Talk:Intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cell

message: I removed the following sentence which I think was off-topic (could be added to ganglion cell instead, maybe?):
"A laboratory in Rhode Island is labelling retinal ganglion cells by retrograde transport from the brain; analyzing in vitro their light responses, intrinsic membrane properties and synaptic pharmacology using the whole-cell patch clamp method, and revealing their morphology with intracellular dyes."
After intensive cleaning:), I also removed the cleanup tag from August 2005. Gaelle Desbordes 01:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Although I regard the discovery as immensely important to everyday life (e.g. avoiding the blue light at night time), some expressions in the "Discovery" chapter are way too far from NPOV: "landmark discovery", "obscure science journal", "ground-breaking discoveries", "breakthrough", "spectacular discovery", "trumpeted", "shatters hundreds of years of what science thought", "greatest impact on society"...
While "great minds since Newton, Maxwell, through to Einstein and beyond, could have missed this receptor's existence", which one of them was an ophthalmologist?
"A potential criticism that the responses could have been due to heat would be misplaced ..." is clearly biased.
And, calling the photosensitive ganglion cell a "novel receptor" is a misnomer since it is supposed to be present in humans for ages, isn't it?
Overall, just the first "Brief overview" chapter is fine and factual, the other one is written more like a success story than an encyclopædic entry. What about adding some wavelength-response graph instead?
endless.oblivion (talk) 07:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magazine & Puffery in Discovery chapter 

message: Changed much of the language through entire article to bring more into line with encyclopedia standards.
* Since the puffery appears to have been removed, I shall remove the tag asking for editing. Monado (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extensive editing to language and self-promotion 

message: There has been a lot more research on this in recent years. There are five new opsins in the human eye, but melanopsin is the star of the show for now. Besides entraining circadian rhythm and regulating pupil constriction, it looks like we have a crude visual system called "Melanopic vision" that runs on ipRGCs. It only works in peripheral vision (outside the central 20 degree diameter), resolution is extremely low, and it has a slow response time measured in seconds. Its function is adjusting brightness and color correction. It shows up in color matching experiments. Zyxwv99 (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I've seen that hinted at.  We'd need a good review for a source, of course.  --Hordaland (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here's one.  I have to read through my collection of research papers to see what else is good. Zyxwv99 (talk) 04:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Full text of that paper is at:  http://www.pnas.org/content/110/3/E260.full  --Hordaland (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I still need a few more days to work on this. I have a list of interesting facts about "melanopsin vision" but want to state as fact only those that are generally accepted and supported by multiple studies.Zyxwv99 (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible role in conscious sight