Talk:Myopia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Near-sightedness)

There is mention of outdoor play[edit]

Obviously outdoor play will increase Vitamin-D synthesis in children.

There are even more research papers that link Myopia to low serum levels of 25(OH)D due to inadequate Vitamin-D.

A search for "Myopia Vitamin-D" on Google scholar, Pub-Med or Google traditional will find many published papaers that support a mention here of the simple remedy of increasing serum levels to reduce the prevalence.

Idyllic press (talk) 19:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how prehormon/vitamin D3 can cause any problems with the eye, myopia is considered to be genetical. It is possible that it affects growth... Valery Zapolodov (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Causes[edit]

To the editor Ruslik0: Please refrain from deleting the latest and most important references to knowledge and comprehensive reviews published by renowned authors in prestigious journals. You are doing a disservice to the readers and the general public. This article about myopia needs a lot of improvement. Please do help, do not obstruct knowledge and science. 2601:647:5580:D20:5066:AD09:92B2:211 (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please take note of CV9933 's edit summary on their reversion: "please see WP:MEDRS and use the article talk page to discuss". Please also be aware of the 3RR rule. -- Jmc (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will drop a note on IP user talk page. CV9933 (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An anonymous editor operating from different IP addresses persists in inserting a lengthy account of a recent literature review article, implying that the cause of myopia is now definitively established. I've no objection to the inclusion of a reference to this review, but IMO it needs to be more balanced, along the lines of "A single-author literature review in 2021 contended that "myopia is the result of corrective lenses interfering with emmetropization". I'd note here, though, that it appears to come dangerously close to stating that the cause of myopia is myopia. -- Jmc (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disguising a hypothesis as fact is irresponsible, and phrases like “the cause of myopia was finally narrowed down to a single factor” and “The latest comprehensive article about “ do not belong here. Continually re-adding the material when different editors all agree that it doesn’t belong here is not the way to proceed and is likely to lead to a block. CV9933 (talk) 09:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To the editor Ruslik0: Please refrain from deleting the latest and most important references to knowledge and comprehensive reviews published by renowned authors in prestigious journals. You are doing a disservice to the readers and the general public. This article about myopia needs a lot of improvement. Please do help, do not obstruct knowledge and science. 2601:647:5580:D20:1017:DDBC:C750:AC9C (talk) 07:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CV9933 This anonymous editor seems incorrigible. Time to consider a block? -- Jmc (talk) 08:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jmc I suspect Ruslik0 might not have seen the discussion here, so lets wait for their input. CV9933 (talk) 11:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier versions of your edits resembled a salad of words and were incomprehensible. It seems that you do not fully understand what you are writing about. Emmetropization artcile actually offers a more nuanced view of this subject. Ruslik_Zero 12:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the edit warring by the anonymous editor has gone on long enough, without any cogent attempt by them to justify their persistent edits. A block would seem to be the only course of action to bring an end to their campaign? -- Jmc (talk) 07:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a block of 2601:647:5580:d20:0:0:0:0/64 range is warranted. Ruslik_Zero 17:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The anonymous editor is still at it, I'm afraid. -- Jmc (talk) 07:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe time for an uninvolved admin such as Oshwah to take a look at this IP hopper. CV9933 (talk) 10:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've partially-blocked 2601:647:5580:D20::/64 from editing this article for two weeks for the ongoing edit warring. I hope that this nudges them to discuss the issues on the article's talk page rather than continuously reverting. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emmetropization is a concern for children/teenagers, since they are growing bodily. So, yeah, staying too close to their mobile phones instead of playing outside produces myopia in children—that's endorsed by eye doctors, so it's not controversial. But that is rendered a non sequitur for the adult eye. And if there is any emmetropization in adults, it is a slow process wherein slightly myopic people become emmetropic. Nothing too spectacular. It happens that at age 40 you don't need reading glasses, since being slightly myopic counts as natural reading glasses, but at 60 you do need reading glasses. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, staying too close to a phone or TV or a book does not cause myopia. And no, at 60 you do not have myopia, you have presbiopia, which has completly different reasons due to broken lens. Valery Zapolodov (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non Scientific focus[edit]

This article focuses far too much on causes of something that is inadequately described It is important for a physics textbook description to be more paramount. The third paragraph of the intro is woo. The fourth paragraph of the intro mistakes increased detection for increased incidence. The causes section is suspiciously eugenicist, and completely wrong.

sorry for the pun 104.247.228.73 (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 November 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Myopia. Per consensus, WP:MEDTITLE applies here. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Near-sightedness → Nearsightedness – This term is used more often without that hyphen than with the hypen. See this ngram. Move per WP:COMMONNAME. – Treetoes023 (talk) 03:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom and the convincing ngram. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well now. This article used to be entitled 'Myopia' until an editor decided to rename it 'Near-sightedness' after very little discussion - and certainly with no reference to this ngram. -- Jmc (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Myopia" has multiple uses, that ngram isn't useful because it includes other uses for "myopia". See Myopia (disambiguation). – Treetoes023 (talk) 03:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The three Myopia (disambiguation)#Other uses are pretty obscure and after eliminating most of the 'Music' entries by going back to 1950 in the ngram, there's still a great majority in favour of 'myopia' as a refractive defect of the eye. Jmc (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed and from WP:MEDTITLE which can't be overidden by local consensus as far as I am aware, I would agree with Jmc CV9933 (talk) 11:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Treetoes023: for clarity in closing this discussion: would you be opposed to a move to "myopia"? Elli (talk | contribs) 04:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Elli: I am neutral. – Treetoes023 (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Myopia, per Jmc and CV9933's analysis. A dip into Google Scholar suggests that myopia is most common in a corpus that includes (but is not strictly limited to) high-quality sources. I included LASIK in the search terms to limit the results (loosely) to topics related to this article subject. I got:
    • 1,310 hits for [LASIK nearsightedness]
    • 300 hits for [LASIK near-sightedness], with the hyphen
    • 29,600 hits for [LASIK myopia]
    The Google test is imperfect (as is ngrams), but I'd say this is contributory evidence toward what is already a rock-solid MEDTITLE case. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with Firefangledfeathers that a move back to Myopia is a rock-solid MEDTITLE case. For the record, the move to Near-sightedness was a unilateral action by Mast303 on 22 December 2022. -- Jmc (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Myopia&oldid=1194427289"