Talk:Abortifacient/Archive 1

Archive 1

Plan B

I removed Plan B again: it is not among "the most prominent" medical abortifacients, indeed most pharmacologists wouldn't even classify it as one: normally it just prevents the egg from being fertilized, and even in the cases where it prevents the fertilized egg from attaching (if that even occurs, which is not clear), it doesn't end a "pregnancy" if the usual medical definition of pregnancy is used: beginning with the fertilized egg's attachment.

I will gladly revert myself if a pharmacologist reference can be found that classifies Plan B as an abortifacient. AxelBoldt 01:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

According to http://www.go2planb.com/section/about/index.html, Plan B does sometimes prevent the fertilized egg from attaching. Anyone who believes that human life begins at conception would therefore consider Plan B an abortifacient, or at least a potential abortifacient depending on whether it prevented conception or implantation. From that link: "Plan B is believed to act as an emergency contraceptive principally by preventing ovulation or fertilization (by altering tubal transport of sperm and/or ova). In addition, it may inhibit implantation by altering the endometrium." Wesley 16:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added it to the list of disputed abortifacients in the "pre-implantation labeling controversy" section MamaGeek  TALK  CONTRIB  16:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Fertilization vs. implantation debate

I removed the following section, as the debate about when pregnancy starts is relevant to various discussions, including abortion, and people would not search for it under "abortifacient". This article should be about substances that induce abortion as medically defined and should direct the reader to the discussion about alternative definitions of abortion and pregnancy". So the material below needs to find a new home. AxelBoldt 21:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Any suggestions for the new home? It's been coming up on the oral contraceptive and emergency contraception pages with some regularity, then reverted as being off-topic. And the section was not new on this page (I just expanded, did not add it), so it's obviously come up here before, too. I had put the information here because at least this page is related to abortion (unlike the OCP and EC pages). Someone had suggested the pregnancy page, but I'm not sure that's the place for a 'debate' section. Lyrl 00:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with its removal from the article. Listed in the section are all the birth control methods that many consider abortifacient based on their definition of life as beginning at conception. The title of the section and the opening paragraph are sufficient to point out the controversial nature of the information, but it definitely belongs in this article. MamaGeek  TALK  CONTRIB  12:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm putting back the bulk of the section. MamaGeek  TALK  CONTRIB  18:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue is not when pregnancy starts, but rather when human life starts. This seems like an appropriate place for this material. Wesley 16:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well if that is the case, the material doesn't belong here. An abortifacient is a substance that ends a pregnancy (causes an abortion). An abortifacient is not a substance that simply ends human life. If a women isn't pregnant, then she cannot have an abortion (even if we grant that every single fertilized egg constitutes a "human life"). I stand by my propsal to create an article specifically on the beginning of pregnancy controversy, and then briefly mention the debate in appropriate articles.--Andrew c 17:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The Wiki abortion article defines abortion such that any substance which causes the expulsion of a human embryo is causing an abortion. It doesn't matter when you believe that life begins. This is why I changed the opening paragraph of the section below in the actual Abortifacient article. MamaGeek  TALK  CONTRIB  17:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Come now Andrew, you're playing word games. Yes, doctors debate the precise definition of "pregnancy". But if a zygote is indeed a human life, then something that kills it before implantation is surely an "abortifacient" by any reasonable definition of the term. If we define abortion as "ending a pregnancy" and then try to apply that definition word-for-word literally, then extracting a fertilized egg from the mother and nurturing it in a petri dish would have to be called a form of abortion, because it "ends a pregnancy". Indeed, live birth would be a form of abortion, as it "ends a pregnancy". While I agree that there are certainly times when we need to carefully define terms, you can't take a casual definition of a term and than try to apply it absolutely and literally. Clearly the definition of "abortifacient" depends on the definition of abortion. A more realistic definition of abortion would be something like "killing or destroying a pre-born baby". (Yes, "baby" is a non-technical term, and should be replaced with a technical term that encompasses fetus, embryo, and zygote, but if there's a word for that it's escaping me at the moment.) It seems to me that the question of when human life begins is crucial to the definition. I don't know anyone who would say that destroying an unfertilized egg is an "abortion". There is debate about the period between conception and implantation, and no serious discussion of the subject can ignore or avoid that debate. Jay3141 24 Feb 2010. —Preceding undated comment added 05:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC).

Medterm.com defines pregnancy as "The state of carrying a developing embryo or fetus within the female body. This condition can be indicated by positive results on an over-the-counter urine test, and confirmed through a blood test, ultrasound, detection of fetal heartbeat, or an X-ray. Pregnancy lasts for about nine months, measured from the date of the woman's last menstrual period (LMP). It is conventionally divided into three trimesters, each roughly three months long." By this definition there is a pregancy once there is a developing embryo. If measured from the LMP, the time of pregancy would include the time before implantation. Biology online defines an abortifacient as "a drug or compound that induces the expulsion of an embryo or foetus" without reference to pregnancy or implantation.[1] The definitions given by the Protection of Conscience Project [2] also include drugs that prevent implantation among abortifacients. The first two references (medterm.com and biology-online.org) are I think fairly neutral, or at least not overtly partisan. The last organization may be more partisan, but its board is chiefly comprised of doctors and lawyers from what I could tell at a glance. The key point is that the definitions of the words used in this debate are themselves debated; it appears to me that neither side is entirely unreasonable. Wesley 16:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well this is opening up a whole can of worms. If LMP is counted, a woman is "pregnant" around 2 weeks before fertilization and intercourse. Also, if having a developing embryo in the uterus is enough to constitute pregnancy, then 100% of IVF cases result in pregnancy (even though 40-60% fail to implant or are lost by the next menstrual cycle). But you are missing the key point of your cited definition. A pregnancy will NOT show up on any known test before implantation. A woman's body does not physically/chemically change until implantation. The AMA and the ACOG and the BMA, among many, many others, all define pregnancy as starting from implantation (even if gestational age is counted by LMP). And to further complicate matters, there is no scientific evidence that there are post-fertilization effects to hormonal contraception (including EC). So not only are the terms and definitions debated (as you point out), but the actual reality of implantation prevention is unproven. Anyway, I think a reasonable solution would be to create an article about the begining of pregnancy controversy (so we don't have to hash this out in full on every semi-relevent article), and then mention that certain forms of BC are seen to be abortifacients by those who hold a specific definition of pregnancy (or err on the side of caution in regards to hypothetical modes of action of hormonal contraception).--Andrew c 20:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the beginning of pregnancy/beginning of life/beginning of humanity controversy deserves its own article, if it doesn't have one already. Here, we could follow your suggestion, or we could slant it the other way and mention that certain forms of abortifacients are seen as birth control by those who hold a narrow definition of pregnancy. Better of course would be to present this in a rather more neutral fashion without tilting so far either way. Wesley 16:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

disputed section

The medical community defines pregnancy as beginng at implantation, because of the ramifications of in vitro fertilization: embryos conceived in a laboratory dish do not make a woman pregnant. However, in the general public there is some debate over whether a woman is considered pregnant at the time of conception, or at implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterine lining.

Fertilised embryos naturally fail to implant some 30% to 60% of the time. It is argued that the high loss rate of early embryos is reason to avoid defining pregnancy at conception.

It is not clear how either of these points is relevant to defining pregnancy.

1. Of course fertilizing an egg in a petri dish does not make a woman pregnant, because the embryo is not in her womb. Fertilizing an egg in a woman does not make her husband pregnant, or make any other woman pregnant. The fact that an egg can now be fertilized outside the womb does not alter the biology when it is fertilized inside the womb. An 8-month-old fetus in the womb surely makes his mother "pregnant". If at 7 months that baby was removed by Caesarian section and put in an incubator, the fact that the 8-month-old in the incubator does not make his mother pregnant surely does not mean that the 8-month-old in his mother's womb does not make his mother pregnant. A baby in the womb makes the mother pregnant. A baby not in her womb -- regardless of how or why it's not there -- does not make her pregnant.
2. This is a little like saying that we should define "cancer" as only including kidney and skin cancer and not lung cancer because otherwise the death rate from cancer would be over 30%. The obvious reply is: Who says the death rate must not be over such-and-such a number. If 60% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, then that's a medical fact. If you find that fact unpleasant, that's too bad, but to say you want to redefine the words to avoid an unpleasant fact is just not scientifically justifiable.

Sorry if this sounds argumentative! I don't mean to be nasty, just to point out a logical flaw. Jay3141 24 Feb 2010. —Preceding undated comment added 05:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC).

Those who consider the beginning of pregnancy to be at the point of fertilization count among abortifacients any agent which may prevent implantation of an already-fertilized egg, even if the primary function of said methods is to prevent fertilization:

• Combined oral contraceptive pill ("The Pill")
• Contraceptive patch
• Contraceptive vaginal ring
• Lunelle (monthly injection)
• Intrauterine Device ("IUD") which may also be used for emergency contraception
• IntraUterine System ("IUS")

Breastfeeding infertility partially works by causing luteal phase defect, which makes the uterine lining hostile to implantation; as such, defining implantation as the start of pregnancy would indicate that breastfeeding can be a form of abortion.

Some anti-abortion groups acknowledge the postfertilization effect of breastfeeding, but defend it based on the bioethical principle of double effect. Use of hormonal contraceptives, including EC, is usually motivated by an intention to avoid pregnancy - when one of the proposed mechanisms operates after fertilization, they consider these methods immoral. Breastfeeding is motivated by - and has the primary effect of - nourishing a child. Because the intention is not related to avoiding pregnancy, they do not consider immoral any secondary, or double, effect of harm done to unimplanted embryos.

Side effects

There should be something in the article about the dangerous side effects of certain abortifacients, especially the do-it-yourself herbal variety. It would be irresponsible to put this information out there without such a warning. Does anyone know enough about them to tackle the job, or should we just search online for the info? MamaGeek  TALK  CONTRIB  15:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Witchhunt

I added a "citation needed" tag to the line about witchhunts. It certainly seems plausible, but there is no reference, and there is not even a date or date range. The sentence is also very vague (e.g. "European society"). Any help putting that sentence in order would be appreciated. MamaGeek  TALK  CONTRIB  16:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

And no, the Malleus Maleficarum is not evidence of frequent persecution. -- MLS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.131.50 (talk) 04:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Breastfeeding

The topic of this article is abortifacient, which we define as substances that induce abortion. Regardless of the "when does pregnancy begin" discussion, breastfeeding would not belong in this article. Breastfeeding is not a substance (and therefore not an abortifacient) but instead is a technique. Even if one accepted the position that breastfeeding was a form of abortion, it would belong in the article on abortion and not here. Simply put - this article is narrowly focused on abortifacients, not broadly focused on all forms of abortion. - O^O

I concur. MamaGeek  TALK  CONTRIB  11:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

implantation prevention

I feel that we need to say "none of these listed agents can cause an abortion once a pregnancy has been established", but I am not 100% sure every single substance is covered, and I am not sure of the proper wording. What do others feel? I think its important to say that abortifacients are substances one can take after one is known to be pregnant in order to terminate that pregnancy, where this clearly doesn't apply to any of the listed hormonal contraceptives.--Andrew c 23:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The copper IUD does not increase miscarriages in the 1st trimester, but if it is not (or cannot be, due to positioning of the embryo) removed, it does increase the risk of 2nd trimester miscarriage. Hormonal ones obviously don't do anything to implanted pregnancies.

The herbal ones I don't know about. I thought wild carrot, for example, was (believed by some herbalists to be) only a contraceptive, which worked primarily by disrupting implantation, but that did not affect implanted pregnancies. And yet here it is listed an abortifacient. Lyrl 23:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Infobox for individual birth control method articles

Let's all work on reaching a consensus for a new infobox to be placed on each individual birth control method's article. I've created one to start with on the Wikipedia Proposed Infoboxes page, so go check it out and get involved in the process. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 12:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Implantation

I changed "They are not effective if taken after a woman receives a positive pregnancy test" to read "They are not effective if taken after implantation." The latter is true, the former is nonsense - taking a positive pregnancy test itself has no effect on pharmaceutical agents. Silly people.

--Almondwine 17:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Labeling controversy and Law

I also removed "federal" from "British and American federal law..." Article Six of the Constitution makes "federal" level law into the law of the land. To say something is characteristic of 'federal' law suggests that there are state laws which set opposing legal precedents. If there are, then those state laws are unconstitutional and without legal legitimacy. Furthermore, to use the term "American 'federal' law" is redundant, since all American law is federal and all federal law in Washington is American. Since 'federal' in this context suggests the existence of state level law that might might legitimately contradict the current legal precedent, I have removed the adjective. --Almondwine 15:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

There's not necessarily a conflict in different federal and state definitions of pregnancy. When judges interpret federal laws, they use the federal definition, and when they interpret state laws, they use that state's definition. There certainly are different definitions, though. From here:

A review of state laws conduced in April 2005 by The Alan Guttmacher Institute found that 22 states have enacted one or more laws defining "pregnancy." (Some of these states have adopted an explicit definition of pregnancy, whereas others have done so implicitly, by defining either "fetus" or "unborn child.") Despite the clear and long-standing medical consensus that pregnancy is not established until implantation, 18 states have enacted provisions premised on the notion that pregnancy begins at fertilization or conception (see table). (Although many of these laws use the imprecise term "conception," all but five leave it undefined. Significantly, however, all of the five states that do define the term equate it with fertilization.) Six states have provisions defining pregnancy as beginning at implantation, although two of these states include other definitions as well.

Lyrl 21:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Lyrl, I've noticed that the medical community has likewise clarified the definition of "conception" to mean implantation and not fertilization. Al 21:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Lyrl, the point is that putting "federal" in there suggests a conflict and distinction that doesn't exist. If 'federal' law says pregnancy begins at implantation, then American law says pregnancy begins at implantation. If you want to say that some state laws define pregnancy as beginning at conception then you can, with the caveat that American law uses implantation. Federal goes.--Almondwine 16:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The only definitions I was able to find of "American law" either are inclusive of state law ("Used in certain jurisdictions to determine criminal responsibility" [3]), or reference both federal and state levels ("The law of the United States.... the jurisdiction of federal law and the laws in the fifty U.S. states and territories." Law of the United States) I have never before seen "American law" to refer exclusively to federal law and disagree on that being the only or most common definition. Lyrl 12:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be very intellectually dishonest for the article page to state 'American law says...' while in the discussion page there is clear agreement that American federal laws apparently say something that American state laws do not. How can the article page say without exception or note that 'American laws says pregnancy starts at implantation' while it's agreed here in discussion that American law (state law) does not agree with that statement? The casual reader would, I believe, read the article portion saying that 'American laws says pregnancy begins at implantation' and believe that the issue is settled in both state and federal law to be the same, when in fact it is not. The article seems very misleading, and after reading this section I would say it seems to be purposefully misleading because those discussing it show they know both sides so clearly yet allow the article to convey a different idea. Dcsutherland (talk) 05:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Emmenagogue

Should emmenagogue be merged here? --Galaxiaad 16:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Emmenagogues may also be used by women who have cycle abnormalities for reasons other than pregnancy. While the topics overlap, I'm not sure it's enough to justify a merge. Lyrl ^Talk _C 12:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No, they should not be merged. Women may wish to stimulate menstruation in the absence of pregnancy. Women with PCOS, for example, may use emmenagogues to stimulate menstrual flow as long periods of time may pass without menstruation occurring. Joie de Vivre 17:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Sister Zeus

Re:

Re-add Sister Zeus - this is about as reliable as you get for herbal abortifacients

The following WP:RS books discuss herbal abortifacients, contraceptives, and emmenagogues:

• Riddle, John M. (1992). Contraception and abortion from the ancient world to the Renaissance ISBN 0674168755
• Brodie, Janet Farrell (1994). Contraception and abortion in nineteenth-century America ISBN 0801428491
• Riddle, John M. (1997). Eve's herbs : a history of contraception and abortion in the West ISBN 067427024X
• Tone, Andrea (2001). Devices and desires : a history of contraceptives in America ISBN 080903817X
• Schiebinger, Londa L. (2004). Plants and empire : colonial bioprospecting in the Atlantic world ISBN 0674014871

These books (which can each be found in hundreds of libraries) are by historians with PhDs in history who are full professors of history at major universities.

The pseudonymous "Sister Zeus", who lists her qualifications on this: Informed Concent & Full Disclosure page of her personal commercial website, is obviously not a WP:RS.

The external link to the "Sister Zeus" website Preventing and Ending Pregnancy page with its Visit my Online Book Store and mountain rose herbs™ banner ads is WP:LINKSPAM and an example of WP:External links#Links normally to be avoided.

69.208.177.159 04:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)The preceding contrib actually represents 3 edits by the signing editor, at 04:52 thru 05:04.

Misoprostol

I've read that misoprostol, which induces abortion, is also used to induce labor. I'm assuming the difference is the latter is in a full-term gestation. Can anyone speak to this?

Addendum: Although I'm still not clear on timeframe, there does seem to be a controversy. Is it worth adding to the article?

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/458959

rhetoric 12:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This is already covered on Wikipedia: Misoprostol#Labor induction. Labor induction is beyond the scope of the abortifacient article, but if you would like to improve the misoprostol article please do. Lyrl^Talk _C 01:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

IUD

Current data does not substantiate the idea that the copper IUD has abortifacient activity. Unless someone is willing to write ut detauk about the "controversy" (practically all OB/GYN and other medical professional organizations are very clear in their stance that the IUD is NOT an abortifacient, while others use outdated information to make dated claims), this is getting removed. --192.17.229.227 (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The IUD has a primary mechanism that is not abortifacient. Some argue (and are published in peer-reviewed journals as recently as 2002, as cited in this article) that is might have a secondary mechanism that is abortifacient.

All the other methods listed in this article also have primary mechanisms that are not abortifacient, and the existence of secondary, abortifacient, mechanisms is controversial and not accepted for all of them. This article states that. Clarifying that language is welcome, but I don't believe removing just one method from the list can be supported. Lyrl^Talk _C 13:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• The phrase "ut detauk" in 192's contrib appears thus in the edit history, so it is not post-save vandalism. The mis-key "ub detauk" would be the result of typing on a typical American QWERTY keyboard, with the right hand mispositioned one key-width to the left, and "in detail" intended. But FWIW, what was typed is more consistent with intending "iy detail" ....
  --Jerzy•t 02:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  

Fertility awareness methods

I am once again removing this section. The theory was postulated by a philosophy professor with absolutely no medical training. It has about a 100 response letters from actual scientists and medical professionals debunking the ridiculous claims made by the author, which show a complete lack of understanding of reproductive physiology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.192.146.120 (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The author did show some major misunderstandings of reproductive physiology. But his proposal that aged gametes are capable of creating embryos, but the resulting embryos are disproportionately unable to implant, was not debunked. Pre-implanted in vivo embryos are just so difficult to study, there is no evidence either for or against this claim. The other methods listed as "proposed abortifacients" also lack evidence for actually being abortifacient; that's why the section says "the existence of post-fertilization mechanisms is debated" and that these methods "have been proposed" to have abortifacient properties. If this language is not ambivalent enough, I support rewording to increase clarity on the doubt over the existence of these proposed mechanisms. However, I do not see a compelling argument to remove one method (fertility awareness) while leaving the others in the list. Lyrl^Talk _C 12:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Modern excommunication

Mgr Elio Sgreccia, of the Pontifical Academy for Life, has declared that the canonical laws on abortion would also apply to anyone who takes the abortion pill, following the decision by Italy’s drugs regulation agency to authorise its use. [4] ADM (talk) 23:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ellaone (ulipristal acetate)

The article should maybe include information about Ellaone (ulipristal acetate), which has been described in European media has the post-morning-after pill, due to the fact that it is applied once RU286 no longer works. [5] ADM (talk) 04:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The linked article says it can be used up to 120 hours after intercourse, which is exactly the same time frame recommended for currently available emergency contraceptive pills. I think it was ECPs that you were comparing ellaone to: RU486 (mifepristone) unambiguously causes abortion in early and mid-term pregnancies. RU486 can be used alone to induce an abortion in pregnancies up to four weeks gestation, and in combination with a prostaglandin (such as misoprostol or gemeprost) to induce an abortion in pregnancies of up to 24 weeks. Lyrl^Talk _C 11:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge Medical abortion to Abortifacient

It seems like everything that is written (and perhaps everything that would ever be written) in Medical abortion can just as well be placed in Abortifacient. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support merge; not sure which direction to merge though. Bwrs (talk) 00:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose merge; There are many substances that have been used as or purported to be abortifacients (whether there is evidence of effectiveness or not). So the scope of abortifacient is considerably broader than that of medical abortion (which would be primarily using methods currently shown to be safe and effective). I think there is room for both articles, with most of the information about current medically accepted methods in one, while abortifacient can cover all the rest. Zodon (talk) 03:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose merge; Would seem obvious, but medical abortion is a procedure, and abortifacients are typically herbs or drugs. Because of the historical context of abortifacients, it is too broad a subject matter for a single section (when developed) and would not add clarity to the medical abortion article, and likely would make that article less useful for its original intent. Additionally, there is a lot of history in abortifacients, literally for thousands of years before modern medical abortions. Finally, many historical abortifacients were likely not effective but still used because of the myth behind them. These do not belong in an article about medical abortion, again, as they would make it more confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.71.23.238 (talk) 22:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose merge; per discussion above. The scope of abortifacient is significantly broader than medical abortion. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Pine Needle Addendum to "Herbal abortifacients"

This is a high profile page, and I wanted to clear an addendum here before I edited the article. Ponderosa Pine (and other plants with Isocupressic Acid) causes "Pine Needle Abortion" in cattle.

James, L. F., R. E. Short, K. E. Panter, R. J. Molyneux, L. D. Stuart, and R. A. Bellows. 1989. “Pine Needle Abortion in Cattle: A Review and Report of 1973- 1984 Research.” Cornell Vet. 79:39.

Due to the abortifacient properties in cattle, herbalist warn against pregnant women drinking pine needle tea:

Poisonous plants: a handbook for doctors, pharmacists, toxicologists ... By Dietrich Frohne, Hans Jürgen Pfänder

If posted, I would cite my sources accordingly. I'm quite open to suggestions from the community, as this is the first edit to Wikipedia I've ever made. Thank you.

Sjmoquin (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The source seems to pass WP:MEDRS muster as a) a reliable journal b) a review of primary-source research. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"Erroneously"

*sigh* Do any of these single-purpose accounts actually have a reason for removing "erroneously called the abortion pill" from the hatnote, or is it just that they think it really is the abortion pill and would like Wikipedia to reinforce that belief? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's over a month later and no one has opted to discuss their rationale for removing "erroneously." And really, there is no good rationale. Firstly, EC is largely thought to act by preventing ovulation, and secondly, pregnancy, medically defined, begins at implantation anyway. There is simply no policy-compliant reason to refer to birth control as an abortifacient. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The sources are pretty consistent in their support of "erroneously". I'd ask any passerby wanting to lop it out to provide a source, but that's not going to happen. Posters should be aware that slow-motion edit wars are as damaging to the project as fast ones, and can carry similar sanctions. PhGustaf (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I think "erroneously" is an essential part of this redirect. The reader should not be misled to think they are clicking on a link to take them to an article about an actual abortion pill. Binksternet (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Why is this redirect even post at the top of the article. Do any articles direct readers here that were meant to direct them to EC? - Haymaker (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The current rationale is that "abortion pill" redirects to "abortifacient", and that some people erroneously use the term "abortion pill" to refer to EC, thus the necessity for a hatnote. I don't think there is enough confusion to warrant this. I don't think the error is really common at all, and would support complete removal of the hatnote. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the rationale is based on people searching "abortion pill," rather than on incorrectly linked articles. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hatnotes only seem to be used in the case of redirects and disambiguation pages rather than guessing what people might be thinking. This hatnote seems unnecessary. - Haymaker (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I see you've whacked it out. I'm not going to put it back just yet (it's not that big a deal) but I note that you have nothing resembling a consensus to do that. PhGustaf (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Hatnotes are used in this case, too: for when a term is used several ways, and several WP articles may cover the popular term, but one of them is selected to redirect straight to one article and the other is not. Here, the 'not' article is mentioned in the hatnote. Binksternet (talk) 01:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hatnotes are to be used if A; readers commonly arrive at this article looking for the other

B; there is a disambiguation page.

B is clearly out, do you think that readers commonly arrive here looking for the other article? - Haymaker (talk) 03:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Readers looking for the so-called "abortion pill" which prevents pregnancy may end up here. Binksternet (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you object to the removal of the second sentence erroneously included in the hatnote? - Haymaker (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I like it this way. Binksternet (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to tell you that "liking" it doesn't matter. Is there any reason that the sentence should stay? - Haymaker (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, to prevent readers from thinking that the popular misuse of "abortion pill" is correct. We do not want to mislead the reader that way. Binksternet (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're worried about that go right on and add it in the body of the article but including the information in a sentence about a redirect is an inappropriate used of a hatnote - Haymaker (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked 72 hours for edit warring. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hatnotes like this are used for disambiguation purposes. No one has presented any evidence that this error is common enough to warrant disambiguation. How many people are typing in "abortion pill" and really want the article on Emergency Contraception? My personal feeling is "none". And without any evidence that this is a very common misconception, we have no need for the hatnote what so ever. Furthermore, we can always add a "see also" link to the EC article. If someone is searching for "abortion pill", they are most likely talking about ru-486 (mifepristone) or the combo with misoprostol, but they could be talking about some sort of herbal pill, or another "pill" that induces abortion, so I guess that is why we don't link "abortion pill" to a specific drug, but instead this broader article. But again, I don't see how EC has anything to do with this. I've even searched for this, and the only semi-related pages are a couple blog posting by pro-lifers using "abortion pill" as an inaccurate pejorative for EC, with similar arguments that birth control pills are also "abortion" pills. Do we need to add a hatnote to the birth control article? Or the Oral contraceptive pill article? No. We don't need to repeat the fringe, erroneous argument at the top of this article based on where certain terms redirect. It's undo weight. And the argument that we need to prominently have erroneous at the top of this article to try to correct the misconception is not a good view either, as Wikipedia should not be advocacy or proscriptive in nature. They can read our content and find out. We don't say at the top of the page "look here, this fringe view is wrong". I don't think there is consensus at least to keep it in the article, so I don't see why it was re-instated during a discussion. We need consensus to keep content. There is no such thing as "no consensus to remove". That's not how our community works. -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I've seen plenty of news reports, especially from Fox News and pro-life advocates, which connect the term "abortion pill" to the anti-conception pill called "Ella" or "EllaOne": [6][7][8][9][10]. I don't see this quite as the fringe issue you do. I think the misapprehension of Ella or EllaOne as an abortion pill is more widespread. Binksternet (talk) 22:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Well if we are to say that the view is so notable that it needs disambiguation due to the "abortion pill" redirect, I would say the proposed phrasing which singles out EC is inappropriate, because the exact same line of reasoning is used for oral contraception, and there are numerous sources (i.e. [11], [12]) as examples of that reasoning. I think this sort of material may deserve mention in the body of the article, perhaps a short section describing the controversy, and pointing to the further debate at Beginning of pregnancy controversy. But I don't think the hatnote is the place for this, nor am I convinced "abortion pill" as a search term should possibly be connected to EC, and EC alone, or that someone trying to find the EC article wouldn't be able to navigate to there via other means once arrived at this page (especially if we have a section describing the controversy, or at least add a see also link). -Andrew c ^[talk] 23:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

A section describing the various popular uses of the term "abortion pill" would be good, I agree. The hatnote under discussion, with its "erroneously" note, does not appear to conform to the guideline at WP:HATNOTE, so I'm loosening my grip on it. Binksternet (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in this article, but I notice that Haymaker has recently been blocked for removing a hatnote, after having made no edits for more than 24 hours. I generally agree with Andrew c here: "I don't think there is consensus at least to keep it in the article, so I don't see why it was re-instated during a discussion. We need consensus to keep content. There is no such thing as 'no consensus to remove'. That's not how our community works." What seems especially odd is that Haymaker seems to be the only one blocked here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Silphium

Maybe the bit on silphium should specify it's a plant? It's certainly implied, but at first I thought it was a mineral. Only when I saw "extinction" did I have to go read the article.--24.251.69.25 (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Added. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Possible use of abortifacients in the torah/ancient testament

In Numbers chapter 5 verses 19-22, it is plausible that the bitter water consisted of an abortifacient. The plant(s) they used are not mentioned, but it could have been made of one or a mix of various herbal abortifacients (i.e. pennyroyal, tansy, silphium, etc.). Remains to find a reliable source to add to the history section, though... 76.10.128.192 (talk) 05:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point. Sources are definitely out there which state this. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The source cited only entertains this idea as a possibility, yet it is listed as a certainty on this page. Perhaps the wording should be changed to match the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.2.111.174 (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The source clearly states that this is one of many possible interpretations. It's a fascinating connection, but putting it forward as such a certainty is misrepresenting the source. I updated this sentence to reflect the potential nature of this interpretation. It could read a little better, and if anyone has any suggestions, please feel free to clean it up. Accuracy seems more important than rolling off the tongue though. --Ecnassianer (talk) 04:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The source clearly states that this is one of many possible interpretations. It's a fascinating connection, but putting it forward as such a certainty is misrepresenting the source. I updated this sentence to reflect the potential nature of this interpretation. It could read a little better, and if anyone has any suggestions, please feel free to clean it up. Accuracy seems more important than rolling off the tongue though. --Ecnassianer (talk) 04:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

"In the Bible, a trial by ordeal is prescribed for a Sotah (a wife whose husband suspects that she was unfaithful to him) in which she drinks "water of bitterness," which can be interpreted to result, if she is guilty, in the abortion or miscarriage of a pregnancy she may be carrying." This has 6 references for it, but none are from the Bible, this story or indeed "Sotah" is not found anywhere in biblical texts. I recommend the "In the Bible" phrase be changed to "In the Jewish Talmud" or such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.60.218 (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

 Not done That would be inaccurate, as the abortifacient ordeal originates in the Bible and, like many things in the Bible, is commented on in the Talmud. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Editing problems

I found an historically interesting reference in a 16th C herbarium held at the British Library ( www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Harley_MS_4986&index=0 ) It describes a way to use the roots of the wild cucumber as an abortifacient. I've tried twice to add this reference but both times it said my edit had been accepted but it never appeared. I don't contribute to Wiki much so does anyone know what's happened? Arcencielltd (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing

I inserted "in animals" for clarify after restoring the deletions. Scientists normally test the medicinal properties of substances first in animals before testing them on humans. The sources in question report on such tests that showed that certain herbs have abortifacient properties. The sources are fine. The section does not discuss current medical practice for humans, and so WP:RS rather than WP:MEDRS is the relevant policy (in fact, WP:MEDRS explicitly says that sources on other topics besides medical practice are subject to RS criteria, not MEDRS criteria).NightHeron (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:Biomedical information must be sourced to WP:MEDRS, not animal studies - and particularly not old/fringe ones. You are now edit-warring your content in, and have been warned accordingly. Alexbrn (talk) 06:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Well-sourced material should be kept

The sentence I restored to the last section is an accurate summary of a substantial part of John Riddle's book, which is RS (published by Harvard University Press).

I also restored other references that support the claim that abortifacient herbs are sometimes dangerous and even lethal. A reference to one incident or one study is not really adequate, so more than one reference is desirable here.NightHeron (talk) 12:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Having spent a lot of time looking carefully at the source (unhelpfully, the whole chapter was referenced) I saw nothing that supported our text. The closest was a statement that there were, historically, discontinuities of knowledge between drug effects in general (hence "broken chain"). What words support this "modern users often lack ..." thought? Page number please! Remember WP:V is a core policy. More generally words like "modern" are to be avoided per WP:RELTIME. Alexbrn (talk) 12:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, that's helpful. I'll go back to look at Riddle's two books and try to fix that citation. Concerning the use of the word "modern", that section comes right after the historical section, so in the context the contrast between "modern" and "historical" is clear. The word "modern" is not a word that WP:RELTIME warns about, and in fact many article titles and section titles use the word when the meaning is clear from the context.

My other comment was that the other two citations to the possibly lethal effects of herbs are useful to support the statement about dangers. When I saw your revert, I realized that we should discuss it here before restoring those citations. Do you disagree with restoring those citations? Thanks.NightHeron (talk) 13:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I take it from this the source was misrepresented as we had it? Yet you re-instated it ... ? For WP:RELTIME it shouldn't need to be said the the word list there is not exhaustive but the general prohibition is against "relative constructions", of which "modern" is an example. What does it mean, post-1580 (as I was taught it meant at university)? post-1970? post-2000? The excess sources on lethality are weak and unnecessary per WP:OVERCITE what we have is good enough. Alexbrn (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

No, nothing was misrepresented. After you explained your reason for removing that sentence, I looked back at Riddle's chapter and saw that you are correct that he did not explicitly say that modern users lack knowledge. Rather, this is implied by examples and discussion in the chapter and in his two books generally. What he says explicitly is that various historical circumstances have prevented the transmission of traditional knowledge of herbal use to later generations --- hence the title of his chapter. Of course, it's theoretically possible that, even without the transmission of knowledge, modern users of herbs might have acquired the knowledge in some other way. So I agree that the sentence as I worded it needs to be changed, unless I cite other sources that speak directly of lack of knowledge by modern users.

Concerning the word modern, I don't agree that it should not be used in Wikipedia or that its meaning was unclear the way I used it in the section title. I think the word contrasts nicely with the title of the previous section. On the other hand, it's not an important issue, and I can go along with your change in the title because it's not worth debating at length.NightHeron (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

If what you put wasn't in the source it is by definition misrepresentation. More generally Riddle is a controversial figure advancing fringe arguments about historical knowledge - really his views would need the context of a decent secondary source before we could air them. Alexbrn (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

That is not the definition of misrepresentation. In academic work, one cites work to support a point when the support is clearly implied but not explicitly stated. I realize that this is not the accepted convention in Wikipedia. But the conventions in academia, while different from Wikipedia's, do not constitute "misrepresentation". In general it would be helpful if you would assume good faith by other editors, including me.

What is your basis for accusing John M. Riddle of advancing "fringe" arguments? He is a very highly respected scholar. If you have found that other scholars disagree with him, then you can include their views with appropriate citations. But a Wikipedia editor should not remove a source by a distinguished scholar because the editor disagrees with or has a low opinion of that scholar.

Concerning my use of 3 citations to support the assertion about danger of herbs, this does not fall within the circumstances described in WP:OVERCITE. Concluding the Abortifacient article with a section warning of dangers might be perceived as controversial and even "biased" by many readers, namely those who are under the sway of promoters of herbal cures. The one source you kept is a good source, but it's based on a single study done in Montevideo. A second source I gave is based on some women in the U.S., and the third source is interesting because it shows that the medical profession has been aware of the toxicity problem for a very long time. I believe those sources should stay. In the U.S. and other countries where herbals are unregulated and very popular, there are real dangers. Our section on dangers should be convincing and well-supported, not just by one source.NightHeron (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The misrepresentation is because the source did not "clearly imply" what was cited. I know: I just read the ruddy thing. I did not remove the source because I disagree with the scholar but for the reasons I gave in the edit summary (Wp:CGTW#19 strikes again!) . For something on the fringeiness of Riddle's general proposition that that was a lost golden age of herbal medicines see:

• Ethan B Russo; Fernando Ania; John Crellin (12 November 2012). Professionalism and Ethics in Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Routledge. p. 82. ISBN 978-1-136-39223-8.

particularly note 41. I disagree about the extra citations. Alexbrn (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

First, your source does not say that Riddle advances "fringe" views. The term "fringe" is extremely derogatory, especially in discussions among Wikipedia editors, because fringe sources can be summarily removed. Your source says that Riddle is "controversial" (which is true of many leading scholars), and (in footnote 44) that his "views, however, do not go unchallenged." But that's very different from "fringe." Also, I find it hard to figure out what exactly the authors are criticizing in Riddle's work. Footnote 41 is not clearly written, in my opinion. I've gone through the book (which I had not seen before), but could not find any specific criticism of Riddle or any citations of other authors who have made criticisms. Could you explain how this source supports your belief that Riddle is "fringe"?

Second, Riddle never says there was a "lost golden age". That's just a caricature of his views. To say that there was much that was valuable in the folk knowledge and practices of earlier times is not the same as saying it was a "golden age" of anything.

Third, do you consider the book by Russo-Ania-Crellin that you're citing to be RS? I doubt that it meets WP standards. The book is based on a course taught at the Homeopathic College of Canada, and one of the authors (Fernando Ania) is President of the Homeopathic College of Canada. Once I realized that the authors are (apparently) part of the alt med world, I was no longer surprised that their writing was often confusing and not very logically constructed. In any case, I'm a little surprised that you're citing that book as a credible source.

Fourth, my sentence that cited the chapter "The Broken Chain of Knowledge" in Eve's Herbs did not misrepresent Riddle in any way. But in addition to citing that chapter, I should have supported the part of the sentence referring to lack of knowledge in modern times by citing three other places in Riddle's books: (i) "there are few modern women who know the fertility plants in their environment, whereas women in the past did know them" (p. 259 of Eve's Herbs); (ii) "The question arises why on a sophisticated college campus there seems to be no knowledge about the [contraceptive and abortifacient] uses of Queen Anne's lace, but in a rural, backwoods mountain region a few women continue to know what was common knowledge to women two thousand years ago." (p. 58 of Contraception and Abortion from the Ancient World to the Renaissance) (iii) "In 1978, three women in Colorado, believing themselves pregnant, read that pennyroyal induced an abortion and took its oil, which was marketed as an insect repellent and herbal fragrance. One became ill... the second woman was examined and discharged... The third died as a result of taking the pennyroyal oil." (p. 54 of Contraception and Abortion...) NightHeron (talk) 02:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Not contesting the idea that it's somewhere in the source, because I haven't read it, but I did skim the "broken chain" chapter and it's not clear that this is what the phrase refers to? The chapter seems to be primarily about the ways in which herbal knowledge was preserved, doesn't it? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@NightHeron: the point is that even within the altmed world Riddle is controversial. Within academia his revisionist ideas about the widespread effective use of herbal abortifacients, passed down through generations as smuggled knowledge, are regarded as as speculative, unlikely and unproven. As I say, they may be worth mentioning with some decent reliable secondary commentary to frame them e.g http://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199711063371920. On their own they are undue use of primary fringe theories. And in any event misrepesenting sources is just not ok. Alexbrn (talk) 06:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: The title of the chapter I cited is "The Broken Chain of Knowledge". How could broken chain refer primarily to the preserving of knowledge, rather than to the failure to transmit it to later generations? I'm confused about what you're saying here. I also don't understand what the relevance is of the alt med source saying that Riddle is controversial. Your source in this latest message, which is RS unlike the earlier one, does show that he is controversial. However, what that book review is rejecting is the notion that use of herbal contraceptives and abortifacients was so widespread as to explain the stabilization of population in Europe (what demographers call the Demographic transition). Yes, that viewpoint of Riddle is quite controversial, especially among demographers. The same book review praises the overall quality of Riddle's scholarship and in no sense supports the notion that he's fringe. It often happens that one scholar claims that another scholar has not provided adequate evidence in support of a certain theory. This is not the same as saying that that scholar is fringe.

You left a message on my userpage containing an implicit warning. You've made it clear that you were displeased that I cited a whole chapter of Riddle, causing you to have to skim the whole chapter. Also, I should have given additional page references to support the first part of that sentence. In this instance I was adhering to standard practice in academia rather than WP practice, this was wrong, and I apologize for the inconvenience it caused you. I thanked you for pointing out the inadequacy of the page reference, but I objected to your repeated insistence that I was misrepresenting the source, which would mean that I was distorting Riddle's main points. I thought that a politer word would have been appropriate for a good-faith minor mistake.

Nothing I have said in this discussion should have been a basis for a warning message on my userpage. I'm now worried that our discussion of the Abortifacient article will not lead to agreement or compromise, and it might turn into a time sink. No other editor has entered into this thread. Would you be amenable to asking for an RfC on the questions we've been discussing? These are: (1) whether John M. Riddle is fringe; (2) whether "modern" should remain in the title of the last section; (3) whether the statement about toxicity should be supported by three references or just one; and (4) whether the sentence about broken chain of knowledge should be restored (with the additional page references). NightHeron (talk) 12:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Another editor has commented. An RfC would likely be an enormous waste of editors' time at this stage, since most of these issues can be solved with a modicum of WP:CLUE. For fringe questions it is useful to ping WP:FT/N (I shall). Alexbrn (talk) 12:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: I just noticed your message to me on your userpage, which I hadn't noticed before (since you hadn't pinged me and I don't normally follow your userpage). You threatened to take me to ANI because of the one instance where my page references were inadequate. Isn't that extreme? That I should be banned from Wikipedia because of a good-faith minor mistake? I'm very sorry that your dislike of my editing and your desire to have me banned is unabated after 6 months. I really wanted to have a productive discussion with you, leading to an agreement or compromise. An RfC is a standard first step in dispute resolution. It is not an "enormous waste of time". Nor is it true that anyone who's not clueless will agree with you about the 4 issues I outlined above. Nor is it true that another editor has commented in this discussion (a revert is not a comment). NightHeron (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

So far as this article's content is concerned, the problem is not just a "page reference", it is that you misrepresented a source by reading things into it that simply are not there and then putting your reading onto Wikipedia, jabbing the revert key when it is questioned over WP:V (showing bad faith, yet pleading AGF for yourself) - exactly what you were doing before when misusing rat studies. Then you compound the problem by not admitting it, but by claiming it is "academic" practice or that somehow you are right because of some other source. It is almost unbelievable. An RfC is not a "standard first step" in WP:DR (read it). But the meta-problem here - as before - is that when you are wrong you just cannot see it, and this wastes my time and everybody's. You are so busy producing self-justifying walls of text you evidently have missed other editors' comments too (look above, carefully). Alexbrn (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: @Roscelese: I'm sorry, I didn't notice that one of the comments above was due to Roscelese rather than to Alexbrn. I was writing an apology for this, but because of edit conflict I didn't get it in before Alexbrn's message above. I do apologize. If Roscelese is willing to help resolve the impasse over the four issues I mentioned above, that might avoid the need for an RfC. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 13:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Note, I have now posted at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn (talk) 13:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@NightHeron: "How could broken chain refer primarily to the preserving of knowledge, rather than to the failure to transmit it to later generations? " - It is odd, but did you read the chapter? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Roscelese: First, I apologize for failing to see that you had commented and for addressing the comment you quote to the wrong user. To answer your question, yes, of course, the first time a while ago and then I reread it just recently. Riddle's chapter has several secondary themes, such as the influence of herbal abortifacient use on population statistics and the at least partial preservation of knowledge even under conditions of repression. I took the principal theme of the chapter from its title and from the lead-in paragraph ending the previous chapter (p. 165-166). As the chapter progresses to the later centuries (17th and 18th) Riddle comments repeatedly on the circumstances causing the decline of knowledge; see, for example, p. 190 (Culpeper less informative than Peter of Spain), p. 194-196 (summarized in the middle of p. 196), and p. 201-202 (apothecaries "hiding from the past"). What the chapter does not contain, as Alexbrn pointed out, is any statement about lack of knowledge in modern times and implications of that; that can be found in other places in this book and his other book, such as the places I listed above. NightHeron (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

So, WP:SYNTH. Alexbrn (talk) 10:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

From Eve's Herbs p. 259 "there are few modern women who know the antifertility plants in their environment, whereas women in the past did know them." NightHeron (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Which was not the source you cited, and does not support your text about "modern users", their "often" lacked knowledge of "preparation", and how this "circumstance" was given a special name by Riddle. Alexbrn (talk) 11:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

It's the same source, just a different page number. Concerning the wording of the sentence citing "The Broken Chain of Knowledge," earlier I acknowledged (and thanked you for your explanation) that it needs more accurate citation of Riddle and/or rewording. In other words, the first part of that sentence was not well-sourced, so a citations-needed template there would have been appropriate. This is not synth (please see WP:SYNNOT). The question of making the citations in the sentence better should not be confused with a separate issue you raised, namely, your assertion that Riddle's work that I'm citing is fringe. You raised this issue on WP:FT/N, and you referred to his broken-chain-of-knowledge chapter as ruddy, which I gather from dictionary.com is a strong British slang pejorative. You have made your opinion of Riddle quite clear. NightHeron (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

"Devils Dung" – The World's Smelliest Spice

So, currently two of the three sentences in the paragraph on Silphium are referenced to a sidebar of an article in Saudi Aramco World, while the third is unreferenced. First, we have The ancient Greek colony of Cyrene at one time had an economy based almost entirely on the production and export of the plant silphium, considered a powerful abortifacient, while the article says "Cyrene, the city-state that grew rich on its monopoly of silphium" and "Cyrene, where silphium was important enough to earn depiction on the city’s coins", and quotes Riddle as saying “anecdotal and medical evidence from classical antiquity tell us that the drug of choice for contraception was silphium" and “Silphium’s sap may have been the ancient world’s most effective antifertility drug.” So, it neither says that Cyrene's economy was almost entirely based on production and export of silphium, nor does it actually say that it was a "powerful abortifacient." Next, we have Silphium figured so prominently in the wealth of Cyrene that the plant appeared on coins minted there. Silphium, which was native only to that part of Libya, was overharvested by the Greeks and was effectively driven to extinction, while the article simply has the previously mentioned sentences (that it was on the coins specifically because of figuring prominently in the wealth of Cyrene seems reasonable, but would appear to require original synthesis to get to) and says nothing of Greek overharvesting. It does quote from Pliny on it no longer being found in Cyrenaica because farmers find it more profitable to pasture sheep, and if you look in translations of the original text it mentions "medicinal as well as other purposes, being sold at the same rate as silver" but doesn't specify what the medicinal uses were. Finally, there's the last (unreferenced) sentence, The standard theory, however, has been challenged by a whole spectrum of alternatives (from an extinction due to climate factors, to the so-coveted product being in fact a recipe made of a composite of herbs, attribution to a single species meant perhaps as a disinformation attempt). Perhaps there was a reference originally which has since been removed? --tronvillain (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Looking back, the last sentence seems to have been an unreferenced addition back in 2007 here. --tronvillain (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Tronvillain: this [13] covers the coinage and importance to the economy of Cyrene. Unfortunately I cant get access to all of it at the moment to see about the rest. I have read about the disinformation theory/silphium as a combination and not really an actual plant somewhere before, afraid I can't remember where, though. Curdle (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, that says "The export of silphium became one of the mainstays of the Cyrenian economy, as evidenced by the fact that its coins bore the plant’s images", so that should work. It also says "It is believed that the resin from silphium (under the name 'Cyrenaic juice') was also used as a contraceptive, which was applied to soft wool and used as a vaginal suppository (Hughes 1975)", as well as mentioning the Pliny line about it being more profitable to pasture sheep and "In addition to the threat of overharvesting, common to commercially desirable species, other factors likely led to the decline and extinction of silphium." -tronvillain (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Revert

I reverted the recent removal because it just needed a tweak for readability. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)