Talk:Bates method/Archive 20
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Bates method. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 24 |
Links to publications
At this point, I think it a safe assumption that Clarknight (talk · contribs) and the ip's (at William Bates (physician)) that have been adding links are all the same person. Clarknight has a WP:COI here, and has been notified that WP:COI has changed substantially since the account was created.
COI problems aside, I believe the general consensus on when to link publications has changed as well. The lede already has Wikisource links to Perfect Sight Without Glasses and Better Eyesight Magazine, both of which really don't belong there. (I'm not clear when/if such links belong anywhere but at the end of the article.) Additional links certainly don't. --Ronz (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Looking closer, the Wikisource links are probably fine. The lede has other problems, length and tangential detail especially. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- In the lede, Huxley's case could be reduced to part of a sentence, as was done once before without objection, but was apparently undone in a later mass revert. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Optometrist supports Bates method
It's very sad that we can't even mention a contemporary optometrist who supports the Bates method. Horatio Bates (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Encyclopedias summarise accepted knowledge; one outlying optometrist's view is not that. Alexbrn (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- He's not the only one. I could give you a link to a list of optometrists who support this (perhaps in varying degrees), but I wouldn't want to be accused of spamming. Horatio Bates (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- If there's notable support (which doesn't require your original research to work up) then it should be easy to find it in a WP:MEDRS. From previous searches, I doubt such a source exists. Alexbrn (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- He's not the only one. I could give you a link to a list of optometrists who support this (perhaps in varying degrees), but I wouldn't want to be accused of spamming. Horatio Bates (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion, which is a regular problem with this article, along with the WP:COI problems. --Ronz (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Claim in article NOT substantiated in reference
The second paragraph of the Introduction includes this assertion:
"Despite continued anecdotal reports of successful results, including well-publicised support by Aldous Huxley, Bates' techniques have not been objectively shown to improve eyesight.[2] "
This is NOT what the reference says. In fact, the reference quotes one individual who makes that claim, but he provides no evidence for it.
Whether the Bates Method works or not is a very sensitive question, because if it works, a whole industry could be put out of business.
Eyes use muscles to focus. Claims of the ineffectiveness of the Bates Method are in sharp contrast with the fact that in every other situation, one's control of voluntary muscles can be improved with training.
In fact, the concluding two paragraphs of that reference are as follows:
The question isn’t "Does natural vision correction work?" says Bethesda ophthalmologist Rachel Bishop, MD. She says the real issue is: Why wouldn’t you wear glasses or contacts if they could help you see better right away?
“For somebody to say, ‘Hmm, I want to put off the need for reading glasses, so I’m just going to strain, and not use reading glasses or distance glasses because I want to train my muscle to be as active as possible ...’ If you have enough bandwidth in your life to not have great vision in the meantime ... you’re not hurting yourself," Bishop says.
In other words, this quote says: Don't even ask whether the Bates method works. Just use eyeglasses or contact lenses instead, because they work immediately. The above two paragraphs constitute over 15% of the article.
This article is basically trying to persuade you not to even wonder about the efficacy of the Bates Method. All the quotes are from people working in the same eye-care industry that would be threatened if the Bates Method were shown to work.
So: This reference cannot be trusted as a source of impartial information.Daqu (talk) 14:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- You do realize that the lede (introduction) to an article summarizes the article as a whole and usually doesn't duplicate sources in the article body?
- It seems fine per WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
It looks like there have been at least three different versions of that WebMD article, written by different authors: http://web.archive.org/web/20070515000000*/http://www.webmd.com/eye-health/features/natural-vision-correction-does-it-work The reference here credits the earliest one. Horatio Bates (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Is there anyone present who is interested in making this Wikipedia article the best accurate article possible on this subject? OR is everyone only interested in using this article as a vehicle to promote their own point of view?
- Because the reasoning used by the Bethesda optometrist in that reference "Why would you use a natural method if you can improve your vision immediately with corrective lenses?" (words are approximate) can be used to explain why it's better for everyone to use a wheelchair instead of exercising their legs.Daqu (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- We need to avoid a WP:PROFRINGE problem and this Bates nonsense needs to be clear for what it is, per our suitable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 03:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- You also seem to be suggesting that this is all a Big Pharma conspiracy theory. I know many optometrists and the idea that they, for financial or ideological reasons, wouldn't recommend the Bates method or vision therapy if there was any solid evidence that it could help their patients is offensive. It is also an argument that cuts both ways. If there was evidence of efficacy, then optometrists would offer vision therapy and charge their patients for it - thereby replacing the lost revenue from glasses with extended consultations and repeat visits. Similarly, Bates proponents financially benefit from people believing it works - should we distrust all of them (and their research) for exactly the same reasons you distrust optometrists? No. You look at the evidence, and unfortunately for Bates, it's pretty weak. Famousdog (c) 10:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- We need to avoid a WP:PROFRINGE problem and this Bates nonsense needs to be clear for what it is, per our suitable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 03:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
That Bethesda optometrist's quote is quite telling, and if possible this article should reference it. If glasses/contacts work against natural improvement, then most people who would be strongly motivated to try such methods, have their hands tied. That alone could explain the lack of "solid evidence" for this. Horatio Bates (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- Editors may want to review WP:FRINGE more closely.
- Myself, I find the repeated appeals to nature telling. --Ronz (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
