Talk:Testicular self-examination

message: I don't think this deserves its own article. Maybe this should be merged into the general article for Testicles. I feel very awkward.
:Why do you think it should be merged? What makes you feel awkward? This health topic, while a bit sensitive, is clearly important by itself in my opininion. Maximilianklein (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging

message: Seriously? I guarantee a woman wrote that. The ol' sack is loosest after sleeping in a warm bed. During/after shower it tightens up so hard it's difficult to clean, let alone palpate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I heard a doctor confirm this fact that it's best to test after showers, I'll try and find a source. Maximilianklein (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looser after a shower? 

message: I only have one testicle after having lost one due to it ascending into my body as a child. I cannot for the life of me find any information on how to check for testicular cancer when you only have one testicle, so, whilst I do test, I don't think I ever do it properly. Shouldn't there be a section on here?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.19.51 (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Only have one!

message: Article chosen
Testicular self-examination
Why this one?  Include WP rating scale? How fit with your interests. 
We were assigned this article. The WP rating is high priority, and the quality is start. A high rating is only assigned to about 10% of articles on Wikipedia. This signifies that the article fits under the category of common highly medically relevant topics. This topic fits with our interests because we would like to ensure that future patients are able to receive accurate information to help discover potential testicular cancers before it progresses to a higher stage.
You WP editing team (up to 3)
JM, IB, NT
Initial Analysis of the article
On initial read, the article does not use inclusive language, such as “men” rather than individuals who have testes. The article is also brief, highly repetitive and uses vague language. 
Overall organization, what changes
The overall organization is okay; we agree the following categories should remain: background, uses, technique, findings, and limitations. However, the society and culture category seems out of context and should likely be removed. 
What will you add?
We would like to add a table showing a summary of current national and global recommendations around TSE.
What will you remove?
We will remove the “Society & Culture” section given that the information in this section is irrelevant to the medical context of the article. Particularly, the framing of the testicular exam as a form of sexual play seems inappropriate and misguiding and is not substantiated with any evidence.
What will you augment?
We will augment the medical relevance of a testicular exam as well as the recommended techniques that should be used to perform this examination. 
What will you decrease coverage of?
The article sexualizes the testicular exam and includes references to pop culture, neither which are relevant information or necessary to include.
Roles in the project. List members and planned roles. 
NT: Background, limitations
JM: Technique, findings
IB: Uses, Add section called professional guidelines 
Everyone: Lead section and overall revisions
Team coordination plan:
Each week, we will touch base with one another to see how our portion of the project is going. If our team members have questions or need help, we will address it then. We will also be sure to have effective communication by creating a group chat. To edit this in a collaborative manner, we will have a google doc to place our preliminary ideas and then directly edit the article page when we work on this together.
WIP presenter
JM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inder.bal (talk • contribs) 
Peer Review:
It might clarify things if you could provide a link to USPSTF category D distinction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremyccwang (talk • contribs) 
Peer Review: TSE
Your intro paragraph is clear and easy to understand. However, I would make one minor change. In the sentence "Testicular cancer typically presents with a painless testicular swelling or lump or any change....". I would change the positioning of the article "a" to read as "Testicular cancer typically presents with painless testicular swelling or a lump or any change.."
A minor change but for clarity, I would change the sentence "Recommendations vary with some physicians recommending the use of monthly TSE for men ages 15 to 55" to read as "Recommendations vary with some physicians recommending monthly TSEs for men ages 15 to 55"
A minor change but for clarity, I would change the sentence "The benefit of TSE is uncertain due to there being no randomized control trial studying the use of TSE" to "The benefit of TSE is uncertain due to the lack of randomized control trials focused on studying its use."
Overall great article! 
Mmehari (talk) 05:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Med School Edits 

message: The articles is easy to read and full of useful information. I think one way to improve the language of the article to make it more inclusive would be to replace the word "man" with something like "person with testicles". Also, I think it might be useful to mention that there are conflicting data on the usefulness of the TSE in the introduction - to ensure that that information is present for someone who decides to only read the intro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucsfmedstudent97 (talk • contribs) 
:Regarding such language changes, the Wikipedia community's consensus is against that per this discussion. To say something different from what a source says is WP:Original research and is not allowed. Other reasons were given at that discussion. Such terminology has a high likelihood to offend more than the alternative - many people do not like being reduced to their genitalia, as they see it. All terms have exceptions, and people know that. Wikipedia is not for advocacy of any kind, including attempts at language-reform. Crossroads -talk- 03:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foundations 1 CIC 2021: MS2 Wikipedia Peer-Review