Talk:Breast implant/Archive 3

message: Sorry I deleted that - that was inadvertant.  I meant only  to delete the Inamed promotion on Inamed's 'bouncy breast implants' that had initially been added.  MollyBloom 17:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other languages

message: I just wandered into this article and noticed something rather surprising:  the images of ruptured and damaged implants are duplicated, while there are exactly zero images of female breasts, containing implants, from the outside - as in, the way they are intended to appear with functioning implants.
I don't personally have any way of acquiring copy-free images to upload in order to fix the second problem, but would anyone disagree with my removing the redundant copies of the implant-rupture images?  Also, any editor who does have access to copy-free images of breasts containing implants, please upload them!  Cheers, Kasreyn 05:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point.  If we could get some decent images that we are free to use, I would support using them.  Considering what's on vulva and circumcision, I can't see any objection on the basis of content. Al 05:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about culling the dupe images?  Kasreyn 06:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If we have those, then yes, they should be removed. Al 06:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article will be split.  That is why there is duplication.   Please read the history, and also edit on the offline pages, after discussion.  MollyBloom 01:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: I would like to ask others (NOT ROB) what they think about the non-profit link that I added.  It offers a differing view, but it is academic, and it links to academic articles, as well.  Dr. Zuckerman is a Harvard epidemiologist who should be linked to on this issue, as much as the plastic surgeons.  I welcome others to view this website, and explain why it is not acceptable as a legitimate link.  (I don't think others will.)  MollyBloom 03:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a vocally political lobbying group. Compare the tone of the articles, press releases, & breathless proclaimations/press releases there to the IOM, FDA, UK-IRG, Canadian health ministry, & other health ministries around the world. It represents a political group with an agenda & dismisses the large body of careful researchDroliver 23:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We all know what you think, Rob.  I want to see what others think.  As I said before, this is a non-profit group, on women's health.  The director is an epidemiologist.  The tone is not 'breathless';  it is just not an advertisement for breast implants so it isn't up your alley.  Furthermore, this group does not 'dismiss' other studies. They are discussed.  This is ONLY an external link, Rob, among many.  You can't filter out everything.MollyBloom 23:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Al.MollyBloom 23:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Furthermore, this group does not 'dismiss' other studies. They are discussed"...You obviously haven't looked at the site then because that's all it does. It's a discussion  that's about as unbiased as the dailykos.com or redstate.org are on politics. If we're to keep links NPOV you cannot put political groups like that in the area segregated for external links. The 'controversy' over silicone should be discussed in context in the article & presented as the alternative view to the mainstream. Linking to the group in that context would be less objectionable if you wanted to briefly point out organizations that object (eg. N.O.W., etc..).Droliver 15:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: We need to discuss external links here.MollyBloom 23:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Diana, I'm not insulting your organization but I am calling it for what it is- A political entity determined to keep silicone implants off the market by any means neccessary, despite the general consensus (both here and abroad) of the medical literature to the safety of the devices. It is in no way accurate to describe yourself as just some disinterested "non-profit organization" without a political agenda, and linking to your site would be as inappropriate as putting links to the corporate office of Inamed, Mentor, or other manufacturers.  It is a ridiculous position to paint the systemic reviews of every industrialized nation on earth as tainted who have weighed in on this subject.Droliver 15:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ROB, YOU have discussed this.  The consensus was to LEAVE this link.  Your analogy to Inamed is ludicrous.  They are for-profit corporations.   This is not.  And the consensus was to keep it.  This is not YOUR article.   It stays.MollyBloom 18:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: I am not going to dignify DrOliver's list of complaints against me, with my own list against him.
It is unproductive.  I have repeatedly ask that DrOliver be civil.   I would like to see the focus on the article, and not on the person.  I edit on a number of articles, apart from breast implants.  I have not had such problem on any other articles I have edited. But on this, there have been all out wars.
I would appreciate help with coming to a reasonable resolution.  MollyBloom 05:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal Attacks