Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:15, 20 December 2017

Template:Vital article

	Birth control has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 19, 2012 Good article nominee Listed June 8, 2013 Good article reassessment Delisted September 6, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sexology and sexuality Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine: Translation / Reproductive Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Translation task force (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by the Reproductive medicine task force (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Feminism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women's History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women's Health Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Misplaced Pages's health content are defined in the guideline Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Birth control. PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles) The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine. Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present.

Text

Moved here

Not sure what is with that first link? Also the rest of this is poorly referenced. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Is the sentence about family planning and culture necessary in the first paragraph?

It's supposed to be a straightforward explaination of what birth control is, not a definition and then references to 3 tangential articles relating to it. Dvalentine (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

An encyclopedia article should not merely contain "a straightforward explanation of what birth control is." Given the great variation in cultural attitudes towards birth control, and the implications of that variation, it seems eminently appropriate to mention that, and so provide context, within the opening paragraph. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is good to start with some general definitions.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Birth control. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5xI2Wz6n5?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vatican.va%2Fholy_father%2Fpaul_vi%2Fencyclicals%2Fdocuments%2Fhf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Catholic Church on Contraception

Hello, the article at present only says the Church only accepts natural family planning but the Church also condemns artificial birth control as can be seen from reading humanae vitae. So I'll add this but if you have issues say on talk page

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.120.0 (talk) 11:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad that you're finally discussing it here. On the other hand, see WP:EVASION. Your block was short and it may be best to wait until it expires instead of possibly incurring other sanctions because of evasion. Your last edit has a typo but I'll let it stand for now for other editors to look at. My impression is that "The Roman Catholic Church officially only accepts natural family planning" already says "officially only accepts". When looking at the source, they do seem to disagree about the use of artificial birth control methods (they have various possible issues claims), but I see no unequivocal threat or punishment about it. It is also obvious that today many Catholics do use such methods in many countries and do not get excommunicated (that may still occur in some cases perhaps). — PaleoNeonate — 16:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Humanae vitae is we call a WP:PRIMARY source. You are interpreting it. That is not OK to do in WP, per WP:OR. Misplaced Pages is built by summarizing high quality secondary sources. If you want to see more content about the RC hierarchy's views on birth control, please propose such content here, and please cite the high quality, reliable sources that support the content. Please also be aware of WP:WEIGHT with regard to the article overall. Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, sorry I should've cited a secondary Catholic source on this. As for not getting excommunicated, I dont think murderers are excommunicated (at least in the latin rite). Just because an offense doesnt lead to excommunication it doesnt mean its not a big sin (if your interested http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.120.0 (talk) 10:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

OK this is done. Jytdog (talk) 13:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

"gravely immoral" is not needed "immoral" is enough. Gravely means deathly which in this case it is not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@123.231.120.0: If you have an account, please avoid editing logged out. It is also important to discuss changes on the relevant article's talk page when being reverted (which you have finally done, but you probably should still have suggested the sentence here instead of still editing the article and getting reverted or corrected again). These issues were why you were temporarily blocked, so here is how to avoid the same problems in the future. By using a single account, not only will you avoid being considered socking, but it will make communication easier (instead of receiving messages on the talk pages of previous IP addresses no longer assigned to you, for instance). Thanks, — PaleoNeonate — 17:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Prof. Aaron E. Carroll:

Doubtful Science Behind Arguments to Restrict Birth Control Access (10 10 2017). Imho interesting - but I am no native speaker. Anyone there who is willing and able to bring it into the article ? thanks in advance --Neun-x (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Not sure it is notable for this article as basically US politics. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

My impression was the same when reading it. We have a society and culture section, but it already mentions religious and conservative views. —PaleoNeonate – 05:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

unsourced

User:Jytdog said trim unsourced, trim content based on old primary source. The statement is not unsourced. See section "Teaching the STM" in the source: "All the women who participated in the study were taught the STM by accredited teachers" Strangely, this important fact is not stated at all in the abstract of the study. --rtc (talk) 11:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Inthis series of edits you a) added unsourced content (namely "for unmarried girls" and b) added content based on a 2007 source that fails WP:MEDDATE.

Please be aware that it is BRD not BRDR. Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, you are the one who is editwarring. Stop it, now, or you will be blocked.

1. Your claim about unsourced content was for the 2007 source, not about the unmarried girls.
2. For the unmarried girls, your claim was "nope". Your personal opinion. As I have stated several times, the source does not back the ridiculous claim that anyone is advocating "total abstinence". Noone in their right minds would advocate such a thing. The source is about "wait until they're ready", "wait to find the "right" partner", "focus on school ...", "Advantages for Teens", "beliefs and values". This is primarily about unmarried teens, as is completely clear from the content as well as the context of the source. At no point does the source advocate, talk about, or even mention the term "total abstinence". It says "People are abstinent off and on for reasons that may change over time". Okay, it also says "a few are abstinent their whole lives" but nowhere does it advocate such a thing. You are the one who is ignoring the source by defending a version that makes a hilarious claim. Total abstinence is advocated by noone except a few fundamentalist sects with very few if any adherents (see Antisexualism).
3. The 2007 source does not fail WP:MEDDATE at all. WP:MEDDATE does not say "you must not use any source older than 5 years", it says "editors should try to find those newer sources" and "If recent reviews do not mention an older primary source, the older source is dubious" (my emphasis). The 2007 source is the one cited by Trussell2011. There is no more recent source. Thus, it is perfectly fine.

You ignored all these arguments and simply started editwarring. Calm down and accept my edits. Otherwise measures will be taken. We don't need fundamentlist opinions about total abstinence in the Misplaced Pages that are not backed by any source. --rtc (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

No, when I said content was unsourced, I was referring to the "unmarried girls" which was not in the source provided.

The 2007 ref is 10 years old, and we should indeed find a more recent source and add content based on that. I will look for one and update the article. This is what you should have done, but as you will then. Jytdog (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Your edit about the unmarried girls merely said "nope". Your comment "trim unsourced, trim content based on old primary source" was for an edit about the 2007 source.

About the girls, I changed my version slightly, saying "primarily for unmarried teens". You reverted that too, without any new argument. Clearly, the source is focusing on teens. It directly talks about "Advantages for Teens". It talks about "beliefs and values". What, if not premarital sex, is this referring to, in your opinion?! It talks about "focus on school". Only teens go to school. "wait until they're ready" again is about teens, clearly. It is true that the source also talks about other reasons for abstinence, but those are not the primary ones. At no point is the source advocating total abstinence. We need to give WP:DUE weight. In almost all cases, abstinence is advocated for unmarried teens. Advocating it for anyone else, or even advocating total abstinence is a very small minority opinion.

If you can find any more recent paper than the 2007 version about the same topic, fine. I have been looking for one but couldn't find one. --rtc (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The planned parenthood ref does not talk about "unmarried". It does have a single paragraph saying that "Abstinence and outercourse have special advantages for teens and younger people" on the last page but is otherwise aimed at everybody (many people in college and grad school are not teens, btw) so the "primarily" is also not supported. The edit is altogether not supported by the source. Jytdog (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, the page talks about "beliefs and values". The only beliefs and values I know of in that context concern premarital sex. So this is clearly referring to having sex before marriage.

The page has one list about possible reasons for abstinence:

• "wait until they feel ready for a sexual relationship" => not relevant after marriage
• "wait to find the right partner" => not relevant after marriage
• "enjoy their partner’s company without having to deal with a sexual relationship" => for everyone
• "focus on school, their job, or hobbies" => for everyone
• "follow their personal, moral, or religious beliefs and values" => not relevant after marriage
• "get over a breakup" => short-term reason
• "heal from the death of a partner" => short-term reason
• "follow their doctor’s advice during or after a sickness, infection, or medical procedure" => rare, short-term, medical reason.

Thus, 3 items are about temporary reasons, 3 are not relevant after marriage and only 2 are for everyone. Further, as you admit yourself, there is an entire paragraph talking about teens only, arguing that abstinence has "special advantages for teens and younger people".

Altogether, this clearly focuses on unmarried teens. Nowhere does it talk about "total abstinence". Thus, the "primarily" is clearly supported and the edit is altogether supported by the source. The entire point of advocating abstinence by proponents of abstinence-only sex education is to make teens not have premarital sex. If you think the source does not support this, you should at the same time argue that the source is a bad one, as it would not give due weight to the only relevant position, which is abstinence for unmarried teens. --rtc (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

btw along with being old, the 2007 ref is also a primary source. I have been forgetting to mention that. It fails MEDRS and should never have been cited here at all. Jytdog (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. MEDRS does not say that primary sources are forbidden. It says that "Text that relies on primary sources should usually have minimal undue weight, only be used to describe conclusions made by the source, and must describe these findings clearly so that checking can be made by editors without specialist knowledge." The statement you deleted merely stated the basic result of the study -- a study cited by standard secondary sources like Trussell2011. Actually, my edit did not introduce that source, nor the statment. It merely clarified that the study which reported <2% (much less than the typical 20%) was not talking about "Overall first-year failure rates of the symptothermal method", but about failure rates observed after the subjects had taken part in teaching sessions about the method. Having said that, the source is clearly dubious. But it is the standard source cited for the symptothermal method and I don't know of any other, let alone more recent one. --rtc (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

BTW, later on, the section about abstinence suddenly starts talking about teens. So the reader wonders, what does it have to do with teens? --rtc (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Ref says 0.4

So not sure why this change.

The symptothermal method is one form of fertility awareness. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

That section of the article contains two parts. The first part can be understood to be about about fertility awareness methods that use one single kind of measurement in isolation. For those methods, perfect use rate is given as 0.4% to 5%. This is confusing and prone to misunderstanding. The source says that 0.4% holds for the symptothermal method only. Perfect first-year failure rate when using a single measurement in isolation is 3% to 5%. Only in the second part, which follows, the section introduces the symptothermal method, which is special because it is a combination of several kinds of those measurements. This makes it more reliable, but also more complicated. The article should clearly separate the symptothermal method from the single-factor fertility awareness methods, to be more specific and less confusing. --rtc (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Looking here and symptothermal is under fertility awareness. So I disagree with your proposed change. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Please try to read and understand what I wrote. The first part discusses "Techniques for determining fertility". These are the kind of measurements that one can use for determining fertility. The second part discusses the symptothermal method. It is not a technique by itself, but merely means using the basal body temperature technique and at least one of the others and then evaluating the results accoding to certain rules. Fertility awareness includes both the techniques themselves and the symptothermal method. The source gives 0.4 for fertility awareness as a whole, while the article incorrectly claims 0.4 for the techniques. --rtc (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC) PS: Just to be clear, in case you have trouble understanding a surprising mathematical fact: It is possible to combine several weak techniques mathematically and get a method that it much stronger than any single one of them.

It is discussing "methods" and "symptothermal method" is one of those.

I am not seeing any issue with the existing wording.

We even say " perfect use first-year failure rates depend on which method is used and range from 0.4% to 5%" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Please don't take that statement out of its context. The context is that techniques are discussed. Of course any technique directly leads to a method, but not the other way around. Thus the context suggests that this sentence is talking about methods based on the techniques. This suggestion is emphasized by the fact that the section starts talking about the symtpothermal method only AFTER the the statement you cited. --rtc (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

This is pretty pointless. It seems to me, as an outsider, that the intent is to obscure the fact that Vatican Roulette does not work, and is supported as a form of birth control only by religious groups, for that reason. Guy (Help!) 00:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

What? Excuse me, what are you talking about? --rtc (talk) 03:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Seriously RtC drop the stick. If you must try a RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there is stick to be dropped here. I can try a RfC but IMO it just wastes your time and it wastes my time. --rtc (talk) 12:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

You are right about it being a waste of time, but for the wrong reasons. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC about content issue tags

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Maths, science, and technology When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Insertion of the following content issue tags was reverted. Was this insertion justified or not? (Text is the original edit summary.)

• source does not mention the notion of "total" sexual abstinence, let alone advocate it
• Not clear whether method means merely the techniques mentioned before or includes the symptothermal method mentioned only after the statment
• WP:WEASEL. The source does not mention anything about groups
• 0.4 to 5% is a quite wide spectrum; which is which?

rtc (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

None of them were needed, and at least one of them was disruptively pointy. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific? It would be useful if you could state:

• Have you read the edits under discussion?
• Have you checked the edit summary of each edit for factual accuracy?
• If so, do you agree it is true?
• If so, why do you nonetheless think the respective tag is not needed?
• Which tag exactly do you consider pointy and why?

Note that this is not a vote; it's about finding a compromise and a solution. Simply voting and expressing one's general support or opposition without fact checking won't help the cause of an RFC. --rtc (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I thought it was about determining whether or not the tagging was justified. It wasn't. What's to compromise? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

By being more specific, you could help figuring out where exactly the disagreement is. Is it the factual accuracy of the edit summaries? Is there some other issue? Figuring out whether and how to compromise is only a second step after the problem has been analyzed. "identify common ground, and attempt to draw editors together rather than push them apart" Simply stating disagreement won't help to identify common ground. --rtc (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

When the "disagreement" is between one persona nd everyone else who's commented to date, as is the case here, the source of the disagreement is very easy to identify. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• No evidence to justify this. WP:POINT. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Natural sciences good articles
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• Top-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• GA-Class medicine articles
• Top-importance medicine articles
• GA-Class WikiProject Medicine Translation Task Force articles
• Top-importance WikiProject Medicine Translation Task Force articles
• WikiProject Medicine Translation Task Force articles
• GA-Class reproductive medicine articles
• Top-importance reproductive medicine articles
• Reproductive medicine task force articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• GA-Class sociology articles
• Mid-importance sociology articles
• GA-Class Feminism articles
• Top-importance Feminism articles
• WikiProject Feminism articles
• GA-Class Women's History articles
• High-importance Women's History articles
• All WikiProject Women-related pages
• WikiProject Women's History articles
• GA-Class women's health articles
• Top-importance women's health articles
• WikiProject Women's Health articles
• GA-Class Skepticism articles
• Low-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment