Talk:Water birth

message: This reads like an advert for waterbirth.  I question the following statements, which require citation:
* The warm water is relaxing and eases labour by reducing the excretion of adrenaline caused by pain and fear. The water also stimulates the release of endorphins. 
* The great majority of women who have experienced water birth say that they would never want to have a baby any other way.
* There are some concerns with regard to water births, though most objections are because the idea is unusual.
* Midwives and doctors experienced with water births have not noted an increase in infection rates for either mother or baby.
All of statements should be supported with citations from peer-reviewed journals, or removed.
129.186.205.228 15:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above, and seeing as it's been almost a year since that was posted with little or no change (that I noticed) I have marked the page npov. I'm interested in the topic, though, so I will be conducting some research and hope to contribute some major edits (with sources provided!) soon. Erich Blume 15:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV again 

message: The reference to "primitive races" is confusing and potentially offensive -- does this mean human cultures or other species?
I don't know the history of water birthing, so I'll leave the editing to someone more qualified.
:I agree. I've rewritten the paragraph. —Caesura 22:22, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the assertion in the History section that 'water birthing has been used by many past cultures' needs a reference. Which cultures, where, at what time etc? Gamsarah 11:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Offensive 

message: I'm new to wikipedia and not sure what the best way to go about getting the right people to look at this is. From what I have read, this article is clearly written entirley by a proponent of of waterbirth and is extremely POV. Quotes like "Some have thought that the baby can drown, but that fear has been shown to be groundless." are ridiculous. Who has thought the baby can drown? Who has shown this fear to be groundless? When? How?
Not being a doctor or an expert on this subject, there's not much I can really add myself. I simply assert that for any article that might influence a person's medical decisions must be completely NPOV.
:: Please sign your posts with four tildes.  I think you are being rather critical and that if you are concerned you can be a little more polite about it and preferably do the research to improve the article yourself.  Many people when introduced to the notion of waterbirth are concerned that the baby will drown, because they do not understand that the baby's breathing reflex is started by exposure to air.  I'll attempt to improve the article. Maustrauser 23:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Righto.  I have done a major re-write and removed the NPOV tag.  Clearly some more references could be found and I'll do that over the next few days.  I'll also attempt to write articles on all the redlinks.  But that will have to wait a few more days.  I've gotta have a life.   Please make further improvements to this article. Maustrauser 23:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs a complete rewrite. 

message: As I just explained to Karil Daniels on her user talk page, the material she added doesn't really belong in the "Research" section, and also should be rewritten to conform with WP guidelines re "conflict of interest" (Wikipedia:Conflict of interest) so it isn't perceived as "self-promotion". I told her I would move it here for the time being, so it can be redone and moved back to a more appropriate spot in the article -- perhaps a new section/heading for films, does anybody have a better suggestion? 
Here's the material I removed from the article:
:In the USA, Karil Daniels produced a multiple award-winning documentary, "WATER BABY: Experiences of Waterbirth" which first brought waterbirth to the attention of many hospitals and birth centers and popularized the waterbirth method in the USA and Europe. "WATER BABY" was the first film to document waterbirth and shows 4 actual waterbirths in home, hospital and birth center settings. It was made in France with Dr. Odent, in Russia with Igor Charkovsky, and in the USA with Dr. Rosenthal. An excerpt from this film can be seen at the Waterbirth Website.  []
Cgingold 15:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Karil Daniels film "Water Baby" 

message: This article is seriously an advocacy piece. The purpose of these articles should be to give facts about the procedure that are cited by reliable sources, not to overcome objections. ⟳ausa کui × 15:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, please sign your comments with four tildes.  Second, Wikipedia is not the place to "spend your energies" starting, stopping, or advocating anything!  Wikipedia is not a soapbox (this is one of Wikipedia's rules, which you should probably read).  The argument on this page is not about whether the subject of the article is "good" or "bad", it is about whether the article takes a position on that question one way or the other.  It shouldn't.  Your opinionating here is inappropriate.  I agree that this is an advocacy piece and should be deleted or rewritten.  Wikipedia is for neutral encyclopedic articles, and the presence of anything other than that (regardless of whether it's "right" or "wrong", whatever the hell those mean) must be viewed as a defacement of Wikipedia.  And it may interest you to learn that "procedure" (the word you dislike) is in fact a synonym for "process" (the word you used). Xezlec 03:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV again 

message: I've rewritten the introductory paragraph to make it more encyclopedic.  One thing which might be added to the introduction is some very basic (non-political) statistics; for example, the approximate number of water births that occur every year.  (I'd avoid mortality statistics, as article introductions in particular should be as uncontroversial as possible.)   I was unable to find said statistics after a quick Google search.  Also, if I have mischaracterized the pro and con positions, I apologize.  --ScottAlanHill 05:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introductory paragraph 

message: There is a phrase that reads "decrease the need for episiotomy".  This conflicts with the general consensus that episiotomy is rarely or never "necessary" and in fact is detrimental...see the episiotomy page.  I'm going to rephrase this.  Cazort (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Episiotomy

message: I moved the following (boxed) text to here, because it doesn't seem useful to have a section named research without further specification (see Wikipedia:Research sections). It may rather seem like a Further reading section.Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research or further reading? 

message: This reads like a pamphlet promoting water birth. Major cite issues, lack of coverage of negative consequences. No rebuttal to positive comments. Ronk01 talk 15:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There are still significant issues with lack of WP:NPOV from what I can see.  The whole style is pretty jarring to read as well with "proponents" and "critics" throughout.  A more even-handed narrative is needed I feel, along with more citations. Lineslarge (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have now updated the lead so rather than containing arguments, it simply explains what water birth is and gives a single sentence summarising each of the opposing views.  This ought to do for now, but can be expanded once the rest of the article is more balanced. Lineslarge (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again, NPOV 

message: The text currently states:
: Epidural anesthesia may be associated with a higher incidence of instrumental delivery with forceps[citation needed]. However, epidural anesthesia does not increase the incidence of cesarean section and has been shown to be a safe alternative for labor analgesia[citation needed].
Previously it said the opposite with respect to cesarian section and was supported by the following reference:
:* Ros, Andrea, Ricardo Felberbaum, Iris Jahnke, Klaus Diedrich, Peter Schmucker, and Michael Huppe. 2007 "Epidural anaethesia for labour: does it influence the mode of delivery?" In Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics. V. 275(4):269-274(6)
I am removing the reference from the references section as it no longer supports the text and have added the citation needed tags. Lineslarge (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epidural 

message: This article is a shambles. Just glanced at it (not a topic of interest, but saw it mentioned and wanted to look at the wiki article for more info), it reads as propaganda for pro-water birth. I don't know whether there's such a thing as pro or con for it, I can only assume there is, but the citations backing up some really sporadic claims are all non-medical non-peer reviewed sources, usually vanity published books by proponents of the act writing books on mid-wifery.
These aren't valid sources, in the slightest. Also there's a lot of 'some people / some clinics' and ambiguous time frames, et cetera in the article. I started to mark it up with 's but then realised it was just too out of hand to bother with or it'd be littered with citation requests.
So, I've flagged it as NPOV and containing weasel words, perhaps someone with more knowledge (and less agenda than the current editors) could fix this mess up? BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 11:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tidied up the notices with the  tag, removed the NPOV check as it's now flagged, and added . Lineslarge (talk) 20:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gutted the page, most of it was sourced to a book by Annie Sprague, published by Annie Sprague Ltd.  Not a WP:MEDRS.  In fact, most of the page was not MEDRS-ed, so I've trimmed it down to actual secondary, reliable sources.  Amazingly, there's very few on pubmed despite there apparently being no small share of research.  Though for some reason very few have abstracts.  I'm wondering if it's due to low-impact publications?  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV, weasel words, fact, who, when, et cetera. 

message: A new article has been created, Birth Pool, which appears as if it could be merged into this article. Are there any opinions about whether it should stay as it's own article or integrated with this article?--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, noting that the Water Birth page also includes a discussion of the use of such pools during labor, not just for delivery. So,  Klbrain (talk) 10:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[Birth Pool]]