Talk:Bates method/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Warning template

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we get this page reviewed by a third party to see what aspects of the warning template at the top of the article are out of date?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

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

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

Ronz, this is why I placed the Barrett, Pollack, and Marg links in Further reading. Rather than checking all the references, it is easier to simply read through those (and Gardner, but that's only partially available online so I didn't include that), to see how independent sources address the Bates method and what subtopics they cover. Of course, these sources are referenced throughout the article as well, to offer their perspective and to prove that the subtopics have been discussed in third-party publications. If you're not swayed by my reasoning regarding the links, please at least explain your characterization of them as "promotional". PSWG1920 (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the one here with a username that's an abbreviation for one of Bates' books. Let's stop the promotion and harassment, and write a npov article. If your conflict of interest prevents you from doing so, then work on articles where you dont have the coi. --Ronz (talk) 22:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Barrett, Pollack, and Marg are all skeptical of the Bates method! In fact, reading Elwin Marg has caused me to reconsider my belief in the Bates method! What is your objection to these links? PSWG1920 (talk) 22:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Funny that you've repeatedly forgotten to mention that you're adding them with an extremely promotional link as well. Please read WP:NPOV. Please stop harassing me. --Ronz (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, then what is the problem with just deleting the "promotional" link? PSWG1920 (talk) 23:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is NPOV. I think I've said that a few times now, right? Making a list of "skeptical" or "critical" resources is inappropriate. --Ronz (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

In that case, no subdivision is needed. I didn't originally place one when I first added those links. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) At the request of User:PSWG1920 I am going to review the article and remove that tags that do not apply.  Atyndall93 | talk  08:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing the article, I have found that all most of the tags are valid and should stay on the article. However, I do believe that the article dos have a NPOV, so the neutrality tag should be removed.  Atyndall93 | talk  09:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't deny that individual sections may still have a few problems. But, for example, given the large number of independent sources cited, and the amount of references to them, I find it very difficult to justify the tag "It needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications", especially at the top of the page. I also don't see any significant problem with the introduction. Could you expound a bit on your assessment? Thank you for taking the time to do this. PSWG1920 (talk) 09:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The NPOV tag should stay per WP:UNDUE. When I have time, I'll again go over the entire article, and identify everything that is not supported by third-party references. While we've made good progress, still the majority of the article is not supported by anything other than Bates' own publications. --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

When you do that, Ronz, please take my advice to you above and first read through the four articles I listed. That will provide some perspective (beyond what you glean from simply checking the references) on what is covered by third-party sources. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Expounding:

• It needs additional references or sources for verification. - I would say that some sections do need more references, but I suppose that these could be replaced by {{fact}} tags.  Atyndall93 | talk  02:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• It needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications. - I did not have time to verify each and every source,but from what I can see, the majority of sources are from the net, and are not books.  Atyndall93 | talk  02:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because something is on the net doesn't mean it's not from a third-party publication. For example, the two Quackwatch articles are both taken from books, Elwin Marg's analysis was published by Berkeley, and many other articles linked to come from scientific journals. There are a few news articles referenced as well. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Referencing the books that they were taken from and then providing a link to the site that they are hosted on would help readers to understand that the quotes are originally from books. Or even better, find a Google Books version of the book and reference that.  Atyndall93 | talk  08:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Its neutrality is disputed. - I would same, at User:Ronz's asking of me to read WP:UNDUE that it is nearly impossible to give undue weight to the Bates method (being a minority view) on the article about the Bates method. But the tag may remain if others disagree.  Atyndall93 | talk  02:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Its introduction may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's lead section guidelines. - From WP:LEAD The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article, I think that the Bates method intro fails to do that.  Atyndall93 | talk  02:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you think it's too long, or something else? To me it seems to do fine as a concise version of the article. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

My main point is that you don't summarize any of his treatments in the lead section (I think that is an important point). Things such as Although some people claim to have been helped by the Bates method reference the bates method, but nowhere in the lead does it actually say what the bates method is (the stuff about the individual techniques e.g. sunning etc.), which is one of the most important points in the entire article.  Atyndall93 | talk  08:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I have added a brief summary of the techniques and also reworded the references to the method in the introduction. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• It may contain improper references to self-published sources. - This is probably the most easy to fix, just instead of quoting the Wikisource version of the Bates method text quote the Google Books version, as the Wikisource version can be easily changed. Atyndall93 | talk  02:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I had that same thought about the wikisource references, as discussed above, and actually started changing the links to point to Google Books, but then I noticed that some of the pages are poorly reproduced there. Now, the best solution in my opinion would be to point the links to an html version of the book, of which there are several online. However, all of them seem to be hosted by pro-Bates sites, and that has proven to be unacceptable to Ronz and Famousdog. In fact, the book references previously linked to Imagination Blindness, but Ronz changed them to wikisource. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say reference the Google Books method at all times as it cannot be vandalised etc and possibly provide a link to the much more legible Wikisource version if the text on a certain page is unreadable.  Atyndall93 | talk  08:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have changed all the Bates book reference links to Google Books. I flagged a few pages there as unreadable so hopefully that problem will in time solve itself. I have to admit it irritates me that we apparently can't link to an html version as that seems like the best option, but I'm not going to make an issue out of it. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of accommodation

In the interest of accuracy, this part of the Accommodation section would seem to need either to be rephrased, given a different source, or both:

Modern equipment, not available to Bates, has made possible the observation of the eye in great detail. Modern observations have shown the lens changing shape when the eye accommodates.

Philip Pollack is cited. However, his chapter almost exclusively criticizes Bates' methodology and conclusions based on the equipment and evidence which was available to him. The article follows up with a 1952 quote from Elwin Marg on this subject, but it's not clear whether the equipment Marg refers to existed in Bates' day or not. PSWG1920 (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have tentatively changed the reference to Gardner. I got the impression, based on what was cited from his book in the introduction (which I deleted since it basically repeated what was in the accommodation section), that he may be a better source for this statement. While this is not in the Google sample pages, if anyone has Gardner's book could you check the first two pages of the chapter on Bates? PSWG1920 (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the long delay in responding to this. I have Gardner's book. Gardner makes emphatic statements to the effect that Bates was wrong, but does not mention anything about the relevant research being "modern", nor about any use of equipment not available to Bates. In any case, Gardner's book itelf is over fifty years old now, isn't it, so can hardly contain "modern" research conclusions. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I had that same thought. The paragraph in question probably needs to be rewritten. The Elwin Marg reference is relevant, however, but that also is from the 1950's, so it doesn't quite flow from the previous sentence about "modern" equipment. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Warning template (again)

A continuation of this discussion. I am concerned that this template is never going to get removed. It appears from the preceding discussion that Atyndall (who I consider a reliable neutral source regarding this page) does not have a problem with many of the items listed in the warning template. For those items that he does have a problem with, I think PSWG1920 has done a reasonable job of trying to implement Atyndalls recommendations, so why can't we remove this blanket banner which casts a shadow over the whole article and replace it with tags on specific "offensive" sections? Below, I have added sections dealing with each issue covered in the banner. Let's take a vote on each point and try to improve the article as we go, eh? Famousdog (talk) 13:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Third-party sources:

To be honest, I don't think that you can have a discussion about this topic without providing refs from Bates and his followers, so perhaps this tag needs to stay. Famousdog (talk) 13:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of third-party sources cited, most prominently Barrett, Pollack, Marg, and Gardner. All four of which, again, I would recommend that anyone reviewing this article read through first, to get some perspective on how independent sources treat this subject and what subtopics they cover. The tag simply says that the article "needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications", which the article clearly has. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't really want to get involved in editing this article, but something has gone very wrong with the discussion if Barrett, Pollack and Gardner are being described as "third-party" and "independent". Who on earth are the second party in that case? Marg is rather more credible, in that he does attempt a fair investigation and has actually sought the cooperation of Bates practitioners. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 07:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the use of "third-party" at all. It implies total objectivity, which is probably an impossible ideal. As SamuelTheGhost says, Barrett and Gardner are notable skeptics (they could therefore be described as the "second-party", I guess!) and since the Pollack ref is a book, I dunno what his qualifications are. Barrett might be an evil skeptic, but the article does reference a response to it from a pro-Bates writer (Kiesling) which I think provides the necessary balance. There are several articles cited that are written by journalists (eg. Bradley) and one from a trustworthy medical website (Skarnulis). Regarding the scientific side there are several references about specific topics such as aphakia, accommodation and myopia from peer-reviewed journals such as the Amer. Jour. Ophthal., J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus, Clin Exp Optom, Arch Ophthalmol, etc. Marg is a respected ophthalmologist and that article also appears in a peer-reviewed journal (Am J Opt Arch Am Ac Opt). The critical thing, for me, is whether a source is peer-reviewed. "Third-party" is an insurance salesman's term and doesn't belong here. To conclude: total objectivity is an impossible ideal, most articles are from respectable sources, lets remove this tag, eh? Famousdog (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I do agree, and I was only using "third party" because it was the terminology already being applied here. I even question the emphasis on "reliable" sources, because, as I have attempted to point out here previously, and have seen the point made elsewhere, any sources are reliable references for what they themselves claim. In any event, the tag in question links to WP:Reliable Sources, and there are many sources in this article which would in general qualify as reliable, some referenced extensively. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality:

Atyndall and myself do not agree with Ronz's argument of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE precisely because this is an article about a fringe theory. I suspect PSWG1920 would agree. I would be perfectly happy removing this tag. Specific infringements of NPOV could then be targeted. Famousdog (talk) 13:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you provide some examples of other fringe articles that support the treatment here. The problem that I see is that this article currently treats this fringe topic as if it is not a fringe topic. --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Having read WP:UNDUE, and considering that this article is about the Bates method, I can see only two basic ways the article could overall give it undue weight:

• Stating Bates' or his followers' claims as fact, which as far as I have noticed this article does not do, and I have been careful not to do that in my edits.
• Relegating all of the criticisms to a single section or omitting them entirely, the former of which the article previously did, but that was fixed in February-March.

Ronz, could you be more specific on how the article treats the Bates method as if it is not a fringe topic? I'm not sure how "examples of other fringe articles that support the treatment here" would help, considering there is no guarantee the fringe guidelines have been followed in other such articles. Furthermore, every topic is different. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE states:

In order to be notable, a fringe theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents. References that are brought about because of the notability of a related subject — such as the creator of the theory, and not the theory itself — should be given far less weight when deciding on notability. Due consideration should be given to the fact that reputable news sources often cover less than strictly notable topics in a lighthearted fashion, such as on April Fool's Day, as "News of the Weird" or during "slow news days". (See junk food news, silly season, komkommertijd.)

Theories should receive attention in Wikipedia in proportion to the level of detail in the sources from which the article is written. For example, if the only references to a particular theory are in news sources, then a level of detail which is greater than that which appears in these news sources is inappropriate, as it would constitute original research. WP:NOR strongly encourages the collection and organization of information from existing secondary sources, and allows for careful use of primary sources in addition to these; such information is not "original research", but "source-based research", and is essential to writing an encyclopedia.

The article goes on and on and on about what Bates says, with few if any references that indicate that such treatment of Bates' views is important or notable. --Ronz (talk) 18:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted to provide such references, but again, see my suggestion above on the third-party works to read through. That will provide a better perspective on this than simply checking the individual references would. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I submit that this problem, to the extent that it existed, has now been fixed. In the "Bates' theories" and "Bates' treatments" sections, I've cut everything down to a level of detail similar to that presented by independent sources which are cited. Most of the lengthy Bates quotes have been removed, and those that remain relate closely to what is discussed by independent sources. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm asking you to provide examples of other articles on fringe topics that are similar to this one. --Ronz (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

How about Electional astrology. It goes on and on and on about the Hindu astrological traditions. Other astrology-related articles also seem to follow those lines. PSWG1920 (talk) 06:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The Bates Method is notable enough to have been written about by "notable individuals" like Martin Gardner and had peer-reviewed articles in "mainstream publications" written about it by people "independent of the theory". Other fringe theories, such as Orgone, haven't received that kind of mainstream scientific attention, and yet they warrant WP articles about them. As long as the article makes it clear that this is a fringe theory with little empirical support (which it does), what's the problem? Famousdog (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead para:

With the changes added by PSWG1920 after Atyndall's comments, I think the lead now meets requirements and this tag should be removed. Famousdog (talk) 13:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I never saw a huge problem with the lead section, but Atyndall had a good point regarding the references to the method, which I changed. If Ronz or anyone else still believes this tag is valid, perhaps the specific problem with the intro could be explained? PSWG1920 (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Self-published sources:

Again, I don't think that linking to Bates' works is a problem since his theories are the subject of this article. I am very suspicious of, and recommend avoiding use of several promotional websites (Central Fixation, Imagination Blindness, etc.), but the article has already been purged of these links looooooong ago. Regarding the source of links to Bates' works, PSWG1920 changed several references to the scanned googlebooks versions which can't be edited, but these were changed back to Wikisource by PhilKnight due to Wikipedia's policy of preference for sister projects. I don't see any way out of this impasse. Famousdog (talk) 13:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

External link has 10 links to commercial sites

Look below on the webpage below :

• http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/eyequack.html

Is this spam acceptable according to wikipedia standards ? Seeyou (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. The content-to-advertising ratio is high. It's not the typical spammy site that has banner ads flanking all four edges and a vague paragraph in the middle. It's encyclopedia information, by three named authors with at least reasonable credentials, and thirty-seven references supporting what's said. In fact I didn't even see why you were saying it was spam until I scrolled to the very bottom of the page.

I'd support the addition of any web page with a similar balance: nine screenfuls of text without visible advertising until you get to the bottom, and several references per paragraph, mostly to well-known journals. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Perfectly acceptable. --Ronz (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ronz and Dpbsmith here. If we couldn't use a source like that, it would be much more difficult to have an article about this subject. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with those responses and caution against looking for spurious reasons to discard perfectly legitimate links. Virtually all websites have some advertising - like Dpbsmith said: its all about balance. Famousdog (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Since we all want to improve this aricle. See :

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links :

If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it.

Reading : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam

Contribute cited text, not bare links. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. If you have a source to contribute, first contribute some facts that you learned from that source, then cite the source. Don't simply direct readers to another site for the useful facts; add useful facts to the article, then cite the site where you found them. You're here to improve Wikipedia—not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto some other site, right? (If not, see #1 above.)

Another reason the site contains a lie : See : http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/bates.html As to staring into the sun, an important part of the Bates therapy. Or is Bates therapy not equal to the Bates method. But then they should define what is meant by Bates therapy. They do not.

By the way I counted 10 spam links. Quite a lot in my opinion. Seeyou (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

All I can think is that you don't understand English well enough to understand the discussions we've had and the relevant policies and guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ronz. I have got a dictionary. Which alinea and line of which policy or guideline are you refering to ? Wikipedia policies and guidelines should have more weight than opinions of editors like us. I want to learn and you have got the chance to show me something I can not find.

I would really appreciate it if you could show me the prove this spam is accaptable according to wikipedia standards. Policy ? Alinea ? Line ? Or anyone else of course.Seeyou (talk) 07:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Start with WP:CON and WP:TALK. --Ronz (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes the teacher also has to learn Which alinea paragraph and whick line. Cut and paste the info you want to share with me and your public. Otherwise your arguments can also be fake. Do the same as I did abouve First the reference then copy and paste the line(s). Seeyou (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Seeyou asked me to comment: I think that the link is fine, the ads are small and unobtrusive, I would say the reference should stay.  Atyndall93 | talk  12:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

My thought here is that this source is not peer-reviewed (or in anyway subject to publishing scrutiny). It is a self-published source. As such, if it used as a citation, it's corresponding text should be presented as opinion, not fact. (i.e. "According to so-and-so..."). Furthermore, this self-published article is being used both as a referenced source and as an external link (further reading). It should not be both. External links are for sources containing material which cannot be incorporated into the body of the article (maybe for copyright issues, for instance). I would remove it from further reading. I think this will make a happy compromise. I didn't have a chance to check the other external links, but if any are repeats of sources, the same should apply across the board. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

In that case, all four links in the Further Reading section should be deleted, since all are also being used as sources, and the first two are from wikisource and are now wikilinked to in the introduction. I had thought of Further Reading as a way to highlight the most important links, but I guess I was wrong. I added the quackwatch link in an attempt to make it readily apparent that this subject is still notable, since that is a contemporary, periodically updated, independent (i.e. not promotional of Bates) source. The notability of the Bates method was challenged above by someone who apparently had never before heard of it and indicated s/he had only perused the article, and I was trying to help avoid similar time-wasting. But we can delete the Further Reading section if that is what the rules call for. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Quoting Wikipedia:Further_reading#Further_reading.2FExternal_links:

However, if an item used as a reference covers the topic beyond the scope of the article, and has significant usefulness beyond verification of the article, you may want to include it here as well. This also makes it easier for users to identify all the major recommended resources on a topic.

Given the guideline quoted above, the Further Reading section can be kept as is if we agree that each item in it "has significant usefulness beyond verification of the article." --Ronz (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Atyndall, Which information is according to you valuable and not yet integrated in the article ? The argument : and has significant usefulness beyond verification of the article. Is complete nonsense. The link gives a very clear lie: As to staring into the sun, an important part of the Bates therapy. This is not true as you can read in the paragraph Sunning. In the past there has also been discussion about a link providing websites of teachers worldwide. This link was removed. The argument spam. If this link is accepted this article will never provide neutral information. Seeyou (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Since I am not an expert on the subject I would not go as far as saying what is useful and what is not but even if Quackwatch has some inaccuracies in it I wouldn't consider it to be spam as QuackWatch is very well known non-profit website. And QuackWatch wouldn't unbalance the NPOV in the article.  Atyndall93 | talk  06:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Atyndall, In my opinion the reason wikipedia created guidelines is to guide editors to improve the article. At the moment the guidelines are neglected. The spam can be avoided by integrating the info ( with their orignal reference ) into the article. Spamproblem solved. Btu the info is already in the article. I will just ask some ohter objective users to their opinion. Any Suggestions ? Seeyou (talk) 20:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned to you multiple times now, you don't appear to understand the policies and guidelines. Further, your repeated reference to finding other, objective editors is insulting and uncivil. If you continue, I'll start refactoring it all out as repeated, ongoing harassment. --Ronz (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This is what a has been said by Mastcell in the past :

Quite a few of the external links in this article violate the guideline on external links, in that they are primarily promotional, add nothing encyclopedic to the article, contain unverifiable research, etc. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor a clearinghouse for all links Bates-related or a substitute for Google. External links should be kept to a minimum (see WP:EL). Instead of fighting over expanding the external links section, the time would be better spent finding reliable sources among those links and incorporating the encyclopedic content from those sources directly into the article. MastCell ^Talk 22:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Further Arguments from guideline on external links,  :

This page in a nutshell: Adding external links to an article can be a service to the reader, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article.

What should be linked Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any. not applicable An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply. not applicable Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. not applicable Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews. not applicable

Links normally to be avoided Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. Applicable

Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research". Applicable

[edit] Avoid undue weight on particular points of view On articles with multiple points of view, the number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to other equal points of view, nor give undue weight to minority views. Add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view—in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight. Applicable Seeyou (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This discussion was started almost a month ago. I think it's time to put it to rest. It might be useful to list the other places where it has been mentioned:

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#external_link_in_bates_method_article
• User_talk:MastCell#Request_for_comment

--Ronz (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Additional sources:

Remove this tag and tag any specific instances requiring additional sources, as per suggestion by Atyndall. At least then we will know which sections need work. Famousdog (talk) 13:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It is illogical to have that tag at the top when there are presently zero tags in the article. And there would have to be several to justify that tag at the top, imo. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Found one : In the present article : The concept that relaxing the extraocular muscles can reliably or predictably reduce refractive error has not been substantiated by patients whose muscles are loosened during strabismus surgery. Good luck in finding the source. Pseudoscience is present, but it is pro skeptic. So it is accepted. For the unaware Eyesight is not only about the eyes it is also about the brain connected to the eyes. Especially for strabismus in which in most cases the problem is primarily located in the brain. Seeyou (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a source, but the way it is used here appears to constitute a synthesis, though I can't say that for sure without seeing the complete text of the source. I have tagged that paragraph in the article, so hopefully it can either be improved or deleted. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Article now based on independent sources

I submit that what Ronz has consistently characterized as the main problem with this article (to justify the tags at the top), namely a lack of independent sources for the material presented, has now been almost completely fixed. Several independent sources and references have been added since the tags went up in early March, and most recently I have trimmed down the Bates quotes and references to a level of detail similar to that presented by independent sources which are cited in the respective sections. The quotes which remain relate closely to what is discussed by the sources, and some are also quoted by them. PSWG1920 (talk) 09:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate all the work you've done. I think it's much improved, but still needs a great deal of work. I'm unlikely to have any time soon to go through the article section-by-section again, identifying everything that's poorly sourced, original research, biased, or otherwise questionable per WP:FRINGE or WP:NPOV. Let's see if we can get other editors to help. There are numerous ways to request reviews. --Ronz (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually did request an assessment from WikiProject Rational Skepticism, which for almost exactly a year now has rated this article as B-class. I'm not sure anything will come of that, however, since that page seems to get almost no attention. And I know you've listed this at the Fringe noticeboard with little result so far. If nothing comes of that, perhaps we should try a different noticeboard, such as NPOV or RS? Any other options you have in mind? PSWG1920 (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking of trying something neutral first, to get some fresh eyes. Many of the current problems are pretty fundamental (recently: [1]). I'm not finding a good place to make a request that isn't backlogged - WP:RFF might be good despite the backlog. --Ronz (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That looks like it's worth a try. Would it be okay if we post a link which shows the difference between the current version and the one on which you placed the tags? PSWG1920 (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the tags from the top and tagged specific sections and statements which appear to contain original research, mainly in the form of syntheses. The tags which headed the article were outdated and, I would argue, too broad to be helpful in any case. I think the proof of that is that requests for outside help have so far yielded little. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Haven't been on WP for a long time (frankly because I was sick of getting nowhere regarding this page and others). I very much approve of what has been done in my absence. Tagging specific (potential) infringements of WP policy and dubious statements is much better than the blanket warning that used to adorn the page. Now we can work on getting the details right...! Famousdog (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

And if anyone again places warning tags at the top (which I would not encourage), they should at least be complemented by tags within the article's text, so that the potential problems can be easily found. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Aldous Huxley

I don't understand SamuelTheGhost's removal of the information about Huxley. He is probably the most famous individual to claim successful results with the Bates method. His story is referenced by multiple independent sources which address the subject. The article made clear that Bennett Cerf's account was an anecdote and left open the possibility that it wasn't accurate. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the section is a bit questionable, but it's better than much of the article. I don't understand SamuelTheGhost's edit summary. --Ronz (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The whole critique of the Bates Method is based on the fact that its successes are only supported by anecdotal evidence. There are numerous accounts in the pro-Bates books of cases where the BM has produced dramatic improvement. I had assumed that such stories are ruled out of the article, because they are not part of controlled experiments. Was I wrong about that? In general, are "anecdotes", that is, individual case histories, to be allowed or disallowed? or are some to be allowed and others disallowed, and if so on what criteria? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I am thinking that the criteria is whether it is discussed specifically by independent sources. As discussed in the above section, a long-standing problem of this article, which I admittedly contributed to but which has now been fixed in my opinion, was that large portions were based only on the writings of Bates or pro-Bates method sources. But the current article certainly shows that Bates claimed to have helped people improve their eyesight, and that "natural vision teachers" today make similar claims. PSWG1920 (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

To use the criterion "discussed specifically by independent sources" sounds reasonable. I'd like to be sure that that's something other editors agree with, since it might be used to introduce some other histories. But I don't see how it in any way covers this case, so far. "Mocked by a clearly anti-Bates source" would be more accurate. I notice that you've hurriedly adjusted the article's text to stop it being, as it was before, even less fair than Gardner's, since Bates never said he could cure keratitis, and Huxley never claimed that it had been cured. But neither the article nor Gardner attempt anything like a fair "discussion" of either the Hollywood incident or Huxley's sight in general. In any case there's nothing "independent" about Gardner. His Bates chapter opens with an account of how Bates left his wife, as if that had anything to do with his theories about eyesight; Gardner makes no pretence of being unbiased and makes only about one feeble foray into fair-mindedness. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Huxley's case is also discussed by Elwin Marg, who is also referenced in that section, although he doesn't discuss the "Hollywood incident" as it hadn't happened or wasn't known about at the time of that publication. I do share your concerns about fairness, but I'm not sure that it's wikipedia's purpose to be fair in that manner. Take a look at this edit and its summary. And I'm fairly certain that Gardner's book is considered to be an "independent source" for the purposes of wikipedia, and it has been useful in helping to reference sections which might have been deleted otherwise due to a lack of such. PSWG1920 (talk) 15:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Elwin Marg is a pretty fair source. If any account of Huxley's case is to be included in the article, I'd be happy if it was based on what Marg says, including what he quotes Lancaster as saying.

"I'm not sure that it's wikipedia's purpose to be fair in that manner": I'm absolutely sure that it must be wikipedia's purpose to be fair in every manner. That's what I understand WP:NPOV to mean. If I didn't believe that I'd turn to full-time vandalism.

"Take a look at ... this edit and its summary." I did. I'm appalled. Does that answer your question?

"I'm fairly certain that Gardner's book is considered to be an "independent source" for the purposes of wikipedia". Who says so? Is there some list of accepted sources that I didn't know about? Gardner's book is effectively extended journalism. It's readable, informative, amusing, unscholarly, unreliable, not entirely honest and sometimes grossly unfair. He consistently uses the personal attack where the scholarly approach would be to use reasoned argument. He very rarely uses the latter. Of course in many cases he has chosen easy targets, so it's easy to overlook the unfairness of his methods, but I think that his book actually undermines the case for skepticism.

"it has been useful in helping to reference sections which might have been deleted otherwise". Yes, I'd noticed that. That is rather regrettable. In some of those cases the reference can still stand, but in my view in general Gardner is not WP:RS, so the search should continue. It's a bit ridiculous in any case to be making such extensive use of a source that is 50 years old. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of what you say I do not disagree with in principle, SamuelTheGhost. Perhaps someone versed in policy could address your concerns. And if you want to rewrite the discussion of Huxley, go ahead. PSWG1920 (talk) 23:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I was the one who introduced the Martin Gardner material about Aldous Huxley material, in February, 2006. I don't want to get into an extended discussion, except to say that a) Bates supporters are right to mention Huxley as a famous Bates advocate, and therefore the material on Huxley should not be omitted; b) Bates opponents are right to insist on a balanced presentation of the Huxley case, and a clear statement of exactly what the Bates method did or did not achieve for Huxley; c) I really like SamuelTheGhost's current version. I think it's very good. When I first read the diff, I could not, in fact, determine whether any spin was being applied or, if so, in which direction. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Synthesized and original criticism

The biggest remaining problem with this article, in my opinion, is the apparently original criticism of Bates. WP:FRINGE states that "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. Criticisms of fringe theories should be reported on relative to the visibility, notability, and reliability of the sources that do the criticizing." The most problematic current instance of this may be the last paragraph of the Shifting and Swinging section. The source cited does not address the Bates method or anything to do with vision improvement as far as I can tell. The whole paragraph looks very interpretative. If criticisms of Bates' techniques are to be presented, they need to come from sources which actually deal with the Bates method, unless perhaps the point is very straightforward. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraph in question, since I couldn't find a relevant source for any of it. PSWG1920 (talk) 05:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I see your concerns. I added the Stevens reference because it is one of the most significant papers in vision science and demonstrates unequivocally (in a human) that the retinal image fades if stabilised. In addition, we also know that one's eyes cannot be made to "drift" as you move your body (which, on my reading, is what Bates was proposing), since the eye will fixate/move/fixate/move... in order to obtain as much information from the retinal image as possible. I see your point that the Stevens ref is not directly relevant to the issue of shifting and swinging, but in light of this paper and what we now know about eye movements, it is highly unlikely that what Bates proposed will do anything. The justification for using the techniques of shifting and swinging basically boil down to: "moving your eyes around and looking at stuff improves your vision." This is nonsensical, Bates' assumptions are wrong, its impossible to prove (since everybody does what he's proposing as "therapy" all the time, anyway), and Bates provides no physiological theory for why improvement would occur. I'm not defending original syntheses in WP, but the fact is that shifting and swinging make no sense in light of almost a century of neuroscientific/psychological/ophthalmological research. Anyway... I'll have a look at how we can address this section that doesn't require any original synthesis. Famousdog (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this the link you were referencing from Howstuffworks.com ? You didn't fill in a url. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes. Whoops. Silly me. Famousdog (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've attempted to make the section less interpretative on both ends. Bates seems (to me) to have been more concerned with the quality of eye movements than with the quantity (hence the emphasis on the swing), so pointing out that even eyes with sight problems are moving continuously does not in itself debunk Bates on that point, imo, and more importantly we have not found a Bates-related source which makes that argument. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes WP:OR and WP:RS seem quite restricting, but in this case I'm very grateful for them, since they mean it is not necessary to point out the clear logical errors in what Famousdog says above. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Oooo, why so aggressive Sam? Look, I'm returning the critical end section I wrote to the swinging and shifting section because it points out totally fallacious arguments and absence of experimental evidence. Its not "original research", its simply stating that without EVIDENCE that shifting or swinging occurs, Bates' "treatments" based on these concepts are meaningless. Also, PSWG, I think you misunderstand my use of qualititative and quantitative. Famousdog (talk) 13:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I've reworked the section to avoid any mention of "normal sight", so hopefully that problem is solved. PSWG1920 (talk) 02:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to incorporate those comments rather than wholesale deletion, however, I think that sidestepping discussion of what constitutes "normal"/"abnormal" sight, means that the article fails to address one of the fundamental problems/assumptions of the BM. Famousdog (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If a source is found which makes that point in connection with Bates, then of course it could be cited in the article. But in the absence of such a source, I'm fairly certain that discussion would constitute original research. PSWG1920 (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Section tags

Modern variants

First, I disagree with the dates on the tags. The impression is created that these tags have been on that specific section for five months with no resolution, which is misleading. Is there a guideline for this type of situation?

Secondly, does this edit solve any of the problems? PSWG1920 (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

POV tags require discussion, and I wanted to make it easier for other editors to find the relevant discussions.

I think your edits definitely help. I don't think the Mail Tribune article contributes anything, being just a promotional piece for a class given by a student of Quackenbush. --Ronz (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how keeping the earlier dates on the tags is going to help anyone find anything. Past discussions involving the section in question have been scattered, moreover in threads now archived. How about if we have a focused discussion here, link to archived threads if need be, and fix the dates to reflect when the tags were placed on the section. Perhaps you could begin by listing what you see as the specific problems in the section? PSWG1920 (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I was pretty clear when discussed the issues just prior to and then again when I added the tag: Talk:Bates_method/Archive_3#NPOV and Talk:Bates_method/Archive_3#NPOV_and_length_concerns. --Ronz (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Since there are two subsections, let's see if we can move the tags around to be more helpful. To start with, can you list what you see as the "improper references to self-published sources" in the section? PSWG1920 (talk) 00:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

See my previous recommendations in the discussions which I linked above. --Ronz (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're not going to discuss the current version, I don't see how we are going to get anywhere, especially considering this section did not even really exist at the time of your previous recommendations. I could take guesses as to what you think should be changed, and I do believe the section is a bit weak, but not to the extent that the tags would indicate. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm discussing the current version. If you are still having trouble identifying self-published sources, then get someone to help you. --Ronz (talk) 02:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I can tell that the last two sources cited in the "See Clearly Method" subsection are self-published, but I submit that it is a valid use of fringe sources per WP:RS. They are only being used to show what their viewpoints are, and the section also has independent sources establishing the importance of this topic (a point which I made previously.) PSWG1920 (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Ronz regarding the Mail Tribune piece. It's just promotional guff and doesn't add anything to the article beyond the use of breathing exercises, which might be relaxing and reassuring but probably don't have any effect on vision. I test people's acuity and stereovision every day and telling them to relax and breathe doesn't improve their vision one iota. This "Dorea" doesn't know what the hell she's talking about, she's just parroting Quackenbush. Vision doesn't "want to be clear". It doesn't want anything! What the hell do hand-wavy, throwaway comments like "staring is the largest culprit of strain" actually mean and when I read the bit about the "nose feather" I almost choked on my tea! ...and don't get me started on her hypocritical quotation of the hippocratic oath ("do not harm") while she simultaneously encourages people to give up their (prescribed) glasses. Famousdog (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, the Mail Tribune piece is the only semblance of an independent source I have found which even mentions Quackenbush! The "Natural Vision Improvement" subsection seems to be the weakest part of the "Modern Variants" section. Perhaps the "third party publications" tag should be moved there (I'm trying to figure out how to make the tags more helpful.) PSWG1920 (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Accommodation

Regarding this edit summary: yes, the two sources in the final paragraph are self-published, but just as in the above case, I submit that this is a valid use of fringe sources per WP:RS, as they are only being used to show what their viewpoints are. I also don't understand how this is a synthesis. Both sources are Bates-related, and I don't really see how they are joined together to reach any conclusion if that is what is being claimed. Both state basically the same thing, one in more detail than the other. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. On what basis are these self-published articles determined to be valid in this case? What makes them reliable? On what basis have we determined that they are worth mentioning at all? --Ronz (talk) 23:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

From WP:RS

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

From WP:FRINGE:

While fringe theory proponents are excellent sources for describing what they believe, the best sources to use when determining the notability and prominence of fringe theories are independent sources.

The section does cite three different independent sources which directly deal with the Bates method, on the subject of Bates' theory of accommodation.

As for being reliable, any sources are reliable references for what they themselves claim. PSWG1920 (talk) 00:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Even if we were properly using these references in this way, how do we choose who we pick as these sources? --Ronz (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The page cited from Imagination Blindness is a specific response to Philip Pollack, whose book is referenced in the section and several other times in the article. As for Visions of Joy, there the point is articulated well, and simply. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that we have similar if not identical problems throughout the article. A helpful step to a solution would be to list all the best references currently used (independent references from reliable sources) and be sure we all agree upon them and how they're used. This can be done for the current sections under discussion as a start. --Ronz (talk) 23:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see the need to approach it that way, and I'm not sure if it would help us with the issues at hand, but I'll participate if you go that route. PSWG1920 (talk) 00:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a sugestion. As I've pointed out before, given how long editors have had to fix this article, I think it would be very appropriate to more aggressively remove poorly sourced sections per WP:V and WP:NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Given how long editors have had to fix this article? Speaking for myself, I have been fixing it for quite a while. At this point I see only one subsection which is poorly-sourced. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:49, 6 August 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)

Time to remove poor sources

Let's start removing the unreliable sources used without any supporting independent sources. I'll start by listing two below. We agree they're self-published. The don't meet WP:RS. We have no independent sources indicating they are important points of view to include in an encyclopedia article:

• http://www.iblindness.org/articles/kiesling-rebuttal.html
• http://www.visionsofjoy.org (multiple references)

--Ronz (talk) 02:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I will reiterate my support for keeping them in the article. Such sources do not form its primary basis at this point, and are used only to reference opinions of prolific Bates method proponents, on relevant topics which are discussed by independent sources. Regarding the specific material referenced, I see no obvious violation of the terms for using questionable sources. See above for more detail. PSWG1920 (talk) 02:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to believe that the sources above are notable opinions of notable Bates proponents. Per WP:NPOV, they do not belong in the article. --Ronz (talk) 15:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

First, where and how does NPOV state this?

Second, you seem to be doing some waffling on your reasons for rejecting these sources. Your reasoning had been that they were "unreliable", "self-published", "promotional". Now that it has been shown that none of those things are in themselves grounds for completely excluding a source, your argument shifts to "non-notable".

Third, as Famousdog has pointed out a few times, medical professionals who are aware of the Bates method generally feel that it has been long ago debunked. Thus it's going to be hard to find independent works which refer to modern Bates method proponents. That should be a consideration here. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

First: State what? Something like WP:UNDUE?

Second: No waffling here. I believe I've mentioned all these concerns before. I didn't think it necessary to list them all every time we discuss this, especially after I've made links to past discussions.

Third: Exactly my point. It may just be a minority viewpoint that isn't significant enough to mention. --Ronz (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

How does WP:UNDUE exclude all use of sources like the ones in question?

Regarding the waffling, my point was that your previous arguments have been shown to be lacking, in that the reasons you gave are not grounds for completely excluding a source. Before now I don't recall you ever labeling a source itself "non-notable" as grounds for removing it.

I have a hard time seeing how it's not significant, practically speaking, what current Bates method proponents believe about a relevant topic which is addressed by multiple independent sources. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Because none of the references meet the criteria listed there.

"my point was that your previous arguments have been shown to be lacking" I disagree, and find the statement inappropriate per WP:TALK and WP:CON.

But it isn't up to what you or I see as significant or not, it's up to the sources we use as references. I've repeatedly stated that we need such references or otherwise risk having much of the article removed as poorly sourced information that violates NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite see how the use of these sources in the Bates method article violates WP:UNDUE. Could you point to a specific line of that policy? PSWG1920 (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

1. 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. Now an important qualification: 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.
2. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view.
3. Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements.
4. Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.
5. Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.
6. Disagreements over whether something is approached neutrally can usually be avoided through the practice of good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources. A little ground work can save a lot of time justifying a point later.

--Ronz (talk) 14:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Most of that seems more applicable to whether and to what extent the Bates method merits mention in a more general optometry-related article. As for the fourth quote, I don't see how any relevant reference to the majority viewpoint is excluded, nor how any majority-view content is being rewritten from the perspective of any minority view. Moreover, references to the sources in question currently make up only a small portion of the article, much less so than they did during the February/March discussions. For example, the Accommodation section has six paragraphs, and only the last one references iblindness and visionsofjoy. PSWG1920 (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with some of what PSWG says. The article in its current form is a point-by-point dissection of Bates' theories and method that any neutral reader is likely to come away from thinking that the BM is just quackery (which is most certainly the majority view). I would actually go even further and remove some material from the lengthy discussions of Bates' treatments. It is perfectly fair to summarise them and move on without huge long quotes from Bates' (obscure, contradictory, vague) writings that are open to interpretation and which only manage to start edit wars! Famousdog (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as removing "huge long quotes" from Bates and lengthy discussion of the treatments, I feel that I've already done that. Have you read the current section on Bates' treatments recently? The few quotes of any length which remain relate very closely to what is discussed by independent sources (at least, sources that are not promoting Bates' method) cited in the respective sections. The level of detail here is now similar to that presented by Gardner, Marg, Pollack, etc. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but those aren't encyclopedia articles! Famousdog (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

As was quoted above, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; thus "a view may be spelled out in great detail" on a page devoted to it. PSWG1920 (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It can be spelled out in detail, if properly sourced and "the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say it is properly sourced, especially the "treatments" section Famousdog and I were discussing. If you look at the chapters by Gardner and Pollack, and the Berkeley article by Marg, you'll see they discuss the same Bates material the article does, and the references here reflect that. I also don't see how any relevant reference to the majority viewpoint is being excluded, or how majority-view content is being rewritten strictly from the perspective of a minority view. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

So, what about the two sources I mentioned?

What makes these self-published sources worthy of being in an encyclopedia article? --Ronz (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Given everything I have pointed out, I am unconvinced of the reasoning behind that question. Nonetheless, does it do anything for you that Esther Joy van der Werf, of Visions of Joy, was published in Living Nutrition Magazine? Or that iblindness is linked to at the top of the Quackwatch article? PSWG1920 (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do I care where it's published if there's no indication it's a WP:RS? We're writing an encyclopedia here, not providing a venue for non-notable individuals and opinions to be promoted. --Ronz (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I will stand by everything I have pointed out above. This article is about the Bates method, the sources in question are being cited only for their opinions, the points are relevant to the subtopics already being discussed, and these references make up only a small portion of the article. PSWG1920 (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Using quotes from Bates

In reference to Famousdog's comment above, "It is perfectly fair to summarise them and move on without huge long quotes from Bates' (obscure, contradictory, vague) writings that are open to interpretation." I agree. As I've pointed out before, this has led us into WP:SYN and WP:OR problems as well. We should not be trying to clarify what Bates said ourselves, or responding to his critics. If we do not have sources for such information, then it should be removed if we think it is unimportant or biased. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel like we keep discussing an old version of the article. As noted above, I have trimmed or removed most of the Bates quotes which had been here. Those that remain relate very closely to what is discussed by independent sources cited in the respective sections, and are not at this point used to "respond" to said sources. You can check the sources if you have doubts. The reason for using some quotes is that it becomes a bit tedious to keep noting that "this is only what Bates said", which is probably also why Gardner and Marg quote Bates at some length. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have trimmed the quotes a bit more in the "Bates' treatments" section. And just as I pointed out above, the Bates material discussed here is also covered by independent sources, which the references reflect. PSWG1920 (talk) 08:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The quotes should stay. We editors have got the responisibillity to provide the information as clear as possible for the public. By not using quotes you mix your own opinion in the information. See for example below.

Initial Quote

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.

Became :

Bates did temper his suggestions regarding this activity in later editions of his magazine, Better Eyesight, recommending instead that direct sunlight be allowed to shine on closed eyelids

Reference is gone. Real objective valuable information is lost For example It is the light rays which benefit the eyes rather than the heat rays.

And when you can read and think you will see the current paragraph contains a lie in my opinion. Bates did renounce his clain that open eyelid sunning was safe. Read and reread the quote. Why else would he only mention closed eyelid sunning. But of course what you read between the lines is personal ant that is why every qoute should stay. To be really objective !! Seeyou (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Shifting and Swinging

I find that the changes are more than just restating "it in a more neutral manner". I had assumed that the source was Gardner (1957). --Ronz (talk) 04:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this edit and the one before it, my point was that if this is original research (which it probably is), it is original research in both versions. Famousdog was the one who added this paragraph, without a source; I simply restated it in a more neutral (and in my opinion, more clear and less repetitive) manner. So if anyone is guilty of original research in this case it is Famousdog. Not that I am attacking him, just responding to Ronz. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Per your suggestion I deleted it, along with the entire section. Let's start doing the same for the entire article. Let's remove all sections that fail NPOV because they don't have independent, reliable sources, or do not use these sources to determine how to present the material in a balanced way. As I've mentioned before, this means we will be removing most of the article. --Ronz (talk) 04:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The section was well-sourced except for the last paragraph, which Famousdog added. It cited Gardner multiple times (who discussed this technique in some detail), and the Iowa Academy of Sciences, which apparently discussed the long swing in some detail. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I just restored well-sourced material which was mass-deleted. Then I removed the unsourced section. Let's no remove sourced information en masse like that. It could be mistaken for vandalism. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree you re-added this info. Levine2112. You are absolutly right it could be mistaken for vandalism. Seeyou (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

So, we just ignore NPOV completely? --Ronz (talk) 01:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Ronz, we do igonre your NPOV. We do not ignore the NPOV. Correct me if I am wrong by providing a wikpedia guideline. ( reference alinea and line ) Seeyou (talk) 09:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I missed the removal of that section and have to say I'm disappointed. Once again, the use of logic is dismissed as "original research." Exactly how is one supposed to provide a source stating that no evidence exists that "shifting" occurs when this term is not in use outside of Bates (possibly because it isn't a real phenomena)? If you ask an ophthalmologist, optometrist or vision scientist whether they have practiced "shifting" or "experienced the swing" they won't know what the hell you are talking about. So how can I provide a source saying that they are not real phenomena when nobody apart from Bates practitioners uses that terminology? Famousdog (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

As with the point below about "selection bias", I think stating this without a source technically constitutes original thought, but I would agree that the circumstances you point to should be considered. If we could just find sources for these ideas, however, this could be settled definitively. PSWG1920 (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion this constitutes much more of a original thought than the "selection bias" paragraph. I don't really get what you mean Famousdog with: "Exactly how is one supposed to provide a source stating that no evidence exists that "shifting" occurs". From my reading of Bates, it seems to me entirely clear that Bates means fixational eye movement which by all means is a real phenomena. Syd75 (talk) 10:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess this discussion just goes to show why Wikipedia prohibits original thought. I have again attempted to rewrite Famousdog's paragraph in the least interpretative manner possible, but it may well end up getting deleted again. PSWG1920 (talk) 05:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV and OR are being ignored

(Originally in response to discussion above) Please demonstrate we're following NPOV. List the independent, reliable sources we're using to determine proper balance. Summarize the viewpoints from those sources. Show how those viewpoints are the guiding what information is being presented in this article and how it's being presented. --Ronz (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

As I've noted before, the major (but not only) independent sources on which this article is based are Pollack, Marg, and Gardner. Did you ever take my advice to read them through? PSWG1920 (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Ronz, I agree with PSWG1920. Why does not this article from the skeptic point of view show NPOV ? Is there a party being ignored ? Which one ? And which information ? ( By the way Ronz you constantly avoid questions and you refuse to give clear answers ). Still you had a good point. By stating this article is about the Bates method according to the title. Seeyou (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for listing some sources. I don't think we're using these sources appropriately. Instead, we're using them to justify lengthy discussions and original research about Bates method. In an attempt to help us follow NPOV, I've suggested summarizing these sources. --Ronz (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand your reasoning on this issue. Do you want us to remove all direct references to Bates' writings? That seems to be what you are effectively calling for. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this might help, from Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources: "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." --Ronz (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain what in the current article you see as "interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources" which are not supported by a secondary source? PSWG1920 (talk) 00:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Everything that is only supported by Bates' own works and/or the poor sources listed above. Such as [2]. --Ronz (talk) 00:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I restored what you deleted and added another source to bolster the notability of the "long swing" technique. I don't know if that will satisfy you on this point or not. However, when you say "Everything that is only supported by Bates' own works" should go, by my understanding you're effectively saying that we should never cite Bates directly. If we kept strictly to details (and not just subtopics) discussed by secondary sources, there would be no reason to reference his writings ourselves. Please clarify if that is not what you meant. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:SELFQUEST - This may help clear things up for Ronz. Self-published sources may be used as sources about themselves. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Not without secondary sources per WP:OR. --Ronz (talk) 03:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Not according to WP:SELFQUEST. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Ignore NPOV and OR, and the result isn't an encyclopedia article. --Ronz (talk) 03:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that WP:SELFQUEST enables editors to get around NPOV and OR, then you ought to take it up at Wikipedia_talk:V. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Since you're the one that believes it, please follow your own advice. --Ronz (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That makes no sense. I don't have any problem with WP:SELFQUEST. I think it honors WP:NPOV and WP:OR perfectly. You on the other hand seem to have some beef with WP:SELFQUEST. You seem to believe that the policy allows for a loophole in terms of NPOV and OR. Since it is your beef, you should take it to Wikipedia_talk:V. Who knows? Maybe you will change one of Wikipedia's most fundamental guidelines. But until that happens, this argument of yours is unsupported by policy and thus rather weak. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

There are secondary sources. We have three of them which refer to the long swing! PSWG1920 (talk) 05:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. We should stick with the higher quality secondary sources. QuackGuru 05:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have now attempted to summarize the technique rather than simply quoting Bates. PSWG1920 (talk) 06:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ronz, I think you're confusing two ideas. One idea is that if there are no third-party sources on a topic, then we probably shouldn't have an article on that topic. Another idea is that if there is an article on a topic, then some details of that topic can in some circumstances by supplied by first-party, primary, self-published sources. I'm making the distinction here between having a whole article on a topic all supported only by a self-published source (not allowed) and having some details within an article supported only by a self-published source (allowed). On the other hand, a long, detailed exposition of Bates' ideas may be too soapboxy. QuackGuru, the secondary sources are better sources of commentary and interpretation, but I would think a primary source would be a better source to establish plain descriptive facts about what Bates said, especially if the secondary sources don't give much detail on that. (Note: I joined this discussion as a result of a message on my talk page.) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ronz, you may also be confused about the term "original research". WP:OR says we can't use original research by Wikipedians which has not been published. It doesn't forbid the use of self-published material. Self-published material is published. If you think it does forbid such use, please quote the section of that policy which you think says that. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be ignoring the quote above from OR, "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." --Ronz (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

What interpretive claims about these primary sources? What analyses about these primary sources? What synthetic claims about these primary sources? What original research by a Wikipedian is currently included here. All I see is a faithful summary of primary source specifically allowed by WP:SELFQUEST. I agree with Coppertwig. I think Ronz may be confused about the terms "original research" and "primary/secondary sources". -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I response to PSWG1920's comment, "However, when you say 'Everything that is only supported by Bates' own works' should go, by my understanding you're effectively saying that we should never cite Bates directly." Sorry if I wasn't clear. I'm saying that just because Bates wrote it, doesn't mean it deserves mention in an encyclopedia article. If it's not supported by secondary sources, it likely violates WP:OR. If it is not presented in a balanced way, the balance being determined by the independent sources we have, then it likely violates WP:NPOV. I'm saying that in many cases we're violating OR and NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask you, do you think it is okay to use primary sources to add anything to the article? I have gotten the impression that you do not. By that standard, there would be no reason to ever use them. PSWG1920 (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources are fine when used properly. Because we're writing an encyclopedia article, we need to be very careful when and how we use them. This is very different from other types of articles that editors may be more familiar with, such as research papers or news articles, where primary sources are treated very differently. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you believe that the text in question (which is now bolstered by secondary sources) is interpretive? What is the original analysis which you object to? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The attempt to summarize the text failed.[3] This is unduly self-serving per WP:SELFQUEST. Please rewrite it or it will be reverted. QuackGuru 17:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

How is it unduly self-serving? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

How is it not unduly self-serving when it relies primarily on self-pub sources in a controversial topic? QuackGuru 17:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:SELFQUEST provides that we can use primary sources in some cases. You are saying that this is unduly self-serving. Please explain why? Who is it serving? Bates? Why? And why is it "unduly"? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

In my view, this content is using Bates to describe Bates' beliefs. It is clear from the context that these are Bates' beliefs. Further, I note that the content is supported yes by three primary sources, but additionally supported by three secondary sources. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is about Bates method and not Bates' beliefs. The controversial opinion added is unduly self-serving in nature. Some of the refs are unreliable and extremely old. QuackGuru 17:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The "long swing" technique is part of Bates' method. I do not see how a description of it is unduly self-serving. Moreover, if you excluded sources on the basis of being old, this article would be little more than a stub; there don't seem to be any independent works since the 1950's which have addressed the Bates method in detail, presumably because, as another editor has pointed out before, medical professionals largely feel that there is nothing more to be said. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I apologize, Ronz: when I asked you to quote a section from WP:NOR I forgot that you had just done so. However, you seem to be saying that nothing can be quoted directly from Bates without being OR; I disagree with that. You haven't explained what's "interpretive" etc. about the material. I think probably the amount of material describing the Bates method should be reduced in length; at Mucoid plaque we included only a small amount of information from the writings of the proponent of the theory. Readers interested in more detail can seek the original publications by Bates. If those are hard to find, all the more reason for Wikipedia not to act as a soapbox. QuackGuru, would you please either stop saying "self-serving" or else answer the question as to who the "self" is that you're saying is doing the serving: Bates? A Wikipedian? Who? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as quoting Bates, I think I answered pretty clearly above [4].

As far as "interpretive" goes: I don't think I've answered this question in awhile, and I'm not going to go through the archives looking for it. Simply, NPOV. Look at the sources used to justify the discussion of "long swing". Are we even remotely using them to make sure we give a balanced presentation? No. Instead, we're just using them to justify the description of "long swing." We're ignoring NPOV. We're misusing, but mostly ignoring, OR.

Responding to PSWG1920: We need to be careful how we use old references. Especially in discussions of fringe issues, scientific/medical/etc dead-ends need to be presented as such. Currently, we are not presenting Bates method as such, despite all the references we have. --Ronz (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out on QuackGuru's talk page, if you see it that way, then the more immediate and more constructive measure is to add to the article rather than delete from it. PSWG1920 (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If these concerns had only been brought up recently, then I'd agree. The problem is that concerns have been discussed here for over two years. It's time to stop ignoring NPOV and OR. --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't diminish the upside of adding to the article to improve it. You say "Especially in discussions of fringe issues, scientific/medical/etc dead-ends need to be presented as such." Then add to the article to do that. PSWG1920 (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Most OR and NPOV problems cannot be solved by simply adding more material. --Ronz (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

My point was that adding is a more constructive step toward a solution than whole-sale deleting. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello again everyone! I have been asked to join this discussion by PSWG1920 at my talk page and I would just like to respond to statements make by Ronz to help clarify things:

• • Everything that is only supported by Bates' own works and/or the poor sources listed above. Such as 2. Comment by Ronz, made at 00:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
    • The source quoted above, as it is a direct quote, is not interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary source, direct quotes from primary sources cannot possibly be subjected to any original research as they have been taken directly from their source. Sources such as this are allowed in the article per WP:SELFQUEST which is irrelevant to the original research policy in the case above [5] as it is a direct quote (as explained above) and does not seem to distort the neutral point of view provided that all other views on the issue, as well as Bates' are presented equally. Summarizing quotes and sourcing them with primary sources is perfectly fine^[1] and not in violation of the original research policy provided the person performing the summary does not introduce their interpretations, make anything up or perform analysis on the source.^[2]
  • I response to PSWG1920's comment, "However, when you say 'Everything that is only supported by Bates' own works' should go, by my understanding you're effectively saying that we should never cite Bates directly." Sorry if I wasn't clear. I'm saying that just because Bates wrote it, doesn't mean it deserves mention in an encyclopedia article. If it's not supported by secondary sources, it likely violates WP:OR. If it is not presented in a balanced way, the balance being determined by the independent sources we have, then it likely violates WP:NPOV. I'm saying that in many cases we're violating OR and NPOV. Comment by Ronz, made at 14:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
    • You are fully correct in that some of Bates' opinions are not needed in the article, and it is up to all editors to decide what is suitable for inclusion. As I have discussed above, just because something is missing secondary sources, it doesn't generally (if its either quoted directly or written so that it is not interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about [the] primary source) violate the original research policy. With the quote that you provided above, the neutral point of view policy does not seem to apply, as the quote is a statement of facts, a quote that states an opinion could be counteracted by other reliable sources that perform critical commentary on the source or by saying something like Bates believed blah blah blah, while <someone reliable> believed blah blah blah.
  • ...Simply, NPOV. Look at the sources used to justify the discussion of "long swing". Are we even remotely using them to make sure we give a balanced presentation? No. Instead, we're just using them to justify the description of "long swing." We're ignoring NPOV. We're misusing, but mostly ignoring, OR.... Comment by Ronz, made at 15:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • As I have pointed out above, the section of the "long swing" that you have been quoting as against the neutral point of view policy cannot be against the neutral point of view as it directly quotes the facts not an opinion or value. The facts presented in that statement are very simple, they explain what the "long swing" is, these facts are not the subject of opinion or values when presented as a quote or a summary not containing interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about [the] primary source and as mentioned above, are thus exempt from the neutral point of view policy and the original research policy which both cover facts presented with opinions or values (e.g. Hitler was a bad man) compared to just facts (e.g. Hitler causes the deaths of thousands of jewish people through the Holocaust).
  • Most OR and NPOV problems cannot be solved by simply adding more material. Comment by Ronz, made at 16:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
    • No, but they can be solved by changing what is already there.

If anyone has any queries about my statements, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. Happy editing! —Atyndall ^{[citation needed]} 06:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Atyndall great feedback. Seeyou (talk) 17:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the feedback is based upon a selective reading of NPOV and OR. See WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. It doesn't matter though. At this point, it's clear that most of the editors here are ignoring OR and NPOV (some outright ignore CON as well). We'll rewrite the article and do away with all these problems. --Ronz (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ronz, do you know there used to be a time most people thought our earch was flat. And you know what they were wrong.Seeyou (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see what that has to do with anything here. Also, even in very ancient times, those who studied such matters new better. See Flat earth. --Ronz (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Flashing

(The two comments below were moved from the article) --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Majority viewpoint and scientific consensus is that strain is not a cause, so reduction of strain is of no help, correct? Per NPOV and FRINGE, that needs to be clear here. -- 16:22, 21 August 2008 by Ronz

Response: That is best addressed in either the "Cause of refractive errors" section above, or the lead of the Treatments section, though I suppose the wording could be slightly altered here as well to reflect that. -- 16:23, 21 August 2008 by PSWG1920

I picked this section at random as yet another example of the OR and NPOV problems we have. The section has two references other than Bates:

• Complementary Therapy Assessments: Visual Training for Refractive Errors". American Academy of Ophthalmology (2008). Retrieved on 2008-07-06.
• Marg, E. (1952). ""Flashes" of clear vision and negative accommodation with reference to the Bates Method of visual training" (PDF). Am J Opt Arch Am Ac Opt 29 (4): 167–84.

Yet we're trying to treat these references as a minority opinion, and make no mention that Bates' assumptions are false. --Ronz (talk) 16:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully the edits have now solved these problems, by qualifying "strain" and changing the reference to "skeptics". PSWG1920 (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I just don't think you understand WP:FRINGE. I'm not sure what to do at this point. While I think your quoting "strain" is a good solution, qualifying the majority viewpoint as you have is not. --Ronz (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If by "qualifying the majority viewpoint", you mean "according to experiments which have observed subjects attaining marked temporary improvement in vision. One study determined"", that is factually true according to the sources. Are you saying that should just be left out? PSWG1920 (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, leave it out. --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've reworded it further to confer more authority where it belongs. Hopefully that is good enough. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Was Bates an Ophthalmologist?

Was there a formal qualification to be an Ophthalmologist back then? I can find reference to Bates being an ENT surgeon who taught a class in Ophthalmology but does that make him an Ophthalmologist?--Vannin (talk) 01:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Good question. Elwin Marg does, on the first page of his report, refer to Bates as an ophthalmologist, but I guess that doesn't prove it's accurate. PSWG1920 (talk) 02:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Just accumulating some notes and random data points, here.

The ABO website says: "founded in 1916, the American Board of Ophthalmology is an independent, non-profit organization responsible for certifying ophthalmologists (eye physicians and surgeons) in the United States. The ABO was the first American Board established to certify medical specialists and is one of 24 specialty Boards recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties and the American Medical Association.

this dictionary defines the term as "A physician who specializes in ophthalmology," and ophthalmology as "The branch of medicine that deals with the anatomy, functions, pathology, and treatment of the eye.

Not quite sure what that would mean even today; in the U. S. do you have to be certified by the ABO in order to legally call yourself an ophthalmologist? Did you need to be in the 1920s when Bates was researching and writing?

Quick Googling in Google Books shows numerous textbooks, journals, etc ophthalmology, etc. before 1916 dating back at least as far as 1871.

Summary thus far: I don't know. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking it might be fairer to describe him as a physician who practiced Ophthalmology (see talk on William Horatio Bates). It is tricky to know for sure - but Freud is not described as a Psychiatrist, even though he was clearly the father of that field. He was qualified as a physician, which meant that he was free to work in neurology if he chose. My concern with Bates is that although he presumably had the option to grandfather in with the American Ophthalmological Society, he did not - see the membership list [[6]]--Vannin (talk) 03:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd guess that Dpbsmith and Vannin have the answer. Certification (and licensing) of ophthalmologists in the US probably didn't start until 1916. --Ronz (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

He speaks himself of having an ophthalmological practice. He attended meetings at the New York Ophthalmological Society, the Ophthalmological Section of the New York Academy of Medicine and the Ophthalmological Section of the American Medical Association. He published articles in Archives of Ophthalmology and La Clinique Ophtalmologique. The New York Times refer to him as oculist and eye specialist.Syd75 (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sunning/solar retinopathy

Thanks everyone. I think that was some good work. --Ronz (talk) 00:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad we're making some progress. PSWG1920 (talk) 02:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Some objective factual information of the past and now

Note : This article is taken over by completely new editors. See what happened in the past ( See paragraph For the objective reader part 3 of x ) in the link below :

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bates_method&diff=181051741&oldid=181051628

See  : Open proxies in the link below which has happened in the past : Just to indicate which kind of sources have been editing this article and the amount of effort they are and willing to put in in editing vanalising this article.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bates_method&diff=184035554&oldid=184014973#Open_proxies

After this attempt of multiple IP addresses editor PSWG1920. It is off course speculation. Look also at the enormous amount of edits PSWG1920 is making. But is of course also possible PSWG1920 has only good intentions.

Since the 27 of august the following editors started editing the BM article. This is a bit strange since before the edits were done by a more or less stabile group. The following editors became active or very active : Of course it doesn’t tell anything.

• SamuelTheGhost
• Syd75
• ScienceApologist
• Colonel Warden

Isn't it a fact editors can only contribute edits when they also provide a source or reference. Currently the ediors neglect sourced edits which should stay above their own edits. Since we wikipedia editors can be everyone. And sourced info can not. And please don’t use the argument Original Reseach it is a fake argument. Bates did the original research. Later publications are based on his writings combined with scientific facts and research of today. Seeyou (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Concerning your statement "But is of course also possible PSWG1920 has only good intentions." I am quite certain that PSWG1920 has only good intentions, and I think it is disgraceful, and a crude breach of WP:AGF, for you to suggest otherwise. As for me, I started editing this article in May 2008, as you well know. I stopped for a time, discouraged by stupid reversions from you, amongst others. There is still a message from me on your talk page complaining about that. I did then form the impression that you are insane, an opinion which strengthens day by day. I have no knowledge of the background of the other three editors you mention, but you haven't got the remotest evidence that their arrival is in any way connected, as you seem to be implying. They have as much right here as you, and their contributions make more sense than yours. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of the new editors may have come to this article after Seeyou solicited input from various people (including myself). A solicitation of this kind showing up on various people's talk pages is likely to generate the interest of others who may then watch the page and get involved. --Vannin (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again. Seeyou's ownership issues... It's obviously a conspiracy! All the other editors are actually the same person. Why don't you try persuading everybody that I (Famousdog) am really AED, or MastCell, or any one of a hundred anonymous editors... as you did here. Famousdog (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Propose to remove this discussion

Does anyone see any valid reason for this discussion? I think it should be immediatedly archived as a violation of WP:TALK, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA. Seeyou is doing nothing here other than making a case for her being banned from here. --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I do agree. Casting suspicion on other editors seems to have been the only purpose here. PSWG1920 (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Archive and ban. Famousdog (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Seconded (though I prefer a topic ban for Seeyou). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Call me Mr. Bonaparte!)} 08:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)