![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Menstrual extraction be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
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)
...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)
The sentence: "By making it possible for more than one person to operate the device, the skill level of the operators was greatly reduced." sounds odd to me. How can a modification of equipment like this directly affect the "skill level" of the operators? Besides, if the skill level was reduced (sounds negative. Maybe possible if the equipment was made more difficult to use?), why modify the equipment? I might be missing something due to English being a second language for me, so I thought I'd post here, so that somebody else can look into it. Thanks! Peapeam ( talk) 02:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
-- XKMasada 09:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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).
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)
I removed some off topic content. What does the "abortion pill" have to do with ME? The content also makes the claim that ME and MVA are the exact same thing, when the intro says just the opposite. We need sources on either side. We can't cite studies that only talk about MVA here, if we haven't established that ME and MVA are the same thing. And if they are the same thing, then this article need to be merged with vacuum aspiration. So can we get these issues sorted out. Are ME and MVA the same thing? Does this article need to exist?- Andrew c [talk] 22:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
See re-write on temp page here Woodsy lesfem ( talk) 00:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Menstrual extraction be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
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)
...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)
The sentence: "By making it possible for more than one person to operate the device, the skill level of the operators was greatly reduced." sounds odd to me. How can a modification of equipment like this directly affect the "skill level" of the operators? Besides, if the skill level was reduced (sounds negative. Maybe possible if the equipment was made more difficult to use?), why modify the equipment? I might be missing something due to English being a second language for me, so I thought I'd post here, so that somebody else can look into it. Thanks! Peapeam ( talk) 02:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
-- XKMasada 09:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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).
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)
I removed some off topic content. What does the "abortion pill" have to do with ME? The content also makes the claim that ME and MVA are the exact same thing, when the intro says just the opposite. We need sources on either side. We can't cite studies that only talk about MVA here, if we haven't established that ME and MVA are the same thing. And if they are the same thing, then this article need to be merged with vacuum aspiration. So can we get these issues sorted out. Are ME and MVA the same thing? Does this article need to exist?- Andrew c [talk] 22:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
See re-write on temp page here Woodsy lesfem ( talk) 00:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)