Talk:Ophthalmology/Archive 1

Comment
Removed this from the article - I'm not at all sure what the writer was trying to say here. Maybe someone else can rephrase it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Karen Johnson (talk • contribs) 01:51, 16 July 2002 (UTC).

Reply to above: Seems to me like the sentence says that eye sight is important, and that eye disease and eye care is thus very important. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.88.132.34 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 28 April 2004 (UTC).


 * Guys, please sign your name: type ~ (four tildes) to sign your username and the time.
 * The removed sentence is not very scientific; it's an attempt at higher prose. I suggest:
 * Blindness has a tremendous psychological and social impact, and proper eye care is vital for maintaining optimal function of the visual system.
 * Opinions?   JFW |  T@lk  08:15, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Article Improvement Drive
Contact lens is currently nominated to be improved on Article Improvement Drive. Please support the article with your vote. --Fenice 10:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for peer review on Keratoconus
A peer review request has been made for Keratoconus. If anyone would like to contribute to that, it would be very welcome. BillC 22:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Root Page
I do not agree very much in considering Ophthalmology as son of optics. If it is a branch of Medicine it should be a class of medicine and not of Optics. I do not think that hierarchies works very well with multidisciplinary subjects. ALoopingIcon 00:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ophthalmology can have any parents you (and other editors) like under the Root page /backlink system!!--Light current 03:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Eye diseases carry great importance throughout the world and proper eye care is requisite for preserving this beautiful gift of sight.

Galen and Vesalius
"The discovery of the eye went through two cycles of limiting speculation and freeing observation, which led to a dark age between Galen and Vesalius." Is this vandalism? --Gbleem 00:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Notable & Famous Ophthalmologists
I think these two are quite notable and famous and should be included back in the lists. I was among an enraptured audience of AAO meeting, (in an overflowing 1200-people capacity hall) and listened to Dr. Hayreh's discourse on ocular circulation. He is a living gem!
 * Sohan Singh Hayreh (India, USA) - father of ocular circulation studies and classification of optic nerve diseases

Dr. Peyman is a great Ophthalmologist whose books are a masterpiece and he has helped trained quite a lot of fellows over many years.
 * Gholam Peyman (USA) - involved in the development of vitreo-retinal surgery, refractive surgery, and cataract surgery.

EyeMD T 16:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think there is a difference between famous and notable. The standards for each depends on the context of readership. In my opinion, someone who is well-known within the profession is not necessarily famous to the average Wikipedia reader. Perhaps there needs to be some discussion in the general Medicine WikiProject regarding this point. -AED 20:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been confused by the famous vs. notable issue. Virtually any musician who has ever had an album issued or actor who has had a credited role seems to warrant a Wiki mention.  To dispute the worthiness of Hayreh (or Peyman) -- someone who has truly advanced the field -- is confusing to me.  Although I haven't heard of any of the rugby athletes, porn actresses, or grunge singers listed in Wikipedia, I don't begrudge their listings.  I wouldn't think that Wikipedia is only for the average Joe, but also for anyone seeking special knowledge, even if the specialty is as arcane as ophthalmology.  IMHO PedEye1 21:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

History
Should there be a separate History of ophthalmology page? Much more information could be added.... PedEye1 02:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Rufus?
Who was Rufus? The disambiguation page is not very helpful, nor this one it links onto:

Rufus (Roman cognomen)

DMahalko 01:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I linked to Rufus of Ephesus 131.174.142.208 11:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Too much stuff
The distinction with optometry has got ridiculously large and duplicates a lot of the Optometry page. I reckon 4 lines on this is a max. Anyone with time to trim?


 * I did a bit of a trim on that section. It's not down to four lines, but I removed much of the excess/off-topic info.Helikophis (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, much better. --BozMo talk 14:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Distinction from Optometry has ballooned again. It is all about the US and duplicates stuff earlier up in the article on what ophthalmologists do in different countries. I propose deleting the whole section and just including Optometry (which is something else) under a See Also link. Any disagreement? --BozMo talk 19:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No reaction to this so I'll be bold and do it. --BozMo talk 05:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry please do not revert this change without discussing here first. I don't mind if you disagree but you need to say so and explain a little why --BozMo talk 05:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am also a bit concerned that the optometry text keeps being added back in by a series of different IPs none of whom use talk. --BozMo talk 05:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sprotected
I was asked to review the recent low-grade edit war on the section "distinction with optometry". While most of the points are valid, the section is huge and focuses specifically on the USA. In other countries non-medical professionals have differing tasks; this may reach as far as screening for diabetic retinopathy. If the topic is to be included, a consensus version needs to be hammered out on this very talkpage. JFW | T@lk  20:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

== American Ophthalmological Society ==

The American Ophthalmological Society American Ophthalmological Society's been omitted from any mention or from the list at the bottom of the article. Came across this while researching Dr. S.M. Burnett, whose bio I'm working on (he was also noted as an anthropologist, but Swan Moses Burnett seems to have founded the school of opthamology at Georgetown University as well). --VictorC (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

editsemiprotected I would like to add these opthalmologists to the nobel opthalmologist list.

Dr. Claes Dohlman Dr. Sharon Freedman Dr. Stuart I Brown Dr. Joseph Majstorovich Dr. AfshariFoxc1 (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Padlock-silver-slash2.svg Not done: is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages.--Aervanath (talk) 09:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ambiguity
"Of all the branches of Islamic medicine, ophthalmology was considered one of the foremost."

Does the past test indicate that it was considered foremost by Islamic medical practitioners of the time? If it means that current historians consider it foremost in hindsight, it should be in the present tense. 71.139.170.74 (talk) 05:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Notable Opthalmologists
editsemiprotected May I also add Dr. Mateen Ahmed for the invention of the Ahmed Valve preserving vision/preventing blindness for many with glaucoma world wide.

Cheers, Amelia Keeley Boyce

In general, any ophthalmologist notable enough to have his / her own Wikibiography would be "notable". —Preceding unsigned comment added by PedEye1 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Padlock-silver-slash2.svg Not done: is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages.--Aervanath (talk) 09:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ophthalmologist is also an eye doctor or an eye specialist...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.241.226 (talk) 10:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Misusing of refs
is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits; he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Please see: Requests for comment/Jagged 85. The damage is so extensive that it is undermining Wikipedia's credibility as a source. I searched the page history, and found 13 edits by Jagged 85 (for example, see this series of edits). Tobby72 (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've just deleted a large amount of the material on Islamic ophthalmology as it was a gross WP:COPYVIO from muslimheritage.com (which is not a very reliable site to begin with).
 * I've not yet bothered to check who added this material.
 * All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Improve Language
This article needs to have its grammar improved (in the "history" section). Also, I don't think it's most important to start off with a historical account. I would suggest to give more examples about what ophthalmologists actually do. Also, because this page is probably mostly edited by people in the field, I think the professional requirements should be listed further down. Remember, this is an article in a general encyclopedia, not in a book for medical professionals.

71.142.245.26 17:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC) 174.23.216.37 (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC) I note that Wiki references to an MD who specializes in diseases of the eye use an incorrect spelling, with an extra "L" in many instances. Correct is: "opthamologist". "Ophalomologist" is NOT correct. I hasten to point out that I have used the incorrect spelling for many years.174.23.216.37 (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the picture...
Is the use of the phoropter (optical refractor) as the sole illustration a little misleading? The public tend to associate the phoropter with optometrists, and furthermore the field of ophthalmology is far more sophisticated than mere refraction procedures. A corneal graft would perhaps be a good start in my opinion, as it reflects the delicacy of their work. Any thoughts? Mick lucas 14:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Not sure what is meant here by "sophisticated", but I think an image of a surgeon working on an eye would be fantastic. -AED 23:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Image added - slit lamp examination of a patient by the Ophthalmologist. In public view, it is the "big machine" which every patient associates with the Ophthalmologist examining their eyes. EyeMD 07:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I know the request is close to being prehistoric, but is there still a wish for a picture of a corneal graft? Just asking because I could add two nice ones (one with sutures directly after surgery and another one years later with just a slightly visible demarcation). Anyway, I will add them to the media commons (keratoplasty.jpg and fresh keratoplasty.jpg) and if You think it might be a good addition here - please feel free to put them in! --PFrankoZ (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Treading carefully, here...
...but I put back the line about optometrists' suggesting that they be regarded as primary eye care doctors.

I think that somewhere, the subtleties of ophthalmogist/optometrist rivalry do need to be stated as clearly and neutrally as possible.

I don't belong to either profession, BTW.

In the region where I live, it appears to me that for the most part, there is in practice an evolution toward optometrists for primary care and opthalmologists as specialists fo referral. One way in which this is taking place is that at least one ophthalmological group practice I know of employs an optometrist, and is the first "doctor" every patient sees.

I don't think anybody would dispute that ophthalmogists have had considerably more training, and that they are MD's (unlike optometrists).

Do ophthalmogists dispute the appropriateness of optometrists to serve as "primary eye care" practitioners?

I believe many health insurers in my area (Massachusetts) will pay for routine eye exams by optometrists, but only will pay for ophthalmologic services if a specific condition has been diagnosed, i.e. the health insurers seem to want optometrists to be the entry point for eye care. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 19:40, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Can someone tell me why there are two words for eye doctor, ophthamologist and oculist. Oculist is mainly used in europe. Xhamlliku —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.128.78.86 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 24 February 2005 (UTC).

There is a lot of overlapping usage, but according to the lists of definitions in One-Look, an oculist tends to be a diagnostician, and ophthalmologist tends to be a surgeon for human eyes & eye function. Wikidity (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)