thank you. --Drrem (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, "cervical ripening" is a real term. --Una Smith (talk) 08:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Cites
Could we please:- I found a this cite to confirm Drrem's changes just by googling "obstetricians induce 42 weeks". Not difficult, and so much more productive than destroying good information, and potentially inciting an revert cycle. If people really don't have time to do that, slap a 'fact' tag on it, and state that you will delete it a few days later if it hasn't been improved, please. Give people a chance! And for adding cites, there are templates here, if you put these between reference tags, which look like this (but without the spaces)
 * 1) cite potentially controversial new info, even just a sentence re-order if it changes the meaning. (see WP:CITE)
 * 2) not revert new info as un-cited without at least LOOKING for cites first.

....  

then it puts all the info in a nice little footnote. Don't clutter up the article with it! You're new, so I doubt this was intentional, but this could easily be misunderstood as disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. I've fixed it up in a way I hope will please everyone.

Can everyone please remember citations, assume good faith, and not bite

Cheers, The Zig (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Pregnancy page - Characteristics
The first 5 lines of "Pregnancy characteristics" are much plainer reading now (oocyte, spermatozoon, intercourse, insemination). I haven't added references, but there weren't any there prior to my edit anyhow.

What I have written is NOT opinion (mine or anyone else's) but is pure medical FACT so I don't know on what logical basis anyone can object (if not just for the sake of objection and "reversion"). --Drrem (talk) 11:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Pregnancy page - nutrition
Recommended weight gain during the 9 months is 10 - 12 kgs. (If BMI is normal). Obese gravida needs less, skinny gravida needs (a little) more.--Drrem (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I reverted this earlier as no cites were provided for changes. You ask quite rightly on your user page why some of us are so keen on citations when we have let drivel get through in the past.  Possibly because we don't know the editor and when numbers are changed by editors without explanation it is often vandalism.  However, I note that your edits are pretty damn good so I shall tend not to revert yours in future - unless I reckon they are egregious, and then I shall explain!  Welcome to WP !  Gillyweed (talk) 12:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have removed this; please cite a source. Certainly, one flat figure is not accurate; one who is 4'11" is going to be different from one who is 5'11", one who is underweight might need to gain three times what one who is obese should, etc.  Also, the figure you mentioned is inaccurate for one experiencing a multiple pregnancy.  Photouploaded (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

How come weight gain in pregnancy is such a sensitive issue? Anyhow, here's a link - http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/articles/article.aspx?articleId=2311 - to the British NHS that confirms what I am trying to get through: i.e. (10 - 12 kgs). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drrem (talk • contribs) 15:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Because it's not as cut and dried as you'd like to make it. Or as NHS would like to make it.  That a weight range is specified, instead of a pct of BMI, is like mixing apples with rocks.
 * Also, for females (especially) it is indeed a very sensitive issue on a number of levels. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Pregnancy page - Complications
Common symptoms and signs CANNOT be considered complications. I have purposely renamed the complications chapter because only dehydration and GERD could be considered complications. All the rest are basic signs or symptoms that are more or less frequent in individual pregnancies. It should suffice to say that a medical sign CAN sometimes be considered a complication or part of a complication. Same goes for the word symptom. None of the signs and symptoms included in the list automatically qualify as complications. --Drrem (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

TO THE BENEFIT OF EAGER BEAVERS i.e. those who love reverting for the sake of reverting and do not discuss, explain or try to make a point. I checked the Wikipedia page for complication: the first line reads: Complication (medicine) - an unfavorable evolution of a disease, a health condition or a medical treatment

The list of signs and symptoms that I keep defining as such are certainly not complications (if we are to accept WKP definition of complication). They are simply signs or symptoms.

Sign = a state that can be identified by a third party (objective). Symptom = a state that is referred by a person. (subjective). Neither a sign nor a symptom ALWAYS identify an unfavorable evolution of a disease, a health condition or a medical treatment. 2 examples: sweating is a SIGN but it certainly does not mean that the person who is sweating has some sort of disease. Headache is a symptom: not everyone with a headache is diseased.

The list on the pregnancy page is a list of SIGNS and SYMPTOMS, certainly not complications.

If you visit my user page or check out my history you will find that some have granted that "I seem to know what I'm talking about" - at least in this field.

--Drrem (talk) 11:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Pregnancy page - Supplementation in pregnancy
Prenatal medical care is of recognized value throughout the developed world. 100 % TRUE.

Various vitamins or supplements are recognized as beneficial during pregnancy. NOT TRUE. This is true ONLY for Folic acid.

Prenatal multivitamins as well as folic acid and the choline available from lecithin have either government approval or published studies supporting their use. IS THIS THE SITUATION IN USA? This is certainly NOT the case in Europe.

Folic acid reduces birth defects. 100 % TRUE.

Prenatal Choline derivable from lecithin improves the performance of rats on mental tests throughout a rat's entire life.[29] So what, aren't we talking about human pregnancy? Don't think my wife would appreciate me considering her and our offspring a family of rats.

Omega 3 fatty acids support the mental and visual development of infants and they are also beneficial postpartum. NO EVIDENCE FOR OMEGA 3 SUPPLEMENTATION IN PREGNANCY.

As I see it (visit drrem user page), and that's according to current medical literature '''FOLIC ACID IS THE ONLY SUPPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDED IN NORMAL PREGNANCY. NOTHING ELSE GOES.

Anyone got different info? Otherwise this part of the pregnancy page definitely needs major overhaul. --Drrem (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The chapter states: "Prenatal Choline derivable from lecithin improves the performance of rats on mental tests throughout a rat's entire life.[29] Omega 3 fatty acids support the mental and visual development of infants and they are also beneficial postpartum".[30]

WAFFLE. This does not prove the need for supplementation during pregnancy. --Drrem (talk) 11:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent - get rid of it. Gillyweed (talk) 11:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, no refs to support your position? I don't care that you're an ob/gyn, I want to see refs. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  20:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * How do you prove a negative with references? How can I find a reference that says: "Crushed dung beetles should not be used as supplements in pregnancy?"  Those who claim that these supplements are needed for a pregnancy should provide citations that they are useful.  Gillyweed (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice try, but no. If other supplements are ineffective it would follow that studies have shown their inefficacy.  Yes?  Yes.  This is not proving a negative, see.  This is showing that only folic acid supplements are efficacious.  Quite simple, really. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Pregnancy page - Complication
The word complication is defined by Wiktionary as: "(medicine) A disease or diseases, or adventitious circumstances or conditions, coexistent with and modifying a primary disease, but not necessarily connected with it."

Need I say more.

Complications are complications; signs and symptoms are just that. Not TOO difficult.

--Drrem (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, lose the snarkiness.
 * OED Also (Med.), an additional disorder or condition that develops during the course of an existing one; freq. in pl. complication of diseases: ‘a collection of several distempers that seize on the body at the same time, especially if they depend one upon another’ (Bailey). &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 20:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Who cares what Wiktionary states? You realize where wiktionary definitions come from, don't you?--Filll (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm glad it was changed. I agree, what complications? There are "complaints", such as "this feels uncomfortable" or "jeeze, I have to pee a lot", which are like a cough and sniffle as one has with the common cold. "Complications", which implies problems with the health of fetus and/or mother, like a cold developing into bronchitis or pneumonia, is a complication. I have a feeling that more men than women are writing this article. lol. ←Gee ♥Alice  06:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS
You say: "Signs and symptoms - Signs and symptoms are not a part of prognosis; furthermore, these aren't signs or symptoms".

I beg to differ.

You insist on making the assumption that signs and symptoms imply disease. NOT TRUE.

Signs and symptoms are part of everyday life and, thankfully, most of the time do not belong to the realm of disease states. Being a medical doctor, gynaecologist and obstetrician I fully understand that the words sign and symptoms automatically bring to mind "a doctor making a diagnosis" but you must see beyond this.

These ARE signs or symptoms. They are part of NORMAL pregancy and in no way represent a disease state. They can be present in any altered state (altered meaning pregnant vs non-pregnant) and their presence in no way implies a diseased state.

Pregnancy is an altered state of being. Many parameters are physiologically altered (this is a necessity in pregnancy) and this does not mean that there is disease. For example, the white blood cell count is altered (remember the film Love story?). Does this mean that every pregnant woman has leukaemia? Didn't think so.

Please would you realise that what has been listed as "complications" is basically a list of signs and symptoms that are present in NORMAL PREGNANCY. In this context revert your revert.

Further examples: constipation in pregnancy is normal, not a disease. It can certainly sometimes require medication but that doesn't qualify it as disease. Headache often requires medication but headache is a symptom that can often be down to being overworked or a number of other non-disease states.

--Drrem (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're starting to get tendentious. This has been discussed, you're incorrect, and you need to read WP:MEDMOS.  Finally, I'm moving this argument to the talk page.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 16:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We seem to be getting tangled up in semantics. See my comments below.
 * You might enjoy the OED definition: 1. a. Path. A (bodily or mental) phenomenon, circumstance, or change of condition arising from and accompanying a disease or affection, and constituting an indication or evidence of it; a characteristic sign of some particular disease. Esp., in mod. use, a subjective indication, perceptible to the patient, as opposed to an objective one or sign. &#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149; 20:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think we should go with the medical usage, no matter what you think and no matter how many tantrums you decide to throw here on these talk pages. Sorry. We need articles that are useful to our readers, not to your weird political agenda or taste.--Filll (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

"Prognosis"
This is a term that implies disease. Putting this on the pregnancy page is equivalent to suggesting that pregnancy is a disease. Surely that can't be what someone is trying to say. PLEASE somebody remove the term from the page. PLEASE --Drrem (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OrangeMarlin changed the article to this wording, as part of reorganizing the article per WP:MEDMOS, as according to the section on diseases, disorders, and syndromes. Please review this section to get up to speed on the circumstances under which these changes were made.  Photouploaded (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Photouploaded (I wonder what that means, BTW). Prognosis does not mean disease, it is simply a discussion of what may happen in any medical state.  We've been through this before, so please read the previous discussion.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 18:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

--Drrem (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please re-read what I typed. I know perfectly well what prognosis means, thank you. What I am saying is that prognosis is a word that only applies to a disease state: don't apply it to healthy pregnancy - at least not until a disease actually occurs, which can and does, of course, happen. Thankfully not always. At that point it's no longer a healthy pregnancy amd prognosis, along with diagnosis and treatment become the 3 main clinical aspects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.88.244.182 (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC) Sorry, here's the signature


 * A bit less snarkiness might be nice. Also, suggesting a word to replace prognosis would be beneficial.  Linguistically, both you and OM are correct: prognosis in and of itself does indeed have the broad definition OM stated, yet in medical usage it has generally become specialised and has been narrowed in scope to refering to disease.  In other words, it can stay or go, but if you want it changed suggest an improvement rather than simply bitching about the word's usage. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  20:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Not to argue with a linguist like Jim, but I slightly (ever so slightly) beg to differ. Prognosis has become a lay-term for disease prediction, but in medicine, it can be used for any medical state.  Moreover, if any editor, whatever their claimed background, wants to head on over to WP:MEDMOS and fight the battle, be my guest.  It really isn't worth the trouble.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 23:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

--Drrem (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * More like neologist than linguist. Snarkiness???? Just thought I'd mention it. Words usually have precise meanings.


 * Alas, I missed this. From the OED: Snarky, a:  Irritable, short-tempered, ‘narky’.
 * 1906 E. NESBIT Railway Children ii. 49 Don't be snarky, Peter. It isn't our fault. 1913 J. VAIZEY College Girl xxiv. 326 ‘Why should you think I am “snarky”?’ ‘Becauseyou are! You're not a bit sociable and friendly.’ 1953 E. COXHEAD Midlanders x. 247 I've known you were the soul of kindness, under that snarky way. a1974 R. CROSSMAN Diaries (1976) II. 627 We also have to overcome something elsethe stream of anti-government propaganda, smearing, snarky, derisive, which comes out of Fleet Street.
 * Hence snarkily adv.; snarkiness; snarkish a.
 * 1912 R. FRY Let. 16 Mar. (1972) I. 355 So sorry I seem so snarkish just now. 1960 Economist 28 May 859/2 In some of his comments on bureaucracy there is a relapse into snarkiness. 1967 Listener 20 July 91/3 Viewers' letters are not just read out. They are commented upon by Kenneth Robinson (usually rather snarkily).
 * The word is over 100 years old. Neologist, indeed.
 * BTW: every word that has ever exzisted, currently exists or will exist in every language in the world was, is, will be a neologism. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149; 17:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

--Drrem (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoah! So I'm the snarky one! Sorry I also disagree with you on the "bitching". I'm trying to help and I notice that this doesn't gain your favour, sir. Of course, "suggesting a word to replace prognosis would be beneficial". Evidently it's not that easy, otherwise I would have already forwarded a suggestion. Btw, could use of "bitching" against an informed and well-spoken newby be defined mobbing? Sincerely yours

This section seems to be looking at where pregnancy progresses to. That is, either childbirth or via various complications to stillbirth. Is that correct? Perhaps then Progression needs to be the heading of the section. Mind you, that reads a little oddly, but I do agree with Drrem that prognosis does make pregnancy sound like a disease. I'm also not sure that pregnancy is "a medical state", as Orangemarlin suggests. What is a medical state? If we start from first principles that pregnancy is a natural mammalian condition, then medical terms are not warranted, except when we deviate from the healthy normal state. Comments? Gillyweed (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

--Drrem (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks GW. The word progression is a good suggestion. "Outcome" might be better.


 * Ah, the high drama of high dudgeon. Yes, Doc, you are being snarky.  Newbie or not, you've apparently not learned 'nel cammin di nostra vita that being obnoxious/tendentious/arrogant  will get you nowhere.  Molto triste.  Mobbing?  I suppose it is'' terrible that my opinion happens to match that of another editor's.  Assuming that's your point.

--Drrem (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Signature? Sorry, but I beg to differ once more. Continual use of this neologism explains a few things.


 * Progression does indeed sound better, although I'm not sure it's perfect (but I don't know if we'll ever find the perfect word). Change it to progression and let's see if that works.  <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  22:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

--Drrem (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What about "outcome"?

I suggest that the word "prognosis" only has negative connotations in your own mind. I certainly do not interpret it that way. I am not sure progression is much better, and maybe not even as good.

I will also note that until fairly recently, pregnancy was pretty much of a gamble for a woman, and a huge number of women died in child birth. Just look at a graveyard that has some graves in it from the 1800s. What many of these activists forget, now that pregnancy is pretty safe for most women, or even abortion is pretty safe in most cases, that there are huge risks associated with outlawing abortions, and pregnancies undertaken without medical technology. Before Roe v. Wade, the number one cause of death for women of childbearing age in the US was botched abortions. In the Phillipines and Brazil, where abortion is still illegal, the number one cause of death for women of childbearing age is botched abortions. People do not know much about history and live in a fantasy world as a result.

Pregnancy is a pretty dangerous condition, and I personally have had two or three friends who were pregnant and came close to dying, except for medical heroics. I also have had two that would have died if it were not for therapeutic abortions. However, people are so insulated from this in the modern world, and so ignorant of reality and history, that they make really stupid decisions and statements. So frankly, the word "prognosis" is quite apt, even if it is associated with a dangerous medical condition, because that is reality.-Filll (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Righto. I've read WP:MEDMOS and it suggests using Prognosis as a heading.  So we go and look at Prognosis and it reads: "Prognosis (older Greek πρόγνωσις, modern Greek πρόγνωση - literally fore-knowing, foreseeing) is a medical term denoting the doctor's prediction of how a patient's disease will progress, and whether there is chance of recovery."  Who amongst us believes that pregnancy is a disease?  Raise your right hand.  Now what does WP say about Disease?  The WP article reads: "A disease is an abnormal condition of an organism that impairs bodily functions."  While some bodily functions may be impaired by pregnancy, many other functions are enhanced - such as growing a baby!  I think therefore that we are pathologizing a natural process.  Now a semantic question.  Let's assume that pregnant women are diseased.  How can the heading Prognosis make any sense?  Are we here at WP making some guess at how an individual's pregnancy will progress?  I do not believe that WP:MEDMOS requires us to use a heading that doesn't make sense.  The material under the current prognosis heading is all about how a pregnancy might progress.  It has little to do with deciding if there is "a chance of recovery."  Gillyweed (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

--Drrem (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * EXACTLY. Thank you GW, that was very well put.


 * First of all, I hope you understand that I didn't mean to call you a vandal. Watching a hockey game and using Twinkle at the same time should be a blockable offense!  Second, I partially agree with you.  Prognosis in the non medical sense is:  A prediction, a forecast, esp. of the future course of events based on present observation; the probable outcome of a process or event.  In the medical sense it is a disease, although one could use prognosis (medically) to state what may happen as a result of a broken leg.  The prognosis is that the leg will heal nicely, you'll have a limp, or you have a chance for osteomyelitis.  But a broken leg is not a disease.  Pregnancy is the same thing.  The prognosis is that you have a beautiful healthy baby.  Or not.  I really think we are stuck on a word that doesn't matter all that much, but it is a medical term that has been hijacked to mean the development of disease.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 01:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed on many points, except;


 * 1) Prognosis is NOT a disease. (Non-equivalence). But use of the term IMPLIES that tou are talking ABOUT disease (this is exactly what I said in the very first line of what I wrote and what we are talking about. THIS is why it is a term that should not be used when talking about healthy pregnancy.


 * 2) Whether you have a healthy baby or not is not prognosis, it is OUTCOME.


 * 3) I think the correct use of this word DOES matter, especially on WKP, because most people on here automatically would associate the term prognosis as pointed out, i.e. implying disease. The reason for this is exactly as you have pointed out that "it is a medical term that has been hijacked to mean the development of disease".

--Drrem (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Otherwise I agree with you.


 * I don't object to the use of prognosis. I must point out that, while pregnancy isn't a disease, it can be thought of a short term disorder, much like breaking one's leg; which is why I think this term fits here.--<font color="red" face="Old English Text MT, Papyrus">Honeymane <font face="Klingon, QuigleyWiggly">Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 02:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, but some editors are getting all cranky about it. Not sure why.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 02:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * But it isn't a 'disorder' either. Nothing is out of order with pregnancy.  It most cases it works perfectly.  It is an ordered manner of bringing a new organism into the world.  Breaking one's leg is a disorder - the bones are out of alignment.  It is broken.  Pregnancy is simply 'a different state', not a disordered state.    And I'm not cranky - that implies disordered!  :  ) Gillyweed (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * on the contrary, it is a disorder; it alters her daily life, her hormones, etc. The only reason a Doctor wouldn't refer to it as having a 'prognosis' is to not up set the mother-to-be, in the same way they'll refer to it is an unborn child/baby, even if pure medical terms would still have it as a fetus, or what have you. Doctors aren't just men and women of science, they also have to be skilled in the art of Bed side manner. But Wikipedia is not a doctor, and we don't need Bed side manners. Are articles should reflect, as close as possible, a neutral point of view, and I can't see that happening without using 100% pure medical terminology for articles relating to medicine.--<font color="red" face="Old English Text MT, Papyrus">Honeymane <font face="Klingon, QuigleyWiggly">Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 19:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * WHAT?! I hope this is over and done with, and saner heads prevailed. Pregnacy is no disorder. lol. (Okay, I understand I'm coming in late in the game, but still...WTH?? ←<font color="Red">Gee ♥<font color="Green">Alice  06:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Pregnancy page - complication
Just resolved the complication issue.

We were debating about COMPLIANTS. These are all common complaints (not complications). --Drrem (talk) 10:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Then move the Complaints to some other section. Complications are complications.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 02:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of extra image of pregnant woman
I saw that there was a "hidden comment" stating not to remove, as there was much debate. Why is that, and where is the "debate". Since I see no debate here I was bold and removed it. How many images of a pregnant woman does one need to show what pregnancy "looks like"? There is already an image that shows a woman at 26 weeks beside an image of her at an earlier gestation period. That's plenty, IMO. I see no discussion, nor need for the additional, and what I see as a "gratuitous" photo. ←<font color="Red">Gee ♥<font color="Green">Alice  05:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just for future reference, when 'talk' pages get long, they often get archived, like this. If you look in the archive for this page, you'll find the debate you were looking for. Links to archives like this appear near the top of the discussion page, right of the contents menu. (If you look now, you'll see the Pregnancy discussion page currently has two archived pages). I'm just telling you so you know next time, I'm not gonna revert you or anything, as I honestly don't care whether the picture is there or not. Cheers, The Zig (talk) 10:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

So you pretty started the debate up again. If it said not to remove, then don't remove it. 24.145.217.44 (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

2D versus 3D ultrasound
This article currently has some ultrasound images using what's known as "2D" technology. However, I wonder if it would be a good idea to provide more modern "3D" ultrasound images. Wikipedia has an article about this subject. Also, see this external link that's provided by the Wikipedia article. According to the external link, 3D ultrasound provides "a clear, life-like image of the baby. The images are displayed with quite amazing surface details which delineates facial, limbs and body features." Is there any reason why the 2D ultrasound images in this article shouldn't be replaced by 3D ultrasound images?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, here are three of the 3D ultrasound images. You can compare them to the 2D ultrasounds that are presently in the article, and see that these are much more advanced.


 * In contrast to 2D and 3D, there also exist "4D" ultrasounds, which are simply the 3D ultrasounds with the added dimension of time --- in other words, a movie. For example,   here's a 4D ultrasound at eight weeks and two days after fertilization.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No objections or other comments?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My one concern is that 2D ultrasound images are still the preferred diagnostic standard. I've seen some articles discussing why -- give me some time to look them up. Nandesuka (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll hold off for awhile more. Even if 2D is more common, 3D still seems interesting and notable. Both could be mentioned, as well as 4D.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If we're going to mention 3D ultrasounds, I remember reading (in a tabloid, so I doubt it's a reliable source, but I can look it up if you like) that the prolonged exposure used for a 3D ultrasound can harm the fetus - if someone has a more scientific source for that it'd be responsible to note. Kuronue | Talk 00:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yup, here's a link about it. Both 2D and 3D are discouraged for non-medical use, which could certainly be mentioned in this Wikipedia article.  (BTW, the bit at your page about the cylinder is hilarious.)Ferrylodge (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I'm inclined to go ahead and insert these more modern 3D ultrasound images into the article in place of the "2D" images, unless Nandesuka or someone else has some reason why we should wait, or why we should include both 2D and 3D. 3D is gaining in popularity for prenatal diagnosis, and is also widely performed in non-medical facilities.[1] Certainly, the 3D images are more detailed and informative than the 2D images. Both 2D and 3D are discouraged by the Food and Drug Administration for non-medical use,[2] but there are no definitive studies linking ultrasound to any adverse medical affects.[3] [1] Sheiner, E. et al. “A comparison between acoustic output indices in 2D and 3D/4D ultrasound in obstetrics”, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (2007 Mar;29(3):326-8): “Three-dimensional (3D) ultrasound is gaining popularity in prenatal diagnosis. While there are no studies regarding the safety of 3D ultrasound, it is now widely performed in non-medical facilities, for non-diagnostic purposes.”

[2] Rados, Carol. "FDA Cautions Against Ultrasound 'Keepsake' Images", FDA Consumer Magazine (January-Febraury 2004).

[3] Kempley, Rita. “The Grin Before They Bear It; Peek-a-Boo: Prenatal Portraits for the Ultrasound Set”, Washington Post (2003-08-09): "There are no conclusive studies proving there is any damage at all caused by ultrasound," says Charlotte Larson, assistant clinical professor of obstetrics at the George Washington University Hospital. Ferrylodge (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sex during pregnancy.
If you are pregnant and you have sex is it possible to become second pregnant? Like get pregnant while you are pregnant. It might sound stupid but I am genuinly curious. Haysead (talk) 03:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. No eggs are released for fertilizing once a woman is pregnant. Gillyweed (talk) 06:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, it does happen rarely; it's called superfetation. --Ginkgo100talk 03:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well there you go. Thanks for that bit of information. Gillyweed (talk) 03:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Pregnancy and cramps?
Does pregnancy cause cramps, and if so should that be included in the article for the people who are unaware of cramps being a side effect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.163.227 (talk) 04:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The most common pregnancy "cramps" are Braxton Hicks contractions, which are mentioned in the article here. Round ligament pain can also occur but is not mentioned in the article. However, if you or someone you know is pregnant and experiencing cramping, you should contact your health provider right away, as it can also be a sign of impending miscarriage or preterm labor. --Ginkgo100talk 23:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a little late to the game, but a sudden, sharp pain in either side during pregnancy can be a sign of ectopic pregnancy. This is when the fertilized egg implants somewhere it shouldn't, usually the fallopian tubes. Usually this would occur in the first trimester. If you or someone you know experiences this, you should go to the doctor right away. 71.37.146.197 (talk) 17:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Image
Why is the main image in black and white? It seems like it was taken from an artistic POV, not an informative one. Perhaps a better picture could be located/taken? Matt (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED#Wikipedia_is_not_censored "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness, but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article."

The nude image contributes nothing to the content. It's unnecessary, and offensive to some. It's not censorship to remove such an image, since the image contributes no additional information to the article. It contributes no more information than an image of a woman partially clothed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.24.154 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 30 March 2009

The "a boy was traumatized" comment sounds like a straw man argument to me. I want a defensible reason for the inclusion of the image! Simply saying "*we* formed a *consensus*" means nothing to me, since "we" and "consensus" are weakly defined. I see no evidence for a "consensus", only evidence that it's been argued.

Why should the image be here? What value does it add? My View -- By default, a nude image should not be in an article unless it contributes additional information which could not be easily explained otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.24.154 (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you can't be bothered to read the extensive debate on this and the archived pages, then don't expect other editors to summarise it for you. So far you've offered no reason for removing the image other than "I think it's offensive" and 4 other editors have reverted you.  Please stop before you get blocked. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 19:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "Offensiveness" was not the problem. The problem is its relevance to the article.  It adds nothing to the article.  Can someone explain why the nude picture is relevant?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.137.175.15 (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Read the talk page. Read the archive. Read the other archive.-- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 19:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate that 129.137.175.15 was blocked over this. If they'd taken the advice given then perhaps things would have turned out differently. For future reference; when you find your edits being repeatedly reverted by other editors; do not plunge headlong into putting them back. Far better to discuss. As I tried to explain; this image has been debated at great length before and reasons given for its inclusion. A consensus that has last some while was reached. None of what 129.137.175.15 said attempted to address these points, instead they put a rather weak argument about relevancy. The image is of a pregnant woman. The article is about pregnancy. The image shows the body of a pregnant woman, the article discusses what happens to the body of pregnant women. How more relevant does it need to be?
 * Please also note; unless it is vandalism or discussion not relevant to the article, it is considered very bad form to remove or edit other editors' contributions on talk pages.-- Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read what the comment above the image says. This issue has been debated repeatedly on this page and on archives of this page. Consensus is it stays.   I'd also say that if a boy has been 'traumatized' by the picture, he is of a very sensitive nature and his parents should not be allowing him to browse Wikipedia unsupervised.  This is what the above editor meant by Wikipedia is not censored. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 11:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Or perhaps it is the boy's parents who need a little help. Most children are merely curious, unless their parents have fed them their issues. Concern about nudity is taught. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes it's no reason for removing the image, since it has repeatedly been outlined that there's no consensus for removing it. This has been said probably many times before, but the picture adds value to the article, showing a person without a lot of irrelevant cloths (see the picture here) Nsaa (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Nude image
I think this issue needs to be discussed again. I read through the discussions on the archives but I feel the discussions never got down to the point, and perhaps more importantly, the ones of real substance took place over 2 years ago, and consensus can change. The truth is, like it or not, nudity is (slightly) offensive to a lot of readers. I don't really care about offending them if the image is worth it, but the nudity in this image seems completely gratuitous. If there were a picture of a baby's head crowning, I wouldn't argue against it. But what does this image illustrate? All the caption says about it is that it is a woman 26 weeks pregnant.. but we have another picture of a 26-week pregnant woman, side-by-side with a 40-week picture of the same woman, for comparison. The toplessness of the picture doesn't add anything, and through all the discussions no one has had a good argument why the toplessness is a benefit to the article. The picture is a nice picture, and nudity in some form is probably warranted in this article... but the nudity in this picture is just nudity for the sake of nudity. Sure, she's beautiful and unashamed but this isn't an art gallery and I see nothing wrong with the other pictures we have. Mango juice talk 00:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If I don't get a response here soon, I'll just remove the image per WP:BRD. Mango juice talk 12:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think you have a point here. Very little is lost by removing the picture, very little gained keeping it. No reason to make have a NOTCENSORED proxy fight.--Tznkai (talk) 12:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Even less is lost by not losing the picture, so let's keep it. TruthIIPower (talk) 12:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the image Pregnancy comparison.jpg conveys all the information the image Pregnancy 26 weeks.jpg does an is far less likely to offend. I see no reason to keep the latter. - Schrandit (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * TruthIIPower, you need to do better than that, this comment is no better than a vote, and this is not a poll. Sure, the article loses one largely duplicated image if we remove it, but it also loses a needlessly objectionable image.  Your argument seems to dismiss entirely the notion that something is gained by removing the image, but you don't say why you think that.  My argument should be sufficient to establish the issue, and I am clearly not alone; the hidden comment makes it clear that a lot of users have wanted to remove this image over the years.  Mango juice talk 14:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Less is more.--Tznkai (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, if you want to do more than disagree, you're going to need to address what I said and actively dispute it. I can see how losing the picture loses the benefits of the picture, but nobody has pointed out any benefit.  Is there any benefit? TruthIIPower (talk) 01:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. Reduces cruft. Less is more, burden is on inclusion.--Tznkai (talk) 01:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Is there any benifit?" Yes, not offending people or exposing children to inappropriate content.  In these situations we lean toward inclusion but there is a picture of a woman in a bathing suit right next to the nude picture that conveighs the same information.  There is no reason to keep the nude image and there is gain to be found in removing it.  3 established editors are behind removing it, 1 stands against.  After this much discussion I'm prepared to call that a consensus. - Schrandit (talk) 02:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Putting aside things such as policies against censoring articles and such not, the 'other' picture is only 203 × 178 px, vs Pregnancy 26 weeks.jpg's 1,203 × 2,048 px. This fact alone warrants the inclusion of this image, because this other image is simply not that good and we have an alternative. This being say, Wikipedia isn't made of paper, so we can easily include both images in the article.


 * But let's go back to your argument for a second; your basic argument is that nudity offends a lot of people, and therefore we should remove the image on the grounds that it doesn't add anything to the article. However, as I have pointed out in passing, Wikipedia is not censored. Finally, on her toplessness, as you may be aware, breasts are also affected by pregnancy, and I see no reason why they wouldn't also be shown to give a complete picture. --<font color="red" face="Old English Text MT, Papyrus">Honeymane <font face="Klingon, QuigleyWiggly">Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 03:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well said. I'm perfectly fine with some people being offended, and I couldn't care less if some child got to see the horror that is the pregnant woman so that their brain got warped into imagining that pregnancy and nudity are both natural and normal. TruthIIPower (talk) 03:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, lets avoid making everything a proxy battle for NOTCENSORED. We're also NOTINDISCRIMINATE. I'm going to copy what I wrote on a similar issue over at talk:abortion


 * Remember, the burden is on inclusion of any sort of material
 * Is the photograph acceptable on our image usage policies (free content)
 * Does the photograph add encyclopedic value to the article past the threshold where it deserves inclusion (Articles are not indiscriminate collections of all useful things, there is a threshold)
 * Does the photograph do violence to the reader?
 * Does the photograph's inclusion alter the factual or neutral balance of the article?
 * Overall, does the photograph, on balance improve the article more that it damages it?
 * What we have here is a good faith disagreement over the significance of the encyclopedic content of the photograph. Likewise, there is a suggestion that there is a small amount of violence done to the reader. Even with that ignored however, there is still a burden of encyclopedic value to be met, and if we are to take people who are offended or distracted by nudity seriously, a balancing test to be done.
 * That photograph has just enough encyclopedic value on its own (Look! Pregnancy!) but in comparison to the other photographs, I think it does not have significantly more encyclopedic value to balance out the admittedly minor violence done to the reader.--Tznkai (talk) 04:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree, while I understand it is frustrating to read proxy 'battles' for the Not Censored policy, you must understand that most of the arguments this time around, and nearly every time around, end up crossing into territory that is covered by that policy. Saying something is offensive to 'a lot' of people, or that the content is 'inappropriate for children' are clearly straying into this area.


 * Your question of whether or not the image does 'violence' to the reader is completely non-sensibly, Wikipedia has disclaimers to address the fact that not everyone is going to agree with the content of the articles, and they are read at your own risk, so on these grounds (WP:NOTCENSORED, and Wikipedia's disclaimers), the issue of 'harm' dealt to the reader isn't important, and perhaps not even a valid position.


 * Your argument is basically that, A) the picture does harm to the viewer, and B) it is not encyclopaedic enough to counter it (or, it is not worth more then the other pictures in the article to outweigh this 'harm'). But as I have shown, the 'harm' done by the image is really not an issue, Wikipedia has disclaimers to warn people of such content, and we have policies in place that allow for the inclusion of 'objectionable' material. This image is clearly not in violate of WP:NOTCENSORED (as it's not a 'shock' image, etc) and is clearly encyclopaedic for this article.--<font color="red" face="Old English Text MT, Papyrus">Honeymane <font face="Klingon, QuigleyWiggly">Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 05:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think what harm done, if any, is minimal this is true, but my point is less controversial than that. Look at it another way, say we have, I dunno. "Sewing" and it has an image of a woman sewing, a seamstress if you will. Now, someone swaps that photo out with a naked woman sewing. We would rightly chuck it out. Why? Because its a pointless distraction. Its only a pointless distraction because we accept that nudity for the sake of nudity is unecylopedic. Going further, It is unencyclopedic because it is at discord with the audience, and distracts from the encylopedic content at hand. If this was nudist-en-wikipedia, it'd be the opposite. That sense of discord is included within what I call "violence" to the reader. Now, I'm not suggesting this is the be all and end all of arguments, I am suggesting it has to factor into the balancing test. The amount of scrutiny I am suggesting for the inclusion of an image is very low, all someone has to do is come up with a compelling argument that the nude photo shows something that the non nude cannot show as well.--Tznkai (talk) 05:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, see, this is where I think we would disagree, just today I received my National Geographic magazine, which in the back had an image of a semi-nude woman sewing (the image was in relation to an article about the exploration of the Arctic, and this woman, I believe, was a native helping one of the early explorers), so, I could argue that given the scope of the article, it would be a good inclusion (but perhaps not, say, the lead). The reason I, and many wikipedians baulk at the whole offensive/not offensive, etc, issue, is that we really cannot say with any certainty what is or isn't offensive to whatever group- in many conservative communities, the non-nude 26 week woman would also fall under the category of offensive, and for some subgroups of Muslims, the lead image would also be offensive. And, while I'm not trying to create some sort of slippery slope fallacious argument, what is, or is not, offensive is extremely flexible from culture to culture, which is why Wikipedia has such policies that limit restrictions of images and/or content, on these sorts of grounds.


 * As for showing something the non-nude image cannot, I have pointed out the large size difference between the two images, as well as the breast not being covered. In any case, I must retire for the night.--<font color="red" face="Old English Text MT, Papyrus">Honeymane <font face="Klingon, QuigleyWiggly">Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 05:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

1) It's free.

2) It's a good picture of a pregnant woman, which is pretty relevant to pregnancy.

3) It does no violence. Pregnant women, like women in general, tend to have breasts.  That's just something you'll have to get used to.

4) It doesn't seem that anyone is even suggesting this.

5) The only negative you seem to find is that it depicts a woman as posessing breasts. Somehow, I don't consider this to be a real problem.  Wikipedia has nongratuitous nudity all over the place, and this is par for the course. TruthIIPower (talk) 04:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It does do violence. You may find it silly that people are offended by it, but they are. We're not here to deprudish the world. More to the point, as I pointed out above, the issue is not just whether the picture has encyclopedic value in a vacuum, but whether the nudity increases the encyclopedic value on balance. The growth of stomach and breast isn't particularly more obvious with a nude photograph with a non-nude photograph.--Tznkai (talk) 04:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If that's violence, then the images in breast are a massacre. I'm sorry, but I don't see relevant and artistic nudity as violent. If you do, then this is an issue that you alone can address.  However, Wikipedia is not the right place to address it. TruthIIPower (talk) 04:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Offends then. I'm probably using a slightly post-modern twist on the term violence, but the point is ultimately the same: readers are offended. Readers should not be offended without good reason. I don't think thats a particularly difficult principle to defend. My argument above is that this photograph doesn't qualify as a good reason.--Tznkai (talk) 04:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If nudity is offensive, then you should attack the plethora of breasts on breast before you concern yourself with the single pair we have in this article. TruthIIPower (talk) 04:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * An actual example from early in my wiki-career. There was a photograph of some bridge in Canada, and two very attractive topless young women enjoying the topfree equality law or whatever its called. The photograph was on the bridge's article page, and was objected to. Why? because all the objectors were prude? No, because the nudity was gratuitous in that context, no matter how well shot or artistic.--Tznkai (talk) 04:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I fail to see the relevance. An article on pregnancy is expected to show images of pregnancy.  A real analogy would be an article about a bridge that only showed pictures of it covered by tarps.  No matter how you dance around it, this really comes down to your presumption that nudity is inherently offensive.  I reject this wholeheartedly, and fortunately, so does Wikipedia policy. TruthIIPower (talk) 04:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I make no such assumption, I make the observation that a non-trivial part of the readership is offended and distracted by nudity. I further assert that there is good reason to avoid offending these people unless there is need to offend them. I have further argued that the supposed gains from the nude photo (development of the breast) is not significant compared to a non-nude photograph. I also question the relevance of the supposed artistic merit of the photo. I finally point out that your reasoning is dangerously flawed, because if we went through this analysis, we can explain why we don't have shock images based on my principles, but not based on yours.--Tznkai (talk) 04:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any relation between what you're saying and what we're discussing. A tasteful, artistic picture of a nude woman is not a shock picture in any sense.  Go to Goatse and see for yourself. TruthIIPower (talk) 05:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If someone wants to depict development of the breasts during pregnancy, go ahead. But trying to argue that this picture is doing so when the caption doesn't indicate that and given that no development is depicted, only breasts at one moment, it would do a poor job.  This argument is little better than an excuse to defend the picture.  Mango juice talk 05:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, all I've heard from those in support of the image is that Wikipedia is not censored. What would you think about this same image being included at Brunette?  It's a woman with brown hair.  They tend to have breasts, so we might as well get used to it.  Or, why not at abdomen?  It shows an enlarged abdomen on a pregnant woman.  They have naked bodies, we might as well show it.  I don't have much interest in protecting children, but Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting nudity.  I'm not making this up about Wikipedia avoiding gratuitously graphic images.  See Pearl necklace (sexuality) and the long-standing dispute over a graphic image there, or see WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines which specifically recommends against the use of any nude photos in sexuality-related topics.  I think it's quite clear this image is offensive to people; reference the constant edit warring over it over the last few years, mainly by new users unfamiliar with Wikipedia rules.  Mango juice talk 05:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A glance at breast shows that this "recommendation" is out of touch with consensus. The fact that some people will be offended by bared breasts is not our concern.  Some people are deeply offended by the "mixed race" couple depicted in miscegenation, and yet we do not censor that article so as to ensure the happiness of neo-Nazis and Klansmen.  In short, an image is not offensive merely because some choose to take offense.  Censorship, however, is quite offensive. TruthIIPower (talk) 05:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think comparing people being uncomfortable with nudity with racists and neo-Nazis is... Well, its offensive, rude, and remarkably bad reasoning.--Tznkai (talk) 05:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Then we'll have to disagree. My point is that people take offense to all sorts of things, and yet we need not care. TruthIIPower (talk) 05:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason all you're hearing is 'wikipedia is not censored' is because that's all there really is to say- you haven't really presented an argument outside of 'it's offensive', which, as the Not Censored policy redresses, isn't valid grounds to remove an image or content that is encyclopaedic.


 * I agree that Wikipedia should try to avoid gratuitous nude, violate, or otherwise, images, yet this isn't gratuitous by any means, and the two articles you cite (Pearl necklace and the Wikiproject) neither contain images you're claiming aren't there, or are guidelines, and Works in progresses at that. In order for this image to be gratuitous, it would have to be either extremely out of place (as in the case of the topless women on the bridge in Tznkai's example), or be overtly redundant, such as having dozens of nude, pregnant pictures of woman. Although you have tried to make a case that we already have an image of a woman at 26 weeks, I've pointed out that the image is clearly inferior on the grounds that it simply too small.--<font color="red" face="Old English Text MT, Papyrus">Honeymane <font face="Klingon, QuigleyWiggly">Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 05:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The image is of perfectly adequate size. We're not trying to print posters here.  Yes, Wikipedia is not censored.  That doesn't mean we should ignore the issue of whether images are needlessly more offensive than necessary.  Emphasis on needlessly.  The burden is on inclusion, not the other way around; if the comparison image is too low-res for you, fine, but I fail to see how that justifies being needlessly offensive.  My point with those other documents is to indicate that Wikipedia does take the issue of offensiveness seriously and aims to minimize it.  Breast and Pregnancy are not sexology topics.  And like I said before, I have absolutely no problem with a relevant nude image.  Development of breast tissue during pregnancy?  Go ahead.  Baby crowning?  Fine.  Can we trade?  Is this about ensuring there is some nudity on this article?  If not, there are loads of images we could upgrade this one to, plenty with exposed bellies: .  All those search results are free, WP-compatible images.  Mango juice talk 06:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This image is an artistic nude, not a pornographic one, so unless you wish to claim that nudity is necessarily sexual, your argument self-destructs. I've already given the example of breast, which has many, many breasts, yet nobody can argue that they should be removed just because prudes choose to get offended.  We do not dumb down articles to cater to prudes. TruthIIPower (talk) 11:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Reminder of policy "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness, but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content." (NOT) --<span style="font-size: 10pt; text-decoration: underline; color:black; border: 1pt solid white; padding: 0pt 4pt; background-color: white;">neon white talk 09:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine, but if there is nothing offensive about the image, then any argument based on determining if we can overcome that offensiveness is a waste of space. TruthIIPower (talk) 11:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Truth, I will gladly accept the image is not offensive to you. It's not particularly offensive to me either but the history of the article clearly indicates that it is offensive to many people; just last month we had some IP editors objecting to it, and apparently its removal comes up so frequently and is such a sore point that we have hidden disclaimer text about removing the image.  I do not equate sexuality with nudity, but even plain nudity, even plain toplessness, is offensive to a substantial portion of our readership.  I do not mind setting that aside with a good reason but there is no good reason for this image.  Mango juice talk 12:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I can appreciate part of what Mangojuice is saying, but would find his/her case a whole lot more persuasive if the entire "offensive" angle was dropped, no matter who, personally, is or isn't offended. As <span style="font-size: 10pt; text-decoration: underline; color:black; border: 1pt solid white; padding: 0pt 4pt; background-color: white;">neon white pointed out, what individual editors consider offensive (and that includes any number of anonymous IP editors, who may even be the same person) is not grounds for removal and not what this discussion should be about.  Wikipedia is full of things that many people may have reason to find offensive (politically, morally, sexually or culturally), but this is never a reason for removing it.  (One example that comes to mind is the depictions of Mohammad, something that millions of Muslims find offensive.  That doesn't stop them being on Wikipedia.) I'd like to think I would support this principle even if the image was offensive to me.
 * So to get back to the real point; would this article lose much if this image was removed? Probably not. Is it relevant to the subject?  Definitely.  Pregnancy is a physiological affair, and this image shows the physiology in the clearest way possible.  So, on balance, I think it should stay as I believe the main thrust of the reasons given for removing it are irrelevant. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 13:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We have two images that convey the same information (The woman in the bathing suit also has breasts) and one is more tasteful than the other. Apart from minor pixel concerns why retain both images?  If the article Biceps had two pictures of Biceps and the model in one of them was nude we would take the nude picture down.  No information is lost by not having a nude picture but the article will be less cluttered, easier to load and yes, fewer people will be offended. - Schrandit (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not intending offensiveness to be the main thrust. But when TruthIIPower claims that the image is not offensive I have to object; it is part of the issue here, because it's gratuitous.  Anyway, the reason I think this image adds so little to the article is because its purpose is duplicated, and done better, by the comparison image that shows a woman at 26 and 40 weeks side by side.  Yes, that image is lower resolution but it just illustrates more - you can see the difference after the baby drops, and you can see the relative size difference in the same woman.  Also, the section the image is in says little about the physical development of the mother's body; it mentions the baby dropping in the 3rd trimester, and it mentions some changes in the breasts, and the navel, but none of that is illustrated by any of the images.  Perhaps I could better illustrate my point by putting up a draft with what I consider to be more illustrative images.  The flickr search I did gives me thousands of free images to use.  Mango juice talk 13:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I honestly cannot believe I've spent as much time as i have on this non issue, but I want to make a clarification. This isn't about what I or other editors find offensive, its about readership and to a large extent good writing. Let me explain by analogy. Standard action movie is made. Someone decides that "Man, this is a good looking girl. I'll add a tasteful shot of her breasts to show character growth or something." Now, 9/10, the artistic integrity of the movie was in no way added to by the nudity. Sometimes the nudity IS pointful, artistic, and has merit. Nudity draws attention, and it draws attention away from the subject at hand, and to the nakedness.
 * Thus, my argument is that the nudity is more distracting than useful. I honestly will sleep fine no matter which way this goes, but this argument is getting really silly. Now Honeymane has pointed out, rightfully so, that the nude image is objectively of higher quality, and also feels that the nude image shows detail that a non-nude does not. I disagree. Specificly, the non nude image shows progression. That seems to be the best way to do it.--Tznkai (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll throw in my 2 cents. Here's what all can hopefully agree on:
 * Is the picture relevant? Yes.  (Obviously.)
 * Is it offensive to some? Yes. (Obviously, since there has been so much discussion on it.)
 * Is there a benefit from the picture? Yes. (I.e., portrayal of the physiological changes of a pregnant woman at 26 weeks, including the belly and darkened areolas.)
 * Can the same relevant information be portrayed with an image that is less offensive? Yes and No. (E.g, A belly is generally not offensive, but darkened areolas cannot be portrayed without showing darkened areolas.)
 * Can "offensiveness" (alone or with additional reasons) be cause for the removal of a picture? In the right circumstances, yes. But, probably not in this case.

My personal opinion is that it should be removed/replaced. I'm not sure how "consensus" is measured, but I don't see an obvious consensus being formed either way. I think precedence (of keeping it in the article) should take priority until it's obvious that the "consensus" thinks otherwise.Justin W Smith (talk) 04:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Straw Poll
If apathy implies consensus, then consensus is clearly in favor of the image in the article. "Straw Poll" not needed. Jwesley78 (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Dark line

 * A dark line appearing on the skin between navel and pubis. I am wondering about the cause of the phenomenon. From an evolutionary standpoint, what is the advantage ?

It's called the linea negra. From the wiki article: "It is a type of hyperpigmentation resulting from increased production of the pigment melanin thought to be caused by increased estrogen, the same process that causes the areolas to darken. Why this process of hyperpigmentation occurs on the midline of the abdomen is uncertain." Maybe this article should be linked to, or integrated into the main pregnancy article? 71.37.146.197 (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"female human"
I vote for "woman". Science fiction fans, though they are surely prominent among Wikipedia's readers, aren't the only ones. "Woman" is not only standard but also good style, for the time being. --VKokielov (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

But pregnancy occurs in other animals as well. 24.77.21.240 (talk) 02:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

pregnancy
If you had your baby on the 1st november 02, when would the baby have to be concived. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.216.52 (talk) 08:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Pregnancy Periods
It's not possible to be pregnant, but still have a period, is it?
 * Please talk to a medical professional - this is not a good way to get such information. Tvoz / talk 04:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Standard deviation of length?
This sentence ends with a comma and doesn't make sense:
 * The expected date of delivery (EDD) is 40 weeks counting from the last menstrual period (LMP) and usually lasts between 37 and 42 weeks,[9]

What is the standard deviation of pregnancy length? AxelBoldt (talk) 02:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Altered taste/smell
It is widely known that in some pregnant women the taste/smell perception changes. Doctors call this Dysgeusia and Parosmia. In holland it is even said that some pregnant women like to eat pickles with sweet whipped cream. But i don't know if any of this is actually true. Even if it is not i think it should at least be mentioned in the article, either as fiction or fact. Pizzaman79 (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Failed implantation
Section 8 contains the rather vague claim that "Often, an egg may become fertilized yet fail to become implanted in the uterus." In the context of miscarriage statistics, this becomes an important point. The article on Miscarriage states that roughly 33% of natural pregnancies spontaneously abort (25% by 6 weeks from LMP, another 8% within 10 weeks), but it is unclear if this reflects "fertilised eggs that fail to implant" or not.

Is anyone able to clarify and/or verify this "many eggs fail to implant" claim? It's well out of my expertise sadly. Manning (talk) 06:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Full term
Full term redirects here but this phrase is never explicitly defined on this page. This is frustrating for someone searching the page for "full term" after being redirected. Could someone knowledgeable about pregnancy fix this please? Craig Pemberton (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Pregnancy and mental health?
It would be good to see this topic covered here or in a separate article. Thanks.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

"Context" section, "problematic"
Currently we have: "In the context of political debates regarding a proper definition of life, the terminology of pregnancy can be confusing. The medically and politically neutral term which remains is simply "pregnancy", though this can be problematic as it only refers indirectly to the embryo or fetus." This would benefit significantly from an explanation of why is it considered "problematic" for the embryo/fetus to be referred to indirectly.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 04:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"The ... term which remains is simply 'pregnancy' " is missing the part where any alternative terms are discussed, making this sentence look very strange. I am going to move it here for now as it doesn't add to the article.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 05:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Moved rest to here
I moved the rest of it to box below, because it seems it tries to introduce beginning of pregnancy controversy, but in a kind of unclear way. Until somebody can make a little cleanup of it, a link to beginning of pregnancy controversy in the Se also will replace it. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Context
There is controversy over when pregnancy actually begins, especially in ethical or legal debates. In a normal pregnancy, the fertilization of the egg usually will have occurred in the Fallopian tubes or in the uterus. (Often, an egg may become fertilized yet fail to become implanted in the uterus.) If the pregnancy is the result of in-vitro fertilization, the fertilization will have occurred in a Petri dish, after which pregnancy begins when one or more zygotes implant after being transferred by a physician into the woman's uterus.

In the context of political debates regarding a proper definition of life, the terminology of pregnancy can be confusing. De Crespigny observes that doctors' language has a powerful influence over the way patients think, and thus proposes that the best interests of patients are served by using language that both supports patient autonomy and is neutral.

Timestamp for the bot:  05:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Lede photo
There is no consensus on the above disputed nude pregnant photo. Open up the dispute again. The matter has been referred to arbitration.123.238.70.185 (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Link to the arbitration case? KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 22:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed. Minors are likely to visit this page and it would be illegal to have nude images on the page in such case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.227.173 (talk) 04:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, nudity is normal. We are born nude, you know.  Nudity in an encyclopedia is not illegal.  Atom (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It actually violates a 1993 law set forth by the UK and this site can be viewed on computers in the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.227.173 (talk) 04:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You know that the Wikipedia servers are not in the UK, right? Also, can you specify what UK law prohibits medical or educational photos?  Atom (talk) 04:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikimedia operates under US Laws and isn't obliged to comply with UK laws. That said, I'm not sure how the nude photo made it into the lead paragraph, it used to be farther down on the page and scaled down a bit. -- Versa geek  04:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The black and white image that showed very little of the shape was replaced some time back by the image in color, that shows more detail. Atom (talk) 05:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Makes little difference. This image does not violate any laws in the UK that I know of, 1993 or otherwise.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 18:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Just because we are "born nude" doesn't mean that having a nude picture on a general interest article likely to be viewed by minors is appropriate. Wikipedia is not uncensored for the sake of being uncensored. While any arguments on this topic can only reflect the 'opinion' of the user, I urge those whose opinion is some variation of 'nudity is natural' to consider the fact that not having the picture doesn't offend them, while having the picture does offend those who disagree. Ben.barnes3 (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your thoughtful words. I don't think that editors desire to offend anyone.  Sometimes that is hard to avoid.  Wikipedia does have disclaimers, the link is on the bottom of every page.  It warns users that Wikipedia is not censored and that they could be offended.  In this article the image of a naked pregnant women is there because it shows what a pregnant woman looks like very well, while minimizing the potential for being offensive.  Someone can see that her lower abdominal area is distended and that her breasts are enlarged.  Besides being a really good image, it replaced an image that was in black and white, and where you could see very little of the pregnant woman.


 * I think most editors would agree that the current image of a nude pregnant woman is tasteful, non-offensive, completely on topic, and both medical and educational in nature. Certainly one could not call it rude, gross, offensive, obscene or pornographic.  Atom (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I see your point Atomaton, except it's a bid sad for someone who happen to found out his wife was pregnent at work, got excited and wanted to research on the subject at work, and get called into the HR office at the end of the day due to an "questionable image viewed on company property"... I feel bad for the fellow on the other side of the desk.


 * I understand we are born naked, and there is nothing wrong. But something that is not necessarily wrong does not mean it is appropriate. Applying the logic we are born naked, and there is nothing wrong with it. But do you go about on your daily life naked? if not, why not if there is nothing wrong with it? Phatpanda114 (talk) 00:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you are saying that you have the expectation that Wikipedia should be Safe for work? Of course, Wikipedia has many, many articles and images that are NSFW.  This article is about a human biological process, and has an image perfectly appropriate.  Haven't you seen TV programs where they show women giving birth?  In the daytime, when anyone can see.  The birth process is not obscene.  Women are allowed to nurse in offices right?  They aren't ejected for showing their breasts.  You are confusing what is normal to be human with pornography.  Just because some things that are pornographic involve nudity does not mean that anything involving nakedness is pornographic.


 * Anyway, Wikipedia is not censored. There are disclaimers on every page.  School children can pull up images of ejaculation and masturbation and you are worried that a man at work will get fired because he is learning about pregnancy?  Atom (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * But then the question remains what makes your view point superior to other people's view point? Just because you think it is ok to show a naked pregnent women doesn't mean everyone else feels the same way? Shouldn't there be discussions? I read early in this thread there is an arbitration going on? What ever happened to it? If the arbitration outcome is the picture is ok then I would rest my case.


 * Is it absolutely necessary to show a naked woman in this case? Does a clothed pregnant women won't do the job here? Phatpanda114 (talk) 04:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I certainly am not expressing that I am superior to anyone in any way. There are a number of editors more capable, qualified or prolific in their contributions than I am. My points are not expressing that the photo should remain because I am of the opinion that it should.  My opinions are formed from and expressions of the Wikipedia policies.  Wikipedia policy does not support censorship, or removal of an image just because one editor does not like it.  The discussion should, indeed focus on what image would be the best one for the article.  I don't see anyone discouraging discussions.  There is no "arbitration" ongoing on this issue, nor has there ever been.  Atom (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

My editorial opinion, based on what is best for the quality of the article was first comparing the current image to the preceding image. I have them both shown here in a gallery below. From an editorial perspective, as lede image, we want something representative of the topic of the article. If possible the image should give the reader a clear and immediate idea of what the topic is, and perhaps some understanding of the topic. Again, "A picture is worth a thousand words".

The first (previous) image is in monochrome. It lacks any substantive details relative to pregnancy other than the distended abdominal area of the subject. Without being able to see the subjects face, all one can ascertain that the image represents is the distended belly.

The current image is in color, it shows not only more detail with better clarity of the physiological condition of the woman that the first image, it shows more of her condition. She is holding her distended belly, her breasts are swollen, you can see skin tone and facial expression.

It is my subjective view that the expression on her face seems to more descriptive also. As a father of numerous children, I identify with that image as being more representative. I realize that others may view the subjective elements differently.

Clearly the color over black and white and the detail of the pregnant woman's condition, without being obscene or even graphic in any way is positive and desirable. I think few people would say that the first image was the better image of the two in regards to the topic of pregnancy.


 * Newsflash: if we really are concerned about getting the best picture for the article per Wikipedia policies, i.e. a lead image representative of the topic and conveying a clear and immediate idea or understanding of the topic, let's stop having conservative vs liberal wars and appease both sides with an objective image as is found in common medical textbooks; one like we'd expect to see in a reputable, printed encyclopedia.  Isn't that our point here?


 * I don't have a non-copyrighted image, and I can't post them, but try something along the lines of this: http://health.howstuffworks.com/enlarge-image.htm?terms=pregnancy&page=42


 * Can someone find one like that we can use? It satisfies those who don't want to see photos of naked humans (and yes, these people are no minority) while at the same time giving an even BETTER idea of what pregnancy is than the current photo. Let's be honest; pregnancy deals with a developing baby carried in the womb of a female, right?  Showing a distended belly and large breasts doesn't come anywhere as close to conveying the concept of 'pregnancy' as an image like this.  If you claim the current image is 'medical' and 'educational,' now compare it to this one!


 * I want to stay unbiased and fair. I realize that even this type of medical illustration may still offend some conservatives since it's a little stark while disappointing others who see the external human body as ultimate art.  And it doesn't convey the emotional sides of love and pregnancy--but much of that is subject to:  yes, opinion.  This type of image satisfies the aims of both viewpoints expressed in this discussion.  The image is common fare for neutral, objective education about human physiological phenomena, pointing out the main things discussed in more detail in the article.  Many other Wikipedia articles use these.


 * Let's stop trying to push personal agendas. Both sides of the argument above seemed opinionated and defensive to me.  And then there's reverse discrimmination and reverse reverse discrimmination....  I think everyone is well-intentioned, if we'll just get back to the point at hand:  an image that does the best job of elucidating the topic in a fair way.  (And obviously the current image is offensive or folks wouldn't have to keep beating down the "censors" and preaching to them what should and should not offend them.  Let the people speak, and the will of the people be known--not dictated to them.)  Slandon (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Image I got when clicking on the link had nothing to do with the article, and also wasnt there some way to view wikipedia where images are hidden so that NSFW wasnt an issue? --69.146.108.94 (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to add my vote to the "change the photo" side. The Human article does not feature naked humans right up at the top. When I'm at work I don't think about going and editing settings to hide NSFW images (didn't even know there was such a setting, and I'm still not sure) because I don't usually go to articles that I'd think would be NSFW. I figured pregnancy could be described without nudity. I'm about as liberal and body-appreciating as they come but this image is obviously controversial so why don't we pick something else? File:Pregnant woman.jpg would be just fine. --Spacefem (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I feel the current picture isn't as good at depicting the state of Pregnancy as another would be, it shows the woman side ways holding her tummy and her bare chest, but there is no telling how large her bare chest was before pregnacy, and there are no stretchmarks shown on the tummy, so in other words the only differance between it and a picture of a fat woman is that it's slightly more of a buldge, and the woman being nude in this case dosn't add anything to the readers information. So far the best image I've seen on Wikipedia is seen below in the article it shows two differant stages of the woman being pregnant. I think the best image would be at least two drawing that would show all aspects of pregnacy, the child growing inside, streachmarks, chest becoming larger, I'm sure there is probably a pre-1920's non-copyrighted image from something like "Grey's Anatomy" that would help the reader understand the subject better. A nude woman with big tummy, how does the current image help the reader understand the subject, like the image sent on Voyager I, of a man and woman some people will find it offencive and even there they added additional images showing a depiction of a baby inside the woman's tummy, and image of a baby growing to give a better idea of the subject rather then just one picture. See the book, Murmurs of Earth: The Voyager Interstellar Record to see a listing of all the pictures they used, this is also a smaller list with none of the images Contents of the Voyager Golden Record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.39.134.227 (talk) 05:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Image should describe features of pregnancy and what to look, Undid revision by Honeymane no reason given for change insufficient explanation of what to look for in image, "Pregnancy 26 weeks", doesn't inform the reader of anything that the other picture doesn't do better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.248.226 (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The point of the lead image is not to give every possible facet of information at once in a visual form, and if such a picture exists, it has yet to be produced for this article for consideration. Wikipedia is not censored; ultimately that means that it doesn't matter how offensive some people find an image, or information, that's not a valid reason to remove the content. Finally, you, as you point out, haven't actually changed any of the information, just the order of it. Ultimately this means it doesn't matter where the image is located on the page, if you visit it from work or anywhere 'naughty' pictures will get you in trouble, you'll still be in trouble.--<font color="red" face="Old English Text MT, Papyrus">Honeymane <font face="Klingon, QuigleyWiggly">Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 03:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the "comparative" photo better illustrates pregnancy in terms of being a lede image, and thus have undone Honeymane's revert. Note that this belief has nothing to do with prurience or feeling that nudity is offensive; nudity is just fine (and to that extent, the topic header of this section is misleading). It's simply that the comparative picture does a better job of comporting with the lede text (which is already talking about gestation dates). Nandesuka (talk) 12:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there some reason noone uses indents anymore? While the picture may work for the lead image, it is of poor quality and small size, further, it works better in the section discussing the trimesters, where it was previously. --<font color="red" face="Old English Text MT, Papyrus">Honeymane <font face="Klingon, QuigleyWiggly">Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 01:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Honeymane, the original image is far superior to the "comparative" 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.  The other image is very specific, it's a comparison conveying information about gestation, it's too specific for the lede and belongs in the body of the article next to the textual content it visually supports.  I don't see any clear consensus in the discussion above to replace the lede image, so I've reverted it until consensus can be found to change it.


 * I also agree about using indentation per WP:TALK, the discussion would be much easier to follow if Indentation was adhered to. :) Dreadstar  ☥  04:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've refactored this section and changed the heading to something more neutral and descriptive. Dreadstar  ☥  16:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant Latin word
Why is the Latin for pregnancy written in the first sentence when it evidently has no connection with the derivation of the word. If it has no direct etymological reference, I would say it's pretty out of place.--86.176.192.145 (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just in case this helps your point, the Latin word is also spelled wrong. It happens to be "gravitas," NOT "graviditas" as the Article states. Even if it is that in some cases (by which I mean spelling changes based on how a noun is functioning in a Latin sentence; not the every-day sense of the word "case"), the fact remains that Latin nouns are generally supposed to be written in Nominative (the case used if and when that noun is the subject of the sentence) when outside a sentence, such as when citing an etymology for an equivalent or otherwise related English word. -The Mysterious El Willstro 209.183.186.110 (talk) 07:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep at least ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅--Oneiros (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Exception for Genus Hippocampus
"Pregnancy (latin "graviditas") is the carrying of one or more offspring, known as a fetus or embryo, inside the womb of a female." To the credit of this definition, I know of no hermaphroditic genera whose members have true pregnancies as opposed to laying eggs that hatch later, so we're covered there. This definition works for all dioecious genera except one. Our problem child, so to speak, is the Genus Hippocampus, in which each male carries zygotes that are transferred into him from the female shortly after conception. They remain in their father's body until they develop into new individuals, which makes this a true pregnancy. So, the definition should at least be annotated with a reference to that genus. After all, a true definition is universally applicable. -The Mysterious El Willstro 209.183.186.110 (talk) 07:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't this comment be moved over to Talk:Pregnancy (mammals). If you read the hatnote, this article is only for human pregnancies. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, my comment above is older than that hatnote. You can't accuse me of ignoring a note that didn't exist at the time. Second, the Genus Hippocampus is in the Superclass Pisces, not the Class Mammalia. Therefore, "Pregnancy (mammals)" would not apply. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Section : Diagnosis, mistake
it is incorrectly stated that "Clinical blood and urine tests can detect pregnancy 12 days after implantation [23], which is as early as 6 to 8 days after fertilization" which is obviously wrong as 12 days after implantaion is more (!) than 12 days after fertilization which is logical because fertilization occurs before implantation circa 5,5- 6 days. Thus it should be stated that "Clinical blood and urine tests can detect pregnancy 12 days after implantation [23], which is as early as 17 to 18 days after fertilization". This (original one) sentence may be improperly understood that it is possible to detect pregnancy 6-8 days after fertilization which is not true. Author probably meant that implantation occurs 6-8 days after fertilization (which is true) but the construction of this sentence is ambiguous and indicates pregnancy can be diagnosed 6-8 days after fertilization (which is not true). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.199.0.114 (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Fact and citation check
(Part of the WikiProject Medicine effort)

Lead section
A few more references would be helpful; see: http://www.mdguidelines.com/pregnancy-normal/definition

Terminology
The reference for: "Definition of gravida". The Free Dictionary/Medical Dictionary. Farlex, Inc. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/gravida. is repeated twice.

Progression
This reference may be helpful as well: http://www.webmd.com/baby/slideshow-fetal-development

I’m not sure the subheads of Initiation, Perinatal period, and Postnatal period really add much. These could be grouped together under Progression.

Examples of additional algorithms to predict duration of pregnancy should be provided and referenced.

The statement: “While childbirth is widely experienced as painful, some women do report painless labours, while others find that concentrating on the birth helps to quicken labour and lessen the sensations.” Is based on opinion and not scientifically based.

Also, the statement: “Most births are successful vaginal births, but sometimes complications arise and a woman may undergo a cesarean section.” Is misleading because it assumes that a C-section is always the result of a complication. I recommend the wording here be changed.

Diagnosis
The statement near the beginning of this section: “Most pregnant women experience a number of symptoms[21], which can signify pregnancy. The symptoms can include nausea and vomiting, excessive tiredness and fatigue, craving for certain foods not normally considered a favorite, and frequent urination particularly during the night[citation needed].” Can be deleted. The text that follows should include the signs mentioned in the above sentence. I personally think a description of “symptoms” makes pregnancy sound like a disease. Please see: http://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/pregnancy-am-i-pregnant for an additional reference.

As technology continues to evolve, the statement “Home pregnancy tests are personal urine tests, which normally cannot detect a pregnancy until at least 12 to 15 days after fertilization.” Should be altered to reflect the current state. Some home tests can detect much sooner that stated here. See: http://www.medicinenet.com/pregnancy_test/page3.htm

Should have some citations from general physiology texts. See: http://www.merck.com/mmpe/sec18/ch260/ch260b.html and http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/beef4892

The sentence “Despite all the signs, some women may not realize they are pregnant until they are quite far along in their pregnancy, in some cases not even until they begin labour.” Seems based on opinion and not factual citation.

The use of sonography to determine progression of pregnancy needs citations.

Physiology
The general physiology references mentioned above would be good to include here as well.

There seems to be more “opinion statements” in this section. These should be removed or supported by citations.

The statement: “Fetal movement can become quite strong and be disruptive to the woman.” Is opinion and at least the part of “disruptive” should be removed. Much of the description of the third trimester (in terms of what the woman feels) reads like opinion and is not supported by citations.

The maternal physiology section requires referencing.

Management
The section on Medication Use would benefit from a table of common drugs and their classification with regard to risk to the fetus/pregnancy.

Reference 55 deals with mice…relevance?

There is a reference in Exposure to Toxins that deals with rats (reference 58)…relevance?

Complications and complaints
The list needs extensive referencing. See: http://www.women-health-guide.com/index.htmBSW BV (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Occurrence
This edit by Andrew c is fine with me. The article previously said when medical abortions occur, so I thought it might be good to say something about that in the revised version too, but it's not necessary.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC) (formerly "Ferrylodge")

Duration
Does "within a week of the due date" mean "due date +/- 1 week" or "due date +/- half a week"? Could someone clarify?

(In the "Duration" section, "Fewer than 5% of births occur on the due date; 50% of births are within a week of the due date, and almost 90% within 2 weeks.[17]")

--Baziliscus (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This means a week on either side of the due date... one full week after or one full week before the due date.(olive (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC))


 * OK, thanks. I can't think of a way to express this more unambiguously without making it too long ("50% of births are one week or less before or after the due date") so I guess it stays as it stands.
 * --Baziliscus (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note: Image up for deletion
File:Biamyinmd pregnant dildo.JPG, depicting a pregnant woman lying on a bed and holding a dildo, has been nominated for deletion in Commons. As this image is present on this talk page (currently its only use in any Wikimedia project), I would like to advise contributors to this article of the ongoing deletion discussion, which is. Depending on the outcome of this discussion, the image may be deleted from Commons. If you feel the image is or isn't of potential educational value to this article, please make your case in the linked Commons discussion. Thank you. -- JN 466  14:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

What about the new photo? Sure the pregnant woman with a dildo had no real point to the topic but does a nude pregnant woman showing her complete breasts have a specific purpose. Is this page about showing how a pregnant woman can still look 'hot' or is this about pregnancy. I would go for a woman that shows the stomach but fully nude, think about it.Forgot to mention this looks like a private photo--99.151.35.59 (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand why breasts should even be a cause for comment. Women have them, they obviously play an important part in the whole baby thing, and they go though changes during pregnancy. Why on earth would you think there's anything to do with "hot" about any of this? (Oh, and what does a "private" photo look like?) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I love pregos! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.207.77 (talk) 05:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Contra-indications: Pre-existing conditions
I think we need a section on the pre-existing conditions which may make pregnancy contra-indicated for patients.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 04:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * May be worth a mention. Have you got a link to a reliable source?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've had some time to work on this now. Since the article is missing any mention of or information on high-risk pregnancies, especially due to risk factors present before pregnancy, I'm thinking perhaps section 7 could become "Risks, complications and complaints", with perhaps a mention of high-risk pregnancy early on because of the time-line (i.e. factors being present before the pregnancy) and include a list of conditions indicating possible high risk. My current main source is the online Merck Manual: .--TyrS (talk) 03:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * On second thought, perhaps this information should go in the "Diagnosis" section, given the time-line mentioned above. Seems a bit unchronological to mention it so late in the article. Hmmm. Perhaps a separate article linked here?--TyrS (talk) 03:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I've started work on this here. Informed contributions and comments welcome. Thanks.--TyrS (talk) 06:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This is badly needed. There has been a particular viewpoint pushed that pregnancy is inherently safe.  That needs to be corrected. Nandesuka (talk) 11:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to hear there's support for this. I also think the mental health aspects in terms of risk often go unmentioned. The complexities are too often underestimated.--TyrS (talk) 13:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Pregnancy is inherently natural. While I support these additions, we must not create an article that frightens or that seems to indicate pregnancy is either safe or unsafe-a POV.(olive (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC))
 * It would be equally valid to say that death is 'inherently natural'. ("Natural" doesn't really have a lot of helpful or objective meaning in a context such as this.) The article needs to deliver the facts in a balanced way, not to gloss over unpleasant realities.--TyrS (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We should, of course, write the article from a neutral point of view, based on reliable sources. The natural rate of mortality in pregnancy is about 1,500 deaths per 100,000; with modern medicine, hygiene, and pre- and post-birth care, that rate drops to the merest fraction of that, about 70 per 100,000.  This is reflected in the mortality statistics for childbirth in modern, industrialized vs. third world countries.
 * I would hope no one would write an article for the purpose of "frightening" the reader. But it does the reader just as much a disservice to lie in the other direction and ignore the real risks of pregnancy due to political or compassionate motivations.  Our job is to inform, not to inspire. Nandesuka (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"Invitation to edit" trial
It has been proposed at Wikipedia talk:Invitation to edit that, because of the relatively high number of IP editors attracted to Pregnancy, it form part of a one month trial of a strategy aimed at improving the quality of new editors' contributions to health-related articles. It would involve placing this:"You can edit this page. Click here to find out how."at the top of the article, linking to this mini-tutorial about MEDRS sourcing, citing and content, as well as basic procedures, and links to help pages. Your comments regarding the strategy are invited at the project talk page, and comments here, regarding the appropriateness of trialling it on this article, would be appreciated. Anthony (talk) 11:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The list of articles for the trial is being reconsidered, in light of feedback from editors, and should be ready in a day or two. If you have any thoughts about the Invitation to edit proposal, they would be very welcome at the project talk page. Anthony (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Infobox
Added an infobox and moved one of the images around. Hope this addresses some of the concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I changed the picture back. We've considered using it before, but it's not as good as the current lead. I'm not really sure why there isn't an infobox though.--<font color="red" face="Old English Text MT, Papyrus">Honeymane <font face="Klingon, QuigleyWiggly">Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 05:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Found an equally high quality picture of a pregnant women with her clothing on. It really does not make any difference as the naked one does not really illustrate specific pregnancy changes. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe that picture has been considered before. Having, having not, clothing isn't a criteria that's important.--<font color="red" face="Old English Text MT, Papyrus">Honeymane <font face="Klingon, QuigleyWiggly">Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 14:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the presence or absence of clothing isn't a criteria that's important. That being said, I think the photo Doc James found is of much higher quality (sharper/more in focus, better lighting, more visual impact).  The clothes in that photo, ironically, obscure the subject's belly LESS than the hands in the "26 weeks" photo. Nandesuka (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Following up to myself: I'm aware that there are plenty of people who go around shrieking for the encyclopedia to be censored of images they (wrongly) consider to be inappropriate (eg, nude figures, and so on). So it is understandable that responsible editors are on their guard against this.  However, keep in mind that not all image debates center around prurience or are motivated from prudishness.  Try and keep an open mind and always look for the best illustration for an article.  Especially for lede images, the best image is usually simple, iconic, and has high visual impact.  In this case, from my perspective, looking at the two images in question side by side, the "blue background" one wins by a mile. I've defended the use of nude images in many, many articles, and I will continue to do so -- but I'll not defend an inferior image just because it is nude. Nandesuka (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree the presence of clothing is not important. But feel the image with the blue background and clothing is simply better. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Diagnosis
Are the timescales in the article statement below correct? The statement does not make sense to me. Should the statement "12 days after implantation" refer to ovulation ("12 days after ovulation")? Does this timescale refer to fertility treatment rather than normal conception? 82.9.102.35 (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Clinical blood and urine tests can detect pregnancy 12 days after implantation,[25] which is as early as 6 to 8 days after fertilization.

Image in the article
I'm concerned about the image used on this page. Pregnancy might be a topic a child would be researching, and I don't think it's appropriate that a nude woman is depicted on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.28.8 (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with the nudity per se, but there's got to be better ways of visually representing pregnancy than this one. Something with a pregnant woman, but maybe with a diagram indicating the stages of pregnancy too. If we're going to have a nude pregnant woman then at least have a decent image of her facing the camera. I think it's a crappy lead image. Lord of the Ping (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Surely that would upset readers who find “frontal” nudity more offensive. From a wholly practical perspective, growth in the abdomen tends to be more ventral than lateral (thus more discernible in profile). ―cobaltcigs 01:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't really one of prurience, but one of whether it's a good photo or not. Surely if we want to depict abdominal growth, we'd want a photo without the subject covering the abdomen. Nandesuka (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

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


 * The current picture is simply a better quality photo. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

help!!!
I need a paragraph on where babies are made for my assessment revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.3.207 (talk) 10:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

wat is the chance of pregnancy at the 4th day of a girls mensuration cycle...
wat is the chance of pregnancy at the 4th day of a girls mensuration cycle..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.56.130.113 (talk) 09:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum, I suggest you take an appointment with a doctor (and improve you spelling)--Corentinoger (talk) 10:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Humans Vs the rest
English is not my first language so I'm not really sure how human-specific the word "pregnancy" is. In its current state, the article is only named "pregnancy", and then goes on assuming the female is human. If the word is not human-specific, I suggest renaming the article "human pregnancy" so a warning is not needed to differentiate from animals, and make the word "pregnancy" point to the "gestation" article directly. Of course, since most readers looking up "pregnancy" would be interested in human pregnancy anyway, the "pregnancy" link currently in the human section of "gestation" should be changed to "human pregnancy".--Corentinoger (talk) 10:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What we routinely do with medical article is assume human and place a section called "In other animals" at the bottom per WP:MEDMOS Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As it says at the top of the page: For pregnancy in non-human animals, see Gestation               -  Ng.j (talk) 06:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

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

I have not checked the copyright in depth on these photos, I am assuming that they've been screened over at commons. There are a few more, but these are the ones that caught my eye.--Tznkai (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Added an additional image as image 7 which I discovered by looking at what the other Wikipedias were using, and changed the article lead image to it in the service of being bold, and because I honestly think its a superior image than most of our current options. The photo quality isn't as great as some of the other things, but I think its much more striking than the other photographs.
 * I disagree. The purpose of the photo is to be illustrative and educational.  Hiding everything in shadows removes most of the value the image, no matter how visually striking it may be.  Of the others you suggest; the montages are ok, although not ideally proportioned for a lead photo.  Image 6 is more artistic than educational.  A side profile is clearer. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 23:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

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


 * I like this one, except for the part where its in... what is that, German?--Tznkai (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I think focussing in on the belly, to the exclusion of the whole woman a bit.. dehumanising.  There's more to the topic of pregnancy than a bump. ("Weken" is Dutch) -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 23:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * However what we are using now has half the belly covered by the hands. Have added an image of pregnancy related pigment changes to the face Melasma Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


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


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


 * I like the second one, but obviously the dutch is a bit of a problem.--<font color="red" face="Old English Text MT, Papyrus">Honeymane <font face="Klingon, QuigleyWiggly">Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 00:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


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

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

It would be respectful to ask her. (olive (talk) 02:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC))
 * They are all still available to all on Flickr, and the Dutch uploader has purposely (we can but presume) given them a licence to make the publicly re-usable. She also may have noticed herself on the Dutch Wikipedia article, where she been in the lead for over two years.  (You'll also not be surprised that the Dutch WP editors have no qualms at all about this image.) -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 23:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

There's really nothing better here than the image already in the article. But Image 4 (montage) should probably also be included on a temporary basis till something better is found. It is good because it shows the progression. I have a couple of problems with it though. First, it's of a white woman. Second, the background, and third she doesn't look terribly healthy, but more as if she's been eating a typical first-world diet, tending toward the United States rather than European standard. But this is not the worldwide norm. Mostly the other images above are either clothed, thus not showing the full range of body changes, or too dark. The File:Pregnancy 34 weeks.jpg is good but if we use it we need only the frontal one, as we already have a better sideways image in the article. And this is another good frontal. There are other good images we should use on the Dutch article. Also, these,. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 04:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The animated progression is nice, as is the ultrasound...The tubal pregnancy would be termed abnormal. Doc James could probably clarify that... so would need to be in a section on abnormalities in pregnancy, I would think. (olive (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC))
 * Although I still prefer the original replacement image, I think the animated progression is a good alternative. It probably conveys the most information about pregnancy of any of the proposed images and is thus the most encyclopedic. Kaldari (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


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


 * Yes, in addition. I'm wonderin' what people would say on this page if the issue of nekkedness were to be taken out of the thought process. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 20:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


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


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

Edit request from Mark.sinson, 13 March 2011
edit semi-protected

Hello, i would like to add this link to your Pregnancy page. Please review it and add it if possible. There is lot of useful information available on the site.

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

Regards, Mark

Mark.sinson (talk) 09:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌ per WP:ELNO 5 and 13: sorry, but the link provided is for a website that exists only to sell a product (and it has a lot of advertising, including a full-screen rich-media popup on every page), and is a website devoted to a specific subject when the subject of this article is general, which means we can't include the link in the article. Please see WP:EXT for more information. -- gtdp (T)/(C) 11:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Subsequent pregnancies (second, third, fourth, etc.) - need more info
I think there should be more info here about second, third, etc. pregnancies (whether to live delivery or not). In particular Rh disease typically affects only second and subsequent pregnancies. Also second and subsequent pregnancies generally have shorter delivery times and are often "easier". Facts707 (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say be WP:BOLD and add it. Just stick with medical, no POV edits about photos, abortion, population control, or anything else that makes people go insane on this page.  LOL.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 20:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Replace "womb" with "uterus"
In my opinion the word "womb" should be replaced with "uterus" in the first sentence. "Womb" is a vague layman's term; uterus is an anatomical term which is perhaps more fitting for an encyclopedic article. One does not say that "respiration" is "breathing air in and out" in this type of article, or that the definition of a fire is "burning wood." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.212.149 (talk) 05:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't really care one way or the other, but what exactly is vague about it? The couple of dictionaries I looked at say that the words are identical and interchangeable in the context of pregnancy.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 69.169.158.28, 27 May 2011
Remove picture of naked woman in second trimester--it is offensive

69.169.158.28 (talk) 05:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but Wikipeida is not censored. Dreadstar  ☥  06:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The community is mixed on the issue you mention. Using a better image is not censorship BTW. Feel free to join the discussion above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Unless I've misunderstood, the issue is that the nudity is the offensive point, and of course Wikipedia does not censor nudity. I don't see that anyone was suggesting removing an agreed upon better image. Or have I misread. There is no agreement at this point on which is the better image, and discussion seems to be ongoing.(olive (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC))

Hormonal changes
Under the subtopic Hormonal Changes it states "Levels of progesterone and oestrogens rise continually throughout pregnancy, making the mother a huge bitch and suppressing the hypothalamic axis and subsequently the menstrual cycle. The woman and the placenta also produce many hormones." Is this a professional opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.130.145 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 7 April 2009

Once again, image in lead
{{


 * I know Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. But can we use some common sense here? I imagine there are some pretty young kids researching for school reports who are going to find the image shocking. Perhaps we can move that image further down or make a gallery section? NYyankees51 (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Which image? The profile shot of an apparently naked pregnant woman? Are you serious? Can you explain why it would be shocking to someone researching pregnancy, apart from yourself? Greglocock (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I agree - that person has GOT to be kidding... "Shocking?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.212.149 (talk) 05:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes we have discussed this a lot before. Opinion is fairly divided. Some feel that image 1 is simply a better image with as much educational content. I also consider image 3 and 4 to also be superior. That moving image two to latter in the article would improve the page. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 2 3 or 4 make sense. I'll leave the aesthetics to those who care. Woman modelling maternity blouse (image 1) is not a useful representation of the article's subject. Greglocock (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ideally four would be placed side by side and have the background changed to white. But this one provides both an AP and L of pregnancy. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Human pregnancy is not only clinical. A first picture, like the one in place now, running parallel to the lead in the article, that like a lead gives a sense of the overarching aspects of the topic/pregnancy, and that includes a recognizable human being and her responses to her child, is both emotional and clinical  (ie, human), more inclusive than "headless" images, and carries more information. Not sure why that should be changed. There may be room for most of the other photos later in the article (olive (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC))


 * I came here from the RfC listing, and I actually don't care very much which image is used. But reading olive's comment just above mine, it occurs to me that Image 1 has the advantage of putting the emphasis on those overarching aspects, whereas the others focus more narrowly on the clinical aspects. I don't buy the argument made above that it is just modeling apparel. After all, pregnant women do not typically spend their pregnancies walking around naked. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This has been going on for years. Every so often, someone gets all sensitive and worries about the kiddies seeing a naked woman and then we all have to bow down to their worries and discuss the issue all over again.  Where do kids think they came out of?  Oh horror!   Olive is right.  Pregnancy is not a clinical condition but a human one.  Image 2 has been the consensus image for the past few years.  There is no reason to change it now. Gillyweed (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Pregnancy affects the entire body and those changes are not visible with clothing...This is a consensus version and unless there is a clear new consensus I can't see a change is appropriate... As an aside: you'd be surprised at what pregnant women get up to when they've put on 40 pounds and they're carrying a kicking ten pound basket ball around on their fronts.(olive (talk) 23:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC))
 * Different cultures, as well as different families' moral beliefs and religious beliefs consider different things to be offensive. While I don't see any reason to change this image, I also don't see any reason why it would be silly not to. If people determine there is enough need to change the image, which is clearly scientific in nature, then sure, change it. Many families do not teach their children about sex and differences between the bodies at an early age. So yes, it would be shocking for these children. There is also an issue that nobody can look at this article in public, even if it is purely clinical. A topic that is more safe--pregnancy--doesn't have to have a nude subject. Unlike looking up different sexual organs, which most people are smart enough not to look up in public. Most kids only learn about the intricacies when parents discuss it with them. I am talking about children under the age of ten, of course, and you would be surprised how young children are when they start surfing the net.
 * In any event, the point of the matter in this instance is more adults who find it offensive. But because this photo is clearly clinical, the photo itself has no issues. Now its use in the article is debatable, and Wikipedians who might not want to see this article in public are limited because the only answer is, "Don't look at WP in public." --Henriettapussycat (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * On this subject, I have to agree totally with the argument made above stating that an article on human pregnancy should focus on more than clinical aspects of the subject. Neither image is ideal in this situation, but I think that Images 2,3 and 4 should not be used because they do not provide a complete image of the social aspects of pregnancy (as mentioned by Tryptofish). Furthermore, I believe that using images 2/3/4 may cause readers to look at human pregnancy purely from a medical aspect. Parakoopa72 (talk) 05:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems that different edits pick different images based on the same justification. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how the addition of a piece of clothing is overarching or gives any kind of information. By 'overarching', I meant a picture in which much of the body can be seen with the physical changes pregnancy induces, as well the emotional aspect  - the woman's obvious emotional connection to the child she carries. Covering the body leaves us with a shirt with a bump, and that bump could be anything. Pregnancy is about the human body. If we want an article on 'foot', how could we see  the foot, and know what it looks like with a shoe on it.(olive (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC))
 * I came back here to see if there were any response to my comment, and I guess I have to agree with the observation that different editors find the same justification leading to different images, and that's indeed quite ironic. Anyway, please do take to heart what I said about me not really feeling strongly about this at all. Please don't let what I said have too much influence on what you decide. Happy editing! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Image 2 is a perfect representation of a pregnant woman. It is in no way prurient. It should stay. Rebel1916 (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no profanity in any of the later 3 images. These images depict the natural condition of pregnancy (external manifestation, physical changes, etc), to which image 1 alone would not be able to do justice. If these are to be removed based on argument of children visiting wikipedia, then much of the other contents of wikipedia needs to be deleted as well. There are wikipedia articles on human sexual activities, and even on various paraphilia. Wikipedia is not a children's encyclopedia. - Subh83 (talk &#124; contribs) 21:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, there's no profanity, because profanity requires words. :)  I think you meant obscenity.  But I agree with you, if we're worried about children, then we'd have to censor 75% of the project.  Not going to happen.  I believe that there have been discussions about this photo for five years (give or take).  Unless there's a substantial consensus to remove it or change it, this discussion is a huge waste of time.  There will never be a change, unless there's a significant change in policy regarding images of nudes, or this image is in violation of Wikipedia's licensing rules.  Seriously, this discussion is inane, and there are so many other things to be done with this article.  Someone below suggested adding stuff about subsequent pregnancies.  That's more useful.  But I'm sure someone in the future will come here complaining about the photo, and we'll spend tons of bandwidth discussing it, and nothing will change.   Orange Marlin  {{sup|Talk• Contributions}} 22:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah.. you are so very correct! :) May be the outcome/consensus can be placed at the top of the page in a permanent box so that this is not started again. Don't know if that's possible in talk pages though. - Subh83 (talk &#124; contribs) 22:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I recommend putting Image 1 in the lead and Image 2 under ==Second trimester==, along with a more complete description of the changes to the mother's body during that time. Someone recently used the phrase "adolescent glee" to describe the attitudes of some editors who argue for the most prominent possible placement of nudity, and that resonates with me.  Just because we can (and IMO should) include this image somewhere in the article does not mean that we should make it be the first and largest image—or that we should have zero images of pregnant women who aren't in a state of undress.  If you want to present pregnancy as a part of normal life, then showing exclusively images of women who are undressed isn't the way to go about it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have and continue to support the inclusion of many controversial images (including ones of nudity ). However completely agree with WhatamIdoing's comments here and her suggestion. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I like Image 2, it's fine. Image 1 is OK too. Images 3 & 4, enh, they're OK too but not as aesthetically pleasing in my opinion. I do kind of want to support Image 1 on these grounds: 1) snotty teenagers are not pleasing to me, and 2) their jejune attitudes and tiresome insults are not helpful to the the Wikipedia, in the sense of making for a better community and, ultimately, attracting and retaining editors, which 3) is important, and so 4) not rewarding this kind of thing is a valid consideration. So take that as you will. From a purely technical standpoint, either 1 or 2 are fine. I slightly prefer 2. I don't have a problem with the nudity in this context. Herostratus (talk) 06:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I came here from the RFC. Image 2 is the best, clearest, and most succinct, and it should therefore be the first and most prominent one. I really don't think considerations of "adolescent glee" do or should enter into it.  Oreo Priest  {{sup|talk}} 01:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I fully support the use of such images in wikipedia, and in this article, but I feel that the nude image being right at the top of the article, and so prominent is a bad thing. It means that I really couldn't go on this wikipedia page at work, for example. It should absolutely be included, but further down the page, and less prominent. I really don't understand the logic of showing a nude image so blatantly in an article in which the female body is really only a secondary topic. The nell 87 (talk) 10:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Photograph 1 is clearly of much higher quality than the other photos. It looks professional — well composed, with even lighting, and a pleasant non-distracting background. Plus it's nice that it adds some racial diversity to the article (and Wikipedia). The other photographs look like low quality snapshots. Plus, the woman in the 2nd photo looks like she's only slightly pregnant (Yes, I know that is impossible) :) Kaldari (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The article for Woman doesn't start with a big picture of a naked woman. I vote for image 1.  I've been pregnant, and I usually wore clothes.  If people constantly raise issues with image 2 obviously it's a problem.    --Spacefem (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Photograph 1 might be of higher quality but I feel that the main picture must show a naked abdomen, much like the current picture in the Third Semester section. Moreover as mentioned earlier, the picture should not be cropped below the head, we are not showing a clinical case as detailed by Olive. 82.66.206.198 (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * for goodness sake, if its so much of an issue as to whether its actually an issue or not, just use a cross sectional line diagram instead of a photograph! --BuddhikaD (talk 14:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why the main image needs to be unsafe for work.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm of the mind that the only reason to use a picture of a nude woman is deliberately to seem more mature and "encyclopedic", as it provides no more information than that of a clothed woman. One might argue it's more difficult to discern breast size, but that's irrelevant if there are no before/after pictures, and even that could still be done with a clothed image. I agree that this is a topic likely to be researched by elementary-aged students. I see no reason to use this image (which is of fairly mediocre quality to begin with) when other, better images are available that cause absolutely no controversy. A clothed image focuses more on the mother and less on the physical change of her body, while still not hiding that. Saibh (talk) 05:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree it does seem to be an issue of nudity for nudities sake. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You're not going to be able to see typical breast changes even with before-and-after images. The typical change is half a cup size, which amounts to an increase of just 2cm in the total circumference.  So unless you've worked in a lingerie department for so long that you can spot the difference between a 36B and a 38B bra size at a glance, then there are no typical images that will show you that level change.  If we needed to illustrate it, we'd need to get a pair of images that showed abnormally large growth (which is not impossible:  some women see zero change; others see dramatic change).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a good image here which also show the change in size of the areola and the change in pigmentation. But the image in the lead does not show this.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you are suggesting. There are multiple changes with pregnancy. I don't think a single picture can illustrate them all. I would think a best scenario is to have a picture that gives an overview for the reader first coming to the article just as the lead does, then move on to  more specifics.  (olive (talk) 03:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC))
 * Agreed. The lead image doesn't have to cover all aspects of pregnancy. It should just show a high quality image of a typical pregnancy. It doesn't make any sense that the lead image be required to be nude (which seems to be the only reason anyone supports the current image). Why isn't anyone discussing the actual quality of the photographs? Kaldari (talk) 03:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, we do talk about it the poor technical qualities of the lead image, and everyone agrees that it has problems, but we have a couple of people who like its emotional content, and a couple of people who seem just determined that the article contain zero images of fully dressed women, so they don't really care about the poor lighting, etc.
 * I'd like to see this one moved to ==Second trimester==, and use it to actually illustrate the content of the article, rather than merely to decorate the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No, kids are not going to find this image shocking at all. There is no reason to censor Wikipedia to cater to what amount to religious views. Wikipedia is one of the tamer places on the web, and anyone who wishes to censor their children's web viewing experience has software options to help them.  The current image, image 2, has its problems, notably that it is of a white woman, when it should be of an Asian or Indian (per the percentage of world population), but it's apparently the best we have. Why do we show women undressed when discussing pregnancy?  Because clothes serve to hide the subject matter, which is the state of the human body during pregnancy: they are therefore both irrelevant and detrimental to our description of the subject.  Why do we keep the nude image at the top in the most prominent place?  Because it is the best image we have to illustrate our description of the subject.  Censorship, especially censorship which actually pretends that it's kids, not grownups, who are shocked by nudity, is inappropriate on Wikipedia.  And no, woman does not start with a big picture of a naked woman: it starts with a small one.  Keep image 2, per Gillyweed, Subh83, olive, et al. B{{sup|e}}— —C{{sub|ritical}} {{sub|__Talk}} 15:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't find the image sexual or shocking. And I think children would only find it shocking if they family has not taught them about sex and the differences between men and women from the get-go. But because famlies like that are in an extreme minority (my parents taught me about sex and such at the age of three), I can see your point. It's not actually to do with kids so much as to do with the parents who will say their kids cannot look at the page. But in all honesty, I feel like those parents would not let their kids look at a page on pregnancy to begin with, as well as Wikipedia to begin with. And those who consider Wikipedia to be tame are obviously not looking up certain articles that Wikipedia covers.


 * I also disagree with the people who are paranoid about censorship concerning sex and nudity. For the most part, humans are a smart lot, and the people who argue that this is probably paranoia about nudity are probably paranoid themselves about certain issues they find important, or may even have ulterior motives.


 * I ALSO disagree that a photo of a nude model must be used. That simply isn't true. Even if I don't find the image offensive or sexual, that's just not true.


 * In any event, the picture, as determined by me, is harmless, and children whose parents are bothered by it probably do not let them surf Wikipedia to begin with. There are more pressing concerns with photos, like the one that illustrates vagina, which is not a medical photo but obviously porn to anyone who has seen hardcore porn--including myself. This photo passes the Miller test, and is not obscene or overtly (or even suggestively) sexual. Someone might say that is not the point--female nudity is much more accepted than male nudity. This is true. But that is a social issue, and wiping out all female photos that have nudity, even those that demonstrate a scientific phenomenon in a non-sexual way, should be censored, is extreme in my opinion. It's more case by case.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Some kids will be shocked, others won't. For that matter, some adults will be shocked.  More than 5,000 people look at this page each day.  The only thing we can guarantee is that they will not all have the same response.
 * I disagree that this image is the best we could put in the lead, but I share your concerns about the lack of racial diversity and the apparent commitment of some editors to show strictly light-skinned women in a state of undress. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't care if children see nude images or not. And I strongly oppose any religious views influencing the content of Wikipedia. In fact, I oppose censorship so much that I founded WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship. However, I still think that image #1 is a better choice than our current lead image. Kaldari (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Despite the fact that I am not of any practicing or traditional religion, I still find it a little offensive that people are assuming that people raised this conversation because they are of a certain religion. This is seriously prejudiced to be "othering" like this. I don't think the person's religion matters in accordance to their views. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with the remarks made by WhatamIdoing at 02:29 on 6 April 2011 . Therefore I recommend using Image 1 in the lead and Image 2 under ==Second trimester==. I have nothing further to add. <span style="border:2px ridge #aaf;padding:1px 8px;font:normal 10px Verdana,sans-serif;"> Rubywine . talk  19:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have permission from the person who created the image of breast changes in preg to release it under a CC3.0 license and thus use it here on Wikipedia. Will upload it letter today. Hopefully this addresses the remaining concerns. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Could you clarify what concerns are being addressed. This discussion seems to be an ongoing one on a whole- body image of a pregnant woman. I 'm not sure how breast images can solve concerns in that discussion. Have I missed something?(olive (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC))

Any chance of getting something like this? Doesn't address the racial issue, but it seems pretty good. B{{sup|e}}— —C{{sub|ritical}} {{sub|__Talk}} 22:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Um, isn't that sort of image exactly the problem here? The issue is not about whether we should show a nude image because people will get offended by nudity, it's whether the nudity is gratuitous and unnecessary. And I think WhatamIdoing has hit it on the head ... there's no real reason to depict the woman's breasts in the lead since there's nothing they could effectively illustrate. Exposed belly, yes. Breasts, no. Daniel Case (talk) 05:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC) This image shows breast changes during pregnancy much better than the current lead. Thus its addition will hopefully address these concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with adding the new mages to the article in an appropriate spot. The image which parallels the lead must be a whole body image.(olive (talk) 11:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC))
 * Agree that it should be the whole body. Thus am proposing image 1 for the lead. Image 2 lower in the article and this image to show breast changes. Seems to be support here fore that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Per OrangeMarlin above: No consensus for change of current image.(olive (talk) 12:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC))
 * There is definitely no consensus to change the image. See, the problem with getting too technical here, is that you are trying to opt for a pregnant woman with clothes, thus hiding what we're talking about, or for other less-than-full depictions.  If not clothing, then break the pregnant body/form/shape into different images.  But it seems people are trying to avoid the subject, which is the pregnant body.  That includes the head, feet, breasts, knees, belly and everything surrounding them.  Having a picture of a pregnant woman without any interference and without dividing the pregnant body up into separate pictures is exactly what we need here.  Give the whole body first, then the closeups of the different parts for purposes of illustrating changes or giving higher resolution.  There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that is going to be better than showing the subject of this article without interference.  And that subject is pregnancy, that is the carrying of offspring inside the womb.  And what is "carrying inside the womb?"  The womb alone?  Clothes?  Breasts?  No... it's the whole human body which carries, and the whole human body, as effected by pregnancy, is the subject of the article.  Showing anything less than the female human body, without interference, is inappropriate to this article. B{{sup|e}}— —C{{sub|ritical}} {{sub|__Talk}} 19:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The argument is for a more professional looking image for the lead. Concerns where raised that we needed to show breast changes in pregnancy. Thus an image of these changes was found addressing this. Will return to another RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with the comments of Doc James, WhatamIdoing and the rest of the folks who spoken up here calmly and clearly about the need for better image. Photo 1 is clearly preferable for a whole host of reasons. It's higher quality even just on a basic photographic quality level when you compare light levels, contrast, and balanced composition. There is plenty of room in the rest of the article for any nude images which may be necessary to describe specific physical changes of pregnancy, but it is more dignified and educational for Wikipedia to depict a pregnant woman in the infobox as you are most likely to encounter a pregnant woman: wearing clothes. <font style="font-family:Palatino, Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling &bull; talk   22:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There are multiple arguments in this thread which began months ago on what kind of photo should be in the lead. I'm afraid we can't now dismiss those comments and concerns, and there is no consensus so far that overturns the majority view. Professional is a very subjective term, and does not only include the more suoerficial elements like lighting but also the impact including the emotional impact a photograph has. The photograph in place as has been said many times before describes the change in the human body which pregnancy is, and includes a sense of the emotional quality of the mother. Descriptive of that physical change is not a blue top under which could be anything, even a watermelon. The reader should see what pregnancy looks like. If we were looking at an article on 'foot' would we hide the foot in a shoe. Doubtful.(olive (talk) 23:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC))


 * The "quality" objection is not relevant, Steven Walling: photo quality is irrelevant unless the subject is not easily discernible, because we are illustrating, not trying to have a beautiful or artistic image. And please reveal to us how a lack of clothing is "undignified."  We should not be basing Wikipedia content on cultural biases. The only argument that has some basis is that in real life one is more likely to encounter a pregnant woman clothed; but the same argument could be applied to breast and arm and buttocks penis Human penis and vagina.  Looking at those articles, I think your "dignity" argument thoroughly refuted for WP purposes. B{{sup|e}}— —C{{sub|ritical}} {{sub|__Talk}} 00:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

{{archivebottom}}