Talk:Gelding

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gelding article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.
A	This page has been rated as A-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance assessment scale

	Agropedia Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Agriculture, which collaborates on articles related to agriculture. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	This article is supported by WikiProject Veterinary medicine. This project provides a central approach to Veterinary medicine-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Gelding was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: July 14, 2007

Contents 1 Passion 2 Wikification 3 Good Article? 4 Reasons for gelding 5 Ranking 6 Failed "good article" nomination 7 references complete & consistent 8 Images 9 GA Discussion 10 Castration 11 addition 12 Synergy 13 references currently good enough for GA 14 Schirrous cord 15 Categories 16 GA pre-review 17 Complications 18 Standard of care 19 Anesthetic risks 20 Assorted replies

[edit] Passion

do horses have "passion"? Maybe a better word choice might be in order.

Yes, they do.

[edit] Wikification

Thanks User:Montanabw! I couldn't seem to get the references to work - thanks for sorting it. I was using NB as more academic to "by the way" or "please note", but it's not really a necessary addition. (Dlh-stablelights 10:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

I'm just the wordsmith and grammar nerd. Glad to help when possible. Montanabw 15:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article?

I think we might be nearly there - I've put in as many citations as I can. I've made a note of places I think the article might need something else with {{Fact}}. If I've referenced something, and someone had something else in mind, please add your reference! I think if we can reference a few more bits and pieces (esp. the Arab and perhaps Roman connection), its certainly a good candidate for GA. Dlh-stablelights 10:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

A recent online article in TheHorse.com mentioned the Arab thing. I'll do some digging. Montanabw 19:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think everything's referenced now... how about we put it up for GA? Dlh-stablelights 22:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Worth running up the flagpole and see who salutes. My experience in the past is that if we are close, they will put it on hold and give us a couple days to fix whatever glitches they think are in there. Usually the comments are useful and point out things that actually do need to be done. Go for it. Montanabw^(talk) 06:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for gelding

I agree, but all that I could find... got lots of vet textbooks and papers, but not all that much on population genetics! Dlh-stablelights 19:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I have the access to stuff like wild horse studies and assorted psychology stuff. I can do tweaks in that area. No sweat. Montanabw 00:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ranking

B level works for me. Maybe toss in some fact tags where they seem to be needed as a reminder to all (both?) editors to go dig up more citations? The other way to do this is to put it up for GA and let the vultures circle. But I don't think it will quite pass, and hence B level is appropriate. Montanabw 16:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of July 14th 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: N The intro needs major expansion work per the guidelines for size and content outlined in WP:LEAD. It should at least be one paragraph, if not two. In comparison to most other GA's, the article could use a decent infobox. This is easy to fix, but the section order is a bit off. A history should come first ideally. Also, while what is there is well-written, a better general flow of ideas comparable to other GA's may be in order.

2. Factually accurate?: Y The article is well-sourced in reliable, independent publications.

3. Broad in coverage?: N The article tends to focus mostly on the reasons for gelding and the mechanical/veterinary procedures. A more in-depth coverage of the history of the practice is sorely needed.

4. Neutral point of view?: N The article contains not a single significant mention (much less a section) on any objections to the practice, of which there are I'm sure many by the vocal animal rights lobby. In the section detailing reasons for gelding, it reads like a pamphlet on why a stallion should be gelded.

5. Article stability? Y The article is certainly stable, with no major edit wars in the recent past.

6. Images?: N The lead image is rather small and not a great illustration. While I am a firm proponent of Wikipedia is not censored, the medical images further in the article nearly made me quite literally vomit. You may consider such articles as Brain surgery and Open heart surgery, which deal with subjects with the potential for equally gruesome images, but still manage to illustrate the procedure without being vulgar.

Thank you for your hard work! VanTucky ^(talk) 00:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you are being harsh to fail the article within moments without at least placing it on hold to allow the editors time to fix it. That said, we can work in the intro and tune up the history, but there are many GA's out there without infoboxes, I have no clue what infobox is needed here, I don't think wikiproject veterinary medicine has one for its projects yet (Dlh, maybe you know.) We can probably find the objections of PETA, I'm sure there is some fringe element that opposes the practice (and in the middle east, they seem to have some sort of psychological projection thing going on and only geld mules) but oddly enough, there in fact is remarkably little objection out there to gelding, probably because an ill-mannered stallion can kill you. Montanabw^(talk) 16:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm - as far as I can find out, even PETA approve of all forms of neutering, as an ethical aid to population control. I'll keep digging... Dlh-stablelights 21:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Good grief, so do the Animal Liberation Front! I can't find ANYONE who is opposed on principle!Dlh-stablelights 21:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You're looking at it the wrong way, then. If you can get enough shtuff, consider making an "ethical considerations" section, and put in the shtuff that says everyone supports it. ;-) I found some anti-castration stuff on the PETA website, using their search option. Dunno if that's quite the same thing... Ling.Nut 21:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I was not suggesting that every animal-related article has be vetted through the ALF and PETA, but it is certainly odd and not neutral for there to be no discussion of any objection, controversy or ethical consideration of the practice at all. If you're going to create a section about "reasons for gelding" without giving credence to reasons not to geld, then the article gives undue weight to one point of view. Even if only to mention that organizations like PETA recommend it, as Ling suggested. Second, I took several minutes to write this; you have no way at all of telling how long I took actually reading the article, so please refrain from making personal judgements when you have no factual ground to stand on. I took this review very seriously, as it is a vital subject to horse-related articles. As far as I understand the GA process, giving Hold time for improvement is for easily fixable and small issues, not large POV issues. A clearly POV presentation of the topic (through undue weight in this case) is a quick-fail criteria. VanTucky ^(talk) 15:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, just FYI, if the issues I have brought to attention are addressed this should be renominated, as the article is nearly ready for GA. Feel free to contact me so I can take a look and (probably) immediately pass it. VanTucky ^(talk) 16:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] references complete & consistent

Would anyone mind if I changed the format of all the refs? I wanna make 'em more complete & consistent, but would also change them to a format I'm familiar with... --Ling.Nut 15:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed ref number 15 as an example; go back two slots in the history (the edit summaries are the same) & revert if you don't like it..--Ling.Nut 15:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Anything that makes them more correctly formatted works for me, I saw no problem with your changes. DIH?? Montanabw^(talk) 20:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem with the ref formatting - I may have mixed up a few different formats, I was quite busy when I did the last few edits. Dlh-stablelights 13:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I totally agree with VanTucky. Wikipedia is here for people to learn new things and for people educate themselves on various topics. If someone wants to learn about Gelding but whom are a bit squeamish, they should be able to do so. I guarantee that most people don't want to see the gruesome images in this article but still might want to learn about the topic itself. By exhibiting these images, What you're doing is turning away potential readers who might not want to see such images. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

To all, I want to make it clear right now that I am not advocating the removal of these images as of this moment. But I strongly advise that we look for alternatives that fill the same encyclopedic function. The removal of these images in consideration of taste alone without looking for some other options and reaching an absolutely clarion consensus is censorship. VanTucky ^(talk) 18:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we let WP:FAC worry about it.  :-) Ling.Nut 18:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we let Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) worry about it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Has this been FA nominated? The proper template is not on this talk page. VanTucky ^(talk) 18:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

(undent) No, I was looking down the road. My wiki-patience is beginning to wear just a little wiki-thin. :-) If you two wanna turn a tapdance into a crusade, I suggest you go ahead. I personally wouldn't advise such a waste of time, but have no desire to stop you. :-) Ling.Nut 18:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

What, you mean put up a Village Pump proposal? I think this is a rather small matter for that, and small in comparison to the other work the article needs. I don't particularly care if these stay up forever, but my recommendation was to try something else. It's not really that big of a deal. And in the future I wish you would refrain from lumping users together based on an assumption of lock-step similar opinions. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The images are so small that the squeamish, in my humble opinion, can avoid problems by simply not clicking to enlarge. Besides, I personally find the image of horsemeat to be completely repulsive, it makes me nauseated, if you want to discuss things that are gross. So clearly what we have here is the reason we don't censor wikipedia. Perhaps we need illustrations of Rocky mountain oysters? Montanabw^(talk) 20:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

For those still interested, the opinion of a practicing vet here is informative. I inquired about how typical the characteristics of the particular procedures photographed were in an effort to gauge what level of veterinary care they depicted. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

After an edit conflict

I've been on a fishing trip and just managed to steal my brother's laptop, so I've missed the excitement here. I would like to just reiterate what I just said over at WT:VET, which is that I feel it is completely appropriate to have a photo of the surgical procedure. For every person who may be turned off by he photo, there will be another who finds it informative. However, the image of the recumbent castration is a bit of a concern to me due to the lack of gloves and the apparent lack of a sterile field, especially when the text says regarding recumbent castration, "better asepsis (sterile environment) can be maintained".

Incidentally, I remember a discussion regarding medical images when keratoconus became an FA, including a discussion at the Village Pump. See Talk:Keratoconus/Archive1#So Ugly for an example of reactions to a relatively benign image that was in an FA. --Joelmills 01:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the asepsis being pretty poor - personally, I'd never do an op like that! It was, however, the only free image I could find at the time. I'll keep an eye out for better ones, but I'm not going to be able to supply one myself for a while for various reasons. Dlh-stablelights 13:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as the images being upsetting goes, might it be an idea to place some kind of warning about the images of castration at the head of the article (perhaps referring to the section in which they appear)? News programmes often give warnings of distressing images. Given the number of children who have access to the Internet these days I would seriously consider doing something. You can't 'unsee' an image like the one of the open castration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.36.224 (talk) 10:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This issue died months ago. But, anyway, Wikipedia is not censored for minors. The warning isn't in any guideline. However, I will submit the discussion to an administrator, I think it is unnecessary, or if necessary, can be placed other than at the start of the article. As for distressing to kids, you apparently haven't noticed the articles on penis or testicle yet, eh? Montanabw^(talk) 16:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Warnings are unencyclopedic. It's up to the individual/parents/guardians to avoid material that may offend. It's all covered in Wikipedia:Content disclaimer -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 16:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the warning notice per the above reasoning, Wikipedia is not censored. Dreadstar † 16:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This is also covered at Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. Interestingly, a similar situation arose yesterday over at Talk:Gangrene. I explain there why I think both the Wikipedia:Content disclaimer and "Wikipedia is not censored" arguments don't apply, if anyone is interested. --Joelmills (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Discussion

Got some good feedback on the article, putting it here to share.

I personally prefer "it" to "who" for wikipedia horse articles, as it's gender neutral, but no biggie.

Hi Montanabw, long time no see! Hope things are going well (other than Gelding, I mean)...

I sorta agree with what the reviewer said, but agree with you that it should have been put on hold rather than quick-failed:

The WP:LEDE definitely needs to be beefed up to make it a summary of the article. That should take a good fifteen minutes (or less, if you're faster/smarter than I am ;-) ). It's just a matter of copy/pasting the current lede to a Notepad doc, copy/pasting key sentences (you know, intros and/or conclusions) from each existing section of the article onto the same doc, then kinda smoothing it all out and making it "read pretty." You definitely need a section about what PETA-type people would say about castration, to comply with WP:NPOV. That might take a while, but if you're dedicated, you can get it done in under a week (hence my belief it should have been put on hold). If you're feeling particularly brave, you might ask them to provide their POV in a responsible manner. There are many punctuation probs. I might fix those, unless my better half calls me away from the computer ;-) Some of the shtuff reads a little like it might be too-nearly verbatim, e.g. "Geldings were once prized by classical steppe warriors for their silence; without mating urges, they were less prone to call out to other horses, easier to keep in groups, and less likely to fight with one another." Go through every sentence with a fine-toothed comb to look for that particular no-no. That might take a couple hours. I dislike the formatting of the references... seems incomplete & inconsistent. I "might could" help with that too, at the same time as I fix the punctuation (since the punct. probs are all with the refs).. if it's OK with you... Personally, I might consider changing the "Possible complications" section to read less like a list and more like prose, but it might actually be acceptable just as it is.. re-read Wikipedia:Embedded list and see what you think.. I think the pictures are gross, too. Is that actually a problem? I dunno, but I think I know who to ask. I'll do so, and get back to you. Later Ling.Nut 19:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC) Update: User:TimVickers said the images are OK & left a message on the reviewer's talk regarding this (don't go there & add more comments)... :-) I fixed some punct/spelling errors. You really need to make sure the references are complete and consistent. I always use {{{Last}}}, {{{First}}} ({{{Year}}}) templates. OH I AM NOT SURE about using "who" instead of "that" for horses; seems questionable to me. You gotta grammar guide nearby? Ling.Nut 20:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If Dlh is OK with you tweaking the complications section, I am OK with it;

The images should be deleted, as Wikipedia is not a shock site. The article should educate people without displaying graphic content, and at least provide warnings to minors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.40.182 (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If you note the discussion above this section, you will see that consensus, particularly from medical professionals was to keep the images. Montanabw^(talk) 01:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Castration

It would be logical to crush the cord BEFORE removing testicles to avoid bleeding. And not the other way round as you discribe it. jmak (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] addition

would anyone object to the following image being added to the "reasons" section? VanTucky ^(talk) 00:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I dunno. Looks kinda sexual to me. Kinky even. :-) Ling.Nut 01:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Cute photo, but inaccurate caption that I am going to tweak. However, Ling, this image illustrates the origins of the expression, "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 04:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Synergy

Interesting how this article is coming together with contrubutions from many editors and so far, minimal flame wars, even over the "are these images too gross?" question. So I thought a section on sheath cleaning and the hazards of smegma was needed! Hope I didn't excessively screw up anyone else's work in the process of writing. (By the way, on the topic of distasteful photos, note the image in smegma) :-P

Also moved the history section up, and wonder where to put the "famous geldings" section, as that is kind of a kiddie section and really shouldn't follow the detailed section on surgical gelding procedures, but where else CAN we put it??

Anyway, hope my additions were an improvement, feel free to improve on what I wrote, and you really MUST read the refs, the second one in particular. I laughed myself half to death! Montanabw^(talk) 06:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest putting it as a sub-section of the History section. Or just deleting it as trivia. It's not cut-and-dry though. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It's tricky, other articles that start naming horses become endless laundry lists and really do need to go, so far that hasn't happened here. I like the idea of putting it into history, though. Montanabw^(talk) 22:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not try and make it prose? "Throughout history, geldings have distinguished themselves in a variety of pursuits..." and then sentences for each animal and/or field. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] references currently good enough for GA

well I hit the refs pretty hard but am near a stopping point. Many of the refs are websites; it would be good to replace these with articles, reports etc. whenever possible. Some of the website links go to the website's main page rather than the subpage where the info presumably is. I can't get the OK Univ. College of Vet. Medicine site to work at all; there was another that didn't work but I forget which. Just in general, you need to improve the quality of the refs. BUT in my opinion as a former GA reviewer, they are currently good enough for GA. I gotta go now.. Good luck with the article! :-) Ling.Nut 12:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Say, amongst the zillions of wikipedia guidelines on citation format, do you recommend a favorite article that gives the basics of the best format in a fairly simple form? Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 22:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Though it may not be the easiest to read, I personally like WP:FOOT (footnotes), which is a sub-topic of the main WP:CITE page. Also helpful are citation templates for different source types. Footnotes are the most widely-used form in my experience, next to Harvard referencing. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The social sciences always use Harvard (see Taiwanese aborigines).. I dunno about veterinary sciences; ask your colleagues. :-) I hate footnotes when used as a format for referencing. Despise them. For Harvard, there are many templates.. see Wikipedia:Harvard citation template examplesLing.Nut 22:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the History section, especially the Scythian war horse statement. Broad historical claims like that need to be cited in order for GA status. VanTucky ^(talk) 18:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Give me 5 minutes; I'll find & fix it ;-) 18:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks Ling. VanTucky ^(talk) 18:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm a history geek, I will check some stuff Ling sent me and look at some other sources to see what I can find. Montanabw^(talk) 16:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Schirrous cord

Yes, both hydrocoeles and schirrous cords can remain "occult", i.e. without showing any symptoms, then flare up months or years later. I didn't put hydrocoeles in becasue they're so rare, but I agree, wouldn't hurt to add them. Dlh-stablelights 13:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

Any reason this is in Category:Types of horses?Ealdgyth | Talk 19:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, cause I stuck it there? Same as mare, yearling, etc... no real place for "ways of describing horses that aren't described by breed or color." "Types" is sort of a generic catch-all category. Montanabw^(talk) 04:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA pre-review

If I was going to review this article, I'd say BIG concerns about the lede. Should cover the history section, more information from the reasons, reasons not to geld, specialized maintenance, and methods of. (I can see every male cringing about that..) I'd want to work the list in the methods section into prose, so that it reads less like a how-to and more like a general overview. I'd vary my pictures, so they are right-left-right, so as not to bore the reader. I'd nix the famous gelding section, unless the history section expands greatly. History section should be bigger... did the medieval European's geld? Did the Arabs? Did the Bedouin? Did the East Asians? Did the Indians? You see where I'm going with that. Any information on historical techniques that aren't used any more?

Citations. At a minimum, every paragraph should have a citation. I've marked a few that screamed for them.

Short choppy paragraphs. Try to merge or expand them into larger paragraphs so they don't make the prose flow feel short.

Standardize the references, they are formated all sorts of ways.

Try to work the articles listed in the see also section into the text. If they are used in the text, like castration, they don't need to be listed at the end. In fact, consider moving a lot of the 'how to' stuff from the methods of castration to the castration article.

I'll try to fit this article into my schedule .. sometime soon. AARRGH! Ealdgyth | Talk 20:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No real arguments here (other than how silly I think the "every paragraph needs a citation" rule is, it's artificial, sometimes every sentence needs one, other times, 2-3 paragraphs go to the same source, but I digress) and good job tagging the stuff that needed citations. I would talk to Joelmills and dlh-stablelights (who are both vets and dlh wrote most of that section) before moving the castration techniques stuff out of here into a generic article about castration in general (may be stuff specific to horses, don't know...read the other article too). But working in cites is a good idea, and Ling posted some additional citations elsewhere (in my talk archive) that may be helpful too. Well, I guess we can each do what we can when we can (by the way, one of the sources for the sheath cleaning section is so hilarious that you will die laughing!). No huge rush. Montanabw^(talk) 21:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Complications

This partial sentence:

Complications following gelding are uncommon

Is immediately followed by:

... the complication rate is 22% ...

Seems like these two things are conflicting -- is 22% uncommon? --Stéphane Charette (talk) 09:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I'll take a look at it. Montanabw^(talk) 08:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Complications from castration are relatively common. But most of the time the complications are minor: swelling, seroma formation, etc. Serious complications like severe hemorrhage, evisceration, schirrous cord formation, etc. are relatively uncommon. I don't have references in front of me, but will work on that. The 22% figure may come from Costs and complications of equine castration: a UK practice-based study comparing 'standing nonsutured' and 'recumbent sutured' techniques, which showed a 22% complication rate after standing castration, and a 6% complication rate for recumbent castration.

Maybe the wording could be something more like: "While serious complications are relatively uncommon, up to 22% may have some type of complication, ranging from the commonly seen mild swelling to the uncommon evisceration." (Hopefully, there's a ref that breaks these down more specifically...)--Getwood (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Standard of care

I have some concerns about the second how-to photo. While I think it is fine to show different techniques for castration, I don't really like seeing the lack of gloves or both cords being simultaneously emasculated. While I'm sure the operator's hands have been thoroughly scrubbed, and there are conditions under which this is the only option, I wouldn't do it. Maybe because I live in California I'm paranoid, since if the horse had any complications after castration, I would easily lose a lawsuit for not wearing gloves.

While using the emasculators on both cords simultaneously may save a bit of time, I don't think it allows for cutting the cords short enough, which in my opinion increases the risk of infection. And in many animals, it would not do as good a job with hemostasis. Particularly in mature animals, or in donkeys and mules, where (in my experience), bleeding seems to be more difficult to control.

This is really meant to be a discussion more than a criticism. Do others share these concerns? I would like to see a photo using aseptic technique and single cord emasculation.--Getwood (talk) 14:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anesthetic risks

While I completely accept that the risk of anesthesia is very real, I would be in favor of tweaking the wording. The current wording does not seem to be completely NPOV. The leap that complications are higher in the field than in the study population is unsupported. In fact, two things identified in that study that lean towards a decreased risk relative to the overall study population are short anesthetic time and use of injectable anesthetic. While the less-than-ideal facilities in the field would likely increase complications somewhat, there needs to be a reference for the increased mortality rate for castrations. I need to re-read the Rood & Riddle study, but I don't think it states that the risk of death for recumbent castrations is increased over the general anesthetized population.--Getwood (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assorted replies

I shall defer to your veterinary expertise on these matters, for the most part. Just go for it, as you have been doing, and if there is non-vet stuff you want me to work on, throw in a few more "fact" tags and I'll grab those parts. DlH Stablelights, who I think is a vet in the UK, did a bunch of the early writing on the techniques and much of the sourcing work, not sure if he's still editing Wiki or not, may want to check contribs log to see if he's still around and toss him a message if he is. JoelMills, who I think is a small animal vet, is very active in wikiproject vet med overall, and it may be well worth checking in with him to see what he thinks. Maybe a note at wikiproject veterinary medicine may get comments. User:VanTucky, who failed this article the first time we sent it up, edits a lot of the animal articles and may have a good wikipedia layperson's outlook when we get other matters cleaned up. And, of course, no GA is complete without Ealdgyth's input.

As for the castration photo, you are not the first to raise concerns about some of the technical issues involved. I think it was an image taken in a third world nation, however. I'll check the photo history and see if I can figure out anything. Most of the earlier objections were just that it was kinda gross. If I can figure out its origins, I may add some weasel words to the caption, or you can. Montanabw^(talk) 23:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)