Talk:Progestogen

message: • First of all, I would like to say that the book in question, What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Breast Cancer, may not meet Wiki standards as a good source.  According to the guideline suggesting the use of a secondary source, it is preferable that the source be subject to peer review.  In fairness, lots of true things are printing in sub-prime sources, but for the purposes of an encyclopedia we should try to use high quality sources (such as those subject to peer review).
• I would also say that several of the editors should consult the page on civility.  I don't think it's necessary to be rude or to taunt people.
• Next I would like to propose that it is incorrect to say that progesterone is the only "natural" progestagen.  I would classify pregnenolone, allopregnanolone, and 5α-dihydroprogesterone all as "natural" progestagens.
• Further, I would like to propose that we move away from the distinction between "natural" and "synthetic."  I believe it is much more appropriate, and useful, to distinguish between endogenous and exogenous.  For example, when talking about progesterone it makes little difference whether the progesterone was produced internally or externally, it will still do the same thing.
• One of the editors wrote:
:I will not even begin to address the hoplessly illogical and contradictory 'arguments' put forward in favour of 'natural' versus 'synthetic' progestagens
In principle I don't disagree with this statement, but some steroids have never been observed to occur without human technology, so in some cases I do feel that it is fruitful to distinguish between things that occur without modern technology ("natural") and things that require modern technology ("synthetic").
• Last, I would like to encourage people to please sign their entries.
Ehb 22:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So... the book about breast cancer risk was a bad citation? Okay, how about citing a published study / paper from 2005... I however am clueless how to add a citation correctly... I'm referring to the link I put in the "Progesterone vs Progestin" section I added to the talk page of the "Progestin" article ... for that matter, was there ever a proposal to merge the Progestin article with this one or vice versa? --Kuzetsa (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Can someone help me understand why Dr.John R.Lee's books is not a good source? He has plenty of references to other documentation in his books. I would expect to find such links here, as Wikipedia also should cover alternate medicine, and not only limit content to western traditional medicine.  Am I wrong? IDNaa (talk) 15:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure.  When Dr. Lee cites an article in his book there's nothing to prevent him from making an honest mistake in how he interprets the article, or to prevent him from deliberately trying to advance his own position through creative interpretation of the other documents that he cites.  His book does not, in itself, have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as recommended by Wikipedia guidelines (guidelines for sources).Ehb (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  And so what? Sorry but i do not get your point.IDNaa (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that his book doesn't meet the standards for a good source (see above), so it shouldn't be used as a reference for a wikipedia entry.Ehb (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some thoughts about this discussion 

message: I would just like to suggest to those whom are listing arguments on the talk page for this article: time would be better spent digging up "apropriate" sources to use for citations... Really, I mean no offense in suggesting that "citations will get you further", I certainly agree with arguments that it is irresponsible to claim synthetic progestins are theraputically equivilant to the "4-pregnene-3,20-dione" molecule. (or more simply: without good citations, you're inviting an edit war) --Kuzetsa (talk) 04:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I guess I'll start by practicing adding citations here (with my handy-dandy Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) --Kuzetsa (talk) 04:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "citations will get you further" 

message: The documentation for  mentions it is explictly meant for zero citation articles... rather than re-apply the wrong template, in the future, please use  or other apropriate templates if you still feel an article needs improved. --Kuzetsa (talk) 16:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops sorry about that - thanks.  Zodon (talk) 06:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know who wrote any of those parts, but you're free to make the changes to the main page yourself.  Be bold! However, I would argue that using "progestin" to indicate synthetic progesterone-like steroids is only by convention, that it is not always observed in the literature, and that there is no established consensus that I'm aware of (for example, I don't think this convention is endorsed by IUPAC or IUPHAR), so remember that only verifiable information should be included in the wiki entry :) Ehb (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates to mark article for needing improvement. (drive-by tagging) 

message: Primary spelling is "progestogen", not "progestagen" as per Oxford, Merriam-Webster, National Institutes of Health, etc. Facts707 (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary spelling

message: In the chapter Functions/Progestogens as precursors to other steroids  the article says: "In the human, the fetal adrenals produce dihydroepiandrosterone via the P5 pathway." I think there are dehydroepiandrosterone and dihydrotestosterone, but not dihydroepiandrosterone. Here, I think it should be dehydroepiandrosterona but I'm not an expert. Could somebody check this?--Miguelferig (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Google backs you up, apparently it's dehydroepiandrosterone. MindZiper (talk) 02:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Dihydro/Dehydro

message: I don't really care about all this squabbling. The knowledge from Dr Lee's books have helped myself and my daughter enormously. And it was given to me by my very excellent GP.
As for progesterone, progestins, progestogens. Have the definitions changed then? My understanding was that progesterone is the natural form, progestogens the manufactured in a factory form, and progestins artificial forms which differ in structure. 82.21.188.167 (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progesterone.