Talk:Bates method: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
AlisonCary (talk | contribs) |
|||
| (63 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header}} |
|||
{{Ds/talk notice|topic=ps}} |
|||
{{Article history|action1=PR |
|||
{{Talk header|archive_age=14|archive_units=days|archive_bot=ClueBot III}} |
|||
{{ArticleHistory|action1=PR |
|||
|action1date=19 Feb 2007 |
|action1date=19 Feb 2007 |
||
|action1link=Wikipedia:Scientific peer review/Bates method |
|action1link=Wikipedia:Scientific peer review/Bates method |
||
| Line 36: | Line 35: | ||
|currentstatus=GA |
|currentstatus=GA |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|1= |
|||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|||
{{WikiProject Skepticism |
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=Low}} |
||
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine |
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine}} |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=ps}} |
|||
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |
||
|archiveprefix=Talk:Bates method/Archive |
|archiveprefix=Talk:Bates method/Archive |
||
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
}} |
}} |
||
== Bates Method Review == |
|||
== Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2021 == |
|||
{{edit semi-protected|Bates method|answered=yes}} |
|||
[[File:BurningGlass.png|thumb|right|Here is a photograph from Bates's own book. You can find it reproduced, without any disclaimer, on modern websites promoting the Bates Method. [[User:ApLundell|ApLundell]] ([[User talk:ApLundell|talk]]) ]] |
|||
Absolutely nothing in the Bates methods are dangerous. This claim at the very forefront if this page is indicative of deceitful attempts to invoke fear in favor of Hemholtz doctrine in allopathic medicine. Dr. Bates’ methods are natural, yet time consuming, but not even remotely as dangerous as the allopathic modalities that cause permanent vision loss. Bates methods are the polar opposite, healing and well documented. To give a specific example, palming involves cupped hands so that the eyes are free to move about under the cover of the hands. There is NO pressure involved, this no risk for glaucoma. Any suggestions that Bates method techniques are dangerous are of a shallow and oppositional nature, focusing on the writer’s own confirmation bias; perhaps an allopathic eye surgeon who stands to gain job security by instilling fear in what is a most natural and effective approach to eye health. [[Special:Contributions/173.174.196.79|173.174.196.79]] ([[User talk:173.174.196.79|talk]]) 05:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:{{blue|To give a specific example, palming involves cupped hands so that the eyes are free to move about under the cover of the hands.}} There's no need to speculate like that on which techniques are dangerous. The lead says so: {{tq|they might damage their eyes through overexposure to sunlight, not wear their corrective lenses while driving, or neglect conventional eye care, possibly allowing serious conditions to develop}}. There is also a picture of sunning in the article. {{blue|Any suggestions that Bates method techniques are dangerous are of a shallow and oppositional nature}}. Well, what about {{tq|Even on closed eyes, direct sunlight exposure poses a risk of damage to the eyelids, including skin cancer.[16]}}? [[User:Leijurv|Leijurv]] ([[User talk:Leijurv|talk]]) 05:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::No, '''possible''' sockpuppet of topic-banned user. We are not going to promote pseudoscience in this article. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 06:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC) |
|||
I believe that the article is very neutral and informative. However, there is always room for more information! Especially the topics that are shorter and passive. |
|||
==Substantial changes == |
|||
--[[Special:Contributions/157.252.162.94|157.252.162.94]] ([[User talk:157.252.162.94|talk]]) 01:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
For the record, I have reverted substantial changes made by [[User:AlisonCary]] and left a note on their talk page that such changes must first be discussed here. -- [[User:Jmc|Jmc]] ([[User talk:Jmc|talk]]) 09:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:One of the external links at the bottom needs to be updated. The Orfield article is now [https://oepf.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Seeing-Space_1.pdf here]. [[User:LaLeLiLou|LaLeLiLou]] ([[User talk:LaLeLiLou|talk]]) 21:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:: You are likely a sock-puppet of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Belteshazzar Belteshazzar] so we do not need to update anything. You are indef blocked here. [[User:Psychologist Guy|Psychologist Guy]] ([[User talk:Psychologist Guy|talk]]) 21:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::: It looks like Belteshazzar is still creating sock-puppets [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SixteenSquared SixteenSquared] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Small_Jars_Lack_Gold Small Jars Lack Gold] although his tactic appears to now create throwaway accounts and not edit in months so it's not worth me filing an SPI. [[User:Psychologist Guy|Psychologist Guy]] ([[User talk:Psychologist Guy|talk]]) 22:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Seems to have worked for me == |
|||
:Hello, I propose that the current articles "Good article" stats be removed because it is not neutral: "it does not represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each." |
|||
''(Title refactored, previously reading, "This is incredibly negative without any reason. I have improved my eyesight so much with the Bates method, I no longer use my glasses." --[[User:Hipal|Hipal]] ([[User talk:Hipal|talk]]) 16:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC))'' |
|||
:and it is not stable: because of an ongoing edit war and content dispute, which has been going on for over 10 years and is flagged with an edit warring. |
|||
:Regards [[User:AlisonCary|AlisonCary]] ([[User talk:AlisonCary|talk]]) 22:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Research this in more depth before being discouraged. [[Special:Contributions/31.60.2.187|31.60.2.187]] ([[User talk:31.60.2.187|talk]]) 14:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:That's fantastic. I myself no longer have to wear my specs while driving, but I didn't use the Bates method, just the results of old age. I'm rather pleased that wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say, rather than some rando on the internetz. -[[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy''' <small> the grumpy dog</small>.]] [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''wooF''']] 14:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC) |
|||
I repeat my request to an administrator to remove the Bates method article "Good article" status. (I am human, and tgeorgescu not being kind, in my opinion. My understanding is that being polite and kind is one of the rule of engagement here. |
|||
::This study found it was effective in elderly people: [https://pjn.sbvjournals.com/doi/pdf/10.5005/jp-journals-10084-13110] [[Special:Contributions/200.37.56.107|200.37.56.107]] ([[User talk:200.37.56.107|talk]]) 03:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:AlisonCary|AlisonCary]] ([[User talk:AlisonCary|talk]]) 00:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::[[User:Roxy the dog]], you're old? That's very disappointing. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 21:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::[[User:Drmies|Drmies]] In the Great Department Store of life, I'm in the elevator and the tinny little speaker is announcing, in that forced bright way, ''"Third floor, Senility, Dotage and Decomposition. Going Up"'' -[[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy''' ]]the [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''dog''']] 19:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::The citations in that paper are amazing. |
|||
:::My favorite part of that paper is where it explains ''"The eye is the sensory organ responsible for gathering visual stimuli to assist people in communicating with the world around them."'' and then cites that sentence to an electrical engineering textbook. |
|||
:::My second favorite part is the sentence ''"Eye exercises allow the eye muscles to move freely."'', which is cited to a paper about designing robots based on insect physiology. |
|||
:::Most relevant is probably the line that says ''"Bates therapy is useful to restore visual acuity."'' that is referenced to a [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4779297/ paper] about gene therapy that doesn't seem to even mention the Bates Method. |
|||
:::What a joke. [[User:ApLundell|ApLundell]] ([[User talk:ApLundell|talk]]) 04:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::... but you did have an amusing few minutes doing due diligence, and I enjoyed your observations. Thank you very much. -[[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy''' <small> the grumpy dog</small>.]] [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''wooF''']] 05:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::My own favourite: "''The Bates method has never been shown to improve eyesight in a substantial or long-term way''" referenced to a paper on 'Effectiveness of slow back massage on quality of sleep among ICU patent’s [sic]'. -- [[User:Jmc|Jmc]] ([[User talk:Jmc|talk]]) 09:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2024 == |
|||
== Heavily biased article - should be neutral or balanced == |
|||
{{edit semi-protected|Bates method|answered=yes}} |
|||
The current article is not neutral or balanced. |
|||
Change "effected" to "affected" [[User:Undiine55|Undiine55]] ([[User talk:Undiine55|talk]]) 22:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
The article uses biased words, such as ‘ineffective alternative therapy’ when it should simply state ‘alternative therapy’. Ineffective expresses opinion. |
|||
The article has one-sided data, and does provide balancing sentences. |
|||
The article is missing information to reflect the last 10 years of Bates Method teaching. |
|||
I have additional sentences and evidence to add to this article to provide a factual and balanced article. |
|||
In my opinion, the current article attempted to be sensational with its reference points, pictures and has been selective with its wording to provide a one-sided reflection of the Bates Method. |
|||
The current article does not meet the Wikipedia quality of being both neutral and informative. |
|||
I have additional facts to add about the Associations of Bates Method teachers for the benefit of this article to add depth to the wider influence that Bates Method continues to have in the 21st century. |
|||
I would like to submit my new article to be published. |
|||
[[User:AlisonCary|AlisonCary]] ([[User talk:AlisonCary|talk]]) 10:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:See [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:FRINGE]] and [[WP:YWAB]]. There is nothing wrong with the word "ineffective" if we have sources for it. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 10:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Hello Hob, thank you for your prompt response. |
|||
Whilst you cite sources for your use of the word ineffective, in my opinion the word ineffective should not be used in the title description as it shows immediate bias. There will also be attempts in the proposed article to references when the Bates Method principles have been relevant. In my opinion, the article should be balanced and no balance is shown in this article at present. |
|||
I request that this article be expanded to demonstrate a wider range of views and information. |
|||
Regards, [[User:AlisonCary|AlisonCary]] ([[User talk:AlisonCary|talk]]) 11:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:The Wikipedia rules, such as [[WP:FRINGE]], are stronger than your opinion, so the article stays aas it is. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 13:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:{{tq|the word ineffective should not be used in the title description as it shows immediate bias}} Incorrect. "Telling it like it is" is not bias, it is [[WP:NPOV]]. It's the second fundamental pillar of Wikipedia: [[WP:5P2]]. The Bates method has been demonstrated to be ineffective, so we call it ineffective. You'll need a better argument than just personally not liking that it's ineffective. Also see [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]]. [[User:Leijurv|Leijurv]] ([[User talk:Leijurv|talk]]) 19:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Hello Everyone, |
|||
I offer the following view point in good faith with reference to the heavily biased nature of the current article. |
|||
I have read the information about fringe and neutral view points - thank you for the links. |
|||
In reference to "Fringe theories in a nutshell" - To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. |
|||
OK, this Bates Method article is not in an article about a mainstream idea. TICK. |
|||
More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability. |
|||
TICK, The Bates Method article is in a separate article with side panel boxes identifying it as Alternative Medicine and, at the bottom, Pseudoscience, so the reader has disclaimer to keep in mind when reading an article. |
|||
Additionally, in an article about the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be made clear. |
|||
OK, I feel that the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints is not represented in this article. |
|||
Minority viewpoints, such as a neutral and open-minded view to this alternative medicine concept is NOT represented in this article. The "majority" view has been represented using the scientific documents that say there are no statistically findings that support the Bates Method, but the minority view of personal testimony to the efficacy of Bates Method principles have not be allowed to be added to this article, even when these testimonies are published works in the public domain, with published reviews of these testimonies. |
|||
In reference to reliable sources, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered." |
|||
It is identifiable in the current article that "significant minority views" (Bates method can be effective), has no representation in this article which is dominated by the majority view (Bates Method is ineffective.) |
|||
Numerous books, written over the decades, could meet the criteria of reliable sources and yet have not been included in this article (at the current time.) |
|||
An example of published, reliable source could be a reviewed book. Amazon has the most readily available option for the public to write their reviews, with both pro and con represented, allowing the reader to make their own decisions. |
|||
Here is one of 10 or more books that I would propose to use to represent the "significant minority view" |
|||
The Secret of Perfect Vision:: How You Can Prevent or Reverse Nearsightedness by David D Angelis (2011) Publisher:North Atlantic Books; 1st edition |
|||
Amazon source shows 75 ratings to deliver 4/5 review and numerous written, personal reviews of the books value. |
|||
I realize Amazon is a commercial ecommerce site, which is frowned upon compared to a Scholarly site, but it is a readily available forum for comment. |
|||
External reference: https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Perfect-Vision-Prevent-Nearsightedness-ebook/dp/B005LAI8M6 |
|||
Overall, I think contributing to Wikipedia articles is an act of service to the world, offering a summary of the 'best of' information that is available in the public domain. In this case the wide ranging information in the public domain, on this topic is not represented at this time, and my edits would neutralize the article with the significant minority views. |
|||
[[User:AlisonCary|AlisonCary]] ([[User talk:AlisonCary|talk]]) 22:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== New sections for article == |
|||
I propose to add new sections to this article to identify the Bates Method teacher Association in London and globally. In addition, to add depth to the article about Bates Method teacher training which takes place in various places in the world. |
|||
Both these sections demonstrate the Bates Method continues in the 21st century, despite the controversial opinions about its effectiveness. |
|||
This is relevant, factual and current information with website sources. |
|||
Regards, [[User:AlisonCary|AlisonCary]] ([[User talk:AlisonCary|talk]]) 11:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:We're not a PR outlet. I advise you to read [[WP:QUACKS]]. You won't succeed here. This is Sparta! [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 15:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::Hello, |
|||
::I can see from the Archive Talk debates that many have tried to present alterative views and depth with regards the Bates method, and have failed. I can't imagine that my debate and proposal skills would be any better than theirs. For those members of the public on a research journey about alternative eye health medicine are not going to find much help on Wikipedia. OK, I get it now. |
|||
::Over and out. |
|||
::[[User:AlisonCary|AlisonCary]] ([[User talk:AlisonCary|talk]]) 22:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::You got that right: another name for Wikipedia is {{tq|the quacks bashing machine}}. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 23:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{partly done}}:<!-- Template:ESp --> "Effected" WAS correct, compared to "affected" in this case. "A effected B" means that a caused b, while "A affected B" means that a had an influence on b. The intent here is the former. |
|||
::::You make that sound like that's a good thing! |
|||
::::I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be a neutral, well-worded, good-faith knowledge entity. |
|||
::::[[User:AlisonCary|AlisonCary]] ([[User talk:AlisonCary|talk]]) 23:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
That said, just saying "A caused B" is clearer and less prone to confusion, so I just did that. [[User:PianoDan|PianoDan]] ([[User talk:PianoDan|talk]]) 22:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Our commitment to [[:WP:AGF|assume good faith on the part of our fellow editors]] does not mean that we have to treat [[:WP:FRINGE|fringe beliefs and sources]] as if they were identical in quality to [[WP:MEDRS|reliable sources in medical fields]]. --[[User:Orangemike|<span style="color:#F80">Orange Mike</span>]] | [[User talk:Orangemike|<span style="color:#FA0">Talk</span>]] 00:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{tq|You make that sound like that's a good thing!}} Haha! 😂😂 It absolutely is a good thing. Wikipedia has this pesky policy called [[WP:V]] which means that only what's printed in reliable sources can be used. Any idea that is laughably incorrect (such as: "the Bates method is effective") will not be available in any reliable sources, therefore it cannot be said on the site. Thank god! This is even stronger on medical pages, there's a higher standard called [[WP:MEDRS]]. [[User:Leijurv|Leijurv]] ([[User talk:Leijurv|talk]]) 00:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:Well, I'd prefer to see us stick with 'effected', which signifies a directly applied action, while 'caused' can imply an eventually achieved result. -- [[User:Jmc|Jmc]] ([[User talk:Jmc|talk]]) 22:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
OK, I see the so-called quack-bashers have the loudest voice here and this is not a genuine debate forum. |
|||
You have succeed in 'seeing off' another voice of genuine enquiry. Well done. |
|||
Goodbye. |
|||
[[User:AlisonCary|AlisonCary]] ([[User talk:AlisonCary|talk]]) 00:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 22:48, 22 November 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bates method article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
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, 24Auto-archiving period: 14 days  |
 | Bates method has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Bates Method Review
[edit]I believe that the article is very neutral and informative. However, there is always room for more information! Especially the topics that are shorter and passive. --157.252.162.94 (talk) 01:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- One of the external links at the bottom needs to be updated. The Orfield article is now here. LaLeLiLou (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
- You are likely a sock-puppet of Belteshazzar so we do not need to update anything. You are indef blocked here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
- It looks like Belteshazzar is still creating sock-puppets SixteenSquared and Small Jars Lack Gold although his tactic appears to now create throwaway accounts and not edit in months so it's not worth me filing an SPI. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- You are likely a sock-puppet of Belteshazzar so we do not need to update anything. You are indef blocked here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Seems to have worked for me
[edit](Title refactored, previously reading, "This is incredibly negative without any reason. I have improved my eyesight so much with the Bates method, I no longer use my glasses." --Hipal (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC))
Research this in more depth before being discouraged. 31.60.2.187 (talk) 14:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- That's fantastic. I myself no longer have to wear my specs while driving, but I didn't use the Bates method, just the results of old age. I'm rather pleased that wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say, rather than some rando on the internetz. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 14:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- This study found it was effective in elderly people: [1] 200.37.56.107 (talk) 03:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- User:Roxy the dog, you're old? That's very disappointing. Drmies (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- Drmies In the Great Department Store of life, I'm in the elevator and the tinny little speaker is announcing, in that forced bright way, "Third floor, Senility, Dotage and Decomposition. Going Up" -Roxy the dog 19:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- The citations in that paper are amazing.
- My favorite part of that paper is where it explains "The eye is the sensory organ responsible for gathering visual stimuli to assist people in communicating with the world around them." and then cites that sentence to an electrical engineering textbook.
- My second favorite part is the sentence "Eye exercises allow the eye muscles to move freely.", which is cited to a paper about designing robots based on insect physiology.
- Most relevant is probably the line that says "Bates therapy is useful to restore visual acuity." that is referenced to a paper about gene therapy that doesn't seem to even mention the Bates Method.
- What a joke. ApLundell (talk) 04:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- ... but you did have an amusing few minutes doing due diligence, and I enjoyed your observations. Thank you very much. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 05:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- My own favourite: "The Bates method has never been shown to improve eyesight in a substantial or long-term way" referenced to a paper on 'Effectiveness of slow back massage on quality of sleep among ICU patent’s [sic]'. -- Jmc (talk) 09:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- ... but you did have an amusing few minutes doing due diligence, and I enjoyed your observations. Thank you very much. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 05:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2024
[edit] | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "effected" to "affected" Undiine55 (talk) 22:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Partly done: "Effected" WAS correct, compared to "affected" in this case. "A effected B" means that a caused b, while "A affected B" means that a had an influence on b. The intent here is the former.
That said, just saying "A caused B" is clearer and less prone to confusion, so I just did that. PianoDan (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I'd prefer to see us stick with 'effected', which signifies a directly applied action, while 'caused' can imply an eventually achieved result. -- Jmc (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)