Talk:Menstrual extraction

message: This clause is a little unclear to me 'modified the equipment used for manual vacuum aspiration at medical clinics for safe use by non-professionals.'
Should it read 'to make it safe for use by non-professionals'?Mumblio 03:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This

message: ...it should probably just say "modified for use."  nothing they did to modify it made it safer or less safe, or easier or harder for nonpros...the only real change was that they used a collection jar because they thought it felt better that way, and they let the woman having the ME hold the suction controls...so i guess they modified it for use by users? :-)  
Cindery 03:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  modified equipment 

message: request for feedback on new article
Hi,
I wrote a new article called menstrual extraction, about a self-help technique developed by women before Roe v. Wade made abortion legal. Any advice/criticisms about how to improve it would be very welcome. (is it long enough? NPOV enough? Is it missing anything?)
Thanks, Cindery 03:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: result of request for feedback

message: Article notes: "They toured the country introducing menstrual extraction to other women's groups, and the practice became quite popular – an estimated 20,000 procedures were performed (Chalker)."  But there is one Chalker in the references (Chalker and Downer, A Woman's Book of Choices) and another Chalker in the footnotes (The Whats, Whys, and Hows of Menstrual Extraction).  "(Chalker)" should be replaced with a footnote specifying which reference is being cited. XKMasada 09:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which Chalker is being cited? 

message: * Some additions should be made explaining the safety of the procedure.
* Excuse me, I'm a guy, and don't really understand this so well, but is menstrual extraction the same as menstrual regulation?  Maybe the article could make this a bit clearer.
* A "See also" section of wikipedia links might also be useful.
-- XKMasada 09:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some suggestions 

message: The article notes that menstrual extraction differs slightly in technical configuration from MVA.  The MVA article notes that menstrual extraction is simply another name for MVA.  It can't be both.  Maybe a citation or a rewording could help clear it up, on both this article and the MVA article. XKMasada 16:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Menstrual extraction = MVA? 

message: Can this article be more specific? It's a bit vague which makes it somewhat confusing and very irritating. It's seems like it's been written (or edited) t be painfully neutral. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wickedxjade (talk • contribs) 11:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More Specific

message: I believe it is important that the complications section explain why ME is not a good form of contraceptive (because everything else in the article makes it seem like it should be). In citing Stringer75 it's important to note that the study was done in a hospital setting considering that ME is often done in the home by amateurs. Unacceptable pain and sepsis are significant complications. Vagary 07:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complications 

message: In the 80s I remember hearing about ME as a way for athletes to "skip" their period to keep it from interfering with whatever sport they were involved in.  I'm going to have it before I edit the article but was wondering if anyone else has knowledge about it's use in sports.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stubborn Myth (talk • contribs) 04:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Sports

message: I removed a large unsourced chunk that was POV on pushing a difference between MVA and ME.  I think this clears up a lot of the complaints about this article.
I also rewrote the lede.
Happy to hear feedback!
Triacylglyceride (talk) 09:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big edits 

message: See re-write on temp page hereWoodsy lesfem (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Working on re-write

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Menstrual extraction. 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/20060922152349/http://www.prochoice.org/education/resources/surg_history_overview.html to http://www.prochoice.org/education/resources/surg_history_overview.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)