Talk:Condom

Effectiveness study results

Consider the following sentence, occurring under the header Effectiveness: The typical use pregnancy rate among condom users varies depending on the population being studied,that is how you were born the condom broke, ranging from 10–18% per year.[46] The perfect use pregnancy rate of condoms is 2% per year. I think the meaning of the phrase 'x% per year' is unclear here. Condom failure would be just a percentage IMO, e.g. 2 out of 100 times = 2%. The 'per year' part is either redundant or not well explained. Unfortunately I couldn't retrieve the original study. I suggest using this source: http://www.americanpregnancy.org/preventingpregnancy/malecondom.html. This source indicates a typical use failure rate of 14-15% and an effectiveness of over 95% with perfect use.(Thepillow (talk) 09:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC))

Sentence with no end

In the section about rubber manufacturing (History chapter), there is a sentence that ends like this: they could stretch and did not tear quickly when. Tear quickly when what? (Thepillow (talk) 09:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC))

Snugger Fit

I think something should be mentioned about snugger fit condoms, if not an entire article dedicated to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dontknowhow89 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

A section about sizing should be added. Wikipedia is a popular source for information and I'd consider it highly preferably if Wikipedia could feature definitive information on condom sizing as many sites are unreliable. Almost all distributors and manufacturers of condoms measure the length and width the condoms. Condoms are essentially a cylindrical bag and therefore principles that apply to circles are involved. Circles are not measured with width, they have diameter. There is a very important difference with width and diameter in relation to condoms. The "width" is measured by flattening a condom and measuring the flattened width. Anyone with a basic understanding of mathematics and anatomy will realize that the width of a flattened condom has no direct relationship to a penis. This method of measurement only has any validity when it is multiplied by two, this will equal the circumference of the condom. This is important as the two easily measured things on a penis are the circumference (girth) and length. This information is not immediately obvious. It is an easy mistake to think that when manufacturers and distributors of condoms are referring to diameter when reading about the condom's "width"; no one flattens their penis to measure. If anyone misunderstands the dimensions of the condom, they may be using an I'll fitting condom which will cause problems with it's effectiveness. If the "width" of a condom is described as half the circumference of the condom and accompanied by a chart that can be acquired from any sex advice site, you will have the most useful condom size guide on the entire net. The thickness of the condom should be mentioned in calculating the inner circumference of the condom however it is negligible. If a condom has a width of 2.5" it's circumference is 5" which is reliable enough information considering the elasticity of condoms. No site I have found mentions these facts on the width of condoms. I cannot stress thew stupidity of this. The mathematical principles of a circle/sphere are relevant to a condom and therefore width in this manner is completely useless, mainly because no one measures the width of a circle, you can't technically, it has a diameter instead due to the inclusion of pi.

Spray-On Condom

The information about the spray-on condom is inaccurate. The project is delayed, if not stopped for good. Should be corrected or rather added. Reference is here. Wikisisou (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Condoms around the world

I found this http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/personal/10/31/mf.safe.sex/index.html about efforts to get people to use condoms in various countries (Ethiopia, India) - but I'm not sure exactly where this belongs. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

In Britain they may be called French letters

They may have been called that in the past (I believe in the 1940's), but today if you walked into a chemist in Britain and asked for a french letter, most wouldnt understand and condom is the most popular name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailor iain (talk • contribs) 23:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Condom use among pedophiles

Have there ever been studies on the percentage on pedophiles and/or rapists that use condoms ? The idea is that the more people have sex in unhibited, illicit or illegal ways, the less they are likely to use condoms. Gang members and average criminals have reportedly used less contraception than the average population, is least in terms of the ratio on condom/per/intercourse. ADM (talk) 12:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Effectiveness

This index relies on several assumptions, such as "typical" number of times a person has sex per year, and yes, as noted below,proper use of a condom. What is more relevant is "WHAT IS THE EFFECTIVENESS PER COPULATION". That is assuming healthy sperm and actual, proper use of a condom. I figure that is fairly low, resulting form leakage (poor material) or breakage (if not noticed and the condom is not replaced) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.37.139 (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

On the "strange wording" issue in this section, the statement that non-perfect use includes those who "simply [do] not bother to use a condom" strikes me as rather odd. How can somebody using a condom contribute to the stats on the failure rate of condoms? Jacob (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

One way to look at is something like Viagra pills, if somebody misses one pill they are still "Feeling good" as using the pill. Likewise, if they are in a study group where they are using condoms for pleasure, or they say that condoms is the method they are using, etc. Then instances where they didn't actually use a condom count as failures to use the method correctly (rather than a change of method). (This topic came up before in one of the birth control articles, but I can't find the thread to link to at the moment.) (or put another way - it is the difference between intention and action). Zodon (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the sentence "Even if no breakage or slippage is observed, 1–2% of women will test positive for semen residue after intercourse with a condom" is misleading because it refers to a test of Prostate-specific antigen residue rather than semen residue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.103.35 (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

STD protection

How is it that there is simply "Yes". The body of the article implies that ti is quite imperfect (85% for the VIH) ? I find this very misleading 92.129.183.192 (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Assume you are talking about the birth control infobox in the lead. The box provides a summary of common information about methods. Condoms provide significant levels of protection against STDs. (Many other methods provide little or no protection.) Of course the level of protection varies depending on the STD and on how well the method is used. As you note, the body of the article provides more detail. Zodon (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

According to a 2000 report by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), correct and consistent use of latex condoms reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission by approximately 85% relative to risk when unprotected, putting the seroconversion rate (infection rate) at 0.9 per 100 person-years with condom, down from 6.7 per 100 person-years.[52]

The workshop that is ref 52 gets this data from "Davis KR and Weller SC. The Effectiveness of Condoms in Reducing Heterosexual Transmission of HIV. Fam Plann Perspect. 1999; 31(6):272-279." is specifically about heterosexual sex. The paragraph should state this.

NB Davis and Weller also published a new review in 2002 at http://apps.who.int/rhl/reviews/CD003255.pdf also citing an 80ish percentage number for heterosexual transmission.

Picture of penis with condom

They could do away with the penis picture or make it more ad block friendly. I want to read that section but do not want to look at a penis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.60.130 (talk • contribs)

This edit added a picture of a penis that is claimed in the caption to have a condom on it. The picture is of much lower quality than most of the pictures in the article (poorly exposed, poorly framed, not clear that it has a condom or that condom applied properly). Since it is not a clear depiction of a condom it doesn't add to the article, and the low quality of the photograph detracts from the overall article quality.

No reason was given for its addition. "Wikipedia is not censored" (the edit summary given with the addition) does not provide a reason for adding information to the article, and does not address the problems with this image. Zodon (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

User who kept removing the image of the condom was blocked as seen here [1]. It was cleary stated in the edit summary that wikipedia is not censored WP:CENSORED and removing the image of a condom in use on the condom page is censorship. WP:OWN if this image is deemed not to be needed only after the talk and reasons show the image be removed not before. Yourname (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Current picture is good for the purpose, but I'd still press for a better quality picture and one more suited to an encyclopaedia. The crumpled up, crusty looking 80's bed sheets aren't ideal, nor is the resolution. In the mean time, it must stay as this encyclopaedia isn't censored.--218.143.102.89 (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The current picture does nothing for the purpose of illustrating the usage of a condom that the right hand side panel of illustrations does not do. Furthermore, the picture is of poor quality and composition. That Wikipedia is not censored is no excuse for unnecessary personal additions in the guise of illustrative content. I recommend its removal. 38.117.185.152 (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Reverting changes made by Yourname. Block log shows evidence of wiki-vandalism [2]. Regarding the non-censorship of content, at question here is not whether the removal of the image is censorship, but rather whether the addition of the image is necessary. The illustration on the right hand side do adequate job of demonstrating the process of putting on a condom, whereas the picture on the left does not add anything. Zodon's concerns are reasonable regarding picture content. Aintaer (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Use picture

The "use" section of this article has for some time contained a line drawing showing in four panels how to apply a condom. This drawing was recently replaced with an eight-panel series of photographs: Image:Pullcondom.jpg

I believe the line drawing is superior for two main reasons:

• It provides the same quality of information in half the number of panels. Many readers would have to scroll to view all eight panels of the photo series, while the line drawings can be viewed all on one screen.
• Some readers are made uncomfortable by images of genitalia. If a photo contributes something important to an article, it should be included. But if the same information can be provided by a non-graphic image, the article quality can be maintained while making it accessible to a wider audience by using the non-graphic image.

Lyrl^Talk _C 21:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that, in terms of technical quality, one image is any better than the other. Given the nature of the topic and the issues above, I think therefore the drawing should be used. Wikipedia may not be censored, but there is no need to illustrate something in a manner which is more off-putting (to some) than necessary. --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that the photograph is slightly clearer, but I don't have a strong preference for it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the "drawing" File:CondomUse2 alternative.jpg was in fact made by processing the 4 photograph sequence File:CondomUse.jpg. I would personally choose this unprocessed version as the illustration for the page. I feel it is clearer. Generally, for illustrating sex acts the consensus comes down in favor of artwork of some sort, as photographs are so strongly associated with internet porn (with its unsafe joyless sex and credit card scams!). But putting on a condom is the last thing anyone associates with pornography. --Simon Speed (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Condom/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Thank you for nominating this article. I will review it over the next several days. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 09:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

First review

(Based on this revision dated 2009-07-01)

Thank you for nominating this article for good article review. I have assessed it against the six good article criteria, and commented in detail below:

1. Writing:

(a) Prose

• The prose is generally clear throughout the article. A few minor issues with spelling and grammar:

• Legal obstacles to manufacture and promotion of contraceptives were passed in many countries.: Reword this in a better manner - perhaps laws prohibiting the manufacture...were passed etc.
• Still, condoms were promoted: Use Despite this instead of still.
• Condoms were not promoted for disease prevention; the medical community and moral watchdogs considered STDs to be punishment for sexual misbehavior.: Replace the semicolon with a conjunction.
• teaching about venereal diseases and how they were transmitted. They generally taught that abstinence was the only way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases.: Rewrite in the passive voice, using children or students as subjects.
• The stigma on victims: Replace on by against.
• there continued to be social and legal obstacles to condom use in place in the U.S. and Europe.: Reword this to make it more clear and maintain the continuity of case - social and legal obstacles to condom use continued to be in place in the the U.S. and Europe
• condoms sales : Replace with condom sales or sale of condoms.
• Because it used water to suspend the rubber instead of gasoline and benzene, it eliminated the fire hazard previously associated with all condom manufacturers. Avoid beginning a sentence with because. Also, how could a fire hazard be associated with manufacturers? Shouldn't it have been associated with factories or manufacturing processes instead? Please clarify.
• During the Depression, condom lines by Schmid gained in popularity: that company still used the cement-dipping method of manufacture.: Merge the second half of this sentence with the following one to maintain continuity.
• (e.g. vaseline) Replace the parantheses with commas, and e.g. with such as.
• Condoms made from one of the oldest condom materials, labeled "lambskin" (made from lamb intestines): Reword to Condoms made from lamb intestines, labeled "lambskin". The antiquity of lambskin is discussed earlier in the article.
• they recommend : Convert to singular, since the subject (WHO) is in the singular.
• all-over on: No hyphen between all and over. Also delete on.
• either the inside, outside, or both; Reword to the inside, outside or on both sides of the condom;.
• have a bulb-shape Replace with are bulb-shaped.
• Studded condoms should be avoided with anal intercourse as it Replace it with they to maintain coherency of number.
• Placing pinholes: The verb piercing might be more appropriate than placing.
• sexual education: Use either this or sex education consistently through the article.
• CPT (Cone Penetration Test): Place the abbreviation in parentheses and after the expansion.

• Either American or British English should be used consistently throughout the article. The trend seems to favo(u)r American English, and it is suggested that all spellings conform to the same.

(b) Manual of style

• The lead section is generally satisfactory and sums up the article well, but a line about the use of condoms in sex education and fertility treatment could be added.
• The layout of the article could use a few changes:

• The section on Public policy seems out of place on its own and could be merged into one of the preceding sections (Prevalence, etc.)
• Since the hatnote specifically mentions the article to be about the male contraceptive device, the sub-section on "Female condom" is unnecessary. Also, the redirect to the French town could be merged into the second hatnote.
• The sub-section on "Natural Latex" sounds over-emphasised. It is suggested that this be renamed to either "Natural" or "Latex".
• The section on Research could be merged with the sub-section on "Other".

• Peacock terms and weasel words, such as the following, should be avoided:

• For the boom of the condom industry, it appears there is no end in sight.
• One analyst described the size of the condom market as something that "boggles the mind".

2. Sourcing:

(a) References

• It is suggested that harvnb citation templates be used while referring to the books by Collier and Kippley.
• References need to be standardised to a uniform format.

(b) In-line citations

• The following sentences require in-line citations:

• Founder of psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud opposed all methods of birth control on the grounds that their failure rates were too high. Freud was especially opposed to the condom because it cut down on sexual pleasure.
• From 1955–1965, 42% of Americans of reproductive age relied on condoms for birth control. In Britain from 1950–1960, 60% of married couples used condoms. The birth control pill became the world's most popular method of birth control in the years after its 1960 debut, but condoms remained a strong second. Note: Every statistic must be referenced with an inline citation.
• They have a greater ability to transmit body warmth and tactile sensation, when compared to synthetic condoms, and are less allergenic than latex.
• According to the Ocean Conservancy, condoms, along with certain other types of trash, cover the coral reefs and smother sea grass and other bottom dwellers.

(c) Original research

• The following appear to be WP:OR and must either be referenced or removed:

• Several factors account for typical use effectiveness being lower than perfect use effectiveness (and the factors mentioned).
• In the Muslim world, condom use is a hotly-debated issue. Also, the section on Kenya immediately after this sentence would suggest that it is an Islamic country, despite having a Muslim population of only 10% - as per this article and the sources mentioned therein. It is suggested that material from the Middle Eastern countries be used, if available, in order to provide more information on condom use in the Muslim World.

3. Broadness:

(a) Topic coverage

• The article addresses the main aspects of the topic satisfactorily.

(b) Focus

• The article stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail per WP:SS.

4. Neutrality:

• The article largely maintains a neutral tone throughout. However, the section on Cultural factors focuses only on the opposition to the use of condoms. Material covering support for use of condoms, or cultures where condom use is commonly accepted, should also be incorporated.

5. Stability:

• The edit history reveals the article to be stable with no recent edit wars or content disputes.

6. Images:

(a) Copyright status

• All the images have been tagged with their copyright status.

(b) Relevance and captioning

• The connection between the WW-I poster warning of the dangers of prostitution and the article is not clear. Other images are relevant to the topic.
• Images have been provided with suitable captions.
• Images illustrating various types of condoms, the condom manufacturing process, and alternative uses of condoms, if available, would be useful additions to the article.

As a result of the above, I have placed the article on hold, and editors have upto a fortnight from today to make the necessary changes. At the end of this period, the article will be re-evaluated, and a decision on whether to promote it to GA status will be taken. Feel free to contact me on my talk page for any clarifications. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to first review

 Done

• All prose concerns have been addressed
• Lead expanded as suggested
• The suggestions for the hatnote and public policy section have been implemented
• Wording about "boom of the condom industry" removed
• Collier and Kippley references converted to {{rp}} template
• OR concerns addressed
• Possible factor increasing condom use added to cultural factors section
• Caption on questioned image changed to better tie the image into the article

Not done / Needs clarification _{(Note from reviewer: I have responded below, based on this revision. My comments are in italics. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC))}

• I looked for the English spellings I am familiar with (colour, favour, centre, oestrogen) and did not find any in the article. Would the reviewer be more specific about the problem words? I could find at least one - flavoured under the Varieties section.
• It is true that the hatnote specifies this article is about male condoms; however, it is also true that numerous readers do not read hatnotes. My experience with the intrauterine device article is that even though the hatnote says the article is about non-hormonal devices, readers still expect the hormonal devices to be covered in the article: lack of such coverage results in numerous IPs inserting it. While IP edits would never be a problem on the condom article (it is permanently semi-protected), I relate this experience because such a pattern of edits is a symptom that readers are not finding what they are looking for in an article. Having a small section on the female condom provides a link to that article for readers who miss the hatnote. For this reason, I am reluctant to remove that section. I think this is a policy issue that would be better addressed at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote. However, it would be fine, as User:WhatamIdoing has suggested, to just give it a mention under the Other section.
• "Latex" can be used to mean either a product of natural rubber, or the synthetic product polyisoprene. "Natural" can mean either natural latex or lambskin. Neither term alone is specific, so I did not make the suggested change. Point noted - change not required.
• All condoms discussed in the varieties section, including under other, are currently available for sale, and this section is near the top of the article. All the condoms discussed under research are not available anywhere. As such items are probably of less interest to most readers, this section is at the bottom of the page. This also creates a nice "past (history section), present (bulk of article), and future (research)" format for the article. If possible I'd like to avoid the suggested merger of the other and research sections. Your point about chronological classification is well taken. However, the version I reviewed had spray-on condoms mentioned in both sections, which made it unclear as to what the classification was actually trying to achieve. However, this has now been rectified, so the point comes across, and the merger is no longer required.
• The "boggles" is presented as a quotation, not a statement, it is cited, and the text notes that it is a single person who made that statement. I believe including the quotation helps the reader grasp the size of the condom manufacturing industry better than simply saying there are "numerous" manufacturers. Is this sentence a for sure no-go for a GA article? It is not a sure no-go, but contrasts with the style of the rest of the article.
• Three of the sentences described as "needing citation" were already cited: the relevant citations also support the sentence or two that follows the problem sentence. The fourth identified sentence has been modified so it is now in the same position as the other three. Is it required to repeat a citation on every sentence if the same cite supports two or three sentences? The general rule of thumb (from WP:V) is that All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. This would include all statistics. However, one reference for an entire paragraph is satisfactory, as long as the entire material is from the same source.
• I formatted two references (the one for the government of India procuring 1.9 billion condoms, and the one about the Catholic Church opposing condom use). Are there others that need formatting? References # 2 and 108 need formatting. Also, references # 5 and 106 lack access dates, reference # 26 redirects to a page which does not reflect the content of the footnote, and references # 22, 41, 43, 54, 76 and 86 are all dead links.
• I searched for additional pictures on Commons, and also looked through the first 100 results for CC-BY-SA condom images on flikr. These searches did not yield any pictures of different types of condoms, condom manufacturing, or any of the alternate uses discussed in this article. Images are only a recommendation - they are not absolutely essential. If free-use images cannot be found, there is no compulsion to add any images to the article.

Lyrl^Talk _C 20:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Having read through this, here are my thoughts on some of the outstanding issues:

• Inclusion of female condom is an appropriate way to contrast the male condom with related options, and to provide context. It might be okay to de-emphasize it by merging it with the "other" section.
• Differentiation of current products and speculative/future/research is appropriate.
• The "boggles" quotation, while not something that it would have even occurred to me to ever add, adds color to the writing. Many of the proposed changes to the prose, while fine, were simply changes to make the article reflect the reviewer's personal stylistic preference rather than actual grammar and syntax problems (something that I'm sensitive to, because I have the same fault), and I assume that this is a similar request.
• That WP:V (or WP:GA) requires citations to be repeated after every sentence in a paragraph is a common misconception.
• WP:GA doesn't even require the presence of any images in an article. The reviewer's comments were (very good) suggestions, but finding such images is not required, so I wouldn't worry about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to second review

 Done

• flavoured changed to flavored
• Formatted citations 2, 88, and 106 (was 108 in discussion above)
• Added access dates to citations 5 and 103 (was 106 in discussion above)
• All dead and redirecting links fixed (verify)

Not done

• The items currently in the Other section are niche products. While female condoms are significantly less popular than the male variety, they are still used on a large scale: about 12 million used in 2005. I'm not convinced that it's appropriate to group them with anti-rape, collection, and novelty condoms. I'll like to wait a few days to see if there is any further discussion on this before making any changes.

Lyrl^Talk _C 03:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

IMO, that's a good reason for keeping it separate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I have requested for a second opinion on this review. Perhaps we can arrive at a consensus after that. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• If this is still a live issue, I would remove the Other section. The female condom is mentioned not only in the hat but also the lead, you could also add it as a see also. The anti-rape condom is a variety of the female condom. Collection condoms are discussed extensively below. And I'm not sure that "novelty condom" needs to be included, for example, there is no section in pencil for novelty pencils. At the same time, I don't think the Other section should stop this from being named a good article if the other issues have been addressed. I think it is difficult to deal with the issue of the female condom in a way that will be most useful to readers. We seem to not want a detailed discussion since there is another article, in that case I have no strong objection to a one sentence description with another link. I would probably at least put a "see below" with the collection condom. It can really be a Good article with or without the "Other" section (even though I would remove it as described). Thatcher 02:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Second opinion

Having read through the issues raised by the original reviewer, it seems that ENGVAR spelling and formatting of references remain as concerns.

I copied the entire article into MS Word and spell-checked it against the US dictionary. I've amended: sulphur->sulfur; litre->liter; travelling->traveling; aluminium->aluminum; combatting->combating; and believe that all spellings now match the US variants. The check also brought up the phrases "sensoring equipment" and "contracepting couples". These are (at best) awkward, and the article would benefit from minor rephrasing there. It may also be that "sociocultural" is better hyphenated. None of these would prevent me from concluding that the concerns about spelling have been met.

I accept that MEDRS is valuable in producing top-class medical articles, but I think it needs to taken in context here. Conformity with MEDRS is not a direct requirement of GA (although obviously desirable), and this article has broader general interest and coverage than the average medical article. For those reasons, I would expect some more-mainstream references to be appropriate here, and I would not see that as a reason for failing GA. The references do contain a number of reviews and overviews from high quality sources, although I would prefer more, and perhaps more sourcing from textbooks and other well-accepted publications. On the other hand, it is useful for the reader to be able to access so many of the sources online. In conclusion, therefore, although the balance of sourcing might be a disadvantage at FAC, I do not believe it is a sufficient concern to prevent this article from meeting the GA standard. --RexxS (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi RexxS,

Thanks for your response. If you happen to still be watching this page, your first sentence mentions ref formatting, but this isn't mentioned again, and the last paragraph is focused on selection of reliable sources. I'm not sure whether ref formatting (an issue about which the GA criteria are entirely silent) continues to be a concern, or if perhaps the choice of sources was more important to you than their appearance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes - the original reviewer mentioned ref formatting and I didn't see a "done" for that, so I was attempting to discern the outstanding issues that SBC-YPR still had. As far as ref formatting goes now, all I can see now are a few nit-picks that really shouldn't be a problem for GA: there's a small inconsistency in punctuation with authors that I'll go through and fix. The question of selection of sources seemed to be an issue for SBC-YPR, so I merely wanted to provide another view on that. I'm keeping the page on my watchlist, so please feel free to raise anything else that I haven't made clear. --RexxS (talk) 10:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: the inconsistencies with authors arises because the {{cite journal}} templates (and similar) allow authors to be given as "|last |first |coauthors" or "|last1 |first1 |last2 |first2 ..." or "|authors". Using "|last |first |coauthors" produces lastname, firstname; ... with the punctuation fixed by the template. Unfortunately a common citation style is lastname firstname, ... - as pubmed uses for example. So different editors using the freeform "|authors" will sometimes mimic pubmed and produce a mixture of styles for author names.

Anyway, I think I've made them all consistent. I found a couple of points: current ref 52 had a different author list previously from that given by pubmed - could you check out that ref? Current ref 105 is credited to Aiko Hayashi (from Associated Press), the CBS report has Bootie Cosgrove-Mather in the by-line. I don't know if it's preferable to credit the original reporter or the one responsible for the actual news article cited - your guess is as good as mine! --RexxS (talk) 11:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The disparity in ref 52 appears to be a combination case of a)spelling out the first name vs. using an initial and b)using two middle initials vs. one middle initial. So the abstract at interscience shows "Cornelis J.A. Hogewoning" while the abstract at Pubmed lists "CJ Hogewoning" and the interscience abstract shows "Maaike C.G. Bleeker" while Pubmed lists "MC Bleeker". I didn't think having two middle names was common, so it's interesting that, of the eight authors on that paper, four have two middle initials and one has three!

Regarding ref 105, there is the same article on the LA Times website, where the only author listed is Aiko Hayashi. As it seems all Ms. Cosgrove-Mather did was modify the title a little, I'm hesitant to list her as an author. I'd rather stick with the current link to CBS (I find their ads much less distracting), but if others think clearing up the authorship issue is important I'd reformat the ref to point to the LA Times website. Lyrl^Talk _C 18:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

another opinion

I think the article is very good, though there are a few concerns. First, I am concerned that the high number of citations used in the lead section is indicative that new information is being presented there. In fact, the lead should be a summary of the article -- while some citations are necessary, information from be cited in the article body and the lead should summarize that.

Second, regarding reference citations, I don't know what the non-linked numbers following many of the linked inline citations are? Since they're not linking anywhere, I have no idea what they're referencing. This does not appear to follow the manual of style.

The "anti-rape" condom needs to be cited.

The debate and criticism section has three main topic sections, but no introductory text in the section. There should ideally be some introductory text which connects these issues together somehow.

With regard to some of the technical criteria, I don't see any issues with neutrality or stability, and all images meet the copyright guidelines. So there are no problems there. The article does appear to be close to GA status, so if some of these style and citation issues could be addressed, I think it's good. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I can shed some light on the non-linked numbers following some of the citations: they are page numbers - see Template:Rp. They are not common in Wikipedia, but seem to be acceptable, since WP:CITE#How to present citations states "Editors are free to use any method ...". Personally, I prefer using {{harvnb}} to cite different pages of the same book, but I haven't seen any particular objection to using {{rp}}. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The original reviewer also suggested {{harvnb}} for the Collier source (it was previously handled with straight footnotes, see the old reference section). I dislike mixing superscript citations with harvard citations, though, and did not want to convert the entire article to harvard citations, so I chose the {{rp}} template instead.

Reading through this, I realized that the reason the original reviewer asked for a second opinion—whether the female condom section should stay or not—hasn't been addressed by either additional reviewer. Do either of you have a comment on that?

I don't have time today, but I intend to address the issues raised by RexxS and Dr.Cash tomorrow. Thanks for all the help so far! Lyrl^Talk _C 21:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, there apparently is a template for those odd citations in wikipedia, so using them shouldn't hold up a GA review, IMHO. Although I have never seen that particular type of formatting anywhere but Wikipedia, so if others suggest Harvard referencing or something else, then I would suggest going with that. I just didn't know what those other, non-linked numbers were, and I'm sure other readers may have been confused as well. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I can see WhatamIdoing's point about readers wanting information on female condoms (and not reading hatnotes), but I think that SBC-YPR is right to ask for focus, given the article chooses specifically to discuss the male condom. On balance, I'd recommend incorporation of a brief sentence into the "Other" section, mainly to provide a wikilink to the Female condom article. That's just my judgement call, so make sure you get other opinions. --RexxS (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for your comments; they're very helpful. It has rather belatedly occurred to me that the anti-rape condom is also a form of female condom, so combining them in the same section makes even more sense. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I've addressed everything except the concern over the number of citations in the lead. Citations 3,4, and 5 appear to be holdovers from when an "overview" section (old version with "overview" section) was incorporated into the lead (version showing only those citations plus one from a sentence that was later deleted). Citations 1, 2, 6, 7, and 8 all used elsewhere in the article to support the same statements made in the lead; they were duplicated in the intro in response to {{fact}} tag additions (I can dig up the diffs if anyone is interested). Citation 5 is also used in the body of the article. Should these citations be removed from the lead?

Dr. Cash was right about the "inexpensive, easy to use, having few side effects" bit supported by citations 3 and 4 not being talked about elsewhere in the article. I've added that to the "use" section, so 3 and 4 are now in the same position as the other citations in the lead. Lyrl^Talk _C 19:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Having citations in the lead is often a sign that you have facts in there that are not developed in the rest of the article. My advice is to examine each of them and see if you can locate the corresponding section where that cite would also fit. If it doesn't fit, consider expanding that section to develop what is in the lead. When that is done, move the cites from the lead to the section (obviously just deleting the cites that would be duplicates). There may be rare occasions where a statement (or quote) is appropriate in the lead, but not in the main text - see WT:Lead section#Problem for a current discussion of that - in such a case it would be appropriate to make the cite in the lead. I haven't the familiarity with this article that you have, so I can only give the above advice as general advice; you'll need to make the judgement calls for each cite in this case. Usually you will find that it's a worthwhile exercise and moving cites out of the lead actually improves the article. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 10:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Only one of the citations in the lead was not addressed in the body of the article. As I indicated above, I fixed that last week, making all of the citations in the lead duplicates. I have now removed them. Lyrl^Talk _C 12:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Recap

The GAN page has an active request for second opinion. What are the current outstanding issues? Thatcher 22:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears that there are no outstanding issues since you've passed the article. I concur with passing it. It looks fine. Though I would still recommend doing something about those weird numbers in the citations. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean the page numbers after the Collier book? Or something else? Thatcher 15:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Citations in infobox

A user has requested sources for the 10-18% pregnancy rate given in the infobox. I have, for the moment, added cites for those figures using the sources in the "Effectiveness" section. As I don't believe cites are necessary in an infobox where the information is sourced elsewhere in the article, I'd prefer to remove them, but I'm looking for consensus here, since I'm averse to removing cites that have been requested. What do others think? --RexxS (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, when the infobox template was first introduced, several of the articles had cites inside the template. After a few months, they were all removed. Considering that the birth control infoboxes have been stable without cites for a couple of years now, I'd say that's a pretty strong consensus against them.

Sometimes when a cite is requested, I'll add a wikilink to where the information is cited (e.g. the "secondary applications" wikilink in the lead). I'm not sure that's needed in the infobox, but linking to the effectiveness section is an option if others want a softer response than just deleting the cites. Lyrl^Talk _C 16:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's an excellent idea. I've commented out the refs and wikilinked to numbers to the "In preventing pregnancy" section. Hopefully that will meet all concerns. Feel free to alter it if you're not happy with how it is now. --RexxS (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Condom template

I've made Template:Condom. I would appreciate any feedback on formatting, article inclusion, and whether it would be useful on this page. Lyrl^Talk _C 16:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Should be fixed!

STD's (Sexually Transmitted Disease) are what they used to be called. I am hopeing that someone may be able to fix this error on the page and change it to STI's (Sexually Transmitted Infections) which, is what they are currently refered to.--59.101.59.177 (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article is called sexually transmitted disease and the folks who work on that page believe it is still the most common term. Any change in Wikipedia usage should probably start over at that page, not here. Lyrl^Talk _C 13:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Poorly manufactured condoms in Africa

Zambian authorities have withdrawn defective condoms from the market. A test on the condoms imported from India revealed that they have holes. The entire batch of scented condoms imported by a Zambian company, Melcome Pharmaceutical, had been confiscated by Zambia Bureau of Standards. Perhaps the matter of poorly manufactured condoms in third-world countries could be mentioned within the existing article. [3][4][5][6] ADM (talk) 03:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't decide about this. Including information about manufacturing quality is reasonable, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and we wouldn't want to overemphasize a one-time thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Study method?

Both in the introduction and the "In prevenenting pregnancy" section, the unit of measure of the pregnancy rate is percentage of pregnancies per year. This information would be much more interesting if you also knew how often they had sexual intercourse, as you could then tell the actual fail percentage of the condom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pål Ræv (talk • contribs) 13:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The average couple in most birth control studies has sex twice a week. Per-intercourse failure rates would be meaningless, however, because of the huge variability in female fertility. During some parts of the menstrual cycle, a single act of unprotected intercourse results in pregnancy more than 60% of the time. During other parts of the menstrual cycle, a woman could have unprotected intercourse all day long with virtually zero risk of pregnancy. Lyrl^Talk _C 19:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Views on Condoms

The article had said: "The Roman Catholic Church directly condemns any sexual acts aside from married intercourse, and also condemns all birth control methods it classifies as "artificial".[95]"

While this is true, I think it is highly misleading in that it implies the catholic church accepts married intercourse as an exception to its ban on sexual activity, when in reality the permissive acts are only a small subset of married intercourse- opposite sex couples only, vaginal intercourse only, ejaculation in the vagina only, no foreign objects (no syringes or tubes to inject semen for fertilization, even if obtained from the husband, during sex; no dildos et cet), no intent to reduce conception chance (i.e. attempting to abstain from ejaculation), et cet. I've changed this to a longer sentence that is a more accurate. They oppose intent to prevent conception, foreign objects in sex (including those lowering conception chance), and technique during sex that lowers conception chances (whether purposefully or not). Their positions are pretty muddled, so it would be difficult to give a concise statement that is accurate and citeable, but I believe the above is essentially correct.--Δζ (talk) 05:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that you've gone far beyond the named source and are inappropriately projecting your own negative opinion into this. It would be just as true to say that the Roman Catholic Church strongly praises sexual activity under appropriate (according to them) circumstances as it is to say that they strongly condemn sexual activity under inappropriate (according to them) circumstances.

In addition to going far beyond the named source in the level of detail, the wording you've proposed leaves the reader with the incorrect sense that the RCC thinks that sex is inherently bad or dirty. The linked source, on the other hand, shows them using words like noble, honorable, meritorious, and worthy to describe sexual activity. I think that the previous simple statement of facts was less misleading than the change that you made.

I also question whether the issue of marriage is even relevant to this article. "Using a condom to prevent an out-of-wedlock pregnancy" doesn't seem to produce a materially different reaction from the RCC compared to "using a condom to prevent an in-wedlock pregnancy". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that my comments are far beyond the sources, however; such sources are readily found by catholic scholars, and generally the catechisms themselves establish every one of my contentions. I was only mentioning them to take issue with the then-present presentation of the issue- personally I find the detail irrelevant and agree its beyond the sources, but I'd rather have a correct unsourced statement than an incorrect or misleading one. We could just take it all out though, which is what I'd prefer, and stick to what they say about condems, which has nothing to do with marriage. The issue originally was what was actually stated by the article which was misleading- that married intercourse is not condemned. I personally don't see what marriage has to do with this at all- condoms are not allowed, the marital status is irrelevant. And yeah, the church finds all attempts to prevent pregnancy to be grave sins, married or not.--Δζ (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Currently the article states: "The use of condoms to combat STDs is not specifically addressed by Catholic doctrine, and is currently a topic of debate among theologians and high-ranking Catholic authorities. A few, such as Belgian Cardinal Godfried Danneels, believe the Catholic Church should actively support condoms used to prevent disease, especially serious diseases such as AIDS.[96] However, the majority view—including all statements from the Vatican—is that condom-promotion programs encourage promiscuity, thereby actually increasing STD transmission.[97][98] This view was most recently reiterated in 2009 by Pope Benedict XVI.[99]" I think this is misleading, as it suggests there is uncertainty whether condoms are acceptable under present doctrine for STD prevention, and especially because it suggests that utilitarian perspective of condoms increasing promiscuity and therefore STD incidence is the basis for the church's opposition to condoms for this purpose (really its just that condoms and their use are bad because they lessen the chance of conception and people know this when using them even if they don't have such intent). Is there any objection to simply changing this to include a statement that condoms for STD prevention are also banned as they prevent (or are intended to prevent/known to lessen) conception? The views on policy change should be left in, but it should be clarified that condoms are expressly banned and STD prevention as an intent is irrelevant. (Even if the partners were sterile and thereby weren't using the condom to lessen conception chance but only to reduce STD risk, the act of sex would still be a grave sin, though not for the use of the condom but for the sex itself- as sterile people may not have sex.) --Δζ (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Your assertions simply aren't true. There is no rule that says sterile people may not have sex; the example of Sarah being claimed to conceive in her old age, despite being both barren and postmenopausal is routinely cited as "proof" that it is not only acceptable, but divinely rewarded.

Instead of pushing your personal beliefs, why don't you look at the authoritative sources, and try summarizing what they directly say, instead of trying to summarize how some people misunderstand or misapply them? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is my burdon to support my claims. I will try and do so shortly. I don't understand why you presume I don't look at authoritative sources or why I'm pushing my personal point of view- asides of course from my point of view that I'm correct and that my edits are acceptable. The fact that you've presumed these things and stated so makes this discussion seem to be more antagonistic than it need be. If you want sources or wish to challenge something, you may simply do so without inferring extraneous motives or incompetence. If I've misunderstood you, I appologize, but if not, I'd appreciate it if in the future you'd simply request sources or challenge edits without inferring motivation or avoidance of proper sources- at least where such isn't shown to be relevant and derived from identified edits I've made, which would at least allow me the ability to contest the relevant claims (I don't know how the preceding claims are relevant in this case nor how you've came to this conclusion, for example).

Hopefully I'll be able to get some citations soon. In the meantime, I presume you object to the proposed changes in their entirety, since you've not indicated your position as to them with any particularity, and hold of on the edits, however; I only intend to post here those citations needed to rebut your challenges, so do indicate any further issues or I'll presume you have none.

Thanks, have a pleasant Valentine's Day :D.--Δζ (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Considering the recent developments here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11804398 I suggest some minor edits to the entries on the catholic position on condoms. In particular adding to the line "The Roman Catholic Church responded by issuing the encyclical Casti Connubii affirming its opposition to all contraceptives, a stance it has never reversed.[1]:228-9" the text "though it may be softening its position in light of the African AIDS epidemic".205.200.192.164 (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction?

The fourth paragraph of this section begins by explicitly claiming that "thinner condoms are as effective as thicker ones," yet goes on to say that some people think thinner condoms may be more prone to breakage. Which is it? 74.227.22.243 (talk) 00:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Emberwing, 22 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The link for source #49 is the victim of link rot. If possible please use the following link in it's place: www.niaid.nih.gov/about/organization/dmid/documents/condomreport.pdf

My apologies if this is not the area to make this request. I was hoping to do a quick fix myself but I lack the authority; I simply don't have the time to review all the proper procedural guides at the moment.

Again, the link for Source #49 concerning the NIH publication "Workshop Summary: Scientific Evidence on Condom Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Prevention" is outdated. A pdf of the same report can now be found at www.niaid.nih.gov/about/organization/dmid/documents/condomreport.pdf

Thank you

Emberwing (talk) 05:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for your help! --Stickee (talk) 05:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Julius Fromm was a Polish Jew, not German

Julius Fromm was a Polish Jew, not German —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.236.7.160 (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible removal of picture

I think the photo of the used condom lying on the street is completely irrelevant, has no informational value and does not contribute to the article. It is also slightly disturbing and makes reading that section of the article cumbersome. Please consider my first reason as grounds for removal, as I know wikipedia is not censored and does not remove info based on editors personal feelings. Dylan (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. I saw that and was just like "seriously?". I can understand a picture of an erect penis with a condom on it, that is totally NORMAL and EFFECTIVE for clearly demonstrating the main subject of this article. I'm sure many people have come across condoms on the street or elsewhere so there's no reason to illustrate this. 76.11.60.85 (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Unknown use

In the late 90s, Turqeys scientists have discovered that the fiber that composes one of the layers contains special cells that deviates light in such a way that it enables blind people to see if put over the eyes. However, this only works at summer and with lubricated latex condoms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.252.108.114 (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Issues with "Criticism within sexual situations" section

This section has no citations. Also, some of the issues brought up are mentioned more concisely and neutrally, with a citation, in the second paragraph of the "Use" section. Liracott (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Neogami, 2 October 2011

I believe this article needs a very minor change. In the section headed "Rubber and Manufacturing Advances", the second paragraph describes Julius Fromm as a "Pole". This is not an appropriate way to describe the nationality of an individual. This needs to be changed as It's an offensive slur. It would be much more correct to simply say, Polish inventor Julius Fromm developed a new, improved manufacturing technique... etc

Neogami (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Done Carl Sixsmith (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Concerning references to "double bagging"

The references given in the arcticle that claim that the practice of "double bagging" actually increases chances of pregnancy are more or less just opinions and do not cite original research. A cursory search turned up http://journals.lww.com/jaids/Fulltext/1997/02010/Multiple_Condom_Use_and_Decreased_Condom_Breakage.11.aspx which seems to point in the direction of two condoms working better than one. I also refer to http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/truth_about_condoms.pdf which seem to have looked at the literature and consider this more of an urban legend..

I propose replacing in the section 'Causes of failure'

"Double bagging," using two condoms at once, also increases the risk of condom failure.

with

"Double bagging", using two condoms at once, is often and wrongly believed to cause a higher rate of failure due to the friction of rubber on rubber. However, this claim is not supported by research. The limited studies that have been done on the subject support that double bagging is likely not harmful and possibly beneficial.

Rzztmass (talk) 09:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

•  Done - with a small tweak for weight. However was better removed as it seemed leading and I removed the word wrongly as that also seemed undue and better removed. Youreallycan (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Odd phrase in religious criticisms section

"...the Vatican's principles on sexuality and preservatives ...". What on Earth is meant by "preservatives"? Considering there were quite a few typos in the paragraph, I am wondering if an editor accidentally used a completely wrong word. Read most of the two citations in the para., the info is legit, couldn't find this word or phrase though. Only read "most" though... Huw Powell (talk) 00:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You haven't heard "preservative" as a synonym of "condom", really? It's a perfectly cromulent English term, though to my sense a tad unusual/old-fashioned/euphemistic today. Try the Urban Dictionary entry. I think it's the normal word for condom in romance languages, so it's no wonder the Pope used it, I guess. You may be lucky they didn't call it "the Vatican's principles on French letters", lol. Bishonen | talk 13:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC).

Edit request on 30 October 2012

The link to "TheyFit" condoms is not valid, the URL of the TheyFit website is http://www.theyfit.co.uk and there is also a Wiki entry at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TheyFit

81.151.170.40 (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done [7]. benzband (talk) 20:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Lambskin condoms and STDs

A while ago I posted an edit saying that it is presumed that lambskin condoms are less effective than latex condoms at preventing STDs but that this has not been clinically proven.

It appears that in the interim it has been edited to say they have been clinically proven to be less effective. The editor posts a reference link to the book "Our Bodies, Our Selves" and to promotional materials by planned parenthood. I have the Our Bodies, Our Selves book. It does not provide any scientific data demonstrating that lambskin condoms are less effective. Nor does the planned parenthood link.

I understand from a public health standpoint how it may be perceived as "doing the right thing" to promote safe sex messages to claim that this has been scientifically proven when it has not been. I have searched extensively on medline and in other sources to find any actual data on this question. There does not appear to be any.

Until such time as someone can produce actual scientific data evidencing that lambskin condoms are less effective, this must remain a presumption and not a proven fact. If someone wishes to edit this page and state that they have been clinically proven to be less effective, it should be done with a reference to a scientific study with data that shows that. References from generic popular "safe sex" materials that echo the common belief that they are less effective are not data. These are just popular beliefs.

It is certainly advisable and prudent to ACT as though this has been proven, but the fact is that it has not been proven. It is a presumption that we make based on other things that we know and for which scientific data are lacking.

If I'm wrong, I would be delighted if someone would post the actual scientific/clinical proof that they have about this. Wikipedia should be accurate. The articles should not make statements that we believe will be good for public health regardless of whether or not they are true. They should simply be true, for good or for bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somekindofusername (talk • contribs) 08:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)