Talk:Bates method: Difference between revisions

Skepticism B‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative medicine B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Template:Oldscipeerreview

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24

Some examples of famousdog contributions to the bates method article.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Famousdog&diff=128252617&oldid=95096585

( famousdog lists the batesmethod under Pseudoscience ! )

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bates_method&diff=99329620&oldid=99107773

( famousdog saying the mind is the brain ?! )

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bates_method&diff=174433324&oldid=174431966

( great contribution but \martin Garder was not an Optometrists or ophthalmologists but a popular American mathematics and science writer )

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bates_method&diff=167207674&oldid=167019914

( The genetic theory is the suggestion of the orthodox vision problems are genetic, but scientists still have not found any proof in our DNA )

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bates_method&diff=109306766&oldid=109306034

( famosudog editing published information )

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bates_method&diff=124083867&oldid=124052301

( famousdog showing no respect to an editor )

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=AED

( When you can make this amount of edits you are being paid. Does wikipedia really give objective information ?! Note these edits were done in less then a month !!! And look at what kind of articles these edits are made !)

Seeyou (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing is not a breach of any policy necessarily (but it does bring up a COI question). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, so... Where's your evidence of palm, greasing? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I resent the implication that I am being paid. In fact I am simply interested in this topic and have therefore made time in my (busy) schedule to make sure that this page is not hijacked by Bates practitioners and Bates advocates. Seeyou's behaviour amounts to harrassment, cyberstalking and clearly a personal attack. All of which are, I believe, discouraged on Wikipedia. Lets see if I that's enough to get you banned, since you haven't made a useful edit in MONTHS. Famousdog (talk) 14:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gone to arbitration. Famousdog (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See here. Famousdog (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is of course speculation, but I think my friend AED/famousdag has chosen a new intelligent strategy to keep the quality of this article as low as possible. Please look at the edits by a or the editor(s) since 8 December 2007. Some edits are done by seeyou and my dear friend famousdog. The rest, a very big amount, are edits made by different IP addresses. But there is something strange going on with these IP-addresses. They are constantly different. They appear one, two or three times and then disappear. For example : block some IP addresses and / or use CTRL + F for the following Ip-addresses :

128.2.238.203 once

201.51.124.78 two times

85.214.83.197 three times

128.230.111.195 once.

and many many more.

Search the web for : Hide IP-Adress. And you will see this is possible.

Very smart of Famousdog, but also a bit weak to go undercover with an assistant. By the way this also proofs famousdog is being paid for this work I takes quite some time to make those tiny edits.

In my opinion this inforation should always be easy to find for the objective neutral reader.

Seeyou (talk) 10:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up, but in the last week, several identified Tor open proxies have been used to edit this article, which ought to be cause for concern:

• 140.112.96.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 217.157.63.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 217.198.148.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 219.232.228.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.155.229.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 80.126.121.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.64.210.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 82.237.39.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 85.17.45.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 85.31.186.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.136.70.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 88.191.38.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 89.37.216.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 99.246.150.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 202.38.124.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• 68.48.198.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• 80.249.115.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• 87.255.6.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• 88.167.101.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• 88.198.47.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• 89.123.10.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• 91.121.102.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)

There are a whole bunch of other IPs which are not obviously open proxies, but perhaps someone who knows what he or she is doing could actually check. --Calton | Talk 05:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank Christ somebody has finally noticed this. Dunno what a Tor open proxy is, but I hope we can stop whoever it is editing in this anonymous manner. Famousdog (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Onion Router (Tor) is an anonymity network using different proxies that allows a user to act as if they had a different external IP address, which is useful if you're trying to get around censorship but useless if you want to edit Wikipedia, as open and anonymizing proxies are barred from editing. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. This is a f***ing joke. I've just reverted Seeyou's reversion for the trillionth time and I'm getting pretty f***ing bored with this game. MastCell, Jeske and myself seem to be happy with the version that Seeyou finds sooooooo offensive. That's 3 against 1, I reckon (ignoring any anonymous users) but I suppose Seeyou is just going to argue that MastCell and Jeske are my sockpuppets in the same way that I am a sockpuppet of AED and various other users... and so on and so on and so on forever and ever and ever ad infinatum... Mediation and arbitration have lead nowhere on this issue. Can we get Seeyou's disruptive account blocked PLEASE??? Famousdog (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest WP:AN/I and provide diffs showing a problem. This is beyond content to behavioral, and thus AN/I can now deal with it. And if he accuses ANYONE of being a sockpuppet, he'd better have the evidence to back it up, or else. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened the mediation cabal request that User:Seeyou filed here Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-07 Bates method and will be serving at the mediator of it, unless anyone objects. I've reviewed the diffs Seeyou provided and the current version of the article, as well as about the last month of talkpage contents. At this point I've noticed somethings that lead me to general comments.

• 1. Despite the length of the talk-age, I see very few WP:AGF discussions, and much pontificating, essying, and talking past other users.
• 2. I believe the article can use some stylistic improvments, as well as further sourcing of certain statements, to avoid non-NPOV, OR statements.
• 3. I do not see a previous WP:RFC or WP:3O filed in this matter. While I as a mediator can help bring disagreeing parties together, I feel that sometimes more registered voices will add to discussion.
• 4. I've seen at least a couple accusations thrown around wildly here and on other related pages. So I'll remind all involved parties of WP:CIVIL and that the mediation cabal process is 100% voluntary. In and of itself, this process cannot block, ban or censor a user. Also, all accusations of sock-puppetry, bad faith, or pov-pushing, should be clearly back up by evidence (diffs, page histories, etc) and taken to the proper forum, such as WP:SSP.
• 5. At this point, I would like the involved parties to state what they disagree with in the tone of the current version of it. Specifically, how version X is not WP:NPOV. I'm not looking for super-long quotes, more possibly several short descriptive sentences. MBisanz ^talk 20:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I've heard from both sides on this matter, read into an interesting thing I'd never heard of before, and have some concluding opinions.

• 1. Mediation is not a process that blocks a user or automatically ends vandalism, those are things that are done in other forums. Mediation is a voluntary dispute resolution process that does not assess penalties to either party.
• 2. In reviewing this case, it seems there is an existing consensus among several users. This consensus is not to be taken lightly. Evidence of off-wiki support for a position, is not the same as on-wiki discussion. Further, as long as consensus is support by reliable sources and presented in a NPOV and does not violate a legal policy such as BLP, I am of the opinion that it should be given paramount respect.
• 3. Further, as an independent third party, knowing nothing of the topic at hand, but having a year of college bio, a year of college chemistry and half a year of physics, I am of the opinon that the current version [1] meets Wikipedia's standards for neutrally, factually, and fairly, presenting the topic at hand. While there could be some stylistic changes in layout, I do not see any disputable content.
• 4. In light of my inability (and unwillingness) to do what the parties seem to want, namely to block a user (WP:AN/I, WP:AN, WP:ARBCOM) or stop all vandalism (WP:RFPP), I am therefore closing this case.

MBisanz ^talk 18:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, MBisanz. Maybe now we can all get on with our lives. Famousdog (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for creating this cabalcase is the batesmethod is presented from un unbalanced point of view in the introduction of the article. The current version is mainly sceptic. In the 3 party version an authority advocate of the Batesmethod ( Thomas Quackenbush ) was also given room to give referenced information. This article should strive to present its information as objective as possible. The authority on this subject should be ophthalmology. Indirectly they state the batesmethod is controversial. ( See the link (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15825744?dopt=AbstractPlus ). This is also the reason why the quackery links which were present in the past were removed, So at this moment the Batesmethod is not quackery anymore it has become controversial. ( Thanks to famousdog, I am serious ). The only way to be as objective as possible is to allow every single party to have their say about the batesmethod. Meaning the advocates of the Batesmethod, the sceptics and ophthalmology. The neutral version presents all points of view. In future they can off course be improved. The current version does not. In the 3 party version is also made clear bates thought the external muscles were the only muscles of the eye for accommodation. But not al advocates of the batesmethod believe Bates was right about his accommodationtheory. In other words the neutral version gives much more objective referenced and clear information. And improves the quality of the article. ( I also want to emphasize Mastcell and Jéské Couriano are not involved in editing this article when you look at their total edits of this article. Seeyou and famousdog are much more active. )

Neutral 3 point of view version :

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bates_method&diff=182792619&oldid=182773677

Vandalized version by Famousdog.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bates_method

Seeyou (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although the Rawstron review cited by Seeyou is pretty damning of eye exercises generally, the Marg (1957) paper (http://brain.berkeley.edu/pub/1952%20April%20Flashes%20of%20Clear%20Vision.pdf) is damning of the Bates method specifically. There is little recent research from ophthalmology on the Bates method for the simple fact that most ophthalmologists agree with Marg that it is nonsensical pseudoscience and best ignored. Secondly, I would like to point out that Seeyou in the above post has once again accused me of vandalism. Finally, his statement "not all advocates of the batesmethod believe Bates was right about this (my emphasis)" demonstrates how much flip-flopping and vagueness there is among Bates advocates. Firstly, a practitioners belief should not come into a discussion on potentially saving somebody sight! If Bates was wrong about this one important fact, surely it throws his other theories into confusion. Concepts crucial to the Bates method (like "strain") are so poorly defined and open to interpretation, as to be useless. Famousdog (talk) 14:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point, Famousdog. If Seeyou really wants to include all perspectives of the Bates method in the introduction, a quote from Marg should be included.

By the way, admins, it looks like that important link was originally provided by an anonymous edit on December 24. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.240.216.135 (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

> (http://brain.berkeley.edu/pub/1952%20April%20Flashes%20of%20Clear%20Vision.pdf) is damning of the Bates method specifically. Yes it refers to the original old Batesmethod But the original batesmethod has developed itself into a new modern one. The Batesmethod nowadays has improved in many ways. Most importantly in its explanation. Janet Goodrich has for example been very important by introducing creative tools like the nosepointer, pencil, feather the beadgame etc. This appears to be a bit childish but is very helpful in understanding and teaching !. She also says in her book The original Batesbook has gathered dust on many bookshelves. In other words it is not a great book to read and to really learn and understand natures system. What I am trying to say is the Batesmethod Marg talks about is not the same as the Batesmethod nowadays. Teachers have developed many tools in explaining and giving instructions based on scientific facts.

> There is little recent research from ophthalmology on the Bates method for the simple fact that most ophthalmologists agree with Marg that it is nonsensical pseudoscience and best ignored. Looking at het rawstron review at least 44 scientists ignored Elwin Margs report. So that is not true. Recently I have heard there is also a German professor in ophthalmology who reports significant results in the effects of relaxation on cataract. See : http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/search/ref=pd_lpo_ix_dp_dn_de_uk_de?keywords=ilse%20strempel&tag=lpo%5Fixdpdndeukde-21&index=blended published in July 2002 !

Off course you will react with this is not Batesmethod, but again the Batesmethod is also about principles. The most important ones are relaxation and movement. This German Professor in ophthalmology emphasizes on the importance of relaxation !

> accused me of vandalism.. If you want, I will explain why, no problem.

> Firstly, a practitioners belief should not come into a discussion on potentially saving somebody sight! I am not a practitioner I am just an editor in this article. I just want to improve the quality of this article and to be objective.

> Concepts crucial to the Bates method (like "strain") are so poorly defined and open to interpretation, as to be useless. That is your opinion ntt mine.

Sorry famousdog I do not understand why the almost 60 year old reference of a single person has more weight then the 3 year old rawstron review linked to many researchers. The argument the rawstron link is about exercises and not about the Bates method is not valid, because the Batesmethod is also about principles ( movement and relaxation ). I can not imagine the exercises of the rawstronlink are not focussed on movement.

And it also appears to me the Elwin Margs report is put on the Berkely website just for this wikipedia article. I can not find a link on the website directly to the pdf file.( google idem ). In other words it is a created link. So it shows ophthalmology only wants to explain when they are forced to explain.

Gladly read your reply. Seeyou (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Onus is on the editor to provide reasons to change the consensus. I see none. Stop beating around the bush and provide sources that rebut the claims, please, or drop the stick. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your looking for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and hasn't this article been there and been turned down? Did you ever think of running a WP:RFC? MBisanz ^talk 13:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RFCsci

There is no consensus. The introduction of this article is not NPOV and does not represent the batesmethod of today. The batesmethod of natural vision improvement today is not the same as the 1920 batesmethod. The reason it’s explanation has improved a lot ! The introduction of this article should present the current batesmethod not the old one. The old batesmethod should be presented in the second, third or last paragraph.

( There are no articles in wikipedia representing the history of its subject immediately in the first paragraph ! )

The article Natural vision improvement ( which is also the batesmethod ) also directs directly to this article, When the introduction does not change Natural vision improvement will be misunderstood and misinterpreted by many people only reading the introduction about the old batesmethod and the old 1952 opinion of ophthalmology.

Some sources : The Batesmethod is updated and much better explained see the links below for verification :

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1556433417/ref=sib_dp_pop_bc?ie=UTF8&p=S0GA#reader-link ( See the backcover Presentation of the current batesmethod, The book is dated 1997 !!!! )

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1556433417/ref=sib_dp_pop_toc?ie=UTF8&p=S008#reader-link ( The table of contents : Chapter 9 and 11. Two important principles movement and relaxation.)

More recent studies by ophthalmology give the following results with these 2 principles of the Batesmethod.

Sources of Ophthalmology of this century are now in the last paragraph : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15825744?dopt=AbstractPlus may 2005 ( conclusion : As yet there is no clear scientific evidence published in the mainstream literature supporting the use of eye exercises in the remainder of the areas reviewed, and their use therefore remains controversial. http://www.augenarzt-betzdorf.de/therapieglaukom.php ( in German, translated  : in the book autogenic training in ophthalmology, the writers G. Kaluza and professor Ilse Strempel ophthalmologist of the university eye hospital Marburg, have developed a relaxationtechnique by which the eye-pressure significantly can be decreased. ( German In dem Buch „Autogenes Training in der Augenheilkunde“ haben die Autoren G. Kaluza und Prof. med. Ilse Strempel (Augenärztin an der Universitätsaugenklinik Marburg) ein Entspannungstraining entwickelt, wodurch nachweislich der Augeninnendruck gesenkt werden konnte.))

Neutral 3 point of view version representing the batesmethod of today :

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bates_method&diff=182792619&oldid=182773677

Current Unneutral version representing the 1920 batesmethod

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bates_method

Seeyou (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest you withdraw the RfC. Everyone is going to see it as an attempt to make an end-run around the consensus currently in place and forum-shopping. Further, reading over your version, I see it is fundamentally biased and thus not up to Wikipedia standard, which requires we approach a topic with a very high degree of dispassion. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 17:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to agree with Jeske that it does seem an RFC will go nowhere. So far this issue has been to 3O, medcab, medcomm, and rfar I believe, and has either been declined or a version substantially identical to this [2] validated as being the less non-NPOV of the options presented. Quite frankly, I don't see the WP:POINT being made here. There is a consensus among people who've edited the article as to the better version, several outsiders such as WJBscribe and Newyorkbrad seem to have at least looked at the issue in declining escalation, and haven't seen any abuse of minority position or fundamental content flaws. MBisanz ^talk 18:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Bates method cannot itself be updated, since Bates isn't around to do it and hasn't been since 1931. Anything involving Goodrich's techniques, pro or con, belongs in the Other methods section. Since Rawstron doesn't address Bates, but rather "eye exercises", that too belongs only in "Other methods". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.97.114.200 (talk) 03:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take for example a car A car is a tool / ( also a method ) to move yourself from A to B. When we nowadays talk about a car. We do not talk about a car of the past. We talk about a car today. When we talk about ophthalmology we do not talk about ophthalmology 100 or 60 years ago we talk about ophthalmology now. We named natures way to improve eyesight Batesmethod. We also named it Natural vision improvement. See wikipedia. By the way the first car was a coach with an engine. It has improved a lot since then ! The definition in the last paragraph is the definition of the batesmethod today. And it is Based on the literature available today.

> The Bates method cannot itself be updated, since Bates isn't around to do it and hasn't been since 1931. Can you explain to my why a car can be improved by technicians or ophthalmology can be updated or improved by new opthalmologists and the Batesmethod can not be improved by other teachers ? Again bates did not call his method Batesmethod he talkes about natures way to See. Seeyou (talk) 09:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From Better Eyesight magazine:

The following, however, is a list of those who have taken courses of instruction in the Bates Method within the past few months. So Bates at least permitted his magazine's editor to use that terminology.

Vision improvement techniques could have advanced since Bates (though it is questionable whether they have become more effective), but that doesn't change what the Bates method is. There is the Other methods section, which can be made as expansive as you want. But leave the rest of the article, including the introduction, to discussion of Bates and his specific theories and treatments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.223.23 (talk) 09:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

> Vision improvement techniques could have advanced since Bates but that doesn't change what the Bates method is. It does,, the batesmethod of today is not the same as the old one. See the back-cover of Relearning to See. First sentence : In this groundbreaking presentation of the Batesmethod, … So the publisher speaks about the presentation of the BATESMETHOD. But when you read this book you wont find for example the controversial theory of the focussing mechanism, direct sunlight sunning, claim to use imagining black for narcoses. In other words based on this publication the Batesmethod has changed. Since we are only editors, we should provide only sourced information. ( And not mix it with our own opinions ). This recentb 1997 publication proves the Batesmethod has changed. Seeyou (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And round and round and round we go... please, somebody make it stop! Famousdog (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

By all means, say that it has been claimed that the BM can prevent retinal detachment. However, this is not an article about risk or prevelance of retinal detachment (and this info should already be available in the article on RD). In addition, the claim that the BM can prevent RD is POV and should be qualified as such. Finally, your changes to chapter titles do not seem to add anything to the article! In the context of the article it is obvious that "natural vision improvement" refers to "the Bates method of natural vision improvement" and not some other system/program/technique, so why bother potentially messing up any internal or external links to these sections??? Famousdog (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to agree with Famousdog on the section headings. If this article was on NVI in general, then yes headings would be needed to distinguish Bate's from other methods. And over 50 articles link to this one in some manner, so its probably not a good idea to go changing sections around, unless there is some obvious reason (section split, etc). MBisanz ^talk 21:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This section is seriously POV. How can CF be lost "at a cetain distance"? Fixation is central or peripheral. The retinal image is 2D. The quotes are too long - this is an encyclopedia article not a soapbox for Bates. I've also suggested some well-known visual phenomena that could explain Bates' amazing skills at making people see worse! Famousdog (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Famousdog, I don't understand this paragraph:

Bates recommended swinging or shifting involving deliberate movements of the body with relaxed awareness of vision. It is quite unclear what Bates meant by these terms and due to the nystagmus or oculomotor reflexes, which attempt unconsciously to stabilise the retinal image, it is unlikely to be achieved.

I thought Chapter 15 of Bates' book, and in my opinion my previous rewrite, made it fairly clear what he meant by shifting and swinging. Whether he was correct in his assertions regarding such is another question. Also, what are you talking about when you say it is unlikely to be achieved? PSWG1920 (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as it is possible to tell what Bates meant (and one of the persistent problems with this article is the fact that everybody has their own theories about Bates' meaning), the idea of swinging was to relax fixation and allow the retinal image to slide over the retina by moving the body back and forth rather than moving the eyes. When the retinal image moves, the eyes automatically attempt to stabilise the visual image (because you gain more resolution from a stabilised image than a moving one) by making tiny eye movements called nystagmus (a mixture of saccadic and pursuit eye movements). Its a reflex, you can't stop it happening by relaxing. That's what I meant by "unlikely to be achieved". Finally, just a general comment: you seem to be a new editor to this article. Please, please try to summarise material rather than simply cutting-and-pasting huge sections from Bates' book. The whole book is available online. If you think a section is important, link to that section on Wikibook. This is, at the end of the day, an encyclopedia article about the Bates Method. Not a definitive and complete academic analysis of his every word. Famousdog (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The disagreements about Bates' meaning are all the more reason to include his words here, though I admit to having gone slightly overboard with that in my last edit of this section. As it is now, the first paragraph of the Shifting and Swinging section is barely comprehensible.

Bates' "swinging" is about oppositional movement, and unlearning the strain which he said inhibits it, which doesn't seem to be reflected in the current version of this section. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably going to regret it, but "oppositional movement" of what? "Strain" of what? "Inhibition" of what, by what? Famousdog (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll summarize my understanding of Bates here, without quotes from him for now. Whenever eyes move, either by themselves or with the body, everything seen should appear to move in the direction opposite to that in which the eyes are moving (although those with perfect sight don't usually notice that, because it is natural for them.) Bates called this the "swing". But if you are making an effort to see, according to Bates, you are likely trying to hold onto whatever you are moving away from, while simultaneously trying to look at something else. This prevents the oppositional movement from being fully experienced, Bates contended, and also inhibits central fixation. To help unlearn this, Bates suggested shifting relatively slowly from one point to another, starting at the distance you can see most clearly at, letting each point go when moving to the next one. Later, in the Better Eyesight magazine, he also recommended the "long swing", moving your body from side to side and letting your eyes go with it, while allowing everything seen to move in the direction opposite to your body. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how this link is relevant to the article. --Ronz (talk) 01:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Did you look at the link? It appears to be an archive of an old magazine about the Bates Method specifically and written by Dr. Bates:

Better Eyesight is a monthly magazine published in the period July 1919 to June 1930. The magazine was printed on Dr. Bates' own publishing company: Central Fixation Publishing Co.

The magazines details Dr. Bates' findings after decades of research and experimental work into various eye disorders, and include several interesting case histories.

Seems highly relevant and interesting. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about Bates method, not Bates, not his publishing, not his magazine. --Ronz (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a magazine about the Bates Method written by Dr. Bates. How much more "on topic" does it get? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The hosting site doesn't help the situation.

It's a rare, maybe unique, situation to have such a resource available. I'd like to hear from the editor involved. --Ronz (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Levine2112 has pretty much spoken for me. How can such a link not be relevant here? PSWG1920 (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is hosting the website? I don't understand why that is relevant. And no, this isn't all that rare of a situation. This is a really good resource for this article and completely meets the requirements of WP:EL. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The hosting site, central-fixation.com, does not meet WP:EL.

If it weren't hosted at such a site, I'd be more inclined to include it in a "Further reading" section or something similar. --Ronz (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't it meet WP:EL? Specifically, is there a guideline in WP:El#Links_normally_to_be_avoided which you feels accurately applies to central-fixation.com in general or more important to the actual magazine archive on this site? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) 2 - Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research". --Ronz (talk) 04:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it the turn-of-the-century republished magazine which is giving factually inaccurate material/unverified researh or is it the actual "hosting site"? What part is unverified or inaccurate? How do you know this? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to wade in here. Personally, I think the Central Fixation site is basically a BM promotional tool and I viscerally object to any link to it. HOWEVER... it does provide a resource to learn about the BM from the man himself (crazy loon that he was) that is, apparently, unavailable elsewhere. I therefore think we have to tolerate the link to the CF site, so that readers can find out for themselves what nonsensical rubbish Bates came out with. If there was a version of these magazines at some other, more neutral, source (such as Wikibook - hint hint), then I believe that link would take precedence as it avoids any nasty implications of linkspam and bias. Famousdog (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If and when neutral sources are found, they should replace these ones that fail WP:EL. --Ronz (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. Regardless if CF is a promotional tool for BM, that does not preclude it from being an EL. IMO, this doesn't jive with anything in WP:El#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. It appears to me that perhaps you may be showing prejudice against this link because you disagree with BM. That is unacceptable. This link does not have objectional amounts of advertising nor does is it mainly intended to promote a website. I believe that it provides a wonderful resource for the topic at hand. That said, if the same source was found on WikiBooks (which I believe you are in the process of making happen), I suppose I wouldn't have a problem with that. But as it stands, I haven't seen a good argument not to include the link as it stands now. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you have a lot to learn about WP:NPOV, WP:SPAM, and WP:EL then. --Ronz (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then please instruct me why any of those apply here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my previous comment from 04:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC) --Ronz (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly respond to my question proceeding your comment (06:23, 30 January 2008). -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I already have. Please rephrase your question to indicate you've actually read and understood my responses. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking below where I asked my question and I don't see any response. Can you please tell me where you answered the question and/or restate your answer here? While you are doing so, you can get around to answering my question about why you feel that WP:SPAM and WP:NPOV apply here. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating myself: The hosting site, central-fixation.com, does not meet WP:EL as it is a site "that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." --Ronz (talk) 05:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you answered the first part of my queston. Now for the rest. Repeating myself: What part is unverified or inaccurate? How do you know this? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno about "inaccurate", but I would argue that the BM, as the CF site presents it, is easily "unverified" and very possibly "unverifiable." Famousdog (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and created a Further reading section. Per WP:NPOV, I see no reason to highlight one book like it was, nor to detail why it's in public domain, nor give details about different editions. --Ronz (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fine. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]