Talk:Iridology/Archive 6

message: :Deletionism is anti-wiki is just a slogan. I'm sure there are more solid arguments for keeping or deleting stuff off wikipedia.--192.94.73.4 22:35, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Multiple points.  1) "Deletionism" is seen as anti-Wikipedia by some; others feel it is important to maintain standards.  2) Asking for the removal of information that many editors feel is misleading and substantially too unimportant to merit inclusion in this article (or really any article other than perhaps one on Waniek & Co.) is not necessarily deletionism.  3) The belief that Wikipedia is not paper is important to keep in mind in many situations, although I would submit that it does not demand that Wikipedia become a repository for all things that have ever happened (one might envision thousands of articles devoted to every house number in London and the names of every family ever having inhabited that dwelling....though of course certain addresses, such as 10 Downing Street are excellent examples of possible exceptions) -- indeed, the question is not "should Wikipedia include things not in EB?" (to which we should reply "Yes!  Wikipedia is not paper!) but "should Wikipedia include this specific information, which appears to many editors to be biased, misrepresentative, and misleading concerning iridology and its leading practitioners today?" to which "Yes!  Wikipedia is not paper!" becomes a less convincing response to me.  Of course, Sam is free to disagree with me (and by now, what can I do but expect such a thing? ;-), but I hope that Sam will agree that his remarks are too hasty and inapplicable to serve as conclusive argument here.  Sam likely does have an excellent point (he often does) and I look forward to its being expressed here. Jwrosenzweig 23:41, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't ask for qualifications, Sam.  I'm asking for proof that the iridology community believes his work is hugely important, or at least important enough to merit the prominent position Waniek is giving his research in this article.  He doesn't have to cure me -- he does have to show that the community of iridologists believes his work to be ground-breaking.  There are heroes within the iridology community, I do not doubt -- I'm happy to note their work as influential, whether or not I think they can cure me (I don't).  But if Waniek isn't influential in his community, I don't think we should say he is.  And I'll say it seems to me also that you and I have a different idea of the limits to WP's scope, Sam. :-)  I had considered long ago asking a Romanian-speaking Wikipedian to look into Waniek's writing, etc., but I decided I didn't want to bother someone else with what was not their problem.  I'd be open to it, though, if enough people agree it's important to get to the bottom of this.  Personally, I feel satisfied about my conclusion, but am open to having my mind changed. Jwrosenzweig 16:05, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Indeed, I think the best way to treat a controversial subject such as this is to allow its  proponents to describe it without much interference in one section, then let its critics have their say in a separate section. Mkweise 10:00, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's one thing to allow this when the proponent is focused on the issue -- say, at Shroud of Turin User:BobDaniels posts a lot of stuff about why some people believe the SoT is Jesus' actual burial wrapping.  That's just fine, I think, especially if Bob uses formulas like "Shroud believers contend that...", but even if not: we'll just have another section for skeptics to outline and propone their POV.  But I think we'd agree that, if Bob Daniels was a fellow who'd written a lot of crackpot stuff about the Shroud for 20 years and gotten it published in some fringe magazines here and there, we would object to his stating "The Shroud's authenticity has recently been affirmed by the research of Robert Daniels, one of the world's foremost experts in the analysis of ancient textiles and in the provenance of religious artifacts."  It's one thing to give a proponent room to move in defense of an idea.  It's another to give them room to promote themselves in unseemly fashion.  That's my beef.  Jwrosenzweig 16:00, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: I concur w lir, and I'd ask you not tpo limit our scope, Jw. One of the coolest parts about the wiki is its unlimited potential.nI'm not saying to exaggerate, I am saying to give him his due, and if you don't think he is 'respected by the iridologist community' (gee, what does that entail? A giant eyeball poster, or what?) lets see you prove he isn't. I'm saying the standard here is SO low, (unlike the shroud of turin) that any wacky crackpot is prob a leader in the feild ;) Sam Spade 20:11, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Sam, our scope here is limited, if only by the fact that articles can only get so long before they're too long to be of use. :-)  I have yet to see any site not owned/operated by Waniek that treats him as anything more than one minor researcher.  I have noted the CNRI site specifically as one that seems to consider Waniek simply one of dozens of researchers, not notable enough for them to refer to even the scope of his research.  Therefore, I would say that, while he doesn't seem "disrespected" by the community, his inclusion in an article entitled "Iridology" seems strange.  It is as though I was arguing for the inclusion of a paragraph in the Poetry article on "Michael Daley, a poet who emphasizes the need to write about the locales and places in which the poet lives."  Michael Daley is a real poet (and a good one) who is a friend of mine.  He has been published on several occasions in poetry journals over the last 30 years, most notably in American Poetry Review.  He does emphasize the need to write about the places in which one lives -- not a completely original idea in poetry, but he's more articulate about it than many, I think.  Daley may well deserve his own article.....what he doesn't deserve is mention on the Poetry page.  He is not well-known outside of a few circles within poetry, and no major poetry site would mark him as a "unique voice in modern poetry", even though there are some original and interesting ideas in his work.  Waniek is similar, in my eyes -- a minor figure who is published in a couple of places, and has a couple of interesting ideas, but who is certainly not a well-known or influential figure in Iridology, based on the fact that most references to him on the web seem to have been placed there by him.  Waniek can have his own article -- I'm fine with that.  But there's no more reason to mention him here than there is for me to add Michael Daley to the Poetry article.  I hope I'm being clear.  Waniek apparently has done enough that a very brief article on him might be appropriate.  He should not, however, be given prominent place in Iridology because there seem to be many organizations and individuals that are more notable in that field.  That's my position. Jwrosenzweig 17:29, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: That is a fairly sensible position. I would say that your analogy is acceptable, with one striking difference... the scope of poetry is HUGE, wheras the pseudo-science of Iridology is small. Their simply arn't that many people even interested in it, much less researching in the feild. I agree w you about poetry, and I encourage you to write an article on your friend. On the other hand, I think poetry, which has been a passion of many for... dare I say ALL of literary history, and a good deal of oral history beforehand, is a different matter entirely. In summary, would you compromise on an external link to waniaks page? Sam Spade 17:52, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally would accept that -- as long as the wording of the link made clear what it is.  Not "Iridology Pros and Cons", then, but "Iridology as described by an Iridologist" or something like that?  And you are correct that poetry is a little big to be a good comparison, but I'm afraid I don't know any fringe scientists for a more apt analogy. :-) Jwrosenzweig 18:46, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|Wiki is not paper]], deletionism is anti-wiki

message: Since that section was completely irrelevant to the subject I moved it here.--192-94-73-5 16:47, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Waniek, you are weird but funny at th same time.--192-94-73-5 18:03, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Meaning well and talking hell

message: Iriswardster, since you seem to have a problem with focusing, here's a second take at a competent discussion (as you loudly kept advocating until recently). I am copying below the discussion and would beg you remain focused on the discussion without involving your strong emotions about Theresa and the other admins:
*[...] can you think of any evolutionary justification for a disease signaling system through the iris? how would an iris-disease-signaling ape survive better than others?--192.94.73.5 04:31, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Evolutionary iris

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

message: Theresa continues making a fool of herself "editing" this iridology stuff. In what concerns her "fight of flight" addition, there is a WARNING: This has nothing to do with the article! This is only something Theresa just cut and pasted from some dustbin, thinking this will raise her status from "dyslexic Wikicop" to some "medical editing" qualification.
Consider this a second warning: Theresa purposefully, systematically and rudely runs her boots, which are dirty, on the iridology article.
I recently had an open class. My students and I read what Theresa contributed and had a good healthy laugh. She made the day. For her, the ora serrata conveys the fight or flight physiology... Perhaps she was only talking about herself :O)
Ooh irismeister, you are soooo masterful!. You used two excalmation marks in the title and gave me a second warning. And for what? All I did was move the infobox and a few picture around. Wow what will you do when I make a real edit. I'm quaking in my boots with anticiiiiipation. theresa knott 13:16, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Drop the Cop ! Immediately ! (second warning) 

message: ::So you are a Wikicop and you admit it! Do they provide the boots for you? Then let's hope you are not on someone else's carpet :O) It would be a pity to see you once again kicked out from your leased superintendent boots and into your never ending, barefoot, reflexologically correct quacking pleasure :O) It's still high time for you, dear, to fight or flight :O) How do you maintain those stupid sympathetic nervous system allegations, my dear ? Do you have some reference, any deep arcane knowledge, or is it only your point of view about how the iris stroma is innervated ? - irismeister 13:37, 2004 May 17 (UTC)
PS: Have my two cents for it: In medical Wiki articles, it will take a looooooooooooooong time until you will make a real edit. In the mean time I can only hope your pleasure or at least your "anticiiiiipation" will last that long :O ) - irismeister 13:37, 2004 May 17 (UTC)
Oh I'm sure it will.Incidentally I've never been kicked out of my boots. You are confusing me with someone else i think. I like the feel of leather against my skin too much. If you want something removed from the article ask nicely instead of trying to insult me. I'm happy to oblige you if you ask nicely. theresa knott 13:43, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Lasting Iridology Editing Pleasure