Talk:Baby shower/Archive 1

Archive 1

?

No, it shouldn't be retitled: Baby Shower is correct, and they are very common, at least in the United States.

I do think it's an error to say that "gifts and money" are given. I think it would be much more accurate to say that "typically gifts, but also sometimes money" is given. Especially because an expecting mother who will be participating in a baby shower usually creates a baby registry, it is most typical that guests bring gifts.

The reason it's called a "shower" is the same reason that word is used for a "Bridal Shower." The idea is that the bride or expectant mother is "showered" with gifts. -- CurlyHairDay 10/12/2006

Leaves aside fact that it usually the mother for whom the baby shower is given, and it's a typically female affair, though there are undoubtedly contemporary exceptions. --Daniel C. Boyer 00:42, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

The page says showers are "more common in the past 15 years", but that seems like a totally arbitrary figure, if the basic statement is even true. Could this be rephrased, or backed up with any references? --Chad.netzer 9 July 2005 04:47 (UTC)

I never heard of this before, I assume it is confined to the USA? Why 'shower' anyway? Markb 11:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Good question; I came to this page because I was wondering the same thing. Too bad noone here knows. --Bletch 00:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

perhaps its should be re-titled? Pre-Birth Party, for example?Markb 19:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 13:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

This is called a "baby shower" just like a "bridal shower". It may well be an North American specific term, but please don't call it a "pre-birth party" which has a total of 35 google hits whereas "baby shower" has 24 million! Samw 04:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support, unless someone can come up with another common term that is less ambiguous to non-USA folks. "Pre-Birth Party" seems to be an odd neologism -- simply because some people may be confused by the use of "shower" in this context is not a good reason to arbitrarily rename an article with an uncommon term. older ≠ wiser 17:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support unless usage is shown. Septentrionalis 23:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support, baby shower is used in the UK too, so you probably shouldn't see much opposition from over here. --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. For one thing, they aren't always held "pre-birth", but in any case, baby shower seems a much more common name. Jonathunder 22:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Suppport. jareha ^(comments) 23:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links

I cleared out the external links yesterday, and today two were back. I've cleared those again as there was no explanation of why they were returned. They both seem to be links to fairly low value, generic "party planning" info on commercial sites. If someone would like these links back in the article could you please post how they add encylopedic value to this article? Thanks --Siobhan Hansa 08:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

posted to SiobhanHansa's user pages (diff[1]), moved here to keep discussion open

Hi there, I noticed you've been removing links on the 'Baby Shower' section because they are deem "commercial" & "unencyclopedic". Just want to clarify with you here that some of the links are actually to fully featured guide on baby shower planning.

As a shower planner myself I know that baby shower planning is a big topic on it's own, which usually entails weeks of careful planning and work. So it's just impossible to add more than a general desciption on Wikipedia; much more specific information is required. IMO, the links to external sites are the best we can do to provide more valuable information to researchers using Wikipedia.

I've since removed all genuinely "commercial" links on the page and left 2 which I find are truly relevant and of value to the topic. I hope u will reconsider and leave them intact. Because by removing them we will be limiting Wikipedia users to better resources elsewhere.

Tks, I hope you'd discuss with me first if you decide to make any changes.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.75.59.119 (talk) .

I don't find your arguments very persuasive. For a start the purpose of an encyclopedia article on baby showers should be about the social and historical context of the phenomenon. Not about how to plan one (see What Wikipedia is not). There is no problem with readers finding better baby shower resources on other sites. If someone wants to plan a baby shower or other event, off-line they'd reach for a how-to book, not an encyclopedia. If a reader wants to research what baby showers are - how they have impacted lives in general, what social, religious and economic factors have shaped them and other encyclopedic matters, then Wikipedia should be trying to ensure we have the best possible resources for them. I don't think these links fit.

The links are to poor quality content from an encyclopedic perspective. They're not particularly well written; they're not particularly authoritative (no one "quotes" them in research), or popular (Alexa rankings put them both in the million+); the content is trivial (in that there are many places similar content can be found, and lots of people could write similar content) and can be found through a simple search on any search engine; and, most importantly, the quality of the information is not verified - the sites are not written by acknowledged leaders in the field, and there is no peer review or other process to ensure facts are correct.

You say you've deleted the genuinely commercial sites, as though these two are not. But the sites you linked to are also blatantly commercial. With one site you link not to the content that expands (if poorly) on baby showers, but to a blurb introduction whose only purpose appears to highlight moor google ads. On this same site, the "About" page even has a nice little button to press so anyone can learn how to "generate revenue from your site with google adsense" However, though commercial sites are discouraged in favor of non-commercial sites, it's not a reason for deleting if the site is otherwise a good link. But since I fail to see how these links add any encyclopedic value, the fact that they are commercial makes me very keen on seeing them deleted.

While you've said you plan baby showers and think readers need more information on that than the article can provide, you haven't said how these links add encylopedic content to the article. Do you (or other editors) have other, encyclopedic, reasons for keeping the links? Or do you disagree with my idea of what is encyclopedic? Thanks --Siobhan Hansa 18:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, this is very straightforward. That anon IP address above traces back to Singapore. The ad-selling site I just removed (on planning a shower) is based in, yep, Singapore (http://sbd.bcentral.com/bc__331424.aspx). So I recommend the following to whoever's at 219.75.59.119 or elsewhere on SingNet: suggest a new link. Have it not be located in SG, and have it not include "Web Advertising | Business articles | Loans | Mortgages | Debt Consolidation" and a bunch of bizrate.com bilge as that previously deleted link does. Then you will be providing a service to Wiki readers -without- promoting that specific site. Easy.

Baby shower is not a purely American tradition...it is held in India too

in india baby shower is gifts for the mother rather than gifts for the baby. It is not an American tradition

Be bold and update the article! Remember to cite your references. Samw 03:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The statement "in india baby shower is gifts for the mother rather than gifts for the baby" is false.

In India, baby shower is traditionally held in the seventh month,i.e. 28-32 weeks,of pregnancy. In earlier times it was a function which was organized and attended by women only. Nowadays many a times both genders of the family / friends circle are included in this function.

In India too it is a function to celebrate the expected arrival of the baby and present the parents-to-be with gifts appropriate for the expectant new born as well as either of the parents-to-be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KshitijaK (talk • contribs) .

If you have sources (Indian etiquette books, articles from reliable newspapers etc.) it would be great to add in other countries' traditions. It may be the case that customs are not consistent across India, we have room for multiple points of view, but need these things to be verified by reliable sources. --Siobhan Hansa 18:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Shower

Why does it called a "baby shower"? I think that this explanation is quite essential... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yonatan Lazar (talk • contribs) 22:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Activities

Is the information in this section not rather redundant and somewhat unexceptional? It seems to be a list of generic party games with baby themes. Baby bingo, for instance, or "Serving cake, though any type of food or beverage might be served." This, particularly, is standard to most parties, and surely can be inferred by the fact that it is a form of house party? Treeturtle81 (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Otheus

I'm a bit confused. Why did you add that you are proofread this article to the talk page if you didn't? A proffreader has to approve it, and no one has yet. Thanks for fixing more, though. And please explain why you deleted that big chunk. I think I know, but just want to make sure. I also don't believe I have the ability to proofread it, as I was one of the editors. A seperate person must do that, to avoid bias. I'm changing you from proofreader to second editor in box. Thanks, Erythromycin 20:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

A Few Points

The article states that it is unacceptable for a "family member" to host the baby shower because the event "centers on gift-giving", but goes on to say that a relative may host the shower. This sounds a little contradictory to me. — Tetty2 — continues after insertion below

It did to me too, at first. But I glean that "family member" means the husband or wife, while relative may mean mother's mother, sister, etc. However, I'm not fully aware of the customs here. If someone can second my suggestion, we can just change "family member" to something like "the expectant mother or father".

I also believe that the statement on Italian-Americans not having baby showers is false or at least debatable. I am Italian-American myself and all of my relatives, including my mother (who came over on the boat, by the way) have had baby showers, many of which were hosted by their own mothers.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tetty2 (talk • contribs).

Most of this article cites NO sources at all. It would be really great if you can scour the web and find some sources one way or another. Feel free to "tag" the statement with {{or}}, or remove it altogether.

Actually if you search History Baby Shower in google you get a lot of things.(Akhwandk (talk) 09:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC))

You get a lot of hits but I've had a very hard time finding any that could be considered reliable from Wikipedia's perspective. -- SiobhanHansa 12:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

godparent

is it good to mention godparent in this article? Jackzhp (talk) 04:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

this article blows

I am sorry to say that this is where WIKIPEDIA fails.

As this article is just a collection of anecdotes, unverified stories, opinions and unsourced facts masquerading as an encyclopedic entry.

When it is nothing of the sort. Worst still it is jumbled and has no clear structure or direction.

Major work needs to be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.136.253 (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Etymology

Are you sure that "shower" means that "the expectant mother is showered with gifts"? I think it means that babies are showering. Any sources to confirm the meaning? Thanks! --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

How could the babies be showering, when these parties normally happen before the baby is born? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

"It's raining, aleluya!" You know, it's a celebration about having kids, am I right? --NaBUru38 (talk) 09:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You're thinking that it's a reference to babies "raining" down from heaven? But then why would we have wedding showers? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I thought so. About weddings, "it's raining Cupid arrows"? Mmm, I guess you are right about the meaning. Bye! --NaBUru38 (talk) 04:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Sources

http://www.randomhistory.com/2008/11/01_baby.html lists some scholarly and historical sources on the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)