Talk:Self-surgery

revert
I'm reverting this because I think the previous text, a direct quote from Michell's book, was appropriate, parallel with the rest of the article (including the new section "Self-Surgery in Popular Culture"), and NPOV. To my reading, the version edited by 82.12.230.173 on 27 Mar 2006 seemed to advocate trepanation. Also, I am suspicious of edits that come from IP addresses and not from real Wiki users with real Wiki usernames. Jimhutchins 03:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Good Article evaluation of Self-surgery
This evaluation was done on this version of Self-surgery at 1:00 PST on May 1, 2006. The evaluation was done by the book.

Criteria:
 * Well-written
 * The writing is a bit dry, and nowhere near "brilliant prose," but is still written at a good level and is not constipated or overly technical. It is very obvious to me and probably to most readers that the article was mainly authored by experts in the field and feels very much like a medical text. Still, although it is not the best prose, it is still very nice writing.


 * Factually accurate
 * More citations and references should be there to support some of the claims. Phenomena like self-surgery are prone to hoaxes and we should always try to back up all dubious claims with as many sources and references as possible. I cannot personally vouch for the accuracy of the article, but I certainly can say that the verifiability is simply not there.


 * Broad
 * This is a very narrow article, but it manages to cover quite a bit. I would be interested in a peer review and an answer to the question of what might be required to meet the criterion of comprehensiveness for FA status. The article is satisfactorily broad.


 * Neutrally written
 * With writing this dry, I would be amazed if this article contained bias.


 * Stable
 * Examining the last 15 edits, rounded up to account for vandalism, there are no major changes to the article. A few links have been changed, MoS compliance has been enforced, and some new text has been added. The article is in a state of slow and steady growth.


 * Well-referenced
 * I am no medical expert, but the person who compiled the references clearly was. The references are fairly solid and well-done, although using the Cite.php syntax might be a good idea for making the article's notes easier to access.


 * Images
 * There are no images.

Summary:


 * Well-written: Pass 
 * Factually accurate: Fail 
 * Broad: Pass 
 * Neutrally written: Pass 
 * Stable: Pass 
 * Well-referenced: Pass 
 * Images: Pass 

Congratulations. - Corbin   ∫   1   ɱ   p   s   ɔ   ♫  Rock on, dude! 20:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Lack of citations
This article needs citations, or it should be removed from WP:GA. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Problems
I thought there were a few problems with the way the article's written: Thanks to all for the work that's been put in so far, I hope it can be improved more! delldot on a public computer  talk  02:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Organization - The sections go Genital, Abdominal, Medically supervised, Self-trepanation, Extreme circumstances. Why not switch Medically supervised and Self-trepanation to keep the body parts sections and the situations sections together?
 * Depth - this article consists mostly of a list of examples of self-surgery. It doesn't really touch on other aspects of the topic, such as sociological, cultural, and psychological aspects.  In the lead it mentions that it can be a manifestation of a psychological disorder, but the article doesn't explain which disorders could manifest in this (leaving us morbid readers really curious!).
 * Short sections - The lead and trepanation sections are two sentences each, not that great. In the trepanation section, it says, "One of the most famous instances of self-trepanation is that of Amanda Feilding" and that's it. No further explanation (though it does link to her article). Probably just expanding that sentence to say "...Amanda Feilding, who..."  would do it.
 * I hate References in popular culture sections, but that's just me. But can I ask, is there any reason that these examples were chosen? I mean, of the hundreds of references to self-surgery that probably exist in pop culture, why these?  They don't seem particularly special to me.
 * Clarity - Under #Genital, there are two paragraphs, one starts with "by far the most common" and the next starts with "rarer still". How common or rare are these practices? Maybe some numbers would make this less confusing?
 * Global view - do others think the article presents a worldwide view of the subject? I'm not sure it does, all the examples seem to be from Western cultures. Since there's no discussion about cultural stuff, it's hard to tell.
 * I don't want to be a jerk, but I'm going to put this up for delisting if nothing's done to address this soon.  delldot   talk  21:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Good article reassessment
This article was nominated for good article reassessment to determine whether or not it met the good article criteria and so can be listed as a good article. The article was delisted by the nominator (see below). Please see the archived discussion for further information.
 * Nom withdrawn - this was not a controversial call. Please see my comments under  for suggestions for improvement.  delldot   talk  00:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Extreme circumstances
Perhaps the Ralston example should be a bit shorter, because the reader can simply read more in the Ralston article. And the other 3 examples a bit longer. Sturman (talk) 00:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Most common type of self-surgery is removal of testicles?
The article currently says:"By far the most common type of self-surgery is orchiectomy, removal of one or both testicles. A small number of males resort to self-surgery in an attempt to control their sexual urges or due to gender identity disorder.[1] [2] [3]"

The citations given could support just the last sentence. All three are journal references, and none of them are available without a trip to a library, so nobody's likely to check them. Even with those three citations, it's still not clear what the claim that orchiectomy is by far the most common type of self-surgery is really based on.

I have to say I think it's really unlikely that orchiectomy is a more common type of self-surgery than, for instance, removal of warts, splinters, teeth, and slicing into the skin to remove ingrown hairs. Although it's obviously a lot more dramatic.

I'm going to go ahead and remove that claim unless somebody can provide substantiation. --Mr. Billion (talk) 07:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

A section On self-surgery due to economic reasons ?
Like depicted in this article of the time : http://time.com/3327599/failing-health/ In 2012, a chinese man cut off his own leg with a hacksaw and a fruit knife because he couldn't afford the hospital fees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.49.115.131 (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Link to Jan de Doot?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_de_Doot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.223.173.113 (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Relationship between Rogozov and Kane's appendix-removal accomplishments and "Ultimate Final Exam"?
When I was in high school in the '70's, students shared a version of The Ultimate Final Exam. It includes instructions for the Medicine portion of the exam: ''You have been provided with a razor blade, a piece of gauze, and a bottle of Scotch. Remove your own appendix. Do not suture until your work has been inspected. You have fifteen minutes.''. We just laughed about it all. So I was astonished to hear that not one, but it seems two people have actually done so (though not within the stipulated time limit....). I'm guessing there's a connection (and it makes me wonder about the other questions on the exam :). Does anyone know more? ★NealMcB★ (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)