Jump to content

Talk:Bates method: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 78: Line 78:
The current article does not meet the Wikipedia quality of being both neutral and informative.
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 conquest to have in the 21st century.
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.
I would like to submit my new article to be published.

Revision as of 10:09, 4 September 2021

Good articleBates 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 19, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
December 3, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
January 17, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
March 9, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
April 6, 2009Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article


Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2021

Here is a photograph from Bates's own book. You can find it reproduced, without any disclaimer, on modern websites promoting the Bates Method. 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. 173.174.196.79 (talk) 05:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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: 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. Any suggestions that Bates method techniques are dangerous are of a shallow and oppositional nature. Well, what about Even on closed eyes, direct sunlight exposure poses a risk of damage to the eyelids, including skin cancer.[16]? Leijurv (talk) 05:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, possible sockpuppet of topic-banned user. We are not going to promote pseudoscience in this article. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No it actually works, trust me as a young man who has improved his sight and confirmed by my optemetrist. Palming isnt about applying pressure to the eye so listen to this guy ffs before calling it quackery. Here is a quote that proves that the "professionals" dont understand the method. After Bates' death the road has continued to be rocky. One of his students, Margaret Corbett, was taken to court on two occasions in the 1940s on a charge of practicing medicine without a licence. On both occasions she was acquitted as she was able to successfully prove that what she had been doing was educating people about their eyes. One charge brought against her was that she advocated a practice that would lead to retinal burns - and in response 300 witnesses appeared to her defense, including some Hollywood stars; all were tested and every one had healthy retinas. - FamousPlan101

Substantial changes by AlisonCary

For the record, I have reverted substantial changes made by AlisonCary and left a note on their talk page that such changes must first be discussed here. -- Jmc (talk) 09:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heavily biased article - should be neutral or balanced

The current article is not neutral or balanced. 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. AlisonCary (talk) 10:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]