Talk:Fertility monitor

message: Is there some way to flag this article as a touchy subject or highly vulnerable to edits that degrade its quality and/or neutrality? It's constantly being updated by marketers of the products mentioned to include promotional information, as well as other users who are on a mission to point out that these shouldn't be used for birth control. Obviously, sex and birth control are volatile topics, and that is seeping into this, a simple article which should be encyclopedic, not critical nor promotional. Perhaps we should just remove brand names completely and focus on the different methods? bllix (talk) 01:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Update -- I requested semi-protection and it was denied due to lack of "recent" issues.bllix (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Advertising, weasel-wording and non-neutrality

message: I've changed this to a page covering all fertility monitors, not just the Persona brand.  It seems unlikely that a long encyclopedia article could be written on each of these devices, so it's more efficient to cover them all on one page.  Should one or more of the sections get more in-depth, it can be spun back out into its own article later.  Also, I agree with Hoary that Wikipedia policy is best followed by using "Persona" rather than "PERSONA" so I've made that change along with move-related edits. LyrlTalk     C   23:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Page move

message: This article is extremely biased toward these methods of birth control, stating suspiciously high efficacy and citing the products' own web pages as neutral sources. Additionally, many of the descriptions read like ads. No third-party sources are provided, and there is no critical discussion in the article.
For that reason, I'm cleaning it up until some usable sources are provided.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.46.81 (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree.  Far too many primary sources (or simply unsourced claims).  Have not found any medically reliable source indicating that any of these are approved for contraception by any major health agency.  Reworded lead to clarify.  Zodon (talk) 06:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article's intent is not to describe what has been approved or not approved for anything at all. The article's intent is to describe what a fertility monitor is, and I expanded upon that by classifying what was once a messy brand name list, into the types of fertility monitors based on how they work. i.e. Not based on what they are used for. The fact is, anything that can be used to monitor fertility can be used to avoid as well as achieve pregnancy. The point of neutrality is to state facts and let the reader decide. Making efforts to point out lack of studies or agency approvals does not negate the functionality of a monitor; it simply de-neutralizes the content in such a way that tells the reader what to think about how they should be used. However, I agree that it's not fair to leave information out, as there are people who would want to know these things (I'm the one who dug up and added the FDA's letter to Lady-Comp, after all ;). So, as a compromise, I vote for someone to write a neutral Criticism section. bllix (talk) 01:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the WP:MEDRS backing up the claim that any of these monitors is effective for or used for avoiding pregnancy.  We can't make claims (like the one above that they can be used for avoiding pregnancy) without having reliable sources.  To point out what they may be advertised for is certainly not neutral treatment (especially in the lead).  In order to say it has any use for avoiding pregnancy we need high quality 3rd party sources that back up that claim.  Until such sources are provided (and especially in view of the regulatory actions taken against such claims) the claim does not belong in the article, especially not in the lead. Zodon (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Zodon about needing third-party sources indicating any of these devices are used as contraceptives. The trouble is, it's hard to find reliable media sources and studies that are based on avoiding pregnancy. Studies are funded by manufacturers; the consumer base for trying-to-conceive is arguably more desperate to achieve their goal than the trying-to-avoid consumer base. Media sources talk about products, and try not to talk about religiously-sensitive things like contraceptives. Anyway, I still think this article should be re-written in such a way where the sections remain split up by type of device/mechanism of function, and all product/brand names are removed. Encyclopedias don't mention brand names unless there is something about that brand that caused a monumental impact in its respective field. Eg. Mentioning IBM when talking about computers would make sense. Talking about Baby-Comp and all this other stuff, does not make sense. Look at the ferning microscopes section; this is more encyclopedic than the rest of the article. It describes the method without bias or weaseling, it's simple and factual. bllix (talk) 03:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection to reducing focus on particular devices.  The literature I am aware of indicates that there is far more interest in avoiding fertility than achieving it.  (Infertility certainly is a problem, but not for the majority.  Most adults spend several decades trying to avoid unwanted fertility.)  If there are not good sources to back up the claims that these things are contraceptives - then the solution is easy, do not say it.  Zodon (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality