This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
I think it may be best to give balanced reporting of both sides, and to try to be as non POV as possible.
The fact that Huxley's vision was not normal in 1952, or that he may have had a relapse, may not be conclusive proof that his vision did not benefit at all. Many stroke victims, for example, practice physiotherapy, sometimes for long periods. It is generally accepted that some do benefit from their physiotherapy, though many, if not most, remain disabled for life, particularly if they had suffered a major stroke.
http://www.directionjournal.com/vision/gauld.html
See also
http://www.iblindness.org/forum/index.php?topic=52.0
It is also quite possible for some to benefit from a treatment, while others do not; while some of the latter, may nevertheless fake improvement.
Roo60 00:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I removed the following:
Huxley, however, had only claimed that the Bates method improved his eyesight, [1] and he was nearly blind to begin with.
Because, the claim that the Bates method can improve vision is very contentious (see the Bates method page!), and labelling it "only improvement" is not only POV, but is a strong statement in support of the Bates method. Finally, Huxley's claim of improvement is the whole point of the book, so citing the book in an article about the book in order to show that Huxley said what he said in the book is a bit circular! Famousdog 14:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
References
Unbalanced - The lead states that the book "contains an explanation and discussion of the Bates Method for better eyesight." Thereby implying the BM has a positive effect on eyesight. This claim is not countered until the very final section (that many readers won't have the energy to get to...!). Statements are made that Huxley foudn the BM "very helpful" which are contrary to the scientific evidence. No mention is made of the contoversy over the BM and its pseudoscientific nature until the final section. This is an unacceptable state of affairs considering how much effort has been put into countering Bates-advocacy the BM article. Famousdog ( talk) 10:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Quotes - Too many and not critically discussed. Famousdog ( talk) 10:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Unreferenced - Very few refs provided to back up many claims about the content of the book. Famousdog ( talk) 10:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
POV - Currently the article presents either Huxleys POV, or a single editor's opinion of Huxley's POV... Neither of which are backed up with sufficient evidence. I am concerned that this page could essentially become a POV fork for the BM article. Famousdog ( talk) 10:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
I think it may be best to give balanced reporting of both sides, and to try to be as non POV as possible.
The fact that Huxley's vision was not normal in 1952, or that he may have had a relapse, may not be conclusive proof that his vision did not benefit at all. Many stroke victims, for example, practice physiotherapy, sometimes for long periods. It is generally accepted that some do benefit from their physiotherapy, though many, if not most, remain disabled for life, particularly if they had suffered a major stroke.
http://www.directionjournal.com/vision/gauld.html
See also
http://www.iblindness.org/forum/index.php?topic=52.0
It is also quite possible for some to benefit from a treatment, while others do not; while some of the latter, may nevertheless fake improvement.
Roo60 00:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I removed the following:
Huxley, however, had only claimed that the Bates method improved his eyesight, [1] and he was nearly blind to begin with.
Because, the claim that the Bates method can improve vision is very contentious (see the Bates method page!), and labelling it "only improvement" is not only POV, but is a strong statement in support of the Bates method. Finally, Huxley's claim of improvement is the whole point of the book, so citing the book in an article about the book in order to show that Huxley said what he said in the book is a bit circular! Famousdog 14:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
References
Unbalanced - The lead states that the book "contains an explanation and discussion of the Bates Method for better eyesight." Thereby implying the BM has a positive effect on eyesight. This claim is not countered until the very final section (that many readers won't have the energy to get to...!). Statements are made that Huxley foudn the BM "very helpful" which are contrary to the scientific evidence. No mention is made of the contoversy over the BM and its pseudoscientific nature until the final section. This is an unacceptable state of affairs considering how much effort has been put into countering Bates-advocacy the BM article. Famousdog ( talk) 10:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Quotes - Too many and not critically discussed. Famousdog ( talk) 10:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Unreferenced - Very few refs provided to back up many claims about the content of the book. Famousdog ( talk) 10:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
POV - Currently the article presents either Huxleys POV, or a single editor's opinion of Huxley's POV... Neither of which are backed up with sufficient evidence. I am concerned that this page could essentially become a POV fork for the BM article. Famousdog ( talk) 10:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)