Talk:ExAblate

message: This is my first wikipedia article and it is intended to describe the ExAblate procedure - in fact it was intended to be just the opposite of advertising and promoting.  I wanted somewhere to discuss the technology, science and clinical trial aspects of this new medical device without any form of promotion.  The intent is to have patients and physicians add to this to enrich the medical community's knowledge and education of a medical device.  I have added references and taken out descriptive words as well as the awards section - please let me know what I can do to be able to write about ExAblate in wikipedia.  This is meant to be an article similar to "LASIK" which describes the technical advances and details of a medical procedure.... Help??
:For one thing, large parts of the article seem to be copied verbatim from Insightec's promotional literature. Aside from being a probable copyright violation, such material is a dubious source for a neutral encyclopedia article. Also. there's no point in including detailed specifications of particular ExAblate products. A good first step might be to rename the article to "MRgFUS" (or an expansion thereof), rather than a particular company's trademark. Hqb (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already an article on on this procedure at High intensity focused ultrasound. I would suggest that you read through this article and add any missing information that you have to it, with references that are independent of the product manufacturer. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I will have my colleagues and clinical partners review this article and provide more references and links to concepts already in Wikipedia.  The technology section will also be reviewed.  It should be noted that some of the descriptions of MRgFUS on the InSightec website actually came from my doctoral thesis.  Descriptions of a technology really cannot be altered to a point where they would not be correct anymore, thus there will be similarities to other articles, as with many articles on Wikipedia.  I would agree if this article was flagged for the community to add more references, clinical results, or photos, but I do not agree with the fact that it is promoting a product.  The discussions on the various models are no different than discussing the evolution of the Land Cruiser or Guitar Hero.  Also, renaming this article MRgFUS would actually be more misleading as there may be other devices and technologies that can perform MRgFUS.  ExAblate is to MRgFUS as Prius is to Hybrid and XBox is to video game console, the latter two of which are on Wikipedia as product+technology articles. I believe that this submission should not be deleted since it is not promoting ExAblate as being better than something else, and is not trying to sell a product.  This article, which I believe is neutral, is intended to be a basis for many people in the medical community to add, revise, and "make smarter" - and I know that if there is any sense of biasness in this article (as with any medical article), the medical community will be the first ones to flag it and fix it.  Please remove the request for speedy delete.  Thanks!
I will also review HIFU and see if that would be a better place to add the description of the ExAblate procedure…  HIFU is somewhat different from MRgFUS technology.  Canadianarthur (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I have removed the speedy tag for now, though the article still feels a little one-sided. Another big problem is the References section: it looks like you just grabbed the first 20 or so publications from the company site, which is not very useful. Please prune it down to the 3-5 most important ones, and make it very clear which ones were actually used as sources for the information in the article. Hqb (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Much better! I've removed the  tag -- the article has reached a useful baseline by now. Hqb (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)