Talk:Bates method/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

External links

American Academy of Ophthalmology


I removed the following, since it doesn't even mention Bates method by name. I read through it, hoping it might be used as a ref, but I don't see how. --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

  • American Academy of Ophthalmology : Complementary Therapy Assessments: Visual Training for Refractive Errors 2008
Ronz, Not true. Bates is mentioned in the reference section. Seeyou (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Slightly to my surprise, I find myself in complete agreement with Ronz about that. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Absurd removal. Read the references. You will find W.H. Bates. This article is about the Bates method and / or Natural vision improvement. If there is a number one reliable link and source in this article. This is the source and this the link. Read also the paragraph unique in the paragraph opthalmological research in the archive. Seeyou (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I re-added the link. You both do not understand and know there is article bates method and there is a article natural vision improvement. If we editors say these subjects are different we have to change the article natural vision improvement.
See the link :
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natural_vision_improvement&redirect=no
Maybe it is a good idea to separate Natural vision improvement from the Bates method article. : - ). It is true Natural vision improvement and Bates method are not the same. See the available definitions of Thomas Quackenbush and Janet Goodrich. !Seeyou (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Instead of ignoring all other editors perspectives on the issue, in violation of WP:CON, please respect your fellow editors and follow WP:DR. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I do not understand can you explain ? Seeyou (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

My initial inclination was to agree with Ronz and SamuelTheGhost here, but after some reflection I now tend to think Seeyou is correct on this. Natural Vision Improvement does redirect to Bates method, and the third section is Modern variants, so this article is not only about the Bates method per se. Now, there is some merit to the idea of making Natural Vision Improvement into a separate article, but quite a bit of overlap would inevitably occur, and content forking would be an issue.
In light of that, the AAO report does seem to me to meet the Further reading section guidelines of "covering the topic beyond the scope of the article" and "having significant usefulness beyond verification of the article". So at this point my vote is to re-add it to Further Reading. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll explain my view. The AAO report is about "visual training". There's no coherence in the various techniques covered, and no indication that the training was carried out by people who believed in it or wanted it to work. Since an admitted key element in the Bates approach is the psychological one, the attitude of the teacher can be crucial. What was covered was a hotch-potch of methods, some of which might be benefical, some neutral, some harmful (by increasing "stress" in the Bates sense). Where statistically significant positive results were obtained the article uses weasel words to discount them. The "objective" criterion of whether you can see clearly is whether you can see clearly, not how it shows up on optometrists' instruments. The final conclusion, "There is level I evidence that visual training for control of accommodation has no effect on myopia" is just a lie, since the failure to find a significant effect is by no means a proof that no effect exists. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
You are right, Sammy, the failure to find a statistical difference is not "proof". It is, however, "evidence" (or "support") for the lack of an effect, which is what the quote from the AAO report says! Let me reiterate: "There is level I evidence that visual training for control of accommodation has no effect on myopia" (my emphasis). Once again, science's major strength (its conservatism) is used against it! Famousdog (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
For further Arguments. See the cabalcase below :
Seeyou (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The AAO article is clearly about the Bates method and its descendants. I think that justifies some mention of it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I went through the same though process as PSWG1920. Since this article is where the Natural Vision Improvement redirect resolves, this external link seems appropriate. This article should discuss the general concept of Natural vision improvement with the first mention of it in bold. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

SeeYou asked me on my Talk page for my comments. I haven't been following the editing debate or editing history in any detail and may be missing subtleties. These comments apply to the two paragraphs following the "Ophthalmology research" section in this version of the article.

I like what's there in its present form.

This material seems to be to be totally appropriate for inclusion. It is a recent report from an impeccable mainstream medical source. Their research methods and judgement may be open to criticism, but it follows the basic verifiability rule: I have no doubt that AAO is a reliable source in the Wikipedian sense and I have no doubt that it really said the things it has said. The external link is appropriate because it's the source for the material. The second paragraph ("The AAO report states that... However, they also conclude...") presents their conclusions in their own words, and allows the reader to note that the AAO is expressing a nuanced and qualified conclusion.

I don't really have an opinion on what distinctions need to be made between various versions of the Bates and similar systems. I think it's appropriate for a general-purpose encyclopedia to treat e.g. all versions of Chiropractic in a single article, and deal with the various systems by side comments or sections within the context of the article. Similarly I think it's reasonable to treat all of the Bates-like systems together. If advocates of particular methods feel that it's very important to add qualifiers to fine-tune the material... e.g. to say more about what specific systems the studies cited by the AAO did or did not actually review... I'd regard it as clutter, but acceptable clutter. Incidentally, I think it's reasonable to use the "ref" mechanism to add footnotes as well as references, and advocate using them as a compromise when editors agree that something bears on neutrality but disagree on how important it is.

In other words, if someone wants to add a "Note: AAO article does not mention Bates method by name" in the footnote ... maybe following the reference itself... that would be OK with me. If someone wanted go through the AAO article and add a list, i.e. "This article reviews studies of the X system, Y system, Z system, etc." that actually would be a useful addition IMHO.

In general, we need to be sure that the reader can judge what the AAO article is about. In its present form I think it's perfectly clear to a reader that

1) the AAO article is about visual training for myopia in general, not specifically about the Bates method as presented in 1920;

2) Wikipedia's Bates method article is about the Bates method and related method.

3) the Bates method is indeed a form of visual training and is indeed used for the purpose of improving myopia, and therefore the AAO article would be relevant even if this article that were narrowly limited to the 1920 Bates method.

I'm not sure I quite know what to make of the interleaving of the material on "A 1946 study." Seems to me it oughta be AAO quotation, followed by presentation of AAO conclusions, then "A 1946 study." Actually I guess I'll go change that myself now. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


Good to see some new editors weighing in. I've two concerns:

  1. Why does this link, which has little relevance to this article, need to have the extra visibility beyond just being used as a reference?
  2. This article is not about natural vision improvement. We've tried to make it so as much as possible in Bates_method#Modern_variants, but that section of the article is probably the most contested section of all. See other discussions on this page and a summary of the problem in Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Bates_method_sources.

--Ronz (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

  1. This is a divisive question in the wording. I wouldn't say that the link has little relevance to this article. In terms of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, this article uses a source entitled "Eye-Related Quackery" as both a reference and an external link. Perhaps it has extra visibility to help readers who have poor vision. ;-)
  2. Here is the discussion defining why the Natural vision improvement article redirected to this one. It seems that this article should discuss "natural vision improvement" within the context of the Bates Method.
-- Levine2112 discuss 17:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Seeyou says I commented on the wrong issue, and wants my views specifically on also listing the AAO article under "external links."

The key point here is serving the reader. Personally, I am sort of an inclusionist when it comes to external links. They're OK bye me so long as the quantity of encyclopedic information in them is high and the amount of commercialism is low.

In the case of an article on a controversial topic, a reader may well be interested in locating material on either side of the controversy, so such an article not only may but should include links to sites that represent non-neutral points of view. The links should be reasonably balanced, and identified as to their point of view. Thus, if the AAO link were to be included, it shouldn't be just a bare link, but have a one-line summary such as "AAO article that is unsupportive of the merits of visual training for refractive errors."

If someone wants to include the AAO link, it's a good article and I don't see any reason to remove it. But since it's also in the references, I don't see that it's important to include it. I suggest here that we err on the side of inclusion: anyone who does think it's important should be humored.

Wikipedia is not a link farm, but collecting good external links is a useful service to the reader.

(With regard to pro-Bates or pro-natural-vision improvement, a difficulty here is that many of these sites actually are connected with commercial promotion of specific books, courses, materials, or practitioners... but its up to Bates supporters to find those that aren't. I'd be equally leery of an link to an article on, say, LASIK, however well written, that was on a website for a surgical practice offering LASIK). Dpbsmith (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Central-fixation

Since we're discussing external links, I'd like to bring up one which has been rejected in the past. Central-fixation.com contains a collection of articles by Bates which were published in medical journals, most dealing directly with his method of treating eyesight. These are independent of his self-published works. To me this is highly relevant, and I don't understand the problem with linking to it. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be a wonderful resource. It contains meaningful, relevant content that may not suitable for inclusion in this article. I don't see any commercial interests or advertising. By all means, I think it would be a pity not to include a link to this website. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I suggest a quick search through the talk archives to see why it was removed, summarizing the reasoning, then providing new comments that address past concerns. --Ronz (talk) 03:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
If I recall this correctly, there was this one editor who threw around a bunch of scary policies. WP:NPOV. WP:SPAM. WP:EL. But he never told us why he thought those applied. Except with WP:EL. He claimed that WP:EL is not satisfied because the hosting site (central-fixation.com) "misleads the reader by the use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research". And then this other editor asked for an example from the hosting site where it offers factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. But you know what? That first editor never did give an example. And months later, still no example. And with still no example, I think it is high time this link was restored. -- Levine2112 discuss 03:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any need to search through the Talk archives. I wasn't involved in the earlier discussions, but I have very strong feelings about this.
It is patently obvious that links to a collection of articles by W. H. Bates is relevant to an article on the Bates method. This is a large collection of articles. I don't know how easy it would be to find them via JSTOR or Medline or what have you; they might actually be hard to find or they might be fairly easy to find, but having them collected in one place is valuable.
This is a legitimate collection of source material. If the website has any commercial connection at all, it's not obvious. In any case, the ratio of encyclopedic material to promotion is very high.
As for the criticism of "factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research," WP:V is about "verifiability, not truth." The only reason to object would be if the articles were fabricated, altered, distorted, etc. and since the website gives their sources it's easy to verify whether they are or or not.
That is: only two questions need to be asked. a) Are W. H. Bates' published writings relevant to an article on the Bates method? b) Does the website accurately present this material--that is, is an article that claims to be "Reprinted from the New York Medical Journal for September 3, 1921" in fact an accurate copy of an article printed in the New York Medical Journal for September 3, 1921.
Note, too, that the fact that these articles were published in a medical journal is irrelevant. That fact may be relevant in judging the validity of Bates' writings, or the position of Bates within the medical mainstream during his life... but it has nothing to do with whether it's a useful external link.
Just to make myself perfectly clear, I'm a Bates skeptic. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of the Bates method. Notice that someone seeking to build a case against the validity of the Bates method might find this collection just as interesting and useful as a supporter. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Performing due diligence on verifying the material at the central-fixation site, I note that Google Books does turn up an image of a book by Health Research Books, 1993, which presents itself as a collection of reprints of articles by W. H. Bates. In particular, Google Books shows me this page image which certainly has the look of a copy of page image from an old journal, and which corresponds to the text at http://www.central-fixation.com/bates-medical-articles/shifting-aid-vision.php . Not that anyone has challenged the accuracy of the text posted at central-fixation... I'm just saying I tried making one quick spot-check and things jibed. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Imagination Blindness

How about this one? A reference to the site was just removed from the article per below discussions, however, I think this is useful enough to be in the external links. PSWG1920 (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

See WP:LINKSTOAVOID, especially #2, #11, #13. We need information specifically about Bates method. Anything else is a distraction at best. --Ronz (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears that Wikipedia guidelines have now come into agreement that Further Reading or External Links sections should not include any which are also references for the body of an article. Previously the guidelines seem to have been inconsistent on this (see this archived discussion, specifically the exchange between Levine2112, Ronz, and myself), but now look at Wikipedia:External links#References and citation and WP:FURTHER as well as the section below it. If we are to follow this then the links to AAO, Elwin Marg, and Quackwatch should be deleted. Probably the "Internal links" should be removed as well, since those are both referenced in the article (and wikilinked in the lead.) I know this section has been a cause of heated controversy in the past, so I'll wait to hear what others have to say about this. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Since this seems to be what the guidelines now clearly call for, I've gone ahead and removed the links in question. Part of the argument for adding the AAO review to External Links was that Elwin Marg and Quackwatch were also there, so deleting all three shouldn't be a problem. Of course if any link currently used as a source is ever edited out of the article, it may then be considered for this section. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I just re-added the internal links. Why were they removed ? In my opinion they cover the external link. So the current external one loses it's value. In my opinion it should be replaced by the AAO link. It is very hard to find ophthalmology mentioning or stating anything about the bates method. That is why the AAO link is the only right external link. Every article about a controversial subject should have an external link with the authority view on the subject. Please provide your arguments if you have a different point of view. Seeyou (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
The "internal links" were removed because they are already wikilinked in the introduction. As for central-fixation.com, that contains published medical articles by Bates (the link emphasizes that) which are independent of his book and magazine. It also contains several works by associates of his. So it will retain its value almost no matter what else is present. The AAO review in contrast is a self-contained page which is already referenced in the article five times. Thus per WP:EL it should not also be an External Link. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
PSWG1920 : The "internal links" were removed because they are already wikilinked in the introduction. Seeyou : Did not you notice they are currently removed ! In the past Philknight said internal links should be prefered. So again I will replace the internal links, since they are not present at this moment while tney should. Seeyou (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
See the first paragraph of the article: Bates "self-published a book as well as a magazine detailing his approach". The wikisource links are there. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

List of poor sources

--Ronz (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

See my last comment directly above. And as for the disclaimers (currently referenced here), I think that is a significant aspect which would be difficult to touch on directly without using such sources. These disclaimers could be seen as Bates method teachers' own words condemning themselves. PSWG1920 (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I do nonetheless see your basic point. It would be difficult to justify referencing a random personal website for its author's opinion on an aspect of the Bates method. Now, to me, for practical purposes, the sites in question are more than just random personal websites, but I'm fairly certain you would argue (with apologies if I have assumed too much) that what I call "practical purposes", are irrelevant. I looked through WP:FRINGE, since that's the most directly applicable guideline for this type of article, and I couldn't find anything addressing this type of situation, though WP:PARITY comes somewhat close. Perhaps we should try the Fringe theory noticeboard again, ask for help with this specific issue, and point out that the Fringe guideline could better address the question of what individual fringe sources are acceptable to cite. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. This issue is very specific, so it should be fairly approachable for someone new to the article. --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the final comment in the article, about Bates practitioners issuing disclaimers, is unnecessary and could be removed. Presumably Bates teachers should do this by law and showing that they do (do something that they should do) serves only to show them in a positive light. Removing this rather pointless sentence has the added benefit of removing two contentious sources. (However, I'm not doing it 'cause I'll get shouted at!) Famousdog (talk) 13:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
First of all, just because it may in a sense show Bates teachers in a positive light does not mean it should be removed, and your assessment that it shows them in only a positive light is questionable. Secondly, I don't see how these disclaimers are "contentious". At any rate, this is a very relevant point. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the two sources in question and replaced them with a reference to the Boston Globe article already cited elsewhere. Although now that I read it again, I guess the Boston Globe piece could be seen as promotional. PSWG1920 (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
At least it's secondary. The author is pretty good at putting the responsibility for the facts on her sources though. An improvement though. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
We are now left with one reference to visionsofjoy.org and one reference to visioneducators.org, and we have hopefully established the general notability of modern "Natural Vision Educators". Are we at a point yet where we can remove the "improper references to self-published sources" tag? PSWG1920 (talk) 03:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
The two remaining fail WP:ELNO, and don't meet WP:SELFPUB. --Ronz (talk) 03:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
WP:EL says that "The subject of this guideline is external links that are not citations of article sources". As for WP:SELFPUB, what points do the references fail? PSWG1920 (talk) 03:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
And I think that if it doesn't meet WP:EL, it shouldn't be even considered as a source. Use a little common sense here. Why are we citing these self-published sources in an encyclopedia article? --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
"And I think that if it doesn't meet WP:EL, it shouldn't be even considered as a source." That is definitely a point I would like to get outside comment on. Any ideas on what avenue to use? PSWG1920 (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I think Wikipedia talk:External links would be best. I'd be interested what WP:RSN had to say. --Ronz (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It says right at the top of that talk page that "This guideline has nothing to do with links to reliable sources that are used to support information in an article." PSWG1920 (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
But these definitely aren't reliable sources. They're self-published. --Ronz (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
All right then. How about if you start the discussion? PSWG1920 (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Is_WP:EL_useful_determining_sources.3F --Ronz (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) If you still see these two sources as improper, I suggest that you tag them in the text, to make things clear for anyone who is looking at this. I will keep an eye out for independent sources which discuss the points in question, which certainly would be the best solution. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed them, given the feedback from WP:EL. --Ronz (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
There was no indication that anyone there even looked at them; it seems that they were just going by what you said. And anyway the main point that was made was that you were wrong in citing WP:EL to undercut sources. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe I described the situation correctly, and you made no comment that indicated otherwise.
These links have been discussed since at least July 2007. I think that is plenty of time to understand and address the issue.
I've removed them as self-published articles on individuals' business websites. We have no sources showing that these individuals or their businesses are notable. --Ronz (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I alluded above that current "Natural vision educators" are at least generally notable, as established by the Boston Globe and Webmd references (currently article sources 7 and 8.) PSWG1920 (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I have listed this at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. PSWG1920 (talk) 00:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Section break

I have removed the iblindness reference and one of the references to visionsofjoy, replacing them with a similar discussion derived from Elwin Marg. Now, I would be okay with deleting the other "poor sources" if we could find independent sources for the points they are used to reference. Absent that, I think they should be permitted to stay per above discussions. PSWG1920 (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I should add that I would have no problem with the removal of the Mail Tribune reference. I added it because I thought it was an independent source which would help the subsection, "Natural Vision Improvement", but at this point I would not defend the subsection if it were deleted. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the Mail Tribune reference, so we are now down to four: 2 to visionsofjoy.org, 1 to visionimprovementcenter.com, and 1 to visioneducators.org . All of which I believe are legitimate uses of fringe sources, but would have no problem with the removal of if independent sources were found for the points they are used to reference. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

How is this original research, and what does it matter if the source is "reliable" when it's only being cited for an opinion? PSWG1920 (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw no evidence that the opinion was worthy of being cited. I've repeatedly asked for such evidence. At this point, I think it best to prune out these poor sources. We're writing an encyclopedia article, after all.
The source, even if we did accept it, does not verify all the information that was in the article.--Ronz (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Change title from Bates Method into Bates method / Natural Vision improvement

Since the article Natural vision improvement directs directly to the Bates method article, I think the current title of the article is not right. The Bates method is not equal to Natural Vision improvement and Natural Vision improvement is not equal to the Bates method. Janet Goodrich provided a defintion of Natural vision improvement, which unfortunatly is removed. And T. Quackenbush provided one for the Bates method currently present. For how long ? Based on these facts a title merge is an improvement. Correct me if I am wrong. Seeyou (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason for it, especially given the article as it exists.. Please list some independent, reliable sources on the subject of "natural vision improvement." --Ronz (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Ronz, Every source is reliable unless unreliability is proved by a reliable source. Assume good faith ! Seeyou (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Nope. See WP:RS. --Ronz (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I studied WP:RS I do not understand. When is a source independent and reliable and when is a source not independent and reliable ? The WP:RS reference does not make this clear. In contrary it says : Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. So whether or not a source is reliable depends on us. In my opinion the Janet Goodrich publications are reliable. If I am wrong please correct me. Seeyou (talk) 20:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Here's my current understanding. Reliable sources are generally considered to be "third-party" publications. "Third-party" meaning (it took me a while to realize this) that the author and the publisher are not one and the same, and both are independent of the subject. Janet Goodrich fails the latter portion of that test, since she obviously is not independent of "Natural Vision Improvement". While sources promoting the Bates method can be cited in the Bates method article, it needs to be based around independent, third-party sources. Currently the "Natural Vision Improvement" subsection is very shaky in that regard. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it's better to leave the title as it is (Shorter, easier to type.) But if it's changed, the word "vision" should not be capitalized, and probably not the word "Natural" either. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Coppertwig welcome are you also going to really contribute to this article like ronz ? Above you only give your opinion. Can you also react on the given arguments. Like the article Natural vision improvement directly directs to the bates method article. As you can see by the given defintions ( referenced ! ). The bates method and Natural vision improvement are not completly equal. From a mathematical point of view this is not right. Is it ? Seeyou (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"Natural Vision Improvement" is a phrase used by one particular set of Bates Method teachers, associated with the names Quackenbush and Goodrich as Seeyou keeps reminding us. There are other Bates Method teachers, particularly outside the USA, who don't use that phrase and who trace their influence back to Bates by different routes. Although the relationship between the different schools seems to be fairly friendly, they are completely independent of each other. So to change the name as suggested would pointlessly introduce another bias (as if there aren't enough already). So I'm against it. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sammy I suggest you read the archive for better understanding.
But since discussion should be based on arguments and facts and not just on your personal opinion I will give you the explanation I have given earlier.
Can you explain, when you go the one of the biggest bookstores on the net today Amazon.com and you search for bates method or Natural vision improvement, you will find a bestselling book on top of the list. So according to this bookstore also Bates method and Natural vision improvement are equal. Seeyou (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Nein, nein, nein, Seeyou. Just because a bestselling book is about the Bates Method and Natural Vision Improvement does not mean that the method and Natural Vision Improvement are one and the same. Besides, any move to the title you wish would rightly be rejected on the basis of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
Frankly, Seeyou, I'm getting a bit fed up with this warlike attitude you've exuded. You've been using the Mediation Cabal as a bunker to take potshots at your enemies for the pettiest sleights (note that practically all your MedCab cases have been closed without ruling), and you have, on this very talk page in the past, accused another editor of a posts-for-pennies deal. What I'm seeing from you, Seeyou, is a defender of The TruthTM who will not hesitate to assume an attitude not unlike that of the Japanese during WWII, and it's going to end up getting you blocked someday. -Jéské (v^_^v Bodging WP edit by edit) 19:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree they are not equal. That why the sourced definitions are so important. The Bates method in this article should be everything bates has published. And Natural Vision improvement is : A lifestyle method of improving eyesight by wholistic means without the use of optical devices. The Bates method merged with modern theories of brain function, character and responsibility for one’s self and state of being.
This bookstore represents information which indicates that in the outside world the Bates method and Natural vision improvement have a strong connection. Which is true. And this article does not represent this fact when you read the header. ( Do not forget there is still an article NVI directing to the BM article. ) Arguments, Facts that is the way to discuss Jeske. Focus on improving this article. Seeyou (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
"This bookstore represents information " No it doesn't. Please stop it with the soapboxing. --Ronz (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Bookstores aren't sources (why do you think Amazon can't be used for release dates?). Now, before you ask for barbecue sauce to make your foot taste better, stop putting it in your mouth. -Jéské (v^_^v Bodging WP edit by edit) 04:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
This is not discussing a topic. This is avoiding the real discussion. Why can't you just simply explain why Amazon has no value. Because that is your statement. Amazon is a great source for statiscal information and can be very helpful in deciding which books on the bates method or natural vision improvement are dominant and important. If we had not a tool like amazon we could keep on discussing for ages. Don't forget this article is for the public. The public gives a very clear and strong direction. Correct me if am wrong. Seeyou (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Bookstores aren't sources as they do not actively review books. You want a book review site, which Amazon ain't. -Jéské (v^_^v Bodging WP edit by edit) 01:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Jeske Amazon is not a source. Amazon is a tool to determine which Bates method advocate is the dominant one. If the skeptics really want to score points they should attack the strongest advocate not a weak one. The real subject of this discussion is the change of the title. I will make a summary with the arguments for the RFC. At this moment, I have not read any real argument against the change. Please I you are against the change provide your arguments. Seeyou (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The way you're talking, it is a source for the purposes of the name change. Show me irrevocable proof that natural vision improvement and the Method are commonly conflated (not just one book available for sale on Amazon) and you'll see no further opposition from me. -Jéské (v^_^v Bodging WP edit by edit) 20:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Proffesional Engineer Doug Marsh in his book states :

The reason my glasses were in my pocket that day wasn’t because I’d broken them. Rather I’d been purposely not wearing them for long periods as part of my experiment with Natural Vision Improvement, (NVI), also called the Bates Method. .[1]

Seeyou (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Definitions

Current Definition of the Bates method :

Natural vision teacher Thomas R. Quackenbush defines the Bates method thus:

An educational program created by ophthalmologist William H. Bates, M.D., in which natural, correct vision habits—based on relaxation of the mind and body—are taught; optional self-healing activities and games are often included to accelerate integration and self-healing; commonly misunderstood as only "eye exercises"—even by many "Bates Method" teachers.[2]

Currrent Defintion of Natural Vision improvement :

According to Janet Goodrich :

Natural Vision Improvement : A lifestyle method of improving eyesight by wholistic means without the use of optical devices. The Bates method merged with modern theories of brain function, character and responsibility for one’s self and state of being..[3]

Seeyou (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Elwin Marg was an optometrist !


Wow Ronz you are fast. See :

Facts and should be presented about the references and sources. RFC ? Seeyou So again Elwin Marg was an Optometrist !(talk) 21:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

How is this relevant? --Ronz (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I changed it to a standard citation. --Ronz (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Ronz, I am amazed you do not understand my point.

See : http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=22559

An Optometrist is a health care professional who is licensed to provide primary eye care services:

An Ophthalmologist is an eye M.D., a medical doctor who is specialized in eye and vision care. Ophthalmologists are trained to provide the full spectrum of eye care, from prescribing glasses and contact lenses to complex and delicate eye surgery. They may also be involved in eye research.

I assume you undestand my explanation now, so I readded optometrist Elwin Marg. Time is now 22:27 Seeyou (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

How is this relevant? --Ronz (talk) 21:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
When you read the information above. You read an optometrist is not the biggest authority on the subject of eyesight. He or she is less educated. I think other users will agree with me this fact is valuable and important fact. Why is not an ophthalmologist chosen to comment on the Bates method my dear friend ? Seeyou (talk) 08:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Since you say "I think other users will agree" I must tell you that I don't. Once more (this mustn't become a habit!) I agree with Ronz. And for the following reasons:

  • There is no general policy in wikipedia of prefixing their professions to names of cited authors, and no need to in this case. We don't for example say "journalist Martin Gardner" though that would be a much more revealing qualification.
  • The process of peer review of academic papers is an attempt to judge the merits of the paper on what is said, not on who said it. Some review processes are undertaken in conditions of author anonymity, in accordance with this principle. The Marg paper that the article quotes has been peer reviewed. Admittedly that doesn't guarantee that it is of high quality, but in my opinion it is. If you disagree, give your reasons.
  • The CV for Marg you gave a link for is indeed interesting. It makes it quite clear that Marg is a respectable and respected scientist. Furthermore it includes that fact that he spent five years in post-doctoral research, including four years as "Research Associate in Surgery (Ophthalmology)" so your statement "He or she is less educated" looks downright silly as applied to him. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Re: so your statement "He or she is less educated" looks downright silly as applied to him. Worse, it looks like a deliberate attempt to violated NPOV, OR, and FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

What are the two proposed pieces of language here? Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Pardon? Could you explain please? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
:: I do understand your question Phil. See below :

Edit Seeyou :

Edit Ronz :

Seeyou (talk) 11:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


Seeyou has asked me to comment about whether to include the optometrist title. In terms of readability, I don't think it makes much difference, and it rather explains who this person is. Although an Ophthalmologist may have more stature wrt to vision problems than an Optometrist due to the medical training, when it comes to commenting on lenses and optics I would think that a researcher in the field of Optometry would have the edge. Bottom line is I don't have strong feelings either way. --Vannin (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


IMHO Marg's credentials probably should be mentioned, because they help the reader judge the reliability of the source. The reader shouldn't need to download the PDF of his paper to find out. Of course, the fact that the paper was published in the American Journal of Optometry in itself lends credibility (and creates an assumption that the author would be an optometrist).

As it reads now, "Berkeley optometry professor Elwin Marg" inline in the text, is, perhaps, putting too much stress on his credentials, as if trying to emphasize credibility. I would probably change the language to something like "optometry professor Elwin Marg," or simply say "Elwin Marg" in the main text and identify him as a "Berkeley optometry professor" in the footnote.

Better yet, if Marg is not a famous name, just say "A 1952 review article in the American Journal of Optometry pointed out..."

Seeyou is wrong in suggesting that optometrists are inferior to ophthalmologists. It's a bizarre and touchy issue and I've never quite figured it out, although there are parallels in other medical fields. I saw a podiatrist the other day, and my wife commented on there being friction between podiatrists and orthopedists. I learned to my surprise that podiatrists, like optometrists, are "doctors" who are not MDs. (My podiatrist is a "DPM," Doctor of Podiatric Medicine).

I've seen some hints... old articles in which optometrists refer to ophthalmologists as "allopaths..." that make me think there may be a parallel with osteopaths vs. medical doctors, that is the optometry and ophthalmology professions may have had separate historic origins and may represent rival factions, rather than different levels of competence.

In any case, optometrists are highly trained professionals and are "real doctors."

Furthermore, informally, my impression is that optometrists seem to focus on obtaining optimum vision in healthy eyes, while ophthalmologists are rather more like specialists in disease states, so if anything optometrists might have higher credibility with regard to questions regarding how eyes focus. I even have the impression that optometrists may tend to take a little more time on refractions and do better refractions than ophthalmogists.

In the area where I live, the norm seems to be for ophthalmologic practices to include an optometrist who does the refractions.

In any case, it doesn't matter. The reader needs to know that Marg was a professor of optometry, and can judge for himself how credible that makes him. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah. This is over mentioning his position in the external links section. In that case, I do not think we should do so - it seems awkward to me to do so. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand why awkward ? The other links have a similar reference like quackwatch or ophthalmology. Seeyou (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, a reference to Quackwatch is a reference to the source. In this case, I think clearly noting the journal is sufficient. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I was also asked by Seeyou to comment. I looked at it, and, basically, the link already says that it's published on a optimetrist journal, so there is no real need to repeat the information, it would be like saying "yes, it's published on a journal of optimetry, which is published by an association of optimetrists. Oh, right, and the author is an optometrist". Also, notice that the link was probably not included due to the credentials of the author, but due to the source it was published on, so it's more natural to give more weight to the source.

If the link only had the author's name, then it would be better to include his credentials, in order to make clear to the readers why his paper is considered important enough for inclusion, but this is not the case. The journal publication is probably enough by itself. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This whole argument is b*llsh*t. Optometrists are not less clever, less well-read, less scientific or less talented than ophthalmologists, just because the latter has a medical degree. It's just a different specialism. I know several optometrists who are world experts on amblyopia (and several ophthalmologists who aren't). This smacks of an attempt to discredit a perfectly creditable writer on the subject of the BM, rather than address their criticisms. Go ahead, refer to Marg an optometrist if that was his qualification. It doesn't discredit anything he said regarding the BM. Famousdog (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Having an opinion is not the same as having arguments and references. Seeyou (talk) 11:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Its not an opinion. My argument (as clearly set out above) is that you are attempting to discredit Elwin Marg, by insisting that he be referred to as an optometrist - mistakingly believing that an optometrist is somehow less credible than an ophthalmologist. Otherwise, why would you care sooooooo much about his proper job title? Famousdog (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

contact lens-like effect of moisture on the eye

"As noted above, the "clear flashes" often spoken of by Bates enthusiasts have been found to be a contact lens-like effect of moisture on the eye." This is definitely false. The referenced article suggests this as an explanation. It hasn't found it to be the explanation.Syd75 (talk) 08:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've tweaked it further for accuracy. PSWG1920 (talk) 11:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Nice work! --Ronz (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Scientific evidence that irreversible changes in the shape of the eyeball cause refractive errors

I find this sentence in "Cause of sight problems" troubling, as I've searched for and never have found any such evidence. On the contrary, I've found numerous animal studies that show the opposite. Much research has been done on animals by inducing different refractive errors by introducing a lens corresponding to that refractive error in front of the animals' eyes. The experiences from these experiments tell us that in the animals the changes in the shape of the eyeball are reversible, as the animals return to an emmetropic shape of the eyeball, after these experiments have ended. To the best of my knowledge there has never been produced any scientific evidence that the changes in the shape of the eye in humans are irreversible. This is a view only concluded from the fact that the refractive errors in humans are thought to be irreversible. So until references are found that back up the "scientific evidence" part of the sentence, I'm in favour of changing it back to the original "mainstream view". Syd75 (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I've taken this matter up with ScienceApologist‎ on our respective Talk pages. You may be interested to have a look. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I have cited a fairly good review piece that indicates directly that refractive errors are anatomical and not physiological. That is not a "point of view": that is reported blandly as a fact. Unless you can find a reliable source which indicates that this is not a fact, you're going to have to live with this. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, ScienceApologist - this is just not correct. On the good side the paragraph no longer claims scientific evidence exist that changes in the shape of the eyeball are irreversible. The problem now is that it wrongly states that Bates disregarded the anatomical features in refractive errors. The source you refered to also says nothing about whether refractive errors are anatomical and not physiological (I believe functional would be a better word here). Note that one doesn't exclude the other. On the contrary, it is quite usual for physiological changes to produce anatomical changes (I see this when I go to the gym to work out). Syd75 (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I did some quick browsing and Animal Models of Myopia: Learning How Vision Controls the Size of the Eye says that The causes of refractive error, especially myopia, have been the subject of debate for more than a century. Some have held that myopia is primarily an inherited disorder, and others, that myopia is caused by protracted near work and, especially, by accommodation during protracted near work. It has not been possible, based solely on clinical observations, to resolve the relative roles of heredity versus environment in the development of refractive error. We should not therefore suggest that there is a certain explanation of this. It would be simpler to just put Bates' ideas forward without dwelling on competing theories. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
As the edit by ScienceApologist doesn't make any sense in any way you read it (it doesn't help either that the most common type of refractive error is called physiological myopia), and the reference added says nothing about what is claimed it says (it only talks about the prevalence of refractive errors), I believe this edit should be reverted. Syd75 (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Go for it. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Bates method if you want to see something amusing. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Although what we've got back to is certainly better than the unsubstantiated claims of "evidence" and "fact", there is scope to make it better still. We could either say less here, as Colonel Warden suggests, particularly as it's just been discussed in the Accommodation paragraph, or reword and say rather more, citing the paper which the said Colonel Warden has given above. But it would probably be best to work it out here first. I'd certainly like to see that paper cited somewhere. Perhaps some of our usual editors would like to comment SamuelTheGhost (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I did take a look at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Bates method. It comes across as somewhere between calling for the naive science self-styled sceptic cavalry and "running to mummy"; just because the concensus that a certain contributor, among many others, so often bray about is going the sensible way, for once. That probably means they will get their way in the end, like bullying the BBC Web Site Complementary Therapy pages off the Internet and, similarly it seems, bullying a Complementary Therapy Degree Course out of existence. If you cannot win the argument, get your way by force of numbers; quite the opposite of logic, reason and intellectual capacity. I long ago came to the conclusion that the "science", logic, reason and general approach of most Wikipedia editors was at the level of first year secondary school, especially the anonymous ones; though I readily acknowledge the much needed breath of fresh air brought by Samuel, Syd, et al (that translates as "and others", for the first year students). RichardKingCEng (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, we'll get our way eventually. That's just because there are better sources which disdain the Bates method than there are sources which support it. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, we have no sources that support it beyond Bates' own articles. Sadly, the article is written as if that were not the case. --Ronz (talk) 00:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Force of numbers, Richard? Oh, please... I think you'll find that sceptics are in the numerical minority, but it might not seem that way to you because the sceptical minority has the evidence decidedly in their favour. Famousdog (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for spelling "sceptic" thus. I thought you must be a Brit, from your interest in Carlisle. However, "sceptic" means someone who is not credulous. Someone who believes unhesitatingly and uncritically in Bates method is indeed credulous, but so equally is someone who believes unhesitatingly and uncritically in the "orthodox" view. A sceptic is someone who doubts both extreme positions, and searches for the evidence in either direction. I count myself very much a sceptic in that sense. For the rest, please re-read what I wrote below; I do think we might reach consensus that way. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Sure, but that criticism implies two assumptions: 1) that the orthodox view is an "extreme position". It is not. The weight of evidence favours it overwhelmingly. 2) that people supporting the unorthodox position believe unhestitatingly and uncritically in it. They don't have to, since the weight of evidence favours it overwhelmingly. The sceptic position is not a 50-50 neutral position inbetween Bates and the mainstream. It should be the mainstream. What's your interest in Carlisle? Or are you just trying to psych me out? ;-) Famousdog (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

First, thanks to PSWG1920 for the latest edit, which I think deals with the current issue well enough.
In reply to Ronz, there are dozens of "sources that support it"; there is however a severe shortage of material (no books, too few articles) which fully meet the criteria of WP:RS on any side of the argument. So we have to do our best without that. We need very consciously to stick to WP:NPOV and WP:V. If any policy has to give a little (under WP:IAR), it should be WP:OR, but only in drawing very obvious conclusions from agreed facts, and after securing consensus to do so.
I'd like to suggest that we also need to extend the principles of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF to the whole world, that is, to all the parties in this debate, living or dead. Most people, most of the time, believe they are in the right. If we recognise that, we are in a better position to understand what they are saying, and perhaps to gain some new insights. My original motivation for getting involved in this area of wikipedia wasn't anything to do with Bates method as such; it was my anger at the disgraceful rubbish directed at Huxley, which I think I've succeeded in correcting. The way in which Gardner attacks Bates at a purely personal level did not affect my view of Bates, but it drastically lowered my view of Gardner.
We also need to be very careful not to go beyond the evidence. The way to counter a mistaken view is not to aggressively assert the opposite view; it is to carefully explain what the real position is. The eye-care professionals don't know everything. With very few exceptions they don't claim to know everything. There is therefore no justification for our writing as if they did make that claim. There is room for doubt in all science, particularly in medical science.
Having said all that, I think we can do it, that is we can create an article that is accurate, informative and fair. Let's all try and do that. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Mainstream view

There is a big problem with the term "mainstream view" as it was being employed in this article. Trying to attribute a generally accepted fact such as the anatomical shape of an eye is what leads to refractive errors rather than "stress" or "strain" is problematic. We should not attribute what is generally accepted as fact as the opinion of some nebulous "mainstream" group when most of the people who accept this fact do not consider it to be an opinion. Doing so takes an editorial side that is not seen in the sources and misleads the reader into mistaking what is generally considered (by the vast majority of sources) to be a fact as an opinion. As such, it is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH since there is absolutely no "mainstream" source which indicates that the point is a mainstream view in this instance. I have reintroduced an excellent layman's source which attributes refractive errors to the shape of the eye and does not attribute it to strain/stress. In that source, it is stated simply as fact -- not a "view". Therefore, we must do the same.

ScienceApologist (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a misunderstanding here. You think I and others, objected to the fact that "the anatomical shape of an eye is what leads to refractive errors". This is not the case. I, at least, find this uncontroversial. The objection is to your statement that there is scientific evidence for "irreversible changes in the shape of the eyeball". This I strongly object to, and I asked you for some reference that proved this scientifically, showing that the myopic eye can only elongate, and the hyperopic eye can only shorten. As myopia and other refractive errors are known to sometimes increase, sometimes decrease, sometimes the myopic eye later can become hyperopic, and the hyperopic eye become myopic, and as I have a fairly good oversight over scientific research in this area, and I have never heard this claim before, I strongly believe that this is a false statement. Syd75 (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
"Irreversible" is a weird word. Certainly there are surgeries which exist that "reverse" the anatomical shape of the eye. What is without evidence is the belief that the shape of the eye can be affected by extraocular muscles. So Bates believed that the variability of refractive errors was due, in large part, to the way people used their eyes physiologically. This is without scientific evidence. Indeed the scientific evidence points toward anatomical features as being largely independent of physiological context. There are some indications of correlations between certain types of behaviors and a worsening of refractive errors: but these behaviors are seen in the literature to be strictly degenerative and there are no behaviors which are shown to reverse this. This is where Bates' pseudoscience departs from the scientific evidence. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, the source that you added does not address Bates, and the way it is used at least comes very close to being a synthesis; moreover, the referenced Time article already explains the concept being discussed: "Orthodox explanation of eye function is that the shape of the eyeball is as unchanging as a glass eye; focusing is done by the elastic lens at the front of the eye; the six muscles around each eye have no function except to turn the eyeball. In myopia (nearsightedness) the eyeball is usually long from front to back; in far-sighted people it is often short. In a nearsighted eye, the image falls in front of the retina; in a farsighted eye, behind the retina. Astigmatism is usually laid to slight eye distortions. As orthodox doctors agree that a patient's efforts can not alter the shape of an eyeball, they accept distortions as final, prescribe glasses. ... Optical orthodoxy is just a finger-snap to many U.S. therapists, whose offices have as many discarded eyeglasses as Lourdes has crutches. They will try to fix almost any eye disorder (except infections, tumors, etc.) by exercise. Some follow the theory of the late Dr. William H. Bates (died 1931) that the six outside eye muscles not only turn the eye but change the shape of the eyeball."

How about "mainstream medical view"? PSWG1920 (talk) 13:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

One problem with your latest edit, ScienceApologist, is that you falsely claims that Bates disregarded the anatomical anomalies in refractive errors. This would be straw man argument, as you suggest that Bates would have opposed this. He didn't. Everything that is on that page from National Eye Institute could just as well be written by Bates. If your point is only that orthodox ophthalmology doesn't accept the view that the extraocular muscles can affect the refractive state of the eye, I think you can easily put your point forwards in better ways than this. Syd75 (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The main issue is that the difference between Bates and the rest of the world isn't reliably defined as "mainstream" in any source I see: nor is it reliably defined as a "view". In fact, I see it as a fact of science. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I have no objections (I'm neutral) about your latest edit, btw. But it would be interresting to hear in what way you have arrived at these facts. How can you be so sure that cocontraction of extraocular muscle pairs won't affect the shape of the eyeball? If you have seen any research into this, I would be very interrested to hear of it. Syd75 (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Recommendation

While we do need to present the scientific facts and theories per FRINGE, I think it would be best to use the sources we have to discuss how absurd the Bates method truly is. None of the sources we currently have are supportive of it. --Ronz (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Rather than "to discuss how absurd the Bates method truly is" I'd prefer "to discuss why eye-care professionals regard the Bates method as mistaken". But I'm sure that's what you meant. As for your second point, I've been mulling over the possibility of creating a new article List of books describing the Bates method (partly motivated by Seeyou's obsession with NVI). Do you think that's a good idea? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I prefer to follow NPOV and FRINGE. From my reading of the sources, "absurd" is an appropriate summary. "Ridiculous" is another.
The list of books would be a WP:POVFORK and an obvious attempt to find further ways to violate NPOV, OR, and FRINGE beyond what's already being done with this article. --Ronz (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Could I ask for clarification here? As I understand it, you don't regard the pro-Bates books as "sources". Then you speak of your "reading of the sources". So does that exclude the pro-Bates books? Have you in fact ever read any of them? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
By "sources", I mean the references used in the article. --Ronz (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
There are four pro-Bates books now being used as references in the article, so on that basis your "None of the sources we currently have are supportive of it." isn't true. And you've ducked my main question. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
There are already too many dispersed Bates-related content forks. The solution is to edit this material, to merge and condense it into a concise, readable summary. Instead of spreading the few morsels of well-sourced information even farther apart, make them stand out by streamlining the material. Creating more Bates-related content forks would be a step in the wrong direction. MastCell Talk 16:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
OK. I see your point. It was only a thought ... SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Regarding Ronz' point, my impression is that the article already gives undue prominence to ridicule in the reference to Martin Gardner's criticism in the lede. I like Martin Gardner's work but it does not seem that the opinion of a mathematical journalist is appropriate in this place. It should go as it gives the article the tone of an attack piece. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
When all independent sources ridicule the subject matter, then we follow NPOV and report it. --Ronz (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
If the mission is to discredit the validity of the Bates method, I don't think the ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments and attempts at ridicule that many opponents of the method frequently uses, is the way to go. A pure fact-based rebuttal point for point of Bates' claims, based on valid and referenced research is far more effective. The point that all the sources we use ridicule the subject matter is a bit stupid, because it is a direct effect of the fact that we choose to only include the sources that ridicule the subject matter. There are a large number of books written by medical doctors, optometrists and ophthalmologists, several of them with PhDs, that embraces the method. But we don't use them here as sources because we consider them fringe sources. I agree with this decision. But even if the Bates method is a fringe theory, that doesn't mean the rebuttal shouldn't be fact-based and conducted respectfully. Syd75 (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Follow the sources. At least one major reliable source ridicules the Bates method. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to censor this information from the reader. It is also not our job to take an opinion on whether one should or shouldn't ridicule proponents of Bates method. Nor is it Wikipedia's job to do the actual ridiculing or debunking. All we must do is report the facts surrounding the Bates Method, the general disdain and low-esteem it is afforded by the scientific and medical communities, and leave it at that. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Just read the sources. --Ronz (talk) 23:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
So it's okay to just use ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments (as some of the sources here do) to "debunk" Bates, while f.ex. PhD dissertations that supports Bates are not allowed as sources? Syd75 (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
PhD and Master's theses should be considered unpublished (or self-published) observations unless they have been published elsewhere in, f.ex, a peer-reviewed journal. Having experienced both, the peer-review process is far more rigourous than an oral defense. Famousdog (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
"So it's okay to just use ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments" I believe this is a straw man argument, as no one here is doing any such thing, or even suggesting it. --Ronz (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
We're doing it indirectly by referencing sources that do just that. It leads to a bias, especially in consideration that none of the sources that supports Bates are allowed here. Syd75 (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what has transpired here previously but it seems that the selection of sources may not have been NPOV. For example, I just searched for a reasonably reliable source and soon found this item from The Times, the UK's principal journal of record: Conditions: Refractive error. This states, Vision education, or the Bates Method, is a programme of eye exercises that aims to improve sight without resorting to lenses or surgery. Although there have not been any recent clinical trials, ophthalmologists agree that the exercises may help some cases of short sight and certain types of squint.. This not only does not ridicule the method, it indicates that it may be of some value. I look around a bit more and find this piece in the Wall Street Journal: A Workout for Your Eyes. This is no enconium but does not ridicule and also says that eye exercises may help in some cases. I've seen enough and so am removing Gardner's opinion. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The sources you cite are journalism (with all the associated sensationalism and absence of fact-checking that goes along with it). Try finding a source in a peer-reviewed journal, written by a scientist perhaps, that concludes "hey, this Bates guy was right!" I think you will struggle. Famousdog (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I also think it is telling that in the Times article, the "complimentary therapy" section that discusses Bates is squarely at the end and about 1/10 the length of the sections devoted to more "mainstream" treatments. It smacks of something added at the last minute to fulfill an obligation to provide "alternative views". Anyway, the Times is a bloody Tory rag that I wouldn't wipe my bottom with! Famousdog (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
... and unfortunately, the Wall Street Journal article is not freely available, so I can't read all of it (and surely this excludes it from being sourced?), however it does begin "most eye doctors take a dim view of the idea." Hardly complimentary (pun unintended)! Famousdog (talk) 13:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
"I'm not sure what has transpired here previously but it seems that the selection of sources may not have been NPOV." Then I suggest you read the discussions here, read the sources, read this article, and follow WP:CON. --Ronz (talk) 23:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • No, consensus may change and so we start afresh with your contention that this article should ridicule. This proposition violates our core policy of WP:NPOV which requires an impartial tone throughout: A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view.. Consensus may not override core policies and so that's that. Content which does not have a properly dispassionate tone, such as the Gardener piece, should be removed forthwith. There seem to be numerous better sources which summarise the method in a more objective and up-to-date way and so these should be substituted. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's really striking how often people make an explicit claim of consensus when it is clearly absent. As in this case. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 08:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


"so we start afresh with your contention that this article should ridicule." Another straw man argument. Please do not misrepresent others. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Brain training

Much work is done by the brain in processing visual inputs to fill in the blind spot and otherwise improve visual perception. There is an experiment in which subjects have their vision inverted by means of a prism. They are able to adjust to this in time and then have to readjust when the inversion effect is removed. I myself have some personal experience of such adjustment to compensate for vision defects. This is sometimes exploited when contact lens prescriptions are set up to provide monovision in which the eyes separately cover different ranges of focus. My impression is that Bates did not address such issues but that his methods may have benefited from them. Do modern versions of the method, to which the article alludes, explore this aspect? Colonel Warden (talk) 18:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not what is commonly referred to as "brain training", what you are talking about is simple visual adaptation. Its been known about for a long time, has been quite extensively researched and has, as far as I can tell, no relevance to Bates. It would count as original research to make any connection since most research on this topic post-dates Bates. Famousdog (talk) 13:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

See Clearly Method

I disagree with the removal of this section. There are four sources independent of SCM as well as Bates which link the two in some way. The details SamuelTheGhost added previously were summed up in the words "among other issues" (which one can go to the See Clearly Method article to find.) PSWG1920 (talk) 13:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not a question of sources; the facts are clear. The question is, why should this material be included, and to say that we can "link the two in some way" is hopelessly inadequate as a reason. The reason the SCM got into trouble is that they charged a lot of money, made exaggerated claims, and didn't honour their money-back guarantee. That could have arisen in exactly the same way if they'd been teaching Hungarian. If they had, would that justify putting it into the article on Hungarian language? I put the full details in as a second-best option, to try and make the picture clear, but I'd much prefer to omit the incident altogether. It tells us nothing whatever about Bates method, and thus is completely off-topic. Its inclusion has always seemed to me a crude example of a "guilt by association" smear, and I'm a bit surprised you're so keen on it. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I do see your point, however, surfing the net I have noticed that some people think that the See Clearly Method is the Bates method. Having that section in this article set that straight. PSWG1920 (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I must admit that that had never occurred to me, but the article is hardly written as if that were the main message, and there's better ways of saying it if necessary. Maybe some people think BM is SCM; Seeyou keeps telling us that BM is NVI; it does make me realise that the words "Bates method" cannot be anyone's trademark, which means that anyone can use them. Perhaps that fact is worth drawing attention to. To be fair, the only options are either to atttempt to list all current purveyors of Bates method, which could only be done over Ronz' dead body, or simply to say there's lots of them out there, without identifying any particular one, and caveat emptor. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The See Clearly Method is probably the most notable contemporary "variant" of the Bates method, as there are plenty of independent sources which address it specifically. Such does not seem to be the case with the Goodrich/Quackenbush approach of "Natural Vision Improvement", for instance. Perhaps the "See Clearly Method" subsection should be further rewritten, but I definitely think it belongs in this article. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it should be mentioned. I'm not sure how much we need to go into it, nor why we need to use self-published sources to partially verify original research. --Ronz (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"The reason the SCM got into trouble is that they charged a lot of money, made exaggerated claims, and didn't honour their money-back guarantee. That could have arisen in exactly the same way if they'd been teaching Hungarian."

But if the See Clearly method actually worked, their claims wouldn't have been exaggerations, not very many people would have wanted their money back, and it would have been easy for the See Clearly Method people to honor their guarantee. The same issue certainly could arise in the context of teaching Hungarian, but it doesn't, because teachers of Hungarian are able to deliver what they promise. In fact there is a language school in Boston that has been running subway posters saying "Guaranteed Swahili!" for years and years, with no objection by the state attorney-general. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd be really interested to see the exact terms implied by "Guaranteed Swahili!" If there was an organised body of professionals dedicated to the notion that Swahili couldn't be learnt, don't you think the Boston school would be in trouble? In fact there are many dozens of BM teachers around the world who are functioning without complaint, because they avoid silly promises. There have been at least two other lawsuits in the US (Corbett and Hackett, see Pollack's book pp. 7-8) where the practitioners were acquitted. BM is an educational process, and every responsible teacher knows that you don't always win. Bates himself was inclined to exaggerate, which I think harmed his cause greatly, but most of his successors make more modest claims. Meanwhile, I'm tempted to go to Boston, fail to learn Swahili, and sue them. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 07:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Getting back to the question of whether the See Clearly Method should be mentioned in this article (remember this is not a forum for general discussion of the subject), I would respond to your original argument by pointing out that the Bates method is a much narrower topic than the Hungarian language. Thus applying the same reasoning to what should and shouldn't be in articles about the respective subjects is highly suspect. Moreover, if a company sold a "teach yourself Hungarian" kit with a money-back guarantee that they were found not to be honoring despite many attempts to get it, no remotely sensible person would deduce that everyone claiming to teach Hungarian is a quack. The same is not the case with the See Clearly Method and vision improvement, hence the need to address that here. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Why aren't we including accounts of the many Bates teachers and schools, past and present, who have functioned without complaintt, and with apparently only satisfied customers? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I think we can do that if we have independent sources which discuss them in some detail. PSWG1920 (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
There is, as you know, a severe dearth of independent discussion of such things. The two exceptions I can think of are the cases of Corbett and Hackett mentioned above, both of which are described in Pollack's book. For Corbett most of it is in Margaret Corbett already, but that needn't be a bar given that See Clearly Method also has its own article. For Hackett, Pollack just mentions that she was tried and acquitted, saying only that it was "similar" to Corbett's case but in New York. The crucial point in both these cases, however, is that they could produce lots of satisfied customers as witnesses, and presumably the prosecution couldn't find unsatisfied ones, since if they had been able to they would have done. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we could create an "After Bates" section to chronicle the history up to the present day. This could include what is currently in "Modern Variants" as well as Huxley's story, plus whatever else we could get away with adding. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that's an excellent idea. Would others agree??? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
It is an option, but in my opinion a much simpler and correct solution is to stick to the literature. When we refer to the old Bates method we speak of the Bates method for Better Eyesight and when we speak of the Bates method of today we speak of the Bates method of Natural vision improvement. Ths is exactly what literature speaks of. It is important to understand we are only editors. We can not just present how we see the BM ourselves. It should be based on references.Seeyou (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Neither Corbett nor Hackett had anything to do with NVI. It might be possible to mention NVI as one of the many schools currently operating. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I do agree with SamuelTheGhost here. I would add that attempting to distinguish between the "Bates method for better eyesight" and the "Bates method of natural vision improvement" will if anything only confuse the reader. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A note on the Huxley incident

Another indirect source, but this one specifies when and where Cerf published the account:

--"Reality shopping; a consumer's guide to new age hokum. Alan M. MacRobert. Whole Earth Review (Autumn 1986): pp4(11).

MacRobert also says that "in 1956, a Manhattan optometrist, Philip Pollack, wrote the definitive book exposing [the Bates system's] failures, The Truth About Eye Exercises. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The Cerf quote is given in Bates method#The case of Huxley. It is given there with reference to [4]. In that book by Gardner (I have it on my desk as I write) the details are given exactly as MacRobert has copied them. They aren't all in the BM article solely to avoid pointless clutter. As for Pollack's book (I have it on my desk as I write), it is referred to I think nine times ([5] and [6]) in the Bates method article, starting with the lead section. Furthermore I referred to it in my message to you above, when I said "(Corbett and Hackett, see Pollack's book pp. 7-8)" which you obviously didn't study very carefully. But keep on trying. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
"...which you obviously didn't study very carefully. But keep on trying." Watch the personal attacks, Sam. Famousdog (talk) 14:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

References

RFC Nr : 1 change of title Bates method into Bates method / Natural Vision improvement

RFC Nr : 2 Removal of sourced quotes

"After Bates" section

Books

Dead-end

Information of questionable importance

Positive independent source?

Second Generation Bates versus Classic Bates method

Biofeedback training

Article images?

RFC nr : 3 removal of Woods research results

Resources which would be helpful to have online

Dishonest wikilinks

"Original research to promote a fringe point of view"

GA Nom

Tags

Impartial Tone

Forum shopping

Further reading / External links

Edit by Zappernapper

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bates method/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Add Citations

I think it is an OK article. Add a few more pictures, some citations and fix the dispute, than we can pass or fail it.Cssiitcic (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you give examples of where in the article you think citations need to be added? To me the article seems well-sourced except possibly for two paragraphs regarding criticism, discussed here and here, which have been worked on to be as non-interpretative as possible. If it came down to those two paragraphs being the only thing stopping this from being a Good Article I suppose they could be deleted, but I think in present form they are fine and show why WP:OR should not be taken 100% literally in regards to this article, per WP:IAR. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

Regarding your recommendation to "add a few more pictures", while there are more public domain images available, I'm not sure that any of them would really improve the article. The most obvious remaining option, illustrations of Bates' "sun treatment", would likely be controversial for reasons discussed here. Other available photographs would be difficult to establish a context for, or would require a perhaps unwieldy amount of explanation. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for closure

This article, while very good, is not in the kind of state a good article should be: there are OR tags, and still disagreements about undue weight. It's been well past the seven days allowed. As for additional images, why not one about eye muscles? -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 03:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that in the context of this article, an image involving the workings of the eye (or someone's ideas regarding such) would require far too much explanation. Beyond that, I will reluctantly agree with you about the article not currently being in the state a Good Article should be. Recently I suggested a process which would be similar to GA review, but for the purpose of dispute resolution rather than upgrading the article's status. If implemented and established, I think such a process could get the article to a state where it could then pass as GA. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
i don't know... something that shows which muscles specifcally Bates felt were "straining" the eye would be straight forward and helpful, and then an image/diagram showing the muscles in the eye responsible for focus to balance the POV. but yeah, it appears the original reviewer has stopped paying attn. I'm closing this at the end of today if no one else has ne objections. Like i said, we're past seven days and there's enough backlog at WP:GAN -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 08:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
That is a very good point Zappernapper. Did a quick scan in some books. These kind of pictures are presented in Bates his PSWG. Fig 4 on page 11. Diagram of the hypermetropic ( recti muscles ), Emmetropic (normal eye ) and Myopic Eyeball ( oblique muscles ). And I fully disagree with PSWG1920. A Picture explains much more than a 1000 words. Seeyou (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Informal review

Comments on Informal Review

Pollack and Gardner as sources

Proposal to remove "Ophthalmological Research" section

Farewell to the Woods Report

Primary sources tag

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI