Talk:Birth control movement in the United States

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Featured articleBirth control movement in the United States is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 12, 2012.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 29, 2011Good article nomineeListed
November 18, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
February 23, 2012Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 30, 2011.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Margaret Sanger (pictured) coined the term birth control in 1914 in her monthly newsletter The Woman Rebel, which she published as part of a campaign to overturn anti-contraception laws?
Current status: Featured article


Katherine Bement Davis and Bureau of Social Hygiene

Nice article! This is a topic of interest to me because of my work as a Obstetrical and Gynecology nurse, and my study of sociology. I've done extensive reading on the topic in the past, so I was thrilled when I found a source that documented the often not told story of Katherine Bement Davis. She was well know at the time, but disappeared when history books left her out (as often was the case for women.)

I didn't see any mention of Katherine Bement Davis or Rockerfellow's Bureau of Social Hygiene in this article. She was prominent social reformer in New York. The Bureau of Social Hygiene was an influential private agency that studied population control, birth control, and maternal health in ways that intersected with the penal system and mental illness. Davis headed the Bureau and did groundbreaking research on female sexuality in "deviants" and "normal" women. Similar to other people of the era, she supported the eugenics movement as a way to limit reproduction of criminals and mentally ill. She also did research on normal women who were recruited from women's clubs. So, mentions of her fit nicely in the article.

Bureau of Social Hygiene

I'll look closer to see if I find any other gaps that we can fill in. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Feel free to add material or improve the article in any way you can. I was not aware of Katherine Bement Davis. For scoping the article, I relied on the recent scholarly work by Engelman, and he does not mention Davis, but that does not mean she should be omitted from the article, of course. --Noleander (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

one point in the intro

This article is a pleasure to read. I do have one thing in the intro. The connection between the incidence of venereal disease in the military and the acceptability of birth control may need to be articulated a little more clearly. Most forms of birth control available to women wouldn't have prevented the spread of disease, so the leap from advising soldiers on condom use to clinics offering women diaphragms, cervical caps and so on isn't self-evident. In light of the double standard at the time, it would be unsurprising if men were supposed to use condoms with "those kinds of women," while at the same time withholding birth control for women, especially "decent' women, who weren't supposed to be having sex anyway unless they were procreating. So while I can see this as a national conversation starter, there does seem to be some missing step of logic, given the social norms still in play outside the free love movement. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. The sources cover the WW I military initiative pretty thoroughly, so I should be able to research that and improve it. --Noleander (talk) 16:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Womb veil

Might be worth mentioning the "womb veil" in the history section. Kaldari (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Single source?

There are several sources to support this article, listed in the secondary sources section of the references. Much of the material is, indeed, cited to the Engelman source, but the Chesler or McCann sources could equally be used. I own about half of the secondary sources, and there is a lot of commonality between them. Many of the Engelman cites could be replaced, for example, by cites to Chesler, but is there a WP requirement to do so? The WP:CITE only requires one source for each bit of material. Mixing up the cites just for the sake of variety is absurd. Is there some reason to think the article is missing information? or biased? or that the Engelman source is inadequate as a cite? --Noleander (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vulcanized rubber

It might be worth mentioning that the development of vulcanized rubber in the 19th century had a significant effect on birth control as it reduced the cost and increased the durability of birth control devices. This led to mass manufacturing of condoms and womb veils (rubber diaphragms). There are some citations in the womb veil article that elaborate on this. Kaldari (talk) 06:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion ... I'll see if I can work that in. The focus of the article is on the 1914 to 1945 era, but maybe it could go in the background sections. --Noleander (talk) 07:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of Category:Censorship in the United States

This is a thread copied from my talk page. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The two cats you removed from Birth control movement in the United States look valid topically, .. were they redundant somehow? --Noleander (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the wrong one in error. Censorship and freedom of expression are only a very small party of the Birth control movement in the United States. Categories are black and white. The member articles (forgive the pun) should have a close connection with the category topic. I am in the process of cleaning out Category:Censorship. It is cluttered with a lot of stuff that does not belong there. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sources indicate that censorship and freedom of speech played a very large role in the movement ... what makes you say they did not? --Noleander (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then put it in the Censorship in the United States article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Put what in the Censorship in the United States article? A category? --Noleander (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. The fact that birth control information and materials were controlled will need a mention in the Censorship in the United States article. BTW there is room for the wider topic of Birth control in the United States. (update - currently a redirect) -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is a good point. Anyway: back to my question: in light of the strong connection the sources make, what makes you say that the movement was not strongly related to censorship and freedom of speech? --Noleander (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a connection but the strength of the connection is subjective. Categories are not and should not be subjective. They are black and white. An article is either in a category or it is not. If too many disparate articles are placed in a category it dilutes the topic and makes it a less useful navigational aid for reader. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay ... how about Category:Censorship in the United States ... that seems like a suitable category, one well supported by the sources. I'll add that if you have no objection. --Noleander (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have objections but I can't stop you doing that of course. The article is about the birth control movement but it includes info on human rights, sexuality, freedom of expression and censorship. An article on Birth control censorship in the United States would belong in the Category:Censorship in the United States but not the article on the Birth control movement in the United States. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may be focusing too much on the article's title, and not its contents. It looks like you only want articles in the Censorship category if they contain the word "censorship" in their title, is that correct? The birth control movement started as a response to the Comstock censorship laws. The founders of the movement believed it was all about free speech: overcoming government imposed censorship of "obscene" contraceptive information. The movement fought to eliminate the censorship, and to gain the right to publish contraceptive information. For those reasons (all well documented in the sources) the article belongs in the Category:Censorship in the United States category. --Noleander (talk) 15:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the category Category:Censorship in the United States should stay attached to this article, Birth control movement in the United States. Alan's request to add information (about Comstock laws and the subsequent fight to overturn them) to the Censorship in the United States article is a reasonable request in terms of encyclopedia completeness, but the fulfillment of the request cannot be a condition for this article to carry the correct category. Binksternet (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by correct category? That is very subjective as we can see in the discussion above. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poor section title "Conclusion"

First, let me say wow - nice article. (I have been away from Wikipedia for a while, so did not see this in development.) I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but one thing really bothers me from just skimming - that is the section title "Conclusion." While that period may mark the end of a particular struggle for legalization birth control access is by no means a done deal in the US. The same biases and issues continue to plague the US, much more than many other developed countries. (Little progress in reducing unintended pregnancy since the 60's, etc.) While the text does a reasonable job of indicating that the show goes on, and I am not suggesting expanding the scope of the article to cover current birth control in the US, the title "Conclusion" is far too conclusive. (They only live happily ever after in fairy tales.)

If I had a better title to offer I would put it in. I will think about it, but thought I would mention in case others come up with something. Thanks. Zodon (talk) 07:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I agree that the title of that section could be better. The English language doesn't seem to have many words/synonyms for that concept. "Aftermath", "wrap up", "denoument", ... nothing seems appropriate. The word "conclusion" is not too bad because the sources use the "Birth control movement" to mean a reform campaign that lasted from 1914 to about 1945 ... finishing when contraception and contraceptive advertising became legal across america. So the "movement" did indeed "conclude" around 1945, and it was replaced by (or evolved into) the reproductive rights movement. That said, if you have any specific improvements or wording changes, that would be great. --Noleander (talk) 13:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Legalization," if that is the series of events that concluded this phase of the ongoing process. I would be bold and put it in, except I still haven't had time to read the article in detail to be sure it works, so thought I would suggest it and see what others thought.
Not quite clear why say ends/legal in 1945, since Griswold v. Conn. was 20 years later, but like I say I haven't read article in detail. Zodon (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sources talk about a "birth control movement" that began with Sanger's activism, then "finished" around WW II, when the anti-contraception laws stopped being enforced. That is the sources characterization. Naturally, lots of stuff happened with birth control after that, including Griswold v Conn, but that material is not in the "movement" itself. Ideally, WP would have another article named Birth Control in the United States, which would be the "main" article, and this "movement" article would be a subarticle of it. --Noleander (talk) 03:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or could be "Legalization and ___" fill in blank with "beyond", sequellae, aftermath, ...? Zodon (talk) 07:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusion is a horrible word choice since it implies original research which is a violation of WP core policies. How that made it past featured article review is beyond me. If the article is really about the history, than why are current political sources being used to provide the current HHS spin on the beneficial cost of BC? Now don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with BC, but this article being featured like it is, was obviously done so in regards to the current political controversy regarding BC and the use of the HHS sourcing. Could we please STOP using WP to promote political positions. Arzel (talk) 04:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it was featured now because March is Women's history month. Current issues over birth control in the US grew out of/follow on from history, so it is reasonable to mention them. Zodon (talk) 07:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Arzel: You are correct, "Conclusion" is not the optimal title (although it is an accurate title, since the article is about the movement, and the movement - according to the sources - did wrap up in the 1940s). As you can see in this Talk page discussion above, there is an ongoing discussion to see if a better section title can be found. Regarding HHS as a source: what is the specific issue you have with that? Do you feel it is not reliable? Or is the problem that "current" material is at the end of this historical article? If the latter, I share those concerns ... see the Talk page discussion below about whether to create a new article on Birth Control in the United States that includes the present era (and then move that "current" material from this article into the new article). --Noleander (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else think this article ought to explicitly extend its scope to cover (or at least link to other articles that address) present day birth control issues as a matter of public debate (re. government funded birth control, abortion legality, etc)? It seems to me that these issues are still very much on the table and in progress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joontree (talk • contribs) 23:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There being no objections here, I changed the section to "Legalization."
"Legalization, new contraceptives, increasing access" could be a longer title, covering most of what is dealt with in the section.
Joontree - what other articles should it link to? (I suggested a few other history articles under #Should have links to other history articles) I would be curious if there are other articles that cover this topic area which are not already linked. Thanks. Zodon (talk) 03:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The title "Legalization" is more meaningful for readers than "Conclusion", certainly, but I'm not 100% sure it is best. I don't recall any sources using that kind of terminology for the WW II era. The sources discuss things like "laws stopped being enforced" but I don't recall the use of the term "legalization" much. I won't revert the change for now, but I'll look at the sources again and see if they suggest any alternative. --Noleander (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I've got a sensible set of section titles now that are consistent with the sources, and meaningful to readers. I move the Planned Parenthood / WW II info up above the Legalization section (because BC was not legalized in that era); and renamed "Legalization" -> "Legalization and aftermath" (to emphasize that the political movement was over; and that the legalization happened aftewards). --Noleander (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable. Zodon (talk) 07:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contraception for low income/uninsured

What is currently the end of the article seems a bit misleading with regard to insurance coverage for contraception. I started drafting something to cover title X (which was instigated by Nixon, see also George Bush Senior on Title X). The material about "last half of the 20th centure" sounds much better characterization of early 21st c. Out of time now, will expand this and add to article later.

Beginnings of item:

In 1970, Title X of the Public Health Service Act was enacted, to provide the benefits of family planning and preventive health services, especially to low-income and the uninsured.

Zodon (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for offering to improve the article. Bear in mind that the subject of the article is the era 1914 to 1945, and the material before and after that era is just in this article for context/background. If you have a significant amount of post-1945 material to add, it may be better to start a new article Birth Control in the United States or History of birth control in the United States and put the post 1945 material in that new article. And this article would be a subarticle of that new article. --Noleander (talk) 03:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added a bit of coverage. I realize the focus is that time period. Tried to keep it short. (Title X, Medicaid, impact of public funding (reduce abortions, unintended Pg, save $)) Main bit I didn't cover is unmet need (publicly funded programs serve about 1/2 of those in need of assistance, but I need to find reference on that). The end of the article seemed lacking to talk about conservative groups opposing, without mentioning what they were opposing. Zodon (talk) 06:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Zodon: I removed the sentence " Since then, as Title X funding has remained stagnant or been cut, Medicaid has become an increasingly important source of public family planning funds. " Because there was no citation for it. The WP:Verifiability requirement generally requires a footnote (citation) for every sentence, although sometimes two adjacent sentences can share a single footnote if it is obvious they share the same source. I think the "Conclusion" section is getting rather large, since it is just an aterward to the main "movement" topic of the article. If you want to add more, it may be a good time to start a new article on the full (several century) History of birth control in the United States. --Noleander (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Guttmacher Institute: Regarding the two sentences: "Without publicly funded family planning services, according to the Guttmacher Institute, the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions in the United States would be nearly two-thirds higher; the number of unintended pregnancies among poor women would nearly double.[164] In the short term, publicly funded family planning saves government an estimated $3.74 in Medicaid expenses for every $1.00 spent on services." Those are sourced to the Guttmacher Institute which is an advocacy group, which is a branch of Planned Parenthood. The facts may be correct, but when the source is potentially biased, the source must be named in the article (per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV). Also, I'm wondering if the sentences should be replaced with statistics from a more neutral source. There must be some neutral govmt agency that has similar stats, no? Perhaps the sentences should be removed until we survey more sources? --Noleander (talk) 15:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean as far as neutrality of source, or saying that the Guttmacher Institute is a branch of Planned Parenthood. While it started as a branch of Planned Parenthood, as far as I am aware it is an independent research and education organization.[1]
The Guttmacher Institute is a prominent and highly regarded source of information in reproductive health. The US government cites Guttmacher Institute studies for more reliable/comprehensive data than that collected by the US government on things like abortion. (I can provide example of what I mean, but will take a little while to dig up the citation.)
If this is a problem of being a primary source (relative to this information), I can certainly provide citations to WP:MEDRS that cite these statistics. I am not aware of other sources of similar information, most researchers seem to use the Guttmacher Institute reports. However it would be worth checking the office of population affairs. More sources shortly, in the meantime I would prefer to leave it in. Zodon (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, there would be a scholarly 2ndary source writing on the "birth control" topic which would cite G.I. source and refer to the G. I.'s stats. That is superior to directly using G. I. as a primary source for its own stats. The issue here is not just bias, but WP:OR since putting the raw stats into the article requires a WP editor to select the stats, which could entail cherry-picking or selection bias. Better is if a 2ndary source selects the stats, and the WP editor just refers to the 2ndary source. See WP:SECONDARY SOURCE. --Noleander (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it is just a matter of wanting sources less directly linked to the statistic, no problem:

From US DHHS, Healthy people 2020 "Each year, publicly funded family planning services prevent 1.94 million unintended pregnancies, including 400,000 teen pregnancies.3 These services are cost-effective, saving nearly $4 in Medicaid expenditures for pregnancy-related care for every $1 spent." Healthy People 2020 - Family Planning Overview Which cites:

  • Gold RB, Sonfield A, Richards C, et al. Next steps for America’s family planning program: Leveraging the potential of Medicaid and Title X in an evolving health care system. New York: Guttmacher Institute; 2009.
  • Frost JJ, Finer LB, Tapales A (2008). "The impact of publicly funded family planning clinic services on unintended pregnancies and government cost savings" (PDF). J Health Care Poor Underserved. 19 (3): 778–96. doi:10.1353/hpu.0.0060. PMID 18677070. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) (Which concludes $4.02 in savings per $1 spent in 2004).

An academic source that uses the $3.74 per $1 spent figure. Cleland K, Peipert JF, Westhoff C, Spear S, Trussell J (2011). "Family planning as a cost-saving preventive health service". N. Engl. J. Med. 364 (18): e37. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1104373. PMID 21506736. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) [For those not familiar with the authors, see James Trussell ]

I will put the healthy people citation in the article. Unless a different one is preferred. Zodon (talk) 05:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those are better sources. The wording in one place could be better: "These services are cost-effective, saving nearly...." that sounds too partisan, like a advertisement. It should be more passive, more neutral. Probably just change to "These services save nearly $4 in Medicaid expenditures for pregnancy-related care for every $1 spent" ... that sounds more encyclopedic. --Noleander (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I came across another high quality reference that cites the cost-effectiveness estimate: IOM (Institute of Medicine) (2009). A Review of the HHS Family Planning Program: Mission, Management, and Measurement of Results. Washington, D.C: National Academies Press. ISBN 0-309-13117-0. On page 51 it cites Frost et al. $4.02 saved for every $1 spent.
I have no preference in terms of whether to use the Healthy People reference, or the IOM reference, or both. Zodon (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cost-effectiveness analysis is one of the standard ways of evaluating medical interventions. Many studies use cost-benefit analysis/Cost–utility analysis to compare interventions, regarding a certain (positive) level of cost per desired outcome achieved as "cost-effective" (e.g. £30,000 per additional quality-adjusted life year). In this case the intervention actually saves money, rather than, as many medical interventions do, costing money.
Family planning is one of the most highly cost-effective interventions in medicine. (See Tsui AO, McDonald-Mosley R, Burke AE (2010). "Family planning and the burden of unintended pregnancies". Epidemiol Rev. 32 (1): 152–74. doi:10.1093/epirev/mxq012. PMC 3115338. PMID 20570955. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link), page 170)
Thus I do not think it inappropriate to say that it is highly cost effective. I will check the cited sources to be sure they support the statement. I would edit it slightly to "These services are highly cost-effective, saving ..." Zodon (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you supply quotes from those sources you list above, so we can see what wordings they use? Does one source say "Family planning is one of the most highly cost-effective interventions in medicine."? If a source does not say that, then it is better to just use the terminology (without violating WP:COPYVIO) that they do use. The goal is to avoid problems with WP:OR or WP:POV ... articles on birth control & reproductive rights in WP can be highly controversial. So it is best to use the exact terminology that neutral, reliable sources use. --Noleander (talk) 14:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was not a direct quotation, but a restatement in my own words. The statement is clearly supported by the source. Here is what they said:
"International studies confirm that family planning is among the most cost-effective of all health interventions (80, 81). The cost savings stem from a reduction in unintended pregnancy, as well as a reduction in transmission of sexually transmitted infections, including HIV." This is from Tsui et al., page 170 (cited in my previous post, the article is freely available from the link there, this is the beginning of the section titled "Cost-effectiveness of family planning"). Rest of that section might be of interest as well.
If want other citations I am sure I will come across more. Zodon (talk) 09:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thought this might be of potential use/interest (not about public funding, but about a measure of the medical cost savings from Contraceptives being legal and available in the US). "Contraceptive use saves nearly US $19 billion in direct medical costs each year." James Trussell, Anjana Lalla, Quan Doan, Eileen Reyes, Lionel Pinto, Joseph Gricar (2009). "Cost effectiveness of contraceptives in the United States". Contraception. 79 (1): 5-14. PMID 19041435.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) This is in the United States. Zodon (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should have links to other history articles

There are some other Wikipedia articles on similar/related topics that this article should have links to. (I would put in a see also section, but don't know if they are okay for feature articles. I know wp:medmos encourages incorporation in the text, but haven't found good places to add these.

Zodon (talk) 07:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Also sections are not prohibited for featured articles, but the presumption is that a FA is comprehensive, and so it contains a discussion of any topic which could conceivably be in a See Also section. I have no objection to a See Also section, if the articles don't naturally fit into the prose anywhere. --Noleander (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification (just hadn't had time to look up the FA criteria, and trying to keep the article in FA form.) The topics of these articles are parallel to the topic of this article (i.e. they all cover or relate closely to history of contraception and fertility control). So the reason for including links to them is that they are articles that would reasonably be of interest to readers of this article. (But they are not particularly topics that should be covered within this article, and this article is not a subset of the topics covered there.) Zodon (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added the see also section with those articles. Zodon (talk) 03:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a "See also" section is necessary. "See also" isn't included by default in every article, but added as needed. Doubly true in this case, as this article adequately links to the proper information and achieved FA status without one. Aside from the timeline of legislation, the new "See also" section is comprised of links that do not particularly expand upon this article's topic of birth control advocacy in the United States. Griswold v. Connecticut is already covered, as is Margaret Sanger, but those are two examples of links to social movements, events, or people significantly related to this article. The history timelines of the methods used AS birth control aren't significantly related. I've been compiling a list of the many reproductive health articles on Wikipedia that are mostly scant on information, yet include a bevy of links under the "See also" section. I would advocate for quality articles such as this one be kept free of that. Ongepotchket (talk) 10:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ongepotchket: This article is not just about advocacy in the United States. It is also about the history of Birth Control (e.g., one interested in birth control might view it as a history of access to birth control). The article on history of condoms has additional information about birth control and STD prevention in the United States during the period covered by this article. Abortion and birth control are intimately linked, and have been throughout history. As noted in the article, Sanger's experience with unsafe abortion was part of what drove her to champion birth control. Per WP:Build the web establishing connections to particularly relevant articles is encouraged.
Although I have no objection to see also sections, I certainly see the merits of incorporating links into the article (e.g. per WP:MEDMOS). Can you suggest ways to naturally incorporate those links into the text, or perhaps a navigation template that would include those links? Zodon (talk) 07:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other possibles

I just stumbled on a couple of other articles which may or may not be particularly related. Sexual revolution and more particularly Sexual revolution in 1960s America. These articles are in pretty rough state at the moment. I am not sure whether worth trying to tie them in or not (I am not so familiar with how the sociology/history articles like these are linked). Zodon (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenics in lead?

Imichael2000: what changes are you proposing for the lead, and why? --Noleander (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Section titles

An editor added year spans (1914-1918) to a couple of top-level section titles; and it looked useful, so I did that for the other top level section titles. Also, the section title "Conclusion" has always been suboptimal. User Zodon changed it to "Legalization" which is a bit better. I renamed the post-WW II section to "Aftermath", since that emphasizes the fact that the political movement (which is what the article is about) was over (according to the sources).

There is, of course, a lot of information on "birth control in the United States" that is not in this article. For instance: birth control before 1914; birth control mechanisms; birth control after WW II. Those topics are briefly mentioned in this article, but really deserve to be in another article. It may be time to create Birth Control in the United States, so that we have an article to hold all the information that is not related to the political movement. That new article could have sections like:

  • Birth control before 20th century
  • Birth control "radical political" movement (1914-WW II)
  • Birth control after WW II (Griswold, legalization, growth of Planned Parenthood etc)
  • Modern era (insurance battles, culture wars, etc)
  • Birth control mechanisms

Any thoughts on creating such a new article? --Noleander (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The section titles suggested look like you may be thinking in terms of History of birth control in the United States?
Not sure what the section on Mechanisms is supposed to contain. Do you mean what methods are typically used in the US?
If not just thinking history, should it be Birth control in the United States, or the somewhat broader Family planning in the United States. (Which would encompass/touch on other aspects of reproductive health care, such as STDs, and might more naturally lend itself to discussing US population policy and to peoples desires related to family size.) (Obviously this is a huge field, with room for sub-articles on history, population policy (foreign and domestic), etc.)
Considering the other articles in the area, there are a few "Family planning in" articles (India, Iran, Pakistan), one Contraception in (Ireland), and some articles with titles related to particular policies etc. (See {{reproductive health}})
There is a significant subseciton of Unintended pregnancy relating to the United States. (Which I figured might eventually shelve off into a US specific article).
More thoughts on subsections later. Zodon (talk) 07:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Family planning in the United States might be better. History of birth control in the United States is okay, but would run into the same problem we have now, where it has a limitation (history only) ... so why not bite the bullet and create the most expansive article possible .. that way we wont run into the "it doesnt belong in the article" problems again. Section "mechanisms" was intended to enumerate approaches to BC/fam planning ... but that is a bit orthogonal to a chronological section approach; so that section may be redundant/not needed. If you want to just create the new article (stub) and start working on it, that is fine by me, and I could help a little. --Noleander (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misc small edit suggestions

I just did a careful read through (and a bunch of copyediting) on the article. (Once again, great job on the article.) There follow a few items that I saw, but didn't know immediately how to fix:

A couple of sentences caught my eye, could maybe be clarified/condensed a bit.

  • "Other leading figures, such as William J. Robinson and Mary Dennett, chose to work in the background, or turned their attention to other causes."[45]
  • "Other leaders, such as William J. Robinson, Mary Dennett, and Blanche Ames Ames, could not match Sanger's charisma, charm and fervor."[62]

In the first one, how can a leading figure work in the background? (A bit contradictory). Since we were already told that William J Robinson and Mary Denett went off to do other things or worked behind the scenes (back in 1916), it seems redundant to say that they weren't in the limelight in 1917-1923.


Kitty Marion -

  • First a small point "British suffragette activist Kitty Marion" Seems like this could be simplified, but I am not sure which of the adjectives are particularly important. "Suffragette activist" seems a bit unclear or redundant. (Was she an activist for suffragettes, but not one herself; was she a suffragette and activist?) Is it particularly important that she is British? (Could simplify to Suffragette Kitty Marion ...").
  • Main thing is it is not clear why her activities are mentioned at all. Was she the primary outlet for the publication? Were there others like her, and her experiences are just an example? (If so, would help to say so. ("Activists, like suffragette Kitty Marion ...")

Other misc items:

  1. The statement about decline in fertility 20's and 30's fits quite nicely with this graph (from Demographic History of the United States. (Admittedly graph is birth rate, but fertility data is available in the reference.) File:U.S.BirthRate.1909.2003.png I wikilinked to the demographic history from that sentence, but thought I would point out the graph in case thought it worth including here.
  2. Wikilink to history of condoms - Expanding availability, or the WW1 seemed natural places to put a wikilink to this article, but I couldn't see exactly where to work it in naturally. (It is okay as a see also, just nicer to work things in.)
  3. "However, the medical community was slow to accept this new responsibility, and women continued to rely on unsafe and ineffective contraceptive advice from ill-informed sources until the 1960s." - Possibly a bit unbalanced? Was all such advice unsafe and ineffective during that time? Perhaps a qualifier (many women), or it was "difficult to find well-informed sources and obtain safe and effective contraceptive advice". Especially since we have all these clinics being founded and research being done by the movement it seems odd that there weren't some good sources.
  4. "In 1942, there were over 400 birth control organizations in America, contraception was fully embraced by the medical profession, and the anti-contraception Comstock laws (which still remained on the books) were rarely enforced."[144] This contradicts item above about "medical community slow to accept ..." The slow acceptance is probably more accurate. Contraceptive education in medical school was still quite inadequate in the 50's. (e.g., At a major medical school the coverage consisted of a woman from Planned Parenthood coming in to give one guest lecture.) Even today Medical School education on contraception and family planning is weak. (If need I can provide references - IOM recommendations/review of Title X, e.g.) Zodon (talk) 08:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about sterilization

It seems strange that there is no mention of voluntary sterilization/tubal ligation in the article. Since tubal ligation is now one of the most heavily used contraceptives in the United States, and it was being developed during this time period, seems like it ought to have at least a mention. I realize can't cover everything, but seems more central to the topic of the article than new formulations of emergency contraceptive (UPA), e.g. Zodon (talk) 08:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I don't recall any of the WP:SECONDARY SOURCEs talking about sterilization (except incidentally in the context of the eugenics topic). If you can find a reliable secondary source that cover it, by all means add it. But bear in mind that at some point, a new article needs to be created for Birth control in the US or History of birth control in the US ... such a new article wont be limited to the 1914-1945 movement. --Noleander (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "movement" in the title of this topic was not at all involved in sterilization, that is, the people who wanted birth control did not advocate sterilization. They wanted women to have choice in the matter of when to get pregnant. That was the whole point. Binksternet (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Noleander - Understood, this is about the 1914-1945 movement, and how it regarded (or ignored) sterilization.
Binksternet - not sure I understand. Sterilization is one way women (and men) chose to control their fertility. Circa 2008 in the United States sterilization is the method of choice for 27% of women of reproductive age, and almost 10% of men. (Mosher, WD; Jones, J; Use of Contraception in the United States: 1982-2008. National Center for Health Statistics., Vital Health Stat, 23 (29). 2010.) Sterilization was available since before 1914, and being developed/improved during that time period, they must have known about it. Certainly the people involved in this movement may not have advocated sterilization, but even if that is the case, then a brief mention of that fact, and why seems in order. Zodon (talk) 07:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While not an adequate source, this item gives one perspective.
As far as precursors/what was available, the "the first female sterilization by surgical occlusion of the fallopian tubes was performed by a U.S. surgeon in Ohio in 1881."[2] Zodon (talk) 08:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find reliable secondary sources, then I can see sterilization being added to the "Contraception in the nineteenth century" section, in the list of other contraception techniques (but the source must identify its purpose as contraception, or else it would be OR for an editor to place it in the "contraception" section). And, again if sources are found, also add a brief mention in the 20th century "Expanding availability" section ... but WP:UNDUE comes into play there, and if sterilization were mentioned anywhere near the Eugenics section, it must be placed in the context of "the movements leader's treated contraception (incl steriliz) as a means of empowering women to regulate their child-bearing; contrasted with eugenicists who ..." or whatever the sources say, to give it context. --Noleander (talk) 10:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this coming about very easily—sterilization has never been a practical choice for someone who intends to have children later. I understood that the birth control movement was about choosing the time to have children, not about eliminating the chance of children altogether. Only reversible sterilization would come under this topic... If I had to guess when a surgical sterilization was first reversed by reconstructive surgery it would be in the latter part of the 20th century, and thus outside the scope of this article. And reversible sterilization continues to be extremely impractical as a form of birth control. FYI, my own vasectomy was about 25 years ago, following the birth of my second child, the decision reached because I had successfully fathered the number of children I wished ever to father, so I am not unfamiliar with the concept.
There are some dubious books published on vanity presses combining discussion of sterilization and the birth control movement—excitable writings that appear to exist solely to paint the movement black, or to tar modern Planned Parenthood with the crime of eugenics. One book I found online just now looks to be a lot more objective: The Sterilization Movement and Global Fertility in the Twentieth Century, by Ian R. Dowbiggin (searchable here.) This is an Oxford publication. If any hope is held that sterilization should be discussed in this FA article, then a book such as this should be the source. Binksternet (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Among the options in "choosing the time to have children" is the choice to not have any more children. Undoubtedly then, as now there were people who chose to have no children, and those who had completed their families and desired no more children. So there is no need to limit consideration to reversible sterilization. Sterilization was part of the context in which the movement took place. Noleander's suggestions of places it might be mentioned pretty much parallel my thoughts.
The book by Ian Dowbiggin looks like a possible source, although it appears to take an anti-family planning, "birth dearth", approach (at least according to the jacket blurb). Reviewers seem to regard it reliable in matters of historical record. Zodon (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Categories. Again

I removed a whole bunch of categories on this edit but it was reverted. WP:CAT says that articles should be categorised by defining characteristics and must be in the most specific category. The categories that I removed are in contravention to these guidelines and and causes a "pollution" or "clutter" of the category pages. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you remove a bunch of categories from this article a few weeks ago? Or was that another article? Your removals then were also reverted. I think the categories in this article are valid categories. If you can name some category pairs that are a parent and child category, then of course the parent category should be removed. Can you name those specific pairs? Other categories should remain. If you disagree, I'd suggest you open an RfC and get input from other editors. --Noleander (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It might help to clarify why the categories suggested for removal are redundant.
So seems reasonable to remove it from Women's rights and Sexual health, because it is covered in more specific subcategories. It obviously belongs in Planned Parenthood, since so closely tied to the history of that organization (that category is hardly overloaded, or likely to expand to such an extent as to become unmanageable).
As to the other ones, the categorization seems reasonable - more specifics on why object might be helpful. Zodon (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
--
Yes I had down some recategorising earlier this year. One of them was Category:Censorship which is completely inappropriate. Firstly, let us not forget - to quote from the article - that "The birth control movement in the United States was a social reform campaign from 1914 to around 1945". It is a specific topic in a specific country in a specific time frame. Another thing to realise is that categories are assigned based on relatedness of the topics rather than the importance. So looking at the categories that I removed:
During my work on recategorising, and editing WP in general, I have found that there seems to be a desire to want to link everything to everything else. Ok, that is a bit of an overstatement but what is happening is that the ability for a reader to navigate easily through the millions of WP articles is made more difficult. Removing the categories from the article as I have tried to do is a small step to making WP more readable. I hope this explains the rationale for my edits. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Zodon on keeping the categories. For black-and-white categories like "persons born in Ohio", the defining characteristics rule is applicable. But for categories that are fuzzier, we should err on the side of inclusion, so readers of WP are more likely to find articles when they are browsing categories. For example, your suggestion that this article does not belong in the Category:Planned Parenthood category is not rational, and would really cripple the browsing experience for readers. Ditto Category:Sexual health, etc. I suggest an RfC if you feel strongly about removing these categories. --Noleander (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing things along Zodon's lines. One instance—Category:Women's rights in the United States—is defining. Birth control is a very strong example of the fight for women's rights. If a woman can decide to have few or no children then she can compete in the sphere established by men. The drive to keep women from having birth control was a drive to keep women down. Binksternet (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify - since Category:Birth control in the United States is a subcategory of women's rights and of Sexual health, I removed those two categories from the article after making my previous post. (I interpreted Noleander's post before mine as saying that would be okay. If I erred in that interpretation it is fine to revert my edit.) Inclusion in a more specific subcategory was the only reason for that removal. There are few topics more central to sexual and reproductive health than birth control (Note that the category "sexual health" appears to have been expanded to also cover Category:reproductive health, which appears to have been removed. The category clearly indicates that it is covering reproductive health.)
Planned parenthood - how is the history leading up to the founding of the organization (heavily featuring founders, etc., the pre-history if you will) not relevant?
Health movements - objection seems to be with the existence of the category, rather than the inclusion of this article. Clearly this article fits the category. The category seems reasonable to exist, but discussion of removal/revision of the category would be more appropriate in a more general forum (e.g. WP medicine).
Category:Feminism and history - I don't see why this is less or more relevant than Category:Feminism in the United States. The article is both a history article and a US article, no more one than the other. Of course there is Category:History of women's rights in the United States‎ - which is in both. Perhaps there is a need for category History of feminism in the United States? (I see that many articles in Category:Feminism and history are US articles. The distinction between feminism and women's rights sounds tricky.) Could consider moving this article to Category:History of women's rights in the United States, would that be an improvement? (I don't know to what extent this article should be characterized as women's rights vs. feminism. The right to birth control applies to and is of benefit to both sexes. To what extent this movement was characterized as feminism vs. women's rights, or for women, vs. for couples, others are probably in a better position to address.)
Censorship in the United States - still not clear what is tenuous about the connection. Is it because this is an anti-censorship movement, rather than a pro-censorship movement? I see other anti-censorship items in the category. Is there a more appropriate category for anti-censorship articles?
Mention in another article that is part of a particular category, while a useful thing to do, is not a reasonable replacement for listing in the category (categories allow discovery between articles, I often do not look at the "central" article of a category). Zodon (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony comstock source

I would guess that the reference intended in this edit Anthony Comstock, self proclaimed ... is probably this article http://www.fofweb.com/History/MainPrintPage.asp?iPin=EAHVI064&DataType=AmericanHistory&WinType=Free

Wepman, Dennis. "Comstock, Anthony." In Hoogenboom, Ari, and Gary B. Nash, eds. Encyclopedia of American History: The Development of the Industrial United States, 1870 to 1899, Revised Edition (Volume VI). New York: Facts On File, Inc., 2010. American History Online. Facts On File, Inc. http://www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp?ItemID=WE52&iPin=EAHVI064&SingleRecord=True (accessed April 24, 2012).

I am not advocating adding it to the article, (seems more apropos the article on Comstock). However if add the bit about self proclaimed guardian of public morals, should probably also mention Shaw's characterization of comstockery - narrow-minded prudery (to maintain balance). Zodon (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposal

At present there is no Birth control in the United States article. It is currently a redirect. This is a serious omission in the hierarchy of articles that should exist on WP. Some of the content of this article can be spilt out to the new article (which ideally should have been created prior to this one). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further information: User:Alan Liefting/Essays/On filling the gaps
  • Oppose any change to this article. It is very well constructed, and should not bear a removal of part. Rather, the proposed article Birth control in the United States should be written anew, with a brief history section and a much bigger section on modern practice. Binksternet (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not true IMO. The "Contraception in the nineteenth century" and "Legalization and aftermath" in their entirety can be removed to the new article. They can be replaced with a sentence or two for each of the sections. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Agree that some day there should be an article on Birth Control in the US; but until that day comes, this article should stay put. It recently went through a Featured Article review and was approved for FA in its current form. As for "replacing with a sentence" ... it is appropriate for historical articles to include "background" and "aftermath" sections, to give context to the reader ... those sections sometimes need to be lengthy to do the job. --Noleander (talk) 23:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That someday ideally should have been before this article was created. WP is not ideal I guess. I completely fail to understand the opposition to what I am convinced is a perfectly rational idea and a method of incrementally improving WP. Given the comments here and in previous discussion it smacks of article ownership. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Baloney. "Ownership" has nothing to do with it. The article has been sifted, examined and modified by many of the best editors we have, and it has been determined to be Featured Article quality. I support the FA standard demonstrated by this article and I do not think it can be reduced and made better, even if other related articles sprout up. The basic point you are making, that another article should have come first, is water under the bridge. Please create that other article and we will all be better off. Binksternet (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am in the process of drafting up a Birth control in the United States]article as we type. This all highlights yet more flaws in the WP bureaucracy really. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In asking me to create such an article you are assuming I know something about the topic. I don't but the editors who brought this article up to FA status I would assume are knowledgeable about birth control in the United States. Therefore they should be involved in the creating the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for creating a stub of that new article Birth control in the United States. I have quite a few sources on that topic, and I could help ... but I'm in the middle of preparing two other artices for FA nomination, so I may not be able to get to it for a few months. --Noleander (talk) 00:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but which task is more important? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose split. This article is quite good as it stands. Certainly there is a little tweaking that could help, and a small amount of material in the since WWII section might be more apropos elsewhere. However I do not see moving major portions of this article to a more general article. There is so much to cover in a general article on birth control or family planning in the United States that the particulars of older history will ultimately get less coverage there than here.
Of course once it is fully built out, with reasonable sub-articles, then the article on History of family planning in the United States would probably go into more detail on the 19th century. But that is looking a fair way ahead.
As discussed above #Section titles I agree that there should be a more general article about family planning and birth control in the United States. I drafted an outline and have gathered many links, and have a stack of sources, but it doesn't have enough meat on the skeleton to put in article space yet. Zodon (talk) 03:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic

I have tagged two sections with {off-topic} since they are, well, a little off topic. The two sections should be split out to Birth control in the United States with a summary left behind. Some of the material may already have been copied but it was not summarised. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The background sections (before the movement) provide concise and relevant background material for this article; it is essential to help readers understand the origin & context of the movement. There is no material there that can be removed. Regarding the "after the movement" material, most of that was added specifically at the request of FAC reviewers that wanted more material covering the aftermath/legacy of the movement. So most of that should stay. However, the last paragraph was a bit remote from the movement, so I deleted that paragraph. Each article in WP needs to stand on its own, so there is no harm in having some duplication between this article and the Birth control in the United States article. In other words, duplication of material, by itself, is not a reason to remove material. The presence or absence of other articles is somewhat irrelevant. And it is the parent article which contains summaries of child articles, not the other way around. The criteria to apply is: what material should exist in this article to make it a good, comprehensive, stand-alone article? --Noleander (talk) 02:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FA status

This article was identified as FA in 2012 but was recently tagged as a "a mess". Clearly it cannot be both, so maybe its FA status should be reviewed? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's ask Gerntrash, the user who tagged it, what is it that they perceive as messy. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As a point of order, the process at WP:FAR describes the main goal of FA review to be one of retaining the article's FA status by implementing improvements until the article meets current FA standards. The FAR process should be preceded by an informal effort to fix the observed problems. Articles are not taken out of FA status because of one person tagging it. Binksternet (talk) 04:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael Goodyear and Binksternet: since Gerntrash is somewhat inactive (last edited more than one month ago; total number of edits around 300 across over 7 years) I think we should resolve this issue among ourselves. Does anyone else perceive a "mess" here? I don't. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is very unhelpful when people tag pages and leave no other indications of their concerns. If the tagger cannot justify their actions, the tag should be removed. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also since@Noleander: took this through the FA process, they should also be invited to review changes since then. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was "References -- particularly notes section -- are a mess." This was due to my misreading of the extensive notes section. I removed the tag. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Gerntrash (talk) 23:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Birth control movement in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notes "Engelman"

Over 100 out of 185 notes in the text lead to one reference, described as "Engelman".

  • For not trained readers (at mobile phones) it's not clear what "Engelman" refers to, could this be improved?
  • Engelman's A History of the Birth Control Movement in America is being written for "the general reader and university student". Particularly till note 110 this book seems the sole base for the text. One could take into consideration to broaden the base and use more sources. Count your Garden by the Flowers (talk) 11:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Birth_control_movement_in_the_United_States"