Talk:Vision therapy

New archive

I've just archived a lot of material from 2010 onward. Lou Sander (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Behavioral optometry be merged with this article, Vision therapy. There is considerable overlap in the content of the two articles. Also, while some areas of Vision therapy are non-controversial, others are very controversial, particularly those that fall under the rubric of Behavioral optometry. Having all this material in one article would facilitate fair and encyclopedic descriptions of the controversy and its boundaries, as well as of the non-controversial areas. Those descriptions, IMHO, are not well-handled at the moment.

Full disclosure: While twice in my life I have been helped greatly by vision therapy, I am very aware of the extravagant claims sometimes made for it, and of the wide opposition to those claims. I would welcome the challenge of working to improve a merged article. Lou Sander (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment: At first glance, a merger would seem to make sense. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I support this for the time being. The contents of Behavioral optometry, as it stands, are a good summary of the topic and can easily fit into a less-rambling version of Vision therapy. But a lot more can be said about behavioral optometry than we presently do, so at some point per summary style a more detailed stand-alone article on behavioral optometry could/should be created. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Good idea! There's a lot to be said about both these topics. If there is consensus, we could try to say it all, in a coordinated, encyclopedic, neutral way, in this article. Then, if it seems warranted, we could break off a separate article on Behavioral optometry. As it is, IMHO it would be a Herculean task to coordinate the two articles.

Support It seems like there is enough overlap that a merger would be a good idea. The Behavioral optometry article is rather muddy and even repetitive, it could use a rewrite. I like the structure of this article where it breaks down the vision therapies into various areas, where some of them have support from the medical community and some do not. Like acupuncture or chiropractics, there appear to be uses widely accepted as valid, others highly suspect, and both are supported by underlying theories that are not scientifically accepted. Brianyoumans (talk) 02:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Lou has contacted me about this as I made some edits to this page sometime back. I work as an optometrist having qualified from Manchester Optometry School then having gained a qualification in Behavioural Optometry in Australia under the tutelage of Professor Ed Howell in 1992. Since then I have taught at three academic institutions in the UK, Manchester University, Aston University and Birmingham University as well as currently being involved in a pilot project regarding Brain Injury Rehabilitation at Derby Royal Infirmary based on behavioural optometry principles. I am also currently part of the way through NORA Fellowship (Neuro-Optometric Rehabilitation Association). I am not used to working on Wikipedia pages so bear with me if I do not understand the protocols straightaway (hence having written text on an inappropriate page). Having exchanged some messages with Lou, I am going to email two colleagues in the US (Bob Sanet and Len Press) and a colleague in Australia (Paul Graham) about this and ask for their input though as Lou's request will not have them partaking in the editorial process. I can also get Brendan Barrett (Bradford University) involved though he has reservations about the veracity of Wikipedia pages. Think that covers most things. Let me know how you wish to proceed.Peaceful07 (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC) Having read through the current Behavioral Optometry and Vision therapy pages I feel that the two topics are mutually exclusive and merging the two articles would not be appropriate. I think that it is better to keep the articles separate. Looking back at my comments in 2012 I was looking forward to there being two more even handed articles. This has not happened, perhaps because I have not contributed as I have been busy with brain injury initiatives in the UK. Differentiating behavioral optometry and vision therapy, behavioral optometry is more a philosophy of practice whereas vision therapy describes a specific line of treatment. Like a particular orthopaedic aurgeon might favour using physiotherapy and occupational therapy interventions more than another surgeon might, similarly someone practicing behavioral optometry might favour using particular clinical techniques in their assessment of a patient more than another optometrist might. Similarly, certain techniques used in vision therapy are used by practitioners who do not describe themselves as Behavioral Optometrists. For instance Brendan Barrett uses near retinoscopy techniques in his teaching clinics and in practice though would not describe himself as a Behavioral optometrist. Similarly I have been spending a proportion of my time teaching vision therapy techniques to rehabilitation consultants, physiotherapists and occupational therapists at the Derby Hospital and Newcastle Hospital Brain Injury Units so they can help their patients. As Anthony points out (Hi again Anthony) the subject could be written about in far more detail and from my point of view going back to my 2012 comments, a more balanced manner.Peaceful07 (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment. I find the current situation with the two articles, as they stand for the moment, to be rather confusing to the reader, and would tend to share Lou's hope that "Having all this material in one article would facilitate fair and encyclopedic descriptions of the controversy and its boundaries, as well as of the non-controversial areas." However, if Peaceful07 is optimistic that he/she can improve the articles such as to more clearly set out the two topics and their interrelations, I see no reason to hurry to a merge for the moment. --Chris Howard (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hold off on merge: That's reasonable enough. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 11:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Support original merger proposal. Tjlynnjr (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC) .

Result of merge discussion

It doesn't seem that there's a lot of strong opinion about merging. There seems to be some sort of consensus, or at least an opinion, that neither article is very strong. My own thinking is that both articles are like newborn mammals. Neither one is a credit to Wikipedia, its editors, or the subjects under discussion.

I think it would be an improvement if all the material in Vision therapy that discusses Behavioural visual therapy would be moved to the Behavioral optometry article, along with the behavioral optometry stuff in Vision therapy's Controversy section and the "Other forms" paragraph that precedes it. It could be replaced with a sentence or two about Behavioral optometry, with links to that article. That would leave Vision therapy with mostly non-controversial content. That content and its presentation could then be improved, without editors feeling the need to include large amounts of negative material. Lou Sander (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

A question for clarification: I suppose that before (or right after) doing so you would adapt the lead of the "Behavioral optometry" article? This is because that article's lead currently reads "The ideas behind behavioral optometry lack scientific plausibility and most research in the field is of low quality; it is therefore not seen as a recommendable treatment for any condition", meaning that any passages that would be moved to that article would thereby be entirely discredited, simply by being placed under that lead. (Unless of course you would move only extremely controversial material to there, but I think that is not your intention either.) For that reason, it would be helpful to know the general lines of that article's (new) lead, if there's anything you could say on this. --Chris Howard (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It should be noticed that the current state of Behavioral optometry arises from major chnges made very recently. It might be easier to go back to its state in November and start from there. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I would certainly be in favor of that. Without having looked closely at every point, I have to say that the article in November was a much better article than the one right now. Lou Sander (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Using the November article as a starting point (text on left of 'major changes' page) I will look through what has been written and suggest changes/amendments having noted in previous discussions moderators have asked for citations which I will source. I will get back to you all soon. Have a good weekend.Peaceful07 (talk) 06:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I have read both articles and the history of the extensive edits and discussions. The articles do not seem to be informative in explaining Behavioral Optometry or Vision therapy and what either involves compared to say the Wikipedia articles on Orthokeratology and Refractive surgery. A lay person or professional reading the articles would in my opinion not gain any insight into either subject. I would want to start by rewriting the vision therapy article. As regards this, I do not see the relevance of the MKH (Polatest) method to the article as this is only practiced in Germany, Austria and Switzerland to my knowledge and by optometrists and ophthalmologists and is not in my opinion vision therapy. A separate article on the Polatest and the work of Haase might be merited. The mention of work with myopia and mention of the Bates method does not seem relevant either as I would not term this as vision therapy. So I would suggest starting with a rewrite of the vision therapy article along these lines. Any thoughts?Peaceful07 (talk) 06:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Despite having contributed the section on MKH (link) I agree that it is rather like a white elephant in the article, at least in the sense that it is overly long. Concerning your suggestion, I am not convinced that the MKH and/or the Polatest are sufficiently relevant to merit an article on their own. I would suggest to create a new article on Haase and move the text to there (I could take over that part of the work). In my view his MKL method would still be worth a one-sentence mention in the context of the vision therapy article, for example in a section on other approaches practiced worldwide, simply because its advocates consider it a form of therapy and it does concern the vision system. Further thoughts on this? --Chris Howard (talk) 07:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC).

That sounds fine to me. I will get writing. I am going to confer with some colleagues who work in academia about this including Brendan Barrett. It may take a couple of weeks to complete the rewrite depending on how soon people get back to me. Peaceful07 (talk) 13:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: I have done what I promised and have created the new article Hans-Joachim Haase (optician) and reduced the mention of the MKH method here to a single sentence. That should make the next steps easier. --Chris Howard (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)thank you Chris.Peaceful07 (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Peaceful107: You seem to have good insight into the subject matter and how the article might be improved. At the same time, your Wikipedia editing skills seem to be extremely weak. Those skills are vitally important in editing articles, especially when the edits are extensive. I think we would all benefit if any writing you do were first done on a sub-page to your user page, where others could see them and comment on them. When you're ready to start, let us know on this page and we can show you how to proceed. Lou Sander (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Lou, I agree entirely and did have a major concern in this respect. I was going to ask you where to put the copy once I had written it. Thank you for the advice. Will be in touch when I and my colleagues are happy with my copy.Peaceful07 (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Peaceful107: I think you might need some eye exercises, cuz you don't seem to see how to do basic stuff. :-) When posting a comment, please start on the line below the previous comment. It's a good idea to skip a line between them, too. If you start a paragraph with one or more colons, it will be indented one step for each colon you type. Once things get indented too far, you can start in at the left side again. To see what I mean, go into edit mode on this page and take a look at the last few posts in this series. If you can't see them too well, I've got a Marsden ball you can borrow. (Just kidding, of course!) ;-) Lou Sander (talk) 23:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that did make me smile and again thank you for the advice:-)Peaceful07 (talk) 04:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)