Talk:Dental dam/Archive 1

Archive 1

Alternatives

Also a piece of plastic food wrap can be used if nothing else is availible.

Wouldn't that be a bit risky, since it's so thin? Dysprosia 06:29, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

But it isn't porous, no? -- Natalinasmpf 10:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Content about oral sex

{{helpme}} This page has been vandalized with sexual information. Please put this page on semi-protection.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.127.241.2 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not acquainted with the subject but it certainly does not appear to be vandalism. Please note that Wikipedia is not censored. I am adding the parts removed back to the article. - TwoOars 18:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm also not aquainted with it, but if it works and people are doing it and there's publications referencing it, may as well leave it in I guess. Tyciol (talk) 08:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

(Copied from my talk page) This is by far not a censorship issue. Dental dams are purchased by dentists for use in the dental office. One can also use a ziploc bag as a condom, but its not on that page. please explain.—The preceding text was posted here by 207.127.241.2 (talk⋅contribs).

A quick Google search for ""Dental dam" safe sex" gives a lot of relevant results; Many of the search results are reasonably good references too, so I assume it is a reasonably common practice and hence can be included. - TwoOars 19:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

A search for ("dental dam" "oral sex") returns about 39,500 ghits. A search for ("dental dam" "safer sex") returns about 31,400 ghits. Use of a dental dam during oral sex is a common safer sex practice; they're called "dental dams" in this usage. It's not vandalism. Joie de Vivre ^T 20:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. A dental dam is effective in protecting against STIs and is recommended by health professionals and governmental organizations for this purpose. I have never heard of any reputable authority recommending the use of a plastic bag as a condom. Joie de Vivre ^T 20:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Guys, google hits do not an article make. That said, when I did this google, I did find this. That sounds like an okay references. The key is QUALITY references, not quantity google hits. Tyciol (talk) 08:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

It might be constructive to provide a link to the more detailed and apropo article located here: Limiting Fluid Exchange which discusses dental dams for sexual use in detail. Linking to that page would also have the positive effect of sending folks looking for info about using dental dams for safe sex to a page chock full of adjunct information . It is true that wikipedia is not censored, and I think the article is being somewhat censored because it is a Wikipedia Dentistry project and dental professionals probably find detailed sexual language concerning dental dams out-of-place and inappropriate on the page as they are already discussed in detail elsewhere.

A link to the more detailed information is a reasonable compromise and perfectly within the scope and spirit of Wikipedia. It's not about censorship, rather it's about an appropriate and proper place for all information. The topic on the page would be retained, with a statement that dental dams are also used as a safe sex practice and a link to the other page. Unless someone objects, I'll make the change in a few days to allow time for folks to discuss the suggestion here. Cheers. Supertheman ^(talk) 20:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with this. Individual WikiProjects cannot override how we handle content in general. I appreciate some may feel discomfort with its inclusion, but it's not covered here just for the sake of it. Dental dam use for safe sex is well-established & amply covered by RSs. It's perfectly appropriate to cover all genuine aspects of a topic on its eponymous article. –Whitehorse1 11:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I showed this page to my 8 year old after he freaked out when the dentist tried to apply a dam. Never mind whether this content is considered out-of-place and inappropriate; it is irrelevant at his age, I felt uncomfortable on encountering it, and was relieved when he did not ask any awkward questions, so that I did not have to provide any unrehearsed answers. I second the proposal to change this dentistry page so that it discreetly refers to "other uses" instead of going into detail on the same page. Similarly, folks interested in "other uses" may feel uncomfortable or put off by too much detail about dental uses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.83.14.238 (talk) 11:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Sexual health

Minor edit - link removal. Link was broken so I removed it. It was "Dental dam FAQ". True, there is a newer page from that external site thus. To be honest it's only a few lines about dental dams anyway. And, the other links (student one particularly) are good, so I don't think it's worth adding in. Whitehorse1 15:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be nice to also have a picture of an unused dental dam, especially since it has more uses than the dental one, for which there is a picture. PanagosTheOther (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I also think it would be useful to expand the sex-related uses of this; I came to this page for information and what was here was surprisingly lacking. --78.86.105.201 (talk) 22:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised at the insistence on sources here, and I think that might be fuelling some of the lack of edits. I can't say I'm knowledgeable enough to add much to this article myself, but there's definitely some health literature out there to clear up this kindof lopsided "debate" here, for example [1]. Phil Urich (talk) 05:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Dental dam rarely used for safe sex

There were very few pubmed results on this topic, and those most relevant ones I found said that it was rarely used. Importantly I could find no actual evidence that their use reduces STD risk. Would be good to add such info.

I therefore reworked the article, rewording the safe sex section with refs, and expanding the dentistry section, to reflect how dental dam is mainly used in real life. Need refs for the dental section, it is from some old notes, probably collated from a selection of textbooks and lectures. Lesion (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep, Lesion, this scholarly book source (page 330) that I used for the Tribadism article also shows that using dental dams as a safe sex practice is rare. The source could only be talking about safe sex between women in that regard since its Safer Sexual Practices section is focusing on sex between women, but, surely, it's also true that heterosexuals and gay men hardly use dental dams for safe sex; I doubt that, in any significant way, they are using them more than women who have sex with women are, especially since condoms are the common/popular choice. The source also states that there "is no good evidence" that using a dental dam reduces STI transmission risks between women who have sex with women; I assume that dental dam use with regard reducing STI transmission risks is not well supported when it comes to heterosexuals and gay men either. Flyer22 (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into that Flyer22. The source you gave above could replace all of the 3 current sources imo. The 2 I used I think were primary sources, and not looked at the other but sounds like a website. Also the book source would support details about STD risk which is probably the most important thing we need to reference. Lesion (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. When I first came across that source, I was going to use the "[t]here is no good evidence" aspect for the Dental dam article; but since I realized that it is amended by "between WSW," I held off on adding it. You know, because it's not a general sexual statement, but rather one applying to one segment of the population. But looking on Google Books a few minutes ago, I see that dental dam use with regard sexuality is more often discussed with regard to lesbians/women who have sex with women than it is with regard to heterosexuals and gay men/men who have sex with men (which I knew would be the case, because, like I noted above, men usually use condoms, and women who have sex with men usually use condoms, when it comes to their option for a safe sex practice). This (1996), this (2000), this (2005) and this (2012) source show what I mean on the sex between women factor. I used the search words "Dental dams and safe sex" and "Dental dams." Flyer22 (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Added qualifier that the current sources referred only to women who have sex with women. Ty for pointing that out. Lesion (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree all sources brought forward seem to suggest that the dental dam is mainly promoted for women who have sex with women rather than any other groups. Lesion (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Page under review as part of a university assessment task

Hi all! This page is currently under review and will be updated as part of a university assessment task to improve the accuracy of information. As the use of rubber dam for safe sex is clearly such a controversial issue (consuming the entirety of the talk section!!) I have tackled this first in the hope that this issue can finally be put to bed... I have expanded the safe sex section with more information, ensuring it is relevant, factual and appropriate. I hope that this talk page can now expand into discussions on the (more relevant) dental applications of rubber dam. MirriamRachele (talk) 09:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

MirriamRachele, see what I stated in the #Dental dam rarely used for safe sex section above if you haven't already. I don't see that there is anything to "put to bed." The section you edited has been stable for years. Regarding your edit, it needs tweaking. I will tweak it. I'm not sure why you removed the cunnilingus and anilingus links, but they should be re-added. So I will re-add them. For any medical topic on Wikipedia, we should stick to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. History material is a MEDRS exception. For what I mean by "WP:MEDRS," click on the link and see. For example, WP:MEDRS strongly discourages use of WP:Primary sources. Your edit also has WP:Citation overkill going on; so that is another reason I will cut some of the references you added. That dental dams are especially marketed to women who have sex with women (WSW) should be clearer; so I will make that clear again. As for the original wording of "there is no good evidence that their use reduces the risk of STI transmission in this group" or your wording of "there is only anecdotal evidence to suggest that dental dams may be beneficial in protecting against STIs when used in woman-to-woman oral sex," the previous wording is better since anecdotal evidence is poor evidence for a medical topic. If the inmates material is based on a single study, I think you added too much on it, but I'll leave that material there for now. The subheadings you added for the little bit of material are not needed; see MOS:Paragraphs. Those headings are also pseudo-headings; see MOS:BADHEAD. I will remove those. Also, I've always questioned making it seem like the "there is no good evidence that their use reduces the risk of STI transmission" aspect only applies to WSW. If you reply to me on any of this, there is no need to WP:Ping me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

This edit shows the changes I made. The content is ordered in relation to importance and flow. For example, the history content should be last. I also reduced the repetition of full citations; see WP:REFNAME. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, I have read all above sections. This certainly is an issue that needs to be "put to bed", it is not the main objective of this page and yet it has consumed all topic of discussion. I am hoping that discussions can now branch out into the (more relevant) dental applications of rubber dam. Just because a section has "been stable for years" does not be it cannot be meaningfully improved upon. While I appreciate your updates (Wiki editing is very new territory for me!) I feel the first paragraph still needed refining. I removed the cunnilingus and anilingus links as I felt they were superfluous and information overkill that is irrelevant in this case, however I have conceded that they will be re-added regardless of my thoughts on the matter so I have left them in in the latest edit.MirriamRachele (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

MirriamRachele, considering that until you started this discussion and edited the article, the aforementioned section in the article was stable for years after discussion on the matter, there was nothing about it that needed to be "put to bed." This matter was already resolved years ago, in 2014. It is now 2019. I never stated or implied that "just because a section [or this section] has 'been stable for years' does not [mean] it cannot be meaningfully improved upon." I simply meant that there was no longer any dispute over the content. There were no more debating regarding it. I appreciate you adding the history material. I reverted your latest edit because there is no need to state "dental dams are sometimes recommended for use during oral sex" when we specify "cunnilingus" and "anilingus." And we should specify in this case because dental dams are mainly recommended for cunnilingus and anilingus. They are not commonly recommended for fellatio. Plain ole condoms are typically used for that. So, no, "cunnilingus" and "anilingus" are not superfluous in this case. And the article, per the sources, already establishes that dental dams are mainly marketed to women who have sex with women; so that is why they are barely suggested for fellatio. The other reason is the research that has gone into condoms being effective against STIs. I don't see why "as a physical barrier against the exchange of bodily fluids" is needed. And the source states "no good evidence," not "limited evidence." The source also does not state "Herpes simplex virus type 1, hepatitis or bacterial infections." But it's not like we need to list every possible STI anyway. We already state "STI transmission."

I'll alert WP:Med to this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

On a side note: There is no need to WP:Ping me to this talk page since it's on my watchlist. And pings only work with a fresh signature. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Seems undue weight given to safe sex info - much of this info is or could go on Safe sex page - it has its own section after all. This page is primarily about dentistry. --Iztwoz (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

"Undue weight"? Of 1,283 total words (not counting section titles), 330 words are about safe sex purpose. When a reader wants to find out information about a specific product -- they go to the article about the product. The last thing I, myself, would think of is searching for "safe sex", unless my purpose was to read about safe sex in general. Should Condom be moved to Safe sex, too? After all, the d*ck glove is recommended for preventing STDs and reducing HIV transmission. The dental dam may have been invented for dentistry purposes, but the rise in HIV/AIDS added another use for it. Just ask the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Pyxis Solitary yak 14:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Still am of the opinion that the use in Safe sex is a separate topic and i think the page ought to be about the dental application - A hatnote would in my view be better as 'this page is about the dental application|for use as a safe sex application see Safe sex#Condoms, dental dams, gloves. --Iztwoz (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

agree w/ Iztwoz--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Iztwoz and Ozzie10aaaa, it's not WP:Undue weight. A Wikipedia article should cover all significant aspects of a topic. Dental dams are not only known for dentistry, but also for safe sex practices. Enough health sources, including (as aforementioned) the CDC recommend them when talking about safe sex, even though they are rarely used for it. That they are so often seen in safe sex recommendations is why, if the content wasn't already here, a WP:Student editor like MirriamRachele would have added it. It's why the #Content about oral sex discussion took place all the way back in 2007. Plus, the section is relatively small. I agree that this article should primarily be about dentistry. And it still is primarily about dentistry. As for Iztwoz's suggested hatnote, I don't think we should use WP:Hatnote like that. I can start a WP:RfC on this (about including safe sex material and the hatnote), but I'd rather not. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Making a major change in a long-standing article merits consensus. Many editors (particularly new ones) are ignorant of most of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for editing articles, such as WP:Undue weight. So, if it gets to the point where you need to ... I support an RfC to end the ping-pong. Pyxis Solitary yak 06:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, again - the issue being "put to bed" is referring to the talk page, there is ZERO discussion here on the dental applications of rubber dam. I wouldn't say the matter was "resolved in 2014", merely no-one has had the time or effort to improve upon this section in the ensuing time. I re-added "dental dams are sometimes recommended for..." as the section does not read well grammatically without that opening statement. I have also re-added "as a physical barrier against the exchange of bodily fluids" as it is highly relevant given that is the exact application of the rubber dam when used for anilingus and cunnilingus. It is unnecessary to use "no good evidence" as a direct quote as others have discussed the limited evidence - but I'm not interested in arguing. In regards to your suggestion that "the source also does not state Herpes simplex virus type 1, hepatitis or bacterial infections", I encourage you to read the article you are referring to as it clearly states "As genital herpes (HSV) and infectious syphilis both produce highly infectious lesions on oral and genital mucosal surfaces, it is no surprise that they are potentially transmissible through most WSW sexual activities. Trichomonas vaginalis (TV) and bacterial vaginosis (BV)... transmission through exchange of vaginal fluids gives a plausible explanation for the documented WSW transmission of these conditions", one of my original references which you removed also referred to them. It seems narrow minded to only mention HIV specifically (HIV transmission can also occur as an STI!), so I have re-added the others for the sake of completeness - I felt it was important that people are aware of what the dam is protecting against, not just the ambiguous umbrella of "STIs" - if you're going to mention one major infection, then you really need to mention the others. MirriamRachele (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

MirriamRachele, since this page is on my watchlist, I again ask you not to ping me to it. It's not needed. Also, it is best not to WP:Edit war. I reverted this again per what I stated above, but I did re-add "as a physical barrier against the exchange of body fluids." Since the section is titled "Safe sex," and safe sex doesn't always mean sex that protects against STIs, that is why I include mention of "safer sex" with the link to the article on it. As the re-add shows, I changed "For protection against sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and to ensure safer sex" to "For safer sex and to protect against sexually transmitted infections (STIs)." As for the rest, I don't see what else I need to state on the matter that I haven't stated already. You again speak of the matter not having been put to bed, this time giving a "no-one has had the time or effort to improve upon this section in the ensuing time" reason. The #Content about oral sex discussion was about including safe sex material. That was put to bed. The 2014 discussion was about "rarely used for safe sex." Yes, the "rarely used for safe sex" matter was put to bed. Obviously. There was no debate about further improving the article. You don't have to encourage me to read any article or source. This source in question, when talking about effectiveness of dental dams, quite clearly states, "There is no good evidence to show that using a dental dam (a piece of latex applied to the genitals as a protective barrier during oral sex) reduces transmission of STIs or HIV between WSW." Your "Herpes simplex virus type 1, hepatitis or bacterial infections" piece is not supported by that source with regard to "no good evidence to show." And, per what I stated above, the mention is not needed anyway. The source already states "STIs." So it's easy to deduce that it means all STIs. The quote you cited states nothing of the effectiveness of dental dams. So what you are doing is engaging in WP:Synthesis. You are likely doing the same with the additional source you added. Read the WP:Synthesis policy. Yes, "HIV transmission can also occur as an STI." That is why the text in the article states "reduces the risk of STI transmission, including the risk of infection with human immunodeficiency virus." I've started an RfC below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, fine. The definition of WP:Edit war is continuously reverting another editors edits, which is exactly what you are engaging in. I created this talk section specifically for discussion on the dental applications of rubber dam for the other WP:Student editors, yet it has now been "contaminated" with further oral sex discussion. If the issue truly had been put to bed then it would not have spilled over into this section of the Talk page. Last time I checked Wikipedia information does not have to solely consist of direct quotes. The quote I cited is from the exact same source you cited and therefore clearly not WP:Synthesis. I have addressed your other comments in the RfC below. MirriamRachele talk 08:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

You were WP:Bold, and you were reverted. You should not have been looking to revert again, especially after I explained the issues with your changes. You have indeed engaged in WP:Synthesis. WP:Synthesis is not about direct quotes. It's about not relaying something not explicitly stated/supported by the source(s). Like I noted below in the RfC, nowhere does the source explicitly state that there is no good evidence to show that dental dams do not protect against Herpes simplex virus type 1, hepatitis or bacterial infections. WP:Synthesis is clear about not combining material to relay material not supported by the sources. You keep talking about things the source mentions, but it does not state that there is no good evidence to show that dental dams do not protect against Herpes simplex virus type 1, hepatitis or bacterial infections. And yet your text in the article did state that. Do stop going on about "put to bed"; none of your arguments on that matter make sense. The oral sex topic is now a part of this section because your edits focused on editing material about oral sex. The section even begins with you focusing on the use of "rubber dam for safe sex." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I did not revert again, I read your thoughts on the matter, took them into consideration and made relevant further changes that I had hoped would not need much on the way of further improvement. The "put to bed" matter was a double entendre... clearly you missed the joke. There was no arguments, I was only replying to your remarks tongue-in-cheek. Actually the focus was to dispel further discussion of oral sex in this section and to "expand into discussions on the (more relevant) dental applications of rubber dam", hence I have created a new section, with the beginning statement free from idioms to prevent misinterpretation. MirriamRachele talk 00:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

What???? Compare this and this. Clearly, you did revert again. Partial reverts are also reverts. But even describing your revert as a partial revert is misleading. You added, "Dental dams are sometimes recommended for use during oral sex to ensure safer sex by to protecting against sexually transmitted infections. Dental dams are most frequently marketed towards women who have sex with women to use as a physical barrier against the exchange of bodily fluids during cunnilingus and anilingus." Lower, you added "herpes simplex virus type 1, hepatitis or bacterial infections." The second time you added the same exact thing, except for the slight changes of not including "to ensure safer sex by to protecting" and not re-adding "limited." As for "put to bed," sighs. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

And???? This is a bit rich coming from the person who reverted my edits 3 times... All of my edits were made in good faith and with the view that the section still required improvement. MirriamRachele talk 13:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

And? You are the one who made the false claim that you did not revert again. Sighs. I'm pretty much done responding to you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not making any false claims, I didn't consider my paragraph updates to be "reverts". Good, please stop! I'm growing tired of constantly feeling the need to defend myself. This entire debate started unnecessarily after the WP:GOODFAITH principle was not adhered to and jumping the gun to make a RfC just as resolution was being reached. This is not a WP:NOTCHECKMATE scenario. Thanks for the warm welcome to Wikipedia… I won't be back WP:NEWBIES. MirriamRachele talk 15:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

You made a false claim when you stated that you did not revert again. I've already pointed to two edits where you did, in fact, revert again. That you didn't consider them reverts doesn't make them any less reverts. This debate started because you maintained that you were right about things that I disagree with you on. You also think you know more about the rules than experienced Wikipedians. I already told you in the #Discussion section below that RfCs are started all the time after editors have discussed a matter on the talk page and are not coming to an agreement. I told you, "I took the time to discuss the matter with you. We discussed. We compromised. But disagreement persisted and still persists. That is the right time to bring other editors into the matter. I first tried alerting WP:Med. I then started an RfC. It is not like I violated any protocol. These days (after so many years being at this site, since 2007, which has contributed to extensive debate taking a toll on me participating at this site and due to the fact that I'm far too busy), I'm usually not going to keep discussing one-on-one with an editor when it's clear that the we aren't going to be able to come to an agreement. That is a waste of time, and does not solve the standstill." You are the one viewing an RfC and other stuff as not adhering to WP:GOODFAITH or not being warm to a newbie. If you hadn't been so stubborn, none of this would have resulted. And now you keep coming back to even argue over your reverts and other things. So we both know you'll be back. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Iztwoz I do have to agree with everyone that it is relevant to mention the safe sex applications of a dental dam on the page itself, I just think it's a little surprising that the only aspect of the rubber dam being discussed here is its sexual application. MirriamRachele (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk pages are to discuss contested or potentially controversial article changes.They are not not for general conversation about the article's subject. If there have been no previous discussions on this talk page about the use of dental dams for dental purposes, it likely just means that no-one has ever seen a need to discuss anything about that particular aspect of the article. That's not a problem. Many articles have talk pages that have never been used. If you have some changes to the dental practise portion of the article that you think may be controversial then feel free to open a discussion on that particular aspect of the article, with a header specific to that issue. If you don't think the changes will be controversial then just make the edits. There is no need to create a generically-titled placeholder discussion before hand as you did at Talk:Dental dam#Discussion on the dental applications of rubber dam (and in fact it is not appropriate to do so). Meters (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying the lack of discussion is actually an issue, just a bit surprising. The other students need somewhere to discuss the dental applications, the placeholder was a courtesy as they're finding Wikipedia editing a little confusing. MirriamRachele talk 13:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it is appropriate to discuss the use of dental dams for sexual purposes in this article. It's simply a secondary use, just as the use of condoms for muling drugs, sealing rifle barrels, waterproofing microphones, etc. are secondary, non sexual uses discussed in Condom. Meters (talk) 09:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Which version to go with?

There is disagreement about how to present the first paragraph of the Safe sex section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC) One view is that since dental dams are not commonly recommended for fellatio (because condoms are typically used and recommended for that) and dental dams are especially marketed to women who have sex with women, there is no need to state -- and link to -- "oral sex" in the section. Oral sex is also already linked in the lead. Instead, it is best to simply mention, and link to, cunnilingus and anilingus, which are what dental dams (when used for sexual activity) are primarily used for. This view also argues that because this source does not state that there is no good evidence that dental dams reduce "Herpes simplex virus type 1, hepatitis or bacterial infections," but rather states there is no good evidence that dental dams reduce the risk of STI transmission (including HIV), we shouldn't either. Including the "Herpes simplex virus type 1, hepatitis or bacterial infections" piece is WP:Synthesis. The other view is that beginning with "dental dams are sometimes recommended for" reads better grammatically. This wording also begins with mention of -- and a link to -- "oral sex." This view argues that since the source states "As genital herpes (HSV) and infectious syphilis both produce highly infectious lesions on oral and genital mucosal surfaces, it is no surprise that they are potentially transmissible through most WSW sexual activities" and "Trichomonas vaginalis (TV) and bacterial vaginosis (BV)... transmission through exchange of vaginal fluids gives a plausible explanation for the documented WSW transmission of these conditions," we should include the "Herpes simplex virus type 1, hepatitis or bacterial infections" piece. This view argues that it is silly to specifically and solely mention HIV as one of the STIs and that if we are going to mention one major infection, we really need to mention the others. The first view is represented by Version 1, and the second view is represented by Version 2, in the Survey section below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Version 1

For safer sex and to protect against sexually transmitted infections (STIs), dental dams are sometimes suggested for use as a physical barrier against the exchange of body fluids during cunnilingus and anilingus, especially for women who have sex with women. However, they are rarely used for this purpose, and there is no good evidence that their use reduces the risk of STI transmission, including the risk of infection with human immunodeficiency virus.

Version 2

Dental dams are sometimes recommended for use during oral sex to protect against sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Dental dams are most frequently marketed towards women who have sex with women to use as a physical barrier against the exchange of bodily fluids during cunnilingus and anilingus. However, they are rarely used for this purpose, and there is no good evidence to show that their use reduces the risk of STI transmission, including the risk of infection with human immunodeficiency virus, herpes simplex virus type 1, hepatitis or bacterial infections.

Survey

• Version 1: Like I noted above, there is no need to state and link to "oral sex," when (sexually-speaking) what dental dams are primarily used for is cunnilingus and anilingus. And as for including "Herpes simplex virus type 1, hepatitis or bacterial infections", the source in question, when talking about effectiveness of dental dams, quite clearly states, "There is no good evidence to show that using a dental dam (a piece of latex applied to the genitals as a protective barrier during oral sex) reduces transmission of STIs or HIV between WSW." The "Herpes simplex virus type 1, hepatitis or bacterial infections" piece is not supported by that source with regard to "no good evidence to show." So including it, at least in the way proposed in Version 2, is engaging in WP:Synthesis. Furthermore, the source already states "STIs." So it's easy to deduce that it means all STIs. We mention HIV specifically because the source does. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Another issue with Version 2 is that its second sentence focuses on women who have sex with women in a way that can lead one to think that dental dams aren't marketed toward men who have sex with men and heterosexual couples for cunnilingus and anilingus. By this, I mean that one might think that dental dams are mainly marketed to the other types of couples for fellatio since the version begins by stating "dental dams are sometimes recommended for use during oral sex," and then moves into a focus on women who have sex with women for mention of cunnilingus and anilingus. But it's obviously not the case that dental dams are commonly recommended for fellatio. Because the second sentence of Version 2 focuses on women who have sex with women, the "however, they are rarely used for this purpose" piece can lead one to believe that they simply are rarely used for cunnilingus and anilingus and/or that it's simply the case that they are rarely used by women who have sex with women for cunnilingus and anilingus. But what is known is that dental dams are rarely used for sexual activity, period, and even more so when it comes to fellatio. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I think you're reading into this a little too much. An individual would probably have to lack common sense to draw that conclusion, but then again, it seems to be frequently lacking nowadays, so it's probably best to be explicit with the information. MirriamRachele talk 13:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Your "common sense" argument makes no sense. Use of dental dams for sexual activity is not a WP:Sky is blue matter. Also see WP:NOCOMMON that exists below WP:Common sense. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

What argument? I was (partially) agreeing with you. Not sure why you mentioned WP:Sky is blue (which relates to verifiability and reliable sources) as this was not an issue in question??? In regards to WP:NOCOMMON "Base your argument… not your own common sense" was the crux of my comment... MirriamRachele talk 15:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Partially agreeing with me? Sighs. And not sure why I linked WP:Sky is blue? WP:Sky is blue is specifically about matters that are common knowledge. This is why I stated, "Use of dental dams for sexual activity is not a WP:Sky is blue matter." Sighs again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

In re "I think you're reading into this a little too much. You'd have to lack a lot of common sense to draw that conclusion....": You are hereby informed that Wikipedia has a personal attacks policy. Pyxis Solitary yak 03:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me? This is a general statement about society nowadays in regards to the need to be explicit with information. I meant "you" as a generalised whole, it was not directed at anyone as an individual. You have misinterpreted the context of this statement, further substantiating the context. I had intended on re-wording that statement prior to posting to prevent misinterpretation, however I was too busy at the time. I have clarified the meaning to prevent people from seeking offense. The irony of your assumption is that I was actually agreeing with the statement above, not trying to "personally attack" the author... MirriamRachele talk 05:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:TALK > WP:REDACT:  "if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided." ... "Any deleted text should be marked with <del>...</del>. Any inserted text should be marked with <ins>...</ins>. Add a new timestamp, e.g., ; edited ~~~~~, using five tildes, after the original timestamp at the end of your post."  Pyxis Solitary yak 10:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks,I wasn't aware that there was a specific policy regarding this, I was intending to edit to improve clarity prior to replies (if any). MirriamRachele talk 15:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

It's a guideline, but it's best practice. See WP:Policies and guidelines. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

One could argue that because the article specifically states that dental dams are sometimes recommended for women who have sex with women then the need to specify anilingus and cunnilingus is redundant as fellatio is not a possibility in this instance. If you're going to argue that it's "silly" to be unspecific in some areas I am unsure of what the issue is with being specific and informative with others. The same source discusses how genital herpes and numerous other bacterial infections can be transferred via oral sex, hepatitis was mentioned in a subsequent article that also discussed the other STI infections, the exact wording could be improved upon to meld better with this specific source (since the other sources were removed) - please review the definition of WP:Synthesis to avoid using it incorrectly in future. MirriamRachele talk 08:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Nothing redundant at all about specifying the specific sexual practices. Not all women who have sex with women engage in cunnilingus and, as noted by page 330 of this source, anilingus is one of the least practiced sexual practices among them. Some sources are clear that the vast majority of women who have sex with women do not engage in anilingus. And regardless of couple pairings, anilingus is one of the least practiced sexual activities anyway. People usually do not think of anilingus when they think of oral sex. As for WP:Synthesis, you clearly do not understand the meaning of WP:Synthesis since you apparently do not understand "do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." Nowhere does the source explicitly state that there is no good evidence to show that dental dams do not protect against Herpes simplex virus type 1, hepatitis or bacterial infections. I'm a significantly experienced Wikipedia editor who has adhered to and cited the WP:Synthesis policy times over; I do not need to review it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

The section of the article you are referring to says STIs, the next section expands on these STIs that can be transmitted through WSW sexual activity through exchange of vaginal fluids - they may be separate sections however one is a continuation of the other - there is no conclusion implied, just information expanded upon. MirriamRachele talk 00:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how else I can explain WP:Synthesis to you. I'm going to go ahead and leave a note about this RfC at Wikipedia talk:No original research, and, hopefully, some editors who watch that page will weigh in. I watch that page and would weigh in on a matter like this if queried on it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• Version 2. Support Version 1. I don't shy away from using explicit language about the specific purpose of a prophylactic -- and dental dams are recommended as a prophylactic device when performing cunnilingus and tossing salad (i.e. anilingus); however, men/men also engage in the latter, and men/women engage in cunnilingus, too. The inclusion of different types of infections is informative. Pyxis Solitary yak 10:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Pyxis Solitary, both Version 1 and Version 2 use explicit language about the specific purpose of a prophylactic. It's just that Version 1 doesn't unnecessarily mention the term "oral sex" when cunnilingus and anilingus are mentioned. Version 1 isn't taking away from the fact that men who have sex with men and heterosexual couples might use a dental dam for oral sex. Both versions emphasize that dental dams are especially suggested for women who have sex with women. As for different types of infections being informative, my point is that the sentence that the other editor wants to include is not supported by the source. It's the source that states "STIs and HIV." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the mention of "oral sex" unnecessary, dental dams certainly wouldn't be used for penetrative sex and not everyone is going to understand or delve into the meaning of the terms cunnilingus and anilingus. Oral sex is a more colloquial term that would prevent confusion, and it could be easily missed in the lead if an individual scrolled straight to their area of interest. MirriamRachele talk 15:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I already know how you feel, and I clearly disagree. There is no solid reason to state "oral sex" in that section when we already state "cunnilingus" and "anilingus" and the sources clearly are not including fellatio. Well, they usually are not including fellatio. "Oral sex" covers three different types of oral sex; it is not a colloquial term. No one states "oral sex" when meaning anilingus. And when people want others to know that they mean cunnilingus or anilingus, they will either use those terms or the slang terms for them. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

"Oral sex is a more colloquial term", as in it's a more familiar and inclusive term. Whilst it may be different elsewhere, where I'm from no-one ever says the words cunnilingus or anilingus. MirriamRachele talk 15:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I stand by what I stated. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I gave it more thought and changed my support to Version 1. Although I think "men and women" should be added to the narrative, or just remove "especially for women who have sex with women" altogether. Dental dams were advertised in lesbian media, and their use pushed within the lesbian community, from the late 1980s through 1990s, but it's been a long time since I've seen ads about them taking space in a lesbian publication or website; and most of the instances today when you see mentions about dental dams+sex they're in sex-related advice columns and articles, and YouTube vids, by non-lesbian sources. The dental dam industry still can't figure out how to market them. Pyxis Solitary yak 01:20, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree, however unfortunately the literature is yet to catch up with this so it's unable to be validly included at this point in time. MirriamRachele talk 15:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support 1 Hepatitis C is not spread by sex really. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, although there are no "known" cases of it, the Hepatitis C Association says "it is theoretically possible that the virus could be transmitted this way if a person has mouth sores, bleeding gums, or a throat infection." Pyxis Solitary yak 01:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

The CDC also discusses how all forms of hepatitis can be transmitted via sexual/oral sex contact, this would probably be a more appropriate second citation [2] MirriamRachele talk 08:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Basically "studies of heterosexual couples with discordant serostatus have shown that such transmission is possible but extremely inefficient"[3] Risk is low though yes theoretically possible. Regardless I do not think a list of STIs are needed here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:58, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure "especially for women who have sex with women" or "most frequently marketed towards women who have sex with women" is correct. Looking online at advertisements for dams, they are all gender neutral. Similarly, all advice from government agencies, NGOs, health organisations etc don't target, or even mention women who have sex with women. Although one of the first uses was in women's prisons, the same initiatives distributed condoms in male prisons. Are we to conclude condoms are especially for men who have sex with men by the same logic? Yes there have been campaigns for their use between two women, but there have also been campaigns for use between two men practising anilingus. --John B123 (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

John B123, it's what the sources state. They have been especially marketed to women who have sex with women. As for whether or not they are especially marketed to women who have sex with women today... Well, most of the academic sources regarding them still focus on women who have sex with women. We do see a lot of non-gendered language regarding them when it comes to media sources and government sources, but I've seen no indication in academic sources that they've been marketed to other groups as much as they've been marketed to women who have sex with women. When it comes to oral sex, condoms are significantly more so marketed to heterosexual couples and to men who have sex with men than dental dams are. The reason it wouldn't make sense for condoms to be especially marketed to men who have sex with men is because heterosexual couples also exist. Lesbian couples (unless one is including trans lesbians who have penises) do not need to worry about covering a penis. Dental dams were recommended for sexual activity between women so that they would also have STI protection. But, yes, dental dams are especially suggested for cunnilingus and anilingus. And, obviously, some heterosexual couples also engage in cunnilingus, and some heterosexual couples, men who have sex with men, and women who have sex with women engage in anilingus. If you reply to me on this, there is no need to ping me to this talk page since its on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn - Obviously we need to keep to what the sources say, but we need to select the right sources. I'm sure I could find a source that says the earth is flat if I tried. Most of the cited works in the article are from the 1990s/2000s, and although correct at the time, may not represent the situation 20 years on. On a side note, and I'm not suggesting this is the case here, with academic sources, such as the one used in this context: , where only a summary or extract is available, it's not possible to know if the source actually says that, or that it was the editor's interpretation of what was actually said.

Up until the 1980s, when HIV/AIDS came to the attention of the general public, safe sex was not thought about by most. Even then, as AIDS was thought of as a "gay disease", initially safe sex campaigns were primarily aimed at gays. This included the use of dams for anilingus to reduce the risk of Hepatitis infection. At the time male gay sex was thought of as highly risky, heterosexual sex slightly risky and sex between two women carrying negligible risks. When it was realised HIV was not restricted to gays and drug users, the concept of safe sex was adopted by the heterosexual public.

Following thinner dams specifically for safe sex starting to be manufactured (1994?), the dams were marketed towards women who have sex with women, but in the 2000s it seemed to change to gender/orientation neutral. In round numbers dams have been in use for safe sex for 35 years, during which time they were marketed for a few years for gay men's use, about 10 years for gay women and the majority of the time no specific group has been targeted. Therefore "especially for women who have sex with women" is at best misleading without further qualification.

I'm not surprised that research has concentrated on women who have sex with women. It would seem virtually impossible to get meaningful studies on the effectiveness of dams from heterosexuals as any infections could have been transmitted from fellatio, or more probably penetrative sex. --John B123 (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

John B123, it's not a good idea to make the WP:Fringe flat Earth comparison. And this is not about looking for sources that agree with me. When have you ever known me to not follow the literature with WP:Due weight? You speak of the date of the sources. Well, dental dams are not a highly researched area with regard to sexual activity. Per WP:MEDDATE, a source can be from 2010 and still be the most up-to-date information on that particular topic. We look to newer sources that review the literature to see if the older sources are still up-to-date. It's noted above by Pyxis Solitary that "The dental dam industry still can't figure out how to market [dental dams]." But what we know via reliable sources is that dental dams have been especially marketed to women who have sex with women. That's the case whether or not we word it in a way that gets across past tense. At this point in time, the vast majority of the academic sources on dental dams with regard to sexual activity concern women who have sex with women. For us to consider that dental dams have been marketed to other groups as much as they have been marketed to women who have sex with women, we need sources stating that. For us to doubt that it's still the case that, history-wise, dental dams have mainly been marketed to women who have sex with women, we need reliable sources making that clear.

As for "at the time male gay sex was thought of as highly risky," it is still considered so because of those who engage in anal sex without protection of a condom (barebacking). The difference is that researchers no longer consider HIV/AIDS a gay disease and they know that unprotected penile-anal sex is just as dangerous for heterosexual couples. Sex between two women is still categorized as significantly less risky than male-male and male-female sexual activity. The lower risk is one reason why researchers think that women who have sex with women generally forgo dental dams.

As for your "during which time they were marketed for a few years for gay men's use, about 10 years for gay women and the majority of the time no specific group has been targeted" statement, what are your sources for that? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn - As you point out, WP:MEDDATE gives a basic premise that medical research is valid, irrespective of age, until it is superseded by later research. However, I'm sure that was only ever intended to apply to medical findings, not peripheral items mentioned in the article such as marketing.

Whilst you are right about the relative risks of different types of sex, the point I was trying to make was that in the 1980s gay anal sex was regarded as the only high risk activity.

The first time I had ever heard of a dam was in the mid-1980s, when the Terrence Higgins Trust distributed flyers in London pubs promoting safe sex amongst gay men. This article gives links to "records of gay media and activism as early as 1988", and also states that the thinner Glyde Health dam was produced in the 1990s after requests for a lesbian specific safe sex product. As alluded to above, "The dental dam industry still can't figure out how to market [dental dams]." I can find no evidence that after the mid-2000s they were still being aimed at women who have sex with women (The are studies published later but these are based earlier findings. Certainly today, the marketing is just for use in oral sex, without targeting any particular group.

I'd have no objections to the section being expanded to include the introduction of the "improved" dam in the 1990s in response to lesbian requests for a safe sex product and its initial marketing to that group, but find the current/proposed wording an oversimplification and potentially misleading. --John B123 (talk) 09:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

John B123, WP:MEDDATE is an aspect of WP:MEDRS. At WP:MEDRS, we link to the WP:Biomedical information supplement page. Under the "What is biomedical information?" section, we include "population data and epidemiology." Of course, we should be looking to newer sources to assess whether it's still case that dental dams are especially marketed to women who have sex with women. Even disregarding WP:MEDDATE, we should be looking to keep information up to date; this is per WP:AGE MATTERS. If we don't have those sources, it's a matter of our own assessment that something is no longer the case, which is not how we are supposed to work. Like WP:RS/AC relays, "Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors. Review articles, especially those printed in academic review journals that survey the literature, can help clarify academic consensus."

As for the current "especially for women who have sex with women" wording, we could change it to "They have been especially marketed to women who have sex with women." This is so that the text is not necessarily stating it as a current thing. It's rather just stating the fact that they have been especially marketed to women who have sex with women. But I don't like stating something like "In the 90s and early 2000s, they were especially marketed to women."...since we don't have reliable sources stating that/making it out to be a matter that ceased after the mid-2000s. And we should definitely be clear that they have been especially marketed to women who have sex with women. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

John B123, please feel free to re-word/update the phrasing. Every update I have made to improve the wording of the first paragraph was reverted by Flyer22 Reborn. I think it can definitely still be improved upon, however I don't have time to deal with it right now. MirriamRachele talk 04:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Your "dental dams are most frequently marketed towards women who have sex with women" piece is not much different than the "especially for women who have sex with women" piece. No one is stating that John B123 cannot change the wording to something else if appropriately sourced. I even suggested different wording for him to consider. We've already been over the reverts and me compromising with you. There is a difference between updating and adding material that is not merely an updated piece. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Your "Especially for women who have sex with women" piece sounds like they are only marketed towards/can be use for women, which is why I initially worded it "dental dams are most frequently marketed towards women who have sex with women" to prevent misinterpretation. Yes exactly, "please feel free to re-word/update the phrasing" (that does not sound anything like "John B123 cannot change the wording to something else"...) MirriamRachele talk 01:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Given the definition of "especially," I'm trying to see how you consider "especially" different than "most frequently." Especially means "mainly, mostly, chiefly, principally, for the most part, in the main, on the whole, largely, by and large, to a large extent, to a great degree, predominantly, above all, first and foremost, basically, substantially, overall, in general, particularly, in particular, primarily, generally, usually, typically, commonly." It really sounds you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. Your "please feel free to re-word/update the phrasing" commentary in conjuction with your "every update [you] have made to improve the wording of the first paragraph was reverted by Flyer22 Reborn" piece sounds exactly like you are stating that I kept you from improving the article and might try to keep John B123 from doing the same. Our definitions of "improvements" clearly differ in this case. Of course, now you will state that I'm misinterpreting you and am starting mess. You keep getting offended or upset when editors correctly deduce what you meant. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Ran into this in my web search travels: "I've used a dental dam exactly once (at the request of a new sex partner). It was like licking an inner tube, but hey, that's where her comfort level was, so I was happy to oblige. Other than that though, I don't hear much about dental dams. Granted, someone must be using them—for other reasons than "something to throw at drag show audiences."" – The Hook Up: Do lesbians really use protection?, September 17, 2013, AfterEllen. Pyxis Solitary yak 13:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

This really wasn't necessary Flyer22 Reborn, some debate and disagreement is par for the course when an editor such as yourself has had someone else move in after quite some time and rearrange your hard work, and understandably so. Obviously I'm going to prefer my edit over yours (likewise for you), but I am more than happy to concede and compromise on some points to avoid nitpicking. I'm not here to start unnecessary debate (and I'm far too busy to get caught up in one), my aim is to provide meaningful improvement, even if it has become a bold, revert, discuss cycle. If you read the sources you can clearly see that my edits are not WP:Synthesis - the other STIs were all specifically mentioned by both sources, so not sure what your problem is here or why the need for false accusations. If you had of continued with your WP:Edit warring and simply continued to undo my revisions then we would've had a problem. I appreciate your improvement on the first paragraph and the re-adding of "as a physical barrier against the exchange of bodily fluids", and whilst (as I stated) I'm going to prefer my version of the first paragraph I'm happy to leave it as is. Continuously undoing my revisions and attempting to demonise some of my improvements because you are adverse to change is creating discord and I strongly urge you to desist with your WP:Edit warring. MirriamRachele talk 10:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

You are suggesting that an editor's reason for this discussion is rooted in ownership of content. That is not only offensive, but you need to think hard about hubris and what 'inspired' you to start a discussion in the first place. You're not editing a dentistry school paper. Pyxis Solitary yak 10:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not trying to cause offense, merely prompt some self reflection in regard to the dogged determination to hastily revert so many of my edits. I have been replying to discussion, not starting it. MirriamRachele talk 11:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

You have a lot to learn about making assumptions, and how to respond to an RfC. Pyxis Solitary yak 00:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I removed my signature from your comment. You do not use another editor's signature in a reply to their comment. Learn how to ping an editor. Pyxis Solitary yak 00:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

...says the person making the assumptions that I'm "suggesting that an editor's reason for this discussion is rooted in ownership of content". I quite clearly was just stating that I understand the desire to edit over my edits - taking a very neutral and understanding approach to diffuse the situation. Not sure why you feel the need to twist my comments around to make them appear inflammatory??

Ok that's fine, Flyer22 Reborn kept WP:Ping me for every new comment so I followed suit. MirriamRachele talk 01:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I took the time to discuss the matter with you. We discussed. We compromised. But disagreement persisted and still persists. That is the right time to bring other editors into the matter. I first tried alerting WP:Med. I then started an RfC. It is not like I violated any protocol. These days (after so many years being at this site, since 2007, which has contributed to extensive debate taking a toll on me participating at this site and due to the fact that I'm far too busy), I'm usually not going to keep discussing one-on-one with an editor when it's clear that the we aren't going to be able to come to an agreement. That is a waste of time, and does not solve the standstill. I was not WP:OWNING the article. Read the WP:STEWARDSHIP section of WP:OWN. Read WP:CAREFUL as well. There was no hard work by me on this article. The 2014 discussion shows that I clarified something and another editor added a little bit of text. I tweaked it. No hard work whatsoever. A part of your addition is WP:Synthesis, and I explained why above. As for pinging you, I pinged you because you are still a newbie, you barely edit Wikipedia, and I did not know if you were watching this article. It's not like you asked that I stop pinging you. But, in my "05:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)" post, I specifically asked that you stop pinging me and I did not ping you on that post. Yet...you still pinged me again. That is rude. You stated that you will continue to ping me "for ease of reading i.e. it highlights who the specific message is directed at." No. False. And pings are not meant for that. The pings are annoying to me, with as busy as I am with other articles. I prefer the pings to be important or indicative that they are important. Pinging me to an article I am already watching is pointless. Do read WP:Harassment. I asked you stop. So stop. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

We were in the process of discussion, if you read my earlier messages you will see that I stated that whilst I prefer my version that I was happy to leave the latest edit as is, so we were coming to agreement. I'm not saying you violated any protocols or "owned" the article - please stop being melodramatic and attempting to twist my words, I already clarified that above. I was not trying to be rude, I was following the social norms on here, I am watching this page and no WP:Ping are showing up in my notifications. I apologise if they were annoying for you but that certainly does not constitute harassment. Please stop trying to start debate, I'm very busy in real life and do not have time for this. MirriamRachele talk 00:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

There is no "being melodramatic and attempting to twist [your] words" on my part. You went on about "some debate and disagreement is par for the course when an editor such as [myself] has had someone else move in after quite some time and rearrange [my] hard work, and understandably so." And Pyxis Solitary brought up WP:OWN. I replied with those thoughts in mind. I wanted to be clear that there was no hard work on my part and that this is not why I've objected to your changes. I wanted to be clear about the WP:OWN policy. I'm not objecting on a WP:ILIKEIT basis. As for you being fine with the current version, you are still debating the "Herpes simplex virus type 1, hepatitis or bacterial infections" aspect. As for pinging, it is the norm not to ping an editor when they repeatedly ask you not to ping them. For you to keep pinging me after I repeatedly asked you not to? I don't see what you thought I was supposed to think. I might assume that it's a mistake if it happens once, but not if it keeps happening. And, above, you asserted that you would keep pinging me. Now that you've explained yourself, don't ping me to this talk page again. If an editor is not getting pinged when pinged, it's either because the ping did not have a fresh signature or their pinging option is off. Surely, you received my pings since I used a fresh signature when pinging you and it doesn't appear that you -- a newbie -- turned off the ping option. And starting debate? You started all of this debate. You stated, "I'm very busy in real life and do not have time for this." My thoughts exactly. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste my time re-explaining myself again. If you feel the need to somehow feel purposely annoyed or harassed in this situation that's your prerogative. I wasn't aiming to debate the "Herpes simplex virus type 1, hepatitis or bacterial infections" aspect, merely providing food for thought. I maintain my position that this RfC is redundant, but if you want to use it as an excuse to continue to pick apart my final edit then please proceed, I've already wasted far too much of my time humouring a discussion on a topic that I have no personal interest in. MirriamRachele talk 13:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

The RfC would not have been needed if you hadn't kept reverting to your version. You keep reverting to your version and I am supposed to believe that you don't want it or are indifferent to it? After you've gone on about the "Herpes simplex virus type 1, hepatitis or bacterial infections" aspect, I'm supposed to believe you don't want it in the article or are indifferent to it being in the article? "A discussion on a topic that [you] have no personal interest in"? LOL. And what topic is that? Your edits to this article and its talk page show otherwise. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

And you didn't keep reverting to your version? Again, I was just making necessary improvements in WP:GOODFAITH. Why would I not be indifferent? My end goal was to improve this section, including the first paragraph and that has been achieved. I concede that I'm not going to agree with everything (which is not unlikely among people with differing perceptions), I believe it could still be improved upon, however lack of further improvement is not detrimental and the variations between the two versions are minor and hardly warrant debating. Need I remind you I'm here to review and update this page as part of a university assessment, this page was assigned (and certain aspects divided), not chosen. MirriamRachele talk 15:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I gave solid reasons for reverting you. And I brought others in on the matter. If you were indifferent, you would not have been reverting and arguing what you argued. Simple. No need to keep debating this. We can wait for the RfC to close and move on. Or, if you really won't be reverting to your version again, I can go ahead and close the RfC. And that can be that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Since this article became a university assignment made by a professor/lecturer for a student to complete, it may be worthwhile to contact the professor/lecturer about the events surrounding her/his classroom assignment. Based on my experience with other instances of "Wikipedia homework", I think too many students are being told to edit Wikipedia articles without also fully informing them about the Wikipedia policies for editing them and what is expected from the editors. Pyxis Solitary yak 07:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

_____

References

Discussion on the dental applications of rubber dam

Almost finished with the sections, if there is any more suggestions/information to add to the disadvantages let me know LarissaJH (talk) 06:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I have been working on the armamentarium section. It wasn’t easy to find recourses that spoke about the application of rubber dam in the dental context so please let me know if I can make any further advancements on this section. MontanaCarracher (talk) 06:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

MontanaCarracher just wondering if it would be a good idea to mention the type of metal the dam clamps are made of? Also, I know resin barriers are often used to protect the gingiva during in-office tooth whitening, but I'm not sure that they are commonly used with rubber dams? MirriamRachele talk 23:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

MirriamRachele That sounds like a good idea. I can try and find some information on this and the resin barriers for you. The information that I have found so far comes from the manufacturers website, is this appropriate to add as a link/reference? MontanaCarracher (talk) 06:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

MontanaCarracher Is the manufacturer the only company that produces them? It might not be appropriate if there is more than one company to add as a link? LarissaJH (talk) 05:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

MirriamRachele & LarissaJH I have made some small adjustments to this armamentarium section please let me know what you think. MontanaCarracher (talk) 03:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

MontanaCarracher looking good. Should we add the ink stamp into the armamentarium list? MirriamRachele talk 12:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the article would benefit from further information regarding the improved restorative and endodontic outcomes when completed under rubber dam isolation. If I can find time I will add this information myself, however if someone else can add it that would be amazing. Also - so that the article is cohesive can we just stick to one term, either 'dental dam' or 'rubber dam', rather than both interchangeably? Given the article has been titled 'dental dam' I'm assuming that is the term used in the broadest range of environments? Given the title is explicit it's at least unlikely to be misconstrued. MirriamRachele talk 04:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)