Talk:Josef Flammer
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Proposed merge with Flammer syndrome
editThis isn't a recognized clinical entity, and nearly all the sources are written by Josef Flammer (and people connected to him). It would make more sense to present this as his idea, rather than as a recognized, accepted disease. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- Merge Agree - there is no compelling evidence that the scientific community recognizes this syndrome; mention on the inventor's page will suffice. — soupvector (talk) 06:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Merge, agreed with Soupvector. Graham87 07:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Merge per others Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose. While most of the papers on this subject are written by Flammer and/or Konieczka, there are three papers listed on Pubmed ([1], [2] & [3]) written by other authors. Two of these papers are from the same Swiss team. However the third one is written by an unaffiliated team in China. I believe that the journals are peer-reviewed. Flammer syndrome is a notable subject in its own right, and the quantity of material justifies this spin-out. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Axl, I suppose we could say that we "outvoted" you, but it's possible that your detailed comments might change someone's mind (not mine, though :-). Are you resigned to the merge, or would you like me to list it at WP:Proposed merges? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- I accept the consensus. Go ahead and merge. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Merge per reasons given above (however a review [4] [5]per [6] ...?)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - The individual is notable in his own right, as is the syndrome. Both pieces already exist, there is no compelling reason to merge. Carrite (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that the individual is notable (as I said above). The syndrome seems not to be notable. I find no independent high-quality MEDRS on the topic in Pubmed. When I search Elsevier's extensive ClinicalKey collection of biomedical resources (including many textbooks, etc), I find no independent high-quality MEDRS. Hence, my recommendation above. Perhaps I'm overlooking some clear evidence of notability for the syndrome (I certainly acknowledge that's possible - and this might be a regional/language thing)? — soupvector (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment apparently there are some oppose votes, (for my part I did indicate that review[7])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Merge header removed - described as "outdated" - though it's not clear to me that a consensus was reached nor that independent, high-quality sources agree on the use of the term "Flammer syndrome"; I wonder if the existence of that WP page will drive its adoption. — soupvector (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Alleged "conflict of interest"
editSince the remark "major contributor" obviously refers to me and the gentleman who has tagged a number of my contributions with this COI has not respondend to my email, let me - once again - state that I know the subject of this page from meetings (when meetings were still held, before Corona), have read some of his publications. Ophthalmology is a small field and everybody basically knows everybody - am I the only one from this discipline who now and then contributes to Wikipedia ? Should I apologize for it ? Let me repeat here: I'm not related to any of the individuals I have contributed about, do not work or have worked for any of them, have no relation to their business or whatever they may be doing at the moment. What else can I do ? If somebody from the community has some advice - it would be much appreciated !George G Milford (talk) 17:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)