![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 June 2020 and 21 August 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
I. Ly, UCSF,
B. Hyland 17,
Sydney Martinelli,
Richard.Ishimaru.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 19:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I am concerned that the title of the article is misleading. The mandate doesn't only apply cover contraceptives, it also covers sterilizations and some abortifacients. A better title would be "HHS mandate".
This article is much to heavily biased in favor of contraceptive users. The opening paragraph did not even mention the relentless attack on religious freedom. Why should we pay for what we consider immoral?
I have identified some WP:WEASEL words and phrases and tagged them appropriate. I am concerned that the section I tagged only presents one side of the debate. It is a barrage of statistics presented as incontrovertible facts in favor of contraception use. Do the sources mention the HHS mandate? This is WP:SYNTH. At the very least, background on the religious belief about contraceptives and chastity should be provided side-by-side. I daresay that the practice of abstinence could reduce unintended pregnancies as well! Elizium23 ( talk) 16:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
This is the topic that all the fuss was about at the 2012 Hearing on religious freedom which sparked the Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy.
I've only just started the article. Can't I have a few hours to work on it before you decide there's "no context"? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 17:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Merci y grazia, Roscelese. It always helps when more than one person edits. I strive for neutrality, but your edits made it "more neutral". :-) -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 02:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The points of view of these two articles cannot possibly be both described as neutral at the same time. Bwrs ( talk) 21:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I removed the comment by Fr. James V. Schall because it reads like he wrote it. The comment sticks out like an absolute sore thumb, and reeks of personal bias. This issue doesn't involve the "classic metaphysics of Aristotle". Zachwulf ( talk) 06:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)zachwulf
Perhaps in response to Rush Limbaugh's overblown remarks, Nicole Skibola wrote:
Let's include Janet Benshoof's remarks, if they are germane to a neutral description of the reaction to the mandates. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 23:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
The problem with that comment is that Viagra coverage is not mandated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.130.25 ( talk) 20:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Just a note; a mandate is a simple regulation, and can be written on easily as NPOV, even if you include arguments for and against. Going straight to the recent controversies over EXCEPTIONS granted or not to the Federal contraception mandate and the separate arguments skews the article from its topic. NOT arguing that it shouldn't be included, just that it should not be in the lead, but should be a subsection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 ( talk) 16:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Contraceptive mandate (United States). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I found that the section regarding contraceptives in schools was a bit too short, and I would have preferred to see greater research regarding that topic, and more detail surrounding the effects of contraceptives in schools. As teenage pregnancy is very relevant, I think this would have been a necessary addition. Also, I found that the article was very geared toward female contraception, and I would have liked to see an article that favored or disagreed with the exclusion of male contraceptives. Though males cannot become pregnant, their bodies are also an important factor in pregnancy.
All in all, I found that the sources were relevant and quite recent, which did allow for adequate detail.
-- Jennifer.norris ( talk) 16:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Contraceptive mandate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 June 2020 and 21 August 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
I. Ly, UCSF,
B. Hyland 17,
Sydney Martinelli,
Richard.Ishimaru.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 19:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I am concerned that the title of the article is misleading. The mandate doesn't only apply cover contraceptives, it also covers sterilizations and some abortifacients. A better title would be "HHS mandate".
This article is much to heavily biased in favor of contraceptive users. The opening paragraph did not even mention the relentless attack on religious freedom. Why should we pay for what we consider immoral?
I have identified some WP:WEASEL words and phrases and tagged them appropriate. I am concerned that the section I tagged only presents one side of the debate. It is a barrage of statistics presented as incontrovertible facts in favor of contraception use. Do the sources mention the HHS mandate? This is WP:SYNTH. At the very least, background on the religious belief about contraceptives and chastity should be provided side-by-side. I daresay that the practice of abstinence could reduce unintended pregnancies as well! Elizium23 ( talk) 16:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
This is the topic that all the fuss was about at the 2012 Hearing on religious freedom which sparked the Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy.
I've only just started the article. Can't I have a few hours to work on it before you decide there's "no context"? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 17:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Merci y grazia, Roscelese. It always helps when more than one person edits. I strive for neutrality, but your edits made it "more neutral". :-) -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 02:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The points of view of these two articles cannot possibly be both described as neutral at the same time. Bwrs ( talk) 21:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I removed the comment by Fr. James V. Schall because it reads like he wrote it. The comment sticks out like an absolute sore thumb, and reeks of personal bias. This issue doesn't involve the "classic metaphysics of Aristotle". Zachwulf ( talk) 06:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)zachwulf
Perhaps in response to Rush Limbaugh's overblown remarks, Nicole Skibola wrote:
Let's include Janet Benshoof's remarks, if they are germane to a neutral description of the reaction to the mandates. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 23:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
The problem with that comment is that Viagra coverage is not mandated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.130.25 ( talk) 20:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Just a note; a mandate is a simple regulation, and can be written on easily as NPOV, even if you include arguments for and against. Going straight to the recent controversies over EXCEPTIONS granted or not to the Federal contraception mandate and the separate arguments skews the article from its topic. NOT arguing that it shouldn't be included, just that it should not be in the lead, but should be a subsection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 ( talk) 16:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Contraceptive mandate (United States). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I found that the section regarding contraceptives in schools was a bit too short, and I would have preferred to see greater research regarding that topic, and more detail surrounding the effects of contraceptives in schools. As teenage pregnancy is very relevant, I think this would have been a necessary addition. Also, I found that the article was very geared toward female contraception, and I would have liked to see an article that favored or disagreed with the exclusion of male contraceptives. Though males cannot become pregnant, their bodies are also an important factor in pregnancy.
All in all, I found that the sources were relevant and quite recent, which did allow for adequate detail.
-- Jennifer.norris ( talk) 16:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Contraceptive mandate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)