Talk:Optical Express

Initial Edit Escalation discussion

The Timeline section being added by conflict of interest editor maybe partly referenced but is not encyclopedic.Teapotgeorge^Talk 15:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

OK I give up... their marketing department wins the day!Teapotgeorge^Talk 15:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I've reported them for edit-warring - hopefully that will fix things. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

neutral point of view (NPOV) Please clarify why the 'Controversy' section fits under this guidance and not historical data. conflict of interest (COI) Rotsmasher have only edited this page and a direct competitor and as such is clearly in violation of this guidance. Verifiability The controversy section contains allegations and seems to be a personal attack on the business and an individual. I am providing factual, business information directly relating to the page, with verifiable sources. Beatthecyberhate (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

i not fully sure why. but your edits that you are makeing on the optical ecpress are not ok. so would you mind stoping it. than we can all relax. thanks --Iniced (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

If no one is fully sure why, then why are only the positive FACTUAL AND SUBSTANTIATED comments being removed? This is in contradiction to your unbias and impartial guidelines Beatthecyberhate (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia & of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is non-negotiable & all editors and articles must follow it. Beatthecyberhate (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you TeapotGeorge. So can I safely presume if I take your lead and insert additional copy in this format, it will remain on the page? The only objective here is to enforce NPOV not self promotion. Beatthecyberhate (talk) 16:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

As you have a conflict of interest it is safer to bring any further edits to the talk page for discussion first rather than add them yourself.Teapotgeorge^Talk 16:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Please edit: The company did not turn up to the courtcase and the £25,000 fine was reported widely.[8] to remove 'widely'. There was ONE local newspaper article which was however WIDELY inaccurate. Unfortunately I cannot locate an online reference to citate. Beatthecyberhate (talk) 08:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Can we add a section to list clinic locations as per other Wiki pages featuring multiples? Beatthecyberhate (talk) 08:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

"In 2004 and early 2005, OE acquired a duo of services previously..." This para has no citation. Also appears to have been added as a slight based on the laser technology used. OE replaced all the technology upon takeover, however competitors continue to use the criticised technology. What technology Boots used is irrelevant to OE. Beatthecyberhate (talk) 09:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

On another note, the length of description used for articles in the controversy section far outweighs the copy used in the history section leading to bias. Can we level the playing field? As previously mentioned, this is not about self promotion and no Wiki page would be better than one that is being used as a personal attack against a business by an individual with a grudge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatthecyberhate (talk • contribs) 09:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you add: A ‘flagship’ Sports Vision clinic was opened on 20th January 2011 in the company’s outlet in Renfield Street, Glasgow City Centre. Citation: http://www.optometry.co.uk/news-and-features/news/?article=2082 Beatthecyberhate (talk) 09:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you add: In 2010 they invested $12million (£8.1million) installing iFS femtosecond laser technology in all its laser clinics. Citation(s) http://www.optometry.co.uk/news-and-features/news/?article=1037 http://www.clickpress.com/releases/Detailed/231622005cp.shtml http://www.glassesdisplay.co.uk/archives/116 http://www.mynewsdesk.com/uk/view/pressrelease/5-deerdykes-road-optical-express-invests-12-million-to-enhance-patient-care-421562 Beatthecyberhate (talk) 09:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you add: They are in partnership with charity organisation The Caring City which values visual health as a route out of poverty. Citation: http://www.glasgowthecaringcity.com/projects/optical_express.htm Beatthecyberhate (talk) 10:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Further closures are ongoing during 2011. Source? Beatthecyberhate (talk) 10:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The content of this page has been escalated to Wiki mediation for violation of Community Standards guidlines as described by Wiki guidlines specifically conflict of interest editors and failure to comply with NPOV, Neutrality, Balance and Questionable sources. A request for an impartial contributor to edit the page and a block to avoid personal attacking has been made. Beatthecyberhate2 (talk) 10:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

So where is this request? I will be glad to take the job if you like. Sincerely, a friend to all, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi George. I've had that cuppa now, thanks. The article was escalated and picked up by OTRS agent, HJ Mitchell, whose view on the state of the article was not very complementary to those involved in its editing, as stated in various talk posts, and whom has assisted in the initial redraft of the article to bring it to a suitable standard - I would hope from an NPOV basis. While many edits from nuetrals have been fair and helpful, my concern and angst is that since then the same editors who were responsible for the state of the original article have, imho, systematically attacked the article and showing the same traits as before. This in turn encourages others with possibly more sinister motives to join the attack - and let's be clear that there was an attack. Again, in my opinion, if this is allowed to continue unchallenged the article will degenerate as it did before and possibly with more serious consequences. Any help you can bring order to this would be appreciated. I will be reviewing the changes made over the past few days and discussing any contentious that I disagree with below as Atama has suggested. I would be grateful if you and other nuetrals could provide guidance to me and the regular editors of this page. Many thanks. PKdundee (talk) 08:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Padraig Harrington

Let's thrash this out here. I did a Google News search, and the most recent sources are still suggesting the advert is banned. Patrick, do you have a source to the contrary? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

A complaint against the original TV advert was upheld by ASA in April 2011. The appeal was made against a specific point [11] of that ruling and not the whole 26 point ruling. Although point 11 was revised, the ASA decision outlined the full original ruling as was reported recently. It is correct that the complaint against the advert was "upheld" but that was an historic ajudication. The advert itself was not banned, just one small part that was changed in May 2011 and cleared for broadcast. I can provide sufficient evidence on Monday that the revised version was cleared. Can it be assumed that this information is correct until that time? If I don't supply 3rd party evidence, I will abide by your decision/wrath. In terms of the copy explaining our new advertisement, they are merely recording fact. I will have a press release written on Monday and published in many news sources as reliable as the ones being used to promote negative tones. I will then reinstate the TV copy we had written with our facts and figures - stating the advert content - with numerous credible 3rd party sources...if this is what yo wish. User talk:PKdundee

Your points in turn. The tv ad is not allowable for broadcast in its current form. The fact that the adjudication is historical is immaterial. The appeal was very recent and widely reported. The copy for the new ad is marketing drivel masquerading as facts. This is one of the key reasons that I find Optical Express COI editors frustrating. Show me the verifiable third party proof for the "facts". Yours RotsmasherRotsmasher (talk) 22:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, this is what is frustrating. The TV ad IS allowable for broadcast in its current state - that is my point. It was not allowable in its previous state as per April 2011 and we never set out to mislead - the advert did not ever claim or set out to mislead that Padraig Harrington had been treated by Optical Express and as we are bound by patient confidentiality I would not wish to comment further personally. There is plenty of reference out there as to what did and didn't happen. While we disagreed with the ASA decision, we fully accepted it. We appealled only a small part of the 26-point ruling. I will provide evidence on Monday that we can run the advert if we wish. Since there had been much controversy over the advert we chose to remake a new advert rather than re-broadcast. I also took the liberty to state exactly what the advert promoted so that everyone could be clear of what we are allowed to say - since so much has been made of what we are not allowed to say. I think that in context of an Advertising section that this factual information is pertinent and of interest. Again I will provide 3rd party evidence of the advert's content asap and hope that the numerous press citations will enable this to be recorded as fact. Thank you. User talk:PKdundee —Preceding undated comment added 22:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC).

Based on what I said above, that Optical Express did not appeal the TV adjudication ruling and only appealed a few of the points not the full adjudication, I intend to change the edit made by Rotsmasher "The ASA dismissed Optical Express's appeal on this adjudication on 17 August 2011.[35]" on the basis that is may mislead the reader to believe that the TV advert adjudication was appealed and rejected, to "On 17 August 2011, the ASA dismissed Optical Express's appeal to a few of the points on the original adjudication.[35]" Does anyone (except for Rotsmasher) have an issue with this change? I will give this 12 hours for your views. PKdundee (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Rotsmasher

Can we also thrash out why Rotsmasher has only posted on Optical Express and in a very negative manner? Is there an undeclared conflict of interest? What is the motivation of their interest? Many thanks. User talk:PKdundee —Preceding undated comment added 21:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC).

One could ask the same about you - you've only edited the one article and in an obvious promotional manner. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Except that he declares his connection on his userpage (and as an OTRS agent, I can confirm that what he says there is true), and his edits are not obviously promotional. He has worked, with some advice from myself, to improve the article. A little assumption of good faith goes a long way. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no conflict of interest at all. The quality of the article has been improved greatly by my edits and the vigorous debate these have caused. RotsmasherRotsmasher (talk) 22:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Rotsmasher. I agree that the quality of the article has been improved greatly through this process. User talk:PKdundee —Preceding undated comment added 22:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC).

Locations

MikeWazowski: We would argue otherwise as location is an important factor to many of our customers where location (or rather distance from home) is one of the most important factors when choosing laser eye surgery. In any case, many other WIKI pages citing organisations have ALL locations listed. Even so, there is no need to delete the whole section. It also is a very visible reference to the size and growth of Optical Express. Especially when so much has been made to chart the reduction in our Dental business. Hopefully the addition of locations gives the reader a better sense of perspective. User talk:PKdundee

This is not your company's personal advertising space, and you do not get to control the content. It is unreferenced and unnecessary, and it will be removed. MikeWazowski (talk) 07:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Although other articles we have taken reference from to build this page nuetrally have this information on their locations. That is unfair editing and at best not nuetral.PKdundee (talk) 07:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Third party references to these locations is easy to get if that is all that is needed to publish this info. Although as I said above, others in our sector are listing their locations without reference.PKdundee (talk) 07:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

One example is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultralase. Ultralase has a few locations. Please do not penalise us for being a larger organistaion. You might also argue that their list of services is unreferenced and "advertising" although I would not as it is a matter of fact as you would see if you visited their website. Websites are under juristiction of ASA and therefore if information is wrong it can be challenged there. Why does Wiki therefore not trust that what an organisation says on its website is factual and reference. PKdundee (talk) 07:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no encyclopaedic benefit to having every location listed. By all means, list the number of stores, number of clinics, number of each in each of the countries the company operates in—that has encyclopaedic merit, but listing every location doesn't help the reader's understanding of the company itself. I've also removed it from Ultralase. If there are any other examples you know of, I'll probably do the same to them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I added the Locations text as suggested but this was removed by MikeWazowski at 21:51 on 27/8/11. Also Simple Bob at 15:12 on the 28/8 removed flags:

- Topshop (who also have flag icons) actually mentions locations

- M&S who also mention locations

- Specsavers who list locations

- Primark (have a table with flags)

and that is only a small sample of organisations like OE.

I would lile to discus views on whether the revised content of the Location section should be reinstated as I believe it was unfairly removed ny MikeWazawski. I do not intend to request that each location is added, but personally I quite liked the flags and it took me some time to learn how to do that.PKdundee (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed the flags, I think. They're against our Manual of Style (NB: not exactly light reading, even for seasoned editors). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Possible reasons for PKdundee edit removing most of this talk page

My thoughts are attempted manipulation to remove the link with beatthecyberhate which is obviously blatant censorship. RotsmasherRotsmasher (talk) 06:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I did not mean that at all. I was simply ignorant and saw all that as clutter. Happy to have it stay and scroll down to the recent talk each time. No problem. Hands up. PKdundee (talk) 06:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Assume good faith

I think everybody who has edited this article in the last 48 hours needs to read this guideline. Let's start judging edits on their merits, and not who made them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC) If a company representative removes nearly a whole page of info which is full of contributions from a sockpuppeteer who is also from that company. How can the edit be judged separately from the individual who makes it?

You were quick to challenge me on a purported COI. The poor history of repeated blanking, has to influence people's responce to further Optical Express led edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotsmasher (talk • contribs) 15:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I was not quick, and I'm still not convinced you don't have an agenda, given that your only edits have been to and about this article. But I judge your edits on their merits. You should pay others the same courtesy. After all, why would an editor openly declare his conflict of interest if he wasn't going to act in good faith? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Also please note that repeated blanking was the result of repetitive personal and vindictive editing by Rotsmasher. We accept we were ignorant of Wiki editing policies and handled this badly. PKdundee (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I am very concerned that you say "we". Wikipedia is only intended to be edited by individual users and not groups or companies?Teapotgeorge^Talk 19:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

"We" meaning the individuals with individual accounts who edited the article previously. Please assume good faith. PKdundee (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

You mean you and the person who had a named account and 2 sockpuppets? Also the IP that vandalised an admin page? Or should I assume good faith eh? Yours Rotsmasher — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotsmasher (talk • contribs) 22:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I hardly think that beatthecyberhate (blocked) and beatthecyberhate2 is any way an attempt at deception to hide identity. We are on shared IPs so individuals may have the same IP. Three individuals, not two, have been involved and to whom I have refered to as we. PKdundee (talk) 08:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

In addition PKdundee on 11th August Your IP vandalised my user page. You wrote a comment this evening before signing in which is in the edit history of this page and then you undid it, signed in and rewrote it verbatim. This IP messed with my page on 11th August and was warned for vandalism. Yours RotsmasherRotsmasher (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

In terms of vandalism on your page, I don't recall this. I can only possibly think that I did not know my way about Wiki and may have posted a message that was meant to sit somewhere else. Yesterday evening, I posted the comment before realising I was not signed in. I signed in and manually replaced the anon (sic) IP with my own signature to ensure that the comment was attributed to me and not someone else on the same IP. PKdundee (talk) 08:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Om 11th August your IP changed my statement on my user page in a childish and petty way. This change was almost immediately reverted by a wikipedia Admin. This is pure vandalism. It was not a case of writing something on my page. What I had written was changed to mean the opposite. I reckon this was not picked up by Wikipedia during the week spend working with you to change the page? Yours RotsmasherRotsmasher (talk) 08:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Frustration, but wrong. I apologise. I was on a precious family holiday that was cut short because of this issue. PKdundee (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

That reflects more negatively on Optical Express than on you. I accept your apology. Yours RotsmasherRotsmasher (talk) 09:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, although the decision was entirely mine and Optical Express neither suggested, requested, or expected it of me.PKdundee (talk) 04:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

COIN thread

This article is being discussed at the conflict of interest noticeboard. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent Edits

Recent edits from OrangeMike and MikeWazowski on this page are blatant misuse of their responsibility and I will be striking a complaint to have the corporate sabotagers banned. They were responsible for the previuous version of this article being cited as "a pile of shit" by an OTRS agent and they are intent on reverting the article to its previous state, bit by bit. They have wrongly deleted a correction that other Opticians do not offer laser eye surgery - they imply they do by actions of deleting corrected copy, and have deleted a perfectly reasonable caption update on the image in their lazy and systematic abuse of this page. They have not taken the courtesy to discuss this before editing.PKdundee (talk) 17:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

As I stated on your talk page, in regards to other companies offering laser eye surgery, the reference you provided absolutely does not back your claim that other opticians do not provide laser eye surgery - all it says is (as of a year ago) Optical Express started offering it. Nothing more, or less. Please stop edit-warring over this. As for filing a complaint, file away. Just remember, your own actions will be scrutinized as well. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The actual text was along the lines of "Of the four leading UK high street Opticians, Optical Express is the only to provide laser eye surgery" and is as true as day follows night. Basic research of the other three providers would reveal that to be true. The reference reports authoratitively about the market, key companies, and the products and services they provide and have expanded into. None, other than Optical Express is recorded as providing laser eye surgery. It would be remiss of such a reliable Industry source providing a notable industry report to miss such a basic fact as not to report if a leading UK high street Optician offered laser eye surgery. One of the founding principles of Wikipedia is to assume good faith. If you are true to that you would acknowledge your error and revert the text as you found it.PKdundee (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Can any MPOV editor comment on this disputed text? Even the Wiki alert suggests "Format the lead. Create or improve the lead paragraph."...it has been de-hanced recently to appease. My view is that it is of Encyclopaedic interest to readers to mention that of the four big UK high Street Opticians, Optical Express is the only to offer Laser Eye Surgery, and that the very authoratative reference actually reveals this if read. Even assuming good faith, the statement is actually true. Further, I believe that the reference that reveals that laser eye surgery is dominated by three major players in the UK, and also states that Optical Express is the largest of the three and reports that it has more clinics than any other, is actually also an independent reference of encyclopaedic interest and systematically removed in a two-stage manouvre by SimpleBob abd TeapotGeorge. I have been accused of promotion, but these two facts are (1) true; (2) of encyclopaedic interest NPOV IMHO and; (3)well referenced from authoratative sources.PKdundee (talk) 08:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Help me understand the claim that Optical Express is the only provider of laser eye surgery. What is it that they do differently from the other companies, and why is what they do not laser eye surgery? --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 09:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

We have two further (original)references, on which I believe the original article text was based, from Mintel, 2010 that clearly report that:

- "Laser eye surgery, with penetration estimated at around 2% of the spectacle/contact lens wearing audience, has an improving image and trade sources estimate it could appeal to as many as 12% of those who need eyesight correction (in our survey 8% of those who wear glasses or contact lenses would consider laser). Optical Express is the only high street chain to have embraced this new technology to date." Mintel, Optical Goods and Eyecare, Market Intelligence, February 2010, Page 10

- "Optical Express has been growing its presence on the high street. Its spectacle ranges are reasonably priced and cover the mid-market. It is the only one of the major chains with laser eye surgery and it has also expanded into dentistry." Mintel , Optical Goods and Eyecare, Market Intelligence, February 2010, Page 58

Optical Express is one of the four big UK high street Opticians chains, who offer eye tests and retail prescription spectacles and contact lenses. Specsavers, Boots Opticians and Vision Express being the others. Laser Eye Surgery is not a procedure that one would normally associate with a high street optician as it could be seen as competing against long term customer sales of glasses and contact lenses. Optical Express has embraced this new technology while the others, for whatever reason, have not.PKdundee (talk) 10:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

To further explain, there are three main laser eye surgery chains in the UK (reference available), and OE is the largest of these (reference avail). While I have no public reference to cite, OE performs around 65% of all treatments in the UK. 35% is performed by the other main clinics - Ultralase and Optimax - and independents such as Moorfields. All I can say to support our market share size is that if you live in the UK and google "laser eye surgery", you will see that Google who are very strict on this matter, accept OE Adwords copy "The UK's No.1 laser eye surgery provider", and in Europe as "Europe's No.1 Laser Eye Surgery provider." The other two main UK providers only provide eye surgery and are not "Opticians" or operate, in the main, from "High Street" locations. That makes OE pretty unique in the UK market as it operates both a high street retail Opticians business and a laser eye surgery clinic business.PKdundee (talk) 11:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Google results are not authoritative in any way; Google are sellers of advertisements with purely commercial motives, not scholars or governments. --Orange Mike | Talk

True, and I'm not an advocate of Google in any way, but as anyone trying to make a "No.1" claim on Google will testify, we had to provide rock-solid proof for our "No.1" claim to be allowed, was my sort of point there. My other point was that as we are so far ahead in the UK, by default we are the largest provider in Europe even though we only have a handful of clinics in a few countries. My actual end point is that saying "we are the largest provider" is factual and well referenced and valuable to this article. I am not really sure why so many editors appear to be against that fact.PKdundee (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not really getting any resolution or direction on these valid points. The fact is that someone removed "fluff", "poppycock" and COI "promotion" that was written by research guru's MINTEL (I used their words verbatim) and replaced it with text that does not match the reference. As such it is now not exactly based on what MINTEL reported, but loosely based on what MINTEL reports. I fear TeapotGeorge will remove it unless it is corrected. I think if you read the two main threads in this section, you will understand that the editors appear to be applying double-standards and their claims, that references that are being used do not back up the OE claims, are simply misrepresentations of fact. The claims being made, and the text that they have removed, are verbatim of the references from well respected organisations. Gobsmacked. PKdundee (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you are getting resolution, just not the one you want. I'm sure this point has been made before, but I'll make it again - Wikipedia is not here to be a mouthpiece for your organization, reposting your copy verbatim. And on the verbatim note, perhaps you should read WP:COPYVIO - outside of short attributed quotes, we don't repost content verbatim from other sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks I will try and take that on board.PKdundee (talk) 22:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Can I request that a NPOV editor looks at the current article and addresses the point that in the EXPANSION sub-section the entries dated 2007-2008 are moved into the 2007-present section. I dread to do this myself.PKdundee (talk) 08:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Simple Bob handled this Failedwizard (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

sorry I edited the article and failed to put in descriptor...that I reinstated the broken reference link and put back the original text that was deleted because of a broken reference link. Sorry.PKdundee (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• SimpleBob: can you explain what you mean in your last edit "sorry but you are interpreting the source which is original research. Other chains use different brands of laser." Actually, they dont - AMO is the only supplier of Intralase equipment and all other clinics use the older FS60, except for Optimax who have only a couple of iFS(TM)150. Quote from adjudication/reference: "We noted that the complainant had acknowledged that the AMO iFS 150 Laser used by Optical Express for flap creation was the most technologically advanced available for that aspect of the procedure." and Point 14: "We noted that Optical Express had provided an e-mail from AMO, the manufacturers of the iFS 150, which included an assurance that Optical Express were the only corporate laser vision correction provider in the UK that had that technology in every clinic. We therefore considered that the claim had been substantiated and was not misleading." PKdundee (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You are using Wikipedia to promote your company by scoring points over its competition. That is a very clear conflict of interest. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 15:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, his edit was backed up by the source—it says:

14. [Complaint] Not upheld

We noted that Optical Express had provided an e-mail from AMO, the manufacturers of the iFS 150, which included an assurance that Optical Express were the only corporate laser vision correction provider in the UK that had that technology in every clinic. We therefore considered that the claim had been substantiated and was not misleading.

On this point we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 11) clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 18.1 and 18.3 (Comparisons with identified competitors and/or their products) but did not find it in breach.

Which seems to substantiate the claim that they're the only company using that laser. Whether it should be in the article is a matter for consensus. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand why every fact presented needs to be seen as promotion while similarly weighted facts presented to slight the company from the same referenced sources appear to be deemed acceptable.PKdundee (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent Edits (branched - watchdog issue)

Relating to the Watchdog entry, I named Prof.David Gartry as the expert witness that Watchdog introduced as being “from the Royal College of Ophthalmologists” , as per two references in that paragraph – and in so doing suggested that he was an independent authority with no agenda or COI. While he is probably a member of said organisation and I assume good faith in that, he is an employee of and therefore “from” a competitor clinic. I included a reference that linked to his profile page on the competitor site to back up the statement that Watchdog failed to declare this in their programme or their web site. This edit and reference was removed by MikeWazowski as being poorly structured and an invalid reference. Can an NPOV editor review this and perhaps suggest a way in which we can communicate this obvious COI on that programme?PKdundee (talk) 08:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It is common for NHS consultants (Gartry is a consultant and also the director of refractive surgery at Moorfields Eye Hospital in London) who does not work in the private sector. Are you saying that only NHS staff, or university teaching staff who have no other source of income should be allowed to make a comment on the practices of a commercial company? --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 09:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

While Moorfields is an NHS hospital, it offers laser eye surgery on a commercial (private) basis and Prof.Gartry is involved with this. I dont mind anyone making statements and offering their professional view but I do think his conflict of interest should have been stated.PKdundee (talk) 10:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm keen to keep to the sourcable facts - rather than 'Watchdog did not inform its viewers that their expert witness was an employee of a competitor clinic.[citation needed]' how about 'The expert witness that appeared on watchdog was also employed by clinic X as a Y.[citation needed]'? You'd need a second citation that supported the Gartry was the expert in the program, but that would certainly be vastly better than the current version. Failedwizard (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I've also just split this talk page section into two so that it is a bit more managable, I hope nobody objects... Failedwizard (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

that sounds reasonable except he is not employed by anyone else - the RCO is an optional membership organisation, pretty like a golf club, but obviously for the profession. I would rather it said "is employed by". The Watchdog page already referenced has a section on him as the expert witness and on the show, and the Moorfields Private Eye Clinic link references him as working there http://www.moorfields-private.co.uk/Consultants/davidsgartry .PKdundee (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk about massaging sources to meet your corporate aims - You say only that he is employed by the Moorfields Private Eye Clinic because you want to discredit his testimony against your company. You conveniently ignore the fact that he is an NHS consultant (in the hospital where the private clinic is located) and is director of refractive surgery in that same hospital, is a visiting professor at one university and professor at another university. These are all likely to be the reasons why the BBC engaged him - yet that doesn't matter to you because you only want to present one specific source. You really are behaving badly here and I suggest you stop editing the article before you get both your own account and the company's IP blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 15:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not contest that his references are impecible, however the "outspoken" view of this individual which was featured in Watchdog is that a surgeon should be seen before date of surgery and this is at odds with the majority of the industry that has similarly esteemed surgeons and practioners in the USA, UK and across the world; who practice that patients should only be seen before date of surgery if there are any issues identified at the initial consultation.PKdundee (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, PK - didn't quite understand the 'except he is not employed by anyone else' part... could you expand a bit... I thought he was and that was the point...Failedwizard (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake for not making that clear. You suggested wording 'The expert witness that appeared on watchdog was also employed by clinic X as a Y.[citation needed]'? where I suggested 'The expert witness that appeared on watchdog is employed by Moorfields Private Eye Clinic as a Consultant.[citation needed]', my meaning being that Moorfields is his only/main employer but if it makes sense to go with your wording I am not overly concerned. However, my concern is that once written, others will change it.PKdundee (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I think that's a lot better than the current setup - will change. Failedwizard (talk) 07:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately saying he was a consultant at a private clinic fails to point out that he is also a noted expert for other reasons, so I balanced this in the article. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 09:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, now - do we have any idea how we go about sourcing a reference to 'also made a public retraction at the end of its programme over comments it made during the programme'? I've got no idea at all... Failedwizard (talk) 09:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the contributions made by all are balanced and fairly represented now.PKdundee (talk) 10:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Expect for the citation re: TV programme which I have a copy of but can't publish as it is BBC copyright. But let me make a small edit as I have been informed they made a statement rather than a retraction.PKdundee (talk) 10:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I removed it for now as unless we can citate, it will be considered hearsay.PKdundee (talk) 10:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

They actually read out a statement that we had produced concerning allegations on the programme. We do not wish to publish this, as it was a communicatiuon to them, so best left out.PKdundee (talk) 10:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Incase anyone thinks I am being devious, during the programme Watchdog stated that Padraig Harrington was not treated by Optical Express, whereas they read out a statement from OE that he was treated. A sort of retraction, but it's not materially important. Just thought I would explain.PKdundee (talk) 12:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

LEAD INTRO

The alert at the page header suggests that the LEAD should be improved. I would like to enhance the lead with added text referenced from credible sources, Mintel and Optician Online (I believe small snippets are covered under fair use). Thus the lead would read:

Optical Express is a retail optical services company in the United Kingdom and is part of the Optical Express Group, which operates in the optical, refractive eye surgery, dental, cosmetic and private healthcare industries. It is one of the four largest high street retail opticians in the UK, which, combined, account for 55% of the optical goods market, of which Optical Express has a 6% share.[1 - MINTEL ref] Optical Express experienced a 48% growth in UK retail distribution of optical goods and eyecare in the period 2007-2009, the largest increase of all the four large UK opticians. [2 - MINTEL ref]

Optical Express is the only of the four large UK high street Opticians to offer laser eye surgery. [3 - MINTEL ref] Laser eye surgery in the UK is dominated by three main players, Optical Express, Ultralase and Optimax accounting for around 80% of treatments and running some 80-85% of the clinics[4 - MINTEL ref], with Optical Express being the largest of the three. [5 Opticianonline ref]

I understand that many won't have access to MINTEL, (anyone who does can you confirm the following is accurate?), so I have taken out some excerpts of what has been said and placed it here so you can see the references to the above:

[1 - MINTEL Market Intelligence, Feb 2011 p.11] Pie chart "shares in sales of optical goods" showing Specsavers 23%, Boots/D&A 15%, Vision Express 11% and Optical Express 6%.

[2 - MINTEL Market Intelligence, Feb 2011 p.57] A table "FIGURE 28: RETAIL DISTRIBUTION OF OPTICAL GOODS AND EYECARE, 2007-09" whereby growth over the period is shown as thus: Specsavers (+7%), Boots/D&A (-6%), Vision Express (+13%), Optical Express (+48%), Independents (-8%), Supermarkets+Online (+23%)

[3 - MINTEL Market Intelligence, Feb 2011 p.10] Laser eye surgery, with penetration estimated at around 2% of the spectacle/contact lens wearing audience, has an improving image and trade sources estimate it could appeal to as many as 12% of those who need eyesight correction (in our survey 8% of those who wear glasses or contact lenses would consider laser). Optical Express is the only high street chain to have embraced this new technology to date.

[4 - MINTEL Market Intelligence, Feb 2011 p.43] Laser in the UK is dominated by three main players, Ultralase, Optimax and Optical Express, accounting for around 80% of treatments and running some 80-85% of the clinics.

[5 http://www.opticianonline.net/Articles/2010/11/26/26744/Ten+years+of+trends+in+UK+refractive+surgery.htm]:

"In 2004 Boots sold its laser interests to Optical Express, which today has the most clinics in the UK."

"Optical Express remains the largest group in the UK"

"Unlike in the past seven years, the UK's largest provider, Optical Express, declined to take part in the survey this year."

"Ultralase, the second largest group..."

"The third major group, London-based Optimax..."

Feedback welcome. PKdundee (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The nature of the claims that you are making ("largest", "only", etc.) should be avoided by someone with such a clear conflict of interest. They may be facts, albeit ones which can't be verified by people who don't subscribe to MINTEL research, but it would be much better if someone who didn't work for Optical Express added them - should they see fit to do that. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 16:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)