Talk:Iridology

For past talk:
Talk:Iridology/archive1 (3 Apr 2003 - 22 Jan 2004)
Talk:Iridology/archive2 (22 Jan 2004 - 25 Jan 2004)
Talk:Iridology/archive3 (25 Jan 2004 - 10 Feb 2004)
Talk:Iridology/archive4 (10 Jan 2004 - 1 Apr 2004)
Talk:Iridology/archive5

removed facts

' According to Dan Waniek, he -- along with Mircea Olteanu, Dan Jipa, and Stefan Stangaciu, in conjunction with the Computer Vision Research Group -- have spent 20 years studying experimental trans-iridial light therapy, in Romania. This claim has been partially substantiated by Vincenzo Di Spazio, "At the end of the 1980s, an evocative hypothesis was advanced on the part of iridologist and chronobiologist Dr. Dan Waniek, who postulated a non-visual function of the eye which he referred to as "Functio ocularis sistemica" (PHOS)." (2000) '

I have not seen any convincing reason for removing these facts, which are quite helpful to those researching this topic (which would apparently be theresa knot, mr. waniek and adam, and prob nobody else ;) Sam Spade 06:28, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, if this is verifiable I can't see how it would hurt the article in general.--User:192.94.73.4

The concern is that wikipedia could be used to provide the appearance of legitimacy where it may not be warranted. It's a tough issue, since it often involves judgement calls, but I think we should err on the side of caution - if there are serious questions, leave it out. After all, there are people out there who have spent 20 years studying alien abductions and "NASA's faked moon landing" and have developed evocative hypohteses by the boatload, but we don't give each one of them a paragraph (at least, I hope not) - DavidWBrooks 15:50, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't find it questionable they've spent 20 years studying iridology resulting in only two publishable papers, one of which was sent to a pay-to-publish journal (Med.Hypoth.) Full articles have been already given to true nutcases such as Archimedes Plutonium -- the precedent is there already. As long as the information is not misleading (such as listing essays as publications), I don't see how the information above would hurt the iridology article. The message it communicates is clear: "20 years and still not much on hand".--192.94.73.4 22:35, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

While your basic point (the utter unimportance of the information in question) is well taken, including it would harm the article in the same way that listing the batting averages of Little League Baseball players in an article about baseball would be: it suggests it is important information, and it is not. It distracts from understanding: it does not add to understanding. An article should not be composed of trivia: it should be a review of what is important, rather than a collection of what is unimportant. - Nunh-huh 22:47, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

we should. Sam Spade 18:59, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

wiki is not paper, deletionism is anti-wiki

Deletionism is anti-wiki is just a slogan. I'm sure there are more solid arguments for keeping or deleting stuff off wikipedia.--192.94.73.4 22:35, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Multiple points. 1) "Deletionism" is seen as anti-Wikipedia by some; others feel it is important to maintain standards. 2) Asking for the removal of information that many editors feel is misleading and substantially too unimportant to merit inclusion in this article (or really any article other than perhaps one on Waniek & Co.) is not necessarily deletionism. 3) The belief that Wikipedia is not paper is important to keep in mind in many situations, although I would submit that it does not demand that Wikipedia become a repository for all things that have ever happened (one might envision thousands of articles devoted to every house number in London and the names of every family ever having inhabited that dwelling....though of course certain addresses, such as 10 Downing Street are excellent examples of possible exceptions) -- indeed, the question is not "should Wikipedia include things not in EB?" (to which we should reply "Yes! Wikipedia is not paper!) but "should Wikipedia include this specific information, which appears to many editors to be biased, misrepresentative, and misleading concerning iridology and its leading practitioners today?" to which "Yes! Wikipedia is not paper!" becomes a less convincing response to me. Of course, Sam is free to disagree with me (and by now, what can I do but expect such a thing? ;-), but I hope that Sam will agree that his remarks are too hasty and inapplicable to serve as conclusive argument here. Sam likely does have an excellent point (he often does) and I look forward to its being expressed here. Jwrosenzweig 23:41, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

there isn't a very good argument in favor of the Iridology article itself, outside of the above. It is a fringe science. I have discussed it with a medical proffessional who knew of it, and they seemed to find it humerous at best. On the other hand, yes; your reference to the streets of london is a perfect explanation. I'd like to have an in depth article on every person, living and dead. Maybe even have a dna blueprint for alot of them. Terrabytes are cheap, and the future is full of faster, bigger, cheaper and better. I don't see why we should draw the line on fringe science, so long as it is clear that is what they are. Do you honestly think Waniek & Co. is/are unqualified as Iridologists? How could anyone be? Are their schools for this? It isn't recognized as a medicine legally in the US, and so I would assume no liscensing is necessary. Is there a liscense for a Iridology in romania? Honestly, I prefer to get as much information as possible from as many sources as possible. It is really best to require the accuser to present the evidence. You accuse mr. waniak of being unqualified, but what is a qualified Iridologist? A snake oil salesman? A hypnotist? just what are the qualifications you'd like to have proved? Will mr waniak have to cure you of something? I'm already following the Iridology program (minus the light in my eyes part) as best as I can tell, so maybe I'm a qualified Iridologist ;) 'Wiki is not paper' is important to point out w silly extraneous articles like this one, and 'deletionism is anti-wiki', because the point is to ad to, repair, rewrite, produce more content. Simply deleting alone is anti-thetical. You must ad content as well, and prove your case with citations and facts. Personally, I'd love to see it investigated. Is their a romanian wikipedian who would be willing to look into mr waniak in person, ring him up and examine his creditials? We could all throw in and pay the fee's ;) Sam Spade 23:57, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't ask for qualifications, Sam. I'm asking for proof that the iridology community believes his work is hugely important, or at least important enough to merit the prominent position Waniek is giving his research in this article. He doesn't have to cure me -- he does have to show that the community of iridologists believes his work to be ground-breaking. There are heroes within the iridology community, I do not doubt -- I'm happy to note their work as influential, whether or not I think they can cure me (I don't). But if Waniek isn't influential in his community, I don't think we should say he is. And I'll say it seems to me also that you and I have a different idea of the limits to WP's scope, Sam. :-) I had considered long ago asking a Romanian-speaking Wikipedian to look into Waniek's writing, etc., but I decided I didn't want to bother someone else with what was not their problem. I'd be open to it, though, if enough people agree it's important to get to the bottom of this. Personally, I feel satisfied about my conclusion, but am open to having my mind changed. Jwrosenzweig 16:05, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, I think the best way to treat a controversial subject such as this is to allow its proponents to describe it without much interference in one section, then let its critics have their say in a separate section. Mkweise 10:00, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

exactly. NPOV is point, counter point, and sythesis where all agree. Sam Spade 10:15, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's one thing to allow this when the proponent is focused on the issue -- say, at Shroud of Turin User:BobDaniels posts a lot of stuff about why some people believe the SoT is Jesus' actual burial wrapping. That's just fine, I think, especially if Bob uses formulas like "Shroud believers contend that...", but even if not: we'll just have another section for skeptics to outline and propone their POV. But I think we'd agree that, if Bob Daniels was a fellow who'd written a lot of crackpot stuff about the Shroud for 20 years and gotten it published in some fringe magazines here and there, we would object to his stating "The Shroud's authenticity has recently been affirmed by the research of Robert Daniels, one of the world's foremost experts in the analysis of ancient textiles and in the provenance of religious artifacts." It's one thing to give a proponent room to move in defense of an idea. It's another to give them room to promote themselves in unseemly fashion. That's my beef. Jwrosenzweig 16:00, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, its a good thing I never tried to describe Waniek as one of the world's "foremost experts"; despite my personal POV that Waniek is the most famous iridologist in all of eastern europe -- my addition was simply a notation that the person exists, and should be of interested to someone interested in iridology. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I concur w lir, and I'd ask you not tpo limit our scope, Jw. One of the coolest parts about the wiki is its unlimited potential.nI'm not saying to exaggerate, I am saying to give him his due, and if you don't think he is 'respected by the iridologist community' (gee, what does that entail? A giant eyeball poster, or what?) lets see you prove he isn't. I'm saying the standard here is SO low, (unlike the shroud of turin) that any wacky crackpot is prob a leader in the feild ;) Sam Spade 20:11, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, Sam, our scope here is limited, if only by the fact that articles can only get so long before they're too long to be of use. :-) I have yet to see any site not owned/operated by Waniek that treats him as anything more than one minor researcher. I have noted the CNRI site specifically as one that seems to consider Waniek simply one of dozens of researchers, not notable enough for them to refer to even the scope of his research. Therefore, I would say that, while he doesn't seem "disrespected" by the community, his inclusion in an article entitled "Iridology" seems strange. It is as though I was arguing for the inclusion of a paragraph in the Poetry article on "Michael Daley, a poet who emphasizes the need to write about the locales and places in which the poet lives." Michael Daley is a real poet (and a good one) who is a friend of mine. He has been published on several occasions in poetry journals over the last 30 years, most notably in American Poetry Review. He does emphasize the need to write about the places in which one lives -- not a completely original idea in poetry, but he's more articulate about it than many, I think. Daley may well deserve his own article.....what he doesn't deserve is mention on the Poetry page. He is not well-known outside of a few circles within poetry, and no major poetry site would mark him as a "unique voice in modern poetry", even though there are some original and interesting ideas in his work. Waniek is similar, in my eyes -- a minor figure who is published in a couple of places, and has a couple of interesting ideas, but who is certainly not a well-known or influential figure in Iridology, based on the fact that most references to him on the web seem to have been placed there by him. Waniek can have his own article -- I'm fine with that. But there's no more reason to mention him here than there is for me to add Michael Daley to the Poetry article. I hope I'm being clear. Waniek apparently has done enough that a very brief article on him might be appropriate. He should not, however, be given prominent place in Iridology because there seem to be many organizations and individuals that are more notable in that field. That's my position. Jwrosenzweig 17:29, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That is a fairly sensible position. I would say that your analogy is acceptable, with one striking difference... the scope of poetry is HUGE, wheras the pseudo-science of Iridology is small. Their simply arn't that many people even interested in it, much less researching in the feild. I agree w you about poetry, and I encourage you to write an article on your friend. On the other hand, I think poetry, which has been a passion of many for... dare I say ALL of literary history, and a good deal of oral history beforehand, is a different matter entirely. In summary, would you compromise on an external link to waniaks page? Sam Spade 17:52, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I personally would accept that -- as long as the wording of the link made clear what it is. Not "Iridology Pros and Cons", then, but "Iridology as described by an Iridologist" or something like that? And you are correct that poetry is a little big to be a good comparison, but I'm afraid I don't know any fringe scientists for a more apt analogy. :-) Jwrosenzweig 18:46, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Meaning well and talking hell

Since that section was completely irrelevant to the subject I moved it here.--192-94-73-5 16:47, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Self-righteous culture never produces good arbiters. It does, however provide good movers :O) We all have a purpose in life, IP-FBI-Wikipolice. Pehaps yours is to watch tv :O) Oh, and now I know who you are. We still live under the Rule of Law, dude :O) - irismeister 17:25, 2004 May 16 (UTC)

Waniek, you are wierd but funny at th same time.--192-94-73-5 18:03, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Evolutionary iris

Iriswardster, since you seem to have a problem with focusing, here's a second take at a competent discussion (as you loudly kept advocating until recently). I am copying below the discussion and would beg you remain focused on the discussion without involving your strong emotions about Theresa and the other admins:

• [...] can you think of any evolutionary justification for a disease signaling system through the iris? how would an iris-disease-signaling ape survive better than others?--192.94.73.5 04:31, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• [...] As for the evolutionary justification, you just hit the jeckpot, young lady. There is a reason for that. The iris would have been completely opaque, like other "membranes" if the evolutionary purpose was to provide a diaphragm and an "iris" diaphragm only. Cunningly, it isn't. And it isn't opaque at a price. It takes more efforts in this war economy called homeostasty to keep the iris transparent and variably transparent. Presumably, there must be an important physiological reason for this largesse. As great American physiologist Walter Cannon put it, the body, in its wisdom, makes no unjustified expenses. The challenge was to see why the iris was transparent in the first place. Was it only an "imperfection"? Dr Waniek, Professor Olteanu, Dr St*ngaciu, Dr Mircea Popescu and myself thought the iris was anything but an example of imperfect structure adapted to its functions. So we looked into measures of the pattern of iris transparency (PIT). Moreover, the iris distributes light in a very peculiar and strange way - towards the peripheral retina. There are a few quite interesting studies on the links between iris sectors and the ora serrata [...] Talking about apes: at least they are not naked... What is your postal address ? I will send you a reprint from the milestone peer reviewed article I published with dr Popescu, dr Waniek, and Professor Olteanu twenty years ago! - irismeister 09:00, 2004 Apr 19 (UTC)
• What were the conclusions drawn from your research, then? I have seen the FOS hypothesis formulated several times now both on your website and here in the talk page. Without having me disclose my address or request an interlibrary loan, could you just give a very short summary of the conclusions your group had drawn following the research? And I reiterate one earlier question: how would an iris-disease-signaling ape survive others any better?--192.94.73.5 01:10, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• (answers are very welcome and appreciated here)--192-94-73-5 02:09, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Controlled/uncontrolled studies

I believe an explanation of the specific meaning of the terms controlled/uncontrolled should also be included with the "Evidence of Effectiveness" section. Does uncontrolled mean the iridological diagnosis was never validated against a standard evaluation of the patient in question? In that case the reference would not serve as a very good piece of evidence, would it?--192-94-73-5 17:06, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, IMNSHO, IP-FBI-Wikipolice is not genuinely interested in iridology, or he wouldn't cut huge stuff from this page (in the infamous tradition inaugurated by Theresa) and harass or call the main contributor of these pages names. Disregard IP-FBI-Wikipolice's feigned interest, questions or culture. Now back to Wikie business as usual:

• Ora serratal physiology, anyone ? Have time, will wait - :O) irismeister 17:27, 2004 May 16 (UTC)

Drop the Cop ! Immediately ! (second warning)

Theresa continues making a fool of herself "editing" this iridology stuff. In what concerns her "fight of flight" addition, there is a WARNING: This has nothing to do with the article! This is only something Theresa just cut and pasted from some dustbin, thinking this will raise her status from "dyslexic Wikicop" to some "medical editing" qualification.

Consider this a second warning: Theresa purposefully, systematically and rudely runs her boots, which are dirty, on the iridology article.

I recently had an open class. My students and I read what Theresa contributed and had a good healthy laugh. She made the day. For her, the ora serrata conveys the fight or flight physiology... Perhaps she was only talking about herself :O)

Ooh irismeister, you are soooo masterful!. You used two excalmation marks in the title and gave me a second warning. And for what? All I did was move the infobox and a few picture around. Wow what will you do when I make a real edit. I'm quaking in my boots with anticiiiiipation. theresa knott 13:16, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Lasting Iridology Editing Pleasure

So you are a Wikicop and you admit it! Do they provide the boots for you? Then let's hope you are not on someone else's carpet :O) It would be a pity to see you once again kicked out from your leased superintendent boots and into your never ending, barefoot, reflexologically correct quacking pleasure :O) It's still high time for you, dear, to fight or flight :O) How do you maintain those stupid sympathetic nervous system allegations, my dear ? Do you have some reference, any deep arcane knowledge, or is it only your point of view about how the iris stroma is innervated ? - irismeister 13:37, 2004 May 17 (UTC)

PS: Have my two cents for it: In medical Wiki articles, it will take a looooooooooooooong time until you will make a real edit. In the mean time I can only hope your pleasure or at least your "anticiiiiipation" will last that long :O ) - irismeister 13:37, 2004 May 17 (UTC)

Oh I'm sure it will.Incidentally I've never been kicked out of my boots. You are confusing me with someone else i think. I like the feel of leather against my skin too much. If you want something removed from the article ask nicely instead of trying to insult me. I'm happy to oblige you if you ask nicely. theresa knott 13:43, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

I like the feel of leather against my skin too much.
Being the experienced medical doctor I am, and admiring your behavior, I never doubted it, sugar! You know I admire people for what they do best. You were born a person craving for lather and police fancy. But you are plain delirious. And square nuts. Besides, I am too old to take your sexual harassment otherwise than Police benefits for my hard editing work. Here, however, we are trying to concentrate on the iris stroma, dear. We all know whe we are, don't we, Theresa ? So I will put a warning on this page for more serious sysops than you are, my dear. Before you jump on the occasion, just a small reminder (try to focus honey, this is for the professional in you: How do you maintain those stupid sympathetic nervous system allegations, my dear ? Do you have some reference, any deep arcane knowledge, or is it only your point of view about how the iris stroma is innervated ? -

From Theresa's Lather Phantasm, Again and Always Back to Basics

PS, for everybody: Using Word as Photoshop, with a revenge, desperatingly expecting others to correct her own mistakes, while writing on the Alternative Medicine talk page that she has plenty of time to lose, hmm, shall I continue?

An editor and a sysop writing anything but iridology on the iridology page is only a troll. She prevents real job being done, she turns Wiki into a market where volunteers lose their time contributing, and cops like she is lose everybody's time policing. Not to be continued, let alone reccommended. Just let her laugh all the time - for her own enjoyment (perhaps she needs it badly, judging from her venting alleged charms on the market place :O.)

Message for Theresa: get a life, dear! While John here, like in the Alternative Medicine page, project and hundreds of related articles is the only one doing the real work, very much to his honor, and the cause of health, let us all HELP him or at THE VERY LEAST let him REST unharassed, and hey, iridial studies, anyone ? :O) - irismeister 14:43, 2004 May 17 (UTC)

Irismeister it's leather not lather. Lather is what soap does when you put it in water. Leather is what police boots are made of. theresa knott 15:17, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Theresugar baby, I trust your far greater knowledge of what police boots are made of, and kindly ask you for the third time here not to divert my precious time to your soap box, and towards how do you maintain those stupid sympathetic nervous system allegations, my dear ? Do you have some reference, any deep arcane knowledge, or is it only your point of view about how the iris stroma is innervated ? - irismeister 16:57, 2004 May 17 (UTC)

Irismonster, why don't you just state clearly in one sentence you don't agree with the fight-or-flight response, explain why, and save the rest of the offensive language for personal talk pages? Act professionally for once. You won't ever succeed in making a point by just flooding this space with your personal drama.--192-94-73-5 15:27, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

:O) For this once sentence you need weeks of homework in autonomous nervous system physiology, so that I do not waste one more phrase in another answer to you, stupid. Capisci ? Not being the monster you insist I am, perhaps I will, but I have time to wait and see ypur progress first. Do you have time to learn ? - irismeister 16:57, 2004 May 17 (UTC)

infobox, like much of the content, is done badly

I wouldn't have thought it possible, but that overblown and self-important "related links" box has made this article even uglier than it was before - just as the overblown and self-important true-believer verbiage has made it virtually impossible to read. Fortunately, the terrible appearance might scare off people who don't realize how this has turned from an article into a soapbox (hey, maybe that's what "lather" means) - DavidWBrooks 15:21, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree David. I've moved the infobox back to the top so that it doesn't make the article look totally stupid. The article IMO needs a complete rewrite. However I don't think i am the best person to do it. theresa knott 15:30, 17 May 2004 (UTC)