Category talk:Fertility tracking/Periodic abstinence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

1 Categorization concerns
2 Reply
3 Categorisation thoughts
4 Suggestion
5 Time out
6 NFP and FA categories
7 My two proposals

[edit] Categorization concerns

I would like to address my concerns with the current use of the category Category:Periodic abstinence. Currently, the category contains Fertility awareness, Basal body temperature, Billings ovulation method, Rhythm method, Creighton Model FertilityCare System, Natural family planning. They are abbreviated, respectively, to FAM or FA, BBT, BOM, Rhythm, CrMS or CM, and NFP.

[edit] Understanding the six terms

Here is a short primer for anyone just joining the discussion. Two important concepts are Natural family planning (NFP) and Fertility awareness (FAM).

Natural family planning (NFP) refers to Catholic-approved methods of birth control. The Rhythm Method involves statistically estimating the likelihood of fertility based on past cycle length. Rhythm is very old; the Catholic Church's first recorded official statement on periodic abstinence to avoid pregnancy is from 1853.[1] The no-contraception directive in Pope John Paul II's 1968 Humanae Vitae clarified that fertility-detection methods were acceptable (see section 24). The Billings ovulation method (BOM) was developed in the 1960s by a Catholic couple, Evelyn Billings and John Billings, who extensively researched the significance of cervical mucus when it comes to a woman's fertility and did much to raise public awareness of the link between cervical mucus and fertility. The Creighton Model FertilityCare System (CrMS) was developed in the 80s as an offshoot of the BOM, it is very similar as a cervical mucus method. Thomas Hilgers, who developed the CrMS, founded the Pope Paul II Institute for promoting the CrMS. Hilgers asserted that the CrMS was superior to the BOM, but the Billings' refuted this claim.[2]

Fertility awareness (FA) refers to tracking biological signals of fertility. Toni Weschler was one of the first prominent teachers of the FAM; she began lecturing on FAM in 1982.[3] Weschler's 1995 book Taking Charge of Your Fertility is one of the best-known FAM manuals. Weschler's method is symptothermal, meaning that it tracks cervical mucus changes like the BOM and CrMS, but it also involves Basal body temperature (BBT).

Category:Behavioral methods of birth control also contains Coitus interruptus (the withdrawal method), and Lactational Amenorrhea Method (LAM), the latter of which is also a form of NFP.

[edit] Concerns

I feel that using the word abstinence in categorizing the above methods is misleading, because the word abstinence, in regards to sex, means "abstaining from sexual activity" (see Sexual abstinence), and many users of the cycle-tracking methods do not engage in periodic abstinence; in fact, they do not engage in abstinence at all. Many use the methods to determine when they will use barrier contraception during intercourse. There is no sexual abstinence among these users.

Relatedly, the phrase Abstinence-only sex education refers to "teaching teenagers to abstain from sex entirely", not "teaching teenagers to use barriers during intercourse" or "teaching teenagers to abstain from certain kinds of sex". Abstinence means "abstaining from sexual activity". Periodic abstinence means "periodically abstaining from sexual activity". Stretching the term periodic abstinence to mean "use of barriers during full vaginal intercourse" is just plain wrong. My view is that there must be a change, so I would like to come to a consensus here as to what to do.

[edit] Suggestions

A main question on which I would appreciate input is whether we should categorize the statistical Rhythm Method with the methods which detect biological signs of fertility; Fertility awareness, Basal body temperature, Billings ovulation method, Creighton Model FertilityCare System. (Another concern is where to put Natural family planning, which I will get to in a moment.)

My two suggestions are Category:Methods which detect fertility (which would not include Rhythm), or Category:Methods which detect or estimate fertility (which would include Rhythm).

Coming back to Natural family planning; NFP includes periodic abstinence and the Lactational amenorrhea method (LAM), which neither detects nor estimates fertility. There are three main options I can think of (both of which involve implementing either of the suggestions for a "Methods which detect (or estimate) fertility..." category.) The only difference between suggestions 2 and 3 is where to place NFP. I believe suggestion 3 is best.

We could retain Category:Periodic abstinence and categorize it under the new "Methods..." category regardless of which Methods suggestion is chosen. We would place NFP and perhaps Billings ovulation method and Creighton Model FertilityCare System under Category:Periodic abstinence. Frankly, though, I think this tends towards overcategorization.
We could rename Category:Periodic abstinence as the new Methods... category, and place NFP outside, under Category:Behavioral methods of birth control.
We could rename Category:Periodic abstinence as Category:Methods which detect or estimate fertility category, and place NFP and Rhythm therein. The phrase "natural family planning" is frequently associated with the use of detection/estimation methods alone, so I would not oppose this categorization. The other reason to support this solution is that Rhythm is considered NFP, so this way they would stay together. (LAM, another form of NFP, would still remain under Category:Behavioral methods of birth control, with Coitus interruptus.

My main concern is that it is quite misleading to apply the phrase "Periodic abstinence" to methods which do not involve sexual abstinence. I feel that it is not sensible to interpret the meaning of "abstinence" to include "periodically abstaining from unprotected intercourse, by having full vaginal intercourse with a barrier". This interpretation is counterintuitive. Let's come up with a more accurate solution. Joie de Vivre 17:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Periodic abstinence is a much more stretchable term than periodic sexual abstinence. I don't find the category to be a bad description of these methods when used to avoid pregnancy. However, I would like to find a category name that does not exclude use of these methods to achieve pregnancy.

As a clarification, the symptothermal method promoted by Toni Weshler has a brand name of Fertility Awareness Method (FAM). While confusing, FAM is not the same as fertility awareness-based methods (FA methods). Rather FAM is one type of fertility awareness-based method. Also, Rhythm Method is not a specific system, but rather an umbrella term for systems that use a woman's cycle length to estimate fertility - the term "calendar method" is also commonly used. The Knaus-Ogino Method was not developed until 1930, yet there are multiple references to "Rhythm" in the mid- to late-1800s, and I've even found a reference from the fourth century describing such a method. The Standard Days Method is a new system - developed in 1999 - and is currently covered in the Rhythm Method article.

Many discussions of fertility awareness-based methods describe mucus, temperature, calendar rules, and then how symptothermal methods use all three systems - such as Planned Parenthood. Other discussions divide fertility awareness-based methods into "symptoms based" and "calendar based" - such as the World Health Organization. In both treatments, Rhythm is included in the same discussion as mucus-based and symptothermal methods. As this seems to be the accepted way to treat these methods, I support including Rhythm in whatever new category is created.

Fertility may be estimated by the presence or absence of fertile types of cervical mucus; while fairly reliable, this is not a certain indicator - there are occurrences of both false positives (presence of fertile mucus on days that turn out to be too far from ovulation to be fertile) and false negatives (no observed mucus on days that turn out to have intercourse resulting in pregnancy). While symptoms-based estimates of fertility may be more accurate, they are still estimates. Furthermore, in temperature-only and symptothermal systems, the pre-ovulatory infertile period is frequently calculated from a woman's past cycle length (as in calendar-based systems). I believe the line between the symptoms-based and calendar-based systems relationship to fertility is too fuzzy to use separate adjectives such as "estimate" and "detect".

I support suggestion number 3, I'm just not sure about the name. Maybe we could go with the WHO naming and call it "Calendar- and symptoms-based methods of identifying fertile days". Lyrl ^Talk _C 20:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categorisation thoughts

Regarding the accuracy of the term "periodic abstinence," I don't interpret it to necessarily mean complete sexual abstinence, and I don't think it is possible for category titles to account for everything — such as the fact that "abstinence" can also refer to abstaining from consumption of alcoholic beverages. So, if we were to try to account for this, too, we would need a category titled Category:Methods of birth control requiring partial or total sexual abstinence, which is rather ungainly. I've always believed category titles should be kept as simple as possible and that their scope/applicability can be determined by the kind of articles which are sorted into them.

As for whether Rhythm method belongs with the other FA methods — as it only statisically estimates and doesn't detect fertility based on biological signs — I would say it would probably be best to simply sidestep the issue and go with a broader, more inclusive title, like "Periodic abstinence" or "Observational methods of birth control." Although I think it is acceptable to create categories with only a couple of articles in them, if the alternative is less accurate categorisation, in this case I don't see subdivision as warranted. I do think that a seperate category for the fertility-detecting methods is warranted, in some form or another, as there are six or seven behavioral methods that depend on monitoring or estimating fertility, whereas there is only one method which depends on withdrawal during intercourse and one that depends upon breastfeeding (so these two would stay in the parent "Behavioral" category while the "Observational/Periodic abstinence/Fertility detection" methods would go in a subcat). Having these articles grouped together would enable readers to easily find related subjects.

As per Lyrl's suggestion that this category's title should accommodate the fact that FA methods are also used to help increase the chances of pregnancy, perhaps "Fertility control methods" or "Family planning methods" would work better than "Birth control methods," as either of these would be inclusive of both efforts to become pregnant and efforts to avoid becoming pregnant. -Severa (!!!) 21:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

~~How about Category:Observational fertility methods?~~ Joie de Vivre 21:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

~~Just realized that "...fertility methods" doesn't really mean anything, how about Category:Fertility tracking methods? Joie de Vivre 21:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)~~

Gah. I can't think of any words that work to describe both "directly observing fertility signals" and "guessing when you ovulate with a math formula". Why can't we distinguish between the two? Joie de Vivre 21:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

With a failure rate of only 5% per year (that's the same effectiveness as the female condom), I would not call the Standard Days Method "guessing". A WHO study of the Billings method, which only included women with regular cycles, and only included women who consistently identified at least 5 days of cervical mucus per cycle, found a failure rate of 3% per year. Lower, yes, but not THAT much lower. Lyrl ^Talk _C 23:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any other suggestions? Joie de Vivre 23:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The most common usage seems to be "fertility awareness", with use by major relevant organizations like Planned Parenthood and WHO. This has the advantage of name recognition, brevity, sharing a title with the main article in the category, and being noncommittal on pregnancy avoidance vs. achievement. "Fertility tracking" would also be fine by me. If we need to have the word "methods" in the category title, it would probably be better to use "fertility tracking methods", or "fertility awareness based methods" to help minimize confusion with Weschler's brand name. "Fertility charting" is another alternative. "Methods identifying fertile days" or the more unwieldy but also more specific "Calendar- and symptoms-based methods of identifying fertile days" might also work. Lyrl ^Talk _C 23:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time out

This is not a first time occurrence. Joie de Vivre also restructured the long-established categorisation system of WikiProject Abortion, without first discussing it or attempting to seek consensus, and then nominated the original categories for deletion (see CfD discussion 1 and CfD discussion 2). I hesitated from mentioning this because I believe JdV was honestly unaware of the pre-existing WikiProject Abortion categorisation system at the time. However, if the CfD guidelines state, "do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision," then an editor should not go through a category and systematically remove all the articles from it ([4] [5] [6]). This is not merely a minor quibble, or a "technicality," but, rather, an apparently deliberate attempt to manufacture a situation that would be favourable to a "delete" result in a CfD. Lyrl was completely justified in restoring this category, as she had been advised to do so by Xdamr, the admin who closed the CfD debate, and there was no consensus to delete this category. As far as I can tell, it's currently 2/2, with the closing admin's "delete" vote not being counted, as his stated reason for closing the discussion as he did was, "However category is empty so eligible for deletion per WP:CSD#C1," and the diffs I provided above demonstrate that the circumstances under which the category became empty might be questionable. We can discuss the individual merits of this category and try to find ways to address concerns over it, but, this is not going to be achieved the way things are going now. Good articles and categories are never made through process of reaction. Discussion needs time to progress — and it will never progress if it is prematurely cut off. I'm glad we're participating in discussion now, but, ideally, this should have been the first course of action, not a last resort. -Severa (!!!) 16:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Call it what you want. I did not set out to delete the category entirely. I set out to remove the FA methods from Category:Periodic abstinence, because so many users use barrier methods, not abstinence. I realized that nothing but NFP actually belonged there. I didn't think single-article category was a good solution. I do think the FA and NFP categories are a good solution. Joie de Vivre 17:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe JdV in good faith thought WP:BOLD was applicable here. At the same time as the attempted deletion of this category, Category:Methods of birth control was created, and no one has contended that. I think the problem was in judgment of what would be controversial: everyone who looked at Category:Birth control could see that the related topics were beginning to overwhelm the specific methods, and apparently agrees that it's navigationally useful for the methods to be separated into their own category. To me, the similarly bold removal of methods from Category:Periodic abstinence was poor judgment, but not any attempt to "manufacture a situation." From what I have seen, JdV has in the past made a consistent effort to follow all the correct procedures per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lyrl ^Talk _C 17:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The first time around, with WikiProject Abortion, WP:BOLD or unfamiliarity with process might have served as an explanation. Neither of these explanations hold now that the same action has been repeated in a separate case. -Severa (!!!) 18:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Lyrl. I'm aiming for accuracy. Joie de Vivre 19:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NFP and FA categories

So I realized that creating Category:Fertility awareness and Category:Natural family planning could solve a lot of problems. I was able to pull in John Billings, Humanae Vitae, and Winnipeg Statement into the NFP category, and Toni Weschler and Barrier contraception into the FA category. I cross-referenced between the methods and placed links at the top of both categories for easy referencing.

The NFP category is in Categories: Behavioral methods of birth control | Theology of the Body | Religious views on birth control.

The FA category is in Categories: Behavioral methods of birth control | Gynecology | Feminism.

I think these are really good categories.

This way, we can build upon each concept without muddling the two or causing confusion. Even Lactational Amenorrhea Method and Rhythm method have a place; (in Category:Behavioral methods of birth control as well as Category:Natural family planning. I don't think there's a need for Category:Periodic abstinence anymore. Let me know what you think. Joie de Vivre 16:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it would have been nice if we had a chance to talk about this before it was implemented.

I agree it's nice to have the NFP article in the same category with Humanae Vitae and the Winnipeg Statement. That category is named Category:Theology of the Body. Creating a new NFP category and using it this way is redundant.

Methods of identifying fertile days of the menstrual cycle are methods of fertility awareness. Fertility awareness methods are considered synonymous with natural family planning methods by many organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Other organizations use the term natural family planning to imply religious restrictions; this is the majority usage and is reflected in the Wikipedia article, but both uses are valid. Even within the religious definition of NFP, symptoms-based methods are considered methods of fertility awareness, at the same time as following the religious restrictions makes the method NFP. It is incorrect to say that, for example, a basal body temperature method is NFP and not fertility awareness because of how it is used; it is, rather, a fertility awareness method, and at the same time is being used as NFP.

Making NFP a separate category from fertility awareness, and putting fertility awareness methods into the NFP category and not the FA category, is incorrect and confusing. Putting the developer of mucus-based methods of identifying fertile days into the NFP category and not the FA category is incorrect and confusing. Putting methods and people into both categories makes one of the categories redundant. Either name would be acceptable to me as they both have common usage, but I oppose having two separate categories.

Some FA users use spermicide, some use withdrawal, and some actually use abstinence (whether because it's more effective, or because the psychological difficulty of going back-and-forth between "barrier" and "no barrier" sex makes abstaining easier for that couple). Some have anal sex, or non-penetrative sex. I believe it's self-evident that including all of these articles and categories in a fertility awareness category is nonsensical. By extension, it does not make sense to include any of them. Users of FA may use another method in addition to FA - this does not make those other methods part of FA anymore than the existence of spermicidally lubricated condoms means spermicide should be placed in Category:Condom. Lyrl ^Talk _C 18:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If "fertility awareness" is to be understood as "a method of estimating or detecting a woman's fertile periods," then I see no logical reason for separating observational/fertility-detection methods into two different categories based on whether they are approved by a particular religious institution or not. Fasting is a practice that is endorsed by a number of religious institutions, but, having only articles related to religion sorted into Category:Fasting would be to overlook the fact that fasting is also practiced for medical reasons, weight loss, and political demonstration. I do not see non-affiliation with the Roman Catholic Church as preventing people from choosing to use NFP methods for other reasons. I do not think that Wikipedia should take the side that the pratice of these methods is exclusively faith-based.

"Natural family planning" is essentially synonymous with "behavioral methods of birth control." Any method that does not involve man-made devices or artificial intervention of some form, like hormonal contraception, IUDs, or condoms, must therefore be a behavioral (or "natural") method. Therefore it doesn't make sense to have two redundantly-titled categories with completely different articles sorted into them.

All the articles about observational methods of birth control should be sorted into a single category, rather than spread across two separate ones, in order to make navigation between related articles easier for readers. What this category shoud be titled is something that can be resolved. -Severa (!!!) 19:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

They're not spread; they're duplicated. I had missed putting CM in cat:FA, and BBT in cat:NFP, but I fixed those. Now all the methods are listed in each category. The only difference is that FA is not listed in the NFP category, and NFP is not listed in the FA category.

If you want to go for lumping them all together, I think the sum will be less than its parts. What would we lose? Barrier contraception, very much a part of fertility awareness for many users, would have to go, as would Humanae Vitae and Winnipeg Statement, both of which are immediately relevant to NFP but unrelated to FA.

The NFP category contains articles which explain the historical background that led to the concept's development. FA is also discrete. Frankly, I think it's better to have two categories. One is rooted in Catholicism and the other is rooted in feminism. They're really quite different.

If you can think of a category name that is accurate, go for it. However even though the three of us tried, I don't remember any of us being able to come up with something that does not

make FA sound like it involves sexual abstinence (i.e. "Periodic abstinence")
make Rhythm sound like a fertility awareness method (i.e. "Fertility observation/charting/tracking/detection"
exclude Rhythm entirely (see above)
annoy Lyrl (i.e. "Methods which detect or estimate fertility")

Really, if you can come up with something, please share it. However I still think that the NFP and FA categories bear their own merit as they can be linked in different places. Joie de Vivre 20:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Splitting articles on exactly the same subject — methods of family planning which detect a woman's fertile periods — because some have been subjectively determined to be "rooted in Catholicism" and the others subjectively determined to be "rooted in feminism" is content forking. Per WP:CAT all categorisations must adhere to NPOV. -Severa (!!!) 20:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:Content forking says nothing about categories. Regardless, all tracking methods methods are in each category, except for two: FA and NFP are not in each other's categories, and Rhythm is not in the FA category (it's in NFP and Behavioral). Unless you have a really brilliant suggestion for a name that can avoid the pitfalls, I think duplication is a better solution. FA and NFP are two discrete topics. Joie de Vivre 22:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"Fertility awareness" as a phrase is not a very descriptive term - someone could be read tea leaves to determine their fertile days, for example. But the phrase has an established use that gives it a specific meaning, and I believe we should follow that established use and not go making up our own definitions or creating new terms. Along these lines, please provide a source for the claim that FA and NFP are two discrete topics. Please also provide a source for the claim that Rhythm is not a form of FA. If you find a blog or similar-type article that makes these claims, please explain why it should be given more weight than Planned Parenthood and the World Health Organization. Lyrl ^Talk _C 22:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

(un-indent) Sources for distinguishing NFP as specifically Catholic, FA as non-religious:

1) From the BBC:

"Natural Family Planning (NFP) is sometimes referred to as the "Fertility Awareness Method" (FAM), especially by those who are into it for non-religious reasons and those who choose to use barrier methods rather than abstain during fertile days."

2) From Fertaware.com:

"NFP was developed by Catholics and is informed by Catholic values and beliefs. NFP is not thought of as contraception but as a way to space children. Two major differences between FAM and NFP are that NFP insists on "abstinence" during the fertile period and instruction is sometimes only offered to married or engaged couples. Moreover, whereas a secular teacher may speak in terms of self-reliance, health, and sexuality, a Catholic teacher may emphasize religious or moral principles."

3) From Nurtured Birth:

"I intend to teach... how to avoid pregnancy using contaceptives (FAM) or abstinence (NFP). My classes will contain no religious content and will be open to all couples as well as individual women who want to have a better understanding of their fertility cycle. If you desire Fertility Awareness instruction in conjunction with Catholic or Christian teachings on family planning, you may benefit from contacting local instructors from The Couple to Couple League." Coincidentally, the Couple to Couple League uses the term NFP all over their website.

4) From Epigee.org: "Natural Family Planning (NFP) is an umbrella term for various forms of birth control that do not involve any hormones or physical barriers to prevent pregnancy, but instead rely on periods of abstinence during a womanï¿½s menstrual cycle. "

As far as classification of Rhythm, #3 also has an entire section titled "Why Fertility Awareness Works and the Rhythm Method Doesn't".

Separate NFP and FA categories are useful and beneficial. Joie de Vivre 23:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

1)"sometimes referred to as" - meaning, they are the same thing by different names.

2)Meets the criteria I set for calling NFP "distinctive" from FAM. As the largest FA organization in North America, also has some authority. But, so far this claim is in the minority.

3)"Fertility Awareness instruction... local instructors from the Couple to Couple League" - meaning, CCL teaches fertility awareness. Also doesn't even display understanding of how the Knaus-Ogino Method works - the claim that it assumes ovulation of CD14 is false. No rationale is provided for why this source (a lone FA teacher) should be given more weight than PP and WHO.

4)Doesn't even have the term "fertility awareness" in the article. It's not disputed that some places use the term "natural family planning" to imply abstinence during fertile times, so I'm not even sure what this source proves. Furthermore, if we're going to accept epigee.org as authoritative, also on epigee.org is an article that calls the Rhythm Method "fertility awareness".

I honestly believe the position I'm arguing for has the most support from outside sources. I would be curious if better sources for JdV's position could be found. Lyrl ^Talk _C 00:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you ask for sources just so you could criticize them, Lyrl? It's hard to AGF in these circumstances. Those sources are cursory. It's plain that NFP more often has to do with the Catholic practice. Do you contest the existence of separate Natural family planning and Fertility awareness articles as well? Joie de Vivre 01:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What am I supposed to do, roll over and play dead? If I disagree with something, I will say so. If I believe there is consensus for my position, I will act within Wikipedia processes to assert my position, including nominating the NFP category for deletion if it comes to that.

An argument for merging the NFP and FA articles can certainly be made - have a "taught alongside Catholic theology" section in the FA article. However, even to anyone who would make a mergist argument, the NFP article is in some respects a content fork, rather than a separate subject, since both articles are fairly long already and have further room for expansion. I also have somewhat of a personal stake against merging the articles - creating the NFP article was one of my very first edits on Wikipedia and I would be sad to see it go.

My position has consistently been that the NFP and Rhythm articles should be in the same category as the FA article, beginning when I created Category:Periodic abstinence ten months ago. I have provided both large numbers of sources and links to high-profile organizations that support my position. Being unable to find reliable sources to support your position and then claiming "it's plain" is not a convincing argument. Lyrl ^Talk _C 02:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

For those of you who didn't check the link that Lyrl provided above: when the content of the NFP article was moved to Fertility awareness in 2005, Lyrl soon created the NFP article, and described NFP as "the set of pregnancy avoidance methods permitted by the Catholic Church". Lyrl went on to describe Catholic theology at length and to link to the Couple to Couple League, the NFP files (also Catholic), a copy of Humanae Vitae and a link to the Catechism. What I gather from this is that Lyrl saw NFP as being a specifically Catholic phenomenon, separate from FA.

I support the existence of separate articles as well. It is my view that just as the separate FA and NFP articles allow for discussing their uses separately, so do the separate categories. Lyrl, I am baffled by why you would create the NFP article as a Catholic phenomenon, separate from FA, and then oppose the creation of categories for each. Would you explain? I am honestly confused, but I would like to understand your position.

Lyrl, I would appreciate it if you would briefly and clearly state what you would like to see done, and why. We are all good editors, and I believe we can arrive at consensus if we try to understand each other. Thank you. Joie de Vivre 16:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Relatedly, I think this was my very first edit, from before I registered for an account. NFP is a practice mostly confined to the Catholic Church that is highly related to FA. Lyrl ^Talk _C 23:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My two proposals

We upmerge everything into Category:Behavioral methods of birth control. This way we include everything together. The down side is we are a little imprecise and don't separate the methods of fertility awareness from coitus interruptus or the other methods. Alternatively, we could choose a category name like "Natural and behavioral methods of birth control" or "Natural birth control". Because we are dealing with roughly 6 methods and 5 or so additional articles, having a parent cat and 3 subcats with a lot of overlap is clearly a case of over classification. I believe that the FA article will have links to all the FA related topics and article, and I believe the NFP article will have links to all of the NFP related topics and articles. We can also make sure that the see also sections point to each other. By doing this, we eliminate the need to create two categories that differentiate the subtle differences and overlaps between FA and NFP. Users will still be able to navigate to the handful of articles currently categorized in each category, simply by viewing the article. Then we have a more general category to house the less than a dozen articles in these disputed categories.
The other proposal of mine is to simple merge NFP and periodic abstinence subcats in with Category:Fertility awareness. This acknowledges that the term FA is sometimes used generally in this manner. The down side is that it is less accurate, and JdV has been quite set on not compromising on a purist definition of this term. This category might even work if other editors decided that the rhythm method and LAM simply stay where they are in the parent behavioral category, and that we only include a more strict definition of FA related articles in this categorization. This seems like a harder thing to do because we've had a hard time agreeing on this point thus far.

Those proposals said, I think that splitting NFP and FA into two separate categories is a bad idea because the majority of the articles will be listed in both categories, and we are only dealing with less than a dozen articles in the first place. I also think the title "periodic abstinence" is poorly chosen because not all the methods listed require abstinence (generally a religiously motivated idea). However, the purpose of the "periodic abstinence" category, to group all the articles together, was good. If only we could agree on a name. I suggest upmerging them all, or compromising on the term FA.-Andrew c 20:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew's second proposal wholeheartedly, and have argued that position repeatedly through this series of debates. I have no preference about where LAM goes (the behavioral category is fine), and believe the Rhythm article can stay in the behavioral category for the time being while discussion about including it in the FA category goes on. Lyrl ^Talk _C 21:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the first proposal. I agree that we would have to opt for a more general title like "Natural birth control," as the scope of Category:Fertility awareness currently includes a biographical article, which wouldn't fit under "Behavioral methods of birth control." While it would be useful to have the methods arranged in their own specific category, with a subcategory for the fertility-detection methods, I think upmerging is the most straightforward solution, as it removes debate over terminology. -Severa (!!!) 03:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If I understand everyone's current positions correctly, JdV believes the current set-up of separate FA and NFP categories is the best solution, Severa believes upmerging and renaming the behavioral methods category is the best solution, and Andrew would support a variety of solutions (mine, Severa's, or JdV's original move of upmerging into the behavioral category) if only the rest of us could agree. How complicated. If upmerging is agreed on by others (obviously not my first preference, but I would respect any consensus you guys form), I don't have a position on the name of the category. Lyrl ^Talk _C 13:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think upmerging would be the "best" solution — just the most uncomplicated. Although I think think the "Behavioral methods of birth control -> Periodic abstinence" organization was sufficient as it was, I don't think we can agree on what the fertility-detection category should be called, much less if there should be one in the first place. But, now that I've given it a little more consideration, I understand that "Fertility Awareness" can be synonym of "a method which detects or estimates a woman's fertile periods." This title would remove the abstinence-only implication which JdV has found so problematic as well as being broad enough to also encompass the use of these methods to achieve pregnancy. I'd also support Andrew c's second proposal. -Severa (!!!) 20:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I am glad it sounds like a consensus is brewing. I think that there is a good side to grouping all the methods together, but I have a problem with using the name Category:Fertility awareness. Rhythm method should not go in a category called "Fertility awareness". I could support the use of a more neutral name for an upmerge category. My suggestion is upmerging everything to a category called Category:Fertility tracking or Category:Fertility charting. These are neutral terms that can describe use of NFP, use of FA, or use of Rhythm. They do not come close to causing confusion with the brand name "Fertility Awareness Method" as naming it "Fertility awareness" would. They also sidestep any confusion caused by grouping NFP-related concepts under a category named FA. I would lean towards "tracking" because not all users use charts. Thoughts? Joie de Vivre 20:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

"Fertility tracking" or "fertility charting" are both names I like. Lyrl ^Talk _C 01:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Severa is experiencing Wikiburnout. Could we give her a few days to recuperate before asking her to continue the discussion? Considering Severa's involvement with this type of article, I think we should wait for her. Joie de Vivre 20:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Lyrl ^Talk _C 00:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I am glad to learn that my input is valued enough that you would wait for me to weigh in before going forward. :-) I think the terms "awareness," "tracking," and "charting" can almost be used interchangeably. However, JdV expressed concerns above about distinguishing the Rhythm Method, which is based on statistical analysis, from the other fertility-detection methods, which are based on a woman directly observing biological signs. Thus, I think the term "charting" is more characteristic of the Rhythm Method, which works by counting ("charting") the days from a woman's menstrual cycle. The term "tracking" is a little less restrictive — a woman can "track" her fertility statistically, or she can "track" her fertility by bodily observation. I am glad that we have pursued discussion, because, ultimately, I think we've found a title that satisfies almost everyone's concerns: "fertility tracking" is short, logical, avoids ambiguous terminology ("abstinence"), and includes both usage to avoid and to achieve pregnancy. Andrew c is currently on vacation, so, perhaps we should wait to see what he thinks. Otherwise I think we have ourselves a consensus. :-) -Severa (!!!) 07:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

On vacation with internet access ;) I think this solution works fine. So what's the next step? A CfD to rename FA to FT, a CfD to delete Periodic abstienence, and perhaps we can weigh in at the open CfD for NFP to say that we have reached a consensus for a new title? -Andrew c 14:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

What I have done in the past for non-contentious moves is change all the article categories, put a notice on all the talk pages directing to a central discussion location (here, in this case), and wait four days to see if anyone objects. After four days have passed, the categories meet speedy deletion criteria #1 and can be tagged as such. Especially considering the backlog on CfD, this is the faster method, and I believe it still invites input from all interested editors. Do those steps seem reasonable?

Also, thank you to JdV and Andrew for putting notes for the closing admin at the CfD for the natural family planning category. Lyrl ^Talk _C 21:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Relatedly, to maintain a record of this discussion, I've wondered if we should move this talk page to Category talk:Fertility tracking. Lyrl ^Talk _C 21:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it would be acceptable to bypass the normal CfD procedures, as, in this case, we've reached a total consensus, and a CfD would only really serve to delay implementation of what we've already all agreed on. I also agree that all of the discussion threads on this page should be moved to Category talk:Fertility tracking. -Severa (!!!) 22:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Preserving this discussion by means of a page move is an excellent idea. I think the idea of speedying per the processes described by Lyrl is a good idea because we have already been involved in 2 CfD discussions concerning this topic, and we reached consensus out of those discussions here (plus the backlog). -Andrew c 23:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Support this. *Woo-hoo!*, consensus! =D Joie de Vivre 00:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)