This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Draft:Midwives page were merged into Midwife on 10 June 2017. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 23 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kcl048.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 01:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I boldly split out content about midwife from the Midwifery article. Reasons:
-- Rodguerrer ( talk) 03:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I read the article about gender-neutral language and there seems to be a gende-neutral term for anything that even remotely suggests male dominance (e.g. businessperson). Why is there no such word for "midwife", in particular as men desire to be equally involved in birth-giving? Cristiklein ( talk) 20:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Alejgonz 01, when you say, "I have reverted the edit because it is being discussed", did you actually mean "I have reverted the edit because there was not one solitary word on this talk page about that section when I reverted it the first time"? Because there wasn't.
Here's the edit:
Men rarely practice midwifery for cultural and historical reasons. In the United States and the United Kingdom, fewer than 1% of nurse-midwives are men. [1]
In ancient Greece, midwives were required by law to have given birth themselves, which prevented men from joining their ranks. [1] In 17th century Europe, some barber-surgeons, all of whom were male, specialized in births, especially births requiring the use of surgical instruments. This eventually developed into a professional split, with women serving as midwives and men becoming obstetricians. [1]
Men who work as midwives are called midwives or male midwives, if it is necessary to identify them further. [1] The word midwife means "with the woman", and does not indicate the gender of the person who is with the birthing mother. In previous centuries, they were called man-midwives. [1] In the 18th and 19th centuries, male midwives in Europe were often called by the French name, accoucheur.
I agree that almost everything in the article applies to all midwives, but most readers will not realize that. The fact that men are a tiny minority is exactly why their existence needs to be called out here. This is typical for Wikipedia articles on different professions. For example, Physician calls out early female physicians.
The specific percentages of male midwives in the particular countries for which we have sources should be included in the section about male midwives, so that all the relevant information is together. It could also be repeated in the sections on these countries, but I note that when you violated WP:PRESERVE, you did not bother to move the information to those sections.
It is true that some historical information is already included in the history section of midwifery article, but this information is nowhere in Wikipedia. Midwifery does not mention that Greek midwives must have given birth themselves, and it does not mention the connection to barber-surgeons and the split between male-controlled obstetrics and female-controlled midwifery.
I agree that information about meaning of midwife is already (now, meaning after you reverted this edit) at the beginning of the article, but this is not what's called "a redundancy". It's called "following the rules of WP:LEAD", which requires that information in the lead be present (and ideally more fully explained) in the body of the article.
In short, I disagree firmly with your effort to remove this sourced information from Wikipedia. This is relevant and important, and should be included. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Some mothers prefer male midwives because they believe that the men are more open to different styles and have fewer preconceptions. Some fathers feel less anxious with a male midwife in the delivery room or value the masculine gentleness that the midwife displays. Although old stereotypes claim that male midwives will be refused by mothers and the targets of jealous fathers, this does not appear to be the case. At least in developed Western countries, male midwives report that they are rarely rejected outright because of their gender. When this happens, the patient is transferred to the care of a female birth attendant. However, male midwives are also not approached by patients who are likely to reject them. Male midwives are also the victims of sex stereotyping by some female midwives, who emphasize the importance of providing "woman-to-woman" care.
WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
In response to WhatamIdoing, from the previous section, related to this topic:
1. I revert the first time because it's a controversial edit that needs to be discussed and reached a consensus to proceed ( WP:CONACHIEVE). I revert the second time because the edit is being discussed with the arguments in the talk page.
2. The midwives can be classified according to gender (male midwives, female midwives), race (white midwives, black midwives, indian midwives, etc), religion (christian midwives, muslim midwives, buddhist midwives, etc) or other qualifying criteria. Insert a special section or statistical information from one type of midwife (male midwives, a minority), without doing the same with other types, is give an obvious undue balance to the article. Wikipedia is not to promote ( WP:NOTPROMOTION) a type of midwife over other types, for it stops being a small minority; Wikipedia is to describe the current situation. The article "Women in Medicine" (or other professional) describes the overall participation of women in medicine, not a type of physician (female physician), so it is a separate article, they are different points of view.
3. Wikipedia suggests WP:PRESERVE "appropriate content". In this case, it is being discussed whether the content of the publication is appropriate in the article, so I can not keep anything if there is no consensus ( WP:NOCONSENSUS).
4. If some small historical data are currently not included in the section 'History of Midwifery' (which is extensive and is well documented), they could be included, it is not necessary to create another special section for that.
5. The etymology of the article title usually goes in the WP:LEAD section, can also be found in a specific section of etymology. Place the etymology in other sections is redundant.
In conclusion, I am strongly opposed to include a special section or statistical information for one type of midwife (male midwives, a minority) over other types, the article would have undue balance.
Alejgonz 01 ( talk) 21:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I am adding a new section under history for medieval midwife. K8shep ( talk) 16:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC) Today is the day I'll start this new section. Feel free to add stuff too. K8shep ( talk) 17:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Draft:Midwives page were merged into Midwife on 10 June 2017. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 23 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kcl048.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 01:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I boldly split out content about midwife from the Midwifery article. Reasons:
-- Rodguerrer ( talk) 03:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I read the article about gender-neutral language and there seems to be a gende-neutral term for anything that even remotely suggests male dominance (e.g. businessperson). Why is there no such word for "midwife", in particular as men desire to be equally involved in birth-giving? Cristiklein ( talk) 20:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Alejgonz 01, when you say, "I have reverted the edit because it is being discussed", did you actually mean "I have reverted the edit because there was not one solitary word on this talk page about that section when I reverted it the first time"? Because there wasn't.
Here's the edit:
Men rarely practice midwifery for cultural and historical reasons. In the United States and the United Kingdom, fewer than 1% of nurse-midwives are men. [1]
In ancient Greece, midwives were required by law to have given birth themselves, which prevented men from joining their ranks. [1] In 17th century Europe, some barber-surgeons, all of whom were male, specialized in births, especially births requiring the use of surgical instruments. This eventually developed into a professional split, with women serving as midwives and men becoming obstetricians. [1]
Men who work as midwives are called midwives or male midwives, if it is necessary to identify them further. [1] The word midwife means "with the woman", and does not indicate the gender of the person who is with the birthing mother. In previous centuries, they were called man-midwives. [1] In the 18th and 19th centuries, male midwives in Europe were often called by the French name, accoucheur.
I agree that almost everything in the article applies to all midwives, but most readers will not realize that. The fact that men are a tiny minority is exactly why their existence needs to be called out here. This is typical for Wikipedia articles on different professions. For example, Physician calls out early female physicians.
The specific percentages of male midwives in the particular countries for which we have sources should be included in the section about male midwives, so that all the relevant information is together. It could also be repeated in the sections on these countries, but I note that when you violated WP:PRESERVE, you did not bother to move the information to those sections.
It is true that some historical information is already included in the history section of midwifery article, but this information is nowhere in Wikipedia. Midwifery does not mention that Greek midwives must have given birth themselves, and it does not mention the connection to barber-surgeons and the split between male-controlled obstetrics and female-controlled midwifery.
I agree that information about meaning of midwife is already (now, meaning after you reverted this edit) at the beginning of the article, but this is not what's called "a redundancy". It's called "following the rules of WP:LEAD", which requires that information in the lead be present (and ideally more fully explained) in the body of the article.
In short, I disagree firmly with your effort to remove this sourced information from Wikipedia. This is relevant and important, and should be included. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Some mothers prefer male midwives because they believe that the men are more open to different styles and have fewer preconceptions. Some fathers feel less anxious with a male midwife in the delivery room or value the masculine gentleness that the midwife displays. Although old stereotypes claim that male midwives will be refused by mothers and the targets of jealous fathers, this does not appear to be the case. At least in developed Western countries, male midwives report that they are rarely rejected outright because of their gender. When this happens, the patient is transferred to the care of a female birth attendant. However, male midwives are also not approached by patients who are likely to reject them. Male midwives are also the victims of sex stereotyping by some female midwives, who emphasize the importance of providing "woman-to-woman" care.
WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
In response to WhatamIdoing, from the previous section, related to this topic:
1. I revert the first time because it's a controversial edit that needs to be discussed and reached a consensus to proceed ( WP:CONACHIEVE). I revert the second time because the edit is being discussed with the arguments in the talk page.
2. The midwives can be classified according to gender (male midwives, female midwives), race (white midwives, black midwives, indian midwives, etc), religion (christian midwives, muslim midwives, buddhist midwives, etc) or other qualifying criteria. Insert a special section or statistical information from one type of midwife (male midwives, a minority), without doing the same with other types, is give an obvious undue balance to the article. Wikipedia is not to promote ( WP:NOTPROMOTION) a type of midwife over other types, for it stops being a small minority; Wikipedia is to describe the current situation. The article "Women in Medicine" (or other professional) describes the overall participation of women in medicine, not a type of physician (female physician), so it is a separate article, they are different points of view.
3. Wikipedia suggests WP:PRESERVE "appropriate content". In this case, it is being discussed whether the content of the publication is appropriate in the article, so I can not keep anything if there is no consensus ( WP:NOCONSENSUS).
4. If some small historical data are currently not included in the section 'History of Midwifery' (which is extensive and is well documented), they could be included, it is not necessary to create another special section for that.
5. The etymology of the article title usually goes in the WP:LEAD section, can also be found in a specific section of etymology. Place the etymology in other sections is redundant.
In conclusion, I am strongly opposed to include a special section or statistical information for one type of midwife (male midwives, a minority) over other types, the article would have undue balance.
Alejgonz 01 ( talk) 21:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I am adding a new section under history for medieval midwife. K8shep ( talk) 16:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC) Today is the day I'll start this new section. Feel free to add stuff too. K8shep ( talk) 17:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)