Anythingyouwant (talk | contribs) moving section to bottom of talk page |
→Biological motherhood: this is thinly veiled POV |
||
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
: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.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] 14:08, 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.[[User:Ferrylodge|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. <strong>[[User:Tvoz|Tvoz]] </strong>|<small>[[User talk:Tvoz|talk]]</small> 18:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:08, 18 September 2007
Sociology Start‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Wikipedia 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 (?) Seen this already? 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)