Talk:Rhinoplasty

message: I have a site containing images from  a rhinoplasty procedure ,but since It's my site someone else must approve the link first before adding it to the external links 
http://surgery-images.com/plastic/rhinoplasty.html Nfostiras 08:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: surgeryimages site

message: This page needs better references.
Recurring dreams 01:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  For starters, can someone please provide the technical name of the type of surgeon that performs rhinoplasties? M. Frederick 01:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean Up

message: I am not American, and am quite convinced that rhinoplasties are performed on non-American citizens.  Why are blacks and asians referred to as "African-Americans" and "Asian-Americans"?  Besides that, do non-whites in your country really want to be called by those cumbersome names...?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.209.99.7 (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed it to "patients of African descent". Charles 03:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Political correctness

message: There is no mention of any of these in the article. I'd think it informative to include a section on the potential risks and side effects of rhinoplasty (i.e. nose collapse, infections, etc).
Naturually, the cost can vary from region and country, but I think a general/average range of expense for this surgery would be nice (a break down by region even better).74.12.75.157 03:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cost, Expense, Risks, Side Effects? 

message: Under the rhinoplasty section "non surgical nose job" is a term coined and trademarked by a Dr. Alexander rivkin he pretty much invented the procedure that dates back to 2003. The proof for the invention of the phrase and the actual word can be found under (TM-Source: Serial Number 77/097,402) I think a persons name should be mentioned in the article to atleast give partial credit to person who came up with the procedure. Give credit where credit is due. --Happyfeetprod (talk) 21:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (from my talk page) : The problem here is that Dr. Rivkin only trademarked the term, "Non-Surgical Nose Job™" and using this term in the Rhinoplasty article isn't appropriate, given the subject is non-surgical rhinoplasty in the generic sense. What you added, as well as the article you have previously created is simply blatantly promotional; in other words, an advert. Proof of trademarking a term doesn't establish notability nor does it make it encyclopedic - Alison ❤ 21:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I'd really like to see some reliable sources such as PUBMED or some peer-reviewed publications, really, that Dr. Rivkin is a pioneer in this field. The reason I ask is that I'm aware that people have been using dermal fillers for quite some time to achieve this effect. In fact, Europe, they've been successfully using Aquamid and Hyaluronic acid in this way. If, as you say, he's a noted pioneer, then he definitely should get a mention. The Today Show clip would be problematic due to copyright and our policy regarding external links. - Alison ❤ 08:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non surgical nose job 

message: Regarding the text "Patients of African descent commonly seek narrowing of wide nostrils."  This seems anecdotal at best.  There certainly is a tortured history in the US between Caucasian and African American beauty.  And perhaps a more nuanced approach to the text is in order.  There was an interesting article from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons in 2003 which described rhinoplasty surgery's role for African Americans as a method of "retain[ing] their unique ethnic characteristics while improving their overall look."  Then again the author of a Salon article on the topic sniffed "American hucksterism" in the ASPS report, saying that it looked like "the ultimate in having it both ways, the plastic-surgery equivalent of a Ginsu knife."
I'm not sure if I'm even using the Talk section correctly.  I know that I have issue with this text and I suppose I'm looking for feedback as I don't have a concise sentence to pop in the page and have done with it. JakeMul (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnic Rhinoplasty 

message: I myself am Jewish and I know for a fact that alot of young girls in the Jewish community get nosejobs for their sweet sixteenths.. someone should put something about that in this article  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.73.71 (talk) 01:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an interesting fact, but we'd need a reliable source of information to back it up before we could put it in the article. It's also not very encyclopaedic, and it hasn't got very much to do with nose jobs as such; perhaps it would be more appropriate on one of the Judaism-related articles? Any thoughts from my fellow editors? CarrotMan (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish sweet 16 Nosejobs 

message: Is this an advertisement for FacialSurgery.com or what?  It should at least be remotely presentable.  Sheesh ... It ruins the whole page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paravis (talk • contribs) 00:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This entire article was terrible before I just changed it some moments ago. It still is not good or great, but at least now it can be called decent. The In the Operating Room section is now combined in the Surgical approach: Open vs. closed subsection of the larger Surgical procedures and types section, and I do not feel that it is an advertisement or ruins the whole article; it is very informative, detailing each step, and now blends in better. Flyer22 (talk) 11:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's up with the "In The Operating Room" section? 

message: Noteworthy persons, who are known to have had such a job are among others:
*Paul Anka
*Janet Jackson
*La Toya Jackson 
*Michael Jackson 
*Queen Fabiola of Belgium
Possibly something for a section in this article.--VKing (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Noteworthy persons

message: This article is so long I think it could be split into two or three - maybe one on surgical rhinoplasty and one on non-surgical rhinoplasty.  -download ׀ talk 18:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, page is a monster right now. I might take the initiative and start by splitting off a starter page for non-surgical rhinoplasty, see where it goes from there. Inglenookish (talk) 06:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that it needs splitting since some articles are just as big as this one, but WP:SIZE can be used as a measurement. I'm just glad that the article is much improved from the first time I improved it and commented on that in the What's up with the "In The Operating Room" section? area of the talk page above. Flyer22 (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting the article 

message: Hi. I recently copied the all content from Rhinoplasty#Anatomy of the human nose into a new article anatomy of the human nose. I have not made any changes to this article however.
It seemed to me that the subsection was large enough to become its own article. Plus things like embryologic development may not be relevant for most readers of who want to know about rhinoplasty (an the article is pretty long as it is). I would suggest reducing and simplifying the section and adding a  to it. Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forked into Anatomy of the human nose 

message: In the History section it says "from Sanskrit to Arabic" then "from Arabia to Persia to Egypt", it seems to me that the most probable dissemination of information would have been from India to Persia to Arabia to Egypt and so on to western Europe.
I admit that it could have travelled from India directly to Arabia by boat, but this I assume would be less probable. That said, if it were the case, "from Arabia to Persia to Egypt" would still be erroneous and should instead be "from Arabia to Persia and Egypt".
Considering Sushruta lived 300 years prior to the first Persian empire which included part of India and the extensive cultural and scientific exchanges between India and Persia, that this scientific knowledge would have travelled directly to Arabia before entering Persia, India's bordering empire, I think the former would make more sense.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by FxRez (talk • contribs) 05:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential illogical order 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Rhinoplasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101127161922/http://www.nyam.org/news/2493.html to http://www.nyam.org/news/2493.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110302193000/http://www.ispub.com/ostia/index.php?xmlFilePath=journals%2Fijps%2Fvol3n2%2Frhino.xml to http://www.ispub.com/ostia/index.php?xmlFilePath=journals%2Fijps%2Fvol3n2%2Frhino.xml
https://www.draydintekgoz.com/en
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120129073529/http://www.robertkotlermd.com/revrhino.php to http://www.robertkotlermd.com/revrhino.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The section I have added to the article in here is being keep removed from the article. There are multiple independend sources (which can be seen in the article) about the content. Some users say that we can't use sources like Celebs & Fashion Mag for medicine articles and I agree, but in this case, they are used for the surgeon and the "presentation" date of the technique, not for the technique itself. For that, I added his article that has been published in the Aesthetic Surgery Journal. The article has been cited for 11 other articles (this one especially is a good one) so it is a pretty reliable source.--Nanahuatl (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This is medical content, so sources must conform to WP:MEDRS. None of these sources do. Even setting that aside, this appears to be a brand new technique that has not seen wide adoption. Per WP:UNDUE it is unsuitable for this article. - MrOllie (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles from academic journals yes, they do! I showed you the sources and cites.--Nanahuatl (talk) 05:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Primary studies do not satisfy sourcing requirements. A case series is not an adequate source. Number of citations is irrelevant. BiologicalMe (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Do you think are they enough? I also have removed this section from the article per WP:MEDRS, but for some reason, it looks like there are people who want to add this section and remove the other section (that's not my speciality, I don't know why). I have no problem if both sections present in the article, all I look for is to contribute to Wikipedia :) Regards.--Nanahuatl (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Enough? It isn't a matter of quantity. The first two articles are a little specialized in that they are comparing a subset of techniques. They are suitable as sources for content, but don't establish that the content belongs. As a general guideline, if a general review article of rhinoplasty or a plastic surgery textbook does not discuss a technique, it is definitely too specialized for Wikipedia. Exact techniques and specific instruments are more detailed information than a general purpose encyclopedia article needs. General concepts (open vs. closed, filler, etc.) are more appropriate for the article. BiologicalMe (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , I mean, to make a content encyclopedic enough to add :) As I mentioned, I am not the expert, I just look for some academic articles that mention about the technique. I believe we can mention about the tecnique (that it exists and it's notable about to mention), but not like a section or so many details about it.--Nanahuatl (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Existence alone does not justify a mention. Some specifics may always exceed due weight for a general article on the subject. The bottom-up approach of finding the minimum amount of sources to include something ignores its relative significance. That is why I suggested a more top-down approach. What does a current textbook (not procedure manual) on general surgery, plastic surgery, or otorhinolaryngology say? If the answer is nothing, then there probably is no reason to to give it more weight in this article. As an aside, there is no need to ping me when I have just been active. When I am on Wikipedia next, I will follow up on recent activity. A new development months from now would be different. BiologicalMe (talk) 01:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: BiologicalMe, I strongly agree about not mentioning the "relatively less important" things as if they are "more important" than they actually are. Now I can see that adding a section about this technique isn't the right thing to do. About pinging, sorry, it's a habit from my local-language Wikipedia :)--Nanahuatl (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Micro rhinoplasty 

message: Would there be an value in using a different article image? The bloody nose strikes me as a tad graphic given many surgery articles either use diagrams, or less detailed pictures. 2601:240:C401:9450:5D80:9AC5:2E4F:DD42 (talk) 02:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  First picture on the page