![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
I have tried to decipher this caption several times and must confess to being baffled:
What, pray tell, does this mean? I generally am able to see many bits of living tissue, of both my own and others, in addition to the iris. For example, there is the living tissue on my hands. Am I missing the point entirely? -- Delirium 12:58, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
I know that Irismeister is trying to make a point with this caption, i.e. if this is the only living tissue that's visible naturally (or more accurately without incision)... it is therefore special... and that somehow supports the claims of iridology. I still think we'd be better off with a general caption which just said what the picture shows: the human eye. Also, it's not the best picture in the world (pixelation & the pupil is burgundy). There's a captivating picture on Featured pictures which shows just how amazing the human eye really looks, and how far the picture we're using falls short of what is possible. Image:Cheche.JPG (I'm not saying this would be the right picture for this article, but comparing the quality) fabiform | talk 22:25, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Same as above, decently pre-processed to 10 % less pixels, some illustrative-only histogram equalization, probably + 40 % more information extracted from the same picture - only an example, not for publication : ) Sincerely, irismeister 15:32, 2004 Feb 14 (UTC)
It's a much nicer picture. When the page is unprotected, we should use it. As for the caption, I think we should use "The iris. Note that the tissue of the iris is still living, unlike the surface if the skin, which consists of layer of dead cells" theresa knott 08:27, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
[Importing David's comment from User talk:Theresa knott/sand box made when the page was protected:]
Personally, I don't think we need the section on cost - it smacks of overkill. Cost is not mentioned in most medical articles; I think it's safe to assume that most medical visits, legitimate or goofy, cost something. (The fact that iridology is not covered by national health is, however, a good piece of information that should go somewhere else - perhaps where we mention how iridology is regarded by mainstream medicine?) And the illustration this article *really* needs is an iridology chart, but I can't find one that's copyright free. DavidWBrooks 17:28, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Yup, these are all copyrighted, so they'll need to be altered enough... but here are some big ones:
fabiform | talk 15:46, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
It says this in the body of the text, but speaking as a lifelong newspaperman, I can tell you that 90 percent of readers will see only the caption and not read the article) DavidWBrooks 17:38, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Well I rewrote the introduction. My aim was to be a bit clearer about what iridology claims to be able to do, and to make it flow a little better... with reasonably cautious phrasing I was trying to avoid having a "counterclaim" comment after every point. fabiform | talk 12:07, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
This was for illustration purposes. For research purposes, we need a hint of a statement in the caption about:
Now your eyes or my eyes in a cell phone camera might amuse the class, but iridology, esepecially in the scientific research flavor, needs seriousness. Trivializing the article of our common interest does not a service bring. Suggestions ? Sincerely, irismeister 17:47, 2004 Feb 13 (UTC)
Irismeister I have a couple of ponits to make.
How very unfair and how very presumptious of you ! This is the attitude of a thought police officer! This is not a collegial request for peace, based on trust, or at least only on decency. I am sick and tired by malevolent thoughts such as this one ! We are not playing games, we write and learn. Period. Where matters most, in a learning, willing, brave society, why can't I never find a hint or only a sketch of good manners in at least one editor of this iridology thing ? The only thing that matters here, it seems, is not quality or concern for editing information . What matters here is editing it out , whenever it touches some really interesting, first-hand, world-class quality level. While I am perhaps too old to play the game of cut-and-paste buddies and offer Wikithis and cigars and stuff as a substitute for low emotional quotients, I am not old enough to pat shoulders. And certainly I am here to prevent death following dosage typos and medical disinformation. Quality control is what I'll do here EXCLUSIVELY, so you better help me in that rather than your games. And God knows it's much more work left here to be done. There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio... than playing with stuff brought here indiscriminately :) Sincerely, irismeister 14:55, 2004 Feb 17 (UTC)
The only thing you have to do in order to have quality here in the relevant Wiki articles, is to :
Sincerely, second best irismeister 13:22, 2004 Feb 16 (UTC) (Walking barefoot in the park, I stopped complaining about my Nikes the very moment I saw an arthroplastic jogger...)
Theresa dear, you are not speaking to your daughter, although you could be my granddaughter! A little bit of respect won't harm you. Were it not for your insistance and malevolence, exclusive campaign against me and petty things, I would NEVER have been banned one minute. You know that. Jim knows that. Just ask Jim with whom we have recently established a decent relationship based on trust. Not your case, yet. Not yet, Theresa dear ! I will not talk to you for one month starting now! After that, if in the mean time you show respect and willingness to collaborate and learn with me, we'll live and see. It's as simple as that, Theresa dear : ) Your nice uncle, second best irismeister 12:37, 2004 Feb 17 (UTC)
Shouldn't encyclopedic articles be readable to the lay person? Without explanation (or hyperlinking to explanatory pages) many of the terms used in the "Methods" section (e.g. catharral, contraction rings or "Klumpenzellen") are unintelligible to most readers. Is there any need for such terms to exist in this article, in place of simpler explanations or even just the first sentence of that paragraph, "Iris stromal detail in the iris is supposed to reflect changes in the tissues of the corresponding body organs."
Though actually, looking at that sentence again, the "in the iris" seems a bit superfluous... - MykReeve 09:51, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I agree, over the weeks I've tried to remove jargon but unfortunately irismeister keeps adding it back in. I say we remove it unless irismeister cares to explain what theses terms mean in ordinary language. theresa knott 12:44, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
OK. It's really simple. Most medical practitioners hide behind jargo. This is part of the medical business. The purpose of our game here in encyclopaedic terms, is to remain precise without decaying into mumbo-jumbo. So the predominant paradigm in the 19th century, at about those times iridology started to be developed in Europe, was triple:
OK, now more than 50 % of pathology was infectious, but i mean really course infectious - tb, diphteria, you know - diseases where a catharral (flowing ) component - be it "flegm" , diphterial membranes, expectorates, some nasty stuff - was paramount. August Zoeppritz, an editor of Homo:opatische Zentralblatt , and friend of Peczely's, thought it was intelligent to name those excavations in the bulk of the iris tissue - aka stroma - the lacunae or "crypts" of Fuchs - in a way reminiscent of tuberculous cavernae . The immediate if less obvious advantage of such barbaric nomenclature was to point to a tissue loss in an inflammatory - degenerative - repair sequence. In short, my friends, holes in the iris looked better in catarrhal terms. Hence the persistent jargo (really babble.)
This is just fine. But how should we name the crypt of Fuchs ? Modern physiology showed that arterioles around the crypt, anastomotic as they were between the major and minor iridial circle, severely shrinked so that a loss of iris tissue ensued. Post-modern physiology (of which I am a proud part) demonstrated that the adventitia of the lesser arterioles are unique in the iris. They are like rigid sheaths around the blood vessels carrying vital stuff to the iris tissue. So, vascular constriction, like in infaction everywhere, was not the pathogenetic mechanism for cryptogenesis. Current research looks into the ways these vascular spokes react in certain radial directions and not others.
Bottomline - now you know what makes what in this mysterious iris. My next assignment is to tell you why :)
Sincerely,
irismeister 13:19, 2004 Feb 18 (UTC)
PS. A great section in the iris
click here shows at your left a "carpet" (that's what stroma really means in Greek. In in this carpet that holes, which are not nitty-gritty or wear-and-tear "acquisitions" form. The fascinating thing is to know why they form at 6 o'clock in, say, kidney failure, and not elsewhere. Second, why they form there systematically. Third, how could we tell things about the renal failure just measuring the crypt dynamic. But this is for tomorrow, if you still care :) Hang on, I feel we are at last starting to make some progress in this article. As Stanley said:
See what a little bit of kindness can do to you, Ollie ? :-)
This is one of the reasons why editors exist in the "normal" publishing world - it can be hard for those deeply involved in a topic to present that topic to the other 99.99 percent of the world. An objective eye is needed to realize when explanations and descriptions have crossed over into self-indulgence, or are inappropriate to the audience. It's not that editors know more than writers, it's just that they have a different perspective.
One of the drawbacks of Wikipedia (and blogs and other "new media") is that the writer/editor distinction is gone, which makes this task much harder - as we are seeing here. (Of course, the loss of the writer/editor distinction is also one of the strengths of "new media," but there's no such thing as a free lunch ...) DavidWBrooks 13:50, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
And of course there still is a free lunch ! You just have to offer it :-) incerely, irismeister 14:00, 2004 Feb 18 (UTC)
I've just arrived at the Iridology article while browsing WP. The first thing I did, even before looking at the article, was to read the pic caption to find out which part of the pic was the iris. Not a word!! It said Note that the iris is the only living
tissue in the human body that is naturally visible; the skin surface consists of layers of keratin inside dead cells, not at all what should be in that caption. I hope you let my changed caption stay.
The old caption seemed odd in two ways. Firstly, it's worded so that it sounds as though the skin of the iris is made of layers of keratin, which is not what's meant.
Secondly, it seems too contentious to leave in. How about the tongue? I can see my tongue pretty easily, is that dead cells?
It seems to me that someone is so much in love with that statement that they are determined to fit it in somewhere. It doesn't fit the article, its contentious and really should be ditched.
Adrian Pingstone 14:04, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Well, folks, it look like irismeister is confident he's bored everybody to tears with a gazillion tiny legitimate edits, and is back to turning this article into an advocacy piece through a gazillion POV edits. It'll soon be time to get to work ... again. DavidWBrooks 16:27, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Hi David ! And thank you for your dilligence :-) I'm sure we'll work together to make iridology the best Wiki article (or at least the best worked :-) FYI there is also the Alternative Medicine to watch now, and Conventional Medicine too. There are the respective talk pages to watch, since they contribute stuff which you, Fab and Theresa edited out. As you know, I did not lose time, I have plenty of new material and I only wait for you folks to help me, so that we, togather, might publish here the best and most distilled stuff on this hemisphere. BTW we now had some offline but direct first class input from Jim himself and as a consequence I have a new declaration of bias towards our benevolent dictator. I like Wiki more and more. There is also an archeological article I initiated, one in literature, a new one in philosophy and well, if you join the fan club, I might forget that your advocacy of my gazillion is only a POV. Please edit your contributions one at a time so that we might keep track of them and address them properly as they deserve, for the reader's best interest ! :-) - irismeister 17:12, 2004 Feb 19 (UTC) ---
Excised from the article:
It was later shown that Dr Knipschild had an extra-academic interest in rejecting alternative medicine en bloc , ante hoc and ad hoc .
Evidence and sources please? (sorry if this has been covered before, I am afraid I did not follow every detail o fthe discussion). Kosebamse 16:42, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Sure, please find it here, dear
Kosebamse. Do you think we should add this in the body of text, inside the article ? I know for a fact that instrumental in rejecting Knipshild's methodology was a clique of Bill Caradonna and Dr Dan Waniek (who is, or was a clinical professor of iridology at CNRI.edu (so perhaps they had some interest in rejecting the rejection. Hmm. Will investigate !)
http://www.cnri.edu/Clinical_Studies/MedLine/Rebuttal_-_Western_Medicine_Looks_at_Iridology.htm - it specifically address the Knipshchield stuff Interestingly, I found there this information. Perhaps it is worth to quote in full:
Hope this helps ! Sincerely, - irismeister 17:21, 2004 Feb 19 (UTC)
http://www.cnri.edu/Clinical_Studies/Iridological_Clinical_Studies.htm
Quote:
End quote. there also is a beatiful photo, too hot and large there, but quite interesting and useful in eliminating amateurish critics of iridology: http://www.cnri.edu/New_Images_Manual/clinical/deck1.jpg Hope this helps... - irismeister 19:31, 2004 Feb 19 (UTC)
Irismeister, you are associated with the pro-iridology Web site you continue to list, unless you would like to admit to Wikipedia that you have been lying for several days now about your name being Dr. Daniel Jipa. Suggesting that the web site is balanced is simply ludicrous -- it is obviously aimed at promoting ideology. Jwrosenzweig 20:29, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Hi, Jwrosenzweig and welcome back on this page! Yesterday it seems that you forgot to answer me at my answer to your question about weather. The only obvious thing is the police attitude of colleagues and friends which would rather remove resources than admit they contribute to information after judging them. This editor:
Therefore, accusations of lying are ludicrous, presumptious, disgusting and indeed not really taken into consideration. They are not serious Wiki editing contributions. BTW, I looked in Google and found nothing interesting about you. Is that because you think you are not an interesting editor ? :-) Sincerely, yours always and the same irismeister 20:42, 2004 Feb 19 (UTC)
The page was protected again. There were no edit wars, only warnings. Perhaps somebody thinks that information should not pass into the published page. As explained, unsubstantiated allegations have been answered extensively here. Please provide valid reasons why the balanced external links are not allowed to enter the text and if so, by all means, do document them seriously and thoroughly !
... or is this because they are written partly in other languages than English? If so, do not use STOP (sic) menaces in the page history and do not discriminate against non-English sources of information - please review the relevant updated Wiki policies here.
Having repeatedly been banned in the past for unclear reasons, having been greeted as semiliterate, nutcase, full of s*** all the time I have reasons to believe there is an increasing trend from a few editors to indulge in indiscriminate censorship. The strategy of banning irismeister clearly did not work. The strategy of insulting irismeister did not work either. The collegial strategy of transforming irismeister into a parrot so that he'd say what pleases only some ears here obviously is a non-starter. Please correct me if I am wrong :-)
The strategy of smaring, policing, fingerprinting, silencing, character assasinating/Googling/intimidating me is hopeful thinking at best, miscalculation at worst IMNSHO. So, in conclusion, is there really any serious ground for thinking that after removing the page protection the smearing/silencing irismeister strategies as well as the real medical issues on this page will cure ? If you are experts into miracles, non-addressed, orphan of talk and all-by-themselves cure, by all means start here. We'd like to hear from such healers in absentia :-)
Therefore I expect substantial reasoning and no more hate and police-state policies as an answer. Someone please start using
Thank you all in advance, and bye for now. I go get myself a beer, love you all and please take care, work hard overnight, take chances, be very brave, :-)
irismeister 22:52, 2004 Feb 19 (UTC)
I agree with you that there is a lot of censorship disguised as reasonable "protection," irismeister. Burying hatchets sometimes takes second place to sharpening the hatchets. - Plautus satire 23:05, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
THIS is what I call a field day. Ends superbly, thanks to your hatchet policies. Honestly, I hope you didn't really think I'll lose my time with beers, calumets or sleep before looking in the basement for buckets and spades :-) Thank you dearly and again. You are nice Plautus satire :-) Sincerely yours, irismeister 23:19, 2004 Feb 19 (UTC)
The is no censorshop of irismeister in the traditional use of the word. Platus have you read the web page that irismeister is trying to link to ? Do you really think we sholud insert adverts to people's personal web sites here on wikipedia. Do you think it is acceptable for websites to put "best website certified by irismeister" along with an old wikipedia logo to endorse their site ? Becuase thats what iris ward does. Do you thinks it's acceptable to put a pro-iridology website under the heading Fair and balanced instead of pro iridology because that's what irismeister did? Do you think it acceptable that irismeister lied about not having any links to the site when he clearly does? Have you read the archives of this talk page ? theresa knott 23:46, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it.
But of course! Why talk if we agree to agree ? We only have to show good will ! How very stupid of me! Irismeister Colombus just discovered America. His Royal Quackness is back and will let gentle, knowledgeable lawyers deal with the libel and slander off Wiki, having gathered all necessary material, addresses, and hard evidence, thank you :-) Nobody calls a doctor a lier without some very serious consequences, trust me ! This is now legal material for some editors on this page. Having set the record straight, let us go back to Wiky and avoid edit wars while we keep readers enjoyed, informed and able to judge by themselves - once the page lock is out :-) For the record, in the Internet world, a TLD ending in *.com, duly registered by a research corporation which anyone can visit, and maybe understand, is by definition not a personal site, or then Dr Dan Jipa (myself) - one in less than a dozen world-class irismeisters listed on site is also the Queen of Borneo. HINT: he isn't. He is only one of very few five-star irismeisters, the score, names, age, work and statements-of-intent of whom are duly recorded on the site. Hope this helps good will editors go back to serious editing issues. Sincerely, irismeister 00:15, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)
Just a small note to thank you for the kind words, Plautus :-) So refreshing given the company I am used to on these talk pages! So, wishing you patience and waiting for you here too, back soon, for more developments... With good will editors having no hidden agendas like you know who, having no hate, no jealousy, no rush, no arrogance, no police attitudes, and no nasty words - what a beautiful world we'd have :-) But what a wonderful world we are having anyway, methinks, provided we have patience and strong beliefs. Spring is here. Censorship will never win, and thought police will never make it. Lawyers make a living out of the idiocy in this world. But really, who can kill an idea, or massacre a character ? Who can hide information under ANY false pretense ? The most obstinate adept of perseverare diabolicum has absolutely no power in the face of truth. Culture of truth is culture period. The rest is silence :-) Sincerely yours - irismeister 14:01, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)
I propose that the following sections in the iridology entry be condensed or abbreviated and pointers added to criticism or "fringe iridology" theories. Clearly these criticisms are not in line with mainstream iridology and are better-suited for entries that are for tearing down iridology, not illustrating it.
"Criticism Mainstream medicine is dismissive of iridology largely because published studies have indicated a lack of success for some of the iridological claims:
In a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (1979, vol. 242 (13): 1385-1389), three well qualified iridologists incorrectly identified kidney disease in photographs of irides and often disagreed with each other. The study was conducted by researchers at the University of California. They used an iridologist's camera to take photographs of 48 patients with moderate or severe kidney desease and a control group of 95 people who did not have kidney disease. The iridologists fared no better in their ability to predict kidney disease than if they has simply tossed a coin. They did not agree with one another, and had no better luck in predicting the severe disease as opposed to the moderate. The researchers concluded "iridology was neither selective nor specific, and the likelihood of correct detection was statistically no better than chance". Iridologists defended themselves by stating that they needed live examinations and that their approach was valid for predictions of health, not of disease tags once the disease was developed and even complicated.
Another study criticizing an alleged inappropriate search for gall bladder disease in the patient's iris was published in the British Medical Journal (1988, vol. 297 (6663): 1578-1581). Paul Knipschild MD, of the University of Limburg in Maastricht, selected 39 patients who were due to have their gall bladder removed to following day, because of suspected gallstones. He also selected a group of people who did not have diseased gall bladders to act as a control. A group of 5 iridologists examined a series of slides of both groups irises. The iridologists were not able to identify correctly which patients has gall bladder problems and which had healthy gall bladders. For example one of iridologists diagnosed 49% of the patients with gall stones as having them and 51% as not having them. He diagnosed 51% of the control group as having gall bladder problems and 49% as not. Dr Knipschild concluded "this study showed that iridology is not a useful diagnostic tool ". Iridologists defended themselves with the same considerations as above, but also attacked the methodology of the study and rejected it in at least three published articles.
A 1985 review by L. Berggren in Acta Ophthalmologica (63(1):1-8) concluded "Good care of patients is inconsistent with deceptive methods, and iridology should be regarded as a medical fraud." However, L. Berggren added no new independent data and only made a statement of his informed opinion based on reviews of prior studies.
In 1999 in the UK the The Academy of Medical Sciences said of iridology, and some other alternative medical practises: "these are valueless diagnostic techniques that are potentially dangerous if applied to patients who require proven diagnostic techniques." However, the UK is among the few countries where iridologists are both accepted and endorsed as certified health practitioners, who pledge not to use their knowledge in an exclusive way, but to rely on the clinical context. Moreover, no diagnostic technique outside the golden standard has an absolutely proven value but only a measurable false positive rate, false negative rate and oeverall accuracy ratios.
The advice given by iridologists is both specific and non-specific. Specific advice is centered on the weakness as found and could be integrated into targeted prevention strategies. For instance any screening method in populations always identifies a number of people in apparent full health who nevertheless show some hidden predisposition, diathesis or other specific disease-prone conditions. This is more than genetic screening inasmuch genes show potential while epigenetic studies, including iridologic, show actual problems once genes got the chance to express their code into actual living structures or physiological states. The non-specific advice, although good, is the same as that given by conventional doctors.
Mainstream Medical Examination of the Eye
Although mainstream medicine considers iridology as quackery, there are many times when a conventional doctor will examine the eyes of a patient. The most obvious example would be diseases of the eye. Medical doctors performing iris examinations in order to determine eye problems, may use biomicroscopes and gonioscopes. Examination of eyes is a mandatory part of any clinical examination, attempting to answer clinical questions raised by jaundice, excess cholesterol, general neurologic conditions and more specific syndromes, including Foster-Kennedy, Claude-Bernard-Horner, Adie's etc."
I also do not have any idea why this item about "mainstream medical examination of the eye". Should this not be in another entry where it is more appropriate? In the iridology entry, it has no place, as it adds no information to the explanation and illustration of iridology. If it's not about iridology, it shouldn't be here. Just because this section mentions "iridology as quackery" does not mean the following statements apply to iridology. In fact they clearly do not apply to iridology. Why is this here?? - Plautus satire 16:58, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Yo, Iris...! Take a chill pill -- or at least have someone massage the reflex zone corresponding to your tongue and fingertips! :-)
What's up with all this ranting? -- Uncle Ed 16:51, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
And let me add my input, he's right, irismeister, we should be concentrating on defending the editions not defending ourselves. Let the record speak for you. - Plautus satire 17:00, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
It's probably a good idea to mention studies which compare iridologists' diagnoses of conditions like kidney stones, to the diagnoses of traditional (?) M.D.-type doctors. I would not go so far as to say the iridologists were "wrong" but rather that they "disagreed" with the diagnoses. Unless, of course, the iridologists actually conceded that they were in error.
Surely our readers can make up their own minds, in the face of such evidence. -- Uncle Ed 17:04, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Excellent idea, Uncle Ed! Am I allowed to produce hard evidence after the page is unlocked (if I am not banned in the mean time again for unclear reasons and unsubstantiated allegations :-)? If so, is it all right if I quote from an ophthalmological treatise I helped Professor Olteanu in editing, complete with a statistical chapter on overall accuracy and positive predictive value ? I would have plenty of time to retrieve and translate from the Romanian original. Do you think it's not counter-productive, and if so, do you want me to ?
The page is currently protected, but I'm not ready to plow through 61 KB of talk to find out why. I read the article, though.
It seems like the anti-iridologists are trying too hard to assert that iridology doesn't work. Advice: don't go out of your way.
The iridologists, I guess, are really convinced that they're on to something. Who knows? Maybe they are.
But let's not use Wikipedia to settle the issue. Let's just say what iridology is, list its claims, mention any groups that practice or advocate it; oh, yes, a bit about its history. Balance this with the reactions of other groups, like "mainstream" doctors (not sure how to word this), as well as any studies of diagnostic effectiveness.
Since it's the "mainstream" that conducts the diagnostic studies by their own rules we'll have to be carefull not to ENDORSE these studies.
We don't settle controversies, we just report on them. -- Uncle Ed 17:17, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
To Ed and Pluatus I'm very happy for you to shorten the con arguments, perhaps summerising them. I think there should be brief mention of mainstream eye examinations, but again I'm happy for you to shorten it a bit if you like. Ed It's a shame you are not prepaired to wade through the talk page, No one is trying to settle the contoversies as you put it. I wrote most of the "alleged benifits" section ( although someone else put the word alleged in the heading) I also added many though not all of the critisms section. i want a balanced article and I'm sure that David and fabifirm and all the other irismeister "gang of four" do too. theresa knott 17:35, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Yesterday I was inspired by explanations and refs. Today by good will only ;-)
Thank you all - and hey, Anonymus, I took the chill pill :-) Looks as if my passion defies your unsollicited medical advice though (and anything else for that matter except common sense :-)
Plautus, thank you dearly for your advice. I humbly take it and I agree 100% with your fresh and salutary guidelines - much more clear-cut and also well cut down to-the-point there where it hurts more - clear sign of hitting the jackpot.
Uncle Ed, I am rejoiced by the good sense and positive contributions you make. Indeed, who does what in authoring and editing, in and outside Wiki is perhaps less interesting that to-the-point hard editing of some real down-to-earth, robust article on iridology as you do.
OK, now after everyone's 2 cents show on this table, it seems we'll have to focus on :
Thank you all for your contributions! Sincerely yours, irismeister 18:35, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)
As long as the real issues are not allowed to enter into debate, what's the purpose of the debate ?
Noam Chomsky
Please address your views on the above quote here, or contact me for real, undiverted iridology debates on a less censored page. Please hurry - I am certainly going to be banned again - for what I feel to be fictitious reasons, and obscure unsubstantiated allegations which I take the time to answer with high indices of tolerance and loads of data (prove me wrong, the Gang of Four - I happen to know what you communicate about me off-Wiki, from well placed friends :-). There is an ongoing, devastating, co-ordinated campaign against correct medical information about iridology, and even non-
Conventional Medicine. This campaign is built up from
malevolent misinterpretation, diversion from issues to characters, on-Wiki and off-Wiki intimidations, and active ignorance of the opponent's right to exist, let alone argue. It is perhaps ironical that malevolent, insinuating requests of information are made immediately after the very same piece of information (that was spuriously requested in order to build a false case) has again been just cut by the requestor :-) Please watch developments soon - This is a case study for censorship which grows to more and more interesting revelations each day! Have a nice day, and happy editing! Sincerely -
irismeister 13:20, 2004 Feb 21 (UTC)
You do not seem to understand audiatur et alteram partem - some basic stuff which is translated in the short lapse of time passed from the invention of frozen yogurth to the invention of Wiki as always assume good will :-). I also pay the bills, Dude, via PayPal - so that such generous ideas as Wiki are not brought under the carpet by people so craving for cult leaders that they can only walk on fours while they play with broomsticks. Did you read my declaration of bias towards our benevolent dictator? How's that then:
Q. E. D. and Happy editing - With one fewer voice, what a beautiful life you'll have ! Maimonides expressly introduced a sequel to the Hippocratic Oath in which he prayed, asking God for help in tolerating stupid, annoying (I can almost hint to POV) patients. He made medicine foolproof - for if banning standards in dealing with opposing views were applied in Maimonidean medicine, today we'd have governments instead of medical doctors. Thank you for the link! I can almost afford to dream tonight that you'll be the exceptional voice of the happy few in the antique chorus voting for my next ban : O ) Hope this helps : O ) Happy editing ;-) - irismeister 21:37, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)
Irismeister, I would like to discuss a project I have in mind. If you are available for discussion of a potential future project to improve the quality of wikipedia, we can discuss it here or in big bang or both, as it involves the quality of those two entries specifically.
I have noted a few distinct differences in the tone and quality of information in each of these two entries that are not consistent with one another. I have addressed some of these issues on both pages as to the neutral point of view ideal and how far each of those pages is from that ideal. I think we can demonstrate quite clearly by comparing these two pages that there are distinct sets of standards applied to entries based on the relative noise level from the opposition. The more noisy the opposition to an entry is, the more is suffers from loss of neutral point of view from all sides (not both but all sides). I think this can be corrected in at least the case of these two pages.
In the case of big bang there is very little noise from the opposition. Scientists who falsify big bang don't beat their chests to get on the Discovery channel. Scientists who falsify big bang don't rely on the modulation of their signal, merely on the fidelity of their signal. To a scientist it is more important to be accurate than loud. To a lay audience it is more important to be loud than to be accurate. And when a lay audience is judging a shouting match between a scientist and a layman, they are always going to say "majority rules". Consensus rule on codes of conduct is one thing, but to be useful as a resource, an encyclopedia needs to above all be ACCURATE. It doesn't have to have big bold letters, but those letters must be the right letters in the right orders. You can't just let a million monkeys bang away without consequence on their keyboards and call it an encyclopedia. If wikipedia is going to be a forum for a million monkeys and not a forum for accurate information, it should be characterized as a "million monkeys forum," not a reference work. - Plautus satire 22:14, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I would like to point out that if this project succeeds it will be win-win, nobody is going to lose and everybody will benefit from two entries cleaned up and consistent, at least with respect to neutral point of view. Perhaps we can expand this concept to enable a metacleaning for medium-wide consistency. Maybe some sort of "buddy check" system for pages, paired by their complete and utter lack of relation to one another. - Plautus satire 22:26, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
This is mostly off the top of my head, but a system might be devised to exploit the category lists to provide a numerical analysis of "degrees of seperation" of any two pages. A threshhold could be established in order to determine suitability of proposed page pairs. Precedence in page choices would be given of course to pages with higer degrees of seperation. Basically it would provide a vehicle for users of a page to "summon" users of another page for volunteer analysis of an ongoing dispute. - Plautus satire 22:31, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
A "request" in such a system might take the form of a message inserted into a talk page like the following: "User X has requested volunteers for impartial dispute moderation at talk page T."
The advantages I see of such a system(incomplete, additions welcome):
The disadvantages I see of such a system(incomplete, additions welcome):
Plutus I don't think this page is the best place to discuss your proposals. If you are just talking to irismeister, then take it to his talk page. If you are addressing the wiki community at large then make a page request for comment/ proposal name here and link to it from the village pump, so that everyone get's[sic (I assume you mean "gets" here?)- Plautus satire 14:40, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)] to see it. theresa knott 10:08, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
All I'm saying platus, is if you want to change wikipolicy and wiki convention. Then you will need to get a large number of people to agree with you. Most wikipedians are not in the least bit interested in iridology,(or cosmology) so are unlikely to ever look at this page. As for who you talk to - that's none of my business. Talk to anyone you like :-) theresa knott 17:30, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Please be aware who you are dealing with:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Plautus_satire
Curps 17:39, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Hey, Curps, my friend - I am aware - but since I am a bully/Dude/quack/nutcase/sexist/semiliterate/full of *--- owner of three companies, practicing physician with two real (not post-office) doctorates in the bag, who cares ? (Note - this is the last week's selection of the epithets I was greeted with in Wiki by two gangs of four thought police officers who are after me sniffing their own tears on Jim's broad shoulder begging him to ban me again :-)
Dear Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Plautus_satire, Interesting ideas you are posting - so why not carrying them en bloc to a brand new page in Wiki ? This page is now over 100 K - Happy editing :O) - irismeister 18:22, 2004 Feb 24 (UTC)
Related to your ideas, please consider my own clinical observations here: (cited to Irismeister, by Plautus satire 19:33, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC))
(All I can say about "WIPE" is "wow!" Still reading and digesting it here. - Plautus satire 18:30, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC))
(against Wiki policies this was just censored away by our Uncle. Welcome to Wiki - the free encyclopedia! At least we have more room for iridology here now - and soon I will be taught a lesson in how I should think about iridology being an expert myself :O ) Hurry - my next ban is coming ! Happy editing :O) - irismeister 18:42, 2004 Feb 24 (UTC)
Irismeister, I urge you to be a bit more patient with Ed. He did say in the summary that he intended to move it to your (user) page. I for one would like to see the information you posted in a permanent forum instead of on this transient talk page, as I will then be able to reference it without bias in the future. Can you and Ed work together to get the clipped material put up on your user page? If not I will host it on my user page, because I want to use this material as a reference in the future. - Plautus satire 18:55, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. I do have a real-world life, you know. Your, er, clipped material is at WIPE syndrome. -- Uncle Ed 19:11, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
They only wait for the irismeister's impending ban, it appears... :O) - irismeister 17:38, 2004 Mar 16 (UTC)
I removed
"Prof Dr Mircea Olteanu, Drs Dan Waniek, MD, Dan Jipa, MD, Ştefan Stangaciu, MD, and the Computer Vision Research Group aka the the Braşov School of iris image analysis and iridial studies worked over 20 years in the mountain region of Transylvania (Central Romania), to develop a specific form of therapy named trans-iridial light therapy (TILT). The method is too discrete, delicate and recent to enjoy wide popularity, critics said. Proponents of this experimental, peer-reviewed and scientific therapy, specifically maintain that their method qualifies iridology as a self-contained, stand alone medical system, one of the few, and possibly the unique part of alternative medicine which is also endorsed by ophthalmologists and conventional medicine at large."
Because
Theresa, you MUST control your anger when you judge anything "irismeister". What looks vanity to you is only a POV to all of us, all experts in the field. You can't put under the carpet twenty years of research and a whole group only because you hunt irismeisters in your spare time. Find an alternative phrasing, but do not delete the icing on the cake of iridology - the fact that it is the only AM which HAS a physiological explanation. I understand you can not abstain from the cut-and-protect cycle, and that physiology is outside your area of competence. But pretending to hunt vanity wherever you see my name, does not do you a service and hardly qualifies you as a NPOV editor ! - irismeister 00:24, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC)
It didn't take long. The page has just been unprotected and... Here we go again with vandals...
This paragraph may look anything to anyone, but...
In conclusion, our distinguished colleague here would perhaps care to offer an alternative sentence, which suits both her sensitive ears and the cause of truth, and to take the burden of proof upon her, if she cares to make unfounded allegations and vandalizing moves (again!). In the mean time, if the paragraph is cut en bloc we lose information. Therefore, let us stress a simple checklist for the future:
On a more general note, we must work together. This implies more than the usual one doing the hard work and the other just doing the inconsiderate, immoderate, spuriously "motivated" cutting. The editor doing the cutting must explain her actions in detail, not with false allegations. For this, the following guidelines might help:
These issues have been ignored too much and were painfully reaserched for. Of course it's always simple to look the other way and start cutting all over again. But this is delusion. The issues will appear again, and stronger. I strongly oppose yet another deletion and propose a simple three step approach instead :
STEP 01: Let's argue something we feel is only a POV. Argue it as a POV !!!
STEP 02: Let's balance the POVs once they are all here, well written and mature;
STEP 03: Let's issue the consensus called a NPOV, without throwing out what we don't like in the process.
Sincerely, irismeister 20:04, 2004 Mar 29 (UTC)
Since old habits die hard , and some editors came back here after two months with a revenge, a word of clarification is necessary: The editor quoted above vandalizes this page. She did the same in the past, repeteadly. In matters of medical knowledge, she simply does not know what she writes about. For instance:
"I will refrain from speaking to him in the future, because I can't control my anger when he is around."
[2]
And yet, the very moment the page is unprotected (after two months) she jumps on the occasion and...
In conclusion, iridology page protection seems now mandatory.
Sincerely, irismeister 22:41, 2004 Mar 29 (UTC)
Theresa is an adult and she must overcome her admitted lack of control when judging matters of irismeistership. Her remarkable clarity may be mistaken, for the more I study an encyclopedic matter, the more profound and fascinatingly intricate I find that issue. If she is a prophet and sees everything directly, I suspect this is the consequence of a bird's view. I fail to follow your logic in changing my user name. Should "endocrinologists" call themselves "internalsecretionglandologists" :O) All your arguments are right, but they fail the "mirror test": Put yourself in the other chair, and repeat them against yourself, as if you were the devil's advocate and a reincarnation of your opponent :O) Community consensus hardly supports ignorance. I drive off hostile editors, using jokes, ad rem and patience - something in the basic job description. And considering my not using words like STOP and LIER, my not crying wolf, my not asking buddies for protection, the results are fascinating. Well, I kept the good news at last for its fantastic taste - so you changed your injunction on my talk page!!!! Now you talk to me again!!! Seems to me I did not lose my time, were it only for this immense source of joy! Hello to you, old crank ! And frankly, jwr, good information in the article is not bias. Bias is only indiscriminate cutting, thinking that you are clever. You aren't, for things are always more than Horatio dreams of. If you ask one of the dozen world-class irismeisters, even after my impending ban, you'll find where we all are. We are all fallible as editors, but if we limit our game to cutting out POVs en bloc, complete with authors, we'll never have NPOV editing. NPOV is only a measure of ALL POVs aka the central tendency or mainstream POV. It's subject to the time proven shift and drift in everything under the skies. Relativization does not change the nature of Aletheia in regard to Kronos. See you soon, and bravo for your good will change ! - irismeister 00:01, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC)
When this page is edited by its original author, the page is "instantly" blocked (with surrogates of motivations and laughable "vanity" labels) Labels are used as quick-fix warrants of NPOV without judgement of all POVs on which POV is based). When point-by-point, careful explanations are introduced in favor of good information, they are ignored and the POV of ignorant editors are promoted as NPOV. This is by definition the nature of POV editing. As long as we'll try to cut POVs and diabolize them as "vanity", instead of judging them and letting them compete by their own merit, we'll be paragons of censorship- and anything but NPOV editors. The writing this article shows a caricature of democracy and sheer disrespect for truth, rights and persons as a consequence - a place where PhDs are insulted and lab technicians allowed to have final words because of a system of off-Wiki cabals and buddyware. Perhaps in wiki some admins can only see their edits and their own humors and mindset embedded in articles. Abuse of position becomes the norm where there is no quies custodiet ipsos custodes. In those tyrannic, hate-fed mindsets only "vanity" and "arbitration" seem to exist - rational discussion is beyond them if they define who is and who isn't allowed to speak. To sum up, this article proves how a great idea decays in a place of inequality, irrational behavior, erratic thinking, buddyware and lack of respect for competence. When we put ourselves at the mercy of those who think themselves as above the rest, the "whom we like and whom we dislike" doctrine becomes the norm. By definition, this is the essence of tyranny. Lack of freedom of speech, disinformation and bias is a poison which is allowed to destroy truth, and with it, freedom. For only truth will make us free. What happens in the news at large, with rapes of consciousness and killing of good will could not leave Wiki virgin. The Zeitgeist has spoken. Quod erat demonstrandum.
Now please use your judgement and bring back what was so disingeniously grabbed, or ban me quickly for you can't use rational arguments. You must decide. This becomes the case study in free speech ! Sincerely, irismeister 06:46, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC)
Mr. Waniek Irismeister, why don't you cut all the useless ranting and stop promoting yourself using this free encyclopedia? The resemblance in writing style between your web site, your wikipedia page and your Alexa/Amazon self-promotion [" http://www.alexa.com/data/details/main?q=&url=http://www.iris-ward.com/"] is so darn obvious! Just the same awkward language, the use of Latin, the very same punctuation, even the same numbering style (01, 02...). Your're even advertising your wikipedia writings on your site: 0005. 2003-11-22 (Sunday, 02:00 GMT) New Wikipedia iris studies articles available here, here and here, courtesy to your first irismeister. [3] [4]. The site states clearly Waniek is the first irismeister. The rules are clear: no original research, no vanity, no self-promotion. So cut it and wait until others will consider your stuff important!-- 192.94.73.21 16:17, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
We are looking for a responsible, competent editor, who would not cut what is unable to argue rationally, well versed in qualifying something as a POV or not, and who would not lower the level of the debate. Health, scientific and general culture - or at least a genuine interest, well above the mean level of mean Web pages are a prerequisite. We are not into downgrading wiki to edutainment, we are into writing great encyclopedic articles. Cheer up everyone, and study the anatomy, physiology, history and sociology of the issue. Bring experts here, link to other iris articles in Wiki. Give up your sour depressed attitude and elevate your mind to something that will stay here. How come that the worst sentiments, accusations and spirits are perpetrating this vicious circle on iridology ? there must be something special about this article :O) Cheer up, editors, and ready for another bout of immersive, sleeves dirty editing! Hang on! - irismeister 16:45, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC)
OK the arbitration committee has ruled the Irismeister is barred from editting iridology indefinately. I am therefore going to remove the protection so that we can get down to fixing it. To irismeister -you comments above - When I was doing my assignment for the iris-ward site there were twelve irismeisters worldwide, and dozens more to come. So if you think you are wise, why could you not predict your future editing and sysoping careers when I will end my assignment and other irismeisters will take the vitae lampada ?. lead me to suspect that you intend to pretend to be somebody else in order to get round the AC ruling. Please don't try this. You will fool no one. I will revert and ban any sockpuppet accounts you create. theresa knott 05:41, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
I have tried to decipher this caption several times and must confess to being baffled:
What, pray tell, does this mean? I generally am able to see many bits of living tissue, of both my own and others, in addition to the iris. For example, there is the living tissue on my hands. Am I missing the point entirely? -- Delirium 12:58, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
I know that Irismeister is trying to make a point with this caption, i.e. if this is the only living tissue that's visible naturally (or more accurately without incision)... it is therefore special... and that somehow supports the claims of iridology. I still think we'd be better off with a general caption which just said what the picture shows: the human eye. Also, it's not the best picture in the world (pixelation & the pupil is burgundy). There's a captivating picture on Featured pictures which shows just how amazing the human eye really looks, and how far the picture we're using falls short of what is possible. Image:Cheche.JPG (I'm not saying this would be the right picture for this article, but comparing the quality) fabiform | talk 22:25, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Same as above, decently pre-processed to 10 % less pixels, some illustrative-only histogram equalization, probably + 40 % more information extracted from the same picture - only an example, not for publication : ) Sincerely, irismeister 15:32, 2004 Feb 14 (UTC)
It's a much nicer picture. When the page is unprotected, we should use it. As for the caption, I think we should use "The iris. Note that the tissue of the iris is still living, unlike the surface if the skin, which consists of layer of dead cells" theresa knott 08:27, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
[Importing David's comment from User talk:Theresa knott/sand box made when the page was protected:]
Personally, I don't think we need the section on cost - it smacks of overkill. Cost is not mentioned in most medical articles; I think it's safe to assume that most medical visits, legitimate or goofy, cost something. (The fact that iridology is not covered by national health is, however, a good piece of information that should go somewhere else - perhaps where we mention how iridology is regarded by mainstream medicine?) And the illustration this article *really* needs is an iridology chart, but I can't find one that's copyright free. DavidWBrooks 17:28, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Yup, these are all copyrighted, so they'll need to be altered enough... but here are some big ones:
fabiform | talk 15:46, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
It says this in the body of the text, but speaking as a lifelong newspaperman, I can tell you that 90 percent of readers will see only the caption and not read the article) DavidWBrooks 17:38, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Well I rewrote the introduction. My aim was to be a bit clearer about what iridology claims to be able to do, and to make it flow a little better... with reasonably cautious phrasing I was trying to avoid having a "counterclaim" comment after every point. fabiform | talk 12:07, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
This was for illustration purposes. For research purposes, we need a hint of a statement in the caption about:
Now your eyes or my eyes in a cell phone camera might amuse the class, but iridology, esepecially in the scientific research flavor, needs seriousness. Trivializing the article of our common interest does not a service bring. Suggestions ? Sincerely, irismeister 17:47, 2004 Feb 13 (UTC)
Irismeister I have a couple of ponits to make.
How very unfair and how very presumptious of you ! This is the attitude of a thought police officer! This is not a collegial request for peace, based on trust, or at least only on decency. I am sick and tired by malevolent thoughts such as this one ! We are not playing games, we write and learn. Period. Where matters most, in a learning, willing, brave society, why can't I never find a hint or only a sketch of good manners in at least one editor of this iridology thing ? The only thing that matters here, it seems, is not quality or concern for editing information . What matters here is editing it out , whenever it touches some really interesting, first-hand, world-class quality level. While I am perhaps too old to play the game of cut-and-paste buddies and offer Wikithis and cigars and stuff as a substitute for low emotional quotients, I am not old enough to pat shoulders. And certainly I am here to prevent death following dosage typos and medical disinformation. Quality control is what I'll do here EXCLUSIVELY, so you better help me in that rather than your games. And God knows it's much more work left here to be done. There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio... than playing with stuff brought here indiscriminately :) Sincerely, irismeister 14:55, 2004 Feb 17 (UTC)
The only thing you have to do in order to have quality here in the relevant Wiki articles, is to :
Sincerely, second best irismeister 13:22, 2004 Feb 16 (UTC) (Walking barefoot in the park, I stopped complaining about my Nikes the very moment I saw an arthroplastic jogger...)
Theresa dear, you are not speaking to your daughter, although you could be my granddaughter! A little bit of respect won't harm you. Were it not for your insistance and malevolence, exclusive campaign against me and petty things, I would NEVER have been banned one minute. You know that. Jim knows that. Just ask Jim with whom we have recently established a decent relationship based on trust. Not your case, yet. Not yet, Theresa dear ! I will not talk to you for one month starting now! After that, if in the mean time you show respect and willingness to collaborate and learn with me, we'll live and see. It's as simple as that, Theresa dear : ) Your nice uncle, second best irismeister 12:37, 2004 Feb 17 (UTC)
Shouldn't encyclopedic articles be readable to the lay person? Without explanation (or hyperlinking to explanatory pages) many of the terms used in the "Methods" section (e.g. catharral, contraction rings or "Klumpenzellen") are unintelligible to most readers. Is there any need for such terms to exist in this article, in place of simpler explanations or even just the first sentence of that paragraph, "Iris stromal detail in the iris is supposed to reflect changes in the tissues of the corresponding body organs."
Though actually, looking at that sentence again, the "in the iris" seems a bit superfluous... - MykReeve 09:51, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I agree, over the weeks I've tried to remove jargon but unfortunately irismeister keeps adding it back in. I say we remove it unless irismeister cares to explain what theses terms mean in ordinary language. theresa knott 12:44, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
OK. It's really simple. Most medical practitioners hide behind jargo. This is part of the medical business. The purpose of our game here in encyclopaedic terms, is to remain precise without decaying into mumbo-jumbo. So the predominant paradigm in the 19th century, at about those times iridology started to be developed in Europe, was triple:
OK, now more than 50 % of pathology was infectious, but i mean really course infectious - tb, diphteria, you know - diseases where a catharral (flowing ) component - be it "flegm" , diphterial membranes, expectorates, some nasty stuff - was paramount. August Zoeppritz, an editor of Homo:opatische Zentralblatt , and friend of Peczely's, thought it was intelligent to name those excavations in the bulk of the iris tissue - aka stroma - the lacunae or "crypts" of Fuchs - in a way reminiscent of tuberculous cavernae . The immediate if less obvious advantage of such barbaric nomenclature was to point to a tissue loss in an inflammatory - degenerative - repair sequence. In short, my friends, holes in the iris looked better in catarrhal terms. Hence the persistent jargo (really babble.)
This is just fine. But how should we name the crypt of Fuchs ? Modern physiology showed that arterioles around the crypt, anastomotic as they were between the major and minor iridial circle, severely shrinked so that a loss of iris tissue ensued. Post-modern physiology (of which I am a proud part) demonstrated that the adventitia of the lesser arterioles are unique in the iris. They are like rigid sheaths around the blood vessels carrying vital stuff to the iris tissue. So, vascular constriction, like in infaction everywhere, was not the pathogenetic mechanism for cryptogenesis. Current research looks into the ways these vascular spokes react in certain radial directions and not others.
Bottomline - now you know what makes what in this mysterious iris. My next assignment is to tell you why :)
Sincerely,
irismeister 13:19, 2004 Feb 18 (UTC)
PS. A great section in the iris
click here shows at your left a "carpet" (that's what stroma really means in Greek. In in this carpet that holes, which are not nitty-gritty or wear-and-tear "acquisitions" form. The fascinating thing is to know why they form at 6 o'clock in, say, kidney failure, and not elsewhere. Second, why they form there systematically. Third, how could we tell things about the renal failure just measuring the crypt dynamic. But this is for tomorrow, if you still care :) Hang on, I feel we are at last starting to make some progress in this article. As Stanley said:
See what a little bit of kindness can do to you, Ollie ? :-)
This is one of the reasons why editors exist in the "normal" publishing world - it can be hard for those deeply involved in a topic to present that topic to the other 99.99 percent of the world. An objective eye is needed to realize when explanations and descriptions have crossed over into self-indulgence, or are inappropriate to the audience. It's not that editors know more than writers, it's just that they have a different perspective.
One of the drawbacks of Wikipedia (and blogs and other "new media") is that the writer/editor distinction is gone, which makes this task much harder - as we are seeing here. (Of course, the loss of the writer/editor distinction is also one of the strengths of "new media," but there's no such thing as a free lunch ...) DavidWBrooks 13:50, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
And of course there still is a free lunch ! You just have to offer it :-) incerely, irismeister 14:00, 2004 Feb 18 (UTC)
I've just arrived at the Iridology article while browsing WP. The first thing I did, even before looking at the article, was to read the pic caption to find out which part of the pic was the iris. Not a word!! It said Note that the iris is the only living
tissue in the human body that is naturally visible; the skin surface consists of layers of keratin inside dead cells, not at all what should be in that caption. I hope you let my changed caption stay.
The old caption seemed odd in two ways. Firstly, it's worded so that it sounds as though the skin of the iris is made of layers of keratin, which is not what's meant.
Secondly, it seems too contentious to leave in. How about the tongue? I can see my tongue pretty easily, is that dead cells?
It seems to me that someone is so much in love with that statement that they are determined to fit it in somewhere. It doesn't fit the article, its contentious and really should be ditched.
Adrian Pingstone 14:04, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Well, folks, it look like irismeister is confident he's bored everybody to tears with a gazillion tiny legitimate edits, and is back to turning this article into an advocacy piece through a gazillion POV edits. It'll soon be time to get to work ... again. DavidWBrooks 16:27, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Hi David ! And thank you for your dilligence :-) I'm sure we'll work together to make iridology the best Wiki article (or at least the best worked :-) FYI there is also the Alternative Medicine to watch now, and Conventional Medicine too. There are the respective talk pages to watch, since they contribute stuff which you, Fab and Theresa edited out. As you know, I did not lose time, I have plenty of new material and I only wait for you folks to help me, so that we, togather, might publish here the best and most distilled stuff on this hemisphere. BTW we now had some offline but direct first class input from Jim himself and as a consequence I have a new declaration of bias towards our benevolent dictator. I like Wiki more and more. There is also an archeological article I initiated, one in literature, a new one in philosophy and well, if you join the fan club, I might forget that your advocacy of my gazillion is only a POV. Please edit your contributions one at a time so that we might keep track of them and address them properly as they deserve, for the reader's best interest ! :-) - irismeister 17:12, 2004 Feb 19 (UTC) ---
Excised from the article:
It was later shown that Dr Knipschild had an extra-academic interest in rejecting alternative medicine en bloc , ante hoc and ad hoc .
Evidence and sources please? (sorry if this has been covered before, I am afraid I did not follow every detail o fthe discussion). Kosebamse 16:42, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Sure, please find it here, dear
Kosebamse. Do you think we should add this in the body of text, inside the article ? I know for a fact that instrumental in rejecting Knipshild's methodology was a clique of Bill Caradonna and Dr Dan Waniek (who is, or was a clinical professor of iridology at CNRI.edu (so perhaps they had some interest in rejecting the rejection. Hmm. Will investigate !)
http://www.cnri.edu/Clinical_Studies/MedLine/Rebuttal_-_Western_Medicine_Looks_at_Iridology.htm - it specifically address the Knipshchield stuff Interestingly, I found there this information. Perhaps it is worth to quote in full:
Hope this helps ! Sincerely, - irismeister 17:21, 2004 Feb 19 (UTC)
http://www.cnri.edu/Clinical_Studies/Iridological_Clinical_Studies.htm
Quote:
End quote. there also is a beatiful photo, too hot and large there, but quite interesting and useful in eliminating amateurish critics of iridology: http://www.cnri.edu/New_Images_Manual/clinical/deck1.jpg Hope this helps... - irismeister 19:31, 2004 Feb 19 (UTC)
Irismeister, you are associated with the pro-iridology Web site you continue to list, unless you would like to admit to Wikipedia that you have been lying for several days now about your name being Dr. Daniel Jipa. Suggesting that the web site is balanced is simply ludicrous -- it is obviously aimed at promoting ideology. Jwrosenzweig 20:29, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Hi, Jwrosenzweig and welcome back on this page! Yesterday it seems that you forgot to answer me at my answer to your question about weather. The only obvious thing is the police attitude of colleagues and friends which would rather remove resources than admit they contribute to information after judging them. This editor:
Therefore, accusations of lying are ludicrous, presumptious, disgusting and indeed not really taken into consideration. They are not serious Wiki editing contributions. BTW, I looked in Google and found nothing interesting about you. Is that because you think you are not an interesting editor ? :-) Sincerely, yours always and the same irismeister 20:42, 2004 Feb 19 (UTC)
The page was protected again. There were no edit wars, only warnings. Perhaps somebody thinks that information should not pass into the published page. As explained, unsubstantiated allegations have been answered extensively here. Please provide valid reasons why the balanced external links are not allowed to enter the text and if so, by all means, do document them seriously and thoroughly !
... or is this because they are written partly in other languages than English? If so, do not use STOP (sic) menaces in the page history and do not discriminate against non-English sources of information - please review the relevant updated Wiki policies here.
Having repeatedly been banned in the past for unclear reasons, having been greeted as semiliterate, nutcase, full of s*** all the time I have reasons to believe there is an increasing trend from a few editors to indulge in indiscriminate censorship. The strategy of banning irismeister clearly did not work. The strategy of insulting irismeister did not work either. The collegial strategy of transforming irismeister into a parrot so that he'd say what pleases only some ears here obviously is a non-starter. Please correct me if I am wrong :-)
The strategy of smaring, policing, fingerprinting, silencing, character assasinating/Googling/intimidating me is hopeful thinking at best, miscalculation at worst IMNSHO. So, in conclusion, is there really any serious ground for thinking that after removing the page protection the smearing/silencing irismeister strategies as well as the real medical issues on this page will cure ? If you are experts into miracles, non-addressed, orphan of talk and all-by-themselves cure, by all means start here. We'd like to hear from such healers in absentia :-)
Therefore I expect substantial reasoning and no more hate and police-state policies as an answer. Someone please start using
Thank you all in advance, and bye for now. I go get myself a beer, love you all and please take care, work hard overnight, take chances, be very brave, :-)
irismeister 22:52, 2004 Feb 19 (UTC)
I agree with you that there is a lot of censorship disguised as reasonable "protection," irismeister. Burying hatchets sometimes takes second place to sharpening the hatchets. - Plautus satire 23:05, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
THIS is what I call a field day. Ends superbly, thanks to your hatchet policies. Honestly, I hope you didn't really think I'll lose my time with beers, calumets or sleep before looking in the basement for buckets and spades :-) Thank you dearly and again. You are nice Plautus satire :-) Sincerely yours, irismeister 23:19, 2004 Feb 19 (UTC)
The is no censorshop of irismeister in the traditional use of the word. Platus have you read the web page that irismeister is trying to link to ? Do you really think we sholud insert adverts to people's personal web sites here on wikipedia. Do you think it is acceptable for websites to put "best website certified by irismeister" along with an old wikipedia logo to endorse their site ? Becuase thats what iris ward does. Do you thinks it's acceptable to put a pro-iridology website under the heading Fair and balanced instead of pro iridology because that's what irismeister did? Do you think it acceptable that irismeister lied about not having any links to the site when he clearly does? Have you read the archives of this talk page ? theresa knott 23:46, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it.
But of course! Why talk if we agree to agree ? We only have to show good will ! How very stupid of me! Irismeister Colombus just discovered America. His Royal Quackness is back and will let gentle, knowledgeable lawyers deal with the libel and slander off Wiki, having gathered all necessary material, addresses, and hard evidence, thank you :-) Nobody calls a doctor a lier without some very serious consequences, trust me ! This is now legal material for some editors on this page. Having set the record straight, let us go back to Wiky and avoid edit wars while we keep readers enjoyed, informed and able to judge by themselves - once the page lock is out :-) For the record, in the Internet world, a TLD ending in *.com, duly registered by a research corporation which anyone can visit, and maybe understand, is by definition not a personal site, or then Dr Dan Jipa (myself) - one in less than a dozen world-class irismeisters listed on site is also the Queen of Borneo. HINT: he isn't. He is only one of very few five-star irismeisters, the score, names, age, work and statements-of-intent of whom are duly recorded on the site. Hope this helps good will editors go back to serious editing issues. Sincerely, irismeister 00:15, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)
Just a small note to thank you for the kind words, Plautus :-) So refreshing given the company I am used to on these talk pages! So, wishing you patience and waiting for you here too, back soon, for more developments... With good will editors having no hidden agendas like you know who, having no hate, no jealousy, no rush, no arrogance, no police attitudes, and no nasty words - what a beautiful world we'd have :-) But what a wonderful world we are having anyway, methinks, provided we have patience and strong beliefs. Spring is here. Censorship will never win, and thought police will never make it. Lawyers make a living out of the idiocy in this world. But really, who can kill an idea, or massacre a character ? Who can hide information under ANY false pretense ? The most obstinate adept of perseverare diabolicum has absolutely no power in the face of truth. Culture of truth is culture period. The rest is silence :-) Sincerely yours - irismeister 14:01, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)
I propose that the following sections in the iridology entry be condensed or abbreviated and pointers added to criticism or "fringe iridology" theories. Clearly these criticisms are not in line with mainstream iridology and are better-suited for entries that are for tearing down iridology, not illustrating it.
"Criticism Mainstream medicine is dismissive of iridology largely because published studies have indicated a lack of success for some of the iridological claims:
In a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (1979, vol. 242 (13): 1385-1389), three well qualified iridologists incorrectly identified kidney disease in photographs of irides and often disagreed with each other. The study was conducted by researchers at the University of California. They used an iridologist's camera to take photographs of 48 patients with moderate or severe kidney desease and a control group of 95 people who did not have kidney disease. The iridologists fared no better in their ability to predict kidney disease than if they has simply tossed a coin. They did not agree with one another, and had no better luck in predicting the severe disease as opposed to the moderate. The researchers concluded "iridology was neither selective nor specific, and the likelihood of correct detection was statistically no better than chance". Iridologists defended themselves by stating that they needed live examinations and that their approach was valid for predictions of health, not of disease tags once the disease was developed and even complicated.
Another study criticizing an alleged inappropriate search for gall bladder disease in the patient's iris was published in the British Medical Journal (1988, vol. 297 (6663): 1578-1581). Paul Knipschild MD, of the University of Limburg in Maastricht, selected 39 patients who were due to have their gall bladder removed to following day, because of suspected gallstones. He also selected a group of people who did not have diseased gall bladders to act as a control. A group of 5 iridologists examined a series of slides of both groups irises. The iridologists were not able to identify correctly which patients has gall bladder problems and which had healthy gall bladders. For example one of iridologists diagnosed 49% of the patients with gall stones as having them and 51% as not having them. He diagnosed 51% of the control group as having gall bladder problems and 49% as not. Dr Knipschild concluded "this study showed that iridology is not a useful diagnostic tool ". Iridologists defended themselves with the same considerations as above, but also attacked the methodology of the study and rejected it in at least three published articles.
A 1985 review by L. Berggren in Acta Ophthalmologica (63(1):1-8) concluded "Good care of patients is inconsistent with deceptive methods, and iridology should be regarded as a medical fraud." However, L. Berggren added no new independent data and only made a statement of his informed opinion based on reviews of prior studies.
In 1999 in the UK the The Academy of Medical Sciences said of iridology, and some other alternative medical practises: "these are valueless diagnostic techniques that are potentially dangerous if applied to patients who require proven diagnostic techniques." However, the UK is among the few countries where iridologists are both accepted and endorsed as certified health practitioners, who pledge not to use their knowledge in an exclusive way, but to rely on the clinical context. Moreover, no diagnostic technique outside the golden standard has an absolutely proven value but only a measurable false positive rate, false negative rate and oeverall accuracy ratios.
The advice given by iridologists is both specific and non-specific. Specific advice is centered on the weakness as found and could be integrated into targeted prevention strategies. For instance any screening method in populations always identifies a number of people in apparent full health who nevertheless show some hidden predisposition, diathesis or other specific disease-prone conditions. This is more than genetic screening inasmuch genes show potential while epigenetic studies, including iridologic, show actual problems once genes got the chance to express their code into actual living structures or physiological states. The non-specific advice, although good, is the same as that given by conventional doctors.
Mainstream Medical Examination of the Eye
Although mainstream medicine considers iridology as quackery, there are many times when a conventional doctor will examine the eyes of a patient. The most obvious example would be diseases of the eye. Medical doctors performing iris examinations in order to determine eye problems, may use biomicroscopes and gonioscopes. Examination of eyes is a mandatory part of any clinical examination, attempting to answer clinical questions raised by jaundice, excess cholesterol, general neurologic conditions and more specific syndromes, including Foster-Kennedy, Claude-Bernard-Horner, Adie's etc."
I also do not have any idea why this item about "mainstream medical examination of the eye". Should this not be in another entry where it is more appropriate? In the iridology entry, it has no place, as it adds no information to the explanation and illustration of iridology. If it's not about iridology, it shouldn't be here. Just because this section mentions "iridology as quackery" does not mean the following statements apply to iridology. In fact they clearly do not apply to iridology. Why is this here?? - Plautus satire 16:58, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Yo, Iris...! Take a chill pill -- or at least have someone massage the reflex zone corresponding to your tongue and fingertips! :-)
What's up with all this ranting? -- Uncle Ed 16:51, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
And let me add my input, he's right, irismeister, we should be concentrating on defending the editions not defending ourselves. Let the record speak for you. - Plautus satire 17:00, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
It's probably a good idea to mention studies which compare iridologists' diagnoses of conditions like kidney stones, to the diagnoses of traditional (?) M.D.-type doctors. I would not go so far as to say the iridologists were "wrong" but rather that they "disagreed" with the diagnoses. Unless, of course, the iridologists actually conceded that they were in error.
Surely our readers can make up their own minds, in the face of such evidence. -- Uncle Ed 17:04, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Excellent idea, Uncle Ed! Am I allowed to produce hard evidence after the page is unlocked (if I am not banned in the mean time again for unclear reasons and unsubstantiated allegations :-)? If so, is it all right if I quote from an ophthalmological treatise I helped Professor Olteanu in editing, complete with a statistical chapter on overall accuracy and positive predictive value ? I would have plenty of time to retrieve and translate from the Romanian original. Do you think it's not counter-productive, and if so, do you want me to ?
The page is currently protected, but I'm not ready to plow through 61 KB of talk to find out why. I read the article, though.
It seems like the anti-iridologists are trying too hard to assert that iridology doesn't work. Advice: don't go out of your way.
The iridologists, I guess, are really convinced that they're on to something. Who knows? Maybe they are.
But let's not use Wikipedia to settle the issue. Let's just say what iridology is, list its claims, mention any groups that practice or advocate it; oh, yes, a bit about its history. Balance this with the reactions of other groups, like "mainstream" doctors (not sure how to word this), as well as any studies of diagnostic effectiveness.
Since it's the "mainstream" that conducts the diagnostic studies by their own rules we'll have to be carefull not to ENDORSE these studies.
We don't settle controversies, we just report on them. -- Uncle Ed 17:17, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
To Ed and Pluatus I'm very happy for you to shorten the con arguments, perhaps summerising them. I think there should be brief mention of mainstream eye examinations, but again I'm happy for you to shorten it a bit if you like. Ed It's a shame you are not prepaired to wade through the talk page, No one is trying to settle the contoversies as you put it. I wrote most of the "alleged benifits" section ( although someone else put the word alleged in the heading) I also added many though not all of the critisms section. i want a balanced article and I'm sure that David and fabifirm and all the other irismeister "gang of four" do too. theresa knott 17:35, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Yesterday I was inspired by explanations and refs. Today by good will only ;-)
Thank you all - and hey, Anonymus, I took the chill pill :-) Looks as if my passion defies your unsollicited medical advice though (and anything else for that matter except common sense :-)
Plautus, thank you dearly for your advice. I humbly take it and I agree 100% with your fresh and salutary guidelines - much more clear-cut and also well cut down to-the-point there where it hurts more - clear sign of hitting the jackpot.
Uncle Ed, I am rejoiced by the good sense and positive contributions you make. Indeed, who does what in authoring and editing, in and outside Wiki is perhaps less interesting that to-the-point hard editing of some real down-to-earth, robust article on iridology as you do.
OK, now after everyone's 2 cents show on this table, it seems we'll have to focus on :
Thank you all for your contributions! Sincerely yours, irismeister 18:35, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)
As long as the real issues are not allowed to enter into debate, what's the purpose of the debate ?
Noam Chomsky
Please address your views on the above quote here, or contact me for real, undiverted iridology debates on a less censored page. Please hurry - I am certainly going to be banned again - for what I feel to be fictitious reasons, and obscure unsubstantiated allegations which I take the time to answer with high indices of tolerance and loads of data (prove me wrong, the Gang of Four - I happen to know what you communicate about me off-Wiki, from well placed friends :-). There is an ongoing, devastating, co-ordinated campaign against correct medical information about iridology, and even non-
Conventional Medicine. This campaign is built up from
malevolent misinterpretation, diversion from issues to characters, on-Wiki and off-Wiki intimidations, and active ignorance of the opponent's right to exist, let alone argue. It is perhaps ironical that malevolent, insinuating requests of information are made immediately after the very same piece of information (that was spuriously requested in order to build a false case) has again been just cut by the requestor :-) Please watch developments soon - This is a case study for censorship which grows to more and more interesting revelations each day! Have a nice day, and happy editing! Sincerely -
irismeister 13:20, 2004 Feb 21 (UTC)
You do not seem to understand audiatur et alteram partem - some basic stuff which is translated in the short lapse of time passed from the invention of frozen yogurth to the invention of Wiki as always assume good will :-). I also pay the bills, Dude, via PayPal - so that such generous ideas as Wiki are not brought under the carpet by people so craving for cult leaders that they can only walk on fours while they play with broomsticks. Did you read my declaration of bias towards our benevolent dictator? How's that then:
Q. E. D. and Happy editing - With one fewer voice, what a beautiful life you'll have ! Maimonides expressly introduced a sequel to the Hippocratic Oath in which he prayed, asking God for help in tolerating stupid, annoying (I can almost hint to POV) patients. He made medicine foolproof - for if banning standards in dealing with opposing views were applied in Maimonidean medicine, today we'd have governments instead of medical doctors. Thank you for the link! I can almost afford to dream tonight that you'll be the exceptional voice of the happy few in the antique chorus voting for my next ban : O ) Hope this helps : O ) Happy editing ;-) - irismeister 21:37, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)
Irismeister, I would like to discuss a project I have in mind. If you are available for discussion of a potential future project to improve the quality of wikipedia, we can discuss it here or in big bang or both, as it involves the quality of those two entries specifically.
I have noted a few distinct differences in the tone and quality of information in each of these two entries that are not consistent with one another. I have addressed some of these issues on both pages as to the neutral point of view ideal and how far each of those pages is from that ideal. I think we can demonstrate quite clearly by comparing these two pages that there are distinct sets of standards applied to entries based on the relative noise level from the opposition. The more noisy the opposition to an entry is, the more is suffers from loss of neutral point of view from all sides (not both but all sides). I think this can be corrected in at least the case of these two pages.
In the case of big bang there is very little noise from the opposition. Scientists who falsify big bang don't beat their chests to get on the Discovery channel. Scientists who falsify big bang don't rely on the modulation of their signal, merely on the fidelity of their signal. To a scientist it is more important to be accurate than loud. To a lay audience it is more important to be loud than to be accurate. And when a lay audience is judging a shouting match between a scientist and a layman, they are always going to say "majority rules". Consensus rule on codes of conduct is one thing, but to be useful as a resource, an encyclopedia needs to above all be ACCURATE. It doesn't have to have big bold letters, but those letters must be the right letters in the right orders. You can't just let a million monkeys bang away without consequence on their keyboards and call it an encyclopedia. If wikipedia is going to be a forum for a million monkeys and not a forum for accurate information, it should be characterized as a "million monkeys forum," not a reference work. - Plautus satire 22:14, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I would like to point out that if this project succeeds it will be win-win, nobody is going to lose and everybody will benefit from two entries cleaned up and consistent, at least with respect to neutral point of view. Perhaps we can expand this concept to enable a metacleaning for medium-wide consistency. Maybe some sort of "buddy check" system for pages, paired by their complete and utter lack of relation to one another. - Plautus satire 22:26, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
This is mostly off the top of my head, but a system might be devised to exploit the category lists to provide a numerical analysis of "degrees of seperation" of any two pages. A threshhold could be established in order to determine suitability of proposed page pairs. Precedence in page choices would be given of course to pages with higer degrees of seperation. Basically it would provide a vehicle for users of a page to "summon" users of another page for volunteer analysis of an ongoing dispute. - Plautus satire 22:31, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
A "request" in such a system might take the form of a message inserted into a talk page like the following: "User X has requested volunteers for impartial dispute moderation at talk page T."
The advantages I see of such a system(incomplete, additions welcome):
The disadvantages I see of such a system(incomplete, additions welcome):
Plutus I don't think this page is the best place to discuss your proposals. If you are just talking to irismeister, then take it to his talk page. If you are addressing the wiki community at large then make a page request for comment/ proposal name here and link to it from the village pump, so that everyone get's[sic (I assume you mean "gets" here?)- Plautus satire 14:40, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)] to see it. theresa knott 10:08, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
All I'm saying platus, is if you want to change wikipolicy and wiki convention. Then you will need to get a large number of people to agree with you. Most wikipedians are not in the least bit interested in iridology,(or cosmology) so are unlikely to ever look at this page. As for who you talk to - that's none of my business. Talk to anyone you like :-) theresa knott 17:30, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Please be aware who you are dealing with:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Plautus_satire
Curps 17:39, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Hey, Curps, my friend - I am aware - but since I am a bully/Dude/quack/nutcase/sexist/semiliterate/full of *--- owner of three companies, practicing physician with two real (not post-office) doctorates in the bag, who cares ? (Note - this is the last week's selection of the epithets I was greeted with in Wiki by two gangs of four thought police officers who are after me sniffing their own tears on Jim's broad shoulder begging him to ban me again :-)
Dear Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Plautus_satire, Interesting ideas you are posting - so why not carrying them en bloc to a brand new page in Wiki ? This page is now over 100 K - Happy editing :O) - irismeister 18:22, 2004 Feb 24 (UTC)
Related to your ideas, please consider my own clinical observations here: (cited to Irismeister, by Plautus satire 19:33, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC))
(All I can say about "WIPE" is "wow!" Still reading and digesting it here. - Plautus satire 18:30, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC))
(against Wiki policies this was just censored away by our Uncle. Welcome to Wiki - the free encyclopedia! At least we have more room for iridology here now - and soon I will be taught a lesson in how I should think about iridology being an expert myself :O ) Hurry - my next ban is coming ! Happy editing :O) - irismeister 18:42, 2004 Feb 24 (UTC)
Irismeister, I urge you to be a bit more patient with Ed. He did say in the summary that he intended to move it to your (user) page. I for one would like to see the information you posted in a permanent forum instead of on this transient talk page, as I will then be able to reference it without bias in the future. Can you and Ed work together to get the clipped material put up on your user page? If not I will host it on my user page, because I want to use this material as a reference in the future. - Plautus satire 18:55, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. I do have a real-world life, you know. Your, er, clipped material is at WIPE syndrome. -- Uncle Ed 19:11, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
They only wait for the irismeister's impending ban, it appears... :O) - irismeister 17:38, 2004 Mar 16 (UTC)
I removed
"Prof Dr Mircea Olteanu, Drs Dan Waniek, MD, Dan Jipa, MD, Ştefan Stangaciu, MD, and the Computer Vision Research Group aka the the Braşov School of iris image analysis and iridial studies worked over 20 years in the mountain region of Transylvania (Central Romania), to develop a specific form of therapy named trans-iridial light therapy (TILT). The method is too discrete, delicate and recent to enjoy wide popularity, critics said. Proponents of this experimental, peer-reviewed and scientific therapy, specifically maintain that their method qualifies iridology as a self-contained, stand alone medical system, one of the few, and possibly the unique part of alternative medicine which is also endorsed by ophthalmologists and conventional medicine at large."
Because
Theresa, you MUST control your anger when you judge anything "irismeister". What looks vanity to you is only a POV to all of us, all experts in the field. You can't put under the carpet twenty years of research and a whole group only because you hunt irismeisters in your spare time. Find an alternative phrasing, but do not delete the icing on the cake of iridology - the fact that it is the only AM which HAS a physiological explanation. I understand you can not abstain from the cut-and-protect cycle, and that physiology is outside your area of competence. But pretending to hunt vanity wherever you see my name, does not do you a service and hardly qualifies you as a NPOV editor ! - irismeister 00:24, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC)
It didn't take long. The page has just been unprotected and... Here we go again with vandals...
This paragraph may look anything to anyone, but...
In conclusion, our distinguished colleague here would perhaps care to offer an alternative sentence, which suits both her sensitive ears and the cause of truth, and to take the burden of proof upon her, if she cares to make unfounded allegations and vandalizing moves (again!). In the mean time, if the paragraph is cut en bloc we lose information. Therefore, let us stress a simple checklist for the future:
On a more general note, we must work together. This implies more than the usual one doing the hard work and the other just doing the inconsiderate, immoderate, spuriously "motivated" cutting. The editor doing the cutting must explain her actions in detail, not with false allegations. For this, the following guidelines might help:
These issues have been ignored too much and were painfully reaserched for. Of course it's always simple to look the other way and start cutting all over again. But this is delusion. The issues will appear again, and stronger. I strongly oppose yet another deletion and propose a simple three step approach instead :
STEP 01: Let's argue something we feel is only a POV. Argue it as a POV !!!
STEP 02: Let's balance the POVs once they are all here, well written and mature;
STEP 03: Let's issue the consensus called a NPOV, without throwing out what we don't like in the process.
Sincerely, irismeister 20:04, 2004 Mar 29 (UTC)
Since old habits die hard , and some editors came back here after two months with a revenge, a word of clarification is necessary: The editor quoted above vandalizes this page. She did the same in the past, repeteadly. In matters of medical knowledge, she simply does not know what she writes about. For instance:
"I will refrain from speaking to him in the future, because I can't control my anger when he is around."
[2]
And yet, the very moment the page is unprotected (after two months) she jumps on the occasion and...
In conclusion, iridology page protection seems now mandatory.
Sincerely, irismeister 22:41, 2004 Mar 29 (UTC)
Theresa is an adult and she must overcome her admitted lack of control when judging matters of irismeistership. Her remarkable clarity may be mistaken, for the more I study an encyclopedic matter, the more profound and fascinatingly intricate I find that issue. If she is a prophet and sees everything directly, I suspect this is the consequence of a bird's view. I fail to follow your logic in changing my user name. Should "endocrinologists" call themselves "internalsecretionglandologists" :O) All your arguments are right, but they fail the "mirror test": Put yourself in the other chair, and repeat them against yourself, as if you were the devil's advocate and a reincarnation of your opponent :O) Community consensus hardly supports ignorance. I drive off hostile editors, using jokes, ad rem and patience - something in the basic job description. And considering my not using words like STOP and LIER, my not crying wolf, my not asking buddies for protection, the results are fascinating. Well, I kept the good news at last for its fantastic taste - so you changed your injunction on my talk page!!!! Now you talk to me again!!! Seems to me I did not lose my time, were it only for this immense source of joy! Hello to you, old crank ! And frankly, jwr, good information in the article is not bias. Bias is only indiscriminate cutting, thinking that you are clever. You aren't, for things are always more than Horatio dreams of. If you ask one of the dozen world-class irismeisters, even after my impending ban, you'll find where we all are. We are all fallible as editors, but if we limit our game to cutting out POVs en bloc, complete with authors, we'll never have NPOV editing. NPOV is only a measure of ALL POVs aka the central tendency or mainstream POV. It's subject to the time proven shift and drift in everything under the skies. Relativization does not change the nature of Aletheia in regard to Kronos. See you soon, and bravo for your good will change ! - irismeister 00:01, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC)
When this page is edited by its original author, the page is "instantly" blocked (with surrogates of motivations and laughable "vanity" labels) Labels are used as quick-fix warrants of NPOV without judgement of all POVs on which POV is based). When point-by-point, careful explanations are introduced in favor of good information, they are ignored and the POV of ignorant editors are promoted as NPOV. This is by definition the nature of POV editing. As long as we'll try to cut POVs and diabolize them as "vanity", instead of judging them and letting them compete by their own merit, we'll be paragons of censorship- and anything but NPOV editors. The writing this article shows a caricature of democracy and sheer disrespect for truth, rights and persons as a consequence - a place where PhDs are insulted and lab technicians allowed to have final words because of a system of off-Wiki cabals and buddyware. Perhaps in wiki some admins can only see their edits and their own humors and mindset embedded in articles. Abuse of position becomes the norm where there is no quies custodiet ipsos custodes. In those tyrannic, hate-fed mindsets only "vanity" and "arbitration" seem to exist - rational discussion is beyond them if they define who is and who isn't allowed to speak. To sum up, this article proves how a great idea decays in a place of inequality, irrational behavior, erratic thinking, buddyware and lack of respect for competence. When we put ourselves at the mercy of those who think themselves as above the rest, the "whom we like and whom we dislike" doctrine becomes the norm. By definition, this is the essence of tyranny. Lack of freedom of speech, disinformation and bias is a poison which is allowed to destroy truth, and with it, freedom. For only truth will make us free. What happens in the news at large, with rapes of consciousness and killing of good will could not leave Wiki virgin. The Zeitgeist has spoken. Quod erat demonstrandum.
Now please use your judgement and bring back what was so disingeniously grabbed, or ban me quickly for you can't use rational arguments. You must decide. This becomes the case study in free speech ! Sincerely, irismeister 06:46, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC)
Mr. Waniek Irismeister, why don't you cut all the useless ranting and stop promoting yourself using this free encyclopedia? The resemblance in writing style between your web site, your wikipedia page and your Alexa/Amazon self-promotion [" http://www.alexa.com/data/details/main?q=&url=http://www.iris-ward.com/"] is so darn obvious! Just the same awkward language, the use of Latin, the very same punctuation, even the same numbering style (01, 02...). Your're even advertising your wikipedia writings on your site: 0005. 2003-11-22 (Sunday, 02:00 GMT) New Wikipedia iris studies articles available here, here and here, courtesy to your first irismeister. [3] [4]. The site states clearly Waniek is the first irismeister. The rules are clear: no original research, no vanity, no self-promotion. So cut it and wait until others will consider your stuff important!-- 192.94.73.21 16:17, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
We are looking for a responsible, competent editor, who would not cut what is unable to argue rationally, well versed in qualifying something as a POV or not, and who would not lower the level of the debate. Health, scientific and general culture - or at least a genuine interest, well above the mean level of mean Web pages are a prerequisite. We are not into downgrading wiki to edutainment, we are into writing great encyclopedic articles. Cheer up everyone, and study the anatomy, physiology, history and sociology of the issue. Bring experts here, link to other iris articles in Wiki. Give up your sour depressed attitude and elevate your mind to something that will stay here. How come that the worst sentiments, accusations and spirits are perpetrating this vicious circle on iridology ? there must be something special about this article :O) Cheer up, editors, and ready for another bout of immersive, sleeves dirty editing! Hang on! - irismeister 16:45, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC)
OK the arbitration committee has ruled the Irismeister is barred from editting iridology indefinately. I am therefore going to remove the protection so that we can get down to fixing it. To irismeister -you comments above - When I was doing my assignment for the iris-ward site there were twelve irismeisters worldwide, and dozens more to come. So if you think you are wise, why could you not predict your future editing and sysoping careers when I will end my assignment and other irismeisters will take the vitae lampada ?. lead me to suspect that you intend to pretend to be somebody else in order to get round the AC ruling. Please don't try this. You will fool no one. I will revert and ban any sockpuppet accounts you create. theresa knott 05:41, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)