This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Blindness redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Blindness received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
The contents of the Blindness page were merged into Visual impairment and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
To editors who are so adamant about removing National Federation of the Blind from the "See also" section:
65.41.234.70 ( talk) 16:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Because everyone has totally ignored my question (after it was asked twice) about whether a small section in the article pertaining to major organizations is acceptable, I must assume that either there are no opinions or that there are no objections. A section on organizations (of reasonable length, and including organizations of and for the blind) is quite relevant to blindness. If other editors add to the section such that it requires a separate article, then I'll move it to another article. But the way things usually work on Wikipedia is that a section in a relevant article is first added, and then if necessary a separate article is created. A section on organizations also fits into the concept that ideally there should be no See Also section that has been espoused in this discussion. Quite frankly I consider it absurd that the article can have sections on "Metaphorical uses" and "Blindness in animals" if there are serious objections to "Blindness organizations". So before you object, consider what is best for the article, not whether you win or lose this argument. I am proceeding with creation of the section when I have time. If you object please set up an RfC because three editors cannot achieve a reasonable consensus. 65.41.234.70 ( talk) 14:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I beg to differ with some of your perceptions and conclusions about other articles. The Mental Retardation article has sections that subsume similar information, including mention of organizations, in sections on Management, History, and Society and culture. The Deafness article and
Deaf culture could be one article except for the fact that the amount of information requires separate articles; the fact that that amount of info is not yet written into the Blindness article to require a separate article in no way negates the importance of including it in Blindness until such quantity is added. The same applies to autism in that there is a separate article
Sociological and cultural aspects of autism that contains such information; it's only the amount of info included that prevents it from being included in the
Autism article. Please don't create a
Catch 22 situation by saying to either create a separate article on blindness organizations or do nothing. Things rarely happen that way on Wikipedia because article are always a work in progress. As I have said already, a small section on organizations is appropriate for the
Blindness article for now. It may later be split off into a separate article. No logic has been presented here that would negate that.
I also will take issue with you that the
Blindness article should be treated soley as a medical article. Yes, medical aspects are important, but to limit it to that flies in the face of the purpose of this encylopedia to provide comprehensive discussin of a subject. And again, maybe some day the medical aspects and other aspects may form separate articles, but until then let's try to see the forest despite seeing the trees (no pun intended). Deafness, mental retardation, and a host of other "medical" conditions involve far more than a medical understanding. If that was the case, there would be no need for special educators, rehabilitation workers, and many other specialities; there would only be physicians.
I'll again ask the two who disagree with me here to post an RfC if your disagreement is strong. There's no reason someone can't begin an organizations section unless or until a consensus develops otherwise. And incidentally, if an RfC is set up, it needs to go in the "Society, sports, and culture" area. If you want to also include it in "Math, science, and technology" that's fine, but this is more than a science issue. Thank you.
65.41.234.70 (
talk) 17:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for reconsidering, although I completely fail to understand the obsession with not mentioning organizations. I'm not talking about an endless list. I'm referring a mention of a few major organization in a brief discussion of services for blind people as well as blind consumerism. The "spam magnet" issue is really not relevant. Lots of articles attract spam. I suspect this one will attract less than most because so few people have an interest in the topic. And if mention of a few organizations leads to an editor making a lengthy list, that can always be dealt with in the same way that most things are managed on Wikipedia, namely other editors providing editorial oversight. That's especialy true now that your concerns have been expressed here. Frankly, I think intentionally NOT mentioning a few organizations gives a very biased impression (not necessarily intended) that the organizations are not important, or that the organizations have some sort of unacceptable purpose so that mentioning them might bias the article. I want a well-rounded, complete article. Just as the medical aspects of blindness are relevant so that the American Medical Association is mentioned, there is no reason major organizations can't be mentioned in the context of other issues. It makes no sense. I still plan to add the information, whether as part of other section(s) or in a separate section. Thanks for your discussion. 71.77.20.119 ( talk) 15:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think we have general agreement. I edit anonymously because I have found from years of experience that anonymous editors are treated much better on Wikipedia, except when some registered editors assume anons don't know anything about editing. I actually think Wikipedia should require registration, but until it does I'll stay anonymous. 71.77.20.119 ( talk) 03:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I have removed edits made by a blocked editor promoting a non-notable article written by Jacob M. Appel. To readd this info, please discuss here first and provide links to significant independent news coverage to help with verification. Flowanda | Talk 08:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
According to the World Health Organization the definition of blindness specifies visual acuity less than 20/400 and/ or remaining visual field less than 10 degrees in the better seeing eye. [1] This is in contradiction to the American Foundation for the Blind's 20/200 definition.
As a legally-blind user, might I suggest the addition of the use of the camera application on various smart phones and their zoom functions in order to quickly see things far away? In the past, I've also used this trick when using traditional, point-and-shoot digital cameras. Thank you! - BlindWolf8 ( talk) 05:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Are blind people any more susceptible to disorders of balance or increased experience of dizziness? This area of research looks interesting: "We also conduct world-leading research into the mechanisms underlying the generation of sound from the ears (‘otoacoustic emissions'), the processes involved in age- and inflammation-related hearing loss, how echoes could be used by blind people to ‘see' (human echolocation) and new diagnostic tests for the balance part of the inner ear (the vestibular apparatus). [1]. Martinevans123 ( talk) 11:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I have created an article Childhood blindness which is an important contributory cause. Seeking participation into the article build up. Diptanshu Talk 19:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to add a meshID to the infobox. Alneet ( talk) 14:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Hearing loss which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 17:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Blindness redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Blindness received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
The contents of the Blindness page were merged into Visual impairment and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
To editors who are so adamant about removing National Federation of the Blind from the "See also" section:
65.41.234.70 ( talk) 16:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Because everyone has totally ignored my question (after it was asked twice) about whether a small section in the article pertaining to major organizations is acceptable, I must assume that either there are no opinions or that there are no objections. A section on organizations (of reasonable length, and including organizations of and for the blind) is quite relevant to blindness. If other editors add to the section such that it requires a separate article, then I'll move it to another article. But the way things usually work on Wikipedia is that a section in a relevant article is first added, and then if necessary a separate article is created. A section on organizations also fits into the concept that ideally there should be no See Also section that has been espoused in this discussion. Quite frankly I consider it absurd that the article can have sections on "Metaphorical uses" and "Blindness in animals" if there are serious objections to "Blindness organizations". So before you object, consider what is best for the article, not whether you win or lose this argument. I am proceeding with creation of the section when I have time. If you object please set up an RfC because three editors cannot achieve a reasonable consensus. 65.41.234.70 ( talk) 14:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I beg to differ with some of your perceptions and conclusions about other articles. The Mental Retardation article has sections that subsume similar information, including mention of organizations, in sections on Management, History, and Society and culture. The Deafness article and
Deaf culture could be one article except for the fact that the amount of information requires separate articles; the fact that that amount of info is not yet written into the Blindness article to require a separate article in no way negates the importance of including it in Blindness until such quantity is added. The same applies to autism in that there is a separate article
Sociological and cultural aspects of autism that contains such information; it's only the amount of info included that prevents it from being included in the
Autism article. Please don't create a
Catch 22 situation by saying to either create a separate article on blindness organizations or do nothing. Things rarely happen that way on Wikipedia because article are always a work in progress. As I have said already, a small section on organizations is appropriate for the
Blindness article for now. It may later be split off into a separate article. No logic has been presented here that would negate that.
I also will take issue with you that the
Blindness article should be treated soley as a medical article. Yes, medical aspects are important, but to limit it to that flies in the face of the purpose of this encylopedia to provide comprehensive discussin of a subject. And again, maybe some day the medical aspects and other aspects may form separate articles, but until then let's try to see the forest despite seeing the trees (no pun intended). Deafness, mental retardation, and a host of other "medical" conditions involve far more than a medical understanding. If that was the case, there would be no need for special educators, rehabilitation workers, and many other specialities; there would only be physicians.
I'll again ask the two who disagree with me here to post an RfC if your disagreement is strong. There's no reason someone can't begin an organizations section unless or until a consensus develops otherwise. And incidentally, if an RfC is set up, it needs to go in the "Society, sports, and culture" area. If you want to also include it in "Math, science, and technology" that's fine, but this is more than a science issue. Thank you.
65.41.234.70 (
talk) 17:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for reconsidering, although I completely fail to understand the obsession with not mentioning organizations. I'm not talking about an endless list. I'm referring a mention of a few major organization in a brief discussion of services for blind people as well as blind consumerism. The "spam magnet" issue is really not relevant. Lots of articles attract spam. I suspect this one will attract less than most because so few people have an interest in the topic. And if mention of a few organizations leads to an editor making a lengthy list, that can always be dealt with in the same way that most things are managed on Wikipedia, namely other editors providing editorial oversight. That's especialy true now that your concerns have been expressed here. Frankly, I think intentionally NOT mentioning a few organizations gives a very biased impression (not necessarily intended) that the organizations are not important, or that the organizations have some sort of unacceptable purpose so that mentioning them might bias the article. I want a well-rounded, complete article. Just as the medical aspects of blindness are relevant so that the American Medical Association is mentioned, there is no reason major organizations can't be mentioned in the context of other issues. It makes no sense. I still plan to add the information, whether as part of other section(s) or in a separate section. Thanks for your discussion. 71.77.20.119 ( talk) 15:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think we have general agreement. I edit anonymously because I have found from years of experience that anonymous editors are treated much better on Wikipedia, except when some registered editors assume anons don't know anything about editing. I actually think Wikipedia should require registration, but until it does I'll stay anonymous. 71.77.20.119 ( talk) 03:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I have removed edits made by a blocked editor promoting a non-notable article written by Jacob M. Appel. To readd this info, please discuss here first and provide links to significant independent news coverage to help with verification. Flowanda | Talk 08:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
According to the World Health Organization the definition of blindness specifies visual acuity less than 20/400 and/ or remaining visual field less than 10 degrees in the better seeing eye. [1] This is in contradiction to the American Foundation for the Blind's 20/200 definition.
As a legally-blind user, might I suggest the addition of the use of the camera application on various smart phones and their zoom functions in order to quickly see things far away? In the past, I've also used this trick when using traditional, point-and-shoot digital cameras. Thank you! - BlindWolf8 ( talk) 05:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Are blind people any more susceptible to disorders of balance or increased experience of dizziness? This area of research looks interesting: "We also conduct world-leading research into the mechanisms underlying the generation of sound from the ears (‘otoacoustic emissions'), the processes involved in age- and inflammation-related hearing loss, how echoes could be used by blind people to ‘see' (human echolocation) and new diagnostic tests for the balance part of the inner ear (the vestibular apparatus). [1]. Martinevans123 ( talk) 11:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I have created an article Childhood blindness which is an important contributory cause. Seeking participation into the article build up. Diptanshu Talk 19:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to add a meshID to the infobox. Alneet ( talk) 14:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Hearing loss which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 17:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)