This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Here's a book written in Russian. [1] Not sure yet about the source's quality per WP:RS, but if it is we should definitely try to use it. This would help internationalize the article. PSWG1920 ( talk) 23:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
This paper should definitely be used in the article. Not quite sure yet exactly how. PSWG1920 ( talk) 21:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted some edits by 62.131.0.243 which cast the Bates method as educational and not therapeutic. [2] I've asked him to come to this page and explain the source for this radical change in our article. -- TS 20:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
(undent)This edit [3] by anonymous IP user 62.131.0.243 looks very similar to the edits that first brought me into contact with Seeyou, way back in 2007... The insistance that the BM is an "educational program" is a tactic that allows Bates "teachers" to get away with practicing eyecare while not being qualified vision specialists. In practice, it is a "therapy". If this user is not Seeyou, who has been banned for his activities on these pages, then I apologise and suggest to the new user that he/she read the case against Seeyou in order to avoid repeating his mistakes. Famousdog ( talk) 09:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
"A burning-glass being used to focus sunlight on someone's eye, from Perfect Sight Without Glasses... This is a joke, right?--TeakHoken 91.33.14.206 ( talk) 23:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
This article is factually wrong about the Bates method. It gives the impression that Bates meant vision could improve by doing exercises or using techniques. This is plain and simply wrong. This is correct: The Bates method is about improving vision by seeing correctly. The techniques (apart from sunning) are NOT MEANT TO MAKE YOU SEE CORRECTLY (!). They are meant to make you UNDERSTAND HOW to see correctly. This is a very significant difference. It can be compared to a maths book: if you show an difficult equation with an explanation to a five-year old and asks him to copy it, we will be able to copy it, but he will not be able to unstand it any better. It's the same with the Bates techniques: anyone can do them, but THEY DON'T MAGICALLY MAKE YOU SEE BETTER. Just as a maths book they are ONLY intended to make you understand the subject. Then, when you understand the subject, you can see better or solve the equation. The techniques are not correct vision, they are a tool to understand correct vision. But if you don't try to understand and just do the techniques you can't possibly improve your vision.
This can be understood by reading the orginial book of Bates or "Relearning to see" by Thomas Quackenbush.
Also of interest, exposure to the sun, which Bates said would improve eyesight, has recently been shown to prevent myopia in children: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/children_shealth/4140371/Spending-time-in-sun-can-prevent-children-becoming-short-sighted.html -- 80.202.30.250 ( talk) 21:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the points made by "80.202.30.250". This article is slanted, not horribly so, but it does approach strawman territory in its description of Bates's claims and it is not entirely balanced in its discussion of critical response to the idea of vision improvement. I am not suggesting there is intentional bias in the edits but the end result gives the reader a misleading impression. ProfGiles ( talk) 04:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
How do we use this in the article? PSWG1920 ( talk) 14:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Given the incipient edit-war over this source, I have asked for input at the reliable sources noticeboard. MastCell Talk 22:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The relevant policies include WP:NOT (especially WP:NOTADVERTISING), WP:NPOV (especially WP:UNDUE), and WP:V (especially WP:SPS).
Previous discussions can be found by searching for visionsofjoy in the talk archives and at RSN 16 Oct 2008 RSN 30 Jun 2010. -- Ronz ( talk) 02:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Visionsofjoy.com has been black listed - please see here. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, here we are, almost 100 years later, and the anecdotes have never stopped coming. What did the eminent Dr. Bates notice, discover, and know, and why has it been impossible to completely repress it? Dr. Bates realized that normal eyesight has to do with more than just the eyeball: "Stress" he called it, in an era of psychological infancy. Stress - a psychological condition, still largely disregarded, dismissed and disparaged by the hard science community. The same community that dismissed, disregarded and disparaged the concept of germs. The same community that only recently has grudgingly admitted the possiblity of a condition called post-traumatic stress disorder. Here are some facts: JMartinC4 ( talk) 03:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Here's a book written in Russian. [1] Not sure yet about the source's quality per WP:RS, but if it is we should definitely try to use it. This would help internationalize the article. PSWG1920 ( talk) 23:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
This paper should definitely be used in the article. Not quite sure yet exactly how. PSWG1920 ( talk) 21:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted some edits by 62.131.0.243 which cast the Bates method as educational and not therapeutic. [2] I've asked him to come to this page and explain the source for this radical change in our article. -- TS 20:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
(undent)This edit [3] by anonymous IP user 62.131.0.243 looks very similar to the edits that first brought me into contact with Seeyou, way back in 2007... The insistance that the BM is an "educational program" is a tactic that allows Bates "teachers" to get away with practicing eyecare while not being qualified vision specialists. In practice, it is a "therapy". If this user is not Seeyou, who has been banned for his activities on these pages, then I apologise and suggest to the new user that he/she read the case against Seeyou in order to avoid repeating his mistakes. Famousdog ( talk) 09:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
"A burning-glass being used to focus sunlight on someone's eye, from Perfect Sight Without Glasses... This is a joke, right?--TeakHoken 91.33.14.206 ( talk) 23:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
This article is factually wrong about the Bates method. It gives the impression that Bates meant vision could improve by doing exercises or using techniques. This is plain and simply wrong. This is correct: The Bates method is about improving vision by seeing correctly. The techniques (apart from sunning) are NOT MEANT TO MAKE YOU SEE CORRECTLY (!). They are meant to make you UNDERSTAND HOW to see correctly. This is a very significant difference. It can be compared to a maths book: if you show an difficult equation with an explanation to a five-year old and asks him to copy it, we will be able to copy it, but he will not be able to unstand it any better. It's the same with the Bates techniques: anyone can do them, but THEY DON'T MAGICALLY MAKE YOU SEE BETTER. Just as a maths book they are ONLY intended to make you understand the subject. Then, when you understand the subject, you can see better or solve the equation. The techniques are not correct vision, they are a tool to understand correct vision. But if you don't try to understand and just do the techniques you can't possibly improve your vision.
This can be understood by reading the orginial book of Bates or "Relearning to see" by Thomas Quackenbush.
Also of interest, exposure to the sun, which Bates said would improve eyesight, has recently been shown to prevent myopia in children: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/children_shealth/4140371/Spending-time-in-sun-can-prevent-children-becoming-short-sighted.html -- 80.202.30.250 ( talk) 21:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the points made by "80.202.30.250". This article is slanted, not horribly so, but it does approach strawman territory in its description of Bates's claims and it is not entirely balanced in its discussion of critical response to the idea of vision improvement. I am not suggesting there is intentional bias in the edits but the end result gives the reader a misleading impression. ProfGiles ( talk) 04:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
How do we use this in the article? PSWG1920 ( talk) 14:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Given the incipient edit-war over this source, I have asked for input at the reliable sources noticeboard. MastCell Talk 22:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The relevant policies include WP:NOT (especially WP:NOTADVERTISING), WP:NPOV (especially WP:UNDUE), and WP:V (especially WP:SPS).
Previous discussions can be found by searching for visionsofjoy in the talk archives and at RSN 16 Oct 2008 RSN 30 Jun 2010. -- Ronz ( talk) 02:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Visionsofjoy.com has been black listed - please see here. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, here we are, almost 100 years later, and the anecdotes have never stopped coming. What did the eminent Dr. Bates notice, discover, and know, and why has it been impossible to completely repress it? Dr. Bates realized that normal eyesight has to do with more than just the eyeball: "Stress" he called it, in an era of psychological infancy. Stress - a psychological condition, still largely disregarded, dismissed and disparaged by the hard science community. The same community that dismissed, disregarded and disparaged the concept of germs. The same community that only recently has grudgingly admitted the possiblity of a condition called post-traumatic stress disorder. Here are some facts: JMartinC4 ( talk) 03:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)