Medicine B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's Health B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Caesarean section. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100818005722/https://www.torah.org:80/advanced/weekly-halacha/5758/pesach.html to http://www.torah.org/advanced/weekly-halacha/5758/pesach.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to add some information from http://www.vancouversun.com/news/world/sections+evolving+bigger+babies+that+squeeze+through+narrower/12485379/story.html to this article but I dare not touch any articles belonging to wp:WikiProject Medicine. Can someone else find wp:medrs-compliant sources for this purpose? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

Yes not a suitable source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quercus solaris Thanks for reviewing the history log of the article and seeing that I deleted the orthography section. You restored it.

I agree that there are lots of sources for talking about writing, spelling, etymology, and pronunciation. I do not dispute the accuracy, but only that so much real estate in the article should go toward the spelling guide. At WP:NOTDICT there is guidance that Wikipedia not be too much of a dictionary.

How would you feel if I instead posted this information to wikt:Caesarean section? The dictionary entry is not so developed there, and I will even ask around about how they present orthographies. How strongly do you feel that this information ought to be in Wikipedia? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. One of the services that Wikipedia provides to laypeople is letting them figure out which spellings of the name of a topic are accepted and, in cases where there is any backstory as to why, a short explanation. Even if the explanation is nothing more than the bluelink inside a phrase like "anemia or anaemia is ..." (Also in the "variant names" department, they can also find the synonyms here at Wikipedia, which, much more than being trivia, actually teaches people ontology at the same time—"is X the same as Y? Is X a type of Y? If it's called A then what exactly is this B I keep hearing about? What's the difference?" etc.) I feel strongly that the current spelling workup needs to exist and be easy to find, either at Wikipedia or Wiktionary, and, if the latter, then there needs to be an effortless link from here to there, such as having the current "Spelling" section say "Many accepted spellings exist,[ref,ref,ref] as discussed at Wiktionary > caesarean section § Alternative forms", and then, when they click through to there, they find the whole (short but complete) content currently seen in WP (as of this writing)—not a slashed/gutted version of it. If the aforementioned plan can be carried out and not get deleted by anyone over at Wiktionary (?), then I'd be OK with it. But if people try to delete it over there, or remove the link here, then no, it needs to just stay how it is here. It's already buried at the bottom of the article, with no links from the top, and as short as completion allows; it's not hurting anyone where it's at. For people who want to know about spelling variations (and yes, some do), the current workup is exactly the best solution, already as succinct as anyone could make it. I'm willing to carry out the plan described above and then wait to see if it gets attacked at Wiktionary. But if it does, I would be restoring it here. What do you think of that plan? Quercus solaris (talk) 00:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS—I saw User:Brianhe.public/Erasmus at your user page and like it so much that I may do a me-too. Quercus solaris (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Quercus solaris: Congratulations on winning the Erasmus Prize. While it is a new concept for the prize to be award to a group rather than an individual, being a Wikipedian before 2015 was a select and hard-working small group and I think that anyone who was fortunate enough to recognize and take the opportunity then should be proud to get the recognition of that prize. A prize is what the recipient makes of it and personally, I remain proud in a personal way to have received this particular honor.

I am going to push back a little more on including the orthography. It is not my intent to draw you into a conversation on this. If you cannot be easily persuaded, then I would propose a compromise of leaving this in for some months then checking in later if and when anyone else raises the issue again. To advance the conversation, here are some ideas.

• I posted this content to Wiktionary at wikt:Caesarean section. This content is more appropriate for a dictionary than an encyclopedia.
• This content is fundamentally dubious. I challenge the idea that there are 10+ common spellings of the term and the sources cited do not back this surprising claim. The citations here go to three dictionaries. The table here has no citations. I think this is original research.
• By the 2016 traffic this article got 860,000 pageviews, which puts it among the top 10,000 English Wikipedia articles by traffic or in the top 0.2%. With more important Wikipedia articles like this one, there is an expectation of high quality sourcing and less tolerance for leaving challenged content without citations. There is a high standard in this article and while this content might pass somewhere on wiki, it does not fit here.
• This information is being given undue weight. This section takes up a lot of space in the Wikipedia article. It is a distraction because in all publications about C-sections, we have no evidence right now that this issue appears at all. People are coming to this article for access to the medical information which is the weight of the publication.
• The issue here is more about Caesar the person than this medical procedure. In French he is fr:Jules César, in Italian he is it:Gaio Giulio Cesare, and there are variations for so many other languages also. If the orthography issue really is so important, then it could be its own Wikipedia article and all the Caesar related articles could link to it. It would not make sense to duplicate this in every Caesar article, nor does it make sense to link other ceasar articles to the bottom of a medical procedure article to access the orthography information that applies everywhere. "Caesarean oration" or "Caesarean military strategy" are terms with the same issues. I might help move this content to Caesarean (term) or some such new article modeled after other wiki articles on particular words, if someone could identify reliable sources which actually back this content.

I again propose to remove this content from here. No pressure and I would compromise, but as a matter of process, I think these are fair arguments. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry: Hi. Being busy elsewise, I forgot to do the move to Wiktionary, which I had planned to do. I see you just moved it. That's fine; overall I'm OK with the orthographic discussion being at Wiktionary rather than Wikipedia; I just sadly have little hope that the moved content won't be gutted at Wiktionary, because I've seen useful and valid content attacked there for odd reasons (for example, it didn't fit into some straitjacket of a template or something, but the template syntax was more important than lexicographic completeness to some Wiktionarian). But I may be relying too strongly on my gut aversion to pedantry over there. I can give it a try. And since you feel so strongly about the info being digressive within the Wikipedia context, I'll roll along with trying to keep it alive at Wiktionary. The first step will have to be changing those red links to blue links right away over at Wiktionary. I'll go do that. And I'll remove the content from Wikipedia and leave only a link to where people can go from here to find it. But there are a few points that I have to correct about the content at issue. There is nothing either dubious or WP:NOR about it as written. It doesn't actually say that the variants are "common"; it explains that they are all accepted and normative, that is, they are all correct spellings. The coverage is not original; everything about it is settled fact, nothing new to people versed in dictionaries and usage books, and has reference citations. Not trying to be snotty at all—just wanted to set the record straight on those aspects. Thanks, Quercus solaris (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Quercus solaris: Thanks for the ongoing conversation.

An experienced Wiktionarian moved the content to wikt:Caesarean, so it seems to have passed some local review there. I agree with what they did - this information was more about the general term than the particular medical procedure, and I want the discussion centered for all variants of the word "caesar".

I am not opposed to having this content also covered in Wikipedia. I only dispute that this medical article is the best place for it. At Caesar (title)#Name there is some information on the history of the name and how it has varied in spelling for where it is used. This content might go there, but I think that the correct place for both the content here and the word history at "title" would be in a new word article Caesar (word) in Category:English words. I still think the sourcing for what is here is weak, because if it were solid, then I could take this content and start a new article for it. Wikipedia typically does not duplicate dictionary content except in the context of other sources about particular words. I think there is already content in various places in wiki and elsewhere which establishes that people have special interest in this word but I am not seeing sources cited which would pass WP:N in a new article. If you have other leads then share them and I would help with a new article but I think this starts with sources.

Thanks for the link to Wiktionary. I posted it in a "sister template" box at the bottom of the page.

Resolved

Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:ENGVAR the manual of style on "national varieties of English used in Wikipedia" and MOS:STYLEVAR might be noted in this talk. PS Given Spelling section, I added this sentence: <The Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) of the United States National Library of Medicine (NLM) uses "cesarean section".> However the Entrez databases of nih.gov don't stand on American spelling. Who cares how many ways the term is spelled as long as variants are covered in thesaurus. Question of orthography is moot by search engines which link to synonyms, spellings and misspellings. Indeed resolved.-Yohananw (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right that it is moot in terms of thesaurus and of search engine technology. The answer to "who cares" is people who are linguistically interested in orthography and how its accepted variations come into being. Which is why the move to Wiktionary made sense. I am pleased to see that so far (fingers crossed) the coverage has not been attacked and degraded there yet. Quercus solaris (talk) 05:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Caesarean section. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141207031819/https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/gtg4511022011.pdf to https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/gtg4511022011.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121120003529/http://www.patientsafetycouncil.org/uploads/MOD_39_Weeks_Toolkit.pdf to http://www.patientsafetycouncil.org/uploads/MOD_39_Weeks_Toolkit.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718123744/http://www.medicineonline.com/news/12/6008/High-infant-mortality-seen-with-elective-c-section.html to http://www.medicineonline.com/news/12/6008/High-infant-mortality-seen-with-elective-c-section.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120621050450/http://www.americanpregnancy.org/labornbirth/vbac.html to http://www.americanpregnancy.org/labornbirth/vbac.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722024230/http://www.asplazio.it/asp_online/tut_soggetti_deb/files/files_cesareo/09/TC_tot08_09.pdf to http://www.asplazio.it/asp_online/tut_soggetti_deb/files/files_cesareo/09/TC_tot08_09.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120502072407/http://www.rcpi.ie/News/Pages/CaesareanSectionRates-MatrixMarch2011.aspx to http://www.rcpi.ie/News/Pages/CaesareanSectionRates-MatrixMarch2011.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120310023405/http://www.guoxue.com/shibu/24shi/shiji/sj_040.htm to http://www.guoxue.com/shibu/24shi/shiji/sj_040.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.torah.org/advanced/weekly-halacha/5758/pesach.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I have the request that Misgav Ladach method is redirected to Caesarean_section#Other_ways.2C_including_by_surgery_technique instead to Misgav_Ladach#Misgav_Ladach_method that would make it possible to relink separated articles over "Misgav_Ladach_method" for ex. in German. Otherwise, if we reorganize the english article over caesarean section, it would be easier to adjust the the articles in other languages. What do you Think? With Regards Alonerd (talk) 10:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alonerd: This seems like it could be its own article. In German it is de:Misgav-Ladach-Methode. Is there any reason to not do this in English? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry: I am not sure, if it makes sense to create an own article for it, because as far as I understand this intervention has been starting to replacing the old one since its introduction, isn’t it? Therefore I think it would making a good place as a subsection. What do you think? - You have a little more experiences in creating articles. And yes I meant the this German article :). With regards Alonerd (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving this image here in case editors of this page find it useful. Uploaded by the photographer for the Wiki Science Competition (it was one of the finalists in its category). Leaving the same message at Talk:Childbirth. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to Pliny the Elder's explanation of the etymology of Caesar as meaning 'cut from his mother,' and to the Latin term for cut "caedare," renders this that its original source is the Latin term, and not the nickname Julius the Roman emperor took for himself. Even if its sourced through him, its still founded in the Latin, and its communication through an individual is nominal as per cultural derivation. -Inowen (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article uses Caesarean throughout. Should the spelling (and title) be updated to cesarean?

TGIF (talk) 03:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TGIF: Maybe! Can you talk about how to make a decision? Guidance is at Wikipedia:Article titles. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that caesarian needs to be "updated" betrays an ignorance of North American English (especially American English – Canadian usage tends to wander) versus Commonwealth English spelling norms. This has been previously (though thinly) discussed at this talk page (in the archives now) and elsewhere. I forget where, but there was a some debate within the last few years about -ean versus -ian, maybe at an MoS or wikiproject talk page. On the cae- versus ce- matter, WP:Article titles will have nothing to do with it; it's a MOS:ENVAR issue. To change to the American spelling would require a consensus discussion (like a WP:RM or WP:RFC) presenting a good rationale to do so, e.g. abandonment of the ae spelling by modern British publications), and a consensus to make the change; otherwise we stick with the spelling best established in the article in its first non-WP:STUB state. If that was Caesarean, then so be it. If it actually was Cesarean (has anyone even looked?) that doesn't automatically force a move back to that spelling – only after we have the discussion about it, and the discussion fails to come to a consensus, then we default to what the first non-stub version was doing.

Some off-the-cuff analysis: I notice that the article does not have a {{Use American English}}, {{Use British English}}, etc., template in it. It does have a (i.e., not the mostly-American MDY style), but that's not dispositive of much, since we often use DMY dating in technical, military, and other articles on topics for which it is more customary. It is presently using -ize/-izing/-ization spellings, not -ise/-ising/-ization, but that doesn't mean anything, either (because of Oxford spelling, which is especially preferred for academic topics by British writers, rather than for news or pop-culture material). I don't detect any shibboleths in either direction like colour/color, favor/favour, gynaecology/gynecology. This basically seems to be written in "Mid-Atlantic English", or perhaps real Canadian English, with a lot of MOS:COMMONALITY (it may well be the largest non-list article I've ever seen here with no clear dialectal split). So, the only argument in favor of cesarean seems to be a tiny smidgin of concision.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]