Fort Towson

This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Molecular Biology: Genetics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Anthropology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Economics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Sexology and sexuality High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles Evolutionary biology High‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Citizendium Porting (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Citizendium Porting, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Citizendium PortingWikipedia:WikiProject Citizendium PortingTemplate:WikiProject Citizendium PortingCitizendium Porting articles

Shouldn't it be fertility after 30? Why 35? Epachamo 17:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I'll change it.--Tdkehoe 15:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the MoD really the best source for this info? I guess it's not Reader's Digest but there must be something better?!? Thanks, Hu Gadarn 22:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the following info. It effectively declares itself to be original research, which isn't allowed. Also, it isn't correct. The numbers used are for Down syndrome, not miscarriage. And even if they were the numbers for miscarriage, they wouldn't necessarily reflect the same population studied in the numbers for conception. --Allen 23:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiplying the conception rate times the miscarriage rate times the birth defect rates should yield a rough likelihood of a healthy birth: 20 -year-olds: .91 x .85 x .999 = 77% 35-year-olds: .84 x .80 x .9975 = 67% 40-year-olds: .64 x .55 x .99 = 35% (Note: These statistics are mathematically projected (interpolated) and not the results of actual study.)

Hey everyone,

This website helped me out alot during my research for more information. It is called Fertility Pro Registry. It has legit FAQ’s and detailed info links (very helpful) to different possible procedures and stuff. It made my searching much easier because everything is in one place instead of having to aimsley search for different information and advertisements (annoying). I figured I would pass it on. It also lists a bunch of info on Fertility Centers and Specialists throughout the states.

Best of luck.

Kevin - June 7th, 2007

Would such a section be practicable?LCP 01:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Infertility which pretty much covers it - you might want to add a section or a see also EdwardLane (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added the statement that "women can become pregnant at any time during their menstrual cycle," which I know is open to interpretation, but as it stood, it sounded like pregnancy was only possible a few days a month so to speak. I know there is a lot of misinformation out there. I'd hate to have some uneducated woman read this article and think that preganancy was impossible during most of her menstrual cycle, only to discover otherwise by direct experience. Uranographer (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The title needs to be changed to "human fertility" to distinguish it from current or future articles about the fertility of other organisms.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 07:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i agree that the title be changed to 'human fertility'. likewise, there is an entry on 'human migration' as opposed to other types of migration user:ditzahedva —Preceding undated comment added 00:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can the God's symbol be placed at wikipedia commons and integrated ? This symbol would be: http://luc.devroye.org/fonts-53687.html , see also http://www.layoutsparks.com/1/186523/symbol-multiple-logo-collage.html (sign of the goddess, name of goddess)

91.182.147.92 (talk) 10:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recently there has been some back and forth on this article about revisions to the section on female fertility. One of the editors involved appears to have used several IPs User talk:188.25.163.1, User talk:188.25.225.165, User talk:188.25.160.111.

It would be easier to respond if both users involved had discussed the matter here on the article talk page. The posting on User talk:188.25.163.1 gives start of a discussion by user:yonnie, to which I have found no response.

I am responding to the request for feedback that was placed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Reproductive medicine task force#User:Yonskii at the fertility article- changing of content and personal attacks against me by the IP user.

The material that the IP user has been replacing the section with gives too much irrelevant detail about this particular study and it's findings. The reference involved, while published in a reputable journal, is a primary source; a reliable secondary source would be better. (Per WP:MEDRS and WP:RS)

The source that the IP is using appears to support what is in the article (i.e. that fertility declines with age, and that pregnancy is still often possible, it just takes longer). So it is not clear why changes are being advocated. Perhaps the IP user could indicate which particular pieces of information they think are not adequately covered in the article, and these specific things could be discussed and added (with sources), rather than trying to make the section focus so heavily on this one source. Zodon (talk) 08:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't start the editing here, my edits were in response to edits by user:Yonskii, because they were misleading and unclear. My edits were a few hours after user:Yonskii's edits and in response to them. He added to the article that the "probability of pregnancy" was "twice as high" in the young women by quoting a study, but the study referred to the day specific probability (chance per cycle), not the cumulative rate. That's what the author said himself and I did quote the author. I just wanted to clarify this, for the sake of the readers, so I added quotes from both the study and author. The author is the same as that of the study I wanted to add and that study by user:Yonskii was done shortly before the one I added and the subjects (the women) were roughly the same as in the second study. The author said about the study user:Yonskii added that: "what we found was a decrease in the probability of becoming pregnant per menstrual cycle, not in the probability of eventually achieving a pregnancy." ^[1] I just wanted to add this and clarify the difference between chance of pregnancy per cycle and cumulative rate (i.e after one year, 2 years etc) since the author himself talked about it when explaining the study and this was not addressed at all in this article. User:Yonskii simply wrote the "probability of pregnancy is twice as high" and left it at that so I wanted to add "probability of pregnancy per cycle is twice as high" since that's what the study said. I regard the edit summaries by user:Yonskii as offensive , and, yes, personal attacks: accusations against me that I am engaging in "wiki-activism", that my edits "reek of bias" are personal attacks, especially since he didn't attempt to discuss what problems he saw with my edits.

In regard to the study, I don't necessary believe that it should be in the article, but, as I said, my edits were in response to user:Yonskii's edits to clarify. I agree we shouldn't give "irrelevant detail about this particular study and it's findings" as you said but that's what user:Yonskii himself did when he added that info from that other study (by the same author) so I came in to clarify.

I think the article is fine as it is now - except for the needing of correction where it appears to confuse menopause with perimenopause - as it says that menopause occurs at ages 40 to 50 and several changes occur during that period- actually the average age of menopause is 51 and the years before menopause during which these changes occur are the perimenopause - the menopause transition; clinically speaking menopause is the specific date- this is also explained in the menopause article. This was also added by user:Yonskii. But otherwise, the article is fine the way it is now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.162.173 (talk) 10:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I misunderstood the history of the disagreement, with discussion being spread out and having to guess which IP edits were involved. As long as the article is in acceptable state. Zodon (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think a historical and/or anthropological section is sorely missing from this page. Humanity has gone through great variations in our rates of fertility according to our social mores, religion and marriage outlook. It would be nice to have some kind of graph demonstrating changes in fertility over the long term, with highlights of relevant historical events. This information should be highly specific to regions, and not be global statistics, and of course be lifespan correlated. I haven't read much about this but the information must be out there? thanks --Tallard (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that this article's scope is strictly anthropocentric: it doesn't discuss fertility in any type of organism besides humans. Are there any articles on Wikipedia that discuss this subject, which appears to be completely absent from this article? Jarble (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be more appropriate simply to retitle the article to "Human fertility." Adding fertility in nonhuman organisms would make this article far too long and complicated.~Mack2~ 00:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

There are indeed other articles for that. I linked to Fecundity at top. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fertility. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081003143235/http://www.spermdonorforum.com/documents/sperm_donor_clinics_uk_2007.pdf to http://www.spermdonorforum.com/documents/sperm_donor_clinics_uk_2007.pdf

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

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

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Fertility. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081221225600/http://www.duofertility.com/en/my-body/my-cycle/my-fertile-period.html to http://www.duofertility.com/en/my-body/my-cycle/my-fertile-period.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.popcouncil.org/pdr
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081117162726/https://www.prb.org/Publications/PopulationBulletins.aspx to http://www.prb.org/Publications/PopulationBulletins.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130527141349/http://www.gesis.org/en/hsr/current-issues/current-issues-2010-2012/362-fertility/ to http://www.gesis.org/en/hsr/current-issues/current-issues-2010-2012/362-fertility/

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fertility. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090604214506/http://prb.org/Reports/2004/PopulationHandbook5thedition.aspx to http://www.prb.org/Reports/2004/PopulationHandbook5thedition.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100709055156/http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp2008/all-wpp-indicators_components.htm to http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp2008/all-wpp-indicators_components.htm

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is little treatment about fertile age, except the article states the age of fifty. -Inowen (nlfte) 02:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added tags to this and fecundity pages to highlight the problem with changing definitions depending on which field is using the term. This leads to differing usage of fertility, fecundity and derivative terms depending on whether the term is being used in demography, epidemiology or clinical medicine. For example fertility in demography is the actual production of live births by a female, while in clinical medicine it refers to the potential for a woman to become pregnant. Ibrmrn (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May be useful, I'm not sure where to include it

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/dec/15/fall-fertility-rates-may-be-linked-fossil-fuel-pollution-finds-study

Thanks

. John Cummings (talk) 11:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed rewrite of Korea section:

South Korea has the lowest fertility rate in the world at 0.78.^[1] A variety of explanations have been proposed, ranging from investment in education^[2] to birth control^[3][4], abortion, a decline in the marriage rate, divorce, female participation in the labor force, and the 1997 Asian financial crisis. ^[5]After being legal from the 1960s to the 1980s, abortion was again made illegal in South Korea in the early 2000s in an attempt to reverse the declining fertility rate.^[6]

Wiki Crazyman (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't examined all these sources closely, but at first glance this appears to me to be mostly WP:DUE and decently written. The one suggestion I have for now is to omit the Synapse / koreamed.org source which is clearly a very flawed piece of writing. I don't know if some of the problems stem from the authors running it through Google Translate or what, but apparently non-sequitur statements like "The death toll has reached 300,000" (!?) lead me to believe there is something wildly amiss. That's leaving aside the fact that the authors appear to be unaware of the existence of social science methodologies or that correlation does not equal causation. Generalrelative (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]