Talk:Fertility factor (demography)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gsafi18.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Edits of this date

When an editor relies mostly on the primary research literature to write here, the result is either a review, or an essay-type piece that violates WP:OR—both of which are prohibited here, and both of which are addressed in the WP:VERIFY policy.

After reviewing the lede, and the first 12 citations of the article, I found that only 5 of the original 16 appearing citations of the lede were secondary (see [1]), and that 15 items appearing in the lists in the lede are solely sourced to primary reports (now, in the main body).

For these reasons, I have called for expert attention, from Sociology and Political science (correct these projects if you know better), to rectify the fact that such a significant fraction of lede and all content appears to be primary source-based, Experts are needed to perform the needed literature review, to evaluate these sources, and substantiate the claims from the secondary literature (or to remove them).

Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 03:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I find this to be a generally very good article, very interesting in content and well-written (and recently very well copyedited). Please do not take the sourcing criticism personally. It is simply the case that it is experts, through secondary sources, and not Wikipedia editors, that are to determine the key aspects of the "take" we have and report on each subject. Reliance on primary sources, or misuse of secondary sources, for that matter, leads us away from being encyclopedic. It may work for a time, while there is an earnest, unbiased, and expert editor devoted to the article, But the trajectory will be lost as soon as this person is gone, if not buttressed by good process. Like attracts like in this regard. If paragraphs like those at the close are found without any sources, people will feel free to add further sentences that are unsourced. Best nip it all in the bud, right now. Cheers. Bonsoir. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 03:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

These issues have been addressed in subsequent edits, so I now removed the hatnotes. Feel free to make a new review. Mikael Häggström (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fertility factor (demography). 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/20160304060954/https://www.eshre.eu/Guidelines-and-Legal/ART-fact-sheet.aspx to https://www.eshre.eu/guidelines-and-legal/art-fact-sheet.aspx

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)

Very high level of gender equality (former heading)

In advanced societies, in which birth control is the default option, a more equal division of household tasks tends to improve chances for a second child. Equally, increases in employment equity tend to lead to a more equal division of household labor, and thus improve chances for a second child. Biohistorian15 (talk) 12:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Similarily (*also formerly a full heading):

The effects differed across countries. A study comparing gender equality in the Netherlands with that of Italy found that an unequal division of household work can significantly reduce a woman's interest in having children.

Another study focused on quality of life of women in Canada found that women who felt overburdened at home tended to have fewer children.

Another study found a U-shaped relationship between gender equity within the couple and fertility with higher probability of having a second child in families with either very low or very high gender equality. Biohistorian15 (talk) 12:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Intelligence (former heading)

The relationship between fertility and intelligence has been investigated in many demographic studies; there is no conclusive evidence of a positive or negative correlation between human intelligence and fertility rate.

Furthermore:

Other correlates of IQ include income and educational attainment, which are also inversely correlated with fertility rate, and are to some degree heritable, and thereby act as confounders. Biohistorian15 (talk) 12:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)