Talk:Cosmetic surgery

This article is in progress. I'm putting some references in the outline of the article that I plan to come back to very shortly. The overall idea is to not only present an accurate narrative introduction to this field of surgery, but to do so while presenting the idea that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"- with references!. Nancy Sculerati MD 14:57, 21 February 2007 (CST)

Should be at cosmetic surgery, right? It's not usually capitalized, is it? --Larry Sanger 08:47, 22 February 2007 (CST)

I don't know how to answer that. The field of Cosmetic Surgery is capitalized, but if a person was to undergo cosmetic surgery procedure it is not capitalised. That is true of Plastic Surgery, the field, the residency program-and Surgery, the field (discipline) as well. The field of Medicine, Surgery etc are always capitalized. If I am looking up one of those topics on a search engine, I always capitalize it.Nancy Sculerati MD 09:00, 22 February 2007 (CST)

I think you've answered it, but the issue would then be if one is describing surgery that is done to achieve a cosmetic effect, or whether one is giving an overview of the speciality named (Reconstructive and) Cosmetic Surgery. Since you in the first sentence define the article as being about the field, I'd be comfortable with the capitals. We are going to have the same problem with all the speciality fields of medicine, so at some time one would have to decide about a policy. On the other hand, if it makes no difference to a search for a subject, then it is probably of minor importance - the CZ engine does not seem to mind much, it picks up this article as a first hit for "cosmetic surgery". There is a Plastic Surgeon on board who might wish to wade in: User:Andy Wongworawat. That picture of Jackie looks like a Victorian ghost photograph on my screen, but the comment is right on. I like the outline/sections at this stage. --Christo Muller (Talk) 09:26, 22 February 2007 (CST)

Let us suppose that we are using the Chicago Manual of Style. My copy is packed away in a box... Anyway, the question here is whether names of disciplines are properly capitalized, in general. CMS might shed some light anyway. Often one does see Philosophy, particularly when one is speaking of the field as something formally studied (so, we usually say "Ph.D. Philosophy" rather than "Ph.D. philosophy"). But of speaking of the body of problems and literature about them, and about particular philosophies, we use "philosophy."

If this is correct, then the question is whether, when giving a title to a topic that can be either capitalized (when naming a discipline) or not (when naming what the discipline studies), which should we give it? Well, we may take the Biology article as an excellent example. I think we can agree that its first focus is on what Biology studies, but it nevertheless is organized around what the article calls a "formal science." (By the way, Biology is not a formal science; formal sciences include logic, mathematics, and parts of statistics and computer science. The better phrase in that case would be "scientific discipline.") So, as long as we make it a general habit of focusing articles on these topics at least nominally on the discipline, rather than on what the discipline studies, then we could use the upper case. --Larry Sanger 09:40, 22 February 2007 (CST)

I went shopping at Wikipedia Commons to find pictures, and I liked that portrait because the artist emphasized the square angle of her jaw. But maybe the quality is too poor to use? Nancy Sculerati MD 09:39, 22 February 2007 (CST)

I intuitively prefer a title to be uppercase. To take your philosophy example, if we had an article about "Athenian philosophy", it reads differently to me from "Athenian Philosophy", the former seeming to indicate thinking in the Athenian way, the latter indicating a School of Thought, so to speak (what about Citizendium pilot vs Citizendium Pilot?). As you say, if the focus is on the discipline as an entity, and the discipline is defined reasonably early on in the article, then the uppercase would be appropriate.

I'm sure we'll find clearer pictures, Nancy, but suggest you leave her as is, so that others can see what you wish to illustrate. It is a good example --Christo Muller (Talk) 13:54, 22 February 2007 (CST)

Top-down sequence of sections?

I was thinking about the rather random way in which articles about cosmetic surgery are structured. Generally they seem to go from major to minor, or common to uncommon. But we have a body to work with, so one can sequence things in the way one sees the body. For the sections describing the specific areas, my suggestion for a general top-down article structure would be:

• Facial Cosmetic Surgery
  • Whole face; hair transplant; forehead; eyes; nose; ears; cheeks; lips; chin; jaw; neck
  • (For each?) Tissue resection; implants; injections
• Facial Rejuvenation
  • Injections: Botulinum toxin; fillers
  • Resurfacing: Dermabrasion; Chemical Peels; Laser
  • Thermage (a trademark?)
• Body Contouring
  • Arms: lift
  • Breasts: Reduction; Lift; Implants; Gynecomastia
  • Abdomen: Abdominoplasty; suction
  • Hips and thighs: Liposuction; Implants; Lift
  • Calves: Lift
• Sclerotherapy - could fit in anywhere one wants veins reduced, bottom of legs common.

The sections clearly have some overlap, specifically as far as the face work is concerned, but this would give something to hang the content on. --Christo Muller (Talk) 14:09, 22 February 2007 (CST)

I'm happy with that- there will be a Reconstructive Surgery article as well, working on them in parallel. Nancy Sculerati MD 14:32, 22 February 2007 (CST)

Tone

I took the liberty of cleaning up the first section. The section was a long diatribe against our society's current tendency to proceed willy-nilly with cosmetic surgery. While I agree that cosmetic surgery has become a disgusting free-for-all, I'm not sure a diatribe against that belongs in a scholarly reference material. I'm not sure that CZ has as strict a policy about NPOV as wikipedia, but maybe a lot of the ethical background is better reserved for a medical ethics article. I thought a lot of the key points of the diatribe could be summarized in a set of bullet points, or someone can make a table. A long narrative about the complexities of patient selection for cosmetic surgery is probably better off in an editorial, unless it can be referenced by the literature. For example, maybe a section on the psychology of cosmetic surgery would be an interesting feature of the article. Just my $.02.--Michael Benjamin 14:36, 25 February 2007 (CST)

Citations

I think we should use the tools granted by MediaWiki for citations. There is a website that allows you to input a PMID and get back a "Wikified" citation template. For example, PMID 12447085 turns into "Isenberg J (2002). "The legacy of Narcissus". Plast Reconstr Surg 110 (7): 1815; author reply 1815-6. PMID 12447085. ", then you put "" markups around that, and finally you put at the end of your page to print the references. The page for the template generation is: http://diberri.dyndns.org/wikipedia/templates/?type=pmid. This way we can establish a uniform system for citing references.

Lips

I think there's a lot of subjective stuff here, most of which is not that scientifically valuable. I deleted some, but if we want the rest to remain here, it should really be cited. As it stands now, a bunch of the info is unsubstantiated opinion. While a discussion of the differences between Grace Kelly's and Angelina Jolie's lips, for example, may be suitable for the pages of People magazine, readers of an encyclopedia may not benefit much from that knowledge.