Talk:Mother/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Dictionary

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. But until someone else deletes or (somehow) encyclopedifies this article, it might as well be accurate. 2002 user:Montrealais

Indeed. 2002 Vicki Rosenzweig

Profanity edit

Removed references to 'motherfucker' and 'MILF'. These have no place here.

absolutely... who writes these things?209.187.72.3 17:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I just removed the following sentence, "A mother is looked on by society as a sweet person until the child reaches it's teen years where it is then looked on as an evil advocate of the devil." Ha. Hilarious. There was another bit of vandalism I had to remove as well.
by Wild Mountain Thyme (talk) 05:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move

motherhood to mother. To make consistent with the title of the father article. 64.193.70.223 21:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is currently a long definition resembling a dictionary entry, with some questionable content (eg: comment about status of mothers in Romania). Why do we need it? Exploding Boy 05:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I also think the comment about the status of mothers in Romania is out of place. Moreover, such a comment would need to be backed up by a reference in my opinion. Better, I would suggest to remove the comment altogether.

Yes. 149.225.214.24 19:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Follow Father Page

There are, as with fathers, different types of mother, are ther not, therefore, we should include them? feedback what you think. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Umpajug (talk • contribs) 14:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

You may wish to elaborate SamanthaG 01:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I think what he's referring to is that on father there's a long list of different types of fathers, e.g. natural, posthumous, adoptive, etc. and presumably he wants a similar list for mother. Most of the paternal terms could be easily "translated" in that case. Tocharianne 01:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Use of "mom/mommy" in British Midlands

This was deleted by user 86.146.203.197 on Valentine's Day. Why it was deleted is unclear, but usage of the above is widespread if not total throughout the West Midlands (specifically the Black Country and Birmingham). I have put this information back in, for now. If anyone has an objection, please let me know. Worley-d 22:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

-- In addition, the amount of vandalism on this page is alarming. I assume it is due to the low standard of the article that it is not protected against such anonymous edits? It seems like this page has had ten edits since my last constructive edit, all adding and then correcting said vandalism. Worley-d 19:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi I live in the West Midlands and I can categorically deny that the use of mom/mommy is widespread - I've not heard or seen it spelt once. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.97.11 (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC) The terms mum/mummy are used as in the rest of the UK.

Bob???? Frank???

I suggested that the references to these are removed and that this page is watched—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bigandy (talk • contribs) 11:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for spotting. This page is watched but sometimes things slip through. Eagle eyes are much appreciated. -- Siobhan Hansa 14:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is a dreadfully small page, compared to the importance of mothers in sociology, literature, art, pop culture, and... well, pretty much everything. Any ideas as to why?

Biological motherhood

Most definitions of motherhood tend to mark the beginning of motherhood at the time of the birth of one's child. While there are biological reasons to discuss the pregnant woman as a mother, it seems to me that discussion of gestation etc. shoud be in a subsection entitled "Biological mother", not in the opening paragraph, which should conform more closely to traditional definitions. --Pleasantville 13:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note that new sections go at the bottom of the talk page. Also, there are only two sentences in the lede about the subject to which you refer, and both are well-sourced (see respective footnotes). Therefore, I don't support moving or changing them at this point.Ferrylodge 14:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree here with Pleasantville. The definitions that are attached as sources seem to be pushing a not-very-veiled POV that would be better left off this article, or at least relegated to a section called "biological motherhood" or something similar. Not the lede. <strong;Tvoz |talk 18:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Ferrylodge, I'm not clear on why it is important to you to define motherhood as beginning at or around the time of conception. Many conventional definitions of "mother" define the term as "a woman who has given birth to a child (also used as a term of address to your mother); "the mother of three children"" or "the woman of whom one was born". Surely, you are not arguing that such definitions are wrong?
I note that you have showed similar preoccupations in the past on Talk:Pregnancy. Can you clarify why it is important to you to downplay traditional understandings of the advent of motherhood? --Pleasantville 18:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
No Pleasantville, I cannot clarify why it is important to me to downplay traditional understandings of the advent of motherhood, because I have no such intention. If you would like to add a section to the article on that subject, then by all means please go ahead. I did not write the lede of this article, but rather merely inserted some footnotes. As far as I can tell, the lede is fine. But if you would like to add a well-sourced section on "traditional understandings of the advent of motherhood", then it might thereafter be appropriate to consider modifying the lede.
And Tvoz, I would urge you to see here.Ferrylodge 02:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
That's a hell of an accusation to make, Ferrylodge, with absolutely no justification. Do you think an interest in motherhood is somehow unique to you? Don't flatter yourself so much - I actually have on-the-job training in the subject, and don't have to explain my interest to you. I commented on the lede of the article - I didn't look to see who put that text and footnotes in, and I have done nothing to harass you or to disrupt anything, anywhere. I think the citations are pushing a POV, and I think it should be reworked. You seem to be taking my comment personally - if the shoe fits, it's your problem. I didn't notice that you owned this article, or any article, or the direction they take. And if you want to make any more accusations, I suggest you do it more formally, and more carefully. Tvoz |talk 05:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Ferrylodge, please maintain a civil tone. --Pleasantville 10:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I have maintained a civil tone, and I am not making accusations. Some users are unaware that it is bad form to follow other users around. If Tvoz is following me around (from Fred Thompson to abortion to mother), then I would kindly ask her to please stop. However, if it is merely a bizarre coincidence, then we can leave it at that.Ferrylodge 13:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. Let's see if I can get this discussion back on track. As far as I know, every natural human language has a word for mother and a concept underlying that. Medical obstetrics, on the other hand, is very recent, and its concepts figure into concepts of motherhood in only a limited way, even in cultures where this brand of modern medicine is practiced. Thus, it is really jarring to start in with gestational chronology, when for most of human history such discussion has had at best a very limited impact on the concept of "mother."

In promoting the (very sound) idea that pregnant women should seek prenatal care, to some extent medicine has pushed aside the concept of the "mother-to-be" in favor of a notion that parenting starts as soon as one knows one is pregnant, or even earlier -- taking prenatal vitamins during years when one might become pregnant. But though the word mother is sometimes used this way, that is not its primary usage, but rather a secondary one. --Pleasantville 12:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If you decide to write a section on the subject that you've been discussing (and you are more than welcome to do so), please cite sources. You have cited none in this discussion.Ferrylodge 13:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Please try to adopt a more civil tone. You seem to be extremely anxious about this. --Pleasantville 14:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Please stop condescending, psychoanalyzing, and pretending that my tone is not civil. Thank you in advance for your cooperation in that regard.Ferrylodge 14:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Relax and talk. That's what talk pages are for. I'm trying to understand your perspective and you aren't giving me much to work with. --Pleasantville 14:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I've already replied to everything you've said.Ferrylodge 14:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm guessing, given your reaction, that you are the author of the couple of sentences under discussion. Is that correct? I note that there is a very similar passagein the entry for Parent. Did you write that also? --Pleasantville 15:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
In answer to your question, I already said above that I wrote neither. I said above: "I did not write the lede of this article, but rather merely inserted some footnotes."Ferrylodge 16:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Webster's Unabridged, 1979

I got out our family copy of Webster's New 20th Century Dictionary (2nd ed., 1979) and on p. 1173, there are a number of definitions of the word "mother," none of which square with defining from conception rather than birth. --Pleasantville 18:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I support copyediting the lede, but not to the extent of removing biological motherhood - its fairly close to a concise overview as it is. And yes, "motherhood" is generally understood to begin at birth or adoption. I don't mind using the 1979 dictionary, but if more sources are indicated we should include them. Insofar as a section on "Biological motherhood" - were you thinking of expanding the article to have other sections as well? Also, what's with the section "Motherhood and Marital Status"? Is this even remotely appropriate in an article on Motherhood in a secular encyclopedia? KillerChihuahua?!? 19:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
What's under discussion is moving the biological passages from the opening paragraph to a separate section entitled Biological motherhood.
Regarding the marriage section, I've softened it a bit from its earlier starkness. (See earlier version here.) But indeed, mothering is about a relationship between a woman and a child, rather than a woman and a man. I note that 1979 Wesbsters makes no mention of marital status. --Pleasantville 20:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Marital status is a completely separate topic. I don't see why it is in this article at all. Regarding biological motherhood and the lead: if there is to be a biological section, then the lead stays and the section expands - the lead is supposed to be a summary or overview of the article, and while currently the biological bit is all alone in the lead, which would tend to indicate complete removal from the lead, if a section is created then the biological bit in the lead would be more appropriate, as a subject which is covered in the article. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
What I'd really like to see is the OED, but I'm out in the 'burbs. Maybe the Chappaqua Public Library has an online account. --Pleasantville 23:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Let me look.. I'm not sure what I have handy. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
You guys want mother in the OED? The whole entry is really long, obviously, but I assume it's only the sense of "female parent of a human being" that's of interest, and its illustrative quotes. Here:

1. a. The female parent of a human being; a woman in relation to a child or children to whom she has given birth; (also, in extended use) a woman who undertakes the responsibilities of a parent towards a child, esp. a stepmother. Used as a form of address to a woman by her (young or adult) children, and freq. also by her stepchildren or other children in her care; also (colloq. and regional) by a father to the mother of his children. Cf. MA n.3, MOM n., and MUM n.2 1a. As with other terms of relationship, my is (exc. occas. in poetic language) commonly omitted before mother as vocative. On the other hand, in the 3rd person the use of mother for my mother is colloquial and familiar; in the middle of the 19th cent. it was regarded as unfashionable or vulgar.

birth, foster-mother: see the first element. surrogate mother: see SURROGATE a. eOE Cleopatra Gloss. in W. G. Stryker Lat.-Old Eng. Gloss. in MS Cotton Cleopatra A.III (Ph.D. diss., Stanford Univ.) (1951) 314 Mater, anes cildes modor. Materfamilias, manigra cilda modur. lOE tr. Ralph d'Escures Sermo in Festis Sancte Marie Virginis in R. D.-N. Warner Early Eng. Homilies (1917) 135 {Th}eh manege o{edh}re habben mæge{edh}hades weall,..{th}ehhwe{edh}ere ne mugen heo gehealde ne mæge{edh}hade & modres beon, ne bearn geberen. ?c1200 Ormulum 168 He be{th} full off Hali{ygh} Gast {Ygh}et inn hiss moderr wambe. c1225 (?c1200) St. Katherine 929 Of his feader so{edh} godd, & of his moder so{edh} mon. a1325 (c1250) Gen. & Exod. 1434 Ysaac..wunede {edh}or in {edh}o{ygh}t and care For moderes dead. 1340 Ayenbite 67 {Th}is zenne is ine uele maneres ase..ine children aye hare uaderes and hare modren. c1390 CHAUCER Physician's Tale 93 Ye fadres and ye modres. a1425 (a1400) Prick of Conscience (Galba & Harl.) 447 He was consayved synfully With-in his awen moder body. c1440 (a1349) R. ROLLE Eng. Prose Treat. (1921) 11 Honoure thy fadyre and {th}i modyre. c1520 Of Newe Landes founde by Messengers Kynge of Portyngale Introd., in E. Arber 1st Three Eng. Bks. on Amer. (1885) 33/1 The[y] ete theym all rawe, both there one fader or moeder. 1526 Pylgrimage of Perfection (de Worde) f. 13, As infantes or tender babes newe borne of theyr mother. c1546 PRINCE EDWARD in H. Ellis Orig. Lett. Eng. Hist. (1824) 1st Ser. II. 131 Most honorable and entirely beloued mother. 1556 in J. G. Nichols Chron. Grey Friars (1852) 25 The qwenys moder dicessyd. 1598 SHAKESPEARE L.L.L. II. i. 256 Then was Venus like her mother, for her father is but grim. a1616 SHAKESPEARE Coriol. (1623) IV. i. 16 Nay Mother. a1616 SHAKESPEARE Coriol. (1623) IV. i. 27 My Mother, you wot well [etc.]. 1645 MILTON Arcades in Poems 52 Cybele, Mother of a hunderd gods. 1664 C. COTTON Scarronides I. 48 So smug she [sc. Venus] was, and so array'd He [sc. Aeneas] took his Mother for a Maid. 1702 C. MATHER Magnalia Christi VI. ii. 10/1 She liv'd to be a Mother of several Children. 1740 tr. C. de Fieux Fortunate Country Maid II. 177 No wonder my Mother was so indulging. a1779 D. GRAHAM Coll. Writings (1883) II. 233 How his midder sell'd mauky mutton. 1790 W. COWPER On Receipt Mother's Picture 21 My mother! when I learn'd that thou wast dead. c1830 T. H. BAYLY We Met! (song), Oh! thou hast been the cause of this anguish, My mother. 1857 DICKENS Little Dorrit I. ii. 13 Mother (my usual name for Mrs. Meagles) began to cry so, that it was necessary to take her out. ‘What's the matter, Mother?’ said I..‘you are frightening Pet.’.. ‘Yes, I know that, Father,’ says Mother. 1892 G. STEWART Shetland Fireside Tales (ed. 2) ix. 71 Auld Ibbie Bartley, dat wis trids o' kin to my wife's foster midder, an' her oey. 1898 J. D. BRAYSHAW Slum Silhouettes 156 ‘Sit yer down, mother,’ said Joe, taking his seat at the head of the table. 1920 R. MACAULAY Potterism III. ii. 127 ‘Never mind Arthur,’ she said. ‘I wouldn't let him get on my mind if I were you, mother.’ 1932 A. CHRISTIE Peril at End House v. 68 Mother and I..feel it's only neighbourly to do what we can. 1960 C. DAY LEWIS Buried Day i. 16, I have a large photograph of it, a photograph that after my mother's untimely death used to hang in dark corners or passages of the houses we occupied. 1970 P. CARLON Souvenir ii. 35 Don't you loathe the way old folks call each other Mother and Dad? 1990 New Republic 9 July 25/1 Right now only a few genetic tests are used by expectant mothers{em}for Down's syndrome, Tay-Sachs disease, etc.

The formatting (bold and italics) wouldn't come along, sorry about that. Feel free to delete those quotes, I merely thought there might be something of interest in the later ones. Bishonen | talk 23:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC).

See what sloth can do for you? I was lax and did not act speedily, and lo and verily, Bish has done the work for us. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


(outdent) What about something similar to (not identical to) Father#Categories? I think Mother is better than Father at this juncture, and certainly don't want to get into the ubiquitous and usually irrelevant "religious views" stuff (most religions have a view about everything, its just nonsense to include those in every article) but the Categories might be a starting point for Biological vs. Sociological etc. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Bless you, Bishonen. I'll see what can be done with the OED ref tomorrow. --Pleasantville 23:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Womb

Note: we're using gestation, a Latin word, let's be consistent and use uterus. Womb has secondary meanings and a different sense (it's not necessarily neutral). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Tvoz |talk 19:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I can't even believe this is a subject of a POV-warrior. But Jim is correct. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Famous Mothers

I'm not sure what this section is really for. I filled it out a bit, most of which has been cut, which is OK.

The problem is that almost no one is primarily famous for their mothering unless it goes spectacularly wrong (examples: Joan Crawford aka "Mommie Dearest"); & Andrea Yates; and such mothers are infamous, not famous. Not even Queen Victoria, who was a carrier for hemophilia which had wide-spread effects in the European aristocracy), really qualifies under a strict definition of a "famous mother."

Fame partly related to motherhood seems to come either through dynastic connection: Indira Gandhi, Nefertiti, Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy; or by writing about it: Jean Kerr for Please Don't Eat the Daisies, Shirley Jackson for Life Among the Savages.

Does anyone get famous purely for the fine quality of their mothering? Almost no one.

Mythological and legendary mother figures don't have this problem, since they are archetypes. But doing a Famous Mothers section about real women is really difficult, and the results are unimpressive. --Pleasantville 23:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I would not object to the entire section being cut. I'm the one who trimmed, trying to at least limit it to those whose secondary claim to fame had something to do with their being mothers; however, keeping only those with primary reason for fame leaves us with only Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (arguable) and Mitochondrial Eve (not precisely "mother" in the usual sense.) I don't know at what point in the dark ages this section was started, but it does seem a little crufty. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll cut it. --Pleasantville 23:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. I also merged the "Related Terms" section with "See also"--Pleasantville 23:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! KillerChihuahua?!? 23:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope I get a little credit for removing Anna Nicole Smith! GOod work on this - I didn't see the point eithe. Tvoz |talk 05:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

General organization

Now that the article's been cleaned up a bit, the Mothers and parental leave section sticks out. Probably there should also be a section on mothers and chilcare, or some such. Also, there is almost nothing on non-human mothering, or the role mothers play in psychological theory. So clearly there is further organization to do. --Pleasantville 00:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Womb-Uterus debate: central location proposed

As this has enveloped multiple articles, I propose we choose one location for the debate, post accodingly on the talk pages of all involved articles, and hash it out in one place. There has been a good bit of repetition, as well as edit warring on articles where there is little or no discussion on the talk pages. IMO we can work it out ourselves, but if not, we can move to mediation if desired. I suggest Talk:Pregnancy/Womb-Uterus debate. I am cross posting this on all involved articles. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


Mama and Ma

The words Mama, Mom and Ma are used in all Dutch speaking countries around the world. Not just The Netherlands. I'm from the Flemish part of Belgium (Dutch-speaking), a neighboring country of The Netherlands, that's how I know. The words are also used in South Africa, and many of the former colonies of The Netherlands. Marjolijn 15:48, 15 November 2007 (CET)

Youre right! the part about synonyms is wrong "mum or mummy, is used in the UK, Netherlands, Australia.", ive never heard anyone saying "mum" in dutch! we say "mama". anyway im not too sure about editing the page, so maybe someone else will.

It would be nice if this can be changed by someone who is autoconfirmed or higher. Ma/Mam/Mammy(mammie) is used in all Dutch speaking countries, not Mum —Preceding unsigned comment added by Recadra (talk • contribs) 18:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes could someone please edit this? Mama / Ma / Mam / Mammie is used in Dutch. We do not use the english terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annerosa (talk • contribs) 16:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Photos

Looking at this page again, I think there is a disconnect between the text and the illustrations. Clearly the text is almost completely about mother as the "female parent of a human being" whether biological or surrogate. There is virtually no text about non-humans, and none about ducks and goats. So why do we have pictures of ducks and goats? I see no discussion here about this, so am removing them. Tvoz |talk 06:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Why the migrant mother image as the lead? Odd. She does not represent motherhood in any archetypal sense, in fact, it's vaguely propagandist and a poor choice. She looks depressed. Why not go whole hog in true wiki fashion and show some woman having an abortion? Motherhood is a choice right ^_^ 81.133.168.56 (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
The lead image for this article is a featured picture. DurovaCharge! 22:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I totally agree that "Migrant Mother" is an inappropriate picture. The featured picture for Father displays a happy emotional connection between father and child--AS IS PROPER FOR HEALTHY CHILD DEVELOPMENT. "Migrant Mother" is not representative of typical motherhood and should be replaced with another featured picture. (Origen01 (talk) 09:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC))
I agree. Choice of migrant mother is disgusting, a slap in the face to the concept of motherhood and the supreme bond between human children and their mothers. Also, quite an ugly image. 92.251.80.224 (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Use of the Migrant Mother image is discussed at some length in Self-promotional image removed below. I support its retention as a quality image which depicts the need children have for their mother. It also satisfies WP:NPOV criteria. -- Trevj (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Mom/Mum in Canada

I'm from Canada and have never encountered anyone here who spells the word with a "u" as in UK and Australia. "Mom" is taught in schools throughout Canada (including Eastern Canada, which the article states is a "u" hotspot). I edited this out, but if there is a minority of people (other than immigrants from U-spelling areas) who actually are taught to spell it this way, someone should add that. Also, since Canada uses "mom" just as much as the US, is saying that it is used "especially in the US" irrelevant? (also lol@ the post above mine) M.nelson (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we Canadians all spell it "Mom" but we do generally say "mum"... the long-o of "moooom" you hear on commercials still sounds very American. --Saforrest (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I must agree. Perhaps the people around me are "unique" but here in Hamilton (ON) almost everyone I know says "mum". As in "how is your mum?" or "come to mummy" or "let me ask my mum". Although, "mom" is quite prevalent in use as well. I actually spell the word as "mom" or "mum" interchangeably although the the way I was taught it in primary school was, indeed, mom. Celynn (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Ma/Mam/Mammy in the UK

I have corrected the fact that Ma, Mam and Mammy is used in the UK as well as in Ireland, as most people I know refer to their mothers as Mam or Mammy as well as Mum and Mummy. Basilbrushfan (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Self-promotional image removed

I've removed Image:Daisy Romwall from Morro Bay, United States.jpg from the article. It could be a picture of anyone (an aunt, a sister, a friend, a social worker) so it adds nothing to the article. It's a nice pic for a family photo album or a userpage, but according to the image use policy, "These images are considered self-promotion and the Wikipedia community has repeatedly reached consensus to delete such images." Kafziel Complaint Department 19:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken, it is not a user created image. Rather it was transferred from Flickr by User:Lamilli who is German and a prolific contributor to Wikimedia Commons. I'll be putting it back in since the policy you cite does not apply and because it does add substance to the article to actually have a photo of a mother in it. —Ashanda (talk) 09:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't see what being German has to do with anything.
Look at the description on the image page: "I love her, with all my heart, and if ever I knew love, this is it." Obvious self-promotion. And, as I said, it doesn't add anything because for all we know that's an aunt, a cousin, a social worker, etc. Adds nothing to the article. Kafziel Complaint Department 13:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
"Self-promotion" has to do with trying to sell something here, using wikipedia like it was the classified ads. In this case, what are they trying to sell? For money, I mean. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
That's simply not correct. From the Image Use Policy: "Images with you, friends or family prominently featured in a way that distracts from the image topic are not recommended for the main namespace; User pages are OK. These images are considered self-promotion and the Wikipedia community has repeatedly reached consensus to delete such images."
Nothing about making money there. It's vanity; a cheap way to wiggle an image of oneself into a Wikipedia article. If an image of a mother is really so important, I'm sure there are plenty of PD images of notable classical subjects that can suffice. Kafziel Complaint Department 20:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Here is one such example. Kafziel Complaint Department 20:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Those are ugly-looking images, and they distract from the topic. How does a picture of an actual mother-with-child, as opposed to ancient weird-looking artwork, distract from the topic? If they hadn't had the gushy stuff and instead simply said "a mother with her child", would that have been OK? What is it about that image that you find specifically "distracting" from the topic? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
It seems the image was uploaded by a user who is not the subject (that's what the "being German" has to do with this conversation: The image is supposed to be a mother from Morro Bay USA - the uploader is from Germany). So the self-promotion (which I agree does not simply apply to commercial motives) does not apply since it is not a self or family/friends photo here. It may have been self promotion of Flikr but that does not transfer when it's chosen by an unconnected editor.
I also agree with Baseball bugs that the classical images you suggest are not that great and don't illustrate the article nearly as well. -- SiobhanHansa 22:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
You also point out in your edit summary that it's not the uploader's photo, so how it can be "self-promotion" is mystifying. Also, the argument that it could be an aunt rather than a mother - well, those antique artworks are of a mythical goddess, and a Madonna respectively, so there's no evidence that those are "real" mothers either. The former is from someone's imagination, and the latter could be any woman with any child. Maybe it's the nose ring that the complainant doesn't like? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it's probably the nose ring that the tattooed, goateed, Metallica-fan complainant doesn't like. Give me a break. Keep to the discussion, and don't start going after me personally. I also have no idea what edit summary you're referring to; because of the description on the image page and its title, I'm not at all convinced that the uploader isn't the subject. Do you have a diff for that claim? The original copyright holder is the one who took the picture and uploaded it to Flikr, but the Wikipedia uploader can certainly be the subject of the photo. There's no reason a person from Germany and a person from California can't be friends.
The image I gave was just a quick example, used because it has two examples in one. There are lots of others. Pretty much anything published pre-1922 will be free and would avoid the appearance of blatant self-promotion, and the use of a notable mother-son or mother-daughter pairing would avoid the appearance of simple vanity. There are lots of famous pairs in history and mythology; this very article lists several of them. Whether you believe in the virgin Mary or not it's a notable mother-child depiction and I'm sure you can find a good example from Rembrandt or something. There are probably even free images of Jackie Kennedy with JFK Jr., or Queen Elizabeth with Prince Charles, if you're worried about "real" examples. Kafziel Complaint Department 12:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
You are the one claiming it's self-promotion. What's your evidence for that? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The title, the description, and the pointless inclusion. In the end, though, I don't need any evidence at all. It makes perfect sense to replace it with a better one. Kafziel Complaint Department 14:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The title is just what it was uploaded as and has no bearing on whether it is appropriate for the article - the description (which was horrendous) has been changed to something much ore appropriate. If you have a better image to suggest please do. I think that for a general subject like this the lede photo should be a contemporary, realistic image such as the photo you removed rather than an historical one. -- SiobhanHansa 14:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Says who? There's no basis in policy for that. For a general subject, the lead photo should be a good one, most importantly. The lead images in articles like sibling or other general articles like automobile aren't exactly contemporary examples. On the contrary, they show a classical example because it helps avoid modern cultural bias. By the way, I think the images in the father article are blatantly inappropriate as well. Kafziel Complaint Department 14:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Well that might be why I put "I think" at the start of that opinion. I would also note that your assertions are not acked up by policy either. This would be editorial judgment that we need to discuss and agree upon as part of Wikipedia's collaborative editing process.
I quite like the current Image:Lange-MigrantMother02.jpg though I would prefer a color image. On the example articles you give my opinions would be: siblings - awful illustrations; automobile - I like the way they lead through an historical timeline, not something that could be done easily with "mother"; father - I like the illustration they have, it's certainly a lot better than the siblings article, though it could use extra images elsewhere to cover a greater range of portrayals. -- SiobhanHansa 15:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
My feelings about the other pic are based on policy: the image use policy on self-promotion, as I've already said. It's obvious vanity, and it shouldn't be used. The fact that the uploader is German is irrelevant; the self-promotion policy extends to friends as well as oneself. I've explained that enough. I think it's obvious that I don't have a conflict of interest here, either with that particular uploader or with the picture I replaced it with, so there's no reason not to assume my change was made in good faith. The migrant mother is a featured picture, which means it's one of the best Wikipedia has to offer, and black & white vs. color is a pointless argument (as is your characterization of The Princes in the Tower as an "awful illustration"). My stance against that other photo is based on clear rules in the IUP, and none of the arguments against that have been anything but speculation and opinion. Kafziel Complaint Department 16:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
You have presented no evidence that it is, in fact, "self promotion". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) As Baseball Bugs notes you are quoting a policy that you have been unable to show applies and which other editors have shown does not apply. There is no basis for assuming there is a connection between the uploader and the picture subject. I don't assume your change was made in "bad faith" or that you have a conflict of interest just that you misapplied a policy which initially resulted in a poorer article. Mistakes are made - it does not mean others should not point out those mistakes or correct them.

On the Migrant mother photo I've already said I like it - I expect I like it for many of the reasons it gained featured photo status. That said, color is not "pointless", in general color photos are better illustrations when realism is desired. I am merely saying that if we can find an otherwise equally good photo that is also in color it would be better. Being a featured photo is a good indication that the quality of an image is one of the best available but it does not automatically make it an ideal (or best) illustration for a particular article.

Also, slightly off topic but I hope this will help explain some of my reasoning and help push this discussion into more useful territory, in my characterization of the images on siblings I was meaning in the context of illustrating the article - not as an assessment of the illustrations as portraits. I do not see that the images in that article are particularly illuminating to the subject there, especially since the intricacies of 19th century portraiture (and the story of the princes in particular) is fairly irrelevant to the article. The first 3 images in that article are all 19th Century paintings of privileged Europeans and all boy/all girl couplings at that. I think that lack of variety and applicability to the article fails to illustrate such a broad subject well. -- SiobhanHansa 17:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs doesn't get to decide whether policy is correctly applied. Neither do you. If it appears to be self-serving (which it certainly does, and I have given evidence - the title and the description on the image page) then it shouldn't be used. I don't need incontrovertible evidence of it. I don't even know what that would consist of - how could one possibly make it more clear? I replaced it with a far better picture—not just by my own standards, but by Wikipedia's standards. The policy does apply.
I've said all I need to say about this. If anyone has further problem with that they are more than welcome to start dispute resolution. It's such an obvious conflict of interest between uploader and subject that it would be an absolute waste of time for either of you, and I can't imagine how replacing such a crappy photo would serve anyone's interests in any way. But by all means, bring it to the community if you feel up to it. Otherwise, I'm done here. Kafziel Complaint Department 15:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The bit of the policy you quoted states it refers to image uploaded by their creator. This image was uploaded from a flikr page by an editor who uploads a lot of images from many different flikr pages and there is no indication the uploader is in any way connected to the image creator or its subject. The title and descriptions were taken directly from the flikr page they are no indication that the image was uploaded to Commons in a self-promoting manner. Bring what to the community exactly? There's now an adequate photo on the page - I'm not a dick trying to make pointy edits. I'm simply letting you know (along with the other editors who have commented on this thread) that your reasoning is incorrect so you don't repeat it in the future. -- SiobhanHansa 17:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
He has failed to demonstrate any conflict of interest, that's just his theory based on nothing. The current black and white photo is definitely a better illustration than some Egyptian goddess, though. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mother/Archive_1&oldid=1142771688"