Talk:Biophotonics

Biophotonics

Can it not be clear that Biophotonics is a sub-discipline of science? I don't understand how that is controversial given the physicists and biologists at a lot of reputable universities who work in the field. Abedwayyad (talk) 10:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comment

For an objective documentation we refer to http://www.biophotonik.de or http://www.lifescientists.de. This hint is necessary because of permanent defamation in this article.

Violation of neutrality principle

A completely rewritten entry for "Biophotonics" was necessary, because the old one only represented the usage of the outsider groups. The new version represents, in extremely fair terms, both the usage in mainstream science and technology and the usage in outsider groups. Sep 16 2004

"...We are surprised about the actions of the German government regarding biophotonics. It seems that Schopenhauer was right. First you´re ridiculed, then violently opposed, last phase, you´re told we do it ourselves, you´ve got nothing new to offer. The correct term in our book is hijacking. The whole biophoton research is now being hijacked and steered into the good old mechanistic directions. We hope you (menas f.a.popp) keep up the good work. Lots of strength and success!" ... from an international magazine ...

Link cleanup

Instead of the report about the UC Davis group, I linked the group's homepage and put it on the top, as it is the NSF co-ordinator for biophotonics
Added links to Strathclyde University and U Buffalo sites, as they have nice coverage
I also removed the magazine link http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2001/09/18/3 - a compressed version of what's in that article, should go in the Wikipedia article itself!
I condensed the three links ultimately lading to the Neuss, Germany group into one.

Pjacobi 20:40, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cut out the sectarian junk !

Diurne, please delete your contribution from today. Biophotonics is not science, the same as electronics is not science. The sectarian junk of the Popp group has its place in "Biophoton". And this is already more than Wikipedia should tolerate. If you do not delete your stuff here, we will do it. BioMed 12:59, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Biophotonics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090409195916/http://www.atomic.physics.lu.se:80/biophotonics/our_research/diffuse_optical_tomography_and_imaging/ to http://www.atomic.physics.lu.se/biophotonics/our_research/diffuse_optical_tomography_and_imaging/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Applications

I edited the applications section as part of a class project under drsusan1968 Dec 5, 2017 Greggoa (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]