Talk:Fertility awareness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fertility awareness has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article or section deals primarily with the United States and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B	This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale

Contents 1 The 2 External links - Software 3 Categorization - what articles should this one be grouped with? 4 Couples/women 5 Category move 6 Worldwide view 7 Synthesis tags 8 External links 8.1 Lyrl's involvement 8.2 Current state and suggestions 9 Terminology: fertility awareness 10 TfD nomination of Template:Fertility awareness 11 Pregnancy as side effect?

[edit] The

(The bias isn't strong enough to justify tagging the whole article, so I'm putting the template here for the moment instead. Njál 21:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

[edit] External links - Software

Aware belongs to a nonprofit. I don't own it. Who deleted the link and are they associated with competing software? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.65.61 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 15 March 2007

I'm not sure why it was deleted. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, and link categories that potentially include large numbers of sites are discouraged. But software that tracks fertility signs seems sufficiently rare that I do not have a problem with including it. Lyrl ^Talk _C 22:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

An anonymous editor has been adding a link that deals with NFP, not FA. Also, the link is to a product page where you are asked to purchase something. I feel strongly that this link is not only OFF TOPIC here, but also being pushed to promote a commercial venture. The link clearly doesn't help a researcher learn more about the topic in a GFDL manner. I believe that it fails WP:EL and should be removed. I have asked the anon to come here and comment. I hope that the edit warring will stop until this dispute is resolved. I also hope that the anon comes here to justify the changes (I have asked on the anon's talk page). However, the recent edits have been to blank other links while adding this new controversial link. If no discussion comes from this, I will start to assume that this is nothing but a linkspammer. -Andrew c 03:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Andrew, why don't you read the discussion just above yours. This was discussed and resolved. If you are the person responsible for deleting links I will have you blocked.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.84.156.180 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 15 April 2007.

Please sign your talk page comments. Next, I see nothing in your post, or the conversation above that addresses a SINGLE ONE of my concerns. Please do a better job of explaining your justification for inclusion, citing which policy points at WP:EL your link meets. It has to do with NFP, not FA, which is a different topic. It doesn't help the user understand FA any more, and it is simply a glorified product purchase page. The link clearly isn't encyclopedic. Please refrain from editing the article further until this issue is cleared up. You can't force disputed content into an article. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c 15:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c requested my input here. I have viewed the Aware! site, and I agree with Andrew c's assessment that it is commercial, fails WP:EL and should be excluded. While there are indeed links from this site to "Marian apparitions", the "Shroud of Turin" and The Vatican (which are clearly related to the Catholic religion and thus the rationale of NFP), the fact that it is off the topic of FA is secondary to its failure of the EL guideline. I support the removal of the Aware! link from this article, from Natural family planning if it turns up there, and anywhere else it appears. Please consider reading the guideline, it explains much more thoroughly than I have. Joie de Vivre 16:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Link to Aware provides no additional information (except perhaps that such software exists). There is a shopping cart link on the page linked. I would definitely remove the link, though I will not because I do not wish to be in conflict of interest (having recently become acquainted with and impressed in general by User:Joie de Vivre). However, it's my firm belief that the link is advertising/spam.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by MalcolmGin (talk • contribs) 13:00, 15 April 2007.

The nonprofit is the Fitch Fertility Center. One of the issues with fertility is problems with artificial birth control - rendering women infertile. Also, the Aware application allows tracking of fertility, which can be used to promote or inhibit pregnancy.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.84.156.180 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 16 April 2007.

• So, I removed all the software links. I also scrod up and removed the categories and interlinks, oops. But regarding the software: "perimon" is commercial, or at least fee-based (first few months are free); I was fooled by Fertility Friend, missing the "free!" and seeing only the "ordering info"; and the "taking charge of your fertility" one is also commercial. But: there are dozens of fertility awareness software packages out there; what makes one or two of these worthy of linking to? Wikipedia isn't a web directory; an interested person could do just what I did (google for fertility awareness software) and have a real choice, as opposed to the highly selective pick here. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I agree with you. We have the power to push potential customers towards specific products. By including only a few of the available products, we are biasing the market, which I think goes against wikipedia's principles. It's better to not include any. These products do not help someone who is researching the idea of FA learn more about FA. Sure they help someone track their own fertility, but that isn't the purpose of wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We should try to limit links to articles or webpages that go into more detail on the topic at hand, or official webpages for the topic (for example a band's webpage from an article about the band). Under the spirit of the GFDL, it may be ok to link to free software, but I think removing the commercial product pages is for the better. What do others link?-Andrew c 00:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that the only post that had been consistently deleted is the one that had some links to a Catholic web site, because of the obvious bias in Joie's post above. IT is also, as far as I know, the only non-profit that was linked to.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.84.156.180 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 17 April 2007.

Can you please sign all talk page comments. The top and bottom of every edit page for talk pages explains how. You do this by typing four tildes ~~~~. This way everyone can see who is saying what (and when). The four tildes automatically produces code for your name and timestamp when you hit "Save page". You'll notice that everyone else here signs their comments.-Andrew c 16:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization - what articles should this one be grouped with?

This article has been categorized with more specific articles on fertility awareness since July 2006. It was recently re-categorized with coitus interruptus and sexual abstinence (diff). The old Category:Periodic abstinence has been nominated for deletion.

I feel this new grouping is less useful. Someone unfamiliar with methods of fertility awareness could previously read the intro paragraph to fertility awareness and then have a good idea what all articles in Category:Periodic abstinence were about ("determin[ing] the fertile and infertile phases of [the] menstrual cycle" and timing unprotected intercourse based on that information). I believe the new categorization scheme is not as useful as the old one - it only offers the information to the navigator that behavior modification is involved, like that involved in coitus interruptus. Nothing about fertility or the periodicity of the behavioral aspects. What do others think? Lyrl ^Talk _C 20:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a rough consensus at Categories for discussion to put this article into a new Category:Fertility awareness. I'll leave this notice here for a couple of days, and if there are no objections, go ahead and create the new category. Lyrl ^Talk _C 01:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

So there was a consensus not to have a category periodic abstinence category (which is why the CfD result was delete), and there was an new alternative category proposed here on talk, yet somehow the deleted category got recreated without deletion review? I'm going to remove the deleted category, and we can discuss if Category:Fertility awareness should be created or if we should use the behavioral methods category or what. But please do not say there wasn't a consensus to delete periodic abstinence, when the CfD result was delete. We should have a centralized discussion, instead of discussing the same thing on 7 different talk pages. [{Talk:Birth control]] seems like a high visibility, centralized location.-Andrew c 13:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Couples/women

There are/were a lot of references to couples. I have left the references except where the intention is clearly to refer to the fertility of the woman; however, there is a rather nasty implication of eternal marriage or some such thing. In the hope it can also be interpreted as a reference to supportive male partners, and to avoid introducing opposite bias, I haven't interfered—but the article could do with a bit of feminist input. Njál 21:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Fertility awareness is not like hormonal contraception or cervical barriers that can be used without the male partner's knowledge - for the method to work in avoiding pregnancy, he has to at least not pressure his partner for unprotected intercourse during her fertile period. Even Toni Weschler, who is one of the most prominent feminist advocates of fertility awareness, states in her book, "As a form of contraception, Fertility Awareness is only advisable for those people involved in a monogamous relationship." (This is from p.117 of the 2nd edition of her book). While lifelong commitment or any sort of marriage is certainly not required, some sort of currently stable relationship is a very good idea.

I hope that "couple" is a fairly neutral term (compared to, say, "spouses") but am open to other suggestions for reducing any implication of marriage being a requirement for avoiding pregnancy with FA. Lyrl ^Talk _C 21:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category move

This article has been moved to Category:Fertility tracking as part of a planned deletion of Category:Periodic abstinence, Category:Fertility awareness, and Category:Natural family planning. Please bring up any concerns at Category talk:Periodic abstinence. If there are no objections within four days, these three categories will be tagged for speedy deletion. Lyrl ^Talk _C 21:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

NOTICE: The old discussion at Category talk:Periodic abstinence is now located at Category talk:Fertility tracking/Periodic abstinence. Joie de Vivre 11:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Worldwide view

This article was recently tagged (at the top of this talk page) as being U.S.-centric. I would like to help fix this, but I'm not sure what the editor was concerned about. An explanation would be appreciated. Lyrl ^Talk _C 03:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Synthesis tags

The "typical use" numbers in the infobox, and the "effectiveness" section were recently tagged as being inappropriate synthesis.

• The only explanation offered was specifically: "the same as oral contraceptives". The comparison to oral contraceptives is certainly easy enough to reference ([1] This effectiveness is about the same as the birth control pill or [2] A natural family planning method is as effective as the contraceptive pill, for example). I'm not clear on whether the editor is asking for a reference to be inserted, however, or just indicating their view that this statement is not appropriate for this article. Personally I would be fine either way (adding a reference or removing the statement).

• A table was also added to effectiveness section. I'm not sure what purpose the table is supposed to serve; it seems to me that anyone interested in that level of detail would be motivated to follow the footnotes, while those just looking for an overview are better served by the prose explanation and the table may decrease the utility of this article for them. I think the article would be improved by removing the table.

• The language describing the claim of a 99% use effectiveness was also changed from mildly negative (the paragraph cited only one study that found this, then went on to cite a number of studies that found slightly lower use effectiveness) to completely denigrating ("one unpublished Chinese study posted on a website"). As I have stated previously to the person who edits from a dynamic set of IP addresses starting with 68 and 69, I strongly disagree with the practice of smearing an article's sources in the text of the article. If the sources are actually that bad, they should not be used in an encyclopedia! If they are good enough to be used in an encyclopedia, then they don't deserve that kind of condemnation.
  • Also, the study is claimed to have been published in a Chinese journal. I do not have access to the browsing or search features here. Just to confirm - has the person who added the "unpublished study posted on a website" comment looked through the volumes of that journal published in the year 2000 and verified that the Billings' study was not published?
  • Further, while I agree with the sentiment that this study isn't as reliable as the other studies covered, the claim of 99% use effectiveness is made by the oldest, largest, and arguably most influential fertility awareness organization. I believe their position needs to be mentioned in this article.

• I'm also confused by the tagging of the infobox typical use statistics as inappropriate synthesis. It cites a range of numbers from reliable sources, which are cited in the article. Just like the infobox in the condom article does. No conclusions are drawn from the numbers, the numbers are not manipulated from how they appear in the original sources - I don't understand how this is viewed as a synthesis at all. Unless the intent was to encourage the inclusion of the 1% number from the Billings' study in the infobox?

Lyrl^Talk _C 23:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You make very good points. I'd like to hear the response from the person who tagged the article. -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

[edit] Lyrl's involvement

Just to disclose my history with this section, I'll go through what I have done (or been involved in doing) with the external links.

Immediately before I became involved in this article (while it was still named "natural family planning"), it had quite a few external links: 17 August 2005

One of the first things I did to this article was add sub-titles to the links section, and add links in the same categories that I felt were as or more important than the existing links: 10 September 2005

The external links section remained largely unchanged until Joie de Vivre became involved in the article in October 2006. This resulted in removal of all the "descriptions" links, a couple of software links deemed poor quality, and teaching organizations with links to the Catholic Church; and addition of new software links and websites of secular teachers. Related discussion is at Talk:Fertility awareness/Archive 1#External links organization. Part of the discussion was the criteria to include links to teachers; I wanted to limit it to organizations, while JdV wanted to allow links to individual teachers. In an unfortunately pointish move, I added a ridiculous number of teaching links (diff). These were fortunately removed just a month later by an editor otherwise uninvolved in the article (diff).

[edit] Current state and suggestions

A discussion in April 2007 (#External links - Software) resulted in the software section being removed (diff). In late April 2007 an anonymous editor readded the Couple to Couple League (which had been deleted because of its links to the Catholic Church) - diff. In January 2008 another editor readded the link to the Fertility Awareness Center (which I had added in Sep 2005, and it was caught in the mass deletion in Dec 2006) - diff. And just last week, the link to the Ovusoft website was deleted diff - this probably goes with the spirit of the decision to delete the 'software' section, although the free printable charts and message board community associated with Weschler's best-selling book might have been redeeming characteristics.

The current external links section is disorganized: it first has a link to the "natural family planning" article, saying there are teaching resources there, and implying all the links here are secular. Then it has a link to a very Catholic teaching organization, followed by a secular teaching organization, then a university research website, another secular teaching organization, and finally an informational website on women's reproductive health. This seems like it would be confusing to someone trying to find information from these links.

I would like to remove the hatnote to the "natural family planning" website, instead including the teaching organizations from there in this section (so readers don't have to navigate through the religious websites also listed there). I would suggest including notes on the degree of affiliation with the Catholic Church (which varies between the organizations) in the link description. I would also link to add bold subtitles for "teaching organizations" and "related information", so these two types of links could be separated. What do others think of these suggestions? Lyrl^Talk _C 15:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology: fertility awareness

I reverted many of Lyrl's changes which seem to have been based on a single reference, the World Health Organization's use of the phrase "fertility awareness methods" to include the rhythm method. Clearly, this usage goes against the popular distinction of "fertility awareness" methods as referring to only those methods which involve detection of biological signs of fertility. The most prominent fertility awareness teachers make this distinction: Toni Weschler, author of Taking Charge of Your Fertility makes this distinction in no uncertain terms, as does Katie Singer, author of Garden of Fertility - it is the first question in her educational quiz. Marian Corkill of the World Organisation of the Ovulation Method Billings (WOOMB) wrote to the national news provider ABC about her dismay that the BOM had been portrayed as "the rhythm method", and described the latter as "guessing when fertility might be". Clearly if a national news provider such as ABC can become confused over the differences between rhythm method-based methods and fertility awareness methods, we must take extra care to avoid perpetuating these misconceptions. We must avoid describing the rhythm method and its derivatives as "fertility awareness" methods. Whistling42 (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are pushing a point of view. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to be a platform for clearing up misconceptions. If there are multiple points of view, we cannot take sides and say one view is right and the other is not. It seems biased that those individuals who are actively promoting (or even profiting) from their methods of FA are the ones trying to distance themselves from the rhythm method. I think it could say a lot that a global health organization who has no financial stake or motivation behind promoting FA has made the classifications that they have. But again, we shouldn't say that the WHO's view is any better in the article. We should simply neutrally present both POVs. I believe the older version of the article is superior. It had a more fuller lead (now the lead is too short), it covered more POVs, had more citations, etc.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I am aiming for accuracy. Clearly there is a difference between methods that involve detecting signs of fertility (ovulation/mucus and temperature), and those that do not (statistical/rhythm/Standard Days). If not with the term "fertility awareness", how can we clarify the difference between methods based in statistics and methods based in biology? Calendar-based methods already have their own article; isn't there a way to stay on the topic of non-calendar-based methods in this article? Whistling42 (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The Ovusoft website is very clearly referring to the Fertility Awareness Method, not fertility awareness. The BOM letter is stating that the Billings method is not the Rhythm method. Neither of those sources shed any light on whether the Rhythm method is type of fertility awareness. The Singer website states that "With Fertility Awareness, a woman determines her fertility day-by-day by charting changes in her cervical fluid and waking temperatures. This method is also called The Sympto-Thermal Method." This definition of fertility awareness excludes mucus-only methods (she lists them seperately, as unique methods, not as fertility awareness). Unless one is arguing this Wikipedia article should exclude mucus-only methods, the Singer website is not useful.

Terminology for distinguishing methods that track mucus and temperature from methods that only track cycle length already exists and is being used by the World Health Organization: symptoms-based vs. calendar-based. Inventing novel terminology would violate Wikipedia's guidelines. Lyrl^Talk _C 04:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the WHO is not very familiar with people within the culture of FA, who generally (and often fervently) seek to exclude the rhythm method from a definition of FA.

Nowhere did Singer state that using mucus-only is not fertility awareness. Actually, Singer states: "Please note: Fertility Awareness is not the (ineffective) Rhythm Method, which is based on a woman's past cycles. FA determines fertility by daily charting fertility signals in her current cycle. The method is used internationally, and may also be called Natural Family Planning, the Sympto-Thermal Method, The Ovulation Method, or The Billings Method". Clearly Singer includes mucus-only methods as types of fertility awareness, she just happens to promote a symptothermal method herself. So, clearly, concerns about Singer's definition of FA excluding mucus-only methods are unfounded, and thus that should not be a reason to discount this source.

This is just another instance where we have butted heads over whether to merge articles or keep them separate. Clearly my vision of Wikipedia is different from yours: I envision having different articles for different topics, while you seem to want to have slightly more general articles that group topics together if they are similar enough. This seems to be a sort of philosophical difference that has not as much to do with the content of individual articles but over ideas of how Wikipedia should be structured. Unfortunately our troubles seem, to me, to stem from the clash between my separatist leanings and your mergist leanings. Both types of philosophy are so common (and so different) that they have names. So I don't really know if there is a way to rectify that difference. I think the best way to proceed is to try to understand each other's point of view in each instance, and, in each case, to make a decision that is best for that particular article.

To that end, to help me understand your point of view, can you explain why you think it is important to include statistical/rhythm/SDM in a definition of FA? Whistling42 (talk) 12:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Whistling is right on our different philosophies being a source of conflict on other articles we both edit. But in this article, it's not a question of whether merging or having seperate articles is a better editorial decision: it's a question of what the sources say.

The statement on Singer's "educational quiz" certainly makes it sound like she defines fertility awareness as charting both mucus and temperature, and mentions the Ovulation Method as a related but distinct method. Whistling is right, though, that a different page on Singer's website makes it clear she is including the mucus-only methods within her definition of fertility awareness. So this is one source for that position, and I support including it in the "terminology" section of this article.

I am not following how Singer's position should override the position of the World Health Organization [3], Contraceptive Technology [4], and Planned Parenthood [5]. These are all authoritative sources, they agree with each other, and I see no reason to exclude them from this article. Lyrl^Talk _C 17:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(un-indent) This is not just "Singer's position". This is the position of virtually every prominent FA teacher. The medical establishment's re-interpretation of the term "fertility awareness" is erroneous; they even refer to the rhythm method as "fertility awareness-based". How can the rhythm method be "based" on fertility awareness, when fertility awareness had not even become widely known until decades later? I am not certain of this but it seems likely that the term FA was popularized precisely to distance fertility-signal methods from the rhythm method and standard days. I really would appreciate an answer to the question I posted at Talk:Rhythm, as to why you think that the statistical methods should be mentioned at the FA article. They already have their own article, so why does that material need to be duplicated here? (Also the entire first part of the History section is a word-for-word duplication of the content at rhythm method, why did you reinstate the exact same material?) Whistling42 (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The calendar methods should be included in the FA article because the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. We have verified with multiple authoritative sources that calendar methods are FA. We have also verified that one prominent teacher (Katie Singer) holds that the rhythm method is not fertility awareness, and that teachers of symptoms-based methods distinguish their method from the rhythm method (FAM is not rhythm, BOM is not rhythm, etc.) The assertion that "virtually every prominent FA teacher" holds that the rhythm method is not fertility awareness is an unverified statement: including it in this article would violate Wikipedia policy. Lyrl^Talk _C 10:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that the explanation of the history of the rythm-based methods should be removed from the fertility awareness article. The rythm-based methods such as the standard-days method etc. only estimate the time of the ovulation. But the symptom-based fertility awareness such as the symptothermal method actually measure the time of ovulation through basal body temperature / cervical mucus / cervix position and form. That is a big difference. Measuring and estimating something have nothing to do with each other. The reason why the rythm-based method is so unsafe is the estimation of the ovulation. But the ovulation occurs on a different day in each cycle. Therefore including the the rythm-based method in the fertility awareness article can lead to confusion about the effectiveness of fertility awareness methods. Dokiwi (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The Standard Days Method (which relies on day counting only) has a perfect use failure rate of 5% per year. The Billings Method (which relies on cervical mucus) has a perfect use failure rate of 3% per year. I am not convinced that 2% per year is a "big difference". It is not my opinion that determines the content of this article, though: Wikipedia has to cite sources for its articles. The vast majority of sources we can find treat calendar-based methods as types of fertility awareness, so this is how the Wikipedia article has to approach the subject, regardless of the opinions of individual editors. Lyrl^Talk _C 14:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The Standard days method has a 5 % failure rate for perfect use but only if your cycle is between 26 and 32 days long. However for the Knaus-Ogino method which is very similar to the previous one this failure rate is already 9 %. The perfect use failure rate of the symptothermal method which actually measures the time of ovulation is under 1 %. So, I would say that this is a big difference. The safety of the symptothermal method can be compared to the pill. Dokiwi (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

For symptothermal methods that use the Five Day Rule or the modified Doering Rule used in the recent German study, the failure rate is under 1%. For symptothermal methods that use the Dry Day Rule the failure rate is 3%. Popular symptothermal methods like that promoted by Toni Weschler use the Dry Day Rule; it is incorrect to state that all symptothermal methods have perfect use failure rates of less than 1%. Lyrl^Talk _C 16:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That's right. Sorry. However, that makes it even more important to show that there is a symptothermal method (from the AG NFP Germany) that was evaluated in long-term studies (since 1985) which has failure rates of under 1 %. Thus, these different symptothermal methods should be distinguished from each other. Dokiwi (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Fertility awareness

Template:Fertility awareness has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Lyrl^Talk _C 03:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pregnancy as side effect?

A recent edit adding "those associated with contraceptive failure" to the possible side effects of fertility awareness. While this is true, it is true of all birth control methods, and is somewhat beside the point: any contraceptive significantly reduces the risk of pregnancy when compared to no method at all. Aside from a discussion of justifying life-threatening side effects in the COCP article (last paragraph in this section), none of the other Wikipedia contraception articles even mention side effects associated with pregnancy.

I'm curious if the editor believes all the other articles need to be changed, or if there is something unique about fertility awareness that merits this mention here but not elsewhere. Lyrl^Talk _C 23:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)