Talk:Breast implant/Risks and debate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Editing this section, as well as the main article, needs to be done in a cooperative effort. That is not gutting the entire article without comment and reducing it to a single sentence, dismissing the concerns that have been raised internationally. I want to emphasize that Wikopedia is not a marketing device. Rob has had comments about the article "Plastic Surgery" where he tried to add a spam link to his own website. There he attempted to call it an independent 'forum', but was told that was not appropriate in Wiki. I would like to also add that it is not appropriate in Wiki (or in any working environment) to unilaterally gut others' work without discussion. This article has been contentious, and it is my desire, as well as that of other editors, that cooperation be involved in editing on a working page so an 'online' article can be published. That will never happen at this rate. Gutting whole sections and making edits without discussion will be reverted back to the original working page.molly bloom 00:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, why is mammography in the 'Risks and Controversy' section? That, along with local complications, should be in the main article. Thanks.molly bloom 00:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I find it interesting that Rob Oliver left the photo of the intracapsular rupture but deleted the extracapsular photo. That photo stays, because it is an actual photo of an actual extracapsular rupture and shows what can happen. That is the purpose of this section. To show what can happen - not to advertise breast implants,

Because Rob chose to gut the entire section of rupture here also, without comment, I reverted back to the original. I welcome serious contributions and discussion by editors who would like to help with this and other sections.molly bloom 00:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FDA

Rob wanted to specifically 'blame' the FDA's decision (which he calls ludicrous) on David Kessler. We don't discuss specific individuals when referring to Health Canada's decisions. This is ludicrous and is very POV. Moreover, he never discussed t his change - which is totally out of line. This is reverted back.molly bloom 17:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)