Talk:Bates method

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)

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)

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)

Substantial changes

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. -- Jmc (talk) 09:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

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."

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 AlisonCary (talk) 22:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

We don't represent the viewpoints of quacks or, if we do, we do for bashing them. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

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)

See WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE and WP:YWAB. There is nothing wrong with the word "ineffective" if we have sources for it. --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, 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. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

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. 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.

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, 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! 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.

AlisonCary (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

You got that right: another name for Wikipedia is the quacks bashing machine. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

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.

AlisonCary (talk) 23:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The wording minority views refers to bona fide scientists, not to quacks. We consider quacks not as bona fide, but as noxious parasites and pseudologists. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Our commitment to assume good faith on the part of our fellow editors does not mean that we have to treat fringe beliefs and sources as if they were identical in quality to reliable sources in medical fields. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

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. Leijurv (talk) 00:07, 5 September 2021 (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. AlisonCary (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)