Talk:Cervical cancer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Needs work

This entry needs a lot of work. It has been filled by the pro-circumcision Wikipedians, but it needs a lot more work. I am not a gynecologist...

  • Other clinical signs and symptoms
  • Diagnosis: appearance on colposcopy and biopsy
  • Pathophysiological mechanisms
  • FIGO classification
  • When conisation, when radical hysterectomy?
  • 5-year survival for different types.

I have reworked the references. I could not find any better article to quote about the smegma-HPV link, but an anonymous article in Chinese is a very poor source, even if it was indexed for Medline. I removed the reference to the Japanese study at the end. No context was provided, and it sounds too technical for Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 21:59, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

An anonymous user desperate to disprove the smegma-HPV link tried to insert a number of (fairly ancient) references to back this up. While this is laudable, the same anon disrupted formatting of the extant links to conform with the layout of his own website.

It is sickening that this article has (like many others) been drawn into the dreadful pro/anti-circumcision debate. More than a month ago I requested expansion above, but all these morons (on both sides) seem to care about is whether having "the snip" is preventative. Can we please move on, guys, and focus on the post-facto information in this article that is still sorely lacking. JFW | T@lk 13:08, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just a final moan: the Castellsague reference is pretty convincing re. circumcision as a preventative measure. Society has to choose whether to take on circumcising all males or to live with the consequences. This is a common tradeoff commonly faced in epidemiology. The debate has just politicised beyond reason. JFW | T@lk 13:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Castellsaque may be convincing to you, but it is not convincing to everyone. Even if circumcision does reduce the HPV infection, it will not be necessary, once vaccine becomes available.

Robert Blair 12:56, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


  • Noted. I wonder who will be able to run a check on the IP to see if this is an alias of one of our regular anti-circumcision POV pushers? - Robert the Bruce 17:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure if that's quite necessary. One POV pusher may leave and another one will reappear. Unfortunately, User:Skellam has left Wikipedia - he knew quite a bit of gynaecology... JFW | T@lk 11:58, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Robert and Jake

The Castellsaque reference actually is not at all convincing when one views the criticism of the article, especially since Castellsaque's own work conflicts with the findings.

This article needed revision and editing. I have just done that.

Robert Blair 12:38, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your criticism of Castellsague can stay, but I've edited your changes to remove the appalling POV pushing, and added links to a small fraction of the other studies to address this issue. Please read WP:NPOV - Jakew 12:53, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dear fellows, I have worked hard on this article to arrive at balanced content and formatting. Your roughshod pro- & anti-circumcision activity disrupts its format. Please do not edit war over here. I will censor both of your POVs; you can fight this battle on medical analysis of circumcision. The bottom line is: HPV is a major cause of cervical carcinoma, and many researchers maintain that HPV infection rate increases in multiple partners and is known to be lower in populations with a high circumcision rate. WHY ARE YOU WASTING YOUR TIME HERE! This is an encyclopedia. It is sufficient to point out that a debate exists, with maximum 2 references of vital interest. JFW | T@lk 13:04, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of relevant material?

I notice that the Heins study "The possible role of smegma in carcinoma of the cervix." has been removed from this article. The onus is surely upon the person who has deleted it to explain and justify the action. I await the explanation eagerly. - Robert the Bruce 03:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It was me. If all the evidence for the role of smegma is one 1980s Chinese study and some ancient reference from the 195os, surely the hypothesis has received little attention and is not worth mentioning in a general encyclopedia. Robert, my above rant also applies to you: pro- and anti-circumcision editors will face my wrath if you use this article as a battleground. JFW | T@lk 07:03, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wolffie, I don't think that is a particularly intelligent position to take. You need to accept that there is a need for a sub-section to deal with this smegma business. I think it would be tantamount to a wikicrime if you continue to delete relevant information just because a group of headbangers take exception. If it is supposedly "controversial" then learn to live with it and deal with it. - Robert the Bruce 16:31, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There were actually several studies in the '50s and '60s that together established smegma as mildly carcinogenic. Other authors were Plaut, Kohn-Speyer, and Reddy. The logical explanation for the lack of recent studies is the fact that there is no point proving that which is already known. - Jakew 15:02, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Smegma is a natural product of the human body. The assertion that it can be carcinogenic is absurd. This dates back to the early 1950s when the true cause was unknown. Removing it from the article was proper.
I have further removed the emphasis on circumcision from this article.
Robert Blair 15:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you find scientific evidence "absurd". Perhaps you find it equally "absurd" that sunlight, in excess, can cause skin cancer. It would seem strange given that we've only been wearing clothes for a few thousand years, but the explanation is the same: it has only been in recent times that the typical human lifespan has been long enough for serious illnesses to have a chance to develop.
Taking about the "true cause" being unknown is a smokescreen: these experiments used careful controls to investigate whether or not smegma is carcinogenic. The simple fact is that it is. Sorry that you don't like it, but it doesn't change the facts. Do you dislike gravity? Too bad: it's still there.
I'll review your changes and make appropriate corrections. - 16:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Robert the Bruce: I do not appreciate being called "Wolffie". Guys: I take issue with linking to the CIRP "fulltext" articles. These do not state that rights were granted by The Lancet to reproduce them online.

I must again state that if you want certain changes to happen in this article, you will have to discuss them here first. I am in the pleasant position of disagreeing with all your POVs. While this does not make me impartial, it certainly stops the silly bias from both sides constantly finding its way into the article. JFW | T@lk 21:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • JFW, it seems I need to state my position again. But first, pray explain why you believe you have a divine right to take over and "moderate" edits to this article? Secondly, as stated before, there is clearly some controversy attached to this article which should be dealt with. If you are not up to the task (in your self appointed role as owner of this article) to work towards the truth being presented then pass on it and move on and leave it to someone else. - Robert the Bruce 06:44, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You sound unnecessarily patronising. I am up to the task of moderating this article. If you'd read the WikiEN discussion list a bit closer, there is ample support for admin moderation of articles that fall prey to POV-pushing. I'm not sure if I want your version of the truth represented, so I will keep this article firmly in my evil grip until your arbitration case has been decided. JFW | T@lk 07:23, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • I am questioning your actions. I am commenting that you appear to be spiralling out of control. I am stating that where controversy exists it should be faced full square and dealt with and not have little tin gods censuring the article into something vanilla and banal. You have overstepped the mark; you are out of control ... for heavens sake stop it! - Robert the Bruce 12:40, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am not spiralling out of control; your remarks are, though. The controversy vis a vis cervical cancer is small; you should move your attention to medical analysis of circumcision, instead of wasting your time here. Frankly, all editors have now accused me of censorship, yet I made the largest contribution overall this week, followed closely by Brim. You, Robert II and Jake are just ***** things up. For heaven's sake, all of you, leave this article alone! JFW | T@lk 19:58, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and the "controversy" you insist on is covered in the article (see /* Pathophysiology */). JFW | T@lk

[edit] Robert Blair de-POVs

I have removed circumcision POV pushing. Robert Blair 12:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • I am sure you have Robert ... and no doubt replaced it with some anti-circumcision POV pushing stuff. Nice work there Robert. - Robert the Bruce 12:42, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

RtB: This kind of sarcastic remark has contributed greatly to your difficulties. What does it take for you to learn? Now, buzz off. Robert Blair 14:40, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Is there any doubt that you are a rampant POV pusher? LoL who do you think you are fooling? - Robert the Bruce 14:47, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am a children's advocate. Now, buzz off. Robert Blair 20:42, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CIRP links

I will remove every instance of links to the CIRP library. There is no mention of copyright status of these articles; medical journals are copyright unless this is waived specifically. JFW | T@lk 15:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • I raised the issue of the use of CIRP months ago. No one did a thing, when I deleted the stuff I was accused of deleting relevant information. What you now have inherited and which has drawn you into edit warring is of your own making. Good luck. - Robert the Bruce 04:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Robert Blair: much better, but I rephrased the block quote into prose. I don't understand why you insist on listing the Fleiss book. You know it will get removed anyway. JFW | T@lk 00:19, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Dr. Wolff, the book is written by a medical doctor. It devotes four pages to cervical cancer and it is appropriate in view of your insistence on including the dubious Castelsague paper. If you are going to introduce a discussion of male circumcision to push your pro-circumcision POV then you have to admit opposing viewpoints. Robert Blair 00:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
w00t, four pages! This page is about cervical cancer, not about circumcision. If this medical doctor had methodological issues with the Castelsague paper, he should have written to the New England Journal of Medicine. I am not pushing any POV: someone else inserted that article. I am still weary of you removing it, because that is just as POV. Now show me a critique of that paper published in a peer-reviewed journal, and we'll talk again. JFW | T@lk 07:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Tread carefully now as the way you are heading is that the usual vexatious litigants will have you up before the ArbCom for removing relevant information. And with that set up you will be facing a year long ban. You had your chance to nip this in the bud ... but failed to take the opportunity ... now you will have to live with the consequences. - Robert the Bruce 18:24, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ooooh, I'm really scared now. JFW | T@lk 21:05, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ACS

From the American Cancer Society Website: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_2X_What_are_the_risk_factors_for_cervical_cancer_8.asp?rnav=cri

"...condoms do not protect against HPV..."
"...certain types of sexual behavior increase a woman's risk of getting HPV: sex at an early age, having many sexual partners, having sex with uncircumcised males..."
"...it is necessary to have had HPV for cervical cancer to develop..."

Yes, but dropping names in the intro distracts from the content. Just stop changing it. JFW | T@lk 22:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

More on HPV, please show how that ACS actaully arrrived that that conculsion beofer you keep adding the informtation to the article--nixie 04:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

214.13.4.151 (talk • contribs) puts in the edit summary: "rv to reflect accurate medical information". The other version was not inaccurate, but 214.13.4.151 is being a nasty POV-pusher like on many other pages on the project. If this carries on a request for comment is inevitable. JFW | T@lk 13:37, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I tweaked again. Please let me know if there is a problem with the laest version. 214.13.4.151 13:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

there has recently been a new vaccine created in Australia


All of this chatter about the suggested association between smegma and cervical cancer is pointless. Cervical Cancer is CAUSED by HPV... period. Therefore, one who argues the POV that circumcision contributes to this disease should focus their attention on the fact that HPV can survive under the foreskin... that is, if they wish to attempt to discuss a subject which should only deserve - at the most - a few lines within the Cervical Cancer header. William R. Lewis, author, "Fatal Probe", 2003

[edit] Treatment section: Trachelectomy

Hi, My name is Amy. This was my first contribution to wikipedia. I wrote the 2nd paragraph on trachelectomy. I'd like any feedback anyone has.Aes333 16:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Amy, are you sure you added the text you think you added? All I saw was your signature in the article (which I reverted back out; we don't sign contributions to the article, just to the talk pages). You can use the article's "history" page to see the differences that you and I have introduced. (Be sure you're looking at the article when you press "History" or you'll get the history of the talk page!)
Atlant 19:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I added the trachelectomy section under treatment. I initially had a screen name of amys333 and changed it to aes333. Aes333 19:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Female cancer Programme query

Someone added a link to Female cancer Programme, which another editor reverted. The organisation looks legit to me, being backed by the Dutch lottery &c. Do any Dutch people have more info on it, so we can decide? Nunquam Dormio 15:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I reverted while watching TV. I am sorry, random spam-watch collateral damage. HawkerTyphoon 15:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/e/r/Talk%7ECervical_cancer_7193.html"