Talk:Sperm bank

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Reproductive medicine task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 June 2020 and 21 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): S. Chu Future UCSF PharmD, AHassani, PharmD Cand, J. fong, future UCSF PharmD, R. Diaz, Future UCSF PharmD.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 June 2021 and 27 August 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): T. Ho SOP'23, T. F. McCart, Tkmurata.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How and how long?

How do they freeze the sperm? Just drop it to freezing temperatures? Does any inert chemial need to be added? Thanks --x1987x 12:34, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

A cryos freezing medium consists of di-sodium hydrogen phosphate, sodium di-hydrogen phosphate, sodium chloride, glucose, sterile water and glycerol is added to the sperm. The sperm is filled in straw or vails and then suspended in liquid nitrogen.

How long can sperm remain frozen for? Some guy 02:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no shelf live on sperm if stored correctly.

I'm a became sperm doner here how to contact u Miyajaankhan (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clairification Necessary

From the article: "The sperm is stored in small vials or straws of holding between 0.4-1.0 and frozen in liquid nitrogen tanks." Holding between 0.4-1.0 what? These numbers need units. -24.118.117.0 01:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. According the article Sperm donation the correct unit is "ml". I've added it. Robert Brockway 09:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Problem

Lizbrays's edit introduced copyrighted material from this commercial site. Someone else will need to merge in the subsequent content but we have no choice but to revert it out. This site can be added as a reference and then the content re-added, but not plagiarized. This is a serious matter, sorry to hurt the article. I only found it by accident.

Wellspring (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went back to the most recent version and took out the copyrighted material. Ml66uk2 (talk) 09:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Wellspring (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

I was going through the recent edits. user:ALEXIS has made many many changes, which I really haven't been able to go through yet. :) However, I noticed Angelofdeath275's point about the external links being advertisements. Yeah, they do seem to be an exhaustive list of sperm banks world-wide. Is that necessarily bad? I'm not aware of the policies on this, so I figured I'd bring it up here. Angelofdeath275 himself has since been banned from wikipedia, so I can't just talk to him about it. Wellspring (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The policies are here: WP:LINKS

"Links normally to be avoided: ... Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services."

I don't think listing sperm banks here is a good idea anyway. There are just too many of them. Ml66uk2 (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations Needed?

This article seems to have a lot of bold statements of fact that do not appear obvious to me. For example, "Most societies are built upon the family model". The article is not labeled as needing citations. I'm not qualified or confident enough to decide that but I thought I would point this out in case someone can either address that or tell me that I'm being too picky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutelyaware (talk • contribs) 06:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

race or ethnicity?

Do the banks tell the exact ethinicity of the donor, like if the women chooses white that could mean any of a number of different ethnic groups for example celtic, germanic, slavic or even jewish and all of those will produce a very different child from the other? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.132.30 (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

The first half of the "general" section of the article is too POV - it reads like a pamphlet distributed by a sperm bank. Some guy (talk) 11:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph you have removed was not plaigarised but was written by me some time ago. I have nothing to do with sperm banks but I am a sociologist with an interest in this area, and I added this section at a time when there was conflict between various writers when I was trying to strike a balance between them. It has been on the page for some time. If you felt it was biased in some way you could have made suggestions to amend it.

The paragraph you have deleted is often quoted in completely neutral publications. It might be a bold statement but I suggest it is a true one. You have no right to assume it has been copied from somewhere unless you can prove this. You cannot. The Gerneral section now begins rather oddly. ALEXEIS Has this dispute now been resolved? No new postings appear to have been amde about it for some months. If it has been resolved, could the note about it now be removed? ALEXEIS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.210.144.135 (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say it was plagiarized? I said it "reads like a pamphlet", in other words, uses POV marketing-type language. Some guy (talk) 10:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replace this whole page with the info from the Sperm Donation page?

It seems to me that the "sperm donation" page, which is anyway in need of cleaning up, is better than this page and has more detailed information as well. I propose shifting that section to here (making sure that nothing that is only on this page is lost). Thoughts? TaraIngrid (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather have a common subpage for a major part of the information that is common between these two articles as suggested below. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about animal's semen?

Why nobody talks about semen of bulls or stallions et cetera? Also rare animal in zoo? It is placed in cryobank also. 89.178.75.149 (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say artificial insemination deals with this subject. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes for Health Website Link: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/treatment/testicular/Patient/page1 There is another reason for sperm banks not covered in this discussion, which is testicular cancer, because: ……….. “Certain treatments for testicular cancer can cause infertility that may be permanent. Patients who may wish to have children should consider sperm banking before having treatment. Sperm banking is the process of freezing sperm and storing it for later use.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shareresearch (talk • contribs) 19:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say semen cryopreservation is the preferred term and target article for this issue. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sperm conservation & list of banks

Sperm banks not only offer the service to give sperm from donors but also to conserve the sperm for example of men who may want to have children later when they can no longer produce it themselves due to illness or age. There are even cases of men whose sperm was extracted after their death or women who used sperm their partner conserved before he died. California Cryobank seems to have been the first to practice extraction of sperm from deceased men. I created Category:Sperm banks] and wondered if it should be mentioned here where to find information about the individual sperm banks. Cryos International that is already mentioned here according to various sources claims to be the biggest one, just as California Cryobank does. The Sperm Bank of California seems notable due to their non-profit organisational form and introduction of the system to inform children about their biological father when they reach the age of 18. Crotopaxi (talk) 11:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Foundations II 2020 Group 27 proposed edits

Our goals include:

Elaborate with citations about age of donors in parts of the world

Elaborate with citations about reasons donors go to sperm banks
Elaborate on the procedures for screening and how many donors compared to demand

- In China, donors need to undergo two screenings and a laboratory screening before being able to donate. [PMID 24520662]

Edit through citations and append more accurate sources
Resolve the needed missing citations

- Add Wiki:Donation Laws by Country as the citation for sperm donors donating elsewhere.

R. Diaz, Future UCSF PharmD (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by R. Diaz, Future UCSF PharmD (talk • contribs) 20:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Foundations II 2021 Group 28 proposed edits

Our goals include:

Change the language of the article to be more gender-neutral
Addition of citations in the introduction paragraph
Resolve the needed missing citations
Elaborate with citations about the processing of sperm

T. F. McCart (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Group 3 Peer Reviews 2021

Part 1

1. Do the group's edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review "Guiding framework?"

Yes, they have improved the article. I liked how the sections were separated in chronological order going from general to recruitment to screening to collection and to storage. The group elaborated on demographics and controversy which I thought was helpful since they briefly discussed equity. The information under each section was easy to understand. There are some sections within the article such as "Services" that could be shortened. Ahsieh3 (talk) 06:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article has substantially improved. The lead section is thorough and easy to understand; however, it is information-dense and could be shortened. For example, details such as the regulation of sperm banks in the US and other countries could be condensed, or left out and expanded upon later in the article instead. The article has a clear structure. The sections are organized in a sensible order (chronologically), and the article presents different viewpoints and positions, as evidenced by the inclusion of a "Controversy" section. In addition, the article has a neutral point of view and includes a variety of reliable sources. A. Duong-Le (talk) 08:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe the group's edits improved the article by describing more in depth about each section. They explained in depth about what a sperm bank is, populations it is for, and demographics and controversies of people that utilize sperm banks. I thought they were gender and sexuality inclusive and were neutral with the points they made throughout the article. I liked how there were sections for each topic, and each section had a different discussion about sperm donors or recipients. However, there were a lot of information in the introduction and history part that could have been taken out or organized a little better. Ayee510 (talk) 08:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the group's edits have improved the article by adding quality information to the "processing sperm", "storage", "demographics", and "controversy" sections. I appreciated their effort to include points regarding equity and their use of neutral terminology when referring to donors and recipients. A.Castro.UCSF (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2. Has the group achieve its overall goals for improvement?

Yes, they used terms like "individuals" or "partner" to try to be more gender-neutral. They were able to add citations in the introduction paragraph. There are still some missing citations that need to be fixed later on. They were able to elaborate on how sperm is processed using at least two secondary sources and they did a good job keeping this section fairly simple to understand. Ahsieh3 (talk) 06:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the group used gender-neutral phrases such as "individuals" and "people". Citations were successfully added throughout the introduction paragraph. However, the missing citations were not all resolved. The section on processing sperm was successfully expanded upon with reliable sources. A. Duong-Le (talk) 08:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the group achieved their overall goals for improvement. The language they used was more gender neutral, as well as inclusive by adding words, such as "single women", "same-gendered couples", "individuals", and "partners". There were more citations added in the introduction paragraph. In the processing sperm section, they expanded it and added reliable sources. Throughout the article, there are still citations needed to be added, but overall they did a good job improving this article.Ayee510 (talk) 08:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe overall the group has achieved its goal for improving the article, especially when in regards to adding quality scientific evidence. However, I believe the article could be strengthened by organizing the information into clear sections. For example, the information in the "lead" section regarding Henry IV might be better placed in the general section under a "history" subheading. Using clear and concise language and proper grammar would also help to further improve the article and make it easier for the general public to understand. Lastly, there are some points in the article where "needs citation" are visible, like in last paragraph of the "general" section, that should be filled in with quality sources. The article as a whole is very comprehensive and provides useful information for readers. A.Castro.UCSF (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Part 2

1. Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view?

Overall the article presents a neutral point of view that attempts to show non-biased information. The content of the "Controversy" and "Use" sections were handled well, but more concise and clear writing would further strengthen these sections and the article as a whole. The portion regarding the United States in the "Information about donor" subheading should be revisited. It implies that the sperm banks may not adhere to their own policies when it comes to how many times they provide sperm. It also brings into question the truthfulness of the sperm banks to provide accurate information on the donors. There are no citations for either of these claims, and so citations should be provided, or these claims should be re-written/taken out to give a more neutral tone. A.Castro.UCSF (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2. Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available?

The points that were added contain citations that are easily found. There are some sections such as "General", "Screening of donors", and "Use" that are missing citations. Of their references that I looked at, there was a mix of secondary sources and news articles. Their secondary sources were all relevant, backed the points they were making and were found on PubMed as review articles. I appreciated the information from California Cryobank but it might need to be prefaced with "California Cryobank, a sperm bank, suggested that [insert info] on their website." There are also references from Quartz, Insider, and Rewire News Group that may not qualify as reliable sources. These might need to be removed or changed to a secondary source. Ahsieh3 (talk) 05:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3. Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style? (explain)

Yes, the edits follow Wikipedia's manual of style for the most part. The article has appropriate content that pertains to the topic of the article, the article presents a neutral point of view (with different perspectives, as evidenced by the "Controversy" section), and the writing is simple and easy to understand. The article has a clear structure and is organized by chronological headings, which group information together and allow for easy reading. However, punctuation is not consistent throughout the article and should be revised. A. Duong-Le (talk) 08:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4. Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion?

I believe these edits included inclusion in diversity and equity. They explained how sperm banks were not only for those who could not conceive, and reflected language that were gender and sexuality inclusive. Also, they included demographics of people who typically use sperm donor banks and I liked how they discussed about the controversies of the sperm bank pool. They further explained about the lack of diversity in the sperm bank pool, such as height, race, and limited choices among ethnic minorities. This article mentioned how much sperm donors get paid, but did not expand on how much it was for those to pay for the sperm. Overall, I liked how this article explained who was eligible to be a donor, donor payments, and demographics of who can use sperm bank services.Ayee510 (talk) 08:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]