Talk:Pregnancy/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Image reversal comment

The lead image wiki text has a comment saying "Do not reverse image to look towards text - not allowed per MOS:IMAGE". The guidance says "Images should not be changed in ways that materially mislead the viewer. For example, images showing artworks, faces, identifiable places or buildings, or text should not be reversed (although those showing soap bubbles or bacteria might be)" and at MOS:PORTRAIT section, it says "It is often preferable to place a portrait (image or representation of a person) so that they "look" toward the text, but do not achieve this by reversing the image, which creates a false presentation. (Faces are never truly symmetric even in the absence of scars or other features.)"

There are two reasons I don't think that rule applies to this image. Firstly, it is not a portrait, which is an image intended to convey someone's likeness. This is effectively a stock photo, with an anonymous subject. Stock and fashion photos are routinely reversed in publications, such as in clothing catalogues or adverts, which is one reason models with symmetrical features are desirable. The woman is still pregnant even if we flip the image, whereas a photo of the subject of the article would unlikely to be faithful if flipped. Secondly, the woman isn't actually looking out of the page, even if her head and body face that way. She is looking directly at the camera/reader. One could argue, having her straight back against the body text is a better arrangement than having the bump facing it.

Its a small thing, but I propose we drop the comment. I think the image is fine in the direction it is. The biggest problem with the image is that it is very low resolution. I think the comment gives people wrong ideas about what MOS is trying to achieve with that rule, which is to not misrepresent known people (or landscapes or whatever). -- Colin°^Talk 09:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are correct. We looked long and hard for this photo and I think we found a good one. The pixel problem does not bother me at all. Sectionworker (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Lead image

Hi TadejM. You recently changed the infobox image to a mirrored version so that the woman shown is facing in toward the text. I almost reverted citing MOS:PORTRAIT

It is often preferable to place a portrait (image or representation of a person) so that they "look" toward the text, but do not achieve this by reversing the image, which creates a false presentation. (Faces are never truly symmetric even in the absence of scars or other features.)

It occurred to me that this might be an exception, since the image is not really about the person herself, or her face. Do you think the value of the "facing in" outweighs the issue of false presentation? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Firefangledfeathers. Thanks for letting me know. The image is used to show how a typical pregnant woman looks like and it doesn't actually matter whether she is seen from the left or the right. This is different to biographical articles, where that could be misleading as to a specific person's appearance. For this reason, I believe this does not create any false presentation and suggest keeping the image facing the text. --TadejM ^{my talk} 16:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts on this. I'm fine with that, and we can see if anyone feels otherwise. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I usually feel very strongly about having the photo opening into the article, whether a person or a scene. However, I just don't have that same feeling here...and I can't even say exactly why that is. I am an artist and she has a strong Mona Lisa smile...so maybe that has something to do with it. Sectionworker (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers, it seems you didn't see my post in the section just above. I think it is interesting that even experienced editors fail to spot relevant talk-page discussions. IMO, the woman is facing the camera, not to the side (e.g., File:Désiré-Magloire Bourneville.jpg looks to the left). Regardless, people do seem to have a desire to have her body facing the text, so if it stops people flipping the image back and forward, then let's leave it here. -- Colin°^Talk 07:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I blame it on "Add-topic-button blindness"! I made this a subsection of yours, so at least they'll stick together. Seems like we have a mix of people that have an orientation preference and people that know about the mirror image portrait rule but are fine with an exception, or who think it doesn't really apply. I agree with your point above that the resolution of the image is the greater problem. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The Image

I saw that the Page's First Image is now reversed, It used to be not reversed, it even said that it isn't reversed and that the Wikipedia Rules said that images cannot be in reverse, but now it got reversed for some reason, it wasn't like that before, Does anyone know Why? CGIGamer94 (talk) 04:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

How can you tell it's reversed? Our normal practice is to position photographs of people looking into the text. Since the person is unnamed, it doesn't matter whether it's facing the way the original pic looked or not. HiLo48 (talk) 04:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

CGIGamer94, you could have a look at the section above. -- Colin°^Talk 07:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh Ok, I was able to tell it was reversed because I remember before it was the other side, but it actually doesn't matter because the Person is unnamed, Thanks! CGIGamer94 (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Third Trimester pregnant woman.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Removed details

This:

More specific, the cannabinoid receptor CB₁ are at high levels on the blastocyst (fertilized egg), ready to the attachment with the endocannabinoid anandamide, an N-Acylethanolamine, if present at low level (temporary reduction), at the uterine lining (endometrium), which are necessary for the fertilized embryo can attach itself to the uterine wall, i.e. implantation, and without this connection, there will be no pregnancy.

was put into the middle of the lead, and I can't imagine why that level of detail was put in that place. Nobody except a researcher is likely to need to know this level of technical detail. I could imagine it being included in an article somewhere (though perhaps not a general article like this one), but I can't imagine it being needed at the top of the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Recommend adding section on epilepsy to Pregnancy > Diseases in Pregnancy

Epilepsy affects over 1 million people who can bear children in the U.S. [1]. A consortium of epilepsy and reproductive care providers have recently consolidated up-to-date research about epilepsy and pregnancy, including related to anti-seizure medications, on a website aimed at both patient and clinician audiences. The site aims to correct misconceptions about safety issues and risks associated with bearing children if you have epilepsy. Adding a section on epilepsy to the Diseases in Pregnancy section of the Pregnancy page would give people with epilepsy and their doctors a reliable place to start researching the implications of getting pregnant while managing epilepsy and medications taken to control it.

−

Existing Text: N/A

+

Suggested Text: By closely working with their doctors, ideally well before pregnancy, people with epilepsy can have healthy pregnancies and healthy babies. People with epilepsy who are not receiving proper medical care may experience breakthrough seizures while pregnant, and their babies may potentially be adversely impacted. Choosing an anti-seizure medication (ASM) with a lower risk for teratogenicity and major congenital malformations, checking medication levels throughout pregnancy, and taking the lowest effective ASM dose can ensure positive outcomes for parents with epilepsy and their babies. [https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01730170 The Maternal Outcomes and Neurodevelopmental Effects of Antiepileptic Drugs (MONEAD)] study showed that with appropriate epilepsy care, people with epilepsy are no more likely to experience an increase in seizure frequency while pregnant than non-pregnant people are.[https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaneurology/fullarticle/2789145] [https://epilepsypregnancy.com/for-clinicians/seizure-control/] Some anti-seizure medications (ASMs) have a higher risk for [[Teratology|teratogenicity]] and major congenital malformations. People with epilepsy should work with their doctors to select an ASM with a lower risk of adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes (e.g., lower IQ or [[Autism spectrum|autism spectrum disorder]]). They should also work with their doctors to identify the lowest effective ASM dosage that will maintain their seizure control. [https://epilepsypregnancy.com/for-clinicians/anti-seizure-medications/] [[User:RobertAtkinson|RobertAtkinson]] ([[User talk:RobertAtkinson|talk]]) 21:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

RobertAtkinson (talk) 22:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Your organization's web site does not meet the requirements set out in WP:MEDRS for sourcing biomedical content. We cannot use it as a source, nor can we use the single studies you are otherwise citing. MrOllie (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

See also Talk:Epilepsy#Suggest updating text about pregnancy in Complication section. We might someday have an article on Epilepsy and pregnancy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Stress

I've got some concerns about this new section. First of all, it's really long and goes into way too much detail (e.g., telomeres). Secondly, I think that some of it is probably wrong. For example, stress isn't technically a complication of pregnancy. Gestational diabetes is a complication of pregnancy; being stressed because you don't have the financial or social support you need is not a medical complication. I'm going to substantially shorten it. I hope we can find a compromise that includes stress in the article but doesn't rely on primary sources or creating stress by making readers feel like their normal and rational reactions to everyday life is damaging the next generation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, nearly all of that was based on inappropriate use of WP:MEDPRI sources, or was needlessly detailed or verbose. It's much shorter now. Please see the edit summaries I left in the page history. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Trimming was appropriate. Also, it presently states The children of women who had high stress levels during pregnancy are slightly more likely to have externalizing behavioral problems such as impulsivity. We probably need a source to clarify this is correlation. It’s potentially confounded by other factors (e.g. genes from stressed parents are passed to offspring, or that stressed parents might live in stressful situations that their children are also exposed to). Zenomonoz (talk) 05:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The source is cited at the end of that sentence. The abstract says "The magnitude of the prenatal effect size remained largely unchanged after adjusting for postnatal distress", so apparently they've already controlled for some confounding factors. I think what's missing is an idea of what level of stress 'counts'. Is this the level of stress like "pregnancy is uncomfortable and I don't know how we'll cope financially", or is it the one like "my husband was murdered while I was pregnant"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Also do you think there is a bit of content that could be moved under single subheadings? There is a 'complications' section but 'diseases in pregnancy' is a separate section? Zenomonoz (talk) 10:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

==Complications== is the section for medical problems caused by the pregnancy. ==Diseases== is the section for people who have an unrelated medical condition and also get pregnant (like: if you already have an autoimmune disease, can you have children safely?). The latter might benefit from a clearer section heading. External stress might fit into the ==Diseases== section, but I'm not sure about that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Good point. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah it definitely seemed to make some big claims without secondary sources, though I don't know the subject that well. Thanks for trimming. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)