Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Husband stitch.
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
All the sources on this topic are fairly poor. Of the better of the lot most say that the practice is an urban legend. Reading what is out there this appears to be the case. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 09:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Doc James: I'm still unsure about this. I've looked up the best source's source, and that source's sources, and it doesn't lead to anything solid:
So we have a trail of citations, but we're really none the wiser. I'm thinking of writing to a few gynaecologists for advice. Pinking Ekem again in case he can help. SarahSV (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I am an attending Ob/Gyn at a major university in the US, and teach the subject to residents and medical students, and I have never heard of doing this. There are some women who desire "vaginal rejuvenation" or vaginoplasty, sometimes due to perception of vaginal laxity, but I have never heard of it being done intentionally during episiotomy repair. In fact, placing an extra tightening stitch would be counterproductive as the perineum already has an inherently high risk for wound breakdown and adding additional tension would only increase this risk. D.c.camero ( talk) 23:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
The opening paragraph more or less implies the factual existence of the husband stitch, only further down are we told that there's no evidence for the medical community undertaking this battery.
Suggestions:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.239.143 ( talk • contribs) 14:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
As written, this is a weird double negative - are they saying it does or doesn't happen? Either way, it should probably be rephrased, or dropped altogether due to the weasel word "many." 2601:18E:C180:7B60:11C5:2358:CFD7:AC78 ( talk) 16:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
The same article has the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists not deny that the “husband stitch” is a procedure that happens, a gynecologist and obstetrician state that she has completed the procedure a few times and a nurse midwife along with some other physicians state that they are most familiar with it as an urban legend. Yet in the Wikipedia article, only the last is mentioned and it being seen as an urban legend is portrayed as a view held by many medical practioners, instead of the ones interviewed by the company that wrote the article. The section about it being a joke is unnecessary because, again, how can something exist but also simultaneously be a myth or a joke? There is no err in whether or not the procedure itself is a myth, it is in how often it is actually done on this day (and where and by whom) and whether or not it could be a considered a form of female genital mutilation.
This is all sourced from a single article by a lifestyle news company tailored to fathers. The medical perspective section should be improved either with more sources or completely rewritten with less bias, in both the sources and written content. 2001:14BA:A301:3A1C:0:0:0:1 ( talk) 10:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Husband stitch.
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
All the sources on this topic are fairly poor. Of the better of the lot most say that the practice is an urban legend. Reading what is out there this appears to be the case. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 09:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Doc James: I'm still unsure about this. I've looked up the best source's source, and that source's sources, and it doesn't lead to anything solid:
So we have a trail of citations, but we're really none the wiser. I'm thinking of writing to a few gynaecologists for advice. Pinking Ekem again in case he can help. SarahSV (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I am an attending Ob/Gyn at a major university in the US, and teach the subject to residents and medical students, and I have never heard of doing this. There are some women who desire "vaginal rejuvenation" or vaginoplasty, sometimes due to perception of vaginal laxity, but I have never heard of it being done intentionally during episiotomy repair. In fact, placing an extra tightening stitch would be counterproductive as the perineum already has an inherently high risk for wound breakdown and adding additional tension would only increase this risk. D.c.camero ( talk) 23:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
The opening paragraph more or less implies the factual existence of the husband stitch, only further down are we told that there's no evidence for the medical community undertaking this battery.
Suggestions:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.239.143 ( talk • contribs) 14:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
As written, this is a weird double negative - are they saying it does or doesn't happen? Either way, it should probably be rephrased, or dropped altogether due to the weasel word "many." 2601:18E:C180:7B60:11C5:2358:CFD7:AC78 ( talk) 16:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
The same article has the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists not deny that the “husband stitch” is a procedure that happens, a gynecologist and obstetrician state that she has completed the procedure a few times and a nurse midwife along with some other physicians state that they are most familiar with it as an urban legend. Yet in the Wikipedia article, only the last is mentioned and it being seen as an urban legend is portrayed as a view held by many medical practioners, instead of the ones interviewed by the company that wrote the article. The section about it being a joke is unnecessary because, again, how can something exist but also simultaneously be a myth or a joke? There is no err in whether or not the procedure itself is a myth, it is in how often it is actually done on this day (and where and by whom) and whether or not it could be a considered a form of female genital mutilation.
This is all sourced from a single article by a lifestyle news company tailored to fathers. The medical perspective section should be improved either with more sources or completely rewritten with less bias, in both the sources and written content. 2001:14BA:A301:3A1C:0:0:0:1 ( talk) 10:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)