User talk:Jjjoyce

in re. to breast reconstruction

There's some confusion you have re. this issue and as to what exactly wikipedia is or should be. I have no personal issue with your sister or her memory, but instead I'm trying to keep this discussion (on an area I care a great deal about) "on the tracks" of how this would be presented in a textbook or peer-reviewed article. My redacting mention of your sister is that in the context of breast reconstruction as a topic, she is not an important part of the narrative. Getting off onto American-centric minutae about one of the many stories of similar nature that were percolating re. this doesn't really serve an article well, particularly on a topic that is a medical articel rather then a sociological one. In addition, from an international perspective (which is Wikipedia's goal) it is completely irrelevent that some relatively anonymous American was used as an anecdote in the American legislative debate. The relevent fact is that the law re. mandatory coverage exists in the US in a similar way that other countries have such coverage, rather then Janet's role in that. Droliver 22:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Oliver is manipulating wikipedia and behaving like he is the sole authority on plastic surgery. Of course it deserves mention. We should create a site about the law itself. Tmwmd 06:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)tmwmd 12/1/07