Talk:Bates method

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)

External links

American Academy of Ophthalmology

I removed the following, since it doesn't even mention Bates method by name. I read through it, hoping it might be used as a ref, but I don't see how. --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• [1] American Academy of Ophthalmology : Complementary Therapy Assessments: Visual Training for Refractive Errors 2008

Ronz, Not true. Bates is mentioned in the reference section. Seeyou (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Slightly to my surprise, I find myself in complete agreement with Ronz about that. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Absurd removal. Read the references. You will find W.H. Bates. This article is about the Bates method and / or Natural vision improvement. If there is a number one reliable link and source in this article. This is the source and this the link. Read also the paragraph unique in the paragraph opthalmological research in the archive. Seeyou (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I re-added the link. You both do not understand and know there is article bates method and there is a article natural vision improvement. If we editors say these subjects are different we have to change the article natural vision improvement.

See the link :

* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natural_vision_improvement&redirect=no

Maybe it is a good idea to separate Natural vision improvement from the Bates method article. : - ). It is true Natural vision improvement and Bates method are not the same. See the available definitions of Thomas Quackenbush and Janet Goodrich. !Seeyou (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Instead of ignoring all other editors perspectives on the issue, in violation of WP:CON, please respect your fellow editors and follow WP:DR. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand can you explain ? Seeyou (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

My initial inclination was to agree with Ronz and SamuelTheGhost here, but after some reflection I now tend to think Seeyou is correct on this. Natural Vision Improvement does redirect to Bates method, and the third section is Modern variants, so this article is not only about the Bates method per se. Now, there is some merit to the idea of making Natural Vision Improvement into a separate article, but quite a bit of overlap would inevitably occur, and content forking would be an issue.
In light of that, the AAO report does seem to me to meet the Further reading section guidelines of "covering the topic beyond the scope of the article" and "having significant usefulness beyond verification of the article". So at this point my vote is to re-add it to Further Reading. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll explain my view. The AAO report is about "visual training". There's no coherence in the various techniques covered, and no indication that the training was carried out by people who believed in it or wanted it to work. Since an admitted key element in the Bates approach is the psychological one, the attitude of the teacher can be crucial. What was covered was a hotch-potch of methods, some of which might be benefical, some neutral, some harmful (by increasing "stress" in the Bates sense). Where statistically significant positive results were obtained the article uses weasel words to discount them. The "objective" criterion of whether you can see clearly is whether you can see clearly, not how it shows up on optometrists' instruments. The final conclusion, "There is level I evidence that visual training for control of accommodation has no effect on myopia" is just a lie, since the failure to find a significant effect is by no means a proof that no effect exists. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You are right, Sammy, the failure to find a statistical difference is not "proof". It is, however, "evidence" (or "support") for the lack of an effect, which is what the quote from the AAO report says! Let me reiterate: "There is level I evidence that visual training for control of accommodation has no effect on myopia" (my emphasis). Once again, science's major strength (its conservatism) is used against it! Famousdog (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

For further Arguments. See the cabalcase below :

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-08-03_Bates_method

Seeyou (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The AAO article is clearly about the Bates method and its descendants. I think that justifies some mention of it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I went through the same though process as PSWG1920. Since this article is where the Natural Vision Improvement redirect resolves, this external link seems appropriate. This article should discuss the general concept of Natural vision improvement with the first mention of it in bold. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

SeeYou asked me on my Talk page for my comments. I haven't been following the editing debate or editing history in any detail and may be missing subtleties. These comments apply to the two paragraphs following the "Ophthalmology research" section in this version of the article.

I like what's there in its present form.

This material seems to be to be totally appropriate for inclusion. It is a recent report from an impeccable mainstream medical source. Their research methods and judgement may be open to criticism, but it follows the basic verifiability rule: I have no doubt that AAO is a reliable source in the Wikipedian sense and I have no doubt that it really said the things it has said. The external link is appropriate because it's the source for the material. The second paragraph ("The AAO report states that... However, they also conclude...") presents their conclusions in their own words, and allows the reader to note that the AAO is expressing a nuanced and qualified conclusion.

I don't really have an opinion on what distinctions need to be made between various versions of the Bates and similar systems. I think it's appropriate for a general-purpose encyclopedia to treat e.g. all versions of Chiropractic in a single article, and deal with the various systems by side comments or sections within the context of the article. Similarly I think it's reasonable to treat all of the Bates-like systems together. If advocates of particular methods feel that it's very important to add qualifiers to fine-tune the material... e.g. to say more about what specific systems the studies cited by the AAO did or did not actually review... I'd regard it as clutter, but acceptable clutter. Incidentally, I think it's reasonable to use the "ref" mechanism to add footnotes as well as references, and advocate using them as a compromise when editors agree that something bears on neutrality but disagree on how important it is.

In other words, if someone wants to add a "Note: AAO article does not mention Bates method by name" in the footnote ... maybe following the reference itself... that would be OK with me. If someone wanted go through the AAO article and add a list, i.e. "This article reviews studies of the X system, Y system, Z system, etc." that actually would be a useful addition IMHO.

In general, we need to be sure that the reader can judge what the AAO article is about. In its present form I think it's perfectly clear to a reader that

1) the AAO article is about visual training for myopia in general, not specifically about the Bates method as presented in 1920;

2) Wikipedia's Bates method article is about the Bates method and related method.

3) the Bates method is indeed a form of visual training and is indeed used for the purpose of improving myopia, and therefore the AAO article would be relevant even if this article that were narrowly limited to the 1920 Bates method.

I'm not sure I quite know what to make of the interleaving of the material on "A 1946 study." Seems to me it oughta be AAO quotation, followed by presentation of AAO conclusions, then "A 1946 study." Actually I guess I'll go change that myself now. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Good to see some new editors weighing in. I've two concerns:

1. Why does this link, which has little relevance to this article, need to have the extra visibility beyond just being used as a reference?
2. This article is not about natural vision improvement. We've tried to make it so as much as possible in Bates_method#Modern_variants, but that section of the article is probably the most contested section of all. See other discussions on this page and a summary of the problem in Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Bates_method_sources.

--Ronz (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

1. This is a divisive question in the wording. I wouldn't say that the link has little relevance to this article. In terms of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, this article uses a source entitled "Eye-Related Quackery" as both a reference and an external link. Perhaps it has extra visibility to help readers who have poor vision. ;-)
2. Here is the discussion defining why the Natural vision improvement article redirected to this one. It seems that this article should discuss "natural vision improvement" within the context of the Bates Method.

-- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Seeyou says I commented on the wrong issue, and wants my views specifically on also listing the AAO article under "external links."

The key point here is serving the reader. Personally, I am sort of an inclusionist when it comes to external links. They're OK bye me so long as the quantity of encyclopedic information in them is high and the amount of commercialism is low.

In the case of an article on a controversial topic, a reader may well be interested in locating material on either side of the controversy, so such an article not only may but should include links to sites that represent non-neutral points of view. The links should be reasonably balanced, and identified as to their point of view. Thus, if the AAO link were to be included, it shouldn't be just a bare link, but have a one-line summary such as "AAO article that is unsupportive of the merits of visual training for refractive errors."

If someone wants to include the AAO link, it's a good article and I don't see any reason to remove it. But since it's also in the references, I don't see that it's important to include it. I suggest here that we err on the side of inclusion: anyone who does think it's important should be humored.

Wikipedia is not a link farm, but collecting good external links is a useful service to the reader.

(With regard to pro-Bates or pro-natural-vision improvement, a difficulty here is that many of these sites actually are connected with commercial promotion of specific books, courses, materials, or practitioners... but its up to Bates supporters to find those that aren't. I'd be equally leery of an link to an article on, say, LASIK, however well written, that was on a website for a surgical practice offering LASIK). Dpbsmith (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Central-fixation

Since we're discussing external links, I'd like to bring up one which has been rejected in the past. Central-fixation.com contains a collection of articles by Bates which were published in medical journals, most dealing directly with his method of treating eyesight. These are independent of his self-published works. To me this is highly relevant, and I don't understand the problem with linking to it. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be a wonderful resource. It contains meaningful, relevant content that may not suitable for inclusion in this article. I don't see any commercial interests or advertising. By all means, I think it would be a pity not to include a link to this website. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest a quick search through the talk archives to see why it was removed, summarizing the reasoning, then providing new comments that address past concerns. --Ronz (talk) 03:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If I recall this correctly, there was this one editor who threw around a bunch of scary policies. WP:NPOV. WP:SPAM. WP:EL. But he never told us why he thought those applied. Except with WP:EL. He claimed that WP:EL is not satisfied because the hosting site (central-fixation.com) "misleads the reader by the use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research". And then this other editor asked for an example from the hosting site where it offers factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. But you know what? That first editor never did give an example. And months later, still no example. And with still no example, I think it is high time this link was restored. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any need to search through the Talk archives. I wasn't involved in the earlier discussions, but I have very strong feelings about this.

It is patently obvious that links to a collection of articles by W. H. Bates is relevant to an article on the Bates method. This is a large collection of articles. I don't know how easy it would be to find them via JSTOR or Medline or what have you; they might actually be hard to find or they might be fairly easy to find, but having them collected in one place is valuable.

This is a legitimate collection of source material. If the website has any commercial connection at all, it's not obvious. In any case, the ratio of encyclopedic material to promotion is very high.

As for the criticism of "factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research," WP:V is about "verifiability, not truth." The only reason to object would be if the articles were fabricated, altered, distorted, etc. and since the website gives their sources it's easy to verify whether they are or or not.

That is: only two questions need to be asked. a) Are W. H. Bates' published writings relevant to an article on the Bates method? b) Does the website accurately present this material--that is, is an article that claims to be "Reprinted from the New York Medical Journal for September 3, 1921" in fact an accurate copy of an article printed in the New York Medical Journal for September 3, 1921.

Note, too, that the fact that these articles were published in a medical journal is irrelevant. That fact may be relevant in judging the validity of Bates' writings, or the position of Bates within the medical mainstream during his life... but it has nothing to do with whether it's a useful external link.

Just to make myself perfectly clear, I'm a Bates skeptic. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of the Bates method. Notice that someone seeking to build a case against the validity of the Bates method might find this collection just as interesting and useful as a supporter. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Performing due diligence on verifying the material at the central-fixation site, I note that Google Books does turn up an image of a book by Health Research Books, 1993, which presents itself as a collection of reprints of articles by W. H. Bates. In particular, Google Books shows me this page image which certainly has the look of a copy of page image from an old journal, and which corresponds to the text at http://www.central-fixation.com/bates-medical-articles/shifting-aid-vision.php . Not that anyone has challenged the accuracy of the text posted at central-fixation... I'm just saying I tried making one quick spot-check and things jibed. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Imagination Blindness

How about this one? A reference to the site was just removed from the article per below discussions, however, I think this is useful enough to be in the external links. PSWG1920 (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

See WP:LINKSTOAVOID, especially #2, #11, #13. We need information specifically about Bates method. Anything else is a distraction at best. --Ronz (talk) 18:58, 18 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)

List of poor sources

• http://www.iblindness.org/articles/kiesling-rebuttal.html
• http://www.visionsofjoy.org - 3 links
• http://visionimprovementcenter.com/disclaimer.htm
• http://archive.mailtribune.com/archive/99/sept99/92099n2.htm
• http://www.visioneducators.org/reducedlenses.htm

--Ronz (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

See my last comment directly above. And as for the disclaimers (currently referenced here), I think that is a significant aspect which would be difficult to touch on directly without using such sources. These disclaimers could be seen as Bates method teachers' own words condemning themselves. PSWG1920 (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I do nonetheless see your basic point. It would be difficult to justify referencing a random personal website for its author's opinion on an aspect of the Bates method. Now, to me, for practical purposes, the sites in question are more than just random personal websites, but I'm fairly certain you would argue (with apologies if I have assumed too much) that what I call "practical purposes", are irrelevant. I looked through WP:FRINGE, since that's the most directly applicable guideline for this type of article, and I couldn't find anything addressing this type of situation, though WP:PARITY comes somewhat close. Perhaps we should try the Fringe theory noticeboard again, ask for help with this specific issue, and point out that the Fringe guideline could better address the question of what individual fringe sources are acceptable to cite. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. This issue is very specific, so it should be fairly approachable for someone new to the article. --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the final comment in the article, about Bates practitioners issuing disclaimers, is unnecessary and could be removed. Presumably Bates teachers should do this by law and showing that they do (do something that they should do) serves only to show them in a positive light. Removing this rather pointless sentence has the added benefit of removing two contentious sources. (However, I'm not doing it 'cause I'll get shouted at!) Famousdog (talk) 13:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, just because it may in a sense show Bates teachers in a positive light does not mean it should be removed, and your assessment that it shows them in only a positive light is questionable. Secondly, I don't see how these disclaimers are "contentious". At any rate, this is a very relevant point. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the iblindness reference and one of the references to visionsofjoy, replacing them with a similar discussion derived from Elwin Marg. Now, I would be okay with deleting the other "poor sources" if we could find independent sources for the points they are used to reference. Absent that, I think they should be permitted to stay per above discussions. PSWG1920 (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I should add that I would have no problem with the removal of the Mail Tribune reference. I added it because I thought it was an independent source which would help the subsection, "Natural Vision Improvement", but at this point I would not defend the subsection if it were deleted. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:51, 23 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)

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)

Change title from Bates Method into Bates method / Natural Vision improvement

Since the article Natural vision improvement directs directly to the Bates method article, I think the current title of the article is not right. The Bates method is not equal to Natural Vision improvement and Natural Vision improvement is not equal to the Bates method. Janet Goodrich provided a defintion of Natural vision improvement, which unfortunatly is removed. And T. Quackenbush provided one for the Bates method currently present. For how long ? Based on these facts a title merge is an improvement. Correct me if I am wrong. Seeyou (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason for it, especially given the article as it exists.. Please list some independent, reliable sources on the subject of "natural vision improvement." --Ronz (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ronz, Every source is reliable unless unreliability is proved by a reliable source. Assume good faith ! Seeyou (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope. See WP:RS. --Ronz (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I studied WP:RS I do not understand. When is a source independent and reliable and when is a source not independent and reliable ? The WP:RS reference does not make this clear. In contrary it says : Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. So whether or not a source is reliable depends on us. In my opinion the Janet Goodrich publications are reliable. If I am wrong please correct me. Seeyou (talk) 20:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's my current understanding. Reliable sources are generally considered to be "third-party" publications. "Third-party" meaning (it took me a while to realize this) that the author and the publisher are not one and the same, and both are independent of the subject. Janet Goodrich fails the latter portion of that test, since she obviously is not independent of "Natural Vision Improvement". While sources promoting the Bates method can be cited in the Bates method article, it needs to be based around independent, third-party sources. Currently the "Natural Vision Improvement" subsection is very shaky in that regard. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's better to leave the title as it is (Shorter, easier to type.) But if it's changed, the word "vision" should not be capitalized, and probably not the word "Natural" either. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Coppertwig welcome are you also going to really contribute to this article like ronz ? Above you only give your opinion. Can you also react on the given arguments. Like the article Natural vision improvement directly directs to the bates method article. As you can see by the given defintions ( referenced ! ). The bates method and Natural vision improvement are not completly equal. From a mathematical point of view this is not right. Is it ? Seeyou (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"Natural Vision Improvement" is a phrase used by one particular set of Bates Method teachers, associated with the names Quackenbush and Goodrich as Seeyou keeps reminding us. There are other Bates Method teachers, particularly outside the USA, who don't use that phrase and who trace their influence back to Bates by different routes. Although the relationship between the different schools seems to be fairly friendly, they are completely independent of each other. So to change the name as suggested would pointlessly introduce another bias (as if there aren't enough already). So I'm against it. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sammy I suggest you read the archive for better understanding.

But since discussion should be based on arguments and facts and not just on your personal opinion I will give you the explanation I have given earlier.

Can you explain, when you go the one of the biggest bookstores on the net today Amazon.com and you search for bates method or Natural vision improvement, you will find a bestselling book on top of the list. So according to this bookstore also Bates method and Natural vision improvement are equal. Seeyou (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Nein, nein, nein, Seeyou. Just because a bestselling book is about the Bates Method and Natural Vision Improvement does not mean that the method and Natural Vision Improvement are one and the same. Besides, any move to the title you wish would rightly be rejected on the basis of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Frankly, Seeyou, I'm getting a bit fed up with this warlike attitude you've exuded. You've been using the Mediation Cabal as a bunker to take potshots at your enemies for the pettiest sleights (note that practically all your MedCab cases have been closed without ruling), and you have, on this very talk page in the past, accused another editor of a posts-for-pennies deal. What I'm seeing from you, Seeyou, is a defender of The Truth^TM who will not hesitate to assume an attitude not unlike that of the Japanese during WWII, and it's going to end up getting you blocked someday. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Bodging WP edit by edit)} 19:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree they are not equal. That why the sourced definitions are so important. The Bates method in this article should be everything bates has published. And Natural Vision improvement is : A lifestyle method of improving eyesight by wholistic means without the use of optical devices. The Bates method merged with modern theories of brain function, character and responsibility for one’s self and state of being.

This bookstore represents information which indicates that in the outside world the Bates method and Natural vision improvement have a strong connection. Which is true. And this article does not represent this fact when you read the header. ( Do not forget there is still an article NVI directing to the BM article. ) Arguments, Facts that is the way to discuss Jeske. Focus on improving this article. Seeyou (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Definitions

Current Definition of the Bates method :

Natural vision teacher Thomas R. Quackenbush defines the Bates method thus:

An educational program created by ophthalmologist William H. Bates, M.D., in which natural, correct vision habits—based on relaxation of the mind and body—are taught; optional self-healing activities and games are often included to accelerate integration and self-healing; commonly misunderstood as only "eye exercises"—even by many "Bates Method" teachers.

Currrent Defintion of Natural Vision improvement :

According to Janet Goodrich :

Natural Vision Improvement : A lifestyle method of improving eyesight by wholistic means without the use of optical devices. The Bates method merged with modern theories of brain function, character and responsibility for one’s self and state of being..

Seeyou (talk) 20:53, 19 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)

Elwin Marg was an optometrist !

Wow Ronz you are fast. See :

• http://brain.berkeley.edu/marg/cv.html

Facts and should be presented about the references and sources. RFC ? Seeyou So again Elwin Marg was an Optometrist !(talk) 21:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

How is this relevant? --Ronz (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to a standard citation. --Ronz (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ronz, I am amazed you do not understand my point.

See : http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=22559

An Optometrist is a health care professional who is licensed to provide primary eye care services:

An Ophthalmologist is an eye M.D., a medical doctor who is specialized in eye and vision care. Ophthalmologists are trained to provide the full spectrum of eye care, from prescribing glasses and contact lenses to complex and delicate eye surgery. They may also be involved in eye research.

I assume you undestand my explanation now, so I readded optometrist Elwin Marg. Time is now 22:27 Seeyou (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

How is this relevant? --Ronz (talk) 21:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

When you read the information above. You read an optometrist is not the biggest authority on the subject of eyesight. He or she is less educated. I think other users will agree with me this fact is valuable and important fact. Why is not an ophthalmologist chosen to comment on the Bates method my dear friend ? Seeyou (talk) 08:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Since you say "I think other users will agree" I must tell you that I don't. Once more (this mustn't become a habit!) I agree with Ronz. And for the following reasons:

• There is no general policy in wikipedia of prefixing their professions to names of cited authors, and no need to in this case. We don't for example say "journalist Martin Gardner" though that would be a much more revealing qualification.
• The process of peer review of academic papers is an attempt to judge the merits of the paper on what is said, not on who said it. Some review processes are undertaken in conditions of author anonymity, in accordance with this principle. The Marg paper that the article quotes has been peer reviewed. Admittedly that doesn't guarantee that it is of high quality, but in my opinion it is. If you disagree, give your reasons.
• The CV for Marg you gave a link for is indeed interesting. It makes it quite clear that Marg is a respectable and respected scientist. Furthermore it includes that fact that he spent five years in post-doctoral research, including four years as "Research Associate in Surgery (Ophthalmology)" so your statement "He or she is less educated" looks downright silly as applied to him. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: so your statement "He or she is less educated" looks downright silly as applied to him. Worse, it looks like a deliberate attempt to violated NPOV, OR, and FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

What are the two proposed pieces of language here? Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Pardon? Could you explain please? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:: I do understand your question Phil. See below :

Edit Seeyou :

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bates_method&diff=233410307&oldid=233400663

Edit Ronz :

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bates_method&diff=233613387&oldid=233604691

Seeyou (talk) 11:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Seeyou has asked me to comment about whether to include the optometrist title. In terms of readability, I don't think it makes much difference, and it rather explains who this person is. Although an Ophthalmologist may have more stature wrt to vision problems than an Optometrist due to the medical training, when it comes to commenting on lenses and optics I would think that a researcher in the field of Optometry would have the edge. Bottom line is I don't have strong feelings either way. --Vannin (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

IMHO Marg's credentials probably should be mentioned, because they help the reader judge the reliability of the source. The reader shouldn't need to download the PDF of his paper to find out. Of course, the fact that the paper was published in the American Journal of Optometry in itself lends credibility (and creates an assumption that the author would be an optometrist).

As it reads now, "Berkeley optometry professor Elwin Marg" inline in the text, is, perhaps, putting too much stress on his credentials, as if trying to emphasize credibility. I would probably change the language to something like "optometry professor Elwin Marg," or simply say "Elwin Marg" in the main text and identify him as a "Berkeley optometry professor" in the footnote.

Better yet, if Marg is not a famous name, just say "A 1952 review article in the American Journal of Optometry pointed out..."

Seeyou is wrong in suggesting that optometrists are inferior to ophthalmologists. It's a bizarre and touchy issue and I've never quite figured it out, although there are parallels in other medical fields. I saw a podiatrist the other day, and my wife commented on there being friction between podiatrists and orthopedists. I learned to my surprise that podiatrists, like optometrists, are "doctors" who are not MDs. (My podiatrist is a "DPM," Doctor of Podiatric Medicine).

I've seen some hints... old articles in which optometrists refer to ophthalmologists as "allopaths..." that make me think there may be a parallel with osteopaths vs. medical doctors, that is the optometry and ophthalmology professions may have had separate historic origins and may represent rival factions, rather than different levels of competence.

In any case, optometrists are highly trained professionals and are "real doctors."

Furthermore, informally, my impression is that optometrists seem to focus on obtaining optimum vision in healthy eyes, while ophthalmologists are rather more like specialists in disease states, so if anything optometrists might have higher credibility with regard to questions regarding how eyes focus. I even have the impression that optometrists may tend to take a little more time on refractions and do better refractions than ophthalmogists.

In the area where I live, the norm seems to be for ophthalmologic practices to include an optometrist who does the refractions.

In any case, it doesn't matter. The reader needs to know that Marg was a professor of optometry, and can judge for himself how credible that makes him. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah. This is over mentioning his position in the external links section. In that case, I do not think we should do so - it seems awkward to me to do so. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand why awkward ? The other links have a similar reference like quackwatch or ophthalmology. Seeyou (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, a reference to Quackwatch is a reference to the source. In this case, I think clearly noting the journal is sufficient. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I was also asked by Seeyou to comment. I looked at it, and, basically, the link already says that it's published on a optimetrist journal, so there is no real need to repeat the information, it would be like saying "yes, it's published on a journal of optimetry, which is published by an association of optimetrists. Oh, right, and the author is an optometrist". Also, notice that the link was probably not included due to the credentials of the author, but due to the source it was published on, so it's more natural to give more weight to the source.

If the link only had the author's name, then it would be better to include his credentials, in order to make clear to the readers why his paper is considered important enough for inclusion, but this is not the case. The journal publication is probably enough by itself. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:38, 24 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)