Talk:Birth control/Archive 4

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)

✅ 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; 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. ("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. 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. Because the pill flows right through the bloodstream, urination becomes a frequent thing for new pill users.
 * Nausea.
 * Abnormal bleeding.
 * Missed periods.
 * Urination.


 * 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. 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)

✅ 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)

❌ 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
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" -- what is the 2 reference there? I can't see it without a subscription. Is it ?
 * 222 million women in the developing world who want to avoid pregnancy are not using a modern contraception method (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"
 * paraphrasing of every sentence of the abstract of.
 * in a new "Further reading" section.
 * Also, I would like to see the full abstract for please. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 05:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Also hope to work in some of the abstracts from and. 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 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. 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>" 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)
 * ('96) and ('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)
 * ✅ 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 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 and WikiProject Pharmacology/Style guide 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 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 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. 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 . 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. 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. &mdash;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. &mdash;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 . I feel we should be looking more at the Cochrane reviews  and other recent secondary sources such as these  , alongside WHO guidelines  (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 . 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, 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." &mdash; Cup co  23:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Those things are done. &mdash; Cup co  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. &mdash; Cup co  07:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks (sorry, missed that). —MistyMorn (talk) 08:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Recursive subst:Cite pmid templates
Testing subst on {cite pmid}:
 * That is clearly a complete failure. I'll ask around. &mdash; Cup co  21:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Asked on WP:VPT. &mdash; Cup co  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. &mdash; Cup co  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. &mdash; Cup co  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? &mdash; Cup co  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:
 * {&#123;subst:Cite pmid/22341164|noedit}} gives:
 * 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. &mdash; Cup co  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. &mdash; Cup co  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 (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....")

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 ? &mdash; Cup co  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:  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 ). 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 ). 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">

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? &mdash; Cup co  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 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. &mdash; Cup co  21:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

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? &mdash; Cup co  21:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * !Support revert, per above. —MistyMorn (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 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. &mdash; Cup co  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  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.   Belch fire - 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, and the second one doesn't say "most"; it says "many".  Thus, the exact wording must go, regardless of whether the POV aside ultimately stays.   Belch fire - 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.   Belch fire - 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 . 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. We can't draw any meaningful conclusions based on American Catholics.  Belch fire - 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.. 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.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Dutch Catholics 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.   Belch fire - 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  Belch fire - 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" . 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.   Belch fire - 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.  Belch fire - 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.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- 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.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- 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.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  23:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The most conclusion is supported here . 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?    00:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts: 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. <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK 01:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * 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.    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. <tt> Belch fire </tt>- 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
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. Thus reverted this edit  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 . 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.  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)

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 : History of mifepristone : BC07 (talk) 06:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * It seems a little controversial as we have this ref . 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)

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. 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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 that gives estimates.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:35, 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 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Birth_control&diff=573917449&oldid=573916449 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. Graham 87 14:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Changes
I have reverted these changes 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
 * 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
Following was reverted, please reinstate:

==Sexual abstinence during fertile period== 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

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

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&#32;during the 2013 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

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