Talk:Safe sex/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Scope of the article

Straw poll:

Should this article be about (NOTE: not "named") reducing the risk of transmitting a sexually transmissible infection or infestation from one person to another, which is generally known as "safe" or "safer" sex, or about something else (you describe it)?

Please keep responses very brief: "safe/safer sex" is the keyword if you support the sentence above as an approximate description of the scope of the article. If you don't support "reducing the risk of transmitting a sexually transmissible infection or infestation from one person to another" as the proper scope of the article, then choose any other word(s) that you think describe the scope of the article (e.g., "Absolutely zero risk sex"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Safe(r) sex. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Safe/safer sex (HIV & STI risk reduction). Mish (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • safe/safer sex. Plus the campaign, history, & controversies. --Simon Speed (talk) 01:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Voting is evil

  1. Nutriveg (talk) 06:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC) I won't join polls until I understand what's the problem with the referenced (PAHO/WAS/WHO) topic definition provided and while there's no one against the expressed motivations for creating this poll.

Discussion

I don't see the point of this poll, since no one is supporting the restriction of the practices presented in the article. The discussion so far is what reliable sourced definition better introduces the article content, and you created this poll only to illustrate that discussion is irrelevant and the definition don't need to reflect the article content, so it can be defined lightly and its reliability doesn't deserve anyone's attention. Shame on you.--Nutriveg (talk) 01:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The point is simple: to make sure that the article topic is agreed upon. After we've agreed on the topic, we can determine what descriptions, terms, and so forth are related. Wikipedia articles like this are not usually about words: they are about ideas. We need to make sure that we have agreed on the concept that needs to be named and described here. It would be helpful to know whether or not you believe that the article attached to this talk page should be about "reducing the risk of transmitting a sexually transmissible infection or infestation from one person to another" or about something else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the article topic should follow the best definition presented so far, by PAHO/WAS/WHO: "sexual practices and sexual behaviors that reduce the risk of contracting and transmitting sexually transmitted infections, especially HIV."
Your proposition is so subtle that I even realized it at first, you proposed this poll as something about the article content, and limited the discussion to the two terms used so far, making it sounding like the terminology discussion we have been discussing, if one term should be chosen or we should use both, but in fact you're making a poll about that discussion that started just today. What you really want to define is the content of the "auto eroticism" section, if it should or not mention cross infections, presenting this "article definition discussion" as subterfuge to support your POV in that section. This poll purpose is worse than I previously though.--Nutriveg (talk) 04:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Nope. I want to know whether we can agree on the subject of the entire article. Is it about practices that reduce sexual transmission of diseases from one person to another person, or about something else? For example, there are issues raised above about non-infectious/non-transmissible diseases that are related to sexual behavior. The perfectly true statement that "Masturbation can cause penile fracture" would be excluded from this article if the article is supposed to be about "reducing the risk of transmitting a sexually transmissible infection or infestation from one person to another". And I'm specifically not asking people to agree to any definition of any terms, although I'm suggesting that rather than typing out the entire phrase they respond with a "keyword" of safe (or safer) sex if that sentence appeals to them. I could have suggested "agree" or "argelfratz" or anything else; this seemed least likely to create confusion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Please stop changing the heading. Not only does it seriously misrepresent my question (and I do feel entitled to determine what my own question is intended to ask), the heading is linked on other pages, and your changes break it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Your expressed motivations (doubt about penile fracture) weren't expressed by anyone so far in the talk page, at best you're just creating a useless poll.--Nutriveg (talk) 05:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission. I have reverted your unauthorized, rude, and unhelpful vandalism of this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I completely understand and I'm sorry about that since I was unaware I couldn't edit a poll proposal, since polls usually have a previous time for proposing options and changes. But in the way you deleted my proposed change, I hope you understand that proposal and do it yourself, for the sake of clarity instead of using ambiguous words as options.--Nutriveg (talk) 06:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

::::: @Nutriveg. I am now beginning to agree with Simon, You are not interested in discussion that leads to a solution, but in arguing for the point of it. The pattern of disruptive editing on this page as well as the article itself reinforces this - as does your refusal to engage in any discussion other than those you can frame and control. 'Trolling' seems to be an accurate description of that type of behaviour.Mish (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how that your commentary attacking me instead of discussing content would help us reach such solution.--Nutriveg (talk) 23:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

Contraceptive technology (chapter 21) talks about safe/safer sexual practices in terms of the broader category of reproductive tract infections, which include not only STIs, but common infections of the genital tract, such as bacterial vaginosis, vulvovaginal candidiasis (yeast infections) and others, which it does not classify as STIs. Obviously infections caused by insertions of IUDs are not part of safe sex, but would the rest of such RTI be classed as sexually transmissible infections for the purpose of the above description?

I think it should also cover (be about) unsafe (unsafer) sex, since those terms also direct here.

I don't think the stipulation that it be about transmission from one person to another should be strictly enforced. Certainly that makes sense as a main focus, and wouldn't want to put undue weight on other matters, however brief mention of relevant sexual health and hygiene might also make sense. (For instance washing body parts (whether yours or your partners) before oral contact. May not be strictly STI prevention, not necessarily transmission between people, might still be supported by sources as means of safer sex.) Zodon (talk) 07:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Additional sexual health concerns could be mentioned in the "See also" section or another section (if the article isn't too big) but, so far, I don't think they deserve more than that.--Nutriveg (talk) 11:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
@Zodon, yet the UK directive I cited earlier from the BMJ does include these as STIs. In the UK, if you get a GUI/RTI you get treated in a clinic for STIs, regardless of how it was contracted. Mish (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Zodon. This is exactly the kind of response I was hoping to elicit by providing an opportunity for other editors to explain their thoughts instead of being forced into one of two choices, either one of which might have flaws.
UTIs increase significantly among sexually active women, but that accounts for perhaps half of UTIs among adult women. I don't see any possibility for a non-sexual UTI to be prevented through "safe sex" practices. I'm also not sure that the apparently best prevention of sexually transmitted UTIs (which is urinating shortly after sex; condoms don't appear to help) is generally considered a "safe sex" practice. I'd be open to mentioning them as infections that can be caused through sexual activity, without labeling them as STIs.
And Mish, I'd be absolutely astonished if primary care physicians sent women with UTIs to a sexual health clinic rather than treating them immediately. It's not something that requires particular expertise. (UTIs are much more common in women than men.) UTIs are also fairly common among cancer patients: can you imagine any responsible physician saying, "Well, this four year old with acute leukemia has a UTI, so you'd better take her over to the sexual health clinic"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I was shocked myself. Mish (talk) 17:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Abstinence Section Should Be Removed

If there were an article on safe driving practices that focused on ways to lessen the risk of hurting yourself or others while driving, would it make sense to include a section entitled "Not Driving as an alternative to safe driving"? Would it include notes that you could still be hit by a car on the sidewalk or at a cross walk or that you could cause someone else to get in an accident by being really good looking or wearing a watch the reflects the sun into someone's eyes while they're driving? Would it mention that the Amish support not driving a car as an alternative to safe driving?

"Abstinence..." is a nonsense section for this article, and it should be removed.

Otherwise, there are plenty of alternatives to "safe sex" that limit and/or eliminate one's risk of contracting an "STD" or becoming pregnant. 68.79.23.66 (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.79.23.66 (talk) 23:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree: Some fairly large groups advocate abstinence as a way of avoiding sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy. So it is appropriate to cover abstinence among the alternatives to intercourse in safe sex. It is also appropriate to give balance to that by noting that abstinence, while theoretically fairly effective is difficult to practice correctly, so has a much lower actual use effectiveness.
In your analogy - comparing the risks of taking alternative transportation to those of driving an automobile would be perfectly reasonable for an article on safe driving. Zodon (talk) 04:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Some fairly large groups sounds like weasel words. Which fairly large groups? Enumerating those groups and their motivations may be helpful and maybe be useful material to add to the religion and sexuality article. To me, it's fairly obvious that anybody can not do something, including sex and I don't know why this article should cover that. It is a little weird to me that abstinence is included. However from a consistency POV, given that it is, it seems a little weird to me that See also section doesn't wiki-link the sexual abstinence article. InsufficientData (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Since the article spells out some of the groups, e.g. "some American evangelical Christians and the Roman Catholic Church," I thought that the reference was obvious.
The wikilink seemed like a good idea, but See also sections are deprecated in WP:MEDMOS, so I added it as a link in the abstinence section. Zodon (talk) 05:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Disagree? That wasn't a disagreement with anything I posted. That post didn't address my concerns with this page on any level. That was an advocation for a new page, entitled "Ways of avoiding sexually transmitted disease and pregnancy", that link to the "Safe Sex" page and the the "Abstinence" page.68.20.13.112 (talk) 05:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The proposal, as indicated by the heading of this section, appeared to be to remove abstinence from this page. The removal of abstinence is what I was disagreeing with.
I have reverted the removal of abstinence, since the mater was under discussion and there was certainly no consensus for removal.
Also, note that celibacy is not the same as abstinence, at least according to the articles. For instance celibacy involves not getting married (not a requirement for abstinence).
Perhaps a way forward would be to provide some citations from reliable sources supporting the idea that abstinence has no place in safe sex, so that view could be worked in.
As to the proposal to split off some of the content here - this article isn't big enough that it requires splitting. The proposed topic for a page doesn't seem particularly natural/obvious/easy to find, looks more like a POV fork [duplicate article]. Seems best to improve/expand the coverage here until get to the point where there is a need to split it. Zodon (talk) 01:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps a way forward would be to consider the logic of including "not having sex" as a section within "safe sex". Considering the driving analogy, above, might be a start. The premise within the concept already assumes the act. Abstinence would be a logical section within an article of "Methods for mitigating the risks of contracting a sexually transmitted disease or becoming pregnant".(Gwopy (talk) 04:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC))
One source of confusion might be that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. i.e. this article is about the concept of "Ways of avoiding sexually transmitted disease and pregnancy" or "Methods for mitigating the risks of contracting a sexually transmitted disease or becoming pregnant" or "safe sex" (those are just different names for essentially the same concept). So the article includes things related to that concept, including, as it happens, an opposite ("unsafe sex" also directs here, and the article on it was merged into this one.) Zodon (talk) 08:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Please read the article. This article is about the concept of way to "practice of sexual activity in a manner that reduces the risk of infection with sexually transmitted diseases (STDs)". Abstinence is not the practice of sexual activity. It is the practice of NOT being sexually active. Once again I extend the analogy that "not driving a car" is not a relevant means of "not having an accident while driving". That said, I would fully support and contribute to a page entitled "Ways of mitigating the likelihood of contracting sexually transmitted disease and/or becoming pregnancy". Safe sex would be one of the way. Chastity belts would be another. Castration would be yet another. Abstinence would be another way. Hysterectomies would likely provide some mitigation to the risk. I think it would be an interesting article. Should I start the article and move the currently irrelevant abstinence section from this article to that one? Just tell me what you'd like me to do.(Gwopy (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC))
Abstinence means various things, it may mean absence of sexual activity, refraining from vaginal intercourse, or other things. Some of the things it means entail risk of STDs. e.g., from the lead of the article on abstinence, "Sexual abstinence is the practice of voluntarily refraining from some or all aspects of sexual activity."
Later it notes "Further, some have noted that many do not consider oral sex or similar acts to violate abstinence. One study states that 55 percent of college students claiming abstinence had, indeed, performed oral sex. Many of these acts can transmit STDs.[4]"
Also, as noted above, the opposite of, or absence of an activity or concept is not unreasonable to receive mention on the concept's page. Not driving a car is obviously a way of avoiding automotive accidents, and would need inclusion in such an article. (To do otherwise, if there is a significant car-free movement, would likely violate NPOV.)
As to the page you propose. I don't see a particular benefit in starting another page covering "Ways of mitigating the likelihood of contracting sexually transmitted disease and/or becoming pregnancy."
  1. It isn't clear that this is a notable/coherent concept. It would need more focusing - how do you set a limit to what to include? To use an extreme example, Genocide prevents STD/pregnancy. Does it go in the page?
  2. As to the specific items you mention: As I understand it chastity belts are more intended to prevent sexual activity (among other things), rather than STDs/pregnancy per se; castration prevents sexual development and activity (i.e., broader scope). Pregnancy prevention is a side-effect of hysterectomy, rather than its purpose.
  3. There may already be a similar page or list. You might want to look around the sexuality articles. (Or maybe you already have - I haven't seen such an article or list, but I know mostly the birth control articles, and haven't looked at the sexuality articles in general.)
I don't necessarily oppose it, but think it needs more research/refining.
However the existence of such a page would not remove the need to cover abstinence here. As noted, some propose abstinence as an alternative to safe sex (for instance abstinence only education).
The level of safety/risk varies with various sexual activities, some of the range of activities are labeled abstinence, the level of pregnancy/STD risk involved in those activities is just as much game for coverage as any other activities. Zodon (talk) 04:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that safe sex should include the risks of pregnancy, as that is about Contraception and should be covered there - however, safe sex in relation to risks to the unborn before and during pregnancy should be covered.
Back to the section topic, I agree that abstinence, or celibacy, needs to be included, provided we have WP:RS that this can be practiced as a form of Safe sex. Mish (talk) 00:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
2008?--Nutriveg (talk) 00:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
the date threw me... 23rd September - this should have been archived by now. Mish (talk) 00:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Updated information on condom effectiveness vs HIV

In the lead I updated the estimate of protection provided by condoms, from a ten year old estimate of 75 to 80% to a more recent (2009) estimate of 80 to 90%. I provided a source, (Steiner & Cates, see #Condoms reduce risk of STD infections), which cites:National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (2001-07-20). Workshop Summary: Scientific Evidence on Condom Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Prevention (PDF). Hyatt Dulles Airport, Herndon, Virginia. pp. 13–15. Retrieved 2009-03-20. {{cite conference}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

The old text:

  • The risk reduction of safe sex is not absolute; for example the reduced risk to the receptive partner of acquiring HIV from HIV seropositive partners not wearing condoms to compared to when they wear them is estimated to be about a four- to five-fold.[1]

the new text:

  • The risk reduction of safe sex is not absolute; "for example, experts estimate that consistent condom use reduces the risk of HIV transmission by about 80 to 90 percent."[2]

Additional references: Analysis published in 2007 from the University of Texas Medical Branch [3] and the World Health Organization[4] found similar risk reductions of 80–95%.

Why was the update removed? The reason indicated on one of the removals was that it was unsourced. (Which is plainly not the case). Zodon (talk) 05:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

In terms of the lead, you're supposed to write it last, because it's not actually possible to comply with [[the relevant guideline if you don't know what's in the rest of the article, so I'm not too worried about that at this time. But current information is certainly desirable. I'd rather provide the NNT than the RRR, though, if it's all the same to you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I am certainly open to ways of presenting the information that are clearer and more accessible to a lay audience. This was how the source presented it, and the way it had been presented here before. Since a 10 year old estimate of the risk reduction was in the lead, I figure that using more current estimates would be an improvement. Whether the effectiveness of condoms at preventing HIV should be in the lead is, as you say, another issue.
Could handle this by removing the current item from the lead, and adding something like the new text above to the body in the appropriate place. Zodon (talk) 08:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Immunization

This paragraph, which I recently added, was removed from other precautions. Why?

Zodon (talk) 06:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It was removed because the last stable version (from September 7) was restored.
I don't see any problem restoring this specific text.--Nutriveg (talk) 10:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Since no one seems to oppose I restored that text and slightly changed it for clarity.--Nutriveg (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Safe sex precautions - arrangement of items

I rearranged the bulleted items in the section on safe sex precautions to group similar items, the rearrangements have been reverted with no relevant explanation of why.[1] (Only explanation given at one point was lack of sources, which since I was not moving items to a section that would change their meaning does not apply.) Specifically:

  • Grouped the items relating to partner selection together and creating a subheading for them
  • Grouped the items relating to STD protection, and created a subheading for them

Also, since the section titled "limitations" only dealt with barrier methods (specifically condoms), I moved it to be a subsection of barrier protection.

This has been reverted multiple times with no explanation. Please explain/discuss rather than just reverting. Zodon (talk) 06:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, a explanation was clearly provided "Restoring to the version prior the content dispute, please respect. [2]" If you think we should start from a still earlier version let me know.
I don't see any problem with just "grouping the items relating to partner selection together and creating a subheading for them" if content is not changed during this grouping, making hard to discuss those changes separately.
STDs protection, outside of the sexual transmission/contraction context is a issue still in discussion in this talk page. However, comparing those two versions, I don't see what you're talking about.--Nutriveg (talk) 10:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Nutriveg, you're edit warring when you do this, and you need to stop. You need to "Please respect" the work that the other editors have done by not deleting it just to get things back to the version that you like. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
When I do what? Since I see no connection with this section topic.--Nutriveg (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
You are edit warring when you revert to the version prior to the content dispute. You must not remove other editor's corrections and improvements.
I suggest that you go read m:The Wrong Version to learn more about this issue. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I had some conflict about Zodon edits that time and couldn't revert to a later edit because they were edited on top of each other. That September 7 version was the last one we both and Simon agreed. I'm just following WP:STATUSQUO here.--Nutriveg (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
No, you're not. STATUSQUO says "Nutriveg should not make any changes at all until there is consensus to make the changes." It does not say, "Nutriveg should revert to his choice of 'last stable version'." STATUSQUO supports a WP:0RR approach, in which you don't get to revert anything, for any reason, until you know that everyone supports that move. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk archiving

This talkpage is starting to get a bit long, so I just set it up to autoarchive discussions that have not be touched in 45 days, always leaving the last 7 discussions on the page.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

WPMED assessment

As there seems to be some discussion above about how this concept fits into WPMED's assessment scheme, and since, for all intents and purposes, I am WPMED's assessment "team", I will explain: Safe sex is on the borderline between mid- and high-importance. It's fairly important to public health and reproductive health fields. Additionally, it's a very popular page; it's probably in the top 5% (but not the top 3%) of all WPMED articles. (By contrast, the page on STDs is in the top 0.5%.) So normally I might default to mid-importance, but the high traffic pushes it over the edge to high-importance.

The purpose for the importance ranking is "how soon do we need to have a decent article on this subject?" It is not meant as a perfect ranking of the article's topic in the broad field of medicine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

ELs

I've tidied these up to use the link's page description, and alphasorted them, removed the French and Google ELs. The Condoms4Life and Asia-Pacific links aren't immediately obvious, but then I'm not sure that a couple of the others as viable relevant ELs as well, but somebody else can check them out and see what they think.

Looking only at the titles, several more should be removed. WP:EL is fairly strict. WP:ELNO #1 will be of particular relevance (but difficult to implement until the article is written), but there are other issues, such as linking to more than one page on the same website. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Protected sex

The inclusion of protected sex in the definition of "practice of sexual activity in a manner that lowers the risk of infection with STDs" is original research, please don't readd it without providing a reliable source supporting that definition.--Nutriveg (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I have not merely re-added this but reverted all the latest edits Nutriveg had made.
To start with "unprotected sex": this has nearly 2 million hits on Google and is a very common term for unsafe sex in journalism and medical advice. See the Brisbane Times [3], aidsmap.com[4] and netdoctor [5]. All 3 decent secondary sources for this subject and the 1st 3 hits on Google.
The edits have removed cited sources and completely unbalanced the article. In particular non penetrative sex has been portrayed as a particular danger (unless practiced with rubber gloves!): see the netdoctor article cited above. This ended up with safer practices (advocated by the Surgeon General) being placed on the same level as unprotected anal sex. If everything is equally deadly, people wil say "what the hell". I am still unhappy about the prominence being given to partner selection, when it is both not strictly a form of safe sex and one of the aspects that one has the least control over.
Though an encyclopedia article should not give advice, it should provide factual and non-confusing information. We are morally bound to be socially responsible. We may also be legally bound to be so: individuals have been convicted of homicide because they failed to inform others of their HIV status and the famous suit against Hustler only failed because it was in the wrong court. [6] --Simon Speed (talk) 12:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Although the term is used by those sources that definition is not. And I would prefer more reliable sources next time, like scientific ones.
Please use appropriate tags instead of deleting content. HPV hand contamination is reported in the literature.[7] " non penetrative sex" was moved to "specific practices", not to "the same level as unprotected anal sex". The scientific reliable sources about partner selection were provided.
This article is not about HIV, but STDs in general.
Don't delete content just because you don't like it.--Nutriveg (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted Nutriveg's changes again. This restored the number of cited sources to 24 from 16. I hardly think this is deleting much content (whatever the motive). What is specifically deleted is the claim Rubbing each other genitalia, for example, carries very high risk of STD infection, which is both unsourced and false according to [8]. This is developing into an edit war, which I do not want, but it is not legitimate to remove sourced material without consensus or to add unsourced material that is contrary to citable fact. --Simon Speed (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I have however added a reference for the definition of "unprotected sex" and removed the unsourced claim that polyfidelity is safe. These are 2 issues raised by Nutriveg that are legitimate. --Simon Speed (talk) 00:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Since protected sex is another name for safe sex, and that name redirects to this page, and there aren't so many major redirects that it becomes impossible to list them all, I think it is appropriate to list it as an alternative term in the lead, as is customarily done. If there is a question whether that term is actually used, a quick search for "protected sex" on pubmed turns up such examples as Predictors of safer sex intentions and protected sex among heterosexual HIV-negative methamphetamine users: an expanded model of the Theory of Planned Behavior. Zodon (talk) 09:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Simon, there is difference between sources and reliable sources, those removed where unreliable or supported off-topic text. The source you cite to support that "rubbing each other genitalia, carries no STD risk" is unreliable, just a website, and at best present another POV that should be added and not replace the another one.
Since you are just reverting what I edit instead of tagging and balancing with new content. And what I edited were mostly newly added content by Zodon, so I'm removing any newly added content I think problematic until we can reach an agreement. Don't readd any of that content without discussion. I may also remove false content that isn't supported by reliable sources (scientific studies). Don't readd it either without providing a reliable scientific source.
Zodon, protected sex redirects to a section of this article (barrier protection), the source you brought only use the term, it doesn't define it the same way as "safer sex", right the opposite, since it uses both terms in the same phrase.--Nutriveg (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted your edits as they have become simply indefensible. You have removed 4 citations. The source I used here to show part of what you are adding is nonsense is not "just a website", but Dr. David Devlin[9], a physician and [family planning] specialist writing on a medical education site. I have tried to incorporate edits you have made that are legitimate (the removal of a controversial unsourced claim and the demand for a source for a definition); I will continue to do this, but you have shown little interest in reaching consensus with other editors. You are making unsourced and verifiably false claims and removing sourced material. I believe I am justified in reverting such material. --Simon Speed (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
You just reverted to the last version. Since you systematically reverted all my recent edits, as explained above, I reverted to a previous version of the article. We can discuss any change on top of that or earlier version. Thank you.--Nutriveg (talk)
I am reluctant to immediately revert. I have asked for assistance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Assistance required on Safe sex. I do not know if we can get any response from that group of people. --Simon Speed (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
If we reach a common understand of this article as a medicine article, I'll you request WP:MEDRS compliance. Thank you.--Nutriveg (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Since no one opposed I'll assume we all agree WP:MEDRS applies to this article.--Nutriveg (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I am not at all sure what the implications of this would be. I am keen to see Wikipedia:Verifiability applied to the page: Wikipedia:Reliable sources is a good guideline. I was waiting for input from somebody from WikiProject Medicine and would like to hear from Zodon as they are a member of the Reproductive medicine task force. The subject clearly has social aspects that need reporting. Also the basic assumption of WP:MEDRSis that an article is about biomedical research, whereas this is about a public health campaign: material from reputable public health bodies should be relevant. I'd welcome the highest quality sources available, but the quality of sources must not shift sourced facts out of context. We must use secondary and tertiary sources to get balance; or we'll end up like the press, reporting genuine research in a way that confuses and misinforms. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I am working on response to this. Zodon (talk) 09:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't see the connection of "Reproductive medicine" with "safer sex" beyond focus towards the promotion of specific methods (condoms) which are also contraceptive and little care about sex activity that carries no reproductive risk but is relevant to STDs. You're interested in hear Zodon's opinion because you likely share his POV, since, however you added no content so far, you reverted all my edits but none of him.
WP:MEDRS is not about "biomedical research" but "biomedical articles", which is this case of this article. This article is not about "campaigning" or "advice" but providing medical information where readers can decide about their use by their selfs.
WP:MEDRS takes extra care about sourcing information, what sources to use and how they should be used. This is what this article is lacking.--Nutriveg (talk) 09:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Reproductive medicine includes infertility, menopause, contraception, and sexuality.[10] Most STDs are infections of the reproductive organs, or transmitted via the reproductive system; many of their effects (infertility, etc.) are on reproductive systems. Their prevention and treatment is certainly part of reproductive medicine. (It doesn't stop being reproductive system just because not using it for reproduction.) There is considerable overlap between Sexual and Reproductive medicine, and dividing them would be difficult so often they are combined.[11][12][13] Zodon (talk) 21:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Fine, but your definition of "Reproductive medicine" don't address the article problems we are discussing here.--Nutriveg (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know Zodon's POV so I don't know if I agree with it or not: but they have added good references which I support. I have added (sourced!) material which Nutriveg has deleted; the fact that they have not noticed this is telling. I have not reverted everything Nutriveg has done; again the fact that they have not noticed this is telling. I agree that an article should neither campaign nor advise: but this article should report campaigns (and accompanying news/controversy) and advice given. The article should also take current medical consensus as fact, using the best secondary and tertiary sources available. It seems that WikiProject Medicine is a busy place, if we don't get a response soon, I'll ask for input from WikiProject sexuality: sadly WikiProject Aids is dead. --Simon Speed (talk) 12:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you reverted 15 of my edits, from 13:29, 13 September 2009 to 21:43, 13 September 2009. Instead of (re)adding content and using tags. You made that reversion three times, ignoring my arguments. Because of that I reverted the article to a previous version, before other problematic edits, to discuss all those edits in the same level. It seems we have agreed the article needs to comply with WP:MEDRS, so I'll implant those changes when possible.--Nutriveg (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

User Nutiriveg is deleting large quantities of sourced material and introducing controversial material using sources in ways that their contexts do not support. They have made the statement I don't see the connection of "Reproductive medicine" with "safer sex" which suggests they are not an expert editor, but they have shown no interest in concensus. I will try to include and adapt any of their contributions that are positive, but feel I must simply revert much of it. --Simon Speed (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks are not an argument when discussing content, your expressed motivation to continue reverting (deleting) all my contributions instead of resolving problematic text isn't helping neither.--Nutriveg (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Editing not in good faith

I am making the following accustation:-

User:Nutriveg has replaced the former lead with the following:-

Safer sex is a term used to specify sexual practices and sexual behaviors that reduce the risk of contracting and transmitting sexually transmitted infections.[1]. The term safe sex was the first term coined for that purpose but its use has been abandoned by health officials.

The reference they give is Pan American Health Organization (PAHO)/World Association of Sexology (WAS) (2000). Promotion of Sexual Health: Recommendation for Action. Washington, DC. This can be found here [14]. There is an utterly uncontroversial definition of "safer sex" and absolutely nothing to justify anything else about the lead. Would other editors please check this. I am dealing with an editor who is not acting in good faith and wondering what to do about it.

--Simon Speed (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The previous definition was not sourced and was replaced by the definition of a secondary source, "a position statement by a major health organization" by WP:MEDRS, as seen in the page 8 (or 14 in the pdf) of the link you posted. I don't see what that noise is about and what is the purpose of the "accusation".--Nutriveg (talk) 02:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Nutriveg is simply trying to be confusing. Would other editors please check my claim as requested. Then if you wish to see what this editor is really up to, just look the following edits they have made to their talk page over most of their edit history:- 2009-09-19 [15] 2009-04-20 [16] 2009-03-12 [17] 2008-12-14 [18] . --Simon Speed (talk) 10:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

We are having a serious problem here, under justification this edits were vandalism, where you justify that classification by assuming bad faith and pointing to old unrelated edits in my talk page, you ignored the last version, before those edits were made, and the earlier version of this article (before problematic changes). Instead you reverted to a a specific version of the article, that reflected your POV, restoring problematic and unreferenced content. That action was deceptive, unjustified, ignored the previous stable versions and, as many of your last actions disruptive. I think you're having serious problem understanding Wikipedia's policies and editing process.--Nutriveg (talk) 13:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Admin review - In response to the complaint at AN/I I have reviewed the issues and see no problem with the reversions carried out by Simon Speed. The series of edits lacked neutrality and the reversion was justified. All editors are reminded to conduct themselves in a civil manner. Manning (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Since you joined the discussion please explain your reasoning to justify where this this and this edits lacked neutrality, so I can address your concerns.--Nutriveg (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Please provide justification how this edit qualify as reverting vandalism, otherwise I'll revert it because of the lack of justification for that action.--Nutriveg (talk) 21:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

And you'll be blocked - you've been asked by multiple editors to discuss your changes. "I didn't hear that" leads to "I can't edit!". --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure I'll deal with any specific text of that version you point to have a problem with, but arguing it's vandalism doesn't look reasonable.--Nutriveg (talk) 21:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Most articles start with an intro to the lead which says what the article is about, starting with the name of the article. So, an article called "HIV" starts "Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)...", not (you will notice) "Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)..." (although that is mentioned later in the same sentence, as there is a relation). So it is with an article called "Safe sex" - it starts "Safe sex...", but you keep changing it to something that is not in the title to read "Safer sex...", even though the use in the title is well-established in the sources. You bury this amongst a number of other edits, so rather than trying to single out individual dubious edits, I revert the lot, and explain that if you wish to make multiple edits that appear to be contested, you would be better discussing this on the talk page, one at a time. That is known as co-operative editing. It is what you need to do rather than engaging in an edit war to force the rest of us to accept your POV. OK? If you work through the changes one at a time, then you will find this easier, and the onus is not on us to pick through multiple edits and demonstrate which is not acceptable, it is on you to justify why each insertion is valid. I had to revert Cameron's edits at one point, but only because they fell in the middle of a series of multiple edits you made - but actually, they are quite reasonable. Unfortunately, the way you are editing makes it difficult to do anything other than take the article back to a version before the contested material began to be inserted. If you made these changes individually, then that would not mean that material that may not be problematic gets included in this. Mish (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I would happily change that intro to "safe sex" if you provided a source as reliable as a "major world health organization" supporting that term the same way my cited reference does with "safer sex". The current definition of "safe sex" lacks the same level of reliability and is original research.
Even after my explanation you are unaware of the article history, the earlier stable version before the edit war started is this, from (7 September 2009), I myself gave up of all the edits I had previously made and started editing from that earlier version, step by step, with individual reversible edits we can discuss each one of them.
It was Simon Seed who ignored that and made a massive edit, restoring a (16 September 2009) arguing vandalism.
That is not the earlier stable version and we should all start editing from that version. You who are massively including new (unreferenced) content by ignoring the article history.--Nutriveg (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I find your tone problematic. My insertion is well referenced, to the WHO amongst others, and links to an article devoted to the topic. On the other hand, while I can appreciate that there is an argument that a reference to 'safer sex' should be included in the lead (which it is anyway), there no reason why it should replace the use of 'safe sex' as per the article title:
  • Safe sex = Google: 2,740,000
  • Safer sex = Google: 933,000
  • Safe sex - safer sex = Scholar: 25,100
  • Safer sex - safe sex = Scholar: 19,400
Checking results since 2008, in case of more recent change in usage:
  • Safe sex - safer sex = Scholar: 2,090
  • Safer sex - safe sex = Scholar: 1,550
I see no justification for changing the lead in the way you propose, based on established usage. But, as the article is now protected, which I fully concur with, you have time now to discuss your edits. Mish (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't see your source for a definition of "safe sex" by the WHO in the article, please post it again.
First of all, "Wikipedia's medical articles should be based upon published, reliable secondary sources whenever possible", counting results in Google is not a reliable source.
Most definitions you'll find about "safe sex" is conflicted and much more restricted than the subject of this article. For example many of them will qualify a specific practice instead of an array of practices and behaviors, change your search to "safe sex practices" and compare the results. Others will restrict it to specific diseases, like HIV.
The criteria for WP:DUE is based on reliable sources, not Original research (counting results in Google).
As I said before, provide a definition of "safe sex" by an equally reliable source and I'll agree with that change.--Nutriveg (talk) 00:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The only way to establish usage is by counting results in scholarly sources - and Google Scholar is an excellent tool for doing that, because it lists sources and the number of times they are cited. If you prefer, it could be done in some other form of citation database. All I am doing in Google is counting the numbers of reliable sources that use these terms. Mish (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The WHO was a reference to circumcision - that is the only material I have inserted, so when you referred to what I inserted, I thought you meant that. I have not inserted anything about the use of 'safe sex' itself, I reverted your edit. Mish (talk) 00:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I see no point nit-picking on restricted use of these terms - if I add 'education' to the search, then I get far more returns for 'safe sex' than 'safer sex', than if I select 'practice' (since 2004) - which is not surprising, because the phrase 'safer sex practice' is far more likely to be used as a phrase in discussion, while 'safe sex education' is more likely to be used to describe educating people about safe sex, which will include safer sex than unsafe sex (or is that now to be referred to as 'less-safe sex'?). The fact that the returns for 'safe sex' increase over 'safer sex' the more I restrict the search to more recent years suggests that if 'safer sex' was ever prevalent, its usage is diminishing with time. As I have stated, I have no issue with you inserting that this is how some people refer to 'safe sex', but not that the term be replaced on this basis. Mish (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
And this is not WP:OR, because we are discussing evidence on the talk page - and I am citing evidence as to why the use is not WP:OR. It is not WP:OR because sources show that 'safe sex' is the term that is used in most sources to describe 'safe sex'. Which isn't surprising really. Mish (talk) 01:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the point of this argument is. Both terms are used, and they're both widely used by relevant authorities. In fact, a good number of top sources use both terms interchangeably, although there are people for whom it's a holy war issue of no less intensity than Macs vs Windoze.
Sure: "safe sex" is not 100% safe. It is widely acknowledged that "safer sex" is the more precise term. But Wikipedia doesn't care about which term seems to more precisely describe practical reality; it cares what the reliable sources use. Both terms are used. Therefore we can use both, or either, and -- importantly -- the default choice is to accept the choice first established on this page. In this case, if you go look at versions from 2003, the choice was to use both terms equally and interchangeably, with a section comparing the prevalence of and thinking behind the two terms. I see no particular reason why we can't follow this sensible approach without further arguments over which term is "better." WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

<=Here's the definition of "safe sex" as provided by the U.S. National Institutes of Health. This reference should be employed after the very first comma in the lead sentence. Binksternet (talk) 02:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. Mish (talk) 03:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I'd go along with that. I was wondering if this is a cultural thing? (I am more familiar with 'safe sex' than 'safer sex'). I did a search on the Lancet and the BMJ under Scholar: Lancet: "safe sex" OR "safe-sex" -"safer sex" -"safer-sex" = 74 (41 since 2004) "safer sex" OR "safer-sex" -"safe sex" -"safe-sex" = 63 (25 since 2004) "safe sex" OR "safe-sex" (&) "safer sex" OR "safer-sex" = 16 (12 since 2004)

BMJ: "safe sex" OR "safe-sex" -"safer sex" -"safer-sex" = 97 (19 since 2004) "safer sex" OR "safer-sex" -"safe sex" -"safe-sex" = 93 (18 since 2004) "safe sex" OR "safe-sex" (&) "safer sex" OR "safer-sex" = 15 (2 since 2004)

So, mostly people here use 'safe sex' (or 'safe-sex'), but its a close call, and several use both terms. Since 2004, the only significant difference is that there appears to be in the Lancet less using 'safer sex' than 'safe sex', and a higher proportion using both - while in the BMJ there are fewer using both, but about even for each (although much lower incidence of either than the Lancet). I guess they could be used interchangeably - but I still think that opening words of the lead should describe the article title, and that this should include the alternative as well. Mish (talk) 02:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict)

Counting usage don't define how the term was used, as I stated above, and further comment that it's very possible that in many of those results the term "safe sex" was presented as obsolete or not recommended. It's clear by WP:DUE to take only "significant viewpoints that have been published", not the "presumed" viewpoints.
Another problem is that WP:DUE is not about number of sources, but their prominence.
If you still don't understand that the same way we can take it to the NPOV noticeboard, but that would be useless if you had no source supporting that term definition.(now Binksternet provided one)
Exactly you reverted my edit even though it was referenced and the other wasn't and still isn't.
Slightly changing the search term inverting the results is another sign of how that kind of search is unreliable.
We had two problems with WP:OR here, one is that there was no reliable source supporting a "safe sex" definition, but Binksternet provided one. Other is that I believe your google search to be WP:OR but it's not up to me to decide.
About WhatamIdoing comment, I generally agree with you if both terms have the same support, but I still don't believe that's the case.--Nutriveg (talk) 02:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
You miss the point. All these are sources in two of the most notable medical journals in the world. they use both terms, with slightly more papers favouring 'safe sex'. These papers are not concerned with taxonomy or nomenclature, they are medical papers dealing with safe sex. The search term was designed specifically to gain an accurate result (the previous search would have omitted 'same-sex', which occurs nearly as frequently as 'same sex'). That is simply calculus.
here you are, DoH uses both terms interchangeably. [19] Mish (talk) 03:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
As I said many times that Google search is original research, since you don't know how that term was used, how it was defined, nor how reliable they were.
That page was a press release, written by a PR/journalist. The website it is promoting uses the term "safer sex". --Nutriveg (talk) 03:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Determining whether a term is used in reliable sources, and even what type of sources and what proportion of sources are using the term, so that you can pick an article title, is never original research. It is a required, not a prohibited, activity for editors. There simply is no other way to comply with WP:DUE than to look at which sources use which terms and how. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
That is what I was saying, thankyou, and this is often use to screen for both usage and for the weight to accord terms within articles.
On the subject of the NHS (which produces the advisory the DoH release points) it uses either term: [20]. Mish (talk) 07:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Looking at sites concerned with safe-sex in relation to HIV, it appears that 'safer-sex' was used instead of 'safe-sex' from the late 1980's through to the late 1990's, but over the last ten years their publicity has either avoided both, or when used, reverted back to 'safe-sex': [21], the info for lesbians uses 'safe sex': [22]. Whereas, Terence Higgins Trust tends to use 'safer sex', it also uses this interchangeably with 'safe sex': [23]. Tamsin Wilton, a lesbian-feminist academic prominent on medical sociology, sexuality and HIV before she died, tends to use 'safer sex' more often, but also uses 'safe sex' interchangeably. [24]
As yet, I have been unable to locate a source that recommends one usage over another, so there is no reason I can find for precluding or preferring one use over another; that does not mean there is any reason to change the title of the article, nor that the title be referred to at the start of the lead as per normal practice, as the results of searches on scholar (etc.) suggest that 'safe sex' is still used more than 'safer sex', despite policy-makers' attempts to change the usage over ten years ago. Mish (talk) 12:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I had a quick skim over the academic databases I have access to and 'safe sex' seems to the accepted term 'safer sex' only seems to be used when making titles such as 'leads to Safer Sex'. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
MishMich, User:WhatamIdoing said exactly what I was talking "There simply is no other way to comply with WP:DUE than to look at which sources use which terms and how.", counting search results is not the same thing.
If someone uses the term it doesn't mean they define it the same way you understand it.
An illustrative image don't define the term and was authored by a graphic artist, not a expert.
old posters don't reflect current use.
We can discuss this definition if you will: "Safe sex is any activity through which you are at no risk of becoming infected with HIV or a sexually transmitted infection (STI)." But I say in advance that I think it's poor and I'm not sure if it's reviewed or self published.
this is a pressrelease (PR, not expert, authored), the meaning of the term is not defined.
I don't see a definition of safe sex in this book overview
The source I provided in the Wikipedia article does say that: The term safer sex has been used since the mid-1980s in health education, superseding the earlier "safe sex" which health educators considered less accurate,(" Assimilating safer sex: young heterosexual men's understanding of "safer sex" In: AIDS: foundations for the future, edited by Peter Aggleton, Peter Davies and Graham Hart. London, England, Taylor and Francis, 1994. :pg 97. (Social Aspects of AIDS))
Beyond that the burden of proof to say that "safe sex" term is defined the same way as this article content is of those who are supporting that position.--Nutriveg (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
No, the the burden is on you to change the article title. As I have demonstrated, some in the 1990's might have wanted to ditch the term 'safe-sex' used in the 1980's, but they failed to do that, and now we are in the year 2009, both terms are used, with 'safe sex' being used more frequently than 'safer sex' in papers and journals, and interchangeably on government and health authority documents.
Thanks Cameron. Another uninvolved/neutral editor speaks - how many will it take, I wonder? Mish (talk) 19:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Read my phrase again "the burden of proof to say that "safe sex" term is defined the same way as this article content is of those who are supporting that position"
I already provided source for that "safer sex" definition, but so far there is no reliable source defining "safe sex" in the same sense. Those definitions of "safe sex" presented so far are very limited and contradictory.
"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". I provided sources for the material I added, you provided no source to restore that "safe sex" definition.
I provided sources that say the term "safer sex" superseeds "safe sex", you just have original research (a statistic search made by you). Since you're having problems understanding those wikipedia policies I'll have to bring this issue to the NPOV noticeboard.--Nutriveg (talk) 20:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Present the proposal here first. Mish (talk) 23:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
What are other editors' feelings on this? Clearly this editor has a problem with my challenge to his contentious non-consensual editing, and this is why he is focusing on me in referral to to NPOV. he cannot refer the editor who his dispute began with, because that would be seen as retaliation for his taking him to ANI. Is NPOV the best place for this editor to take this, given I was an uninvolved editor before this past week, or would an RfC to society with notices posted at HIV, medicine and sexology be better? or should we look to mediation/arbitration? I would prefer to push the other editor to place an RfC, but my concern is that despite previous referrals and feedback from other uninvolved editors, this individual's pattern of contentious editing contrary to WP:MOS and editorial consensus persists, so perhaps further administrative attention might help to clarify the position? Mish (talk) 02:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Which proposal? You say that the "safe sex" term represents better this article topic, I provided sources from two major world health organizations saying the opposite. You provided no (updated)(equally) reliable source supporting a definition of "safe sex" that represents this article content, and relies your argument in a statistic made by you. I've pointed you Wikipedia policies about WP:DUE an WP:OR, and argued for some time about that where you failed to understand so rests me no other option than bring this due balance issue to the NPOV noticeboard.
Please let's discuss content, attacking other users won't help.--Nutriveg (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I have not attacked you. The proposal means how you intend to phrase the complaint you are going to lodge at NPOV noticeboard. This needs to be checked to ensure that you represent the situation accurately, and be open to comments from all involved editors prior to your posting it. I find it hard to see how you can complaint about WP:UNDUE when what you are insisting upon only applies to one organisations view of how HIV harm-reduction programs should be presented, and most WP:RS do not use this terms when dealing with 'safe sex' generally. See my recommendations below for ensuring that we ensure WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:UNDUE, and WP:MOS are complied with, rather than one editor Wikilawyering to insist on his own way contrary to consensus. If you do not cease threatening to take this to the NPOV noticeboard (or actually do it), then I am placing a request for an expert in this area to comment on this matter - in fact, sod it, I'll just do that anyway. Mish (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Any news of the complaint to the NPOV noticebeoard yet? Mish (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
So far I didn't bring this issue there .--Nutriveg (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

PAHO/WAS vs Medline definition

We have two definitions here we can use for the article intro

One is from PAHO/WAS

"Safer sex is a term used to specify sexual practices and sexual behaviors that reduce the risk of contracting and transmitting sexually transmitted infections, especially HIV."
Other is from Medline (U.S. National Institutes of Health)
"Safe sex means taking precautions during sex that can keep you from getting a sexually transmitted disease (STD), or from giving an STD to your partner."
First of all the Medline definition is much more informal and limited "taking precautions during sex" where it contradicts the text itself "before having sex with a new partner, each of you should get screened for STDs", "Abstinence is an absolute answer to preventing STDs".
It also says "keep you from getting a STD", like those precautions were 100% safe, reinforcing the term used: "safe"
The PAHO/WAS definition looks much better otherwise "sexual practices and sexual behaviors ", which I think represents better the subject. And it talks about "reduce the risk of". That document is also much better elaborated, authored and backed by a world health organization. So I think we should keep that definition--Nutriveg (talk) 03:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The tone of the sources is deliberately different to better serve the intended audience. A pre-teen oriented website would take a different, and even less formal, approach, too. You should not read too much into this trivial distinction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure why PAHO's definition is being pushed, but even within that organisation there is no consistency: [25], [26], [27], and the same seems to be the case for the WHO - both forms are used. I'd be happy to have both definitions in the text. Mish (talk) 08:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
User:WhatamIdoing we should cite sources as they were, interpreting it in another way, supposing they meant something else is WP:SYNTH
MishMich: The PAHO/WAS/WHO definition is the better one because it's supported by a world health major organization, and fits exactly this article content. I can change my opinion if you provide a better one.
The PAHO other sources you cite to use "safe sex", use it accidentally, very few times, in unspecific parts of the text, like the foreword, or with another meaning (a limited number of practices, like monogamy), when it comes to a definition or specific section, the term "safer sex" is used.
The "safe sex" definition is obsolete and there's no (equally) (updated) reliable source presenting it the same way as this wikipedia's article content, which for instance fits perfectly the PAHO/WAS/WHO definition.--Nutriveg (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Do you have a WP:RS that all these organisations, and most medical experts in the UK, that still use "safe sex" are all mistaken, while you know better that this is obsolete and shouldn't be used, yet are incapable of finding a WP:RS to back this up? Or is this just about you having this POV, and it being 'right' whatever? Give us a break. Mish (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
They may use, but, so far you failed to provide a "safe sex" definition by a reliable update source that we could use to appropriate reflect the article content, some (two) were provided, but they were very limited, specially by assuming "no risk".
I already provided a source saying the term is obsolete: "The term safer sex has been used since the mid-1980s in health education, superseding the earlier "safe sex" which health educators considered less accurate,(" Assimilating safer sex: young heterosexual men's understanding of "safer sex" In: AIDS: foundations for the future, edited by Peter Aggleton, Peter Davies and Graham Hart. London, England, Taylor and Francis, 1994. :pg 97. (Social Aspects of AIDS))"
You say that source is wrong but WP:Verifiability is not about truth, if you contest that source, please provide a source that contest that statement.--Nutriveg (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Nutriveg, a book from 15 years ago does not tell us what the current use is. Miniskirts were "obsolete" in the 1970s, but you'll find them in stores all over the Western world right now. Can you provide a recent source -- and ideally one that isn't AIDS-specific, as that particular distinction was more fashionable among HIV prevention activists than anyone else -- that asserts the same distinction? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I provide another source then, that reinforces the previous one, from the 2008 UNAIDS Terminology Guidelines:
"Use by preference the term safer sex because safe sex may imply complete safety."
"Sex is 100% safe from HIV transmission when both partners know their HIV -negative serostatus and neither partner is in the window period between HIV exposure and appearance of HIV antibodies detectable by the HIV test."
"In other circumstances, reduction in the numbers of sexual partners and correct and consistent use of male or female condoms can reduce the risk of HIV transmission. The term safer sex more accurately reflects the idea that choices can be made and behaviors adopted to reduce or minimize risk."--Nutriveg (talk) 21:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. So, according to this, 'safe sex' and 'safer sex' relates to risk of HIV infection, and the use of 'safer sex' is preferred when discussing risk reduction strategies, but that 'safe sex' relates to situations which preclude infection altogether - monogamous pairing where both parties are clearly HIV negative. If we accept this definition, then it does have implications for the whole article. We need to address safer sex only in the context of HIV prevention, and that needs to be qualified with details about 100% safe sex as a strategy for 0 risk of infection. I'd be happy to accept this definition on that basis. This would make this article much easier to manage, as anything that does not relate to HIV and sexual activity with other people that involves exchange of bodily fluids would need to go. Mish (talk) 23:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't see anything here that requires the scope of this article to be reduced to HIV-only issues. It's unsurprising that the UN AIDS agency would be talking about these terms in the context of their single-disease mission, but that doesn't prove that they're not used elsewhere. You might as well conclude that a page about the importance of nutrition for cancer patients indicated that nutrition was unimportant to anyone that didn't have cancer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I take your point, but do we have a WP:RS to show that 'safe sex' refers to more than just HIV? Hep C, for example? If so, then this would cast doubt on the relevance of these sources that confine the use of 'safe sex' and 'safer sex' to HIV alone - as in that case the term 'safer sex' would only apply to HIV for the purposes of this article. I can live with that, as I have already agreed that both terms could be used, as the sources use them interchengeably anyway, and we would be following the direction of the UN in this. The article would still start the lead in a way that conformed with the WP:MOS, by explaining what the title means, and other uses such as 'safer sex', with the source given earlier from NIH, and the UN source could be used as a quote for the section on HIV. I think that would be a positive solution. Failing this, we need to wait to see what the outcome of the complaint of NPOV turns out to be - or we could start discussing how we take this to arbitration when one editor disagrees with other editors, as well as neutral uninvolved editors. My own view is that arbitration might be the most productive way forward. Mish (talk) 01:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
There are quite a few recent papers that use 'safeR sex' outside of the HIV/AIDS context, from the looks of it. Go to PubMed and search on "safer sex" NOT hiv to see some examples of formal papers that use this term without any reference whatsoever to HIV. (Of course, most papers about safe(r) sex will discuss multiple infectious diseases, and this search won't catch those.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Surely. my point is that if these bodies are still pushing for the use of 'safer sex' over 'safe sex' in relation to HIV awareness and protection, then we should be noting that, alongside the persistence of interchangeability of the two terms. For non-HIV-specific related material, then this guidance doesn't appear to apply, but we need to note that while 'safe-sex' predominates, 'safer-sex' also used is this context. Not explicitly, as that would be WP:OR, but in how we use these terms and in representing sources. The best approach in this situation is to establish the ratio of use between HIV and non-HIV specific sources of the two forms (and those that use both), and ensure that the article reflects that ratio in the way it handles these sources, and reflects the uses of these terms in the article.
  • HIV-specific sources that use 'safe-sex'
  • HIV-specific sources that use 'safer-sex'
  • HIV-specific sources that use 'safe-sex' and 'safer-sex'
  • non-HIV-specific sources that use 'safe-sex'
  • non-HIV-specific sources that use 'safer-sex'
  • non-HIV-specific sources that use 'safe-sex' and 'safer-sex'

That will ensure WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:DUE are all adhered to properly. The best way would be to qualify the searches I carried out on Scholar previously, with HIV specific & non-HIV-specific factored in as well. Once we establish the ratios, we can determine which are the most notable sources that use these terms (Scholar ranks these by relevance and frequency of citation, so that should not be too hard), and ensure that the most relevant sources are reflected in the article in proportion to the overall frequency of use. That way we avoid people doing a pick-n-mix on sources that support their position in the future, while ignoring any others. Then what is in the lead should simply summarise what is in the article, and any debates should be focused on the article text and not the lead. Mish (talk) 13:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

(answering from my last post)
Mish, I can't say what "safe sex" means beyond the references provided by you and others that define that term as "sex with "no risk" of infection", even though those sources contradict that definition in the article text when they compare risk.
From my point of view I see safe sex mostly used by equally reliable sources, when referring to specific practices that are generally considered safe, (like "masturbation is safe sex" or "faithful monogamy with between non-infected partners is "safe sex"), or accidentally (by lack of specialized review) where the "safer sex"(or safe sex, as you see it) is not the main topic of the section that term was used. That's my point of view, no one can say what that term intended to mean unless a definition was provided by that source.
From I see from the other posts, you both (Misch and WhatamIdoing) agree that "safer sex" is the more appropriate term when talking about HIV but not when talking generally about STDs?
When you clearly answer that question we can continue from that point, discussing if that equally (or representatively) applies to general STDs.--Nutriveg (talk) 15:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Nutriveg, I don't think we can be absolute about this, because the sources themselves are not absolute or consistent. What we have to do is make sense of the mess, and find a way of working together on the article. From what I can see, there are two uses of 'safe/safer sex', one applies to HIV, and the other applies to STIs (which may or may not include HIV). Policy making bodies like the UN and PAHO recommend that in the context of HIV 'safer sex' is preferred. Looking at relevant organisations like the Terrence Higgins Trust, they seem to follow this practice, while others do not, similarly in academic papers, both terms are used. So, while 'safer sex' is preferred, it is not adhered to, and both forms are used. In relation to STIs generally, there is no such recommendation (that we have found) to use 'safe sex', and while 'safe sex' is used more often, 'safer sex' is also used in this context as well. So, here is my suggestion to resolve this. We keep the title as 'Safe sex', because there is already a redirection here from 'safer sex' anyway, and we open the lead 'Safe/safer sex' or 'Safe(r) sex'. In the article we use the term as appropriate to the source used - so if the source uses 'safe sex', we use 'safe sex', if the source uses 'safer sex', we use 'safer sex', regardless of whether it relates to HIV or STIs. We find definitions of 'safe sex' and 'safer sex' as they relate to HIV and STIs, and quote these, and add the more recent UN health recommendation that 'safer sex' is the preferred term, in the section on HIV. I agree it is important that we do not mislead people, and that only certain activities are 100% safe - monogomy between non-infected people, solitary sex (with certain precautions), celibacy (and physical castration of men, which would be my personal preference), but we can source these (apart from my solution), and then we are not misleading people - but that 'safe sex' is sex that is not 'unsafe' (such as bareback riding). As long as we refer to this matter of terminology from WP:RS, then this becomes explicit, and we can use both terms as appropriate, because that is simply accurately representing what is in the sources.
the issue is not whether 'safe sex' is actually not 100% safe, only 'safer sex', but what WP:RS use - and they use both 'safe sex' and 'safer sex', and articles discuss various sexual practices as 'safe sex', although noting that condoms can slip off during intercourse. We don't have to worry about whether they are right or wrong to call this 'safe sex', only whether they do. And they do. Mish (talk) 22:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
FYI:
  • HIV-specific sources that use 'safe-sex' but not 'safer sex' - 16,900
  • HIV-specific sources that use 'safer-sex' but not 'safe sex' - 16,200
  • HIV-specific sources that use 'safe-sex' and 'safer-sex' - 6,820
  • non-HIV-specific sources that use 'safe-sex' but not 'safer sex' - 9,080
  • non-HIV-specific sources that use 'safer-sex' but not 'safe sex' - 3,190
  • non-HIV-specific sources that use 'safe-sex' and 'safer-sex' - 474
I hope this answers your question - you have avoided mine (section below) Mish (talk) 23:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I aim not to comment on this matter further, but to concentrate on specific content. The discussion has past its sell-by date, and is beginning to give off an unpleasant odour. Mish (talk) 23:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
On the name issue, consider also google trends:
This would appear to support that safe sex is still the more commonly used name for finding this concept. "The purpose of an article's title is to enable that article to be found by interested readers, and nothing more."WP:Name
Also, consider: "Where two or more names are commonly used in the present day for an entity, the names should be given at the start of an article with the article name listed first, then the alternate names in alphabetical order by name."Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Resolving_disputed_names_within_articles Which suggests that it remain Safe sex followed by the alternative terms. Zodon (talk) 05:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

New article title

Thanks Zodon for providing that link.
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) says:
"Where there is a dispute over a name, editors should cite recognised authorities and organisations rather than conduct original research"
"(Examples of original research include counting Google or PubMed results, comparing the size or relevance of the varieties of English,)"
Since I already provided the PAHO/WHO/WAS "safer sex" definition, as well as the UN AIDS preference, I'm awaiting for better "recognised authorities and organisations" definitions of "safe sex".--Nutriveg (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
And everyone else is waiting for you to provide a clear and unambiguous statement of what you think the subject of the article is supposed to be. We apparently can't get anywhere until this issue is definitively and explicitly settled, because the relevance of this or that word or definition is unknown until we know what the article's subject is. After all, if we decide that what Wikipedia really needs on this page is information about lions and tigers and bears, then who cares what the World Health Organization says about something other than lions and tigers and bears? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I already did: "sexual practices and sexual behaviors that reduce the risk of contracting and transmitting sexually transmitted infections, especially HIV.", but I won't join polls until I understand what's the problem with that definition.
We can add "human sexual" where you read "sexual" if you think that definition can be understood other way. The WHO isn't about those animals health as far as I know, neither the "World Association for Sexology", that source also give enough details about which subject that definition is concerned so the reader can check in case of doubt, by WP:RS. But I'm failing to see the source of that definition you provided. --Nutriveg (talk) 07:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
This is misleading. The citation from the MOS (medicine) applies to diseases, medicines and anatomy. By that reckoning, 'STD' should not be used, as organisations like the WHO (such as in ICD.10) recommend that 'STI' be used (whether it is PC or not is irrelevant). The WHO does not define 'safer sex' in ICD.10, although it does discuss this in policy documents. Policy documents are not medical lexicons, and it is policy you refer to. This is about sexual practice (sexology overlapping medicine). What the WHO discusses in their documents is safer sex and safer sexual behaviour. If you want to make a case on the basis of medical taxonomy, you need to refer to where medical sources (such as DSM or ICD) have defined 'safer sex' and explicitly noted that 'safe sex' is deprecated. Obviously you can't (and won't, because 'safe sex' is sexual practice, not a medical diagnosis or treatment), which is presumably why you keep falling back on policy documents that seek (or sought, and failed) to change the terminology for political reasons. Those fit more under sexology and the socio-political aspects of this topic than medicine.
The problem is that most of us are clear that this is about 'safe sex' and 'safer sex', and what that means - while you insist that 'safe sex' is wrong because of a political initiative that began in the 1990s to change the terminology, but had only limited success - even amongst medical experts in the field. You claim that 'safe sex' is deprecated, but cannot substantiate that, all we have established is that policy-makers in the UN (and WHO etc.) think it should be deprecated in relation to HIV, and that some HIV organisations have taken this up, but not all, and few in relation to STIs. Mish (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing in that section saying it applies just to "diseases, medicines and anatomy" those were cited when later citing examples of "international standards" that could be applied for "lexical differences between the varieties of English", I don't see no source supporting that "safer sex" carries lexical differences between different Varieties of English .
We are discussing the article naming, so far "safer sex" or "safe sex", I'm not seeing anyone suggesting another article name that contains STD or STI, and neither citing "recognised authorities and organisations" defining such article name.
This is a medical related article, as by the top of this page, so that article naming convention applies here, where "recognised authorities and organisations were cited", PAHO/WAS/WHO/UN AIDS, defining or supporting that name, perfectly full filling that requisite.
The name that Wikipedia editors "like" or think don't have the same or any relevance by Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles)#Naming conventions.
I'm not using that source about the mid-80 changes in this article naming discussion since better sources that comply with MEDMOS were provided. UN AIDS said it was deprecated and there is no updated definition of "safe sex" in the same level of reliability as those provided for "safer sex" by PAHO/WAS/WHO/UNAIDS--Nutriveg (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Once again: UNAIDS does not get to decide what this Wikipedia article is about.
It's nice that they have an opinion. It's nice that they share their opinion. I think the article should include their opinion. But UNAIDS is not the final arbiter of what is True™! UNAIDS does not get to decide what this article is about. Wikipedia is not limited to what UNAIDS prefers, and so far, the consensus for the subject of this article is not limited to "Safer sex, exactly and precisely as defined by UNAIDS". Consequently, the article is about more (much more) than the definition put forward by a special-interest advocacy group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I see, but by Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles)#Naming conventions, "Where there is a dispute over a name (of a article title), editors should cite recognised authorities and organisations rather than conduct original research"
I cited those organizations that support the use of the term "safer sex", (PAHO/WAS/WHO/UNAIDS) the other part didn't show equally support of "safe sex" by sources, so by Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles)#Naming conventions that "safer sex" term prevails as the article title. Simple like that, please let me know if you still understands Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles)#Naming conventions differently.--Nutriveg (talk) 19:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
If by "understands" you mean "helped write" MEDMOS, then, yes, I think I "understand" it.
MEDMOS does not trump WP:COMMONNAME; it is intended to help with cases like whether to name a page "Heart attack" or "Myocardial infarction".
But the bigger point is this: Until we have agreed on the subject of the page, we cannot possibly discuss the best name for the page. We still don't know whether the page is about "reducing the risk of transmitting a sexually transmissible infection or infestation from one person to another", or "safer sex, exactly and precisely as defined by UNAIDS" -- or lions and tigers and bears. And "what is this page supposed to be about" is a decision made entirely by editors, not by outside authorities. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
That your view of MEDMOS is very limited, it clearly talks about terms that have been superseded and it doesn't restrict itself to diseases.
I don't see the how that discussion about content would change the title so dramatically, the content is enough limited in my point of view whatever is the outcome of that discussion so far as I don't see no one supporting those polemic views you're presenting. Despite of your disinterest in join this title name discussion, minimizing its importance, it will continue.--Nutriveg (talk) 23:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Detailing sources' usage.

NHS-online uses both terms, one as a description of what "safe sex" is, the others in the context of practicing "safer sex" in specific situations:

UK medical associations use both terms:

  • The British Medical Association appears to avoid the use of either term, but does refer to "unsafe sex"
  • The British Psychological Society refers to "safer sex"
  • The Royal College of Psychiatrists uses both "safe sex" and "safer sex"
  • The Royal Society of Medicine used uses both "safe sex" and "safer sex"

(none give recommendations for usage.)

  • "Safe sex" – noun

Oxford and Cambridge Universities' Dictionaries both only define "safe sex":

The only return for "safer sex" was from Collins, which redirected to "safe sex":

Plus, US sources via Dictionary.com:

US professional associations:

The results of this appear to be that in medicine there is mixed use of both terms, but dictionaries give definitions for "safe sex" and not "safer sex". Mish (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well you just added a bunch of sources, please just cite those "recognised authorities and organisations "
Let me comment on the sources you provided:
The section ("Health A-Z") of NHS Choices you cited is a promotional website directed to the general public, where it's likely to use the "lay term" instead of the "scientific or recognised medical name", by WP:MEDMOS
Also by WP:MEDMOS "The article title is subject to the same sourcing standards as the article content." where I don't where that promotional website qualifies as a (preferable) reliable source by WP:MEDRS
Beyond that, as you pointed[28] [29] when "safer sex" was the main topic, that term "safer sex" was used. So I don't see how to use that source (NHS Choices) as supportive of the "safe sex" title neither.
When saying, without references, that "UK medical associations use both terms", that claim is useless to define what is the "scientific or recognised medical name".
Dictionaries do not qualify as a (preferable) reliable source by WP:MEDRS, nor are "recognised authorities and organisations " as required by WP:MEDMOS. Also most of the dates you pointed are of the website copyright, not reflecting when that content was originally published or reviewed.
The source you provided, supposedly showing "American Psychological Association" support for the use of the "safe sex" term, is in fact another promotional website directed to the general public, and is using in line, in a sort of dialogue with the reader, not a reliable source by WP:MEDRS useless to define what is the "scientific or recognised medical name".
The other source you provided, saying both terms are used, while only providing a source to "safer sex", don't help define what is the "scientific or recognised medical name".
About your argument for the ending conclusion, dictionaries (specially those outdated) are not (preferable) reliable source by WP:MEDRS, nor are "recognised authorities and organisations " as required by WP:MEDMOS.
Those "recognised authorities and organisations", for instance (PAHO/WAS/WHO)[30] and UNAIDS[31] were already cited supporting the "safer sex" term, by WP:MEDMOS.--Nutriveg (talk) 11:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
So, I was right - you have evaded this. Tell me, what makes PAHO/WAS/WHO a valid source, while any medical professional association or health authority that does not support your POV are not valid sources, exactly? What these all show is that there is no single authoritative source that defines usage - but that both usages are in currency. That is because "safe(r) sex" is not a medical term. It is not a disease, it is not a diagnosis, it is not a medicine, it is not a part of human anatomy. It is a sexual practice, and so all this stuff about medical policy and guidelines is not going to get you anywhere. If it were a medical term, it would be in ICD.10. It is not. If you read what the guideline state, it is ICD.10 that is authoritative - not WHO (etc.) per se, or their policies, campaigns or educational documents. If they had defined the term medically, it would be in ICD.10. It isn't. Ditto for DSM-IV-TR. In the light of this absence of agreed medical definition or usage, we need to fall back on the most up-to-date information about common usage - the dictionaries complied by Oxford and Cambridge Universities (which are the two of the foremost academic institutions in the world. I honestly cannot believe you are going to to take the Oxford English Dictionary to the reliable sources noticeboard:
  • "Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses."

But that is what you must do if you want to keep this information out of the lead:

Mish (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what I evaded, you that keep citing sources out of the limits of WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS to add volume without improving the quality of the discussion.
The main point here is not to discuss the organizations itself, or your attributable preference of those organizations for one or both, but the sources from this organizations
The sources I provided fill WP:MEDRS "Ideal sources for these articles include (...) position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies" and WP:MEDMOS "cite recognised authorities and organisations"
You cite organizations, but the sources do not fill WP:MEDRS, being promotional material without scientific rigor expected from the sources as defined by WP:MEDRS and even contradict, like the NHS, your said preference for the "safe sex" term.
If you say the article is not about a medical related term, and so WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS wouldn't apply, you should create a discussion about that (to also remove that template from this article) instead of just dumping material that don't follow those policies.--Nutriveg (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm quite happy for this to be part of the medicine project. HIV and STIs are part of medicine. Sexual practice is where these overlap with sexology. Article contents often overlap, and then it is appropriate to have them in more than one project - to ensure people aren't talking crap about something. Safe sex is sexual practice, not medical practice (apart from when doctors and nurses have sex). The sources give a common definition, the most widely used definition. That is all we need. I have wasted too much time on you. Just move on and get over it. Mish (talk) 14:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
The UNAIDS terminology document is a guide, originally meant for UN staff, for the preferred terminology used in UN AIDS related documents. It was compiled by their scientific officer. Not a medical document, a policy document. Mish (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
If you think safer sex is a lightly medicine related term and has little importance about the prevention of diseases then open a new discussion somewhere else to change the classification of importance given to this article. While you fail to change that, this article title naming discussion based on WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS will prevail.--Nutriveg (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I almost laughed out loud to see the UK's National Health Service website called a "promotional website". Will we be saying the same thing about http://www.cdc.gov/ , http://nih.gov/ -- and, yes, http://unaids.org/ ? The NHS is definitely as reliable a source as UNAIDS. In fact, the NHS is specifically named in WP:MEDRS#Medical_and_scientific_organizations as a reliable source for this purpose. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
That website of NHS, "NHS Choices" is "a promotional website directed to the general public", "The service is intended to help you make choices about your health, from lifestyle decisions about things like smoking, drinking and exercise", so a strict following of medical terminology is not expected, and even though, in the Misch pointed links "safer sex" was the term used to title the pages that talked specifically about it.
NHS is reliable, that source is not, unless you say what kind of source that is by WP:MEDRS.--Nutriveg (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
WP:MEDRS#Medical and scientific organizations, whether it is classed as secondary or tertiary I've no idea - but when we get expert input from the relevant projects, maybe they will enlighten you. The NHS, CDC, NIH, etc. are reliable sources, but the material they produce is not reliable. Nice one. Can I interest you in a shovel? Mish (talk) 00:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
There's no requirement in MEDRS that editors be able to name whether a source is secondary or tertiary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Hum, that sounds to me: "I can't define what this source is but I'm sure it's good".
Yes Mish, anyone with publishing rights on that website can produce a not properly reviewed material. Still supporting that promotional website as reliable for WP:MEDRS is useless beyond WP:POINT since the links provided include a mention of "safe sex" in the text of the HIV article, but two "safer sex" in specific title and some NHS material clearly contest that "safe sex" idea: "It should be recognised there is no such thing as "safe sex" and that condom use therefore ensures only "safer sex"".
But I wouldn't use that material neither because it is weak as well compared with what we have that fill perfectly the requisites of ideal by WP:MEDRS and fits exactly the definition in WP:MEDMOS--Nutriveg (talk) 02:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Nutriveg, there's not one sentence in MEDRS that says, "If you can't decide whether something is a secondary or tertiary source, then you can't use it," and this seems to be your argument. Is there something in MEDRS that you don't understand? Or are you ready to drop this specious complaint? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I do understand at least WP:MEDRS definition of what kinds of works are ideal sources where it includes "position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies", that fill exactly the sources I provided.
I do also understand WP:MEDRS when it classifies websites like "NHS Choices" as "generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature".--Nutriveg (talk) 03:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Are you saying that UNAIDS's guideline for their own staff's writing style is part of "the underlying medical literature"? It's just a style guide; it is UNAIDS's version of Wikipedia's Manual of Style -- and specifically the WP:WTA style guideline. Every large organization that does a significant amount of marketing produces one. In addition to expressing a preference for "safer" sex, it also tells you that UNAIDS uses British spelling, and that they like "evidence-informed" better than "evidence-based". A typical style guide also tells you how to format the agency's logo -- something they defer to the main WHO style guide -- and the usual typeface, if any, for print advertisements. Does this really strike you as a "medical" pronouncement? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
To clarify: I don't care what the title is. Since the vast majority of sources use the two terms interchangeably, I think it remarkably unimportant. But I do care about mistaking a marketing document for a proper scientific source. If you can't believe that something that says, in plain language, on the title page, that it's part of the WHO's style guides, is really, truly, actually part of the style guide instead of a proper scientific document, then I'm perfectly willing to take this question to RSN, if you will agree to live with the decision you will doubtless get there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
If you don't care about what the title is and is just obstructing this discussion to prove a WP:POINT and canvassing in the Medicine Project towards a specific term in this "remarkably unimportant" issue, then find something important to do and let this discussion continue by those who are interested in its outcomes.
Two documents were provided showing those organizations support for a specific term: "safer sex". Qualifying those documents as "marketing" is nonsense and only show how desperate you are in the lack of equally reliable sources, by WP:MEDRS supporting the "safer sex" term.--Nutriveg (talk) 11:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
As yet nothing has been provided from medical literature. I propose this discussion be closed until we get feedback from an expert, or are able to source some definitive medical classification that defines this unequivocally. Given this is not detailed in diagnostic manuals, it is unclear what that would be. A UN-based writing style guide reproduced through subsidiary organisations certainly isn't. Mish (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
The sources provided fit WP:MEDRS ideal sources definition, ("position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies") as well WP:MEDMOS article naming conventions ("recognised authorities and organisations"). That UN document is a "terminology guideline" and there's another document supported by "recognised authorities and organisations" (PAHO/WAS/WHO) supporting the "safer sex" term.
So your statement above disqualifying all the so far presented sources don't apply to those two documents, supporting the "safer sex" term, and may only evidence the lack of (equally) reliable sources, by WP:MEDRS, supporting the "safe sex" term. Which just support that "safer sex" term as the article name due to the lack of (equally) reliable sources supporting otherwise, as by WP:MEDMOS .--Nutriveg (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That is your view, and other editors have a different view. So, there is no consensus for you to carry out this change, and until we get expert feedback or medical sources that give a consistent authoritative definition of terminology, we can't do anything about it. So, there's no point dragging out this discussion just for the sake of it. If you disagree, then we need to prepare an RfC, which needs to be discussed here before posting to the appropriate boards. (medicine and society). Mish (talk) 12:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't see the point of stopping solving these issues here waiting for the experts don't caming here. We have done some, slow but, progress so far, you gave up of your original research (counting search results) and now recognized that your provided sources are unuseful for this purpose. Assistance was just asked in the medicine project, by WhatImDoing, to solve this specific WP:MEDMOS issue, where this same section was pointed.--Nutriveg (talk) 13:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I think this is useless, since I think to have provided the best sources possible, those from "recognised authorities and organisations", but since some prefer books although WP:MEDMOS recommends the first kind of sources, I'll cite a book:
"(..)prevention efforts tend to encourage "safer sex" a term which refers to a set of risk reduction strategies, including reducing the number of sexual partners, engaging in a mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner, using condoms consistently and correctly shifting from higher risk to lower risk sexual activities and reducing the frequency of unprotected intercourse."
Christensen, Alan J. (July 21, 2004). Encyclopedia of Health Psychology. Springer. p. 138. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
--Nutriveg (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "Safe Sex involves specific sexual practices that reduce the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STD)." (Homosexuality and the Law: A dictionary, Shuck Stewart, 2001, p.237) Mish (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
So now you have found a (equally) reliable medical source ... oops, no.-Nutriveg (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Nutriveg, the documents you've named aren't position statements. They're style guides. The UNAIDS document says that it is a style guide, in plain language, on the title page. There's no point in pretending that it's a position statement. Here's an example of a position statement. Note that it doesn't say anything about which words are best for public relations.
Again: I don't care what the outcome is. I do care about your tendentious insistence that the page must be moved, because there's absolutely no rule that requires it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not clear why a psychology encyclopedia is more reliable than a legal dictionary covering homosexuality - apart that from a legal perspective I'd expect the author of a legal textbook to ensure he has covered his backside... Mish (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Vittinghoff E, Douglas J, Judson F, McKirnan D, MacQueen K, Buchbinder SP. (1999). Per-contact risk of human immunodeficiency virus transmission between male sexual partners. Am J Epidemiol. 150(3):306-11. PMID 10430236
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Steiner was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cayley, W.E. & Davis-Beaty, K. (2007). "Effectiveness of Condoms in Reducing Heterosexual Transmission of HIV (Review)". John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  4. ^ World Health Organization Department of Reproductive Health and Research (WHO/RHR) & Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health/Center for Communication Programs (CCP), INFO Project (2007). Family Planning: A Global Handbook for Providers. INFO Project at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. p. 200.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Safe_sex/Archive_4&oldid=791888957"