Talk:Comparison of birth control methods

message: There is different Progestogen only pill perfect-use failure rate in the table and in the Progestogen only pill article. Which one of them is correct? --Irigi (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the data in the progestogen only pill table is from the 17th or 18th edition of Contraceptive Technology, while the data in this article is from the 19th edition.  Neither one is incorrect per se, they are just from different sources. LyrlTalk     C   20:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradicting data

message: Adding abstinence (either total or only from vaginal intercourse) to the table adds very little information.  Considering the columns of the table:
:Brand/common name A number of methods in the table are known by multiple names.  Listing them together can help readers not familiar with different terms learn that they actually refer to the same method.  For abstinence, however, there are no other terms.
:Effectiveness While it is known that abstinence has a typical-use failure rate, it is not known what that failure rate is.  Similarly for the perfect-use failure rate of sexual activity that excludes vaginal intercourse.
:Implementation For methods currently in the table, these columns provide additional information not obvious from the name of the method.  For abstinence, the "implementation" column is completely uninformative: it just repeats the name of the method.
:User action For abstinence, the correct entry into this column will vary widely from individual to individual.  For some people, abstaining from sexual activity (or engaging in such activity while refraining from vaginal intercourse) is no big deal; they don't feel like they ever have to "take action."  For other people, the temptation to have sex is strong and something they have to take frequent action to resist or avoid.
While the "type" column might provide some useful information (that abstinence shares similarities with breastfeeding, fertility monitoring, and withdrawal), I'm not convinced abstinence would be a net positive for the table. 
I also like to point out that the table is not the entirety of this article.  I think including abstinence in the discussions in the rest of the article (side effects, user dependence, and ease of use sections) would be an article improvement. LyrlTalk     C   01:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Abstinence

message: I find it hard to believe that a topic as pertinent as this, with the caliber of the article content being as high as it is, would be nominated for deletion. Maybe some Wikipedians should be vegging out with their TV more and doing less editing... solely for the benefit of the world... As they say in rmemwllsnpsee, if you can't play football, don't go to the game... It is a quality article... Kudos to the contributors.  Stevenmitchell (talk) 11:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: On any given article, you will be able to find someone who thinks the article should be deleted. Doesn't surprise me that much, but I am glad the article was kept, and agree it is far from a how-to guide. The Seeker 4 Talk 12:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hard to Believe 

message: The article currently has two links in the table to calendar-based methods Standard Days Method, CycleBeads & iCycleBeads and Knaus-Ogino method with differing statistics.  Perhaps this should be clarified to be differing versions of the same type of method.  Thoughs? --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Although Standard Days and Knaus-Ogino methods are both covered in the same article, they appear to be different (use different calculations - see the linked article).  I just fixed an error in the statistics here which should help clarify.  Zodon (talk) 08:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calendar methods 

message: There is no mention of these which have been available for more than 10 years ! http://www.persona.info/uk/how_does_work.php They're called Clearblue in the USA, we have them here in the UK, so why no mention? Has no-one heard of them? more info here http://uk.clearblue.com/persona They're officially called contraception monitors research link here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3017256/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veryscarymary (talk • contribs) 19:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Electronic devices

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Comparison of birth control methods. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081204184301/http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pdf2/p020014.html to http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pdf2/p020014.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090122203056/http://www.femcap.com:80/clinician-protocol.php to http://www.femcap.com/clinician-protocol.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What the hell is going on with the placebo statistic?
I can't access the full article, but just reading the abstract made no sense. It says that the women who were on this placebo *wanted* children, so I don't understand why they would be on the birth control in the first place. Furthermore, a value of 203.8 seems to mean that on average every woman got pregnant twice a year while on the placebo. That's just seems nonsensical to me. Am I misreading something? Can someone check out the full article and find out what's going on? It's published in a reputable place, but the article just seems to make no sense.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:192:4800:5D77:8CC4:2567:56D0:C4A0 (talk) 21:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed; this source completely fails verification. I would assume that the rate is actually closer to or equal to "no birth control". I've removed the entry as such. Casspedia (talk)  22:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Placebo 

message: Coitus reservatus should be added. Doyna Yar (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if any sources exist containing failure rates for this method. If there is one, it could be used in order to add the information into the table. If not, it might be comparable to withdrawal (risk coming from pre-ejaculate fluid), but Wikipedia isn't a big fan of original research. Casspedia (talk)  02:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coitus reservatus 

message: Even though this Article is very correct in the way it presents the studies, the gist most people are taking from here seems to be that using a condom and pulling out carry the same risk of unwanted pregnancy. Which is not what it says, but nonetheless "failure rate" seems to suggest to the careless reader that it reflects the risk of using one method over another on a single case of intercourse. I see it on social media all the time and I don't think this is a topic where wikipedia should be careless about how it presents data that can change the life planning of a lot of people. Is there a way to make the limitations of what the %-value actually tells you about effectiveness more obvious to the careless skimmer of this acticle? Atanar (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Effectiveness Section seems to be highly misleading to the general public despite being correct 

message: I decided to add 2 paragraphs about common hormonal side effects corresponding to different hormonal formulations to the "side effects" section. One paragraph for combined hormonal products and one for progestin only products just to give specific examples on what users may encounter while on the medication. AlphanMangos (talk) 05:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added to Side Effect Section - Hormonal Side Effects 

message: The Guild of Copy Editors maintains a limit of two special requests per Wikipedian. I'm currently maxed out but I think this article clearly deserves priority attention due to the significance of its content. (It's also currently assessed as start class last I checked.)
RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone else want to make a special request at GoCE? I'm maxed out. 

message: — Assignment last updated by JustinxLane (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: PHMD 2040 Service - Learning Spring 2023