Talk:Emergency Bandage

The name of the artile

I believe the article should be named Israeli bandage of Emergency/Israeli bandage because it is the name that is used even in scientific literature here. --Mbz1 (talk) 01:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The name of the product appears to be "Emergency Bandage" so I think that's what the article should be called. Gatoclass (talk) 06:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources

I used one source I did not mention on AE. Sorry about this. It is relatively new source, and I just found it today. --Mbz1 (talk) 02:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Having read both the article and this new source, I've now changed my mind about this article, I think it breaches your ban. The bandage was invented by a soldier in the IDF and it's been used in Israeli military ops such as Operation Cast Lead. None of this was apparent until you found this new source, it confirms my original suspicion that an article on such a topic would be highly unlikely not to be related to the I-P conflict in some way. Gatoclass (talk) 06:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Gatoclass, in email I sent to you I specified that it was invented by a military medic. Besides this source that is not new, and that I posted to AE request clearly mentions IDF "Ofer Molad, First Care's VP of marketing in the US, remembers how he and fellow soldiers serving in the Israel Defense Force (IDF), would wrap a rock into the bandage to maintain the right pressure.".

Of course you could not have thought that Israeli bandages that are used all over the world are not used by IDF, but it is not necessarily to add yet another operation they were used in to the article. I did not.

If I did not email you about military medic who invented them (please review your email), If I did not post this source to AE then I could have agreed with you, but I did and I did, and your opposition of the article is wrong.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Besides using the Israeli bandages saves lives as it did during 2011 Tucson shooting only because a single person read about the Israeli bandages somewhere, and included them in the kit. Somebody else might read this article on Wikipedia, and include the Israeli bandages in their kit. This article has a potential to save lives! Do we really want to decline it because of imaginary breach of my topic ban? If I breached my topic ban, please block me for as long as you wish (I will not complain), but do not block life-saving knowledge from wikipedia readers!--Mbz1 (talk) 14:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

In the original article you posted to me, there was very little information on the inventor, but that's not the case in this article. The bandage has been used in Israeli military operations, it's been endorsed by AIPAC. Also, the article is written like a PR piece, which breaches the spirit if not the letter of your ban. So I see numerous problems with the article. I should have said no from the outset, but based on the sources you originally presented, I thought you might be able to create a neutral article that did not breach your ban. It seems I was wrong about that. Gatoclass (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

What information about the inventor you do not like? I emailed you the most "horrible" information about him that he was a military medic. What other information I included that he is a son of the Holocaust survivors, and him quoting Talmud? All other information I included was not about the inventor himself but about the development and the research for making the Israeli bandages.

I wonder what is in your opinion a "neutral" article about life-saving bandages should look like? Should I have said they are not always helpful, or they are bad because they were invented by an Israeli military medic, or they should not be trusted because they are endorsed by AIPAC? Even if, I wanted to say something like this, where is the source? I used 2 absolutely independent sources: scientific publication from Military medicine journal written by American military doctors, and an article from Washington Post. Both have nothing bad to say about the Israeli bandages, just the opposite, everything they said was only good.

If you were topic-banned, and you wrote an article about live-saving devise made by your side, an article about something very helpful that came out of all that horror, not only I would not have objected the article, but I would have saluted both the people who made it and you for writing about it.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's for example take this article Coronary stent. Under history section it has only a few words, but the main article for history is discussing the history of the development and inventors in a big section. Where do you see the difference between this article and the one I wrote? --Mbz1 (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

You asked me for an opinion and I gave you one, I'm not really inclined to discuss the matter further. It seems that the condition for moving this article into mainspace was for two uninvolved admins to approve it, so it's not really up to me. I just expressed an opinion because you invited me to, but I'm fine with leaving it to uninvolved parties and presumably you are too. Gatoclass (talk) 05:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Link German Version

Hi, the link to the German version of the article is not correct. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druckverband would be more fitting. Thx 77.11.169.8 (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)