Talk:Contragestion

"Birth control" Mechanisms of action and terminology & "Birth Control" versus "Contragestion" and "Contraception" articles
It appears that Calliopejen1 more or less lifted a large portion of the article here and pasted it to Birth Control with the comment, "merged there - better covered in comprehensive parent article". (Full disclosure: the sections at issue were my contribution to the contragestion page) Then she turned the the contragestion page into a redirect to Birth control. I undid her revision (which was a de facto deletion) of the Contragestion page, but I wanted to comment about the issues that I believe have been raised. OckRaz (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

[note: I've copied the relevant parts of this from the Birth control talk page to the contragestion and contraception talk pages. OckRaz (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)]

Mechanisms of action
Section 1.1 of Birth Control (just added by Calliopejen1 to 'Methods') says, "The function of birth control can be classified by the stage of reproduction during which it is active. A form of birth control which prevents the sperm from fertilizing the egg is a contraceptive agent. A form of birth control which acts after fertilization to prevent or interrupt the implantation of the embryo into the uterine lining is a contragestive agent. After implantation has occurred, an agent which ends gestation by terminating the pregnancy is an abortifacient."

This duplicates thr first paragraph of Birth Control. I'm not sure why this was transferred, and I propose that this needs to be cleaned up. I'll do it if no one else wants to or objects to my doing so.

The contragestion article says, "Contrasting Mechanisms of Action: The function of birth control can be classified by the stage of reproduction during which it is active. A form of birth control which prevents the sperm from fertilizing the egg is a contraceptive agent. A form of birth control which acts after fertilization to prevent or interrupt the implantation of the embryo into the uterine lining is a contragestive agent. After implantation has occurred, an agent which ends gestation by terminating the pregnancy is an abortifacient
 * Contraception occurs when an agent prevent the sperm from fertilizing the egg
 * Contragestion occurs when an agent prevents or interrupts implantation of the embryo or causes the uterine lining to shed during the implantation period
 * An abortion has taken place if, after implantation has occurred, an abortifacient terminates the pregnancy before the fetus achieves viability."

I anticipate that some people may suggest that this material be removed from the Contragestion page because it duplicates what is in Birth control. The opening paragraph in Birth Control (which I think was sufficient) is specifying different things that comprise the larger 'umbrella' category. It can be divided by stage of reproduction, but in other ways too. (eg, pharmacological, surgical, behavioral) It is important to keep the contrasting methods in the the Contragestion article because contragestion is a term which is unfamiliar to many and it is significant in large part because of the fact that it comes between the other two. Sexual reproduction can be divided into fertilization, implantation, and gestation. Preventing the first and ending the last are things which are fairly well understood. Preventing or interrupting the second, however is not. If one looks up 'Contragestion', then that context is important in understanding the term. OckRaz (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Terminology
This is the portion which is at issue: "''The term, 'contraception' is a contraction of 'contra', which means 'against', and the word 'conception', which is a non-technical term that is synonymous with fertilization. The word 'contragestion' is likewise a combination of 'contra' and 'gestation'. French scientist Étienne-Émile Baulieu coined the word in 1985 because he felt that there was a need for a technical term to describe the prevention of implantation, which did not fit the traditional definitions of either 'contraception' or 'abortion'. Elisabeth Johannisson of the International Committee for Research in Reproduction endorsed the use of this nomenclature saying that, "it is appropriately descriptive and fits in with contemporary medical ethics, which require us to indicate (when we know them) the phenomena which occur in patients. The word 'contraception' is ambiguous and 'abortion' remains the traumatic symbol of a painful failure... Faced with the imprecision of these currently used terms, 'contragestion' is preferable because it takes recent scientific knowledge into account. At the same time, it is difficult to make this term accepted because more classical expressions have great force. The word 'abortion' has a long tradition... The word 'contraception' has had a strong impact on the history of our century. Between the two it is difficult to find a place, either biological or semantic." It is also worth noting that since 18 U.S. states define pregnancy as beginning at conception,[9] describing methods of birth control in terms of their potential means of action allows one to be technically accurate while using language that is neutral with regard to the abortifacient versus contraceptive controversy.''"

I think it's obvious that that is appropriate on the Contragestion page. The same thing (minus the International Committee for Research in Reproduction bit) is now on the page for Birth Control. Frankly, I don't see why that is appropriate. There is a section for the etymology of the term 'Birth Control', which I think is an important part of the birth control article. If the terminology information were appropriate to the page, then perhaps they should be in the same section- but I fail to see how inclusion is appropriate. Terms like 'abstinence' and 'outercourse' don't have their etymology addressed on the Birth Control page, and I don't see why 'contraception' and 'contragestion' should. OckRaz (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

"Birth Control" versus "Contragestion" and "Contraception" articles
There have been two major arguments against separate articles for contraception and contragestion. One is that by making a distinction between 'birth control' and contraception (and/or contragestion) one is advancing a point of view, which would violate the NPOV policy. The other argument focuses on how to best organize information and has multiple parts: 1) The user is better served if the information they want is available in a "comprehensive parent article" rather than in multiple locations, 2) There is no information which would be appropriate on either a contraception or contragestion page, but which would be inappropriate to a birth control page, and 3) When articles contain only information which is duplicated on a more comprehensive article, then wikipedia is improved by their elimination. OckRaz (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

POV Issue
I think that this was disposed of as an objection a long time ago, but perhaps it wasn't. It is common practice to have articles where the topic of one is a subset of the topic of another (eg, there is an article on Homer Simpson as well as one for the Simpson Family). I don't understand how that could be considered to be a POV problem. I personally believe that the POV objection was made not because the existence of separate pages was ever thought to be a genuine POV problem, but because there was a fear that the existence of separate pages might be the beginning of a "slippery slope" with regard to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_pregnancy_controversy

The fact is that neither contraception by itself, nor contraception and contragestion combined can be identical to 'birth control' if birth control is being defined so that it includes abstinence and abortion (which is how the article presently reads). Therefore, while objections can certainly be made on other grounds, there is no sensible POV argument against the inclusion of contraception and contragestion articles in wikipedia. OckRaz (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

How to Organize Entries
I take issue with the term "parent article". "List of tornadoes and tornado outbreaks" is a clearly a parent article to "List of North American tornadoes and tornado outbreaks." Whether Birth control is a parent article to contraception and contragestion seems to me to be a matter of opinion, and it's an opinion which I do not share. I also believe that there is information which would be appropriate on the contraception and contragestion pages, but which would not be appropriate to a birth control page.

The concept of 'birth control' is a social construct, whereas contraception and contragestion are biological phenomena. Birth control is a category of behaviors, substances, and procedures which human beings use to intentionally regulate their own reproduction. Contraception and contragestion can occur naturally in non-human animals. Obviously there is overlap, but there are significant differences too. I'd argue that insisting upon using 'birth control' (with it's social context) as the only window through which one can view human contraception & contragestion comes much closer to presenting a POV problem, than insisting upon multiple lenses through which one can view human contraception and contragestion (such as the biological phenomenon outside of a social and cultural context). There isn't any there now, but there's no reason why the contraception and contragestion articles couldn't have information about non-human animals (both in the wild and domesticated) and unintentional contraception and contragestion (eg, malnutrition and or chronic stress). The only reason that that sort of information couldn't be added in the future to those pages would be if people keep turning the pages into redirects to Birth Control (where that sort of information can never be added). OckRaz (talk) 23:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Contragestion Discussion Copied from Birth Control Talk Page
all below copy/pasted - I removed these sections merged from the Contraception and Contragestion articles, because they are unnecessary, cite (or mis-cite) inaccurate and outdated sources, and contain WP:SYNTH:"Definition Birth control is frequently used synonymously with contraception, family planning[2] and fertility control.[6] Birth control can be classified by the stage of reproduction during which it is active. A form of birth control which prevents the sperm from fertilizing the egg is a contraceptive agent.[7][8][9][10] A form of birth control which acts after fertilization to prevent or interrupt the implantation of the embryo into the uterine lining is a contragestive agent. [5][8][11][12] After implantation has occurred, an agent which ends gestation by terminating the pregnancy is an abortifacient[13][14][15][16][17] It is important to bear in mind that these mechanisms of action are not mutually exclusive. One substance or device can have more than one potential effect depending upon when it is used. For example, while mifepristone is best known as an abortifacient, it can also function as a contragestive agent.[18] Likewise, the IUD can be used as a contraceptive or a contragestive depending upon when it is inserted.[19] Mechanisms of action  The function of birth control can be classified by the stage of reproduction during which it is active. A form of birth control which prevents the sperm from fertilizing the egg is a contraceptive agent.[7][9] A form of birth control which acts after fertilization to prevent or interrupt the implantation of the embryo into the uterine lining is a contragestive agent.[11] After implantation has occurred, an agent which ends gestation by terminating the pregnancy is an abortifacient.[13][14] The term contraception is a contraction of contra, which means against, and the word conception, meaning fertilization.[51] The word contragestion is likewise a combination of contra and gestation. French scientist Étienne-Émile Baulieu coined the word in 1985 because he felt that there was a need for a technical term to describe the prevention of implantation, which did not fit the traditional definitions of either contraception or abortion.[18][52] Since 18 U.S. states define pregnancy as beginning at conception,[53] describing methods of birth control in terms of their potential means of action allows one to be technically accurate while using language that is neutral with regard to the abortifacient versus contraceptive controversy. These mechanisms of action are not always mutually exclusive. One substance or device can have more than one potential effect depending upon when it is used. For example, while mifepristone is best known as an abortifacient, it can also function as a contragestive agent.[18] Likewise, the IUD can be used as a contraceptive or a contragestive depending upon when it is inserted.[19] Etymology  The term, 'contraception' is a contraction of 'contra', which means 'against', and the word 'conception', which is a non-technical term that is synonymous[51][65][66][67][68] with fertilization. The word 'contragestion' is likewise a combination of 'contra' and 'gestation'. French scientist Étienne-Émile Baulieu coined the word in 1985 because he felt that there was a need for a technical term to describe the prevention of implantation, which did not fit the traditional definitions of either 'contraception' or 'abortion'.[18] Elisabeth Johannisson of the International Committee for Research in Reproduction endorsed the use of this nomenclature saying that, 'it is appropriately descriptive and fits in with contemporary medical ethics, which require us to indicate (when we know them) the phenomena which occur in patients. The word 'contraception' is ambiguous and 'abortion' remains the traumatic symbol of a painful failure... Faced with the imprecision of these currently used terms, 'contragestion' is preferable because it takes recent scientific knowledge into account. At the same time, it is difficult to make this term accepted because more classical expressions have great force. The word 'abortion' has a long tradition... The word 'contraception' has had a strong impact on the history of our century. Between the two it is difficult to find a place, either biological or semantic.'[52] It is also worth noting that since 18 U.S. states define pregnancy as beginning at conception,[53] describing methods of birth control in terms of their potential means of action allows one to be technically accurate while using language that is neutral with regard to the abortifacient versus contraceptive controversy. In other animals One factor which can cause contragestion is malnutrition. For example, a deficiency of vitamin A can cause contragestion in cats[122] and studies indicate that insufficient calcitonin causes contragestion in rats.[123] Rodents also display something called the Bruce effect wherein exposure to the scent of an unfamiliar male causes contragestion.[124] Environmental factors are also a cause of contragestion. Toxins can cause contragestion in both animals and humans, with exposure to dioxins preventing 70% of implantation of mouse embryos.[125] Contraception occurs naturally in non-human animals just as it does in humans. For example, the same hormonal effect of breastfeeding occurs both in humans and in chimpanzees.[126]"A high-level umbrella article like Birth control or Pain control should not have a "Mechanisms of action" section, the methods of birth control or pain control are too diverse—these can be and should be discussed in articles about specific methods.  Contragestion is a rarely-used term coined in the 1980s by French endocrinologist Étienne-Émile Baulieu to promote the acceptance of the French abortion pill RU-486 (mifepristone) by blurring the differences between the mechanisms of action of contraceptives and the abortion pill. Baulieu's definition of a contragestive included any birth control method that could possibly act after fertilization and before nine weeks gestational age—not only after fertilization and before implantation. Current medical reference textbooks on gynecology and contraception, contraceptive drug and device prescribing information, and the Encyclopædia Britannica "birth control" article by Malcolm Potts, do not use the terms contragestion or contragestive and most medical dictionaries do not include them—this article should follow the lead of those WP:MEDRSs and not include them. I have added a couple of sentences about contragestion and contragestives to the Pharmacology section of the Mifepristone article and changed their redirects from this article to the Mifepristone article. The first paragraph and the first sentence of the "In other animals" section were WP:SYNTH: the cited sources did not mention congtragestion/contragestives or contraception/contraceptives. BC07 (talk) 08:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

- All above copy/pasted Ock Raz  talk  04:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Contragestion Article Reinstated
In April the contragestion article was made into a redirect to birth control. I contend that this is a biased edit in violation of long standing policy about editors assuming NPOV, which is demonstrated by the fact that information which was available to readers was lost and the edit was based on a personal judgment that that information is not of interest. Editors aren't mind readers and we ought not to remove information from wikipedia that could be of interest (as long as it meets notability criteria) based on assumptions about what one is likely to find of interest. In the interim the birth control article has been edited so that even the word contragestion no longer appears there. This seems like pretty good evidence for my contention that readers who wish to learn about contragestion are not the same readers who wish to find a general account of birth control. The redirect itself was later modified to take readers to the article on mifepristone. I've restored the article on contragestion to its state prior to the redirect edits. Ock Raz  talk  04:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Here are the issues that I think need to be addressed with regard to attempts to get rid of an article on contragestion.

1. It is a technical term, but does that matter?
Is it notable as the term is understood on wikipedia? There are many very technical terms which have articles on wikipedia. Are the attempts to get rid of this term based on notability (and therefore legitimate) or are they based on a judgment that the distinction between contragestive birth control and non-contragestive contraception is unimportant. If the latter is the reason then removing a free standing article violates NPOV guidelines.

2. Is contragestion best understood only as a form of birth control and therefore best situated within that article?

 * 2A. Contragestion is a biological process which happens naturally, but can be induced deliberately. Birth control refers only to deliberate manipulation of reproduction.  The term 'contragestives' refers to a specific form of birth control, but 'contragestion does not.
 * 2B. Contragestion occurs in humans and nonhumans. While birth control has been used on nonhuman animals, the birth control article deals only with human reproduction.

3. If someone wants to learn about contragestion, can they do so if the topic is made into a redirect to birth control?
After the most recent redirect it there subsequent edits to birth control removed any mention of it. This is something which has happened before, and it is likely that this will continue to happen so long as there is no contragestion article.

4. Are birth control and contragestion mismatched as topics as one is a social phenomenon and the other is a biological process?
The term birth control is not a scientific term, but one created as a framing device (like the term family planning) in the context campaigns for social change. It is now commonly used as a catch-all or umbrella term for any deliberate attempts to avoid giving birth (although not to things like fertility treatment which are in a literal since methods of controlling birth). Birth control as a topic is likely to be of interest to readers either beginning a search that will be refined to more specific topics if they are doing research, or to a general interest reader who is not looking for more technical information. I'd offer as a parallel the difference between a reader who looks for an article on embryos and one who looks for an article on gastrulation. It may not be a perfect analogy, but it gets at my point about different target audiences. Ock Raz  talk  04:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

-edit: took out #5 as irrelevant to discusiion- Ock Raz   talk  10:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The last review article on the subject is from 1995 per pubmed. I am having trouble finding a textbook that discusses the matter (a few link to old papers on it but do not discuss the term itself). Looks like it is a historical term. I do not see sufficient evidence / literature to justify its own article. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Jmh649: "last review article on the subject is from 199" - please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary Ock Raz   talk  07:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The above questions are moot without sources. This is not a forum for discussing the particular's of any article's subject - see WP:FORUM. I do not dispute that this is an important topic. However, this topic cannot be discussed without presenting sources. For example, the questions OckRaz asks are not questions for any Wikipedia editor - these are questions which can only be answered by reliable sources. If no one presents reliable sources which discuss those issues then Wikipedia is not the place for this content.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   14:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Bluerasberry: "the questions OckRaz asks are not questions for any Wikipedia editor" - I'd agree about #5, but not #1-4, because those address specific reasons cited for an earlier merge and delete. As far as sources go regarding contragestion (rather than its significance or how it should appear in an encyclopedia, in the comment below BC07 talks about reliable sources, so they clearly do exist even if you think there are no sources on the page in its current form. Ock Raz  talk  07:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Contragestion and contragestive are terms not found in any current WP:MEDRS medical reference textbooks or review articles on contraception, birth control, gynecology, or internal medicine.
 * Contragestion and contragestive are terms not found in most medical dictionaries.
 * A PubMed search on "((contragestion) OR contragestive) OR contragestives" finds only 45 articles:
 * 30 in the 1980s, 10 in the 1990s, 1 in the 2000s, and 4 in the 2010s,
 * versus 109,917 articles found on a PubMed search on "((contraception) OR contraceptive) OR contraceptives".
 * Of the 45 PubMed articles, 40 were about RU-486 (mifepristone), 13 were written by Étienne-Émile Baulieu (including the first four articles in 1985, 1986, and 1987, and the last review article in 1997). Only five PubMed articles have appeared in the 15 years since the last review article by Baulieu: two articles about RU-486 (mifepristone) in 2003 and 2010, and:
 * a January 2011 commentary in Spanish: "Análisis y comentario ético del documento Dignitas Personae: desde la continuidad a la novedad" [Ethical analysis and commentary of Dignitas Personae document: from continuity toward the innovation]. The December 2008 Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith instruction Dignitas Personae says (contrary to current WP:MEDRSs) that IUDs and so-called "morning-after pills" (emergency contraceptive pills) are interceptive methods that interfere with the embryo before implantation, and that medical abortifacients like RU-486 (mifepristone), synthetic prostaglandins, and methortrexate are contragestive methods that cause the elimination of the embryo once implanted.
 * a June 2011 commentary "Ulipristal acetate: contraceptive or contragestive?" by Jeffrey A. Kennan, medical director of the Christian Medical and Dental Association (CMDA)-endorsed National Embryo Donation Center in Knoxville, Tennessee.
 * a June 2012 article in French: "Examen et prise en charge des victimes d’agression sexuelle" [Examination and care of sexual assault victims] whose abstract says: Les mesures de prévention sont à discuter au cas par cas, contragestion, trithérapie antirétrovirale, immunoglobulines et vaccination contre l'hépatite B. [Preventive measures should be considered on an individual basis: contragestion, triple antiretroviral therapy, immunoglobulins and hepatitis B immunization.] apparently referring to emergency contraception as contragestion.
 * The only two other PubMed articles using the word "contragestive" that were not about RU-486 (mifepristone) were:
 * a 1987 article about the use of prostaglandin A1 as an abortifacient in Syrian golden hamsters.
 * a 1993 article about the use of Yellow Daphne (Wikstroemia chamaedaphne) as an abortifacient in China.
 * Given that almost all references to "contragestion" are to high-dose RU-486 (mifepristone) used as an abortifacient, a redirect to the Mifepristone article where the last paragraph of the Pharmacology section says:"Contragestion is a term coined by Étienne-Émile Baulieu to promote the acceptance of mifepristone by blurring the differences between the mechanisms of action of contraceptives and those of mifepristone to induce abortion.[40] Baulieu's definition of a contragestive included any birth control method that could possibly act after fertilization and before nine weeks gestational age.[40]" is the most appropriate way for Wikipedia to include the rarely-used terms contragestion and contragestive.
 * BC07 (talk) 20:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * BC07: I don't see the relevance of whether it appears in current textbooks or review articles so long as it has in the past or whether it is in most medical dictionaries given that it is in some. The fact that it did in the first case and does in the second is good enough. I don't know what was going on in Baulieu's head.  I think that your speculation is probably on target, but that has nothing to do with editing wikipedia. The fact that it comes up in discussions of ella, PGA & IUDs is a reason not to use a redirect to RU486.  The fact that contragestion occurs in nonhumans makes it fall outside of the scope of birth control.  If I have difficulty getting some of the articles you've just mentioned would you be able to help me get ahold of them? (Maybe e-mail a pdf or something?)  Ock Raz   talk  07:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Notability is not temporary so this is why it matters when the materials were published. The sources above do not seem to indicate that "contragestion" is a concept which is currently discussed anywhere.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   15:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I very much disagree that the "blurring promotion" paragraph is the best treatment of this topic: it's speculating as to intent well beyond what the presented sources say, as OckRaz says.  I've attempted to "neutralise" that somewhat.  However, I think it needs much broader treatment.  I also agree with the criticisms of this article.  Usages of the term go significantly beyond the sense being offered here, either to mean "either contragestion (strict sense) or termination of pregnancy", or "just termination of pregnancy" (the way the Vatican uses it).  I suggest a complete rewrite, teasing out these different senses and the history of their use.  (Probably best done out of articlespace for the time being, so as to avoid "redirect wars".)  84.203.32.213 (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Needed Update Vis A Vis Emergency Contraception
I've noticed that there is information there which needs to be updated given that recent events concerning how the ACA (aka Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) and the HHS decision about contraception coverage stirred up a controversy precisely about contragestion and this resulted in media reports that clarified what had been the previously murky status of emergency contraceptive pills like the so-called 'morning after pill'. I'll attend to that by updating the info ASAP, but if anyone else wants to edit the page in the meantime, I'd encourage them to do so. The NYT and NPR both had good stories about this, but I don't have specifics at my fingertips. Ock Raz  talk  04:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I added citations for the June 2012 NYT articles to the Mechanism of action section of the Emergency contraception article last week, and added a citation for the June 2012 NPR article today. BC07 (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Merge
Consensus here was to merge the content in question. Thus please do not return it until you have consensus to do so. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free to ask for further input at WT:MED Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. This is only about lack of sources and not a critique of the the importance of the topic.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   14:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Need for Article: Meets Notability & Occurs Naturally & Applies to Nonhumans
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

Previous merging with birth control resulted in effective deletion of information from wikipedia contrary to wikipedia guidelines. There is no reason that information cannot be incorporated into the birth control article without losing this article. The existence of this article in no way detracts from the value of the birth control article. The loss of this article would result in the loss of information which may not be available anywhere else on wikipedia

There are two factors which I think make it clear that there ought to be a separate article:
 * It is a subject that has been written about both as a naturally occurring phenomenon and in the context of nonhuman reproduction (and therefore is outside the scope of birth control & RU486)
 * It meets notability requirements because it appears in verifiable sources including medical dictionaries, journal articles, and other academic sources

I agree that it needs updating and improvement. I'm not sure if I have online access to all of the pubmed articles. If I do, I'll incorporate them sometime within a week. I think that the fact that one is about hamsters ought to be reason enough to conclude that there is material which belongs here but not at birth control. Ock Raz  talk  08:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Question: I'm curious about something. If I wanted to add material taken from an article about people getting fertility treatment who have trouble with the failure to implant, then is it your position that that would be improper unless the word 'contragestion' is used? Clearly there are areas of study which deal with the occurrence of contragestion like the Bruse Effect in rodents which have nothing to do with the use of contraceptives or abortifacients. Are you guys saying that even though the word means prevention of or failure to implant, that there cannot be an article about that because the term itself is not in common use? If so, would you want an article called "prevention of or failure to implant"? That'd be a really awkward title given that a word exists which means just thst. Ock Raz  talk  08:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus for restoring this article. One must develop consensus first. This is not a dictionary. The term is not sufficiently notable to have its own article. It is mentioned very briefly in other articles. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Please stop reverting to redirect! There is no consensus to redirect to RU486.  The contention was that there could be a redirect to birth control, but the information was then lost.  Frankly, the topic cannot be subsumed within other articles as you suggest.  Because it is not limited to them.


 * It is not acceptable to claim consensus for a merge to another page with discussion on that page and that the original one, to then delete the material from the page after the merge occurred, and to then create a redirect to a third page. I am against a merge and am linking to a simple graphic that explains why.  If you want to merge to RU486 and redirect (which you just did) then you need to initiate that action with a notice on this article and a discussion on this talk page. Specify where you're merging and redirecting and the grounds for claiming that it fails the notability requirement.


 * http://i.imgur.com/xv31u.png - graphic for subject areas of contragestion Ock Raz   talk  09:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * PS- I don't know if I agree that consensus on the talk page for a different article was sufficient to get rid of this article. Either way, I don't see how you can keep claiming a consensus to merge as a basis for eliminating the article. There is no merge.  Ock Raz   talk  10:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OckRaz, you should get community support for the changes you are proposing. Please read Wikipedia policy on notability and verifiability. The references used to source this content are not sufficient to establish notability. Would you like to talk about the references? If so, choose two of them which you think are best and I will look at them with you. You seem like a knowledgeable person and I really appreciate your Wikipedia contributions and interest but in this case, it seems like this article is using inappropriate references.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   12:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Essay on contragestion contains misinformation and synthesis
OckRaz (talk | contribs)'s essay on contragestion is not based on current WP:MEDRSs and therefore contains misinformation contradicted by current WP:MEDRSs. It is WP:SYNTH because most of the sources cited do not mention the terms contragestion or contragestive, and the sources cited that do mention the terms contragestion or contragestive have varying definitions and are not current WP:MEDRSs: Except for Hendrick 1997, Sukys 1999, and Dye 2000, none of the sources cited by OckRaz that mention the terms  contragestion  or  contragestive  define them as OckRaz's essay does: acting after fertilization but before implantation. None of the 45 articles indexed on PubMed that mention the terms contragestion or contragestive define them as OckRaz's essay does, including: and the three most recent PubMed-indexed articles: A summary of some of the definitions/uses of the terms contragestion or contragestive in the above-mentioned sources: BC07 (talk) 03:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * two dictionary definitions:
 * . (1998). " contragestion ". The Chambers Dictionary. Edinburgh: Chambers Harrap. p. 355. ISBN 9780550140005.
 * . (2008). " contragestive ". The American Heritage medical dictionary. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. p. 124. ISBN 9780618947256.
 * two articles by Étienne-Émile Baulieu (MD, PhD, endocrinologist and biochemist, professor of biochemistry, University of Paris):
 * Baulieu, Étienne-Émile (September 22, 1989). " Contragestion and other clinical applications of RU 486, an antiprogesterone at the receptor ". Science 245 (4924): 1351–1357. doi:10.2307/1704267 . JSTOR 1704267 ..
 * Baulieu, Étienne-Émile (1997). " Innovative procedures in family planning ". In Johannisson, Elisabeth; Kovács, László; Resch, Bela A. (eds.). Assessment of research and service needs in reproductive health in Eastern Europe — concerns and commitments. Proceedings of a workshop organized by the ICRR and the WHO Collaborating Centre on Research in Human Reproduction in Szeged, Hungary, 25–27 October 1993. New York: Parthenon Publishing. pp. 51–60. ISBN 1850706964.
 * five book chapters/encyclopedia entries:
 * Hendrick, Judith (BA, LLM, solicitor and senior lecturer in law at Oxford Brookes University; author of Child Care Law for Health Care Professionals, Legal Aspects of Child Health Care, and Law & Ethics: Foundations in Nursing and Health Care) (1997). " Family planning ". In Legal aspects of child health care. London: Chapman & Hall. pp. 99–115. ISBN 0412583208.
 * Sukys, Paul A. (JD, PhD applied philosophy, professor of humanities, literature, law, and legal studies at North Central State College; author of Ohio Supplement to Civil Litigation, coauthor of Understanding Business and Personal Law, Business Law with UCC Applications, and Civil Litigation) (1999). Glossary: contragestive agent ". In Lifting the scientific veil: science appreciation for the nonscientist. Lantham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 511. ISBN 0847696006.
 * Dye, Frank J. (PhD, professor of biology & environmental sciences, Western Connecticut State University; author of several cell and developmental biology journal articles ) (2000). "Chapter 20: Birth control", "Answers to study questions", " Glossary: contragestion ". In Human life before birth. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic. pp. 176–186, 219, 234. ISBN 9057026082. (an undergraduate human embryology textbook)
 * Parziale, Amy (PhD candidate in English literature, University of Arizona) (2008). " Birth control ". In Kolb; Robert W. (ed.). Encyclopedia of business ethics and society, Volume 1, A–C. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications. pp. 176–179. ISBN 9781412916523.
 * Ammer, Christine (lifelong student of language in Lexington, Massachusetts, author of 20 popular reference books, on subjects ranging from classical music to economics; for the past decade she has concentrated on language, especially colloquial expressions) (2009). " abortifacient ", " abortion ", " contragestive ". In The encyclopedia of women's health, 6th ed. New York: Facts On File. pp. 1–2, 2–8, 124–125. ISBN 9780816074075.
 * Roberts, Ian (MB ChB, MSc clinical biochemistry, research director Roussel-Uclaf) (August 1988). " Legal aspects involved in the development of anti-progesterones for fertility control ". Human Reproduction 3 (6): 815-817. . referencing:
 * Cook, Rebecca J. (MPA, JD, JSD, assistant professor, School of Public Health, Columbia University) (October 1986). "Anti-progesterones and the law". IPPF Medical Bulletin. 20 (5): 2-3..
 * Pastor Garcia, Luis Miguel (PhD, professor of cell biology and histology, University of Murcia) (January–April, 2011). " Análisis y comentario ético del documento Dignitas Personae: desde la continuidad a la novedad [Ethical analysis and commentary of Dignitas Personae document: from continuity toward the innovation] (commentary)". Cuadernos de Bioética 22 (74): 25–46. ISSN 1132-1989. . commentary on:
 * Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (December 12, 2008). " Instruction Dignitas Personae on certain bioethical questions ". Vatican City: Roman Curia.
 * Kennan, Jeffrey A. (MD, professor of obstetrics & gynecology, director of division of reproductive endocrinology and infertility, University of Tennessee; medical director of the Christian Medical and Dental Association (CMDA)-endorsed National Embryo Donation Center) (June 2011). "Ulipristal acetate: contraceptive or contragestive?" (commentary). Annals of Pharmacotherapy 45 (6): 813–815. doi:10.1345/aph.1Q248.
 * Rey-Salmon, Caroline (MD, pediatrician, forensic unit, Hôtel-Dieu de Paris) (June 2012). "Examen et prise en charge des victimes d’agression sexuelle [Examination and care of sexual assault victims]". La Revue du praticien 62 (6): 803–805, 807–808..
 * 1) Baulieu (1985–1997):  after fertilization, before 9 weeks gestation
 * 2) Roberts (1988):  after implantation, before 5 weeks gestation
 * 3) Hendrick (1997):  after fertilization, before implantation
 * 4) Chambers dictionary (1998):  after fertilization
 * 5) Sukys (1999):  after fertilization, before implantation
 * 6) Dye (2000):  after fertilization, before implantation
 * 7) American Heritage medical dictionary (2007):  after fertilization, before or after implantation
 * 8) Parziale (2008):  after fertilization, before or after implantation
 * 9) Vatican (2008) / Pastor Garcia (2011):  after implantation
 * 10) Ammers (2009): after implantation, = RU-486 (mifepristone)
 * 11) Kennan (2011):  after fertilization, before or after implantation
 * 12) Rey-Salmon (2012): = post-coital (within 72 hours) levonorgestrel

2022 - redirect target
Is this redirect still targeted to the most appropriate article (and section)?

Most of the content from the last non-redirected version of this article does not seem to appear at the current redirect target article.

It’s been 10 years, so that’s not surprising, but perhaps there’s a better target if a standalone article still isn’t deemed appropriate. Jim Grisham (talk) 23:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * do you have a suggestion? my only thought is that the current 'beginning of pregnancy' article could be expanded and address all the terms used in the biology of human reproduction that people probably assume have clear uncontroversial definitions, but which are actually contested based upon either conflicting unprovable assumptions or based on attempts at framing that are linked to competing views about bioethics. it's not just pregnancy - also terms like conception, embryo, contraception, abortifacient, etc. both "pre-embryo" and "contragestive" would both fit into such an article because they were arguably invented in order to more easily stake out a particular position. Ock Raz talk  10:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)