Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:46, 19 September 2007

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 July 2006. The result of the discussion was Speedy keep.

Sociology Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. But until someone else deletes or (somehow) encyclopedifies this article, it might as well be accurate. - user:Montrealais

Indeed. Vicki Rosenzweig

Profanity edit

Removed references to 'motherfucker' and 'MILF'. These have no place here.

absolutely... who writes these things?209.187.72.3 17:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move

motherhood to mother. To make consistent with the title of the father article. 64.193.70.223 21:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Done. Georgia guy 23:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Please remove the template above if you fulfill a move request. —Nightstallion (?) 18:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is currently a long definition resembling a dictionary entry, with some questionable content (eg: comment about status of mothers in Romania). Why do we need it? Exploding Boy 05:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I also think the comment about the status of mothers in Romania is out of place. Moreover, such a comment would need to be backed up by a reference in my opinion. Better, I would suggest to remove the comment altogether.

Yes. 149.225.214.24 19:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Follow Father Page

There are, as with fathers, different types of mother, are ther not, therefore, we should include them? feedback what you think. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Umpajug (talk • contribs) 14:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

You may wish to elaborate SamanthaG 01:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think what he's referring to is that on father there's a long list of different types of fathers, e.g. natural, posthumous, adoptive, etc. and presumably he wants a similar list for mother. Most of the paternal terms could be easily "translated" in that case. Tocharianne 01:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Use of "mom/mommy" in British Midlands

This was deleted by user 86.146.203.197 on Valentine's Day. Why it was deleted is unclear, but usage of the above is widespread if not total throughout the West Midlands (specifically the Black Country and Birmingham). I have put this information back in, for now. If anyone has an objection, please let me know. Worley-d 22:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

-- In addition, the amount of vandalism on this page is alarming. I assume it is due to the low standard of the article that it is not protected against such anonymous edits? It seems like this page has had ten edits since my last constructive edit, all adding and then correcting said vandalism. Worley-d 19:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Bob???? Frank???

I suggested that the references to these are removed and that this page is watched—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bigandy (talk • contribs) 11:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for spotting. This page is watched but sometimes things slip through. Eagle eyes are much appreciated. -- Siobhan Hansa 14:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is a dreadfully small page, compared to the importance of mothers in sociology, literature, art, pop culture, and... well, pretty much everything. Any ideas as to why?

Biological motherhood

Most definitions of motherhood tend to mark the beginning of motherhood at the time of the birth of one's child. While there are biological reasons to discuss the pregnant woman as a mother, it seems to me that discussion of gestation etc. shoud be in a subsection entitled "Biological mother", not in the opening paragraph, which should conform more closely to traditional definitions. --Pleasantville 13:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note that new sections go at the bottom of the talk page. Also, there are only two sentences in the lede about the subject to which you refer, and both are well-sourced (see respective footnotes). Therefore, I don't support moving or changing them at this point.Ferrylodge 14:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree here with Pleasantville. The definitions that are attached as sources seem to be pushing a not-very-veiled POV that would be better left off this article, or at least relegated to a section called "biological motherhood" or something similar. Not the lede. Tvoz |talk 18:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, I'm not clear on why it is important to you to define motherhood as beginning at or around the time of conception. Many conventional definitions of "mother" define the term as "a woman who has given birth to a child (also used as a term of address to your mother); "the mother of three children"" or "the woman of whom one was born". Surely, you are not arguing that such definitions are wrong?

I note that you have showed similar preoccupations in the past on Talk:Pregnancy. Can you clarify why it is important to you to downplay traditional understandings of the advent of motherhood? --Pleasantville 18:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No Pleasantville, I cannot clarify why it is important to me to downplay traditional understandings of the advent of motherhood, because I have no such intention. If you would like to add a section to the article on that subject, then by all means please go ahead. I did not write the lede of this article, but rather merely inserted some footnotes. As far as I can tell, the lede is fine. But if you would like to add a well-sourced section on "traditional understandings of the advent of motherhood", then it might thereafter be appropriate to consider modifying the lede.

And Tvoz, I would urge you to see here.Ferrylodge 02:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a hell of an accusation to make, Ferrylodge, with absolutely no justification. Do you think an interest in motherhood is somehow unique to you? Don't flatter yourself so much - I actually have on-the-job training in the subject, and don't have to explain my interest to you. I commented on the lede of the article - I didn't look to see who put that text and footnotes in, and I have done nothing to harass you or to disrupt anything, anywhere. I think the citations are pushing a POV, and I think it should be reworked. You seem to be taking my comment personally - if the shoe fits, it's your problem. I didn't notice that you owned this article, or any article, or the direction they take. And if you want to make any more accusations, I suggest you do it more formally, and more carefully. Tvoz |talk 05:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Start-Class sociology articles
• Mid-importance sociology articles