Irismeister (talk | contribs) Quack is back : ) |
Irismeister (talk | contribs) Libel, slander, good will and... back to editing :- |
||
Line 268: | Line 268: | ||
: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. - [[User:Plautus satire|Plautus satire]] 00:02, 20 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. - [[User:Plautus satire|Plautus satire]] 00:02, 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 |
But of course! Why talk if we agree to agree ? We only have to show good will ! How very stupid of me! Colombus irismeister just discovered America. His 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 :-) Sincerely, [[User:Irismeister|irismeister]] 00:15, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC) |
||
---- |
|||
---- |
---- |
Revision as of 00:24, 20 February 2004
For past talk:
Talk:Iridology/archive1 (3 Apr 2003 - 22 Jan 2004)
Talk:Iridology/archive2 (22 Jan 2004 - 25 Jan 2004)
Talk:Iridology/archive3 (25 Jan 2004 - 10 Feb 2004)
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)
- 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)
Yup, these are all copyrighted, so they'll need to be altered enough... but here are some big ones:
- http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/jgd1000/iridologychart.gif
- http://www.iridologyworld.com/iridology-chart.html
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)
- 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 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)
- 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 Homöopatische Zentralblatt , and friend of Péczely'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 : )
- 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)
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! Colombus irismeister just discovered America. His 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 :-) Sincerely, irismeister 00:15, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)