Talk:Iridology/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stuff copied from Theresa Knott's talk page

I can't see any reason why you refuse to mention Dr. Jipa's studies, except that you are either biased or ignorant of the subject. Lirath Q. Pynnor

We don't have original research in the encylopedia -you know that. Dr jipa is not mentioned anywhere else on the web apart from irisward. Dr Jipa is not cited by any other researchers in the field, apart from possibly irisward (I haven't checked every page on that website)If you have evidence that he really is a leading opthamologist please point me to it because I have looked everywhere. I'm not ignorant of the subject, I've been researching it for months now. As for biased, I don't know, I may be, but I wonder how neutral you are ? Is there any chance that your dislike of Ed Poor is clouding your judgement? Please read the entire talk page, including the archived pages. You may find the contents revealing.

Dr. Jipa is not publishing original research, he is merely noting the work that Dr. Waniek's team has spent 20 years doing. I have never stated that Dr. Jipa is a "leading opthamologist" -- but the group does exist, they do have medical degrees, and they are conducting research on trans-iridial light therapy. I wonder if your dislike of me is clouding your judgement? Lirath Q. Pynnor

Dr Jipa and Dr Waniek are almost certainly the same person. As for Dr Waniek's team's 20 years of research - where are the papers? (I don't mean the ones he sells himself from his website, I mean real papers) Where are the citations by other experts in the field? Anyone can claim they have been doing anything. I could claim to have been doing research for the past 50 years that proves that aliens are living in central London. I can claim my research is scientific, and peer reviewed. ( it's scierntific because I say so, it's peer reviewed because I reviewed it myself and I am the leading scientific expert in the field.

Should I be allowed to add it to wikipedia ? 

Look at it that way. Iridology has always been thought of as a load of old bullshit by the medical profession. If real doctors, really had scientific evidence otherwise then it would take the scientific world by storm. So why isn't he famous? Where are the articles in nature? theresa knott 18:02, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I thought that profanity was banned in Wikipedia? And, don't forget about the recent voting in the Irismeister matter about you refraining from making personal attacks. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 18:05, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I've only just noticed this. Hence my late reply. "personal attacks" are attacks against a person. Who are you accusing me of attacking ? theresa knott 14:39, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
My stating "don't forget" is a direct reference to the future. And, it was in reference to future personal attacks directed against moi. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 14:39, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Oh! I see. You were just baiting me. OK I won't forget :-) theresa knott 14:45, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I am sorry Theresa, I forgot to include harassment (4.2 Decree A.) in my above pleading. I wont forget next time. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 23:31, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The above paragraph proves that you are biased. You think iridology is bullshit, fine -- Drs. Waniek and Jipa are not the same person, and they don't believe iridology is bullshit. Perhaps it would help you to read Agegate by Dr. Spazio of the University of Urbana -- perhaps I know more about this than you. Of course, you will probably claim that Dr. Spazio is also Dr Jipa. Why, perhaps even I am Dr. Jipa. [1] Lirath Q. Pynnor

If the Jipa "irismeister" existed, as Waniek/irismeister claims, he would've been listed on the "irismeisters' list" on the iris-ward site [2][3][4] (quote: "No "J" entry (as yet)"). The name is made up, or borrowed.-- 21:25, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • No, I'm not going to play by your so-called rules. According to those rules, all you have to do is find one friend to agree with you -- and you can revert everything I write forever, and I can't do a damn thing about it. Well, you already banned my friend Irismeister (without allowing me a chance to point out that not "everyone" thought he was a troll) -- so, I'm not going to let you just delete my text. And, of course, there isn't a rule which says I can't revert your reverts.
    • Really, I am playing by the rules -- and you are not. When have I gone and reverted your addition to an article? Never! You are the one deleting other user's text, simply because your personal POV is that it is "bullshit". If you want to NPOV my additions, fine; but deleting them is against the rules. Lirath Q. Pynnor

You have missunderstood me. I didn't delete because I thought they were bullshit. That would be POV. I leave a lot of stuff in that I think is bullshit. See my edits to reflexology for example. I deleted it because it is bogus, A lie, not true, made up. Do you see the the difference? theresa knott 18:30, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

bogus=bullshit -- two people have now told you that it's not "made up" -- so what is your problem? Its pretty clear that you think iridology is bullshit, so why don't you admit that you are biased? Lirath Q. Pynnor

I already have admitted that I am biased. Did you read my reply earlier on on this page? Everyone is always biased on everything. Thos who say otherwise are fooling themselves. The point is I am aware of my biases, and try my best to make up for them. Are you aware of yours ? Do you really and truly believe that research published on an editors own web page, and nowhere else, should be in Wikipedia ? Do you truly belive that such "research" should be labelled as scientific? Anyway why are you all of a sudden interested in iridology now? Does it have anything to do with Ed Poor ? Is your dislike of him affecting you good judgement? You don't need to answer these questions. Just think about them. theresa knott 18:56, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thats just it, its not published nowhere else -- do you really and truly believe that I would be adding the information if I was only aware of it from reading that website? Ed Poor has nothing to do with this. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Great, now we are getting somewhere. Point me to your sources, if they check out I'll be happy to let you add the stuff back in. theresa knott 23:40, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, naturally there isn't going to be a great deal of information online -- since its a relatively obscure topic. Most people don't know what iridology is, let alone who is actually studying the field. However, unless you also think Dr. DiSpazio is the author of crackpot "bogus bullshit" -- you would do well to note: where he discusses his attempts to build upon Waniek's work. Lirath Q. Pynnor

It's not obscure. There are loads of pages on iridology on the web, just not many trhat mention irismeister. One tiny mention of wanieks name in a webpage does not an expert make. Still I tried to check it out, but I'm having a lot of problems with the language (I don't speak italian, and machine translations are truly awful)A couple of questions that are bugging me -

  • Is the university legit? The www was embraced by universties long before anyone else yet the website has "under construction" signs on it, doesn't appear to have a list of staff members, and doesn't look as slick at most university websites. I'm not saying that this necessarily means it's dodgy, but i don't know how to find out.
  • Assuming the university is legit, why does Dr DiSpazio not publish ihs ideas on that website ? Why did you point me to a page at rather than
  • Why is Dr DiSpazio mentioned on only two pages at the university website ? One page is a reading list and refers to his book. The other page appears to be some sort of conference. Surely he would deserve more of a mention than that. University professors generally have a list of research interest, PhD students, papers published, at the very least.

Can you help me out with these questions? theresa knott 06:08, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • Its not my fault that you don't speak Italian. Why don't you let people who know what they are talking about edit this article. Dr. Spazio was Presidente of the V Congresso Internazionale di Iridologia, he was the founder of la Associazione Italiana di Iridologia -- that makes him an iridology "expert" -- since he apparently thinks Waniek is also an expert...that means Irismeister should be unbanned, and perhaps you should be banned.
  • Yesterday you said there were no sources supporting Irismeister's claim (aside from Waniek's site, which you claimed was actually Irismeister's) -- now, today, you are claiming that the University of Urbino isn't a "real" university -- how long is this going to go on, do I have to prove that Italy exists?

Lirath Q. Pynnor

I agree! As I have already documented in my polemic #1. 4 on my user pages: Truly great encyclopedia articles are written by authors within their various fields of expertise.' -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 18:16, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Im no expert, my role here is more like that of Amnesty International. It is becoming extremely clear that Irismeister was not banned for his behavior, but because Theresa and the cabal don't think Iridology should be treated as anything except a "bullshit science". Lirath Q. Pynnor

I would not be so quick to underrate your expertise in this field. After all, I am often knocked by the non-existent medical scientism people for claiming to have expertise in the field of natural health. Exactly how does one obtain expertise in a bullshit science by their rules anyway? Buy a PhD degree from a paper mill? Ha, ... Hah, Ha! -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 18:42, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
If I make the claim I'm a world expert in hydroxyquinoleinsulphonedimethylamminoquinizinology, and my buddy Jovanni D'Oe, founder of L'Associazione Italiana D'Hidroxiquinoleinsulphonedimethilamminoquinizinologia and Presidente Straordinario dell'XXV Congresso Internazionale d'Hidroxiquinoleinsulphonedimethilamminoquinizinologia calls me an expert on one website, that makes me an expert in hydroxyquinoleinsulphonedimethylamminoquinizinology and I should edit a Wikipedia article on this subject with a link to my website where I sell my essays. Right? Ah, but first I have to pretend I'm someone else and pour in Latin phrases such as mens sana in corpore sano and aquila non capit muscam. Oh, and then I shoud wait until Theresa contributes in the sodium chloride article that salt is used to improve taste in food, and then claim she's a danger to public health because she states salt is food and that she needs babysitting. How's that for an expert? philosophum non facit barba-- 21:25, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Lir if you don't like the fact that irismeister is banned, you should take the matter up with the AC. Likewise if you think I should be banned. To the anon editor. Although i agree with most of what you say, I have to point out that irismeister's harrasment of me is no longer of any relavence. The important points IMO are

  1. It is a vanity link. Irismeister is Waniek. The only reason he came to wikipedia was to promote his website.
  2. It is irrelavent. Waniek is not a particulaly big player in the field.He is big on promoting his website. He adds info on it all over the place and proudly calls his site "The best". He even awarded the site an award for being so good, clicking on the award took you to irismeisters user page here. Nice! He has taken that down now.
  3. This is the biggy. It is misleading. Wabiek claims that he is doing scientific studies into iridology. He is not. He claims it's peer reviewed. Now either he doesn't understand what peer reviewed means, or he is deliberately trying to mislead. There is no way that his name should be added into the article in order to give it some kind of scientific legit status.

As for the question of a cabel - bollocks (said the queen; if I has them I'd be king). theresa knott 19:37, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

More recent discussion

Irismeister is not Waniek, even if he were -- that would be no reason not to mention him here. He is a relevant "player" in the field, you have already admitted that you think iridology is "bullshit" and thus you are unduly biased. You are forcing your personal POV onto everyone else. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Hi. I'm not Theresa, and I'd like to see this evidence. If you have it, you really should post it here to demonstrate it. Then I'll stop removing what on current known available evidence is spurious - David Gerard 20:54, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)

Go to google and do a search, its not that hard. Lirath Q. Pynnor

The only hits are from Dan Waniek's site. Without further references, I suggest attributing the claim to him and him alone, possibly with the caveat that the information is unconfirmed by any independent source. — 21:10, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
With a single source like that, I see no reason to give it even that much article room - David Gerard 21:14, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)

There are numerous hits, from numerous websites -- try searching a little more. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Lir you want it in -so you do the search. I have searched a plenty but i couldn't find much. So you'll have to demonstrate your superior search skills. theresa knott

I agree with Theresa. Lir, from your comments, you imply that you've already seen the necessary proof. If you have, why don't you just post the references instead of repeatedly telling others to find the stuff on their own? When people are skeptical of a claim, the burden of proof is whoever wants it included. In this case that appears to be you. Isomorphic 21:24, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I've done my research, in the end -- you people have to actually read some stuff if you want to learn anything. I can't prove to you that Romania exists, you are going to have to do your own research. I have posted references; sadly, Theresa is obsessed with promoting her anti-Iridology POV. Lirath Q. Pynnor

try searching a little more. . .Okay, here's what a few minutes with Google turned up:

"Dan OR Daniel Waniek" + "Dan OR Daniel Jipa": Two hits, both from Wikipedia
"Dan OR Daniel Waniek" + "Mircea Olteanu": Three hits, two from Waniek's site, one from Wikipedia
"Dan OR Daniel Waniek" + "Stefan Stangaciu": No hits
"Dan OR Daniel Waniek" + "Computer Vision Research Group": Two hits, one from Waniek's site, one from Wikipedia
"Dan OR Daniel Waniek" + "trans-iridial light therapy": Three hits, two from Waniek's site, one from Wikipedia. A pattern begins to emerge. . .

"Dan OR Daniel Jipa" + "Mircea Olteanu": One hit, from Wikipedia
"Dan OR Daniel Jipa" + "Stefan Stangaciu": No hits
"Dan OR Daniel Jipa" + "Computer Vision Research Group": One hit, from Wikipedia
"Dan OR Daniel Jipa" + "trans-iridial light therapy": One hit, from Wikipedia. The pattern becomes clearer. . .

"Stefan Stangaciu" + "Mircea Olteanu": No hits
"Stefan Stangaciu" + "Computer Vision Research Group": No hits
"Stefan Stangaciu" + "trans-iridial light therapy": No hits. See where this is heading?

"Mircea Olteanu" + "Computer Vision Research Group": One hit, from Wikipedia
"Mircea Olteanu" + "trans-iridial light therapy": One hit, from guess where

"Computer Vision Research Group" + "trans-iridial light therapy": One hit, I don't have to tell you where.

Perhaps Lir would like to share the search she used to confirm the paragraph in dispute? — 21:54, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You could try "Dan Waniek" to begin with. Lirath Q. Pynnor
Nobody is disputing than Daniel Waniek exists, that he's an iridologist, that he's published numerous papers on iridology via his website, etc. What is disputed here is a specific claim regarding four people, one organization, and one method; the only information available on this claim comes from Dan Waniek himself, via his own website, and therefore it is not yet corroborated by any independent accounts. — 22:06, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you don't dispute that he exists, and that is an iridologist, and that he is Romanian, and that he is writing about Iridology -- then how can you dispute that he is doing research on iridology in Romania? Lirath Q. Pynnor

I did not dispute that he exists, that he is an iridologist, and that he is Romanian. What I questioned was whether he has for the past twenty years, with Mircea Olteanu, Dan Jipa, and Stefan Stangaciu, been doing research on trans-iridial light therapy in conjunction with the Computer Vision Research Group. P.S. He lives in France, not Romania. — 22:15, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
We're not disputing that. We're disputing this claim. "But can you prove it DIDN'T happen?!" is a standard of proof more suited to Ed Wood movies, not writing an encyclopedia. You could save a lot of rambling on this talk page just by PUTTING THE LINKS HERE. - David Gerard 22:16, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)

Would you like to call Stefan Stangaciu? His phone number is 40744409126. He lives in Romania. He is the author of Sanft heilen mit Bienen-Produkten; Im sure he would love to confirm what Mr. Jipa attempted to add here. Im sure he would love to do that for each one of you personally; after that, I am sure he will agree to call Jimbo Wales and post to the mailing list -- then, we can call Mircea and see what she has to say. After that, we can all go to Romania and see that it really does exist. Lirath Q. Pynnor

No, we'd like you to just do the OBVIOUS THING and LIST HERE the links you claim are easily found in Google proving this claim. You seem to want to do or say almost anything other than just listing the links you have claimed prove this claim and are easily found in a Google search.
What is stopping you from just posting the links, instead of talking about them? - David Gerard 22:26, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)
Lir, even the CNRI [5] seems to consider Waniek a very minor player. Certainly if we were going to discuss "important iridologists", the CNRI would not point us to Waniek at all early in the process -- their list of pioneers in the field seems to add him as an afterthought (and the site implies that all one needs to be added to that list is to email them). What is evident from even the broad "dan waniek" search you suggested is that Waniek's fame is largely restricted to his own site and sites where he has been able to post his name and information freely. Someone like Bernard Jensen is far more notable in the field, and we are, as you rightly note, talking about a field that is still very small. Within the confines of an encyclopedia article on a scarcely-practiced medical technique, the only people who should be given prominent mention as being "tops in the field" or whatever other accolades are desired are the people who are truly important to other practitioners of the art. Waniek appears to be a skilled self-promoter who, in spite of that skill, has yet to even achieve notability within the community of iridologists. He is therefore not worthy of the prominent mention Irismeister desires for him. The same is even more true of the even less notable co-authors Jipa, Stangaciu, and Olteanu. Jwrosenzweig 22:30, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • I have already posted which makes it fairly clear that Waniek is not the only iridoloigist who thinks he is conducting valuable research. If you would like to add information on more famous iridologists; that is fine. Waniek is obviously not entirely a self-promoter -- Im not Waniek. Waniek has the distinction of being known as an "iridology quack" -- why shouldn't this be mentioned? Lirath Q. Pynnor
      • Lir, once again, rather than focus on one reference in one scholarly paper, we are talking about a broader issue. The organization to which I refer is surely a better guide than one brief paper published by one professor? Or do you dispute the CNRI? Waniek himself has listed himself as one of CNRI's "professors", which must indicate his respect for them (though it should be noted that he is not listed among their faculty on CNRI's page). And Lir, when I call someone a self-promoter, I'm not suggesting that they alone promote themselves. Only that the person in question seems more energetic about promoting themselves than about practicing whatever it is they think ought to be promoted about themselves. And I don't know that Waniek is even famous as a "quack" -- why do you suggest he is? Jwrosenzweig 22:37, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The CNRI has also listed him as one of their professors. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Indeed. Presumably he's not faculty due to lack of a PhD; gotta love academia. Here's the page of CNRI Professors; Waniek's column includes links to some of his papers (on iris-ward, presumably his site), some co-authored with Stangaciu or with Popescu. +sj+ 06:15, 2004 Apr 6 (UTC)
That said, if only one or two practicioners are mentioned in the article, they should probably be authors of recent major texts; Deck, Kriege, Jensen, Bodeen (judging from the CNRI list). +sj+ 06:20, 2004 Apr 6 (UTC)
When the page is unprotected, pls also include a link to the CNRI list of publications; it includes both the two studies mentioned in the article and the official rebuttals -- looking at these four papers is very useful for making one's own decision about the state of the field -- as well as links to a few other "independent" studies. +sj+ 06:26, 2004 Apr 6 (UTC)

Thats exactly why the information should be included on this page. Examining Waniek's work, and its rebuttals, is very useful for making one's own decision about the state of the field. There is no reason that Theresa McKnott should make that decision for the reader. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Lir - my name is Knott, I don't know where you got the Mc from. I am more than happy for a link to the CNRI list of publications to be added to the page. theresa knott 19:13, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Please see Dan Waniek which has a complete list of publications which CNRI felt were significant. Lirath Q. Pynnor

You have not understood. I don't need to look at wanieks essays. I am however happy to have a _link_ to cnri on the iridology page. If a reader is interested enough to follow that link and then go on from there to irisward and pay waniek for his "publications" that's fine by me. But we should not link to him directly from wikipedia. theresa knott 19:31, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You don't have to pay Waniek for all of his essays. Even if you did, that wouldn't exclude him from deserving mention. You have clearly conceded that CNRI is worthy of mention -- well, CNRI lists Waniek as a pioneer in the field. So set your POV aside and just accept it. Lirath Q. Pynnor

So let me get this straight. You are saying that if we link to any website we should also link to any website they link to ? That is absurd. theresa knott 20:22, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, Im saying that if the CNRI is worthy of mention -- then so is Waniek. Lirath Q. Pynnor

OK fine, I wont add the CNRI link in. I just thought it would give readers a good laugh that's all.theresa knott 20:30, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Its too late tho, you already agreed to put it in, back when you thought the CNRI didn't recognize Waniek. Now you are sounding more and more like a lying troll with a POV vendetta. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Lir, please don't be abusive. The CNRI, as is obvious from its web site, does not, in fact, recognize Waniek as anything more than an extremely minor player in iridology. Your attempt to twist Theresa's words is not convincing: as is obvious from her statements, she is more than happy to allow the CNRI be listed (this refutes the POV vendetta charge) unless it will be taken by Lir as carte blanche approval to let Waniek pose in this article as an important researcher in iridology today. As long as you insist that CNRI's inclusion be tied to whether or not we will allow Waniek to use this site as self-promotion, the vendetta under pursuit is yours, wherein you block the inclusion of legitimate information by tying it to a "rider" (a la the less scrupulous members of the Congress of the United States) that is objectionable to most editors here. I suggest you reconsider your stance. Jwrosenzweig 23:28, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The CNRI recognizes Waniek as a "pioneer in Iridology". Lirath Q. Pynnor

One among dozens, many of whom are given far lengthier treatment. It is obvious that Waniek's inclusion in that list does not accord him equal status with other iridologists listed there: Waniek is given slightly less than a vague one sentence description, while other "pioneers" have specific titles mentioned in paragraph descriptions. The implications are relatively clear, Lir. Jwrosenzweig 23:37, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hello Lir, I'm back after a nice evening. I hope you enjoyed yourself while I was gone. As for harm, it harms the reputation of wikipedia to include advertising links to personal webpages. Plus irismiester may well not like having a personal page about him here, he has objected to the placing of double brackets around Wanieks name in the past after all. theresa knott 00:08, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I do believe that the phrase "...advertising links..." is weaselspeak? All and none of the links to external web sites are advertising links. They are just external links to outside web sites. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 14:57, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Irismeister is not Waniek. We have links to many personal webpages already. Lirath Q. Pynnor

OOOOOOOOOOhhhhhhhh yes he is !!!!!!!!!! theresa knott 00:14, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Irismeister, according to his own assertion is Jipa. There is reason to suspect he is Waniek -- even if this suspicion is wrong, Irismeister has admitted to being Jipa, Waniek's associate and research partner. The conflict of interest still applies. Jwrosenzweig 00:15, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Im not an associate or research partner. The conflict of interst is thus no longer existant. Theresa is an enemy of Jipa, thus she has a conflict of interest. Lirath Q. Pynnor

you are a puppet. Not a very good one either as you added irismesiter's vote for him to keep the waniek page even though he says in the archives of this talk page "Removed abusive use of double square brackets on author Dan Waniek - his being subject of a Wiki article is a blatant POV : )By now, the tyranny of florid, overt, full blown dyslexic editors outsmarts the tyranny of cranks :) " -note that the "dyslexic editor" is moi theresa knott 00:22, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)