Talk:Cervical cap

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposed Infobox for individual birth control method articles[edit]

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) 12:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Design of cervical caps[edit]

I added Stopes's design suggestion from about 100 years ago. I think they have merit today and following them should result in something better than the FemCap --perhaps like the so called "test cap". I see a lot of complaints about the FemCap on the Inet. Major defects of the FemCap are that it's hard to remove due to suction and one can't get their finger under it to release suction since it adheres to the vagina. It it were a rim type it would be easier to remove. Also, I think it's a too short and not-flexible-enough dome and this can easily become dislodged.

The idea behind the "test cap" was that a penis thrusting the cervix hard enough to forcefully move the dome doesn't put the sides of the dome in tension so that the rim is not dislodged. The thin dome surface in compression can be Illustrated by holding up a sheet of paper vertically by its top above a table. Lower the sheet of paper towards the table with your hand almost a foot above the table. Make sure the paper isn't exactly vertical and try to push down on the table with the paper. You can't do it since the paper just bends. The shows that you can't transmit much force via a thin surface in compression. Thus, the domes of cervical caps should be thinner and longer that the FemCap (and also the Prentiff cap)David S. Lawyer 00:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Diagram of cap inside vagina[edit]

Are you sure the cap in this diagram is big enough? I've done a quick scout around and most of the pictures I've found show the cap as quite a bit larger, though they do vary. Elettaria 01:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC).[reply] 

    It's almost OK for a rim type cap which adheres only to the cervix.  It should have a wider rim but that's OK since it clearly shows that it doesn't adhere to the vaginal walls.David S. Lawyer 23:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC) In April I added a note to the diagram.  If no more discussion we can remove this section since problem solved (sort of). David S. Lawyer 05:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

"pregnancy rate" rather than "failure rate"[edit]

Note discussion at Talk:Birth control#"pregnancy rate" rather than "failure rate" re replacing occurrences of "failure rate" with "pregnancy rate". I would also like to see the same change on this page. Please make any comments there. --Coppertwig 04:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External link to DiaphragmsAndCaps group[edit]

This article had an external link to the only cervical-barrier forum I am aware of, a Yahoo! group. It was removed in this edit.

This group has a physician adviser, so it's a little more formal than most message boards. Because cervical barriers are one of the least popular contraceptive options, there is very little interactive content about them on the internet - as I said before, this is the only site I am aware of. I believe it meets criteria 3 and 4 of What should be linked in WP:EL as it provides both physician-sourced information (accurate) that cannot be used in the article because it is not published (not verifiable), and also has personal reviews from a variety of women of the different cervical barriers available.

It does violate criteria #6 (requires registration) and #10 (discussion forum) of Links normally to be avoided in WP:EL. However, considering the lack of other available links, I believe this link add sufficient value to the article that it can be an exception to the normally to be avoided rule. What do others think? Lyrl Talk C 13:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm agreeing with your analysis. While these kind of links are meant to normally be avoided, as the word normally implies there are exceptions. And as you have shown this should be one of them. Mathmo Talk 06:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Effect of using cervical cap on weight of user[edit]

The weight parameter was added to the infobox mainly for the hormonal contraception articles, where there is a widely held (though controversial among medical professionals) belief that they cause weight gain. There is no such widely held belief for barrier methods such as cervical cap, and the weight parameter in the infobox has actually caused confusion among Wikipedia readers - see Talk:Condom#Weight, for example. Also see a recent discussion at Template talk:BirthControl infobox#Weight change entry. I do not believe the weight parameter on this page is useful, and that it may actually cause confusion, so I removed it. I'm curious what the thoughts of the reverting editor are on this. LyrlTalk C 02:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... some potentially good points there. I had removed it because in this particular case it is obvious enough that a cervical cap doesn't have an impact upon weight. Mathmo Talk 02:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I went and read the Talk:Condom#Weight gain. But doesn't appear to have any real relevance to this, it was not serious problem of confusion. Mathmo Talk 03:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you said, it is obvious enough that a cervical cap doesn't have an impact upon weight. I don't think an explicit statement to that effect is useful in this article. Sorry about the broken link to the condom talk page, but I do think that readers may be confused thinking that weight gain is a purported side effect of using a cervical cap that we feel the need to list "no weight gain" at the top of the page in an infobox, or that someone has been having a joke by adding that parameter to contraception pages. This is a small possibility, and were there a benefit to having that information, I think such a small risk could be discounted. But without any benefit to that parameter, I think even a small negative effect is reason to leave it out of the infobox. LyrlTalk C 21:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Lea's Shield[edit]

The Lea's shield article is currently little more than a stub; I'm not sure the resources to develop it into a full-length article exist. Also, I believe Wikipedia readers would benefit from seeing information on the Lea's Shield in the context of information on cervical caps in general (history, fitting, etc.) and it seems more efficient to merge the information on Lea's Shield into this article instead of duplicating all the information in the Lea's article. Any thoughts or objections to such a merge? LyrlTalk C 16:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reversed the merge. The Lea's shield is significantly different from the cervical cap in its design. Cervical caps and the Lea's shield are both so little-known that describing them under the same article could easily create confusion. I have created a section titled "Similar devices" at the bottom of Cervical cap. Your concerns about duplication are resolved; I moved all of the information about the Lea's shield to the section at bottom, save the quote about FDA approval which I moved to Lea's shield. 24.147.186.238 (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Dumas cap is significantly different from the Prentif: it is several times the diameter, thinner, and seals to the vaginal walls instead of the cervix, among other differences. And yet Dumas and Prentif are both covered in this article. Compared to the differences among Dumas, Prentif, Oves, FemCap, and Vimule, the valve of the Lea's Shield hardly distinguishes it. All these devices cover the cervix by suction, as opposed the diaphragm which relies on a spring to form the seal.
The Lea's Shield article is a stub. It would be significantly improved by adding information about use, fitting, an explanation of the difference between method and typical effectiveness, and a history of similar devices. To improve the Lea's Shield article, then, most of the content of those sections would be duplicated from the cervical cap article. Does that make sense? LyrlTalk C 00:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While there are some differences in their designs, the Dumas and Prentif cap are each referred to as a "cervical cap". The Lea's shield is not called a cervical cap. It is a form of barrier contraception, true, but that is the extent of the similarity. The differences between a cervical cap and the Lea's shield are as great as those between a cervical cap and a diaphragm; therefore, Lea's shield deserves its own article.
Of course the Lea's shield article should be improved (as all articles on Wikipedia should be). The information about the Lea's shield effectiveness is different from that of the various caps, as evidenced by the statistics in Comparison of birth control methods. I assume that the method of insertion and placement, while similar to that of a cervical cap, is different enough for mention. I do not see minor duplication of description of inserting things vaginally to be an issue, certainly not one that should spurn a merge. 24.147.186.238 (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Lea's Shield is called a cervical cap by: Feminist Women's Health Center, University of Chicago, and About.com, for example. The Lea's Shield is a cervical barrier that creates a seal through suction, just like the Dumas, Prentif, Oves, FemCap, and Vimule, and unlike all other barrier methods.
Every brand of cap has different effectiveness information. This article currently has some information on Prentif, FemCap, and Lea's Shield; an improvement to the article would be expanding that information adding effectiveness information for the other types of caps. That Lea's Shield has a different effectiveness rate is not a reason for it to have its own article anymore than FemCap should have its own article because it has a different effectiveness rate than Prentif.
To my knowledge, the method of insertion and placement for the Lea's Shield is not any different than Dumas, FemCap, or Vimule, which adhere to the vaginal walls. It is different than the cavity rim caps Prentif and Oves, which adhere to the cervix.
Just to clarify, the duplication would be the entire "Use" section, most of the "Fitting" section (while Lea's only has one size, a fitting is still necessary to determine if the woman's anatomy is appropriate for a cap and if the single size Lea's is available in will fit her anatomy), most of the "Effectiveness" section (note most of this section is explaining the different statistics and not the statistics themselves), and all of the "History" section. Is this what you were referring to as a minor duplication? LyrlTalk C 00:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Lea's Shield product websites specifies that their product is not a cervical cap. Planned Parenthood, a respected source of reproductive health information considers the Lea's Shield to be a separate device from the cervical cap; as evidenced by their page called Diaphragms, Caps, and Shields. This study called the Lea's Shield "a device similar to the cervical cap". These studies also put the two devices in contrast. This study quotes the inventor of the Lea's Shield as having stated that he created the Shield because he was dissatisfied with the protection offered by other barriers, such as the cervical cap. The device's creator, the device's manufacturer, clinical researchers, and Planned Parenthood consider the Lea's Shield to be a separate device from the cervical cap.
Clearly, Lea's Shield is not a cervical cap. Therefore, it should not be merged into the article of that name. There is enough information and research available on the Shield to make the Lea's Shield article more robust. The fact that it is a shorter article simply means it should be improved, not merged. Concerns about duplication should not even be considered in this discussion, because the Lea's Shield is not a cervical cap. I think you should drop it. 24.147.186.238 (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The product website says, "The cervical cap is held in place by the cervix." This is true of cavity rim caps (Prentif and Oves). This is not true of Dumas or Vimule or FemCap. The way the Lea's manufacturer is defining cervical cap (that cervical cap = cavity rim cap) is different from the way this Wikipedia article is defining cervical cap.

Planned Parenthood article is titled "Diaphragms, Caps, and Shield" and its first paragraph gives a more detailed description of each item: "The diaphragm is... FemCap is... a Lea's Shield is...". Planned Parenthood is defining "cervical cap" as being a FemCap and nothing else. Again, this is not how this Wikipedia article is defining a cervical cap.

The article on the FDA review defines cervical cap as the Prentif (the only other cervical barrier approved by the FDA), as do the other studies linked to by 24.147.186.238, and this appears to be how the creator is using the term as well.

In the United States, "cervical cap" has long been used to mean only the Prentif, because that was the only kind approved by the FDA. An argument could be made that this Wikipedia article should only cover Prentif (and possibly Oves because it is also a cavity rim cap). But that excludes the common usage of the term in Europe, and also excludes the FemCap, which is now approved by the FDA and calls itself a cervical cap. If we are going with the European/inclusive of FemCap definition, I do not believe an argument can be made that the Lea's Shield should be excluded.

Should someone work on the Lea's Shield information and expand it to the point where a content fork was necessary, I would certainly support that. But at this point, I do not believe the maintenance of a stub article on the Lea's Shield is the best editorial choice.

If we cannot come to an agreement among ourselves, I suggest we seek a third opinion. Let me know if this is the route you'd like to go. LyrlTalk C 13:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're proposing that since a definition of "cervical cap" includes the Femcap, and that the Femcap does not rely on suction to the cervix, that as the Lea's Shield does not rely on suction to the cervix, we should describe the Lea's shield as a cervical cap. That is fallacious. Nonreliance on suction is not the criterion by which we determine whether a device is a cervical cap. The diaphragm does not rely on suction to the cervix, yet it is not called a cervical cap. It is not appropriate for us to come up with our own definition of what a cervical cap is. Wikipedia editors are instructed to report on the facts, not invent them.
As such (and as I have said), the inventor and the manufacturer of the Lea's Shield describe the device as being distinct from the cervical cap. This is reflected in medical research; I have yet to find a single study that refers to the Lea's Shield as a cervical cap, yet I have found many that refer to it as a "barrier device" or simply "a shield", in contrast to the cervical cap.
You have not provided proof of this idea that Lea's Shield is a cervical cap. The references you provided are less than convincing: the Feminist Women's Health Center link cites no sources for Lea's Shield-as-cap, About.com is not where I would go for any kind of medical information, and what you called "the University of Chicago" is actually just a flier from that school's student health center. These references are weak. Your personal opinion that Lea's Shield should be defined as a cervical cap is not appropriate grounds for this decision. If by "come to an agreement" you mean "if I agree to your suggested merge", then no, that is not happening. 76.24.239.82 (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that Wikipedia should report on the facts, not invent them. My understanding, however, is that different people have different definitions of "cervical cap", especially a United States/Britain-Europe difference. Wikipedia has to choose which definition to use. Does that make sense?
How do you want to proceed with our disagreement? Continue discussing it here? Agree to be bound by a third opinion? Something else? LyrlTalk C 00:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate it if you would produce some solid evidence to back your claim that the Lea's Shield is a cervical cap. You have stated that "different people" define it as such. Who are these people? Why we should take their opinion over those of the manufacturer and the clinical researchers of the Lea's Shield? And what's this about Britain/Europe? Sources, please. 76.24.239.82 (talk) 02:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the United States, the Prentif was the only cervical cap for many years. This resulted in many United States sources using the term "cervical cap" to mean Prentif and no other device. For example, the latest edition of Contraceptive Technology (published in 2000) lists the failure rate for Prentif under the label "cervical cap" with no indication these numbers are for just one brand. (The effectiveness table from that book has been copied to this website.)
In Europe in general, and specifically (since we are writing in English) in the English-speaking country of Britain, there is a long history of multiple devices being referred to by the term "cervical cap".
Does that explain the different definitions in the United States vs. Britain/Europe? LyrlTalk C 12:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide sources which indicate that the Lea's Shield is called a "cervical cap". 98.217.44.153 (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note, my contention is not that every reliable source refers to Lea's Shield as a cervical cap. My contention is that some reliable sources refer to Lea's Shield as a cervical cap, and there are valid reasons for Wikipedia to choose that definition over other definitions of "cervical cap". English sources that refer to the Lea's Shield as cervical cap include: Feminist Women's Health Center, the University of Chicago's Student Health Center, and an About.com article written by Dawn Stacey M.Ed, LMHC, and reviewed by Meredith Shur, MD.

Non-English sources that refer to the Lea's Shield as a cervical cap include:

  • Perché limitarsi a sognare? ("The Lea's Shield or Lea contraceptive is a type of cervical cap")
  • Die Portiokappe, a brochure of the different cervical caps available in Germany includes Lea's Shield and calls it a cervical cap (portiokappe)
  • A PowerPoint presentation of family planning methods covers the Lea's Shield on page 19 and calls it a type of cervical cap

LyrlTalk C 23:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrl, I feel as though you're going about this the wrong way: it appears to me that you first decided you wanted to merge Lea's Shield here, and then afterward sought factual sources. A better way to do it is to look at the sources and then make a decision. It is clear that the factual integrity of the manufacturer's description, the inventor's description, medical research, and an internationally-recognized medical organization are far stronger than that of a little-known women's-health website, a general-information website, and a student information flier. I feel that non-English translations should not be entered in because this is the English-language Wikipedia, and we are seeking the appropriate use of a term in English, not in Italian, German or Spanish.
Frankly, Lyrl, it feels like you're really reaching. I think that the sensible thing to do is to realize that, in the English-speaking world, the Lea's Shield is not considered a cervical cap. It is considered in its own class of device, it is not a cap but a shield. I feel that there is not a good reason to ignore the definition given by the manufacturer, the inventor, and the medical community. If you disagree, please explain why you think we should ignore the widely-accepted, well-sourced definition, and substitute a poorly-sourced, alternate definition. 98.217.44.153 (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The manufacturer says, "The cervical cap is held in place by the cervix." This is true of only of Prentif and Oves. If we are to use the definition given by the manufacturer, this article should not cover FemCap. FemCap - like the Lea's Shield - adheres to the vaginal walls. Does that make sense? LyrlTalk C 22:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lyrl, if none of the existing definitions satisfy you, then please provide a source indicating the definition of "cervical cap" that you would like to use, and why. The article is called "cervical cap"; we should define the scope of the article. 98.217.44.153 (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lyrl, is it your belief that the Lea's Shield manufacturer is in fact manufacturing a cervical cap, and that they somehow were not aware of this? Please refer to these legal documents provided by the FDA. Nowhere is the Lea's Shield referred to as a "cervical cap". I am starting to lose my patience with this conversation, it seems you are unwilling to listen to anything but what you have already decided. 98.217.44.153 (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionary.com offers several definitions. A few are obviously specifically describing the Prentif ("thimble-shaped"). I do not want to restrict this article to only the Prentif. I would like to use the other definitions seen on that page, "A small, rubber, cup-shaped contraceptive device that fits over the uterine cervix to prevent the entry of sperm" and "a contraceptive device made of rubberlike plastic and fitted over the cervix, where it may be kept for long periods without removal." These definitions include the rubber devices Prentif, Vimule, and Dumas. These definitions appear to have not been updated since the introduction of silicone devices; I believe it is reasonable to also include the silicone devices Oves, FemCap, and Lea's Shield. All of these are cup-shaped contraceptive devices that cover the cervix. LyrlTalk C 23:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lyrl, neither the manufacturer, the FDA, nor the medical community agree with your perception that the Lea's Shield is a cervical cap. Sorry. 98.217.44.153 (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know: since we appear to be at an impasse, I have requested a third opinion. 98.217.44.153 (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Lea's Shield manufacturer and the research articles cited by anonymous, like other authoritative United States sources, use the term "cervical cap" to refer exclusively to the Prentif device. (Note the FDA documents for FemCap do not refer to that device as a cervical cap, either.) If these are to be the sources for this Wikipedia article's definition of "cervical cap", then only Prentif should be covered. Is this the definition anonymous is arguing for? If not, please explain the definition that includes FemCap but not Lea's Shield so I can better understand that point of view. LyrlTalk C 02:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrl, these sources are not necessarily "the sources for this Wikipedia article's definition of 'cervical cap'", they are the sources for the definition of the Lea's Shield, and all of them clearly state that the Lea's Shield is not a cervical cap. Even if you manage to hack together some definition of the term "cervical cap" from the type of backwater sources you have previously provided, that does not detract from how the manufacturer, the inventor, the FDA, and the medical community consider the Lea's Shield: they all consider it a shield, not a cervical cap.
You want to talk about problems with sources? If your concern is that the sources I gave are providing an incorrect description of what a "cervical cap" then your own sources fail your own test! The Feminist Women's Health Center describes the cervical cap as a "latex, thimble-shaped, device". Clearly there are cervical caps made of materials other than latex: such as the Oves (whose status as a cervical cap has not been challenged by Lyrl). The FWHC then goes on to describe the Lea's Shield and FemCap; neither of these are made of latex. It goes on to state that oil must never be used as a lubricant with a cervical cap. This is not true of silicone devices; oil is perfectly safe to use with silicone. Frankly, it looks like the information about the newer FemCap and Lea's Shield were added to a old version of this document which described the Prentif, and that despite the fact that the Prentif is no longer available in the US, the page has not been updated to reflect this. I do not think this shoddy document should be considered as a primary source. That student health center flier from the University of Chicago that Lyrl quoted: it describes the "cervical cap" as a "small, latex, cup-shaped device", even though in the US, there are no latex cervical caps available. Neither should this document be considered. Finally, About.com has the same problem, focusing on the Prentif (it's even pictured!), citing statistics as to its effectiveness, even though the device is no longer available in the US (and the continued existence of the manufacturer has not been proven). Clearly, all of the references -- pardon me, all of the references in English which Lyrl has provided contain serious factual and contextual flaws. None of them should be considered as sources in this decision. 98.217.44.153 (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not assert that any use of the term "cervical cap", by any of the sources either of us have cited, is incorrect. I assert that some uses are US-centric, which is discouraged on Wikipedia. Anonymous, which devices do you believe are cervical caps? How do you believe this Wikipedia article should define "cervical cap"? LyrlTalk C 22:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The question we are working on is whether or not to include the Lea's Shield in the cervical cap article. If the concern is that excluding the Lea's Shield is "US-centric", can you please demonstrate where, exactly, the Lea's Shield is considered a cervical cap? 98.217.44.153 (talk) 04:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion[edit]

Unless a product is explicitly referred to as a "cervical cap" by reliable sources, it should not be included in this article. We should not be using our own opinions, but instead simply reporting what appropriate sources have stated. Vassyana (talk) 04:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC) You can help too by providing a third opinion. RfC and editor review could also always use a few extra voices! [reply]

Merge with Lea's Shield, continued[edit]

Anon, please take care to WP:AGF. Generally a manufacturer's own material trying to promote their product as different and better than its rivals is unlikely to be good WP:Reliable sources. If the product is only available in a few countries, then will rather limited range of sources we can use. From UK perspective Lea is a cervical covering device rather than spanning across the vaginal width as a diaphragm would, thus I would conclude Lea is a form of cervical cap, allbeit with its own characteristic features. However loads of websites do seem to distinguish it, but I'm not sure how well this reflects successfulness of Lea's marketing approach. Eg see WebMD (but not that authorative), Baylor College of Medicine - really need an authorative source....
As an alternative, how about merging Cervical cap and Lea's shield both under Cervical barriers ?... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidruben (talk • contribs) 01:26, 12 April 2008 UTC
Merging the two to Cervical barriers would require merging in Diaphragm, which, in my opinion, would not be appropriate.
I don't think my good faith ought to be questioned here. I was entirely forthcoming with Lyrl in stating that I had taken her up on the suggestion that we get a third opinion; I announced it here at the same time that I requested it. Whereas Lyrl, upon finding out (apparently) that the third opinion was not to her liking--she did not respond here. Instead, she went to complain to the editor who gave the opinion, and then to the doctor's mess, where she described my removal of unsourced information in a most unflattering light.
Lyrl wants to describe the Lea's Shield as a "cervical cap", yet provides no reliable sources to support this claim. I maintain that we must abide by Wikipedia policy: there must be reliable sources for this claim if we are to enact it. As yet, such sources remain unseen. I oppose the merge to Cervical barriers on the grounds of WP:NAME; "cervical barriers" is not as easily recognized as "cervical cap", a term which has been in use for decades. 98.217.44.153 (talk) 03:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


To me, this "Lea's Shield" device looks like a cervical cap and works like a cervical cap. It is a cap that has to be placed on the cervix. It is either very clever, or an even bigger hassle than "ordinary" cervical caps. Merge them. I have little opinion re the article title, except that if it is Cervical barrier then I think the article should include birth control diaphragms. --Una Smith (talk) 04:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, except "what it looks like to someone" is not what we go by on Wikipedia. We need reliable sources, unless/until they are produced, this should not go forward. 98.217.44.253 (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a number of statements from this supplement to WP:OR are relevant to this discussion:

  • Obvious deductions are not original research. This includes simple logical deductions. For example, if A is in district B, and district B is in province C, then A is in province C. This is a simple syllogism. Included are all of the other simple deductions. It is an obvious deduction that Lea's Shield is the same class of device as the FemCap.
  • Identifying synonymous terms, and collecting related information under a common heading is also part of writing an encyclopedia. Reliable sources do not always use consistent terminology, and it is sometimes necessary to determine when two sources are calling the same thing by different names. This does not require a third source to state this explicitly, as long as the conclusion is obvious from the context of the sources. U.K. sources use the term "cervical cap" to refer to multiple devices available in that country [1]. Many older U.S. sources use the term "cervical cap" to refer exclusively to the Prentif device (here effectiveness results for Prentif are labeled only "cervical cap"). A few current U.S. sources (such as those cited by David) use the term "cervical cap" to refer exclusively to the FemCap device. Some U.S. sources include the Lea's Shield under the cervical cap umbrella. These are obviously inconsistencies in terminology, and they can be resolved by the judgment and consensus of editors on Wikipedia.
  • Although the English language version of a source should be used when it is published in multiple languages, foreign language sources are also welcome, and even encouraged to reduce systemic bias. Non-English sources identify the Lea's Shield as a cervical cap.
  • Sources may be written in a fictional, nationalistic, religious or other narrow context. Material from these sources incorporated in Wikipedia must be placed in a broader, more encyclopedic context. Placing material in an encyclopedic context is different from taking things out of context. For example... material written from a localized or nationalistic perspective must be presented in a perspective consistent with a world-wide viewpoint... This is not original research when good editorial judgment is used. Taking material from the U.S. - where only one cervical cap (first Prentif, then later FemCap) was available for many decades, and so "cervical cap" is synonymous with a single device - and presenting it in a perspective consistent with a world-wide viewpoint where multiple cervical caps are available at the same time, and so the definition of cervical cap is broader and includes Lea's Shield, is allowed and even encouraged on Wikipedia.

I am not attached to the title of "cervical cap" for this article. I believe the best editorial decision would be to merge Lea's Shield into this article, but, like David and Una, I am open to looking for a new name. Anon, are you willing to consider a merge with a name change? If so, we can discuss alternatives to "cervical barrier", which you have objected to. LyrlTalk C 12:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrl, WP:NOTOR is neither a policy or a guideline; whereas WP:V certainly is, and you have failed to provide reliable sources which verify that Lea's Shield is a cervical cap. I agree with the editor who provided the third opinion: we need reliable sources that describe the Lea's Shield as a cervical cap, if we are to describe it as such. No one is suggesting that the Dumas, Vimule, Prentif, Oves or Femcap devices are not cervical caps. Clearly, they are defined as such where they are used, and if we can find manufacturer information or legal documentation that indicates the continued existence of the Dumas, Vimule and Prentif, they can be included in this article. (To that end, I have sent out about half a dozen emails to various UK entities, trying to find manufacturer information and legal documentation proving the modern existence of the three). However, you have not indicated that the Lea's Shield is referred to as a "cervical cap" in the UK. This research study indicates that in the UK (during testing), the Lea's Shield was not considered a cervical cap.
What exactly is the problem with leaving the Lea's Shield to have its own article? Why are you fighting this so strenuously? The diaphragm has its own article, as well it should. I do not think that the diaphragm should be merged to some amorphous cervical barriers article. It is its own device, with its own efficacy statistics - just as the Lea's Shield. 98.217.44.253 (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This reads like special pleading for a brand name; that's a strike against Lea's Shield right there. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. --Una Smith (talk) 23:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not assuming good faith, Una. I am just aiming for accuracy. I have never even seen a Lea's Shield in-person; I certainly do not have any kind of legal or job-related connection to the brand of any kind. Seriously, until someone can present strong evidence that the Lea's Shield is regarded as a "cervical cap", this debate should end. 98.217.44.253 (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is a remark about the content. Furthermore, the burden of proof rests on whoever wants to keep Lea's Shield as a separate article, not the other way around. So far, the argument for keeping Lea's Shield depends on the (unproven) claim that the thing is not a cervical cap. --Una Smith (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO PMID 10023094 does not confirm (or refute) that it is distinguished from a cervical cap, only that it is a new device being tested (and failing miserably). PMID 8773419 is interesting (seems better tolerated in previous US test) but also used the phrase "vaginal contraceptive barrier device". Should diaphragms, caps and shields all be merged together under such a title ? Not only is the term "real" in that verifiably used in the real world, but also bypasses the need to find a definition (which we seem unable to) of what in principle is a cap other than having to rely on some 4-5 products (i.e. current descriptions tend to of the individual products, rather than an abstract generalisation against which the Lea Shield can be compared to). David Ruben Talk 00:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "cervical cap" returns more than twenty-three times the number of ghits than the phrases "cervical barrier" or "cervical barriers" return. Clearly, the concept of a "cervical cap" is far more well-known to the public than the term "cervical barrier". I really think that a merge of three different devices would be a bad decision. 98.217.44.253 (talk) 00:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
David, the Cervical Barrier Advancement Society says that, "Most people think of cervical barriers primarily as the diaphragm and cervical cap, but a broader definition would encompass female and male condoms, the sponge, Lea’s shield and microbicides. Cervical barriers are physical or chemical substances that prevent pregnancy and /or reduce the spread of STIs, including HIV." I'm not sure we could merge the current Lea's Shield, diaphragm, and cervical cap articles under the title "Cervical barriers" and exclude the contraceptive sponge and spermicide (and possibly female condom?)
While I can see advantages to such a merge — they share much of the same history, many rely on spermicide for a good portion of their effectiveness, they all require insertion in the vagina, etc. — I don't think it would solve the labeling problem we're running into here. The merged article would not (I don't think) have headings for "Ortho diaphragm", "Reflexions diaphragm", "Today sponge", "Pharmatex sponge"; instead it would have headings "Diaphragm" (covering the different brands), "Sponge", and... "Other cervical barriers"? We'd still need to decide whether to include the Lea's Shield under the same heading as the FemCap and Prentif.
Anonymous, I believe my sources are reliable and in-line with Wikipedia policy, but as the others in this discussion don't seem interested in discussing that I won't belabor the point. LyrlTalk C 12:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Lea's Shield, continued II[edit]

I believe Wikipedia's coverage of Lea's Shield would be significantly improved by providing information on similar devices in the same article. Note, however, that any merge could certainly include text acknowledging the ambiguity of the labeling for this device: "While some medical practitioners classify the Lea's Shield as a cervical cap, others consider it a distinct type of device." LyrlTalk C 21:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would not be accurate. This is not a case of "ambiguity", where "some say this and others say that". It is a case where almost everyone affirms something, but, seemingly, you do not agree. I restate that a few factually iffy websites, a flier from a student health care center, and references translated from other languages do not stand up to the evidence I have produced to the contrary. 66.30.20.71 (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all U.S. sources use a U.S.-centric convention that treats the phrase "cervical cap" as part of the name of the Prentif brand. An example of this usage from Contraception Online: "Similar to the Prentif® cervical cap (Cervical Cap Ltd.; Los Gatos, CA), Lea's Shield blocks the cervix. Unlike the cervical cap, however..."
Because 1)Wikipedia strives to write for a worldwide audience, and 2)an article titled "cervical cap" that includes FemCap is logically inconsistent with using "cervical cap" to refer specifically Prentif, sources that follow this convention are not reliable for determining whether (as far as this Wikipedia article is concerned) Lea's Shield can be considered a cervical cap.
Whistling42 has cited the website of the Lea's Shield U.S. manufacturer, and several U.S. studies that use this convention; these are not reliable as explained in the previous paragraph. Planned Parenthood's site also followed this convention when Prentif was still available in the U.S.; with the introduction of FemCap and withdrawal of Prentif from the U.S. market, PP then swapped out the Prentif information with the new FemCap; again, not reliable for determining what devices are included in the term "cervical cap". Whistling has also cited the FDA approval documents for the Lea's Shield which refer to it only by its brand name, the same treatment the FDA uses in the FemCap approval documents. These documents no more prove the Lea's Shield is not a cervical cap than they prove the FemCap is not a cervical cap.
Whistling also provided a UK study that referred to the Lea's Shield by its brand name. Like the FDA documents, this neither proves nor disproves that Lea's Shield can be considered a cervical cap.
Medical professionals who prescribe a device are an authoritative source for what that device is. A network of 15 women's health clinics that "helped win FDA approval of cervical cap" is not a factually iffy website. Whistling has critiqued the Feminist Women's Health Center for not providing sources, being "little known", and having editing errors on their cervical cap page. FWHC, as a network of medical professionals, is itself a reliable source. Their website has an impressive Google PageRank of 5, making it far from "little known". Planned Parenthood's cervical cap page still has the life expectancy of the Prentif - two years - rather than the one year recommended by the FemCap manufacturer; it is fallacious to claim that such editing errors make the entire webpage unreliable.
A medical center that serves over 10,000 students including providing them with prescription birth control devices - such as the student health center for the University of Chicago - is an authoritative source for what those devices are called. Whistling has critiqued this source as being "just a flier"; I am unable to find the section of WP:RS that states that published information from a reliable source is to be discounted if it is in the format of a flier. Whistling also cites editing errors in this publication; again, I am unable to find the section of WP:RS that states than editing errors in a document render the entire document unfit for citation on Wikipedia.
A document written by a medical professional and reviewed by a practicing doctor is a reliable source for what these health workers call the devices they work with. Whistling states that About.com is "is not where I would go for any kind of medical information", that it is "a general information website", that About.com quotes text verbatim from Contraceptive Technology (which offers effectiveness rates for "cervical caps" and then lists the results from a study of Prentif), and labels the image with the U.S. convention of referring to the Prentif brand simply as "cervical cap." I do not believe any of these are valid reasons to discount this source. It is the writing of only two medical professionals, but it supports the other more authoritative sources I have offered. LyrlTalk C 00:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are leading the discussion in circles. You said that "an article titled "cervical cap" that includes FemCap is logically inconsistent with using "cervical cap" to refer specifically Prentif, sources that follow this convention are not reliable for determining whether (as far as this Wikipedia article is concerned) Lea's Shield can be considered a cervical cap." Yet I have already demonstrated how your own sources fail that test: on April 10, I discussed how all three of your sources explicitly describe the Prentif, and then muddy their way over to discussion of other devices. By this (convoluted, impossible) standard which you have produced, there are no sources which satisfy it, and therefore whether the Lea's Shield is or is not a cervical cap remains unproven. Thus, according to this standard, we cannot include a statement that Lea's Shield is a cervical cap in this article. Whistling42 (talk) 06:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An editorial error, recognizable as an error, is different in kind from a deliberate use of a term in a way not useful to this Wikipedia article. The FWHC and UC health center pages have editorial errors. The About.com page includes a verbatim quote from Contraceptive Technology, which uses the U.S. convention of cervical cap=Prentif, but the original content on that page includes the Lea's Shield as a cervical cap. These are different from the sources you have cited which deliberately and exclusively use "cervical cap" to mean Prentif: those sources are not useful to an article where we have decided to include FemCap.
This standard is met by some sources that consider the Lea's Shield a distinct device; if it were not I would be arguing that the Lea's Shield absolutely is a cervical cap, not suggesting discussing the contradictory naming in the article.
That you and I have so much confusion over what is and is not a cervical cap means other readers probably also have differing expectations of the content of this article. In the IUD article, discussion of the differences in U.S. and UK naming convention is put near the top of the article. The fertility awareness article, which overlaps and is commonly confused with natural family planning, has a terminology section at the top. I suggest that this article follow a similar layout, with discussion of how the term "cervical cap" is used in the first section. I've gone ahead and put my understanding of the situation into the article; hopefully we can work on this and come to an agreement that will help stymie this type of disagreement in the future. LyrlTalk C 13:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of information about Prentif, Dumas, Vimule[edit]

I was unable to find any evidence that the Prentif, Dumas or Vimule caps are still in production. I removed the information about these caps from the main part of the article, leaving mention of them in the History section. If anyone can find evidence that these caps are still in production, please add the info. I have removed much of the effectiveness information as it was in regards to the Prentif cap, which I have not been able to verify as available. 76.24.239.82 (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. distributer of the Prentif went out of business, not the manufacturer. They are still available in Europe, as well as from some internet distributors (example). The Dumas and Vimule are available in Europe, for example from this London practice. LyrlTalk C 00:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those web pages could be out of date. Can you provide a source for your claim that the Prentif manufacturer is still in business? Can you find anything to indicate that the manufacturer of the Dumas and Vimule still exists? 98.217.44.153 (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent sources either of us has been able to find indicate these products are still available. Lacking a source that states they are not available, I see no reason to assume they don't exist. If you want, you may email the London practice I linked to - enquiries@naturalgynae.com - and ask them if that part of their website is up to date. LyrlTalk C 23:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see it the other way: that since there are no signs of the manufacturer, I consider it more conservative to refrain from acting as though they exist, when we are not sure (and cannot prove) whether they do. I have sent several emails to various people who might know, and if I get any answers I will certainly let you know. 98.217.44.153 (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They have an address and phone number and their product is available for sale. There are many news articles available about the U.S. distributor going out of business, so it is proven to be a newsworthy topic, and there are zero news articles about Lamberts going out of business. Do you believe they do not exist simply because they do not have a web site? LyrlTalk C 22:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lyrl, I really think you should review WP:V. None of what you present here is a substitute for a reliable source indicating the current existence of either company. If you want the article to state that either company exists today, you must provide proof of that assertion, according to Wikipedia policy. 98.217.44.153 (talk) 23:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To give me an example of what you are looking for, what is the proof that the companies manufacturing FemCap and Oves exist today? LyrlTalk C 23:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrl, it is not up to me to tutor you on the meaning of WP:V. If you feel that there is not sufficient proof of the existence of the FemCap or Oves feel free to bring that up in another thread. 98.217.44.153 (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether someone could buy a newly manufactured one of these devices today, stocks are still available for sale and many of them are still in use. Asserting that the newest one of these devices might (or might not) be a year or two old is not reason to strip this article of all information on them. LyrlTalk C 22:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide sources which indicates that "many of these devices are still in use". Please provide sources which indicate which devices are still in use. Please provide sources which indicate where it is legal to prescribe (if applicable), sell, or use these devices. Otherwise realize that your above comment contains no useful content. 98.217.44.153 (talk) 04:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we agree at least that the devices in question did exist at some time. I believe these devices continue to be prescribed in the U.K., supported by this source and verifiable by email communication with that practice (which I have done), but that is not critical for my position of continuing to cover these devices in this article. The information on what material these are made of, sizing, and effectiveness is supported by reliable sources. I am unaware of any Wikipedia policy that states that only information on currently available devices is allowed to be included in Wikipedia articles. I do not support the removal of verifiable information on Vimule, Dumas, and Prentif from this article. LyrlTalk C 12:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most Wikipedia articles include a history section. Not only should Cervical cap describe cervical caps that are no longer manufactured, it should also describe the first cervical caps and reasons for discontinuing old designs. --Una Smith (talk) 23:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see there's been no attempt at rebuttal here to the reasoning Una and I put forward. Are there any current objections to my adding these devices back into the article? LyrlTalk C 12:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no problem with putting such devices in the History section. Unless we can prove that they still are in production and are legal for sale; we should assume that production has ended and that they are historic devices. (Believe me, I have put quite a bit of effort into finding the answer to this question, and I will not give up until I have exhausted my avenues.) It would be terribly misleading (to the point of being inaccurate) to include these devices in the sections pertaining to modern use and efficacy; their information must not go in those sections. The historic devices could, perhaps, each have their own subsections in the History section. I am thinking of the great bulk of information about the Prentif; that certainly should be contained in its own section. Take care to add the information, rather than reverting to a previous state (as it would destroy my work). 98.217.44.253 (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would approach this from the other direction. Unless someone provides a reliable source documenting that a product has been removed from the market, it should be treated as if still on the market. --Una Smith (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't how Wikipedia works, Una. WP:V makes it clear that there is a burden of verifiability. If we are to say in the article "this product is currently legally available for sale", we must prove that it is both currently legal and currently available. 98.217.44.253 (talk) 01:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOT, such marketing info does not belong in Wikipedia at all, for any product, available or not. Simply say X was introduced to the market in (year) and if you don't have sources for more than that, leave it at that. --Una Smith (talk) 04:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "marketing" anything: my point is that we must prove that any such device belongs in a section about modern devices. Several sources (including the CBAS and the FWHC) indicated, the Prentif website announced it would no longer sell them in the US, in 2005. That website (www.cervcap.com) has since disappeared completely. I have done several searches to try to find the companies that produces the Prentif Dumas, and Vimule, yet nothing has emerged. It is illogical to suggest that since, perhaps, they didn't make some grand announcement about their closing their doors, we should just assume, forever, that they are still in existence. People did that with Elvis, too, you know. :) 98.217.44.253 (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anon, if you are interested in learning more about diaphragms and cervical caps, I encourage you to consider joining the Yahoo! DiaphragmsAndCaps group. The gynecologist at this practice advises that group; being a member was how I was able to get a response from them so quickly. As I indicated above, I received confirmation that he currently prescribes these devices, and that "the sizable order [his office] put in for Prentif, Dumas and Vimule caps was filled last week." A moderator of that group provided the information that the manufacturing rights for these devices were acquired by Williams Medical Supplies (manufacturer's website). Neither the doctor nor the moderator knows if these devices are still manufactured (they are making inquiries), but it is a verifiable statement that they are available.

Regardless of availability, however, as I stated above, the material, sizing, and effectiveness data are all supported by reliable sources and should be included in this article. Putting them in the history section requires a source that these devices are historical. Lacking such a source, their information cannot be put in the history section. We can label the non-history portion of the article "Devices available in the year 2000", make many statements "as of 2005", prominently state that the U.S. distributor has gone out of business, whatever is needed to make this placement sufficiently ambiguous for anonymous. But without a source that these devices are no longer available, this information cannot be put in the history section. As far as "assuming people are in existence", with Elvis they had a dead body. A better analogy would be Anastasia, where it's not known what happened to her, but there is good evidence she was not dead at the time her death was announced. LyrlTalk C 21:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"No objections on talk in five days"? Fine, here's an objection: you haven't proven that these caps are currently available. Without that information they simply don't belong on the page, other than in the History section. 66.30.20.71 (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether these caps are currently available is irrelevant, as my proposed version of the article makes zero statements, claims, or implications about current availability. The article version preferred by anonymous, by contrast, has two sourceless statements about availability. Currently we have no verifiable proof of the discontinuation of the manufacturer of the Prentif, Vimule or Dumas, so no statements can be made that these are historical devices. This is Wikipedia, not BlindAssumptionpedia.
More relevant to this discussion, your reversion deleted an explanation of effectiveness statistics, and removed sourced information on fitting practices for these types of devices. While sources may discuss specific brands, this type of information is broadly applicable to this type of device, and is most useful in these sections: not under "history". LyrlTalk C 02:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm the editor previously known as anonymous. I fixed those two statements you found objectionable: here and here. The current version is factually accurate and well-sourced. I'm glad you understand my meaning about BlindAssumptionpedia, and I'm amused that you found it reasonable to mockingly repeat my phrase, word-for-word.
I removed the explanation of effectiveness statistics for two reasons: 1) without the research on the Prentif, there isn't any need for it: the only relevant study is a small study of 17 users of the Oves; there isn't any research available on the current version of the Femcap. 2) More importantly, if people want to learn about effectiveness statistics, Wikipedia has many edifying articles for the purpose, such as Pearl index, decrement table or Comparison of birth control methods (which would be fine to add to See also, as far as I am concerned). The middle of the Cervical cap article is not the place to tutor people on how to interpret statistics. For someone that argued for the merging of the entire Lea's Shield article to Cervical cap, citing that it held objectionable "duplication", surely you can understand why Cervical cap is not the place to hold a duplicative refresher on Statistics 101. Whistling42 (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to your Wikipedia identity, Whistling. It is pleasant to be able to refer to you with a name.
I appreciate that you removed the violation of Wikipedia's guideline against self-references. My second request for citation, however, still requires sourcing in order to remain in the article. No sources have been provided that FemCap or Oves are available in 2008.
Per WP:SEEALSO, "A reasonable number of relevant links that would be in a hypothetical "perfect article" are suitable to add to the "See also" section of a less developed one. Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also"." It is considered better style to work wikilinks into the article (such as how my proposed text for the effectiveness section links to both "Pearl index" and "Decrement table") than to create a "see also" section.
Duplication is a negative to consider, but it is not the only factor when making editorial decisions. The definitions of "perfect use" and "typical use" are not known to the average reader, so having the information within the article improves the usefulness of this article to its readers. The various editors of fertility awareness, condom, diaphragm, and the pill have deemed their articles to be an appropriate place to summarize an explanation of effectiveness terminology; this language has been in these articles for 2-3 years without any objections. As the condom and pill articles are probably the most viewed and edited of the birth control articles, the stability of this language in those articles is a strong indication of consensus to include it.
The research on Prentif is relevant to the effectiveness of cervical caps. These are all the same type of device: cervical caps. Effectiveness information from one brand is useful when evaluating brands for which effectiveness information is limited. The Prentif information is also useful here because that device is still being prescribed. But even if it were no longer sold, the information on its effectiveness is still useful in the "effectiveness" section of this article. LyrlTalk C 23:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes early April 2008[edit]

An editor from a dynamic IP address has been doing a lot of work on this article recently. Many of the changes I disagree with. I am choosing to not pursue these disagreements at this time because I want to resolve the issue of merging with the Lea's Shield article first. I just wanted to put this disclaimer here so that the anonymous editor is not surprised when I later start to alter or revert (and discuss individually, if needed) certain of their changes. LyrlTalk C 14:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't want to edit-war with you, Lyrl. Would you please consider approaching this by discussing it here, rather than reverting? Would you please give a short list of what you found objectionable? Perhaps if we discuss it first we can come up with something agreeable. Then we could implement the solution and have no further problems. 98.217.44.153 (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll bring things up here one at a time. I believe it is best to resolve the issues we are currently working on before introducing new discussion threads. LyrlTalk C 23:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the latter, I agree. I hope you will bring up your concerns prior to making changes, rather than reverting and explaining as you go. 98.217.44.153 (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US FDA[edit]

The US FDA Birth Control Guide groups "Prentiff Cap" and "FemCap" together under the heading "Cervical Cap with Spermicide" and Lea's Shield separately. That document settles the question re what is legally available in the US. It says nothing about the legal availability of these same or similar devices in other countries. Use the FDA advanced search page to find summaries of pre-market studies on all of these devices. The summaries can be very educational reading. --Una Smith (talk) 04:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. First of all, it's Prentif, not "Prentiff" as that document states. Secondly, the Prentif is not legally available in the United States. Cervical Cap, Ltd, the sole distributor of the Prentif in the US was dissolved in 1995, the product is no longer available here. Don't take my word for it: go ahead and contact any gynecologist or Planned Parenthood in the US and ask about the availability of the Prentif. The question is as to whether the company still produces Prentif, Dumas or Vimule in another country. 98.217.44.253 (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally directed remarks are inappropriate. Furthermore, I made no mistake. If the FDA says they are legally available in the US, then they are legally available. Whether obtainable is another matter; that depends on available stocks reaching patients who want them. --Una Smith (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Available" and "obtainable" are equivalent in meaning. If they are not obtainable then they are not available. Furthermore, that document is from the 1997 issue of the FDA Consumer magazine; it was clearly not rigorously edited (the misspelling of the Prentif), it is out of date, and it is not a legal document. Its publication over a decade ago bears no weight on whether the Prentif is currently available, and should not be taken as such. 98.217.44.253 (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a clarification: if a resident of the United States obtained a Prentif cervical cap, that person would not be violating any laws. Prentif is an approved medical device, whether they are available for sale here or not. The same person purchasing an Oves cap would be violating federal law by importing an unapproved medical device into the country. This whole section is not really relevant to our discussion, however. I appreciate Una's research, but per our conversation above and this related comment legality and availability are not necessary for Wikipedia to have information on something. LyrlTalk C 21:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Removal or placement of information about Prentif, Dumas, Vimule[edit]

Information about certain brands of cervical cap (Prentif, Dumas, Vimule) has been removed with a claim that there is not evidence of current availability (diff, accompanying statement on talk page). Is evidence of current availability required to include information on devices in a Wikipedia article?

A compromise position of including this information in the "History" section has been offered. No sources stating that these devices are historical has been found. Lacking such sources, is it appropriate for a Wikipedia article to label such devices as historical? LyrlTalk C 02:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether refraining from mentioning these devices in the "current" section would "label them as historical" is irrelevant. The simple fact is that Wikipedia articles require verifiability. Currently we have no verifiable proof of the continued existence of the manufacturer of the Prentif, Vimule or Dumas, nor do we have any legal documents related to the devices. I have no objection to stating what we can prove: that these devices were introduced at a certain time, that they were available during a certain time, or any other information. We do not have proof that they are currently available, therefore we must not assume that they are. This is Wikipedia, not BlindAssumptionpedia. 66.30.20.71 (talk) 11:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Outside opinion- I'd go with the IP on this issue. Without a source, it shouldn't be included. I would say to look for a source, and put them in when you find one. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify: all information I would like to include in this article is sourced. To my understanding, Whistling42 (previously an IP) has not disputed any of these sources. Rather, they are arguing that this sourced information should either not be in the article at all, or should only be allowed in the history section, because they are dissatisfied with evidence these devices are currently available. I am not arguing for inclusion of any statement that these devices are currently available. However, please note that no evidence of the discontinuation of these devices has been presented. LyrlTalk C 22:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology section a boon, any other issues?[edit]

I am relieved that Lyrl has added this section. I think it is the best compromise that we are going to reach at this time. Lyrl, may I ask if there are any remaining issues you consider to be unresolved at this time? What would you like to see changed, if anything? What sources can you provide to support the suggested changes? I would like the article to be stabilized. Please be brief. Thank you. Whistling42 (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good feeling to agree on something. But, yes, unfortunately, there are remaining unresolved issues. The content of the "Fitting", "Use", and "Effectiveness" sections (most but not all of the changes I would like to see are in this revision); the content of the infobox; concerns the "Acceptability" section is not NPOV; concerns the external links section does not conform to WP:EL (see also #External link to DiaphragmsAndCaps group); and my belief that a merge with Lea's Shield would improve Wikipedia's coverage of that device. For the sake of brevity, I'll refrain from adding arguments/sources until we start discussing each item. Would you prefer to pick an issue and start discussing now, or take a break for a couple of days or a week? LyrlTalk C 12:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, let's try to take this in a collaborative direction. I am glad you suggested a break: things are picking up around here and I won't have much time to devote to this until next Sunday at the soonest. I would be happy to discuss it then. Whistling42 (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the Infobox should only contain info about devices that are available, feel free to add any sourced info to Acceptability that would make it more NPOV (though I don't see what the issue is, since the existing info is from scientific studies). What's wrong with EL? Let's get this hashed out, my week changed and starting tomorrow things get busy again. Whistling42 (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to limit discussion to one issue at a time; some are inter-related, but minimizing the number of topics at hand reduces the risk of discussion going off-track and becoming unproductive.
The infobox should contain useful information, which may be from devices that are not currently available. An image of one type of cervical cap provides an idea of what this type of device looks like, for example. When studying the effectiveness of the Lea's Shield, researchers found it useful to consider the effectiveness of the Prentif and the Today sponge; similarly, the effectiveness of any cervical cap is useful information to have when evaluating similar devices such as other cervical caps. The image of the Oves is the only GFDL image currently available and it should go in the infobox where it is readily visible to readers. The effectiveness data on the Prentif is the only data from a large clinical trial and should go in the infobox (which Whistling should not object to because the Prentif is currently available). The effectiveness data on the FemCap (even though that was gathered on a device without a removal strap) should also be included as a point of reference for the cap that is currently most widely available.
I have made a request at the doctor's mess for additional opinions. LyrlTalk C 11:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of versions[edit]

So, Lyrl, why do you prefer this version over this version? Whistling42 (talk) 12:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox is more useful because it contains more relevant information, as I explained here and here. It has some spacing issues in the "CBAS" ref fixed. The introduction date of the Prentif is referenced. The body of the article is also more encyclopedic because it contains more information on devices referred to as cervical caps (same reasoning as for infobox).
It is frustrating that we have been discussing basically the same issue (inclusion of information on caps other than FemCap) for several weeks, and our level of understanding is still so low that Whistling asks me to explain something I have already attempted to explain several times. I believe the best chance for us to come to an agreement is with mediation from a third party; I have filed a request and hope you will agree to have our dispute here mediated. LyrlTalk C 22:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cervical cap. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 18:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Cervical cap. 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) 08:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cervical cap. 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) 05:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cervical_cap&oldid=1200755654"