Talk:Blepharoplasty

Incorrectly formatted ref
This was floating in the References section:
 * “Blepharoplasty: Eyelids”. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. 2006. 25 September 2006. --  Joie de Vivre 19:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The deleted references were replaced as they serve a useful role in understanding blepharoplasty surgery. Adding references to additional sites with photos would probably be very useful. Gadgetmaniac 00:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that a few different specialties do this procedure. Namely: Plastics, ENT, Maxillofacial surgeons, and occuloplastic/opthalmologists. Jwri7474 08:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Picture
Maybe a less bloody or gory picture for more squeamish people? Kind of a shocker when I got to this page clicking "random article." I think a before/after picture would be more useful anyway. Soave (talk) 04:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This falls under Wikipedia's policy on censorship. Nothing may be censored is the tl;dr. Timestep (talk) 11:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This argument is invalid. Should an article about pornography be full of that content? --2.245.192.157 (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The before/after comparison is biased by the use of makeup on the after photo. I don't think this picture illustrate correctly the differences the operation make in the eyelid anatomy. If there is no better example, it's better not to have a picture than having one that gives a wrong information.


 * Just out of curiosity, why is the censorship argument always brought up with reference to the placement of an image, rather than its outright inclusion on non-inclusion in the article? If it were a question of inclusion outright, then yes, that is censorship.  But an argument about the placement of an image (or the use of a sylized graphic for the info-box image, and the "more disturbing" image below) is something that would be akin to a "guideline".  Wikipedia has guidelines for other things, why would this any different? Jimw338 (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Video
Here, only in the Philippines: *gmanews.tv/video, Blepharoplasty, 05/31/2008 --Florentino floro (talk) 07:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Article Clean up
Drawnedlac (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC) removed a large amount of non-relevant information from this article pertaining to procedures many surgeons do as an alternative to blepharoplasty. The information had no relevance to the article blepharoplasty. Created a "non-surgical alternatives" paragraph with the gist of this removed text.

Consider removing unreferenced mention of Wobenzym and Auriderm which are commercial products with no scientifically proven efficacy.--POKOne (talk) 21:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Link Discussion
EDog95 seems to have a vendetta against placing links on wikipedia. I think people searching for information about blepharoplasty should have the option of finding before and after photos of patients who have had this surgery. If he can find better sites to link to he should go ahead. He should not be threatening people who have significantly improved the page with "vandalism".

I would appreciate if other people would chime in on this controversy. How can you understand plastic surgery without before and after photos? There are times when links are very useful on wikipedia pages.

Gadgetmaniac (talk) 02:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I moved this to a new section. It does not warrant to be at the top of the Discussion page of this article. I also agree with your point. External links are useful to wikipedia pages and can be used as alternate sources. The pictures are also an aid to understand this process. Timestep (talk) 11:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Cost and insurance information-- June 2011
I removed the section about costs as it contained dated information and was sourced to mostly non-notable, commercial websites not meeting WP:RS. Authoritative, encyclopedic information about cost and insurance coverage needs to be sourced per WP:RS or discussed here first. Flowanda | Talk 05:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good call. --BozMo talk 09:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Recovery
Good lord, who wrote the "Recovery" section? It's the most bias thing I've ever read.

"it is common for those undergoing blepharoplasties to have significant complications" "victims of this procedure" "Surgeons seldom fully inform their patients" "Patients are rarely informed of the psychological trauma that results" "may leave patients with permanent disfigurement, resulting in significant depression and even suicidal ideation"

Someone has a serious vendetta or perhaps a non-surgical product to sell?

This chapter must be replaced. Such articles undermine the prestige of Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.182.252.40 (talk) 10:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Smoking
Not sure how relevant it is, but I was advised by surgeons not to have Blepharoplasty performed while I still smoked cigarettes, as the vasoconstriction caused by the nicotine slows and impairs healing.

Might be a worthwhile inclusion for those researching the topic, just not sure if/where it should go.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.205.51 (talk) 23:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Blepharoplasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071006100432/http://www.bmc.edu/oto/grand/04_22_04.htm to http://www.bmc.edu/oto/grand/04_22_04.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120501134354/http://facs.org/fellows_info/bulletin/2012/grill0512.pdf to http://www.facs.org/fellows_info/bulletin/2012/grill0512.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Blepharoplasty
G 151.238.220.202 (talk) 10:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)