Talk:Bates method

Open proxies

Just a heads up, but in the last week, several identified Tor open proxies have been used to edit this article, which ought to be cause for concern:

• 140.112.96.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 217.157.63.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 217.198.148.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 219.232.228.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.155.229.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 80.126.121.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.64.210.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 82.237.39.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 85.17.45.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 85.31.186.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.136.70.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 88.191.38.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 89.37.216.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 99.246.150.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 202.38.124.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• 68.48.198.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• 80.249.115.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• 87.255.6.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• 88.167.101.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• 88.198.47.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• 89.123.10.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• 91.121.102.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)

There are a whole bunch of other IPs which are not obviously open proxies, but perhaps someone who knows what he or she is doing could actually check. --Calton | Talk 05:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank Christ somebody has finally noticed this. Dunno what a Tor open proxy is, but I hope we can stop whoever it is editing in this anonymous manner. Famousdog (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The Onion Router (Tor) is an anonymity network using different proxies that allows a user to act as if they had a different external IP address, which is useful if you're trying to get around censorship but useless if you want to edit Wikipedia, as open and anonymizing proxies are barred from editing. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus?

Okay. This is a f***ing joke. I've just reverted Seeyou's reversion for the trillionth time and I'm getting pretty f***ing bored with this game. MastCell, Jeske and myself seem to be happy with the version that Seeyou finds sooooooo offensive. That's 3 against 1, I reckon (ignoring any anonymous users) but I suppose Seeyou is just going to argue that MastCell and Jeske are my sockpuppets in the same way that I am a sockpuppet of AED and various other users... and so on and so on and so on forever and ever and ever ad infinatum... Mediation and arbitration have lead nowhere on this issue. Can we get Seeyou's disruptive account blocked PLEASE??? Famousdog (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest WP:AN/I and provide diffs showing a problem. This is beyond content to behavioral, and thus AN/I can now deal with it. And if he accuses ANYONE of being a sockpuppet, he'd better have the evidence to back it up, or else. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation case

I've opened the mediation cabal request that User:Seeyou filed here Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-07 Bates method and will be serving at the mediator of it, unless anyone objects. I've reviewed the diffs Seeyou provided and the current version of the article, as well as about the last month of talkpage contents. At this point I've noticed somethings that lead me to general comments.

• 1. Despite the length of the talk-age, I see very few WP:AGF discussions, and much pontificating, essying, and talking past other users.
• 2. I believe the article can use some stylistic improvments, as well as further sourcing of certain statements, to avoid non-NPOV, OR statements.
• 3. I do not see a previous WP:RFC or WP:3O filed in this matter. While I as a mediator can help bring disagreeing parties together, I feel that sometimes more registered voices will add to discussion.
• 4. I've seen at least a couple accusations thrown around wildly here and on other related pages. So I'll remind all involved parties of WP:CIVIL and that the mediation cabal process is 100% voluntary. In and of itself, this process cannot block, ban or censor a user. Also, all accusations of sock-puppetry, bad faith, or pov-pushing, should be clearly back up by evidence (diffs, page histories, etc) and taken to the proper forum, such as WP:SSP.
• 5. At this point, I would like the involved parties to state what they disagree with in the tone of the current version of it. Specifically, how version X is not WP:NPOV. I'm not looking for super-long quotes, more possibly several short descriptive sentences. MBisanz ^talk 20:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion

So I've heard from both sides on this matter, read into an interesting thing I'd never heard of before, and have some concluding opinions.

• 1. Mediation is not a process that blocks a user or automatically ends vandalism, those are things that are done in other forums. Mediation is a voluntary dispute resolution process that does not assess penalties to either party.
• 2. In reviewing this case, it seems there is an existing consensus among several users. This consensus is not to be taken lightly. Evidence of off-wiki support for a position, is not the same as on-wiki discussion. Further, as long as consensus is support by reliable sources and presented in a NPOV and does not violate a legal policy such as BLP, I am of the opinion that it should be given paramount respect.
• 3. Further, as an independent third party, knowing nothing of the topic at hand, but having a year of college bio, a year of college chemistry and half a year of physics, I am of the opinon that the current version [1] meets Wikipedia's standards for neutrally, factually, and fairly, presenting the topic at hand. While there could be some stylistic changes in layout, I do not see any disputable content.
• 4. In light of my inability (and unwillingness) to do what the parties seem to want, namely to block a user (WP:AN/I, WP:AN, WP:ARBCOM) or stop all vandalism (WP:RFPP), I am therefore closing this case.

MBisanz ^talk 18:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, MBisanz. Maybe now we can all get on with our lives. Famousdog (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The Reason : NPOV giving objective referenced information

The reason for creating this cabalcase is the batesmethod is presented from un unbalanced point of view in the introduction of the article. The current version is mainly sceptic. In the 3 party version an authority advocate of the Batesmethod ( Thomas Quackenbush ) was also given room to give referenced information. This article should strive to present its information as objective as possible. The authority on this subject should be ophthalmology. Indirectly they state the batesmethod is controversial. ( See the link (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15825744?dopt=AbstractPlus ). This is also the reason why the quackery links which were present in the past were removed, So at this moment the Batesmethod is not quackery anymore it has become controversial. ( Thanks to famousdog, I am serious ). The only way to be as objective as possible is to allow every single party to have their say about the batesmethod. Meaning the advocates of the Batesmethod, the sceptics and ophthalmology. The neutral version presents all points of view. In future they can off course be improved. The current version does not. In the 3 party version is also made clear bates thought the external muscles were the only muscles of the eye for accommodation. But not al advocates of the batesmethod believe Bates was right about his accommodationtheory. In other words the neutral version gives much more objective referenced and clear information. And improves the quality of the article. ( I also want to emphasize Mastcell and Jéské Couriano are not involved in editing this article when you look at their total edits of this article. Seeyou and famousdog are much more active. )

Neutral 3 point of view version :

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bates_method&diff=182792619&oldid=182773677

Vandalized version by Famousdog.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bates_method

Seeyou (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Although the Rawstron review cited by Seeyou is pretty damning of eye exercises generally, the Marg (1957) paper (http://brain.berkeley.edu/pub/1952%20April%20Flashes%20of%20Clear%20Vision.pdf) is damning of the Bates method specifically. There is little recent research from ophthalmology on the Bates method for the simple fact that most ophthalmologists agree with Marg that it is nonsensical pseudoscience and best ignored. Secondly, I would like to point out that Seeyou in the above post has once again accused me of vandalism. Finally, his statement "not all advocates of the batesmethod believe Bates was right about this (my emphasis)" demonstrates how much flip-flopping and vagueness there is among Bates advocates. Firstly, a practitioners belief should not come into a discussion on potentially saving somebody sight! If Bates was wrong about this one important fact, surely it throws his other theories into confusion. Concepts crucial to the Bates method (like "strain") are so poorly defined and open to interpretation, as to be useless. Famousdog (talk) 14:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point, Famousdog. If Seeyou really wants to include all perspectives of the Bates method in the introduction, a quote from Marg should be included.

By the way, admins, it looks like that important link was originally provided by an anonymous edit on December 24. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.240.216.135 (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Don’t be fooled

> (http://brain.berkeley.edu/pub/1952%20April%20Flashes%20of%20Clear%20Vision.pdf) is damning of the Bates method specifically. Yes it refers to the original old Batesmethod But the original batesmethod has developed itself into a new modern one. The Batesmethod nowadays has improved in many ways. Most importantly in its explanation. Janet Goodrich has for example been very important by introducing creative tools like the nosepointer, pencil, feather the beadgame etc. This appears to be a bit childish but is very helpful in understanding and teaching !. She also says in her book The original Batesbook has gathered dust on many bookshelves. In other words it is not a great book to read and to really learn and understand natures system. What I am trying to say is the Batesmethod Marg talks about is not the same as the Batesmethod nowadays. Teachers have developed many tools in explaining and giving instructions based on scientific facts.

> There is little recent research from ophthalmology on the Bates method for the simple fact that most ophthalmologists agree with Marg that it is nonsensical pseudoscience and best ignored. Looking at het rawstron review at least 44 scientists ignored Elwin Margs report. So that is not true. Recently I have heard there is also a German professor in ophthalmology who reports significant results in the effects of relaxation on cataract. See : http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/search/ref=pd_lpo_ix_dp_dn_de_uk_de?keywords=ilse%20strempel&tag=lpo%5Fixdpdndeukde-21&index=blended published in July 2002 !

Off course you will react with this is not Batesmethod, but again the Batesmethod is also about principles. The most important ones are relaxation and movement. This German Professor in ophthalmology emphasizes on the importance of relaxation !

> accused me of vandalism.. If you want, I will explain why, no problem.

> Firstly, a practitioners belief should not come into a discussion on potentially saving somebody sight! I am not a practitioner I am just an editor in this article. I just want to improve the quality of this article and to be objective.

> Concepts crucial to the Bates method (like "strain") are so poorly defined and open to interpretation, as to be useless. That is your opinion ntt mine.

Sorry famousdog I do not understand why the almost 60 year old reference of a single person has more weight then the 3 year old rawstron review linked to many researchers. The argument the rawstron link is about exercises and not about the Bates method is not valid, because the Batesmethod is also about principles ( movement and relaxation ). I can not imagine the exercises of the rawstronlink are not focussed on movement.

And it also appears to me the Elwin Margs report is put on the Berkely website just for this wikipedia article. I can not find a link on the website directly to the pdf file.( google idem ). In other words it is a created link. So it shows ophthalmology only wants to explain when they are forced to explain.

Gladly read your reply. Seeyou (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Onus is on the editor to provide reasons to change the consensus. I see none. Stop beating around the bush and provide sources that rebut the claims, please, or drop the stick. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe your looking for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and hasn't this article been there and been turned down? Did you ever think of running a WP:RFC? MBisanz ^talk 13:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Dispute about Introduction represent old 1920 Batesmethod or the Batesmethod of today

There is no consensus. The introduction of this article is not NPOV and does not represent the batesmethod of today. The batesmethod of natural vision improvement today is not the same as the 1920 batesmethod. The reason it’s explanation has improved a lot ! The introduction of this article should present the current batesmethod not the old one. The old batesmethod should be presented in the second, third or last paragraph.

( There are no articles in wikipedia representing the history of its subject immediately in the first paragraph ! )

The article Natural vision improvement ( which is also the batesmethod ) also directs directly to this article, When the introduction does not change Natural vision improvement will be misunderstood and misinterpreted by many people only reading the introduction about the old batesmethod and the old 1952 opinion of ophthalmology.

Some sources : The Batesmethod is updated and much better explained see the links below for verification :

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1556433417/ref=sib_dp_pop_bc?ie=UTF8&p=S0GA#reader-link ( See the backcover Presentation of the current batesmethod, The book is dated 1997 !!!! )

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1556433417/ref=sib_dp_pop_toc?ie=UTF8&p=S008#reader-link ( The table of contents : Chapter 9 and 11. Two important principles movement and relaxation.)

More recent studies by ophthalmology give the following results with these 2 principles of the Batesmethod.

Sources of Ophthalmology of this century are now in the last paragraph : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15825744?dopt=AbstractPlus may 2005 ( conclusion : As yet there is no clear scientific evidence published in the mainstream literature supporting the use of eye exercises in the remainder of the areas reviewed, and their use therefore remains controversial. http://www.augenarzt-betzdorf.de/therapieglaukom.php ( in German, translated  : in the book autogenic training in ophthalmology, the writers G. Kaluza and professor Ilse Strempel ophthalmologist of the university eye hospital Marburg, have developed a relaxationtechnique by which the eye-pressure significantly can be decreased. ( German In dem Buch „Autogenes Training in der Augenheilkunde“ haben die Autoren G. Kaluza und Prof. med. Ilse Strempel (Augenärztin an der Universitätsaugenklinik Marburg) ein Entspannungstraining entwickelt, wodurch nachweislich der Augeninnendruck gesenkt werden konnte.))

Neutral 3 point of view version representing the batesmethod of today :

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bates_method&diff=182792619&oldid=182773677

Current Unneutral version representing the 1920 batesmethod

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bates_method

Seeyou (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you withdraw the RfC. Everyone is going to see it as an attempt to make an end-run around the consensus currently in place and forum-shopping. Further, reading over your version, I see it is fundamentally biased and thus not up to Wikipedia standard, which requires we approach a topic with a very high degree of dispassion. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 17:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I've got to agree with Jeske that it does seem an RFC will go nowhere. So far this issue has been to 3O, medcab, medcomm, and rfar I believe, and has either been declined or a version substantially identical to this [2] validated as being the less non-NPOV of the options presented. Quite frankly, I don't see the WP:POINT being made here. There is a consensus among people who've edited the article as to the better version, several outsiders such as WJBscribe and Newyorkbrad seem to have at least looked at the issue in declining escalation, and haven't seen any abuse of minority position or fundamental content flaws. MBisanz ^talk 18:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The Bates method cannot itself be updated, since Bates isn't around to do it and hasn't been since 1931. Anything involving Goodrich's techniques, pro or con, belongs in the Other methods section. Since Rawstron doesn't address Bates, but rather "eye exercises", that too belongs only in "Other methods". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.97.114.200 (talk) 03:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Take for example a car A car is a tool / ( also a method ) to move yourself from A to B. When we nowadays talk about a car. We do not talk about a car of the past. We talk about a car today. When we talk about ophthalmology we do not talk about ophthalmology 100 or 60 years ago we talk about ophthalmology now. We named natures way to improve eyesight Batesmethod. We also named it Natural vision improvement. See wikipedia. By the way the first car was a coach with an engine. It has improved a lot since then ! The definition in the last paragraph is the definition of the batesmethod today. And it is Based on the literature available today.

> The Bates method cannot itself be updated, since Bates isn't around to do it and hasn't been since 1931. Can you explain to my why a car can be improved by technicians or ophthalmology can be updated or improved by new opthalmologists and the Batesmethod can not be improved by other teachers ? Again bates did not call his method Batesmethod he talkes about natures way to See. Seeyou (talk) 09:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

From Better Eyesight magazine:

The following, however, is a list of those who have taken courses of instruction in the Bates Method within the past few months. So Bates at least permitted his magazine's editor to use that terminology.

Vision improvement techniques could have advanced since Bates (though it is questionable whether they have become more effective), but that doesn't change what the Bates method is. There is the Other methods section, which can be made as expansive as you want. But leave the rest of the article, including the introduction, to discussion of Bates and his specific theories and treatments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.223.23 (talk) 09:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

> Vision improvement techniques could have advanced since Bates but that doesn't change what the Bates method is. It does,, the batesmethod of today is not the same as the old one. See the back-cover of Relearning to See. First sentence : In this groundbreaking presentation of the Batesmethod, … So the publisher speaks about the presentation of the BATESMETHOD. But when you read this book you wont find for example the controversial theory of the focussing mechanism, direct sunlight sunning, claim to use imagining black for narcoses. In other words based on this publication the Batesmethod has changed. Since we are only editors, we should provide only sourced information. ( And not mix it with our own opinions ). This recentb 1997 publication proves the Batesmethod has changed. Seeyou (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And round and round and round we go... please, somebody make it stop! Famousdog (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

A NPOV definition of the Bates method must be derived only from the works of Bates himself, as the introduction to this article is. The claim that anything else is the Bates method, is POV, whether it comes from a book or not. Such can be dealt with in the "Other Methods" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.149.160.175 (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Changes to chapter headings and off-topic discussion of retinal detachment

By all means, say that it has been claimed that the BM can prevent retinal detachment. However, this is not an article about risk or prevelance of retinal detachment (and this info should already be available in the article on RD). In addition, the claim that the BM can prevent RD is POV and should be qualified as such. Finally, your changes to chapter titles do not seem to add anything to the article! In the context of the article it is obvious that "natural vision improvement" refers to "the Bates method of natural vision improvement" and not some other system/program/technique, so why bother potentially messing up any internal or external links to these sections??? Famousdog (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've got to agree with Famousdog on the section headings. If this article was on NVI in general, then yes headings would be needed to distinguish Bate's from other methods. And over 50 articles link to this one in some manner, so its probably not a good idea to go changing sections around, unless there is some obvious reason (section split, etc). MBisanz ^talk 21:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Central fixation

This section is seriously POV. How can CF be lost "at a cetain distance"? Fixation is central or peripheral. The retinal image is 2D. The quotes are too long - this is an encyclopedia article not a soapbox for Bates. I've also suggested some well-known visual phenomena that could explain Bates' amazing skills at making people see worse! Famousdog (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Shifting and Swinging

Famousdog, I don't understand this paragraph:

Bates recommended swinging or shifting involving deliberate movements of the body with relaxed awareness of vision. It is quite unclear what Bates meant by these terms and due to the nystagmus or oculomotor reflexes, which attempt unconsciously to stabilise the retinal image, it is unlikely to be achieved.

I thought Chapter 15 of Bates' book, and in my opinion my previous rewrite, made it fairly clear what he meant by shifting and swinging. Whether he was correct in his assertions regarding such is another question. Also, what are you talking about when you say it is unlikely to be achieved? PSWG1920 (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as it is possible to tell what Bates meant (and one of the persistent problems with this article is the fact that everybody has their own theories about Bates' meaning), the idea of swinging was to relax fixation and allow the retinal image to slide over the retina by moving the body back and forth rather than moving the eyes. When the retinal image moves, the eyes automatically attempt to stabilise the visual image (because you gain more resolution from a stabilised image than a moving one) by making tiny eye movements called nystagmus (a mixture of saccadic and pursuit eye movements). Its a reflex, you can't stop it happening by relaxing. That's what I meant by "unlikely to be achieved". Finally, just a general comment: you seem to be a new editor to this article. Please, please try to summarise material rather than simply cutting-and-pasting huge sections from Bates' book. The whole book is available online. If you think a section is important, link to that section on Wikibook. This is, at the end of the day, an encyclopedia article about the Bates Method. Not a definitive and complete academic analysis of his every word. Famousdog (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The disagreements about Bates' meaning are all the more reason to include his words here, though I admit to having gone slightly overboard with that in my last edit of this section. As it is now, the first paragraph of the Shifting and Swinging section is barely comprehensible.

Bates' "swinging" is about oppositional movement, and unlearning the strain which he said inhibits it, which doesn't seem to be reflected in the current version of this section. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm probably going to regret it, but "oppositional movement" of what? "Strain" of what? "Inhibition" of what, by what? Famousdog (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll summarize my understanding of Bates here, without quotes from him for now. Whenever eyes move, either by themselves or with the body, everything seen should appear to move in the direction opposite to that in which the eyes are moving (although those with perfect sight don't usually notice that, because it is natural for them.) Bates called this the "swing". But if you are making an effort to see, according to Bates, you are likely trying to hold onto whatever you are moving away from, while simultaneously trying to look at something else. This prevents the oppositional movement from being fully experienced, Bates contended, and also inhibits central fixation. To help unlearn this, Bates suggested shifting relatively slowly from one point to another, starting at the distance you can see most clearly at, letting each point go when moving to the next one. Later, in the Better Eyesight magazine, he also recommended the "long swing", moving your body from side to side and letting your eyes go with it, while allowing everything seen to move in the direction opposite to your body. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Better Eyesight Magazine link

I fail to see how this link is relevant to the article. --Ronz (talk) 01:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Really? Did you look at the link? It appears to be an archive of an old magazine about the Bates Method specifically and written by Dr. Bates:

Better Eyesight is a monthly magazine published in the period July 1919 to June 1930. The magazine was printed on Dr. Bates' own publishing company: Central Fixation Publishing Co.

The magazines details Dr. Bates' findings after decades of research and experimental work into various eye disorders, and include several interesting case histories.

Seems highly relevant and interesting. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is about Bates method, not Bates, not his publishing, not his magazine. --Ronz (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a magazine about the Bates Method written by Dr. Bates. How much more "on topic" does it get? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The hosting site doesn't help the situation.

It's a rare, maybe unique, situation to have such a resource available. I'd like to hear from the editor involved. --Ronz (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Levine2112 has pretty much spoken for me. How can such a link not be relevant here? PSWG1920 (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Who is hosting the website? I don't understand why that is relevant. And no, this isn't all that rare of a situation. This is a really good resource for this article and completely meets the requirements of WP:EL. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The hosting site, central-fixation.com, does not meet WP:EL.

If it weren't hosted at such a site, I'd be more inclined to include it in a "Further reading" section or something similar. --Ronz (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't it meet WP:EL? Specifically, is there a guideline in WP:El#Links_normally_to_be_avoided which you feels accurately applies to central-fixation.com in general or more important to the actual magazine archive on this site? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) 2 - Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research". --Ronz (talk) 04:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it the turn-of-the-century republished magazine which is giving factually inaccurate material/unverified researh or is it the actual "hosting site"? What part is unverified or inaccurate? How do you know this? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to wade in here. Personally, I think the Central Fixation site is basically a BM promotional tool and I viscerally object to any link to it. HOWEVER... it does provide a resource to learn about the BM from the man himself (crazy loon that he was) that is, apparently, unavailable elsewhere. I therefore think we have to tolerate the link to the CF site, so that readers can find out for themselves what nonsensical rubbish Bates came out with. If there was a version of these magazines at some other, more neutral, source (such as Wikibook - hint hint), then I believe that link would take precedence as it avoids any nasty implications of linkspam and bias. Famousdog (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If and when neutral sources are found, they should replace these ones that fail WP:EL. --Ronz (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree. Regardless if CF is a promotional tool for BM, that does not preclude it from being an EL. IMO, this doesn't jive with anything in WP:El#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. It appears to me that perhaps you may be showing prejudice against this link because you disagree with BM. That is unacceptable. This link does not have objectional amounts of advertising nor does is it mainly intended to promote a website. I believe that it provides a wonderful resource for the topic at hand. That said, if the same source was found on WikiBooks (which I believe you are in the process of making happen), I suppose I wouldn't have a problem with that. But as it stands, I haven't seen a good argument not to include the link as it stands now. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess you have a lot to learn about WP:NPOV, WP:SPAM, and WP:EL then. --Ronz (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Then please instruct me why any of those apply here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read my previous comment from 04:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC) --Ronz (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Kindly respond to my question proceeding your comment (06:23, 30 January 2008). -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe I already have. Please rephrase your question to indicate you've actually read and understood my responses. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I am looking below where I asked my question and I don't see any response. Can you please tell me where you answered the question and/or restate your answer here? While you are doing so, you can get around to answering my question about why you feel that WP:SPAM and WP:NPOV apply here. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Repeating myself: The hosting site, central-fixation.com, does not meet WP:EL as it is a site "that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." --Ronz (talk) 05:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you answered the first part of my queston. Now for the rest. Repeating myself: What part is unverified or inaccurate? How do you know this? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Dunno about "inaccurate", but I would argue that the BM, as the CF site presents it, is easily "unverified" and very possibly "unverifiable." Famousdog (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

What specifically is unverifiable? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Book vs Further reading

I've gone ahead and created a Further reading section. Per WP:NPOV, I see no reason to highlight one book like it was, nor to detail why it's in public domain, nor give details about different editions. --Ronz (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That seems fine. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD

I was just informed of a POV fork of this article and have nominated it for deletion here. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm frankly appalled. Seeyou really has shown his true colours. The only thing he is interested in is promoting his own view of the Bates method and everybody else can go hang. Famousdog (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

The sources that fail WP:RS should be removed, and independent sources need to be found per WP:NPOV to show that the sub-topics are worth mentioning here. --Ronz (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The "Reliable Sources" article indicates that it is a general guideline rather than an official policy, and says that it needs to be approached with common sense. In my opinion, it should be expected that there will be sources promotional of the Bates method in an article about such, just as there will be sources critical of it. And as far as I can tell, the pro-Bates sources are used to establish what claims are made, not to attempt to prove the accuracy of those claims.

As for the testimonials as sources, they are submitted to show that success is still claimed with the Bates method, and it isn't just something that some people used to believe in. And they are counterbalanced by the link in the same sentence to the anecdotal evidence article, which establishes the limited value of success stories. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Take some time to read NPOV in detail, especially WP:WEIGHT. It's very complicated, and misunderstandings of it are common, especially with articles on quackery like the Bates method.

Any section without independent sources may be removed if editors feel it is non-neutral.

While WP:RS is a guideline, WP:V is policy. I prefer to mention WP:RS as it is more specific to this situation. If you like, just think of each time I mention WP:RS, as a reference to both WP:RS and WP:V. --Ronz (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

"Claimed success" section

I actually created the "Claimed success" section hoping to get help from experts with sources and details. In discussions of Bates, such as on sci.med.vision, I have seen such explanations offered by skeptics when they are confronted with claims of success with Bates. So there should be sources. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

While I think it's worthwhile to search for such sources, you should probably read WP:OR because it applies here and is grounds for removal of the section. --Ronz (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I added a template noting that the section is in need of attention by an expert. You got me on original research, but why do you think the section is POV? In which direction is it biased? PSWG1920 (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Good call on requesting an expert. I forget about that option too often.

We're discussing anecdotal evidence here vs scientific facts, so there are definitely pov issues that we need to considered. --Ronz (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed all the tags from this section, as it is now well-sourced, in my opinion. I also promoted it from a subsection, and demoted Aldous Huxley and Margaret Corbett. Claimed success could still be expanded to include a more detailed discussion of some of the sources and points they make, which could also shed more light on what may have actually happened with Huxley. PSWG1920 (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Length of article

Partisan divisions regarding the content of this article aside, it is simply too damn long. PSWG1920's additions especially have hugely increased the word count of this page to the point where it is totally unwieldy as an encyclopedia article. I suggest that all editors, pro- or anti-Bates, make a concerted effort to cut this article down to more manageable proportions. Famousdog (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Most should be removed per NPOV and NOT. This article is not a forum to republish Bates' writings. --Ronz (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Any section without an independent, reliable source is at risk for deletion per NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The only areas of the article I have lengthened are the "Bates' treatments" section and more recently the "Efficacy" section to which I added a subsection discussing claims of success with the Bates method and specific reasons why such claims might not be reliable (which proves I am not just advocating for one side here.) I was hoping that you, Famousdog, might help with that section (see above.) As for the treatments section, the discussion of each of his main methods of treatment, including quotes from him, is necessary to illustrate the subtlety (whether or not such methods are actually effective.) I and others felt that this article previously misrepresented the method, creating the impression that Bates said "doing this and this and this" would improve eyesight, and implicitly saying, "well, its been tested and it doesn't work." PSWG1920 (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be lovely, PSWG1920, but what you call "subtlety" in Bates writings, others of a more scientific bent call vagueness and impreciseness. His writings are so open to interpretation, that direct quotes from Bates usually just muddy the waters, rather than tell us exactly what he meant (I would argue that he wasn't even sure himself!). Discuss... Famousdog (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Incorporation of Criticisms section into main text

One of the ongoing annoyances of this article (for me) is that the section about Bates' theories and treatments is devoid of criticism and all contrary evidence (of which there is much) is relegated to the 'criticism' section, which importantly follows the 'theories and treatments' section(s). I find it unlikely that an interested reader would actually get that far through the article unless they were really interested! (hence the ongoing battle over the lead paragraph) I would like to canvas the opinion of my fellow editors regarding the following proposal: Each of the sections on Bates' theories (accommodation, physiology, psychology, etc) and proposed treatments (remembering black, swinging, etc) should be followed by a subsection for criticism of that particular theory/treatment. I believe that this would assist in making the article more NPOV, and also would reduce the length of the article (see above) by eliminating the repetition of information that is made necessary by re-introducing Bates' theories in the 'criticism' section. Please let me know what you think of this idea. If anybody has any major objections I would like to give them an airing before deciding to make any changes. Famousdog (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree partially, but I think that sections without independent, reliable sources should be removed first. Rather than making sub-sections for criticisms, the criticisms should be incorporated into each remaining section. --Ronz (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I integrated the opening of the "Criticisms" section and its first two subsections into above sections. I disagree with you, Ronz, that "sections without independent, reliable sources should be removed first." After the merging we can see how many sections still don't have such sources and take it from there. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That is a good idea, Famousdog. I just integrated part of the "Criticisms" section into the opening and the "Bates' theories" section, removing a few sentences which were then repetitive.

Another advantage to this is that it will be easier to spot a straw man argument, since the criticism will be in the same section as the claim. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I just merged the discussion of the safety of "sunning" with the "Sunning" section, and removed some things which were then repetitive. There's more merging that could be done, but I'm not sure yet how to fit it together. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Good work. Famousdog (talk) 14:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Clear "flashes"

Famousdog or anyone else, do you know of a source for the claim that "clear flashes" can be explained as a contact-lens like effect of moisture on the eye? I have seen that stated in discussions, but the closest I've found to a source is Elwin Marg, whose report concluded that "flashes of clear vision" are not genuine changes in refraction, but he didn't seem to have an explanation for what they are. Or is there some other explanation offered by ophthalmology? PSWG1920 (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That suggestion wasn't originally my edit, I just moved it to a more relevant point in the article. So I don't know where it comes from originally. It is a plausible hypothesis, however, as water on the eye can refract light just like a lens, and blinking produces excess tears to lubricate the eye. I wouldn't object to that statement being "fact" tagged until we can locate a source. Famousdog (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I originally added that suggestion, but I put it in a section with a note/disclaimer that it needed attention from an expert. But the way it is now is fine, with a fact tag. Incidentally, do you agree with the statement about pseudomyopia in the "claimed success" section? PSWG1920 (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, its not a case of whether I personally agree with it or not. Its about evidence. Pseudomyopia is a real phenomenon, which can be measured and quantified, and momentary spasms of the ciliary muscles seem a plausible explanation for the transient flashes of clear vision. But lets not also forget the role of attention, crowding and practice here. In order to make the statement "skeptics think..." you would have to come up with a citation of some skeptic actually saying that. Otherwise it is original research or POV. Famousdog (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV and length concerns

I've asked for help from Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Bates_method in addressing the NPOV problems, which I think will help with the length concerns as well. --Ronz (talk) 03:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've tagged the article to focus editors on the poor sourcing, and have started removing the poor sources and some related information. Any section without independent, reliable sources should be considered for removal. --Ronz (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Questionable Sources, which according to the verifiability guidelines include promotional sources, the guidelines state:

Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

1. it is relevant to their notability;
2. it is not contentious;
3. it is not unduly self-serving;
4. it does not involve claims about third parties;
5. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
6. there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;
7. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Moreover, every source which you have so far removed as "questionable" or "promotional" was set forth not in an attempt to establish factual accuracy (as far as I can tell), but rather to show what claims are made in regard to the Bates method.

PSWG1920 (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I see violations of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7. More importantly, I see few independent, reliable sources required for WP:NPOV --Ronz (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you post on this talk page specific details of what is wrong with each source you deleted (other than the spam, which I agree with you on)? PSWG1920 (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you try WP:THIRD or WP:EAR to get an additional viewpoint here. I see the references I'm deleting as blatantly in violation of WP:V and WP:RS. I've given my reasoning. At this point, I don't know if you don't understand my reasoning, if you just disagree, or something else altogether.

Given that this article is not about any individual, a very strict interpretation of WP:V would be that we don't allow any self-published sources at all. I'm more flexible than that, if an editor can provide good reasoning, especially when there are independent, reliable sources to show the information is important. Sadly, we're short on such sources. --Ronz (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You said "I see violations of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7" above. I was asking you to be more specific about the violations. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

And I've since pointed out that since this article isn't about any individual, no self-published sources should be allowed without discussion and agreement first.

Please take this to WP:THIRD or WP:EAR. --Ronz (talk) 01:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Amblyopia and glasses

The reason for moving the paragraph about the risk of amblyopia developing in children, if their refractive errors are not fully corrected with lenses, was mainly to point out how parents who follow Bates' advice not to put their children in glasses may be risking their visual development (and by extension an eye doctor who delayed prescribing glasses to try natural methods could be held liable if amblyopia developed.) The part about the window in which amblyopia is likely to be reversed by treatment could go back into "Avoidance of conventional treatment". But is there a specific age at which it is generally considered safe to go uncorrected as far as visual development is concerned? PSWG1920 (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

12 years, 3 months and two days... Only joking, but I do so to point out that there isn't an exact threshold. There is a gradual "locking in" of visual development, as Daw says, which prevents some things being corrected, whilst other visual functions are still "plastic" and can be improved/worsened. That's why I changed the text, which originally said "8-10 years of age" in a very definite, but spurious way. Famousdog (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the way the paragraph is now, IMO it doesn't fit very well with the Eyeglasses section. I had thought that moving it there would highlight a practical point of tension between Bates and current ophthalmology. Do you think we should shorten the paragraph to make that point and put more information back in the "Avoidance of Conventional Treatment" section? PSWG1920 (talk) 08:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Have a crack at it. Famousdog (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV again

I'm in agreement with Ronz's recent edits that link to the Wikisource version of Bates' book, since iBlindness is obviously a pro-Bates site. I suggest a concerted effort to copy Better Eyesight to Wikisource and remove the remaining references to the Central-Fixation site. However, I'm not sure I understand the massive warning now on this page... surely this article is far less POV than it was a few months ago? Why scare off potential contributors or readers? Famousdog (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Moved Relevant issues of Better Eyesight to Wikisource and changed links. They might need tidied up a bit. Famousdog (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The article tags are there to attract and inform editors concerning the problems with the article. --Ronz (talk) 16:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If a more neutral site could be found hosting an html version of Perfect Sight Without Glasses, would it be okay to replace the wikisource references? After all, the wikisource version came from somewhere. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. We're using wikisource now, right? Is there still a problem? With wikisource, or something else? --Ronz (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Just answer the question. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand, so I'm unable to. Perhaps you could help me understand by answering one or more of mine, or explaining yourself further? --Ronz (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

My point was that the wikisource Perfect Sight Without Glasses is most likely cut and pasted from somewhere, so why not just cite an html version instead, if one can be found on a fairly neutral domain? As well, wikisource doesn't contain the illustrations, and there are currently illustrations which are specifically referred to in this article. And I apologize, I should have explained that to begin with. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks for explaining. Best to suggest the sites for review. --Ronz (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

How about Google books, which is already linked to in "further reading"? I just realized today that Google books allows you to easily link to the page, not merely the chapter. So would Google be an acceptable source? PSWG1920 (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm hesitating on answering, because I haven't been paying as much attention as I'd like to how Google books is being used within Wikipedia. I think a link to the page to an image would be acceptable when that image is being discussed. --Ronz (talk) 05:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

But in general, would it not be an advantage to be able to link to a specific page of the book when discussing its content, rather than just the chapter? PSWG1920 (talk) 05:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I just referenced the pages with the illustrations in the Google version. Although I admit I'm not so sure now about my last point, since I realized that consistently referencing the individual pages would create many more citations. But I still think that a scanned version of the original book from a generally respected source (Google) is a better reference than an almost certainly cut-and-pasted version (wikisource), which is more than likely taken from a pro-Bates website! PSWG1920 (talk) 06:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure about the Google source anymore, because a few of the pages whose text is referenced here are poorly reproduced. I'll keep looking. PSWG1920 (talk) 02:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Potential third-party sources

Several pages of Martin Gardner's chapter on Bates are available in the Google preview of his 1957 book. There are enough details that it seems like that chapter could be used as a third-party source in sections which currently lack such. Unfortunately I don't have the book, and not all the pages are available online. Does anyone here have the book and want to help with that? And is there any problem with that as a third-party source?

I also just found scholar.google.com, and entering the longer title of Bates' original book turns up some promising results. I therefore ask that we hold off on deleting any part of this article based on the lack of a third-party source until this resource has been combed. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you mean by "third party source". The link you provide to google scholar just lists the usual Bates-advocate sites (i-see, Rod Smith, central-fixation, etc) who use access to the full text of Bates' book as a marketing lure. Famousdog (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Ronz is the one who has been harping about "third party sources", so I will leave it up to him to comment on what is and isn't for the purposes of this article. And yes, the link to the search I did does turn up the sites you mentioned, but also articles and books which reference it and which are not necessarily pro-Bates. And you can find a lot more by varying search terms (I've already added two sources to this article which I've found that way.) PSWG1920 (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggested cleanup per WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, and WP:OR

I reviewed the 5 March 2008 version, looking for WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE problems. Given the lack of third-party sources, I have these recommendations. (I've numbered the sections for reference):

• 0 (Lead)

Not bad. May not even need much cleanup after the rest of the article has been

• 1 Bates' theories

This section is empty other than subsections. The subsections should be removed and a brief description of his theories should be here instead.

Agree on adding a brief description, but disagree on removing subsections. They are very useful for organising this complex material and challenging Bates' theories point-by-point. Famousdog (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• 1.1 Accommodation:

Much too long. Needs to be trimmed back to topics discussed in third-party sources.

This section is now as short as it can be whilst still presenting Bates' opinion and the relevant evidence that challenges him. Famousdog (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• 1.2 Physiological cause of refractive errors

Delete - might be something here worth merging into the "Bates' theories" section.

Keep - I have shortened this section as much as possible while still retaining Bates theory and the criticisms of it. Famousdog (talk) 13:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• 1.3 Psychological cause of refractive errors

Delete - might be something here worth merging

Keep - see above.

• 1.4 Eyeglasses and contact lenses

Delete - might be something here worth merging

• 2 Bates' treatments

Delete/Replace - no third-party sources - replace with sourced info from subsections maybe?

• 2.1 Central fixation

Delete - might be something here worth merging into the "Bates' treatments" section.

• 2.2 Palming

Delete - no third-party sources

• 2.3 Memory and Imagination

Delete - no third-party sources

• 2.4 Shifting and Swinging

Delete - might be something here worth merging

• 2.5 Sunning

Delete - no third-party sources

• 3 Aldous Huxley and Margaret Corbett

There is some WP:OR here. Too much of this section is duplicated in The Art of Seeing.

Agree about duplication of material, but what exactly is original research here? Famousdog (talk) 14:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• 4 General Criticisms

This section is empty other than subsections. The subsections should be removed and a summary of criticisms based mostly upon the Efficacy section should be here instead.

• 4.1 Emotional consequences

Delete - no third-party sources

• 4.2 Efficacy

WP:Weasel words here. Move into or replace the General Criticisms section - Maybe expand this considering there are three sources for two sentences?

• 4.2.1 Claimed success

Delete - no third-party sources

• 4.3 Avoidance of conventional treatment

Delete - no third-party sources

• 5 Other methods

Delete/Replace - there might be something here worth keeping.

• 5.1 The "See Clearly Method"

Trim - most is off-topic

• 5.2 "Natural Vision Improvement"

Trim - most is off-topic and promotional

• 5.3 Biofeedback training

Rewrite to emphasize the review article, trim/delete the rest

--Ronz (talk) 03:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You should update this, because Famousdog and I have both added sources in the last couple of days. And I just found a resource which is likely to produce more (see above), so again, can we hold off on deleting anything on the basis of lacking adequate sources? PSWG1920 (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I will start tagging the sections, so it's easier to keep up to date. The big problem is unchanged with the edits since 5 Mar - Most of the article is not sourced by third-party references and should be deleted. --Ronz (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ronz, It's the job of an encyclopedia to inform the reader and this article is currently the premier non-partisan source of information about the Bates method on the internet. What would be the point in deleting the majority of this article and replacing it with a page that says: "due to lack of third party sources, we can't tell you anything about the Bates method"? People would simply get their information from pro-Bates sites, which would be far worse! I agree with you that some sources (central fixation, etc.) are not to be trusted and the quotes from Bates himself need trimmed, but I also think you're being a bit absolutist. This is a good article, it just needs some TLC. Perhaps you object to all the quotes from Bates himself (IMO there are too many and they are too long), but this article discusses Bates' theories and it would be difficult to discuss the Bates Method without referring to his work. You couldn't have an article on Hitler's Mein Kampf without quoting from it directly, despite the fact that it might offend you personally and reflects a distinct POV (namely Hitler's). Not that I'm comparing Bates to Hitler or anything... Famousdog (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Read NPOV, FRINGE, and OR. I'm outlining how to cleanup the article to meet the criteria of these policies. --Ronz (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

From WP:NPOV:

Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.

This article now does consistently reference and explain the majority viewpoint, which is the reason, for example, the "Accommodation" section is so long. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hence my recommendation, "Much too long. Needs to be trimmed back to topics discussed in third-party sources." --Ronz (talk) 01:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hang on, Ronz. That is a circular argument. You say the Accommodation section is too long and needs trimmed back to third-party sources, but as PSWG1920 points out, the reason it is so long is that there are so many third-party sources (that disagree with Bates), to which you reply with your original comment. Also, WP:NPOV says that minority views may be spelled out in great detail, so what exactly do you want us to do? Famousdog (talk) 14:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

^ Not an accurate characterization of the discussion, imho. Dlabtot (talk) 14:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Truthfully, the Accommodation section could justifiably be made quite a bit longer, as at present it barely touches on Bates' arguments against the traditional explanation of it (other than the discussion of aphakics), which, if it did, would necessitate that the orthodox response to specific points be presented as well. I don't plan on adding such in the near future, but if someone else does, it will be fine with me. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

For the objective reader part 12 of x

Ronz said : 5.2 "Natural Vision Improvement" Trim - most is off-topic and promotional

2 FAKE ARGUMENTS  ! This paragraph is not off topic ! This paragraph explains the Bates method of today for a lot of people. Also called the bates method of NVI. Whether you like it or not. The differences between the old and updated Bates method still needs explanations. Most important updates are its explanation and teaching based on scientific facts, breathing is introduced, nutrition, accomodation according to Thomas Quackenbush not only by the extraoculair muscles. ( If there is greater aurthority advocate of the Bates method please give his definition ! ) Promotional is not an argument. This article would not even exist in wikipedia if the Bates method was not promoted and really edited by advocates of the method. I re-added Thomas Quackenbush defenition of the Bates method because it is the only one I have found ! The crurent introduction of this ariticle is also largely based on this definition. Seeyou (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge with William Bates

This would solve the problem of the article lacking enough independent sources, as well as the WP:UNDUE issues. Dlabtot (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --Ronz (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Surprise I do not agree. The Bates method of NVI is almost 100 years old and still alive. W.H. Bates has passed away. In other words they are not the same. Whether you like it or not. These are the facts. Seeyou (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide references that support your assertion of the contemporary notability of this subject? Perusing the references in the article, I don't see it. Most of the references are to the writings of Bates. Dlabtot (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

>Can you provide references that support your assertion of the the contemporary notability of this subject. Yes, the Bates method of NVI as it is called is partly described in the book of Janet Goodrich and more thoroughly in Thomas Quackenbuch his book RLTS ( published in 1997 ! ). Thomas Quackenbush uses a lot of Bates authentic / original writings to explain the Batesmethod of NVI.

> Most of the references are to the writings of Bates. Yes, that is the focus & strategy of the skeptic editors. The Bates method of NVI is being neglected. For this reason I created a new article The bates method of NVI, to explain the differences between the old and bates method of today. This article has been deleted for fake arguments and not wanting to see its value.

The differences between the old and updated Bates method : Most important updates are its explanation and teaching based on scientific facts, breathing is introduced, nutrition, and accomodation-theory of Bates is not fully suppored. ( according to Thomas Quackenbush not only by the extraoculair muscles ). Note also the subject Natural Vision Improvement also direct directly to this Bates method article. Seeyou (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

So there are no independent sources whatsoever? I'm beginning to suspect there may be some WP:COI issues at work here. Perhaps rather than a merge, the article should simply be deleted altogether. It seems to be an attempt to promote an entirely non-notable, and potentially harmful fringe therapy. Dlabtot (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, there are lots of independent sources... and secondly how is the article - in its current state, which is highly critical of the BM - promoting it? Famousdog (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the introduction. There are five independent sources right there, all expressing skepticism. This is definitely notable. PSWG1920 (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposed merge. That would be a very technical solution, and if it would actually solve any problems, that just goes to show why the rules should be loosened. The Bates method goes beyond just Bates himself, although I believe the primary focus of this article should be on his work, as it is the basis of any "updated" Bates method. PSWG1920 (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

::: Ok, I see that there is actually one contemporary independent source, from the Boston Globe. I'm not sure that one article makes this notable, however. I don't see why it shouldn't be merged, or deleted. What makes this fringe therapy notable enough to be in Wikipedia? Sure there is promotional material from Bates and others. There are a few questionable citations from decades ago. Other than that one Boston Globe article, what published reliable sources establish the notability of this apparently discredited fringe theory from the early part of the last century? Dlabtot (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

All right, I replaced the 1956 Pollack reference in the introduction with a current, periodically updated article from Quackwatch (the Pollack chapter is found on the same site and is referenced four other times in this article anyway.) Also, I added a skeptical source from 1979, and webmd would seem to be an independent source as well (you didn't mention that one.)

Also note that the See Clearly Method was in the news a year ago, and, as the references here now show, Bates was often mentioned in connection with it, even though it's not the same approach. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether a source is 'skeptical' or not, is irrelevant. It's pretty clear to me that this is not really notable, given these references. Do you have a financial interest in this topic? Dlabtot (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

PSWG1920 is an abbreviation for Perfect Sight Without Glasses 1920. It's an indication that there is a WP:COI with his editing on these subjects. --Ronz (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I do not have a financial interest here. Perfect Sight Without Glasses is all available free online, in many places. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

What does the availability of PSWG online for free have to do with the question? That's completely irrelevant. What is relevant is your statement that you don't any financial interest in this topic; in other words, you don't make money by speaking about it, writing about it, or as a practitioner of this 'therapy'. OK. Dlabtot (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:COI also applies to other interests beyond just financial ones. Further, it applies to assisting someone else's interests as well. --Ronz (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I disagree with the merge. The William Bates page deals with the life and death of William Bates. This page discusses his "method of natural vision improvement" which is still (unfortunately) very much alive and revised and updated versions of which are still being flogged to unsuspecting consumers (see the See Clearly debate). Internet promotion of versions of the BM is fervent and widespread. This page supplies a well-needed antidote and source of information for net users who hear of the BM from a friend of a friend of a friend whose dog's uncle once tried it and had moderate success. I don't have any financial interest in this, just interest. The reason that the sources are not contemporary is that scientific opinion has repeatedly shown the BM to be unsupportable pseudoscience and research into it has all but stopped for that reason. Not being "contemporary" does not make the scientific findings reported here worthless or out-of-date. Scientists have simply moved on to more productive areas of inquiry. "Contemporariness" doesn't seem a particularly convincing argument for notability. Famousdog (talk) 02:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

A Modest Proposal

Seeyou, I suggest you read what you write. The reason I (and Ronz) removed that section is because it is disruptive. It makes accusations of sockpuppetry that have already been proven false and targets another user and his edits specifically. The edit summaries, pardon my French, are more expected from a banshee than from a regular human.

If you want to make a case (as your current MedCab one has no merit), then post in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Seeyou - it has already met the threshold. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 17:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Much better, Seeyou. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 03:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

For the objective reader part 13 of x

Initinal info :

• But he never renounced the claim, set forth in Perfect Sight Without Glasses, that looking directly at the sun even with open eyes could not cause irreversible damage.

Advocate edit :

Advocate edit.

• Skeptics often use open eyelid sunning to ridicule his method as is done above. However Bates did withdraw his claim regarding open eyelid sunning. Sunning : Let the sun shine on your closed eyelids for short intervals. Choose preferably the early morning sunlight. It is the light rays which benefit the eyes rather than the heat rays. The sun loses some of its effect when it comes through glass.

Tempered wikipedia edit

• Bates did temper his claims regarding open eyelid sunning in later editions of his magazine, Better Eyesight. Sunning : Let the sun shine on your closed eyelids for short intervals. Choose preferably the early morning sunlight. It is the light rays which benefit the eyes rather than the heat rays. The sun loses some of its effect when it comes through glass.

Skeptics can ridicule the bates method without problems. The moment advocates of the Bates method make clear skeptics do not base their conclusions on factual data this information becomes hidden.

• Fact : Skeptics still ridicule bates on sunning take a look at :

• http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/bates.html

As to staring into the sun, an important part of the Bates therapy—this is positively dangerous to sight. It may cause an inflammation of the retina ("solar retinitis") resulting in permanent damage to the delicate tissue.

Seeyou (talk) 13:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that above quotation from the Quackwatch article doesn't "ridicule" the Bates Method - it points out that open-eyes sunning is dangerous and you might argue (as you do) that the Bates method has improved, but that was Bates original recommendation and it is still stated as fact in editions of his book available online. Famousdog (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

For the objective Reader part 14 of x.

To a skeptic editor,

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, why is the explanation / definition of this author not in the introduction ?

Another question : Why is not ophthalmology been able to give clear detailed statements why W.H. Bates is wrong with his findings ?

If Ophthalmology should explain why bates method does not work and advocates should explain why eyesight can improve why does not this happen ? Research is expensive I find it much easier to believe advocates can not afford research than ophthalmology.

I have found a reference of ophthalmology stating something about bates his work. See :

• http://one.aao.org/CE/PracticeGuidelines/Therapy_Content.aspx?cid=d7238b2b-a59f-49f6-9f30-64d1e84efc3b

In this reference :

Complementary, or alternative therapies are a growing part of health care in America. Americans spend an estimated $14 billion a year on alternative treatments. Mainstream medicine is recognizing a need to learn more about alternative therapies and determine their true value.

So why is the bates method of today which has been updated on breathing, teaching, explanation, nutrition been almost entirely neglected ? The true answer because we skeptics want to neglect the bates method of today also called because of its update the Bates method of NVI. Seeyou (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, this is another example of your inability to follow WP:TALK. This is not a venue for your personal opinions, attacks on other editors or groups of people, nor a soapbox.

I propose this be removed from this page and archived as we've been doing with Seeyou's similar WP:TALK violations. --Ronz (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I move to do the same. At the very least this one is more civil. Seeyou, I informed you of the RfC for a reason. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 20:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Seeyou. I added it to the article in two relevant places, and also added another source which it referred to. These two reports could also be specifically discussed in the Claimed success section. I wish I could see the entire text of the 1982 article, which your link cites. I don't think these should be mentioned in the introduction, however, since at least the one for which we have the full text only refers to Bates once, as background. As for the Quackenbush quote, that is best left in the section it's in; we already have an NPOV description of Bates' method in the introduction. I admit I previously removed Quackenbush's quote from the article entirely, but that was only to accommodate Ronz. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I found another link along these lines here. PSWG1920 (talk) 08:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Modern Variants" section

Under "Other methods" I have created the subsection Modern Variants of the Bates method, which effectively tidies up a previous subsection which was recently split into two by Seeyou. I am thinking it should be promoted to its own section, and moved, not to the beginning of the article (as Seeyou did and was reverted by Jeske), but rather between "Bates' treatments" and "Claimed Success". That way the original Bates method is still covered first. In that case the section's title could be shortened to simply "Modern Variants", as the rest would be obvious. PSWG1920 (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoah! Hang on. You've just added a load of POV unreliable sources that I thought we'd got rid of for good reason. Famousdog (talk) 14:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed more POV or self-published sources. The citations for other therapies can go on the pages for pinhole glasses or tibetan eye chart, but don't belong here. In fact, I question this whole section. This is an article about the bayes method not alternative therapies generally! Sites such as Central Fixation, Vision Educators, Imagination Blindness, Visions of Joy, etc are actively promoting the Bates Method (in the face of its near-total lack of support) and are therefore unreliable sources. Famousdog (talk) 14:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume you meant to link to WP:RS, rather that WP:US, which is about user-scripts. I concede, the sources you deleted are not "reliable sources" according to WP:RS. But the statements those were used to reference don't need reliable sources, because they are not statements of fact. Each one of them is along the lines of "this is what Bates advocates claim". I doubt Quackenbush's books qualify as "Reliable Sources" either. Are you going to delete those references too?

I now understand why a few of the sources I previously added were perhaps inappropriate in the way that I used them; however, the ones I re-added yesterday I still don't see the problem with. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Other methods section

It appears what is now the lead of the Other methods section was originally imported from the eye exercises entry almost four years ago, when the Bates method article was very short, thus merging was helpful. However, as Famousdog pointed out in the above section, it really does not make a lot of sense in this article now. So I copied it back into the eye exercises article, with some tweaks, as it seemed to be a better synopsis than previously existed there. I suggest we now delete that from this article, but keep all the subsections of "Other methods", as they are all relevant to Bates in their present forms. PSWG1920 (talk) 07:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have replaced the section in question with a "see also" template. Perhaps a short paragraph could be added. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Disputed sources

First I would like to draw attention to Wikipedia's "first rule to consider", which states: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." For sure, this is not a trump card, but it does show that Wikipedia's written policies are not always meant to be followed to the letter. With that in mind, I'd like to discuss the sources which have been and remain a subject of dispute on this page, taking it one at a time. Beginning with the one that was deleted here by Famousdog and previously by Ronz. It was used to reference the stance of Bates method teachers regarding the use of contact lenses in relation to the Bates method, which is clearly stated as an opinion in the Wikipedia article (i.e. "from a Bates perspective".) Moreover, this article is about the Bates method. Sure, visioneducators.org is not a "reliable source", but reading WP:RS and WP:V, there are times when questionable sources can be used. What is the practical problem here? And if you think the source in question is valid for this situation, please speak up as well. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Note the article natural vision improvement directs directly to this article. Contact lenses natural ? I see no problem to refer to visioneducators.org. It should be be common sense in my opinion. But thanks to people selling them it is not. PSWG1920 I agree. Seeyou (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am relying on common sense here. Hopefully it will prevail. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I am very suspicious of anybody claiming to use "common sense", since in my opinion "common sense" is usually biased, based on emotions rather than rationality and its a good rhetorical way of shutting down debate as it implies any arguments against it are nonsensical... however, my feelings ;-) on this are less black-and-white than Ronz' attitude. I have no problem with "unreliable sources" being used as examples of arguments proposed by BM practitioners, as long as they are introduced as such in the article and links to these sources are kept to the very minimum. Famousdog (talk) 13:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

...and regarding the natural-ness debate: I would argue that contact lenses are natural - because anything that humans do is natural as we are part of nature. If you think they are unnatural, then so are bandages, spectacles, crutches, vaccines, pacemakers... and all those other amazing inventions of the human race that keep us alive and help us to function. If you disagree, go and live in a cave. See how long you last. Famousdog (talk) 13:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I won't get into the argument about whether contact lenses are "natural" or not, since that's of little relevance to the issue of what sources are used. But Famousdog, you didn't directly respond to my original post. Do you still have a problem with visioneducators.org being used to reference the opinion of Bates method teachers regarding the use of contact lenses while practicing the Bates method? PSWG1920 (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I did. See above. Famousdog (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a specific answer regarding using visioneducators.org as a source for that topic. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, "I have no problem with "unreliable sources" being used as examples of arguments proposed by BM practitioners, as long as they are introduced as such in the article and links to these sources are kept to the very minimum." I didn't respond to the issue of visioneducators.org specifically because I think this is a good general rule to stick to. Famousdog (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I would say that it's made clear in the article that it's an opinion of Bates method practitioners. Let me ask you this way: If I re-added that source would you delete it again? PSWG1920 (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hahahaaahah! I see you won't let this go! Okay. My answer is that I don't have a problem with it for the above reasons. Other WP editors with other philosophies may disagree. Famousdog (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I just wanted a clear answer, that's all. Because I didn't want to appear to be edit-warring if I re-added it. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Now I'd like to discuss the sources which were deleted here. Visionsofjoy and iblindness were being used to reference the opinions of current Bates method advocates regarding Bates' theory of accommodation. I see nothing wrong with questionable sources being used in this way. Anyone else? PSWG1920 (talk) 23:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I can only ask you that if you intend to replace some of these sources, please use proper citation tags so the refs are properly formatted. I'm getting tired of re-formatting refs on this page. Famousdog (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have formatted the citations for sources I had recently added, and also re-added the two sources in question with formatted citations. And I apologize for not taking the time to do that previously. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe Visions of Joy is a valid source here, although I'm not sure about the way Seeyou phrased the reference. However, the See Clearly Method was often mentioned in connection with Bates, as the Washington Post and Quackwatch links show. So what Bates method teachers have to say about the See Clearly Method is very relevant here. Again, this can be stated only as an opinion. PSWG1920 (talk) 08:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to restore the Visions of Joy reference as it was before Seeyou's edit (which seemed to trigger Ronz removing it.) We have two independent sources, Washington Post and Quackwatch, which vaguely associate the See Clearly Method with the Bates method, which is the basic reason for its mention in this article. Thus it seems like common sense permits a mention of a Bates method teacher's perspective on the See Clearly Method. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand how your rationale supports the inclusion of this source and the associated information. My concern is with the source. It doesn't begin to meet WP:RS. --Ronz (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

From WP:RS

Organizations and individuals that promote what are widely agreed to be fringe theories (that is, views held by a small minority, in direct contrast with the mainstream view in their field), such as revisionist history or pseudoscience) should only be used as sources about themselves or, if correctly attributed as being such, to summarize the views of the proponents of that subject.

The source in question is simply being used to give a Bates method teacher's perspective on the See Clearly Method. PSWG1920 (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

For the objective reader part 15 of x

I do not agree with the current name of the paragraph Modern Variants. Modern Bates method or natural vision improvement, would be much better. The fact the bates method is still alive and kicking must be noted it is a fact !

I have said this before when the public looks in one of the biggest bookstores on the worldwideweb Amazon.com and they search for bates method or natural vision improvement, they will find one book which is very dominant in the list. A bit hard to neglect I think. Even harder to neglect when you read the reviews. Seeyou (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion is bit clunky. And I would put "NVI" in inverted commas, since some recommendations made by practitioners are hardly "natural". NVI is therefore a bit of a misnomer. I would suggest "Modern variants of the Bates method", but since the whole article is about the BM, I'm not sure there is a point... Section heading should be short, and "Modern variants" seems to cover it in as few words as possible. Famousdog (talk) 12:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I do think "Modern variants" is better, since there are differences from Bates' original method, and multiple current variations exist as well. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC).

Variant suggest it is still quite the same. Modern Bates method has still it's basis in the original bates method. Many many quotes of Bates original writings. But it has also become very extended. ( 521 large pages versus 315 small pages ) When you look at the dominant literature. That is why variant is in my opinion to weak.Seeyou (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that variant suggests it is "quite the same". For example, chess variants may appear artificially to be the same as standard chess (same board, same pieces) but actually can be very different. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think to inform the public you must be as clear as possible. Essential parts of the bates method of today are missing in bates initinal method. For example breathing one of the three habits. Bates never spoke about the importance of breathing. Bates accomodation theory is not fully supported any more. Another example fusion and it is explanation with the beadgame. These differences are to big to speak of variations.Seeyou (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Gagh! The word "variants" comes from the same root as "variety". A "variety" of something is an altered or mutated form. I think "variants" is a perfectly acceptable word in that it communicates that NVI has its roots in the Bates method, but may have changed substantially over the intervening years. Now can we please move on to something more productive??? And stop calling talk sections "For the objective reader part X of X". Its insulting, stupid, insinuates that anybody disagreeing with you (Seeyou) is not objective and does not communicate anything to the reader regarding the content of the discussion. Famousdog (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Huxley and relapses

Regarding the sentence deleted here, I can see how that reference would be improper in an article generally about Huxley, but this article is about the Bates method. Could it be restated in such a manner which would be acceptable? For instance, what if we simply removed "it should be noted that" and/or "which is consistent with his belief that refraction is variable"? PSWG1920 (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Warning template

As far as I'm concerned, the self-published sources in this article are identified as such, the article as a whole is well-referenced, the lead is fine and its neutrality is not disputed by editors who are not themselves non-neutral. So can we get this page reviewed by a third party to see what aspects of the warning template at the top of the article are out of date? Its a damn shame if readers are put off the article after all this hard work. Famousdog (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My concern, as it has always been, is that the article is in gross violation of WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. The solution to these problems is to either find independent sources that show the importance of the material and viewpoints we're presenting, or to remove the information that does not have such sources. While we've made progress toward a better article, there is still a very long way to go. --Ronz (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The references now show that every sub-topic in this article is also discussed by independent sources. But rather than going through the current article and checking every reference, it may be easier to start by reading Barrett, Pollack, Marg, and Gardner, (which are now all referenced many times, to prove the aforementioned point.) That will show that these topics are all worth discussing. You are, of course, welcome to add more skeptical perspective, but even that is clearly present throughout the article. PSWG1920 (talk) 05:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

For the objective reader 16 of x

Initial paragraph :

Scientific Research by ophthalmology.

Scientific Research by ophthalmology on visual training for refractive errrors resulted concludes : There is level I evidence that visual training for control of accommodation has no effect on myopia. In other studies (level II/III evidence), an improvement in subjective visual acuity for patients with myopia who have undertaken visual training has been shown but no corresponding physiological cause for the improvement has been demonstrated.

In 1946, Woods reported results of an optometric training technique in 103 myopic patients, of whom 30 (29%) showed a small improvement in VA, 31 (30%) showed inconsistent improvements in VA, 32 (31%) had no change, and 10 (9%) had a decrease in VA. Seventeen of the 61 patients who demonstrated improved VA returned for an examination 5 months after the training was completed. Two of these patients had maintained the improvement in VA; the other 15 patients had not maintained the improvement. Of the 103 patients, 67 received noncycloplegic refraction after the training was completed; no change in refraction was noted.

Despite these the negative result, this report also mentions :

Complementary, or alternative therapies are a growing part of health care in America. Americans spend an estimated $14 billion a year on alternative treatments. Mainstream medicine is recognizing a need to learn more about alternative therapies and determine their true value. Most medical schools in the United States offer courses in alternative therapies. The editors of the Journal of the American Medical Association announced that publishing research on alternative therapies will be one of its priorities. .

Changed paragraph :

Ophthalmological research

A review of research on visual training for refractive errors by the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) concluded that there is "level I evidence" (from randomized controlled trials) "that visual training for control of accommodation has no effect on myopia." Other studies have shown weaker (level II/III) evidence of improvements in subjective visual acuity (but not objectively measured acuity) for patients with myopia who have undertaken visual training. No corresponding physiological cause for the observed improvements has been demonstrated and one study showed that these improvements were not maintained at a 5-month follow-up.

The AAO report states that "mainstream medicine is recognizing a need to learn more about alternative therapies and determine their true value." However, they also conclude that "the Academy believes that complementary therapies should be evaluated similarly to traditional medicine: evidence of safety, efficacy, and effectiveness should be demonstrated."

Unique

I do not know when you read this paragraph how UNIQUE and rare it is to read this info. Ophthalmology reports positive results about improving eyesight naturally !!! One of the issues is in this article is whether or not eyesight can improve naturally or not. The testimonials by pro Bates / NVI sites are constantly ignored because they are reported by unreliable sources. That is an argument. The moment a reliable source like ophthalmology reports a pro bates method / NVI result it’s details are hidden in the reference.

The only argument I can think of is that ophthalmology does not want to public to start asking questions about this subject. Some people reading this information might become critical towards ophthalmology.

The text : No corresponding physiological cause for the observed improvements has been demonstrated and one study showed that these improvements were not maintained at a 5-month follow-up. Is not valid.

The Woods - report does not report any information about the physiological cause for the observed improvements. The suggestion in the new text suggest there was not any physiological change, but this is not made clear in the report. ( Simply emphasize this fact I suggest ) In other words ophthalmology discovered something very interesting in 1946 and did nothing with these results. Why ? ( Why did n't they repeat or improve it ? ) The answer : Because natural vision improvement is not about science it is about politics. Wikipedia makes it possible for this very valuable information to reach people interested in Natural vision improvement.

I am really interested in the arguments of the other editors about the removal of the Woods 1946 research. Seeyou (talk) 17:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Let me introduce you to something that I like to call SCIENCE. In the Woods paper, they investigated 103 myopic patients. 30 (29%) showed a small improvement in VA, 31 (30%) showed inconsistent improvements in VA, 32 (31%) had no change, and 10 (9%) had a decrease in VA. Of the 61 patients who demonstrated improved VA (that's including the "inconsistent" improvers), 17 were tested again after 5 months. Two had maintained the improvement in VA. TWO PATIENTS out of 103 investigated! That's pathetic! It's nowhere near the statistical significance required for adopting a new therapy. That's SCIENCE, how about MEDICINE? Read your hippocratic oath. The first rule is do no harm. Are you going to recommend a therapy that might result in a "small improvement" in 29% of people, of whom only 10% (a measly 1% of the original cohort) show improvement at follow-up? Would you still do it if it also means that you will make the vision of 9% of patients worse? Get a grip! You'd be sued for malpractice. And you would deserve it. I suggest you learn basic maths and science before making any more of your cretinous, partisan, pro-Bates posts or edits. Famousdog (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)