Talk:Contraception

This article was nominated for deletion on May 22, 2009. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles

Sexology and sexuality

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. 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 articles

Religion[edit]

I've removed this statement, "Although according to the catholic church anything that prevents implantation of an already fertilized egg cell is an abortifacient." I don't think that it belongs here. There are other pages that deal with religion and birth control. This page is about biology. OckRaz ^talk 20:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that such statements would be appropriate here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_birth_control#Roman_Catholicism

but not in this article.OckRaz ^talk 21:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Birth Control" versus "Contragestion" and "Contraception" articles[edit]

There have been two major arguments against separate articles for contraception and contragestion. One is that by making a distinction between 'birth control' and contraception (and/or contragestion) one is advancing a point of view, which would violate the NPOV policy. The other argument focuses on how to best organize information and has multiple parts: 1) The user is better served if the information they want is available in a "comprehensive parent article" rather than in multiple locations, 2) There is no information which would be appropriate on either a contraception or contragestion page, but which would be inappropriate to a birth control page, and 3) When articles contain only information which is duplicated on a more comprehensive article, then wikipedia is improved by their elimination. OckRaz (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[note: I've copied the relevant parts of this from the Birth control talk page to the contragestion and contraception talk pages. OckRaz (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)][reply]

POV Issue[edit]

I think that this was disposed of as an objection a long time ago, but perhaps it wasn't. It is common practice to have articles where the topic of one is a subset of the topic of another (eg, there is an article on Homer Simpson as well as one for the Simpson Family). I don't understand how that could be considered to be a POV problem. I personally believe that the POV objection was made not because the existence of separate pages was ever thought to be a genuine POV problem, but because there was a fear that the existence of separate pages might be the beginning of a "slippery slope" with regard to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_pregnancy_controversy

The fact is that neither contraception by itself, nor contraception and contragestion combined can be identical to 'birth control' if birth control is being defined so that it includes abstinence and abortion (which is how the article presently reads). Therefore, while objections can certainly be made on other grounds, there is no sensible POV argument against the inclusion of contraception and contragestion articles in wikipedia. OckRaz (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How to Organize Entries[edit]

I take issue with the term "parent article". "List of tornadoes and tornado outbreaks" is a clearly a parent article to "List of North American tornadoes and tornado outbreaks." Whether Birth control is a parent article to contraception and contragestion seems to me to be a matter of opinion, and it's an opinion which I do not share. I also believe that there is information which would be appropriate on the contraception and contragestion pages, but which would not be appropriate to a birth control page.

The concept of 'birth control' is a social construct, whereas contraception and contragestion are biological phenomena. Birth control is a category of behaviors, substances, and procedures which human beings use to intentionally regulate their own reproduction. Contraception and contragestion can occur naturally in non-human animals. Obviously there is overlap, but there are significant differences too. I'd argue that insisting upon using 'birth control' (with it's social context) as the only window through which one can view human contraception & contragestion comes much closer to presenting a POV problem, than insisting upon multiple lenses through which one can view human contraception and contragestion (such as the biological phenomenon outside of a social and cultural context). There isn't any there now, but there's no reason why the contraception and contragestion articles couldn't have information about non-human animals (both in the wild and domesticated) and unintentional contraception and contragestion (eg, malnutrition and or chronic stress). The only reason that that sort of information couldn't be added in the future to those pages would be if people keep turning the pages into redirects to Birth Control (where that sort of information can never be added). OckRaz (talk) 23:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

definition of contraception and how old the word is[edit]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contraception

Main Entry

con·tra·cep·tion Listen to the pronunciation of contraception Pronunciation: \ˌkän-trə-ˈsep-shən\ Function: noun Etymology: contra- + conception Date: 1886

deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation

— con·tra·cep·tive Listen to the pronunciation of contraceptive \-ˈsep-tiv\ adjective or noun Dream Focus 10:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this page and it did not have much information of any sort of contraception, so I added one of the most common ones, the condom. I also added how it is to be used. How many of you actually use a condom? What form of contraception do you find more effective/admirable? This question is both for men and women.Laleh22 (talk) 06:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Protected[edit]

Saw this come up on WP:RFPP, please sort it out here.

On an unrelated note, that graphical breakdown of "consensus" is kind of nuts in an interesting way. Carry on, rootology/equality 18:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me? Nuts? Interesting?

Nobody's ever suggested that before ;) ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 18:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Scoundrel? Scoundrel? I like the sound of that."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*wonders idly if he could get Crystal Reports to output AfD results like that on a regular basis* --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Contraception[edit]

Should the topic Contraception be split from Birth control or redirected there? Colonel Warden (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to discuss this, I would like to hear your actual reasons for redirecting the page to Birth control. Here are some of the opposing reasons mentioned in the nomination:

According to some of the most venerable dictionaries and encyclopedias out there, contraception is one of the several various methods used in birth control, arguably the most widespread and most commented upon method of them all.
As mentioned earlier, every other method of birth control has its own article. There are even numerous subsets of contraception that also have their own articles.
The subject of the article is both notable and verifiable. The potential for expansion is obviously there.
Additionally, Birth control itself looks overspread and could benefit from the split.

Aside from the last one, these are not simply my personal views. I have no vested interest in the subject matter at all and these seem to be quite are legitimate arguments, substantiated by actual sources listed earlier at the AfD nomination. I also find it suspicious that not one of these arguments was ever answered at all. If you have any legitimate reasons, I would very much like to hear them. If it's a matter of your various affiliations, I suggest you learn to leave them at the door. If this apparently irrational stubbornness continues without any reasonable explanations, I'll take the article to WP:DRV myself. — Rankiri (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that DRV would be of much help as it would tend to focus upon procedural points rather than the content issue (whatever that is). I'm still somewhat bemused by this and suppose that I missing something. You talk of affiliations but I'm not sure what you mean. My affiliation or interest in this is as an AFD patroller with some common sense - it seemed nonsensical that we should not have an article called Contraception. There was some talk in the AFD of POVs but it's still not clear what they are. Treasury Tag's position seems especially unclear as, so far as I can tell, he hasn't contributed in any way to either article or their talk pages prior to this. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some AfD comments mentioned heated political issues and spinning out political footballs. Especially when coupled with the lack of factual counterarguments, I found that somewhat puzzling and indicative of non-neutral points of view. As a fellow AfD patroller, I would not like to see a legitimate page succumb to irresponsible and unexplained actions of two reticent editors, whether it'll be WP:DRV or anything else. Treasury Tag's only claim that the terms are synonymous has seemingly been disproved. The only things that are left are accusative ad hominems and lack of understanding of key WP principles such as WP:V and WP:N. — Rankiri (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish to comment for others, but I feel that the gist of the argument in favor of retaining (note) the original redirect is that contraception and birth control are, for the purposes of encyclopedic content, treated as synonymous. Arguments that they are not, in fact, synonymous smack of wikilawyering in light of the fact that our article on Borth control can include an encyclopedic discussion of contraception - duh! It's fine for CW or others to smack their lips over how much common sense they're bringing to AfD, but the overwhelming view at this discussion was that to allow the content to be distributed between Birth Control and contraception would not serve the encyclopedic ends of accuracy or consistency. FWIW, I agree that WP:CCC and therefore if any editor wishes to raise the possibility of a fork over at Birth control, that is fin and, indeed, the right venue for resurrecting this page as its own article. Until that consensus develops, however, there is simply no basis for undoing this redirect, as evinced by the pre-existing practice of including this content at our Birth Control article & then confirmed at AfD. Surely that is clear. Eusebeus (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, your comment seems to be characterized by a lack of understanding of one of the key principles of Wikipedia. Within Wikipedia, notability refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article. This is why we have a separate entry for Scotland, even though it is only a part of the United Kingdom. This is why we have a separate entry for Amputation, even though it is only one of the key methods used insurgery. This is why we have a separate article for Abortion, even though it is only one of the four methods commonly used in Birth control. And this is obviously why I suggest we keep all encyclopedic information pertaining to Contraception on a page that is directly dedicated to the subject and not on a page that is supposed to discuss a whole variety of fertility controlling methods in general detail. It's not a matter of forking, but a matter of categorizing the available information in a more accurate fashion. As for accusations of wikilawyering, I repeat once again, that it's not my personal opinion but a fact mentioned by at least three most prestigious dictionaries and encyclopedias on the planet and that I have yet to see a single non-POV source that can disprove this analysis:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/wftwarch.pl?091407

"What's the difference between contraception and birth control? Sometimes they are synonymous, but contraception names the deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation; birth control refers to the "control of the number of children born, especially by preventing or lessening the frequency of conception.""

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/135259/contraception

"Contraception: on human physiology, birth control through the deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation."

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/66704/birth-control

"Birth control: voluntary limiting of human reproduction, using such means as contraception, sexual abstinence, surgical sterilization, and induced abortion."

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/contraception

Contraception: the use of contraceptives.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/birthcontrol

Birth control: the prevention of unwanted pregnancies, especially through the use of contraception. — Rankiri (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no article to write about contraception seperate from an article about birth control. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a list of notable topics. Our readers are better informed by one article that is about birth control, which contains all of the information on contraception. An individual searching for information about birth control might very well type in "contraception," and so such an article should redirect to birth control. If your very important eytomolical points need to be made, please feel free to make them in the article about birth control. Please try to write the encyclopedia for the reader, not for the rules. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google shows 12,295 book results [1] on "contraception" (and 12,351 results on "birth control"). I'm not a medical professional by any means, but subsections like "Types of contraception", "Contraceptive methods", "History of contraception", "Social issues", "Contraception laws", "Public debate/Religious views" all seem like obvious expansion choices. See Abortion, Sexual abstinence, and other similar subtopics. — Rankiri (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many of those uses of contraception are used as synonyms of "birth control." Discount all of those. How many of your subsections are synomys of "birth control." Discount all of those. Write for the reader. If you want to argue about moving Birth control to Contraception, the Birth Control page is -------> that way. Hipocrite (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even read the definition? None of the uses of contraception are supposed to be used as synonyms of "birth control". It's a manner of classification. Induced abortion->Abortion->Birth control. Condom->Contraception->Birth control (also Condom->Prophylaxis->Public health). Also, do I understand it correctly that you suggest that Encyclopedia Britannica, Merriam–Webster and the Compact Oxford English Dictionary are all in fact incorrect and everyone should concede to your own definition of the term? All I see is personal points of view that seem to conflict with the facts. — Rankiri (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I and Hipocrite have both noted, as this was originally a rd to Birth control which covers our discussion of contraception on the wiki, I urge in the strongest possible terms that Rankiri pick this up at the B.C. article and make his case for a content fork there, not here. Also, no-one here has a contraception POV - how ridiculous is that - so please stop with that pointless and tin-eared suggestion. Eusebeus (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no one is arguing for a fork. And, again, all my arguments have referential basis. None of your arguments do. I raised the issue on Birth control and hope someone will eventually take it over from here. It's like hitting a wall. — Rankiri (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rankiri makes some valid points. The requirements for an article have been met, different types of birth control have their own articles because its just more logical and because it wouldn't all fit too well otherwise, and the word "contraception" is not a synonym for "birth control". Asking over there if those who have worked with this subject, believe all the information from this article should be copied over there or not, might be a good idea though. Dream Focus 22:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sub heading[edit]

OK, guys? We've heard your arguments. Repeating them isn't helpful. Currently, I think that there's a consensus to keep the redirect. If you wish to change that, you'll have to wait until it happens. I don't see any other way forward. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 08:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way forward is to engage more editors. Nothing has been posted on the talk page of Birth control so I'll take care of that. An WP:RFC seems appropriate too and the time allowed for discussion in such cases is typically 30 days. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off you go, then! And meanwhile, until consensus changes (and the protection expires, come to that) the redirect should stay IMO. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 09:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My main issue with attempting to separate the "contraception" out from "birth control" is the whole "do certain methods prevent embryos from implanting and if so are they abortifacients" issue. Should IUDs be discussed on a contraception page? What about the minipill? Or hormonal contraception in general? I do not believe Wikipedia would benefit from that debate. Keep everything on the birth control page. Lyrl^Talk _C 12:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 12:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fourteen comments and not a single relevant argument. As a an seasoned WP editor with years of editing experience, you already probably know that Wikipedia is not a battleground. So please quit spamming incoherent objections and try to be a little bit more constructive next time. Instead of placing yourself behind an unsubstantiated consensus, give us a chance to listen to and evaluate your own position on this matter. — Rankiri (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have stated my position abundantly. What I am trying to do is to get people to stop stating and re-stating and re-re-stating and re-re-re-stating their positions, we know. I know you want a separate article. You know I don't.

Currently, there is a consensus to have the redirect (yeah, Wikipedia is not a democracy—no, that's not a magic wand you can wave to get your way in any argument your side is losing). The consensus can change, but only with the addition of new editors. They will come along as a result of the RfC, probably. Lyrl came along from outside, and added his/her opinion. "So please quit spamming incoherent repetitions of arguments and try to be a bit more constructive next time." ╟─Treasury Tag►ballotbox─╢ 18:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of what you and I want. If your reasoning is invalid, your personal wishes are irrelevant. Same thing also applies to me, of course. — Rankiri (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a consensus to keep the link. Simply stating and re-stating and re-re-stating and re-re-re-stating and re-re-re-re-stating and re-re-re-re-re-stating your opinions is not going to help. Or is it? On the other hand, the RfC might. So why not just wait? ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 19:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrl, IUDs are already discussed under Emergency contraception. Progestogen only pill is already referred to as a contraceptive pill. And where else should hormonal contraception be discussed, if not on contraception? If "contraception" pertains to the use of contraceptives and "birth control" refers to a more general subject with wider selection of techniques, I fail to see the problem. As for other possible issues, the controversy page you mentioned says it itself: The controversy is not primarily a scientific issue since knowledge of human reproduction and development has become very refined, but rather is primarily a linguistic and definitional question. If my understanding of the definition is incorrect, it's one thing. If it's a matter of possible edit wars and avoiding possible hot issues, see WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:NPOV and other relevant WP policies. Not that I really see how mentioning a possible matter of controversy on one page and not the other would possibly make it look in any way less controversial. — Rankiri (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Silliness[edit]

TreasuryTag (and many others) contended that deletion was justified on the basis of the NPOV policy. I was unfamiliar with how the AfD process worked and assumed that the objection was of the same type as that which would justify editing a page to remove advocacy or bias from an article. As Rankiri and others have pointed out, NPOV cannot be a valid reason for 'contraception' inasmuch as the mere existence of the page (regardless od what is written on it) doesn't constitute any lack of impartiality. (If it did, then why would the Encyclopedia Britannica have an article on both 'contraception' and 'birth control'?) Rankiri is also right that even if the majority of opinions were for a particular result, if most of them clearly were made based on arguments that are not consistent with wikipedia policy or common sense, then those can be disregarded. OckRaz (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, you could try a more holistic approach. Consider editing and expanding the main birth control article. I believe a lot of the old content from "contraception" could go into a "terminology" or "etymology" section. Perhaps if there was enough content on contraception in the birth control article, it may convince editors that the content needs to be spun off. But also, try to integrate the content into the article as not to disrupt flow. A section on "contraception" that repeats already present content doesn't seem helpful. Alternatively, you could copy the old article to a sandbox in your user space (i.e. User:OckRaz/Contraception) and start working on a new rough draft. I think effort spent improving articles is better than effort spent arguing on talk pages.... Good luck.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Create own article instead of birth control redirect[edit]

um, ok, nearly one year on from the discussion - I will create contraception and contragestion article stubs, instead of redirecting both to birth control. I have expanded the birth control article and in common definition birth control includes "contraception", "contragestion" and "abortion". Abortion has its own article already, and we have enough info for contraception and contragestion to have their own article.--SasiSasi (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I see the point in this. The stub you created at contragestion has a single source. On p. 124 of that source, it uses the word as a synonym for medical abortion of RU-486. Not sure where you got the information that IUDs are contragestion, besides the single comment "some authorities point out IUDs and some forms of oral contraception are actually abortofacients". Someone just added a section in this article describing condoms. And then someone else may add a section describing IUDs, then oral contraception, and before long we have two competing articles repeating content. How does this article differ from birth control? Why is this article necessary? I'd support returning both articles back to redirects, but want to see other comments. -Andrew c ^[talk] 06:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how I missed this first time around. Thanks to Ac for his comment; I have restored the redirects for the time being and suggest that arguments for standalone material be centralised at Birth Control talk. Eusebeus (talk) 08:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think having all the separate references to contraception, contragestion, and birth control is confusing- contragestion is a very rarely used word, and even if people did know what it meant, it's a subset of contraception rather than a separate category. Birth control includes contraception, and contraception includes contragestion.Nimravid (talk) 09:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged all three of these articles to birth control per consensus on the talk page. Agree very few people have any idea what contragestion is. And the slight subtles can be dealt with on the birth control page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historical use[edit]

How about some information about contraception through history? There are many plants that have been used for centuries in this manner (with a wide margin of success and failure). Anyone got something usable to put on here about that? Ninahexan (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Condoms not the only method of male contraception[edit]

I removed this sentence: All contraception methods, other than the use of a condom, are applied by the female. Three problems. First, vasectomy. Second, there is a partially-effective method of contraception applied by the male: soaking the scrotum in warm water for a period of time. Third, a female can apply the condom upon her partner. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]