Talk:Sexual intercourse
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 1 April 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sexual intercourse article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 30 days ![]() |
![]() | Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
![]() | This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sexual intercourse article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 30 days ![]() |
Risks
Considering the info and stats on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy#Complications I really think that the risks section of this article should include a note on pregnancy. pregnancy carries significant risk of harmful complication, very much changes your life for 9 months, and can be thought of as a 'risk' in and of itself - and that's before you get into the social or economic consequences of an unwanted pregnancy. These count as risks for a substantial proportion of human beings engaging in sexual intercourse. --176.250.178.62 (talk) 09:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Views
See Scientology and sex and Scientology and homosexuality for information about scientology sexual conduct doctrines. In brief, scientology condemns homosexuality illness, encourages celibacy in its religious order, and permits other sexual intercourse.
Human-animal bonding. The article's about sexual intercourse involving humans which includes human-to-goat, which will be acknowledged in an appropriate place.
Risk of loss of namus. Coverage will be expanded to reflect loss of social status and danger to physical wellbeing that can happen from incidents of sexual intercourse, particularly when there are elements of homosexuality, adultery, and heedlessness of considerations of family honour— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxycut (talk • contribs) 03:59, 8 September 2012
- Don't make a section for each new thing you want to state. Because you did so, I tweaked the original formatting of your comments by placing them in one place. And you need to sign your name using four tildes (~), like this:
~~~~
.
- And I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to state, but AndyTheGrump's revert of you was because of "WP:OR, off-topic material, and WP:BLP violations." And I made clear my points on your talk page and at the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. And like I stated at that noticeboard, your edits (with the exception of a bit of the zoophilia information) have been original research, poorly-sourced and/or irrelevant. Take the time to read our guidelines and policies like I advised. Clearly, English is not your first language, but you need to try or ask for help in understanding how things work here. Flyer22 (talk) 04:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
- In addition to your contributions being ungrammatical and irrelevant, they are original research. Please don't add them again. Rivertorch (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't seen anything that makes me think we need additions to this article about any of these things. This is a 'top-level article' per WP:SUMMARY etc, and these are very obscure points. --Nigelj (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 19 September 2012
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
223.232.221.142 (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC) begin request
Not done You did not specify what change you would like to be made to the article. Electric Catfish2 22:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia objectionable content
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Anatomy articles
- High-importance Anatomy articles
- Anatomy articles about an unassessed area
- WikiProject Anatomy articles
- B-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
- Top-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
- WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
- B-Class medicine articles
- Top-importance medicine articles
- Medicine portal selected articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- Wikipedia controversial topics