Talk:Bates method

External links

American Academy of Ophthalmology

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

• [1] American Academy of Ophthalmology : Complementary Therapy Assessments: Visual Training for Refractive Errors 2008

Ronz, Not true. Bates is mentioned in the reference section. Seeyou (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Slightly to my surprise, I find myself in complete agreement with Ronz about that. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Absurd removal. Read the references. You will find W.H. Bates. This article is about the Bates method and / or Natural vision improvement. If there is a number one reliable link and source in this article. This is the source and this the link. Read also the paragraph unique in the paragraph opthalmological research in the archive. Seeyou (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I re-added the link. You both do not understand and know there is article bates method and there is a article natural vision improvement. If we editors say these subjects are different we have to change the article natural vision improvement.

See the link :

* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natural_vision_improvement&redirect=no

Maybe it is a good idea to separate Natural vision improvement from the Bates method article. : - ). It is true Natural vision improvement and Bates method are not the same. See the available definitions of Thomas Quackenbush and Janet Goodrich. !Seeyou (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Instead of ignoring all other editors perspectives on the issue, in violation of WP:CON, please respect your fellow editors and follow WP:DR. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand can you explain ? Seeyou (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

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

I'll explain my view. The AAO report is about "visual training". There's no coherence in the various techniques covered, and no indication that the training was carried out by people who believed in it or wanted it to work. Since an admitted key element in the Bates approach is the psychological one, the attitude of the teacher can be crucial. What was covered was a hotch-potch of methods, some of which might be benefical, some neutral, some harmful (by increasing "stress" in the Bates sense). Where statistically significant positive results were obtained the article uses weasel words to discount them. The "objective" criterion of whether you can see clearly is whether you can see clearly, not how it shows up on optometrists' instruments. The final conclusion, "There is level I evidence that visual training for control of accommodation has no effect on myopia" is just a lie, since the failure to find a significant effect is by no means a proof that no effect exists. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You are right, Sammy, the failure to find a statistical difference is not "proof". It is, however, "evidence" (or "support") for the lack of an effect, which is what the quote from the AAO report says! Let me reiterate: "There is level I evidence that visual training for control of accommodation has no effect on myopia" (my emphasis). Once again, science's major strength (its conservatism) is used against it! Famousdog (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

For further Arguments. See the cabalcase below :

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-08-03_Bates_method

Seeyou (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

I like what's there in its present form.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Central-fixation

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

This appears to be a wonderful resource. It contains meaningful, relevant content that may not suitable for inclusion in this article. I don't see any commercial interests or advertising. By all means, I think it would be a pity not to include a link to this website. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest a quick search through the talk archives to see why it was removed, summarizing the reasoning, then providing new comments that address past concerns. --Ronz (talk) 03:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If I recall this correctly, there was this one editor who threw around a bunch of scary policies. WP:NPOV. WP:SPAM. WP:EL. But he never told us why he thought those applied. Except with WP:EL. He claimed that WP:EL is not satisfied because the hosting site (central-fixation.com) "misleads the reader by the use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research". And then this other editor asked for an example from the hosting site where it offers factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. But you know what? That first editor never did give an example. And months later, still no example. And with still no example, I think it is high time this link was restored. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any need to search through the Talk archives. I wasn't involved in the earlier discussions, but I have very strong feelings about this.

It is patently obvious that links to a collection of articles by W. H. Bates is relevant to an article on the Bates method. This is a large collection of articles. I don't know how easy it would be to find them via JSTOR or Medline or what have you; they might actually be hard to find or they might be fairly easy to find, but having them collected in one place is valuable.

This is a legitimate collection of source material. If the website has any commercial connection at all, it's not obvious. In any case, the ratio of encyclopedic material to promotion is very high.

As for the criticism of "factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research," WP:V is about "verifiability, not truth." The only reason to object would be if the articles were fabricated, altered, distorted, etc. and since the website gives their sources it's easy to verify whether they are or or not.

That is: only two questions need to be asked. a) Are W. H. Bates' published writings relevant to an article on the Bates method? b) Does the website accurately present this material--that is, is an article that claims to be "Reprinted from the New York Medical Journal for September 3, 1921" in fact an accurate copy of an article printed in the New York Medical Journal for September 3, 1921.

Note, too, that the fact that these articles were published in a medical journal is irrelevant. That fact may be relevant in judging the validity of Bates' writings, or the position of Bates within the medical mainstream during his life... but it has nothing to do with whether it's a useful external link.

Just to make myself perfectly clear, I'm a Bates skeptic. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of the Bates method. Notice that someone seeking to build a case against the validity of the Bates method might find this collection just as interesting and useful as a supporter. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Performing due diligence on verifying the material at the central-fixation site, I note that Google Books does turn up an image of a book by Health Research Books, 1993, which presents itself as a collection of reprints of articles by W. H. Bates. In particular, Google Books shows me this page image which certainly has the look of a copy of page image from an old journal, and which corresponds to the text at http://www.central-fixation.com/bates-medical-articles/shifting-aid-vision.php . Not that anyone has challenged the accuracy of the text posted at central-fixation... I'm just saying I tried making one quick spot-check and things jibed. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Imagination Blindness

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

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

External links and current guidelines

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

Since this seems to be what the guidelines now clearly call for, I've gone ahead and removed the links in question. Part of the argument for adding the AAO review to External Links was that Elwin Marg and Quackwatch were also there, so deleting all three shouldn't be a problem. Of course if any link currently used as a source is ever edited out of the article, it may then be considered for this section. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I just re-added the internal links. Why were they removed ? In my opinion they cover the external link. So the current external one loses it's value. In my opinion it should be replaced by the AAO link. It is very hard to find ophthalmology mentioning or stating anything about the bates method. That is why the AAO link is the only right external link. Every article about a controversial subject should have an external link with the authority view on the subject. Please provide your arguments if you have a different point of view. Seeyou (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The "internal links" were removed because they are already wikilinked in the introduction. As for central-fixation.com, that contains published medical articles by Bates (the link emphasizes that) which are independent of his book and magazine. It also contains several works by associates of his. So it will retain its value almost no matter what else is present. The AAO review in contrast is a self-contained page which is already referenced in the article five times. Thus per WP:EL it should not also be an External Link. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

PSWG1920 : The "internal links" were removed because they are already wikilinked in the introduction. Seeyou : Did not you notice they are currently removed ! In the past Philknight said internal links should be prefered. So again I will replace the internal links, since they are not present at this moment while tney should. Seeyou (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

See the first paragraph of the article: Bates "self-published a book as well as a magazine detailing his approach". The wikisource links are there. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

List of poor sources

• http://www.iblindness.org/articles/kiesling-rebuttal.html
• http://www.visionsofjoy.org - 3 links
• http://visionimprovementcenter.com/disclaimer.htm
• http://archive.mailtribune.com/archive/99/sept99/92099n2.htm
• http://www.visioneducators.org/reducedlenses.htm

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

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

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

I think that's a good idea. This issue is very specific, so it should be fairly approachable for someone new to the article. --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the final comment in the article, about Bates practitioners issuing disclaimers, is unnecessary and could be removed. Presumably Bates teachers should do this by law and showing that they do (do something that they should do) serves only to show them in a positive light. Removing this rather pointless sentence has the added benefit of removing two contentious sources. (However, I'm not doing it 'cause I'll get shouted at!) Famousdog (talk) 13:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, just because it may in a sense show Bates teachers in a positive light does not mean it should be removed, and your assessment that it shows them in only a positive light is questionable. Secondly, I don't see how these disclaimers are "contentious". At any rate, this is a very relevant point. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the two sources in question and replaced them with a reference to the Boston Globe article already cited elsewhere. Although now that I read it again, I guess the Boston Globe piece could be seen as promotional. PSWG1920 (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

At least it's secondary. The author is pretty good at putting the responsibility for the facts on her sources though. An improvement though. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

We are now left with one reference to visionsofjoy.org and one reference to visioneducators.org, and we have hopefully established the general notability of modern "Natural Vision Educators". Are we at a point yet where we can remove the "improper references to self-published sources" tag? PSWG1920 (talk) 03:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The two remaining fail WP:ELNO, and don't meet WP:SELFPUB. --Ronz (talk) 03:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:EL says that "The subject of this guideline is external links that are not citations of article sources". As for WP:SELFPUB, what points do the references fail? PSWG1920 (talk) 03:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

And I think that if it doesn't meet WP:EL, it shouldn't be even considered as a source. Use a little common sense here. Why are we citing these self-published sources in an encyclopedia article? --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

"And I think that if it doesn't meet WP:EL, it shouldn't be even considered as a source." That is definitely a point I would like to get outside comment on. Any ideas on what avenue to use? PSWG1920 (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

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

It says right at the top of that talk page that "This guideline has nothing to do with links to reliable sources that are used to support information in an article." PSWG1920 (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

But these definitely aren't reliable sources. They're self-published. --Ronz (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

All right then. How about if you start the discussion? PSWG1920 (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Is_WP:EL_useful_determining_sources.3F --Ronz (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

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

I've removed them, given the feedback from WP:EL. --Ronz (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

There was no indication that anyone there even looked at them; it seems that they were just going by what you said. And anyway the main point that was made was that you were wrong in citing WP:EL to undercut sources. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe I described the situation correctly, and you made no comment that indicated otherwise.

These links have been discussed since at least July 2007. I think that is plenty of time to understand and address the issue.

I've removed them as self-published articles on individuals' business websites. We have no sources showing that these individuals or their businesses are notable. --Ronz (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I alluded above that current "Natural vision educators" are at least generally notable, as established by the Boston Globe and Webmd references (currently article sources 7 and 8.) PSWG1920 (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I have listed this at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. PSWG1920 (talk) 00:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Section break

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

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

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

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

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

I saw no evidence that the opinion was worthy of being cited. I've repeatedly asked for such evidence. At this point, I think it best to prune out these poor sources. We're writing an encyclopedia article, after all.

The source, even if we did accept it, does not verify all the information that was in the article.--Ronz (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

I see no reason for it, especially given the article as it exists.. Please list some independent, reliable sources on the subject of "natural vision improvement." --Ronz (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ronz, Every source is reliable unless unreliability is proved by a reliable source. Assume good faith ! Seeyou (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope. See WP:RS. --Ronz (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I studied WP:RS I do not understand. When is a source independent and reliable and when is a source not independent and reliable ? The WP:RS reference does not make this clear. In contrary it says : Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. So whether or not a source is reliable depends on us. In my opinion the Janet Goodrich publications are reliable. If I am wrong please correct me. Seeyou (talk) 20:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's my current understanding. Reliable sources are generally considered to be "third-party" publications. "Third-party" meaning (it took me a while to realize this) that the author and the publisher are not one and the same, and both are independent of the subject. Janet Goodrich fails the latter portion of that test, since she obviously is not independent of "Natural Vision Improvement". While sources promoting the Bates method can be cited in the Bates method article, it needs to be based around independent, third-party sources. Currently the "Natural Vision Improvement" subsection is very shaky in that regard. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's better to leave the title as it is (Shorter, easier to type.) But if it's changed, the word "vision" should not be capitalized, and probably not the word "Natural" either. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Coppertwig welcome are you also going to really contribute to this article like ronz ? Above you only give your opinion. Can you also react on the given arguments. Like the article Natural vision improvement directly directs to the bates method article. As you can see by the given defintions ( referenced ! ). The bates method and Natural vision improvement are not completly equal. From a mathematical point of view this is not right. Is it ? Seeyou (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Sammy I suggest you read the archive for better understanding.

But since discussion should be based on arguments and facts and not just on your personal opinion I will give you the explanation I have given earlier.

Can you explain, when you go the one of the biggest bookstores on the net today Amazon.com and you search for bates method or Natural vision improvement, you will find a bestselling book on top of the list. So according to this bookstore also Bates method and Natural vision improvement are equal. Seeyou (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Nein, nein, nein, Seeyou. Just because a bestselling book is about the Bates Method and Natural Vision Improvement does not mean that the method and Natural Vision Improvement are one and the same. Besides, any move to the title you wish would rightly be rejected on the basis of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Frankly, Seeyou, I'm getting a bit fed up with this warlike attitude you've exuded. You've been using the Mediation Cabal as a bunker to take potshots at your enemies for the pettiest sleights (note that practically all your MedCab cases have been closed without ruling), and you have, on this very talk page in the past, accused another editor of a posts-for-pennies deal. What I'm seeing from you, Seeyou, is a defender of The Truth^TM who will not hesitate to assume an attitude not unlike that of the Japanese during WWII, and it's going to end up getting you blocked someday. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Bodging WP edit by edit)} 19:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree they are not equal. That why the sourced definitions are so important. The Bates method in this article should be everything bates has published. And Natural Vision improvement is : A lifestyle method of improving eyesight by wholistic means without the use of optical devices. The Bates method merged with modern theories of brain function, character and responsibility for one’s self and state of being.

This bookstore represents information which indicates that in the outside world the Bates method and Natural vision improvement have a strong connection. Which is true. And this article does not represent this fact when you read the header. ( Do not forget there is still an article NVI directing to the BM article. ) Arguments, Facts that is the way to discuss Jeske. Focus on improving this article. Seeyou (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"This bookstore represents information " No it doesn't. Please stop it with the soapboxing. --Ronz (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Bookstores aren't sources (why do you think Amazon can't be used for release dates?). Now, before you ask for barbecue sauce to make your foot taste better, stop putting it in your mouth. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Bodging WP edit by edit)} 04:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not discussing a topic. This is avoiding the real discussion. Why can't you just simply explain why Amazon has no value. Because that is your statement. Amazon is a great source for statiscal information and can be very helpful in deciding which books on the bates method or natural vision improvement are dominant and important. If we had not a tool like amazon we could keep on discussing for ages. Don't forget this article is for the public. The public gives a very clear and strong direction. Correct me if am wrong. Seeyou (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Bookstores aren't sources as they do not actively review books. You want a book review site, which Amazon ain't. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Bodging WP edit by edit)} 01:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Proffesional Engineer Doug Marsh in his book states :

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

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

Definitions

Current Definition of the Bates method :

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

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

Currrent Defintion of Natural Vision improvement :

According to Janet Goodrich :

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

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

Elwin Marg was an optometrist !

Wow Ronz you are fast. See :

• http://brain.berkeley.edu/marg/cv.html

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

How is this relevant? --Ronz (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to a standard citation. --Ronz (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ronz, I am amazed you do not understand my point.

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

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

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

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

How is this relevant? --Ronz (talk) 21:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Re: so your statement "He or she is less educated" looks downright silly as applied to him. Worse, it looks like a deliberate attempt to violated NPOV, OR, and FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Pardon? Could you explain please? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:: I do understand your question Phil. See below :

Edit Seeyou :

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bates_method&diff=233410307&oldid=233400663

Edit Ronz :

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bates_method&diff=233613387&oldid=233604691

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do not understand why awkward ? The other links have a similar reference like quackwatch or ophthalmology. Seeyou (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, a reference to Quackwatch is a reference to the source. In this case, I think clearly noting the journal is sufficient. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

This whole argument is b*llsh*t. Optometrists are not less clever, less well-read, less scientific or less talented than ophthalmologists, just because the latter has a medical degree. It's just a different specialism. I know several optometrists who are world experts on amblyopia (and several ophthalmologists who aren't). This smacks of an attempt to discredit a perfectly creditable writer on the subject of the BM, rather than address their criticisms. Go ahead, refer to Marg an optometrist if that was his qualification. It doesn't discredit anything he said regarding the BM. Famousdog (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Having an opinion is not the same as having arguments and references. Seeyou (talk) 11:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Its not an opinion. My argument (as clearly set out above) is that you are attempting to discredit Elwin Marg, by insisting that he be referred to as an optometrist - mistakingly believing that an optometrist is somehow less credible than an ophthalmologist. Otherwise, why would you care sooooooo much about his proper job title? Famousdog (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

contact lens-like effect of moisture on the eye

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

I've tweaked it further for accuracy. PSWG1920 (talk) 11:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice work! --Ronz (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Selection bias

The section on selection bias in the "claimed successes" section is currently labeled as "original research." I really don't think this is a valid tag, but I can see why it has been added. There is no source mentioned that discusses selection bias in relation to the Bates Method specifically. However, selection bias is a general concern that should apply to all "evidence" put forward to support the efficacy of a therapy. Selection bias always occurs and it is something that all experimenters should take into account. It is not "original research". It occurs in all studies of all purported therapies and is a perfectly valid statement without a citation attached to it. Thoughts? Famousdog (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I placed that tag, but I wasn't sure if it was original research or not; the tag has a question mark. But I am fine with letting that paragraph stay in the article. And the tag can be removed if no one objects. PSWG1920 (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I too think the paragraph is uncontroversial, and doesn't need the "original research" tag. And btw., good job with the edits everyone - especially you PSWG1920. Syd75 (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be best if we had a source which made the point about selection bias in relation to the Bates method, and without one I think it technically meets the definition of original thought. But I also now think it should probably be allowed to go under the radar. I tagged it originally because I had just removed a rather bloated warning template from the top of the article (which has since been partially restored) and in its place I was individually tagging problematic parts. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

My thinking on this is pretty much the same as before, except I now think the tag should stay until a source is found for the idea, to illustrate why WP:OR is best not taken 100% literally in regards to this article. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

I've taken this matter up with ScienceApologist‎ on our respective Talk pages. You may be interested to have a look. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I have cited a fairly good review piece that indicates directly that refractive errors are anatomical and not physiological. That is not a "point of view": that is reported blandly as a fact. Unless you can find a reliable source which indicates that this is not a fact, you're going to have to live with this. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, ScienceApologist - this is just not correct. On the good side the paragraph no longer claims scientific evidence exist that changes in the shape of the eyeball are irreversible. The problem now is that it wrongly states that Bates disregarded the anatomical features in refractive errors. The source you refered to also says nothing about whether refractive errors are anatomical and not physiological (I believe functional would be a better word here). Note that one doesn't exclude the other. On the contrary, it is quite usual for physiological changes to produce anatomical changes (I see this when I go to the gym to work out). Syd75 (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• I did some quick browsing and Animal Models of Myopia: Learning How Vision Controls the Size of the Eye says that The causes of refractive error, especially myopia, have been the subject of debate for more than a century. Some have held that myopia is primarily an inherited disorder, and others, that myopia is caused by protracted near work and, especially, by accommodation during protracted near work. It has not been possible, based solely on clinical observations, to resolve the relative roles of heredity versus environment in the development of refractive error. We should not therefore suggest that there is a certain explanation of this. It would be simpler to just put Bates' ideas forward without dwelling on competing theories. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

As the edit by ScienceApologist doesn't make any sense in any way you read it (it doesn't help either that the most common type of refractive error is called physiological myopia), and the reference added says nothing about what is claimed it says (it only talks about the prevalence of refractive errors), I believe this edit should be reverted. Syd75 (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Go for it. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Bates method if you want to see something amusing. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

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

I did take a look at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Bates method. It comes across as somewhere between calling for the naive science self-styled sceptic cavalry and "running to mummy"; just because the concensus that a certain contributor, among many others, so often bray about is going the sensible way, for once. That probably means they will get their way in the end, like bullying the BBC Web Site Complementary Therapy pages off the Internet and, similarly it seems, bullying a Complementary Therapy Degree Course out of existence. If you cannot win the argument, get your way by force of numbers; quite the opposite of logic, reason and intellectual capacity. I long ago came to the conclusion that the "science", logic, reason and general approach of most Wikipedia editors was at the level of first year secondary school, especially the anonymous ones; though I readily acknowledge the much needed breath of fresh air brought by Samuel, Syd, et al (that translates as "and others", for the first year students). RichardKingCEng (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we'll get our way eventually. That's just because there are better sources which disdain the Bates method than there are sources which support it. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we have no sources that support it beyond Bates' own articles. Sadly, the article is written as if that were not the case. --Ronz (talk) 00:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Force of numbers, Richard? Oh, please... I think you'll find that sceptics are in the numerical minority, but it might not seem that way to you because the sceptical minority has the evidence decidedly in their favour. Famousdog (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for spelling "sceptic" thus. I thought you must be a Brit, from your interest in Carlisle. However, "sceptic" means someone who is not credulous. Someone who believes unhesitatingly and uncritically in Bates method is indeed credulous, but so equally is someone who believes unhesitatingly and uncritically in the "orthodox" view. A sceptic is someone who doubts both extreme positions, and searches for the evidence in either direction. I count myself very much a sceptic in that sense. For the rest, please re-read what I wrote below; I do think we might reach consensus that way. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but that criticism implies two assumptions: 1) that the orthodox view is an "extreme position". It is not. The weight of evidence favours it overwhelmingly. 2) that people supporting the unorthodox position believe unhestitatingly and uncritically in it. They don't have to, since the weight of evidence favours it overwhelmingly. The sceptic position is not a 50-50 neutral position inbetween Bates and the mainstream. It should be the mainstream. What's your interest in Carlisle? Or are you just trying to psych me out? ;-) Famousdog (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Mainstream view

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

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

There is a misunderstanding here. You think I and others, objected to the fact that "the anatomical shape of an eye is what leads to refractive errors". This is not the case. I, at least, find this uncontroversial. The objection is to your statement that there is scientific evidence for "irreversible changes in the shape of the eyeball". This I strongly object to, and I asked you for some reference that proved this scientifically, showing that the myopic eye can only elongate, and the hyperopic eye can only shorten. As myopia and other refractive errors are known to sometimes increase, sometimes decrease, sometimes the myopic eye later can become hyperopic, and the hyperopic eye become myopic, and as I have a fairly good oversight over scientific research in this area, and I have never heard this claim before, I strongly believe that this is a false statement. Syd75 (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"Irreversible" is a weird word. Certainly there are surgeries which exist that "reverse" the anatomical shape of the eye. What is without evidence is the belief that the shape of the eye can be affected by extraocular muscles. So Bates believed that the variability of refractive errors was due, in large part, to the way people used their eyes physiologically. This is without scientific evidence. Indeed the scientific evidence points toward anatomical features as being largely independent of physiological context. There are some indications of correlations between certain types of behaviors and a worsening of refractive errors: but these behaviors are seen in the literature to be strictly degenerative and there are no behaviors which are shown to reverse this. This is where Bates' pseudoscience departs from the scientific evidence. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

One problem with your latest edit, ScienceApologist, is that you falsely claims that Bates disregarded the anatomical anomalies in refractive errors. This would be straw man argument, as you suggest that Bates would have opposed this. He didn't. Everything that is on that page from National Eye Institute could just as well be written by Bates. If your point is only that orthodox ophthalmology doesn't accept the view that the extraocular muscles can affect the refractive state of the eye, I think you can easily put your point forwards in better ways than this. Syd75 (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The main issue is that the difference between Bates and the rest of the world isn't reliably defined as "mainstream" in any source I see: nor is it reliably defined as a "view". In fact, I see it as a fact of science. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections (I'm neutral) about your latest edit, btw. But it would be interresting to hear in what way you have arrived at these facts. How can you be so sure that cocontraction of extraocular muscle pairs won't affect the shape of the eyeball? If you have seen any research into this, I would be very interrested to hear of it. Syd75 (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Recommendation

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

Rather than "to discuss how absurd the Bates method truly is" I'd prefer "to discuss why eye-care professionals regard the Bates method as mistaken". But I'm sure that's what you meant. As for your second point, I've been mulling over the possibility of creating a new article List of books describing the Bates method (partly motivated by Seeyou's obsession with NVI). Do you think that's a good idea? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to follow NPOV and FRINGE. From my reading of the sources, "absurd" is an appropriate summary. "Ridiculous" is another.

The list of books would be a WP:POVFORK and an obvious attempt to find further ways to violate NPOV, OR, and FRINGE beyond what's already being done with this article. --Ronz (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Could I ask for clarification here? As I understand it, you don't regard the pro-Bates books as "sources". Then you speak of your "reading of the sources". So does that exclude the pro-Bates books? Have you in fact ever read any of them? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

By "sources", I mean the references used in the article. --Ronz (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There are four pro-Bates books now being used as references in the article, so on that basis your "None of the sources we currently have are supportive of it." isn't true. And you've ducked my main question. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There are already too many dispersed Bates-related content forks. The solution is to edit this material, to merge and condense it into a concise, readable summary. Instead of spreading the few morsels of well-sourced information even farther apart, make them stand out by streamlining the material. Creating more Bates-related content forks would be a step in the wrong direction. MastCell ^Talk 16:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. I see your point. It was only a thought ... SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Regarding Ronz' point, my impression is that the article already gives undue prominence to ridicule in the reference to Martin Gardner's criticism in the lede. I like Martin Gardner's work but it does not seem that the opinion of a mathematical journalist is appropriate in this place. It should go as it gives the article the tone of an attack piece. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

When all independent sources ridicule the subject matter, then we follow NPOV and report it. --Ronz (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If the mission is to discredit the validity of the Bates method, I don't think the ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments and attempts at ridicule that many opponents of the method frequently uses, is the way to go. A pure fact-based rebuttal point for point of Bates' claims, based on valid and referenced research is far more effective. The point that all the sources we use ridicule the subject matter is a bit stupid, because it is a direct effect of the fact that we choose to only include the sources that ridicule the subject matter. There are a large number of books written by medical doctors, optometrists and ophthalmologists, several of them with PhDs, that embraces the method. But we don't use them here as sources because we consider them fringe sources. I agree with this decision. But even if the Bates method is a fringe theory, that doesn't mean the rebuttal shouldn't be fact-based and conducted respectfully. Syd75 (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Follow the sources. At least one major reliable source ridicules the Bates method. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to censor this information from the reader. It is also not our job to take an opinion on whether one should or shouldn't ridicule proponents of Bates method. Nor is it Wikipedia's job to do the actual ridiculing or debunking. All we must do is report the facts surrounding the Bates Method, the general disdain and low-esteem it is afforded by the scientific and medical communities, and leave it at that. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Just read the sources. --Ronz (talk) 23:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

So it's okay to just use ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments (as some of the sources here do) to "debunk" Bates, while f.ex. PhD dissertations that supports Bates are not allowed as sources? Syd75 (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

PhD and Master's theses should be considered unpublished (or self-published) observations unless they have been published elsewhere in, f.ex, a peer-reviewed journal. Having experienced both, the peer-review process is far more rigourous than an oral defense. Famousdog (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"So it's okay to just use ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments" I believe this is a straw man argument, as no one here is doing any such thing, or even suggesting it. --Ronz (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

We're doing it indirectly by referencing sources that do just that. It leads to a bias, especially in consideration that none of the sources that supports Bates are allowed here. Syd75 (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what has transpired here previously but it seems that the selection of sources may not have been NPOV. For example, I just searched for a reasonably reliable source and soon found this item from The Times, the UK's principal journal of record: Conditions: Refractive error. This states, Vision education, or the Bates Method, is a programme of eye exercises that aims to improve sight without resorting to lenses or surgery. Although there have not been any recent clinical trials, ophthalmologists agree that the exercises may help some cases of short sight and certain types of squint.. This not only does not ridicule the method, it indicates that it may be of some value. I look around a bit more and find this piece in the Wall Street Journal: A Workout for Your Eyes. This is no enconium but does not ridicule and also says that eye exercises may help in some cases. I've seen enough and so am removing Gardner's opinion. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The sources you cite are journalism (with all the associated sensationalism and absence of fact-checking that goes along with it). Try finding a source in a peer-reviewed journal, written by a scientist perhaps, that concludes "hey, this Bates guy was right!" I think you will struggle. Famousdog (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I also think it is telling that in the Times article, the "complimentary therapy" section that discusses Bates is squarely at the end and about 1/10 the length of the sections devoted to more "mainstream" treatments. It smacks of something added at the last minute to fulfill an obligation to provide "alternative views". Anyway, the Times is a bloody Tory rag that I wouldn't wipe my bottom with! Famousdog (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

... and unfortunately, the Wall Street Journal article is not freely available, so I can't read all of it (and surely this excludes it from being sourced?), however it does begin "most eye doctors take a dim view of the idea." Hardly complimentary (pun unintended)! Famousdog (talk) 13:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"I'm not sure what has transpired here previously but it seems that the selection of sources may not have been NPOV." Then I suggest you read the discussions here, read the sources, read this article, and follow WP:CON. --Ronz (talk) 23:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• No, consensus may change and so we start afresh with your contention that this article should ridicule. This proposition violates our core policy of WP:NPOV which requires an impartial tone throughout: A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view.. Consensus may not override core policies and so that's that. Content which does not have a properly dispassionate tone, such as the Gardener piece, should be removed forthwith. There seem to be numerous better sources which summarise the method in a more objective and up-to-date way and so these should be substituted. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Brain training

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

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

See Clearly Method

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

It's not a question of sources; the facts are clear. The question is, why should this material be included, and to say that we can "link the two in some way" is hopelessly inadequate as a reason. The reason the SCM got into trouble is that they charged a lot of money, made exaggerated claims, and didn't honour their money-back guarantee. That could have arisen in exactly the same way if they'd been teaching Hungarian. If they had, would that justify putting it into the article on Hungarian language? I put the full details in as a second-best option, to try and make the picture clear, but I'd much prefer to omit the incident altogether. It tells us nothing whatever about Bates method, and thus is completely off-topic. Its inclusion has always seemed to me a crude example of a "guilt by association" smear, and I'm a bit surprised you're so keen on it. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I do see your point, however, surfing the net I have noticed that some people think that the See Clearly Method is the Bates method. Having that section in this article set that straight. PSWG1920 (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I must admit that that had never occurred to me, but the article is hardly written as if that were the main message, and there's better ways of saying it if necessary. Maybe some people think BM is SCM; Seeyou keeps telling us that BM is NVI; it does make me realise that the words "Bates method" cannot be anyone's trademark, which means that anyone can use them. Perhaps that fact is worth drawing attention to. To be fair, the only options are either to atttempt to list all current purveyors of Bates method, which could only be done over Ronz' dead body, or simply to say there's lots of them out there, without identifying any particular one, and caveat emptor. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The See Clearly Method is probably the most notable contemporary "variant" of the Bates method, as there are plenty of independent sources which address it specifically. Such does not seem to be the case with the Goodrich/Quackenbush approach of "Natural Vision Improvement", for instance. Perhaps the "See Clearly Method" subsection should be further rewritten, but I definitely think it belongs in this article. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it should be mentioned. I'm not sure how much we need to go into it, nor why we need to use self-published sources to partially verify original research. --Ronz (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

I'd be really interested to see the exact terms implied by "Guaranteed Swahili!" If there was an organised body of professionals dedicated to the notion that Swahili couldn't be learnt, don't you think the Boston school would be in trouble? In fact there are many dozens of BM teachers around the world who are functioning without complaint, because they avoid silly promises. There have been at least two other lawsuits in the US (Corbett and Hackett, see Pollack's book pp. 7-8) where the practitioners were acquitted. BM is an educational process, and every responsible teacher knows that you don't always win. Bates himself was inclined to exaggerate, which I think harmed his cause greatly, but most of his successors make more modest claims. Meanwhile, I'm tempted to go to Boston, fail to learn Swahili, and sue them. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 07:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to the question of whether the See Clearly Method should be mentioned in this article (remember this is not a forum for general discussion of the subject), I would respond to your original argument by pointing out that the Bates method is a much narrower topic than the Hungarian language. Thus applying the same reasoning to what should and shouldn't be in articles about the respective subjects is highly suspect. Moreover, if a company sold a "teach yourself Hungarian" kit with a money-back guarantee that they were found not to be honoring despite many attempts to get it, no remotely sensible person would deduce that everyone claiming to teach Hungarian is a quack. The same is not the case with the See Clearly Method and vision improvement, hence the need to address that here. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Why aren't we including accounts of the many Bates teachers and schools, past and present, who have functioned without complaintt, and with apparently only satisfied customers? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we can do that if we have independent sources which discuss them in some detail. PSWG1920 (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There is, as you know, a severe dearth of independent discussion of such things. The two exceptions I can think of are the cases of Corbett and Hackett mentioned above, both of which are described in Pollack's book. For Corbett most of it is in Margaret Corbett already, but that needn't be a bar given that See Clearly Method also has its own article. For Hackett, Pollack just mentions that she was tried and acquitted, saying only that it was "similar" to Corbett's case but in New York. The crucial point in both these cases, however, is that they could produce lots of satisfied customers as witnesses, and presumably the prosecution couldn't find unsatisfied ones, since if they had been able to they would have done. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could create an "After Bates" section to chronicle the history up to the present day. This could include what is currently in "Modern Variants" as well as Huxley's story, plus whatever else we could get away with adding. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent idea. Would others agree??? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It is an option, but in my opinion a much simpler and correct solution is to stick to the literature. When we refer to the old Bates method we speak of the Bates method for Better Eyesight and when we speak of the Bates method of today we speak of the Bates method of Natural vision improvement. Ths is exactly what literature speaks of. It is important to understand we are only editors. We can not just present how we see the BM ourselves. It should be based on references.Seeyou (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

A note on the Huxley incident

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

“ Bennett Cerf wrote this account of the time Huxley addressed a Hollywood banquet in the April 12, 1952, Saturday Review:

When he arose to make his address he wore no glasses, and evidently experienced no difficulty in reading the paper he had planted on the lectern. Had the exercises really given him normal vision? I, along with 1200 other guests, watched with astonishment while he rattled glibly on . . . Then suddenly he faltered -- and the disturbing truth became obvious. He wasn't reading the address at all. He had learned it by heart. To refresh his memory he brought the paper closer to his eyes. When it was only an inch or so away he still couldn't read it, and he had to fish for a magnifying glass in his pocket. It was an agonizing moment.

”

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

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

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

"...which you obviously didn't study very carefully. But keep on trying." Watch the personal attacks, Sam. Famousdog (talk) 14:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

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

RFC is to change the current title Bates method into Bates method / Natural vision improvement.

The arguments to change the title

• The article Natural Vision improvement directs already to the Bates method article. See :

( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natural_vision_improvement&redirect=no )

• This is confusing since the Bates method and Natural Vision Improvement have a strong connection but are not exactly equal. See paragraph : RFC nr 2 referenced quote A and C for the definitions.

• In books published today and the Bates method and Natural vision improvement are used to describe the same subject. See the refererence book quote below :

Professional Engineer Doug Marsh in his book :

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

• Also when you go to Amazon : And search for Bates method or Natural Vision Improvement you will find the same book listed at the top.

• In one of the three times internet sources speak of Natural Vision Improvement. So in case of 33,2 sources speak of Natural Vision improvement.

• A google search on Natural vision improvement direct to this wikipedia article fifth search result !

Arguments against the change.

In the discussion below no valid arguments were given against the change.Seeyou (talk) 08:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion :

Based on the provided arguments summarized above, the change would be an improvement.

Discussion

• Oppose - This seems like an odd name for an article. I have not seen any other article named as such (with a / in the middle). I would suggest dedicating one (new) section of this article to discuss NVI and how it differs from Bates Method. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose use of slash because this creates a "subpage" which is probably not what was intended. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• No it doesn't. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Call me Mr. Bonaparte!)} 08:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose because the naming convention is to use the most common name. I don't think there is a good, common, well-accepted generic name, like "Chiropractic" or "Psychoanalysis" or "Homeopathy" for "systems for correction of refractive error in the eye, without the use of lenses, by means of eye exercises." I don't think "Natural vision improvement" is such a name; it's just a description. "Bates method" returns forty thousand Google hits, "Natural vision improvement" only twenty thousand, and the naming convention is to use the most common name. If the name "Psychoanalysis" didn't exist, I'd want to see the article on psychoanalysis named "Freudianism," not "Natural mental illness improvement" or "Freudianism, Jungism, and similar systems of talk therapy." If I'm wrong in assuming that Bates was really the founder and that the various modern-day methods are descended from Bates' work, then it gets more complicated, though. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Seeyou's comment : Very strange. I also did a google test on Bates method and Natural vision improvement.

Result : Bates method : 362,000 hits

Result : Natural Vision Improvement : 14,700,000 hits  ?! Seeyou (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Put them in quotation marks, which will find only pages which have the exact phrase. "Bates method" gets twice as many results as "Natural Vision Improvement". PSWG1920 (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your info, PSWG1920. Seeyou (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Still quite a lot of results for Natural Vision Improvement. So in my opinion the logical sequence should be Bates method / Natural Vision Improvement. 2 of the three times Bates mehhod is used and in 1 of the three times Natural Vision Improvement. By changing the title we would improve the article. Seeyou (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

RFC Nr : 2 Removal of sourced quotes

The following request for comment regarding the removal of all the sourced valuable Bates / NVI quotes in the article. Since the BM / NVI article is controversial there are 2 parties with a very opposite opinion regarding the subject of this article. I don’t think the current developments should be accepted.

This article should be written from multiple points of view not just one. Multiple points of view meaning the BM advocate point of view ( the dominant one(s)), the point of view of Ophthalmology, and the skeptic point of view. By doing so the result will be a neutral article in which the reader can read the different points of view ant conclude its own conclusion. Not the conclusion of only a skeptic or advocate editors. If this is not achieved censor is present.

The argument of Original research Ronz is using is complete fake, since bates is the original researcher so this complete article should not exist. Note Bates research is mentioned in the references of the American Academy of Ophthalmology. ( Also removed in the references ! ). Why ? It was present ! Anyhow nonsense and vandalism is currently present.

Note also in the past there has also been an attempt to vandalise this article by multiple virtual IP addresses. This is the same situation except for the strategy. The current editors are no longer multiple IP adressess but are all quite new in making edits in general and editing this article. Makes you wonder why.

Please give your arguments if the book referenced quotes should return in the article or should stay removed as the skeptics want. I repeat the neutrality of this article is completely gone.

Quote A The only available definition

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

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

Seeyou's comment : Suppose this article was about the law of gravity and the only given definition would be removed ! A bit strange is not it. The only way to remove any definition in any article is to replace it be a new one ! This has not happened !

• I think I agree with that. The article should include a short, succinct definition of what the "Bates method" is, and the definition should be from a source sympathetic to the method. We should use the best source we can find, so if someone can find a better source than Quackenbush it should be replaced, but on the face of it a definition, made by an editor of a collection of Bates' work, sounds good to me. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak agree. Per PSWG1920. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Agree with serious reservations It should be made clear that this definition is coming from a practitioner and "believer" in Bates' methods. Otherwise it lends undue weight to the use of words like "educational", "natural", "correct", etc. All of which are highly suspect POV claims. Famousdog (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree. We follow NPOV, OR, FRINGE, etc here. If we don't have a proper source, we don't mention it. --Ronz (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - The Quackenbush source is a book published by North Atlantic Books, a decently reputable publisher Certainly there are better publishers out there, though and sure, there may be better sources out there for this information, but overall, this one isn't bad and passes the WP:RS sniff test. I have no idea how you think OR applies here. This seems to be faithful to the original text. However, I would be extremely curious to read your explanation as to why you feel OR applies here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Partially agree - The bit after the second semicolon is just a veiled attack on other Bates teachers, so should definitely be omitted. The bit after the first semicolon is fairly vacuous, and clumsy in including the words "self-healing" twice, so could with benefit be omitted. Since "educational" and "are taught" say the same thing, the "educational" could go, leaving just "A program created by ophthalmologist William H. Bates, M.D., in which natural, correct vision habits—based on relaxation of the mind and body—are taught." That would do nicely, and could still have Quackenbush's name on it. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Undecided / neutral - First of all, it should be considered that this definition comes from a glossary. Secondly, what does it really add to the article? Now, I had seen some sweeping criticisms of this article which I felt were, for the most part, unfair and inaccurate; however, the "Natural Vision Improvement" subsection did seem rather problematic, as it continued to lack a source independent of the subject. Therefore I thought it would help to delete it. Now, if we re-add Quackenbush's definition or part of it, the best context would be in the proposed "After Bates" section which has yet to be created. If we don't find an independent source which mentions Quackenbush, however, I'm not sure that we can justify quoting him like this. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  • That seems like very sound reasoning, I am going to change my entry based on what you have written here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Since Seeyou has again brought this up below, I thought I'd point out that this is not the only available definition. Look here, for example: "The Bates Method is a non-invasive and natural way of enhancing visual acuity and relearning how to see properly, using simple techniques to relive eye strain and improve brain-eye coordination." If we really need a definition from an advocate, that one would probably do better. No doubt others could be found in different books. PSWG1920 (talk) 06:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

A small irritating/amusing detail about that, namely that the given quotation is part of the publisher's blurb about the book, which is printed on the back cover (though with "relieve" with the correct spelling), but nothing quite as snappy seems to appear inside the book. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Quote B Bates on open eyelid sunning

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.

Seeyou’s comment : Bates is ridiculed for his open eyelid sunning. See the quackwatch site below :

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

Shouldn’t Bates be given all the room to make clear what he really meant in his own words ! Note : Bates was also ridiculed on sunning in this article in the past.

As I read the "sunning" section of current version of the article, I don't see Bates being "ridiculed" and I don't see his views being represented unfairly. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

> He later suggested allowing direct sunlight to shine on closed eyes as part of his "routine treatment".[38] 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.

See the link below paragraph Sunning :

* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bates_method&diff=193797496&oldid=193780148#Sunning

Routine treatment ?!

Set Fort in Perfect Sight Without Glasses ?! ( quote is sourced Better Eyesight magazine of a later date. )

could not cause irreversible damage. Books about the BM today only speak of closed eyelid sunning ! Editors ignore the fact there is also an improved BM of today. Seeyou (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Represent the best sources. Our job is to get it right. If a source is getting it wrong (but there is no other source actually saying that they've got it wrong), both versions should be presented without creating an argument of who is right or who is wrong. On a side note, be wary of Quackwatch as a source. It has been deemed a partisan and unreliable source by ArbCom decision. Use it with caution and be sure to note that you are dealing with opinion and not fact when citing from this source. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Note first of all that the Quackwatch page in question is simply a reproduction of a chapter of a book by an optometrist. Also, I find it strange that Seeyou is referring to an old version of the article to make a point, although I do agree with him/her that the current article could clarify that Bates felt the benefit was from the light rays rather than the heat rays. The quote Seeyou wants to use probably isn't the best, however, because it is not actually Bates' words, though his magazine did publish it. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly use the book in lieu of the reproduction of it at the partisan website. It will be more credible as such, IMHO. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The citation shows that it's from a book. The problem is that Quackwatch is the only place online which hosts the text as such (though Google books does contain a "snippet view", which can at least confirm that Quackwatch isn't making things up here.) It seems like it's better to link to the text if you can, especially considering the number of times it is referenced. Editors should be able to check the source easily, if possible. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's cool. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Quote C definition of N.V.I.

According to Janet Goodrich :

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

Seeyou’s comment : Sourced book definitions should be copied exactly as they are and stay as quotes so the can’t be changed be editors with other intentions than improving wikipedia.

I agree. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that the "Natural Vision Improvement" subsection had been almost entirely a collection of quotes from Goodrich and Quackenbush, further with no independent source. I'm not sure but past experience leads me to believe that is not acceptable. Perhaps an "After Bates" section, as suggested above, will provide a better context for this. PSWG1920 (talk) 05:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Somewhat agree. Quotes are fine, but faithful summarizations can be just as good or better. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Quote D Not a cure !

 : According to Janet Goodrich :

Improving vision naturally is an internal transformation, not a treatment, cure or makeover by external forces. .>

Seeyou's comment : Valuable Important information for understanding since a lot of people will compare NVI with their quick fix glasses or contacts. ( I did ). A lot of people will also think the responsibility for their improvement lies by the teacher. This is not true of course.. Aldous Huxley said it very clear Doctors don’t heal Nature does.Seeyou (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If it's "not a treatment [or] cure," what is it? A religion? And what would be the point of participating in it if it doesn't "treat" or "cure" what ails you? Famousdog (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I am confused what you are asking for editors to comment on here. However, if the Goodrich source is deemed reliable, then there is no reason why her opinion can't be presented in the article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"After Bates" section

As discussed above, it would probably he helpful to create an "After Bates" section to chronicle the history up to the present day. This could include what is currently in "Modern variants" and "The case of Huxley", and whatever else we decide to add. A good first step might be to list the notable proponents who could be mentioned and whatever independent sources refer to them. PSWG1920 (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That's definitely the way to go about it. From what little we've found so far it looks like if we can find any acceptable sources they aren't going to be very positive for Bates method or its proponents. --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

this makes a lot of sense--Vannin (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This does make a lot of sense. Though I am not sure that "After Bates" should be the title (but something to that effect). -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Great idea, and I think "After Bates" would be a pretty accurate and succinct title. Famousdog (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have begun listing individuals who could be mentioned along with the independent sources which discuss them. Feel free to add to this list as I am making it communal property. Or comment on it here. PSWG1920 (talk) 02:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Since there seems to be a clear consensus, I got the ball rolling and created the "After Bates" section. At this point it is very disjointed and needs a lot of things filled in. Merging the Margaret Darst Corbett article would be an obvious step. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I have copied most of Margaret Darst Corbett into this article, removing details which were redundant here. The only other part I left out was the Pollack quote at the end, which I wasn't quite sure whether or how to use. Beyond that, it can be redirected. PSWG1920 (talk) 05:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Seeyou’s comment : The correct and only solution is to stick to the literature. When we refer to the old Bates method we should speak of the Bates method for Better Eyesight and when we speak of the Bates method of today we should speak of the Bates method of Natural vision improvement. By mentioning this explanations in the introduction we can make this clear for the public and ourselves. And this is exactly what dominant literature speaks of. What we mention and say should be based on references and literature. Books being published today still speak of Bates method and Natural Vision Improvement as if they are equal. ( See the reference of Doug Marsh his book dated 2007 ). This is confusing because they are not equal to our current definitions. The Bates method of today has changed on some aspects and has become part of Natural Vision Improvement. That is why it is called the Bates method of NVI. I do understand why PSWG1920 and the others want an After Bates section because then the See Cleary Method can also be mentioned and the BM suggestive ridiculed. One problem : the See clearly method is not equal to the Bates method. As the See Clearly method tells us. Reference SCM itself and Visionsofjoy. And the SCM also isn’t Natural Vision improvement. Because Natural Vision Improvement is partly Bates method. A modern Bates method section is much better in my opinion if you want to provide clear information. The see clearly method shoult be replaced in the article vision therapy See below keywords of the backcover. Seeyou (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"One problem : the See clearly method is not equal to the Bates method. As the See Clearly method tells us. Reference SCM itself and Visionsofjoy." Which is precisely the reason I want to make sure it is mentioned. To show that it is not the Bates method. Browsing the web I've seen the "Bates See Clearly method" referred to. The current article sets that straight. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the logic. This article is about the BM and should just present quality info about NVI and the BM. It has got nothing to do with any orther source(s). By removing any information about the See clearly method in the Bates method article it's much clearer. Remove it to vision therapy I also browsed the web and I did not find any reliable sources connecting the Bates method and the See Clearly method. Can you provide the references you spoke of ? Seeyou (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The first four sources in the See Clearly Method subsection all speak of the See Clearly Method in connection with Bates. Additionally, this illustrates how people are being misled. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

PSWG1920. This google result does not convince me at all. Reliable sources are essential ! I will remove the SCM paragraph in the near future. Seeyou (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the subsection and made it more to the point. The point being, while the See Clearly Method adapts a few of Bates' techniques, overall it is distinctly different. And this is well-sourced. PSWG1920 (talk) 05:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"When we refer to the old Bates method we should speak of the Bates method for Better Eyesight and when we speak of the Bates method of today we should speak of the Bates method of Natural vision improvement. By mentioning this explanations in the introduction we can make this clear for the public and ourselves." That would not make anything clear. Any attempt to distinguish between the "Bates method for Better Eyesight" and the "Bates method of Natural Vision Improvement" is only going to confuse readers. If the Goodrich/Quackenbush approach is discussed anywhere in this article, it should be in the "After Bates" section. However, a source independent of the subject may be needed to establish the notability of that variant. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we will come to an agreement. A RFC would be wiser I think. Our information should be based on published written facts.

PSWG1920 : That would not make anything clear. Any attempt to distinguish between the "Bates method for Better Eyesight" and the "Bates method of Natural Vision Improvement" is only going to confuse readers.

I completly disagree. The current situation is confusing. Doug Marsh in his book for example speaks about the Bates method. Which one do you think he really means. Hint : The foreword is written by thomas Quackenbush. By making a difference between the old and the new bates method we really make worldwide progress making this subject clear. And wikipedia is really becoming a great source of information. Seeyou (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at it that way there are many versions of the Bates method, not just two. Hence the reason for the "After Bates" section, which if you scroll up you will see there is a strong consensus for. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Seeyou has drawn attention to the lists of books on sale at amazon, but they make clear that NVI/Quackenbush is just one of many. Looking at http://www.amazon.com/, with search on "Bates method", and leaving out false positives and books by Bates himself, we get the following authors:

• Thomas R. Quackenbush
• Jonathan Barnes
• Steven M. Beresford et al.
• Meir Schneider
• Clara A. Hackett et al.
• Margaret D. Corbett
• Martin A Sussman
• Jacob Liberman
• Hereward Carrington
• Doug Marsh and Thomas R. Quackenbush
• James Bellevue
• Peter Mansfield et al.
• Lisette Scholl
• Charles R Kelley

Doing the same exercise at http://www.amazon.co.uk/ yields most of the same authors, but with Barnes leading and Quackenbush nowhere.

This makes absolutely clear that Qackenbush is just one of many. Words like "dominant" which Seeyou keeps using are misplaced, as the other authors are not dominated. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Strange you do not undestand me. Does not matter I will explain. I mean dominant in selling. That is why I added the rankings. The public does not have a problem to see and find quality information about the Batesmethod of NVI. Do you understand now ? Seeyou (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I strongly object to your altering my talk page messages, as here. I prevously regarded rational discussion with you as very difficult. That makes it impossible. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain why discussing is difficult. I don't understand. In my opinion you just avoid the question I asked you above. I will repeat my question :

Strange you do not undestand me. Does not matter I will explain. I mean dominant in selling. That is why I added the rankings. The public does not have a problem to see and find quality information about the Batesmethod of NVI. Do you understand now ? Seeyou (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC

The section should probably have an introductory paragraph. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

List of proponents discussed by independent sources

• Aldous Huxley - Marg, Pollack, Gardner, Time
• Margaret Darst Corbett - Marg, Pollack, Gardner
• Harold Peppard - Pollack, Time
• Clara Hackett - Pollack, Gardner
• Emily Bates - Pollack, Gardner, Time

02:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Books

Modern Bates method :

Thomas Quackenbush 2 books Relearning to See and Better Eyesight the complete magazines of W.H. Bates. Bates method and Natural Eyesight Improvement. ( See the back covers. ) Also called the bates metod of NVI on the back cover of the Better Eyesight magazines.

Relearning to See, Thomas Quackenbush : Amazon.com Sales Rank: #13,998

Better eyesight the complete magazines of W.H. Bates edited by T.R. Quackenbush : Amazon.com Sales Rank: #205,877

Improve your vision without glasses or contactlenses. See clearly method book ! improve vision naturally. 20 exercises. Vision therapy. Better eyesight. Speedy Amazon.com Sales Rank: #38,564 Seeyou’s comment : Important note Bates method is not mentioned at all ! The See clearly method is labelled Vision therapy. See Vision therapy:

Margaret D. Corbett Eye education based on the Bates method Amazon.com Sales Rank: #149,164

Classic Bates method : The Bates method for better eyesight. W.H. Bates own updated version. Amazon.com Sales Rank: #170,575

Jonathan Barnes book also presents the bates method for today. See the back cover. Amazon.com Sales Rank: #512,656

Clara Hacket Better Vision Now: Improve Your Sight with the Renowned Bates Method Amazon.com Sales Rank: #831,286

Peter Mansfield : the Bates method Amazon.com Sales Rank: #1,012,569

Jacob Liberman : Take of your glasses and See : holistic vision care Amazon.com Sales Rank: #286,510 Seeyou (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Dead-end

I just loved the new idea from "Writer Alan M. MacRobert":

• "If palming, shifting, and swinging could really cure poor eyesight, glasses would be as obsolete by now as horse-drawn carriages."
• "If cleaning and flossing the teeth could really prevent tooth decay, fillings and dentures would be as obsolete by now as horse-drawn carriages."
• "If sensible diet and exercise could really cure weight problems, obesity would be as obsolete by now as horse-drawn carriages."
• "If prudent financial management could really cure debt, bankruptcy would be as obsolete by now as horse-drawn carriages."
• "If education could really cure poor logic, ridiculous arguments would be as obsolete by now as horse-drawn carriages."

If this really is the "most telling argument against the Bates system" I would conclude that the case for the Bates system had been conclusively made. But keep it in! The article needs some comic relief, and this sort of desperate daftness cheers me up and makes me laugh. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. I considered finding a pro-Bates source which responds to that line of reasoning, but I'm fairly certain that any such reference would get reverted. As it is, enough readers will see through MacRobert's logic. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Information of questionable importance

Regarding the Ophthalmological research section, I don't understand why the 1946 Woods study should be singled out for mention here. The AAO review gives no details of what the employed "optometric training technique" was, and it's not clear whether Woods even claimed to be testing the Bates method. And it certainly couldn't have involved the "Bates method of Natural Vision Improvement" (as Seeyou terms it), as that had not yet evolved in 1946. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is about the Bates method which is equal to Natural vision improvement ( Doug Marsh ) and it is about the Bates method which is part of Natural vision improvement ( Janet Goodrich ). These are the facts according to the referenced sources. The AAO reference is about the scientific research on the subject of these article. Natural Vision Improvement. So wery essential and important and logical information fot the public. Simply remember PSWG1920 this article should provide objective neutral information for the public. You can't ignore what advocates of NVI state. You can't ignore what skeptics state and you can't ignore what ophthalmology / science states. Seeyou (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Citing the AAO review is fine. But why should we single out the 1946 Woods study for discussion in the article? PSWG1920 (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Very simple PSWG1920. Because there is at this moment not one single reliable source presenting succes in improving eyesight naturally. This source is reliable. The American Academy of ophthalmology could easily have skipped the presentation of the Woods research. They did not ! It also indicates and signals the testimonials about succesfully improving eyesight might be very interesting for furher investigation and research for real researchers and the public with an open mind. Seeyou (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

"Because there is at this moment not one single reliable source presenting succes in improving eyesight naturally." Not true. Check the Biofeedback Training section. And unlike with the Woods study, we at least know the basic technique used there. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Your argument is very invalid. You can't compare biofeedbacktraining with ophthalmogical research. You are comparing pseudoscience with science ! The source is Ophthalmology ! What they say about NVI is very important. They are the autthority on this subject ! AAO is the only reliable source presenting succes in NVI.Seeyou (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The AAO review discusses several studies. If we're going to basically repeat their summary of Woods, why not do the same for all the others? Now, it's fine to state what the AAO's overall conclusions are, as the first two paragraphs of the Ophthalmological research section do. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Listing them all seems a bit much. Cherry-picking one is problematic because of WP:UNDUE and WP:SYN. I've reverted the edits by Seeyou accordingly.

What RfC is Seeyou referring to?--Ronz (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems like it must be this one. However, that principally addressed the question of whether the AAO review should be in the external links, which is not the issue here.

I do agree with you here, I was just pointing out why the specific discussion of the Woods study probably doesn't belong in this article. Now, if we had more details that could clearly connect it to a subtopic already in the article, that might change. PSWG1920 (talk) 23:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I will maka a summary. And ask other editors with an RFC what their objective opinion is regarding more than one issue of this article. Any suggestions on how to get more really objective editors involved. Choosing complete new editors wouldn't be very logical. I am also thinking about giving weight to arguments or neglecting fake-arguments. With some algebra it will be much easier to really improve this article. Have a nice day. Seeyou (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is well established that the Bates method has not been proven by a single scientific study, and that this must not be submerged.--Stetsonharry (talk) 21:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The goal of this article is not to prove the BM. The goal of this article is to provide facts by reliable sources about Natural Vision improvement. ( See the discussion about the title ).The public reading this article may conclude their own conclusion. If this article only provides the opinion of skeptic wikdipedia editors it is a sick article and will never reach A quality. Current fact at this moment : The only available definition is removed. So this article is ... Seeyou (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the "only available definition", see my latest comment above. The current article is A quality in my opinion, and steadily approaching A+. We just need a thorough review by a neutral party. Wouldn't it be great if this were the featured article of Bates' next birthday, December 23? PSWG1920 (talk) 23:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I have rewritten the section to reflect what the AAO review seems to be saying overall, without cherry-picking from what they cite. And if the section is allowed to remain in current form, then the "relevance/importance" tag is no longer needed in my opinion. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Positive independent source?

I just found what would seem to be an independent source which takes a positive view of the Bates method, here. Not sure yet how it could be used in this article. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC).

Sorry PSWG1920 not very impressive. And very weak when yoo compare it with Woods research.

( Which is presented by a reliable authority source of the subject ).Famousdog would say Pseudoscience. And he, she, Maradonna or ophthalmology would be right. Seeyou (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion the book pages linked to above are much more relevant to the article than are the vague details we have about the Woods research. I can see three places this source could perhaps be used: the "Bates' treatments" section, the "Ophthalmological Research" section, or the "Dead-end" subsection. It focuses on the subtlely of the Bates method and why it would be difficult to do a formal scientific test. PSWG1920 (talk) 00:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Think positve PSWG1920 Elwin Marg report is fully available. Why can't Woods report by fully available in future. Maybe with a little help from a objective party. Woods report is by far the most reliable and proffesional source of positive results. A child can see this is true ! Seeyou (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would be nice to see the actual Woods report. To find out about the "optometric training technique" used and to get a more clear indication as to whether the noted improvement in eyesight was seen as objective or subjective. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be very nice if opthalmology would start to be really co-operative regarding this article. By keeping the woods article in place. Resulting in questions of the public towards ophthalmology worldwide. Things might slowly change. Do you add the woods information or do you want me to re-add it ? Seeyou (talk) 08:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Second Generation Bates versus Classic Bates method

In my opinion the title above is an improvement when you compare it with the current afer bates section. And argument : It is based on a source not just on the opinion of wikipedia editor ! See also :

• http://www.i-see.org/vision_books.html

Seeyou (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. That would almost certainly not be considered a reliable source. "After Bates" is the simplest, best title I can think of for that section. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Biofeedback training

The Biofeedback training subsection needs to be worked on. Contrary to what is stated, the "Treating myopia with acoustic biofeedback" source does not appear to be a general review of research in this area, and the "have been rare and contradictory" quote appears to be used out of context. I think the section is worth trying to improve as there are definitely good sources, but I suppose it could be deleted as off-topic. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion the essential information therein is now also in the main "Ophthalmological Research" section. So I'm going to delete the Biofeedback Training subsection but list the sources here with citations for use in a potential rewrite.

<ref name=Randle>{{cite journal | author=Randle RJ | title=Responses of myopes to volitional control training of accommodation | journal=Ophthalmic Physiol Opt | volume=8 | pages=333–340 | year=1988 | url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=3269512&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google}}</ref>

<ref name=Gallaway>{{cite journal | author=Gallaway M, Pearls SM, Winkelstein AM, et al. | title=Biofeedback training of visual acuity and myopia: A pilot study | journal=Am J Optom Physiol Opt | volume=64 | pages=62–71 | year=1987 | url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3826280}}</ref>

<ref name=Koslowe>{{cite journal | author=Koslowe KC, Spierer A, Rosner M, et al. | title=Evaluation of accommotrac biofeedback training for myopia control | journal=Optom Vis Sci | volume=68 | year=1991 | pages=252–4 | url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&list_uids=1852394&cmd=Retrieve&indexed=google}}</ref>

<ref name=Rupolo>{{cite journal | author=G Rupolo, M Angi, E Sabbadin, S Caucci, E Pilotto, E Racano and C de Bertolini | journal=Psychosomatic Medicine | volume=59 | issue=3 | pages=313–317 | year=1997 | title=Treating myopia with acoustic biofeedback: a prospective study on the evolution of visual acuity and psychological distress | url=http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/cgi/reprint/59/3/313.pdf | format = [[PDF]] }}</ref>

PSWG1920 (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Article images?

I was thinking that photos from Bates' book of individuals palming and sungazing could perhaps be added to the respective sections. I have no experience with adding images to wikipedia, however, so it would be helpful if someone else could do it, if indeed the consensus is for including them. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The sungazing picture would result in a safety issue. That is also the logical reason why in the second generation books about the Bates method / Natural Vision Improvement you won't find any open eyelidsunning. Do you know any other book besides PSWG which speaks about open eyelid sunning. Anyway Bates was very clear about this subject in his later Better Eyesight magazine.

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.

I added this info not everybody reading this will scan the archive.

If he still was convinced open eyelid sunning was without danger. He would have spoken about it in his later publications !!

About the palming image. Are there any other wikipedia articles which use images ? Seeyou (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, for example the William Bates article includes an image of Dr. Bates. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I meant controversial articles showing a certain technique with an image. Seeyou (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. We should ask someone with more experience in editing controversial articles. PSWG1920 (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion it very irresponisble to show the current picture. Most people will hopefully understand this can be very dangerous. But you have always got people who misinterpret information. Fact is also there is not one reliable pubblication promoting open eyelidsunning today. And as you can read above bates does not promote open eyelidsunniing in the afternoon. Modern Books about the Bates method or NVI do not promote open eyelidsunning. Only closed eyelid sunning. Or they do not mention sunning at all. So for safety I remove the picture and readded the quote above by Bates. I hope the others agree. This is common sense ! Seeyou (talk) 13:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

i'm citing WP:NOTCENSORED on this. Several forms of body modification are dangerous, but we have pictures of them. The same could be true for the image at flagellation. Should we remove it because someone might see it and act out on it? We are eplicitly stating in the article that mainstream science believes it to be dangerous, and even that (according to this article) Bates himself toned down his claims about sunning. I don't blame Jackass (TV series) for stupid things that people do, and Wikipedia shouldn't assume a coddling attitude either. We show sexually explicit material, dangerously controversial material, and dangerous acts all the time. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 21:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, about your edit [[2]]your argument is fake. The information : Modern books about the Bates method or natural vision improvement only speak about closed eyelid sunning or do not speak about sunning at all. is not original research. It is a measerable or a verifiable fact. It has got nothing to do with research. Simply provide a book being published today which still promotes open eyelid sunning. Even Bates revised own book does mention open eyelid sunning. For a very logical reason. Open eyelid sunning shown in the current picture can result into blindness ! When publishers promote these kind of information, it will defenitly result in a court order. And that is the reason there are no modern books about the BM today which promote open eyelid sunning. Seeyou (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

RFC nr : 3 removal of Woods research results

The following information has been present for a while in the article paragraph ophthalmological research, but has been removed recently.

A 1946 study reported that out of 103 patients, 30 showed a "small improvement" in subjective visual acuity, 31 showed "inconsistent improvements", 32 had no change, while 10 demonstrated a worsening of acuity after visual training. Of the 61 total patients who demonstrated any improvement, 17 returned for a five-month follow-up, where it was found that 2 had maintained this improvement, while the other 15 had not.

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

I personally totally disagree with this removal, since it is the only reliable succes story about Natural vision improvement currently available at this moment.

Argument to re-add this info:

• It is ophthalmology who presents it, the authority !
• It must be scientific otherwise it would not be presented.
• They could very easy not reported it at all. They do report it !
• It is clear and objective presented.
• It is unique information especially for this article since it is about a controversial subject.
• There are no other reliable sources currently available or present.
• In future the woods report might become available. ( Just like Elwin Margs skeptic report. )
• The public has the right to know about this information.
• When objective information can't be presented objectively. This article should also get a similar tag : It's objectivity is disputed ! ( Important note : objective information which is in fact negative since Woods report gives more negative than positive results. )
• Natural Vision Improvement is controversial. Presenting information only from the skeptic point of view does not make this fact clear. See the reference [[3]]

argument for removal :

• There are no details available about the woods report.

Seeyous comment : Not an argument, by leaving this info in the article the details might become available in future. The details are the responsibility of AOO. They are the authority who should make the possibility or impossibility regarding improving eyesight clear.

The other arguments I do not understand. Biofeedbacktraning and a certain book.Seeyou (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Fake argument for removal :

• according to PSWG1920 : Ophthalmology sees the results as subjective rather than objective.

This is not mentioned in the report !!!

Conclusion :

Based on the provided arguments summarized above the woods results should be mentioned in the article. It shows the only reliable 2% lasting positive result of NVI. Seeyou (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion (RfC3)

Again, if we're going to basically repeat what the AAO report says about Woods, why not do the same for every study they discuss? As it is, the Ophthalmological research section now reports that improvement was found by some studies, but that, as AAO says, it was seen as subjective rather than objective. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Where exactly did you read the woods results were subjective. Which alinea and line ? Seeyou (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions:

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. The improvements in myopic patients noted in these studies have been postulated to be due to improvements in interpreting blurred images, changes in mood or motivation, creation of an artificial contact lens by tear film changes, or a pinhole effect from miosis of the pupil.

Nothing is specifically stated about whether Woods saw the improvement as objective or subjective, but it is clear that the AAO saw it as subjective. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No it makes clear Ophthalmology uses statistics. It also makes clear they don not see people as an indvidual with his or her own personality but as a number. Seeyou (talk) 09:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not read this conclusion is for the Woods report. This is a general conclusion. If the woods results are really subjective the would n't have been mentioned as results ! If eyesight can be made worse it can also be improved. ( For example by doing the opposite ) Seeyou (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If the AAO had seen the Woods results as objective, their conclusions would have been different. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Natural vision improvement is not only about science it is also about politics. It will be a bit strange if after 100 years after bates ophthalmology would admit some people really can improve eyesight naturally. Seeyou (talk) 09:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Seeyou is misrepresenting previous discussions on the matter. I see no need to repeat past discussions if Seeyou is going to ignore and misrepresent them. --Ronz (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ronz look at the presented arguments above. There is totally no discussion taking place. The only way to really improve this article is to invite other hopefully objective editors to give their opinion.Seeyou (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear for all users, after the previous discussion regarding this, I added the sentence "While some of the reviewed studies did report improvements in the visual acuity of myopes, these were seen as subjective rather than objective gains, perhaps resulting from a learned ability to interpret blurred images, or other factors detailed below." Which communicates the AAO report's conclusions without cherry-picking from the studies they examine. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I have got the strong feeling you are defending ophthalmology. Not really scientific to assume subjective results. We need the details of the Woods report. By keeping the Woods report in the article they might become available. It depends on ophthalmology to make this really clear. By the way the way the woods report also mentions negative results. These results are also interesting. If eyesight can be made worse it can also be improved. Seeyou (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not defending ophthalmology. I'm trying to follow due weight here. The AAO believes that the changes were subjective, so this article should reflect that. Are you suggesting that keeping the discussion of the Woods report here will cause it to appear online? That seems unlikely. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's invite other editors to give their opinion and arguments regarding RFC nr:1, RFC nr:2 and RFC nr:3. Seeyou (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I would advise any such users to first take a look at the AAO report which is the source of this information, and which is still referenced in this article. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC).

Note also their have been more than one attempts to remove this information in the external link section. PSWG1920 dit not activly respond in any of these attempts. Seeyou (talk) 09:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok guys, the RfC is opened officially (if you don't know who this is, its Atyndall, name-changed). Seeyou, just letting you know that it would be preferred if you used official channels (WP:RfC) to inform people of this discussion and that asking people to rate statements is ok as a straw poll but cannot count as finding consensus (as consensus is about discussion), I suggest you refrain from continuing this as users may find this annoying, whereas if it is taken to WP:RfC (I have listen it there) people interested in the topic (and possibly people with more experience) will come and comment instead. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 03:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

@Seeyou: You also might like to read this article called Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 04:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment (not) - I'd love to comment here, but honestly this RfC is confusing. I'm really not sure what's at issue here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue is basically the change to the Ophthalmological Research section here. That diff is a bit tricky to follow since the paragraphs are out of sync, but I tried to add the essential details to the first paragraph of the section while removing the third paragraph, which basically just repeated the AAO report's summary of the Woods study, and furthermore gave the appearance of cherry-picking since there are other studies discussed by the AAO report which get no mention here. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I think I understand. Well, I think it is a shame to lose the 1946 research, if not to discuss research from a historical perspective. That said, perhaps too much weight was given to that study and I am not sure if we should rely on studies that old for scientific insight into the subject. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, we are of course using skeptical works from the 1950's for reasons which have been discussed previously. But the big problem with the Woods research is that we don't have any details of what the study entailed, and consequently we don't know whether the "optometric training technique" used even resembled the Bates method, nor do we know whether Woods saw the noted changes as objective or subjective. Now if the complete text were to turn up, that would obviously change. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you are right (assuming that what you describe above is truly the case). Yes, we would need to know the context of the research before we blindly :-) apply it. Using research which is not necessarily about a subject to imply something about that subject could be construed as a violation of WP:NOR. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is about the Bates method / Natural vision improvement. So the argument you gave that woods research is not equal to the Bates method is invalid. Think about constant improvement in quality and details. Woods research should and can become available in future. Only then we can take the next step. Being skeptic involves also to have an open mind ! Seeyou (talk) 09:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Well for one thing it is a cut and paste copyvio from the reference. It would be better to summarize it: Woods in 1946 indicated some improvement in visual acuity in some subjects with myopia (or should this be "myopic patients"?). Apteva (talk) 20:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say the section in effect already does that: "While some of the reviewed studies did report improvements in the visual acuity of myopes, these were seen as subjective rather than objective gains". PSWG1920 (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Where did you read the Woods positive or negative results were seen subjective ? This is your assumption. We do not have the details yet. Read carefully PSWG1920 before you conclude.

If the results really were subjective they should not have been mentioned by ophthalmology as results. That would be very unscientific of ophthalmology. Seeyou (talk) 08:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Ummmm I am not sure which "side" I am supporting in the confusion that is the presentation of this RfC, but the Woods paper should not be presented as representing or ever having represented medical consensus. WP:FRINGE is much more apposite to this topic than is WP:MEDRS. The AAO appear to have included those 1946 results in their overall assessment, suggesting that it would be giving Woods undue weight to devote an additional paragraph to summarizing it. It *may* be appropriate to include Woods as a ref to a more general statement on subjective results, I am not sure. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep. This has been mentioned many times. It's undue weight to cherry-pick this study and highlight it. --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I do agree with Ronz here, and other than Seeyou no one who commented above really supported this addition. Also see SamuelTheGhost's comments on this source below. That said, I really do not feel strongly about this; my main reason for deleting it originally was that I was fairly sure it would get flagged by a thorough review (which is now even less likely due to the current dispute.) PSWG1920 (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I agree that inclusion of the Woods article constitutes cherry-picking of the literature. The point of review articles is that they look at many papers and make general conclusions. Therefore there is no reason to diverge from the conclusions made by the AAO. The Woods paper is only one paper among many reviewed. Secondly, I'm not quite sure why Seeyou is so determined to have the Woods paper singled out for inclusion anyway, since it actually shows eye exercises / the Bates Method in a very bad light. The Woods article shows that only 30% of subjects show any definite improvement, while 10% will show a worsening of their symptoms. On the basis of those numbers, it would be hard for any practitioner to recommend such a course of treatment. Remember that the first rule of medicine is "do no harm". The Woods article also shows that of those subjects showing improvements, such improvements are likely only temporary (only 2 subjects maintained their improvements). Far from admitting that this is a dismal success rate, Bates advocates then argue that this is because you need to continue doing Bates exercises for the rest of your natural life - which is a sure sign of a pseudoscience, as it is a great way to drive sales of books / DVDs / exercise kits... Famousdog (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to have to repeat myself, but people (like Famousdog here) seem not to have noticed, so I'll say it more clearly. I have a copy of the Woods paper. On paper, not in electronic form. It is concerned only with the techniques of A. M. Skeffington, who is quoted in it as saying

This method of visual training has neither in theory nor practice any relation to the so-called Bates theory, and in theory and practice it involves no deviation from the known and accepted theories and facts of physiology and neurology of the eye or the experimental psychology of vision.

So it is clearly off-topic for this article. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I doubted that this particular paper was really relevant to the article, and you have confirmed that. No need to take a swipe at Famousdog though. He appears to have been absent from Wikipedia for two months, during which a lot has occurred on this page. Plus he seems to already be basically in agreement with us on this particular issue. PSWG1920 (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for clearing that up Sammy Boy, but I also thought the unprovoked attack was unnecessary. Thanks for the support, PSWG1920. I have indeed been away from WP for a while and there is a hell of a lot of drivel on this talk page to wade through, so I failed to spot Samson's very astute point. This article has, however, gone from strength to strength. Well done you lot. (and I'll meet you in the car park anytime, Sam) Famousdog (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I really really did not intend any offence by my remark above; if ever I did make an "unprovoked attack" you'd know the difference. But if you feel slighted, you have my apology. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Imo the only thing wrong with that remark was singling out Famousdog. Based on recent developments, Seeyou is the one who really needs to take note of your point about Woods and Skeffington. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

OMG Yes. "Quixotic" is the kindest word. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Resources which would be helpful to have online

Due to recent issues, I thought I'd start a list of resources of which it would be helpful to have the complete text available online. In case anyone happens to read this who can help.

• Report from the Wilmer Institute on the results obtained in the treatment of myopia by visual training. Woods 1946. Currently we have only a few vague details from the AAO review.

Perhaps, but this research is concerned only with the techniques of A. M. Skeffington, who is quoted as saying

"This method of visual training has neither in theory nor practice any relation to the so-called Bates theory, and in theory and practice it involves no deviation from the known and accepted theories and facts of physiology and neurology of the eye or the experimental psychology of vision." SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I included it here only because of Seeyou's preoccupation with it. I doubt that it would really help the article. PSWG1920 (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Martin Gardner's chapter on Bates from Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, 1957. Currently most of the chapter is available in the Google books preview.

As I have suggested before, I think that we should rather be making less use of Gardner's non-expert rant. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Philip Pollack's book, The Truth About Eye Exercises. Currently only Chapter 3 is hosted on Quackwatch, and a snippet view of the whole book can be found on Google Books.
• The Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science, 1947 - Discussion of Bates method, probably beginning on page 264. Currently there is a snippet view on Google books.

Could you supply the link here? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

[4]. Search for any Bates-related term. PSWG1920 (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

Reading through the article, i do not immediately see what the "neutrality" tag is due to. Can someone here explain the neutrality problems in terms of content? I saw the discussion above about neutrality of sources, but how is the lack of neutrality mirrored here? Or has the article now neutralised this? Thanks!Yobmod (talk) 10:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE, WP:PSTS, and WP:FRINGE - The article does not give proper weight to the most notable aspects of Bates method, and relies too much on Bates own work as sources to discuss less notable aspects at extremely great lengths. --Ronz (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain what you see as the "most notable aspects of the Bates method"? PSWG1920 (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If you make a list of the independent sources that we're using, I think it will be very clear. Besides, that's how we address NPOV and related issues, by looking at what the sources say. --Ronz (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's a list of currently cited independent sources which appear to address the subject generally (excluding those which address only one specific point, such as Huxley's case, or a tangential topic like the See Clearly Method.)

• Gardner Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. 1957
• Pollack The Truth about Eye Exercises. 1956
• Marg Flashes of clear vision and negative accommodation with reference to the Bates Method of visual training. 1952.
• Boston Globe "Advocates see only benefits from eye exercises". 2003
• WebMD "Natural Vision Correction: Does It Work? 2007
• Grierson The Eye Book: Eyes and Eye Problems Explained. 2000
• Time Exercise v. Eyeglasses" 1943
• Leavitt "How to Save the World: Alternatives to Biomedical Research", Ethics in Biomedical Research: International Perspectives. 2007
• Iowa Academy of Science 1947
• Curtin The Myopias: Basic Science and Clinical Management. 1985

*The Myopia Manual - Section 3.2.2.1 Myopia Manual. 2006 - alternatively here for a complete PDF version of the book

• • Upon further review, this last one appears to be basically self-published. I'm not sure yet whether the author would qualify as an expert on the subject per WP:SPS.

PSWG1920 (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I see three things. Our sources could be better, they're overwhelmingly critical, and the better the source, the more likely it's critical. --Ronz (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

But the article does prominently report the major criticisms, and has been reworded in several places to reflect what the majority viewpoint is. Could you now be more specific about the "most notable aspects of the Bates method" which you believe are not being given proper weight? PSWG1920 (talk) 00:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE: "The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents. "

WP:UNDUE: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. "

Judging by the references, the article should be mostly about criticisms. Otherwise we're not giving the criticisms proper weight. --Ronz (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

To understand the criticisms, you need to know what is being criticized. Moreover, an article on the Bates method would be untenable if we couldn't explain what the techniques are. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Not having ever heard of this theory (is it a US thing?), i easily understood from the article that this is a fringe theory that is not accepted by mainstream science. The description of the adherent's claims is of course necessary in order to refute them, and i see no problem with using the primary sources for that. But apart from the description of what it is, the article IS mostly criticism, isn't it? For example: the accomodation section had a line defining accomodation, a paragraph decribing Bates' beliefs, then 3 paragraphs refuting his claims. Is that not indicative of the sources weight? Making an article more critical would dilute it's usefulness, making it hard to find what is even claimed. when i read articles on fringe science, i want to know not only why they are rejected, but actually what is being rejected! :-)

Ronz, can you tell us how you think this section is NPOV or unduly weighted? and how you think it should be changed in order to fix that? You agree that the paragraph describing the method is needed, yes? Sp what is missing from the criticisms? They seem to reflect the sources. Also, the list of sources given above didn't seem to provoke the summing up of Bates' most important features, which you think the article ignores.....Yobmod (talk) 08:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that we need to follow FRINGE and especially UNDUE. Not only do we need to make it clear that this is a fringe theory, but that the majority of the article should be specifically about criticisms - "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." --Ronz (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

By that reasoning, this article should be recast as Criticisms of the Bates method. And then readers would be left wondering what exactly this "Bates method" is. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

We all know what the guidelines say, we need to know what specific parts you think do not follow them. The article does show this to be a fringe theory, and the criticisms are in due weight. I showed with the section above that this article is mostly criticism. Which specfiic parts or that section do you disgree with? If you cannot point out anything specific, then i don't see any reason not to remove the NPOV tag. You seem to be the only one disputing the neutrality, and yet you wont say what needs to be included or excluded, except in vague terms that seem to already have been met: If you believe there to be too many probems to discuss at once, let's do it one section at a time, starting with the accomodation section.Yobmod (talk) 09:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment. I don't believe we've properly followed NPOV, hence I think the tag should remain.

I've removed the final paragraph from the Accomodation section as completely improper, and a great example of the problems we have here: editors try to undercut all criticism in the section by introducing doubt at the very end. --Ronz (talk) 15:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The final paragraph from the Accommodation section is essential and needs to be reinstated. Modern Bates method books are unanimous in abandoning Bates' insistence that the ciliary muscle plays no part in accommodation. The purpose of Wikipedia articles is neither to criticise nor to "undercut criticism"; it is to inform our readers, accurately and fairly, leaving them to form their own opinions (that's what NPOV means). To omit this paragraph would be as dishonest and misleading as to write about Polygamy and the Latter Day Saint movement without making it clear that the LDS church now forbids polygamy. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, SamuelTheGhost. That was independently sourced and in fact discussed in some detail by Elwin Marg. It would only be problematic if it were not independently sourced, as was the case previously. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

What page/section of Marg?

Even if we can source it, it's improper to introduce it as we've done to end a section that discusses Bates' views and why he was wrong. --Ronz (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

See the discussion of Price on page 3, Huxley's referenced statement on page 4, and Lancaster's statement on page 5-6. For convenience, here's an html version. Although now that I read this again I suppose the deleted reference could be tweaked for accuracy, but it certainly belongs. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I have moved that discussion to the "After Bates" section. PSWG1920 (talk) 00:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Contextual issue

While we're concentrating on this section, there appears to be some problems with contextual issues. For example, "However, various cycloplegic agents such as atropine can temporarily prevent accommodation by paralyzing the ciliary muscle." Seems very confusing to me because it's missing context. --Ronz (talk) 15:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the contextual issue you raised, that's referring to the ciliary muscle as opposed to the extraocular muscles, the latter which Bates believed change the shape of the eye and thereby control accommodation. I do agree though that the way it is currently stated is a bit confusing, and I've been trying to think of a better way to articulate it without being overly repetitive or misleading regarding something else. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read the sources in a while, but if I remember correctly Bates used atropine to try to test his claims and that others pointed out that he most likely didn't use it properly. --Ronz (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully this addition provides more clear continuity for the point you raised above. PSWG1920 (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

How to Proceed

If past discussion is any indication, I expect it will be most difficult to reach any semblance of agreement on the "Bates' treatments" section. I therefore suggest that we skip that for now and see if we can come to an agreement regarding the rest of the article. If we can, the tags could then be moved to the Treatments section which we could then get back to. Even if we couldn't agree there, the tags might not be such a turn-off for a Good Article review. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Now that we've gotten rid of one problematic ending paragraph, moved another down to a perhaps more appropriate location in the article, and clarified a train of thought, are there any more issues with the Bates' ideas section? PSWG1920 (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we should give up on the idea of being able to fix the problems until new editors get involved. --Ronz (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Dishonest wikilinks

I have removed a few dishonest wikilinks, and intend to continue to remove any more which appear in the future. By dishonest, I mean any piped link where the object of the pipe introduces new meaning and is not just a genuine clarification and expansion of the linked word. It has in this article frequently been done with the word "claim". This usage doesn't seem to have a name. Perhaps "nudge-nudge-wink-wink-link" or "subtext link" might be appropriate. It can be fun to do it for humorous effect, for example

My opponents disagree with me, but I am sure I am right."

Seriously, though, it is not clever, not honest, and has no place in wikipedia articles. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

"Original research to promote a fringe point of view"

Regarding this edit summary, it is true that we do not have a source for the ideas in the first two sentences, so they meet the definition of original thought. However, I am quite sure they were not added for the purpose of promoting a fringe point of view, because Famousdog, a skeptic, is the one who added them, apparently to give context to the mention of Bates' belief that lying could cause myopia. I'd have no problem with deleting the tagged statements if sources don't turn up, but we'd also have to either delete the aforementioned sourced point or else find a better context for it. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it again. We agree it's original research. My comment is not that editors added it to promote a fringe viewpoint, but that the material does.

Yes, better context, properly sourced, in a more appropriate section might work. --Ronz (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "I've removed it again"? I was the one who removed the paragraph in question after you tagged it. Was this a mistake? PSWG1920 (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Nom

I removed it from the list because of the many tags on the article...it would have failed for that reason alone! Fix all of the tags and then re-nom it... ok? Any questions, feel free to ask. Cheers! —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 01:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I'm surprised, but in my opinion the templates are outdated and no longer valid. Per above, we seem to have reached an impasse regarding this, which probably means the article will be stable for a while. A thorough review by a neutral party, including some examination of the sources themselves, seems like the only way at this point to find out whether the tags should be removed. PSWG1920 (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Tags

I agree with Ronz's placement of the tags. It seems to me that there is some original research in this article especially concerning exactly the mechanisms that Bates proposed with regards to his method. More than this, the neutrality of the article is problematic since there isn't an adequate framing of this "method" as being pseudoscientifically supported by alt. med types. This fact, indeed, is hidden from the reader. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you not put inline cite tags for the places you beleive to be OR? Bates believed that muscles that turn the eye also changed it shape, yes? - or is that the OR?

Most of the article points out its rejection by science, how it is hidden? It has a whole paragraph in the lead.Yobmod (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If you'll read the recent discussions on the topic, you'll see that it is not so easy, hence the need to tag the entire article. --Ronz (talk) 03:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I read them, you refused to point out any examples of OR or NPOV, you just claim everything is, making it impossible to correct the article or reach consensus. Such tags could therefore be seen as disruptive, as they do nothing to help improve the article. If there is OR here, add citation needed or inline other tags - if there are a lot that other editors cannot cite, then a template would be helpful. You claim there is OR, but give no basis for how you reached that conclusion, apart from your dislike of the articles topic.Yobmod (talk) 09:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't refuse to do anything. Please read WP:TALK and WP:AGF. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for repeating myself, but OR applies in that we're relying far too much on primary sources to discuss at great length issues of little or no importance. If you'll go back through the talk archives, you'll see that this has been my primary concern with this article since I first read it. The problem remains even though we now have far more references. Unfortunately, the references have been added to support what was already in the article, ignoring context and weight issues almost completely. --Ronz (talk) 18:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ronz, would a tag like this be a suitable substitute for the current template in your opinion?

I raised the issue of the need for such a template with no response so far. But I had not realized that you could make one yourself until yesterday, when I noticed someone had done it on the Cold Fusion talk page. Although I may not agree it fits on this article, it would at least give readers a more clear idea of what you believe the problem is. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that explains the situation very well. The underlying problem is NPOV, specifically UNDUE. A more specific tag seems like a good idea though. --Ronz (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Would this work?

PSWG1920 (talk) 19:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Better. How about:

--Ronz (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

That would work. Could it replace both tags currently at the top? PSWG1920 (talk) 21:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to tie in WP:PRIMARY. How about

It's a bit awkward though. --Ronz (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

How about just changing "and may rely too heavily" to "which are based in part"?

Does this accurately reflect your concerns? PSWG1920 (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I like the wording you first proposed, "and may rely too heavily", even though it's a bit awkward. Your new alternative doesn't really suggest there's a problem.--Ronz (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay then, maybe we should go ahead and place the last tag you suggested, even though as you said, it's a bit awkward. PSWG1920 (talk) 16:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I have placed the last tag which Ronz suggested at the top of the article, in place of the previous template. It would still be helpful if we could identify what sections specifically these concerns apply to, even if we can't actually resolve them at this time. I have recently done some work on the "Bates' ideas" section to make it easier to follow and generally less reliant on Bates' writings, though I also removed some independently sourced information, such as the discussion of atropine, which seemed difficult to present in a straightforward, readily understandable manner. Maybe I removed too much, I don't know. PSWG1920 (talk) 23:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Impartial Tone

The biggest single thing wrong with the article at the moment is its failure to have an impartial tone. The most obvious sign of this is the excessive number of uses of the word claim, which is rightly one of the words to avoid. The word claim appears 18 times, which is way too many. This alone, IMHO, is enough to stop the article being GA. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through and edited out "claim" wherever it seemed practical to do so. Note that WTA says it is okay to use in some contexts. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the prominence given to Gardener in the lede. This gives undue weight to a sensational, journalistic statement of opinion by a non-expert. This paragraph should go. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Note that optometrist Philip Pollack quoted and endorsed Gardner's statement, as reflected by the references. Moreover, Gardner's book is probably the most generally well-known work to address the Bates method. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with PSWG1920. The info from Gardener in the lead is a good summary of the criticisms common to almost every secondary source we have. --Ronz (talk) 17:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

More generally, I wonder how Impartial tone applies to an article about a fringe theory. Are we allowed, for example, to characterize Bates' explanation of accommodation as "discredited" (which most certainly reflects the independent sources) or is that a breach of impartial tone? PSWG1920 (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Consider a sentence like "Eye-care professionals consider Bates' theory/practice to be (wholly) mistaken". That says it all, in impartial, neutral tones. But search the article for the word "mistaken"; it never appears.

In the specific case of Bates' theory of accommodation, the better formulation is to say that it has been abandoned even by modern BM teachers, so it is hardly necessary to go on about it. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

"Mistaken" probably could be used in a few specific instances. But regarding the overall discussion of Bates' physiological theory, I suspect that some editors would say that we should not be downplaying the method's faulty scientific basis (as the sources portray it), which we would definitely be doing if we did not "go on about it" to some extent. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I share your suspicion. I appreciate the realities of the environment in which we are working. I just remind everyone that impartial tone is Wikipedia policy, which we are obliged to respect. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You can of course edit language which you believe is not impartial and then see what other editors think. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This proposed policy/guideline speaks to this issue as well as others which have come up here from time to time. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to our attention. I've put it on my watchlist. I don't think it can change policy in any important way, and so far hasn't said anything alarming. On the issue of impartial tone, it currently says

Articles in Wikipedia maintain a neutral, dispassionate tone with regards to the subject, never indicating a preference for or against the perspective being examined.

which is excellent. It seems to me that one way of clarifying what "impartial tone" is, is to describe it as the extension of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF to the subject of our articles, as well as our fellow editors. So just as we are rightly obliged to say things like "I'm afraid I cannot agree with you" to other editors when perhaps we really mean "What complete rubbish; are you stupid or have you been bribed?". Similarly we should be saying "professionals in the field dissent from his view" rather than "he was a nutter who told lies a lot" even if the latter might be what we think. I prefer to try not even to think in those terms, and certainly don't as far as Bates Method is concerned.

Looking specifically in the article for examples there, let's take the first sentence in the third paragraph:

Although some people may believe that they have been helped by following Bates' principles, his techniques have not been shown to objectively improve eyesight,[6][3][7] and his main physiological proposition, that the eye changes shape to maintain focus, is demonstratively false.[2][8]

"Some people may believe ...". Surely it is well established that they do believe it. Indeed, some people have asserted it on oath in a court of law (Corbett trial) and others have given first-hand account of their experience in published books (references which I put in, but all of which have since been deleted). So "may believe" is extremely tendentious. Moving on, " ... techniques have not been shown ...". True, but more accurate and helpful to say "his techniques have never been the subject of satisfactory scientific trial", which alone is enough to explain why they "have not been shown" to do anything. " ... that the eye changes shape to mainatin focus, demonstratively false": this is not accurate as stated. It has been shown that changes in the shape of the eye cannot be sufficient alone for the full maintenance of focus. The possibility (proposed by Barnes) that accommodation is multi-factorial, involving both the lens and the extra-ocular muscles (and maybe other things too) has not been disproved.

That's pehaps an untypically bad sentence, but there are things like it throughout the article. The number of "claim"s has gone down (from 18 to 10), which is better, but still excessive. It had begun to be as irritating, and as unconvincing, as a nervous tic. And that's the real point. Obviously tendentious argumentation doesn't convince. If I were coming to this article cold, I'd be thinking "what are these guys afraid of?". Indeed, I still do ask myself "why are you all so angry about BM?". People reading this aren't going to be put off BM; if I were a publisher of a BM book, I'd put the nasty Gardner quote on the front cover. All we can control is Wikipedia's reputation, in this small area. Please let's try and temper our prejudices, and write a good article. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the "may" so that it just says "Although some people believe that they have been helped...". You can make the other changes you suggested, if you choose to, though I suspect they might get reverted. And I doubt that someone like Jonathan Barnes could be used as a source here unless we also had a source which was not itself promoting the Bates method but which discussed him in relation to it. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

"Please let's try and temper our prejudices, and write a good article." Which is exactly what I have been trying to do. As my username indicates, I am rather biased in favor of the Bates method, and in the past I have been accused of a Conflict of Interest because of that. As a result I have perhaps gone too far in the other direction with some of my edits. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

"Which is exactly what I have been trying to do." Please accept my assurance that I do believe that. I have always been intrigued by your username, but felt that it doesn't in itself prove anything. It's certainly not grounds for accusation of COI. I have been full of admiration for your patience on many occasions, plugging away in polite pursuit of consensus. I do think that sometimes you have "gone too far in the other direction". Perhaps I ought to keep up a steady pressure myself in the direction of NPOV, but when I get annoyed and want to throw things, I prefer to just go away and edit elsewhere for a bit. One of the reasons I get irritated is the wikilawyering about sources. Since ideal WP:RS are almost entirely absent, we either have to blank the article, or use sources guided by common sense. This means, in particular, abandoning the attempted taboo on primary sources from Bates advocates. I'm still pondering whether to do some edits to the article myself, but I don't want to start any warring. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If you're concerned about messing up the Good Article review, don't worry about it. From what I have observed I kind of doubt that the current review will even be completed. The nomination was probably a mistake on my part. I have, however, suggested a feature which, if implemented, could help with this article. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposed insertion of "his techniques have never been the subject of satisfactory scientific trial." I think this is a bit of a misrepresentation of the state of play and blames 'scientists' rather than Bates for not providing sufficient evidence for his theories. How does one scientifically address theories and practices that are left (deliberately?) vague? If we can't even agree on what Bates means by certain terms ("swing", "shift", "perfect black", etc), how on earth can we ever "satisfactorily" test his theories? Bates did not make any specific, testable hypotheses so it is not possible to conclude that he was right or not. Whatever the result of a scientific experiment, Bates practitioners can simply say: "you did it wrong" or "you misinterpreted what Bates meant by X". It is a mind-bogglingly daunting task to design an experiment the methodology of which which would "satisfy" both skeptics and Bates advocates. The wording as currently stated (his techniques have not been shown to objectively improve eyesight) is actually pretty neutral and doesn't blame either 'side' for the failure (although it does contain a split-infinitive: "to objectively improve"). If a Bates practitioner wants to carry out a controlled, clinical trial and publish their methods and results, then they can go right ahead. Other scientists could then try to replicate their results. In light of this, why not say: "his theories and techniques are difficult to subject to satisfactory scientific trial, therefore have not been objectively shown to improve eyesight." Famousdog (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That suggestion could be interpreted as saying "Sure, the Bates method has not been verified scientifically, but that's only because it's too difficult to test". The point about subtlety is made in the "Dead-end" section, using what appears to be an acceptable source. Perhaps that point could somehow be integrated into the introduction as well, but probably not in the way that you suggested. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

What's the problem with saying that if its true? (which it basically is, although I'd argue that it isn't difficult to test, but rather impossible to test) Famousdog (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

We can say that it's difficult to test, I just think the way you phrased your suggested edit would likely be seen by certain editors (I've learned not to name names) as being biased in favor of the Bates method, even though that would clearly not be your intention. See above, for example. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit to the paragraph in question. I think we're putting undue weight on the source, and possibly improper synthesis. --Ronz (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Forum shopping

Seeyou appears to be forum shopping. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 14:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Further reading / External links

I consolidated the Further reading and External links sections into one section entitled "Further reading", since all these links are both "external" and count as "further reading"! I was disturbed by the fact that Bates' own material and pro-Bates sources such as Huxley had been put under the heading "Further reading" while skeptical sources were lumped under "External links." This organisation may, intentionally or not, give one side of the argument more weight. Famousdog (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. I've been meaning to do that for awhile, though listed under "External links" as I've since changed it. --Ronz (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit by Zappernapper

I realize this is a heavily edited article, so i wanted to extend an option of discourse concerning my last edit. While it would appear that the paragraph I removed from the lead was summarizing the Criticisms section, the way it was written was like an instruction/warning. A better framed paragraph would be useful. Additionally, I removed similar wording from the Eyeglasses section as it was redundant to the criticism section and out of place. The heading changes were to fix problems with MOS and referencing the article's name. I'm sure a better header than "After Bates" could be put in as well. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 02:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the article should prominently warn about potential risks, when you consider why people would likely be reading it. Do you have a better idea of how to communicate these points in the lead? I don't really think "Assumptions" is a good title for the first section, but I'm not sure what would be. The paragraph you deleted from the "Eyeglasses" section wasn't exactly redundant or out of place, though it was related to what was below. I also liked a point which had been implicit: if an eye doctor delayed prescribing glasses to a child in order to try natural methods, and then amblyopia developed, the doctor could be held liable. Hence another practical difficulty of testing the Bates method under optimal circumstances. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

in regards to the implicit point you feel is removed, wikipedia is not here to give legal advice, and in regards to warning about potential risks, wikipedia is not here to give medical advice. A better way to present the information would possibly be to cite the criticism directly from the source as in:

"Dr. Smith, author of the critical book, Bates was mistaken, cites numerous negative consequences of the method, including..."

and the way the sentences were written, they were redundant, the first paragraph (deleted) just gave more specific information to why lazy eye would develop. And it was out of place because the parent section is about the Underlying concepts (much better) of the Bates method, since we have a criticism section later on, it's unneeded to weave criticisms throughout the former. I'm not a fan of the remaining ambyopia paragraph either - not that the info isn't relevant or useful... it's more just how it's written (instructional/advice/tone), perhaps combining the two, and explicitly stating the source and context would make it better :) I'll rewrite the last paragraph in the lead (whcih suffers from the same problems) to give a better example -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 22:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The implicit point I thought was made was not that you should sue someone if something like that has happened, but rather that even doctors who might be sympathetic to the Bates method would have difficulty suggesting it to a patient. Nonetheless, I do see now why that paragraph was out of place. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

oops, i didn't read that last sentence you wrote:

"Hence another practical difficulty of testing the Bates method under optimal circumstances."

maybe the info would be usefully expanded upon in the Ophthalmological research section? -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 22:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Add Citations

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

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

Pictures

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

Request for closure

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

I think that in the context of this article, an image involving the workings of the eye (or someone's ideas regarding such) would require far too much explanation. Beyond that, I will reluctantly agree with you about the article not currently being in the state a Good Article should be. Recently I suggested a process which would be similar to GA review, but for the purpose of dispute resolution rather than upgrading the article's status. If implemented and established, I think such a process could get the article to a state where it could then pass as GA. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

i don't know... something that shows which muscles specifcally Bates felt were "straining" the eye would be straight forward and helpful, and then an image/diagram showing the muscles in the eye responsible for focus to balance the POV. but yeah, it appears the original reviewer has stopped paying attn. I'm closing this at the end of today if no one else has ne objections. Like i said, we're past seven days and there's enough backlog at WP:GAN -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 08:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

That is a very good point Zappernapper. Did a quick scan in some books. These kind of pictures are presented in Bates his PSWG. Fig 4 on page 11. Diagram of the hypermetropic ( recti muscles ), Emmetropic (normal eye ) and Myopic Eyeball ( oblique muscles ). And I fully disagree with PSWG1920. A Picture explains much more than a 1000 words. Seeyou (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Informal review

As per a request for an outside opinion on my talk page, below is my own personal review of what specifically needs to be addressed in this article before it can be brought back to GAN. I understand there has been some contention on this article, so to address any concerns of biases, I could really care less about the topic and only found this article because it was near another one that I had personally put up for review and I wanted to speed up the process here to push through the backlog. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 22:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Review:

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

1. a (prose): b (MoS):

• Quotes should not be italicized or bolded - see also WP:ITALICS for issues like "palming" and darker (bad), "keratitis punctata" (???)
• WP:OVERLINK#Link density - In the lead it is distracting to link to all eye conditions, refractive errors, and relevant subsections. keep general links like refractive errors, and interesting ones (floaters). because the lead is supposed to be an overview of the entire article, you could theoretically link to all sections - this is not desirable. also, distancing terms that people generally find synonymous and then linking them to different articles is unhelpful and confusing - case in point: sight and eyesight. If it's necessary to distinguish the two, do so explicitly to avoid distracting the reader. generally, you want to keep links in the lead to a minimum, so pare back on terms you'll be linking to shortly (in the first section, Accomodation, you repeat the links to Focus (optics) and retina). Also, remove links from inside quotes, and wikilinks that are unhelpful to the context (Los Angeles). Apply the OVERLINK guideline throughout.
• avoid self-referencing in prose, "His theories, described below, were based on these assumptions." (perhaps just remove this sentence as it's a little unnecessary)
• remove sentence on Ganzfeld, extraneous
• review comma use, sentences like this are scattered throughout:

"Bates provided no evidence of any correlation between visual acuity and eye movement,(bad comma) beyond his own clinical experience, which is effectively anecdotal."

"In late 1940>,< Mrs. Corbett..." (missing comma)

• Avoid beginning sentences with because and but when you can:

"Because he believed that people who strain to see tend to strain in response to light, Bates suggested exposing the eyes to sunlight to help unlearn that 'strain'."

try:

"Bates believed that people strained to see in response to light, so to unlearn that "strain" he suggested exposing the eyes to sunlight—sunning."

• WP:MOS#Institutions states that schools shouldn't be in quotes.
• fix the second sentence in the same section to write it without parantheses, they should be avoided when possible. Most uses elsewhere are fine, but review them and see where you could get by without.
• review uses of italics to place emphasis, most uses are good... others are questionable:

"...these were seen as subjective rather than objective gains..."

the reader would naturally place their own slight emphasis in this sentence, help is unneeded

• decrease jargon of unfamiliar medical terms by referring to them with common names like lazy eye and double-vision, or briefly explaining them when first used, "presbyopia, age-related loss of vision"
• the examples given aren't all-encompassing, so apply the advice throughout the entire article to fix the stylistic issues.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

1. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• There is an issue right away with Pollack, Philip (1956) and Marg, Elwin (April 1952), neither of them assert criticism by opthamologists, they don't even use the word. Also, the former should not link to a site like quackwatch.org, to remain as neutral as possible, book references should only link to book sites like amazon, google, or project gutenberg. I won't be citing every occurence so please apply that to whatever relevant refs you have.
• I'm in agreement with editors who feel that the primary sources should be used as a descriptive reference for what the Bates' Method entails and believes. using Russell S. Worrall OD, et al (2007) is like using a book critique to reference a part of the plot. and sources like Gardner, Martin (1957) are unhelpful with this because they deviate into condescension too often and it is hard to believe i may be getting the exact facts (however "odd" they may be). Over and over I'm seeing statements like, "Bates stated X in his book" and the reference is to someone not Bates - the book/interview/pamphlet that states X should be used whenever available. The same goes for quotes by other people, first hand accounts are better than second in this case.
• Does the 1982 study on flashing really require two seperate references to make the same point? Unless each ref is there to cite a different point, double refs are usually unnecessary and editors should agree on one or the other. (remove unneccessary dupe refs elsewhere in the text)
• If you do not have a critic discussing the possibility ID'd as OR in the Claimed success section, remove it.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

1. a (major aspects): b (focused):

• extraneous issues have been taken care of, and criticism vs. source material is well balanced
• While you touch on Modern variants, I suspect there is considerably more to say - however mention is likely enough and this would be an FA issue.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

1. Fair representation without bias:

• instructional/advice tone in Sunning section
• describe "Natural vision educators" in a more neutral tone that doesn't require quotes. (teachers of natural vision techniques)
• remove quotes from the terms self-help, programs, and naturally in Modern variants section, this is un-neutral.
• In regards to WP:FRINGE, this article accurately expresses the fact that these theories and practices have discredited, without deriding or ridiculing proponents. Weight is generally appropriate except for the few cases noted in this section.

5. It is stable.

1. No edit wars etc.:

   things appear to have stabilized, for now... most edits seem to be in improving the article, not wars over pushing one view over another

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

1. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   again, it is hard to believe an article about vision is so lacking in images when the context talks about all kinds of things that could be displayed (eye diagrams for one, from both points of view). however, GA doesn't really require it, and this would be more of an FA issue.

7. Overall:

1. Pass/Fail:

   n/a

Discussion of specific points

"the former should not link to a site like quackwatch.org, to remain as neutral as possible, book references should only link to book sites like amazon, google, or project gutenberg." As discussed in the thread I just started below, the alternative is to leave readers out in the cold who want to check the references.

"Over and over I'm seeing statements like, "Bates stated X in his book" and the reference is to someone not Bates - the book/interview/pamphlet that states X should be used whenever available. The same goes for quotes by other people, first hand accounts are better than second in this case." The article does refer to Bates' writings directly, often citing them next to the secondary sources, which are mainly used to establish the importance of specific points. I'm fairly sure that we are not supposed to (as I did when I first started editing this article) simply go through Bates' writings and decide what to use. Secondary sources are needed to help make that decision. Which is also the problem with using primary sources which get little or no mention from any secondary source, as is the case for nearly all recent pro-Bates method books. PSWG1920 (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, book references are not intended for the general reader; they are the audit trail for the serious student, and therefore their existence on paper should be enough. Nevertheless it is greatly helpful if they are available online and can be checked immediately. It is frequently the case (as I've seen in other articles I've worked on) that book sources can be found online only on POV sites, and common sense dictates that they should be used if their accuracy is not in doubt.

The reason secondary sources may be preferred to primary sources is to avoid original research. In this case, that would mean original syntheses of material. If a secondary source just repeats what a primary source says, there is no reason to prefer the former. The ban on original syntheses does not prevent intelligent summary or selection of relevant material from primary sources where no good secondary source is available. That is precisely why we have WP:COMMON and WP:IAR - to prevent being driven into ridicluous policies by blind obedience to rules outside their intended context of use. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

PSWG - while the article refers to Bates writings, it does not do so in several cases where the secondary reference has been provided merely as a reference for description. Often, the article is describing a technique or belief, and then it goes on to cite the mainstream community's view on it. The primary source should be given for the former, and the independent source is then given for the latter. This provides the context for WP:WEIGHT. As for current pro-Bates books, some of your idependent sources have already established that they are worth disucssing and using, the TIME article is one. Refs are there for WP:V, and it takes some wikilawyering to force editors to use refs to determine WEIGHT, weight should be something discussed here on the talk pages. As for accessibility, I also address that conern in the section below, but basically I said that books (like Pollack's) can be scanned for specific points referenced in the article using google or amazon. and you get a couple pages before and after the relevant text so it's easy to put it in context.

Samuel - i agree that in cases where a neutral party does not offer access to a reference, if the text in not in question, it is alright to use a POV hosting site. However, this is not the case for the Pollack book.

-Cheers! -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 15:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I never responded here, there were quite a few points to address.

• Regarding primary and secondary sources, as you may have noticed there is some controversy about whether the article already makes too much use of Bates' own writings (hence the banner at the top of the article.)
• "Often, the article is describing a technique or belief, and then it goes on to cite the mainstream community's view on it. The primary source should be given for the former, and the independent source is then given for the latter." The article does do that quite a few times.
• The TIME article is from 1943, so while that deals with proponents subsequent to Bates, it does not cover anything current. However the Boston Globe and WebMD articles do cover current Natural Vision Educators, but do not refer to any books, and I'm not even sure if the particular individuals they discuss have even written any books.
• In Google Books, Pollack's work is only available as a snippet view, which means you may not even see the entire sentence. It seems far better to link to Quackwatch in this instance. PSWG1920 (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) In regard to OR, specifically the part that discusses selection bias, if the general view here is that it should stay, then at least rewrite it to put in in the context that testing of Bates' methods is accompanied by problems affecting all experiments involving groups of people. Or something to that effect. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

In this case we are not discussing experiments per se, but rather the selective reporting of individual results. I'm not quite sure how to improve the wording here. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

then i think the best thing is to remove it. The defense of keeping it in is that this is an argument that can be made for any reportings of this sort, so it's not really specific to the Bates Method - if that's the case, it's extraneous and then needs to removed on that account. I tried to rewrite it in a way that just addressed statistics generally, but couldn't come up with anything that didn't sound full of OR or POINTY. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 02:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding self-referencing in prose, I fixed the instance which you cited, but there are two others similar to it which remain and which I would have a hard time changing. In Ophthalmological research, "or other factors detailed below". And in Claimed success, "as noted above". What do you think of those? PSWG1920 (talk) 08:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

i've fixed those two, however the OR thing is more important and needs to be addressed. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 21:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to hear SamuelTheGhost's thoughts on the selection bias paragraph, since IIRC he's the one who added it originally. PSWG1920 (talk) 05:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. We have about three ways of dealing with the fact that many people have said or written that BM has worked for them:

1. We can ignore them, or imply that they are all fools or liars.
2. We can point out that this could be a consequence of selection bias, coupled with natural variability of vision.
3. We could accept that BM is successful.

Option 1 would be offensive and unconvincing. It would just make Wikipedia look stupid. Option 3 would certainly not be acceptable to other editors. Option 2 seems to be only viable alternative. As for the objection that this is WP:OR, I think we have to grasp the nettle here. In this case, as elsewhere in this article, we have a choice between minor breaches of WP:OR, on the one hand, and major breaches of WP:NPOV or WP:COMMON on the other. WP:IAR clearly entitles us to take the former path, being careful not to go too far, and to seek consensus as we go. Thus in this case, just leave it as it is, but remove the tag. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

we already take into account several sourced explanations for why the BM might seem to work in some cases. If you really want to include it, please try to rewrite it according to what was mentioned above - or remove it. It's not really needed, the section works without it. and I don't see how removing it is some violation of NPOV, it is glaringly obvious what the mainstream opinion is on the subject, wikipedia is not the place to put forth your own theories and hypotheses. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 15:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that what I wrote just now was perhaps in too much of a hurry. I didn't make clear that I don't find the other explanations, on their own, adequate to explain the success stories that have been reported. If the material on selection bias needs rewriting, anyone can do that; I don't own it. I think it should be there as a defence of the credibility of the mainstream position. The idea of "selection bias" isn't "my own theory"; it's just a precise statement of what I understand the mainstream position to be. It's the same point as is made by the criticism of "anecdotal" evidence, to which there are several references in the article. It's why scientists ask for controlled experiments. The only thing WP:OR about it is the use of the phrase "selection bias", and it's pure accident that that isn't sourced. Gardner, the arch-critic, has in other contexts discussed survivorship bias, a closly related concept. If only he'd been less bad-tempered about BM I'm sure he would have given us a better source.

My reference to NPOV was changing the subject a bit, and perhaps I should have separated the two points out. I had in mind here the apparent taboo on the use of material from the modern BM books, specifically about the avoidance of open-eye sunning and the abandonment of Bates' theory of accommodation. Making the observation that that's what the modern books have done is a very mild bit of WP:OR, but not doing so is in effect a gross breach of WP:NPOV. I hope this clarifies things. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no taboo against modern books, only a lack of sources upon which to determine proper weight of using information from such books. This appears to be evidence that modern Bates Method promoters are so fringe that their opinions are not noteworthy.

I think that statements about what all the books say or don't say need to be sourced. Otherwise this is not only original research, but undue weight to the information as well.

Finally, shouldn't such information, once properly source, belong in After Bates? --Ronz (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Samuel - i did try to fix it myself, but as noted above, was running into issues. I hope you can understand what I'm finding issue with, and would be more than happy to see the info stay, so long as it cn be sourced, or explained in such a way as to mention that this is something common in certain types of results.

Ronz - yes, putting Bates-derived research and programs in the After Bates section would be most appropriate. But your opinion that sources need to backed by third parties has no basis on any policies or guidelines. WEIGHT is about POV and content. I've also already pointed out at least one source already in this article that discusses in a non-trivial manner the continuation of BM in modern days (TIME article). The open-eye sunning issue could be resolved if someone could find a ref where a spokesperson for a well-known BM group has explictly stated their non-practice of the tequnique due to it's safety issues. however, this could understandeably be difficult (people don't like to admit they were wrong). there's a logical fallacy somewhere with who the burden of proof should be on, but it is wiki-standard that when a statement is questioned the burden falls on the original editor. i think if we're willing to let the kind of OR in that samuel is suggesting above (with careful prose), it is fair to allow something like this (with careful prose, like removing "all"). -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 08:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"But your opinion that sources need to backed by third parties has no basis on any policies or guidelines." Not according to WP:OR or WP:NPOV or WP:FRINGE.

Yes, this issue could be resolved if we find a ref. --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

i like to think i am familiar with those policies, as (i suspect) all editors here would like to think they are familiar with them. It would be more helpful if you pointed out the specific language that you feel justifies your claim. In like kind I am interpreting:

(WP:NPOV#POV forks)"The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject are treated in one article."

This allows for discussion of the Bates method as it is applied today as a major point of view on the subject.

(WP:FRINGE#Notability versus acceptance)"Ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight."

this restricts us to only superficially discussing various outlets for Bates method - no one is suggesting long detailed sections on each school/program/etc. out there, or (worse) articles about them.

(WP:PARITY)"[For example], the views of adherents [to creation science] should not be excluded from an article on creation science because their works lack peer review."

replace the words creation science with Bates method and my point is made.

Samuel, while I'm quoting...:

(WP:FRINGE#Notability versus acceptance)"... the purpose of Wikipedia is not to offer originally synthesized prose "debunking" notable ideas which the scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy."

and in further regards to IAR allowing fudging of WP:OR,

(WP:NPOV - lead)"The principles upon which [WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR] are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus."

-ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 19:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as other editors go, there is one who is most definitely an exception. That editor appears to have stopped trying to change the article in any meaningful way knowing that it will get him/her banned from the article.

Additionally, we have multiple editors here who refuse to follow NPOV completely because they feel that material can be pulled from references without mentioning the context of that material when it sheds a poor light upon Bates and the Bates method. Except for the one editor, we've achieved a consensus that the current editors are not interested in rewriting the article to give the material proper context, and with it proper weight.

NPOV: "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all." Simply, without independent, reliable sources, we're discussing viewpoints that should not be included at all.

OR: "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims so long as they have been published by a reliable source." The less we rely upon such sources, the further we stray from an encyclopedia article.

So to summarize, we've already agreed to not follow NPOV. Let's just not pretend that we are following it. --Ronz (talk) 03:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments on Informal Review

ZapperNapper's remarks are welcome and helpful, IMO. I'd just like to make three observations:

• I continue to have concerns about impartial tone, as explained above.
• There are many modern books promoting Bates method (at least a dozen in print). They are relevant to continuing claims of success, and to descriptions of how the method has developed since Bates' day. The total absence of citations of them (since my introduction of references to them have all been reverted) is seriously misleading and unhelpful to a reader. The reasons that have been given for their exclusion are, in my view, wikilawyering driven by anti-Bates POV pushing. On the other hand, the Gardner book has no claim to be WP:RS and ought to be used much less, or not at all.
• The fact that there have not been edit wars is, as far as I'm concerned, a consequence of my distaste for getting involved in such things. It doesn't mean I'm happy with what's there. That is, I deny consensus.

SamuelTheGhost (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

In regards to your second point, the real difficulty with citing modern Bates method books is this: How do we decide which books to use or what content to cite? We have sources independent of the subject which reference the writings of Corbett, Huxley, and especially Bates himself. The same does not seem to be the case for Jonathan Barnes, Peter Mansfield, Tom Quackenbush, etc. Personally I had wanted to use the Visions of Joy, Vision Educators, and Imagination Blindness websites as primary sources, but I now understand the real problem with doing so. I don't really know whether Gardner's book would be considered a "Reliable Source" here, but it is "independent" of the article's subject, as well as being the most high-profile work to address it. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

i want to note that i have not yet evaluated scope or references, which will likely offer an outside opinion on these issues. There is a lot of material here and i went through the easiest parts first, things like tone and style are easy to address without having to do any research... and i have a life :) expect more soon. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 07:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

In response to PSWG1920 above: I've no strong feeling about which books or websites to use. For WP:V books are more permanent, but websites are more accessible to the on-line generation to whom we must cater. The content we're looking for is, for example, the striking departure from Bates himself on the subject of the mechanism of accommodation. We should also include references to first-hand case-histories, of which there are several. Interestingly, nearly all of these make very modest claims, that is, that BM has indeed helped, but that the process has been slow, difficult and incomplete.

As for Gardner, I can't see what's "independent" about explicitly attacking something, nor how being "high-profile" helps it to qualify. You've got Pollack. There's also Grierson, who is a Professor of Ophthalmology (and "professor" is a rarer title in the UK than it is in the USA), and who is writing in this century, not 50 years ago. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

By "independent" I meant "independent of the article's subject". Grierson was and is a good addition to this article, but he spends only two pages on the subject. The article does currently cite Pollack more than it does Gardner (and in my opinion Pollack takes a far more condescending tone than Gardner, at least in the freely available chapter.) Most likely, others who might have addressed the Bates method in detail felt that it had already been sufficiently done and that there was little or nothing new to say, hence the lack of more recent "independent" discussions of it.

As for the issue of citing modern pro-Bates books and websites, in trying to justify doing such I realized the problem. In this archived discussion, I was asked "how do we choose who we pick as these sources?" As you can see I did not have a real answer. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason why Pollack is a better reference than Gardner is not what he says, since the two have practically identical viewpoints, but is the fact that Pollack is a qualified optometrist, while Gardner has no relevant qualification. This actually makes the anti-Bates case stronger, but more importantly it gives the article better WP:RS. I don't see the question "how do we choose" as particularly problematic. Choose any that any of us is familiar with which make the point concerned. The words "for example" are sufficient cover for the arbitrariness. Looking at the link you gave, I came across this contribution from Famousdog. While I wouldn't have phrased it that way myself, he is in essence saying exactly what I think about the citation of pro-Bates sources. It's all about considering what the readers want to know, and are entitled to know, and then trusting them to form their own judgments. I hope he doesn't mind my reproducing it here, verbatim. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Ronz, it just seems that you are determined to remove any reference or link to a pro-Bates site. While I sympathise with that attitude, it makes it incredibly difficult to provide any evidence for what crazy stuff Bates acolytes believe! The less people visit these websites the better, but there simply is no other way to demonstrate how crazy Bates' followers are without using their own words to damn them. These self-published sources are identified as such in the text, and as I have always said: its the job of an encyclopedia to inform, and if you "aggressively" cut all this material, people interested in the BM will get their "information" from pro-Bates sites - and that is simply untenable. How about we add a tag in the reference itself stating clearly that it is a self-published or promotional site? Famousdog (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You pick the sources like you would pick any source:

1. Is it accessible? (books are still very accessible through Google, which is why providing page numbers and quotes to relevant text are so helpful)
2. Is it a source that has respect within its community? This is why we sometimes require the expert assistance of people who are active within a topic's community. Is it a book that is often used as a reference in other publications on the same subject? Generally speaking, it's good enough if we can reach a consensus on two-three sources. Over time, other editors may come by and offer up a better source, but we don't need to have the "perfect source" right now if that means we're compromising on comprehensiveness or neutrality.
3. Is it stable? Is this a website that radically changes their content all the time, provides no archives, and is only updated by someguy when he has time? (as opposed to one maintained by an organization)
4. Is the source anonymous? This is why forums, blogs, and fansites are generally not RS (that and lack of peer-reveiw), but the same can be true of sites that do not divulge the real names of top-level officials or a way to contact them beyond the webmaster.

In direct response to that archived discussion, I believe the other editor was out of line. You correctly cited relevant guidelines and policies. In cases outside of BLP, that kind of red tape is unneccessary (and questionable even within BLP). Articles do not get sourced by first pooling all possible references together and having a discussion on them, it's a big waste of time and effort. You put a source up and if someone feels it doesn't satisfy WP:RS, they take it down and you discuss why. In this case, you claim the sources were being used purely for descriptive purposes about themselves (which seemed to be true), which completely satisfies WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 22:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Pollack and Gardner as sources

Continuing from the above discussion, I think the problem with Pollack's book, other than Chapter 3 (which is reproduced on Quackwatch), is accessibility. It is by my understanding a rare book, unlike Gardner's (even if the sample pages were to disappear from Google, it would be relatively easy to locate a physical copy of Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science.) Google does provide a "snippet view" version of The Truth About Eye Exercises, but that leaves the reader without a context. Nonetheless we do use that in this article, but it is awkward and we should not be doing that any more often than necessary. Even though Gardner's book may be a less than ideal source, I think considerations along the lines of WP:PARITY apply. Now, if we find a better source which contradicts something we cite Gardner for, then that should obviously be fixed. But absent that, I don't see any real problem with the way Gardner is used in this article. PSWG1920 (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The rarity or otherwise of Pollack's book is indicated here. It's quite boring, and not worth $100, so I don't blame people for not rushing to buy it. This issue raises an interesting point about WP:V, which insists that it should be possible to check cited sources, but says nothing about how easily. It also indicates no preference for on-line sources, and thousands of references currently in Wikipedia are to paper-only sources. In the UK we have a thing called Inter-Library Loan, whereby you can get hold of virtually anything from your local library, for a small fee, and sometimes quite a long wait, but in principle it means you can check anything and everything if you try hard enough. I presume there's something similar in North America, Australia, etc. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove "Ophthalmological Research" section

I have been thinking more and more that the Ophthalmological research section should be removed from this article. As is, it summarizes a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology on "Visual Training for Refractive Errors". While the AAO is obviously a good source, the report in question mentions Bates only in a footnote, which characterizes him simply as background. The report reviews several studies, but few details are given regarding the techniques tested, making it difficult to say whether or in what cases anything resembling the Bates method was involved. In my opinion the discussion of what factors may account for improved vision is the only point therein which is truly relevant to the Bates method article, but that is covered by the "Claimed success" section below. While the two sections could be merged, doing so would really dilute the important points. What is in the "Ophthalmological Research" section seems like a distraction. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I am starting to think also the Woods report is a very interesting report. The AAO report is a summary. And the summary is partly based on Bates his writings. This is an important fact. It is also important to understand ophthalmology is the authority on this subject. I am starting to think something about ophthalmology. If the Bates method is really nonsense or quackery why can't they just simple prove this or at least provide some details. Why don't they use Elwin Marg research ? As I have said before : The BM/NVI is not abour science it is about politics. And so is your request for removal. Seeyou (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

personally, i actually like having the AAO report in here, it's relevant to the article to discuss how medical associations view this type of education. If you don't like the section itself - it could possibly be rewritten or merged into criticisms. But the source is good. actually, in regards to my review comment where the lead claims both optometrists and opthamologists think this is rubbish without providing sources to back it up, i had thought you would just append this source, not remove the sentence. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 00:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

While the "Ophthalmological Research" section has been very problematic in the past, we've made good progress with it.

Seems to me that if the article contains "Modern variants" then the AAO report should be included as well. --Ronz (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I do see your points. In my mind, merging the section into any other part of the article would dilute truly relevant and important information. So if it's going to stay it should probably remain as its own section. Regarding the sentence deleted from the first paragraph of the introduction, that was actually a fairly recent addition, and not one that I would have made. I think the second paragraph makes the point in question, plus the lead sentence of the first paragraph now notes that this is an alternative therapy. PSWG1920 (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is the real problem I have with the section as it is, and SamuelTheGhost touched on this above (and earlier in an edit to the article which was reverted due to being "personal opinion".) The AAO report gives no indication at all that any natural vision teacher was used in any of the reviewed experiments. Absent that, it seems highly dishonest for this article to give the impression that the studies in question were tests of any approach which has actually been claimed to improve eyesight. If there ever has been even one formal controlled experiment in which a Bates teacher was involved, working with subjects while a third-party took measurements, details should be found and prominently reported here. Unfortunately such details are sorely lacking from the AAO review. I had been thinking that perhaps the Ophthalmological Research section could be condensed and merged with Modern Variants, but really the same problem would still exist. The only point of the AAO review which imo is really relevant to this article is that vision can improve subjectively while objectively remaining the same, and that is already covered in the "Claimed Success" section. The introduction and the first two sections also show how Bates' ideas are regarded by the eye-care establishment. PSWG1920 (talk) 07:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the section title is misleading, but the information should probably remain per WP:FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, I would say that the truly relevant points here are redundant to other parts of the article. What part of WP:FRINGE necessitates that this section stay? In response to your previous comment that "we've made good progress with" the section, I would say that it is now as good as it's likely to get (short of a major new source turning up) and yet is still very problematic. Another thing I neglected to point out to Zappernapper above, which I will do now, is that the AAO review is referenced three times outside of the section in question, so it would not be lost as a source even if the section were simply deleted. PSWG1920 (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

This report from the Indian Journal of Opthalmology looks promising in terms of detail regarding the techniques used. I had found and posted this link here once before, but I forgot about it and nothing came of it. I suggest that, if the Ophthalmological Research section is to remain, we replace the summary of the AAO review with a summary of the IJO report. PSWG1920 (talk) 07:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

PSWG1920 about the sammualtheghosts statement : The "visual training" however, was in no case based on the Bates method, nor on the "Natural Vision Improvement" method, and may in some cases have increased strain as Bates would have understood it.

Seeyou : . How do you know it was not based on the BM or NVI. What is according to you the BM or NVI. The article at this moment has not even got a referenced definition. Have you got them with a reference ? Hopefully you are willing to share. See also [[5]] Seeyou (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that for sure, and the lack of real details from the AAO review makes it difficult to find out. I tried to state this in a less definitive manner but was reverted here for original research, and probably rightly so. But the fact that we can't make that point in the article is an argument to remove the section. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the IJO report. It's only a single study, correct? I don't see why a single study deserves such treatment, let alone replacing a review. --Ronz (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I added it to the External Links instead. I was impressed by the amount of detail there regarding the study itself (as opposed to just the results and conclusions.) PSWG1920 (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge

I have revisited my earlier idea and merged "Ophthalmological Research" into "Modern Variants". I think this is the best way to present it. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice solution! --Ronz (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Absurd solution. If there is one thing important in retrieving information it is how reliable or who is your source. Is it a wikipedia editor ? Is the wikipedia editor a skeptic ? Is he or she an advocate. Is it the accepted and respected authority ophthalmology ? Can you explain why modern variants is a logical title for opthalmological research, PSWG1920 ? If there is one thing clear to me is that ophthalmology and any pro bates source do not communicate or cooperate at all. So why merge these total opposite sources together ? Modern variants can also be very close related to Bates original writings. Ophthalmology hardly ever mentions Bates at all. In other words the current modern variants partys are opponents of each other ! Gladly read the arguments Seeyou (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the section title to "Modern variants and research". The AAO review at best deals with research into variants of the Bates method, so this is a good way to present the information. PSWG1920 (talk) 00:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Farewell to the Woods Report

I have introduced a section on the Woods report as Behavioral optometry#The Baltimore myopia study, where it belongs. I will be very happy to discuss that material on that talk page. I hope that this is the last mention of it here. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

How do you know it belongs there ? Have you got the report ? Aren't you forgetting the article Natural vision improvement , see [[6]], directs directly to the Bates Method article. A lot of people believe at this moment it is impossible to improve eyesight naturally. The woods report shows some people have improved their eyesight. To be really objective this fact should be mentioned. Otherwise you are hiding important facts ! I am quite curious if wikipedia is really based on consensus without arguments. See RFC no 3, see [[7].]The future will tell. Seeyou (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"Have you got the report ?" - Yes, I have got the report. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you willing to share it with us ? I am convinced it must be a very interesting document. In the past famousdog or AED were / was able to attach a document to the article. Or sent it to Foxy loxy [[8]]. I am sure he will sent it to me when you ask him. Or is it naïve to expect you would share the document ? By the way if you are so sure the woods report belongs to behavorioul optometry. I think it is very important other parties are able to verify that what you are stating is really true. To trust someone is okay, but it is better to check. Seeyou (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I've got the report, on paper (30 pages), but not in any electronic form. Of course if I could share it by sending a url or something similar, I would do so, but it isn't as simple as that. I'm not sure what you're asking me to do, but let me ask you:

• Have you got access to any library?
• Have you enquired whether they can get the article for you?

In my experience people are often very unaware of what libraries can do for them, and I've known librarians get quite frustrated at the way their services are under-used. As for your other points, the fact that it belongs in behavioral optometry should be apparent from the quotation I've given in the article. I you don't trust me to tell the truth, that's your problem, and I'm not willing to make it mine. I'll answer any questions about what I've written or about the content of the paper, to the best of my ability. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Samuel or Sammy, thanks for you cooperation. Searched the www for the woods report. No succes. It used to be available in the archvie of www.aao.org, but I can't find it anymore. ( And you had to pay 500 US dollars to get access. ) Did a search in other archives. Nothing. Maybe you can provide an archive with the woods report. Note also the report is not interesting for me only. It is interesting for anyone reading the article. So it would be really great if you could share it with us. I will keep searching. Seeyou (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

In the Behavioral optometry article is stated :

This method of visual training has neither in theory nor practice any relation to the so-called Bates theory, and in theory and practice it involves no deviation from the known and accepted theories and facts of physiology and neurology of the eye or the experimental psychology of vision..

Sammy what is the so called Bates theory ? Is it the chronic/static eyeshape theory or the dynamic eyeshape theory ? I am hoping the writer of the Woods report makes this clear. Gladly read your reply. Seeyou (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you get no help here. This is the only mention of Bates in the entire paper. There's nothing that throws any more light on this passage. One might take it as significant that Skeffington (whose words these are) finds it necessary to deny any similarity with BM, since it might have been supposed there was something in common, but that's pure speculation. I think it was Bismarck who said "Never believe anything until it's been officially denied". SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources tag

I'm not going to try and find who originally put the tag up, but I just ask that if anyone still feels it is applicable, to state their specific concerns. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not a primary sources tag, but one we came up with in Talk:Bates_method#Tags --Ronz (talk) 03:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Ronz, I don't see how the custom template was causing confusion. But whether or not it was, it could be divided (i.e. "this section contains detailed discussions of what may be unimportant aspects of the subject", "this section may rely too heavily on primary sources") and each placed on the section(s) you feel it still applies to. The old warning template you just restored is not helpful at all. In fact, "the neutrality of this article is disputed" is probably one of the least informative messages there is. For your convenience, here is the text for two custom templates which would help:

{{Warning|This section contains detailed discussion of what may be [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight|unimportant]] aspects of the subject.<br /><small> Please see the discussion on the [[Talk:Bates method|talk page]].</small><br/><small>Please do not remove this message until the [[Wikipedia:NPOV dispute|dispute is resolved.]]</small>'''}}

{{Warning|This section may rely too heavily on [[Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources|primary sources]].<br /><small> Please see the discussion on the [[Talk:Bates method|talk page]].</small><br/><small>Please do not remove this message until the [[Wikipedia:NPOV dispute|dispute is resolved.]]</small>'''}} PSWG1920 (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Two editors, including yourself, referred to it as a primary sources tag. I think that's confusion. --Ronz (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The two new custom templates I've just suggested are a solution to that. Although I don't see where I referred to it as a "primary sources tag", though I alluded to that aspect of it in an edit summary. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought I had made myself clear, but I will try again. Ronz, I know from above discussions that you dispute this article's neutrality mainly due to amounts of detail allocated to aspects of the Bates method which you perceive as unimportant per independent sources. I also know that you justify the Original Research template at the top by saying that the article relies too heavily on Primary sources. What I don't know is what sections of the current article you feel these issues apply to. I could guess, and in fact tried to do so recently, but your response was to completely remove the custom template which actually explained your concerns and restore a cleanup banner which is not only broad, but vague as well, mainly serving to cast a shadow over the article. Above I have provided new custom templates which should make it easy to identify concerns with individual sections. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new here. Ronz, was the tag meant to cast a shadow over the article? Xavexgoem (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope editors aren't assuming such a thing. Why do you ask? --Ronz (talk) 01:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Because folks are assuming that ;-) So I'm hoping to get that bit out of the way :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Hi, I'm your informal mediator from WP:MEDCAB :-p

I don't think we can accomplish much if editors are not assuming good faith, especially if the assumptions are not even discussed.

I don't have a problem with tags on articles. They are there to attract and encourage editors to help address the identified problems. --Ronz (talk) 02:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

AGF is hard to gauge... WP has tons of problems, and getting people to like each other ain't gonna happen anytime soon, my friend ;-)

With that said, what are the issues you'd like addressed? Xavexgoem (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

My most recent summary is my 03:33, 21 December 2008 comments at the end of Talk:Bates_method#Discussion_of_specific_points. Basically, I think we're at a stalemate, and have been for a very long time. Editors refuse to follow NPOV, Wikipedia has no real means to enforce NPOV, problems ensue when WP:SPA editors want to WP:OWN the few articles they edit. --Ronz (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a few comments:

• "we're at a stalemate" - indeed.
• "Editors refuse to follow NPOV" - no editor has "refused to follow NPOV". Editors differ, in good faith, as to its realisation.
• "WP:SPA editors" - this is completely irrelevant and I think that on reflection Ronz might be persuaded to admit that.
• "want to WP:OWN" - PSWG1920 has been the most active editor, and I've been glad to let him take that role. When others have edited he has always sought compromise. Ronz has seldom if ever attempted constructive editing; all he has done, frequently, is delete, revert, and criticise. The main reason I haven't edited more has been Ronz' consistent negativity. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ronz has responded to the above on my talk page by accusing me of making personal attacks. I fully agree with him that personal attacks are a bad thing, and rightly contrary to WP policy. In this case I felt that his own remarks, above, amounted to a personal attack and that some response was called for in defence of the editors concerned.

I find his remark "Editors refuse to follow NPOV" both alarming and encouraging. It's alarming because it implies that he does not recognise that other editors are working in good faith. If he really does think this, then we are in trouble. I certainly believe that Ronz is sincerely acting in way he sees to be for the good of WP and in accordance with its policies, although I often disagree with where this takes him. The remark is encouraging, however, in that it establishes NPOV as the crucial issue, which I agree it is. The constructive way forward, if there is one, is if we analyse together what NPOV means for this article. If only all concerned are willing to listen to each other and compromise a bit we might yet argue our way to a consensus. Let that be our New Year's Resolution. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)