Talk:Bates method/Archive 23

"Slightly" vs. "more than two lines"
My changes probably better reflected the cited sources. I won't quibble over "eye defects" vs. "vision problems", but says "Improvements of more than two lines of acuity have been reported". Belteshazzar (talk) 08:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It would probably be better to say any adaptation is temporary rather than slight, per the source. Alexbrn (talk) 08:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In context, I don't think "short-lasting" means temporary exactly. What it seems to be saying is that leaving one's glasses off for days or weeks won't result in a further improvement. It says "the time course of the condition is as yet unclear", as of 2013. I actually just e-mailed the author to see if he might update and expand the article. Belteshazzar (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The source seems unambiguous: "However, blur adaptation seems short‐lasting (the time course of the condition is as yet unclear) and long‐term improvements may be more likely using perceptual learning". We're at the point now of not even being able to agree the plain meaning of words? Alexbrn (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't argue here. I am inclined to believe the intended meaning was a bit different, but on the surface it does indeed appear to say what you think it does. Hopefully the author will update that article and clarify that part. Belteshazzar (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I walked away from this at the time, because of the circumstances and because "temporarily" did indeed seem to reflect the most natural reading of the source. However, Jmc later added two sources which largely support my interpretation.   says "They found that once adaptation was established, minimal loss of adaptation occurred, i.e. VA was maintained for a significant period of time after the adaptation period."  "It can be postulated that a myopic individual without vision correction may be in a constant state of blur adaptation, and may therefore have better unaided vision than initially expected compared to the degree of myopia present."   says "The majority of the unaided VA improvement accrued during the adaptation period was still present after two days of optimally focused vision."  The statement here that "blur adaptation seems short‐lasting" can be reconciled with these statements if "short-lasting" is understood to mean that it plateaus after a short time.  Thus "temporarily" should be changed. Belteshazzar (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Now that we've gotten rid of both "slightly" and "temporarily", the question is whether to add the bit about "more than two lines of acuity". Belteshazzar (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * See WP:ANI. I think it's time for a topic ban. Guy (help!) 16:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * All I did here was try to more accurately reflect what the source said. "more than two lines of acuity" would seem to be more than "slight". Belteshazzar (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * All you did was everything you've done. You have been warned multiple times. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't even really expect that edit to be controversial. What if I had simply started this discussion without first making that edit to the article?  Would this still have happened? Belteshazzar (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * @Belteshazzar In view of your past history, it would have been prudent, not to say considerate, to start a discussion without first making an arbitrary edit. -- Jmc (talk) 19:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It didn't seem "arbitrary" to bring the reference more into line with what the source said. Belteshazzar (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 'arbitrary' (Cambridge) : "using unlimited personal power without considering other people's rights or wishes". -- Jmc (talk) 22:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If we're going to get into semantics, my power was obviously not unlimited, as any edit can be reverted. As far as considering other people's rights or wishes, I honestly didn't think anyone would object to that edit if they checked the already cited source. Belteshazzar (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Help needed with this sentence...
Sorry, I can't remember how to do a diff. Please see if you can reword the first sentence in the third paragraph of the lede:

There is no good evidence that any kind of training can change the refractive power of the eye.

"There is no good evidence", coupled with "any kind of training" seems "weaselly" to me, and perhaps some sort of double-negative is occurring in the first clause? I am woefully out of date on grammar, and not familiar with the topic. A reworded statement supported by a ref would better serve the reader, IMO. Alexbrn, can you help?

Thanks,  Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect!  21:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * This would seem to be the source for such a statement, although it mentions Bates only in a footnote. Belteshazzar (talk) 23:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * How about "No type of training has been shown to change the refractive power of the eye." Belteshazzar (talk) 02:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. What about:


 * "The theory that "training" can change the refractive power of the eye is unsupported by scientific evidence."


 * The ref given for the stmt in the lede seems to support this. I will be Bold and insert my change, but I don't want either of us to be accused of edit warring. So I hope this is okay... But I think our incremental edits are outside the 24 hr mark, and I do not consider that we are in opposition in clarifying this stmt. Thanks,  Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect!  03:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm being cautious, because I'm on the verge of being banned from this article.
 * "theory" should perhaps be "idea", as "theory" is a bit of a loaded word. Belteshazzar (talk) 03:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Stick with 'theory' - it ties in with Marg's use of "theories" in the preceding sentence. -- Jmc (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I wasn't sure if that Marg quote was going to remain, as his report has been rejected as a source elsewhere in the article. Belteshazzar (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The revised version of the above is: "No type of training has been shown to change the refractive power of the eye." It was recently changed to: "The theory that 'training' can change the refractive power of the eye is unsupported by scientific evidence."

"Theory" gives too much credence to the pseudoscience, as does "is unsupported by scientific evidence". --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I am willing to bow to the opinions and wider experience of others who have commented here. I apologize for any difficulties my uneducated, but good faith, edits and reverts may have caused. Regards,  Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect!  00:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Sungazing and pupil miosis
I just found a short article from the College of Optometrists which addresses sungazing, and mentions that it could result in perceived temporary improvement by making the pupil smaller. Perhaps this could be cited in the Sunning and/or Possible reasons for claimed improvements sections? Belteshazzar (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Only a troll or fool could have read that article and got the take-away that the point worth mentioning is "that it could result in perceived temporary improvement". You need to be banned. Alexbrn (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not the only point worth mentioning, but this article already mentions the risks involved in sunlight exposure. Belteshazzar (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We should not cite that. I think both troll and fool apply. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 07:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The College of Optometrists would seem to be a reliable source. Or is a "news release" uncitable? Belteshazzar (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Suggestion: Remove this article from your watchlist. Never look at it again. Guy (help!) 22:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm just trying to understand the objection here. The source appears credible.  It explicitly connects this to the Bates method.  What more is needed? Belteshazzar (talk) 02:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a press release, so not MEDRS. And the link is not explicit. And you are cherry picking to push a POV. Again. Alexbrn (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I would dispute your last two points, and WP:MEDRS doesn't appear to outright exclude press releases, but I suppose any further discussion would be a waste of time. Hopefully a better source will soon emerge. Belteshazzar (talk) 05:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Why is it so important that we precisely describe this one potential mechanism that might be contributing to the placebo effect here? That doesn't seem to be normal for articles about quack treatments.
 * I'll grant that, if true, it's an interesting fact, but it's hardly an important one to the readers' understanding of the topic. Why such a crusade to include a mention?  If there's an objection, why not just shrug your shoulders and move on? ApLundell (talk) 00:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Didn't I pretty much just do that? But in response to your comment, any such mechanism is in fact crucial to understanding the topic.  There are people who think they have gotten improvement from such methods, or that someone they know has.  Absent a mainstream explanation for these apparent results, such people might (somewhat understandably) continue to pour time and perhaps money into this, trying to improve further.
 * Such an explanation (though probably not one of the more commonly applicable ones) which is in the current article is sourced entirely to works from 1943 and 1957. Considering everything else that is excluded due to WP:MEDRS, this is quite odd. Belteshazzar (talk) 01:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , no it's not. There's no evidence that this contributed in any way to the spread of this bollocks - in fact, its spread appears to have been entirely unrelated to any objective merit. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There's evidence that pseudomyopia and "flashes of clear vision" contributed, at least.   Not that it could ever really be proven what caused the spread of something like this. People ridiculing it without taking the time to elucidate why it might seem to work was probably a factor also. Belteshazzar (talk) 09:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , GRIFTERS GONNA GRIFT. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Heavy Bias Against Bates Method
At the onset of this article and all throughout, there is a suggestive narrative that the Bates Method does not work at all, where as there are countless accounts of it's success, even within the documents cited as "evidence" of the opposite.

Likewise, there are claims herein that the relaxation of the eyes is not important for improved and lasting sight, which it is; whereas no real scientific evidence is noted, while PLENTY of opinionated articles and books against the topic of someone being able to cure their own eyes is prolific.

This type of scolarly bias is unethical and is 100% not in alignment with the original purpose of Wikipedia.

When someone is curious about the Bates Method, they come here to read about the BATES method, NOT your opinion and what you think about it. And calling it "ineffective," at the onset is an OPINION that has nothing to do with the Bates Method.

Whereas his actual techniques would be useful to disclose here, instead of these blatant lies.

I am able to discern this bias for myself, because I have used the metbod AND it does work to improve eyesight - not everyone is so observant.

Whereas it is clear that whoever keeps editing this with bias has not applied oneself with consistency and/or has his or her own agenda.

I wonder what other corruption POV are created by such authors of deception? GnosticSavior (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, of the techniques mentioned herein, only the most "unbelievable" ones are listed, whereas there are many more practical techniques that are required in order for results to be gained.

His books have a full list of those techniques.

Perhaps of the editor would have read HIS books, and not just every book criticising his scientific work, this article might be more than trash.

I bet the karma for this editor is atrocious; because lying to people and actively working to discredit the work of someone with whom there are MANY others continuing his work in private practices to this very day.

Of course, his method does nothing to fill the pockets of everyone that profits from the crutch of glasses. GnosticSavior (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

seeing DOT org has many case stories of success with the Bates Method, and many people making a living teaching it. GnosticSavior (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia. I've left you some suggestions on how to make your experiences here rewarding. I hope you'll take them to heart. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It appears that something must change elsewhere before this article can be fixed. See my conversation with this optometrist, and some old comments by this user. Belteshazzar (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC).
 * Nothing needs fixing as far as anyone can tell. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Not if "anyone" includes, , , , etc. Belteshazzar (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Consensus is not determined by appealing to Ad populum or Ad numerum fallacies, but sound arguments based upon our policies. Creating lists of people on "sides" violates behavioral policies here: the need to work together cooperatively and not make this a battleground. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Belteshazzar needs to be topic banned on anything related to the Bates Method. I find this user disruptive as he/she has not made any productive edits to this encyclopedia and has ignored all policies and advice that has been given to them. The topic ban has been requested by several users in the past, including one admin (see the top of this talk-page). There are over 6 million articles on this encyclopedia. This user in question rarely edits anything else. The agenda is POV pushing and removing criticisms of the Bates Method. This has been going on for quite a few months on and off. I think we need to bring it to an end. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I posted a helpful response to GnosticSavior, and then I only made that list because of what Hipal said. It was rather insulting to say "Nothing needs fixing as far as anyone can tell" in view of GnosticSavior's post and my response. I'm not sure I have removed any criticisms of the Bates method, except for things that were redundant. Belteshazzar (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Both were BATTLEGROUND comments. That's why you should be banned from this and all related articles. If you haven't figured out how to behave by now, we shouldn't have to put up with the disruption. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * My response to GnosticSavior was only intended to be helpful. He clearly believes that the article needs to be fixed, and I agree in principle, but that would require new sources. Belteshazzar (talk) 23:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The foregoing is surely the comment of a classic POV pusher. "I want to change the article to my POV, but I can't find RSs that support my POV" - a dead giveaway that a POV is being pushed. Enough already, I say (again). -- Jmc (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * In this case, I was only trying to explain the circumstances to GnosticSavior. Belteshazzar (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * As far as Psychologist Guy's claim that I have "not made any productive edits to this encyclopedia", I actually have made some clearly productive edits to this article and others. Here, I improved the intro and created the "Early history" section. I've also cut down on verbiage throughout the article. And I removed "slightly" and then "temporarily" in a context where both were inaccurate. And I recently fixed what appeared to be an actual pro-Bates pov at Aldous Huxley. Belteshazzar (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Most of this is answered by WP:FRINGE, but this statement interests me : "Whereas his actual techniques would be useful to disclose here"
 * Yes, they would. Not in absurd detail, but an overview should certainly be given.
 * It seems to me that Bates_method already does this. But if it's missing something, that would be a useful discussion to have here. ApLundell (talk) 01:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Maybe we could add a "Miscellaneous" subsection to the Treatments section. I know Bates recommended reading small print, which doesn't seem to be mentioned in the current article, and might relate to perceptual learning, a mechanism by which such a method might actually work to an extent. Belteshazzar (talk) 02:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2020
Suggest you remove the word ‘ineffective’ from the first sentence. It is effective I have personally witnessed it work on a seven year old child who was about to go into those so called ‘coke-bottle’ glasses. About a year later after practicing this method under the tutelage of her parents, she was not wearing any glasses and still does not to this day. She is 22 now.

Akhila Hughes Takhila (talk) 06:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, un fortunately our sourcing rules, WP:RS and WP:MEDRS will not allow us to, sorry. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 07:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that "ineffective" should be removed, but that is not likely to happen unless a new source turns up. The cited source, Quackwatch, is apparently held in high esteem by the Wikipedia community, so it can't be contradicted unless a better source does so. A mainstream optometry journal would probably work, but the question is how to get such a source to present a fair treatment of the Bates method. Belteshazzar (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , would you prefer "dangerous" or would "batshit insane" be best? Guy (help! - typo?) 21:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "dangerous" might actually be better than "ineffective", if such an adjective has to be included in the lead sentence. I object to "ineffective" partly because it will make some readers (such as Takhila in this thread) think that the article authors don't know what they're talking about. Belteshazzar (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , what a bizarre statement. There is no credible evidence the Bates method works, so "ineffective" is accurate. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I realize now that this letter is not citable here, but it still seems basically credible. I have no idea whether is describing a case of pseudomyopia or something else. Belteshazzar (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , there is no credible evidence that the Bates method works. You need to remove this article from your watchlist. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * How about “ineffective and dangerous”? Brunton (talk) 10:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see a need for either in the first sentence. The rest of the intro pretty much explains it.  Ironically, calling it "ineffective" may well increase the danger, because many people won't then take the article seriously. Belteshazzar (talk) 18:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Belteshazzar, I am curious. Do you ignore "one-way" signs? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 18:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I however, support using, "inneffective, dangerous and batshit insane" then holdouts might possibly get the message. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 18:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * When I made over-the-top edits like that, I got blocked for WP:POINT, but if you actually agree with such a change, it might be OK to make it. Belteshazzar (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m not convinced that “batshit insane” is supported by reliable sources. However, it is clearly ineffective and dangerous, based on the body of the article. And there’s nothing in Wikipedia’s policies that says we have to humour people who think ineffective therapies are effective. Brunton (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If the Bates method is completely ineffective, then Aldous Huxley was clearly wrong (as is the user who started this thread) to claim that it improved his eyesight. Yet my earlier edit saying that Huxley was wrong was deemed "bizarre". Belteshazzar (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ”...then Auldous Huxley was clearly wrong”:
 * ”Then suddenly he faltered—and the disturbing truth became obvious. He wasn't reading his address at all. He had learned it by heart. To refresh his memory, he brought the paper closer and closer to his eyes. When it was only an inch or so away, he still couldn't read it, and had to fish for a magnifying glass in his pocket to make the typing visible to him. It was an agonizing moment.”
 * ‘Nuff said. Brunton (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's one man's account, about an event that apparently happened ten years after Huxley wrote The Art of Seeing. If this account is accurate, it only means Huxley's vision wasn't good at the time this happened. Belteshazzar (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, you brought up Huxley. Can you find any RS that says it’s effective, or that staring at the sun is safe? Brunton (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I brought up Huxley because it is apparently considered "bizarre" for Wikipedia to state that he was wrong about the Bates method improving his eyesight, so it seems a bit inconsistent for Wikipedia to state that the Bates method is ineffective. In response to your question, I never argued that Wikipedia should say the Bates method is effective, just that it shouldn't say it's ineffective. Belteshazzar (talk) 23:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:POINT. Brunton (talk) 09:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I got blocked because of that. The inconsistency here is still interesting, though. Belteshazzar (talk) 09:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it isn’t. Brunton (talk) 12:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you see the difference between what I did, and what you did? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 12:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about anything you did. But I apologize for perpetuating this discussion, which has gotten pointless. I think my response to Takhila was good, but then I shouldn't have responded to Guy. I realize that nothing is going to change until a new source emerges. Belteshazzar (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Would it be possible to place a note at the top of this page explaining why the lead sentence says the Bates method is ineffective, and what it would take to change that? I assume that if a mainstream optometry journal were to publish an article stating that the Bates method might be effective in some cases, that would do it. Belteshazzar (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the 'Dead-end' section of the article is sufficient explanation of why the lead sentence says the Bates method is ineffective. Mainstream optometry journals have had over a century to publish an article stating that the Bates method might be effective in some cases.


 * And this thread has also surely reached a dead end. -- Jmc (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , why on earth would we want to encourage people to continue the insane crusade to change the lead? What it would take is for the human physiology to be different. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The lead says the Bates method is ineffective because reliable sources say that it doesn’t work. Brunton (talk) 09:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * How about this in-text? Belteshazzar (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:BAIT, WP:DTS. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Refined argument against "ineffective"
Vision is too complex for any such method to be summarily deemed "ineffective", unless such a statement is very specific about what is not possible physiologically. While Quackwatch is cited to support this pejorative, actual optometry sources take a somewhat more measured tone. Also note what this one says about perceptual learning. It mostly discounts a connection with the Bates method because "the Bates method emphasizes repeated relaxation of the eyes, rather than repeated practice on a demanding task". However, the author may have been unaware of some of Bates' recommendations, such as reading small print and imagining small letters. Yes, this is original thought, but I offer it only as an argument to remove "ineffective". Current sources limit what this article can say, but removing a pejorative is a different matter. Belteshazzar (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is original thought Thanks for that disclaimer. Please stop wasting our time. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The point is that vision is too complex for any such method to be summarily deemed "ineffective". Which I'm not sure that any recent source other than Quackwatch really does, anyway. Belteshazzar (talk) 23:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 'Ineffective' a pejorative?! Belteshazzar betrays his/her not-so-hidden agenda with this emotive characterisation of the term. I'm with Hipal/Ronz in a plea to stop wasting our time. -- Jmc (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In this case, it is a pejorative, because the opening sentence could just as easily omit it. Belteshazzar (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please leave this article alone. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's not miss the fact that there is a known mechanism by which such a method could actually work. The author does not entirely discount a connection between perceptual learning and the Bates method, just says that it doesn't seem likely based on his understanding of the Bates method.   This might be awkward to report on in the article, but we can at least remove "ineffective" from the lead sentence. Belteshazzar (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That paper is cited on the article already. It is not a pro-Bates method paper. The author says "The Bates method includes palming, visualization, movement (or ‘shifting’) and sunning. None of these techniques appear to have any plausible rationale for treating myopia". You want ineffective removed from the lead sentence, that is bizarre. We have many reliable references indicating Bates method is ineffective. You have not provided any to the contrary. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's cited regarding blur adaptation after glasses are removed. I didn't claim that paper was pro-Bates.  Note, however, the tentative tone.  "None of these techniques appear to have any plausible rationale for treating myopia" is a bit different from saying that it's definitely ineffective.  Quackwatch may be the only recent source which does that; otherwise, why is an actual optometry source not cited for "ineffective"? Belteshazzar (talk) 02:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We already have a quote in the lead which says "Most of his claims and almost all of his theories have been considered false by practically all visual scientists". Marg, Elwin (April 1952). "Flashes of clear vision and negative accommodation with reference to the Bates Method of visual training". American Journal of Optometry & Archives of American Academy of Optometry. 29 (4): 167–84. There are recent papers that could be cited for example this one which says "the efficacy of this [Bates] method is questionable and his theory was contradicted by mainstream ophthalmology and optometry of his day and still is today" and this paper says the Bates method has been scientifically refuted . The Bates method has been discredited for over sixty years. There are many optometry sources on the article already and some not cited like the two above that indicate the method is ineffective. I agree we could add more references to the article but we don't need to cite them all in the lead because many are already in the text of the article. Why are you still claiming the Bates method is not ineffective? Show me one peer-reviewed optometry journal that says otherwise. Psychologist Guy (talk) 03:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links. Interestingly, the Elwin Marg paper has been deemed unacceptable insofar as explaining another key reason why the Bates method might sometimes seem to work. What I really want is for this article to explain all such reasons. Unfortunately, there don't seem to be valid sources for most of them, even though they are clearly real phenomena. Belteshazzar (talk) 04:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you are confused about anecdotal evidence and scientific evidence. The Bates method does work for some people, just like naturopathy, urine therapy, crystal healing, ear candling, magnet therapy and other nonsense quackery sometimes works. The key thing point here is that anecdotal evidence is not scientific evidence. When you put all these quack things including Bates Method under scientific examination and introduce controls they don't work. That is what separates science from pseudoscience. The Bates Method is ineffective scientifically that has been demonstrated. Aldous Huxley and others thought the Bates Method improved their eyesight and maybe it did but there is no scientific evidence for this and all we have are anecdotes. Without scientific controls in place we do not know which other variables are at play. You seem to be ignoring the science and looking for anecdotes. For example you said in one of your edits if the Bates method is ineffective then why did it improve Aldous Huxley's eyesight. See what I wrote above. This has been explained to you. Per multiple Wikipedia policies we go by the mainstream scientific sources on this topic. Psychologist Guy (talk) 04:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Even with scientific controls in place, we may not know all the variables, including factors that may be working against improvement. It still seems unnecessary to say "ineffective", especially in light of what is known about perceptual learning.  If we're going to keep "ineffective", however, is there any objection to changing the source?  Maybe to this one, which is at least an optometry journal.  Although now that I look at the references there, it cites an earlier version of the Quackwatch article along with a 1956 book to source "despite considerable scientific refutation". Belteshazzar (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And I don't think I ever said "why did it improve Aldous Huxley's eyesight". I said that if we state point-blank that the Bates method is ineffective, we are saying that Huxley was wrong about the Bates method improving his eyesight. Belteshazzar (talk) 04:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Huxley's belief that it improved his eyesight cannot be used as evidence that it is not ineffective, just as Samuel Shenton's belief that the earth is flat cannot be used as evidence that it is not spherical. -- Jmc (talk) 06:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I now feel compelled to point out something that I fully noticed only when I was forced to defend myself. From June 2019 to February 2020, four established users removed "ineffective": "Ludicrously pov"  "definitive wording for a yet undecided matter... the article has enough information regarding its legitimacy; the reader can decide for himself." "SKEPTIC, BIAS, POV, COI vio" "Removed the word "ineffective" from the opening sentence as subjective and negatively biased." So "ineffective" does not have nearly as strong a consensus as it might seem. People simply gave up. Belteshazzar (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please stop wasting our time. --Hipal (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow this again. Two ANI cases have been opened up against Belteshazzar but there was no admin input and they were quietly archived. He's still at it moaning about the ineffective in the lead. An admin just needs to ban this user. We do not need to assume good faith any longer. Belteshazzar is a blatant troll. There are three entire archives of his soapboxing here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:AE is where to take this next. --Hipal (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Very hard to know what Belteshazzar's on about. He/she didn't disagree with my strengthening of "ineffective" by adding "and potentially dangerous" - indeed, appeared to concur with it. -- Jmc (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "potentially dangerous" is accurate, though I wasn't sure it was necessary to say in the first sentence. I do not believe "ineffective" is entirely accurate, despite haphazard statements by certain sources.  For such a method to be tested fairly, every factor that might work against improvement would have to be eliminated, and the criteria for success would have to correctly balance genuine improvement against illusory improvement.  As mentioned above, there is at least one known mechanism by which some aspects of the Bates method might result in real, lasting improvement, although the refractive power of the eye would likely not change. Controlled studies might thus have discounted what should have been positive results. Furthermore, it seems likely that subjects sometimes wore glasses during the treatment period, although Bates said never to wear glasses. So you can see how controlled studies may have gone wrong. Belteshazzar (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You're wasting everyone's time here, including your own, unless you're trying to get yourself banned or blocked. --Hipal (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * When you say "one known mechanism", you're speaking of "blur adaptation" right?
 * It would not be appropriate to describe "blur adaptation" as a result of the Bates method. It's simply what happens when you don't wear glasses. People spent thousands of years not wearing glasses before Bates was born. The topic of this article is all the additional cruft he invented. You cannot claim "don't wear glasses" on Bates's behalf as a novel invention.
 * ApLundell (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This so-called 'Refined argument against "ineffective"' is completely beside the point. The Bates method is appropriately characterised as "ineffective" simply because, as the third paragraph of the lede states, "No type of training has been shown to change the refractive power of the eye", IOW the Bates method has not the slightest effect on the physiology of the eye - which is what it purports to do. It thus totally fails the effectiveness test in the very basis of its method. Case closed. -- Jmc (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Right, "blur adaptation" is the human body naturally adapting to a disability. It is not a treatment of that disability, and it is not the result of anything Bates invented.
 * Citing "blur adaptation" as evidence of a "effective" treatment is like saying you cured a broken hand because the patient learned to type one-handed. ApLundell (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the mechanism in question is perceptual learning, which is compared and contrasted with blur adaptation here. Also mentioned here and in papers it cites. It sounds as though this is real, lasting improvement, although it probably would not change the refractive power of the eye. The only question is whether any part of the Bates method might aid perceptual learning. Thus far, no source says that it does or even that this is likely, but it could be argued that the mere existence of such a mechanism should preclude any such method from being summarily labeled as "ineffective" or "discredited", unless such a statement is very specific about what is not possible physiologically. Belteshazzar (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I repeat: this is totally beside the point. The Bates method can indeed be summarily labeled as "ineffective" simply because there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of the effectiveness of its fundamental physiological mechanism. Therefore, all other claims about it must necessarily be attributed to mere coincidence. And I repeat: case closed. -- Jmc (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It depends on the definition of "fundamental physiological mechanism" and "mere coincidence". At the most basic level, the Bates method is claimed to improve eyesight.  If parts of the Bates method were shown to be effective in improving eyesight via perceptual learning, "ineffective" would certainly have to be removed from the first sentence.  As of now, the question is whether the mere existence of this mechanism should preclude a summary label of "ineffective" or "discredited". Belteshazzar (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "As of now, the question is whether the mere existence of this mechanism should preclude a summary label of "ineffective""
 * No. Of course it should not preclude that.
 * If I chopped off your leg, you would eventually learn to get around with one leg. The fact that you were able to slightly adapt doesn't mean that all woo-woo leg-regrowing treatments can no longer be called "ineffective".
 * Regardless of whether that satisfies you, I think it's safe to say that your "refined argument" is in no danger of changing the existing consensus about this article's lede. ApLundell (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you read what the articles linked above (and articles they cite) say about perceptual learning? Belteshazzar (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I read one of the articles you linked, when I got to the end and still couldn't understand how it supported your argument, I decided my time was better spent on other things. ApLundell (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe I should have led with this one instead. It doesn't mention Bates, but it does show how such a method might genuinely work to some extent. Belteshazzar (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Belteshazzar: "It depends on the definition of 'fundamental physiological mechanism'" - fundamental physiological mechanism = changing the refractive power of the eye. Belteshazzar's continuing refusal to accept the ineffectiveness of this essential basis of the Bates method looks increasingly perverse. -- Jmc (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My point was that vision is more complicated than that. Also read the Treatment section of the Presbyopia article. Eyesight is more than just refractive power. It would appear that brain retraining can improve the actual image seen, not merely help someone to better interpret it. Belteshazzar (talk) 03:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems like this conversation has now looped back around on itself at least once. If it didn't change consensus the first time through, it's not likely to the second time. ApLundell (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure that people understood that perceptual learning actually can improve the image seen, to a greater extent than simple blur adaptation can. Belteshazzar (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear. The Bates method is correctly characterised as ineffective because it doesn't even make first base i.e. it fails in its foundational function viz. changing the refractive power of the eye. All this talk of 'perceptual learning' and 'blur adaptation' is in second base/third base (fourth ... base?) territory and so, totally nugatory in the context of this article. When Belteshazzar authors his/her article on the Belteshazzar method, he/she can rabbit on about all these secondary factors as much as he/she has obsessively rabbited on about them here -- Jmc (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Then how about we change "eyesight" to "refractive power of the eye" in the opening sentence? Belteshazzar (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No!! The Bates method is aimed at improving eyesight, by changing the refractive power of the eye, just as homeopathy is aimed at curing disease, by removing the deeper disturbance of the vital force. -- Jmc (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Then put that wording in the opening sentence. Belteshazzar (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to that (or some variation of it). Let's see what others think. -- Jmc (talk) 01:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No. The lede sentence should just say that it intends to improve eyesight. Saying some such about "refractive power of the eye" lends it legitimacy and makes it sound like a scientifically reached method. The technical language is unneeded, everyone will understand "improve eyesight", I don't think that many will know what the "refractive power of the eye" is, or if it's a good thing to increase or decrease it. Leijurv (talk) 07:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Jmc seems to believe that refractive power is fundamental to the Bates method, to the point where the Bates method can be summarily labeled "ineffective" even when there is an alternative mechanism by which some parts of the Bates method might plausibly bring about lasting improvement in eyesight. Belteshazzar (talk) 08:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am responding via a notification at WP:FTN. The first sentence of this article currently states: "The Bates method is an ineffective and potentially dangerous alternative therapy aimed at improving eyesight." The word "eyesight" links to visual acuity. Although the "dangerous" terminology could be backed-up with an additional reliable source (e.g. ), this is accurate and backed-up by a reliable source. In this context, it is clear to me that "eyesight" refers to "visual acuity". Just like lay people frequently use "lazy eye" to mean either strabismus or amblyopia, lay people also sometimes use "vision" to mean visual perception or visual acuity. An argument could be that people may alternate in the usage of "eyesight", too; however, Bates appeared to reference measured improvements in acuity when discussing "sight" or "eyesight". - Location (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. In this context, eyesight does refer to visual acuity, not to refractive power.  That is why "ineffective" should be removed.  As I've pointed out, there is a known mechanism by which visual acuity (but probably not refractive power) can sometimes be improved via training.  This is currently discussed in the Treatment section of the Presbyopia article.  Whether any part of the Bates method can affect this is another question, but the mere existence of this mechanism should preclude a summary label of "ineffective". Belteshazzar (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You appear to be working with the assumption that perceptual training with frequency-doubling or Gabor targets in presbyopes is equal to the Bates method training in myopes and hyperopes. That is incorrect. You are welcome to make that leap of belief outside of Wikiepdia, but to insert it into the article would fail WP:OR. - Location (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting inserting anything into the article on this basis, only removing something. I realize that any affirmative statement would require a valid source which directly connected it to the subject.  Regarding myopia, a Google scholar search appears to show that perceptual learning is believed to help myopia also. Belteshazzar (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Understood. I have evaluated what you have said and my !vote is with those who agree with keeping "ineffective". - Location (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Now that someone who clearly understands this concept still thinks "ineffective" should stay, I guess it is time for me to DTS unless and until a new source emerges.  At least no one who supported "ineffective" will ever be able to claim that they wouldn't have had they just known about this mechanism. Belteshazzar (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I wrote an essay for people who find themselves in the position you are in. It contains the same "keep looking for a source that will turn the consensus around" sentiment you expressed above. You can read it at WP:1AM. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I still don't think "one against many" is a fair characterization here, due to what I pointed out above. I had been ready to DTS then, but was emboldened after I put that together. Belteshazzar (talk) 03:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Risks of sunning and palming
The recently updated AllAboutVision article now mentions a risk of sunning even on closed eyelids, and also a possible risk of palming. An old version of that article is cited here. Belteshazzar (talk) 16:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In the light of this (and other references in the article to risks), I propose amending "ineffective" in the lede to "ineffective and potentially dangerous". -- Jmc (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't argue with "potentially dangerous". The only question is whether it is necessary to state that in the first sentence when the intro already mentions possible risks. Belteshazzar (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Nemine contradicente, I'll make my proposed change. While it's true that possible risks are mentioned later in the lede, the addition of "potentially dangerous" serves to signal a significant issue right up front. -- Jmc (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The article should probably also mention the specific risks discussed in the AllAboutVision article. Belteshazzar (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Possibly in a separate section under General criticisms headed 'Risks'? Certainly the increased risk from palming of glaucoma is mentioned nowhere else and is concerning. -- Jmc (talk) 08:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that the point about palming and glaucoma could be in the Palming section, and the point about sunning on closed eyelids could be in the Sunning section. Belteshazzar (talk) 08:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Aldous Huxley
Here's a fairly new source regarding Aldous Huxley and the Bates method: Anything worth noting here or in related articles? Belteshazzar (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, should Huxley be mentioned in the intro? He was previously, and this was removed in a larger deletion. Belteshazzar (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Pollack and Quackwatch
See the bottom of this page: "This article was originally published as Chapter 3 in Dr. Pollack’s book The Truth about Eye Exercises, published in 1956 by the Chilton Co of Philadelphia." "This page was posted on July 8, 2000." Looking at the early article history, it appears that the Quackwatch page was the original link for this source, and at some point it was replaced by the Hathitrust link, which contains the full book. But it is definitely the same source as the one which follows, whether we link to Quackwatch or Hathitrust. And the reference should make clear that it is from 1956, not 2000. Belteshazzar (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem was that the existing 'pollack' ref ("Chapter 3: Fallacies of the Bates System") linked not to Chapter 3 ('seq=41') but to the title page ('seq=7'). I've corrected it. -- Jmc (talk) 03:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)