Talk:Abortifacient

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine / Reproductive medicine (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Reproductive medicine task force (marked as Top-importance).
 

"Erroneously"[edit]

*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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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": [1][2][3][4][5]. 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. [6], [7]) 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)

Pine Needle Addendum to "Herbal abortifacients"[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 07:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Silphium[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 23:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Possible use of abortifacients in the torah/ancient testament[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.60.218 (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

X mark.svg 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 (talkcontribs) 13:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)