Talk:Midwife

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
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)

Split
I boldly split out content about midwife from the Midwifery article. Reasons: --Rodguerrer (talk) 03:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SIZESPLIT, more than 60 kb.
 * Per WP:CONSPLIT, is not the same "profession" than "professional". It is not the same dentistry than dentist, law than lawyer, physics than physicist, midwifery than midwife, etc. Different articles for different concepts. All the information about education, training, regulation and licensure corresponds to the professional (midwife) article.
 * A lot of Interlanguage articles links to the midwife article.

Language-neutral term?
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)
 * Because for change to happen you need to get people to notice the problem and want to change it. I think there are three main reasons why this hasn't happened here. First, many people think the -wife part of the word refers to the woman in labour, not the attending person. This is false, but makes it less obvious that the term isn't gender neutral. (Of course, trans men can give birth, but the cause of gender-neutrality in referring to the birthing individual is pretty much in its infancy.) Second, even if people recognise that the second morpheme refers to the midwife, they often don't perceive this as a problem. I think the stereotype that midwives are (and even should be) pretty much always women just hasn't been dispelled in the way the stereotype about businesspeople being male has. Finally, the majority of biased language is biased against women and in favour of men, so those cases have been the main focus of attention. This is an example in the other direction, so it's less noticed. Garik (talk) 13:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Midwife means “with woman” and is used regardless of gender, this is the professional that is "with woman" during birth. --Alejgonz 01 (talk) 03:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * No. This is a common misconception&mdash;see my comment above. It means "with-woman", as in "the woman who is with" the labouring mother (here's a source; the OED would be a little more authoritative, but isn't free.) Garik (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Are there any midhusbands? Kraxler (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Depends what you mean. There are certainly male midwives, but the term "midhusband" has never been used except as a joke — which might be what you're going for. The point is that, when the term was coined, wife meant "woman" (not just female spouse), and the male equivalent was not husband. I also note that Alejgonz and Kraxler's responses to Cristiklein's question constitute anecdotal support for my hypothesis above. In short, people don't know that the term isn't gender-neutral, or they don't see why it might be an issue. Garik (talk) 13:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In any case, unless this discussion is going to improve the article, we should stop it here. Garik (talk) 13:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it did, because I added a sourced section on male midwives to the article after seeing it, including information about the history, the prevalence, and the names that have been used over half a dozen centuries. But Alejgonz 01 reverted the entire thing on the grounds that—even thought it said that male midwives "are called midwives" (direct quotation), that none of that information could be included on the grounds that they're called midwives.  (And even if they weren't called midwives, or even if it said that they were called something else, then why blank everything about the percentage of men working as midwives in two major English-speaking countries and the history of men in the profession, which is unrelated to the current title?)  I've restored it for now, and I'm hopeful that Alejgonz will read it more carefully this time.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi WhatamIdoing. I have reverted the edit because it is being discussed.
 * 1. As I commented in response to Garik, many sources hypothesize that "midwife" means "who assists a woman" (in accordance with its literal meaning), this hypothesis is accepted by colleges and associations midwives worldwide, because it has precisely a logical relationship to the essence of the midwife's practice. Therefore, from this perspective, the whole article describes the midwives (both women and men).
 * 2. If a section for male midwives is created (who are a minority) with more reason should be created a section for female midwives (who are most), all of which makes no sense because the entire article refers to both.
 * 3. Regarding the content of the proposed section: The specific percentages of male midwives in particular countries should be included in the information from these countries. Historical information is already included in the history section of midwifery article. Information about meaning of midwife is already at the beginning of the article, is a redundancy.
 * Alejgonz 01 (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi garik. My response was to CristiKlein, I restore the correct indentation.
 * Regarding your comment, indeed "midwife" literally means "with woman". The interpretation of "midwife" means "a woman who assists" is a hypothesis supported by some sources (OED is just a personal work of Douglas Harper). Other sources hypothesize that "midwife" means "who assists a woman" (in accordance with its literal meaning), this hypothesis is accepted by colleges and associations of midwives worldwide (it's not a misconception), because it has precisely a logical relationship to the essence of the midwife's practice.
 * Alejgonz 01 (talk) 19:09, 19 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:

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)


 * The same source also discusses patient and peer acceptance, so the section could be expanded along these lines:

WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "OED is just a personal work of Douglas Harper"?! Then he's been an incredibly busy man, Alejgonz 01, and he's much much older than I'd imagined! Sorry. I know you meant to write etymonline, but the point is that the OED says the same thing. Now, I wouldn't trust an etymologist to deliver my baby, but I'd trust one over a midwife on the etymology of the word, and the etymologists' consensus is pretty clear. By far the more likely etymology is that the term refers to the woman who is with the labouring mother, whatever midwives might believe. Sorry. Garik (talk) 00:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, you'll see that one of your own sources (The American Heritage Dictionary) also says the same as me: 'Thus a midwife was literally a "with-woman"—that is, "a woman who is with another woman and assists her in giving birth.' The other two sources you included just state that midwife means "with woman". This is different from saying that the second element refers to the labouring woman. Garik (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * By the way, I see no strong reason not to include a section on male midwives. Garik (talk) 01:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, since nobody else objects to having a section on ==Male midwives==, then I'll restore that later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * WhatamIdoing, my answer in the next section, according to the topic being discussed to avoid confusion. Alejgonz 01 (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Male midwives section
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)


 * 1. The rule is to WP:Be bold, not to discuss everything in advance.
 * 2. You solve this problem by adding information about race (which I can source), not by censoring information about other subjects.  NB that I referred to the main article Physician, which gives room for female physicians.  Having a special section about gender also happens in other subjects, such as Librarian.  Try reading WP:YESPOV.  It's the first section of one of the core content policies.
 * 3. Wikipedia requires, not "suggests", that you WP:PRESERVE "appropriate content", including moving content to a more appropriate in the article. Also, there is no rule at WP:CONSENSUS or any place else, that requires you to personally remove anything at all.  You're a WP:VOLUNTEER.  You should only remove content that you personally do not want in the article, and then you should own your decision, instead of trying to blame a non-existent "consensus" for (If there is such a consensus, then why are you the only person who has removed it, and the only person who has advocated for its removal?)
 * 4. If some small historical data are currently not included in the section 'History of Midwifery', then you should move that content to that article, rather than blanking it and thereby removing it from Wikipedia entirely.
 * 5. WP:LEAD encourages "redundancy", but it's a red herring. You're blanking statistics about how few men are registered as midwives, which has nothing to do with etymology.
 * Now let's talk about the actual policy question, which is WP:DUE. Is it DUE to write a couple of sentences about gender issues?  The only way to answer that question is to ask another:  Are there high-quality sources that address the question of gender in midwives?   Answer:  Well, I cited a scholarly journal article that is entirely about exactly that subject, so the answer is clearly "yes".  And therefore including that information is actually WP:DUE.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that a failure to seek consensus before an edit is the poorest excuse for reverting. I've looked at the content removed by the revert and I agree with WAID that it's appropriate and reasonable to include in the article. Having also read through, I'm convinced there's more content that could be added to expand this article as we should attempt to look beyond an americo-european perspective. I'll restore the bulk of the content removed. --RexxS (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

New History Section
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)