Talk:Stereotypes of nurses

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 August 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 October 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Untitled

Was the original article written by someone mad at nurses?

Please don't vandalize this page by deleting information without giving a VALID reason. Thanks THB 05:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 3 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mariah yates1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battleaxe

Is battleaxe really different from matron? Arce 19:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Well, in a way, a battleaxe is just a matron gone evil. -THB 19:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spankable nurse

User:Mdwh removed a link I added here and called it spam. The link was to a free program, created with opensource software and was a perfect illustration for this areticle's topic. In what universe is that considered spam? see http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Nurse_stereotypes&diff=81637329&oldid=81636854

See Talk:Erotic spanking#Spankable nurse for discussion on this. Mdwh 21:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First line

I'd like to poll people's thoughts about the placement of the first line in the article, describing the harmful effects of the nurse stereotype.
I agree with the sentiment of the line, and believe it should be in the article. But I also think the article (or any article) should should first define and explain it's subject, in this case Nurse Stereotypes. Starting right off with this single line gives the article an odd flow.
I would suggest moving the line farther down, but am leery of the reaction, as people may think I want to minimize or dismiss the the harmful effects of the stereotype. That would not be my sentiment at all. Anybody else want to chime in on this? --Bridgecross 21:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support your assertion that a definition (such as that in the section headed "background", should come first. It could also be argued that the stereotypes could have positive effects (even if not by many).— Rod ^talk 21:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NURSE priority review

As part of a review of all nursing wikiproject articles, I have changed this article's importance to low per Wikipedia:WikiProject Nursing/Assessment#Importance scale. I have also added stub class. If you disagree, please leave a note here so we can discuss it. Cheers, Basie (talk) 04:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noctor

Most of these stereotype sections are merely poorly referenced or use the wrong tone, but this one does not even seem to be a stereotype, and the text itself is clearly biased. Nurses "appropriate" the term "practitioner", resemble "barefoot doctors" of the developing world, are a "third world" phenomenon inexplicable in developed nations, and have "cunning plans". I was tempted to delete the entire section, but I'd like some input on these issues first. --Joel7687 (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to delete this section of the article. I believe that the following issues should be addressed by anyone attempting to add this section back to the article:

As I just discovered, the text is largely copied without attribution from this blog.
The "noctor" doesn't really seem to be a stereotype, at least not the way it's presented here.
To the extent that it could be viewed as a stereotype, the section is written from the POV of a person who subscribes to that stereotype.
The section does not use appropriate tone.
The section makes factual claims without references.
The section is written from a UK perspective, rather than a more general/global one.

--Joel7687 (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tone, wording, and references

There are really only two references in this article, if you don't count links to other Wikipedia pages. Also, the "people think this, but REAL nurses do that" kind of wording and tone make it sound more like a blog post than a Wikipedia article. I don't know enough about the topic to make a contribution, but this article seems to need cleanup. -ajs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.40.7 (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up

I am working on a project for class and chose to contribute/edit part of this article. I agreed with the comments that the wording and tone were off as well as the fact that the first section needed some clean up. I am going to go ahead and add my changes, which are more of a rewording to that section, please let me know if they are acceptable. I also will add some new information and sources.

Mc545412 (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]