Talk:Presbyopia: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:46, 4 January 2021

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Presbyopia.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Medicine: Ophthalmology C‑class High‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Ophthalmology task force.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Presbyopia article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1: 90 days

It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

The article has just a single sentence regarding the actual cause of Presbyopia (decreasing levels of α-crystallin). I'd really like to know more about this. Why does it decrease with age? Are there treatments which could stabilize or increase α-crystallin? If not, why is it not possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42engineer (talk • contribs) 18:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heading

if you have presbyopia does far object focus in front of the retina and close object focus behind the retina

Description is not generally correct

When shortsighted people develop presbyopia they have no difficulty reading small print. So the basic description here is misleading. Davblo2 (talk) 10:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to edit it. This page doesn't seem to get much activity, so the chances that someone else will fix it are not high. I won't attempt to, because anything I do regarding eyesight is somehow seen as POV-pushing. Belteshazzar (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Visual training

[1] This New York Times article cites several sources which support this approach, and this was published later. It appears that this has actually been studied and found to be effective! I brought this up in September but got no response, and that post was just archived. I think the GlassesOff app should probably be mentioned here, but I refrained from doing that since I don't want to be seen as promoting it. Belteshazzar (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should really let other editors handle this topic entirely. ApLundell (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I brought this up three months ago, and no one did anything. Belteshazzar (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We got sanctions applied to you. Seems like you want to get an outright ban or block at this point. --Hipal (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should have pursued this instead of doing what I did at Bates method. Part of the reason I didn't do much at this article was that I was worried that content already here would end up getting removed, as occurred at the Bates method article. But in this case, there is clear support from valid sources (even if the New York Times piece itself doesn't qualify, sources it cites do). Belteshazzar (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 ::I brought this up three months ago, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Presbyopia&diff=997751521&oldid=993414203 no one did anything]. [[User:Belteshazzar|Belteshazzar]] ([[User talk:Belteshazzar|talk]]) 03:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 :::We got sanctions applied to you. Seems like you want to get an outright ban or block at this point. --[[User:Hipal|Hipal]] ([[User talk:Hipal|talk]]) 21:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
-::::I should have pursued this instead of doing what I did.  Part of the reason I didn't was that I was worried that content already here would end up getting removed, as occurred elsewhere.  But in this case, there is clear support from valid sources (even if the New York Times piece itself doesn't qualify, sources it cites do).  [[User:Belteshazzar|Belteshazzar]] ([[User talk:Belteshazzar|talk]]) 21:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
+::::I should have pursued this instead of doing what I did at [[Bates method]].  Part of the reason I didn't do much at this article was that I was worried that content already here would end up getting removed, as occurred at the Bates method article.  But in this case, there is clear support from valid sources (even if the New York Times piece itself doesn't qualify, sources it cites do).  [[User:Belteshazzar|Belteshazzar]] ([[User talk:Belteshazzar|talk]]) 21:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)