Bates method has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Maybe he was on to something...
It might be possible the Bates method is a case of "right treatment, wrong diagnosis"
Recent studies have begun to show that the ongoing massive increase in cases of nearsightedness worldwide may be as simple as the massive increase in time spent indoors. https://www.nature.com/news/the-myopia-boom-1.17120?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews
There are new treatments being developed for conditions such as corneal ectatic disorders that incorporate exposure to UV-A radiation. My own optometrist recommended I be treated with corneal collagen cross-linking for my keratoconus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corneal_ectatic_disorders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corneal_collagen_cross-linking
Just another reason to make kids play outside, I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:7665:1800:4936:C64B:A534:903A (talk) 09:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Please note under the heading of the Talk page: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." -- Jmc (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Bates' book
This article does not adequately nor accurately cover the important points and rationale in Bates' book. I'm not sure where the idea that his book is definite "pseudoscience" came from, but such a statement is not neutral and sides with publications against his book. His book itself provides arguments against all of what the other sources are saying, and many experiments and their findings that were conducted by the doctor.
Do understand that this subject contains inherent bias and conflict of interest between conventional opthamologists and his novel research. As of the current state of the article, it seems that it is composed of all sources except Bates' book. What is the reason for excluding his research or paraphrasing it inaccurately from the article that is ultimately about his research?
Keysandbridges (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- Bates' book is not useful for the purpose of constructing an encyclopedia. We are meant to be engaged in accurately summarizing accepted knowledge about this topic as published in high-quality reliable sources (preferably independent, secondary ones). Basically, his ideas are rejected and Wikipedia will report that. Alexbrn (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- This article is titled "Bates method", while excluding a lot of the important details of Bates' research and experiments, instead presenting the topic through reviews? None of the secondary sources will ever accept his research (not ideas), and as far as concerns the article, those have nothing to do with "Bates method" itself, but rather should at most be put into a criticisms section. If this article should be on "accepted knowledge", then it might as well not exist or be renamed. His book is the most comprehensive source there is that explains the most about "Bates method".
- Keysandbridges (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- The Bates method is completely discredited Keysandbridges. Have you read Phillip Pollack's book? Chapter 3 can be found here, or you can read the entire book online. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yes I have read it, along with several other sources, and Bates' book itself. They have very little scientific value, and a lot of retorts. Those are at best only criticisms of Bates method, and should be presented as such, rather than as concrete facts. There's nothing about what those authors have to say that makes them the definitive source of truth, nor do they make the items presented in Bates' book more right or wrong. So what is the reason for underincluding Bates' point of view in this article? The edits I have made either adds or revises content that cites his book, or rephrased biased sentences:
- * Line 15: There is no justification for starting the article by saying that it is "ineffective". Sources against the methods will say that it is, Bates will say that it is not. In such a conflict this word is largely jugdmental and best omitted like past edits.
- * Line 15: I did add the paragraph on Bates' own review of how others received his methods These were part of the last chapter of his book "reason and authority" and are as relevant to the reception of the method as what any other opthalmologist's has to say. Are we just going to include one way criticisms?
- * Line 69: The sentence "He thought that the manner of eye movement affected the sight" is incomplete. He says that "perfect sight is impossible without continual shifting". The following sentence is also incomplete. He suggested shifting to "imitate consciously the unconscious shifting of normal vision and to realize the apparent motion produced by such shifting".
- * Line 77: How do we reckon with this sentence "The techniques advocated by Bates are based on fallacious assumptions about the eye and have no effect on improving eyesight"? Throughout his book he explains how each technique is based on a discovery of the eye.
- Are these aspects of Bates' work not relevant in an article about his work? Yes I understand that the external sources discredit his work
- Keysandbridges (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Bates was wrong per reliable sources and that's what we use. Our views on the matter are irrelevant. If you can get your view accepted in academia and published in a top-tier medical journal than we can think again. Until then the article remains NPOV per the sources we have. Alexbrn (talk) 05:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
"Ineffective" and sources
WP:IMPARTIAL says "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view." I even made an experimental modification to this, which was reverted. Calling the Bates method "ineffective" would thus seem to clearly go against policy. It could be called "fringe" or "unsubstantiated", or more words could be used. Belteshazzar (talk) 04:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for starting a discussion.
- I don't see how this is an issue of tone, if the alternatives are removing the word completely, or using words with altogether different meanings. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 04:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- "altogether different meanings" is the point. "unsubstantiated" or "fringe" does not take a point of view. Belteshazzar (talk) 04:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- It is "ineffective" (and potentially dangerous) according to our sources, so Wikipedia says that too, in order to be neutral. We don't misrepresent reality and for fringe/pseudoscience topics like this it is necessary to be up-front and plain. Alexbrn (talk) 06:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- The article can and should report what reliable sources say, but according to NPOV the article itself shouldn't take a side. If that's wrong, then WP:NPOV and in particular WP:IMPARTIAL should be modified, as I experimentally did and was reverted. Belteshazzar (talk) 06:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- It is wrong. Wikipedia does not give "both sides" of an issue when it's a question of fringe vs reality. See WP:GEVAL. To get this changed, initiate a discussion at WT:NPOV. See also WP:CGTW#8. Alexbrn (talk) 06:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- I actually tried to modify the policy to make it OK to call the Bates method "ineffective". I will make no further attempt at changing policy, but if it doesn't change, the article itself should not label the Bates method as "ineffective". Belteshazzar (talk) 07:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- What we have is good and neutral. Reality is not a point of view, and Wikipedia will not misrepresent reality. Alexbrn (talk) 07:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- Simple matter. If the method is ineffective (and it is, as the evidence plainly shows), then that's a matter of fact, not opinion, and needs to be stated as such. - Jmc (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- Even looking at it from that angle, it is not a simple fact that the Bates method is ineffective. It may clearly not do what it is claimed to do, but if you read the Aldous Huxley and especially the "Anecdotal Support" sections, it is clear that some people do get improvement of a kind. Belteshazzar (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- We need to base out content on reliable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- The sources in the "Anecdotal support" section do appear to be valid, and affirm a kind of improvement that may result from some aspects of the Bates method. Belteshazzar (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- You're confusing anecdotes with evidence. By such means every means of woo "works" from faith healing to homeopathy. On Wikipedia, we need better sourcing. Alexbrn (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- The "Anecdotal support" subtitle is actually misleading, as some of the sources appear to be scientific studies. Belteshazzar (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- Just going through them now. Crap so far. What do you think meets WP:MEDRS? Alexbrn (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if any of it meets MEDRS. The purpose of the section seems to be to document historical anecdotes on why people may have thought it works. I'm not sure how to do this without going into WP:OR, or violating MEDRS. If there are scholarly histories of Bates method, those might be used. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know enough to say for sure, but some of those sources appear to be high quality and do appear to specifically address the Bates method or related methods. Even being dated doesn't necessarily undermine a source, as later researchers may have had little to add. Hopefully editors who previously worked on that content are still watching this page and will weigh in. Belteshazzar (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Hipal: Quite. We'd some some decent sources to accord WP:DUE weight to such anecdotes. Alexbrn (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- I just found this, though I'm not sure if it's any better than some of the ones you removed. Belteshazzar (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that one out. Maybe use it with care? It does use this Wikipedia article as a source... --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- If the age isn't a problem, Philip Pollack's book could probably be cited more than it is currently. It may be the only full-length book ever published that is specifically critical of the Bates method. Also, the Elwin Marg article is still available in the web archives. Newer sources are of course preferable, but if Wikipedia articles cannot make inferences that are not explicitly made by a valid source, such material might be helpful. Belteshazzar (talk) 04:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- We're WP:NOTNEUTRAL. We do have a POV, see WP:QUACKS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Aside from POV issues, it would appear to be inaccurate to simply call the Bates method "ineffective". Unless you discount many of the sources which were recently removed, which is now the larger issue. Belteshazzar (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- We're WP:NOTNEUTRAL. We do have a POV, see WP:QUACKS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- If the age isn't a problem, Philip Pollack's book could probably be cited more than it is currently. It may be the only full-length book ever published that is specifically critical of the Bates method. Also, the Elwin Marg article is still available in the web archives. Newer sources are of course preferable, but if Wikipedia articles cannot make inferences that are not explicitly made by a valid source, such material might be helpful. Belteshazzar (talk) 04:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that one out. Maybe use it with care? It does use this Wikipedia article as a source... --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- I just found this, though I'm not sure if it's any better than some of the ones you removed. Belteshazzar (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Hipal: Quite. We'd some some decent sources to accord WP:DUE weight to such anecdotes. Alexbrn (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- Just going through them now. Crap so far. What do you think meets WP:MEDRS? Alexbrn (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- The "Anecdotal support" subtitle is actually misleading, as some of the sources appear to be scientific studies. Belteshazzar (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- You're confusing anecdotes with evidence. By such means every means of woo "works" from faith healing to homeopathy. On Wikipedia, we need better sourcing. Alexbrn (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- The sources in the "Anecdotal support" section do appear to be valid, and affirm a kind of improvement that may result from some aspects of the Bates method. Belteshazzar (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- We need to base out content on reliable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- Even looking at it from that angle, it is not a simple fact that the Bates method is ineffective. It may clearly not do what it is claimed to do, but if you read the Aldous Huxley and especially the "Anecdotal Support" sections, it is clear that some people do get improvement of a kind. Belteshazzar (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- Simple matter. If the method is ineffective (and it is, as the evidence plainly shows), then that's a matter of fact, not opinion, and needs to be stated as such. - Jmc (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- What we have is good and neutral. Reality is not a point of view, and Wikipedia will not misrepresent reality. Alexbrn (talk) 07:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- I actually tried to modify the policy to make it OK to call the Bates method "ineffective". I will make no further attempt at changing policy, but if it doesn't change, the article itself should not label the Bates method as "ineffective". Belteshazzar (talk) 07:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- It is wrong. Wikipedia does not give "both sides" of an issue when it's a question of fringe vs reality. See WP:GEVAL. To get this changed, initiate a discussion at WT:NPOV. See also WP:CGTW#8. Alexbrn (talk) 06:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- The article can and should report what reliable sources say, but according to NPOV the article itself shouldn't take a side. If that's wrong, then WP:NPOV and in particular WP:IMPARTIAL should be modified, as I experimentally did and was reverted. Belteshazzar (talk) 06:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- It is "ineffective" (and potentially dangerous) according to our sources, so Wikipedia says that too, in order to be neutral. We don't misrepresent reality and for fringe/pseudoscience topics like this it is necessary to be up-front and plain. Alexbrn (talk) 06:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- "altogether different meanings" is the point. "unsubstantiated" or "fringe" does not take a point of view. Belteshazzar (talk) 04:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
We follow reliable sources. These say the Bates Method is ineffective & dangerous, so Wikipedia does too. Alexbrn (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- I fail to see that Belteshazzar has made a case to support his/her assertion that "it would appear to be inaccurate to simply call the Bates method 'ineffective'", -- Jmc (talk) 03:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- It's clear from Elwin Marg's report that some people have gotten improvement of a kind as a result of practicing such methods. "Ineffective" should at least be qualified. Belteshazzar (talk) 03:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Again, I fail to see that Elwin Marg's report does anything but substantiate the lede statement that "The Bates method is an ineffective alternative therapy aimed at improving eyesight." -- Jmc (talk) 03:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Taken at face value, that statement suggests that the Bates method never in any way improves eyesight. Belteshazzar (talk) 03:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Precisely. -- Jmc (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- But Elwin Marg's report suggests that such methods often do improve eyesight, albeit not in the way claimed. Belteshazzar (talk) 03:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- "often do improve eyesight"? Quote? -- Jmc (talk) 07:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- "Le Grand21 has presented evidence which indicates that some sub- jects are able to invoke accommodation in a negative direction. For example, a myope or an emmetrope made optically myopic with con- vex lenses can, in some instances, decrease his myopia with effort. Changes up to three diopters in a negative direction determined by skiascopy (taking ordinary accommodation to be positive in direction) were reported in five subjects. A summary of his results are seen in Table 1 .21* 22
- "FLASHES" OF CLEAR VISION IN MYOPES-MARG TABLE 1 RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION OF LE GRAND Refractive Negative Lens Before Flash krror Accom- Fixating Visual Subject Age (Sph.) modation Eye Acuity A 24-26 plano 2.50 + 4.00 20/100 to 20/67 B 24-26 plano 2.25 + 3.00 20/100 to 20/67 C 24-26 plano 2.25 f 3.00 20/100 to 20/67 D 24-26 - 4.00 2.75 none 20/100 to 20/67 E > 26 -5.50 2.75 none 20/25* *Subject E, skilled in the Bates method, can maintain this acuteness of vision several minutes in contrast to the other subjects who can hold their flashes for only a few 'seconds. If these results could be confirmed,' they would demonstrate a mechanism whereby myopes trained by the Bates method obtain flashes of clear vision. Furthermore these results would lead one to expect that myopia of up to three diopters could be compensated for by negative accommodation much as hypermetropia, may be compensated for by positive accommodation."
- This shows that calling the Bates method "ineffective" is too simplistic. Belteshazzar (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- We follow reliable sources I'm afraid, by which this is ineffective nonsense. Probably time to drop the WP:STICK now. Alexbrn (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Elwin Marg's report *is* a reliable source by any measure other than the date, and the date doesn't really matter for these purposes, as recent sources confirm such phenomena even if they don't explicitly link it to the Bates method. Belteshazzar (talk) 05:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- We follow reliable sources I'm afraid, by which this is ineffective nonsense. Probably time to drop the WP:STICK now. Alexbrn (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- "often do improve eyesight"? Quote? -- Jmc (talk) 07:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- But Elwin Marg's report suggests that such methods often do improve eyesight, albeit not in the way claimed. Belteshazzar (talk) 03:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Precisely. -- Jmc (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Taken at face value, that statement suggests that the Bates method never in any way improves eyesight. Belteshazzar (talk) 03:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Again, I fail to see that Elwin Marg's report does anything but substantiate the lede statement that "The Bates method is an ineffective alternative therapy aimed at improving eyesight." -- Jmc (talk) 03:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- It's clear from Elwin Marg's report that some people have gotten improvement of a kind as a result of practicing such methods. "Ineffective" should at least be qualified. Belteshazzar (talk) 03:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Did you see my comments on this subject at FTN? Which bit of "no" dont you understand? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 05:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- It would be better to say that the Bates method is ineffective (or "never shown to be effective", but that's a different issue) insofar as treating refractive errors or more serious vision problems. That would accurately reflect the sources. Belteshazzar (talk) 06:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hello?? I'm right here!! -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 06:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- I could say the same thing to you. Belteshazzar (talk) 06:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Except multiple experienced editors with thousands and thousands of edits are all telling you the same thing, and you, with 48 edits worth of experience are Not Listening. That sort of behaviour gets you shown the door. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 06:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- My biggest concern is what was removed here. I agree that "Anecdotal support" was a bad subtitle, however. Belteshazzar (talk) 06:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- What do you think that multiple experienced editors with thousands and thousands of edits are doing wrong? Have you read WP:IDHT I wonder? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 07:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- A single editor gutted that section. Belteshazzar (talk) 07:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- So what? What do you think that multiple experienced editors with thousands and thousands of edits are doing wrong? Have you read WP:IDHT I wonder? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 07:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- A single editor gutted that section. Belteshazzar (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Look here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- I can say "Open the door" in Arabic. Cant write it though. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 08:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Look here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- A single editor gutted that section. Belteshazzar (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- So what? What do you think that multiple experienced editors with thousands and thousands of edits are doing wrong? Have you read WP:IDHT I wonder? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 07:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- A single editor gutted that section. Belteshazzar (talk) 07:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- What do you think that multiple experienced editors with thousands and thousands of edits are doing wrong? Have you read WP:IDHT I wonder? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 07:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- My biggest concern is what was removed here. I agree that "Anecdotal support" was a bad subtitle, however. Belteshazzar (talk) 06:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Except multiple experienced editors with thousands and thousands of edits are all telling you the same thing, and you, with 48 edits worth of experience are Not Listening. That sort of behaviour gets you shown the door. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 06:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- I could say the same thing to you. Belteshazzar (talk) 06:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hello?? I'm right here!! -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 06:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately this discussion has gotten muddled. The biggest issue now is the sources removed here. Due to the earlier subtitle "Anecdotal support", there seems to have been a perception that these sources were being used to support the Bates method, which they weren't. At least some of those sources do appear to be decent and basically on-topic. Belteshazzar (talk) 09:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- What "decent source" has been removed? Alexbrn (talk) 09:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- The first three look pretty good. Belteshazzar (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- First three what? Alexbrn (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Sources that you removed here, in the order which they appeared. Belteshazzar (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- I "removed" no decent sources. If you think I did be very specific, as this is beginning to look like trolling. Alexbrn (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Annals-Academy of Medicine, Optometry and Vision Science, American Academy of Optometry. Belteshazzar (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- My edit was good, and some of the sources were not "removed" from the article but remain cited elsewhere, just in an honest manner (unlike from where I cut the citations). If you have a specific proposal, make it. But it seems you'd be best of just reading WP:1AM right now. Alexbrn (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- The three sources I mentioned do not appear to still be cited elsewhere in the article. My proposal for now would be to restore them to where they were. As for "one against many", that is at least partly a result of the muddled discussion. Belteshazzar (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- You're wrong. I shall not reply further to your comments unless new sources are produced. Do not mistake my lack of response for agreement. Alexbrn (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- How about this source? Belteshazzar (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Source for what? It in no way opens to question the lede statement that "The Bates method is an ineffective alternative therapy aimed at improving eyesight." -- Jmc (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- It talks about blur adaptation, although it cites some of the sources which were recently removed from this article. Belteshazzar (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- And "ineffective" isn't the issue anymore. The more important issue is the references which were removed. Belteshazzar (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- If you still mean [1] their use appeared to have been synthesis (WP:SYNTH) since not directly about the Bates method. A plausible argument seemed to be that people may have attributed other causes to the method, as well as temporary conditions that naturally resolved, but that was citing Gardner which is still in use and summarized elsewhere. —PaleoNeonate – 00:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- Gardner also apparently discussed an improvement in visual resolution after glasses are left off for a while. I didn't attempt to restore that Gardner reference, but if there is no other viable way to source that here, Gardner could be used. As for pseudomyopia, I think that is the same thing as "negative accommodation", which is discussed by a few sources in relation to the Bates method. Belteshazzar (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- And if we strictly cannot extrapolate on any source to draw conclusions regarding the article subject, then the Drexler reference probably has to be removed from the end of the Accommodation section. Belteshazzar (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- If you still mean [1] their use appeared to have been synthesis (WP:SYNTH) since not directly about the Bates method. A plausible argument seemed to be that people may have attributed other causes to the method, as well as temporary conditions that naturally resolved, but that was citing Gardner which is still in use and summarized elsewhere. —PaleoNeonate – 00:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- Source for what? It in no way opens to question the lede statement that "The Bates method is an ineffective alternative therapy aimed at improving eyesight." -- Jmc (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- How about this source? Belteshazzar (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- You're wrong. I shall not reply further to your comments unless new sources are produced. Do not mistake my lack of response for agreement. Alexbrn (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- The three sources I mentioned do not appear to still be cited elsewhere in the article. My proposal for now would be to restore them to where they were. As for "one against many", that is at least partly a result of the muddled discussion. Belteshazzar (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- My edit was good, and some of the sources were not "removed" from the article but remain cited elsewhere, just in an honest manner (unlike from where I cut the citations). If you have a specific proposal, make it. But it seems you'd be best of just reading WP:1AM right now. Alexbrn (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Annals-Academy of Medicine, Optometry and Vision Science, American Academy of Optometry. Belteshazzar (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- I "removed" no decent sources. If you think I did be very specific, as this is beginning to look like trolling. Alexbrn (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Sources that you removed here, in the order which they appeared. Belteshazzar (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- First three what? Alexbrn (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- The first three look pretty good. Belteshazzar (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I took my copy of Gardner down from the shelves. Belteshazzar's reference to "an improvement in visual resolution after glasses are left off for a while" is possibly a misunderstanding of Gardner's discussion of a patient who is sold glasses without really needing them, and whose eyes adjust to such glasses. On removal of the glasses, the patient's vision "is noticeably poorer". The patient them performs a half-hour of exercises and is tested again. "Naturally his vision has improved. What he fails to realize is that the same improvement would have occurred without the exercises, as the eyes slowly adjusted to seeing without the spectacles."
It's worth noting that, more generally, Gardener says, "The original Bates work is a fantastic compendium of wildly exaggerated case records, unwarranted inferences, and anatomical ignorance." -- Jmc (talk) 04:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. Sounds like the same basic concept discussed here, but perhaps to a greater degree if the lenses were too strong. But if WP:SYNTH prevents us from citing that paper here, maybe this one, which cites it, could be used. Belteshazzar (talk) 04:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- An editorial. Usable, if at all, only to support mundane claims. Alexbrn (talk) 05:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- WP:PARITY might apply here. And since it is apparently OK to synthesize sources to a limited extent, we could perhaps combine those two. Belteshazzar (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
- WP:PARITY is irrelevant here. It is for opening the door to criticism of fringe theories where none exists in orthodox RS. Alexbrn (talk) 02:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- This is a criticism of the Bates method, because the improvement is not seen as an actual change in refractive error. Belteshazzar (talk) 02:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- The way you used it was pushing a false, fringe view. Alexbrn (talk) 03:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- It is not false that such "blur adaptation" often happens after glasses are removed. I actually considered restoring a bit more of what was prevously there, saying that one who removes his glasses and practices the Bates method might not realize that simply leaving the glasses off would have had the same effect, but that might still be original thought. Belteshazzar (talk) 03:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- You put, in Wikipedia's voice, "Research has confirmed that when nearsighted subjects remove their corrective lenses, over time there is a limited improvement". I'm not sure whether you're POV-pushing, incompetent or trolling but either way I think we're fast approaching the point where you will need to be sanctioned. Alexbrn (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- That wording was there previously. It could be changed, although it does appear to be a true statement. I take it the problem is "confirmed" making it sound like a part of the Bates method was confirmed? Belteshazzar (talk) 03:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- You put, in Wikipedia's voice, "Research has confirmed that when nearsighted subjects remove their corrective lenses, over time there is a limited improvement". I'm not sure whether you're POV-pushing, incompetent or trolling but either way I think we're fast approaching the point where you will need to be sanctioned. Alexbrn (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- It is not false that such "blur adaptation" often happens after glasses are removed. I actually considered restoring a bit more of what was prevously there, saying that one who removes his glasses and practices the Bates method might not realize that simply leaving the glasses off would have had the same effect, but that might still be original thought. Belteshazzar (talk) 03:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- The way you used it was pushing a false, fringe view. Alexbrn (talk) 03:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- This is a criticism of the Bates method, because the improvement is not seen as an actual change in refractive error. Belteshazzar (talk) 02:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- WP:PARITY is irrelevant here. It is for opening the door to criticism of fringe theories where none exists in orthodox RS. Alexbrn (talk) 02:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- WP:PARITY might apply here. And since it is apparently OK to synthesize sources to a limited extent, we could perhaps combine those two. Belteshazzar (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
- An editorial. Usable, if at all, only to support mundane claims. Alexbrn (talk) 05:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
The statement "Research has confirmed that when nearsighted subjects remove their corrective lenses, over time there is a limited improvement" is quite simply not true and has no place in this article; see my citing of Gardner, above. I concur with Alexbrn's speculation that Belteshazzar is "POV-pushing, incompetent or trolling". Just look back to see how lengthily Belteshazzar has persisted in beating a poor, long-dead horse beyond all reason. -- Jmc (talk) 07:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- The quoted statement is basically true, but was perhaps poorly phrased (not originally by me, as it was already in the article until Alexbrn removed it here). It did correctly note that the improvement was not due to a change in refractive error. Belteshazzar (talk) 07:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- The next point to reintegrate regards pseudomyopia. For starters, see page S67 of this report. Belteshazzar (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that is something to start from. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- "For starters, see page S67 of this report" - "Anecdotal reports" ??? -- Jmc (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- It says "The anecdotal accounts of ‘improvement’ or reduction of myopia may be related to pseudomyopia". That fits with the section theme "Misinterpreted evidence in support of the method". Belteshazzar (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- That fails MEDRS. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- Once again, WP:PARITY. Belteshazzar (talk) 03:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- Howso? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 04:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ideal sources may not have bothered to critique the Bates method in detail. WP:PARITY addresses that kind of thing. Belteshazzar (talk) 06:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- And the source under question does little more than mention it exists. This is why I said it's nothing to start from. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ideal sources may not have bothered to critique the Bates method in detail. WP:PARITY addresses that kind of thing. Belteshazzar (talk) 06:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- Howso? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 04:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- Once again, WP:PARITY. Belteshazzar (talk) 03:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- That fails MEDRS. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- It says "The anecdotal accounts of ‘improvement’ or reduction of myopia may be related to pseudomyopia". That fits with the section theme "Misinterpreted evidence in support of the method". Belteshazzar (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- "For starters, see page S67 of this report" - "Anecdotal reports" ??? -- Jmc (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that is something to start from. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- The next point to reintegrate regards pseudomyopia. For starters, see page S67 of this report. Belteshazzar (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)