Talk:Natural family planning

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Catholicism (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Catholicism related articles 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Women's Health (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 
Former good article nomineeNatural family planning was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 1, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
April 9, 2008Good article reassessmentNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee


On review (FAILED)[edit]

I am currently reviewing this article for GA statues. Please be patient. Realist2 (talk) 12:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

After consulting the advise of a more experienced reviewer I am going to have to fail the article. One of the main requirements for GA is that the article is stable with no edit wars, ownership or POV pushing. I advise that you sort out your differences, get the article to a place where your all happy and then re nominate it. Sorry. Realist2 (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm totally confused by this. How is the article not stable? How has the article significantly changed since the nomination? Where are the edit wars, ownership and POV pushing?-Andrew c [talk] 13:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have address these concerns with Lyrl above, the decision to not review that article was not taken lightly, two reviewers felt that a combination of vandalism, pov pushing and ownership had affected its stibility. None the less recent days have seen an improvement. As you have waited sooo long and this article has such great potential i will keep it on my watch list. If things stay stable over the next 7-10 days i will fast track review it so you dont have to be in that que. Realist2 (talk) 14:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Although you do start to second guess yourself when your up against an admin. Realist2 (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm still a tiny bit confused (but first, I want to thank you for taking your time to further review the article, and add your comments below). I'm confused what comments to Lyrl you made. Did you have another username? I could not find any comments made by you dating before the 30th. I'm also confused how vandalism (something outside of our direct control) can affect GA status. If vandalism is a problem, we can always get the article semi-protected. But it seems like if vandalism could stop GA, then it would be easy for disruptive users to purposely attempt to hinder GA promotions. Game the system, if you will. Anyway, thanks for your comments.-Andrew c [talk] 15:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It fails critera 5. Stability. As everyother edit is vandalism or the reversion of outsider edits. It fails to reach this aspect. Only 50% of edits made to the article positively improve it, the other 50% get reverted or are outright vandalism. With that in mind how could i possibly pass it... it could degenerate so quickly. --Realist2 (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Steps to improvement[edit]

Some things you might want to consider....

  • Prevalence - this section is good - it talks about catholics are protestants who use it, but are there any non believers who also use it? What about other religions?


Methods


  • Theology
  • A) Official Catholic - In places i have added double [citation needed]. This means it is controversial and might need multiple sources. I also placed another {{Fact}} tag next to something already sourced as it needed extract security.


  • Potential advantages
  • A) Divorce rates - add extra sources where I have put [citation needed] , be specific on how much in improves marriage stability is it by 1 percent or 20 percent.
  • B) Claims regarding communication - Fix [citation needed]
  • Also) True to get it in bullet point form where possible, like it is for the "Disadvantages" section below it. Its much clearer.


  • Potential disadvantages
  • A) Very good section only two {{Fact}} tags need sorting.


Conclusion[edit]

Make all the adjustments i mentioned above. Most of it is citation tags. Try to get some info on other religions and non believers, im worried it isnt broad enough. Ideally you need a picture to satify Part 6 of the requirements, your picture isnt great but i woundnt know what to suggest on that. Get all this sorted and if things have been calm and civil over the next week ill review it and probably pass it.

In places where i put a double [citation needed][citation needed], i can image the extra 1 getting deleted by an editor thinking its an error. Just make sure any tags that are removed by other users still end up getting those extra sources. Some things need 2 or 3 soures to drive the point forward.

If you have any further questions feel free to get hold of me personally. Cheers. Realist2 (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: the scope of this article - by its nature it focuses primarily on the method as advocated by the Roman Catholic Church. Note that fertility awareness and the rhythm method have their own articles. I'm not suggesting ownership, but the goal of this article is not to state what every religion thinks of this method. - Chardish (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Article does start off with "Natural family planning (NFP) is a term referring to the family planning methods approved by the Roman Catholic Church." and has a disambiguation notice above that stating: . So quite in order to discuss only RC's views. I would suggest though that by start of the 3rd screenfull, that "Theology" section header be renamed "Catholic theology" just to again make this clear. David Ruben Talk 23:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it's inappropriate for an article on Roman Catholic views to spend much (or any) time on other religions' views of their theology. Some interesting comparisons are possible: Orthodox churches tend to favor NFP but don't ban contraception entirely, for example.[1] However, adding the views of a pseudorandom group of religions simply for the sake of adding other religions is inappropriate. Including (for example) Sikh views on the Roman Catholic contraceptive rules is as pointless as including Tibetan views in the article on France's 35-hour workweek.
I am uncomfortable with the demand for multiple sources in some cases. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources; however, you've double-tagged something that's already supported by the most authoritative source in existence. Are you, perhaps, not especially familiar with this subject? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems that way a bit. I'm finding stuff that's tagged with {{fact}} that's being found in the sources. I appreciate the reviewer's comments but I am not certain he has read the sources. I removed one of the double {{fact}}s; the fact that the Church's teaching on contraception is controversial does not mean that it requires multiple sources to say that it is the teaching. - Chardish (talk) 07:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Again accusing a reviewer of not bothering to read sources only strenghens the arguments and opinion felt by two reviewers that this article is controlled and owned by specific users with outside edits or ideas dismissed. I quick fired this article (which i had every right to do) but gave it another chance because it has great potential and you guys had waited soo long. The edit history suggests that every other edit is either vandalism or an opposing view point. It is a controversal subject but maybe if you double sourced things like "sinful" or other controversial statements edit wars or vandalism wouldnt be an issue, its called "stemming the bleeding". Realist2 (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The article says its approved by the Roman Catholic church , thats fine, but has anyone else endorsed or encouraged it? The article implies that, not only is it endorsed by roman catholics but its only practiced by roman catholics (oh and a few protestants). If you only want to talk about it from the view point of catholics the article needs to stress that more clearly, otherwise the reader could get the impression that its only used in the roman catholic community. If it IS ONLY used in the roman catholic community MAKE IT CLEAR. Realist2 (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"Catholic doctrine holds that God created sexual intercourse to be both unitive and procreative.[19] This church considers deliberately altering fertility or the marital act with the intention of preventing procreation to be sinful." I fail to see how there is anything POV about this statement whatsoever. It would be POV to call something sinful on Wikipedia; it is not POV to state that a particular religion holds something to be sinful. It is not controversial to state that the Roman Catholic Church holds something to be sinful because it is correct and verifiable that they do hold it to be sinful. It's a statement about what a particular church teaches.
I suspect you might not have read some of the sources based on the statements you have made. I'm not accusing anyone of anything. - Chardish (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Catholic only[edit]

You mean MAKE IT CLEAR, like putting a banner at the top that says "This article is about methods of family planning approved by the Roman Catholic Church. For a more general use of the term, see fertility awareness," or having the first sentence read something like, "Natural family planning (NFP) is a term referring to the family planning methods approved by the Roman Catholic Church."

Oh, wait. That's how the article already begins.

Where exactly does the confusion come in again? Do you think readers forget this information by the time they get to the next section? Don't you think that the 36 mentions of the word Catholic in the article would remind them? Just like the article says (twice!) at the very top, NFP really is a specifically Roman Catholic thing. The rest of the world is over at fertility awareness. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

--I completely understand that NFP is common in the Catholic Church, however, it is important to note that the TERM "NFP" is common in secular circles also, and that this makes this article misleading.

FAM is not the "non-Catholic" version of NFP.

The term "Natural Family Planning" occurs much more often in the medical literature than "Fertility Awareness": 840 pubmed hits for NFP versus 96 for FA (and 39 of these 96 hits also include "Natural Family Planning"). I thus think NFP is the more medically common term. Another term, which for philosophical reasons is my preferred term, is "periodic abstinence" (179 hits on pubmed). Pruss (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit wars[edit]

Realist2, When you complain about "ownership" and "edit wars", are you referring to actions like removal of changes like this one? If that's not a good example, could you give me several examples of your concerns? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Realist2 about edit wars/lack of concensus. You only have to read the last few paragraphs to see that this is clear. This is obviously a heated subject, and one can only hope that it can be solved, but it doesn't look like it so far. I'll give you some friendly advice (if I may):
  • When a reviewer reads an article (and its talk page) he/she expects to see some kind of continuity and concensus. The article and comments about it should be stable. A reviewer can not pass an article and then risk complaints that the article has undergone numerous changes, meaning it has to be reviewed again.
  • A very basic rule of GA reviews is that when a reviewer has some complaints/concerns about the article, it is paramount that he/she be not engaged in a war of words about what they exactly mean/why do they think so/can they explain themselves. In my experience this reflects the lack of concensus that an article needs, and an argumentative frame of mind. Reviewers do it for free (as we all do) and they know enough about what they are doing to put themselves on the front line, so don't argue; just do what "a fresh pair of eyes" ask. I once read a good piece of advice: Let someone read an article that has never seen it before, because they see things that an editor that is heavily involved in the article can not. If you disagree with that, then I can only wish you the best... :)--andreasegde (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you please give some examples, Andreasegde? Apart from some spurious changes which are reverted with an invitation to discuss at talk, or POV-pushing which eventually gets defeated after some time, this article has been remarkably stable. Just because there are still ways to improve the article (as are being discussed above) doesn't mean this isn't GA quality. - Chardish (talk) 16:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Here it goes again. You use phrases like "spurious changes", "POV-pushing", "eventually gets defeated after some time", but is contradicted by "remarkably stable". It doesn't add up. You are arguing for a GA, which is not the way to do things. Would you buy a new car if someone said the features/extras it has "are being discussed"? Stability and concensus are paramount. Don't sell it if it's not ready. :)--andreasegde (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
A lack of consensus on what? The article has really not changed substantially for at least three months. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, now there are two! :)) You are arguing, and are not heeding the comments on this page. OK, let's try it like this:

  • Why does this article deserve a GA rating? Why do you think so? Can you explain further? Can you give me examples?
  • Do you really believe that there is a concensus about this article? Can you give me proof? Can you give me instances of lack of concensus?
  • Is this an article about Catholics and Family Planning, or about human beings, and their way to avoid pregnancy? Can you explain in full, and reference your answers?

This could go on and on, and on, and on... (and on) which is why Realist2 would be right to fail this article, until all the contributors can agree. This is going around in circles, and no amount of questioning will solve it. 1 + 1 is 2. That's a GA article, IMHO. :)--andreasegde (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The full review will take place in 5 days, I suggest you listen to some of this advice, I've never known two reviewers to be shouted down before, we won't be bullied into passing the article. Even if you refuse to accept our assessment that it's turbulent it will still fail because of the multiple citation issues. Realist2 (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not see any shouting or bullying going on. We are asking for clarification on the issues you have presented. - Chardish (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I find this to be very bad form, and sounds like one's juvenile vehicle has lost some of its playthings. If you argue on Wikipedia in such an aggressive way, you will always lose. It is sad, and not to be recommended. Take a step back, and look at in a new light. We are here (as we all are, or should be) to help, and not to attack.--andreasegde (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that arguing behavior is unproductive and that discussing content is always preferable, though I have not participated in the discussion you (Andreasegde) linked to above. That being said, could you please clarify what specific issues of instability you see with the article under review? Citing specific edits would be especially helpful. - Chardish (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Catholic vs. Secular[edit]

To the new editor:

Wikipedia articles live and die by their reliable sources, not our personal knowledge. We have existing reliable sources that say that NFP is used specifically to indicate Catholic Church-approved methods of fertility control. So far, you've provided nothing that says that a person who chooses not to use a barrier contraceptive during fertile periods is using NFP instead of Fertility awareness. Please provide a reliable source before making further changes to the article. (Have you, BTW, actually read the Fertility awareness article?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

--

I am not relying on my personal knowledge. I am relying on the fact that NFP is not solely a Catholic concept, and the fact that you are implying that this is the case is misleading to people looking for information.
Yes, the Catholic Church acknowledges NFP as a Church approved method of family planning, but that certainly does not exclude the fact that non-Catholics use this method. Could you provide to me a reliable source that states that NFP is an exclusively Catholic concept?
Yes, I have read the FAM article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.166.17.96 (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
And where's your list of reliable sources that say that? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
There are varying usages of the phrase "natural family planning". There are some major Catholic organizations - the Couple to Couple League, for example, that restrict its usage to married couples following Catholic moral codes. Secular fertility awareness teachers like Toni Weschler and Katie Singer are also very careful to say they do not teach natural family planning. This is an established usage of the term and it is not misleading for Wikipedia to adopt it. Non-Catholics who use a calendar, mucus, temperature, or sympto-thermal method are practicing fertility awareness. Catholics who use a calendar, mucus, temperature, or sympto-thermal method are also practicing fertility awareness. If a couple is following other Catholic guidelines on sexual morality, then their use of fertility awareness can also be part of "natural family planning".
On the other hand, the World Organization Ovulation Method Billings uses "natural family planning" as a term to describe their method, regardless of the religion of the woman using it. People already exposed to this usage of the term would be understandably confused on arriving here; that's why there is a hatnote, and a comment under "methods" directing these readers to our fertility awareness article.
When reliable sources conflict, an editorial decision has to be made. So far, editors here have believed this subject is better covered by putting all the method information in the fertility awareness article, and using this article to discuss the Catholic approach to family planning. The method information obviously does not need to be covered twice; there is no need to have it under both "fertility awareness" and "natural family planning". And the Catholic-specific information is encyclopedic and needs to go somewhere.
Perhaps there should be a more prominent link in the lead, as many readers seem to ignore hatnotes. I'm also open to proposals to change the structure of these two articles. But I can't see changing this article to be a duplicate of fertility awareness as an improvement. LyrlTalk C 00:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I respectfully completely disagree with you. There are SEVERAL non-Catholic sources that use NFP as a secular term.
For instance-
-The mayo clinic: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/birth-control/BI99999/PAGE=BI00026
-Fertility UK differentiates NFP and FAM here: http://www.fertilityuk.org/nfps1.html#fertilityawarenessslug
-The Institute for Reproductive Health uses the term NFP: http://www.irh.org/nfp.htm
-European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology : http://www.doctorslounge.com/gynecology/news/contraception_natural.shtml
-The AAFCP also clearly states that it is not religiously affiliated, and they use the term NFP: http://www.aafcp.org/
Science Daily: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070221065200.htm


There are many more reputable agencies that use the term NFP in a usage that is not in any way religiously affiliated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.166.17.96 (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)prose
Your recent edits are not supported by your sources. You have been asserting that NFP is defined by the absence of barrier methods, and claiming that the use of barrier methods is automatically FA. Your sources, however, tell a different story:
I agree that these terms are not used rigidly in the real world, especially among non-specialists, and that we have drawn a somewhat artificial distinction in naming these articles (thus the presence of several notes explaining this, like "When used outside of the Catholic concept of NFP, these methods are often referred to simply as fertility awareness methods rather than NFP.[1]"). However, you have provided no sources that actually say that a person using a condom during fertile periods has switched from NFP to FA -- and that's what you need, to have that idea be included in this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, I have provided this as just one distinction. I am quite clear on the fact that FAM are also NFP methods. However, you can not be using NFP and use condoms during fertile periods. Then it is no longer "Natural Family Planning" it is using artificial barriers when one is aware of fertility. I do not mean to offend you, as it is quite clear that you have taken ownership of this article, I am simply stating that NFP is universal. Yes, many places us NFP and FAM interchangeable. Just like many other words are synonyms, BUT, you can not choose, from your own definition, to make NFP a Catholic concept.
In addition to this, I find it interesting that you insist that this article be about the Catholic definition of NFP, but then one of your primary sources is a protestant couple's opinions about NFP. Where are your Catholic sources when you are expressing opinions of the sort that couples are more distant due to using NFP? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.166.17.96 (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
We have sources that use NFP and FAM interchangeably, with no distinction. While these sources should be acknowledged and redirects provided for readers familiar with this use, making this article a duplicate of or redirect to fertility awareness would not be very useful.
We have sources (including the Torrodes) that use the Catholic definition of NFP (i.e. including other aspects of Catholic sexual morality). We do not have sources that say that condoms are incompatible with NFP but oral sex during fertile periods is OK. We do not have sources that say condoms are incompatible with NFP but unmarried women can use NFP to prevent pregnancy. Those are the kinds of sources that would be needed to make Catholic sexual ethics not the focus of this article.
This article is currently not in a quality state - it recently failed a nomination as a Good Article. Suggestions for improvement were made during that process, but Wikipedia editors are busy people outside of Wikipedia and it takes time to implement these kinds of writing projects. Besides which, that this does not yet have a thorough discussion of Catholic theological opinion (such as the first four references here) does not mean the entire premise of the article should be rewritten. LyrlTalk C 02:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for the reliable source that says that condoms are artificial and therefore fertility-focused use of condoms is FAM instead of NFP. I understand your argument that natural rubber latex condoms are not "natural" and therefore shouldn't be "Natural" Family Planning -- but it's utterly unimportant. Wikipedia requires independent, third-party reliable sources. "I think it's pretty clear from the meaning of the words in the name" is not a reliable source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Are you looking for a source that according to Catholic teaching condoms count as "artificial" (that should be easy to find--I bet the Catechism has something) or for a source that says that condoms are incompatible with "NFP"? Pruss (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
No, the need here isn't to show that the Roman Catholic Church opposes the use of condoms as a form of artificial contraception. The need here is for this editor to show that using a condom during a fertile period is "FAM" instead of "NFP" not for religious reasons, but specifically because natural rubber latex is considered artificial. I strongly doubt that any such reliable sources exist.
The names here seem to trip up new editors. Perhaps this will help:
  • Wikipedia needs an article on the Roman Catholic Church's teaching on this subject. Wikipedia also needs an article on non-religious aspects of this subject. Because of length and issues of focus, these need to be separate articles.
  • The articles have to have names. What we call the religious and non-religious articles is based on reliable sources. Specifically, the choice of names is not based on how any editor personally uses the terms, on any editor's personal understanding of the etymology of the terms, or on anything other than reliable sources.
  • Although some reliable sources use NFP and FA as synonyms (see the many examples above of "NFP" methods that approve of the use of condoms), others don't. When our reliable sources make a distinction, they tend to use NFP as a religious practice and FA as a strictly secular term. Therefore Wikipedia copies their preference: Natural family planning talks about RCC teaching, and Fertility awareness talks about secular aspects.
BTW, the reason that NFP is more common in your search (above) is because it's the older term. The term FA was created by and is widely embraced by people that want to emphasize non-religious uses. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

External links[edit]

There seems to be more reversion than discussion going on about the link to the Billings site. In the event you all decide to use the talk page, I'll just preemptively note that Billings has its own WP article, and that it appears that link is appropriate for that page, not this one. — Bdb484 (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yup, hence my removal. Adding an external link when we already link the article just seems like promotion. I left a note on the user's talk page about it. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 15:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Natural family planning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

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


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Natural family planning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

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


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

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


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ Weschler, Toni (2002). Taking Charge of Your Fertility (Revised Edition ed.). New York: HarperCollins. pp. p.5. ISBN 0-06-093764-5.