This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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)
==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.
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?184.108.40.206 (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. 220.127.116.11 (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. 18.104.22.168 (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. 22.214.171.124 (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)
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)
We have a new video. Typically my understanding is that we should not have more than the infobox in the lead. Others thoughts on placement? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)