Talk:Antisperm antibodies

Alexey Karetnikov UNAIDS and "homosexual men" vs "MSM"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Alexey Karetnikov UNAIDS and its recommendations, refer to HIV, and not to reproductive medicine Путеец (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Recommendations of UNAIDS refer to any use of an epidemiological term MSM versus a sexological term homosexual, not just in relation to HIV. The term men who have sex with men describes males who have sex with males, regardless of whether or not they also have sex with women or have a personal or social gay or bisexual identity. This concept is useful because it also includes men who self-identify as heterosexual but who have sex with other men. [1] As you can see, there is no any reference here that would explicitly say that this concept applies only to HIV.
• Restpero 2013 uses the term homosexual when referring to Mashburn 1994, a very old primary source that had been published before UNAIDS introduced the epidemiological term MSM. The latter term is more correct here, being epidemiological. Using an epidemiological term is preferred here, because epidemiology studies not only transmission of diseases, but also their causes. Epidemiology is the study of how often diseases occur in different groups of people and why. [2] As you can see from here, epidemiology is not just about infectious diseases; it applies to any diseases. The importance of epidemiological data (without any relation to any infection) in studying male reproductive failure is also emphasized in a review by Sikka and Hellstrom 2016 [3].
• Please stop adding outdated terminology, used in a review written by specialists in reproductive medicine, who are unfamiliar with epidemiological terms, especially considering that the impact factor of the journal Actas Urologicas Españolas is very low [4]:
• 2016/2017 Impact Factor : 1.181
• 2015 Impact Factor : 0.274
• 2014 Impact Factor : -NA-
• 2013 Impact Factor : 1.148
• 2012 Impact Factor : 1.144
• 2011 Impact Factor : 0.455
• 2010 Impact Factor : 0.274. Alexey Karetnikov (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

OK. You can add an additional extension "MSM" to the quote. But the quotation must be passed exactly as in the original. In addition, all modern sources for reproductology use this definition. But from the article this is somehow removed. Путеец (talk) 04:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• "all modern sources for reproductology" - I don't see that "all modern sources would be using the term "homosexual men". The reviews Sikka 2016, Bienek 2016, Zini 2011 [5] don't mention either "homosexual men" or MSM. The 2017 book you are referring to is behind the pay wall, so the information from that book can't be verified. (Actually, this book was published in 2016, not in 2017 [6].) Restpero 2013 refers to Marshburn 1994, a very old primary source. In general, experts in reproductive medicine cannot be considered reliable sources for the correct use of terms from the field of sexual orientation studies (e.g., homosexual) and terms from the field of epidemiology (e.g., MSM), if these terms are used in a way that contradicts other biomedical fields. For example, the terms homosexual and homosexuality don't belong to medicine at all. Alexey Karetnikov (talk) 03:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Book "Immune Infertility" (2017) | SpringerLink. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-40788-3 use "homosexual men" Путеец (talk) 04:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• The 2017 book you are referring to is behind the pay wall, so the information from that book can't be verified. (Actually, this book was published in 2016, not in 2017 [7].) Alexey Karetnikov (talk) 03:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Alexey Karetnikov, I'm one of the editors who commented at WP:Med about this. I understand where you are coming from on avoiding the term homosexual. This has been discussed times before at WP:LGBT and once at WP:Med; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 40#LGBT instead of homosexuality, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 43#Style guideline of gay vs homosexual, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 46#Guidelines regarding gay/lesbian vs. homosexual, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 47#Replacing "homosexuality" with "LGBT" in article titles, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 56#Use of the term "homosexual.", and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 53#"Homosexual" vs. "Gay" – Wikipedia policy?.

The discussions show that use of homosexual is a case-by-case matter. If the sources state "homosexual," I don't think we should trade that out for "MSM." This is because the two terms are not synonyms and we should be adhering to WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE. If it was a matter of using "gay" instead of "homosexual," I would support that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• "where you are coming from on avoiding the term" - I believe it does not really matter where I am coming from, because I do not have any problems at all with the term homosexual, unless it is used by somebody instead of the term MSM in the context of biomedical literature. As I have already mentioned here and also on WP:MED, the term MSM has been introduced into medicine already after the old primary sources in question had been published. Some contemporary reviews do repeat the term homosexual when citing those old primary sources. Also, some other users have expressed opinions similar to mine on WP:MED. In relation to this, I do not quite understand now why there is any need to swap this discussion from WP:MED to this page, unless you transfer the whole thread from WP:MED to here and inform all the participants about this transfer :) Alexey Karetnikov (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• those old primary sources? Flyer22 Reborn this is a lie. I have already shown a screenshot of the proof that the term homosexual is used in modern sources, even when primary research is not cited. 2017 — [8] 2014 — [9]. I propose a compromise option: give an exact quote, but add it with the term MSM in brackets. Путеец (talk) 06:21, 29 December 2017‎ (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Alexey Karetnikov, it is true that it should not matter where you are coming from; this is because we are supposed to follow the sources. I was under the impression that the sources use the word homosexual and that you were using MSM in place of the sources because you find the term homosexual outdated and personally object to the term. After all, the WP:Med discussion did go in that direction -- of talking about outdated and offensive terminology. My point is that it is not up to us to forgo the source's terminology and use our own in place of the source's terminology, unless we actually are using synonyms. If a study is specifically about gay/homosexual men, we should not be stating "MSM" in its place; this is because "MSM" covers more than just gay/homosexual men. There is no transfer of discussion. There is a discussion in two different places, and I decided to comment in both places. In the case of that WP:Med discussion, we had two editors focusing on the history of the term MSM and thoughts on when to use it, another editor who stated "if the sources explicitly refer to gays and homosexuals, we shouldn't swap these to 'MSM', as this is a distortion that fails WP:V," and another editor who stated that he does not "know enough about the topic to determine if there are important references in another language that should definitely be cited in the article." I agreed with the editor who cited WP:V. If we were to take this matter to the WP:Verifiability (WP:V) talk page or start a WP:RfC on it, others would agree with me and that editor as well. And, for the record, sexual orientation falls under "biomedical literature." A simple Google search of "Sexual orientation biomedical literature" shows that. And the terms heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual are still used in this biomedical literature. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• I have already explained my position in sufficient detail, and I do not see any need to repeat my reasoning. I am also very well aware of the categories the term "sexual orientation" falls under. Also, this discussion has been closed by Jytdog (talk · contribs). Alexey Karetnikov (talk) 18:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Alexey Karetnikov, your explanation does not trump our WP:Verifiability policy. And if you are violating it, that needs to be remedied. If you are adhering to it, then good. Jytdog is not an administrator and this is not WP:ANI. But if you are violating the WP:Verifiability policy, we will find ourselves at WP:ANI. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ASA are found in 3%–12% of men seeking evaluation of infertility

These strange percentages (3%–12%) are taken from the old source. I delete these values, replacing them with the 2017 source. In all other sources, this data does not confirm. I found this in a single place: https://books.google.com.ua/books?isbn=1139483242 Larry I. Lipshultz, ‎Stuart S. Howards, ‎Craig S. Niederberger - 2009 - ‎Medical Ultimately, a cascade of inflammatory changes leads to impaired sperm function. Antisperm antibodies Antisperm antibodies (ASA) are present in 3—12% of men seeking evaluation at infertility clinics. ASA interfere with fertilization via several mechanisms: agglutination of sperm, prevention of cervical. Alexey Karetnikov please do not add unverified information to the article, especially copy-paste from old sources. In this regard, this source (Sikka and Hellstrom (2016)) can be considered not authoritative, and do not use it. Путеец (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• This "strange percentage" comes from a 2016 review - independent source written by experts in reproductive medicine. This recent review is a very reliable source. Also, it is published in a free journal, unlike your 2017 book, which is behind the pay wall. So the information from Sikka 2016 should stay where it is. Also, the 2009 review is not an old source, compared to the primary source from 1990s which Restpero 2013 refers to when mentioning "homosexual men". Moreover, the question arises about the source for the 2017 book (both for percentage and for using the term "homosexual men"; however, this book is behind the pay wall, so the information from that book can't be verified. (Actually, this book was published in 2016, not in 2017 [10].) Alexey Karetnikov (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• This strange percentage Sikka and Hellstrom (2016) quoted from the source: "Turek PJ. Immunopathology and infertility. Mosby Year Book; Philadelphia, PA 1997". This is an old, inaccessible and little quoted source. But you prefer not to show the source of quoting. I delete this outdated information. Contemporary authors, give data indicated in the first paragraph of 12-13% + ideopathic infertility, which also may be associated with ASA. Путеец (talk) 06:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• "old, inaccessible and little quoted source. But you prefer not to show the source of quoting. I delete this outdated information. Contemporary authors, give data" - Very interesting approach. It does not matter at all, what kind of sources (old, inaccessible, little quoted) the authors of recent reviews are referring to. This information is from a 2016 (very contemporary) review, written by experts and published in a peer-reviewed journal with IF of about 2.5. This information has been thoroughly analyzed by the authors of the review. This review is also open access, unlike the 2017 book you have cited.
• To follow your logic, shall we remove all the information based on the 2017 book, because this book is behind the pay wall?
• Please return the information based on Sikka 2016 back to the article.
• Since the authors of the Sikka 2016 review clearly have different opinion on the quantitative data, compared to the authors of the 2017 book, I tag the sections containing the information based on the 2017 book as requiring adjustment to a neutral point of view.
• Since the 2017 book is behind the pay wall, I tag the fragments containing the information based on the 2017 book as requiring verification. Alexey Karetnikov (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

You violated this rule: WP:AGF. If I quote from a source, then they are there. In different reviews (2014 doi:10.1111/aji.12272): "The incidence of ASA in infertile couples is 9–55%, depending on the reporting center. Antisperm antibodies have been described in 8–21% of the infertile men (autoantibodies) and in 6–43% of infertile women (isoantibodies). Moreover, ASA from infertile patients may be direc-ted to dissimilar sperm antigens, and/or clusters of antigens, or possess different antigen-binding charac-teristics than those from fertile individuals." The value of about 15% occurs most often, for male infertility. These studies involved heterosexual couples who wanted to have children. Homosexuals would change this proportion. Путеец (talk) 06:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• [11] [12] [13] This is evidence of the accuracy of my citation Путеец (talk) 06:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
• Since the average values of the survey in 2014 correspond to the data of the survey in 2017, I delete the templates from the article. In the article [14]: "Eight studies were identified, including 238 cases of ASA positive infertility male and 929 ASA negative controls". Summarizing the results of several studies, the exact value for ASA is 20,4%. I propose to use the data of 2017 as averages. Путеец (talk) 07:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Even when in 60% of healthy men ASA have been found in serum

Alexey Karetnikov When quoting, we must check the validity. You cite an unverified quote from the review.

I.S. Henao,A.P. Cadavid,J.E. Ossa Autoanticuerpos antiespermatozoides e infertilidad Iatreia, 10 (1997): cited Tung KS, Cooke WR Jr, McCarty TA, Robitaille P. Human sperm antigens and antisperm antibodies. I. Age related incidence of antisperm antibodies. Clin Exp Immunol. 1976:

The exact prevalence of sperm antibodies in a particular population is difficult to assess with accuracy because there is no standardization of assay or site from which the specimen is chosen (i.e., sperm versus cervical mucus). It has been estimated that approximately 60% of adult sera possess ASA, but the titers are low (<1:16).

As you can see, the source of this percentage is not quoted reliably, and from the old source (1976). Please check the accuracy of the data entered! Путеец (talk) 19:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• In Wikipedia, we do not do this sort of "verification" that you imply. The only verification we do here is the following: 1) whether the source of information is a recent review - In this case, it is a 2013 review; 2) whether the review has been published in a journal indexed in MEDLINE - In this case, it is; 3) whether the information added to the WP article corresponds to the information described by the authors of the review. We do not work with sources analyzed by the authors of a review. Doing otherwise would mean original synthesis. All the conclusions and data from sources cited by the authors of reviews are analyzed by the authors of these reviews who are the experts in their respective field. It is not up to individual editors of WP to make their own analysis of sources cited by recent reviews. In regard to this, the WP rules clearly state: Primary sources should not be cited with intent of "debunking", contradicting, or countering any conclusions made by secondary sources. Synthesis of published material advancing a position is original research, and Wikipedia is not a venue for open research. Controversies or uncertainties in medicine should be supported by reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints. Primary sources should not be aggregated or presented without context in order to undermine proportionate representation of opinion in a field. If material can be supported by either primary or secondary sources – the secondary sources should be used. [15]
• Based on the points above, please return the information based on Restpero 2013.
• Please see also my comment in the section above.
• Also, please avoid using an exclamation point in a conversation. This helps to improve the atmosphere of any discussion. Alexey Karetnikov (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

In a recent review, other data: "However, these antibodies are also present in approximately 1–2.5 % of fertile men [ 32 , 33 ] and in 4 % of fertile women.".Explain the reason why you are trying to include a false thesis in an article, even after I proved an error? Путеец (talk) 04:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

What the sources state

Jytdog, this is not confusion or an error on my part. This is me trying to discuss what the sources state and trying to make it clear to so-called newbies that we follow what the sources state. We have Alexey Karetnikov stating one thing and Путеец stating another. A discussion about what the sources state has everything to do with this article. Please stop shutting down discussion. I am involving myself in this discussion with these two editors to figure this matter out, especially since I stern about following WP:Verifiability and am well-versed in sexual orientation topics. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• According to WP policies, all participants are equal, so everyone here should be treated as equally "well-versed in sexual orientation topics". Best regards, Alexey Karetnikov (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Alexey Karetnikov, no Wikipedia policies state that. All that I am stating is that I know what I am talking about on these matters, which means that I can quite easily combat the nonsense that "MSM" should be used in place of "homosexual" if the sources don't state that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I try to protect the most important right of LGBT people - to know the consequences of sexual practices. What I think about Aleksey, I wrote here [16]. Read the doctor's answer. I'm not experienced in Wikipedia, and English is bad for me. The removal of the word "homosexual" is done to ensure that users do not find health consequences in Wikipedia. And this is a violation of the rights of LGBT people. I ask for help in creating a request for arbitration. [17] [18] [19] Путеец (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)