Talk:Breast implant/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Request for Comment: Micromastia

I am requesting that those editors interested in breast issues to please comment in the Talk:Micromastia#Request for Comment: Micromastia on the article Micromastia. I had edited the article to include the controversy over the term and another editor removed any mention of the controversy and he also disagrees with me over the term itself. I am seeking more opinions (especially from doctors) on this issue in the hopes that we can resolve the issues. Currently, I have no hope of doing so but I would like everyone to prove me wrong and manage to get everyone to agree on a good NPOV article. Thanks. Fanra 17:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sexism

I think that it's sexist only to have before and after pictures of women's breast augmentation here! Why are people so afraid of showing men with bigger boobs? --BiT 02:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Reversal/removal

There doesn't seem to be a section or article on breast implant removal? Stevage 04:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Removal is just not as interesting or complex a topic. I'd be happy to write something about that. What are the aspects of that which you'd like to know about? Droliver 02:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any particular interest in the topic, but I saw a red link to breast implant removal (I think), and realised it had nowhere to go to. It might be interesting to note how common it is, or reasons why it's done. A section would probably be sufficient. Stevage 01:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Nursing

Can women with breast implants still nurse their young? A passage near the end would seem to imply that under normal circumstances they could and only when there is chronic pain or numbness does this become a problem, but a clearer explanation of how this surgery can/does/doesn't affect the practical aspect of breast use would improve the article imo. 70.144.172.162 17:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Reception

I think we should include how breast implants are ridiculous — totally unattractive — and that the women who get them are fucking idiots and havereally poor taste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumarine (talk • contribs) 14:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Please remember that this talkpage serves to discuss the article, not your personal opinion. Also, the invective is discouraged. JFW | T@lk 22:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

As obviously WP:TROLLing as Lumarine's comment was, it actually raises a real point. Lots of people of both genders think breast implants look bad, are unhealthy (physically or psychologically), are unsavory for moral or religious reasons, etc., etc., and that the plastic surgery industry is predatory and exploitative. This article tends to support the industry and minimize the critics, rather than being balanced. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 09:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Balance needed

Several comments have expressed concern about the lack of balance (NPOV) in this article. I have consulted with several authors of articles on breast implants and plastic surgery, who agreed that some of literature review excludes findings that show statistically significant increases in pain and other symptoms. In many cases, these findings are in the same articles that were cited, but only the "good news" was included in this article. I added some info for balance, but more is needed. Dr NRC (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Your edits have largely removed information, but perhaps that is what was needed. Don't you think it would have been better if we'd discussed this first?

I'm also puzzled by your use of HTML tags in the wikitext (e.g. <p>). JFW | T@lk 21:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Dr. NRC - It's kind of silly to rehash this. There's no literature suggesting any change in our established beliefs re. this topic. Health ministries from the USA, UK, Canada, and European Union have all reconfirmed their positions on this within the last 2 years. Long-term outcome studies published this year also continue to confirm previous conclusions [PMID 17321754 ]If you wish to familiarize yourself with this topic in detail, you can refer to the most recent comprehensive review of this published this month in Annals of Plastic Surgery [PMID 17992155] Droliver (talk) 23:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• This is not silly, it is the lives of real patients, that have experienced, real problems, I would invite anyone to examine new data that in fact is representative of real suffering, pain, auto immune issues, severe joint pain, ruptures, migration to the endocrine system, what we see in the latest ALCL documentation is something that is not reflected in this topic, I find that disturbing.

contribs) 13:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

There has been no new data supporting claims of AI phenomena and most recent reviews (in print this month BTW) have reconfirmed this. As to ALCL, there is no data to clearly establish cause and effect with this and implants presently, and given the extraordinarily rare occurrence of the disease it seems that it could never actually even be studied effectively. It is notable that in several large and long-term followup series there is no increase of lymphomas of any sort demonstrated Droliver (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Alternatives

An anonymous editor added the following:

Many women have turned to non-surgical alternatives to breast enhancement, or cleavage enhancement, such as external breast tissue expanders. Worn a minimum of 10 hours a day, for a minimum of 10 weeks an external tissue expander, applies a gentle sustained tension to the breast. This expansion process is similar to procedure using tension for bone or other tissue growth. Studies have shown growth results to be vary, but are in between 1/2 cup to 2 cup sizes if such a treatment is followed correctly. The Brava System is an example of a non-surgical breast tissue expander.

Given that this is mostly an advert for the Brava System, I removed it. However, I'm curious whether we should mention alternatives to surgery at all. JFW | T@lk 21:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

As the article is nominally about breast implants, I too don't think BRAVA (which is not particularly effective to begin with) really belongs lumped in with it. This is a kind of tissue expansion technique, & it is not a widely used device by any stretch of the imagination for what it's worth. There is some mention of alternate techniques in the history section.Droliver (talk) 05:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Transgender

Resolved

 – Done.

Should a mention be made that this proceedure is sometimes performed on transwomen who want a more feminine appearance? Czolgolz 21:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Already is, in the lead. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 09:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Scarring and ethnicity

How does one's ethnicity affect the scarring? Wouldn't it more likely be the skin colour itself, and not the mere ethnicity? 83.72.194.208 (talk) 05:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Other Issues

I think that there should be discussion about the sociological, historic and psycholgical aspects of the topic. Why do women want to have larger (or sometimes smaller) breasts ? The phenomenon also has issues from evolutionary biology.

12.159.138.194 (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Breast enlargement shouldn't redirect here

Resolved

 – Wrong venue.

It seems misleading that breast enlargement redirects here but this article only has info on one way of enlarging breasts, namely via implants. Other methods such as pills, hormones, and exercises should be discussed, probably in separate articles (whether these methods work or not is a topic for those articles). A first step would seem to be to make breast enlargement a disambiguation page rather than a redirect. --Gronky (talk) 08:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd disagree. The use of pills or hormones, etc.. for breast enlargement is a super-duper miniscule impact on breast enlargment methodology. Those kind of things would be better addressed in the breast entry to describe hormone manipulation. Droliver (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, so some information about "breast enlargement" would be on the "breast implants" page, and the other info is on the "breasts" page -namely, info about breast development (which is enlargement), affects of hormones, and effects of diet/pills/medication. Thus the "breast enlargement" info is on two pages, so breast enlargement should be a disambiguation page with a link to each of the two pages and a sentence for each saying which info is on which. With the exception of "I'd disagree", you seem to be agreeing with me :-) --Gronky (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the redirect as well. Even bogus breast enlargement is still part of the breast enlargement phenomenon, whether it works or not. I say can the redirect and develop the article on its own merits. I'll help. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 23:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The lemma should be renamed to "Breast augmentation". There are methods other than implants avialable for breast augmentation today, such as breast augmentation with stem cells. --62.47.142.206 (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course it fucking should! Who is responsible? Fucking biased! 121.209.149.44 (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong venue. This should be discussed at Talk:Breast enlargement and/or (if necessary) at WP:RM; it has nothing to do with this article and its content. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 09:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

COI

Just a heads up, see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#National Women.27s Health Network. KnightLago (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this video encyclopedic?

File:Breast Augmentation 3mo post-op.ogg I found it on Commons.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not. There's no pre-op picture, no information as to what type of implants they are, and no indication as to whether or not they are placed subdermal or submuscular. I'd hardly call it educational. Asarelah (talk) 23:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong. There's quite a bit of documentation as to the type and placement of these funbags. See here for technical specs.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I need to watch the video a few more times to make a judgement call.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 04:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, it does make sense. This is a surgery of a sexualized part of the body, and they are often done for purely aesthetic reasons (either reconstruction or augmentation). This video does appear to be made with full documentation to show the characteristics of the breast implants. They are presented covered in a typical outfit, and movement is shown. While it can be viewed as erotic, it is actually presented in as straight forward and informative a manner as "how do augmented breasts jiggle and sway" can be. I'd imagine that somebody considering this surgery would view that video as providing information that is hard to find elsewhere. 68.63.165.28 (no talk please, I gnome another wiki network, not wikipedia. Just reply here.) 16:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Asarelah.--Candyflipping Platypus (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

As do I. Including it here would seem to be pure titillation (pun obviously intended). While the Commons page on the file includes some alleged medical facts, these do not appear in the article, and, I mean, come on... Do we really need a jiggly-boobies video to get across the fact that breast implants are unnaturally firm and rubbery? What happened to plain English? — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 09:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

External links

There's a fair bit of external links. Should they be trimmed? Is it necessary to have four general links to the major health governing body websites (CDC, Health Canada, UK and Australia)? WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 00:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Human stem cell breast enhancement

I recommend changing the title of this article to "Breast Enhancement" because of new methods of increasing breast size. I am interested in a non-biased view on this new Human Stem Cell breast enhancement and there is nothing on wikipedia about it. I understand they are already doing it in Japan and in Europe. The idea is that you really aren't putting some foreign implant in your body, but rather growing more of your own tissue. Anyone have any good information on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.167.70 (talk) 23:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

"All such devices will fail at some point"

There's a citation needed tag on this obvious statement. Would a citation to entropy articles or the second law of thermodynamics suffice? Thoughts?--24.29.234.88 (talk) 02:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Silicone implants redirect

Resolved

 – Wrong venue.

I disagree with "Silicone implants" being redirected here - breast implants are not the only kinds of silicone implants, and this article deals with saline implants as well.

That should be taken up at Talk:Silicone implant and/or (if necessary) at WP:RM; has nothing to do with this article or its text. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 09:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)