Talk:Toby Meltzer

Discussion

 * Please do not speedy-delete. Toby Meltzer is pretty notable and is a well known pioneer of sex-reassignment surgery. Google shows up about 2000+ hits. - Alison&#9997; 23:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You have to show evidence of his notability in the article: something that satisfies WP:BIO. ... disco spinster   talk  00:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field."
 * "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work"

From: www.tmeltzer.com/drmeltzer/

Publications in Peer-Reviewed Journals:

&middot; Meltzer TR and Myers MB: The effect of hyperbaric oxygen on the bursting strength and rate of vascularization of skin wounds in the rat. American Surgeon, Vol 52, 12:659-662, 1986.

&middot; Meltzer TR, Miyakawa T, DePoli PA, Sachs R, Faraq A, Mammen EF, Heggers JP, Robson MC: Hemostasis parameters and survival in burn patients. Surgical Forum 38:636-638, 1987.

&middot; Phillips LG, Robson MC, Heggers JP, Meltzer TR, Boertman JA, Manavalan K: The effect of burn care on skin bacteria and burn wound sepsis. Australian and New Zealand Burns Bulletin, Vol 1, 3:12-13, 1988.

&middot; Smith, Jr, DJ, Robson MC, Meltzer TR, Smith AA, McHugh TP, Heggers JP: DRG-driven change in burn wound management: A success story. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 82:710-712, 1988.

&middot; Phillips LG, Heggers JP, Robson MC, Boertman JA, Meltzer TR, Manavalan K, Smith DJ: The effect of endogenous skin bacteria on burn wound sepsis. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 1989.

&middot; Phillips LG, Jarlsburg C, Mathoney K, Gracia W, Meltzer TR, Smith DJ, Robson MC: Meshed Biobrane: A dressing for difficult topography. The Journal of Burn Care & Rehabilitation, Vol. 11, No. 4:347-351, 1990.

&middot; Meltzer TR: Basal Cell Carcinoma. The Western Journal of Medicine, Vol. 158, No. 4: 403, April, 1993. &middot; Wheatley MJ and Meltzer TR: The Role of Vascular PedicleThrombectomy in Management of Compromised Free Tissue Transfers. The Annals of Plastic Surgery, Vol. 36, No. 4:360-4 April, 1996.

&middot; Wheatley MJ and Meltzer TR: The Management of Unsalvageable Free Flaps. Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery, Vol. 12, No. 4:227-229, May, 1996.

&middot; Swift RW, Wheatly MJ and Meltzer TR: A Safe, Reliable Method for Skin Graft Coverage of the Radial Forearm Donor Site. Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery, Vol. 13, No. 3:471-3, October, 1997.

&middot; Wheatley MJ, Meltzer TR, Cohen JI: Radial Forearm Free Flap Tracheal Reconstruction After Parastomal Tumor Resection. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Vol. 101. No. 5:1342-4, April, 1998.

&middot; Takata, LL and Meltzer, TR: Procedures, Postoperative Care, and Potential Complications of Gender Reassignment for the Primary Care Physician. Primary Psychiatry, Vol, 7, No. 6:74-78, June, 2000.

&middot; Yang CY, Palmer AD, Murray KD, Meltzer TR, Cohen JI: Cricothyroid Approximation to Elevate Vocal Pitch in Male-to-Female Transsexuals: Results of Surgery. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol, Vol, 111 (6): 477-85, June 2002.

He's also lectured extensively on re-assignment surgery and is considered to be one of the primary surgeons for SRS, along with Marci Bowers, Gary Alter, etc. He is at least as notable as these two. - Alison&#9997; 00:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This article DOES NOT meet any of the criteria for deletion. In fact deleting this article would create significant controversy. I believe that deleting this article would violate the formal policies of the Wikipedia. Its appearance in the deletion list is non-sense. Dr. Meltzer's work is medically important to vaginoplasty and metoidioplasty, as Dr. Barnard's work is medically and historically important to heart transplant surgery. Shame on whoever suggested that this article be deleted. janniejdoe 20:52, 14 September 2006.


 * Toby Meltzer, MD has been insrumental in making advances in vaginoplasty surgical technique. He is an internationally known plastic and reconstructive surgeon whose work has medical and historical significance. His peer reviewed articles appear in prestigious medical journals. He is far worthy of appearance in an encyclopedia than countless psuedo celebrities whose appear in wikipedia has never been challenged. Maintaining reference to him in those resource enhances its credibility and utility. He is also referred to in several other wikipedia articles. Shame on anyone who suggests deleting this entry about him.janniejdoe 19:15, 14 September 2006.


 * I have removed the erroneous "cleanup" and "advertisement" tag. Dhartung has not provided any basis or citations for inserting these erroneous tags. Dhartung should volunteer to make a grammatical or syntax edits Dhartung believes would help this article. In the mean time, I have increased its level of detail and cleaned up its language. Rather than simply inserting such tags in a drive by, trolling, manner, people ought to actually edit an article they think needs grammatical improvement. janniejdoe 17:25, 15 September 2006.

What the article needs
I have done some clean up and wiki-fying of the article. I have also added sources for comments where I could find reliable ones. The one area where I hit a major roadblock is the references to the techniques that he's pioneered. All the sources that I could find (at least on-line) are either blogs, self-published, or second/third hand sources which wouldn't be appropriate to put in the articles. I suspect what I need to find is located in some of the ASPS medical journals but unfortunately you have to pay for access to them. In regards to the AfD, if someone can fill in the gaps with sources in those key areas it will go a long way to saving this article. Agne 15:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Addressing what the article needs

 * I have added some links to reference information regarding Dr. Metlzer's invention of pioneering surgical technique. I have removed the stub notation now that the article has been further refined. There are thousands of wiki articles that don't live up to the present standard of this article. janniejdoe 17:37, 17 September 2006.
 * The sources do say that Toby uses those techniques but they don't back up the claim that he pioneered them, which is of substantial relevance. Secondly, I do think the link to the sites with photo should contain the description Graphic Photos rather then just Surgical Photos. I don't think Wikipedia should be censored but "graphic" tends to convey that more then just blood will be shown in the photo. Agne 00:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Obviously I disagree with the note about the photographs. The term "graphic" tends to inappropriately stigmatize the nature of the photography. The photographas, are clinical and medical in nature. They are scientifically relevant and in no way should be associated with things like pornography or "grpahic" sexuality that somme cultures consider inappropriate for some audience. Noting that they are Surgical photos makes their content emphatically clear for anyone who might not be emotionally or psychologically mature enough to view them. There are plenty of articles on wikipedia about medical issues, with photographs, that do not include any such warnings, e.g.:


 * Breast_implant/Risks_and_debate


 * Breast_implant


 * If you took the time to read the entirety of the information Anne Lawrence, MD provides on Dr. Metlzer's work and techniques, you will see that his origination of his techhniques and procedures are documented there. See also the referenced article by Takta, LL and Meltzer, TR, in pubmed. I believe this article is being held to a ridiculous and unfair standard, that is not representative of the wikipedia. I believe that the microscopic treatment this article has received is evidence of bias against its subject matter, while the simple fact is clear that this surgeon is referenced repeatedly in other wikipedia articles about related surgical topics. In addition, the very nature of the subject matter should be protected a topic given the level of bigotry, discrimination, and violence including murder against people who receive these medical treatments. The very fact that a surgeon like Toby Meltzer, with such a prestigious medical background, chooses to concentrate on such service to other people, who have few if any equally qualified alternatives, is notable by itself, without need for any further citation. These surgeries are in and of themselves pioneering, and largely non-existent on any measurable scale before the 1960s. Even now, the number of frequent U.S. practitioners is few, including only Meltzer and Marci Bowers, MD (who was previously a patient of Meltzer!), on a truly regular basis. janniejdoe 19:29, 17 September 2006.


 * Graphic does not equate to pornography and in no way disparges the subject matter of the image. However, there is an inherent "shock factor" to images of the genitalia (more so than breast) and it is appropriate to be explictedly clear at what a reader can expect when clicking those links. I do believe the term "graphic" will be more clear then surgical alone. Maybe the best solution would be to call it "Graphic Surgical Images"? Agne 02:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * In regards to the sources, your comment "If you took the time to read the entirety of the information Anne Lawrence, MD provides on Dr. Metlzer's work and techniques, you will see that his origination of his techhniques and procedures are documented there." I will say that you haven't supported your point. The 3 in-line citations you give go to various points on the same photo strip of an SRS procedure. While they obviously show that Dr. Meltzer uses those techniques, in none of the captions is it noted that he pioneered them. Now if you are implying that I need to read the volume of data on Anne Lawerence's site in order to verify the claim, then you are missing a key element of WP:V and WP:CITE. The in-line citation should go directly to where the claim is being supported. If you can do that, I wholeheartedly encourage you to do so because it will improve the article a great deal. Agne 02:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Once again, I disagree on all counts. It should be PATENTLY obviously to anyone reading about vaginoplasty and metoidioplasty surgery whose purpose is the creation of a vagina or a penis, that it is about the vagina and genitalia in a surgical context and that therefore photos of the surgery will of necessity include photos of the vagina or the penis as is relevant to the surgical procedure. The graphic is entirely editorial, and unfairly demonstrates a bias on the part of an author that is unfair and un called for in this context. I believe such notices set a socially incorrect precedent that should be reversed. Such notices are inappropriate in a medical context. An encyclopedia for the world should not "cau tau" to the overly prudish, biased, morees of certain absurdly puritanical cultures. Regarding the citation issues, I will repeat that this article is being held to an unfair and entirely biased standard that is not at all representative of the wikipedia and does not serve either its contributors or the likely potential readers of this article about this surgeon. Most people looking for this article will already be at least marginally aware that the surgical techniques Toby Meltzer has pioneered have given him renown among his peers, patients, and potential patients. A google search on "Toby Meltzer" will reveal the countless ocassions on which Toby Meltzer, MD is asked to give public presentations on his work. janniejdoe 20:16, 17 September 2006.


 * Actually no, it is not obvious to expect a reader on Wikipedia to know what a vaginoplasty and metoidioplasty are about. That is probably why they are reading an encyclopedia--to learn about new things. It is rather POV and Bias to assume that everyone will know what you personally feel is obvious. To a degree that defeats the whole point an encyclopedia, doesn't it? Regarding the photos, you once again are making the assumption that the term "graphic" somehow disparged the subject matter which I think is unfounded. As for the standards this article is being held to, I work with the Good Article Candidates and as an editor to this article, I hold the same expectation for this article as I do with any article I deal with. See the Good Article Criteria. My reasoning is that I want the quality of this encyclopedia to be the highest that it can be. It's just good form. The bottle line is that you are making a claim and for encyclopedic integrity that claim should be sourced. I don't doubt the signifigance of Toby's work but a comment from WP:V sums it up well "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Agne 03:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * First, trying to pull "rank" with me, is not an effective way to be persusive with me or to appear as an ally or friendly. Second, you have misread my statement and missed my major point about vagina and penis. The point is that the article itself explans that a vaginoplasty is surgery to create a vagina. It is therefore obvious that any photographs of surgery in and around a penis or vagina will contain such things in the photograph. I believe that is is entirely appropriate to set the example that photographs of genitalia in medical and educational contexts are appropriate for all audiences. I believe that the precedent should be set that the penis and the vagina or more accurately in most cases the vulva should not be given special attention in medical contexts. To do so, gives the misimpression that there is something "wrong" with human genitalia, which is a falsehood, and an antedeluvian cultural bias whose primitive nature should be abolished. In this century and millenium, is it time for such puritanical prudishness to end. One of the best ironies of discussions about such "warnings" around medical photos is that they primarily serve to heighten the existence and nature of the photographs, and probably invite more study of them than might otherwise occur. In other words, they have the opposite of their intended purpose. The tend to draw more attention to such material, than might otherwise occur, while the tacit intention of people who want to put similarly silly warnings about such material is to "hide" them and be bashful around them. It is high time that humans grow up and get over this silly aversions to the site of human genitalia. The wikipedia should be a place that sets an appropriate standard that medical information should be free from the psuedo censorship that such "warnings" represent. On another note, on the basis of WP:V, a large portion of the wikipedia would be candidate for deletion. I believe such mention constitutes evidence that this article is being given unfair over-attention by a tacit faction whose true purpose is to censor subjects like the sort to which Toby Meltzer and its "Good Article" subject matter relates. First and foremost, such good articles serve to refute the rampant misinformation in the minds of the average populace. janniejdoe 21:17, 17 September 2006.

Citations regarding surgical technique
I have removed the newly added "citation needed" template since the sentence and its citation accurately speak for themselves. Nobody else could have made his innovations since Meltzer, Biber(retired then died), Shrang (retired - technique different), and Alter (technique different), as their journal papers describe their surgeries differently, and those having been the only major U.S. practicioners, and each of their techniques being notably different. Meltzer's own patient, Marci Bowers, MD, now performs a surgery based on Meltzer's technique, except the labiaplasty is a W-Plasty suture, usualy done in a single stage and without scalloped labia. No other vaginoplasty journal article mentions the Meltzer techniques, and their result photos from other surgeons show the differing results. The request has been made that the citation provide a statement that he "pioneered" his technique. Therefore, I have changed the title of the section as well. I believe this is a reasonable compromise the should overcome what at this juncture borders on pointless pedantry, IMHO. There are no similar articles about vaginoplasty technique regarding any other vaginoplasty surgeon, among the various vaginoplasty surgeons listed on the Anne Lawrence Transsexual Women's Resources site, for the precise reason that Meltzer's technique has been innovative. That is why Dr. Lawrence went to the trouble of standing in during surgery to photograph the entire procedure and create her presentation about it. . Note also that Dr. Lawrence chose Toby Meltzer's patient set for the same reason, among others, when implementing a vaginoplasty patient survey. , and her additional notice given Toby Meltzer over other surgeons then practicing as follows:


 * Janniejdoe 21:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding "...Meltzer developed a vaginoplasty technique that improves over the previous state of the art in numerous ways...": According to whom? Who states that his techniques are improvements over previous techniques? Although you might consider it pedantry, photos do not give self-evident reference to this statement. -AED 22:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: And relying on photos to convey this as fact is actually OR:synthesis. What is needed is a reliable source with a direct quote or connection made that Meltzer pioneered/innovated/improved the technique. I'm sure they are out there but Anne Lawerence's photo stream is not it. It's worthwhile as an external link but it doesn't directly support the assertion it's being tagged to. Agne 23:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Agne & AED - I will look in the databases for further references. The latest vaginoplasty techniques of Meltzer, Suporn, Shrang (retired) are cutting edge, and they haven't had timme to write a lot of papers. I will look again through IJT and pubmed for a comparative, historical assay, of vaginoplasty techniques, I will re-phrase this article. These techniques are only about a decade old and still developing. From all appearance Meltzer is doing at least 3-4 vaginoplasty, 1 metoidioplasty, 1 FFS, plus other surgeries every week, so he does not appear to have had time to publish such an article either. It would be very Wikipedian of you if you contributed to the article by scouting and verifying some of the information too. By the way, the 25 page Lawrence article, does contain a requisite amount of text that is worth reading. That is not just an isolated article. It is part an expansive collection by Lawrence, is may be "THE" source on such information in the entire world.
 * AED - I do very much like the DOB fancy formatting, which is nice to know about. I installed a lot of more links and replaces the see also that I think is helpful to the article, visually nice (rather than a single item section).
 * Janniejdoe 23:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Need Assistance Regarding Photo Upload

 * I was given a photo of Toby Meltzer, MD by a colleague with permission to make it public domain. I uploaded it, but it has been deleted without comment as follows:
 * "2006-09-22T15:23:55 Jeffrey O. Gustafson (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Tobymeltzer.jpg" (I3)"


 * Can anyone provide information, assistance, suggestions, about what to do differently so that it doesn't get deleted? What is the proper procedure in this situation? How do I upload it and designate it public domain?
 * Janniejdoe 23:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you possibly pmail it to me with details of the photographer? (cooties at mac dot com) I'll upload it with the correct licensing - Alison&#9997;  23:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * * It is my impression that I must upload it because I am making a declaration about it sourcing, and ability to be made public domain. So .....
 * It uploaded OK before, but it was summarily deleted without explanation.
 * what would be appropriate tags given the above status of a photo?

((Information| Permission = "okay for public domain use".
 * Description = Portrait of Toby Meltzer, MD.
 * Source = given to me by colleague that created it, who is making it available for public domain use.
 * Date = (uncertain) approximate 2006-03-01
 * other_versions = none???

((License))


 * *What else would be needed (except to replace parens with braces)? If I simply had a properly completed template, that actual upload process is a snap. I would like to avoid any unncessary administrative red tape, by getting all the fields right this time. I must do this to learn this, and I hope others will help by WP:AGF.
 * Janniejdoe 00:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete .. again!
I can't believe this article has been db-bio'd again! It's been through two AfDs already. I think that establishes the guy's notability at this stage, somehow - A l is o n  ☺ 15:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed the tag. I think its pretty clear that he is one of the most notable surgeons in his field. That's not even getting into some of the 88 entries on Google Scholar which distinctly favors WP:BIO. AgneCheese/Wine 19:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The tag was reinserted even though it is pretty clear that Meltzer passes WP:BIO on a number of points. If an editors feels so strongly about the issue then they should go the route of AfD. AgneCheese/Wine 20:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Vaginoplasty description
For the lay reader, the description of the procedure is highly technical. It makes various assertions as to the superiority or innovation of the procedure. The description was written by Anne Lawrence, a person who had a vaginoplasty performed by Meltzer. The conflict of interest is clear. Joie de Vivre 15:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A conflict of interest doesn't preclude notability, however. The guy is one of the best-known in his field, as well as being one of the longest-standing (now that Stanley Biber is dead). If the article has POV, by all means fix it but this doesn't warrant speedying. At best, another AfD nom, perhaps? - A l is o n  ☺ 15:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The conflict of interest is the reason for removing the long, adulatory description of the technique. If he is indeed "one of the best known in his field" then we need independent sources for that statement.  Meltzer saying it himself is no good, and not much better is the congratulation of one of his patients.   Joie de Vivre 15:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"Over 3000 surgeries"
A claim like this requires more than one offhand comment attributed to a lay person in an article written on an unrelated issue. If it's true, it ought to be independently verifiable. A medical journal might have something. Joie de Vivre 19:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, do you not think that the Chicago Sun Times have a fact checking department? I think they are a pretty gosh darn Reliable source. The onus is on you to discredit this as a reliable sourceAgneCheese/Wine 20:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's look at the quote: "The operation was performed March 21 in Scottsdale, Ariz., by Dr. Toby Meltzer, who Diane regards as the nation's foremost practitioner of sexual reassignment surgery, having performed about 3,000 procedures." Does this mean that Diane regarded him as having performed this many procedures? Again, there ought to be some documentation in the medical literature of his prolific career.  That is what should be used, not some dubious offhand comment whose attribution is not even clear.  Joie de Vivre 20:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again, the Chicago Sun Times has a fact checking department for facts and figures like this-most reputable newspapers do. AgneCheese/Wine 20:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems that you are not hearing what I am saying. This is a claim about his medical career.  Medical journals are the appropriate place to follow doctors' medical careers.  If the claim is so weak that it is only mentioned by some random person, it's not strong enough to include here.  Hiding behind the Times doesn't change the fact that there ought to be more documentation readily available.  Joie de Vivre 20:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm hearing you quite clearly. You are disputing the claim that is cited by a reliable source. To discredit the claim, you have the simple task of discrediting the reliableness of the source. You need to demonstrate and give a compelling reason why we should believe that the author and the fact checking department of the Chicago Sun Times wouldn't verify the figure for accuracy in the article they are publishing. That is the simple task of the matter.AgneCheese/Wine 20:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Claim

 * Meltzer has performed over 3000 sexual reassignment surgeries during his practice.

Reverts
Agne, I find the inclusion of the claims of Meltzer's career to be unfounded. I explained why in my edit summaries: according to WP:RS:

"Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people."

The claim that he has performed over 3000 surgeries is certainly exceptional, and it is about a medical topic and in the biography of a living person. Also exceptional is the claim of 2-4 surgeries per week, a claim which is self-published by Meltzer. I don't want to hear about the fact-checking department again. The fact is that this is an exceptional claim in a biography about a living person and the sources aren't strong for either claim. Joie de Vivre 19:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact still remains that you have yet to discredit the reliableness of the source. Secondly, WP:V makes clear that Meltzer's office figure is acceptable in an article about itself provided you make it clear where the information is coming from.AgneCheese/Wine 19:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Honestly, Agne, the cite you're quoting is little more than a blog; an editorial in an edu magazine. It's not a reliable source, esp. not for something as exceptional as the claim you're trying to make. I have to concur with what JdV is saying here - A l is o n  ☺ 19:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with a compromise on the College newspaper interview and leave it in the external links section rather then a source (As yet, I don't think Joie has objected to that). However, I do think it's silly to discredit the reliableness of the Chicago Sun Times for a claim that is hardly exceptional as RKLawton notes below.AgneCheese/Wine 06:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The Vassar student newspaper claim was for having the "largest practice", the Chicago Times claim (attributed to an offhand comment by an interviewee in an article about an unrelated topic) was the "3000 surgeries" figure, and the self-published claim on Meltzer's website is the "2-4 surgeries per week" claim. Have you any opinions on the latter two?  Joie de Vivre 19:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Analysis
All sources indicate this is a noted specialist in practice for around twenty years. Twenty years * 50 working weeks per year * 3 surgeries (average) per week yield around 3,000 surgeries performed. No sources have been produced to indicate his self-published figures are exaggerated. Reliable sources have repeated these figures. Surgeons perform surgeries, there's no reason to believe a long-established surgeon wouldn't have racked up a considerable tally. As a result, this fact doesn't fall under the "extraordinary" claims category, and the sources cited are sufficient. Rklawton 20:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's both step back
Joie, we both obviously have strong opinions here. I placed a neutral request on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies page for some third party views. We are both members of that project and this article squarely falls under the LGBT studies realm. It's how I got involved in the article even though I'm not trans myself and I assume in good faith that the same desire to improve LGBT articles is what lead you here as well. Let's get some outside view from project members before either or us edit further. Sound like a plan? AgneCheese/Wine 19:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What, now that you're done reverting to the version you like? Joie de Vivre 19:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * So what's under dispute? The 3,000 claim and its' reliability?  Surely, if he has the "largest practice" we can find another source to back it up?  While I don't dispute the accuracy of the claim (Chicago Sun Times is pretty reliable), it is a side note in their article, so shouldn't be given too much weight.  Even if we find something from Meltzer himself, we can say "Meltzer claims to have performed over 3,000 ..." and ref both sources. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  21:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur with SatyrTN - this claim appears to need another or much better reference. --ElKevbo 21:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with this and it quite reasonable. Meltzer's website does note that he has done has 2400 vaginoplasties (MtF GRS) and 800 FTM GRS which backs up the Chicago Sun Times 3000 GRS. Both items are cited in the lead to where we have one independent, reliable third party source being collaborated with the self published source (which WP:V allows in articles about this themselves). AgneCheese/Wine 06:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Per SatyrTN, I agree that the Sun-Times claim should not be given too much weight, and, per ElKevbo, I agree that the Chicago Sun-Times reference is insufficient on its own. I have not removed the over-3000-surgeries figure entirely. I have rephrased the sentence as part of the figures that his office reports. The sentence now reads:


 * "In 2007, Meltzer reported that he performs 2-4 vaginoplasties a week, and that he has performed over 3000 male and female sexual reassignment (GRS) surgeries during his practice."

I feel that this is a fair, factual compromise that attributes claims appropriately. Joie de Vivre 19:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

links
I removed the link to Dr. Meltzer's practice homepage. Commercial advertising links (which is what our practice pages in fact are) like this are discouraged on wikipedia, particularly among physicians. Droliver 01:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether or not he is a physician is irrelevant. The Official site of a subject is clearly an acceptable external link per WP:EL. AgneCheese/Wine 12:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. A subject's official website is almost certainly an acceptable external link.  --ElKevbo 13:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

support group link
Added a link to a non-commercial, patient support group by and for Dr. Meltzer's patients

75.172.75.141 (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The meltzer patient support group is by and for Dr. Meltzer's patients. It not affiliated with or sanctioned by Dr. Meltzer or his staff. It is a patient support group just for his thousands of patients all over the world. 75.172.75.141 (talk) 03:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Links to support groups do not comply with our external links guideline, or with the policy 'What wikipedia is not' (not a repository of links section).

Updated links for currency. They now include: the subject's official site, information about him from tsroadmap - the major ts site on the internet, pictorial's of the subject's surgery, and a site with photo's of the subject and additional information not included in the article. Ihollie (talk) 02:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed the links per WP:EL and WP:NOT. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Barek's removal of the links is inappropriate. The later link edits are also incorrect. Nobody even checked the links to determine whether the links WORKED, or whether their content was relevant or accurate. In accordance with WP:EL which states in pertinent part:


 * "Some external links are welcome (see "What should be linked", below), "

Pursuant to the appropriateness, I have fixed the links to the pictorials on the Anne Lawrence TWR site, and restored the other links that include valuable information about Dr. Meltzer and his practice, as provided for inclusion in accordance with WP:EL. Ihollie (talk) 05:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Controversy
Isn’t it worth mentioning the controversy surrounding this guy? Tobymeltzer.com describes some harrowing stuff. I’m confused as to how mention of this type of thing can’t be a part of his wiki. To be clear, I added a mention of this yesterday which was swiftly deleted. I am now wondering why. The website in question shows photographic evidence of their claims, so it does seem that there is a good case for this website to be legit. Can’t we at least make that a part of his story? Don’t potential patients of his deserve to know? Zk0000 (talk) 11:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)