Talk:Birth control/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

False or true claims?

Can anybody clear up on the grammar and the use of double negatives in the Misconception section? Also, that section has some unverified, unsourced data that one should be critical of, as not all of them have citations. Could it be common knowledge? Common knowledge does not require citations. I honestly cannot tell if that section reports the misconceptions of birth control or reports the arguments against the misconceptions of birth control. It's very confusing, and a lot needs to be cleared up. I am going to check on the sources to get a better look at this issue, for the subject matter is not my field of expertise.

Modern misconceptions and urban legends have given rise to a great many false claims:

The suggestion that douching with any substance immediately following intercourse works as a contraceptive is untrue. While it may seem like a sensible idea to try to wash the ejaculate out of the vagina, it is not likely to be effective. Due to the nature of the fluids and the structure of the female reproductive tract, douching most likely actually spreads semen further towards the uterus. Some slight spermicidal effect may occur if the douche solution is particularly acidic, but overall it is not scientifically observed to be a reliably effective method. Douching is neither a contraceptive nor a preventative measure against STDs or other infections.

I am getting the impression that the statement "The suggestion that douching with any substance immediately following intercourse works as a contraceptive is untrue" is untrue. Now, if the quoted statement is untrue, then that means the true statement is "The suggestion that douching with any substance immediately following intercourse works as a contraceptive is true", because of the expression of negation in the title "false claims". See what I am getting at?

140.254.227.74 (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue is with the meaning of "works" which is a non-quantitative term which should instead be stated in percentages. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 09:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I got one of the double negatives, but will look at this one again and archive this section when it's done. Cupco 08:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Requests

For answers such as Will birth control make me gain weight? Does birth control cause cancer? Men and birth control? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.99.80 (talk) 05:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems very reasonable to try to answer these questions. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 07:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Working on it, see the next section on "Side effects." Cupco 09:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done Cupco 23:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Side effects

There are many common, yet annoying side effects to taking any sort of birth control. Most are common to the first few months of pregnancy. They may include, but are not limited to;

• Nausea.

Many women feel nauseated during the first month or two of pill taking. The only thing to do when this occurs is to wait it out.

• Abnormal bleeding.

("Spotting") For over 83% of women, it takes at least three months for a period to regulate itself during the time of pill intake. Your menstrual cycle may not come for a few months, or it may be a few 'spots' here or there. This is nothing to worry about, because if the pill is taken regularly, this should subside within five cycles.

• Missed periods.

It is very common for any new pill user to miss periods. In fact, it is recommended to tell a doctor if you get a period within a few months of pill use. Some women become concerned they aren't getting "cleaned out" properly, though this is not a risk for pill users, because the uterine lining gets so thin that there is not much blood to shed during the menstrual cycle.

• Urination.

Because the pill flows right through the bloodstream, urination becomes a frequent thing for new pill users.

I'm not opposed to including this information as a single paragraph if a citation can be found for it; preferably a WP:MEDRS. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 07:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This should be described in PMID 21961825. I'm very skeptical that all of these apply to "any sort of birth control" -- probably just hormonal? I'll look at the full text when I can get it. Cupco 09:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done Cupco 23:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Herbal method

Sterilisation can be done by smoking the body with erythrophleum chlorostachyum, or by consuming plant substance of cymbidium madidum, petalostigma pubescens, Eucalyptus gamophylla. (Ref.: "Bush food: Aboriginal food and herbal medicine" by Jennifer Isaacs)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.243.190.151 (talk) 12:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

We would need a WP:MEDRS for that, with some indication of safety and side effects, to even consider including. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 06:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Unless someone with a medical professional background thinks this is worth it, I'm inclined to not even try this. The last thing we want is do-it-yourself sterilization drug catastrophes. Cupco 09:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Cupco 11:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Whew!

I added 10,000 bytes (+13%), 28 new sources (most of which are very recent PubMed reviews or the Lancet special issue articles), five sections, and did all the requests I could find on this talk page except for the top two sections above on "Requests" and "Side effects" which I'll try to get to later. I got rid of a handful of unsourced questionable sentences. I went ahead and archived every talk page section which hadn't been replied in the past two months or had a request which had been completed, and turned on automatic talk archiving and indexing. And I nominated it for Good Article. Is there anything I missed? Cupco 09:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I did the "Side effects" section to resolve the years-old "Requests" with some recent reviews. I have now archived those talk page sections, too. Cupco 23:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

...more like 35 KB, 80 references, and 10 sections now. --Cupco 18:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Reviews on the topic in the Lancet this month

[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 13:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I propose the following additions:

• "contraceptive use can avert more than half of maternal deaths"[2] -- what is the ² reference there? I can't see it without a subscription. Is it [3]?
• 222 million women in the developing world who want to avoid pregnancy are not using a modern contraception method[4] (reference ¹ there?)
• "women's earnings, assets, and body-mass indexes, and children's schooling and body-mass indexes, substantially improved in areas with improved access to family planning services compared with outcomes in control areas.... reductions in fertility enhance economic growth as a result of reduced youth dependency and an increased number of women participating in paid labour"[5]
• paraphrasing of every sentence of the abstract of [6].
• [7] in a new "Further reading" section.

Also, I would like to see the full abstract for [8] please. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 05:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Also hope to work in some of the abstracts from PMID 22764557 and PMID 22764559. 70.59.11.32 (talk) 00:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I added in almost all of those, but there were a few I didn't understand the point of. Cupco 08:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Interwiki language analysis

Current other language Wikipedia interwikis: ar, bn, be, bo, bs, ca, cs, da, de, el, es, eo, eu, fa, fr, fy, ko, hi, hr, id, is, it, he, jv, sw, lt, hu, mr, ms, my, nl, ja, no, nm, nrm, pl, pt, ro, ru, scn, si, simple, sk, sl, sr, sh, fi, sv, tl, ta, th, tr, uk, vi, yi, zh

Compare to http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/Sitemap.htm

Which are the most important new languages to add? 75.166.200.250 (talk) 22:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I get te, Telugu language. The closest they have is te:కుటుంబ నియంత్రణ. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 22:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, isn't there a bot which is supposed to keep interwikis alphabetized? 75.166.200.250 (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure. Once we get this article improved we will than post it for translation into all the languages for which we can develop a translation team.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 23:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! 75.166.200.250 (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent textbook

Have a copy of this and will be using as a ref soon.

• Darney, Leon Speroff, Philip D. (2010). A clinical guide for contraception (5th ed. ed.). Philadelphia, Pa.: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. ISBN 978-1-60831-610-6. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The Speroff contraception medical reference textbook (duplicated in a section of his gynecologic endocrinology textbook):

• Speroff, Leon; Darney, Philip D. (November 22, 2010). A Clinical Guide for Contraception, 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 450 pages, ISBN 9781608316106.
• Fritz, Marc A.; Speroff, Leon (December 20, 2010). "Section III: Contraception", pp. 909–1134 in Clinical Gynecologic Endocrinology and Infertility, 8th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, ISBN 9780781779685.

is a good source, particularly its history section–Speroff also wrote a recent biography of Gregory Goodwin Pincus.

A more detailed and more frequently updated multi-author contraception medical reference textbook is:

• Hatcher, Robert A.; Trussell, James; Nelson, Anita L.; Cates, Willard Jr.; Kowal, Deborah; Policar, Michael S. (eds.) (November 1, 2011). Contraceptive Technology, 20th revised ed. New York: Ardent Media, 906 pages, ISBN 9781597080040, ISSN 0091-9721, OCLC 781956734.

Prior editions of these two contraception medical reference textbooks were implicitly endorsed by the FDA:

• FDA Briefing Document for the Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs General Meeting on Contraceptives on January 23–24, 2007, p. 19:

  Other References
  If the advisory committee member is interested in additional text reading the following sources may provide additional information:
  • Hatcher RA et al. editors. Contraceptive technology – 18th Ed. New York: Ardent Media Inc; 2004
  • Speroff L, Darney PD. A Clinical Guide for Contraception – 4th Ed. Philadelphia. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2005

  • 10 of the 20 references included in the FDA Briefing Document were articles from the journal Contraception.

Other good recent sources are the family planning chapters of the latest editions of two leading gynecology medical reference textbooks:

• Stubblefield, Phillip G.; Roncari, Danielle M. (December 12, 2011). "Family Planning", pp. 211–269, in Berek, Jonathan S. (ed.) Berek & Novak's Gynecology, 15th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, ISBN 9781451114331.
• Jensen, Jeffrey T.; Mishell, Daniel R. Jr. (March 19, 2012). "Family Planning: Contraception, Sterilization, and Pregnancy Termination", pp. 215–272, in Lentz, Gretchen M.; Lobo, Rogerio A.; Gershenson, David M.; Katz, Vern L. (eds.) Comprehensive Gynecology, 6th ed. Philadelphia: Mosby Elsevier, ISBN 9780323069861.
  • Mishell was an editor of the first 4 editions of this book, and has been editor-in-chief of the journal Contraception for all of its 42 years.

BC07 (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I added all those to the "Further reading" section, along with one of the references above suggested for it, after adding some of the more amazing statistics from the recent Lancet special issue mentioned along with it. Cupco 23:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

...also included courtesy links to searchable versions at Google (3) and Amazon (1). In two cases only the previous editions were available as such, so I put a headnote on the section warning so. Cupco 04:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Copper IUD source

It contains no hormones, so it can be used while breastfeeding, and fertility returns quickly after removal.(ref name=Belhadj1986>Belhadj, H; et al. (1986), "Recovery of fertility after use of the Levonorgestrel 20 mcg/d or copper T 380 Ag intrauterine device", Contraception, 34 (3): 261–267, doi:10.1016/0010-7824(86)90007-7 {{citation}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)</ref>

Not sure why we are using this 1986 primary source. The who section on hormonal methods of birth control is still without references as are the sections on behavioral and lactational methods. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll find something newer for that and fill in those missing refs from PubMed. Cupco 20:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

PMID 8736722 ('96) and PMID 9222467 ('97) both say levonorgestrel-releasing IUDs are an acceptable alternative to copper-only for breastfeeding. I can't find anything more recent, but those are both reviews. Cupco 23:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done except for the question about the lactational method below. Cupco 02:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Lactational method review

What should we say (if anything) about PMID 14583931 on the lactational method? I'm having trouble interpreting its conclusions. ("No clear difference in life table pregnancy rates was found between women using LAM and supported in doing so, and fully breastfeeding, amenorroic women not using any method. Because the length of lactation amenorrhoea of women using LAM is too different between populations studied, and population specific, it is uncertain whether LAM extends lactational amenorrhoea.") For example, does this say that ordinary breastfeeding is as good as LAM for preventing pregnancy? Cupco 16:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

MEDMOS organization

WP:MEDMOS#Drugs, medications and devices and Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Style guide#Sections are designed for articles which discuss no more than a handful of very closely related devices or drugs each, but we have well over a dozen devices, drugs, and methods in this article, each with its own set of side effects. I think the "Effectiveness" section works well with a table of percentages, but a single "Adverse effects" section just seems unworkable. Furthermore, the hormonal contraceptives have several beneficial effects which we correctly detail because (1) several of them are approved and prescribed for their beneficial effects apart from contraception, e.g. for everything from reliving menstrual symptoms to eliminating acne, and (2) when women learn about the cardiovascular risk, they very much need to know about the reduced cancer risk which outweighs it.

So, what do people think of this edit?

(Removing the {{TOC level|3}} directive is necessary to make the emergency contraception section visible in the TOC, and it really doesn't lengthen the TOC much since many of the history portions were moved from "Society and culture" where they were incorrectly located.)

One of the things I noticed from [9] is that even very similar synthetic hormones can have fairly different side effects (in the article as "Newer progestins, such as drospirenone and desogestrel, minimize the androgenic side effects of their predecessors.") So maybe we should have a one-size-fits-all "Adverse effects" section saying that each drug and device has a different set of effects with different probabilities and you should really ask your doctor, pharmacist, or family planning professional or read the drug insert sheet to understand how a particular method will affect the reader? Given that allergies to spermicides and latex exist, that would be true for women and men. Cupco 19:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I have moved emergency contraception to its own section as it deals with both mechanical and hormonal methods. And returned the TOC limit as it shortens things a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Good catch! I'm sorry I missed that non-hormonal emergency aspect. I will re-order the gallery to match your section order. Cupco 20:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure if economic really fits in the section on effectiveness. Would typically put this in the section on society and culture.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

For many if not most people, the economic reason for birth control is the most important reason for seeking access to it. For a heartbreaking illustration of this, see Tim Black#Early work and education. Cupco 21:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

My theoretical understanding is that efficacy would be measured in terms of "perfect use" (ie under near-experimental conditions), whereas effectiveness would vary by "typical use" in different populations/settings [10]. Affordability is a premise for effectiveness. At the same time, societal/cultural and economic considerations are important determinants of behaviour, which in turn influences effectiveness. In brief, I feel the Effectiveness section needs to consider setting (per Cupco), and effectiveness considerations can be referred to in the Society and culture sections (per James). How's that for diplomacy? —MistyMorn (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Prevalence

We have a section on the prevalence of birth control in the USA. What about the rest of the world? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

We have a map, but there is a ton of great stuff on this in that Lancet issue you found. Sub-sections on the developed and developing world should keep the TOC from exploding at level 3. I'll give it a try. Cupco 21:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Great and I will join in when I have time :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Well there is a whole lot we can copy from Family planning#Policy. Cupco 04:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I added Africa, China, India, Pakistan, and UK but I'm reluctant to add too many more because the article is up to 110 KB now, which is pushing it, and I don't really want to break it up into summary sections -- although I would recommend starting with the "History" section if someone else wants to. I'm going to work on some other topics if I can't put some of this new-found knowledge I've learned into practice. --Cupco 20:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes I typically only have a global overview in the main article and than move country specific data to a new subarticle as per HIV/AIDS. I guess the real question is should family planning be merged into birth control as they are one in the same.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The family planning article takes more of the educational and support services perspective, and this article is more about the methods. It's worth thinking about, but I don't want to be the one to do it. --Cupco 00:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

They seem different enough in the dictionary (which agrees with the Family planning article intro) that I think we can justify separate articles. Merging the two would create and article so big that many if not most of the top-level sections would have to be spun off into WP:SUMMARY section articles, which would really hurt the utility of translating this one into other languages. —Cupco 01:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Effectiveness per instance of sex

Are the per-year effectiveness rates directly proportional to the effectiveness rate per instance of sexual intercourse? If the chance that a fertile couple having unprotected sex will result in a pregnancy is 2.75% (1 in 36; I've also seen 2.5% more often in less reliable sources) what is the formula for converting per-year to per-instance? Apparently the median is that couples have sex 110 times per year. —Cupco 23:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't have full texts of the original studies, but I think any attempt by us to extrapolate numbers in this way could be OR. More generally, I'm concerned that the efficacy figures seem to be mainly based on old primary research (as synthesized here). Rigorous systematic reviews question the validity of some of these findings [11]. I feel we should be looking more at the Cochrane reviews [12] and other recent secondary sources such as these [13] [14] [15], alongside WHO guidelines [16] (and perhaps some of the other guidelines listed here). However, I haven't touched any page content before discussing. Thoughts? —MistyMorn (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

We have the refs in question [17]. The per episode risks depends on many factors. And thus one cannot simply divide by the total number.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

But do we consider figures generated by single studies wholly reliable based on their citation in a textbook? Hmmm... Personally, I'd feel more comfortable to see the figures cited, yes, but with due circumspection (eg, based on the critical appraisals of systematic review). Simply saying something like "the risk is..." is too simplistic, imo. Adding: I feel it might be a good idea also to cite the WHO Medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use. —MistyMorn (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The fubar situation in fertility awareness-based statistics is covered in the second paragraph of Birth control#Fertility awareness, but I think what you may be saying is, should that appear as a note in the "Effectiveness" table section, too? Probably. That WHO Eligibility Criteria source is great, except that it's far too large to summarize, given that it basically has to enumerate all diseases over all contraceptives. We should probably cite it up front in "Methods." —Cupco 23:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Those things are done. —Cupco 00:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi - I'm still struggling to work out how best to discuss the details of complex questions via talk pages without unintended consequences (like an exponential growth in trivial misunderstandings). I suggest I try to communicate progressively via small edits and edit summaries in a WP:BRD spirit.

On the separate point regarding eligibility criteria: Do we have anything about this anywhere on Wikipedia? If not, how about starting with a short section here dedicated to the issue, which would cite the WHO guidelines? —MistyMorn (talk) 06:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I added a couple sentences. —Cupco 07:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks (sorry, missed that). —MistyMorn (talk) 08:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Primary sources

This does not appear to be a review article [18]. Wondering if we should remove it. Also the template "cite pmid" is not supported in a number of languages. Thus can we fill out the references that are using this template to make translation easier? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

That was in there from before I started editing. As I mentioned, I've only been adding reviews, but I haven't been trying to evaluate existing sources or remove questionable sources. Sure it can go, as you found another review on the same subject. I will see if I can subst those cite pmid templates without damaging anything. —Cupco 20:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Great thanks. Yes do realize that these primary sources were added by other users rather than yourself. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Would it perhaps be sensible, at some point, to focus on updating the sourcing throughout the article? My impression is that insertion of best recent secondary sources wouldn't require a whole lot of major content changes. —MistyMorn (talk) 09:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree and this is typically required to pass GA. I will give a hand in a few weeks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll make a standing offer to try to find WP:MEDRS reviews with free full text to replace any questionable source that anyone else points out. There is so much written on the topic in PubMed, and so much of it has free full text, that finding sources has been very easy. Just pick some that you want me to try to replace, please. —Cupco 03:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Ahmed et al Lancet 2012 is a bit of a tricky one I think. I'm not sure if the accompanying editorial comment [19] might be eligible? —MistyMorn (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

PMID 7618196 seems to be a corroborating review, but it's old. I'll see if I can get a copy. —Cupco 19:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

[20] is a review from 2000 with free full text. —Cupco 19:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

If you're happy to change the wording, then Cleland et al Lancet 2012 (who actually cite Ahmed et al) state: Increasing contraceptive use in developing countries has cut the number of maternal deaths by 40% over the past 20 years, merely by reducing the number of unintended pregnancies. By preventing high-risk pregnancies, especially in women of high parities, and those that would have ended in unsafe abortion, increased contraceptive use has reduced the maternal mortality ratio—the risk of maternal death per 100 000 livebirths—by about 26% in little more than a decade. A further 30% of maternal deaths could be avoided by fulfilment of unmet need for contraception. You may also be interested in Bhutta et al, Lancet 2010, as well as the most recent report by the WHO et al on Trends in Maternal Mortality. —MistyMorn (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting all of that text for the first paragraph? Do those reviews corroborate the primary source well enough to just add the reviews? If not, can we just adjust the numbers to match the reviews? I would prefer to keep percentages of maternal deaths averted, absolute number of lives saved, and how many more would be saved by meeting demand. We can put the entire tally and details for the breakdown further down in the "Health" section. —Cupco 08:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I was just highlighting relevant information (rather than making any specific suggestion for an edit). In reply to your specific queries, no I didn't see the particular figures you cited in Cleland et al, though I can look again when I get a moment. All these articles are open access. I don't know whether Doc James has any editorial suggestions. I'm happy to help out in a practical way—I just popped in to lend a hand. —MistyMorn (talk) 09:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

They seem to be in agreement to me, but Cleland et al. (2012) "Contraception and health" The Lancet reports on changes, not absolute numbers, in the abstract. Although it has absolute numbers in the body, they are mostly broken out by geographical region. However, it states "in the absence of contraception, the number of maternal deaths in 2008 (about 355,000) would have been 74% higher, at 619,114." The difference is about 264,000 which is within 3% of the 272,000 we have now. —Cupco 10:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and I agree the estimate of the absolute numbers is relevant (I'm tempted to say eloquent). I just don't know, on editorial grounds, the best way of handling the issue and don't feel I can advise. —MistyMorn (talk) 11:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Well it turns out that at least according to PubMed, Cleland et al isn't a review, either, but I added it to the sentence and changed the figure to "about 270,000." Bhutta et al. (2012) and the WHO maternal mortality trends report are both reviews. They are also in rough agreement. I'll look through them and see what they have for those numbers and put them in where the non-reviews are in the next day or two. —Cupco 13:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed Cleland et al 2012 hadn't been indexed as a review (Bhutta et al is [21]). MEDLINE's indexing system by individual librarians [22] isn't entirely consistent. My guess is this publication may have fallen between two stools—missing classification as a 'review' as a result of its IMRaD structure [23], while not qualifying as a 'systematic review' either. Personally, I would consider the work to be a review article because a) it was based on a rather comprehensive literature search strategy; b) it updates existing systematic reviews; c) it provides an overview of the literature on a particular question. If need be, one can contact NLM [24] to request an edit/correction (I did this once successfully). However, for our purposes I feel it's perfectly reasonable to consider a publication such as this as a 'review'. Fwiw, I also feel your edits are fine! —MistyMorn (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very kind. I've enjoyed this article. I hope someone will GA review it soon. I'll add those other two reviews to "Further reading." —Cupco 22:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Recursive subst:Cite pmid templates

Testing subst on {cite pmid}: {{#if:22423463|{{#ifexist:Template:Cite pmid/{{#expr:22423463}}|{{cite pmid/{{#expr:22423463}}}}{{#ifeq:noedit|noedit||<span class="plainlinks noprint" style="font-size:smaller"> [http://en.wikipedia.org{{localurl:Template:cite_pmid/{{#expr:22423463}}|action=edit&editintro=Template:Cite_pmid/editintro2}} edit]</span>}}|PMID 22423463 ({{PMID|22423463}})<br><span class="plainlinks nourlexpansion">Citation will be completed automatically in a few minutes. <small> [http://toolserver.org/~verisimilus/Bot/DOI_bot/doibot.php?pmid={{#expr:22423463}} Jump the queue] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?preload=Template:Cite_pmid/preload&editintro=Template:Cite_pmid/editintro&action=edit&title=Template:cite_pmid/{{#expr:22423463}} expand by hand]</small></span>[[Category:Pages with incomplete PMID references|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}|<span class="error">Error: No PMID specified!</span>}}

That is clearly a complete failure. I'll ask around. —Cupco 21:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Asked on WP:VPT#Need to recursive subst: Cite pmid templates all the way to simple wikitext. —Cupco 21:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I typically do this manually using this tool http://diberri.crabdance.com/cgi-bin/templatefiller/index.cgi? Not sure if their is an automated mechanism.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a great tool to know about, and I wished I had used it. I added courtesy links to URLs when free versions were available, and they're all in the templates {Cite pmid} makes. I think I've figured out how to automate this, but let me ask you: Is it better to end up with {Cite journal|...} templates or the raw wikitext without any templates? They are about the same length and difficulty. The raw wikitext takes slightly less time to format after pressing "Save page". The big question is, do all the language wikipedias that you want to translate into have working {Cite journal} templates with English field names? I'm guessing that's unlikely enough that there's no reason to avoid the raw wikitext, but I'm not going to go through and do this until someone who knows answers. —Cupco 18:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Unless someone tells me something differently in the next day or so, I am going to conclude that raw wikitext citations are preferable in this case to {{Cite journal}} and expand accordingly. I think I have a halfway decent semi-automated process which shouldn't take all day. —Cupco 03:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, it looks like many people insist that GAs use the {Cite} templates, so should we convert them to {Cite journal}? Should we try for GA first with {Cite pmid}s and then expand the templates for translation later on? —Cupco 04:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

from WP:VPT:

• Edit the bar "|" to slash before using subst: Each PMID entry is a subtemplate of {Cite_pmid}, so change every "pmid|" to be "pmid/" and then the wp:Subst'ing will work:

• {{subst:Cite pmid/22341164|noedit}} gives:  Chin, H. B.; Sipe, T. A.; Elder, R.; Mercer, S. L.; Chattopadhyay, S. K.; Jacob, V.; Wethington, H. R.; Kirby, D.; Elliston, D. B. (2012). "The Effectiveness of Group-Based Comprehensive Risk-Reduction and Abstinence Education Interventions to Prevent or Reduce the Risk of Adolescent Pregnancy, Human Immunodeficiency Virus, and Sexually Transmitted Infections". American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 42 (3): 272–294. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2011.11.006. PMID 22341164.

The above cite is literally the actual result of "{subst:Cite pmid/22341164|...}" which generates a call to {Cite journal|...}. The {Cite_pmid} does seem to be overkill, where many entries are used only once, and there are over 6,000 which must be viewed separately. Thanks for noting that it also hinders interwiki copy/translation, like any non-global template which must be subst'ed before interwiki transfer. I guess I need to write a fully subst'ing template for {Cite_pmid}. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Since this turns out to be remarkably easy after all, and many GA reviewers insist on {Cite} templates, we can definitely wait prior to translation. —Cupco 02:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Do I understand from this that it is generally preferable to use CiteJournal, CiteBook etc (rather than CitePMID) for Medicine GA candidates (example)? —MistyMorn (talk) 13:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems that the Cite_pmid templates are not available in (many?) other language wikipedias, but the Cite_journal etc. templates are, so it depends on whether you plan on translating it. The GA criteria don't really say it, but it looks like many GA reviewers insist on any kind of cite template. I do not know why. —Cupco 13:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• (MistyMorn has contacted me (conversation diff) about this as recent edits on Bipolar disorder are relevant).

  It is not "overkill" to use {cite pmid} etc, particularly on a large article with a high density of citation definitions, for reasons including:

  • very difficult to find the next fragment of article content between the full citation definitions once there are several embedded in each paragraph.
  • seemingly random choices of style for journal authors within a single article, as various editors use inconsistent tools or their own preference: "Jones AB", "Jones A.B.", "Jones A. B.", "Jones A. B", "|last=,|last2=", "|last1=,|last2=", "|last=,|coauthors=", "|author1=,|author2=", "|author=Jones A. B.; Smith C. D.", definitely contrary to WP:MOS, terribly time-consuming to fix manually and of course all needing to be dealt with before any translation starts anyway (that like lots of other things is of course a personal opinion, but based on the general principle of GIGO applied to any systematic activity: tidy up before you start transforming multiple times).

  I don't see it as either practicable or desirable to avoid using templates just because they are not implemented on all wikis.

  As far as I know, the GA criteria do not mandate that a particular citation style be used or avoided.

  I would generally oppose any suggested wholesale removal of {cite pmid} etc on an article, and not agree with compatibility with other wikis as a reason for not using them, but of course converting to another format in a sandbox or whatever for translation would be entirely acceptable. Porting the necessary templates to the target wiki would be a more scalable way of supporting extensive translation activities.

  --Mirokado (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Natural and induced implantation failure

Given the magnitude of the contragestion issue over the last couple months, it's not surprising that induced implantation failure is being described as killing. I see two possible ways to add balance to this. We could link to and/or summarize Beginning of pregnancy controversy#Viability and established pregnancy (and its subsequent "Ethics of preventing implantation" section) noting, for example, that lactation also induces failure of the blastocyst to implant. Or, we could address the controversy by pointing out that there are no reliable sources supporting the contention that human life begins at conception (e.g., "There is never a 'dead' phase — life is continuous. Sperm are alive, eggs are alive; you could even make the argument that since two cells (gametes) enter, but only one cell (a zygote) leaves, fertilization ends a life...."[25])

Also, should the controversy have its own section? The repetition of claims is redundant in what has become a rather large article. The string "thereby killing the egg after conception" now occurs three times, down from four. I'm not opposed to saying outright that many people consider induced implantation failure equivalent to abortion, but I think that probably belongs in the "Cultural attitudes" or "Religious views" section, and we should probably state that lactation causes the same thing. Many adult women's lives are lost because of the visceral opposition to the very natural loss of blastocysts which the religious can not deny is induced by perfectly natural, unassisted breastfeeding.

Also, are there MEDRS sources for the natural implantation and miscarriage rates in [26]? —Cupco 03:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The figure regarding the proportion of miscarriages following natural implantation (Wilcox et al 1998 ) is cited in at least one review article (Barry and Anthony (2008)). Another review (Tingen et al (2004)) that cites the original study notes that Many conceptions result in spontaneous pregnancy loss, which may not be recognized as a spontaneous abortion. —MistyMorn (talk) 09:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the copy related to the "killing of the egg" that is not mentioned in any of the references but by an editor that apparently wants to put POV abortion opinions into the article. Gandydancer (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the content in question until a balanced version can be created. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I do think that the issue should be discussed in its own section. There is information here: [27] that could be used. Gandydancer (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The arguments being put forward here are based on metaphysical speculations regarding ensoulment at the moment of conception. As such, they are religious rather than scientific (eg [28]). However, that doesn't mean that such belief systems are not relevant to the practice of modern scientific medicine. Indeed, state-of-the-art contemporary medicine consistently strives to respect patients' preferences (eg [29]).

Regarding Birth control, I feel the present editorial approach is good: to note pertinent religious positions in the appropriate section, leaving the detail for pages such as Religious views on birth control.

2c,—MistyMorn (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hormonal section

Please have a look at the wording under the Hormonal section. My problem is with the wikilink to PMS, however symptoms of PMS do not include dysmenorrhea or heavy menstrual bleeding, and in fact there is no good reason to single out only headache either. Then the next set of symptoms is wikilinked to premenstrual dysphoric disorder. It is easy to see why this was added in this fashion when one looks at the source (which is misleading as well) which I have also printed below. Our article:

Many women of childbearing age experience adverse physical and emotional symptoms prior to menstruation, including heavy menstrual bleeding, headache, dysmenorrhea and sometimes behavioral, emotional, and physical symptoms associated with premenstrual dysphoric disorder; combination hormonal contraceptives often ameliorate or effectively treat these problems. Lower doses of estrogen required by vaginal administration (i.e., the vaginal ring) may reduce the effects associated with higher oral doses such as breast tenderness, nausea, and headache.(ref name="pmid21961825">Shulman, L. P. (2011). "The state of hormonal contraception today: Benefits and risks of hormonal contraceptives: Combined estrogen and progestin contraceptives" (PDF). American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 205 (4): S9–13. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2011.06.057. PMID 21961825.</ref>

The source:

Many women of childbearing age experience some degree of physical and emotional symptoms related to their impending menses. Some of these menstrual-related health issues include heavy menstrual bleeding, headache, dysmenorrhea and behavioral, emotional, and physical symptoms associated with premenstrual dysphoric disorder. Combination hormonal contraceptives have been shown to ameliorate or effectively treat these problems. Recently, in women choosing to use oral contraceptives for pregnancy prevention, the 20 mcg EE/3 mg drospirenone 24/4 regimen was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of the symptoms of premenstrual dysphoric disorder4 and the multiphasic E2V/DNG regimen was approved in Europe for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding in women.5

Any thoughts? Am I being too persnickity? Gandydancer (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at, but I did that summarization so I'm happy to try to improve it. Does removing "adverse physical and" out of the wikilink anchor hotlink address the problem? —Cupco 17:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Since heavy menstrual bleeding and dysmenorrhea are not related to PMS or PMDD, I'd suggest something like:

Between 2% and 10% of women of childbearing age experience emotional and physical symptoms associated with premenstrual syndrome (PMS) and premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD). Combination hormonal contraceptives often ameliorate or effectively treat these problems and can effectively treat heavy menstrual bleeding and dysmenorrhea (painful menstruation) as well.

I don't understand what this means:

Lower doses of estrogen required by vaginal administration (i.e., the vaginal ring) may reduce the effects associated with higher oral doses such as breast tenderness, nausea, and headache.[27] Gandydancer (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I made the change as you suggested. The sentence you are asking about is from the same PMID 21961825[30] source; it means that the side effects from vaginal rings and hormonal IUDs are less because the absorbed dosage is less than from the pill. —Cupco 21:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Birth control/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 07:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Generally easy to read, a few infelicities.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	lead section: good; layout: good; words to watch: ok; fiction: n/a; list incorporation: ('Research') ok	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	References properly arranged. Date format not perfectly consistent (would need fixing for FA status).	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Several Citations needed. Now supplied.	Pass
(c) (original research)	Generally fine but see (b) (citations).	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Wide range of topics covered.	Pass
(b) (focused)	Each section is concise and relevant.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
Generally maintains good NPOV; good balance between sections.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
Quite intensive editing this year, with some POV additions not amounting to disputes.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Good coverage with images. All images from Commons except Implanon implant which had doubtful claim to PD: image removed	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	All images are relevant, suitably captioned.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	Actions completed

Discussion

Please add any related discussion here.

Mass changes of "contraception" to "birth control"

I note that a set of edits similar to these new ones by the same editor were reverted by BC07 who explained with detailed sources that they were inaccurate. Now we are in GA review and the changes from "contraception" to "birth control" caused some redlinks (many of which I have dealt with by redirects, and some of which the GA reviewer removed.)

Does anyone have any objections to reverting these duplicated edits for the reason that BC07 originally reverted them? —Cupco 21:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

!Support revert, per above. —MistyMorn (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Y Done. Please note that there were five separate redundancies describing induced implantation failure as killing an egg. As we discussed above, we should include this significant point of view, but without the biased and needlessly redundant description as "killing" when the action is identical to that of lactation, unless we attribute the view to the religious, non-scientific sources which support that it is "killing" in the "Religious views" section. Also, replacing "hormonal contraception" with "hormonal birth control pills" is misleading because the paragraphs in question referred to all hormonal birth control, not just pills. —Cupco 21:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Expansion on Birth Control: Africa

Greetings everyone. I plan to make a few changes on the Birth Control Page. I want to take this opportunity to expand on the Africa subsection under developing countries because it is a bit outdated and underdeveloped. I will add relevant statistics as well as keep a neutral point of view when adding necessary content. I understand Africa is a very large continent so I will take caution in the facts chosen to ensure that it is representative of the continent and not just a specific country. I was also thinking of adding a new diagram that accurately reflects the state of birth control in Africa today. I have read the previous comments about sticking to the original diction used in our sources whether "contraceptives" or "birth control". Do you have any advice? Asiamcclearygaddy (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Abstinence

Hey Ben,

I do not agree with the changes you made to the birth control article. Please undo them. You deleted all of my sources. I cited a Health and Human Services report, which was removed. I also noted that it seemed as though people who want to promote contraception are using the abstinence section to do so. I defined the word using a dictionary and that was removed too. Is there some mandate that you have to support birth control to write on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VerbumDomini (talk • contribs) 13:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to continue, let's look at the language in the article. The sentence states "Though some groups advocate total sexual abstinence..." This language implies that these groups do not reflect mainstream abstinence views. However, it is Planned Parenthood, who is cited, that represents the minority viewpoint that abstinence is really just about vaginal sex. Rather than splitting sentences such as "Abstinence is 100% effective, however..." I think it would be more fair to allow both sides to be expressed. One that promotes abstinence as sex only within marriage, the benefits of this behavior, the risks of not engaging in this behavior and the joys associated with responsible childbearing. Whatever the other side wants to write seems inappropriately placed in the abstinence section. Should I be writing about abstinence in the contraception section. I could for example, after each sentence split them by writing however etc. Thank you for responding.— Preceding unsigned comment added by VerbumDomini (talk • contribs) 14:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC+1)

Hello, when I wrote discuss this on the talk page the articles talk page was meant. The article has more than one author and the talk page has its history. I will copy this over. --Ben Ben (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Removal of text

We have a user who has removed "even though the majority of Catholics accept and use modern methods of birth control." a few times now [31] It is supported by a couple of high quality refs. Thoughs? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing is of no import when the content doesn't belong at all. Sourcing is the threshold for inclusion, not a guarantee. Belchfire-TALK 03:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Both the views of the leaders of the religion, as well as the actual practice of the majority of those who practice it, seem relevant here. Yobol (talk) 03:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Coming back to sourcing (since that's about all you guys have to lean on), this material fails verification. Did either of you even check the sources? The first source is only about North America[32], and the second one doesn't say "most"; it says "many"[33]. Thus, the exact wording must go, regardless of whether the POV aside ultimately stays. Belchfire-TALK 03:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire has a point I think. The stats for US Catholics are well-established. As implied, if not directly stated, in the second source this is likely to be true for most Catholics in Western/developed states (or at least all states that have undergone fertility transition which is basically all western states) and I'd imagine getting information on that shouldn't be so difficult. It's less clear to me what the situation is in South America or in countries like the Philippines. Regardless, I think where there's a significant divergence on a global or regional basis between official doctrine and the practice of adherents this should be included. I think more research of sources is warranted, however.FiachraByrne (talk) 04:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

There's an entire separate article to cover all of the regional ins and out (Religious views on birth control), if somebody thinks that's necessary. The section in this article is called "Religious views", not "Do Catholics listen to the Pope?" We can find people who don't rigidly follow doctrine in every church one might care to examine, yet for some reason the Catholic Church is the only one receiving that sort of attention in this article. It's undue weight; it fails NPOV; and it's pretty clearly stemming from a political bias against the Catholics. Belchfire-TALK 04:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure we can change it to many. This ref says up to 95% of married American Cathoilics use artificial birth control [34]. Looking for a more global ref. We have the official position of the church and than the actuality of the people. As there is good data for both we should provide this info for balance. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

American Catholics are less than 24% of the worldwide total[35]. We can't draw any meaningful conclusions based on American Catholics. Belchfire-TALK 04:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

As state the first reference supports that "many" Catholics globally use birth control. With some of the evidence being the birth rate in Italy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that the views of Catholics in many European countries have also been in support birth control for something like the last 50 years.[36]. I support the change in wording from "majority" to "many" as suggested by DocJames - both sources support that statement. As regards the topic of the article, it should also encompass the religious views of adherents and not simply those of the hierarchy - particularly where these diverge. FiachraByrne (talk) 04:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

And one cannot simply claim that they are not having sex. Here is a study that found 80-85 % are sexually active and of those 70-80% are using contraceptives. [37] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Dutch Catholics [38] FiachraByrne (talk) 04:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

What does "many" mean? 49%? 25%? 5%? It's a weasel word; it doesn't really mean anything. Without offering some quantification, we may as well say "some", which we all know is a non-starter. Belchfire-TALK 04:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The source in question uses it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Means nothing. Sources aren't bound to comply with Wikipedia policies. We are. See WP:WEASEL Belchfire-TALK 05:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay found it :-) "The majority of Roman Catholics ignoring the ban on modern contraception" and it also stupulates that "the church in common Catholic use, refers to those billion people who have been baptized" [39]. Will update ref if people are cool with this. Evidence supports that rates of modern birth control use is similar among catholics and non catholics in many areas of the world. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

In one place it says "many"; in another place it says "majority", without quoting any figures or offering any support for the assertion at all, other than inferring causation due to similar birth rates. You'll have to do better than that. And you still need to justify singling out Catholics for special mention, which you haven't even attempted. Belchfire-TALK 05:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

While the text was here before and not added by me. I am simply supporting it with a reference. There is no consensus for its removal which would thus need to be developed before it is removed. I realize that when it comes to anything to do with religion references will not convince everyone. We have a reliable source that says most in the USA, most globally, and many. All of these are compatible and no reliable sources have been put forwards to refute them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

For the third time... it's not a question of sourcing (although the sourcing for this is razor thin, at best); it's a question of relevance. The section is about "Religious views" on birth control, but you want to include information about the practices of people who are not following the teaching of their religion. It's nonsensical. It's like trying to say that speeding isn't really illegal because most people do it. Likewise, if Catholics are using B.C. against the direction of the Church, that is not the "religious views" of the Catholic Church, any more than most people driving 20mph over the speed limit negates the signs on the side of the road. If there's an appropriate place for this information on Wikipedia, it's in one of the (many) articles about Catholicism. But not in a section that purports to be about the religious views of the Catholic Church.

And by the way, at the moment there isn't a consensus one way or the other. Belchfire-TALK 06:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

And relevance is subjective. A number of use consider it relevant. The religious views of the majority of Roman Catholics are that BC is fine in contrast to a minority (which happens to include the pope) that they are not. Relevant? You bet it is. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure it's relevant to... something. Just not all that relevant to "Religious views" of the Catholic Church (which are promulgated by the church hierarchy).

And again... a passing mention in a single, POV-ish book is hardly a solid source to inform us on the views of over 1/2 billion people. There's no evidence that it's anything more than the subjective opinion of the author. You only have the one source - if I find a single source that says something different, your case falls apart. Belchfire-TALK 06:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to find other high quality sources. This is how Wikipedia works, everyone brings sources to the discussion. 06:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll worry about high quality sources when you come up with one. The problem is that there is no data for most Catholics. About 1/3 of the worldwide total live in South America. About 10% live in Southeast Asia. Another 10% or so live in Africa. None of those places are covered by your source. You're trying to take the high percentage of Catholic B.C. users in developed countries, representing only a fraction of the total, and you're using that to make pronouncements about usage in places like Brazil and the Philippines. It's original research. Belchfire-TALK 06:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually some of them are. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• I feel that if this article merits inclusion of the Catholic stance on birth control then it also merits inclusion of actual Catholic practices. If there is data that says a significant percentage of Catholics in some places act in opposition to the actual religious stance and there is no data which says anything else as Belchfire suggests, then I feel that including mention of the contrary practice is as fundamental as including mention of the doctrinal religious rule. The fact that the data set is incomplete does not make the existing data less worthy of inclusion. I would support the addition of a statement which said, "No data exists for practices in other regions." if anyone felt that this made the section more balanced. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Already done, but without the unsupported assertion ("most") that we had before. I'm not crazy about it, but it's an improvement over the previous version and hopefully we can all live with it. Belchfire-TALK 23:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The most conclusion is supported here [40]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree that this source, Rengel's Encyclopedia of Birth Control, supports "most". The source is of good quality, it's an encyclopedia so a secondary or tertiary source. The author is a professional writer and researcher, and it is published by Greenwood Publishing Group, a specialist academic publisher. Direct quote from source is:

With the majority of Roman Catholics ignoring the ban on modern contraception, the pope and his administration occasionally called on priests to be lenient with their parishioners who confessed to using contraceptives. The Vatican advised parish priests to not ask people if they did use modern birth control.

I understand Belchfire's concern that a section on religious views might not be the best place for content regarding actual practice. However, the source directly connects the official Catholic stated policy with actual practice, and includes the fact that the Catholic administration has actually made official modifications to the way the policy is enforced to accommodate real-world practice, so the source overcomes the' raised concern. What we can do is modify the content a little bit to make this connection, suggested content:

The Roman Catholic Church officially only accepts natural family planning in certain cases, but because most Catholics use modern birth control anyway, the Vatican has at times called for leniency in enforcement of its policy.

Thoughts? Zad68 00:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts:

• There's nothing wrong with the current version, other than it's not precisely what some editors would prefer.
• Saying Engel is a "good quality source" is simply a naked assertion with no basis in anything objective. It would appear that, in Zad's eyes, Engel's Encyclopedia derives most of it's "quality" from the fact that it agrees with his worldview.
• Leaning on the reputation of the publisher (If, in fact, the publisher has a good reputation. Does it?) to establish Engel's reliability is an appeal to authority.
• Engel, for her part, shows no evidence of having done any serious research into the matter, and in fact openly relies on birth rates to extrapolate "information" about birth control usage. Mind you, Engel is allowed to push her own opinion and do original research; we are not.

At the end of the day, what we're left with is a source that is not especially rich in credibility, making only a passing editorial mention of the fact under discussion. That's not enough to strengthen the wording that is already in place. Belchfire-TALK 01:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we often look at the pedigree of a source's author and publisher in evaluating whether it's a WP:RS. Rengel does indeed give notes for the articles. However, if you'd like we can ask at WP:RSN. Zad68 01:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

It's part of it, not all of it. Yet, that's all you have to offer. And in this case, concerning the information under discussion the author tells us openly that she's extrapolating. IOW, it's her opinion.

And I note with interest that as of yet nobody has bothered to make a case for why the current wording needs to be changed. Belchfire-TALK 01:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

We could also have a RfC regarding the wording to get wider input. Others might find more sources. We want the wording to reflect the best available refs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

A good review of male birth control

Mathew, V (2012 Nov). "Male contraception". Indian journal of endocrinology and metabolism. 16 (6): 910–7. PMID 23226635. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Implantation

The main mechanism is NOT by interfering with implantation per the source used.Comprehensive gynecology expert consult, online and print (6th ed. ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Mosby. p. 259. ISBN 9780323091312. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help) Thus reverted this edit [41] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Primary research

This article contains a fair bit of primary research. This will need to be addressed for it to keep its good article status IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

About.com is also not a reliable source [42]. Will nominate for GAR. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

This is also spam it appears. [43] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

New paragraph

A paragraph was recently added... The practice of birth control is frequently related with the concept of abortion, but forced sterilization is another procedure that often came hand-in-hand with contraceptive practices. In the year 1973, in the state of Alabama, eleven girls were sterilized in a funded birth-control clinic where they fooled into legally receiving permission to perform the practice of sterilization.[127] The young women were in search for a birth control procedure; however, their illiterate, African-American mother was under the belief that she was presented with the paper form of authorization for a birth control injection when in fact she held the release form consenting sterilization. In reality, she marked an "X" signifying the consent for her twelve and fourteen year old daughters to be sterilized and never have the ability to bare children again.[127] Also, during this time in the United States, a number of gynecologists vowed that if legalization ever came, they would refuse to terminate any pregnancy unless the woman consented to simultaneous sterilization.[127].. To me this would be more appropriate for some eugenics type page or something to do with medical coersion. I'm not sure if this really belongs here. I haven't had much to do with this page so I thought I would comment about it here and see what others thought. Cap020570 (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree and removed. THe ref is from 1973. We should be using stuff more recent and it is a little out of place. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Birth control/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

There are a number of issues

1. Much content is unreferenced (for example the section on barrier contraception)
2. The one ref there is missing page numbers
3. A number of unreliable sources are used including "daily news" and this site [44]

There is still a fair bit of work to do and would love to see other people jump in and help. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Only other recent contributor has been blocked as a sock puppet :-( Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Found some close paraphrasing. This needs a rewrite. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you elaborate? Kaldari (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

This for example [45]. The table is word for word from the source in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Should remove the portion that states some women regret their tubal ligation. It seems out of place in an article with such a well-written clinical tone to throw in an irrelevant sentence about a phenomenon as common as, "some people do regret making a lifelong irreversible decision", plus giving weight to women's regrets while neglecting to elaborate on men's regrets about their vasectomies is an error unbecoming of a good article. Ongepotchket (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes let me look at it further. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that that information is not clinically relevant. The fact that many people regret sterilization is a factor that patients would need to keep in mind when considering birth control options. I do agree that the information should be presented equally for men and women. The statistic that Doc James added could be elaborated on further, i.e. what is the age breakdown for men who regret vasectomies? OldFishHouse (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Will delist until issues fixed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

History section

I replaced this inaccurate statement:

Étienne-Émile Baulieu, of France, developed mifepristone, the first emergency contraceptive, in 1980.

with this accurate statement:

In 1980, Roussel Uclaf chemist Georges Teutsch synthesized the progesterone receptor antagonist mifepristone (RU-486); in 1982, endocrinologist Étienne-Émile Baulieu reported its successful use for medical abortion.

Mifepristone was not the first emergency contraceptive.
History of emergency contraceptives:

• In the mid-1960s, Morris and van Wagenen in the U.S. and Haspels in the Netherlands began using oral high-dose estrogen (DES and ethinyl estradiol) for emergency contraception, which were approved in the U.S. and Netherlands in the 1970s.
• In 1974, Yuzpe in Canada introduced his regimen of combination oral contraceptives for emergency contraception, which were marketed as Schering PC4 in Britain in 1984, and as Preven in the U.S. in 1998.
• In 1976, Lippes in the U.S. reported the successful use of the copper IUD for emergency contraception.
• In 1979, Gedeon Richter in Hungary introduced Postinor (0.75 mg levonorgestrel) for emergency contraception, which was introduced as NorLevo (outside the U.S.) and Plan B (in the U.S.) in 1999.
• Around 2000, China approved mifepristone 10 mg and 25 mg for emergency contraception.
• In 2009, ulipristal acetate was introduced for emergency contraception in Europe, then in the U.S. in 2010.

History of mifepristone:

• In 1980, Georges Teutsch of Roussel Uclaf in France synthesized mifepristone.
• In 1981, Étienne-Émile Baulieu of France arranged for a clinical trial by Walter Herrmann in Switzerland using mifepristone for medical abortion.
• In 1982, Étienne-Émile Baulieu in France reported the successful use of mifepristone for medical abortion by Walter Herrmann in Switzerland.
• In 1988, mifepristone 200 mg (accompanied by a prostaglandin) was approved in France and China for medical abortion.
• Around 2000, China approved mifepristone 10 mg and 25 mg for emergency contraception.
• In 2012, mifepristone 300 mg was approved in the U.S. as Korlym to treat endogenous Cushing's syndrome.

BC07 (talk) 06:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems a little controversial as we have this ref [46]. Thus changed it to simply state the company that came up with it to which all agree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The outdated, U.S.-centric, historically and scientifically inaccurate "RU 486 (Mifepristone)" article by an unidentified author in the 2001 Encyclopedia of Birth Control is not a good source. I replaced:

In 1980, mifepristone was created by the pharmaceutical company Roussel Uclaf and was subsequently shown to be useful to induce abortion in 1982.

with:

Medical abortion became an alternative to surgical abortion with the availability of prostaglandin analogs in 1970s and the availability of mifepristone in the 1980s.^{Kulier, et al. (November 9, 2011). "Medical methods for first trimester abortion". Cochrane Database Syst Rev.}

A broader question is: Should a sentence about the introduction of an abortion method should be included in the "History" section of this article on "Birth control" and in the History of birth control article?
The content is already included in the Methods section of the Abortion article and in the Development of contemporary methods section of the History of abortion article.
Abortion was removed from the "Methods" section of this "Birth control" article on March 8, 2012 and mention of abortion was removed from the lead section of this "Birth control" article on September 5, 2012.
BC07 (talk) 21:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree the new source is good. Mifepristone is also used as emergency contraception not just abortions thus why mentioned here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Birth control/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hildabast (talk · contribs) 23:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC) I've started the process of reviewing this article. I've not been involved with this article previously. (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The lists below are being added to incrementally as I go through the article. It is close to being ready, but there are some things that are needed first.

Things to address to be a GA

• Needs a few sentences on birth-spacing, contraception after birth (including lactation)

We state "Birth control also improves child survival in the developing world by lengthening the time between pregnancies.[6] In this population outcomes are worse when a mother gets pregnant within eighteen months of a previous delivery.[6][96]" already. We discuss breast feeding both with respect to how it decreases fertility and what birth control is safe "progestin-only pills may improve menstrual symptoms and can be used by breast-feeding women as they do not affect milk production." Will add some about contraception after birth. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Looking at my notes about this, it came about because the phrase is used in the introduction, and then never again. This happened because I'd skimmed it, then did some searching within text. I thought it would save time, but I think it's going to waste your time instead. I should go through the whole thing carefully before making comments. Hildabast (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• The table in methods needs to be right as it will influence people's beliefs: many are listed as being worse with perfect use - it would be a good idea to check each number again too, since it looks as though something went wrong there.

I do not see any in the table that are listed as worse with perfect use? Can you clarify. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Groan - it was me - I transcribed some backwards when cross-checking between table and text. Hildabast (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes I rephrase a lot of stuff to avoid issues of plagiarism. Thus some of the terms are not entirely standard. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Needs to refer to peri-menopausal issues: when birth control is no longer needed, menopause for women who've been on the pill for decades. Although this could wait for FA too. Shouldn't be held up over just this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hildabast (talk • contribs) 17:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Added paragraph on special populations to the lead that addresses this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• IUDs: I'll make additional specific remarks here, but a major problem is that it describes the North American situation only, in terms of what kind there are. The WP on intrauterine contraceptive devices down in the text shows there are other types and shapes, and the German WP has a good picture of the commonly used copper-gold T-shaped device with filament removal strings (that list bit is a translation of the description). That one is so widely used, it needs a mention and picture.

Have added the image here [47] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The WHO document [48] just discusses the two general types. While there are three general types per here [49] the inert form is hardly used anymore and thus IMO need not be mentioned in this overview article. All the copper and hormone IUDs are T shaped so the description given in this article would apply to the issue globally. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

No, sorry, that's wrong. If you look at the German WP page, or even the English WP, you'll see they talk about other types. Here's a Cochrane review of frameless (which isn't a T) versus framed (which is a T). Here are the various Gynefix IUDs in Belgium, and in Germany. Note there's also the multiload in those links (that just wasn't the subject of that review). Here's the Copper-7 and the multiload at a medical expo in Germany. I'm not sure if the companies that couldn't sell their copper-7s in the US went on to sell them internationally, but that would be normal, too. Here you can buy a German-manufactured multiload off Alibaba. I'm not saying that the T-shaped isn't the dominant one - only that it is not the only one. The IUD-specific WP pages make that clear too. Hildabast (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes you are indeed correct. I have changed it to "usually small't"-shaped devices". THe less common shapes can be dealt with on the subpage. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Consider including links to the 3 relevant WHO Reproductive Health Library instructional videos (laparoscopic tubes, vasectomy and IUD insertion).

IMO these videos would be best on the subpage dealing with the specific technique in question. Rather than within an overview article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Things that could be addressed now or in future to make it better than GA

• The table in methods should be based on strong evidence, that can be updated as knowledge improves

Most of it is based on this textbook [50] which is reffed in the heading of the table. We can switch it over to the MMWR [51] which I have done mostly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

GA Review 2

Firstly, I'd like to acknowledge that I've had no role in creating or editing this article. This is an important article and I'm glad to see that it's at a stage where GA is considered. LT90001 (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

General Comments

General Comments  Done

I would like to make some general comments and then delve into specifics. This article is comprehensive and that is great, however it's very hard to follow because terminology regarding failure rates and pregnancy rates and first-year pregnancy rates and effectiveness are constantly interchanged. If one term could be agreed upon (for example "first-year pregnancy rates") and used throughout the article, this would make it much more readable. Good idea and change a bunch. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC) This claim is made several times: “Condoms have the additional benefit of preventing sexually transmitted infections.[9]” In my understanding diseases such as pubic lice are often considered sexually transmitted, and not prevented by condoms. It might be more accurate to say that the majority of STDs are prevented. Removed duplication in the lead leaving the wording "help prevent" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC) This article alternates between 'birth control' and 'contraception' terminology. Yes we should only use contraception once in the lead but birth control otherwise as it is simplier. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Looks good. LT90001 (talk) 08:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC) "theoretical use" could be replaced with "best practice use" to standardise terminology when dealing with use in theory / vs. in practice. Were was this term used? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Oh, now it's disappeared! I was referring to the abstinence section, but now it's very clear. LT90001 (talk) 08:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Specifics

Lede

Lede  Done

This statement "Contraceptive use in developing countries has decreased the number of maternal deaths by 40…" should move to the end of the lede, as there is additional information about the use and effectiveness of contraception there, and also the conventional structure is introduction -> methods/tools/procedures -> effectiveness /utility. Sure Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC) "Some people regard sexual abstinence as birth control", "some people regard" could be removed. Removed "people" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Suggest: “In teenagers, pregnancies are at greater risk of poor outcomes (full stop). Comprehensive sex education and access to birth control decreases the rate of unwanted pregnancies in this age group.[12][13]” Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC) "After the delivery of a child (comma) a women (woman) who is not exclusively breast-feeding may become pregnant again as early as four to six weeks." Done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Methods

Methods  Done

When referring to the effectiveness of a method of contraception, this is given in at least four places: lede, introduction to methods, the table, and the section itself. Perhaps some trimming of the lede and introduction to methods section could decrease the redundancy and possibility for confusion. No numbers are given in the lead (methods are only briefly compared to each other). The lead should also not contain anything that is not in the body of the text. We have the info summarized in a table. Will move some discussion from the lead of the methods section to the subsections. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC) "While all methods of contraception carry some risk, the risk is less than that of pregnancy.[24]" meaning of 'risk' is unclear. I thought pregnancy was an effective method of contraception? (against a second pregnancy) Clarified risk to "potential adverse effects" This is referring to stuff like blood clots and death. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Sentence "In those with specific health problems, certain forms of birth control may require further investigations.[30] " should be moved to top of paragraph, as it gives some context to the paragraph's topic. Agree Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hormonal

Hormonal  Done

First para: formats -> forms. Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC) do not -> neither (neither/nor) Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC) "however, the risk is less than that associated with pregnancy" I don't think this is relevant in this article about contraception. When one looks at the risks of any medication one must compare it to a control group. The control group is not a non pregnant state but a potentially pregnant state. Thus the comparison to the risk that occur in pregnancy is key (pregnancy increase both the risk of blood clots and the risk of death in the mother). This refutes those who argue against birth control as it can cause blood clots. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Whether or not I agree with this point won't affect the article quality, so I'm willing to demur. LT90001 (talk) 07:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC) "not associated with an increased risk of blood clots" perhaps could be worded "whislt not increased with an increased risk of blood clots in veins, there is a slight increase in the risk of blood clots in arteries." As you do go on to state there is a risk of arterial thromboembolism. Clarified. Progestin only BC other than the injectable version may be used. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Yep, I note that this paragraph has changed and reads much clearer. LT90001 (talk) 07:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Barrier

Barrier  Done

"Globally condoms" -> "globally, condoms" Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC) "Male condoms and the diaphragm with spermicide have similar typical use first-year failure rates (15% and 16%, respectively), with perfect usage of the condom being more effective (2% first-year failure vs 6%).[15] Condoms have the additional benefit of helping to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted infections such as HIV/AIDS.[9]" just to reiterate, this is where it starts to get confusing with pregnancy/failure rates first-year is and isn't mentioned, and also the STD prevention thing I mentioned above. Okay added "some STIs". Adjusted the working of the first bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

IUDs

IUDs  Done

First sentence "which is" is redundant You sure? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Statement "They are a form of long-acting reversible contraception, and the most effective type of reversible birth control.[51]" is confusing. In the table you state that implanon is the most effective (0.05%). In the text you state that the most effective methods are surgery (which you state is somewhat reversible) Surgery is not considered a reversible form of contraception. But agree and removed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC) You state here "As of 2007, IUDs are the most widely used form of reversible contraception, with more than 180 million users worldwide.[59] " but then state "The most common method in the developed world is condoms and oral contraceptives, while in Africa it is oral contraceptives and in Latin America and Asia it is sterilization" Sterilization is not deemed to be reversible and thus is out of the calculation. This leave the situation were in the developed world condoms and the pill are first and second followed by the IUD in third. In the developing world sterilization is first but out of the equation. Condoms are used in Africa but not so much elsewhere. Overall IUDs are the most common reversible method because 2.5 billion people live in India and China were usage is high. Thus globally in all countries the IUD is most. Can send you the table if you want. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC) How interesting! Would love to have a look. LT90001 (talk) 07:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Sterilisation

Sterilisation  Done

"Short term complications are less likely from a vasectomy than a tubal ligation.[15] " does not provide any information about the likelihood or type of side-effects. Added details. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC) "Some women regret the decision: about 5% over 30 years old, and about 20% under 30 years old.[15]" no time period or definition for 'reget' is given. "Regret following sterilization in men is less common comma at less than 5% comma with risk factors including younger age, an unstable marriage, and young children or no children.[61]" perhaps could be written -> "Whilst men are less likely to regret sterilsation than women (<5%), younger men, those with young or no children, or men with an unstable marriage were more likely to regret the procedure."" The ref does not define a time period. The studies have looked at up to 28 years afterwords. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16413851 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Doesn't read that well. Suggest: "This decision may cause regret in some men and women. Of women who over 30 years old who have undergone hysterectomy, about 5% regret their decision, as compared with 20% of women under 30 years old." and -> "In contrast, less than 5% of men are likely to regret sterilization. Men more likely to regret the sterilisation are younger, have young or no children, or have an unstable marriage.[64] In one survey of men who had undergone vascetomy who have previously had children, 9% stated they would not have had any children if they were able to do it over again.[65]" LT90001 (talk) 08:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Changed the first bit. The 9% is of parents who have had children. Not necessarily those who have had a vasectomy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC) "In one survey of those who have children, 9% stated they would not have children again if they were able to do it over again.[62]" Not sure what you mean here. In parents who have vascectomies, 9% wish they had it earlier? Of people who have kids 9% wish they hadn't. Clarified. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Hah, surprised it's that low! (said with a grain of salt) LT90001 (talk) 08:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC) "In women the desire for a reversal is often due to a change in spouse.[63]" due to -> associated with Changed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC) " Rates of success in fathering another child are between 38 and 84%" (in one year or in total); being lower overall ("overall" is a tautology here) in those in which a greater time has passed from the original procedure.[64] Lifetime. Adjusted the working. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC) "Sperm extraction followed by in vitro fertilization may also be an option in men.[65]" suggest move to article about vascectomy as this is a bit too much detail (birth control -> contraception -> sterilisation -> reversal of sterilisation -> strategies to mitigate). Just one sentence. This is separate from reversal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Fair enough. LT90001 (talk) 08:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Behavioural

Behavioural  Done

Suggest move "The withdrawal method, ... however, is poor.[66]" to the part about withdrawal to ensure there is no duplication or minor contradiction (as there is now) Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Suggest remove statement in Fertility awareness: "They are used by about 3.6% of couples.[68] " No comparative % rates are provided in other methods regarding use. If retain, suggest add "worldwide" Added global. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC) "between 1 " -> "1%" Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Abstinence "compared to" -> "as compared with" (sorry, little bit of a grammar stickler) Thanks and done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC) "Non-penetrative sex and oral sex are also sometimes considered contraception" I think the intended meaning is "Additionally, to some teenagers the meaning of 'sex' may not include non-penetrative or oral sex". If I read this sentence literally, some teenagers think that oral sex is a method of preventing pregnancy: that is, prior to coitus, will have oral sex as a method of preventing pregnancy. Clarified. Not entirely sure I understand. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC) I still feel this is unclear. Perhaps you could add 'deliberate' to highlight the unspoken part about the motivation for non-penetrative sex, eg. "Deliberate non-penetrative sex without vaginal sex, or deliberate oral sex without vaginal sex, are sometimes considered methods of birth control." LT90001 (talk) 08:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Sure Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Lactation. statement "it is 98% effective in the six months following delivery.[84] " is inconsistent, as you have used one year or lifetime as the cutoff for effectiveness in other sections of this article, so this stat can't be used comparatively. Yes this is one required exception. It is only effective for 6 months. It cannot be used up to a year. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Sentence "In those who are exclusively breastfeeding, about 10% begin having periods before three months and 20% before six months.[85]" seems to be superseded by the comments on effectiveness above it. Not sure what you mean? If one has a period it is no longer the LAM. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC) The lactation section reads quite clearly now. LT90001 (talk) 08:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Emergency. Another confusing stat: " 70% effective (pregnancy rate 2.2%) " So... the earlier readings about effectiveness are not the number of couples at one year who are not pregnant as compared with a couple having unprotected sex? With emergency contraception one is looking at a single sexual encounter and not a year as use. EC is not used for an entire year. Have adjusted the wording. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Yep, on reflection I think the confusing thing was that the pregnancy rate following a single sexual encounter is unstated, so I'm not quite sure what to make of the stated pregnancy rate. LT90001 (talk) 08:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Added that bit in. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC) "All methods have good safety and minimal side effects.[89]" suggest remove 'good safety', this is quite ambiguous Minimal side effects is enough agree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Effects.

Effects  Done

"In the developing world (comma) birth control secondary to (due to) there being fewer dependent children and thus more women participating in the workforce.[8] Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC) "for a C-section as of 2012" -> Caesarean section (or inter-wiki link) Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Prevalence

Prevalence  Done
Very interesting section. "Avoiding sex when fertile " could be reworded as "abstinence" in consideration of above sections Abstinence is a more complicated word. Prefer to keep words simpler for translation purposes among others. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Fair enough. LT90001 (talk) 07:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Society and culture

Society and culture  Done

"Effects required of governments include " -> "Governments are often required by ? to..." whether governments are forced to or voluntarily adopt measures is a little ambiguous here. Adjusted wording. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC) "If governments fail to do this it may put them in breach of binding international treaty obligations.[119]" should some obligations be noted? Adjusted wording. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Research

Research  Done
"Between 25 and 75% of males would use hormonal contraception if it was available for them.[141][108] -> sexually active males (?) Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Citations

Citations  Done

Citation "^ Nelson, Anita L.; Cwiak, Carrie (2011). "Combined oral contraceptives (COCs)". In Hatcher, Robert A.; Trussell, James; Nelson, Anita L.; Cates, Willard Jr.; Kowal, Deborah; Policar, Michael S. (eds.). Contraceptive technology (20th revised ed.). New York: Ardent Media. pp. 249–341. ISBN 978-1-59708-004-0. ISSN 0091-9721. OCLC 781956734. pp. 257–258: " provides a full quote. I don't think this is normal for books quoted with page numbers? Controversial but agree not needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Citation ^ Kurver, MJ; van der Wijden, CL; Burgers, J (2012). "[Summary of the Dutch College of General Practitioners' practice guideline 'Contraception'].". Nederlands tijdschrift voor geneeskunde 156 (41): A5083. PMID 23062257." does not have language noted. Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Not too sure if a lot of these criticisms are appropriate for a GA review (instead of an FA review) but I hope they're helpful. I feel this article has a lot of useful information. Kind Regards, LT90001 (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks will work through these. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion

This review satisfies the Good Article review criteria (WP:GACR) and has undergone a review process. With no objections, I have re-promoted it to GA status. With an annual estimated readership of 540,000, thanks to Jmh649 and previous editors for producing such an important and comprehensive article. LT90001 (talk) 10:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Sterilization

The section that deals with sterilization mentions the fact that a certain percentage of women end up regretting their decision to get a tubal ligation. This fact is interesting and important to the article. In the interest of completeness, does anyone have statistics on how many men regret their vasectomies? OldFishHouse (talk) 02:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes good point will look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay found data for men. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Image gallery appears in "Dual protection" section?

Why isn't the image gallery in the Methods section? Also I added an external link on bulk procurement. 192.81.0.147 (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It is at the very end of the methods section of which dual protection is part. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

That seems like it would be true given the heiarchical enclosures of TOC-indented sections, but it hasn't been true on the mobile app for years. On the mobile app the gallery is in dual protection instead of methods. 192.81.0.147 (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

However "dual protection" is in methods. Maybe the mobile app needs adjusting? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Are there any disadvantages to putting the gallery after the "Methods" section's top level text? 192.81.0.147 (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Than it does not format properly on a desk top. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

US estimates

These new estimates are specifically for the United States [52]. It is unclear if the previous estimates took into account more global stats. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The new estimates consistently use those from Trussell's most recent table in the 20th edition of Contraceptive Technology from 2011.[53]

The previous estimates were an inconsistent mishmash of differing estimates from Trussell's tables in the 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th editions of Contraceptive Technology from 1998, 2004, 2007, and 2011.

The new estimates and the previous estimates for typical use were both specific to the United States; the previous estimates did not take into account more global stats.

In Trussell's tables:

• Typical use estimates are based on data from National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) surveys in the United States, except for the female condom, IUDs, implants, and female and male sterilization, which are based on data from U.S. and non-U.S. clinical studies.
• Perfect use estimates are based on data from U.S. and non-U.S. clinical studies.

BC07 (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay thanks for the clarification and appreciate the update :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Do not see why we need to base the table on a single source and copy it exactly? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

We need to use the single, most-widely cited source for contraceptive efficacy (Trussell) and copy its data exactly for consistency, to maintain WP:NPOV, and to avoid WP:SYNTHESIS.

The uncited POP statistics are invalid—they are neither "typical use" nor "perfect use" statistics as consistently used in the rest of the table.

The LAM statistics are inconsistent (they are for temporary, 6-months postpartum use, not first-year 12-month rates like the rest of the table and explicitly stated in our table's title);

the LAM "typical use" statistics are invalid—they are not "typical use" statistics as consistently used in the rest of the table—they are a range of overall failure rates found in a set of very heterogeneous clinical studies.

Trussell's table in its original source and in other sources that cite it, e.g. the CDC's "U.S. Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use, 2013" and "Chapter 5: Contraception and Sterilization" in the 2012 Williams Gynecology, 2nd edition, list methods in order of decreasing "typical use" failure rates for reversible contraceptives and then for non-reversible contraceptives (and like Trussell's original table, omit invalid POP and LAM statistics). Why shouldn't we follow the lead of these multiple reliable sources, instead of listing methods in a random order? BC07 (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

This is misuse of WP:SYNTHESIS. This would be like saying that an entire paragraph must be based on a single source. The POP stats were cited. Yes LAM was for 6 months what is wrong with that? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The POP typical use and perfect use failure percentages are invalid. The previously cited source:

• Table 29-1. Efficacy of Various Contraceptive Methods on page 293 of The Johns Hopkins Manual of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 4th edition

written by ob/gyn residents,
says its table is from Trussell's table in the 2007 Contraceptive Technology, 19th edition
except for its progestin-only pill typical use and perfect use failure rates of 13% and 1.1%, which it is says are from:

• McCann, Margaret F.; Potter, Linda S. (December 1994). "Progestin-only oral contraception: a comprehensive review". Contraception 50 (6 Suppl 1): S1–S195. doi: 10.1016/0010-7824(94)90116-3 PMID 10226677.

which fails verification—nowhere in McCann and Potter's 195-page review does it say that progestin-only pill typical use and perfect use failure rates are 13% and 1.1%.

The LAM typical use failure percentage is invalid. The cited source:

• Van der Wijden, Carla; et al (October 8, 2008). "Lactational amenorrhea for family planning". Cochrane Database Syst Rev (4):CD001329. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001329 PMID 14583931.

does not say that the typical failure rate for the Lactational Amenorrhea Method during the first year of use is 0–7.5%.

It reviewed 9 observational studies:

• two controlled studies in Santiago (Chile) had 6-month life table pregnancy rates of 0.45% and 0.45% or 2.45% (depending on definition of amenorrhea)
• an uncontrolled study in Onitsha (Nigeria) had a 6-month cumulative pregnancy rate of 0%
• an uncontrolled study in Rwanda had a 6-month cumulative pregnancy rate of 0%
• an uncontrolled study in Hoima (Uganda) had a 6-month cumulative pregnancy rate of 0%
• an uncontrolled study in Karachi and Multan (Pakistan) had a 6-month cumulative pregnancy rate of 0.58%
• an uncontrolled study in Manila (Philippines) had a 6-month cumulative pregnancy rate of 0.97%
• an uncontrolled study in Stockholm (Sweden), Birmingham (England), Washington, D.C. (U.S.), Dusseldorf (Germany), Milan (Italy), Mérida (Mexico), Assiut (Egypt), Jos and Sagamu (Nigeria), Manila (Philippines), Jakarta (Indonesia) had a 6-month cumulative pregnancy rate of 1.5% with 6-month life table pregnancy rates that varied by site from 0–7.5%
• an uncontrolled study in Uppsala (Sweden), Melbourne and Sydney (Australia), Guatemala City (Guatemala), Santiago (Chile), Sagamu (Nigeria), New Delhi (India), Chengdu (China) had a 6-month life table pregnancy rate of 0.9% to 1.2% (depending on definition of amenorrhea)

and said:

The ways in which definitions were used, intervention and control groups composed and data presented were not clear. Even when they were clear, it did not make sense to pool these data, because fertility and the length of amenorrhea in fully breastfeeding women turned out to vary between different populations. Serious heterogeneity among the women recruited was observed.

This Wikipedia article is the first source to proclaim the typical failure rate for the Lactational Amenorrhea Method during the first year of use is 0–7.5%.

The percentages cited in our table "Chance of pregnancy during first year of use" for the Lactational Amenorrhea Method are NOT the "chance of pregnancy during first year of use".

Neither the Lactational Amenorrhea Method (nor Emergency Contraception) appears in Trussell's tables in Contraceptive Technology or in Table 5-2 in Williams Gynecology, 2nd edition.

The following appears in a box directly below Trussell's tables in Contraceptive Technology, and directly below Table 5-2 in Williams Gynecology, 2nd edition:

Emergency Contraception: Emergency contraceptive pills or insertion of a copper intrauterine contraceptive after unprotected intercourse substantially reduces the risk of pregnancy.
Lactational Amenorrhea Method: LAM is a highly effective, temporary method of contraception.

and no values are listed for "Typical use" or "Perfect use" % of women experiencing an unintended pregnancy within the first year of use for the Lactational Amenorrhea Method^††† in Table 1 in the CDC's "U.S. Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use, 2013", and the following appears in a note directly below the table:

^†††This is a highly effective, temporary method of contraception. However, to maintain in effective protection against pregnancy, another method of contraception must be used as soon as menstruation resumes, the frequency of duration of breastfeeds is reduced, bottle feeds are introduced, or the baby reaches age 6 months.

and the Lactational Amenorrhea Method is not pictured and does not have a contraceptive failure percentage in Figure 1 in the CDC's "U.S. Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use, 2013", but is mentioned directly below the figure:

Other Methods of Contraception
Lactational Amenorrhea Method: LAM is a highly effective, temporary method of contraception.
Emergency Contraception: Emergency contraceptive pills or a copper IUD after unprotected intercourse substantially reduces the risk of pregnancy.

The reasons the efficacy of the Lactational Amenorrhea Method and Emergency Contraception are NOT included in the table with "Typical use" and "Perfect use" failure percentages, are that they are measured on different time scales than other contraceptive methods in the table, and do not have "Typical use" failure rates that can be properly compared to other contraceptive methods in the table.

BC07 (talk) 09:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry on the road. Little hard to verify things. I have added clarification to LAM. Let me look at POP. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

We have the following reference from the WHO [54] that gives estimates. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Change of procedure in text

Before this edit of mine to the article, it said that 5% of women over 30 and 20% of women under that age regret having a hysterectomy. I changed this to tubal ligation because that makes much more sense to me: the Wikipedia article about Hysterectomies confirms my previous suspicion that it's a procedure of last resort, and that it's not usually used as a birth control method. However, I can't access the original source for this claim because I use a screen reader, so I'm not 100% sure about the above-mentioned change. Graham87 14:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Changes

I have reverted these changes [55] for a number of reasons:

1. The move the history section to the wrong position (see WP:MEDMOS)
2. A number of the refs are not suitable such as this blog [56]
3. The main article is to be a summary with the sub article going into greater detail. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I have changed the source to a more legitimate one and am willing to adhere to the ordering recommendations in the manual guide. As it is, the section is too bitty and reads more like a list of bullet points. It's also a topic of interest as birth control has been an important concept in social history, so I think the article would benefit from a more fleshed out section.Noodleki (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Some of it does not deal with the history of birth control such as "Starting in the 1880s, birth rates began to drop steadily in the industrialized countries, as women married later and families in urban living conditions increasingly favoured having fewer children. This trend was particularly acute in the United Kingdom, where birth rates declined from almost 35.5 births per 1,000 in the 1870s to about 29 per 1,000 by 1900." I recommend that you work on the history of birth control article if you wish to add such indepth details. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Additionally we use secondary source per WP:MEDRS which this is not "Himes Norman, Himes Vera C (1929). "Birth Control for the British Working Classes: A Study of the First Thousand Cases to Visit an English Birth Control Clinic". Pamphlet digitized by the British Library of Political and Economic Science". Hospital and Social Service XIX: 580." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that the paragraph on the falling birthrates is of central importance to the history of birth control, as it is the first time (in history) that birth rates systematically fell due to the conscious decision of millions of women to limit the number of children. Again, this isn't just a topic of medical interest, it's of tremendous social significance, and the history section should be expanded to reflect this importance. I also don't understand why you say the Himes Norman source is a primary source - it's a scholarly opinion on the effect the early birth control clinics had on women, and although the article was written just a few years later, I don't see why that should make a difference.Noodleki (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll go ahead now, and put it up - I've removed the contentious sources, and summarized the material while maintaining a coherent, basic narrative and I've put the section at the end as it was before. I hope that's ok.Noodleki (talk) 13:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Some of the refs are missing titles and urls such as this one ^ Hall, Lesley (2011). p. 173. Missing or empty |title= and many others. Can you fix these. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Order of methods

The current order of methods is hormonal, barrier, IUD. Because IUDs are both more prevalent and effective than non-LARC hormonal methods, could we change the order to have them at the top of the list? Thoughts on this? Triacylglyceride (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Typically one orders treatments by least invasive to more invasive. Thus one typically discuses medications before surgery. Pills are often see as less invasive than procedures or surgery. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

While I don't disagree with any one sentence there, I disagree with the thrust of your argument. First, condoms are less invasive than OCPs, but OCPs get discussed before condoms in this article. Second, although less-invasive-first is a good rule of thumb, that does take a back seat to efficacy in some cases. My impression (original research tag here for the moment; let me know if you disagree) is that practice in the US has shifted (in my opinion, very appropriately) to emphasize IUDs over PPR (pill, patch, ring). Those providers I know who are committed to improving contraceptive use typically discuss IUDs first.

Is less-invasive-first a common rule on Wikipedia? Is it actually the reason for the order present in this article? Triacylglyceride (talk) 08:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes less invasive first is a common presentation of content on Wikipedia's medical articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Economics

Shouldn't something be mentioned about the economics in the text ? Appearantly, every 1$ invested in birth control saves 4$ on other areas. See http://populationaction.org/data-and-maps/the-economics-of-birth-control/ 109.133.76.181 (talk) 10:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure it could. Not a great ref though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Reverted edit

Schematic indicating the fertile period of a woman

Following was reverted, please reinstate:

==Sexual abstinence during fertile period== [[File:Abstinence during fertile period.png|thumb|right|200px|Schematic indicating the fertile period of a woman]] KVDP (talk) 10:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Not a form of BC. Thus image is undue weight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, for several reasons

• First, abstinence is indeed a form of birth control. In the lead, it is even mentioned ("Some regard sexual abstinence as birth control, but abstinence-only sex education may increase teen pregnancies when offered without contraceptive education."). I agree that it is less safe than ie barrier contraceptives, but that is mostly because of human errors; if sexual intercourse were to be practiced correctly (not during the fertile period) it would be 100% safe.
• Second, it should be mentioned as not all people have access/possibility of using the other methods. Ie barrier contraceptives, contraceptive medication, ... may not be available everywhere on the planet and/or may be too expensive. So for those people, we need to present information they can use.
• Finally, even if you were to dismiss the reasons noted above (so disregarding the abstinence part), I think that an article about birth control should at least have an image showing the fertile period of women. My image is the only image that shows this, so should be included.

KVDP (talk) 10:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

First of all any ref for "if sexual intercourse were to be practiced correctly (not during the fertile period) it would be 100% safe"

Second we mention it. We do not need a image. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Effects

I miss something on the negative side effects in the effects section, since there actually are, at least for some patients. Cf. for example this article in the Mayo Clinic web page, and a simple search on google scholar 146.155.17.236 (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Are are citing sources related to a specific form of birth control not birth control in general. Condoms don't have these risks but do have others if you have a latex allergy for example. I think it is best if specific forms specific effects are get on those specific pages. XFEM Skier (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

However most of them (if not all) have risk factors, why not mention them in general so that readers at least know they can know more at the specific articles?146.155.17.236 (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Because they are not risk factors to birth control they are risk factors to specific forms of birth control. We also don't discuss other benefits of birth control. Condoms prevent std transmission, the pill can clear up acne. But that is not the point the point is what is the effect of birth control (the concept). It really just feels like your trying to push an anti-birth control agenda. XFEM Skier (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

What? Not really... Are you? Wouldn't it be smarter editing before discusing in that case? I don't know... I just try to help editing Wikipedia every now and then, and this kind of reply is anything but welcoming.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I just thought it seemed 'neutral' and 'informative' to tell there are side effects (both positive and negative, maybe?), just as medical drug articles have (e. gr. Aspirin, Paracetamol, Gabapentin), or even articles for generic groups of drugs (Analgesic, Antihistaminic to some extent, Antidepressant), unless you state that all those have been edited by anti-medicine agents. 190.100.99.83 (talk) 01:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The point is that this article is not about a drug. This article is about a concept. If you can find a reliable source about the concept having negative side effects then that can be added. I just don't see how getting into all the specifics here makes any sense. Your examples back my statements. I just can't see where to stop with your line of logic would be. While a line like, "For specific forms of birth controls effects see their individual articles." might direct people better that does not really need to be said.

Sorry if I offended but lots of IP come by and try push agendas and that skews peoples opinions about many of them. XFEM Skier (talk) 06:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree with adding the phrase "For specific forms of birth controls effects see their individual articles."

But my point is Antidepressant or Analgesic are also concepts that group stuff working very different ways. I think the fact that there is no 'mechanic' analgesic makes no big difference w/contraceptives. All the three articles (toghether w/antihistaminic) mention examples of side effects of some of their members as well as refering to the specific articles. 190.100.99.83 (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

But you still missing the point those are still about drugs. The first line of both describe them as such. Birth control is in no way a drug. There are things like fertility awareness on this list that are not drugs. Again concept versus class/type of drugs. I don't even think we should say see the specific article for specific information. That is what the wikilinks tells you implicitly. XFEM Skier (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I not missing it: I say I don't think that makes a big difference. If you read carefully, you tend not to address my point but sustain yours. I see your point, yet I disagree that two health concepts (e. gr. Analgesia and Contraception) be treated that differently. Even Prosthetics goes down to the pros and cons of some examples of the concept.

Anyway, I don't think this is going anywhere constructive. 146.155.17.236 (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

So why do you think that it does not make a difference that one is about a drug and one is about a concept. My point is that the section is simply about the effects of birth control the concept. Getting into negative side effects about each method I believe is outside the scope of a article that is already a good length. Not every article needs all information about all related materials. And apparently no one else beside the two of us even has an opinion about it. XFEM Skier (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Detailed discussion of each method is on the subpages. Agree that this article is long enough. We discuss the increased risk of clots already. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Prevention of STIs

I removed the references to prevention of STI's in the summary paragraph. The two goals -- prevention of both pregnancy and STIs -- are commonly mentioned in popular literature, but the topic of this article is not STI prevention. I added this as an beneficial side effect of barrier methods.deisenbe (talk) 11:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

There are methods other than barrier methods that prevent preg and STIs. Moved paragraphs. Other content you added needs refs.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Vasalgel and justicia gendarussa

What is the status of male birth control treatments Vasalgel and j. gendarussa? The section on male birth control research mentions a lot of possibilities which are a lot less further along. 97.118.101.242 (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

We have a sub article on Male contraception. Do we have good refs for the above per WP:MEDRS? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Vasalgel is the same as RISUG which we discuss. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Text

Not sure about this text "Contraception was originally prohibited in the late 19th century and the eugenic movement played a large role in it being legalized. The birth control movement meant different things to different groups of people. To white women it was liberating them from gender stereotypes and compulsory childbearing, but to Black Americans, the poor, and immigrants, birth control was pushed onto them for the purpose of reducing an unwanted population. "

References

Do not see this as a sufficient source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Rice University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2013 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)