Talk:Natural family planning/Archive 1

Comment
any particular reason that the link to Woomb (Billings Method) was removed from the natural family planning page?Wanfactor 16:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Lady Comp (and similar products)
Is this considered inappropriate advertising? I thought the link may be relevant since the product in question is created for the purpose of Natural Family Planning for couples. There are a few other products that are more inexpensive. Would a link to a site reviewing the product (rather than selling it) be better?
 * http://omsoul.com/srchNFP.php?srchnfp=Ladycomp
 * http://gadgets.engadget.com/2004/08/02/lady-comp/ (outdated price info)
 * http://www.ladycomp.com/
 * http://www.totallycatholic.com/nfp.htm


 * http://www.bioself.com/ (bioself)


 * http://www.johnleemd.com/store/more_ovu-tech.html (Ovu-Tech)

About.com also mentions "Persona, Clear Plan" as well as "PFT 1-2-3 Kit, Maybe Baby, Fertility Tracker"... which use different approaches.


 * My main concern with the LadyComp and other ovulation detectors is their low effectiveness rates when used to avoid pregnancy. They do very poorly when confronted with multiple estrogen peaks, the software for detecting the temperature shift makes occasional errors (it only takes once to get pregnant!), and the clinical experience rules they use pre-o is more liberal than most FA or NFP teachers prefer.


 * Secondly, if you have the time and motivation to take your temperature and get a saliva reading every day, and do a vaginal reading to confirm post-o status (which doesn't always work) - what's the big deal about taking your temperature and observing cervical mucus when you urinate? It's quite a bit cheaper, a properly trained woman/couple making their own charts is much more effective, and I don't see any reason manual charting is more difficult than using a computerized ovulation detector. Lyrl 00:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Divorce
I added a source for lower divorce statistics. The definition of the article seems problematic since there is no way to objectively tell whether a person is using NFP. It is hard to see how any studies could be performed with such a subjective definition. All studies that I have seen use the objective definition that NFP is a method. It would seem that a better way to distinguish between Fertility Awareness and Natural Family Planning is that FAM permits/encourages the use of a barrier method during the fertile days, while NFP explicitly rejects artificial birth control. Wanfactor 16:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Wanfactor's source for lower divorce statistics clearly shows a strong CORRELATION between the practicing the Ovulation Method of NFP and not getting divorced. The same strong correlation is shown by the CCL source for CCL sympto-thermo and not getting divorced. A correlation, however, is NOT the same as cause-effect. There is good reason to believe that the type of couple who chooses NFP is unlikely to be divorced for reasons unrelated to NFP (strong religious belief against divorce, for example).

No studies have been done that suggest a cause-effect relationship between use of NFP and low divorce rates. I believe the "no convicing socialogical data for this claim has been found" statement should stand.

On the definition, the current description clearly states that "artifical birth control methods and orgasmic acts outside of full marital intercouse are forbidden." That statement might be more appropriate in the introduction; I would not object to it being moved.

Also, observational methods of NFP are FA. So couples practicing one of the observational NFP methods are practicing FA. Depending on their behavior, however, (barrier methods, or orgasmic acts outside of intercourse) not all FA couples are practicing NFP. Breastfeeding infertility (a non-observational method) is also considered NFP as long as the rules against barriers and non-intercourse orgasms are followed. Breastfeeding infertility is not observational, however, and so is not FA.

Also remember that fertility awareness (FA - any practice that results in a woman being aware of her fertility) is different than The Fertility Awareness Method (FAM - a set of sympto-thermo rules taught by Toni Weshler). Lyrl 01:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Convincing is a subjective word. I would rather leave it up to reader as to whether they find the information convincing. I think it would be more precise to say a cause and effect relationship has not been explored.


 * From what I can see of the literature, fertility awareness can be described as a use (subjective) of an NFP method (objective). From the stance of the organization teaching the method it is correct to call Serena a method of natural family planning. A person could use this method or information for whatever purpose they please. On the other hand, Toni Weshler specifically calls her method FAM perhaps because she does not require that women using her method toabstain.


 * In fact what I am arguing is that is very difficult to determine a woman's motivation for using NFP, and that this is not a good way of defining NFP. For example, a Catholic woman may use sympto-thermal, but she does is because she is allergic to the Pill. Is she using it for religious reasons, which an outside observer might assume since she is Catholic, or is she using it for health reasons? Or how about a protestant woman uses it because she believes that abortion is wrong, even though her church does not promote NFP? While there is a place to discuss the motivations that a person may have for using a method, I think it simply confuses the issue to take a commonly used term like natural family planning and restrict its definition to a subjective review of a person's motivations.


 * A person's behaviour is more measurable, and as you say, breastfeeding infertility is not FA, and using a condom is not NFP. I think this is a better basis for defining NFP. A person's religiosity does not need to measured in order to describe their actions. (Though it may be necessary to understand these actions.) Wanfactor 03:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * On NFP and divorce: I agree that saying a cause and effect relationship has not been explored would be more accurate.


 * On the definition: Hm. What I've seen of the literature, fertility awareness can be described as a method, and NFP can be described as a use.  We must be reading different literature.  I'm not sure how to resolve that.


 * I'm not interpreting the article to define NFP as a motivation. Rather, it can be defined in two ways.  The first way is as any form of family planning that disallows two behavoirs - 1)Using artificial birth control, and 2)Engaging in orgasmic activity other than intercourse.  Because the Roman Catholic Church allows any form of family planning that does not involve those two behavoirs, it is equivalent to say that NFP is any form of family planning approved by the RCC.Lyrl 21:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps NFP could be defined as a set of abstinence based methods of avoiding or achieving pregnancy. Then the definition could incorporate conditions 1 and 2 about using no artificial birth control and prohibiting ejaculation outside of the vagina. The bit about this being religiously motivated could be removed and replaced with a qualified statement that some people use these methods to satisfy religous requirements. Wanfactor 23:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The redefinition sounds fine. Just a thought on "some" people using NFP for religious reasons: the largest NFP organizations that I am aware of (Billings, Creighton, CCL) are affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church.  It would seem relevant to include the reasoning the RCC uses for allowing NFP but disallowing other methods of family planning.


 * An organization may have an affiliation with a particular religious group, but not every person who uses or teaches the method has to. WOOMB in particular makes no religious requirements on the women who use its method or the teachers who teach it. WOOMB believes that its method should be taught to all interested women no matter their religious affiliation or marital status. In fact, I am not convinced that WOOMB considers itself affiliated with the Catholic Church.


 * A publication by WOOMB at http://www.woomb.org/omrrca/bulletin/vol32/index.html has many articles that appear to be Catholic related. Affiliated is probably not the correct word, but there does appear to be some relationship between WOOMB and Catholisism.Lyrl 01:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Please review the changes I made. The definition does not flow smoothly into the description and further changes/ reorganization will be needed.Wanfactor 01:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Feel free to change and reoganize as you see fit.Lyrl 01:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
Added a NPOV tag - no arguments against this practice or statistics not in favor of it 141.161.124.93 01:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not really understanding any reason for the NPOV tag. Are there arguments _for_ NFP in the article?  The Catholic rationale is presented - but most people don't consider that a convincing argument.


 * As far as the statistics go, no effectiveness statistics (other than the vague statement "_some_ forms have effectiveness as high as 99%") are even presented - detailed effectiveness information is located in the Fertility Awareness and Billings articles (which do have references for that 99% figure). For the marriage benefits, it's clearly stated that the studies that have been done did not even address the issue of cause and effect, and that only proponents of NFP even cite those studies.Lyrl 22:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm with the NPOV-taggers on this one. A birth control method article with no discussion of in-use failure rates or reasons not to use the method? Quotes only the highest (99%) success rates?  At a minimum, it needs to include more balanced information on failure rates, and a "Disadvantages" section to go with the "Benefits" section. CarbonCopy 22:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The article is currently focused on the motivation to use this set of methods, rather than the methods themselves. The different methods are gone into in-depth in the fertility awareness article (which currently also covers the statistical and breastfeeding methods, since those entries are currently pretty short).  In-use failure rates for each method are discussed there.  I'm not sure that needs to be duplicated in this article.


 * While the 99% statement is, as far as I am aware, undisputed fact, I can see an argument that it is misleading because not _all_ of the methods have that high effectiveness rate. If any user has an idea for removing the 99% figure while still indicating that all other NFP methods have significantly lower failure rates than the Rhythm Method, I would raise no objections.


 * The NPOV taggers object to the lack of reasons not to use the method and the lack of unfavorable statistics. The disadvantages section sites abstinence which, to my knowledge, is the only objection which has ever been raised against using NFP. As for unfavorable statistics, the only ones I know of apply only to the rhythm method and not to the more modern forms such as Billings, Sympto-Thermal, or Creighton. Given Wikipedia's emphasis on verifiable sources, it would seem that a lack of unfavorable statistics should not, in of itself, constitute an NPOV tag. I was under the impression that the NPOV tag was for pages which deleted criticisms from verifiable sources rather than pages which simply lack criticisms from verifiable sources. Wanfactor 05:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Chastity
Natural Family Planning does prohibit orgasmic acts outside of full marital intercourse. Couple who do not follow this restriction are not practicing NFP; they generally refert to their pregnancy avoidance by the specific method name instead, e.g. 'Billings' or 'Standard Days Method' or 'Fertility awareness'.

I do feel the deleted sentence in the 'Disadvantages' section was relevant to this article and would like to re-insert it. Lyrl 00:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't dispute the moral conclusions, but having attended a few classes, known a few instructors, and being a theology student, I don't ever recall seeing the orgasmic acts being prohibited outside intercouse as a part of NFP. (I certainly do not mean to intend that it is morally correct, but that it is entirely different matter.)  Sure it's wrong, I'm not disputing that, I just don't think it's part of NFP as I've ever seen it presented or put in paper.


 * Is there any point bothering to contribute and make points on the talk pages when sysops just come in and unilaterally decide without discussion? -- Jbamb 03:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I suppose the viewpoint on this differs between NFP schools? The Couple to Couple League, for example, explicitly teaches that engaging in masturbation, for example, during the fertile times is equivalent to using a barrier method instead of abstinence, and that neither action is considered NFP (this is from "The Art of Natural Family Planning" and their magazine "Family Foundations"). Toni Weshler mentions in her book that couples who practice NFP always abstain from sexual activity during the fertile period; couples who choose to use barrier methods are practicing fertility awareness, not NFP.

However, my previous conversation with Wanfactor, and now the comment by Jbamb, seem to indicate that other schools, such as Billings, do not view it this way. Perhaps there could be a mention that some schools of NFP prohibit these actions? Lyrl 01:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Jbamb 01:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Billings considers all genital contact to be equivalent to an act of intercourse for the purpose of charting. Arousal and intercourse create vaginal fluids which can mask the presence of fertile mucus and make it difficult to interpret the charting. However, Billings teachers would describe the use of other methods of birth control (ie. masturbation) as 'incompatible' with the use of Billings, rather than strictly prohibited. Wanfactor 02:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Disadvantages
Do any methods other than temperature work better with regular sleep? If not, I think it would be better to be specific about which method this objection applies to. (The same for the other disadvantages which are method specific)Wanfactor 18:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Not that I'm aware of (so only temp-only and sympto-thermo would be affected). And even with temperature, some women do find their basal temps are affected by disturbed sleep.  But, many women find they still get accurate readings even with disturbed sleep - it's not an across-the-board kind of rule.


 * Also, is it necessary to touch the cervical mucus (for mucus-only and sympto-thermo)? Observing it on toilet tissue (and using another piece of tissue to pull on the CM and observe any stringiness or stretchiness) seems like it would go a long way.Lyrl 19:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sympto-thermal encourages users to take it between the fingers and 'stretch' it as one of the measures of fertility. Billings insists that users do not touch the discharge, and I do not know about other methods. Creighton does not seem to post any of its methodological information on its site. I have not heard of any objection to just looking at mucus, although I have heard of people being grossed out about touching it, or stretching it.


 * The bit about regular sleep could be modified to say that lack of adequate sleep sometimes disrupts an accurate reading basal body temperature. As far as I know, lack of sleep does not cause inaccuracies in observing cervical mucus. Wanfactor 17:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Marital Act link
Do you really think it should link to sexual intercourse? The Marital Act has a specific meaning which is a particular subset of the article on sexual intercourse. An unintentional association between 'alternate' forms of 'sexual expression' may occur, which appears to be in contradiction to the discussion of abstinence and chastity in the context of natural family planning. Wanfactor 16:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems like it should link to something, for users who haven't come across the term before. Perhaps someone would create an article on 'marital act'?  Or link it to the procreation article, but add some content there to that effect?  Or, perhaps the intercourse link could instead be put on the word 'intercourse' later in that paragraph.Lyrl 14:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it would be wise to approach Catholic teaching from the Theology of the Body perspective that it is sexual differentiation that is meant to draw man and woman together. The Natural Law approach is both not specifically Catholic (other than because few other religions use that approach) and not technically theology. Creating a 'marital act' article might end up being redundant with sexual intercourse since 'marital act' does not have a unique definition. Wanfactor 02:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

12-Jan-05 revert
I feel like it's repetitive to say some methods of NFP can have a 1% failure rate, and then say its failure rate compares favorably with artificial methods. Either one statement or the other should be sufficient, but both just make the introduction too long.

The use of the word 'unnatural', which has a negative connotation, is POV.

The Standard Days Method - the one that uses CycleBeads - is already mentioned in the opening paragraph. Adding a sentence about CycleBeads as if they are a seperate method is misleading. Lyrl 01:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

"Spontaneous"?
"It also does not interfere with the spontaneity of intercourse as barrier methods sometimes do"

Which interferes more with spontaneity: waiting four seconds to put on a condom, or waiting a week to have sex? I think both interfere differently, and which is desireable from the spontaneity perspective is pretty subjective; it seems a matter of personal preference. Thoughts on how to clarify this? yEvb0 18:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "It also does not interfere with the spontaneity of intercourse in the same way as barrier methods can"? Lyrl 22:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No possible side effects?
"NFP has no possible side effects, unlike chemical and hormonal contraceptives..."

I have heard that it can result in children accidentally being conceived from old sperm leading to a higher rate of birth defects. 86.129.163.177 10:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Firstly, the several studies on this issue have conflicting results as to whether old sperm produce a higher rate of birth defects. Secondly, couples trying to conceive by having random intercourse are likely to accidentally conceive from old sperm.  Couples trying to conceive by using NFP know when they ovulate, so they can time intercourse appropriately to ensure the availability of fresh sperm.  The possible increased risk to accidental pregnancies would seem to be balanced by the possible decreased risk to intended pregnancies.  In any case, I don't think the issue has enough evidence either way to be addressed in this article.Lyrl 21:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Even if we accept all that (which I don't really), "more deformed children" is a "possible side effect" so the statement "...no possible side effects..." is false and should be removed. 86.138.126.203 13:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Whether the issue of birth defects should be addressed at all is a separate matter and depends on whether the evidence of deformity is credible. If there is credible evidence, this should be included because NFP exists almost purely for religious-moral reasons and if is creates something as immoral as avoidably deformed babies, that is a relevant issue. 86.138.126.203 13:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The rhythm method and embryo death
Source:

This article has sparked some discussion in the news and on the web, for example:

Does anyone feel like covering this in the Wikipedia article? --Piet Delport 12:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * A related topic is already in the "Disadvantages" section: It has been suggested that pregnancies resulting from method failures of NFP, particularly the more reliable methods such as fertility awareness, are at increased risk of miscarriage and birth defects due to aged gametes at the time of conception. That paragraph could be expanded to include this article.


 * However, I do not believe this is a good article, for several reasons:


 * The author assumes that most Rhythm failures are caused by unusually long sperm or egg life. Actually, most Rhythm failures are caused by incorrect calculation of ovulation - whether due to unusually early or late ovulation, or to a woman with an unusually short or long luteal phase. So this assumption is incorrect, and is inflating his estimates of embryos "killed" by Rhythm.


 * The author's lack of biological knowledge also comes across in things like his belief that embryos implant immediately after conception (they actually implant 6-12 days after ovulation), and in his unreferenced statement that 50% of embryos never implant. Although IVF cycles have implantation rates around 40%, studies of couples with normal fertility using CF-only methods of fertility awareness have shown pregnancy rates of 67-80% in the first cycle of trying, suggesting implantation rates in couples of normal fertility are much higher than 50%. So this incorrect assumption is also inflating his estimates.


 * His choice of method (Calender Rhythm) is also inflating his estimates. When used correctly (i.e. not having sex on days the method identifies as fertile), it has a 10% per-year failure rate. Most observational FA methods have a less-than-1% per-year failure rate (although the Dry Day Rule has a 3-6% per-year failure rate), and LAM has a 2% per-six-months failure rate. Even the Standard Days Method, a relative of Rhythm, has a 5% per-year failure rate, half that of the method his chose for his study.


 * The theory that embryos created from aged gametes are more likely to be defective is also called into question by research that shows no difference in miscarriage rates between optimally timed intercourse and non-optimally timed intercourse (I recently added this reference).


 * The concept of a family planning method causing embryo deaths is important to many people, and I do think it should be covered in this Wiki article. But for all the reasons listed, I wouldn't credit the article by Prof. Bovens with too much authority. Lyrl 14:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, it sounds to me like the greater issues surrounding contraception-caused embryo death might be good candidate for being covered more fully in a separate main article (Birth control or Pro-life, maybe?), since they're not limited to just NFP. --Piet Delport 16:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * My opposition to including Boven's argument is more basic than that. Bovens is making a strawman agrument, which is not a neutral point of view.  "Now suppose that we were to learn that the success of the rhythmmethod is actually due, not to the fact that conception does not happen—spermand ova aremuch more long lived than we previously thought—but rather because the viability of conceived ova outside the HF period is minimal due to the limited resilience of the embryo and the limited receptivity of the uterine wall."  His entire argument is based upon this supposition.  It is not based upon any scientific study or credible research, but rather his desire to attack those who oppose IUD's.  To me, this lacks intellectual honesty and he looses all credibility.  Balloonman 00:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems to have some limited coverage in the abortifacient article. Lyrl 00:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

possible merge proposal
There is a very common usage of the word "Natural family planning" that is synonymous with Fertility awareness and possibly natural birth control (just search google). It seems very POV to say that NFP is always religiously motivated, when that does not cover all uses of the word. I would propose merging those 2 other articles here. I want to see what other people think, and I want to know what sort of sources people have to back up the usage of these 3 terms. I posted a couple links at Talk:Rhythm Method.--Andrew c 22:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Natural birth control includes "abstinence, methods of fertility awareness, the Lactational Amenorrhea Method, coitus interruptus (withdrawal), and possibly heat-based contraception... anal sex and oral sex, inasmuch as they are sexual activity with no or a low risk of conception, may also be described as a natural birth control method. Promoters of possible herbal contraceptives such as wild yam, Queen Anne's Lace (wild carrot), or neem may refer to the herbs as natural birth control." This is MUCH broader than either FA or NFP.  I will post on the FA vs. NFP argument at Talk:Rhythm Method since that seems to be the active place for that discussion. Lyrl 23:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Rhythm method obsolete?
From the CDC's National Survey of Family Growth (see the references section) 0.2% of American women aged 15-44 use fertility awareness. 0.7% use Rhythm - that's over three times as many!

In addition to Rhythm still being (compared to FA, at least) very popular, the Standard Days Method is highly promoted in developing countries because it is so easy to teach.

While FA teachers certainly consider Rhythm obsolete, they are somewhat biased, being FA teachers and all. Saying that Rhythm is "generally considered obsolete" is simply not accurate. Lyrl 00:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think a less POV way of putting this would be to say that modern FA is advocated by western doctors because it is more accurate/reliable than the rhythm method, right?--Andrew c 01:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * FA isn't usually understood or promoted by doctors much at all. FA instructors are not usually doctors, but rather women's or public health experts.  I think perhaps we could say in the NFP article that Rhythm is just less accurate, since it's still taught, apparently, but in the FA article say that it's not (as I believe it already does). MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 11:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Religiously motivated
The FA article describes NFP as religiously-motivated. I thought it was, but I know more about FA than NFP, so we could use some discussion on the matter. NFP prohibits barrier methods during fertile times and orgasmic acts outside of marital intercourse. What is the motivation for that, if not religious? I can see people who are not particularly religous using NFP, but not strictly following those guidelines. In that case, they'd be practicing FA, not necessarilty NFP, am I right? MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 11:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Infobox for individual birth control method articles
Let's all work on reaching a consensus for a new infobox to be placed on each individual birth control method's article. I've created one to start with on the Wikipedia Proposed Infoboxes page, so go check it out and get involved in the process. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 12:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced tags
Three sections ("Rationale", "Benefits", "Disadvantages") have been tagged in their entirety as unreferenced, even though each section already has references to at least some of its statements. I believe I can find references for all of this material (or make minor modifications if other editors believe they are necessary), but before I go spending my time tagging every sentence: could someone clarify exactly what material they are contesting? Lyrl 00:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I was the one who tagged those sections, and I'm not contesting anything. We just need to make sure wikipedia is verifiable. The first section "Rational" says "Catholic doctrine holds"... what Catholic doctrine? I perhaps there is one citation that can cover that whole section, but whenever we claim a POV holds a belief, we should cite those claims (also, does Humanae Vitae need a fuller citation, or is the wikilink good enough?) Same thing for the next two section. There may be just one or two citations that cover all those claims, but I think this would be a better article with those backing it up, if you know what I mean. I'll see if I can't help find some citations as well.--Andrew c 01:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It appears we are interpreting the Wikipedia policy differently. When I read the Cite sources article, I see statements such as "any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor" "...To reduce the likelihood of editorial disputes, or to resolve any that arise" "...particularly if it's contentious or likely to be challenged, you should supply a source" "...you can tag the article with the templates {unreferenced} or {Primarysources}. It is often more useful to indicate specific statements that need references, by tagging those statements with {Citation needed}" (bolding mine). To me, this means that citations are most important on material this is likely to be disputed. Information that is part of common knowledge, or readily verifiable, does not need extensive referencing.

If you feel particular statements are obscure and it would help readers to be pointed someplace to look for more knowledge, I would be happy to research references. But I'm still somewhat confused by the entire sections being tagged as unreferenced. Lyrl 02:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the section tags, and started adding some references to individual statements. Andrew, I encourage you to put citation tags on any particular content you think is likely to be disputed. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 11:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment left in main article by MamaGeek:
 * Um, are you saying that condom use can never interfere with sexual spontaneity? What are you asking for a citation for?


 * Response: I'm not sure if this claim is OR. While it may make perfect sense to you and I, it isn't verifiable (or anything but OR) if another reliable, published source didn't make the connection first. Wikipedia is not a primary source, and we cannot be the first source to report on information. --Andrew c 17:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"Cervical mucus" vs. "cervical fluid"
I propose that we change "cervical mucus" to "cervical fluid." I understand that most in the medical community still refer to it as "mucus," but this article is not written from a medical perspective. It is written in terms of the methods and the way they are taught. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most FA and NFP instructors nowadays refer to it as "cervical fluid?" Doctors don't teach NFP. They rarely even teach FA. Therefore, I think we should use the terminology associated with the methods, not with gynecological anatomy/health in general. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 11:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Cervical mucus is so-called for the good reason that it is mucus. It is also the term most commonly used by doctors, and is the most common term in general use (with 380,000 hits vs. 47,000 Google hits for "cervical mucus" and "cervical fluid" respectively). Calling it otherwise won't make it any nicer: we might as well change all the references to "vagina" or "penis" to "hoo-hoo", if we are worried about offending the easily offended. -- The Anome 12:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think the number of Google hits is really relevant to the points I made above. If it is only refered to as "fluid" by NFP and FA method instructors, then of course most hits will go to the medical term.  My argument is that we should use the terms associated with the method. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 12:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest that we continue to use the medically correct terms, but mention that the term "cervical fluid" is often used by proponents. We should avoid usages that appear to be based on the assumption that women are child-like and need talking down to. -- The Anome 13:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you consider "fluid" talking down. I don't consider it talking down at all, just more comfortable.  Does that make me child-like?  Please try not to assume that a person's preference implies patronization.  It makes for contentious discussion on the talk pages.  MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 17:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else want to chime in here? With only two voices, a disagreement will never resolve into consensus. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 17:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with The Anome, and the solution of mentioning both (and the motivations for not using the medical term due to negative connotations with "mucus"). However, it would probably be nice to have a source that says "fluid" is used as a euphemism, instead of using OR to make the connection (even if it is obvious to us). I think using "cervical fluid" only in the article can be confusing (or insulting) to people who are familiar with the technical term, even if a lay audience wouldn't notice the difference (or haven't heard of either term in the first place). Besides, using fluid only would be representative of a specific POV, while including both is being neutral to all POVs. Also, mucus is the term used in the cervix article Cervical_mucus.--Andrew c 17:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but what is OR? MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 18:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I apologize: WP:OR.--Andrew c 18:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 19:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * In Weschler's book, pg. 8, there is a section on "The Language of Palatability." She states:
 * ...I have found that people are infinitely more attentive to and interested in FAM when cervical mucus is referred to by the more neutral term cervical fluid. Perhaps the increased acceptance of that terminology is less puzzling when you consider that the woman's cervical fluid is analogous to the man's seminal fluid. One would never refer to seminal fluid as mucus, and yet the purpose of the fluid in both the man and woman is comparable: to nourish a medium in which the sperm can travel.
 * That's my source. I wouldn't call it a euphemism, since fluid is medically just as accurate in describing it.  It is certainly a strategic language use, though, so you could argue for POV for that reason.  Regardless, I think Andrew's idea of mentioning that it is sometimes referred to as fluid, and the reasons why, is acceptable.MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 19:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a great citation, thanks for typing it up! --Andrew c 20:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's the same problem again -- when you say "seminal fluid", what do you mean? Cowper's fluid or semen? Cowper's fluid certainly isn't mucus (remember, you get mucus from mucosa; Cowper's fluid is a specialised exocrine secretion from the bulbourethral glands). Semen is "a mixture of secretions from several male accessory glands, including the prostate, seminal vesicles, epididymis, and Cowper's gland", which also aren't mucus, although some of them are mucus-like. "Cervical fluid" is equally vague; lots of fluids can come out of the cervix -- cervical mucus, menses and amniotic fluid, to name but three. The reason why doctors use exact terms is to avoid confusion. However, when you use exact terms, non-experts can still look them up if they don't understand them -- particularly in Wikipedia, where they are only a hyperlink away. An encyclopedia should strive to be accurate, not euphemistic. -- The Anome 22:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Creighton Model teachers, Billings teachers , and Couple to Couple League teachers all use mucus.  These are the largest NFP organizations, and any one of them is much larger than the secular FA groups I am aware of  .  Lyrl 23:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems like we've definitely reached a consensus here to leave it as "mucus." Thank you all for a civil and productive discussion! MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 10:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Typical use failure
The introduction said The common usage failure rate is generally 25% per year,[2] regardless of method used.

This is what is in The Art of Natural Family Planning on that subject:


 * ...references lump together all methods of 'period abstinence' as if they were the same. This is because the data were derived from the National Surveys of Family Growth.  Therefore, the average of 20 surprise pregnancies per 100 couples per year is not based on published prospective studies, but only based on questionnaire-generated data.  The number of users of different NFP methods was too small to allow analysis of separate types of NFP.  This is where confusion can occur in any publication regarding effectiveness rates.

They then have a table with actual failure rates from a number of studies:


 * Liberia 1990 - 4.3% (life table)
 * Zambia 1990 - 8.9% (life table)


 * Multinational 1981 (U.S., France, Canada, Columbia, Mauritius) - 7.2% (1% perfect use) (life table)


 * U.S. 1981 - [From Kippley: 11.2% (0% perfect use) (life table)] [From PubMed abstract: 13.7-16.6% STM, 34.9-39.7% OM (Pearl Index)]


 * U.S. 1981 - 14.4% (life table)


 * Australia 1978 - 16% (life table)


 * Columbia 1980 - 19.8% STM, 24.2% OM (life table) [26.0% STM, 33.8% OM (Pearl Index)]


 * Germany 1991 - 2.3% with abstinence, 2.1% with barriers during fertile phase (Pearl Index)


 * U.K. 1991 - 2.7% (Pearl Index)


 * Europe 1992 - 2.4% STM; 10.6% muco-thermo (Pearl Index)


 * Italy 1986 - 3.6% (Pearl Index)


 * U.K. 1976 - 23.9% (Pearl Index)

Those studies were all of sympto-thermo or Billings. I believe the 25% number is from Contraceptive Technology, which gets its numbers from the National Surveys of Family Growth as described in my quote. As only 1% of Americans use any form of NFP or FA, those methods all got lumped togeter because of insufficient data to break it down. That does not mean all methods equally have that high failure rate, as most studies above show significantly lower failure rates for the observational methods. Lyrl 22:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and typed up the references so I have them available here. I also found the following while poking around on PubMed:
 * Germany 1997 - 2.2% (life table) (perfect use - 0.63% with abstinence, 0.45% with barrier during fertile phase)
 * Lyrl 20:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Lyrl 20:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Failure rate
13.7% was recently cited as a failure rate. This number comes from a 1981 study of two specific method of NFP. This study looked at 1247 couples, but only ~415 couples were still using the method assigned after a year. This particular study showed a "Pearl rate" of 13.7% for the symptothermal method and 39.7% for the ovulation method. So should we say the common usage failure rate is 14-40% based on this one study? Or should we use the AGI reference that bases its numbers on national statistical reporting data? Here are their sources if we want to cite them directly or fact check: This is the same information that the FDA uses here. Both are more recent than the 1981 study, and both sound like they cover more than 415 couples. I'd still be willing to consider more evidence in favor of lower numbers, but most sources I have come across generally consider NFP to have a typical use failure rate between 20-30%, and a perfect use failure rate of 1-9%. I think part of the issue is that NFP is not a method of BC, but a group of methods, so getting numbers down can be hard. Maybe we should leave the info box off this article, and have it on the more specific method articles?--Andrew c 02:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hatcher RA et al., eds., Contraceptive Technology, 18th rev. ed., New York: Ardent Media, 2004, Table 9-2.
 * Fu H et al., Contraceptive failure rates: new estimates from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth, Family Planning Perspectives, 1999, 31(2):56-63.


 * I listed out twelve seperate studies of the sympto-thermo and/or ovulation methods, five done 1990 or later. I can find the on-line links to any you are interested in.


 * The FDA numbers are from the National Surveys of Family Growth, a survey that included 7,643 women. Because only 1% of Americans (i.e. 76 women in the survey) use any form of FA or NFP, that survey did not obtain enough data to break down failure rates by method.  0.2% of American women aged 15-44 use one of the observational methods of NFP. 0.7% use the Rhythm Method - three times as many.  So the FDA failure rate is heavily skewed toward the failure rate of the Rhythm Method. I do not believe this source (a study of 76 women) should be heavily weighted when deciding on the 'correct' failure rate for all methods. Lyrl

I totally did not see that topic right above this one. Jeez, sorry. I feel really dumb now.--Andrew c 02:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Religously Motivated NFP?
This article seems to be a mishmash of two very different topics. One is the methods of Natural Family Planning, and the other is the philososphy/motivations of the people using Natural Family Planning. Natural Family Planning could be quite simply defined as any of several methods of family planning that do not involve sterilization or contraceptive devices or drugs; coitus is avoided during the fertile time of a woman's menstrual cycle (http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/natural_family_planning) without reference to the motivation that the person may have for using such a method. On the other hand is the Catholic philosophy which is likely the motivation for many people using NFP. Catholic sexual teaching is a whole topic in and of itself, and there are various approaches to be taken to it, including Natural Law, Church Tradition, and the personalist approach of John Paul II. Since the page about Fertility Awareness Methods appears to be covering most of the methods of Natural Family Planning from a methodological aspect, perhaps Natural Family Planning could exist as a subtopic in that section (and redirect to it), and a different page about Catholic Sexual Ethics could be started with information about Catholic teaching. In the current state of the article, the definition of the phrase Natural Family Planning does not match either with other sources or even with the Catholic understanding of the idea, since through Natural Law, Natural Family Planning belongs to the natural world and not to Catholic theology. (In other words, the conclusions about contraception that the Catholic Church reaches do not come from its religious knowledge, but rather from an analysis of human nature that is possible for anyone, including non-Catholics.) Wanfactor 17:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Not possible to study cause and effect relationships?
One of my edits (adding commentary that a cause and effect relationship between NFP use and divorce had not been studied) was recently reverted on the basis that studies are "not capable of demonstrating a cause-effect relationship".

But - I thought exploring cause-effect relationships was the entire point of randomized clinical trials? It would be entirely possible to randomize a group of people to receive NFP instruction vs. instruction in other family planning methods. While a portion of each group would choose methods other than what they were instructed in, there would be some bias to choose the methods they had the most knowledge of. Measures of relationship satisfaction in such a randomized study would reveal more information about the effect of NFP on relationships than correlation studies that have been done so far.

Even measuring relationship satisfaction instead of looking at divorce rates would provide more information. There are certainly groups of people who will stay in relationships despite being unhappy. For example, older people more commonly tolerate unhappy marriage, vs. younger people getting divorced when they are unhappy - though average relationship satisfaction is the same across age groups.

The current studies do not explore the NFP-divorce relationship nearly as much as it can be explored. And I think some statement about that lack is important to that section. Lyrl Talk Contribs 00:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Not possible to demonstrate cause and effect relationships in studies of human beings ... too many factors
If a study were possible to demonstrate a cause-effect relationship, which studies are by nature incapable of demonstrating, the divorce-rate ratio among NFP users would be as close to a cause-effect relationship as is possible. Nevertheless, it is not possible for a study to demonstrate a cause-effect relationship. Remember, to appropriately demonstrate a cause-effect relationship in a scientific study, one must eliminate ALL extraneous factors perfectly. Any study of human beings is incapable of such a controlled environment - it is not possible for a hypothetical study to rule out socioeconomic status, religiosity, cultural conditioning, ethnicity, and so on. Therefore, your comment about studies not demonstrating a cause-effect relationship is a fallacious straw man, because this study is not possible ... ever. No study of human beings could ever meet the qualifications to elevate it to cause-effect status. That's why scientific studies are replicated over and over and over again. However, what the NFP-divorce study DOES demonstrate is a statistically significant correlation between NFP practice and marriage survival. In light of this, any editorialization that "no studies exploring a cause and effect relationship between the use of NFP and lowered divorce rates have been carried out" (which is not possible for a clinical study, due to a multiplicity of uncontrollable external factors) is an unfortunate misleading of the reader from an otherwise statistically significant positive correlation between NFP use and marriage longevity.El Clarque


 * I have not claimed that a study could positively demonstrate a cause and effect relationship between NFP and divorce. But more studies could certainly explore the issues further, as I outlined above.  For example, are users of NFP more willing to suffer unhappy marriages than non-users, thus accounting for the lowered divorce rate?  Or are they less willing to tolerate unhappy marriages, but their marriages are so much happier the divorce rate is lower anyway?  These issues have simply not been explored.  I do not mean to imply that there is any evidence against NFP creating better marriages - but I think it very important to note the lack of research in this area. Lyrl  Talk Contribs 14:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Causality is notoriously difficult to prove through observational studies, so that sentence could be omitted. On the other hand it may be fair to note that these citations are not published or peer reviewed studies. That being said most so-called 'research findings' are not peer-reviewed, published, or for that matter even impartial. (eg. drug companies doing trials on their own drugs.) Wanfactor 03:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"Pregnancy rate" rather than "failure rate"
I plan to edit the article to say "pregnancy rate" rather than "failure rate" throughout. "Pregancy rate" is more courteous to people whose lives happened to begin while their parents were trying to prevent pregnancy; it's more neutral, less negative. I'm giving an opportunity for discussion here first before making the change. --Coppertwig 22:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Please make any comments on this at Talk:Birth control. --Coppertwig 03:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Intro
I have a number of objections to the recent edit of the intro: I'm sure the previous version was guilty as accused of being unobjective and poorly structured. But I don't think this new edit made things any better. Any suggestions? Lyrl Talk C 03:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It stats that natural family planning is a method (singular) that is equivalent to FA with behavoir restrictions. My perspective is that the term natural family planning encompasses (currently) three types of methods.  LAM is a set of behavior practices to reduce fertility, not a way to be aware of fertility.  And FA teachers don't want to touch Rhythm with a ten foot pole; while arguably they are both ways to be aware of probably fertility, I think there are equally good reasons to distinguish the observational methods from the statistical methods.
 * While natural family planning is most commonly defined by users as methods approved by the Catholic Church, non-Catholic also use the methods, with behavior restrictions, for their own religious reasons (see the book "Open Embrace"). I believe the new hatnote and intro fail to include this group of users.
 * Creighton and Billings (organizations that promote mucus-only methods) are the largest NFP organizations in the world. I don't think the statement "NFP generally refers to the Sympto Thermal Method" is accurate.  People who don't realize NFP involves behavoir restrictions, or that there is more than one kind of NFP, use the term interchangably with FA.  Thus the hatnote linking to the FA article. But I believe the article would be better if is chose a definition and stuck with it, rather than switching back and forth between the definition used by most users of NFP (multiple methods, with behavoir restrictions) and the definition used by many secular American sources that do not actually practice NFP or FA (interchangable with FA).
 * The Rhythm Method has the same effectiveness as the contraceptive sponge and cervical cap. While these are not held up as models of effectiveness, people generally don't refer to them as "ineffective" - correctly used, they do prevent a large number of pregnancies.
 * I find "cervical mucus" a much more succint and equally useful description as "mucus qualities found at the cervix, or mucus qualities found at the vulva". I also completely fail to see the relevance of a long paragraph on one specific method (Billings) in the introduction to an article that is not about specific methods.
 * I believe many people find the failure rates of natural family planning methods to be of great interest - the recent edit completely deleted all mentions of failure rates.


 * I reverted it; there were too many errors, several opinions, and irrelevant information. Joie de Vivre 15:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Users and abstinence section
Is it considered that only Catholics use NFP? The reference to Protestant use was deleted. I am unfamiliar with the Orthodox standpoint, but the information available at Christian views on contraception leads me to believe some Orthodox Christians might use NFP also. The use of NFP in developing countries was also deleted - from here (p. vi) A higher percentage of women in India use traditional methods such as the “safe period”, than any other single birth spacing method As a predominantly Hindu country, this use in India would be another example of non-Catholic use of NFP. I know the users section needed work with referencing and such, but reducing it to "few Catholics use NFP" seems to remove useful information.

On the abstinence section, the additional material seems largely focused on the theological arguments - shouldn't that go under the "rationale" section? An "opposition" or "counterargment" or similar subsection? Theological arguments just appear out of place in a "disadvantages" section.

Also, one of the disadvantages in the Torodes quote is a duplicate of what was already listed: abstinence during the time of the wife’s peak sexual desire (ovulation) vs. ''The fertility awareness and statistical forms of NFP require periodic abstinence, known as continence, most commonly 8-10 days of each menstrual cycle. It is common for the woman's sexual desire to be highest on those fertile days, and low in other parts of the cycle. [27] That the couple must abstain from sex during the woman's periods of peak sexual desire may be deeply frustrating for both partners, and lead to feelings of isolation.'' The Torodes quotes are also not very encyclopedic. ...during breastfeeding cycles it often involves month-long periods of abstinence... as well as during menopause and stressful life seasons) could be more formally worded as Abstinence may be required for long periods of time during breastfeeding, menopause, and for women who for other reasons experience very long cycles. Lyrl Talk C 15:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think theological arguments are out of place. The very definition of "Natural family planning" is "the BC methods that the Catholic Church approves".  One of the requirements for using NFP is that couples be married -- we can assume this means "married within the Catholic faith".  All the requirements of NFP are directly dictated by the Catholic religion.  What makes NFP specifically NFP are the requirements set forth by the Catholic faith.


 * I don't agree that there is any such thing as non-Catholic NFP. Even if there is, the study in India cited here states that "packets of condoms" were provided to couples by the researchers, for use during the fertile days.  NFP prohibits the use of barrier methods.


 * The study refers to the Standard Days Methods as "a fertility-awareness based method of family planning". The term "family planning" is used 84 times, whereas the term "natural family planning" is used four times.  I think this is an instance of how the term NFP is sometimes blurred to refer to any use of FA or statistical methods.  I think it's fine to include the study somewhere in the article but I don't think a "Users" section is necessary.


 * Frankly, since the restrictions of NFP are directly informed by the Catholic religious faith, I think it's entirely appropriate to include reflections from a Catholic who was very well informed about it, wrote a book about it, and then came to further conclusions about the methods. I don't think it's necessary or appropriate to strip away all mention of Catholicism when we're talking about NFP.  If we were to get rid of all of that from the Advantages/Disadvantages section, it would read almost identical to an advantage/disadvantage section detailing FA methods.  Theological discussion is appropriate in regards to NFP.


 * Also, I think that Torode is an appropriate authority on the use of NFP and that her observations improve the article. Joie de Vivre 18:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If theological arguments against requiring NFP are appropriate for the disadvantages section, then shouldn't theological arguments in favor of NFP-only be in the advantages section? What is the purpose of the "rationale" section at all?  In my opinion, it would be nice to have the for and against arguments in one section - that would allow a section hatnote to Christian views on contraception and Christian views on contraception where readers can find a more thorough discussion of the subject.


 * If I understand Joie de Vivre's position correctly, a non-Catholic or unmarried couple following all of the Catholic restrictions on NFP is not actually practicing NFP - because they do not have a marriage approved in the Catholic Church. I have not come across this definition of NFP in my reading, and would be curious to see sources that do reference it in that way.  By this definition, the Torodes cannot be used as sources on NFP, because they never practiced it - they are not and never were Catholic.


 * The general Indian population referred to as using the "safe period" method over and above any other method of contraception is not mentioned as using barriers. That the researchers provided couples participating in the study with condoms is not relevant to the practices of the general population.


 * If long quotes from the Torodes (if they are accepted as having practiced NFP, despite being outside the Catholic faith) are deemed appropriate for this article, should I then add long quotes from the Kippleys to exemplify the opposing POV? Lyrl Talk C 20:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to add brief theological arguments to the "Advantages" section, that does make sense since the majority of practitioners are devout Christians (whether Catholics or the newer movement of evangelical Protestants.) I recall that the last time I gave a nod to one such suggestion of yours, you flooded the page  with related content.  I want to ask you to be more prudent and selective in your additions this time -- including any quotes from the Kippleys.  Joie de Vivre 16:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Should the rationale section be deleted, and its current contents put in the advantages section? Lyrl Talk C 22:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think so. By what the word means, a "rationale" is used to justify or promote something, so it's apparent that it would list potential benefits.  Also the "benefits" and "drawbacks" section are similarly listed point-by-point (I tried to do the same with the "drawbacks" section but I couldn't get it to flow so I left it bulleted, but they both started out bulleted) and I think that comparison would be lost by moving the bulky Rationale section to "Benefits".  Joie de Vivre 23:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm confused, then. If I understand Joie de Vivre's position, theological arguments in favor of NFP are not appropriate for the advantages section.  But theological arguments against NFP are appropriate for the disadvantages section.  This appears contradictory to me.  I would appreciate further explanation. Lyrl  Talk C 00:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, obviously you completely misunderstood. I think that the specific bulleted list provided under "Advantages" and "Disadvantages" is good as it is.  (It's not bulleted in one section anymore because I thought it flowed a little better without the bullets, but I couldn't get it to flow the same way in the other section.  If you wish to add a brief bullet about how NFP is accepted and promoted by the Catholic church, that's fine.  But frankly I think it would look stupid to move the entirety of of the Rationale section into the Advantages section.  Obviously the rationale is considered promotional or beneficial by the proponents.  and I think that the bulk of material detailing the religious viewpoints informing the rationale is so great that it warrants its own top-level section.   Joie de Vivre 15:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The subsection of "Disadvantages" titled "Abstinence requirement" contains not only things I consider disadvantages (now relegated to the "other" section), but theological arguments. I object to theological arguments in a disadvantages section.  If there are to be theological arguments in the disadvantages section, I believe they should be in the advantages section as well. Lyrl  Talk C 22:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have attempted to address your concerns by making the two top-level headers as Rationale and Objections, with "Potential advantages" and "Potential disadvantages" listed respectively. Hopefully this is more in line with the reasoning behind use and non-use of the method.  Does this address your concerns?  Joie de Vivre 17:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That did help. However, I have edited the page to demonstrate specifically what I had in mind. I'm not very good at explaining my ideas, so I thought I'd just show them. Feel free to revert while we work toward a compromise position. Lyrl Talk C 00:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think you did a fantastic job with this. Great work.  Joie de Vivre 15:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Why the emphasis on abstinence?
Recent edits have significantly expanded the emphasis on negative aspects of abstinence (here and here). One edit summary claimed the additions were because this was a "common objection".

Yet that's not been my impression. While one couple (the Torodes) found months long periods of abstinence (due to ambiguous fertility while breastfeeding) to be horrible, other couples seem to get through them just fine - the Kippleys, for example, describe in their book a year of ambiguous fertility while Sheila breastfed one of their children (p.365-369) - and many couples don't ever face that obstacle. (A woman's cycles may return very quickly after birth even while breastfeeding, or she may experience unambiguous infertility while in amenorrhea, or she may rely on LAM alone regardless of fertility signs until her cycles resume.) Note also that long periods of sexual abstinence following the birth of a child are common among the general population, due to the sleep deprivation experienced by parents of infants, recovery from complications of delivery, and lack of lubrication caused by low estrogen levels experienced during breastfeeding (meaning intercourse is likely to be painful for the woman).

I'm not sure the Torode's experience is representative, and so am opposed to emphasize it so heavily in this article. Lyrl Talk C 03:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the fact that so few people actually use NFP is indicative of that. Joie de Vivre 22:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe they find observing cervical mucus to be gross (or have a physical condition that makes CM observations non-useful), or hate waking up at the same time every day to take their temperature, or received poor training/support and are frustrated at being unable to interpret their charts, or have simply never heard of the method. While most people certainly find abstinence at least bothersome, my impression from participating in the Ovusoft community is that some couples choose abstinence even without any religious beliefs, and others choose barriers not because abstinence is such a huge obstacle, but simply because they don't find it necessary.  For comparison, most people will take an elevator if it's available, even for going just a few floors.  But most people will not find it a physical attack on them if a two or three story building has no elevator.  Does that make sense?


 * I hope I'm open to changing my mind when presented with new evidence, but right now we only have two explicit dissident views on NFP - one finds abstinence to be a big obstacle (the Torodes), the other doesn't find abstinence worthy of comment, rather attacking the idea that any method of contraception is theologically distinct (Piper). (The Winnipeg Statement says that NFP is "difficult" but doesn't say whether they find abstinence the main component of that difficulty, and I'm not familiar with Curran's writing.)  If more authors were presented who found abstinence their biggest (or one of their main) objections to NFP, I would be more open to lengthening that section. Lyrl  Talk C 00:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Category - should this article be grouped with fertility awareness related articles?
This article has been categorized with methods of determining fertility for purposes of periodic abstinence since July 2006. It was recently removed from the birth control sub-category Category:Periodic abstinence (diff). The editor who removed this category nominated the periodic abstinence category for deletion. A statement made at the deletion discussion was that including this article in a sub-cat of Category:Methods of birth control such as Category:Periodic abstinence was opposed because the editor was "concerned that Catholic theological concepts are being categorized as discrete methods of birth control".

I believe that this article should be categorized with articles describing methods of fertility awareness, primarily because the term is so commonly used interchangeably with fertility awareness, with no religious connotations. NFP is also by far the more common term, with 545,000 Google hits vs. 154,000 for fertility awareness. Categories are supposed to be navigationally useful, and someone familiar with the non-religious usage of NFP (and not familiar with the term "fertility awareness") would not be looking for it in a religious category. What do others think? Lyrl Talk C 20:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. I am not a category purist. They work to roughly group similar concepts together. While technically, NFP may not be a method in itself, it should still be grouped together in the behavioral methods category. Also, because NFP has been used interchangeably with the rhythm method and FA at times (with no religious connotation), in those instances the term is being used to describe a specific method of BC. The term is more common, and Lyrl makes some good arguments above. So yeah, I'd support categorizing this in with the other similar articles. -Andrew c 02:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a rough consensus at Categories for discussion to create a new Category:Fertility awareness. Per the above discussion, I would like to include this article in the new category. Lyrl  Talk C 01:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Prominence of specific methods
There are numerous methods that can be used as NFP: Billings, Creighton, Two-Day, Marquette, Weschler's FAM, the Couple to Couple League's sympto-thermo, Rhythm, Standard Days Method, etc. This article article currently lists Billings and Creighton in the introductory section, and also lists them out specifically in the observational section. Statistical methods are completely excluded from the introduction, and other popular observational methods like FAM and CCL's system have never been in the "observational" section. I don't think there's any reason for such prominent placement of Creighton and Billings to the exclusion of other systems. I would as a first choice like to reduce links to these methods to the "see also" section of this article. My second choice position would be to add other popular methods like Rhythm (used by 0.7% of Americans, or approximately 2 million people, according to the National Survey of Family Growth), FAM, and CCL's system. What do others think? Lyrl Talk C 20:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The Catholic concept of NFP is the result of a pontifical directive stating that birth control should not be used by adherents of the Catholic faith. The Creighton Model and the Billings ovulation method were developed by devout Catholics, in accordance with their faith.  It's ludicrous to suggest that we should ignore the Catholic roots of these methods and refrain from mentioning their basis and relevance to the Catholic concept of NFP in the article on the topic.  Joie de Vivre 22:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The basal body temperature method was developed by a devout Catholic (Rev. Wilhelm Hillebrand), in accordance with his faith. As was the sympto-thermal method developed by the founders of the Couple to Couple League (the largest NFP organization in North America).  I don't understand ignoring the Catholic roots of all methods except Creighton and Billings.


 * While the Knaus-Ogino form of Rhythm is no longer promoted, I do not think it has been superseded: the National Survey of Family Growth shows over three times as many Americans using Rhythm (0.7%) as using an observational method (0.2%). Also, the intro is still silent on the Standard Days Method, which was developed in 1999 and is being actively promoted around the world. Lyrl Talk C 23:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, if you want to write about these things you certainly may. I am not as familiar with the things you mentioned so I will leave it to you to make those corrections.  Joie de Vivre 00:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Category move
This article has been moved to Category:Fertility tracking as part of a planned deletion of Category:Periodic abstinence, Category:Fertility awareness, and Category:Natural family planning. Please bring up any concerns at Category talk:Periodic abstinence. If there are no objections within four days, these three categories will be tagged for speedy deletion. Lyrl Talk C 00:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

NOTICE: The old discussion at Category talk:Periodic abstinence is now located at Category talk:Fertility tracking/Periodic abstinence. Joie de Vivre 11:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wording for rate of NFP usage?
There was recently a sentence that said:
 * ...in 2002, only 1.5% of sexually active Americans avoiding pregnancy were using periodic abstinence.

This figure was from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth, which found 0.2% of all reproductive age women using the fertility awareness type of periodic abstinence and 0.7% of that same group using the calendar method of periodic abstinence (so 0.9% using periodic abstinence). Not all women of reproductive age are using birth control, though - only about 60% are. So, out of American women of reproductive age using birth control, 1.5% are using periodic abstinence.

Other sources present this information the same way (out of women of reproductive age using birth control). From this article, "In the United States, approximately 4% of women of reproductive age use natural family planning (NFP) to avoid pregnancy." (this was from a survey of women in Missouri). On page 242 of this article: "...the natural methods of family planning are used by only about 2-3% of women between the ages of 15 and 44." It cites this study for those figures.

I believe percentage "out of women using birth control" is a much more useful number than "out of all women of reproductive age". I believe my position is supported by the other sources that present information on NFP usage in this way. I would like to use the number from the NSFG because that seems to be more reliable than the other sources I've presented here. But it was recently claimed that we could not do this because it was original research. What do others think? LyrlTalk C 20:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Where did you get that 60% figure for "using birth control"? The NSFG percentages, 0.2% using the fertility awareness type of periodic abstinence, 0.7% using calendar method of periodic abstinence are for all American women ages 15-44, whether they are sexually active or not, not "using birth control".  I'm not keen on WP:SYN, which seems to be what you are suggesting.  I can't view those PubMed abstracts, you have to pay to see them.  Photouploaded 22:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * From the NSFG, same table (table 56), the percentages under "using contraception" add up to about 60%, and the percentages under "not using contraception" add up to about 40%. Or, go to table 57 and it adds up the percentages for you (61.9% using/39.8% not using contraception). I would not support using data like this from multiple sources - taking different pieces of data from studies that used different methodology and coming to some conclusion is likely to misrepresent the data.  But in this case, the numbers for % using birth control and % each method are from the same source, same survey, same reviewers - I don't believe this use has the same issues as the Source A + Source B = Conclusion C described in the Wikipedia policy.


 * I also think table 60 is worth looking at - the authors of the NSGF paper obviously thought % using a method out of women using any method (instead of total women of reproductive age) was a useful number. But the periodic abstinence methods got lumped under "other" in this table.


 * I can't view the full article for the PubMed abstract I linked to (I only linked to one abstract, the other two articles I linked to appeared in their entirety for free, no registration, for me), but the abstracts I thought were free to everyone - I certainly haven't paid any money to see them. LyrlTalk C 23:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, at WP:SYN, no exception is made for drawing two stats from the same source. The policy is clear: "'A and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article."  The 1.5% figure is listed nowhere, it cannot be used.  Photouploaded 03:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the policy's application to this case is clear (see Wikipedia talk:No original research), but there are certainly other options to the current wording I would like to explore.
 * Current wording:...only 0.2% of American women ages 15-44 were using natural family planning (fertility-detecting type), and only 0.7% were using calendar rhythm.
 * Option 1 - use a different source:...it is believed only 2-4% of American reproductive-age women using birth control choose natural family planning (source to the two articles I listed above)
 * Option 2 - include more information from the NSFG:...periodic abstinence is used by only a small percentage of reproductive age American women, with 0.2% using fertility awareness and 0.7% using calendar rhythm for birth control (40% of this population is not using any method of birth control).
 * Option 3 - use all three sources: ...it is believed only 2-4% of American women of reproductive age use natural family planning to avoid pregnancy,(sources I found above) although the National Survey of Family Growth found that only 0.9% of all American women 15-44 are using periodic abstinence for birth control.

I believe the current wording is not as useful for readers of this article as it should be. What do others think of the options I presented above? I'd like to see other suggestions, too, if there are problems with or ideas for improvement on those I listed out. LyrlTalk C 16:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No one on the talk page of WP:OR responded to my specific question, but there seems to be a pretty broad consensus there that simple reformatting does not violate that policy. That, plus no responses to my alternate suggestions, is making me lean toward adding the 1.5% statistic back into the article.  Thoughts? LyrlTalk C 22:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

... permits sex ...
The article says "The Catholic church permits sex during pregnancy, and after the woman goes through menopause." I don't think the word "permits" is really the correct one to convey the Church's position. The church "permits" sex between a married couple pretty much all the time - sex being seen as a natural healthy part of a marriage relationship. What is the informational purpose of this sentance in the first place? j-beda 00:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That wording was introduced here by an editor with whom I had a number of conflicts. I did not like that change, but chose to avoid a fight with that editor at that time.  I'd be perfectly fine if you changed or modified that wording now. LyrlTalk C 01:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Potential disadvantages and irregularity
I'm surprised this article doesn't cover a very large issue that a close friend had when she (not trying to sound biased here, but) rather blindly walked into NFP when she had terribly irregular menstrual cycles and was pregnant within 2 months. She took painful care with her 6-month observational period, but the regularity needed for this method wasn't in her chemistry, and she was pushed to continue by specialists who seemed blind to her irregularity. This article also lacks discussion of irregularity- is this just something NFP planners are largely blind to or am I running into coincidence? At the very least, the article should mention that the menstrual cycle isn't 100% predictable. And unless my life experience has been woefully off the beaten track, it seems most women have had at least some occurrences of "odd" cycles- whether due to stress, nutrition, or just the general wonders of the ever-changing human body. Even one "odd" cycle could turn perfectly-planned NFP awry. Also: I am a male, and no I wasn't the father in the example- this is strictly from observation. 209.153.128.248 03:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * NFP is different from the rhythm method - are you sure you have your terminology straight? - Chardish 04:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, unpublished, anecdotal evidence cannot be used as reliable sources in wikipedia. Do you have any better sources than your friend that we could site that states these things? If this is an issue, as you state, then it shouldn't be difficult to find such a source. Then, I don't see any issue with presenting such a criticism as long as we keep it neutral.-Andrew c [talk] 13:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The article does address irregular cycles:
 * Couples seeking the lowest risk of pregnancy (less than 1% per year) may be required to abstain for more than half of each menstrual cycle.
 * For women in certain situations - breastfeeding, perimenopause, or with hormonal diseases such as PCOS - abstinence may be required for months at a time.


 * Use of more-conservative rules with less-regular cycles (where the length of one cycle to another varies by 14 days or more) generally requires long periods of abstinence - weeks at a time, or even months at a time. Use of less-conservative rules such as the Dry Day Rule requires less abstinence, but carries a higher chance of pregnancy.  Other than that, it's really difficult to offer analysis of the friend's experience with so few details - if 209.153.128.248 is interested in learning what might have happened (and how it can be avoided), I'd recommend posting more details (such as what rules the friend was using - temp? cervical mucus? cervical position?) on a fertility awareness-based board such as Ovusoft. LyrlTalk C 01:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Theology section
Chardish recently removed a paragraph from the theology section. The previous paragraph ended with, "couples are encouraged to have as many children as their circumstances make practical," and the removed paragraph explained that a few theologians think that encouragement should only apply up to a certain number (four was suggested, but not held to be universally accurate).

Chardish and I went back and forth on the removal, and in the most recent removal Chardish argued, "this article is about a birth control method, not Catholic sexuality in general". I don't believe this is accurate, on two counts. First, fertility awareness and Lactational Amenorrhea Method are articles about birth control methods. This article is about the Catholic Church's approach to birth control, which allows only fertility awareness and LAM and only in certain situations. Second, why remove that specific paragraph in the theology section but leave the entire rest of the theology section? I would appreciate a fuller explanation of why that paragraph was especially offending. LyrlTalk C 20:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It wasn't offending, it was just offtopic. Granted, family planning (choosing a number of children) and birth control (having intercourse without conception) are similar topics, but those paragraphs were merely on the issue of how many children it's acceptable for Catholics to have. Since this article (and NFP in general) is about the relationship between sexual acts and conception for Catholics, it seems like a broader issue (such as choosing a number of children) falls outside the scope of this article. - Chardish 21:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * To me, the topic, "when is it morally permissible to use NFP to avoid pregnancy?" has a direct relationship to this article. The third paragraph in the "Theology" section lists situations where NFP use is permitted by Catholic theology, and also notes that theology generally holds couples should have "as many children as practical".  The removed section was not about choosing a number of children.  It covered debate over the morality of avoiding pregnancy in a certain situation: no health, financial, etc. cause to not have more children, but the couple just doesn't want anymore than their current several.


 * Does that make sense? I don't currently understand why a list of situations that make NFP use permitted is left in (entire third paragraph), while a discussion over a specific situation (removed paragraph) is taken out. LyrlTalk C 21:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm of the opinion that that specific section that you referred to goes into too much detail about that aspect of Catholic theology and would be best located in another article. It'd be like adding a paragraph on economic situations that cause people to want to avoid pregnancy. It's not irrelevant, it's just outside the scope of this article. - Chardish (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Would a shorter mention of that viewpoint be OK, then? How about adding on to the last paragraph: A few Catholic theologians argue that couples with several children may morally choose to avoid pregnancy even if their circumstances would allow for more children. Or, making something like that the next-to-last sentence, so the majority position remains the last sentence? LyrlTalk C 00:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd be fine with that; particularly if it were the second to last sentence. However, I've been checking my sources, and I haven't found anything in Catholic teaching that says that the emotional needs of the couple aren't important in choosing a family size. In other words, I don't see anything that says that you're required to have children to the point of unduly burdening yourself, even if you can support more. - Chardish (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Advantages: In accordance with Roman Catholic teachings
OP -- This should not be here. This article is not about the roman catholic church. Why should it be considered an ADVANTAGE that NFP is in accordance with an irrational organization that has no good reason for only "allowing" this method of BC? It should be listed as a DISADVANTAGE that this complies with the catholic church's dogma. I have removed this from the advantages for this reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.197.203 (talk • contribs)
 * First of all, this article is about the family planning method approved by the Roman Catholic Church (see the top of the article.) It's already sourced that NFP is approved by the Catholic Church. Removing this because you believe the Church is "irrational" is a point-of-view claim. Wikipedia strives for neutrality, and that means we can't remove parts of articles just because we disagree with them personally. Chardish (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV dispute - condoms and spontaneity of sex
In this edit, I removed the following:


 * Relatedly, intercourse may be spontaneous, as compared to the use of condoms. However, intercourse is not spontaneous during the days when a couple chooses to abstain.

This was immediately reverted by Chardish.

I challenge the idea that the opinions of the editors at www.thebody.com should be taken as fact. In regards to how condoms impact the spontaneity of sex, their editors posit that there is "Reluctance to use condoms because some people believe that condoms reduce pleasure or disrupt spontaneous sex." Who are these "people"? Where did the editors get this information? And who says that this is the most correct way to view the situation? Frankly, when you consider that some people might want to have intercourse with someone they just met, a condom would increase the spontaneity with which they might engage in such a pursuit. Applying a condom before sex is much more spontaneous than, say, going for a mutual STD test before sex, or forming a monogamous relationship before sex. Photouploaded (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have found multiple sources   that say that many believe condom use interferes with the spontaneity of sex. I reverted your edit because you appeared to be POV pushing; in your edit summary you stated that you believed the article was "irresponsible" and "perpetuating a myth" - it seemed like you were selectively trying to remove information that you disagreed with. Nonetheless, I feel like that sentence should be included, but I bet there's a better way to phrase that it that makes it clear that the belief that condoms interfere with spontaneity is an opinion and not a fact. This is perceived as an advantage by many NFP users, so it should be included in the article. Suggestions? - Chardish (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you need more justification that this is a common view, google it. - Chardish (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If anyone wants to reinstate material about condoms and spontaneity, they must cite sources. Please do not reinstate uncited material.  Photouploaded (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I find it extremely inappropriate to use reversions as a substitute for discussion. I brought my argument to the table; you didn't respond to it for three days, so I developed an alternate phrasing on my own that incorporated your objections and added it to the article. Apparently that wasn't acceptable to you, but how was I supposed to know if you ignore the talk page? Behavior like this is counterproductive to improving the encyclopedia; stop playing the role of Citation Police and try to work with us to build consensus. - Chardish (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have removed the uncited statement as unverified. Please cite your sources for the statement you want to include.  Otherwise we are just discussing WP:OR, which is a waste of time.  Photouploaded (talk) 20:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You challenged thebody.com as an unreliable source without providing a reason apart from the fact that they didn't cite their sources, which as far as I know is not a disqualification of reliability. Tags such as fact and verify are useful when you want to give good-faith editors a chance to find sources. If you want to continue your hopeless campaign against unsourced statements, there's more than enough work to go around, but judging by your contribs it seems like you're acting in the name of POV pushing and not merely immediatism in general. Oh, and one more revert and you break 3RR. - Chardish (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I restored the old source and added yet another source. I think that's enough to claim that this is hardly original research, especially since it's being presented as opinion and not fact. If this does not satisfy you, I do not know what will. - Chardish (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Chardish's new version reads:


 * NFP has none of the side effects associated with hormonal methods and spermicides, nor the need for specific action in preparation for each act of intercourse required by barrier methods. Many theologians, including Pope John Paul II, as well as many NFP users, feel this allows for more spontaneous intercourse during the infertile period.

I find the second sentence problematic. The Wojtyla reference, does that demonstrate that "many theologians" believe this, or does it only refer to the Pope? Also, the grammar is ambiguous. In the second sentence; what does the word "this" mean?


 * "Many theologians, including Pope John Paul II, as well as many NFP users, feel that [the lack of side effects associated with hormonal methods and spermicides, and the fact that specific action in preparation for each act of intercourse is not necessary] allows for more spontaneous intercourse during the infertile period.

Does the Wojtyla reference really support all of this?

What about the comparison made by using the phrase "more spontaneous"? What comparison are we making; to the relative spontaneity of intercourse with a condom? That isn't written in the article; but if we're going to make a comparison with the word "more", we should clarify what is being compared.

Why is the "thebody" ref here? What statement does it support? The section that Chardish referred to before is here:


 * Obstacles to effective and widespread condom use include:


 * Reluctance to use condoms because some people believe that condoms reduce pleasure or disrupt spontaneous sex.

OK... so we have a website saying that "some people" believe these things... but they don't list any of their own sources. Who are these "people"? Why are we comparing these phantom "people"'s opinions of condoms to the opinions of the Pope? What about the opinions of the people who use the billions of condoms that are used each year? Shouldn't those be compared in as well, if we are making empirical statements? Chardish just removed the citecheck template but I am replacing it now that my explanation is here. Photouploaded (talk)


 * Second-guessing a reliable source is equivalent to OR. If a reliable source says X, questioning X as "dubious" inside the article is original research unless you can either a) find a reason that source isn't reliable, or b) find another reliable source that outright contradicts that. The sources indicate that many people believe that condoms reduce the spontaneity of sex. Are you arguing that no one claims that? If so, why? Also, you might be interested to know that thebody.com is being cited as a source in dozens of other articles. To answer your questions: the Pope states that condoms reduce spontaneity - he states this as fact, not as opinion. Thebody.com states that some believe that it reduces spontaneity. The Christopher West book, also referenced, states that condoms interfere with spontaneity (he also states this as fact.) I also mentioned some sources above that support this claim that we can cite if need be, but I don't see the point in overloading an article with citations. Can you suggest alternate wording if this wording meets with your dissatisfaction? - Chardish (talk) 06:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Planned Parenthood says "Some men and women... become frustrated and lose some of their sexual excitement when they stop to put on a condom."
 * The book In Pursuit of Love: Catholic Morality and Human Sexuality says "Commonly heard complaints about the barrier methods of contraception are... that they interfere with the spontaneity of the sexual relationship, since a woman must be sure that she has prepared herself for intercourse or must do so in the midst of foreplay."
 * Both condoms specifically and barrier methods in general are perceived by many people to reduce the spontaneity of intercourse. This doesn't mean people won't use them - as I stated before, I've used hundreds of the devices myself despite agreeing with the less-spontaneity assessment: they have other advantages that are more important to me than spontaneity.  Because people make trade-offs when deciding on their method of contraception, that billions of condoms are used each year means nothing as far as popular perception of how condoms affect spontaneity.


 * Clarification that "this" in the second sentence refers to barrier methods might improve the sentence. "Many theologians" could be changed to "prominent theologians" (JPII and West are both prominent theologians).  I can't see the argument that it needs to be removed because of lack of sources, however. LyrlTalk C 17:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * While some men and women find condoms to reduce spontaneity, many do not! I am certain that anyone who engages in casual sex would find that condoms increase the spontaneity with which they can have sex; since they don't have to wait for STD test results to come back, or form a monogamous relationship.  They can simply roll on a condom and have spontaneous sex.  Plenty of people don't find the application of a condom to be an interruption in the act's spontaneity.  Many people simply work it into the act itself.  I have read (and heard) of many people who find the condom application to be an arousing act, as it signifies that intercourse is imminent.  These people do not find the application of a condom to impede the "spontaneity" of the act.
 * The very idea of comparing intercourse without a condom and intercourse with a condom, and concluding that intercourse with a condom is "less spontaneous", overall, hands-down, as a bedrock truth, is ridiculous. Where are we getting the information to make this comparison, that it inherently IS less spontaneous?  This is a subjective opinion, and as such it must be attributed to the person or persons with that opinion.  Photouploaded (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No one was claiming that that intercourse with a condom is less spontaneous for everyone. The article before your most recent reversion claimed that many NFP users saw increased spontaneity as a benefit of NFP. That's "many NFP users," not all NFP users, and not everyone who has sex. There are people who do not feel like condoms reduce spontaneity. That does not change the fact that there are many who perceive this as an advantage to NFP.


 * Since you are contesting the idea that many people find that condoms reduce the spontaneity of sex, I challenge you to find a source that contradicts that claim. In other words, you need to find a reliable source that says that there are not many who feel that condoms reduce the spontaneity of sex. If the sources I cite are truly unreliable than you should have no problem finding reliable sources that contradict them. If you cannot do this you have no ground to stand on in this debate. - Chardish (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not responding to your little straw man.
 * Here is the version of the sentence that you have been pushing:
 * ''Prominent theologians, including Pope John Paul II, as well as many NFP users, feel that refraining from barrier methods allows for more spontaneous intercourse during the infertile period.


 * And here is one of the versions that I have attempted to instate, (which you keep reverting):


 * ''Pope John Paul II feels that refraining from barrier methods allows for more spontaneous intercourse during the infertile period, as compared to sex with the use of a condom.


 * References:


 * First, I removed "prominent theologians", plural, because no one had answered my question: does the reference state that many theologians feel this way? Or is the only opinion in that ref that of the author, Karol Wojtyla?
 * Second, no reference whatsoever states that "many NFP users" share this opinion. This is an uncited statement, yet you keep reinstating it.
 * Third; again, what the do the opinions of the editors at thebody.com have to do with this discussion? What statement is that reference intended to support?  The thebody.com "reference" offers no scientific study to support its own statement.  Also, it says nothing about the opinions of prominent theologians, nor does it say anything about the opinions of NFP users, so what is it doing here?  Photouploaded (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Dispute, cont.
Chardish stated 23 December that "The Christopher West book, also referenced, states that condoms interfere with spontaneity". Christopher West + Pope John Paul II = theologians.

"Many NFP users" could easily be changed to "many people" if Photouploaded would prefer. Both Chardish and I have offered a number of references for this statement here on this talk page, waiting for you to evaluate them and deem any acceptable or explain to us why each one is not acceptable. The references come from the experience of birth control providers and not from surveys; this in and of itself does not make them unreliable. LyrlTalk C 01:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The wording "prominent theologians" is unnecessary if we're only talking about two people. A better way to put it would be. "Theologians Pope John Paul II[ref] and Christopher West[ref] feel that...".  I oppose changing "many NFP users" to "many people".  If a person is not an NFP user, how would they know when the infertile period is?  Photouploaded (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We've displayed several sources here and cited some in the article itself which clearly indicate that it is a common view that condoms reduce spontaneity. For reasons I don't quite understand, it seems like you insist on only the weakest, most specific possible wording of this sentence (do you want us to provide a bulleted list of people who have stated that condoms reduce spontaneity before we accept it as a common view?) Again, we have not stated that the condom/spontaneity thing is fact, we have simply stated (truthfully) that it is a common perception. You are being unreasonable and I will seek dispute resolution unless you either find sources that contradict what we're saying or stop reverting the page. - Chardish (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * N.B. I agree that the burden of proof (i.e. the requirement for sources) rests on the person who makes a claim. However, when a person finds a source that states X, for the source to be challenged as unreliable the challenger needs to provide a source that contradicts X. Otherwise the challenger is tilting at windmills. - Chardish (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This diff's edit summary explains why I placed the fact tags: citecheck is there because the thebody.com reference does not appear to support any statement in the sentence. The phrasing "prominent theologians" is misleading; when we are not talking about a group but simply two people, who could be named. The statement about "many NFP users" remains uncited.  Please address these concerns.  Photouploaded (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You have been asked multiple times to find sources that contest what was already written and cited, and have continued to revert against objections. I have posted a Wikiquette alert concerning your behavior. In the meantime I'll be finding sources to improve this article. If you care about this article, you'll do the same. - Chardish (talk) 07:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) Your Wikiquette alert was dismissed as a content dispute, on the grounds that I committed no incivility. Please stop attacking me personally and let us stick to the topic at hand.

I am baffled by your demands that I produce contesting sources. There is no claim that I am attempting to add, why would I produce sources? We are not having a general debate. Please stop making this demand of me, and please, let us remain focused on the phrasing of the article.

I am raising specific concerns about the material in the version you recently reinstated. The current phrasing of the sentence is exactly the same as yours. The only difference is my addition of fact tags, in regards to three specific concerns. I have already raised these concerns, twice. I will explain these concerns a third and final time.

Your version reads as follows:


 * Prominent theologians, including Pope John Paul II, as well as many NFP users, feel that refraining from barrier methods allows for more spontaneous intercourse during the infertile period.

Here are my concerns with this version:


 * 1) The phrasing "prominent theologians" is unnecessary. The references only support the statements of two people. These two people are not examples of some larger group; they are the "group". It would be more accurate to simply name the two theologians.
 * 2) The phrase "many NFP users" - is this supported by the West or PJPII references? If the statement is not supported by either reference, this statement needs a citation, or it must be removed.
 * 3) The thebody.com reference does not support any statement in the text. There is no empirical statement in the text about the effect of condoms on spontaneity of sex, nor should there be, as it's a subjective opinion.  The thebody.com reference does not refer to "many NFP users" or any NFP users whatsoever, so why is this reference here?

Therefore, I think that the sentence should read:
 * Theologians Pope John Paul II and Christopher West feel that refraining from barrier methods allows for more spontaneous intercourse during the infertile period.

The phrase "as well as many NFP users" can be added if the West or PJPII references support the statement that "many NFP users" find NFP to allow for more spontaneous intercourse.

I respectfully request that you will respond to these three specific concerns. This dispute is unlikely to be resolved if we branch off into an off-topic debate. Please, rather than attacking me, or demanding that I produce "sources", let us stick to working on the phrasing of the article, and let us resolve these remaining concerns. Thank you in advance. Photouploaded (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The "Advantages" section does not read Sarah Cimperman believes fertility awareness can be used to track reproductive health in general..., the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops claims the fertility knowledge gained from NFP may also be used to help achieve pregnancy... and that NFP can be free or low cost... the Couple to Couple League holds that use of NFP increases marital satisfaction and helps lower divorce rates. That formatting - naming the source used in every single claim made in the article - is not the most desirable writing style in an encyclopedia article.  First, it makes the sentences more difficult to read by making them longer and interrupting the flow of discussion with unrelated and (to many readers) unfamiliar people and organizations.  Second, it implies that these are minority opinions held ONLY by those people or organizations, when in fact all of these statements are widely accepted.


 * To be consistent with the rest of the "Advantage" section, I support "prominent theologians" instead of "Pope John Paul II and Christopher West". This makes the sentence shorter and doesn't interrupt the point of the sentence (a potential advantage of NFP) with the question "who is this West guy?"  Readers who are interested in more in-depth information ("which prominent theologians?") are just a click away from the references.


 * Perceptions are perfectly acceptable topics for an encyclopedia article, and the condom article itself says, "Some couples find that putting on a condom interrupts sex... Some men and women find the physical barrier of a condom dulls sensation... disadvantages might include a loss of some sexual excitement." That using a condom "interrupts sex", "dulls sensation", and causes a "loss of sexual excitement" are all opinions, and certainly not opinions held by everyone or even a majority of people.  But they are common opinions and deserve a place in an encyclopedia article.  Just like the increased spontaneity of knowing a woman is infertile compared to having to mess around with a barrier before sex is a common perception and deserves a place in this article.


 * "NFP has none of the side effects associated with hormonal methods and spermicides, nor the need for specific action in preparation for each act of intercourse required by barrier methods. Many people believe use of barrier methods reduces the spontaneity of intercourse, (citation or citations of Photouploaded's choice here, from the several offered by Chardish and myself, or specific reasons for rejecting all of them) and prominent theologians advocate the unrestricted intercourse allowed to avoiding couples during the infertile period as an advantage of NFP over barrier methods.  How's that? LyrlTalk C 03:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the amount of thought you've put into this. As I have said, the NFP article is not an appropriate place to make a definitive statement about the effect of condoms on the spontaneity of intercourse.  The second sentence you suggested sounds rather like a brochure, first posing a problem that "many people" face, and then vaguely alluding that NFP can form a solution.  I find this misleading.  Clearly, very few people choose NFP as birth control.  Nearly all sexually active people people use condoms, hormonal birth control, and other methods that allow them to engage in intercourse whenever they want to, not methods that rely on abstinence.  There is no evidence to suggest that many people turn to NFP out of frustration with barrier methods.  Therefore, we should not attempt to suggest that there is some supposed inherent problem with condoms, nor the idea of NFP as a 'solution'.  In this sentence, we should remain focused on the discussion of NFP itself, using some version of either my suggested sentence or the second half of yours; as their meanings are similar.  Photouploaded (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There is evidence to suggest that many people feel that condoms mar the experience of intercourse to a degree. An advantage of NFP is that NFP users do not have to worry about that. An article on NFP should neutrally state the advantages and disadvantages of NFP. It is POV pushing to omit an advantage because it is subjectively deemed to be less significant despite the fact that sources support it. - Chardish (talk) 05:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the case could be made for the idea that a committed couple who relies on condoms might appreciate being able to forego their condoms during the infertile period. However, this practice would involve fertility awareness, not NFP.  If they point you are trying to make is that people who find condoms to be undesirable would welcome lengthy periods of abstinence in their stead, I suggest you find some robust sources for that idea.
 * There is no evidence to suggest that among the population of people who find condoms undesirable, no sex at all is considered preferable to sex with a condom. I say this because that is the option offered by NFP: either sex with no condom, or no sex at all. So, during those instances where a condom would be necessary, NFP allows only abstinence.  Clearly, according to available statistics on which types of of birth control are popular in countries where such medications and devices are available, nearly all people who wish to forego condoms do not consider abstinence a reasonable option. They turn to hormonal birth control, IUD, other barriers, sterilization, or simply take a chance without a condom, so that they can experience condom-free intercourse; they do not forego intercourse altogether.
 * To put it simply: I challenge the idea that NFP's periodic abstinence is widely considered an improvement over sex with condoms, other than by devout Christians, specifically Catholics. You can't just surgically isolate the idea of 'annoyance with condoms', and then promote the condom-free sex period associated with NFP; when the evidence clearly demonstrates that the vast majority of people find periodic abstinence to be so disruptive to sexual spontaneity that for them it is not an option.
 * Again, I'm not discounting the idea that certain people find condoms to be undesirable for various reasons. But you haven't proven that long periods of abstinence serve as an attractive option to those people.  Therefore, I find that comparison to be misleading.  I propose the following:


 * Two prominent Catholic theologians feel that refraining from barrier methods allows for more spontaneous intercourse during the infertile period, while others feel that the overall abstinence requirement of NFP limits spontaneous sex.


 * I think this provides a more realistic picture of NFP. Sex within the infertile period may be considered by its promoters to be more "spontaneous" than sex with a condom, but the structural context limits the overall spontaneity.  Is this version acceptable? (Please?) Photouploaded (talk) 15:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If they point you are trying to make is that people who find condoms to be undesirable would welcome lengthy periods of abstinence in their stead, I suggest you find some robust sources for that idea.'
 * Finding myself one of this mysterious group you describe, I'll try to help out and find some sources.  -Ben (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Nowhere did I describe this group as "mysterious", but perhaps my meaning was not clear; I should have said "all people", not simply "people". That said, if we can demonstrate how NFP users feel about their method as compared to other methods, that is reasonable to include.  Yet, as always, we must not present opinion as a generalized statement of fact. Photouploaded (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, Photouploaded, that is not acceptable, because the sentence in the article is not intended to explain the motives of NFP users; it's merely intended to state an advantage of NFP. Furthermore, as Lyrl stated above, we do not write articles by stating the number of sources that support a statement. How awkward would it be to read through an article littered with sentences that say "One person says this...one person says this...one newspaper says this...one website says this..." That is not how encyclopedias are written. The criticism of NFP you found is legitimate and already exists in the potential disadvantages section; placing it in the advantages section would be POV pushing that implies that the disadvantage outweighs the advantage. On another note, you now have three people who disagree with you on this talk page and no one who agrees with you. Please, please, please find some sources that state the points you're trying to make if you wish to continue, or just back down from this matter. - Chardish (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Chardish, you said: "the sentence in the article is not intended to explain the motives of NFP users; it's merely intended to state an advantage of NFP". And therein lies the problem: it seems that you wish to see the opinion that condoms significantly mar the experience of intercourse, presented as an incontrovertible fact.  In fact, that's almost exactly what you said on 23 December:


 * "... the Pope states that condoms reduce spontaneity - he states this as fact, not as opinion. ... The Christopher West book, also referenced, states that condoms interfere with spontaneity (he also states this as fact.)"


 * Saying that something is "fact" does not make it so. There is no Grand High Czar of Sex, nor is there a Sexual Assessment Board that determines, once and for all, definitively and factually, how condoms affect the sex act.  The way that condoms affect the sex act is a subjective opinion, based entirely on the experience of the individual.  People vary so widely in terms of what they find sexually stimulating, that it cannot be accurate to state that any given thing is inherently an enhancement or a detriment to sexual pleasure.
 * Yes, certainly, I would be comfortable assuming that some people experience condom use as a hindrance to the commencement or the enjoyment of sexual intercourse. However, I would be equally comfortable assuming that some people find that condoms do not change the act for them at all, and that still others find that condoms enhance sexual sensation, particularly if textured, colored, or contoured condoms are used.  How condoms affect a person's experience of sex is a subjective opinion, a matter of the individual's personal taste.  To state that NFP presents an advantage over condom use: again, this is an opinion, and opinions must be attributed.
 * If you do not find any of the many suggestions I have made to be acceptable, would you please present a suggestion for what the sentence should say? Thank you. Photouploaded (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be comfortable assuming that some people experience condom use as a hindrance to the commencement or the enjoyment of sexual intercourse.
 * Would you be comfortable stating that some NFP practitioners do so because they find it to be the case? I certainly know that to be true, but don't have an attributable source beyond OR. -Ben (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I meant that I would be comfortable making that assumption for myself, not that assumptions should be included in the article. Mentioning the motivations of NFP users does not sound unreasonable.  If you can find a source, let's take it from there.  Photouploaded (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Dispute, cont. II
How much value the general population or NFP users specifically put on each advantage and disadvantage is not something I want to get into in this article. Whether any one advantage (such as more spontaneous intercourse at certain times in a woman's cycle) is valued enough to "convert" people to NFP is not something I find relevant to whether or not the advantage exists.

Prominent theologians argue that refraining from barrier methods allows for more spontaneous intercourse during the infertile period. First: More spontaneous than what? Than during the fertile period? Well, yeah, but what does that have to do with barrier methods? I like what this sentence is intended to convey, but I would like to find a statement with different grammar. I believe it would be less confusing. Second: by specifying theologians and no other group, this sentence implies that only theologians - and not actual users - consider this an advantage.

While avoiding pregnancy, prominent theologians present the unrestricted intercourse allowed during the infertile period to be an advantage over the use of barrier methods. This sentence, standing alone, implies that barrier methods "restrict" intercourse. Which makes no sense - the advantage of a barrier over NFP is that intercourse can happen at any time. It seems like there should be a way to convey that not having to put a barrier on or in can be an advantage, in a single sentence, without going into grammatical contortions, but I haven't figured it out yet. And again, my objection to specifying theologians but no other group.

What has seemed the simplest solution (to me) is to specify what is being compared (the spontaneity of intercourse with vs. without barrier contraception), and why it is being compared (because some people find intercourse with a barrier to be less spontaneous), in one sentence. This first sentence would also allow reference to members of the general population, avoiding the theologians-only problem. And then in a second sentence make the actual comparison (NFP allows barrier-free intercourse, which theologians hold to be more spontaneous, during the infertile period). Photouploaded is correct, this article should not be making any definitive statement about the effect of condoms on intercourse. I apologize if I have come across as advocating that position. What I believe helps explain this advantage of NFP is pointing out that many (some? a common but minority view) people hold the opinion that condoms interfere with the spontaneity of intercourse. It should be clear this is an opinion of many/some people and not an absolute fact.

I don't have any desire to trash talk condoms and other barriers here. I believe they generally have advantages that outweigh their disadvantages. But I have not been able to come up with a way to neutrally present this advantage of NFP (not messing around with barriers) without specifically mentioning that some people don't like messing around with barriers. LyrlTalk C 03:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's theologians who find it more spontaneous, though, I think they have written about and presented the viewpoint. In the intro to Love & Responsibility, for example, JPII states that he's writing about this stuff not because he's had personal experience with it, but because he's had large amounts of exposure to the subject through counseling and discussion. I think it needs to be presented not as the opinion of theologians, but as the opinion of the users. If we wish to state that it is theologians who present the opinion, that's fine by me. But it's an important distinction nonetheless - Chardish (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Chardish, you said: "I think it needs to be presented not as the opinion of theologians, but as the opinion of the users." What do you mean by "it"? What do you mean by "users": condom users or NFP users?  Photouploaded (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It = the viewpoint. Apologies for the ambiguity on that point. Users = NFP users. I thought that was implied. - Chardish (talk) 03:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, Lyrl, I thank you for the great amount of thought you have put into this. I think you have done an excellent job assessing the challenge.
 * What comes to mind is that the supposed advantage of condom-free sex with NFP comes at a price. That price is the significant time period of each menstrual cycle during which the couple must abstain.  The fact remains that for most people who find condoms to be a hindrance, the price of periodic abstinence is too high.  Hormonal birth control, the IUD, and other options remain far more attractive for the majority of those who wish to forego condoms.  Clearly, only those who use NFP consider it to be an advantage.  It is not accurate to look at the condom-free sex associated with NFP in a vacuum, stripping away the context.  Significant periods of abstinence, painstaking charting, and the possibility of pregnancy are part and parcel of NFP.
 * Here's an analogy. Consider whether you would find it reasonable to say: "Many people find fresh bread to be significantly more enjoyable than packaged bread, thus working in a bakery can serve as an advantage for those who want to have fresh bread."  That statement conveniently sidesteps the fact that most people who want fresh bread are not willing to get up at four o'clock in the morning and do hours of intense physical labor for their fresh bread.  The statement is quite misleading, when you consider that the vast majority of people who want to eat fresh bread simply buy it.
 * My point is that you can't point to the condom-free period associated with NFP and call that an advantage over condom usage for those who don't want to use condoms, when the ball and chain of abstinence and charting really sink that ship for most of the people in that group. Photouploaded (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would find the argument about bread convincing if there were sources stating access to fresh bread as a benefit of being a bakery employee. And for the record, bread machines exist for people who prefer fresh-baked bread; being an actual bakery employee or performing any intense labor whatsoever are not requirements. But I digress. Every method of family planning and birth control has advantages and disadvantages. One of NFP's advantages is that it does not bear any of the disadvantages of artificial birth control, thus these are worth mentioning in the article. We have statements that indicate that it is a common opinion that condoms reduce the spontaneity of sex; it is not even a logical leap to state this as an advantage of NFP. It follows directly from what is stated in sources. Now, the major disadvantages of NFP are that it requires abstinence, charting, etc. and that's included in the article. No one's contesting any of this.
 * Here's where you're missing the mark - you're making a judgment about whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages (or, more specifically, whether a certain advantage outweighs the disadvantage), and you're using that to make decisions about what should be in the article. To censor article content based on personal opinion is contrary to Wikipedia policy.
 * I personally believe that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. But that's my personal opinion, and that's not going to prevent me from understanding that all disadvantages should be included as part of the article. It is not our role to "weigh the pros and cons," it is our role to present facts and common opinions, labeled as such and properly sourced. - Chardish (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to refocus the discussion upon what the article itself should say. I just made an edit to the sentence, removing the unsourced statement about "many NFP users", and the thebody.com reference (as it does not appear to support any statement in the text). The sentence now reads as follows:
 * Two prominent Catholic theologians feel that refraining from barrier methods allows for more spontaneous intercourse during the infertile period.
 * Please hear me out on this! Since no one has objected to this statement in its various forms, and we seem to be in agreement that it is true and appropriate for inclusion, I suggest that we consider it to be the backbone of the sentence.  From here we can work on adding other information.  What other information would you like to see added?  Can you offer a version of the sentence as you would like to see it written?  Please provide sources.  Thanks very much, Photouploaded (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I already objected to that statement above, and Lyrl objected to something very similar to it. Naming the sources creates the false impression that this is a minority view; numbering the sources is even worse and risks turning articles into POV matches by numbers ("47 prominent academics believe opinion X, while 61 prominent academics believe opinion Y...") Our goal is to present and adequately represent common views, and there is no evidence to suggest that this is a fringe viewpoint only shared by two theologians. Anyway, I found yet more sources on the matter:
 * "Condoms can reduce sexual spontaneity and sensation." Florida Dept. of Health
 * "Advantages to natural family planning: ...enjoyment and spontaneity of sex; not having to use barrier methods or devices." University of Iowa Hospitals & Cinics
 * "Condoms: ...lacks spontaneity." Patient Information Publications
 * "Negative psychological effects such as... or loss of sexual spontaneity, have been reported." State of Alaska Health Services
 * "NFP leaves the marital embrace in its natural beauty. Contraceptive condoms (male or female), sponges, diaphragms and foams have definite problems in the area of “aesthetics” — many couples find them downright unpleasant, and they interfere with spontaneity...We have had former users of these methods tell us that they often felt like they were gearing up for making war instead of making love." Couple to Couple League (and hey, there's the holy grail that directly links this commonly held opinion with NFP users!)
 * So, how about this:
 * During the infertile period, NFP allows for intercourse without barrier methods. This allows for more spontaneous sex, as barrier methods are commonly considered to reduce sexual spontaneity.
 * Using the sources stated above. - Chardish (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

www.healthybirthcontrol.com
I had added the following webpage for the Ladycomp and Babycomp:

www.healthybirthcontrol.com

for the reason that the webpage is dedicated to the full scientific research data on these monitors.

Research on these monitors show that the Ladycomp has THE SAME EFFECTIVENESS as the birth control pill, the reliability of which is unmatched in any other form of natural contraception.

In addition, it is far simpler, faster and less messy to use than charting, taking the mucus, urinating etc etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Priyakarani (talk • contribs) 03:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Are these claims independently verified? Furthermore, judging by your contributions you appear to be a single-purpose account intended to promote this particular product and website on Wikipedia. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's core policies in order to productively help the encyclopedia. Thanks. - Chardish (talk) 05:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Source
I don't have West's "Good News about Sex and Marriage" book, which is used as the only source to support a fairly strange sentence about foreplay. Can anyone check the source to make sure that it actually says this? Do we know if West's book is considered an accurate representation of Catholic doctrine? And (assuming that it's accurate) can we think of a way of saying this that doesn't remind me of a "plumbing lesson" given by an embarrassed adult to twelve year olds?

The larger concern I have with this article is its tendency to assume that "orgasm" always means "male orgasm." To read this, you'd think that female orgasms (which never result in pregnancy) must also always result from vaginal sex. I could be wrong, of course, but I'd be surprised to hear that the Catholic Church has actually mentioned women having orgasms in any of its rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The relevant quote from the West book (which I haven't read and don't have access to) appears to be posted online here (it's the first appearance of the phrase "female orgasm" on that page, if you can search for phrases in your browser). He argues that female orgasm must be part of an instance of intercourse (foreplay or post-play), although not necessarily directly from the intercourse itself.  That seems to be the majority view among Catholic theologians, although papers like Mutuality and Pleasure: A Discussion of the Female Orgasm in Contemporary Catholic Sexual Ethics seem to imply there's still active discussion going on. LyrlTalk C 16:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the links.


 * (1) Do we think that Christopher West is a reliable source for information about Roman Catholic theology? His website does not claim any official status for himself (doesn't the Roman Catholic Church have official theologians for the purpose of making pronouncements like this?) and his "classes" are unaccredited.


 * (2) Would anyone mind if I shortened the current statement,
 * "While deliberate orgasmic acts apart from a culmination in full marital intercourse are forbidden, this church does not condemn foreplay in the context of sexual relations within marriage. Foreplay is unobjectionable as long as the act culminates with the husband penetrating his wife's vagina with his penis and ejaculating while penetrating"


 * to read something like, "Foreplay is permitted. According to author Christopher West, deliberate orgasmic acts are unobjectionable only in the context of unprotected penile-vaginal sex."?  I think that's a reasonably accurate statement (according to the bit of West's book on the website), but it distances us from West in case he turns out to be an unreliable source, and it feels less strange to me.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * His resume states he has a Master's degree in theology and is a "Certified Catechist" in the Catholic church . To me, that seems like he is an official theologian (though I'm far from a reliable source in making that determination).  This view is apparently being taught in classes on Catholic theology .  I don't see any reason to doubt West as a reliable source, or to imply that statement is inaccurate by attributing it to a single person whose name is not recognized by the general public.
 * How about replacing the whole paragraph from the second sentence with, "This church considers deliberately altering fertility or the marital act with the intention of preventing procreation to be sinful. Thus, artificial birth control methods are forbidden, as are acts intended to end in orgasm outside the context of intercourse (e.g. masturbation or oral sex that is not part of foreplay). At the same time, not having sex at all (abstinence) is considered morally acceptable."
 * LyrlTalk C 01:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (1) I think, after a brief Google search, that a certified catechist is what most Protestants call a Sunday School teacher (with a small amount of official training, equal to a single college class).


 * (2) Your proposed phrasing is fine with me.  Would you like to make the edit?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * According to this unreliable forum post, Good News About Sex & Marriage bears a Nihil Obstat and an Imprimatur. These designations, issued by a Church bishop, means that the book does not contain doctrinal or moral error; i.e. it doesn't contradict RCC teachings. If this were the case, the statements listed about orgasm in connection with vaginal intercourse are consistent with Church theology. Could someone with access to the book (or the next time they're at a bookstore) see if the Nihil Obstat/Imprimatur are there? For the record, I believe there's something in Love & Responsibility (by JP II) about female orgasm being a moral imperative of the man. I can dig it up if we feel it's important. - Chardish (talk) 02:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Politics
This is very interesting, but it's not going anywhere, because I know the rules. "We are asking for clarification", and "could you please clarify" is great - really good. The simple fact is that a GA reviewer comes here, asks for changes, and you constantly question his review. (This is funny, because you argue and question each other, ad nauseum...) I will advise Realist2 to stop wasting his (freely given) time and fail this article ASAP, so you can stop wasting his time (and mine). This article is a prime example of control over concensus, which is frowned upon. You will find (sadly) that the next reviewer will also have the same problems. I wish you the best.--andreasegde (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have taken your advice and failed the article, and my decision was based on the consensus of two reviewers who felt the same way.
 * A large number of the edits were vandalism, reverts, POV edits, ownership. Instability was a concern.
 * The bullying of us (the reviewers) made it impossible to review the article neutrally
 * Our views were not respected, reviewers were accused of not reading sources and being too inexperienced on the issue to evaluate it.
 * Edits made by reviewers to the article were reverted.
 * A number of citation tags are in place.
 * The article was not broad enough.
 * Pictures were OK but could have been better.

Realist2 (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This seems like a drastic and unnecessary step. I assure you that no "bullying" is taking place. Could you perhaps take a step back, a deep breath, and respond to our questions without viewing them as personal attacks? - Chardish (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not "a drastic and unnecessary step". You failed a GA, and the world will turn... Stop complaining and improve the article.--andreasegde (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The difficulty I have in doing so is the fact that a discussion didn't really take place. Concerns were raised, clarifications were asked for, and then suddenly it spiraled down into an argument that ended with a GA failure. Typically a GA review identifies specific problems with the article, as well as suggestions on how to fix them. For example, "Pictures were OK but could have been better." How so?
 * It is possible for GA reviewers to be wrong. I have reviewed GAs before, and I have been wrong. While some people took issue with the comments of the reviewer(s), I do not see any disrespect in those comments. I'm sorry that your feelings were apparently hurt, and those of Realist2, but can we try to move on and work together to better the article? Please? - Chardish (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

On the project talk page another reviewer has stated that he/she would probably fail it as well. Im not going to alter my decision on this. This is a shame, you waited weeks on the nomination list and you only have yourselves to blame, sort out the issues above and renominate it. Dont worry if i see it renomiated in a few weeks time i wont dare come near it.Realist2 (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is a BLACK HOLE, and I doubt if it will ever get a GA rating. I will congratulate you if it does, BTW. Have fun.--andreasegde (talk) 19:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hindsight
Yuck, what a nightmare, this shound never have ended in this manner, i wish you guys all the best getting the article to GA. -- Realist 2 ( Come Speak To Me ) 00:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Gender Pre-Selection
The claim that NFP can dramatically pre-select birth gender is supported by a single researcher, while all other attempts have not shown anywhere near the supposed magnitude of affect. I'm not sure why this dubious report was in the introduction. Oddly, the success rates in Dr Leonie Mc Sweeney's article supposedly published in 2011 also matches exactly the results cited from a McSweeney publication in 1993 by the Australian Council Natural Family Planning Research and Education Committee I've updated the phrasing to be more indicative of published results in this field and invite further revisions as required. I suspect shameless self-promotion.

Contraceptive Effectiveness
I am unclear why this article should quote a general-use failure rate of 25% for symptoms based NFP methods. None of the research quoted under reference 14 justifies this number ('under 9%' would be more accurate); reference 13 (the Guttmacher Institue figure) apears to be based on 20-year old research and includes all periodic abstinence methods then available under one total. On the basis of the more recent research, which reflects use of reasonably current symptoms-based methodologies, I propose a change to the upper bound of general-use failure rate for symptoms-based NFP to 9%. Daldred (talk) 13:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding fertility awareness methods, the authors of the authoritative book Contraceptive Technology have not found (as of the most recent edition) any effectiveness studies to meet "modern standards of design, execution, and analysis." Other old studies have also found high pregnancy rates ( in Columbia,  in Los Angeles).  Also, all effectiveness studies are of women who learned the method in a classroom.  Many users now are self-taught from books. No studies have been done on pregnancy rates in this group, but it is widely believed their general-use failure rate is significantly higher than that of women taught by experienced teachers.


 * Recognizing the problems with the 25% number, it is not listed alone but rather as the upper end of a range. However, because of concerns that the general-use failure rate in the available studies does not accurately reflect the population using the method, and lacking the third-party judgment of Contraceptive Technology or a similar source, I don't know that lowering the upper end of that range is justified. LyrlTalk C 03:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Given the recognised problems with the 25% number, it seems inappropriate to use it except perhaps with very clear caveats - certainly not as a headline figure in a sidebar.  The more recent studies do provide figures for general use, and whilst these studies may not conform to the requirements of the authors of the one book you quote, they are peer-reviewed published research: is this not the usual basis of recognition of scientific papers as references?


 * Is it not sensible to (a) apply caveats to the 25% figure on the grounds that it is seriously outdated and does not in fact treat modern symptoms-based methods, and (b) refer to the more recent results in relation to modern methods - and if the specific authors quoted are felt unusually authoritative, despite their involvement in technological birth control methods which are the direct competitors of natural methods, refer separately to their views on the research? Daldred (talk) 16:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The articles I linked to in my first response are peer-reviewed articles of modern symptoms-based methods. They both found Pearl rates higher than 25%.  I do not believe age alone is sufficient reason to discard their results. LyrlTalk C 23:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please clarify your thinking here: how can age not affect the relevance to modern methods, which have evolved since the studies in question? The studies you refer to are 10-15 years older than the recent ones, and methodologies have improved significantly: their continued inclusion as authoritative for modern methods, in the face of more recent and applicable contradictory research, damages the integrity of this article. Daldred (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * How have the methods changed since the 1980s? To my knowledge, the Billings Ovulation Method, the Creighton Model, the Couple to Couple League's Method, and Toni Weschler's method (all the main ones I'm aware of) were already established in their current form when those studies were conducted. LyrlTalk C 21:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * CCL's methodology (with which I am most familiar) has certainly changed; teaching it in the 1980s we used slightly different rules, placed less reliance on the cervix sign, and did not use Doering's research. CCL is in fact currently completely revising its methodology and the resulting system has changed the rules quite markedly.   I would be surprised if others had not kept up with the changes in understanding.  The NFP rules applied by the more recent two Frankl studies differ from the early 1980's ones; the Edinburgh study (as I recall from discussions with participating couples at the time, though I do not have any paperwork to hand) also reflected changes.   This is probably why the figures have improved, in fact, and why the use of outdated figures in this respect is not reasonable.
 * I have suggested an alteration which reflects the later studies and would suggest including comments on the fact that NFP methodologies continue to develop in the light of experience and knowledge, perhaps as well as indicating the range of 'general use' statistics and that later studies give better rates. I am conscious that we do not want to create a 'revert war' here:  would this approach not both represent a fair treatment of the published science and allow comment on the older studies to which you appear more attached?  Daldred (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I was aware of the CCL's current project, but had not realized their system had changed significantly prior to this. I'm also not familiar with the Frankl or Edinburgh studies (To see the studies I have at least passing familiarity with, I've typed up the studies referenced in the Kippley's book here and you can see a more thorough discussion of them at Fertility awareness). It would be interesting to have a discussion estimating how much CCL's changes have impacted the effectiveness of their system, but ultimately not definitive for this discussion since the lowest effectiveness numbers are for the Billings Method.

The two peer-reviewed studies I linked to found Pearl rates of 34% and 35% for the Billings Method. These numbers are not currently in the article and I'm not advocating putting them there. I'm comfortable leaving them out of the article completely because an authoritative source - Contraceptive Technology - has dismissed these studies as not up to modern standards. The authors of that book did not find any studies of symptoms-based methods up to their standards, and so used the data from the National Survey of Family Growth. Because the NSFG number is of calendar- and symptoms-based methods grouped together, I'm comfortable indicating that some studies of symptoms-based methods have found lower actual failure rates. I'm not comfortable throwing out the Contraceptive Technology number entirely. (I do not find writing about "technological methods" of birth control to be a compelling reason to not trust a person's writing on "natural methods". That would mean all my work on diaphragm (contraceptive) would disqualify me from working on fertility awareness.)

Thank you for your patience in waiting for this reply; I did not intend to keep you waiting for three days. LyrlTalk C 02:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There are very recent studies that give fairly high actual-use effectiveness figures. Do they meet "modern standards"?  Well, they have been published very recently in refereed journals, and I don't think we should be second-guessing the referees--that would be a form of original research on our part.  A notable case is that we get 1.8% actual use pregnancy per woman per 13 cycles in: P. Frank-Herrmann, J. Heil, C. Gnoth, E. Toledo, S. Baur, C. Pyper, E. Jenetzky, T. Strowitzki, and G. Freundl. “The Effectiveness of a Fertility Awareness Based Method to Avoid Pregnancy in Relation to a Couple's Sexual Behaviour During the Fertile Time: A Prospective Longitudinal Study.” Human Reproduction 22 (2007): 1310-1319.  I spent a while looking through pubmed, and couldn't find any original studies published in the last five years giving less than about 7-10% (unfortunately, I don't remember the exact upper bound I found) annual pregnancy rate for actual use.  I suspect the "authoritative book"'s dismissal doesn't cover 2007 journal publications (the book is also from 2007, and books have a longer lead time than journal articles, I suspect).


 * Moreover, I would favor data from a study with a large sample recently published in a respectable journal over a single claim made in an authoritative book, unless that claim is itself backed up by peer-reviewed studies or meta-studies. The reason for this is that it is unlikely that the publisher's book readers would be competent to review every single claim of a book, while peer-reviewers for a journal article are going to be chosen to be competent to review the main claim of the article.


 * We probably need to cite that recent study, and we can cite the book, and say that actual-use effectiveness estimates range between 1.8-25%, depending on method, population, study and author. (The population issue is important.  There are indicators that NFP is more effective among the more highly motivated, and a less affluent population may have stronger motivation.)  Does that sound like a reasonable solution?  We'd be citing two very recent sources, one primary and one secondary, both from 2007, each giving one extreme for the range.  I am tempted to do this, unless I hear to the contrary.68.89.244.39 (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The book Contraceptive Technology contains a review with 55 pages summarizing hundreds of research articles that were reviewed and analyzed by experts in the field to derive the failure rates published in that book. The nineteenth edition was published prior to the Frank-Herrmann study; I'm looking forward to the twentieth edition to see how the CT authors view that study.

In the meantime: this article currently rounds effectiveness rates to the nearest half percent; it currently says that symptoms-based methods have actual failure rates of 3-25% in the infobox. Are you proposing to change that to 2-25%? That would be fine. Or are you wanting to change the text in the "Effectiveness" section to give a range and not just "up to 25%"? That would be fine also, although to be consistent with the other birth control articles I'd prefer to stick to the round-to-nearest-half percent convention (so 2% instead of 1.8%). LyrlTalk C 22:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Lyrl: These suggestions sound good (I am the user who talked about the 1.8% study--sorry, I wasn't logged in). I think the text should have a range, just as the infobox does.  I'll do that, giving the 2-25% range, and add a reference, when I have a bit of time to figure out how to do wikipedia references.  One further question.  The LAM failure rates in the infobox look really low.  I can't see a reference for the LAM effectiveness rate in the article, but I think that the rates the infobox gives are not just for six months, but for the first six months (postpartum? from resumption of sexual relations?)  This is an important distinction, because I think LAM drops off in effectiveness the further one gets from day of birth.  Does anybody know whether the data is for the first six months postpartum, or the first six months from resumption of sexual relations? Pruss (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I was shocked to read paragraph #3 citing a roundly criticized source as authoritative -- Ryder, R. E. (1993). "Natural family planning": Effective birth control supported by the Catholic Church". Two letters to the editor in the same journal -- one by a researcher at the Office of Population Research at Princeton University, the other by representatives of the International Planned Parenthood Federation -- accused Ryder of cherry-picking data by emphasizing, in the WHO study, only the efficacy of methods perfectly used.  In fact, after a re-analysis of the WHO study, one of the letters asserted, "Probabilities of a contraceptive failure during the first year were 3.1% during perfect use and 86.4% during imperfect use" .  That's far higher than the 25% that even the Wikipedia article sidebar indicates. In the most recent post, here above, Pruss said that he/she would add the information from the sidebar in the accompanying text but doesn't appear to have done so, or it was subsequently removed. I have replaced the 3rd paragraph with a new one repeating the data in the sidebar. The data from the sidebar appears to be amply discussed here above, although references have not yet been added to it. If some kind soul would add refs to the sidebar, I would appreciate it, after spending over an hour trying to fix paragraph #3. I assume the refs are somewhere here above.

On review (FAILED)
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
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
 * A) Symptoms-based - Get all sorted here.
 * B) Calendar-based - Get all sorted here and expand by a few lines.
 * C) Lactational amenorrhea - Get all sorted here.
 * D) Effectiveness - Get all sorted here.


 * Theology
 * A) Official Catholic - In places i have added double . 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, be specific on how much in improves marriage stability is it by 1 percent or 20 percent.
 * B) Claims regarding communication - Fix
 * 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
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, 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.  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 facts; 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
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
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
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:
 * "by avoiding unprotected intercourse during a woman's fertile period": includes the use of barrier methods during fertile periods as NFP.  Subpages give instructions like "It's necessary to abstain from intercourse or use a barrier contraceptive..." and "abstain from sex or use barrier methods."
 * "Where do I go to learn NFP? Fertility Awareness may be given...":  uses the terms interchangeably
 * "Natural methods are also known as fertility awareness-based methods": uses the terms interchangeably. Specifies the need to avoid "unprotected intercourse" to prevent pregnancy four times just on that page.
 * "women used STM with occasional barriers during the fertile time": clearly accepts the use of barriers.  Uses fertility awareness and natural family planning as synonyms.
 * AAFCP is Thomas Hilgers' organization, and while it's not legally a part of the Roman Catholic Church, it is as Catholic as an independent organization can be.
 * "if the couples then either abstained from sex or used a barrier method during the fertile period...": clearly accepts the use of barriers.  Uses fertility awareness and natural family planning as synonyms.
 * 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. "). 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)