Talk:Bates method/Archive 7

Archiving of content
I've set the page up so that ClueBot III archives any threads on this page that are not discussed for a 72 hour period, because seriously, the page was becoming huge. The content that was on the page before archival can be found in /Archive 5 and /Archive 6 (and possibly a little bit in /Archive 4). Enjoy! Foxy Loxy Pounce! 03:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, If your ever looking for a certain thread, the archive index for this page would most likely be helpful. Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 03:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed it to 336 hours (two weeks.) 72 hours is far too short a timeframe to consider an inactive thread stale here. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I also fixed the huge banner clutter on the top of the page, merged the wikiproject banners into one template, same with the article milestones. Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 04:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Foxy. The archive index [] is very handy. Seeyou (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Accommodation
It's been awhile since I read this article so I am essentially coming here with a fresh perspective. I have to say that I found it difficult to get much further than the Accommodation section, mostly because it was relying on only one source published well over 50 years ago yet our sourced text is phrased as though it was current and factual. This may be possible of course - that there are no updated opinions or research or histories of Bates' view of accommodation - in which case, I guess the 50 year old source will have to do. Are there not other more current sources on the subject which we can cite? -- Levine2112 discuss 05:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The current mainstream medical position on this does appear to be the same, as indicated by the WebMD article, for instance. However, it seems that no one has bothered to address this in any detail since the 1950's, as the Bates method generally and his explanation of accommodation specifically are regarded by the mainstream as long-discredited pseudoscience which has already been adequately answered. You could argue for further shortening the section to say this more briefly, but then some editors would likely say that is downplaying the method's faulty scientific basis. I actually don't think the "Underlying concepts" section will be of much interest to many general readers. My guess is that most will skip down either to "Treatments" or "Claimed success". I have no way of proving that, of course. PSWG1920 (talk) 06:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose that if there are no newer sources available, then we have to rely on this 1950's one. Perhaps we should note the date in the article (i.e. Bates' theories on accommodation were ostensibly discredited in the 1950's by optometrist Philip Pollack in his work The Truth about Eye Exercises). I just think that it would be valuable and interesting to reader to know that the information they are reading is from a source over 50 years old. That there is no newer sources may be a testament to the credibility Pollack's analysis. -- Levine2112 discuss 06:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added "in a 1956 work" at one specific point. Not sure how to further qualify this section without being given (as you call it) a litany of alphabet soup. For a while I have viewed the first section as basically a concession point. But if you'd like to take a crack at any more changes, that will be fine with me. PSWG1920 (talk) 06:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't want to get too heavy-handed with the attribution, just so long as we recognize that much of what is being asserted in this section are from findings over 50 years ago. If there have been no serious challenges to these finding in the past 50 years, then perhaps we can do without all of the attribution. It's a tough call, probably due to the antiquity of the subject at hand. Is Bates Method still something which is practiced/prescribed with any regularity? If not - and not to create a headache by mere suggestions - perhaps this article would benefit if it was written more from the historical perspective. -- Levine2112 discuss 07:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it definitely is practiced and promoted today. The discussion of that point is limited here due to the scarcity of secondary sources for that aspect of the subject. But if you search amazon for example many recent pro-Bates method books will come up. PSWG1920 (talk) 07:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, then scratch my historical perspective idea. :-) I am amazed that if it is still practiced and promoted today, that there are no more recent sources critical of the subject. -- Levine2112 discuss 08:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, there are current critical articles from WebMD and Quackwatch referenced here. And there is the AAO review which addresses the general subject of "visual training for refractive errors". But yes, it is surprising that there aren't more. PSWG1920 (talk) 08:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)





I have added a picture about bates point of view on accomodation in the article.

an improvement in subjective visual acuity for patients with myopia who have undertaken visual training has been shown but no corresponding physiological cause for the improvement has been demonstrated.

In other words ophthalmology might say here they have found no evidence the shape of the eyeball can change. When you take a look in most general medical encyclopedias you will find an explanation directing to the lens being the cause of myopia or farsightness. Not the shape of the eyeball. Levine2112. Does the current paragraph make this difference in point of view clear ? Does the picture help to make this more clear ? Seeyou (talk) 10:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC) See also :
 * Accommodation_(eye) especially the presented picture !
 * I removed the image. It doesn't help explain or clarify anything currently in the article, but instead introduces new terms that are not defined and unlikely to be understood.
 * I don't understand why this image was added. The explanation in the comment above is extremely confusing. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ronz, my friend look at the second picture. Here you can see the orthodox view. The lens is the cause of myopia. Not the shape of the eyeball. So it is the lens ( orthodox ) versus shape of the eyeball ( bates ). Do you understand now ? Seeyou (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think these illustrations would require far too much explanation in order to be understood by the general reader. Such concerns are the reason I have not added more images to the article. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We do not have the same opinion PSWG1920. Wikipedia is also quite clear regarding this subject. Ronz would agree when he reads this guideline or policy. [] see paragraph describe the controversy. When we show the pictures there really is not much to explain anymore. In my opinion it is also revealing the AAO is indirectly speaking about bates his theory. Seeyou (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I still don't see any clear rationale for adding it. --Ronz (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Seeyou, the figure on the left shows that the lens basically has to have the appropriate focal length relative to the length of the eyeball otherwise myopia or hypermetropia ensues. This figure is slightly misleading as it emphasises the axial length and discounts the lens strength. You could easily re-draw that figure with standardised eyeball sizes and differing lens strengths and come to the opposite conclusion! It is a schematic diagram, not empirical data. The size of eyeballs does indeed vary from person to person, as does the strength of their lenses. Bates' mistake was to claim that the eyeball varies in length in a single person, from moment to moment and assists in accommodation. This simply doesn't happen. The figure on the left shows that myopia can be easily corrected with concave lenses, rendering the need for complex, lengthy and dubious exercises such as the Bates Method redundant. Famousdog (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, since the figure on the left is from Bates' Perfect sight... I would argue that he has chosen to draw this figure in a non-standard way in order to deliberately mislead the reader... Famousdog (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See the Drexler et al (1998) paper that I just added to the Accommodation section. This paper is frankly the nail in the coffin of Bates' eyeball-elongation theory. Changes in axial length do occur, but they are far, far, far too small (12 thousandths of a millimetre, or 12 millionths of a metre!). Game Over Dr Bates. Famousdog (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like some opinions regarding the manner in which the Drexler paper is currently being used. It does not appear to mention Bates or his followers (if that is incorrect, please point me toward where it does), so we have to take care not to synthesize any conclusions from it. With that in mind it should definitely not be used to help reference a simple statement about Bates' theory, as it currently is in the introduction. I suppose it is okay in the Accommodation section as it effectively updates Pollack, but I'm not quite sure on that. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I added a reference to the 2007 WebMD article to the Accommodation section. I suppose the section could be rewritten to be based mostly on that source. Its "Anatomical Fallacy" section is short, but very much to the point. PSWG1920 (talk) 05:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Summary of the major sources
In the spirit of Good Faith, I have decided to take a crack at doing what Ronz has repeatedly suggested (as best I can understand him) regarding the article's major secondary sources. Martin Gardner, Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. 1957.

Gardner's chapter is the most generally well-known treatment of the Bates method, and largely serves as an outline for this article. Its content in order:
 * Biographical details of Bates which are irrelevant here.
 * Mentions Bates' book and subsequent works by other authors which are characterized as "little more than restatements of Dr. Bates' views".
 * Retorts Bates' explanation of how the eye focuses mechanically.
 * includes the remark about Bates' theory of accommodation "that even most of his present-day followers have discarded it." SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Notes Bates' belief about "strain" causing bad eyesight, giving a fairly long quote from him.
 * Notes Bates' belief about glasses being harmful and recommendation to discard them.
 * Describes some of Bates' techniques and what they were designed to achieve.
 * Notes and ridicules Bates' beliefs about some specific phenomena.
 * Discusses Aldous Huxley and his book.
 * Discusses reasons why the Bates method may seem to work for some people.
 * Mentions Bates' "Better Eyesight" magazine.
 * Discusses subsequent proponents of Bates' method (i.e. up to 1957.)
 * Recounts the story of Huxley faltering while reading at a Hollywood banquet.
 * Warns of the danger of neglecting medical examination of the eyes.

Elwin Marg, Flashes of clear vision and negative accommodation with reference to the Bates Method of visual training. 1952.

"Flashes of clear vision" are a recurring theme of this paper. Bates' theory of how the eye focuses is discussed, albeit in a less than straightforward manner (this source being a bit difficult to follow is a reason it is not currently used more in the article.) Bates is then quoted at length. His main techniques are listed. Subsequent proponents are mentioned, and it is noted than some did not adhere to Bates' physiological explanation of eye-focusing. Margaret Corbett is discussed and quoted at some length, as is Aldous Huxley. Critical quotes from ophthalmologists Duke-Elder and Lancaster are then presented. Several quotes are then given from a Bates method proponent named Beach regarding "flashes" of clear vision. Experiments are then described which concluded these "flashes" are not the result of any actual change in refractive error.

Overall, Marg takes a tone sympathetic to Bates and his followers, but clearly believes that they have misinterpreted their results. Philip Pollack, The Truth about Eye Exercises. 1956

The book itself is out-of-print and rare, but Chapter 3 is provided on Quackwatch. SamuelTheGhost has indicated that he has the book and has used other parts of it for information about Margaret Corbett. As far as the freely available chapter, Pollack takes a far more condescending tone than Gardner or Marg. He begins by comparing Bates' work to a medieval handbook. As with Gardner and Marg, Bates' theory of accommodation is addressed near the beginning. Bates' laboratory techniques and reasoning are dismissed. His claims regarding palming, memory, and especially sunning are ridiculed. The risk that a follower of Bates with a sight-threatening condition will neglect conventional care is highlighted. Martin Gardner's summation is quoted (as it is in the introduction here, rightfully so in my opinion.) The chapter ends with a few quotes from medical professionals and the same biographical incident that Martin Gardner refers to. Time Exercise v. Eyeglasses. 1943

This seems to state that the Bates method works in some cases, but explains the argument against it. A few proponents of the time are mentioned. Ian Grierson, The Eye Book: Eyes and Eye Problems Explained. 2000

This is probably the best current source we have here which addresses the subject generally. Unfortunately, the relevant discussion only encompasses two pages. Grierson seems fairly neutral regarding the Bates method, surprisingly. His main criticisms are warnings of potential risks, but he seems to think that the efficacy is uncertain. Frank J. Leavitt, "How to Save the World: Alternatives to Biomedical Research", Ethics in Biomedical Research: International Perspectives. 2007 (multiple authors of the book, but Leavitt wrote the chapter in question.)

This one is positive toward the Bates method, which is held up as a "perfect example of exercising individual health autonomy". Leavitt emphasizes Bates' use of memory, imagination, and relaxation. He claims the Bates method has helped him "tremendously". He acknowledges that some who try it do not get the expected results, but reasons that this is due to the subtleties involved. He argues that the Bates method would be difficult to test due to the role of relaxation and visualization. WebMD, Natural Vision Correction: Does It Work? 2007

This is essentially a journalistic piece, and presents both sides of the issue. Natural vision teacher Martin Sussman is interviewed. Visual Training for Refractive Errors, American Academy of Ophthalmology, 2004.

As discussed before, while the source is of high-quality, it is a real stretch to say that this is about the Bates method (which the source does not claim, only referring to Bates in a footnote, as background.) Nonetheless a couple of points are relevant here, namely those referenced in "Claimed success". The earlier summary of this report contained here has been condensed, because it was apparent that its outright removal would not be accepted. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we're now using the AAO review properly. I don't know why it didn't occur to me to create subsections for "Claimed success" before. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Quality of sources

 * Martin Gardner, 1957 - As has been discussed here before, Martin Gardner is decidedly not an expert in the field of eye-care. I'd be interested to know whether the chapters of his book were reviewed by experts in the respective fields before the book was published. However, Gardner is as reliable as any secondary source for reporting what Bates and others have said and helping to determine what among that is important. Which is mostly what he is used for here. Probably the most questionable use of him currently is in the "Claimed success" section.
 * There is nothing whatever to indicate that the individual chapters were peer-reviewed. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * All of this is pretty irrelevant. The article is about a fringe theory, and Gardner is a well-known expert and author on pseudoscience. --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The logic of that sentence defeats me. If I've written a book about UFOs, for example, that qualifies me as an expert on Bates method? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Bates method is pseudoscience. Gardner is a well-known expert and author on pseudoscience. Gardner's expertise in eye-care is irrelevant. --Ronz (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Elwin Marg, 1952 - At the time of this paper, Elwin Marg was a professor of optometry at Berkeley. His article appears to be peer-reviewed.
 * Philip Pollack, 1956 - Pollack was apparently a Manhattan optometrist. The only question I would have is how rigorously was his book reviewed before being published.
 * There is a supportive "Forward" by "Martin Ackerman, M. D., Assistant Ophthalmic Surgeon, New York Eye and Ear Infirmary", but a friendly colleague, not an independent reviewer. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Time article, 1943. No author credited.
 * I don't recall Time's policies on identifying authors, so I'm not sure how to take this. Can we find what section of the magazine the article was published in? --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears to have been categorized as "Medicine". PSWG1920 (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, a potential knock on the four above sources is their age. However, I think the principle behind WP:PARITY applies here when you consider the limits of the current sources.


 * Ian Grierson, 2000. - Grierson is a professor and the head of the opthalmology department at Liverpool university. Definitely a high-quality contemporary source; it's a pity that he spent only two pages on the subject in question.


 * Frank J. Leavitt, 2007. - Leavitt appears to be concerned with bioethics, probably not an expert in optometry. But he is reliable for his own statements and as a secondary source for what others have claimed.
 * The bio page in the book is not available online. Anyone figure out who this is?  I'm concerned that we don't know much about what is perspective actually is. --Ronz (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Google yields a few details, but not any kind of biography page as far as I have found. I see no indication that he has any conflict of interest with the Bates method, however. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think he's Frank (Yeruham) Leavitt of Ben Gurion University of the Negev. --Ronz (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * WebMD article, 2007. - This is by Leanna Skarnulis, a full-time freelance writer, and reviewed by Cynthia Dennison Haines, MD. Haines doesn't appear to have any credentials specific to eye-care, but this is basically a journalistic piece.


 * American Academy of Ophthalmology review, 2004. - Again, no disputing the source's quality, but its relevance to the article is limited. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * > its relevance to the article is limited. Not true when you understand. Take a look at the 2 pictures above. And read the quotation of AAO. We definetly should make clear why Bates his accomodation theory is controversial. This is a wikipedia Guideline. ( Ronz please confirm ! ) A controversial acomodation theory which is dynamic it changes from moment to moment. Measure your own myopic, normal or farsighted eyesight in the morning and during the day after a heavy meal or during stress. You will experience it fluctuates ! I will create a RFC and invite users who took part on other discussions. Seeyou (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Seeyou, I agree with you (wow!) that the AAO article contains material relevant to the BM article. But I don't understand why you link this issue to the discussion of accommodation (above). What's your point? Visual acuity fluctuates throughout the day, but it could be fluctuating due to the normal (to use your expression - orthodox) accommodative mechanisms such as the lens being squeezed by the ciliary muscle. None of which supports Bates' view. None of which helps to make his theory of accommodation clearer (it is already pretty clear in the current form of the article). Also, see my comments in the above discussion that explain why that figure from Bates is misleading. Famousdog (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the AAO reference represents a institute it has in my opinion far more weight than the individual references. So it should be read as the opinion / conclusion of a lot of authority individuals. Seeyou (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

How sources are used in article
Let's now examine how the article uses the sources. Gardner, Marg, and Pollack all expound on Bates' underlying theories. Gardner, Marg, Pollack, Time, Grierson, and Leavitt each discuss, in varying detail and context, techniques which compose the Bates method. The criticisms applicable to individual techniques are reported here. Margaret Corbett is discussed at some length by Marg and apparently also by Pollack. Aldous Huxley's case is perhaps the single most notable aspect of the subject, and has many sources which report on it. Gardner and Marg both explore why the Bates method sometimes seems to get successful results. The AAO review also notes phenomena which may account for perceived improvements. I do not see a single aspect of the subject discussed here which is unimportant per the secondary sources. It's time to at least remove the tags from the top. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

RFC the core paragraph of the article explaining why the BM is controversial !
Reading the guideline Wikipedia:Controversial articles []  I read something very important regarding controversial articles like the BM.

The mentioned paragraph :

Describe the controversy
An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. Remember to ask the question, "How can this controversy best be described?" It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all comers; it is our job to be fair to all sides of a controversy.

Please be clear that the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views in a controversy.

See also Neutral point of view.

In my opinion the current paragraph about accomodation can very easily be made very clear by presenting fig 4 of Bates book entitled Perfect eyesight without glasses or the book mentioned in the introduction. By presenting a picture like the one below representing the explanation of ophthalmology we make the contorversy very clear. W.H. Bates said the extraocular muscles of the eye are the muscles of accomodation while the accepted theory says the ciliairy muscle which changes the shape of lens is the muscle of accomodation. According to ophthalmology the only solution is to compensate the imbalance of the ciliary muscle / lens by lenses ( glasses or contacts ) or LASIK. Reference any medical encyclopedia or an improvement in subjective visual acuity for patients with myopia who have undertaken visual training has been shown but no corresponding physiological cause for the improvement has been demonstrated. In other words according to ophthalmology it impossible the shape of the eyeball changes and results in an improvement of visual acuity.

Figure 4 of W.H. Bates own Perfect eyesight without glasses page 11?. []

Figure explaining mainstream medicine view on myopia

See also paragraph : []


 * Q1 : Do you think the controversy should be made as clear as possible as in the guideline is mentioned.


 * Q2. Should it be explained with the current images ; Bates fig 4 picture and the accepted picture regarding accomodation in the case of myopia ? Seeyou (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I'm here in response to the RfC. I have a strong background in neuroscience, and almost no background in opthalmology, so I'm coming here with no prior familiarity with the subject of this article. If I understand correctly, the first figure ("Fig. 4") is from Bates' own publication (please correct me if I misunderstand). It seems to me, then, that it can be quite appropriate to include it in an article such as this, for just the reasons given in the controversial articles page quoted above, even if its creator did make it misleading. As someone looking at it with naive eyes (pun intended), I can easily get from it the idea of eye shape change, and it does make it easier for me to grasp that idea, in a way that text alone does not. On the other hand, comparing it with the second figure, the one showing the mainstream understanding, does get rather complicated for me, and I agree with the editor who said that it makes the page needlessly confusing. So let me please suggest including the first figure, to illustrate the theory that the page discusses (whether true or not), but not including the other figure for comparison. I think, here, it is better to show the Bates theory and state in the text that it is not accepted and maybe misleading, as opposed to attempting to explain in a very technical way how the mainstream model differs. I assume there are also pages you can link to where the mainstream ideas are discussed in more detail. Just an outside opinion, hope it helps. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You at least have a scientific background, which no doubt aided in your understanding of the illustration. My concern is that the average reader will have little idea what is being indicated, and then the section will get bogged down in attempts to further explain and contextualize the image. Which is why I don't want it in the article. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I take your point, but I am very sure that anyone viewing the figure can easily understand that it shows the differences in eye shape. I know that I did, and I did it without any reliance on my educational background -- it's just clearly visible in the figure. What I'd like to suggest, also in response to your objection below, is that it is not really necessary to fully explain all of the technicalities. It would be plenty to show the Bates image, right or wrong, put it in context as described just below by Martin Hogbin, and leave it to other pages to explain in detail the current thinking in the subject. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Include fig 4 The article is about the Bates method not current practice and understanding. The image greatly helps to explain what Bates was talking about. The text should, however, make clear that the images are Bates' views and do not necessarily represent current thinking in the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If the image is included, make sure the caption indicates the physiological/anatomical impossibilities associated with the diagram. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ScienceApologist, you have not given your statement regarding the subject of this RFC. Can you answer Q1 and Q2 argument(s) are very welcome ? Seeyou (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ScienceApologist's comment goes to show that once that image is added, the next headache will be figuring out how to contextualize it. Let's avoid that by not adding the image. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Q1) Essentially, there is no controversy in the scientific sense. The only controversy is that unqualified people believe this stuff and promote it in arenas other than the proper ones, making it a controversy about science, but not a scientific controversy. Thus proper description of the controversy would entail describing it as a bunch of rank amateurs who are unable to come to grips with the evidence.

Q2)No opinion. I don't think that the image in question is all that useful in any case. If the image fig. 4 is included, it needs to be captioned in the way I mentioned.

ScienceApologist (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Strongly oppose including this particular image. I can tell from above comments that if it becomes part of the article, figuring out how to contextualize it is going to be a huge problem. If any images are included in the section in question, they should be from a secondary source which explains Bates' view of accommodation and the orthodox view (and of course, they must have a free license.) That would be the best way to avoid breaching WP:UNDUE or WP:SYN. But really, I think the section does fine explaining the concept on an elementary level without the use of images. If readers want to know more, the section links to articles regarding the anatomy in question. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

PSWG1920 It is so easy ti explain. The picture below shows three conditions of the eye caused by the lens ( ophthalmology )or the eyeball ( W.H. Bates ). Controversy described. And you can not do anything about it ( ophthalmology ) you can do somethting ? ( W.H. Bates ). Seeyou (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)




 * It's not WP:UNDUE if it's the subject of the page, and not WP:SYN if it is the synthesis of the subject, rather than the editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See the reasoning which is being used to justify the tags at the top of the article. PSWG1920 (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, then I at least partially take that back. I didn't realize that much of the Bates method does not, apparently, come from Bates. Well, at least that does validate that someone (me) who doesn't have much background can get some useful clarification from the image. Is it possible to indicate that the figure is something like the "original" Bates version, and that subsequent Bates proponents have rejected it (if that's the case)? Again, I don't think it's necessary in this general readership encyclopedia to explain all the technical details. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That wasn't my point. My main point was that the editor who placed the neutrality tag at the top justifies it by citing WP:UNDUE, and further argues that the article relies too much on primary sources, which is the rationale for the original research tag. So your statement that "It's not WP:UNDUE if it's the subject of the page" is highly questionable. PSWG1920 (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Tryptofish, let me revisit your initial comment. "On the other hand, comparing it with the second figure, the one showing the mainstream understanding, does get rather complicated for me, and I agree with the editor who said that it makes the page needlessly confusing. So let me please suggest including the first figure, to illustrate the theory that the page discusses (whether true or not), but not including the other figure for comparison." I would agree with you that presenting both images for the purpose of comparing them would make things too complicated. But showing only the illustration of Bates' model would be seen by some as giving it Undue weight, and probably rightly so. The best answer then is to leave out both images. PSWG1920 (talk) 02:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I came here via the RfC, and I think it's becoming very clear that I'm having a slow learning curve about the rather complex background of this talk, so please accept my apologies for the things I've misunderstood, and thanks for correcting me. I've gone back and re-read the earlier talk and re-read the accommodation paragraph in the article. I've also gone over the article edit history to get a sense of the edits back-and-forth about the templates, and here's what I'd suggest. I realize that there was a lot of history about the templates, but for now, going forward, I suggest putting that aside, and accepting the current template as OK for the time being, nothing permanent and nothing personal. Now, templates aside, it seems to me that the current text of the accommodation paragraph actually does a good job of communicating clearly the fact that Bates' theory was about muscular control of eyeball shape (somehow) and that the theory is now considered to be discredited. That comes across very understandably. What seems a little unclear to me as an outside reader is what the (discredited) theory meant about muscular control of eyeball shape. I still think that the Bates figure does a good job of illustrating just that point in an easy-to-understand way, so I still think that the figure, with an appropriately critical legend, and the existing paragraph of text, would be a good way to convey the intended information. I still do not completely understand the objections of the editor who placed the templates, to the use of primary sources, since primary sources are useful to document the theories that are the subject of this page. If the worry is that giving too much weight to certain primary sources would constitute synthesis in the absence of secondary sources, then that is a valid concern, but I do not think it would be violated by using this figure as an illustration. Showing the figure is not endorsing the figure's intended conclusions; rather, it is simply illustrating a now-discredited theory. It is sufficient to state clearly that the theory in the figure is no longer accepted, without any need to get technical (and confusing) about the specific arguments discrediting it. Perhaps the figure only shows one aspect of a history of theories that also go in multiple other directions, and those other directions are under-represented in the present version of the article, but that's OK for now. It does not seem to me to be inappropriate to present what is in the figure, and leave a further elaboration of other Bates-related ideas for future edits (and leave the template until then). Mainstream models belong in other articles, not here, so it would be undue weight to explain them in detail here, beyond just saying that Bates is not mainstream, and linking to other pages about current understandings. So I still come away thinking the figure helps, rather than harms. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "I realize that there was a lot of history about the templates, but for now, going forward, I suggest putting that aside, and accepting the current template as OK for the time being, nothing permanent and nothing personal." I have basically done that. As for the illustration of Bates' physiological theory, I'd like Ronz to weigh in on whether and how it could be rightly used here. My feeling was that there are enough issues to resolve in this article (though I think it's fine the way it is, things have to be discussed), and we don't need to create more. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I also came here from the RFC and appreciate that the controversy may be a little more complicated that it would appear at first sight. Perhaps someone could explain and clarify a few things for me. Do the drawings in question come from a publication by Bates? What exactly is the objection to including them? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Martin Hogbin. It would be helpful to have clear answers to those two questions (preferably concise, in my own opinion). Beyond that, I really do not think that the purpose of an RfC is for the editors who have already been working on a page to "weigh in" with what they have already been discussing before the RfC started, but rather to get fresh input from editors like Martin and me, who have not previously been involved in the discussion. PSWG1920, please understand that the whole reason that I commented about templates was that you raised the subject yourself, saying that you thought that the reasons the templates were placed were reasons not to include the figure. If you have "basically done that" already, fine, no further need to discuss it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the figure is trying to demonstrate. If no one can clearly state what it illustrates, and if we cannot agree that the illustration does indeed show this, then why are we wasting our time discussing whether or not to include it?
 * Bates believed that the eye itself changed shape to focus, rather than the lens changing shape. As pointed out in some of our other references, Bates' illustrations were often deceptive, but usually just failed to illustrate what he claimed.  I believe this illustration is a deceptive illustration because it shows differences in lens and eye shape.  Perhaps the reason for including it is to show Bates' deception?
 * Further, this article is about the Bates method, not just his disproved theories. Why are we discussing adding still more information about his disproved, fringe theories using only Bates himself as the source?  Once again, it appears to be just another attempt step over the line from properly addressing a fringe theory to promoting it. --Ronz (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Responding to Martin Hogbin above: Yes, the illustration is from Bates' book. --Ronz (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see at all how including the illustration would be promoting anything! Adding information about a disproved theory is appropriate in an article about disproved theories, and does not in any way interfere with also providing information about the "method." I wonder if editors working on the page might be too close to the subject to see that this really isn't about promoting anything. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm using the word "promoting" to describe a very specific type of WP:NPOV violation that has been a problem with this article since it was created, where editors simply fill the article up with Bates' viewpoints with complete disregard for NPOV and FRINGE concerns. In this case, the editor who wants to add the image isn't even able to explain why the illustration should be added or what the illustration demonstrates. --Ronz (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That explanation, as well as the one from PSWG1920 directly below, are both very helpful, and I thank you both for that. Now, I can understand where some of the concerns arise, in ways that really weren't clear before. What I'd say is that it is very reasonable to be careful not to let the article get filled up with fringe materials presented without context. However, in this case, I think that a single figure, particularly if the figure legend states explicitly that it is of a theory that is no longer accepted as correct, would not present such a problem. After all, much of this article is about ideas that are not correct. Illustrating those ideas to make them as clear as possible, while also placing them in context (which need not be done in a technical way), is entirely appropriate. Now, whether this particular image is the right one to accomplish that goal is a separate question -- please see below. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (As a P.S. to my comment just above, I decided to look at the user and talk pages of the editors involved, and I now realize, as I had not before, that there has been a history with the editor who advocated adding the image. Even so, I think that we can evaluate the good and bad points of including the image or not, separately from any history of motivation for edits. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC))
 * Agreed, though I feel that the editor has a responsibility to explain the purpose of adding the image. This RfC appears to be just a diversion from doing so. If no one can explain the purpose, then it shouldn't be allowed, regardless of other discussion. --Ronz (talk) 18:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

What does illustration actually show?
Taking another look at the illustration in question (Fig. 4), I've realized that all it indicates, on an uncomplicated level, is that the hypermetropic eye is too short and the myopic eye is too long. By my understanding, that is in agreement with the mainstream medical view. Where Bates deviated from that was in his belief that the eyeball's shape was controlled by muscles, rather than being structural in form, and that the normal eye was continuously changing shape to focus at different distances. The illustration in question does nothing useful to show that, though the article's text explains it well enough. So there's another reason not to include the image. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As I just said above, this explanation is very helpful. What I think is that having some sort of illustration to go with the accommodation paragraph is, in fact, helpful to a non-specialist like me (for whom the word hypermetropic is a new one!). Without an illustration, the text is tough reading; with one, it gets much easier. Further, I think that having one of Bates' own figures is a nice touch, kind of like an historical artifact, and very appropriate to an encyclopedic article (so long as it is identified as no longer accepted as true). However, you raise a very good point about eyeball shape versus muscle control. The image shows the idea of shape very well, and perhaps the text can fill in the concept that Bates claimed that eye muscles could allegedly accomplish those shape changes, but you are clearly right that the image does not actually show muscle action. Is there another Bates image that would show that better? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad this helped. Sometimes I intuitively see a problem but can't immediately put my finger on it, as was the case here. Looking through the early chapters (in this html version}, I couldn't find any image which would do a good job illustrating the concept. PSWG1920 (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess it's not surprising that a source of this nature would not have a more on-point image. Just as a suggestion of how to deal with this issue, I've inserted at right a possible approach to using this image in the article, where I think it could appear without any need at all for further modification of the text in the accommodation section. The text is correctly balanced as it is, and I suggest this thumbnail image to its right would make it easier for a general readership to understand. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I still have misgivings. The complicated part of this illustration is the focusing of the eye, which may be presented misleadingly in the illustration. Also, I wonder if there is any way to wikilink within the image's internal caption? The term "emmetropic" is not currently used in the article. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia already has good illustrations of accomodation, myopia, and hyperopia. We also know that Bates used deceptive illustrations and cases to make his points.  This illustration appears to show abnormally short and elongated eyes with different lens shapes, yet all have the same focal length.  Given that the lenses are not identical, showing identical focal lengths is incorrect. --Ronz (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've modified the suggested figure legend to address the focal length issue you both point out, and of course it can be modified further. I don't think it's possible to wikilink the text within the figure. I suppose one could do that with emmetropia in the legend or in the article, but my (naive) opinion is that it's not worth it. I don't think it matters that this figure is inaccurate and better figures are elsewhere, because this article is about incorrect ideas. One just has to identify the inaccuracies for readers like me and most others who don't know, as I tried to do in this version of the figure legend. I now sympathize with Ronz's point made above, about why even discuss this, given the possible reasons for the RfC, but here we are now, and that's life. And regardless of the original reasons for proposing the figure, I and perhaps another outside editor find some value in the image, as a way of making the accommodation section easier to understand. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As a P.S., take a look at phrenology. There are multiple images there that are deceptive and inaccurate, but that's appropriate. I'm suggesting the same is true here, although the comparative subtlety of the inaccuracies here do require providing context in the figure legend. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Now the caption contains original thought. "Note that the focal length of differing lenses is depicted inaccurately". Without synthesizing, where's the source for that statement? This demonstrates the mess which this image would likely create in the article. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There was talk above about not wanting to get drawn into this RfC; imagine how I feel at this point! Please feel free to propose alternative ways of framing the figure legend; there's nothing sacrosanct about what I suggested, and one could also just delete that sentence. But I think that it's a false argument to say that because one can think of possible problems, it will be impossible to solve those problems. Personally, I think the synthesis argument borders on wikilawyering, although I acknowledge that there are two sides to the argument. Please remember that this is an article about, in part, false ideas, so there will have to be false ideas shown. If you categorically refuse to show anything from Bates that is not consistent with modern science, then you will be making valid the concerns raised by the editor who originally suggested the image. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For example, and there are many alternatives as well, one could change the figure legend to: "Illustration from W.H. Bates, Title, 1920. According to Bates' now-discredited theory, the extraocular muscles could control eye shape." --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Personally, I think the synthesis argument borders on wikilawyering". I suspect that the editor who suggested adding this image wouldn't be happy with that sentence in the caption either. Beyond that, I'm not sure what to say. I guess I'd better give up on the idea of getting this article to WP:GA anytime soon, though I think it would pass right now in the absence of active disputes. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess it's progress of a sort that you are coming to the defense of the editor who suggested the image. Please take a deep breath. Nothing about this is personal, and getting to GA is a collaborative process. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Q to PSWG1920, Can you make clear if you are still refusing to include fig 4 or are you going to accept fig. 4 for including ? Seeyou (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I still don't want it in the article for reasons which I have explained. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your reasons. So next phase is : A Cabalcase. I will make a summary of this discussion and given arguments. This article will improve. Seeyou (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No. We don't understand your reasons.  If you cannot provide them, then leave this discussion to those trying to work around your lack of cooperation. --Ronz (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Since this talk looks like it's going to be reviewed externally, I would like to make the following comment here as an editor who came here in response to the RfC, and was not previously involved. This situation looks to me like a sad case, where, on one side, are editors who want to push a pseudoscience POV and who resort inappropriately to grievance-type procedures, and, on the other side, are editors who over-react and dig in their heels, opposing even reasonable suggestions from outside editors to allow the presentation of material that would help readers better understand that pseudoscience, which is a big part of the subject matter of this page. It seems to me that each side does little to explain their positions in a way that could work towards consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, I don't think the image in question would help readers better understand anything, assuming that they also read the text of the section in question, and I have explained why. Secondly, note that there is already a MedCab case open involving this article, albeit stale. It was filed by me, and the issues raised there have a lot to do with why I now vehemently (not just categorically) oppose this addition. PSWG1920 (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Undecided - I don't mind that figure being included if it is made patently clear that although eyeball shape/focal length differs from person to person, it does not do so in the exaggerated manner suggested by the figure and nor does it differ on a dynamic basis in a single person to assist accommodation (another, separate, claim made by Bates). The Drexler article makes it abundantly clear that Bates' accommodation theory is rubbish. If it is included, the important thing is to give the figure proper context as being a schematic diagram, not an anatomical drawing, and making clear that the same effects (myopia, emmetropia and hyperopia) could also be the result of changes in lens shape/power. As I said above (waaaaaaay above in the previous section), focal length is dependent on both eyeball length and lens power. Bates' illustration is a deliberate attempt to suggest that eyeball length is the more important factor. It is not. The two factors interact in a reciprocal relationship. Famousdog (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "I don't mind that figure being included if it is made patently clear that although eyeball shape/focal length differs from person to person, it does not do so in the exaggerated manner suggested by the figure and nor does it differ on a dynamic basis in a single person to assist accommodation (another, separate, claim made by Bates)." Your comment goes to show what a headache it would be figuring out how to properly contextualize and explain the image. Further, you said "The Drexler article makes it abundantly clear that Bates' accommodation theory is rubbish." Except that the Drexler paper doesn't actually mention Bates or his theories (again, please correct me if I am wrong there.) Consequently any use of it here is likely to be a synthesis. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The Drexler article doesn't mention Bates, but it does provide unambiguous empirical data that show that the axial changes that Bates' suggests are responsible for accommodation do not occur with anywhere near the sufficient strength to account for accommodation. Just because it doesn't mention Bates doesn't mean that this material is not a damning refutation of his theory! Famousdog (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Bates makes claims about the eye works.  Per WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE, we're required to clearly state what the medical consensus is concerning those claims, or alternatively, not mention Bates claims at all if they aren't of interest or unimportant. --Ronz (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to let the current reference to the Drexler paper stay. My point was that if we add the Fig. 4 image, then use Drexler to respond to it, we would be getting ourselves into a bigger and bigger mess. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * i know that i'm one of the outside editors who was asking for more diagrams, but i wanted to see where everyone stood before i commented on the fig.4 image.
 * i think that this image is useful in explaining exactly what kinds of changes he beleived the extraocular muscles did to the eyes - before seeing these i thought maybe bates said the muscles must just squish the eye a bit. this is much more extreme than what i originally understood.  I think it would be reasonable to include this image after the third paragraph in Accomodation, and then File:Focus in an eye.svg in the first paragraph.  It is necessary to briefly explain accomodation anyways, and the image from that article can help. As for captions:


 * The language might be a bit awkward but i think you get my point. There's really no reason to get into what else might be wrong in his bad drawings - the section we're using it for is accomodation and we're already saying they are inherently flawed. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 02:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The statement that the diagrams "incorrectly show flattened and elongated eyes being responsible for hypermetropia and myopia" seems misleading. As Famousdog noted above, the shape of the eyeball is medically recognized as having to do with refractive errors. Where Bates' theory deviated (and still deviates) was his assertion that the eyeball's shape is controlled by muscles, and his insistence that the eye focuses by changing its shape. If we had an image which somehow illustrated Bates' idea of the eyeball constantly changing shape then that would be a good one to use, but looking through his book I didn't see one like that. PSWG1920 (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * hmm... fair enough... i, too, failed to find any other slightly useful images. Perhaps we could make our own diagram?  Lots of articles develop their own diagrams to convey complex information without it being considered synthesis or OR. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 03:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly so. Actually an animation might work best to illustrate Bates' model, if we can do that. I recently learned that Bates and his assistant-turned-wife apparently produced a "Better Eyesight" movie in the mid-1920's, and I am hoping that someone will locate it and put it on youtube or somewhere. That could help here. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would, however, note a point which SamuelTheGhost made previously. "In the specific case of Bates' theory of accommodation, the better formulation is to say that it has been abandoned even by modern BM teachers, so it is hardly necessary to go on about it." I pointed out to him that if the article did not "go on about it" to some extent, that would exacerbate concerns of editors who had previously expressed the opinion that the article downplayed the method's faulty scientific basis. However, in principle I do agree with him to an extent. It seems unnecessary to go to the length of creating a new image to illustrate this concept. In the "After Bates" section it is noted that most subsequent proponents did not stick to his explanation of eye-focusing (in general it seems that they didn't/don't concern themselves with a precise physiological explanation of why the method should work.) The section in question contains plenty of wikilinks to articles about eyes and eyesight which an interested reader could follow. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * while i understand samuel's reasoning, i feel it would be undue weight to be basing decisions of inclusion on what modern BM teachers promote. given the sources it would seem that precendence should be given to criticism, then background, then modern incarnations.  however as an article grows, one part may grow a little faster at times then another, but wikipedia is a work in progress.  all in all, you are right that this is not a "pressing need"  just a nicety that may be useful at some point in time.  As i've already opined, the images you have now are sufficient to pass GA, and any more are just FA concerns. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 23:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "while i understand samuel's reasoning, i feel it would be undue weight to be basing decisions of inclusion on what modern BM teachers promote. given the sources it would seem that precendence should be given to criticism, then background, then modern incarnations." I basically agree with that. I'm just explaining why I think it would be excessive to go to the length of creating a new illustration for this. If we could find a usable one which demonstrated the concept well, that would be a different matter. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * yes, but wikipedia is all about volunteer effort. there's nothing intrinsically wrong with making an image, it would just require more effort :) -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 05:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, of course, to try your hand at creating an illustration. Just be prepared for the possibility that it might be rejected. I couldn't tell you how I would vote on it until I saw it, and I have no idea how others would vote. PSWG1920 (talk) 05:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Reading this paragraph I saw someone added the text These simple diagrams from PSWG by Bates, incorrectly show flattened and elongated eyes being responsible for hypermetropia and myopia. Bates beleived extraocular muscles acted on the eyes to produce these results.

This text is incorrect ! Bates picture is correct ! The shape of the eyevball of a myopic really is elongated. And the eyeball of a farsighted eye is shorter. PSWG1920 also mentions Bates picture is correct. PSWG1920 says :

"Taking another look at the illustration in question (Fig. 4), I've realized that all it indicates, on an uncomplicated level, is that the hypermetropic eye is too short and the myopic eye is too longBy my understanding, that is in agreement with the mainstream medical view." Seeyou (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC) This picture shows what the bates method regarding the most common eyeconditions is all about ! Why is not this picture in the article ? Can some of the dominant editors please explain. Seeyou (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The picture below I created myself with pictures available in this wikipedia encyclopedia
 * Seeyou (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting. But that picture belongs in Refractive error or Corrective lenses, if anywhere. Not here. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * W.H. bates used this picture to explain hit method. We really have no option if we really want to improve this article. I 'll explain. First option : not show the picture. Bates did find this picture important for his explanation otherwise he would not have published it in his book. So that is no option. The second option we create a picture of our own. But that is also no option because this picture is not part of the Bates method. The only option we have is to use Bates exact picture ! Please provide your arguments PSWG1920. I still have not read one ! Seeyou (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * From above discussion it's clear to me that there would never be agreement about what to say in the caption. True, the drawing is consistent with the mainstream view in one aspect (shape of the eyeball contributes to refractive errors) but there are other more complicated issues with "Fig 4" (if you're still referring to that one) which even I do not really understand and which in my opinion render it too complicated to use. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To complicated for explanation is not an argument. If it is to complicated, why did you decide to edit this article. It is far from complicated. It's opthalmology ( science ) versus Bates ( pseudoscience ) equals lens of the eye ( by the ciliary muscle ) versus shape of the eyeball ( by the extraocular muscles). If it something else according to you please explain. I am interested. Seeyou (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To be clear, are you still talking about Fig. 4, or something else? Neither Fig. 4 nor the image you created illustrate the contrast between Bates' model and the mainstream one. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am still talking about this RFC clearly expalined in the introduction ![]. Strange you ask. I am quite clear about the subject. And I want to be clear. Seeyou (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * seeyou, i think what pswg is trying to say is that it would be more useful if an image demonstrated the difference between Bates' views and mainstream's, otherwise people might misinterpret what we are trying to demonstrate. IMO it would ultimately be a GIF showing the eye squeezing and elongating to accomodate. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 05:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To PSWG1920, To complicated for explanation is not an argument. If it is to complicated, why did you decide to edit this article. It is far from complicated. It's opthalmology ( science ) versus Bates ( pseudoscience ) equals lens of the eye ( by the ciliary muscle ) versus shape of the eyeball ( by the extraocular muscles). If it something else according to you please explain. I am interested. Seeyou (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as that goes, the section's text explains it well without an illustration. Moreover, "Fig. 4" does not do anything to show the difference in viewpoints. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * PSWG1920, What is the the controversy of Bates his asccomodation theory according to you ? Seeyou (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I do know that Bates' model of accommodation is rejected by ophthalmology. Though personally, I don't really care about the physiological mechanism. For me the question is whether it is possible to really improve eyesight by methods such as those which Bates described. I used to firmly believe that it was possible, but now I have some doubts. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * First it it to complicated to explain and now you don't really care. I see no other option then to move our disagreement about visually explaining accomodation according to ophthalmology and w.h. bates to a cabalcase. My statement Fig 4 and this picture  should be included. Because it improves the accomodation paragraph.  And makes visually clear what the conntroversy is about. Your statement is ? Seeyou (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but these images do not illustrate the controversy. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * PSWG1920, Now define the controversy you mention above. Seeyou (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You've already defined it above. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The controversy of the Bates method is according to the current editors of this article : Opthalmology ( science ) versus Bates ( controversial ) = lens of the eye ( influenced by the ciliary muscle ) versus shape of the eyeball ( influenced by the extraocular muscles).

Huxley section
I removed the part of Lancaster's quote which stated that Huxley admitted that his "visual acuity has not improved in any extraordinary way." While Lancaster did say that, his wording was highly misleading, as it is clear that Huxley did claim great improvement relative to where he started from. What he admitted was that his vision was still very far from normal. PSWG1920 (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * i had understood this as meaning that Huxley would go around claiming great success, but after the debacle, he treaded back by saying the quote by Lancaster. If this is true, i don't see how it was misleading. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 00:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's the case. More than likely the Lancaster quote was from before the "debacle", since the Marg paper doesn't even mention said debacle. I see no evidence that Huxley ever retracted his claims of success. But he also never claimed anything close to a complete recovery. PSWG1920 (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * then it was probably better that you removed the quote :) -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 00:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Attaining neutrality without losing accuracy
I have read this article and discussions on and off over a number of months and this is the first time I've decided to actually post something. My background includes many years of study in the Bates Method, with an interest in its history and study of the threads of its teaching tradition; on the way collecting stories and case studies.

Firstly I would like to express appreciation for the extraordinary amount of work that has gone into creating this article and to confirm, that presenting a fair, neutral and accurate presentation of the Bates Method is an exquisitely difficult task. To that end I'm going to put forward a few ideas that may help to clarify why it is such a problematic subject. While many people can understand the controversial aspects of Bates' theories, for example that of accommodation, the underlying schism in understanding lies deeper than that. I do not claim to be neutral on the subject, far from it, but I hope I can help by providing some insights into the nature of the problem from a different point of view.

Independent Sources
I can appreciate the clear attempts in trying to attain independent assessments of the method. I wish to point out that the problems in obtaining truly independent source material lies not in raising doubts about the integrity nor intelligence of the sources quoted, but rather in the comprehension of the nature of the method and what it represents.

I can perhaps explain this better by way of examples:

1. If a person with no prior knowledge on the subject, reads a book about orange trees, learning about its characteristics, shape and colour of the fruit and a description of how to eat it, they will have a fair shot at identifying an orange tree with fruit if they happen to see one.

Now, by chance the person stumbles upon a lemon tree - everything seems to be in order, perhaps the colour of the fruit is more yellow than what they'd assumed, however, they've heard it's very good eating and so tuck in to a very sour and disappointing meal.

--

Perhaps not the best of illustrations, as the mistake in color requires a little stretch in belief, however, it is meant to illustrate that a person can be mistaken in their understanding, when purely reliant on the written word. At the very least, hopefully it will help to lead on to the next example:

2. A person reads a book about the Bates method, applying all their insights and previously learned knowledge to the new ideas and concepts being introduced. They then go forth, perhaps trying out some of the ideas, discovering either a small degree of success, or even better; or, as in many cases, none at all. The crux of the matter is you don't know if the person has stepped away from their reading, holding a lemon tree or an orange tree in their heads.

--

While this illustration may at first appear innocuous, it is in fact at the core of the controversy that surrounds the method. The method involves becoming aware of the nature of your own thought - and as such it potentially alters the fundamental structure of your understanding. As radical as that might sound it's actually rarely as dramatic as all that, but the deeper implication is that in general the level of misunderstanding about the method; what it is, how it works, and what it achieves, is almost universal.

In basic terms, if I were to look into the background of the independent sources used in the article, and to ask 'which of these learned people have undertaken a comprehensive set of lessons or training in the method?' What would the answer be? My guess is pretty much, nil.

So we are left with an odd situation: The ease of misunderstanding of the method - and I can't over-emphasize how common this is - coupled with the requirement for independent sources, means that: The more independent the source, the more likely it becomes that accuracy is lost. It is equivalent to accepting the assessment of oranges by people who have only partaken of lemons.

What to do about this I'm not sure. The independent sources, as necessary as they are, in a sense become less useful through lack of accuracy, yet from a conventional understanding of eyesight, they are nothing but accurate. In fact I'd have to point out, that the very independence from the method - in this case - creates a bias by default: "I understand the method as this, and (therefore) this is what I refute." Unfortunately that turns the issue of independent sources into an entirely one sided argument - and in the cold light of day, that is not neutral. --ReTracer (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Great feedback ReTracer. I like the lemon example you gave. My conclusion is to stay as close to Bates original writings of PSWG and his BE magazines, photo's and images as possible. Seeyou (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You are both overlooking WP:V and WP:NPOV, and perhaps the very nature of what an encyclopedia is and is not. --Ronz (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If I understand the principles correctly WP:NPOV requires all encyclopedic content to be "written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." My impression of the article is that sources other than established conventional viewpoints have been more or less whittled out - and correct me if I'm wrong - due to the fact that they cannot be established as being 'reliable sources'. Is this correct?--ReTracer (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You've already answered your question. NPOV requires reliable sources.  "Conventional" has nothing to do with it.  We're writing an encyclopedia here, so quality sources are a requirement.  Wikipedia is not a venue for yellow journalism, promotion, or original research. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Q to Ronz, Are Bates original writings PSWG and his BE magazine reliable sources according to you ? And why or why not ? If they are not reliable why is this article present in this encyclopedia ? If they are reliable you will agree with me fig 4 should be added. Seeyou (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We've been over this. See WP:SELFPUB. --Ronz (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you refer to the paragraph below :

Using self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

Seeyou (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject of the article;
 * 2) it is not unduly self-serving;
 * 3) it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * 4) it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
 * 5) there is no reason to doubt its authenticity;
 * 6) the article is not based primarily on such sources;


 * Getting back to ReTracer's original post, I think his Orange/Lemon Tree example exactly demonstrates one reason why the Bates method (and other pseudoscientific thought) persists. Success or failure with this and other self-help treatments can always be attributed to the (mis)understanding of the individual. In addition, failure can also be attributed to (lack of) discipline and (lack of) perseverance of the individual. Bates' writings are vague at best and very open to interpretation. Subsequent writers have added their own spin. This makes it very easy to attribute failure to "misunderstanding the material". The method includes many (tedious) exercises, which makes it easy to claim that the individual is "not trying hard enough". Finally, it is couched as a permanent lifestyle change (i.e. changing vision "habits"), which allows failure to be labeled as "giving up too early". All this allows the practitioner to blame the victim for their failure - which is perhaps the greatest crime of the Bates method and other self-help techniques. ReTracer's Oranges and Lemons example has aptly demonstrated how blaming the victim allows the practitioner to wash their hands of failure. Famousdog (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Famousdog has stated his view with admirable clarity, but it relies on a crucial circularity in argument. It depends on the assumption that Bates Method "and other self-help techniques" (what, all of them?) are completely ineffective. If that were established, I'd agree with him totally. But let's try an analogy with a different problem, namely obesity. A solution is proposed, namely an appropriate diet. See how it fits:
 * "failure can also be attributed to (lack of) discipline and (lack of) perseverance of the individual." check
 * "Subsequent writers have added their own spin." check, since there are many competitive diet systems, some of them useless
 * "The method includes many (tedious) exercises, which makes it easy to claim that the individual is 'not trying hard enough'". check
 * "it is couched as a permanent lifestyle change (i.e. changing ... 'habits'), which allows failure to be labeled as 'giving up too early'." check
 * "All this allows the practitioner to blame the victim for their failure." check
 * To pursue the analogy, the optometrist's role would correspond to the maker of special wheelchairs for those who are so obese that they cannot walk any distance. Such a person might well mock the attempt to cure obesity by dieting.
 * To establish that dieting can cure obesity, we don't need to show that we can just put a diet sheet into the obese person's hands and wait for the successful outcome; to prove that it works it is sufficient to show that it can work. So, similarly for BM. If it has worked for some people, this indicates there may be something useful there.
 * To come now to what goes in the article, NPOV requires that we treat the efficacy of BM as an open question, even while recording the majority opinion. The above issues can then be discussed fairly and clearly. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "It depends on the assumption that Bates Method ... are completely ineffective." No it doesn't. Bates method is vague.  It appears to be intentionally so in order for practitioners to avoid criticisms of ineffectiveness and quackery. As I have pointed out to ReTracer, the vagueness leads to practitioners and advocates asserting a No true Scotsman argument to it's effectiveness.
 * "NPOV requires that we treat the efficacy of BM as an open question" No it doesn't.  We just need to be sure that we don't say it in ways not supported by the sources and the prominence of the differing viewpoints.
 * I'm not sure what ReTracer was trying to point out, but I do like that Seeyou has highlighted an important point of policy that is highly relevant, self-published sources may be used so long as "the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject of the article." --Ronz (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "the vagueness leads to practitioners and advocates asserting a No true Scotsman argument to it's effectiveness." - I'd be really interested to see a source for this statement. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "I'm not sure what ReTracer was trying to point out" In response to this and the previous posts on lack of accountability for "pseudoscientific thought" (FamousDog) - I see the whole problem a lot more simply. In a nutshell, the overriding impression the article currently gives is: a rough idea of the method followed by responses from sources who are experts in a different, although related field.

Bates was originally a conventional eyes, ears, nose and throat man, specializing in later life in the eyes and being regarded more specifically as an ophthalmologist. The new system he devised stemmed firstly from his own training, and secondly from discovering a different way of viewing eyesight problems. The former was medically based, while the latter was educationally based, so there was a dynamic shift in approach which is not reflected nor understood in the secondary sources quoted in this article, as knowledgable as they are.

Subsequent years has seen the shift in completion; I don't know of a single teacher of the Bates method who doesn't regard their approach as an educational one. Part of that is a legal issue, but it is also a factual one as teachers of the Bates method educate people in helpful ways to use the eyes.

So while we have Bates as a medically-trained man doing his best to meld the medical and the educational with theories that went at odds with the more widely accepted models, the actual practice of the method continues to operate and is self-sustaining on an almost purely educational basis. There certainly needs to be proper, well-funded, well planned and controlled studies done, but before that can happen there needs to be a solid foundation for understanding what the method is.

The point of the oranges and lemons example was that currently the article is weighted with learned responses from people who - as impartial as they might appear - actually know very little about the practice of the method, as taught and demonstrated by Bates and people who were trained by him. It is little different from picking up a book about learning how to play the trumpet, then writing a critique of it having never sat down with a teacher to help understand the points that need clarification. This is imho hardly satisfactory.

I would have thought that the primary goal of any encyclopedia is to be able to present each subject with clarity: if this cannot be done using the strictest guidelines, then to be able to present sources of information impartially so that a reader has a choice on where to go to read further on the subject. --ReTracer (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The primary goal of this encyclopedia is to present verifiable information in a neutral manner. See WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE.  We do the best we can with the best sources we can find, and present a balanced article based upon those sources. The point of view you're discussing is only one viewpoint, is a minority viewpoint, and is at odds with the medical consensus.  You're basically arguing that the only valid viewpoint here is that of teachers of the Bates method.  That's not an encyclopedia article. --Ronz (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "So that a reader has a choice on where to go to read further on the subject". This was meant to mean that all POV need to be represented, and was not exclusive only to the 'other side of the camp'. I've already explained why pursuing predominantly only orthodox critics is problematic when attempting to explain what the Bates method 'is' in a balanced way. Furthermore, I am astonished that the body of people who study the method and are trained to teach in it are to be disregarded because they are a minority. Trumpet teachers are a considerably small minority in almost any group of people - would you consider it reasonable that an article about learning the trumpet should only be written, researched and referenced by people who have not learned the trumpet? This is what it amounts to: I'm saying there needs to be a balance of viewpoints, not that the 'only valid viewpoint' is that of Bates teachers. By all means the orthodox understanding must be represented, but the bias that you're implying is present in my suggestions is precisely the level of bias that is present now. At present the article represents predominantly the viewpoint of those who have not learned the Bates method.--ReTracer (talk) 04:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Samuel, a "maker of wheelchairs" might mock attempts at dieting that have plenty of support (like a calorie controlled diet plus exercise), but that would be stupid and shortsighted. He could also mock ridiculous fad diets that either don't work or "work" for reasons other than that suggested by the authors (c.f. Atkins) and be on fairly solid ground. Also, thanks for the subtle implication that I am mocking the BM. I have no need to mock it, I have only to point out its failings of logic, fact and its inability to generate and testable scientific hypotheses (except for the ones it has already failed on, such as Bates' theory of accommodation). Famousdog (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The real difference between the two cases is that we understand nutrition well enough to be sure that diet must be capable of curing obesity, whereas there is no corresponding theory for refractive error. This means you can't mock "point out" the "failings of logic" of proposed treatments, since there is no adequate basis for logical inference about them. We are therefore reduced to a purely experimental appraisal. Successful treatments can precede their explanation; people knew that extract of willow bark would reduce fever long before they knew why. Your point about fad diets is perfectly valid, and, correspondingly, there is nothing to stop any charlatan from claiming to teach BM. This does all make it difficult to generate testable scientific hypotheses, but situations like that do occur. To take ReTracer's example, if you set up an experiment to show whether it is possible to teach people to play the trumpet well, the outcome would quite probably be negative. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

tags are gone
Ok... this needs to end. PSWG has infinitely more patience than i ever could. He and the other regular editors here have spent far too much time and effort trying to placate ONE other editor's views which cryptically "should already be clear" and merely requotes wiki-policy without actually tying specific policies to specific prose. The consensus on this article is clear, and that it is FINE. details on different things can always be cleared up, but as far as concerns regarding WP:FRINGE, NPOV, and UNDUE - this article is well-written. Several other, non-contributing editors such as Yobmod, Tryptofish, myself, and others have repeatedly questioned "what's so wrong with this article?" After the only remaing issue with WP:PARITY was addressed, there's no reason keep these maintainence tags up. While wikipedia does not work by majority, the fact that no other editor is able to understand ronz's application of the three aforementioned policies, suggests that that application is flawed, and there is no consensus for accepting it. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 01:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The comment above does not really characterize correctly what I have said previously. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll restore them once I have more time to work on the article. --Ronz (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * if by "work on the article" you're referring to edits beyond merely undoing other people's edits, deleting material, or placing tags - edits like this and this, i look forward to it. One person's misunderstanding of the guidleines shouldn't allow the project to stall. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 02:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Much as I appreciate Ronz' efforts on this and other pages. I think I have made it clear on previous occasions that I have never agreed with his blanket tagging. I would much prefer individual instances to be tagged as needing citation or based on self-published sources rather than the entire (rather good) article. Sorry Ronz. Famousdog (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * tryptofish, i apologize if i have mischaracterized your viewpoint. specifically i was referring to comments like:
 * "I still do not completely understand the objections of the editor who placed the templates, to the use of primary sources, since primary sources are useful to document the theories that are the subject of this page."
 * "Adding information about a disproved theory is appropriate in an article about disproved theories..."
 * "...editors who over-react and dig in their heels, opposing even reasonable suggestions from outside editors to allow the presentation of material that would help readers better understand that pseudoscience..."
 * i was under the impression that you did not feel the article, in it's current state, was suffering from problems with WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE. Again, if this assumption was wrong, i rescind it. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 00:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a big deal, no need to apologize or to make too big a deal of it. I'm losing interest in this RfC, and am not going to go back and parse everything I wrote previously but . --Tryptofish (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the tags. After discussions with Zappernapper, it appears they were removed in bad faith.

I've explained that I will be setting aside time to work on these issues. I'm sorry that editors are not happy with this. --Ronz (talk) 01:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * On second thought, remove the tags if you like. Tags are not badges of dishonor, but some editors here have clearly indicated they think so. I'm not going to rush anything else in order to help here where my help is clearly not wanted.  However, I will set aside some time to work on it in the future, and in the meantime I'll try to move the other discussions along. --Ronz (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe editors have indicated that the tags are "badges of dishonor", but unnecessary. Also, for anyone interested, a discussion has appeared at User talk:Foxy Loxy about my WP:POINTY behavior of reverting Ronz removal of Zappernapper's comment, without permission as appeared. Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 01:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Lede section
The lede section does not meet WP:LEDE. I'd pointed this out long ago, but suggested that it should wait until the other problems are dealt with first. Since there appears to be consensus that no one wants to deal with the other problems, it's time to get the lede in line with the article. --Ronz (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your March 5, 2008 recommendations began with (Lead) - Not bad. May not even need much cleanup after the rest of the article has been. Of course, that is in reference to an old intro of an old version of the article. I do not see where else you ever addressed this. Perhaps you could explain what is wrong with the lead? PSWG1920 (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The problems look fairly obvious to me. You may have to wait until I have more time to point them out.  My greatest concerns are with the first paragraph. Look at the words and phrases used in the lede, in comparison to where else they are being used in the article. --Ronz (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not see where WP:LEDE indicates that the terminology therein should closely correspond with that used in the body of the article. If anything, the opposite. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to try to guess on this. However, anyone who sees a problem with the lede is welcome to explain it. PSWG1920 (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ronz, after the month you've had to point out precise problems with the lead, is it now satisfactory or do you have anything else to add? -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 04:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Zappernapper, if you will read my comments since then, you'll have found that I've already made a comment that answers your question. No, I don't believe it's satisfactory. I'll continue this discussion when I have the time. --Ronz (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * the sections below seem to have nothing to do with the lead. did i miss subsequent discussion above other than, "Look at the words and phrases used in the lede, in comparison to where else they are being used in the article"? i believe PSWG requested elaboration on that point. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 05:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Useful essay - WP:FLAT
I just found this essay, and thought the editors here would find it as helpful as I am: WP:FLAT --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Ronz. I found it as helpful as you are. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Watch the personal attacks please Sam. Famousdog (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Woods redux
In regards to this tag: The Woods report has already been the subject of an RfC and a rejected request for arbitration. Seeyou also canvassed extensively regarding this matter. . This led to a warning from an administrator. Eventually, SamuelTheGhost added details of the Woods report to Behavioral optometry, where it is more relevant, and the conclusions are made clear by the final quote. Also, the AAO review (by which this discussion started) states that studies have found "an improvement in subjective visual acuity in myopes with no corresponding improvement in objective visual acuity", a conclusion which is reflected in the section which is now tagged. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Q1 : Where do you read the Woods results were subjective ?
 * Q2 : How can someone state something is not the BM without defining what the BM is ? ( This article does not even provide a definition of the BM. While there is one available in the archive ! )
 * Q3 How do you define the BM yourself ? Seeyou (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed the tags. The questions above are no explanation for the tags.  I fail to understand how the questions above relate to improving the article. --Ronz (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ronz, the first one is e.g. based on the missing of figure 4. Bates used this picture in his book to explain the problem of the shape of the eyeballs caused by the tension of the extraocular muscles. I also read pseudo-science. I have not read or found a reliable source labelling the BM as pseudoscience. Woods research. See clearly method noc clearly marked as unequal to the BM. Etc, etc. Seeyou (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC).
 * And the second label because it is not clear wether or not the Woods result are objective or subjective. And the article says they were subjective or not objective. So a clear lie is present. Seeyou (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

A1 :Replying to Seeyou's questions. First, besides the AAO report's general statements and the specific information SamuelTheGhost has provided at Behavioral optometry, just last night I found Beach's report, in which Woods is quoted: "the training had no effect on the myopia, but educated some patients to interpret retinal images more carefully."

A1 :In regards to your second question, it appears that Woods himself stated that what he was testing was not the Bates method. From Behavioral optometry: "This method of visual training has neither in theory nor practice any relation to the so-called Bates theory".
 * And how do we determine what Woods himself means by the so called Bates theory ? Seeyou (talk) 08:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

A3 :There really isn't an absolute definition of the Bates method, and I think the definition which was previously here {Quackenbush's) proves that. It ended with "commonly misunderstood as only "eye exercises"&mdash;even by many "Bates Method" teachers." That right there shows the problem with defining it objectively. We have to play it by ear. PSWG1920 (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You forget T. Quackenbush is the current dominant advocate and authority of the BM. So what ever he says is more than average important. Seeyou (talk) 08:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For those who agree discussion is based on real arguments. check this paragrap . Check also this one unacceptable argumentation. Fro multiple reasons. The most important one bias. Very clearly explained by retracer in this paragrap . Seeyou (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

POV tags in Bates method&mdash;Began at User talk:Seeyou
Please explain the POV tags which you added to Bates method on the article's talk page. Such tags always require discussion from the editor that has added them. --Ronz (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ronz, the first one is e.g. based on the missing of figure 4. Bates used this picture in his book to explain the problem of the shape of the eyeballs caused by the tension of the extraocular muscles. I also read pseudo-science. I have not read or found a reliable source labelling the BM as pseudoscience. Woods research. See clearly method noc clearly marked as unequal to the BM. Etc, etc. Seeyou (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC).
 * And the second label because it is not clear wether or not the Woods result are objective or subjective. And the article says they were subjective or not objective. So a clear lie is present. Seeyou (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As mentioned in Talk:Bates method, we now have a definitive answer regarding Woods. PSWG1920 (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, no,no The opinion of one person without providing any clear facts regarding woods is far from helpful. The document is however fun to read, thankyou PSWG1920. The best way to solve our disagrement regarding Woods is Sammy. He has a copy. I have done several attempts to purchase the document, no succes. In the past AED or famousdog, ( I can't remeber exactly ) attached a document to this BM article. The public will then also be able to verify. So I am hoping for Sammy. Seeyou (talk) 21:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but "the training had no effect on the myopia, but educated some patients to interpret retinal images more carefully" is a direct quote from Woods (unless Beach is fabricating) and the details SamuelTheGhost has already provided at Behavioral optometry are consistent with that being Woods' conclusion. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As I have said before. What a single persons says has no weight compared to what a instute says (AAO). If the 2 results in the woods results really were subjective. They wouldn't have been mentioned. Believe me whatever AAO says will be checked by multiple persons so AAO is the reference regarding woods and the woods report itself offcourse. Retracer also made it very clear. Label it as bias. Seeyou (talk) 07:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

First, I think the above quote from Woods speaks for itself. Secondly, if you read the AAO review, it summarizes the results of several studies, not just Woods. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So ? The Woods results are in fact negative. ( Just 2 of the 103 maintained their improvement )Ophthalmology can't do anything with such a result. They need something which works for everybody. Most people will be skeptic regarding the possibility to improve their eyesight. The Woods result might help those people to make their own choice and conclude their own conclusions regarding naturally improving eyesight. By not mentioning these results the public can't conclude anything, because the facts are being kept hidden. Seeyou (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I fully agree. Wikipedia is something very different. What is your point. Seeyou (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not the job of this article to provide every piece of information to help people make choices. Readers can always follow the reference links. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I may have resolved this in a way that will be acceptable to everyone. See the new "General research" subsection. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Better, Why General research ? It is Scientific research !
 * Where exactly do you read : No evidence was found that such techniques could objectively benefit eyesight ? If you mention this you are lying You can say what you think yourself. Then it becomes original research !
 * though some studies noted changes ==> The Woods research noted 2 people who maintained their improvement. The report however does not make clear if these improvements were objective or subjective. Further research, by the editors of this article, of the Woods research is necessary to make this clear. ( Sammy I hope you are reading this ). The woods research is the is different, because it mentions 2 people who maintained their improvement ! ( As you have read one of our dominant authority refereces, states the BM is about visual habits not about exercises ! ) Do you see these strong connection. I do see these connection with my own improvement in eyesight ! When I am new to BM I want to know if there is a rellable source which mentions possitve results. We have found some for those people. And we choose the best one.
 * Where do you read this,
 * quote; and were attributed to factors such as "improvements in interpreting blurred images, changes in mood or motivation, creation of an artificial contact lens by tear film changes, or a pinhole effect from miosis of the pupil. unquote ,is connected to the woods research ? Original research is still present in the article !
 * Last sentence is okay. Seeyou (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That last quoted statement is directly from the AAO review. The AAO review also states "an improvement in subjective visual acuity in myopes with no corresponding improvement in objective visual acuity has been reported (level II/III evidence)." So they see the results as subjective and not objective. It should also be clear by now that Woods saw his results as subjective, from the aforementioned quote which Beach provides. As for "General research", that is to distinguish it from the research discussed in the previous section. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Where do you read the connection between the last bold quote and Woods ? Second argument is what retracer said. The moment other source says something about a another source. Bias is present. It is very simple we do not have enough information at this stage to be precise.We can only state what the AAO states.( without any bias ! ) And only the AAO because we have n't got any better. It is the statement of an institute. Not of one single indvidual. Seeyou (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)