This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine: Reproductive Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Reproductive medicine task force (assessed as Top-importance). Women's Health Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Abortion High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 February 2021 and 21 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Skywalker501. Peer reviewers: Nashley12, Moblit.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section about the ordeal of the bitter water for readability and because I thought it was creeping too far from the article topic. The fact that it is controversial about whether this is about abortion and that there are multiple readings made it clunky to read. Definitely not opposed to a discussion of abortifacients in religious texts, felt that this particular discussion did not add to the topic of abortifacients. However, happy to have other input or opinions Molybdenum Franklin (talk) 03:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "bitter herbs" paragraph belongs in the article. Most writers interpret the Biblical passage as being about abortifacients. In the passage the woman will deliver a child if she is innocent, and she will suffer an ailment that prevents pregnancy if she is guilty. The only source that disputes that her pregnancy is being aborted in the latter case claims that she might not have been pregnant at all, but if she's innocent, then the Lord will reward her through divine conception. This viewpoint is hard to understand, since the source also admits that there's no mention of divine conception in the Old Testament. (If I'm not mistaken, even the New Testament has no mention of divine conception except for Jesus Son of God; certainly there's no suggestion that divine conception is the Lord's routine reward for women who are unjustly accused of adultery.) Clearly the mainstream interpretation is that the passage describes a procedure involving herbal abortifacients.

Of course the passage is controversial, since anti-abortionists are certainly bothered by the thought of the Bible prescribing a procedure that involves aborting a pregnancy as punishment. But the fact that something is controversial is reason to cover it, not reason to drop it from the article.

Concerning your objection to the paragraph being "clunky" and not easy to read, we can try to improve that through editing rather than through removal.

I've restored the paragraph, edited it slightly for clarity, and moved it to an earlier place (i.e., chronological) in the history section. NightHeron (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the edits make that paragraph better, but the second sentence "Others dispute this interpretation...." is a bit odd in context. I think there's an additional sentence needed to relate it back to the topic at hand, which is that people have used abortifacients throughout history. The "others dispute" sentence in a vacuum is fine, but given that this section is specifically about historical uses of abortifacients, starting with "here's a mention of abortifacient use in the Mishnah and the Talmud [and therefore this is an additional example of abortifacient use throughout history]" but ending with "well but maybe not, some people think that's not abortifacient use!" distracts from the point, which is that abortifacient use has been recorded and described throughout history. If it is in doubt that it's about abortifacients, that's fine to mention, but it's important to center the topic (abortifacients). That's why I removed it--not because it's illegitimate or because I personally doubt that it's about abortifacients, but because "a potential mention of abortifacient...maybe" alone isn't by itself enough to merit inclusion, and I was trying to center examples that highlighted explicit historical uses of abortifacients. Molybdenum Franklin (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the sentence to remove the unclarity. Since we have just one source disputing the standard interpretation of the Biblical passage, I thought it best to attribute it precisely, rather than saying something like "other scholars". NightHeron (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain how to comment about this reference to abortifacients indicated in Numbers 5:27-28, but I do so here, hoping it is the correct place to at least make a start. I would point out two problems with the Wikipedia reference as presently written. It says (3/27/21) that this passage in Numbers refers to using "abortifacients to terminate her pregnancy." The article indicates that "many commentators" hold this view. There are two problems with this assertion. The first is, as the article indicates, that abortifacients are "cause a miscarriage." It is, however, clear from the passage that whatever is going on here, it only produces a punishment if the woman is guilty, and otherwise produces no harm. That would surely not what the article wants us to believe about abortifacients. The second, and perhaps more serious problem with this sense that it expresses a majority position is that Bible translations argue clearly against it. I have consulted biblehub.com and examined 22 translations of these verses. Only one (most recent NIV) uses the word "miscarriage" to indicate that a child might be being aborted by the procedure. Every other translation makes it clear that what is going on is not an abortion, but the ability to have a child. This is why 5:28 indicates, not that a child will be born if she is innocent, but that she will be able to conceive. Bjpowers57276 (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is built on WP:SECONDARY sources; Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary of all the literature written about the topic. Regarding the bitter water trial, the Bible itself is the topic, so the translated words from the Bible are considered a primary source, not secondary. So we look at Bible scholars who have written about the bitter water trial. Certainly there are scholars who have discussed the abortion interpretation, along with every other conceivable (sorry) interpretation of this oddly chemical, magical or miraculous ritual.

One point you make is worth a closer look. You said that the word "many" makes it look like a majority of scholars hold the abortifacient view. An examination of the major interpretations would determine whether it was "many" or "some" scholars. Binksternet (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NightHeron: this[1] is a sign of ownership. Your permission is not required to make WP:BOLD edits and every facet does not have to be justified to you. Removal of poorly-sourced material helps the project. Unreasoned reversions harm it. What makes you think we should be sourcing content to obviously unreliable sources? Alexbrn (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, no "ownership". Please adhere to WP:BRD and WP:ONUS and explain your removal of content. Please also remember WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Then we can concentrate on improving the article, perhaps by finding sources that are better than the ones you object to. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the content again is in violation of WP:BRD and WP:ONUS, and constitutes edit-warring. Please self-revert and take your specific objections to sources to the talk-page. NightHeron (talk) 15:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A "Discuss first!" reversion is an abuse of WP:BRD and best ignored. WP:V is a core policy and requires that our content be sourced to reliable sources. You cite WP:ONUS and yes, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" [my bold]. We are not meant to use non-WP:MEDRS and/or marginal sources for health content, as you well know from your previously sanctioned editing in this area. Alexbrn (talk)

(Add) but to be specific and clear: primary sources and lay press are not reliable for health content, per WP:MEDRS; there's no consensus on Wikipedia that the "Jezebel" web site is reliable for anything let alone health-related matters. If you think any of this content is actually good, specify which and it can be reverted and discussed; just reverting shitty content on the basis that you must personally be consulted first is disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD makes it clear that it applies broadly: "After someone reverts your change, thus taking a stand for the existing version or against the change, you can proceed toward a consensus with the challenging editor through discussion on a talk page" (my bold). I'm objecting to removing content from the existing version; much of what you removed has been there for many months or years. Thanks for being specific in specifying "Jezebel" as an unreliable source. If you explain exactly which sources you object to, I or other editors can see if we can find better sources.

Your invoking of WP:OWN is unjustified. Among the most recent 100 edits to Abortifacient, 14 were mine, 22 were yours, and 64 were by other editors. No one is trying to "own" this article. NightHeron (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ignoring WP:BRD here, and for good reason. I object to all the sources/content I removed for the broad reasons I have written, both in the edit summaries and above. You (presumably) also think this content is poor - having not said to the contrary. So what's the problem? The article improves, we move on. You might find WP:OWNBEHAVIOR interesting: in general, requiring approval for an edit is a bad sign, and that is effectively what you are doing. Alexbrn (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not think that the content is poor. I simply offered to try to find better sources for the content you removed, once I knew which sources you were objecting to and why. Asking an editor to open a discussion of their massive deletions on the talk page is not "ownership behavior". I did not "require approval"; I only asked for a clearer explanation than in the edit summary. In any case, I'll take I object to all the sources for broad reasons as the best explanation I'm going to get from you, and I won't wait for anything more. NightHeron (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have quoted several policies and guidelines. Anyway if you think it's not "poor" use to primary sources for medical claims, and Jezebel, then you're going to find it hard to argue that in a WP:PAG-compliant fashion. You are reminded this topic is subject to discretionary sanctions. Alexbrn (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't misconstrue what I said. Content can be high quality but still need better sources. For example, when an editor puts a cn template after a sentence, that does not mean that the sentence is bad, but only that it needs a source or needs a better source. Such a problem can be fixed by supplying a good source; it doesn't necessarily require deleting the sentence.

I am well aware of DS for this and all abortion-related articles. You might recall that a while ago you inadvertently violated 1RR (and self-reverted when I informed you of the DS/1RR for abortion-related articles). There is currently a discussion at ArbCom (see [2] and [3]) about possibly removing the 1RR protection. NightHeron (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn: The material you removed included a fairly extensive discussion of the dangers of modern use of herbs to procure an abortion. I'm not proposing restoring that whole discussion (although I'd have no objection if another editor wants to restore it). But I'd at least like to put in the following sentence, for which I can give 4 sources (the first source was cited in the material you removed):

The modern use of herbs for self-induced abortion can be dangerous, even lethal, and is ill-advised.^{[1][2] [3][4]}

Please let me know if you object to any of these sources and, if so, why. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is good to be discussing actual content rather than doing processology. In general long sequences of citations is a WP:OVERCITE problem. More then one (sometimes two) sources cited for some piece of text nearly always indicates a problem, often WP:SYNTHESIS. We should find the WP:BESTSOURCES and summarize what they say, not try to retro-fit sources to some pre-decided text. All your proposed sources are primary, failing WP:MEDRS. From a quick look there are secondary sources in this area. I have added one on pennyroyal/history; see what you think. Alexbrn (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see that you put in information both about pennyroyal toxicity in the "Herbal Use" section and about the general risks of herbal abortifacients.at the end of the "Medications" section. In relation to the latter, I have no objection to replacing my sentence and sources with yours, although I have some related questions (not objections, but policy questions). I suggest one minor change: replacing fetus with embryo, since a dose sufficient to be effective is likely only early in the pregnancy, before the embryo becomes a fetus.

My first question concerns your source for the general risks of herbal abortifacient use. Although it's a secondary source satisfying MEDRS, its abstract indicates that the author's main point is not that herbal abortifacients are generally unsafe, but rather that they're no more unsafe than many pharmaceuticals: The charge that herbal medications are not well tested in pregnancy is true, but it is just as true that conventional medications are not well tested in pregnancy. The medication-related embryopathies with which we are familiar are nearly all associated with conventional prescription drugs: thalidomide, anticonvulsants, ACE inhibitors, misoprostol, lithium, and isotretinoin. The most common embryopathy affecting humans is fetal alcohol syndrome, which is not associated with an herbal medication. This observation does not mean that herbal medications are safe, but only underscores the need to be well informed when prescribing in pregnancy. Let’s recommend medications in pregnancy that have been adequately studied, without assuming that all conventional medications are on one side of a divide and all herbal medications are on the other side. My first question is: Is your sentence a close enough summary of what the source says as not to run afoul of NOR? (I'm only asking, not claiming anything.) My second question is: The source seems to be advocating a type of equivalence between home remedies (a form of alt med) and "conventional prescription drugs", at least in some limited sense. I'm well aware of your strong opposition to all forms of alt med, so I was wondering what your opinion is of the source (other than that it apparently satisfies MEDRS).

My policy question is whether primary sources can be used in certain public health contexts. Reading the rationale in WP:MEDRS for disallowing most use of primary sources, I don't see anything directly addressing this. If several primary sources describe fatal consequences of a certain type of unauthorized drug use, is it really necessary to wait for secondary sources before including this information in an article about the subject? (I see that the COVID-19 article cites some primary sources, including several from China, and Wikipedia's COVID coverage has been widely praised as highly reliable.)

Another question: Would it be okay to take out the "Herbal Use" section and add the source about toxicity of pennyroyal as a second source for your sentence at the end of the "Medications" section? The first part of the "Herbal Use" section probably belongs at the beginning of the "History" section, where the cn note is.

I see that the statement about herbal use to end pregnancies spanning centuries is sourced to BBC. I'd like to replace the source by an academic source (by the medical historian Edward Shorter), and also add some more historical material sourced to historians (and anthropologists). But I'll first propose the replacement of sources and the other material I'd like to add here on the talk page, and wait to see what you and other editors think.

Thanks for responding to me in a positive manner and assuming good faith. NightHeron (talk) 12:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything too exceptional in what that source says about safety testing, though it may be too incidental in this article. The point about altmed is that Wikipedia needs to resist POV-pushing and misinformation, but in fact we have a lot of trouble from "orthodox" medical product advocates POV-pushing here too.

I think the summary as is, is fine, but maybe could be expanded. The pennyroyal source emphasizes it historical use, but I suppose it could be treated in either section here - I can't see a problem with your proposed reorg.

On the question of primary sources, tempting though it is to "sound the alarm" about something dangerous, we must remember that Wikipedia absolutely does not give medical advice, not does it WP:RWGs. So, in general, it is best to wait for at least some decent secondary sourcing on any topic before including it, to make sure we stay encyclopedic in nature. Primary sources are not prohibited for health content, but their use is in practice limited to certain specific circumstances. Some medical editors (me included) tried to list some of these at the unfinished WP:MEDFAQ. Alexbrn (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's helpful. I'll open a new section for my proposed history additions. NightHeron (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "Jezebel" is an unreliable source for an article like this.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to put the first paragraph below at the beginning of the section (replacing the sentence with the cn note) and the rest at different places in more or less chronological order:

The medical historian Edward Shorter has written that "since the dawn of time women have been able to get rid of unwanted pregnancies", mainly through "herbal concoctions", and that this "traditional pharmacopoeia" continued "through two thousand years of Western history" until the end of the nineteenth century.^[1]

Carl Linnaeus, known as the "father of botany", listed five abortifacients in his 1749 Materia medica.^[2]: 124 According to the historian of science Londa Schiebinger, "These many sources taken together – herbals, midwifery manuals, trial records, Pharmacopoeia, and Materia medica – reveal that physicians, midwives, and women themselves had an extensive knowledge of herbs that could induce abortion."^{[2]: 124–125} Schiebinger further writes that "European exploration in the West Indies yielded about a dozen known abortifacients."^[2]: 177

According to Virgil Vogel, a historian of the indigenous societies of North America, the Ojibwe used blue cohosh (Caulophyllum thalictroides) as an abortifacient, and the Quinault used thistle for the same purpose.^[3]: 244 The appendix to Vogel's book lists red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), American pennyroyal (Hedeoma pulegioides), tansy, Canada wild ginger (Asarum canadense), and several other herbs as abortifacients used by various North American Indian tribes.^{[3]: 289–290, 339, 380, 391} The anthropologist Daniel Moerman wrote that calamus (Acorus calamus), which was one of the ten most common medicinal drugs of Native American societies, was used as an abortifacient by the Lenape, Cree, Mohegan, Sioux, and other tribes; and he listed 102 substances used as abortifacients by Native Americans.^[4]

The historian Angus McLaren, writing about Canadian women between 1870 and 1920, states that "A woman would first seek to 'put herself right' by drinking an infusion of one of the traditional abortifacients, such as tansy, quinine, pennyroyal, rue, black hellebore, ergot of rye, sabin, or cotton root."^[5]

I'd also like to add a sentence to the lead briefly summarizing the "History" section: Herbal abortifacients have been used for thousands of years in many parts of the world, although their use carries risks to the health of the woman.

Comments welcome. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since we have academic publications we should probably avoid trade press - so Shorter in insufficiently RS, especially for such a bold pronouncement. I think general discussions about how much herbs were used should be at History of birth control; here we should be focussed on abortifacients themselves. I am a little concerned over the word "used" as this implies successful use. Is there some way to avoid it? Alexbrn (talk) 06:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should not say or imply "successful" use. Successful means safe as well as effective, and we don't have RS for the safety of historical use. The proposed sentence for the lead could be reworded, for example as follows: For thousands of years writers in many parts of the world have described and recommended herbal abortifacients to women who seek to terminate a pregnancy, although their use carries risks to the health of the woman. I'll drop Shorter, and instead I propose starting the "History" section by giving sources that describe very early writings about abortifacients (from ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome). Would that address your concerns? NightHeron (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Alexbrn (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]