Talk:Pregnancy/Womb-Uterus debate

NOTE: This discussion is regarding the verbiage used only in medical articles, such as Pregnancy and abortion. No one is planning to take this wiki-wide (so far as I know.) The articles involved are listed below. The primary issue is regarding accuracy, not POV. Hope this helps clarify some things. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed a notification of this location and proposed central discussion on Talk:Fetus, Talk:Mother, Talk:Stillbirth, Talk:Pregnancy. If I missed any involved or relevant articles, please add a notice on the talk page of the article, thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to add your thoughts/views/arguments/ below. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watching this page, but I don't have much to say. Kuronue | Talk 21:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seriously wondering if I ought to just put my energies elsewhere until and unless Ferrylodge's ban is rescinded. He drove the edit war on all fronts; with him not editing, this page may be a waste of time. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was banned? that explains the sudden cessation of activity. Considering the only one arguing in favor of womb was banned indefinitely from wikipedia, I think that pretty much gives Uterus the consensus, no? Kuronue | Talk 21:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ban is somehwat contested, see here and just below. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. So we wait and see. Kuronue | Talk 00:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, although if you wish to do more than wait, you can go post a view in the Proposals section, or endorse one of the currently proposed remedies. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're wanting endorsements? I figured you just wanted discussion and other arguments. All the arguments that seem stupid to me are rebutted with sensible ones ,and the other two are sensical.Kuronue | Talk 02:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) yay, we're at 100%. this is silly. Without Ferrylodge edit warring to insert womb, no one cares. Meh. KillerChihuahua^?!? 08:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments

Arguments for "uterus"

Medically accurate and commonly understood term

Arguments against "uterus"

Uterus is "medical jargon"
Rebuttal: Commonly used word understood at 8th grade reading level.

Arguments for "womb"

Womb is the vulgar, or more commonly used, term
Rebuttal: OR, disputed.

Arguments against "womb"

Womb has secondary meanings, thus is not unassailably accurate
Womb is not archaic in the lexicographal sense, but it is not used by the medical profession (Inappropriate in medical context)

Use uterus per nom. Maybe one mention of "Womb" in the lede or something, but the rest of the article flows better with uterus/uterine than womb/wombian. Kuronue | Talk 02:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uterus per nom even though apparently the primary voices of dissent aren't around (according to KillerChihuahua, though I figured I'd add it anyway. I would have said "strong uterus" (much like "strong support"), but then I started giggling to myself at the mental image of "strong uterus." Note to self: stay away from debates at Colon for fear of "weak colon" :D --slakr^\ talk / 08:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm trying to figure out how womb is a POV word. I'm not against uterus, it's just that I've never associated it with a point of view, and I'm also surprised that someone felt so strongly over this that (s)he got banned for edit warring over it. Would someone pls explain? — Rickyrab | Talk 20:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second comment Is Wikipedia supposed to be a medical encyclopedia or an all-purpose encyclopedia? — Rickyrab | Talk 20:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's neither and both. Take a peak at the five pillars of wikipedia, the first bullet point for the most concise definition of what it is, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for what it isn't. "All-purpose" is a term that is an opinion. To some, the Koran is the "all-purpose" book of the world, while to others, there is is no one "all-purpose" source of information. Of course, we tend to shy away from things that do or potentially would be pushing opinions, hence the reason why some of us use extreme caution when introducing ambiguous words into articles, as they might cause the reader to infer bias. Avoiding implications of bias is the main reason for the neutral point of view policy; though, when people have varying opinions of what is and isn't biased, some editors end up going with the most indisputably unbiased alternative. In this case, for example, I favored uterus over womb, and one of my primary reasons for doing so (aside from the others mentioned), was the potential ambiguity of womb (i.e., it also means "A place where something is made or formed" and "the belly") versus the lack of ambiguity in uterus (it only means the reproductive part). Imagine the two sentences below:

"It's her womb."
"It's her uterus."

Because of the ambiguity of womb, the reader can infer that "It's her belly," "It's her art studio," or simply that "It's her uterus." Therefore, we eliminate the other denotations (i.e., alternate meanings) in favor of the word without alternative meanings-- uterus. Of course, normally context factors in, because an article about Abortion, for example, wouldn't likely be talking about art studios. But, since there would be ambiguity in using womb, and since readers could get confused with belly, which is anatomically non-specific and potentially incorrect in procedures, we side with uterus by default.

An argument over context could be made, citing that people usually know that womb equals uterus, but since we've already established that there is ambiguity in womb, motions to switch could be seen as pushing a particular point of view. Even if we ignored the fact that uterus has no alternative meanings (i.e., it is obvious we mean the definition of womb that equals the reproductive part), the argument then resides in emotional arousal. For example, the arousal of "removing a fetus from the womb" not only activates the idea of removing the fetus from "the uterus," but also of removing it from "a place where something is made or formed" and "the belly." So, even though these might arguably be correct, the very fact that the less-specific word is used can be seen as conflating the word in order to increase its emotional power. That is, using a word with three potential meanings over a word with only one specific meaning-- especially on a controversial topic-- potentially increases the emotional arousal of the word's invocation two-fold each time the word is used, since each invocation of the word conjures references to the others. This would be an issue of non-neutral point of view, much in the same way that weasel words can be non-neutral.

--slakr^\ talk / 23:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other

Come to think of it, perhaps we should be using "mom" as well as "mother".... — Rickyrab | Talk 21:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is about using womb versus using uterus. Besides, Mom is de jure colloquial. If we allowed that, we would have to allow grandfather to be replaced with gramps, as well. --slakr^\ talk / 22:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]