Jump to content

Talk:Caesarean section/Archive 2

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

Factually accuracy and balance concern

The article lead reads as placing too much emphasis on concerns over over use of the procedure - it seems to be mentioned in some way in every sentence, which seems like massively undue prominence. Also, further down the article "elective" is incorrectly implied to mean non-medically indicated (the correct definition is thankfully used further down). Especially in light of the decision to merge elective section with this page (can see the logic, although the arguments in the discussion seem based on a misunderstanding of the term), think the article needs some attention on maintaining a balanced and accurate tone. Elder pegasus (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Elder pegasus There are two issues. One is the bias to talk about overuse. I work for a health organization which is managing a health education campaign about overuse of c-sections, and some of the problem may be with the content I added. The overuse concerns should only be presented in appropriate article sections, not everywhere. This entire article could use copyediting, though.
About the definition of "elective" - I have checked and asked and seemingly no health organization has ever wrote about the confusion between the elective/optional and elective/scheduled. The big problem in this case is that elective c-sections are usually both optional and scheduled. Most layman sources talk about optional c-sections but plenty of academic medical journals use the word "elective" to mean "optional" also. There is a misunderstanding of the term, but the misunderstanding is not based in Wikipedia. I would like to sort this on Wikipedia, and eventually planned to merge the elective c-section article here. You can jump in wherever you like to join. I think we are in agreement on these points. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Bluerasberry At least for the UK, "elective" means scheduled, not optional - see here: http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Caesarean-section/Pages/Introduction.aspx My concern is that the misunderstanding it being repeated by wikipedia, when it seems like a better way to cover it would be to use the correct definition but mention the confusion? Elder pegasus (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Elder pegasus The reason why I have not mentioned the confusion is because I can find no instance of any organization or media source talking about the confusion. If I have no source talking about the confusion, then nothing can be said about it in Wikipedia. I regret this a lot.
It is difficult for me to say which is the "correct definition". At least in one case, BBC has used "elective" to mean optional, as they say "planned elective repeat Caesarean" where "planned" means "scheduled" and "elective" means "optional". Like I said, a lot of c-sections are both planned and optional and both of those terms are sometimes called "elective". To my knowledge, no one has ever acknowledged that confusion is possible with these terms. At the very least, a lot of medical organizations in America, such as ACOG, use "elective" to mean optional. In common language I think no one anywhere has elective (scheduled) appointments or coffee meetups, and would instead say "planned" or "scheduled" if they meant that something was not an emergency. I know the medical terminology and have been trying to clear confusion, and in my opinion, the easiest way to do that is to avoid use of the term "elective" at all and try to use the terms "planned" or "optional" whenever possible. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
The article you link doesn't really give a conclusion definition - it uses "planned elective", which as you say suggests it means something other than planned, but a quote later in the article refers to "the potential need for elective Caesarean in future pregnancies", which clearly suggests the term indicates medically indicated, not optional. Either way, I would suggest an explicit definition on an NHS informational resource would take precedence over a journalistic piece, at least as far as defining how the NHS uses the term. As for using alternative terminology, that way often be appropriate, especially when working from a source where the meaning is explicit but the medical terminology is not. Defining "elective", especially when the term is used in a source, still seems appropriate? Elder pegasus (talk) 00:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Elder pegasus It may or may not be appropriate to define the word "elective" if it is used in a source. Ideally, the definition in Wikipedia would come from another definition and not its usage elsewhere. Yes, the NHS is more authoritative than BBC, but I have a lot of respect for BBC too and I am worried that they and so many other organizations fail to distinguish between "elective (planned)" and "elective (optional)". Worse, these are just names for things, and even though the NHS uses the term "elective" to mean "planned", anyone can see that in practice most of the consumer-facing information they give on "elective c-sections" is actually about "optional c-sections" - see the "planned c-section" section here, for example. If you like, start changing the article to reflect what you want to happen. Feel especially free to remove information not backed with a citation.
If I were to propose a path forward, it would be to avoid using the term "elective" at all. The term is not understood outside of medicine, not well understood even by health experts at BBC and medical societies, and completely confusing to anyone without nuanced education in US and UK dialects. I would rather use the terms "planned" and "optional", if those could be synonyms for "elective", but I have never found any thoughtful effort to define the term "elective" except to say it is either planned or optional and then to use it both ways. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


Bluerasberry's conflict of interest

Bluerasberry In relation to I work for a health organization which is managing a health education campaign about overuse of c-sections, can I draw your attention to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Campaigning ? I have no reason to believe you aren't acting in good faith, but given your work the number of edits you've made to this page do at least risk appearing to be a conflict of interest? This is especially since it looks like a proportion of the edits you have been making could be read as supporting your employers goals. Elder pegasus (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Elder pegasus Yes, I have a conflict of interest and am campaigning. I am sure that because of my conflict of interest, it is difficult for me to see exactly how my perspective might infringe on other perspectives. Definitely my edits are include doing activist education based on content from Consumer Reports, American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and other health organizations. Yes, you should expect that my edits support my employer's goals, and if you have ideas for how I can be more balanced, then tell me. If you want me to solicit other opinions or review then either I can do that or help you do that, because my goal is to share health information in line with Wikipedia community values. If you have suggestions for what I can do to increase your comfort level then let me know, because I know that the Wikipedia community is very skeptical of anyone paid to contribute content as I am. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Bluerasberry I'm pretty sure you should be disclosing that you're paid to contribute with each edit, and to be honest I would personally suggest someone in your position shouldn't really be editing pages directly, instead making suggestions and providing assistance via the talk pages. I've no reason to assume you are acting in anything but good faith, but paid edits made to an article your employer is directly related to, without disclosing the payment, are going to give a very clear perception of conflict of interest. I'll see if I can get some guidance from more experienced editors. Elder pegasus (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
User talk:Elder pegasus Blue Rasberry does not provide C-sections himself. Nor does his employer. It is a mainstream position that the overuse of C-sections is a concern. I do not see a concerning COI. If like minded organizations wish to get high quality health care information out to everyone, this is not a COI. If Blue was writing about his employer we would have a concern. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Doc James Sorry, but I don't agree with your assertion - COI is not just about whether you perform the subject of the article, campaigning is also explicitly included. Moreover, paid editing without disclosure is apparently a violation of the wikimedia terms of service, although I'm sure Blueraspberry is not doing so intentionally, if their actions do indeed constitute a violation. As for concerns being mainstream, that is not under debate - the existence of such concerns being included in the article seems entirely reasonable. Rather, I'm trying to avoid content on factual points being coloured by those views. This is an emotive subject, and needs to retain NPOV not just due to wikipedia standards but since people will use it as a source of medical information. Elder pegasus (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Blue mentions his work VERY clearly on his talk page thus your "without disclosure" is simply wrong.
Next let look at WP:COI and lets read the bolded text in the first paragraph "when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest"
The interests of some organizations align with those of Wikipedia with respect to medical content. This includes the NIH, the NHS, Cancer Research UK, the Cochrane Collaboration and Consumer Reports as well as most physicians and healthcare providers. Thus their efforts to improve Wikipedia's medical content is just that, efforts to improve Wikipedia's medical content. Blues work is clearly "advancing the aims of Wikipedia" first and foremost.
But anyway we are off topic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Poor Maternal Nutrition

Inadequate maternal nutrition interferes with the delivering mother's pelvic development, leaving an undersized birth canal, preventing normal vaginal birth with the corollary need to increase the percentage caesarian deliveries. This concept should be developed further, in the correct sub-heading.


Ongoing concerns

Adding a new heading since the last discussion hasn't progressed since last year. As someone who doesn't know much at all about editing wikis or C-sections, I don't feel comfortable editing this page. However, after reading the article I still don't know much about C-sections apart from the fact that they are overused. Is there any way I can markup the article to highlight places where arguments about their overuse are not relevant? Roughly half of the opening section is not information describing what the procedure actually is. The sentence "The World Health Organization recommends that they should only be done based on medical need." could be moved to the final paragraph of the opening section to be more cohesive. Meanwhile, the sentence "The countries which report overuse of this procedure are not finding ways to decrease use of the procedure as much as they would like." seems to be wrong grammatically, not objective, not discrete and not referenced. Surely information regarding the technique should come before describing the risks. As an example, #REDIRECT Appendectomy gives me a clear understanding of what the procedure before giving specific and satellite information. This follows the "spiral out" method mentioned at Wikipedia:How_to_structure_the_content. --KrunK89 (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

KrunK89 There is no obvious way to markup text of the article. Instead of marking it up, you are welcome to make live edits regardless of what you know about c-sections or wikis, and if you ask, there are tutorials and live support to help you edit Wikipedia. It is not possible for you to harm anything. If you still feel shy about it, this article can be copied to a personal draft for you to edit and share as you like, which might be sort of like markup of the article.
Wikipedia articles are supposed to match the weight of coverage in available sources, and also to give some coverage to the scope of a concept. The three paragraphs in the lead of this article each cover a topic - medical uses, risks, and social issues. It might be forced and there might be a better way to do things, but the intent in designing this was to separate content into those categories. Because the WHO information about use is currently in the first paragraph about use, I would prefer to not move it to the social issues paragraph which is the third and last unless you say more about why you think the lead would be more cohesive if that happened.
About overuse - obviously something is striking people as odd here because the issue has come up before. If you do not want to edit Wikipedia, another useful thing that you could do to help is find any other publication on C-sections which you think is better, then share that here. Wikipedia is derived from other published sources. If in your readings you find something better than this article, then please share, and perhaps Wikipedia can copy the format of that other source.
You asked about technique - the lead is not covering technique because the body of the article does not cover it either. See Caesarean_section#Technique - I placed that text in that section but I find this almost incomprehensible and could not find a better description anywhere. If you find a better description published anywhere then please share. I looked and this is what I found. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Can I add something to the discussion? Please forgive me if I comment incorrectly, I've never added to wiki before. I came to this page to seek information about our upcoming birth and to understand C vs V births a bit better. The information I found here seems significantly at odds with the information that I was given by the medical community (including our very holistic midwife). It also seems incredibly one sided with opinion wording throughout that is obviously anti C-section. I tried to follow some of the links in the anti-C parts and found they were 1) dead, 2) had been refuted by followup studies on pubmed, 3) were leaflet style opinion pieces and 4) were heavily reliant on one study that is referenced over and over again. This is a very disappointing wiki page due to what is an obvious anti-C section bias and I think it needs to be fixed as a matter of urgency. It undermines wiki's credibility and, for people without access to a private obstetrician to counter these claims, could lead to bad outcomes. Thanks :) Feel free to delete this comment if I've done it wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.33.123 (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Can I offer some more thoughts? Feel free to delete/move/restructure if this is not appropriate.
The statement "Some are also performed upon request without a medical reason to do so" in the opening links to a Brazilian study about rates in brazil increasing faster than other developing countries. The language "without a medical reason to do so" is inflammatory and I don't think represent the study...sure the phrase might appear in the study but that link is a bit of a stretch no?
The statement "The World Health Organization recommends that they should be done based only on medical need" - Now I just read that WHO leaflet and I think this is another cherry pick - The vast bulk of the WHO's paper is about needing a better classification system and more research. The statement about medical need appears as almost a throw away statement in the conclusion section within a whole range of other recommendation. Further more, it has since been clarified by the WHO that by 'medical need' they meant was "WHO says medical practitioners should not undertake caesarean sections purely to meet a given target or rate, but rather focus on the needs of patients" (http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/maternal_perinatal/cs-statement/en/) The statement in the wiki article makes it seem like the WHO is saying people should only have C-section if there is an emergency and not electively....but that's not at all what they're saying, they're saying that governments need more research and a better classification system if they're going to set government mandated targets, and until that research/classification is available it should be on patient need which includes social needs (am I incorrect in my understanding of that paper?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.33.123 (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
The statement "C-sections result in a small overall increase in poor outcomes, in low risk pregnancies" in the opening paragraph links to a paper that is fully of exceptions and really needs to be considered if it should be allowed as a basis for some of these very general statements. The two headline statistics from this paper about mortality are specifically asterixed by the paper because they compare (1) vaginal birth vs twin C-section and (2) Vaginal birth vs emergency c-section for breach. This is very much apples vs oranges and needs to be looked into more. Of course the rates are going to be higher for c-section if your baseline for 'low risk c-section' are two abnormal situations.
The statement under risks as "Adverse outcomes in low risk pregnancies occur in 8.6% of vaginal deliveries and 9.2% of caesarean section deliveries" is incorrect. The cited link compares standard vaginal birth (8.6) to c-section of twins (9.2) which is why the put an asterix on that number. The wiki statement does not present this information factually but presents it as a direct comparison which it is not. (see previous comment)
The statement "The poor outcomes that occur with C-sections, differ from those that occur with vaginal delivery. Established guidelines recommend that caesarean sections not be used before 39 weeks without a medical indication to perform the surgery" in the opening and "Elective caesareans at 38 weeks showed increased health complications in the newborn" later in the article reference in the first case a leaflet and in the second a difficult to find link. However the actual study done into this topic (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25689238) suggests that previous studies done may be incorrect and more research is needed, specifically into what role activities prior to c-section had on the outcomes, before a conclusion can be reached. These statements are not backed up by unbiased, undisputed fact and should probably not be in this article.
The statement in Uses of "Systematic reviews have found no strong evidence about the impact of caesareans for non-medical reasons" is incorrect given the supplied citation. What the citation actually says is "There is no evidence from randomised controlled trials, upon which to base any practice recommendations regarding planned caesarean section for non-medical reasons at term. In the absence of trial data, there is an urgent need for a systematic review of observational studies and a synthesis of qualitative data to better assess the short- and long-term effects of caesarean section and vaginal birth." Which means the author tried to do a study of C vs V but could not find appropriate trial data with which to base a conclusion. The author rightly suggests that such data should be found so that these studies can be done. This is a shocking twist of this study to suit a position.
Wow - so when I started looking into this I thought that maybe this article was 'bias' - but now I've actually looked at those studies I'm of the opinion that it's intentionally misleading. Even the studies cited to support the very anti c-section bias are reinterpreted to conclusions other than those made by the author. I'm not really willing to sacrifice more of my Sunday to a page that has so many inaccuracies only a few paragraphs in. I'm fortunate enough to be educated, skeptical and have access to good quality private health care...to think some families not fortunate enough to have that may be basing their decisions on this rubbish is truly frightening.

Top part of the "History" section needs a look over

It looks well-sourced, but our Bindusara article implies almost nothing is known for certain about his life because the sources are legends recorded hundreds of years later; the Chinese example is similar but it is specifically set in an age of myth and with a character of dubious history (the least we can say about Bindusara is that he probably existed); the Irish example is explicitly referred to as mythology. The Chinese example is obvious OR and contains an original translation in quotation marks, and should have a secondary source attached (the Irish example at least reads like it was not taken from the primary source material, although a ref would be nice). The two that look like they are sourced (the Indian and Jewish examples), though, are troubling -- the Jewish example is sorely lacking in detail, and I wonder if Lurie's sources were the best to consult on a complex and relatively obscure religious text to say that yotzei dofen is similar to the C-section; the Indian example looks like a legend that should be cited as such, not as a solid historical example, and if the source doesn't say this then a more specialized source that gives a more detailed analysis of the anecdote should probably be found. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Changes

  • "spinal block" and "epidural anesthesia" are the same and thus only one needed
  • Ref says the procedure is typically 45 minutes to an hour
  • A number of days are often required to recover NOT "required by hospitals"
  • The overall increase in risk of a poor outcome is small.
  • Not sure why the more recent evidence on the ideal rate of C-section supported by a 2015 review was removed?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
James is referencing these changes by an IP editor. Following those edits, James already responded in the article. The conversation could be continued here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

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:

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

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

Increasing use

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

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

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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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)

Orthography

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)

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)
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)
@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)
@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)
@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)
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)
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)

Image that came through the Wiki Science Competition

First breath of a child being born by cesarean section.

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)

Spelling

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

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

@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)
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:ENGVAR 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)

Lowercase, since its first a word and not a name

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)

Much more to the point, it is become conventional in English to lowercase eponyms that have lost their connection to their namesake. If you are writing about the legal policies of the 7th-century BCE Athenian lawgiver Draco, it's Draconic. If you're comparing his legal system to that of another, later repressive regime, it's Draconian. If you're complaining about your mother's disciplinary attitude or your company's appropriate-dress policy, and you want to be really hyperbolic about it, then it's draconian. There are Platonic ideals and Platonic solids, but a platonic relationship. The adjective Caesarian (or rarely Caesarean, but not "Cesarean" – the medical spelling -ean isn't much used outside that field, and "Cesar" in reference to Roman emperors is almost unattested in Modern English) with a capital C would be used in reference to the actual actions of Julius Caesar or some other Caesar (Augustus has some eponyms as well), or a direct comparison to them. Pulling babies from opened abdomens doesn't really have any connection to Julius Caesar and what he's known for, so lower-case is what is called for, even aside from ancient and dubious folk etymology about how he got his cognomen.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

"A woman can typically begin breastfeeding as soon as she is out of the operating room and awake"

@Docjames: I modified this statement because to me it implies that being unconscious is common, whereas it is actually uncommon. I couldn't think of a better way to phrase it than I did. Mvolz (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

History of Caeserian section in Africa

There is a long and documented history of using Caeserian section throughout the African Great Lakes region (with surprisingly low mortality rates). It was practiced, with various differences in Tanzania, Uganda, and the DRC. In the 1880s, European doctors published descriptions of these procedures in academic journals to help European doctors improve their procedures (which had extremely high mortality rates at the time). It's dissappinting that the history section barely mentions this and gives no specific information, but devotes numerous paragraphs to various historic anecdotes about babies cut from dead mothers, which has little relavence to the history of the surgical procedure. Kaldari (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Reorganize Article - Especially Section with Misgav Ladach method

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)

@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)
@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)

In the Epidemiology section, it would be more interesting to give the percentage of medically necessary (besides all including requested unnecessary) C-sections in the various countries and regions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.1.119.136 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caesarean_section/Archive_2&oldid=1205815109"