Talk:Bates method/Archive 13

added link famousdog
Famousdog thanks for the link you added. . In my opinion the second best of this article. Again my compliments. Seeyou (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Second best"? Hardly. In my opinion its actually a poorly formatted version of very short, and poorly written paper. However, it is the only direct attempt at a clinical trial of Bates' techniques that I am aware of, so I think its actually quite important. What I don't understand is: why you are so enthusiastic about it? The same puzzlement surrounds your enthusiasm about the Woods article, since both papers show fairly conclusively that Bates' therapies (Mohan) and vision therapy (Woods) have no statistically significant positive impact on poor vision. Famousdog (talk) 09:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If something can happen to a single person. It can happen to all the others to ( if there conditions and other factors are equal ) ! The question is in what sense those succesful people differ in the unsuccesful ones. For example they might have practised more. Maybe their decrease in eyesight happened very recently. Maybe they wanted to improve for themselves. Maybe they were more motivated. Maybe they did n't drink alcohol or loads of coffee. etc. etc. It also proves why the BM/NVI is controversial. A issue of this article and sitll not solved. Seeyou (talk) 10:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

"

Unclaimed reward?
Martin Gardner wrote: "For many years a Manhattan eye doctor had a standing and unclaimed offer of $1,000 to any patient with a refractive error who practiced the Bates system, and whose eyes showed organic improvement when tested by a competent doctor." If we could reliably come up with more details about this, it might well be worth mentioning here. Specifically, who was this doctor and what were the precise conditions for claiming the $1,000? PSWG1920 (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Upon further investigation, it seems to also be mentioned on page 49 of Philip Pollack's book. PSWG1920 (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Pollack is just quoting Gardner, as he so often does, and Gardner is spreading an urban legend. If he'd known any details, why didn't he give them? I'd be astonished if you managed to substantiate this story. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

RFC for creating a wikiquote article NVI
This RfC is closed per the consensus below. As a side note, while in the future, an RfC may be warranted on whether to include content from a "wikiquote article" in this Wikipedia article (though doubtful), a Wikipedia RfC on whether to create an article at Wikiquote is certainly not warranted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ncmvocalist, Achieving consensus requires serious treatment of every group member's considered opinion . I am not taken serious. I have asked constantly for argument(s) not even one is give. I think a COI is present in this article. Hard to prove but is has to be considered. I will add this issue to the issues for arbitration committee. Seeyou (talk) 11:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Rather than (or at least before) arbitration, the correct place to report a suspected conflict of interest is the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Seeyou - two points. first, a silly point of convenience: please use wikipedia links for local content (e.g. consensus as opposed to external links (e.g. , like you used above.  easier to read.
 * second, it would help everyone if you listened just a little bit better to what people are saying. the main point of this discussion is that no one here really cares what happens on wikiquote.  if you want to make a page there, go ahead; then come back here and discuss whether or not you can link to it from Wikipedia.  that's just sensible, yah?  argue all you want about things that need to be argued about, but don't stir up a fuss where a fuss isn't necessary.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I will respect what the arbitration will say about the multiple issues of this article. This RFC reveals very clear there is no discussion taken place and this article is opinion based. Future will tell in which direction this article will go. Seeyou (talk) 08:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

There is disagreement between me and one or two other editors about creating a wikiquote article Natural Vision Improvement.

Please provide your comment if you think whether or not a NVI wikiquote article would be interesting to improve the quality of this BM/NVI wikipedia article. See also discussions of the past. My opponent has given some argument. But I have n’t read any valid argument. In my opiniion Censor and Meatpuppets might be present.

Below the start of the wikiquote page. ( Note skeptic quotes are just as welcome as any other quote ! ) Note also original research is currently a problem in this article. In wikiquote article this can not happen. Unless the quote is created by a wikipedia-editor. This version is the one it is about []


 * Natural Vision Improvement : A lifestyle method of improving eyesight by wholistic means without the use of optical devices. The Bates method merged with modern theories of brain function, character and responsibility for one’s self and state of being.
 * "Natural vision improvement by Janet Goodrich, isbn = 0-89087-471-9 page 211"


 * Bates method : Natural vision teacher Thomas R. Quackenbush defines the Bates method thus: An educational program created by ophthalmologist William H. Bates, M.D., in which natural, correct vision habits&mdash;based on relaxation of the mind and body&mdash;are taught; optional self-healing activities and games are often included to accelerate integration and self-healing; commonly misunderstood as only "eye exercises"&mdash;even by many "Bates Method" teachers.
 * "Better Eyesight: The Complete Magazines of William H. Bates page 643 | isbn = 1-55643-351-4"


 * Improving vision naturally is an internal transformation, not a treatment, cure or makeover by external forces.
 * "Natural vision improvement ISBN 0-89087-471-9 page 2"


 * Sunning : Let the sun shine on your closed eyelids for short intervals. Choose preferably the early morning sunlight. It is the light rays which benefit the eyes rather than the heat rays. The sun loses some of its effect when it comes through glass.
 * "Better Eyesight: The Complete Magazines of William H. Bates page = page 299 | isbn = 1-55643-351-4"


 * Martin Gardner about Perfect sight without glasses : a fantastic compendium of wildly exaggerated case records, unwarranted inferences and anatomical ignorance.
 * Fads & Fallacies In the Name of Science," by Martin Gardner, p. 231, Putnam, 1952


 * The only risk attributable to visual training is financial, as most health insurers do not cover these programs.
 * The American academy of ophthalmology.

In my opinion it is strange articles like below are accepted and a NVI quote article is not !


 * Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer []


 * 8_Simple_Rules []


 * One_Piece []

See : * [] Wikiquote Seeyou (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: This RFC has been opened in the wrong venue, and should be closed without action. Wikiquote forms its own consensus independent of Wikipedia. It is inappropriate to contest an action on one project through the procedures of another project. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Advice: (1) Anyone wishing to contest a proposed deletion at Wikiquote can do so by following the simple instructions on the proposed deletion notice. (2) Contributors to Wikiquote should familiarize themselves with its mission and its policies. The question of "whether or not a NVI wikiquote article would be interesting to improve the quality of this BM/NVI wikipedia article" displays a misunderstanding of its mission. (3) Contributors to all Wikimedia projects should assume good faith, and refrain from baseless allegations of puppetry. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ningauble, thanks for your comment but since you are the one who has proposed the NVI wikiquote article for deletion. I like to hear some outside opinions. Seeyou (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note also the wikiquote article is already made more promotional. To make sure the given arguments, given by the prodeletion editors, make sense. And the NVI wikiqoute article will probably be deleted soon. Ningauble here on this talkpage we are forced to discuss. Seeyou (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am strongly inclined to remove this entire thread, as it has absolutely nothing to do with this article. The only reason I'm not doing so right now is to give whoever wants to a chance to move the material elsewhere -- although that can still be done after this is deleted. Looie496 (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I sympathise with your motives, but please do not do what you are "strongly inclined" to do. There are very few circumstances in which one is justified in deleting material (except one's own) from talk pages (except one's own), and this is not one of them. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * End this RfC. You cannot make a decision at Wikipedia about what to do at the completely separate Wikiquote website.  If you want a Wikiquote page, then please discuss it at wikiquote.org  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a RFC to invite any editor to comment whether or not they agree or disagree a wikiquote article would improve this article. Seeyou (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This article will clearly not be improved by adding an external link to a non-existent page.
 * Whether Wikiquote will accept this collection of "marketing material" is in doubt.
 * Please close this RfC until the page you want to link to actually exists. It is definitely premature.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

End the madness! This is totally inappropriate cross-project forum-shopping by Seeyou. I suggest another temporary block, so he can sit and think about what he's done. And as an aside: Many more people have heard of (and care about) Buffy and 8 Simple Rules than have heard of (or care about) the Bates method or NVI, that's why they have Wikiquote articles! Famousdog (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No this is revealing. Many controversial articles have a wikiquote article.  Why can't the BM have one ? Again any quote is welcome, skeptic ones also. I think you are afraid a wikiqoute article will reveal the overskeptic quality of this Original research' article. Seeyou (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Seeyou: Whether or not Wikipedia editors want a Wikiquote page to exist is completely and totally irrelevant.  Wikipedia editors can no more authorize the creation of pages on Wikiquote than we can authorize the creation of pages at WhiteHouse.gov.  You must take this question to Wikiquote.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * After due consideration, the only meaningful thing I can dig out of this RfC is the possibility that NVI might make it easier for me to watch reruns of Buffy. since that seems unlikely on the face of it, and I can't find anything else relevant to me or to wikipedia, I have to second WhatamIdoing's call to end the RfC.  nothing to see here, folks.    -- Ludwigs 2  20:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's close this This yet another case of testing how to get around Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. --Ronz (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ronz, There is not provided a single argument which explains why the BM/NVI article can't have a wikiquote article !. If I am wrong list the argument(s) below. Seeyou (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Seeyou, once again, this is the argument: You may not link to pages that do not exist.  Consider it a special case of WP:ELNO #16, which bans "Links that are not reliably functional" -- only in this case, the link is never functional, because the page does not exist.  After you convince Wikiquote to have such a page (assuming you can:  I have no idea what their standards are), then you can have a discussion here about whether this page should link to it.
 * Please pay attention to the very important sequence of these events: First create a page at Wikiquote.  Second we can discuss whether adding the link to this article meets Wikipedia's standards.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Strain, lying, etc.
Here is a short piece which may be somewhat useful in the "Underlying concepts" section. It discusses, in some detail, Bates' views on "strain" and among other things, lying causing changes in refraction (a point which had been mentioned in this article previously but was removed due to a lack of sourced context.) PSWG1920 (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)