Talk:Iridology/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Iridology. 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

Baffled by the image caption

I have tried to decipher this caption several times and must confess to being baffled:

The iris is the only living tissue of humans always visible naturally, with eyes wide open.

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 believe this refers to the fact that the outermost layers of skin are composed of dead cells. Living skin cells are underneath these dead cells, and are therefore not visible. Similarly, the other visible parts of the eye - the cornea and the white sclera - are either composed of or covered with dead cells. - MykReeve 19:32, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes - but we could remove the "with eyes wide open" phrase, which rings oddly against ears wide open. (Is the page still protected?) DavidWBrooks 20:11, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. By the same token, the word "always" could be removed too - because eyes are not always open, and I can't think of other living tissue which is "visible naturally" only part of the time. Looks as though the page is still protected. - MykReeve 21:47, 10 Feb 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)

That is a good point - I suspect that's why Irismeister used that particular wording, but then, if that's the justification that iridology uses, then I think there's some justification for leaving a slightly more descriptive caption, so long as it is factually accurate. As for the image, I've just taken a macro photograph of my own iris, which might serve reasonably well - it's less pixellated, and is normal eye-coloured...

Baffled by the image quality

- MykReeve 00:25, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

File:Iris.eye.205px-HIST-EQUA.jpg - irismeister 15:32, 2004 Feb 14 (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)

It is a much better picture. :) I do get a bit freaked out by eye-lashes up close like that, but that probably just makes me sound crazy.

Do you think we should have a serious go at rewriting the article on the talk page while it's protected? You're probably right about the caption Theresa. :) fabiform | talk 12:28, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes. I've copied the article into my sandbox User:Theresa knott/sand box. So we can work on it there while this page is protected. theresa knott 14:31, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[Importing David's comment from User talk:Theresa knott/sand box made when the page was protected:]

Cost point missed : )

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)

I agree :) Mentioning cost is trivial, mean, and uninformative. I did not see the 5,000 USD price tag in articles about Laser-Aided in Situ Keratomileusis. Worse still, it's a blatant POV. Which brings us back in time to what I said 13:16, 2004 Feb 3 . . Irismeister (Cost is irrelevant if content is not understood.) Sincerely, irismeister 16:41, 2004 Feb 14 (UTC)

I added the cost to inform, not to ram home that it has to be paid for. I don't think it is all that expensive. As for the chart, I agree we could do with one and would be quite prepared to draw one but whose chart should I base it on? As far as i know they are all different! theresa knott 08:27, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps the whole of the cost section could be integrated into the article? The prices could be put in with the bit about the placebo effect, and the national health bit in with how iridology is regarded, as David suggested.

I just fired off two requests to websites to see if they will give us permission to use their iris charts. Another option is this image [1] which appears to be in the public domain sinc eit was apparently drawn over 70 years ago (although its a very poor scan). Theresa, I have no idea whose you would be best to base a chart on since I've been stunned by the variations I've seen while surfing for them today!

Kosebamse has just tried to NPOV a header (benefits -> alleged benefits). What do you all think of the article in general? I feel a bit like I'm reading a battlefield (how's that for a mixed metaphor?). The tone is a bit all over the place, from defensive to dismissive. It just doesn't read like it was written calmly and objectively! Irismeister's 24 hour ban has been over for a while; I wonder if he'll be back or if we will be able to work in a much more relaxed atmosphere from now on? fabiform | talk 09:48, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The tone is always all over the place when there has been an edit war. I hope that if irismeister does come back then he will be able to work with us to produce a great article instead of fighting. As for the public domain image. I actually think that by colour coding the zones it will be possible to produce a much better looking chart than this. I am quite prepared to produce such a chart, but I'm worried about complaints like "that chart is totally inaccurate, the kidney should be at 172° not 165°". I suppose if we caption it carefully - "iris chart based this persons chart". What do you think ? theresa knott 14:27, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, since there are so many rival charts out there (I saw the figure of 20 today) you can't go too far wrong. Doing a google image search for iridology will get you loads of different charts if you want more to base yours on; some of them are divided into loads and loads of tiny zones. I found some lovely coloured charts which the site owner seemed to be distributing freely (they had a "download chart" link) but there was no email contact to reach the webmaster, so I couldn't ask if they could be used. It's possible I'll get permission from one of the two places I emailed, but I'm not holding my breath. fabiform | talk 14:38, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well I'm going to have a go at it. The one you posted a link to is far too small. I can't actually read the writing on it. Have you been able to find a really big clear one in your web searches ? theresa knott 15:34, 12 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)

I shouldn't have been so pessimistic; one of the people I emailed gave permission to use his/her charts on the page. :) fabiform | talk 17:03, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wonderful chart - give yourself a wiki-cigar! (Do you think the caption needs fleshing out - e.g., "This is an example of an iridology chart. It correlates areas of the left iris, as seen in the mirror, with portions of the body. Changes in color or appearance of the iris are said to indicate changes in the health of the corresponding section of the body" or something like that?

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)

Speaking as a lifelong reader... I think you're right. ;) That caption was the first thing that entered my head, it would be good if you would flesh it out. :) fabiform | talk 17:48, 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)

Needs more efforts. Good luck, fab : ) irismeister 12:52, 2004 Feb 13 (UTC)

Hello irismeister. :) What in particular do you think needs changing in the introduction? By the way, you're the first person out of those who have commented who doesn't prefer the new picture. fabiform | talk 12:56, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Welcome back :-) let's forgive and forget. What other photo's would you like to see, and what could be done to the present photo to improve it's quality?

"What could be done to the present photo to improve it's quality?"

Hi, Theresa dear ! Forgive? Always ! (This is how babies learn !) Forget? Never! (This is a recipe for even more time lost in editing.) The photo which was cut was much better. That's why it was put there, after a number of tedious copyright negotiations with the author, and after MANDATORY resolution reduction (pixellation) and digimarc filtering. Remember so much work done for this three months ago ? Personally, I have little time, let alone desire to start it all over again. Anyway, for a photo to be published in a Wiki article about iridology, a number of professional criteria must be met. These criteria include:

illumination (axial only, uniformity, ring flash);
resolution (over a threshold);
dynamic range (gamma for digital photography not accepted);
macrophotography with Medical Macro Objectives, such as Medical Nikkor;
a color "test" somewhere at hand nearby;
availability (a whole series shot, and quality control for the batch)

This was for illustration purposes. For research purposes, we need a hint of a statement in the caption about:

personal data, hour of image acquisition, reason, comparison with previous shots, etc.

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)

I have to disagree. I think you're talking about textbook illustrations, but Wikipedia isn't a textbook, it's an encyclopedia; illustrations for the two have very different criteria. The point of a photo here is to remind readers (or tell them, if they didn't know) which part of the eye is the iris to provide context, not to meet standards of medical debate. DavidWBrooks 17:59, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, I have a couple of encyclopedias on the shelf and a load of textbooks on my desk. The pictures in my encyclopedias are far better than those in my textbooks. So I have to disagree. Also being into quality control as my main job, but who cares ? Never mind : ) irismeister 18:04, 2004 Feb 13 (UTC)

I second David's comment. Also, this new image is of a higher quality in terms of pixilation and how much detail is visible in the iris. fabiform | talk 18:08, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have to disagree again. The number of pixels in the two images is about the same. It only takes a few clicks in Photoshop to adjust any image to any size and any given number of pixels. Iridology is not served by poor quality images. Sincerely, irismeister 18:15, 2004 Feb 13 (UTC)

I agree with fabiform and David. I don't see that the article is harmed by presenting an image which more clearly illustrates the iris - though I understand and accept that such an image would be less useful for iridology purposes. As David comments, a Wikipedia article is never going to replace a textbook on how to carry out iridology, but merely exists to inform a reader as to what the practice actually is, and to offer a brief introduction to the techniques and theory underlying it.

I would also contend that the JPEG compression is less obvious in the image that I submitted, which I suspect is the cause of the "pixellation" objection raised above to the image previously displayed on the article. This is unrelated to the number of pixels in the image. - MykReeve 22:03, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for rephrasing what I meant. I was talking about how "lossy" the first image was. fabiform | talk 08:44, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And thank you for meaning pixellation when you keep mentioning pixilation... Sincerely, irismeister 14:24, 2004 Feb 14 (UTC)

OK, now again, the issue here is quality control, not your school assignment vote! You may vote as you wish! I may continue to do my research and quality control job. And... hello, Mr Orwell... Vox clamantis in deserto (I know you know what it means : ) Anyway, who cares ? We may talk endlessly about the fine print of JPEG specs, if we do not agree to agree on competence in lieu of amateurish voyerism as a precondition : ) Agreeing to agree is called the culture of harmony, my dear fellow editors! It's a precondition for non-tyrannic decisions sometimes masquarading as popular vote. Agreeing to vote on mediocrity and considering an adversarial system as the out-of-this-world quality warrant is called the culture of the Far (American) West. A small reminder - this was the rule of law where you could be hanged by popular vote, irrespective of any other idea of non-adversarial justice. I assume we call the sprouts of this culture something like POV-hunting and POV-dismissing anything you care to vote against : ) And yet, a poor picture under any other name would still smell rotten. DjVu wavelet bit-losing compression, JPEG or bit-conserving TIFF formats will still make a poor picture out of a poor picture, period! Look at some standards clicking here. Nice, er ? Does not bear comparison, er? You know, fellows, I spent twenty years of ophthalmologic research designing actuators for near-perfect iris imaging and you feed me this garbage... Did you try a histogram of this garbage under any filter ? Would you like me to prove the point ? Do you really care ? Honestly, I might , for your sake, negotiate with one in ten-in-the-world best irismeisters like Jon Miles, or irismeister Matt Karwowsky - so that some real iris pictures will get on the iridology page. All you have to do is to be nice to me : ) In the mean time, OK, publish as you vote - the issue here remains a pathetically poor, unprofessional, not illustrative image for an article on iridology. But then again, who cares ? : ) Now prove me wrong : ) Sincerely, irismeister 14:24, 2004 Feb 14 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly sorry I tried to help by submitting a photograph that I felt to be superior to the previous one in terms of JPEG compression, in response to comments on this talk page. I agree that the quality of the image is not as good as those that you link to, Irismeister, but I am not capable of that. The image I submitted is copyright-free, illustrates the iris in the context mentioned above, and was taken at short notice to replace the previous one which suffered from lossy compression. It may be "pathetically poor [and] unprofessional" but it is available for use, and illustrates the iris. If you can provide or get rights to use a superior image, which conforms to the Wikipedia Image Use Policy, then please do so - you don't need permission from anyone here.

Regarding the histogram equalization you have carried out on my image above, I must confess that I prefer the original image as an illustration of the iris, as it is more accurate to the colours of the iris in vivo. The detail of the iris may be more noticable in the transformed image (particularly on monitors with higher gamma settings), but the colouration is inaccurate. I appreciate that the transformed image would be more useful for iridology purposes, but if you wish to make this point, perhaps the caption of the image should also be altered to reflect this.

As for "being nice to you", I don't believe that I have done anything else. For my efforts at submitting an illustration and explaning my reasons for doing so, I have received insulting, dismissive and sarcastic comments from you. There is no need for such comments, when merely expressing your opinions of the flaws with the image I submitted would have been sufficient. I appreciate that I cannot tell you how to behave, but personally I believe that words such as "school assignment", "garbage" and "pathetic[ally]" are unnecessary, and do you a great disservice in expressing your perfectly valid concerns about the quality of the image I submitted. - MykReeve 18:47, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hey, MykReeve, your eye is OK. And it was not you who wasn't nice. Please have a look at the history of this article. The moment, the very moment I did something to improve the article, three bodyguards jumped in symmultaneously, eliciting edit conflicts. Whatever I added was systematically cut without explanation, sometimes even from the talk page. Adding insult to injury was only the nicest part of the editing business. In fact, what are semiliterate mess , nutcase and your (sic) full of **** all the time on top of my doctorates ? It could have been much worse! You know, today the IP is blocked, tomorrow, a laser-guided democracy enhancer (LGDE) will wipe it out with overwhelming force, as a direct, well programmed, not collateral damage. Need not question more, let alone discuss. If you are happy with your image, go ahead, publish it. I will only help you understand that iridologists need not look into color information first. Anyway, iris color is variable and always a mixture of chemical and physical determinants SEe Iris Anatomy. Digital cameras are not known to be great color constancy enhancers. Have you looked into the histograms ? What about the dynamic range of your image ? Anyway, who cares ? We only care about our own games before we care about quality. Now prove me wrong :)

Irismeister I have a couple of ponits to make.

In the talk above you said that you had to negotiate with the "author" and reduce the quality of the picture. (MANDITORY was your expression). But on your user page you have that picture, and underneath it the caption reads "Your Wikifellow caught here live, at last, even if only in Purkinje images. I warned you". Now am I right in thinking that Purkinje images are reflected images? Because you your caption appears to me to be suggesting that you are the reflection. Which would imply that you took the photo. Can you clear this point up please. Are you, or are you not, the person who took that photograph?
The iris image that you linked to is truly beautiful. If you can get a photo of that quality then I for one would immediatly press for MykReeve's photo to be replaced. However, as yet we don't have a photo of that quality available and so we have to discuss the relative merits of the two photos we do have. I'm sorry but the current photo is vastly superior to the one you put in the article. theresa knott 06:08, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

My name is Daniel Armand Jipa. I am one of the few dozen world-class irismeisters, who earned my fifth star with Drs Dan Waniek, Matt Karwowski, Jo Miles, and other peer reviewed committees. I am a medical doctor, an author of ophthalmologic equipment, and I can talk with my fellow irismeisters as well as with Mr Colton, the Jensen family, relevant AMA editors, FDA, OAM, CAM, Senate inspectors and a lot of friends in the relevant places in real time. Now to answer your question about rights, you need to understand that authorship and copyright ownership are not the same. I for instance work under contract with a publishing house in Germany. In order to quote my own material after they will have published it, I will still have to ask permission from the copyright owner. As for image quality, this is to be discussed. An iridology article needs to address both sides of the "beholder equation". That image was done under extreme ophthalmological conditions, under no direct light, with maximum mydriasis, special film, etc. etc. It shows both iridologist and patient in the same, natural, food-for-thought nutritious image. How shall I put it for you to understand ? Can you applaude me with only one hand ? Is there only one side on the coin ? Why don't you talk directly to Jim about our chief legal officer? -user:Irismeister

Hmm well it sounds plausible I suppose, but then you have had plenty of time to think it up. theresa knott 10:51, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

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 :

drop aggressive editing habits, including, but not restricted to cut-without-reading, cut-without-understanding, cut-without-explaining;
drop menaces, IP bans, reports, and collective punishments. Start listening, start reading, start talking, learn, help, be creative, develop critical sense.
drop meaningless easy talk. Talk is cheap. Judge, engage in research, be tolerant, healthy and wise. Work hard, take chances, be very brave :)

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...)

I can't speak for any one else, but I for one, have never cut anything without reading it. As for IP bans, you are rsponsible for those. If you behave yourself you won't get banned - simple as that. theresa knott 10:51, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

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:

germ theory (diseases have microbial causes - Semmelweiss and Pasteur, Koch, Behring, etc)
cellular theory - really less than obvious at the time! Santiago Ramon y Cajal made headlines and won the Nobel Prize for demonstrating that the brain tissue had cells afterall and,
Naturheilkunde - the dreaded German word standing for something like "Nature really heals" - a variation of the hippocratic (and knidic) natura curat , mens sana in corpore sano and this stuff...

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)

Hungrily agreeing : )

And of course there still is a free lunch ! You just have to offer it :-) incerely, irismeister 14:00, 2004 Feb 18 (UTC)

Picture caption

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)

OK, you are both right and welcome, Adrian Pingstone! Thank you very much for the point, contribution and new caption. As for the tongue you are twice right, but you need to open something else than eyes in order to see it. Just kidding... Sincerely, irismeister 14:11, 2004 Feb 18 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind remarks on my changes. Off to browse somewhere else now. Bye!

Adrian Pingstone 14:17, 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)

I knew it wouldn't be long! I'm on dial up at the moment which is why I've been a bit quiet. I'm back on it tomorrow though. i notice that he is trying to inser the iris-ward link again. To irismeister - I will not allow you to insert bullshit into the page. I will not allow you to insert links to iris-ward. I don't care how much you harrass me, i don't care how much you follow me around wikipedia. I don't care how many compliants you make about me. Wikipedia will survive the likes of you - I will see to it that it does.theresa knott 19:20, 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:

About The Author

Bill Caradonna R.Ph. is a Registered Pharmacist, Certified Nutritionist, and Vice President of The National Iridology Research Association.

Letters to the Editor of NIRA

Dear Editor,

The following background information may be important for evaluating the "Scientific" value of Dr.Paul Knipschild's study.

His exposure to Iridology was restricted to an article he had read in a popular magazine. He subsequently assigned a student to find 5 "leading" Iridologists who would be willing to participate in the study he designed. She succeeded in finding willing participants, but the leading Iridologists who were first approached to do the study had refused on the grounds that it was impossible to diagnose gallstones.

They repeatedly made reference to the literature so as to make it perfectly clear that gallstone diagnosis does not fall within the scope of this practice. Furthermore, the leading Naturopathic organization in Holland pointed out that they entire set-up of the study was incorrect.

Dr Knipschild never responded to these statements and criticisms. He merely boasted loudly via a via the popular media that Iridology is a fraud. I should note that more-recently his department did a literature review of Acupuncture and published the conclusion that it has no scientific basis, while merely stimulating a "placebo effect."

They are currently engaged in a literature study of Homeopathy - the outcome is predictable. From a friend on the inside,

Peter Guinee,R.Hom.

Netherlands

Hope this helps ! Sincerely, - irismeister 17:21, 2004 Feb 19 (UTC)

More Interesting Rebuttal Unearthed. It becomes really interesting...

http://www.cnri.edu/Clinical_Studies/Iridological_Clinical_Studies.htm

Quote:

In the past 10 years of lurking around health related UseNet Newsgroups, I occasionally see posts about three particular Medline abstracts debunking Iridology. To discard Iridology as a contributing science on the basis of only a few questionable clinical trials is ridiculous!

Why are these medline-JAMA clinical studies flawed? Mainly because they used incorrect methods of iris photography. They had only took General Photos of the eyes. The eyeball is round in shape just like the earth, not flat as some societies had thought some time ago.. If the eyeball was flat, perhaps their clinical studies could have been more successful?

Read on and decide for yourself...

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:

1. is not associated with resource - only has an onsite address because of seminars and exams passed on site - which everybody here can have since the site offers free email services. The site as I check the IP is located in Texas, and I am working in France.
2. is associated with ophthalmological research - in this quality the world's premier ophthalmologic-to-iridologic bridge building site is valued, as it is valued by all iridological and ophthalmological communities.
3. repeteadly explains why resource is essential in talk page.

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)

Protection Policy Re-applied - Against What ? By Whom ? What for ? How long ?

Is this a measure to prevent information exchange under Pharisean clothes... ?

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 !

Is this a measure of discrimination against non-English-delivered information?

... 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.

Is this only a workaround waiting for the next ban ?

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 :-)

Kind Suggestions for More Creative Silencing Strategies

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 :-)

Bottomline

Therefore I expect substantial reasoning and no more hate and police-state policies as an answer. Someone please start using

good humor,
even intelligence (not CIA-branded and trademark you seem to enjoy to the point of indulging in iris scans - but genuine, brand-new, creative, individually correct smart use of the gray stuff we are all endowed with under our respective quote-nutcases-unquote) if possible, and
in any event loads of rare earth over the tomahawk :-)

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)

Thank YOU :-)

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)

I did read some of the web page linked by irismeister and I have read back several pages in the history to try and figure out what was going on. The only opinion I have regarding his edition is I feel the link belongs in the "pro" section. I see no reason why somebody should not insert links to pages they maintain or are connected to in some fashion, so long as it is appropriate. Is it suspect for an oncologist to give out business cards at a competing or collaborating cancer research hospital? I have seen many links to many domains that are all profit-motivated. Are they all suspect just because the sources are not strictly agenda-neutral? I did not see any attempts by irismeister to force his changes down the throats of others, as the reversions have been forced and enforced on him, and I do see him defending his reversions in the talk page. I also don't see why irismeister (or anybody) putting a link to wikipedia on their web site is anything wrong or amoral. From your description it sounds as if he is trying to lend his reputation to wikipedia, not the reverse. An admirable goal, even though or even if it is or might be misguided. As for lying, no, I don't find that acceptable. The act of a lie is often an error in judgement, and more often a manifestation of some fear. Clearly you're very worked up about this. I've gathered that you and irismeister have a bit of a history, but do not be hasty in judging him. I'm sure he has the best of intentions, as do we all. - Plautus satire 00:02, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It's true that I'm worked up about this, but it is not true that I have been hasty judging him. I don't have any problem with linking to non agenda neutral web sites. But we cannot allow people to link to their own web sites. If we do that every tom dick or harry will insert advertisments all over Wikipedia. As for his reputation, I suggest you try a google search of this famous doctor, because nobody else seems to have heard of him.At least they never talk about him. Anyone can call themselves by a puffed up title. Anyone can call themselves anything. The fact is irismeister has no reputation to lend to wikipedia. By putting a "best website award" which links to irismeister's user page here on the home page of [www.iris-ward.com] there is little doubt in my mind thay they ar trying to make it look like Wikipedia is endorsing that website. This is the reason that I call the site dodgy. theresa knott 13:15, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

theresa knott, I still think perhaps the best thing for you to do would step away from the Iridology entry unless you have something to contribute to it. There are plenty of others who can share the burden of deletion from that entry, your emotional responses, I feel, are counter-productive. Above I see you insinuating that somebody who claims to be a doctor is not one. Also I see you suggesting a "puffed up title" and suggestions of outright fraud. I also took a look at http://www.iris-ward.com/ , and it would seem my earlier sentiments were correct. Logos of web sites are used, and there is even a specific mention of wikipedia in the following blurb which clarifies the intent of posting the logos in the first place: "We feel that Wikipedia, once a great idea, is currently experiencing too many growing pains to be valuable as a primary source of reliable information!" Like I suggested earlier, it seems he is trying to lend credence to wikipedia by claiming to use it as a source. Where is the problem with this? And now the page says wikipedia is no longer used as a source due to "growing pains". - Plautus satire 14:51, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. The "puffed up title" I was refering to was Five star irismeister I have no idea if he really is a doctor or not. The comment " We feel that wikipedia..... is a new entry inserted on that web page during the time irismeister was on a temporary ban for rudeness. I wish I could prove this to you but I didn't think to take a snapshop of the page prior to the change. What do you make of the "Certified by irismiester" logo on the home page which links to wikipedia? theresa knott 16:22, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I make of it that he is trying to lend his credibility with his users to wikipedia. I see nothing wrong with that. If he wants to endorse wikipedia, that's his business. - Platus

Well we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I feel he is trying to imply wikipedia endorses iris-ward not the other way around. - theresa

And if a site puts a notice saying wikipedia is no longer a useful source due to too much infighting, that is also his right. Are you merely upset that he has changed his opinion of wikipedia based on your actions and the actions of others seeking to squash his editions? - Platus

No I'm not upset that he has done that at all. - theresa

And as for snapshots of the pages, wikipedia keeps page histories, so you can always go back and see what's happened. I have done so, and I find I am unable to get myself worked into the same lather you and others find necessary to "deal with" irismeister. - Plautus satire 16:48, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That's because you've never disagreed with him. theresa knott 17:13, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This has been a trying article to deal with over the past month, due to one clever-tongued ("critique of puree reason" is a brilliant pun) but exasperating participant who, in the opinion of many of us, wants to create a one-sided advocacy piece. (A common scenario in Wikipedia, alas.) More eyes looking at, and pruning, excessive POV would be most welcome - because it does get hard to keep calm after a while. Read the last dozen or so edits and see what you think. DavidWBrooks 16:04, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, David :O) However, you are sooo restrictive. Whattta's tooo-ngue gottto do, gottado with it ? Have you seen what is above it? What lies under my bold bald calvaria ? Anyway, there is more, and much more to come. Just be patient and play by the rules. I decided it's much more fun here with you in the editing cabal than out in the cold, within the tribes doing the base authoring besogne. Why going on, inhaling the opium of the masses, when we have entertainment such as this? Also playing the protection-ban-insult game is for younger people than myself. Anyway, royalties for using my trade-mark style are to be paid here. Honestly, credit is also due to you. You are soooo inspiring :-) I can say that as journalist to journalist, man to man, editor to editor. Opinion about hidden agendas are only just that - POVs. Read my reverse thought (above my clever tongue, and right in that evil blick of my evil eye :) advocacy of many pieces does not a solid piece make. Anyway, who is trying to disinform Wiki readers pretending I am a quack (really ?) and iridology is not a branch (admitted, arguably) of ophthalmology. Ready to dis-exasperate you when you'll stop ringing the bell of the Gang of Four the moment I start writing my first word - as per Wiki policies as follows:

If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it.

DavidWBrooks, I would suggest that if you have spent a month intensively editing the iridology entry, it's possible you feel emotionally-invested in the task. It may be better for all if you turn your efforts to more fruitful and productive entries, instead of continually trying to add "con" to this "pro" entry. It was recently pointed out to me that some of my editions to the big bang entry were inappropriate, because an entry for a subject is the place to support the subject, not to tear it down. The suggestion was made to me that I move my proposed editions to where they would be appropriate, in "non-standard cosmology" entries. I now make this suggestion to you. If you seek to criticize iridology, you should not do it in the entry meant to explain and support iridology. Perhaps you can make an entry titled "non-standard iridology" or maybe even "fringe theories about iridology" if you want to challenge the mainstream iridologists. Just a suggestion, I hope it will help you as much as it helped me. - Plautus satire 16:48, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Libel, slander, good will, and... back to editing

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)

Well deserved Thanks for Plautus

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)

Propsed Fixes for Iridology Entry

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)

Pointless ranting

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)

Predictive value of iridology

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 ?

Protection

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)

As has been pointed out to me recently, strictly-con edits belong on a con-page. The entries are for support of the subject, not for tearing it down. It suffices to link to another entry tearing it down. - Plautus satire 17:43, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Also, I feel "mainstream eye exams" do not belong in the iridology entry in any fashion, not even as a brief mention, except where it coincides with and reinforces the illustration of iridology, most especially not when it is inserted to refute iridology. - Plautus satire 17:45, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Plautus, I'm curious -- who suggested to you that "con-edits" are for a "con-page"? I'm not familiar with that: in fact, most of our best articles incorporate positive and critical material together. If I wrote a glowing biography about a German chancellor's economic success (and linked at the end to Criticisms of Adolf Hitler), I think that would definitely be a disservice to the reader. Obviously I'm not criticizing you, but the idea that criticisms have no place in an article, which apparently isn't yours. I think Ed is probably right that the section ought to be a little shorter than it is, but I think we have some responsibility to inform people of studies done on iridology, regardless of their results. We could report the results more briefly, though, and link to the research if it is available online. Jwrosenzweig 17:50, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Didn't you just violate Godwin's Law? (I sat next to him on the train, today...) --Uncle Ed 18:14, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Goodness, you're right. Usually I avoid it like the plague (to use another cliche). Must be tired or something. Well, I think the principle applies to, say, an article on DDT that emphasized its usefulness in eradicating bugs, but not its pernicious health effects. There, a non-Nazified example. :) Sorry, Ed. And did you really sit next to Godwin? Jwrosenzweig 18:19, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ask JDR what he thinks about excessive insertion of "con" arguments into entries. As it stands the "con" section of the iridology entry outweighs the "pro" section and I see nothing but an assault on what "pro" information is there, and even the "pro" information is sprinkled liberally with "con", something that is not tolerated in many other entries. Iridology is a supposed science. There are "mainstream" iridology views (which belong in the iridology entry) and there are "quack" iridology views that state iridology is quackary. Perhaps if you want to insert huge loads of extraneous information on quackary, you should check to see if wikipedia has an entry for quackary. Short of that, the only reasonable step to take is to create an entry for criticisms of this obviously hotly-disputed supposed science. I hope this advice helps you as much as it helped me. - Plautus satire 18:17, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You make excellent points, and balance does need to happen here. The word "quackery" shouldn't appear here at all, not even quoting a critic. But well-reasoned mainstream reactions to iridology do belong here, in my opinion. Thanks for the thoughts. Jwrosenzweig 18:19, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And when (if?) the iridology web page grows to a hundred kilobytes or so, will you still feel the need to insert yet more detailed criticism of it into the main entry instead of brief mentions and links to critical analyses? Why wait until it grows that large? Plan ahead and assume that the iridology entry will do what any other entry is capable of doing; growing. - Plautus satire 18:24, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Much better editing today

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 :

really cleaner and indeed surgical exposition of who's who and who-does-what in the iridological camp. Indeed, there are several trends there, with an increasing medical approach in many countries. Yesterday I saw the Hellenic Medical Iridology Association - also composed exclusively by MDs (and one honorary irismeister Dr Dailakis) I'm certain that if this trend was noticed in the first place, despite so much noise-over-signal cheap talk and dirty talk and diverted talk, and more under-the-carpet diversion, it's worth writing a small sentence on medical and scientific iridology in the text;
much better explanation of the three Medline-mentioned articles on rejections of iridology - two of which are blatantly flawed. There are higher on this page interesting whistleblowers. We have to delve into that.
keeping out-of-this-world contibutions out from authoring for a moment, except for really to-the-point advice on trivial and discrete stuff. Uncle Ed and Plautus are encouraged to take over and cook a better cake for a few days while more volunteers step in and obscure the fundamentally unproductive theresa-irismeister diversion which seems to be a fact of life over which we'd better turn our backs.
I must inform the vistors and volunteers on this page that it's not my character, style, passion or opinion that are interesting, but the nitty-gritty facts of the matter: I am a medical doctor. I am licensed and active. I do research in ophthalmology. I publish peer review articles. I have a track record. I explain everything I do. I am interested in truth. I will never fulfill anyone's hidden agenda. I have no financial interest whatsoever in iridology or indiscriminate stupid advertisments thereof, or of web sites. I am no lier. I am no quack. I am not full of ****. I am not illiterate. I hold two doctorates, in medicine, and in chronobiology. I have a clear declaration of bias on my page in Wiki. I do not hate anyone. I do admire scientific work well done. I love meaningful expressions. I do not complain. I am known as irismeister (Here things might confuse anybody and I must go into details: Irismeister is both my nickname, Dan Jipa's, and the quality of my iridological training, earned honestly in an open exam offering from one through five stars. Others passed this exam too. There are a few dozen five star irismeisters in the world, and they are all medical doctors. They know each other and they have a real time chat. They further the cause of iridial studies via peer-reviewed scientific articles. The irony of the thing is that they are also criticized by iridologists who are not medical doctors. For instance, Monsieur Andre Roux, and Mr James Colton, world-famous living iridologists, in their seventies, expressly prevent or only prevented MDs from taking their seminars to steal the secrets of their trade. Some other world-class iridological schools, like the Canadian, employ MDs as teachers of iridial studies, but do not admit them as students. Conversely, the Hellenic Association only admits MDs as iridologists. Talk about food for thought...
In order to address the ordeal of our for ever more readers and visitors please restrict conversations about Nazis and their stuff on more appropriate pages than iridology talk. This is more urgent especially considering the long history of off-topic and ad hominem, of censorship and POVs, bias and personal frustration vented here and infecting this article's talk archive. Contaminating as it seems through the last edits though is not tolerable. I will not accept more Wiki bandwidth reductions and increased noise-tosignal ratios for off-topic contentions. Thank you all for your understanding!
Please bear with my passionate character and do not take it as normative in any way. we are all equal, it's a free country, we build a free world and let us all make a better Wiki !

Thank you all for your contributions! Sincerely yours, irismeister 18:35, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)

And how far do You want to go today ? Where ? :-)

Quote of the day:

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)

Please stop claiming to "know" what other people do away from Wikipedia or accusing them of "malevolent" motives -- or I will ask Jimbo to have the Arbitration Committee consider banning you from this website. We are here to cooperate on the creation of neutral articles: not to fight, and not to advocate our own points of view. Follow our rules, or leave. --Uncle Ed 15:14, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi,Uncle Ed and welcome on the page again :-) I am ALREADY considered for the Arbitration Committee and I was already banned for what me and my lawyers firmly believe to be fictitious reasons and a clear case for libel. If I am here not to defend me when dirt is brought upon my name, profession, academic track record - and qualified libel is committed every day against me, for personal reasons, - and the real issues I care to contribute are NEVER addressed, then what do you suggest as advocation - your own points of view, perhaps ? Is yours Wikiquette and Wikilove or police-like WARNING ? BTW - before I'm banned again, I would like you to re-insert the neutrality of this page is disputed tag back into the iridology page. Thank you very much in advance, and happy editing :-) Sincerely yours - irismeister 15:29, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)

If you advocate neutrality, perhaps the way you repeatedly reinsert links advertising your own website is in conflict with that. Also, making legal threats isn't going to make anyone actually want to work with you - David Gerard 15:31, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

You are right on both counts in theory, David Gerard, but my opinion is different. Perhaps I have the right to assert it NO MATTER WHAT, WITHOUT BEING SILENCED, even against the tyranny of the majority. Besides,

as I calmly and completely demonstrate here, the site is not mine (I'm only a medical doctor in France) - but belongs to a corporation in Taxas (from what I understand in IP convention names and the *.com TLD INTERNIC policies). If anything, domains in France end in *.fr.
law is the law is the law - never a threat. Anybody must understand the law. Whoever did not commit libel has nothing to fear. Besides, as intelligent people worldwide read and write these days, banning prevents someone from expressing himself - and this is the real threat, especially under fictitious reasons. I am used to it: For one hundred days today at noon, I heard only shut up or you'll be banned so that we'll teach you what you should think and say :-) Thanks for dropping by, David Gerard. Happy editing - Sincerly - irismeister 15:47, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)

You appear to be under the delusion that Wikipedia is your playground that you have a right to write on, not something that Jimbo Wales lets you write on. He pays the bills, dude.

Dude yourself, thank you :-) How's 24,000 page edits and 24 major articles in 120 days for a playground? Was it as refreshing for you as it is for me ? - irismeister 18:08, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)

Also, to me you appear to have the same grasp of the law as the typical spammer or Scientologist. Can you sue me for saying that? - David Gerard 16:11, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

Always assume good will. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it. - irismeister 18:08, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)

No one has a "right" to contribute to Wikipedia, but Jimbo set it up so that anyone who follows the rules may edit any page.

Yeah, the right is in fact a privilege. Where did I hear that before ? Let me see ? Fascism - yes - look under the fascism - I'm sure it's there. - irismeister 18:08, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)

No one's telling you what to think -- we're only asking you to distinguish between (a) material for articles and (b) your own opinion. Quote experts and/or prominent authors, etc. in the articles. Talk about your own opinions on your user page.

That's what I do. I mean, if you do not fill'er up with such nonsense and leave me some room. - irismeister 18:08, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)

If anyone libels you, please report it on my talk page and I'll take care of it. I'm pretty handy with a keyboard ;-) --Uncle Ed 16:07, 23 Feb 2004 (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:

No one has a "right" to invoke whatever reason to silence another one in talk pages. Freedom of speech is not essential to Wiki, freedom of speech in the talk page - as you can feel right now - IS WIKI :-)
No one under the mantra of the page can ask someone to plead against the interests of good science, complete information (and personal interests if they are identical) only to please scissor-happy editors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it. Talk about your opinions on what I should talk in talk pages in your own user page !
My pleasure,Uncle Ed. Glad you ask. Who will libel me I'm not sure. Who did - you know as you read my stuff ad nauseam. They know who they are. And there are eight hours left for them to issue a written excuse in Wiki in the place of their own choice. Let us not squeeze them as they squeezed me - it's not cool :-) Happy editing ;-) --irismeister 16:51, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)

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)

Collaboration Outreach

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)

"buddy check" system utilizing unrelated page pairs

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):

allows for quickly requesting dispute moderation through likely impartial proxy

The disadvantages I see of such a system(incomplete, additions welcome):

still allows for abuse; common page pairs may become known and may be exploited to harvest intentionally-biased moderators

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)

You address me in your statements above, theresa knott. Does your stance on this issue suggest that a better place would have been my talk page? If you do not wish me to talk to Irismeister in public because of some ongoing feud you are engaged in with him, I'm afraid I can not help you. Less communication can not be good for solving problems. While I understand your desire to keep others from scrutinizing what is going on with the Iridology web page, I feel it is very important to bring scrutiny, to this page and to the big bang page. I feel that more scrutiny can only improve either or both of these two entries. Further, I feel that my proposed solution to fix these two specific pages (big bang and iridology) is appropriate for comment either here or on the big bang talk page. If you would like this discussion mirrored on the big bang talk page I would be happy to try and copy all of it to that page, but I feel mirrors of the same discussion would not be an effective use of wikipedia. Thank you for your comments, which I am sure you thought would help (you). - Plautus satire 14:17, 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)

I do not intend to change any policy or convention. What I propose is a volunteer initiative to help improve the neutrality specifically the two pages I specifically mentioned. If this grows beyond myself and these two pages I am only tangentally responsible. Thank you once again for your patience and thoughtful attention on this issue. - Plautus satire 17:33, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

OK I thought you were proposing a plan for everyone. theresa knott 17:38, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Extraneous Link to Requests for Comment on Plautus Satire

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)

Thanks, Ed. :) - Plautus satire 19:31, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Talk page and frozen iridology page

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

irismeister is Dr Dan Jipa and so this looks like vanity to me.
Also it's " (too) recent to enjoy wide popularity" and so shouldn't be included on those grounds,
and it says "also endorsed by ophthalmologists and conventional medicine at large" which is blatently untrue. theresa knott 08:37, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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...

Look Ma, no POVs :O)

FINDINGS OF FACT

This paragraph may look anything to anyone, but...

has been duly cut without alternative proposals. This is vandalism;
has been "motivated" with false allegations. Fact is, the thing is endorsed by ophthalmologists and conventional medicine at large. Proof is the Churchill Livingstone reprint, the Treatise of Ophthalmology and many quotes available on the Web. If the distinguished cutter would care to read the article all the way down to the references, and open them, she will understand;
... is only a POV. We have taken it into acount. It should remain on this talk page, and not make its way into the article.

WORKAROUNDS

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:

CHECKLIST

01. The article on iridology should maintain POVs in the talk page; (checked)
02. The paragraph should be restored, by the vandal (due)
03. Motivation should be serious, or withdrawn (due)

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:

ONE DOES THE WORK, THE OTHER THE CUTTING

01. Dropping haughtiness. Nothing replaces competence. Scissors-happy editors are not good editors;
02. Giving up deletetionism. Editors should understand what they do. If they are not competent in a field, they should restrict their editing to articles more appropriate to their general level of understanding;
03. Reinforce Wiki policies (see Contribute_what_you_know_or_are_willing_to_learn_more_about here below)

CONTRIBUTE WHAT YOU KNOW

I recommend to the author above to start by reinforcing an excellent, if recent Wiki guideline A good rule of thumb is to refrain from editing articles where the only positive historical contribution of the "author" was to police and ban the two outmost, outstanding and outspoken collaborators. Common sense and decency recommends not to recommend whan you are not qualified to understand, let alone recommend.

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 :

SUGGESTIONS

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)

REQUEST FOR PAGE PROTECTION

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:

01. she keeps refering to "irismeister" - while there are a few dozen irismeisters. This is a quality earned in peer review, by passing an exam, not only a nickname (mine.) If I am known in Wiki with this "irismeister" title, I am not to be confused with anybody else who earned this title. It's like signing "Dr", or "endocrinologist". While I took the time to explain this to the above editor on several occasions, it seems that the above editor is simply beyond understanding;
02. she further deludes herself into deleting whatever her denial of reality makes her feel is related to "irismeister". There is no such thing as "irismeister's own research group". She got it all wrong. She only speaks about facts from another time -twenty years ago- and another place -behind the iron curtain- in her rage against anything "irismeister". Hate and anger obscures her judgement. When she has no rational arguments, instead of going through a reality check, admitting to herself the need to cool down, she keeps denying facts. Her next step is to insult, libel, diabolize, ban, arbitrate and delete - a pattern she repeats for five months now. She has in fact admitted her tort and her libel, writing for the record that my simple presence around makes her lose control . She wrote:

"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...

03. she continues the pattern of harassment by systematically editing "out" all my contributions. This was explained in detail here;
04. she maintains a haughty, thought police officer attitude, confusing adminship and competence;
05. she reduces the quality of information of Wikipedia well below the limit of average Google-cached pages. Perhaps she thinks that all competences are "born" equal, by some annointment coming along with the Wiki adminship. She could not tell the difference between writing from twentysomething years bleeding-edge research experience and cut-and-paste "judgement". She confuses NPOV editing with POV hunting and POV deletion.

In conclusion, iridology page protection seems now mandatory.

Sincerely, irismeister 22:41, 2004 Mar 29 (UTC)

In my opinion, Theresa has demonstrated a fairly intelligent awareness of medicine and medical practice. Her references to "irismeister" are because you chose that name as your username. If it really is a general noun in your opinion (on a level with "doctor") then I believe you should not have chosen it, and if you wish to fight confusion, perhaps you should change your username. It is a trivial matter to accomplish. Theresa, in most editor's opinions here (including my own), is not a hateful and angry person in general. Few, if any, of us would characterize her edits here as "vandalism". She explains her edits with remarkable clarity, and generally makes wise choices here, in my opinion. She is by no means alone in being frustrated by some of your actions and comments here, and so I think pointing out her frustration does not serve to disqualify her from conduct on this page. If we are to drive off every editor with whom you have personal conflicts, we will lose a number of good editors. I have not seen that Theresa edits out all of your contributions -- I think it should be noted that the passage she removed initially was removed by a different editor after you reverted. Perhaps community consensus supports Theresa's edits? Theresa is considered competent by many here, and, in the opinion of many, does an excellent job defending NPOV. The arbitration committee appears to be on the verge of banning you from this article for an "indefinite period". Perhaps this should indicate to you that this community agrees with Theresa's assessment that you have been generally (though not universally) adding bias to this article when you edit it. I hope you will take time to consider what the implications of that community agreement are for you. Jwrosenzweig 22:56, 29 Mar 2004 (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)

Quod erat demonstrandum

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)

Ah, brevity is the soul of wit. Anyway, Theresa's edits have been reasonable and accurate and she deserves praise for not wimping out (as I have) and abandoning this seemingly hopeless cause. DavidWBrooks 14:44, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And ah, if there were some wit in brevity :O) Theresa's edits are furious, by her own admission, and are insults in disguise (eversince someone told her that she should stop using insults and libel). They have no merit whatsoever, are superficial, off topic and compare to expert Wiki material like a drop in the ocean does to the ocean. Wiki is not into destroying competence and degrading credentials, is it? It is not into sub-mediocre disinformation, or perhaps I am wrong? If not, then her stubborness should serve a better cause than that of deletetionism, as a perverted spirit would do ad nauseam, without rational arguments. We call this in France esprit tordu. Your advocation honors you to at least some extent but is only buddyware, not an informed opinion. You can do better than POV, David. Issues, my friend, issue something on issues, conceptualize and talk issues ! :O) - irismeister 16:25, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC)

Cut it irismesiter!

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)

Irismeister has always maintained that he is not Dan Waniek. However he does share the same first name Daniel, second name Armand, nationilty, -romanian interests - iridology, city of residence - Paris , preferred formatting style -black on red. It could all be a coinicidence. theresa knott 10:06, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Also notice the weird use of spaces in front of punctuation marks, which is very uncommon. And the overuse of exclamation marks and precious phrases. And he lists iris-ward.com as his third webpage on his user page in Rumanian [5]. (by the way, ward is short for Waniek ARmand Dan) In older versions of his user page he used to sign: "Yours, irismeister 20:18, 2003 Nov 25 (UTC) Also at http://www.iris-ward.com" [6] I'm positive there's even more evidence of "coincidence" but hate spending time with this. He's just into getting hits and links for his site so that it'd rate higher in Alexa. Too bad he's wasted so much of other contributors' time.--192.94.73.5 11:29, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Tsk tsk, and you call the above editing an iridology article. Much unlike really informative encyclopedias, the Los Angeles Police Department craves for intelligent people :O) How very unfair that you are already employed ad majorem Wikiae gloria. Happy police career quand meme but never forget there is a track record in Wiki archives and in trusted third parties, you "Therry and Eddiye" Wikilovers. You TWO too ! An arbitration vote is going on - on you TWO too :O) NB - your errors of fact are only matched by your arrogance and your errors of judgement. 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 ?. Eventually, having learned so much about your culture, wit, characters and frog-knee-high morality (to say nothing about the knee jerk reflex) while I baby sat you is a blessing in disguise :O) Happy editing :O) With enemies like this, who needs help ? :O) :oDEG :O ) - irismeister 17:53, 2004 Mar 31 (UTC)

If you have something to say irismeister-ward please do so in just a couple of statements and in plain English. The permanent use of Latin quotes and French phrases does not make your ideas any more important, you know. You think you're important, but take my word, you aren't really. The iridology article would be much clearer and more informative without your permanent and unsolicited spam.--192.94.73.4 20:29, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Who are you my friend, and what do you want to say about iridology ? This is the iridology talk page, remember ? Genuine advancing encyclopedic writing, not a place for repressed sentiments :O)

Competence needed

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)

Irismeister is banned from editting this page

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)