Talk:Breast implant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The Best Option - Natural Rubber - Missing!!![edit]

This article seems to skip the best option: natural rubber (medically clean, too), why is this? ;-) --95.34.121.21 (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

"Device"[edit]

I commend Otto Placik (talk · contribs) on his ongoing work on the article. I am slightly curious about the extensive use of the word "device". Technically, of course, the term is corrrect - I suspect every non-autologous or non-homograft implant could be called a device, including arterial bypass grafts, heart valves, arterial coils and the like. Intrauterine devices (IUD) are even called devices. Regulators (such as the FDA) and manufacturers will use the term to distinguish between a device and a pharmaceutical. At the same time, I don't believe the article needs to emphasise the concept quite as often as we're doing now. This article is aimed at the general reader. JFW | T@lk 11:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it would be better not to word it that way.--Taylornate (talk) 02:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
On breast implant you [User:Otto Placik] have changed the description of multiple products to include the word "device". I really struggle to describe the implants under discussion as "devices" in the way that a cardiologist would describe an ICD as a "device". The multiple stacked noun terminology is a bit unnecessary if you ask me. JFW | T@lk 20:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd be grateful if you could respond to my comments. JFW | T@lk 13:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you may not consider them a device but they are highly regulated as a device by the FDA albeit a simple device. For their part they even consider a tongue blade a device. This is not my designation but a regulatory one. As far as multiple noun overkill, I do not understand that term. Can you clarify? Here is an example in which the FDA labels breast implants as medical devices: http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm240000.htm. Otto Placik (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your longer note on my talkpage. I presume they use the term "devices" is used because it is not a pharmaceutical. The fact that the FDA classifies breast implants as devices does not mean that we need to follow the same terminology. With "multiple noun overkill" I mean that adding the word "device" after every instance of "breast implant" makes the article sound like a technical manual rather than a reader-oriented resource. Perhaps we could continue this discussion on Talk:Breast implant, where other readers can participate. JFW | T@lk 11:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I presume that you, as a physician subject to the laws of another country, are allowed the liberty to argue if a breast implant is a medical device. However, in the United States, I am held to a different standard and am not permitted to ignore the designation of breast implant as a medical device and all the regulations that are relevatant to that classification and punishable by law.Otto Placik (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
The FDA does not regulate Wikipedia pages.--Taylornate (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
And the Wikipedia Manual of Style does. I have to side with JFW; we should not be playing buzzword bingo in articles and making their wording needlessly complicated and blathery. After the first mention that the devices are in fact devices (as opposed to...? Alien life forms? Evil spirits from another dimension? Sandwiches?), the "device" verbiage should be trimmed. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 09:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The dumbing-down of a medical appliance article with opinions.[edit]

Dear Mr Vasconcellos:

I understand your typographic intent, but your inaccurate textual corrections have dumbed down the article. In medical writing, my field, "accumulate" is not synonymous woth "build up", "placement" is not synonymous with "emplacement". Your identity as an administrator is fine with me, but, you do not know medical writing. The excuse about Wikipedia style is a non sequitor, given that you identified your changes as typographic, when, in fact, you are inserting editorial opinion. "According to the study" is an opinion, yours, whereas the original reports "the study indicates". Is it all right with you, may I have your permission, to correct your inaccurate substantive changes. The titles of studies quoted and noted are necessary to make the MEDICAL point; this is not a newspaper, nor a magazine article, where . . . surprise! surprise! surprsie! the writer inserts his opinion about the subject.

I reverted your sneaky substantive dumbing down, because this is a medical article, albeit one about which most everyone has an opinion, but, said opinions belong in the CRITICISM section, not snuck in throughout the TECHNICAL MEDICAL explanations. Please, remember, the article is about the Breast Implant MEDICAL DEVICE, not the sociology of the subject, that would be elsewhere.

I shall follow up, upon your kind reply. 99.88.108.102 (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Although the anonymous alleged doctor's irate lecture about medical wording being filled with typographical and grammatical errors is very amusing to me, I have to side with the underlying gist of it. As with legal terminology, it's very difficult for "laypersons" to attempt to reword medical writing without introducing massive but non-obvious errors. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 09:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Point-of-view pushing re: "augmentation"[edit]

The use of the loaded, entirely positive word "augment[ation]" in this article is an obvious and blatant violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Like "breast enhancement", and "aesthetic mammoplasty", the phrase "breast augmentation" is a plastic surgery industry buzzword and constitutes clearly promotional spin-doctoring. This article needs to use more neutral, purely descriptive terminology like "breast enlargement", "cosmetic mammoplasty", "voluntary mammoplasty", etc., without implying any value judgment pro or con (and there are many with "con" views on this topic, both male and female, for a number of reasons ranging from medical and psychological to aesthetic and religious; this article inappropriately minimizes this fact in favor of plastic surgery marketing). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 08:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that the term is promotional. After looking it up, it seems to be a direct synonym for enlargement. I do agree that it would be better to simplify it to breast enlargement.--Taylornate (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I second Taylornate in agreeing that breast enlargement would be better. My reason is that "augmentation", such as "augmented reality", carries positive connotations. "Enlargement" is more neutral. If a vote is held on this, please copy-and-paste this comment as a vote. Gronky (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with this proposed change. A valid reason not to use "enlargement" is that inserting implants doesn't just enlarge the breasts; it changes the appearance, shape, and feel of them in other ways. "Augmentation mammoplasty" is the generally accepted technical term, and it is done with the *intention* of being an augmentation in some sense, otherwise people wouldn't do it. How successful it is as an augmentation in any particular case (and whose point of view success is judged from) is a different matter, but we normally name surgical procedures by what they are intended to do. For example, a heart bypass operation is called that whether it succeeds or not. As for "cosmetic mammoplasty", that implies a point of view that, for example, women undergoing breast reconstruction after a mastectomy and transgender women might have good reason to disagree with. [Full disclosure: I have breast implants, but am not connected to any plastic surgery provider.] --David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥

removing ambiguity[edit]

After maintaining a caveat in the entry suggesting some ambiguity re. claims of systemic disease and implants, it's gotten so overwhelming in the literature that this relationship does not exist that I thinks it's better and more accurate to just leave it somewhat with a more definitive statement of world wide consensus Droliver (talk)

Natural fat breast implants?[edit]

Not sure if real human fat implants are a legitimate/safe option, some history on it would be nice because I know this has been tried before. This website claims to offer such enlargement procedures. http://www.miami breastcenter.com/ 173.51.248.19 (talk) 03:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Natural fat, by definition, is not an implant. Droliver (talk) 07:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I guess you mean that, although they extract it from somewhere/someone else and implant it into the target, the more precise term is "transplant". Is that the nuance? Gronky (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
So, is there a technical term that includes both implants and transplants?
Looking at the definition of "implant" in various online dictionaries, it looks like fat transplants are indeed implants. "Transplant" might be more precise, but "implant" is still correct. But if you have a term that covers both, then we could avoid using "implant" for both. If there's no general term then "implant" is fine. Gronky (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't think so. Find a genuine, name-brand medical dictionary. I think the best term in this context would be graft.--Taylornate (talk) 05:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Alleged health risks[edit]

I came here to study the silicone breast implant controversy but found nothing on it. All I found is study after study saying there is no risk.

But what I want to know is why people said there was a risk, even if doctors and scientists were saying there wasn't one. I'd also like to see the history of lawsuits, such as the one which drove Dow Corning to near-bankruptcy.

Who started the rumor that breast implants cause disease? Who promoted this belief? Who profited from it? When (if ever) did courts stop accepted expert testimony from people claiming that the implants cause disease? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Article not accessible for general audience[edit]

I have made changes to the intro and the "Types of Breast Implant device” sections to make the article more readable for the everyday audience that Wikipedia seeks to serve and to delete claims that are not widely accepted by all plastic surgeons or physicians (such as silicone implants look and feel better and submuscular is better than above the muscle) and that are not supported with credible sources.

Intro Changes "There are three general types of breast implant device, defined by the filler material: saline, silicone, and other. The saline implant has an elastomer silicone shell filled with sterile saline solution; the silicone implant has an elastomer silicone shell filled with viscous silicone gel; and the alternative implants have had silicone shells with other fillers, such as soy oil, polypropylene string, and peanut oil. Because of infections and other health problems, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not approved breast implants other than silicone and saline implants."


"Types of Breast Implant Device" Changes Original- There are three types of breast implant used for mammoplasty, breast reconstruction, and breast augmentation procedures

   saline implant filled with sterile saline solution.
   silicone implant filled with viscous silicone gel.
   alternative-composition implant with miscellaneous fillers (e.g. soy oil, polypropylene string, etc.) that are no longer manufactured.

I. — Saline implants

   Surgical technology

The saline breast implant is filled with saline solution (biological-concentration salt water 0.90% w/v of NaCl, ca. 300 mOsm/L.). The early models were a relatively delicate technology that were prone to failure, usually shell breakage, leakage of the saline filler, and deflation of the prosthesis. Contemporary models of saline breast implant are made with stronger, room-temperature vulcanized (RTV) shells made of a silicone elastomer. The study In vitro Deflation of Pre-filled Saline Breast Implants (2006) reported that the rates of deflation (filler leakage) of the pre-filled saline breast implant made it a second choice for corrective breast surgery, after the silicone gel type of breast implant.[4] Nonetheless, in the 1990s, in U.S. medicine, the saline breast implant was the usual breast prosthesis applied for breast augmentation, given the unavailability of silicone implants, because of the import restrictions of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

   Surgical technique

The saline breast implant was developed because of concerns about silicone gel and to make it possible to use a smaller .[5] In surgical praxis, after having emplaced the empty breast implants into the implant pockets, the plastic surgeon then fills each breast prosthesis with saline solution, and, because the required insertion incisions are small, the resultant incision-scars will be smaller than the surgical scar usual to the long incision required for inserting pre-filled, silicone-gel implants. Although the saline breast implant can yield good-to-excellent results of breast size, contour, and feel, when compared to silicone-implant results, the saline implant is likelier to cause cosmetic problems such as rippling, wrinkling, and being noticeable to the eye and to the touch. This is especially true for women with very little breast tissue, and for post-mastectomy reconstruction patients; thus, silicone-gel implants are the superior prosthetic device for breast augmentation and for breast reconstruction. In the case of the woman with much breast tissue, for whom partial submuscular emplacement is the recommended surgical technique, saline breast implants can afford an aesthetic “look” of breast size and contour (though not feel) much like that afforded by the silicone implant.[6]


Changed- Took out opinions not shared by the majority of surgeons and physicians, and took out study that did not change the practice of medicine. Added more detail on why FDA placed import restrictions on silicone implants (because of safety concerns).

There are three types of breast implants:

   saline implant filled with sterile saline solution.
   silicone implant filled with viscous silicone gel.
   alternative-composition implant with various fillers (e.g. soy oil, polypropylene string, etc.) that are no longer manufactured because of their risks to patients.

I. — Saline implants

The saline breast implant is filled with saline solution. The early models were prone to failure, including shell breakage, leakage of the saline filler, and deflation of the prosthesis. Contemporary models of saline breast implant are made with stronger, room-temperature vulcanized (RTV) shells made of a silicone elastomer. In the 1990s, in the U.S., the saline breast implant were more popular for breast prosthesis applied for breast augmentation, given the unavailability of silicone implants, because of the safety concerns of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

   Surgical technique

The saline breast implant was developed because of concerns about silicone gel and to make it possible to use a smaller surgical incision.[5] After placing the empty breast implants into the implant pockets, the plastic surgeon then fills each breast prosthesis with saline solution, and, since the implant was deflated, the incision scars will be smaller than for silicone-gel implants, which are all filled before surgery. Compared to silicone breast implants, saline implants are more likely to cause cosmetic problems such as rippling, wrinkling, and being noticeable to the eye and to the touch. This is especially true for women with very little breast tissue, and for post-mastectomy reconstruction patients. In the case of the woman with much breast tissue, saline breast implants can create the “look” of breasts (though not feel), much like the silicone implant.[6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Efield616 (talkcontribs) 16:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

No mention of the Poly-Implant Prothèse Scandal?[edit]

I find it slightly bizarre that Wiki's primary article on Breast Implants doesn't contain any reference to the 2011 PIP scandal, probably the largest ever recall of implanted medical devices, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poly_Implant_Prothèse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.87.103 (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to put information about it in with a link to the main article. Asarelah (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Alleged complications[edit]

The heading "Alleged complications" seems to violate WP:ALLEGED. One heading is "Complications" and the next heading is "Alleged complications", which seems to imply doubt, just as WP:ALLEGED says. I can't find any discussion about it in the archives. Does anyone have a reason not to delete it? --Nbauman (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's the diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast_implant&diff=501166413&oldid=500905706 --Nbauman (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I think definitely we should not be using this word here, but I'm not exactly sure what you are proposing. If that user was correct that there is no evidence, maybe the whole section should be deleted. If the section is supported by evidence, I suppose the split should be undone.--Taylornate (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm proposing that we delete the headline, not the section. The section cites significant evidence that there is no systemic disease. That should stay. There are a lot of people who believe that breast implants do cause systemic disease, and we should give them the evidence. There were some studies in the past that suggested it, but they didn't hold up. Of course if there's any evidence of systemic disease in WP:RS, that should be included too, but I couldn't find any. --Nbauman (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
So you're saying the evidence is that these complications are false? We can't just lump them back into the "complications" section then. That would seem to imply they are true, giving the wrong idea if the reader doesn't pay close attention.--Taylornate (talk) 02:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
No, I did not say that there is evidence that the complications are false. I said that there are some WP:RSs that say that there is evidence of systemic disease, and some WP:RSs that say that they could find no evidence of systemic disease (not the same as saying the complications are false). Under WP:NPOV Wikipedia is supposed to give both WP:RSs. We have to give the reader enough information to understand the debate, weigh the evidence, and make his or her own decision. If you decide on your own authority that one side is wrong, and delete the whole section, that would violate WP:NPOV and WP:CENSOR. --Nbauman (talk) 07:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Huh? This is a very different stance from what you presented earlier. Anyway, I've read the section now and seen that there are no secondary sources supporting either platinum toxicity or systemic disease. Per WP:MEDRS, that is a problem. The section either needs to be rewritten according to secondary sources, or it needs to be deleted. It can't persist in its current state.--Taylornate (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
According to WP:MEDRS, "Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals...." I counted half a dozen reviews in that entry. They reviewed the evidence on both sides and came to a conclusion. Why is that a problem? Why should it be deleted? People come to Wikipedia to find out what the evidence is. Why should you prevent them from finding that evidence?
I do think the entry is trying too hard to argue that implants are safe. That's not Wikipedia's job. We should report what the WP:RSs say, and let the facts speak for themselves. That should be rewritten -- not deleted. --Nbauman (talk) 01:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Are we still talking about the alleged complications section? If you want to talk about the tone of the article as a whole, it might be best to start a new section on this talk page. If I missed the secondary sources that support platinum toxicity or systemic disease, would you please point out a couple of them?--Taylornate (talk) 08:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Apart from any other issues, I think the heading "Alleged complications" should be deleted, because it obviously violates WP:ALLEGED. Agreed? --Nbauman (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
No, I don't agree--unless the content beneath it is removed as well. It doesn't make any sense to complain about the presence of an expression of doubt when the references aren't up to snuff. In fact, it's pretty ironic. Again, if I missed where platinum toxicity and systemic disease are backed by secondary sources, please point out a couple of them.--Taylornate (talk) 02:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Please explain for the record why you think the sections headed "Systemic disease and sickness," and "Platinum toxicity," which contain many references to reliable secondary sources, should be deleted according to Wikipedia rules. --Nbauman (talk) 08:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
For the fourth time now, I don't see any secondary sources cited that support a link to platinum toxicity or systemic disease. Are you here to have a discussion, or to just state your opinion over and over again?--Taylornate (talk) 07:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
You keep repeating a non sequitor. This section contains many secondary sources. The secondary sources say that they found no link to platinum toxicity or systemic disease. That satisfies WP:RS, WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS for inclusion in WP. Therefore you should not delete it.
There are no secondary sources that support a link to platinum toxicity or systemic disease. So what? There may not be any such secondary sources. All the secondary sources seem to say that they found no evidence. There may be no link.
How does it follow that we should therefore delete the section? What Wikipedia rule would require us to delete the section even though it has many links to secondary sources?
And please maintain WP:GF --Nbauman (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I reverted your removal of the Alleged complications section heading. The Complications section is for actual complications with actual evidence of existing, of which there is none for systemic disease or platinum toxicity. Per WP:Alleged, there are situations where an expression of doubt is appropriate. The evidence is such that if these alleged complications are to be mentioned at all, it should be with such language. It's curious that you cite this discussion in your edit summary when it very clearly does not suggest consensus for your edit.--Taylornate (talk) 07:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I've also done some quite-significant clean-up on these sections. At this point I don't have anything to add to my edit summaries, but thought I would mention it here as a placeholder for discussion.--Taylornate (talk) 08:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Removed video clip[edit]

Subglandular breast implants afford the most aesthetic results.

The video clip at right, depicting the subject manipulating and shaking around her artificially enlarged breasts, was previously used to illustrate § Implant pocket placement. This seemed like a questionable choice because:

  • The image does not really illustrate the text:
    • The caption is subjective -- the implied claim that the breasts in the video represent "the most aesthetic results" is highly doubtful in my opinion
    • The image/clip does not illustrate the difference between subglandular breast implants and other placements
    • The breasts in question do not appear natural, so the image doesn't effectively support the text, which states that subglandular implant placement "most approximates the plane of normal breast tissue, and affords the most aesthetic results".
  • The clip is rather informal and unencyclopedic in tone. The clip's primary purpose seems to be to titillate rather than inform.

Lest my edit be reverted as "censorship", I created this section to justify my edit. Feel free to discuss further if you disagree. 2601:644:101:9616:84FA:7A16:FEE9:9C12 (talk) 09:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Scope of article[edit]

The Breast implant seems to share a substantial amount of duplicated content with Breast augmentation. It's unclear which information should go in one or the other.

Additionally, both articles primarily focus on the medical aspects of the procedures without addressing the social/cultural aspects such as motivations for people undergoing the surgery, social and media perspectives about the procedure, opposition and/or support of the procedure, reported social outcomes for patients, etc. For example the "Criticism" section is primarily about the medical risks of the procedure and does not include criticism of the procedure along feminist lines.

It seems like both problems could be addressed by rearranging the information such that one of the two articles focused on the subject as a surgical procedure, while the other article elaborated more on the social and cultural aspects. 24.130.189.187 (talk) 09:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Breast implant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Breast implant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Breast implant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Breast implant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)