Jump to content

Talk:Vasectomy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2.53.185.31 (talk) at 20:50, 21 August 2022 (→Non-gendered language: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Artificial Insemination vs. In Vitro Ferilization

The "Conceiving after vasectomy" describes artificial insemination as an option and later refers to in vitro fertilziation. Although both are assisted reproductive technologies, but I don't believe these terms are interchangeable.Jpberkland (talk) 09:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian Portuguese?

Is there a specific reason why the right hand picture's in Brazilian Portuguese? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.18.42.161 (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image has "popped" in and out of the article for a long time. It seems that there are "no" English versions that are not copywrited. 173.58.45.96 (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of disputed edits for WP:3O ~

ISSUE # 1 for WP:3O

Debate about the "safest most reliable method"
Here is a link to PUBMEDPUBMED with the conclusion text here:
  • CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence supports no-scalpel vasectomy as the safest surgical approach to isolate the vas when performing vasectomy. Adding FI increases effectiveness beyond ligation and excision alone. Occlusive effectiveness appears to be further improved by combining FI with cautery. Methodologically sound prospective controlled studies should be conducted to evaluate specific occlusion techniques further.
And here is a HUGE article that covers several aspects of the debate (BUT, a person (hint) needs to actually read it)

Also at PUBMEDPUBMED Text here:

Conclusions:'''''Current evidence supports NSV (no scalpel) as the safest surgical approach to isolate and expose the vas when performing vasectomy. There is also clear evidence that FI should be performed to occlude the vas when ligation and excision are used, but intraluminal cautery with FI appears to result in better occlusive effectiveness. Within the scope of our review many questions on vasectomy surgical techniques remain unresolved: 1) Is FI combined with cautery associated with a better occlusive and contraceptive efficacy than cautery or FI alone? 2) Is thermal cautery associated with a better occlusive and contraceptive efficacy than electro-cautery? 3) Is any occlusion technique associated with a lower risk of surgically complications including bleeding/hematoma and infection? 4) Is leaving the testicular end open associated with less risk of non-infectious post-vasectomy pain than occluding it? Considering that vasectomy is such a common surgical procedure in the human male, further methodologically-sound prospective controlled studies should be conducted to determine the most effective and safest vasectomy surgical techniques.

ISSUE # 2 for WP:3O

Debate on the use of the word "Traditional" in the context of "Traditional Vasectomy"
Here is an article from COCHRANE http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab004112.html supporting the word "traditional" in the statement "In Traditional Vasectomy"..
(It should be noted that the word "conventional" has also been used when referring to the classic vasectomy procedure, that of course is evolving with newer methods)
Authors' conclusions
The no-scalpel approach to the vas resulted in less bleeding, hematoma, infection, and pain as well as a shorter operation time than the traditional incision technique. No difference in effectiveness was found between the two approaches.

This (something as simple as the word "traditional") should have Never come up for WP:3O IMO, as it is a descriptive word about the conventional methods of Vasectomy, and clearly ANYONE can see that, but this supports my claim of how hard it's been to move on in editing this article with this individual constantly WP:DIS.

ISSUE # 3 for PVPS WP:3O

There are issues about insertion of text regarding the PVPS article which I've already conceded due to lack of time and exhaustion. The debate there is about where pain presents in PVPS, which I've read can include the lower pelvic/abdominal areas upon emission of ejaculate. This information is available in medical texts but I cannot take the time to look, and therefore, I've given in.
Any other complaints by Giancoli are personal attacks. He doesn't like the way I edit. He doesn't like the way I write my edit summaries. He doesn't like the way I cite editorial content. He doesn't like me doing anything that relates to PVPS or flys in the face of his PVPS bias, even when it is properly cited. The reason IMHO that I've been sorted out, is because he wants to have control over the article, but if anyone were to truly research the history, I've written a substantial amount of the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dijcks (talk • contribs) 04:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


"All these citations refer to the safety of the method for incision: scalpel (which is referred to as traditional incision) and no-scalpel by which a hook is used to access the scrotum. This does not compare the safety of the actual method of vasectomy: e.g. fascial interposition vs. no fascial interposition, open-ended vs. closed-ended; ligation vs. cautery if closed-ended. We agree, and the sources support, that the method for accessing the scrotum should be "no-scalpel". This does not however support the far-reaching claim: "It is widely accepted that the "No-Scalpel" method, along with vas occlusion by cauterization with fascial interposition, provides the safest, most reliable procedure outcome." Giancoli (talk) 03:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


That statement is not a "far reaching claim". The information in that statement is common knowledge amongst virtually all physicians in the medical community who actively participate in vasectomy surgeries.
This link meets WP:MEDRS, by virtue of Cochrane review citations, and discusses all aspects of what that statement says. The further links tie it all together, but you will have to read them. This Cochrane Reference occlusion techniques supports fascial interposition. This Cochrane review of course, supports the no-scalpel technique.scalpel vs no-scalpel. Assuming one takes the time to read and extract the data, and assuming one is willing to research other reliable sources, this statement is fully supported.
If you want to continue with how techniques such as open-ended or other occlusion techniques factor in, for example, I would point out again, that this statement has to do with the safety and contraceptive effectiveness of the surgery, and not about long-term effects. This link Supports the statement, regardless if one end of the vas is left open (prostatic end cautery). Remember that open-ended techniques are not in widespread use currently, although more and more physicians are offering it.
I would further point out that an editor here need not find that exact wording somewhere else before using it. There is a process of informational extraction that comes from copious amounts of research that anyone can also do. Given the current methods that are in widespread use, and using several reliable text references (including gold-standard Cochranes), the statement can (or should be able to) persist, (at least until other studies come about that support other methods).
Here is some input from an unbiased user who answered the WP:3O: He has pointed out that Cochrane reviews are about the best sources for supporting editorial content on Wikipedia:
QUOTE: "Noting your edit-warring over some vs numerous studies supporting no-scalpel techniques please keep in mind Wikipedia:MEDRS. Given that it's the Cochrane boffos, you can simply remove the 'studies' wording. '"The "No-Scalpel" method, along with vas occlusion by cauterization with fascial interposition, provides the safest, most reliable procedure outcome." Rknight 06:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Traditional vasectomy?
As far as the wording "In a traditional vasectomy...", I assume you've been exposed to sufficient proof its use given the copious use of that word combination everywhere in texts, searches, reviews, etc.? In fact, that word combination could easily be considered "common knowledge", given the several references found by admin:moonriddengirl I'd think. Dijcks HotTub Pool 23:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3O discussion for compromise

It would be helpful to get your response regarding the WP:3O responses, so we can reach consensus or move to formal dispute resolution. Dijcks HotTub Pool 00:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


It is important for us to resolve the actual wording issues. I think the problem here is misinterpretation of the primary medical sources. Having looked carefully at all the sources you cite: what they all claim, and what is widely accepted is 1) no-scalpel is a safer way to open the scrotum to perform a vasectomy, and 2) fascial interposition or whatever other technique for vasectomy that the particular author prefers is "effective". Safety and effectiveness are carefully separate in all of these sources. "Safety" is used ONLY for the "no-scalpel" and "effectiveness" is used for the actual vasectomy techniques. Everyone agrees that "no-scalpel" is the safest way to open the scrotum. Both you and the other editor have confused these two issues, I must respectfully say. Perhaps you can propose a wording that does not claim that particular occlusion techniques you prefer are the "safest", when the sources say only that "no-scalpel" is the safest way of opening the scrotum. Giancoli (talk) 03:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


My actual stance on safety may have been difficult to follow, as I've just noticed that content was inserted into the middle of my note. It may be easier to read now that I have organized it according to who wrote what. However, as I noted below, medical sources are typically and wisely careful about using such definitive statements, and we must follow suit. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Answer to Message by Giancoli on 03:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC
The sources I provided are not "primary". They are Cochrane Peer Reviews. They are Peer Reviewed Sources, giving them more than sufficient credibility according to WP:MEDRS, even more so than PubMed. I'm not "confused" about anything. I've read a ton of research, and there is no confusion. There are 3 aspects of vasectomy that are of concern, two of which are of concern in the descriptive texts relating vasectomy itself:
  1. Safety of the procedure.
  2. Effectiveness of the procedure.
  3. Long-term effects of the procedure. The long term effects of vasectomy are dealt with in other areas of the article, including the PVPS article.
Here is what I plan to insert when the page is available which I believe will satisfy concerns:
  • There are peer reviewed studies that support the no-scalpel method as the safest method of vas excision, while vas occlusion by cautery (one or both sides) appears to provide the most effective contraceptive outcome. Fascial interposition provides a further level of effectiveness by mitigating the chance of recanalization.
  • Other than to add some additional content to improve the "traditional vasectomy" area, I don't plan to remove the word "traditional" as it clearly is a common reference to the original methods used for the procedure.
Let me know what you think. Dijcks HotTub Pool 19:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


It is definitely a step in the right direction! There are still a few issues of concern with that wording: 1) no-scalpel is not about "vas excision". A Google search for "vas excision" will show that this refers to cutting the vas. "No-scalpel" refers only to the method for penetrating the scrotal skin to access the vas: it says nothing about the actual cutting of the vas or any occlusion techniques. 2) it does not seem warranted to use superlatives: the studies compare "scalpel" with "no-scalpel", claiming one is "safer" (not "safest"). Similarly there is no claim of "most effective" only of "effective". We should also talk about "traditional" vasectomy, but later, after we resolve this issue. Best, Giancoli (talk) 04:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! It should have read, There are peer reviewed studies that support the no-scalpel method as the safest current method of approaching/isolating the vas for excision, while vas occlusion by cautery (one or both sides) appears to provide the most effective contraceptive outcome. Fascial interposition provides a further level of effectiveness by mitigating the chance of recanalization.

My thinking here is: "Safest" applies, because it currently is fact. It compares only to the traditional scalpel technique, and EVERY peer review supports it. The syntax, "appears to provide.." gives just enough support to the statement to allow for the possibility of contrary arguments, (which there are none currently). Given the fact that this is what the most recent studies are saying, I'd really like it to stay,(at least for now).

On using the word "traditional" though?, I will not compromise, ok? The word "traditional" describes the nature of the procedure, hence the common/traditional first uses/methods used when performing vasectomies. I am not saying this is the name of the procedure. I've used the word "conventional" for a while, but there are subtle differences between those words that led me back to the descriptive word "traditional".

The information I contribute is based on the latest information I can find but of course it evolves as I find more. I always try to find more recent, and better information. I've compromised, and feel that much of that compromise is a good thing, but just like you, there are elements of the article that I am adamant about! I hope that we can work together in this fashion in the future. It's far more peaceful than our original exchanges :) Bye for now. Dijcks HotTub Pool 15:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks, Dijcks, the wording is definitely improving, and I am also willing to compromise. I do feel, however, that in accordance with Wikipedia policy, any claim should be supported by a citation that supports the full claim, and if parts of the claim are not supported by a citation, the claim should be changed to be in accordance with the citation. What I hope is that you continue to look for a credible source that supports your claim in full; otherwise to change the wording to be identical to the sources that you find. About the word "traditional", I should give some background for any other readers who may not be familiar with PubMed. PubMed is a repository of medical publications that includes all the important medical journals with content stretching back for nearly 100 years. PubMed has a search like Google for all title and abstracts. The term "traditional vasectomy" is not in the database. So, no one has used that term medically. It is a "common-sense" definition but then why defined in bold as if it is a medical term? Best, Giancoli (talk) 04:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


If I've learned one thing, it is that people all think differently about the same thing, even about something that may seem clear. But, in the wake of these discussions, I may simply not be doing a good job of explaining the need for the word in the context of its use. I don't know if this is a residual hangup given our heated discussions that you feel must be seen-through OR an honest and true struggle with the "Traditional" thing due to poor explanation on my part?
I really am not sure what to expect, moving forward. As a Content Editor, there is no way I can write, AND field long-term discussions about semantics in word usage.
BUT, I want to try my best to work to a mutual understanding.
Let me try it this way:
The statement, "A traditional vasectomy employs the use of a scalpel to cut each side of the scrotal sac, allowing the surgeon to access the vas deferens for excision and ligation".
The above statement describes the first-use, "classic", "original", "conventional", or, I could also say, "In the first widespread use of vasectomy, a surgeon employed the use of a scalpel.. and so forth. But that statement syntax is NOT better than the current use of the word "traditional".
How about this angle:
  • If writing, "A TRADITIONAL VASECTOMY.." it would be a Noun. In this context, you would have a valid argument because this would suggest that there is a medical term called "Traditional Vasectomy".
BUT:
  • If writing, "A traditional "VASECTOMY"..", turns the word, "traditional" in to an adjective, describing the first-use methods employed at a time when other methods didn't exist and this should satisfy the argument.
There are other ways I can describe a traditional vasectomy, and as the article evolves, this may just happen.
At some point though, I feel you have to let go of writing style to the favor of the person making the content contribution, UNLESS there is a real defect.
ABOUT SOURCES:
PubMed is only one source of reliable information, of which there are a handful of other excellent sources, for example "Cochranes", which is highly respected, and endorsed by WP:MEDRS. Sometimes, you have to dig deeper from the PubMed source and access the citations at the bottom of PubMed page, where the support for the content comes from. That's it for now! Dijcks HotTub Pool 16:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Dijcks, I am glad we are having this discussion: I would be fine with the wording you proposed above: "A traditional vasectomy employs the use of a scalpel to cut each side of the scrotal sac, allowing the surgeon to access the vas deferens for excision and ligation". I think we are getting to the bottom of the issue: my concern was that closed-end vasectomy not be defined as "traditional" because that term is not used to refer to a closed-ended vasectomy given the widespread use of open-ended as an alternative since the 1970's at least and likely before. People often do use the term "traditional" to refer to the incision by scalpel as "traditional method of incision" or something of that sort. With the wording you proposed above, this is accepted usage. My concern with "traditional vasectomy" being used for closed-end vasectomy is that it would a novel medical definition which it is not the place of Wikipedia editors to make: analogously it would be like defining "safe vasectomy" to be an open-ended vasectomy as a "common sense" definition given the many studies that show its benefits for safety: it would not be appropriate to make such a novel definition. With the good wording you have suggested above, I think this matter should be considered resolved. Thanks for discussing this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giancoli (talk • contribs) 04:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


If I missed this as your concern, I apologize, BUT, I don't remember ever confusing open-ended with traditional methods. If I did, it may have been an oversight. As the article evolves, some of this will resolve simply by virtue of the content coming together in a more organized fashion. Over time, I think a lot of these issues are going to go away because of the continued expansion of the article. There will likely be more delineation between the methods, offering better understanding for readers.
There are some possible issues/concerns with open-ended methods of vasectomy as well, including prevalence of granulomas when leaving the testicular end open, that currently may need to be studied. Also, although open-ended is being used, it really has not "caught on" with practitioners yet. Time will tell. There's a lot of work involved to find reliable information and usable citations regarding same.
A couple ideas/thoughts:
  • If you have references you want me to use, bring them here so we can sort them out, especially if they can improve the information.
  • I hope you understand that when I've added or taken away content, it's really never been personal. I've written most of the content and I tend to simply change things when I come across better info, or can find a way to make that particular part of the article better. I then make monotone-type edit summaries. This is not, and never has been contemptuous (or personal) on my part. I'm moving forward to improve the content and that's all it is.
I think we are on the right track, and maybe they can let us get back to contributing to the article. ..take care. Dijcks HotTub Pool 19:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Good, I also agree we are on the right track. However, I noticed that I made a quick edit last time: Could we use the wording: "A traditional vasectomy employs the use of a scalpel to cut each side of the scrotal sac, allowing the surgeon to access the vas deferens for excision" instead? Ligation does not always take place; sometimes cautery is used instead; sometimes, as in open-ended vasectomy, only the prostatic end is closed. Also, I must say, simply for completeness, that open-ended vasectomy has caught on, is becoming more and more standard; there is a clear division of doctors: some perform only open-ended, others perform only closed-ended. The doctors who perform open-ended are concerned about PVPS and less about a slightly higher rate of unwanted pregnancies; the doctors who do closed-ended tend not to be concerned about PVPS, but more about diminishing rate of unwanted pregnancies. I will look for more sources as time allows. Giancoli (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Traditional lead:
Not really because when they were first done, ligation was the only way it was done. I think you are still confusing maybe, how it was originally done, and how the procedure is evolving. Remember the lead of this section sets the reader up by describing the classical method. The reason I haven't qualified it as "historically", is because some surgeons (old-schoolers) still do employ sutures for vas occlusion. .. and probably still hack their way in with a scalpel too lol. (joke but probably true). Cauterization came about later on and open-ended/plugs/clips sometime later again.
Open-Ended:
I can qualify open-ended as soon as practicable but I think we've done that when explaining the method and benefits. Studies are showing open-ended may be of benefit, but the trade-off I believe, has been granulomas at the open end. Need to to a bit more research on this. I've read reports that granulomas occur with closed-ended as well, but closer to the epididymis I believe.
As far as your comment about open-ended in widespread use: That is a somewhat provocative statement, because I cannot find any peer reviews/studies that support its widespread use. To me, widespread means most doctors are now offering it. We might be able to push this info at least in a way that supports the studies that suggest a lesser prevalence of PVPS.
Challenge:
You are going to need to help me find support if we are going to make that statement about open-ended mainstream use. I/we could make a comment right now such as: "Some studies have shown promise in mitigating PVPS when employing the open-ended technique".
Otherwise, all we can do is list and explain the methods available and let readers (who are potential patients) make informed choices. As much as I understand your concerns (I have them too, remember I also have PVPS)) we must stay on track as relates to undue weightWP:UNDUE. The article can evolve as methods change and weight can change as statistical data comes in. Dijcks HotTub Pool 14:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've just stopped back by quickly to add another comment, and adjust the above comments a bit. I've been thinking about removing, all together the bottom part that talks about the most successful and reliable methods. I think it might be better to simply elaborate on the benefits of each method and then let readers use the information as they need to. How about that?
Also, I've set up a temporary work-space for the article at my talk page if you want to make some proposed changes that could be incorporated when we are able to get back to the article. Dijcks | HotTub | Pool 03:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hey Dijcks, thanks for these messages! This sounds like a wonderful idea because it simply presents the methods with whatever research supports them and lets the user make an informed choice. I do believe that the majority of urologists use closed-end vasectomy, but my guess would be somewhere like 30% used open-ended exclusively: I would need to find some studies on this. Certainly the urologists who treat PVPS, which are the ones I see mostly, use open-ended vasectomy exclusively. I will look for studies to see if we can get a better understanding of the distribution of usage. Best wishes. I certainly think we can get back to editing the article now, though I did want to address the use of "minor" in the first sentence. It seems possibly undue weight as it's a physician's perspective but not the patient's perspective. From the patient's perspective, it is life-changing and reversibility is not assured. Perhaps a compensating word like "permanent" in the first sentence to give the patient's perspective? Best wishes, Giancoli (talk) 04:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hey, good morning (Pacific Coast)! I don't think taking the word "minor" would fly for very long. It's used everywhere in the texts, journals, reviews, studies, physician websites, etc.. Also, this is a psychological vs. a technical issue. All human-beings are afraid of surgery regardless of the complexity of the surgery. Even if we took it out, someone else would eventually put it back in. Of course us men don't think it's so "minor" given the location of the surgery! ..but to change it would cause WP:UNDUE and it wouldn't say much about our WP:NEUTRAL if we do that. When I am able, there will be a lot more regarding patient perspectives as well. It takes time though.. See ya for now.. Dijcks | HotTub | Pool 15:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hey Dijcks, good evening to you. It seems we are on the right track for good edits. For your info, the word "minor" was not in the first sentence of the article for months, and no one added it there until you did. From the physician perspective it is indeed a "minor" surgery, which is why physicians put that word on their webpages (possibly there is also an advertising component to this usage) but in journal articles it is usually balanced with something like "potentially major complications" or "permanent birth control" or something similar to try to give a neutral point of view, including the patient's perspective. If you prefer to keep the word in the first sentence of the article, it's fine with me, but we should have a compensating word or phrase balancing the physician perspective with the patient perspective. It is the case that the surgery leads to a permanent life change to the patient, is only partially reversible and sometimes not reversible at all, and there is a substantial possibility of long-term pain, which is very unpleasant given the location of the surgery. Potentially not very "minor". Best, until next time. Giancoli (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hey,

Ya, I'm looking forward to getting back to contributing too and I'm sure we can make it work, but your comment isn't exactly true about when and how the word minor made its way in to the article! When I first came to the vasectomy article in April of 2009, it was already in the edits as a minor surgery. It was accepted by editors back then and persisted for over 1.5 years when you took the word out [here]. We went back and forth a bit at that time. I was forced to take some time away, and when returning in March this year to contribute further, I dug in and started making relevant changes. I truly didn't make connections to who did what until our exchanges started to get heated. I simply wanted to get the article improved and so I made changes and kept on adding content.

It's important that you know my ONLY intentions are to improve the article and I will work with you to do that (as long as we are actually improving it!). See ya later.. Dijcks | InOut 15:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hey Dijcks, good to hear from you. Of course I know that your goal is to improve the article; I believe every editor's goal is to improve the article. Issues arise because people have differing opinions about what is improving the article. For example, in this diff, I had done some copy-editing and you reverted it entirely. My opinion is that the copy-editing improved the article; your opinion was that it did not. I think it's important for us to set a protocol for editing the page. If one editor is copy-editing a particular section, there should be no reversion; rather the other editor should leave the text for a few days at least before editing that section. Both of us should not be uncompromising over every aspect of the article, but rather accept that we have somewhat differing points of view and that the article should reflect both of our points of view. If the wording for a particular section (and this should happen infrequently) is unacceptable to either of us, then we should bring it here for discussion. However, that should be rather infrequent, because if either one of us decides to complain about every little change on this talk page, then 1) no work will get done, and 2) the editor who is not being allowed to edit will feel that his contributions are not being appreciated. If you agree to this protocol, I am happy to request that we be allowed to resume editing the page with a collaborative approach. Best wishes, Giancoli (talk) 04:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


While this conversation is primarily between the two of you, I just wanted to say that I think this is a good approach, except that if it seems critical, instead of leaving it for a few days, conversation might take place a little more quickly. In my own work, I find it's generally a good idea to at least mull it over for an hour or two when articles are controversial. There have been times when I've wished I'd done that. :) The goal, when there are disagreements, is to find compromise, and third opinions or other stalemate breakers are always available. I agree that it's important that both parties feel respected in the process. I trust it goes without saying that an agreement of this sort relies on good faith. It's not a death pact, and if either party in such an agreement should begin introducing material that they would have cause to know could not achieve consensus (extreme POV or what have you), it really would not be binding. But as an ordinary course of progression between two reasonable contributors, it sounds like an excellent plan. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Giancoli, I took a bit of time thinking about your last message, and had planned to address it using the "diff" you provided, but I really feel that there are some things we will simply not agree on. We may need to peacefully seek "tiebreakers" in the future, and continue to offer each other mutual consideration/respect.
I feel that we are on the right track to peaceful coexistence in editing vasectomy now. At the very least, we both understand how to effectively communicate our differences, but as moonriddengirl pointed out regarding controversial and/or questionable content, these are areas that I cannot compromise on. I don't expect we will have many of these issues as you've already suggested. The bullet list below is/are areas where I will be bold in reverting/editing:
  • Edits (regardless of who makes them) that in their entirety or in part do not actually add to the factual, neutral and reliable existing content.
  • Edits that have any sort of bias, undue weight or personal POV.
  • Edits to grammar that are not, or do not improve the readability or comprehensibility of the article.
I think these are fair requests and note that I am not accusing you of any of the aforementioned. I'm simply stating objectives as I continue adding content.
Here's what I think would be fair to us both regarding any differences of opinion:
  • If you edit content that I've contributed, and I revert it, I will suggest we discuss it at the talk pages in the edit summary.
  • If I edit content that you've contributed, and you revert it, you have the option of doing the same.
This way, we can avoid conflict and it preserves the original contribution. The idea behind this is that we both have to assume 100% good faith in our edits, and that those edits reflect either reliable sources, consensus, or widespread acceptance.
Also, I would ask a favor of you:
That you give me some time to add, correct, and organize the article before making provocative/controversial copy-edits. I think we both know each other well-enough to know what qualifies. The reason I ask this is because, some of your concerns may be answered-to by virtue of evolving edits. As I've added content, some of our debated subject-matter was resolved by the full editing of that part of the article. One example is the lead paragraph. Eventually it did "qualify" the differences between open-ended and closed-ended vasectomies. Your copy-edits did not in that example, which was one of our debates. If something is critical to you, simply message me, and we will get it together. See you at the article :) Dijcks | InOut 18:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Dijcks, part of what you suggest is fine, but some of these comments are problematic, as it represents a reversion to your model of editing which has caused problems between us in the past. First, it is not acceptable to revert my edits. Secondly, both of us must be allowed to contribute directly to the article. Also, you are continuing to make claims about my neutrality which are unacceptable. I had hoped we would be onto a new page. It is important that we reach an agreement or we will face the same problems as in the past. Best wishes, Giancoli (talk) 04:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


If I may, it is generally acceptable to revert anyone's edits and part of the ordinary bold, revert, discuss cycle. However, it's provocative to revert somebody's edits. While sometimes it is necessary, there's generally something worth retaining, even if you don't agree with everything. With good faith content that it is not unsalvageably out of keeping with policies, I myself will usually try to modify rather than revert. That's what consensus is all about. :) In terms of compromise, I would hope that neither of you would compromise on material touching on WP:NPOV. Not that I'm suggesting that either of you are non-neutral, but we all approach subjects from our own perspectives and one of the strengths of the Wikipedia model is that by allowing (and even requiring) people to hash out differences on article talk pages we balance each other out. That's a desirable part of the process. It makes for better articles. :) I'm not recommending that you balance each other through blanket reversion, though, so much as talking, with an eye towards speedily resolving such disputes. When it comes to edits that we feel do not add to factual, neutral and reliable existing content or that do not improve readability, that's a little more difficult. These things are widely subjective, and where content does not actually violate a policy or guideline, it is far better not to revert them immediately, but to think about why you prefer one version or another. Sometimes, if it does not actually hamper readability or existing content, it may be better to let it go as a matter of personal taste. If you think it is a bit of a step back, it's a good idea to discuss it.
With controversial articles such as this one, it is sometimes better to take potentially contentious major content changes (even if small in word count) to the talk page first. Just a note, perhaps, to say, "I intend to add 'x' to the article if there are not objections" and a delay of a day or half a day to permit discussion if it evolves. This is not because anybody owns the article, but simply a courtesy to other contributors. And this is a practice that might be considered wise by all parties, not just one. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I would be sorry to lose any positive ground we've covered and personally would work very hard not to let that happen.
All I asked/suggested, is that we respect each others original contributions, by bringing any differences of opinion to a discussion page, thus allowing for consensus/compromise on any potential changes to that original content.
Dijcks | InOut 15:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The problem is that since the current content is nearly all your work, as you reverted all of mine, this policy means that I cannot edit any of the current content. This should not be a one-person project as you have forced it to be. You have refused to agree to my truce offering, and instead your rhetoric looks like a return to your old style of editing. Let me point out that between the two of us, only you have put unsourced point-of-view claims in the article, and my edits have generally been of very high quality. It is not fair to insist that the article be entirely your work. I do not believe that this will lead to the highest quality article. It is important to reach an agreement, as Moonriddengirl suggested, where neither one of us insists on reverting to "original" contributions. This is not a place for individual authorship but rather a place for shared authorship. Best wishes, Giancoli (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I would suggest. Instead of anticipating disagreements that might arise, perhaps you should just move forward with editing the article. As long as everybody follows the Wikipedia:Editing policy, things should go okay. In a nutshell, the policy-based recommended approach is this:

  • Always use a good edit summary to explain what you are doing and, if the situation is complex or likely to be contentious, put a note at the talk page.
  • Talk about major changes ("large proposed deletions or replacements") at the talk page before making them.
  • Otherwise, boldly make minor changes and fix problems without worrying about consulting anybody, but be open to talk cordially if somebody disagrees (and, of course, remember to communicate in edit summary and at talk page).

Personally, I would consider whether what I see as a "problem" is likely to be perceived as a "problem" by others as well. If there's a chance it is not, I would treat it as a "major change".

Disagreements are bound to happen on certain subjects. They should be resolved collegially, with focus on the text rather than the other contributor's behavior or motivation. If there truly are behavioral or motivation issues that need to be addressed, they should not be hashed out here, but instead addressed politely in user talk space and then, as needed, properly through one of the methods outlined at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Hopefully, that won't be necessary. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I agree with moonriddengirl that we should get back to editing the article. There are a few important notes:
  1. I want to apologize if I missed your offer of Truce. Can you point me in the right direction with a link? I may have missed important elements of our discussion if I've indeed missed or overlooked your offer.
  2. Because we've taken on different approaches to the article, you as a copy-editor and me as a bulk contributor of content, you may feel that I am insulting your work when I make changes and/or move things around. Adding content requires a lot of time and effort, which can result in changes that include moving/deletion/changing of previous edits. Again, this is not personal, but simply part of the process of bringing an article along.
  3. Finally, you might enjoy taking a look at the article as I believe I've successfully answered to all of your concerns in WP:3O :) Dijcks | InOut 22:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for your reasoned replies. I agree that we should move on to try to make a better article. I believe that if we follow Moonriddengirl's guidelines, we shouldn't have any problems. I look forward to continue our editing and to make a better article together. Best wishes, Giancoli (talk) 04:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, Thought I would let you know my plans for vasectomy. There is still some statistical data I want to find as well as photos of the medical tools/equipment used for the procedure, all of which might cause us to reorganize the layout. I'm currently trying to learn how to implement pics with text, such as an image that depicts the hemostat/tool with a caption. As well, There is also more information regarding "laser" surgical techniques w/excision and cautery that needs to be added to the techniques section. That's my "to-do" list currently, but time is short recently and not much time for research. If you see grammar or other areas that need work , go for it, and I will do my best to preserve any edits in that regard. I may do a re-write of the lead to make it more readable and understandable, so if you can hold off on any copy-edits, that would be wonderful. See ya. Dijcks | InOut 21:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Better photo

Skoch3 (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC): Here is a better photo showing the wounds from "scalpel-less" vasectomy:[reply]


The photo that is currently depicted in the definition section is a representation of a post-surgery traditional incisional vasectomy where there are surgical wounds with sutures.
This currently suggested photo appears to have suture scars/marks. That said, there are plans to add several photo depictions of different aspects of vasectomy surgery. Dijcks | InOut 18:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diagram

Could someone put English language labels on the diagram. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.216.245 (talk) 10:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

I've archived some more of the "stale" conversations on the page in the belief that this will be uncontroversial. If I'm wrong, I have no objections whatsoever to this material being restored. I would propose, once the article is unprotected and editing resumes, to archive most of the above, if everyone agrees. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


It'd make sense to archive the dispute-aspect of the discussions and leave any constructive discussions regarding content as those discussions might be relevant to other editors here moving forward. That said, I'll leave it up to your skills as to what you feel should stay or go. I noticed yesterday, that the article came available for editing again, thank you (assuming you did it:)). Dijcks | InOut 15:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Not I. Since I had permission, I would have done, but the protection expired just in time. :) I'll get to some archiving, then. It can be restored if I archive something prematurely. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Archived. The first archives is now pretty full, so I've gone ahead and opened archive 2, since I believe it will be used soon for the discussion above. Should I not be here, the content should just be moved to Talk:Vasectomy/Archive 2. Per Help:Archive#Cut and paste procedure, the template {{talkarchive}} should be reproduced at the bottom of the page as well, to help avoid people answering comments where they will not be seen. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Excellent, thanks again. I hope to be able to start again with adding content that readers in particular will find useful! Dijcks | InOut 17:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appearence of semen before and after operation

Mention if semen looks different, before and post vasectomy. Jidanni (talk) 05:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ideological issues

I contributed some time back to the Vasectomy page, at a time in which feminist writers had hijacked the "psychological issues" by downplaying the significance or ambiguous feelings reported by men psychologically, as reported by a variety of different academic articles. I added a number of academic article citations to reflect the research on psychological issues.

And separated out the "ideological issues" in relation to the feminist emphasis on men sharing contraceptive burden.

The other side of the issue was the different "gendered agendas", if you will, in terms of gender strategies of evolutionary battle of the sexes. ie) It could be argued that it is not in men's biological best interest to not undergo a vasectomy, in evolutionary terms. Whereas for a woman approaching menopause, it is in her best interests for her male partner to undergo a vasectomy after she's completed her family.

I had expanded the feminist point of view and balanced it with the following paragraph, which I note has since been removed (although I cannot quite pinpoint when or by whom: "An alternative viewpoint of contextualizing vasectomy debate is the evolutionary "battle of the sexes" conflict of interest. From an evolutionary Darwinian standpoint, males may increase their genetic fitness by mating with multiple mates over the course of their lifetime (see Sexual Conflict). As a woman's reproductive capacity reduces significantly with age towards menopause, eventually ceasing while a male partner is still able to produce offspring (see Age and Female Fertility), she benefits in evolutionary terms from her partner undergoing vasectomy - eliminating or greatly restricting his ability to mate with other women in the future, thus helping to ensure or protect her partner's investment and resources for herself and any offspring. Vasectomy may in this way be advantageous to female reproductive strategy (after a threshold number of offspring are born), and detrimental to the male reproductive strategy, if viewed in generalized evolutionary fitness terms alone."

This was not ideally paraphrased, but aided some balance to the feminist agenda terms.

Does anyone have views on how to ensure the Psychological and Ideological sections can be better balanced? Or restoring or re-developing the above paragraph to the article?

Scholarlyfemme (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll alert WP:MED to this discussion section you've started. Flyer22 (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the note at WT:MED. You'd need some strong sources to support that sort of extraordinary claim. Your addition was removed a few days ago here, on the grounds that it contained zero sources at all. You may not restore it per policy until you have found reliable sources that contain this entire idea (i.e., a scholarly paper or book that directly says that vasectomy is harmful to a male's evolutionary fitness but good for a woman's).
But it would be more pointful to contact a sociology or gender studies group, because the "battle of the sexes" is not a medical topic. (Not watching this page) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WhatamIdoing - I've only just seen your Talk now. In fact I had added significant sections, and only this one paragraph seems to be of issue. However it needs a counter-balance. I'll look for academic studies now. However it's not an 'extraordinary claim' at all - but standard taught evolutionary mating strategies between males and females, 'battle of the sexes', of which there is already more broadly material on Wikipedia. I agree it falls under sociology, and evolutionary theory. ie the flavour of http://www.unc.edu/~nielsen/soci111/m6/soci111m6.htm etc. Will look for and add specific articles shortly when I track them down. I note that the user who deleted the paragraph has mysteriously disappeared from Wikipedia. The 'Ideological Issues' does need the counter-balance evolutionary argument. Perhaps try drawing in an evolutionist who is familiar with the material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scholarlyfemme (talk • Scholarlyfemme (talk) 09:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Update - I've just put a call out for an expert in evolutionary biology to examine that section, as it certainly needs it to balance the feminist slant. The main academic study they used in support of their argument, which was a selection study of 16 men, in which they sought men positive on the subject of vasectomy, then took from it positive psychological effects. The people undertaking the study with an agenda were the same contributing to Wikipedia, and I note that the deletion was a person's name who is no longer on Wikipedia, 2 days later. So the call for an expert evolutionary biologist, who will be able to much better address that section with counter-balance, is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Evolutionary_biology#Call_for_expert_attention_at_.22Species.22_article_.28evolutionary.2Forganismal_biology.2C_microbial_evolution.2C_history_of_science.29 Scholarlyfemme (talk) 09:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, on ideological issues where it says: "This argument falls apart with modern techniques like Sterilization by Laparoscopy that has shorter or similar recovery times than vasectomy" is there a source for this? I believe the medical consensus is still that the female equivalent carries more risk and is considered major surgery. 90.198.115.81 (talk) 23:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was a paragraph marked as "possible synthesis." It had no sources and it was original research, unverifiable, or both. A theory such as that one cannot remain without sources. Supposing the theory is not original research, it would have had to come from a source known to the author of the content. Roches (talk) 03:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency re: prostate risk

The "Complications" section states "The risk of prostate and testicular cancer is not affected by vasectomy.[17]" However, the "Risks" section of the Sidebar says "Moderately increased risk of prostate cancer, and more lethal form of this.[3]" I'm just a dude reading about this, so I have no idea which is correct. But it seems something should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.107.75.193 (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The study cited in the sidebar received a number of published responses questioning its methodology and conclusions. I can't say that I researched this topic exhaustively, but it seems like the medical consensus is that there is no proven connection to the cancers. I'll update the article accordingly. Kane5187 (talk) 04:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. - did more research, and yeah, the one study we had cited alleging a cancer risk has been disavowed by the American Urological Association. I provided a second citation and removed all references to the idea that there's an increased cancer risk. Kane5187 (talk) 04:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Vasectomy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-gendered language

Hi, I wanted to discuss this a bit before editing willy-nilly. I think it would be very helpful to the intersex and trans people who use wikipedia and are trying to learn more about what options they have for parts of their transition. Some women have penises, and reading about a procedure for "male genetalia" is a bit distressing when you don't consider yourself male but have a penis. Thoughs? Trifyllii (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention trans women whose state forces them to be sterilized before theyre eligible for medically transitioning using that state's insurance, so a trans woman trying to understand what that will mean for her and reading this article doesn't need that indication that this is for men, and having a penis makes you a man. Trifyllii (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From what I remember from other discussions I've seen about this, male is used throughout Wikipedia to refer to sex rather than gender. The use of the terms men/women throughout the article is simply inaccurate though, so I will change them to terms regarding sex rather than gender.Herravondure (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Trifyllii Oh God cut the political crap. Thanks. 2.53.185.31 (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vasectomy&oldid=1105792343"