PedEye1 -- Please read my previous notes, carefully this time. I do not "have something against these particular ophthalmologists". They simply are not "notable". I would ask why you are "hung up" with including them. How have they changed patient care in pediatric ophthalmology? The answer is that they have not, and there is no shame in that.
Being elected President of AAPOS only requires 3 or 4 votes of the membership; it is a selection by a committee, not an election by your peers. If the office of AAPOS president qualified as "notable", then your list on this site needs quite a lot of expansion. It is also likely that you will need to contact AAPOS for a list of past presidents, as it is unlikely that you will remember all these "notable" names.
As you may know, Urist incorrectly and persistently opposed Knapp's correct ideas regarding A and V patterns (see Folk's Costenbader Lecture). His version reflex test is not mentioned in the AAO BCSC book. It fell into disuse, if it was ever used outside of the IEEI, because it was not very accurate or helpful. Urist's obituary was over 30 years ago. He may have been known to his comtemporaries, but his work has not endured. "Sic transit gloria mundi." Face it -- most of us end up this way. And no, I am not equating "notable" with being a "giant" in the field -- few of the people on the current list qualify for that title. What is "laughable" is to call him one of the "inventors" of the field. He was a contributor and participant, like many of us, but not an inventor.
My concern is that Wikipedia should not be used to highlight people you simply like, but who do not qualify for a category, e.g., "notable". And the proposal of an expanded list of even more names adds nothing to either Wikipedia or Pediatric Ophthalmology, but only represents self-indulgent graffiti.
Thank you for your best wishes, and mine to you also. I admire your personal loyalty, Ben. Sasha419 (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
============ edit
Hi - I posted this on the discussion page. Just curious, do you have something against these particular ophthalmologists? Granted, the list should have its own page, and include about 30-50 more names. In the meantime, don't get hung up on this, please!
Inclusion of notable pediatric ophthalmologists. The user who keeps deleting Drs. Calhoun, Urist, and Folk from this list has an excessively narrow and non-Wikipedian view on notability. Either that or she is unfamiliar with these doctors' accomplishments. In general, persons with accomplishments sufficient to justify their own Wikipage have been deemed as notable. I would expect that AAPOS founders, AAPOS presidents, full professors, and academics who published over 100 peer-reviewed papers are notable. Perhaps the user should look at the Wiki list of professional baseball players, porn stars, and 1930s Olympic athletes. Why should the medical profession be slighted? While Urist was not Marshall Parks, he and Jampolsky shared the stage umpteen times and considered each other equals in stature. The fact that Parks outlived Urist by 40 years should not diminish the latter's contributions.
By the way, I am not a former fellow of any of the 3 doctors in question. I believe we don't need less recognition for this specialty and its specialists, but more.
Hello again -- I am not trying to make any kind of attack upon you, Sasha. The three pediatric ophthalmologists above have all made significant contributions to the field, both scientifically and within the AAPOS organization. At the time of the New Orleans symposia, Dr. Urist ranked with Parks and Jampolsky on the programs. The fact that he died many years ago does not diminish his importance to the field. Even if these three doctors' contributions had been only to the prominent programs which they directed over parts of their careers, however, they would be "notable". There are many similar examples throughout Wikipedia. In general, if a person has been judged notable enough to justify a Wikibiography, they are "notable". So, deleting Drs. Urist & Calhoun might be justifiable on this basis, but Dr. Folk's biography has cleared the Wikiscreeners.
I hope that these three deceased professors caused you no harm during their lifetimes; I see no clear reason why their memories should not be honored. You may feel that others have made equal or greater contributions, and I would encourage you to write biographies for them and include them on the list. Your Wikicontribution thus far appears to be limited to deleting these 3 names; I hope that you will expand your repetoire and help educate the public about the leaders of our field. I will mention several who I believe deserve Wiki-attention: Gunther von Noorden, Art Jampolsky, David Taylor, David Guyton, Mike Repka, Art Rosenbaum, Ed Raab, Elias Traboulsi, Malcolm Ing, Creig Hoyt, Leonard Apt, Ed Buckley, Marilyn Miller, Monte del Monte, Bill Scott, and on and so forth (I neglect the non-English speakers only unintentionally). —Preceding unsigned comment added by PedEye1 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
PedEye1 -- Your reply contains no description of any accomplishments that would indicate that these ophthalmologists made notable contributions to pediatric ophthalmology. To answer your question: I have no personal reason to exclude them from this list. Why do you insist on including them, if you cannot list specific achievements that warrant inclusion? Having one's biography on Wikipedia does not establish notability. It only means that someone took the time to post it. Adding names to a "notable" list in a particular field without a basis of accomplishment does harm to the integrity of Wikipedia. This is my concern. You are expressing an opinion without facts. This is not a popularity contest. None of this should detract from the sincere affinity you feel for these doctors. I sense your frustration in not having your way with this list, but these individuals do not rise to the level of "notable". Sasha419 (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Sasha -- Actually, having one's biography on Wikipedia, e.g., passing the [[1]] test by Wiki-definition does make the subject "notable". I believe you are arguing that Drs. Urist et al do not rise to the level of "giants" of the field, in which case the word "notable" is misplaced. Just being an AAPOS president makes one notable, perhaps not from an academic standpoint, but clearly an non-notable person is unlikely to be voted by their peers into the most prestigious pediatric ophthalmology position we have (at least on this continent).
Regarding specific academic accomplishments (which are not required for notability), you may not be aware of Urist's seminal work on A and V patterns as well as large angle exotropia; he and Putterman's seminal papers on blow-out fracture repair, Muller's-conj resection for ptosis, and upper eyelid fold reconstruction remain important; his CV includes several other oculoplastics publications; his article with Isenberg on 101 consecutive Duane syndrome patients remains one of the largest published series; he wrote on LR paralysis following closed head trauma, lateral gaze palsy in diabetics; he described a novel technique for inferior oblique recession; his contributions included ENT innovations (Arch Otolaryngol. 1940;32(3):523-524.); and then there is the Urist version reflex test, which remains one of the best clinical methods for quantifying restriction. Anytime you describe "elevation in adduction" you're quoting Urist. You may wish to read his obituary: Arch Ophthalmol. 1977 Dec;95(12):2240. (Which brings up another argument -- why would Archives publish an obituary on a "non-notable" ophthalmologist?). Gunther von Noorden lists Folk & Urist in his History of Strabismus book (a very interesting text, by the way, if you haven't read it yet). Just look at Urist's PubMed bibliography (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez). To say he wasn't "notable" is laughable -- he was one of the inventors of the field.
I hope that this concludes our little tiff! Best wishes to you PedEye1 (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)