Talk:Sperm donation

Credentials?

"Few checks if any are made by sperm banks on sperm donors' self-supplied details and some sperm banks routinely inflate the credentials of their donors."

This is a pretty big accusation. Should require clarification ("The following researchers or individuals have claimed that..." or sources. ~~ Aristagoras

Up-dating

I have amended the table relating to the number of permitted births to reflect the change in the law in Sapin. I have also changed the previous references etc where necessary.

Spain was being seen as a destination for 'fertility tourists' and reports of Spanish clinics recruiting egg donors from Easter European counties, and importing quantities of donor sperm from other countries thoughout the European Union by the onselling of sperm served to fuel a debate which led to the imposition of these restrictions.

The previous position left the numbers in each case to individual practitioners. It is thought that many of these imposed US style limits and that in effect, they always used up the available material. Sperm donation in Spain is anonymous

It should be noted that surrogacy arrangements have been outlawed in Spain for some years.

A comment from a Spanish correspondent would be appreciated.

Education required

I heard that sperm donors are required to have a college degree. Is this true? Do you know any details?

65.77.68.18 (talk) 04:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC

Not for most clinics or sperm banks. Some impose educational requirements for donors and they may advertise this fact to recipients. ALEXEIS

Gender neutral language?

Would it be worth editing the page to use gender neutral and/or more clinical language, such as referring to donors as "male" as opposed to "men"? TheRobotics5 (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Paige tagged for eight years

This page has been tagged for eight years, and established users, and IPS can both follow what the tag the top the page says, and remove in there by challenge the inside of material that has already been challenged for years ~2026-30203-63 (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

This is not Reddit. This is not a repository for individuals to simply put whatever blather comes to mind and insert it into the project. This is especially the case when an article is tangently related to medical issues.--~2026-30203-63 (talk) 12:16, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

You have been removing a lot of content from "sperm donation" articles, and rewriting what is left. On the one hand, you ask for citations. On the other, you add a lot of content without citations. Clearly, these pages are important to you, but you cannot just delete everything you don't like without providing any justification. I have requested the temporary protection of these pages. D15724C710N (talk • contribs) 12:23, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Please respect wp:burden. You cannot restore u cited material without adding appropriate citations. If a lot of content was removed, it is because a lot of content was uncited. I’m not added any content without citations – if I have, you’re free to delete it, but please point it out. You are mistaken. If you like the unsighted language, language that I might point that has been tagged for the better part of a decade for lack of citations, it is your burden to provide citations when restoring it. You’re not just restore it without citations.~2026-30203-63 (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

TA, as I noted on your talk page, you have also deleted some cited content, so your explanation that you're acting perfectly within your rights doesn't quite fit the facts of what you actually are doing here.

That aside, I get the feeling that you were once active on Wikipedia a while ago. We did, once, a while ago, have language in (or near) the edit window saying, indeed, that "unsourced material may be challenged and removed at any time. We no longer do because it encouraged this kind of nihilistic, antisocial behavior. It would be more productive if, say, you removed this material bit by bit to the talk page and invited other editors to help you find sources for it. That will earn you more brownie points here. For a subject like this it shouldn't be too hard.

And it would be one thing if you were just removing unsourced material. But adding material of your own, which may not itself be sourced, complicates your stated good intentions. In fact, it looks disruptive. Daniel Case (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

@Daniel Case It's worth noting that some templates (like Template:More citations needed) still say that. Perhaps these need to be changed? Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 06:54, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Case. As I answered on my talk page, I do not see what you see in the deletion you pointed to. I do not see any deletion of cited material. What do you see? If I did that by accident I am sorry. But I don’t see that. I also do not see that I added material myself without citations. You say I did. But other than the other editor saying it and me asking where he sees that I do not know why you think that is the case. Also - a lot of this is medical related. And it reads like someone just copied something from Reddit. Or could have made stuff up. Why would we want uncited material on medical or medical-like material to be broadcast to people as though Wikipedia thinks it is true. And why do you think that when material has been tagged for eight years that that is not good enough to say to editors that this needs fixing. I don’t understand your comment about what the template used to say. I’m talking about what the template on top of this page does say. It says ”Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.” That’s the template I’m looking at at the top of the page - what are you seeing? And I did remove material but by bit as I continued to look at the article. The reason the last edit is so big is because the editor restored a lot of text without any citations. I am a bit confused that you say i did things without showing me where - and if I did wrong things I am sorry - but don’t say anything about an editor adding back this sort of thing without citations. ~2026-30203-63 (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I have responded on your talk page ... OK, I see that you were keeping the existing cites that appeared to have been deleted. But in condensing existing uncited material, you simply left it uncited. It would have been better to add cites for those passages. Daniel Case (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2026 (UTC)