Talk:Bates method/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

2 experiments

Experiment 1 : The concept that relaxing the extraocular muscles can reliably or predictably reduce refractive error has not been substantiated by patients whose muscles are loosened during strabismus surgery. Although small refractive changes may occur following this type of muscle loosening surgery (recession), these alterations are generally small, clinically insignificant, transient, and occur in both directions (stronger and weaker) {{cite journal | author = Preslan M, Cioffi G, Min Y | title = Refractive error changes following strabismus surgery. | journal = J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus | volume = 29 | issue = 5 | pages = 300-4 | year = | PMID = 1432517

Another source regarding this information.

Experiment 2 : Additional evidence that the genetic theory is wrong comes from research where scientists deliberately created strabismus in normal monkeys by surgical reattaching an extraocular muscle to the wrong place. To their amazement it was impossible to create a permanent state of strabismus and all the monkeys spontaneously straightened their eyes within a few weeks. . ( Page 36 en 37 ) .

Explanation the experiment above proves by accident a whole body approach. It is not only the eyes it is a system in which the eyes play off course an important role, but the brain and the mind’s memory play an even more important role. In the first experiment the brain and mind were sepperated and kept sepperated. So there was no connection for improvement.. In the second experiment the eyes brain and mind were fully connected..

Now some facts :

1. The direction for true healing is always from inside to outside.

2. The first experiment is not about natural healing, because the direction is from outside to inside.

3. The second experiment makes clear healing can happen. ( In other words a healthy brain can heal unhealthty eyes. Healty eyes can not heal an unhealthy brain. )

4. The first experiment forgets the brain, mind and whole body are also involved. Seeyou 15:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Er... what? This is drivel. Firstly, the mind IS the brain, you can't separate them. And yes, the visual system is the eyes AND the brain. Secondly, I don't think the first experiment "forgets" anything, they're probably well aware that the whole visual system is involved in vision. Thirdly, I'd ask you to define what you mean by a "healthy eye" or a "healthy brain". In amblyopia, for example, the eye is both healthy and functionally normal, but the brain's development has been abnormal, resulting in a disorder of vision. However, amblyopes' brains are "healthy" as in "not diseased", they have just developed abnormally. And what's all this nonsense about the "direction for true healing"? Frankly, what you call "facts" are unjustifiable, unscientific and therefore meaningless. Famousdog 15:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Er... what? This is drivel. Firstly, the mind IS the brain,

Famousdog check wikipedia for mind and brain !Seeyou 21:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't patronise me. I'm well aware of the difference between mind and brain. Judging by your comments above, you seem not to be. Famousdog 21:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

book citation should stay original

Why sources should be cited To credit a source for providing useful information and to avoid claims of plagiarism. To show that your edit isn't original research. To ensure that the content of articles is credible and can be checked by any reader or editor. To help users find additional reliable information on the topic. To improve the overall credibility and authoritative character of Wikipedia. To reduce the likelihood of editorial disputes, or to resolve any that arise. To ensure that material about living persons is reliably sourced and complies with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Note: Wikipedia articles and categories cannot be used as sources in and of themselves. Sources must be independent from Wikipedia.

Seeyou 21:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

What exactly are you referring to here? Which citation seems to be the problem? I know why sources should be cited because I'm an academic. I cite sources day in, day out. Why the lecture??? Famousdog 21:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears some further clarification lies in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-10 Bates Method. Cowman109^Talk 23:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised that this has gone to mediation, frankly. Here is my response to the arguments put forward by Seeyou on the mediation page: I am of the impression, firstly, that Seeyou is confusing a 'citation' with a 'quotation'. If his changes to the leader paragraph were a direct quotation of Quackenbush, then obviously such additions should not be changed. However, Seeyou's changes were not put in quotation marks and they were grammatically incorrect, suggesting that they are not a direct quotation of Quackenbush. I therefore believe that Seeyou's changes reflect his opinion - albeit an opinion which may have been formed after having read Quackenbush's book. If they are Seeyou's opinions, they are POV and do not belong in the article, certainly not in the leader. If they are Quackenbush's own words, they should be in quotation marks (and since Quackenbush appears to be pushing a minority viwepoint, his comments should either not be in the lead paragraph, or should be qualified with a counterargument). Secondly, I object to Seeyou's repeated assertions that I "do not understand" the BM, or am not using "common sense" or "real arguments" (in my opinion, "common sense" is usually informed by laziness and predjudice and should be looked upon with skepticism until informed by evidence). If only "trained Bates Method teachers" (i.e. those who already subscribe to that viewpoint) are qualified to discuss the Bates Method, then we may as well give up the whole scientific enterprise and just believe what anybody claiming to be an "expert" tells us. Seeyou needs to sort out, firstly, whether he/she is talking about a 'citation' or a 'quotation' and, secondly, stop asserting that I am not qualified to discuss this. Then we can proceed. Famousdog 15:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The mechanism of accommodation for older people who have normal sight ?

There are a few problems with the presbyopia lens-hardening-with-age theory. The biggest one is that there are many people who have lived well over the age of 40 who never became presbyopic. Even people 99 years old with perfect eyesight have been examined by eye doctors. These "old" people see clearly both far and near naturally, without glasses, contact lenses, surgery, drugs, etc. Since old-age non-presbyopia is a fact observed by essentially all eye doctors of any experience, one might wonder if older people who never become presbyopic are doing something different than the older people who become presbyopic. (I have never know anyone to suggest that presbyopia is hereditary, or any other reason for that matter, except the lens hardening of course.)

While writing "Relearning to See" I contacted two eye doctors, an ophthalmologist and optometrist, to ask them what the mechanism of accommodation is for older people who have normal sight. Interestingly enough, both of them gave me the same answer. (These two eye doctors did not know each other.) Their answer was: "We don't know." What?! Before age 40, we are told that the lens/ciliary muscle is the mechanism of accommodation. After age 40, if a person has normal eyesight, we are told that the mechanism of accommodation is unknown! Of course I have thought about this strange situation a long time. (If anyone has an explanation from an eye doctor of how the eye accommodates in older people with normal eyesight, I would like to know.)

The eye doctors are in a real dilemma here. If they say that the lens is the mechanism of accommodation for older people without presbyopia, then obviously there is a way for the lens to still change its curvature in older people---it obvious hasn't hardened, or at least not enough to prevent normal accommodation. But this would contradict their conventional teachings, and many (if not most?) eye doctors would probably not be willing to risk taking that position. After all Bates was ejected from his post of teaching ophthalmology due to his beliefs and teachings. If they maintain their position that the lens is hard and cannot change its curvature for anyone older than age 40, then these older people are accommodating in some other way---in which case the lens' ability to change its curvature could be considered irrelevant since the eye is obviously able to accommodate in some other way! A curious problem to say the least.

I moved this section here, because i see a lot of problems with it. Namely, is this a quote or is this original research? If its a quote it's too long (in fact, its probably a breach of copyright as well...) and its not in quotation marks. If its original research, it doesn't belong here unless you can find some more evidence to back it up. Quackenbush is not a reliable source as he is selling books promoting the Bates Method. Who is the "I" that is referred to in this paragraph? Is it SeeYou, who added the section, or is it Quackenbush? Famousdog 14:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation request

Is this case still active or can I close it? --Ideogram 07:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Culled links

Hi all, decided to cull the links section. There's simply too much linkspam, sites advertising eye-exercises, pop-up ads (a sure sign of vested interest), etc. I've also removed multiple links to the same site. Frankly, offering a "free e-book" seems to be a common way to attract people to your site so you can sell them something else. Also, the recent "free e-book" posted by McFadyn says that it is "free for a limited time". Well, how long until that link is out of date? I think I'm justified in proactively ensuring this article stays relevant! Hope people agree. Famousdog 13:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

CONTROVERSIAL, it is not rejected by rejected by mainstream medicine ! It is neglected. I have heard someone say promoting the bates method or Natural vision improvement is not about science it is about politics. For example look at AED and his contribution to wikipedia. Seeyou 10:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I heard someone say: "Aliens abducted Elvis and brainwashed him into killing Princess Diana!" I think it was a tramp. If you can't provide a better citation for rejection of Bates being "political", why should we believe you? As for you argument: Study of the Bates Method is "neglected" because it has previously been rejected as useless and there is no point going over old arguments. And anyway, it is still studied by mainstream researchers: See the Rawston review, for example. They conclude that there's no evidence that eye exercises do anything helpful. Famousdog 13:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Something interesting from the political point of view. User : AED removed his visible contributions. Why ? He made a lot. Also in this article about the batesmethod. Looking at the enormous amount of contributions. I wonder. Does someone pay him ? Is he or she A Eye Doctor ? Check this link : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:AED&diff=72480206&oldid=59895313 Since AED disappeared. Famousdog came back. Looking at skeptic view. I is not impossible AED changed his identity into Famousdog. But of course this is only speculation. This anonymous comment was added by SeeYou.

Yeah, you're f*cking right it's speculation! It's also well-poisoning and bullsh*t. Making accusations of sockpuppetry is a great way to get yourself blocked, so just keep going buddy. I've no idea who AED is, apart from him being the guy that started WikiProject Ophthalmology. If you check out his talk page, you'll see a message from me asking him for assistance on the BM page. It would be a bit stupid of me to draw attention to myself that way wouldn't it? If you really care, I'm sure our IP addresses locate us on separate continents. Famousdog 13:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm appalled by this accusation so I'm taking this to arbitration. Famousdog 14:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Improving eyesight "naturally"

Famousdog, Can you please explain why do you think it is impossible to improve eyesight naturally ? Maybe you can teach me something I do not know or understand. Seeyou 20:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think you're mistating my position. I just think the Bates Method is harmless rubbish, but you asked me why I think it is impossible to improve eyesight naturally? This is a complex question, so lets split it up. Firstly, is is possible to improve eyesight? is a difficult question in and of itself. What do you count as an improvement? An increase in contrast sensitivity? Better acuity? Loss of diplopia? You might see an improvement in one of these measures after training a subject in some way (perceptual learning), but not in all of them simultaneously.

It depends what is wrong with the person's eyesight in the first place. Some problems can be solved (via surgery, patching, correction...) and some problems can't be solved (yet). Amblyopia is one such problem that the Bates Method supposedly "improves." Now, I work all day every day with amblyopes and, believe me, they've tried everything! The problem is that Amblyopia is a developmental problem and it results in very complex changes to the visual system which can be prevented, usually by patching at the right age, but not cured (yet). Prescribing relaxation, swinging of the eyeballs and exposure to the sun to "cure" such a complicated issue is ludicrous. Most of the amblyopes we see are very relaxed and get plenty of sunlight exposure and wiggle their eyeballs all over the place, but it doesn't improve their eyesight one bit. Some of them have tried either the BM or some derivitive method to no avail.

Secondly, what do you mean by "naturally"? Everything that humans do - even driving F1 cars - is "natural" because humans have evolved according to the laws of nature. You seem to be using "natural" to mean "without glasses" or "without the help of an ophthalmologist". How is improving your vision by following a set of instructions written over a century ago by a rogue ophthalmologist like Bates any more "natural" than taking the advice of a modern ophthalmologist who has an extra century of accumulated knowledge and experience to draw on?

Anyway, I hope that's helped to explain my position. If people want to try the BM then go ahead, but I and my colleagues think its a bloody waste of time and (invariably) money and I'll be damned if I let people write nonsense about it on Wikipedia without being challenged to support their arguments with reliable evidence. Famousdog 13:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply

> I just think the Bates Method is harmless rubbish, Answer : thinking something is different than to knowing something.

> What do you count as an improvement? Anwer : An increase in contrast sensitivity? > Better acuity? Yes. > Loss of diplopia? < == fusion !! more intense colours, 3D awareness. Being able to drive a car safely without glasses of course while this was not possible before, Being able to read fine print while this was not possible before, Being able to fuse the image of the right eye with the left eye into one combined image etc.

> You might see an improvement in one of these measures after training a subject in some way (perceptual learning), but not in all of them simultaneously. Why is not it possible to combine improvements ? Answer : In my opinion a lot aspects of eyesight interact with other. For example centralisation will influence movement of the eyes and neck ( head ). More movement will result in more awareness of one’s body and thus improvement of posture.More movement will demand more energy. Which the body will adapt to . When the the ( exercise ) becomes a habit.

> It depends what is wrong with the person's eyesight in the first place. Some problems can be solved (via surgery, patching, correction...) and some problems can't be solved (yet). Answer : The Batesmethod is focussed on getting rid of the chronic tension of the external musscles of the eye.

> It depends what is wrong with the person's eyesight in the first place. Some problems can be solved (via surgery, patching, correction...) and some problems can't be solved (yet). Amblyopia is one such problem that the Bates Method supposedly "improves." Now, I work all day every day with amblyopes and, believe me, they've tried everything! The problem is that Amblyopia is a developmental problem and it results in very complex changes to the visual system which can be prevented, usually by patching at the right age, but not cured (yet).

Answer: According to a second generation bates book ( Relearing to see ) the amblyopic eye or lazy eye is not lazy. It is tensed. It needs relaxation. NVI has a opposite aproach. You can improve amblyopia by getting rid of the extreme tension. Often the amblyopic has also a different shape. Often it is visible bigger. I have seen this change into normal !

The people who invented the newspaper did not invent the radio the people who invented the radio did not invent the television. The people who invent glasses, contact lenses and lasertreatments will not provide information to improve eyesight naturally !

There are also people with amblyopia who are surccesful with the Batesmethod. Did you never meet people who were succesful with the Batesmethod. See the newsgroups about this subject.

Amblyopia is one such problem that the Bates Method supposedly "improves." Now, I work all day every day with amblyopes and, believe me, they've tried everything!

Answer : How about really give these people helpful information. For example the experiment with the monkeys. The problem is located in the brain in the case of amblyopia. People with amblyopia can improve their weak eye with their eyes closed ! How about telling these people their eye is not lazy but stressed. When you only stress something which is already stressed you are doing something wrong. My advice search for a really skilled teacher. He will not teach exercises He or she will teach habits . > Most of the amblyopes we see are very relaxed. Are the still relaxed when they are forced to look with their amblyopic eye ? but it doesn't improve their eyesight one bit. Have you ever talked about the subject with a succesful batesteacher ?Some of them have tried either the BM or some derivitive method to no avail. Answer : Did you see the link in the amblyopia artcle. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4436439.stm

Is is very important the BM is properly educated. It is not only a program it is an educational program. The Batesmethod in WH Bates first book was not properly explained. Fortunatly there is a book available which give a far bettter explanation. ( This book is based on Bates his initial writings ) But stil it is very hard to learn the method only with this book. Is your opinion about the Batesmethod only based on bates his first book and Better eyesight magazines ? Mine is not.

> The problem is that Amblyopia is a developmental problem and it results in very complex changes to the visual system..

Answe :

I fully agree with you. And it is not possible to change it in a week. Improvement in small steps is possible. Natural vision improvement is the law of adaptation in the right direction. 

I have personally experienced a lot of improvement thanks to the initial work of Bates and the generation of teachers who followed him. I hope you respect my point of view. When my speculation really was not true. I think you would have not reacted the way you did. Also you did not tell the truth about the rejection of natural vision improvement by mainstream medicine. Controversial is not the same as rejection

> Secondly, what do you mean by "naturally"? Everything that humans do - even driving F1 cars - is "natural" because humans have evolved according to the laws of nature.

Anwer : Naturally are the things our body have always been doing. When you see our body is lets say 20000 years old. F1 driving is not very natural. Running on the other hand is very natural.

We are currently doing quite a lot of thing differently than let’s say 100 years ago. For example our food..

You seem to be using "natural" to mean "without glasses" or "without the help of an ophthalmologist".

Answer : No not without a ophthalmologist. Ophthalmologist should always be available and consulted. They will see what NVI can result in. And if there are real problems they can help. NVI can help people to take responsibility for themselves.

> How is improving your vision by following a set of instructions written over a century ago by a rogue ophthalmologist like Bates any more "natural" than taking the advice of a modern ophthalmologist who has an extra century of accumulated knowledge and experience to draw on? Answer : Bates first book is very hard to read and umderstand. Fortunatly others have made his method much more easy to understand. ( Janet Goodrich, Thomas Quackenbush for example ) The bates method had developed and still is ! That is why is is very good the second generation books are also in the article.

> Anyway, I hope that's helped to explain my position. If people want to try the BM then go ahead, but I and my colleagues think its a bloody waste of time and (invariably) money and I'll be damned if I let people write nonsense about it on Wikipedia without being challenged to support their arguments with reliable evidence

Anwer : Again, It is not about science it is about politcs.

Question to a eye doctor : Retinal detachament happens more often when there is a high degree of myopia. Why ? It is by the way very hard to find a proper explanation in books. Bates has the answer. The myopic eye has a different shape. It is larger. Bates explains, this is the result of the extreme tension in the oblique mussles. So when people succeed in getting rid of this tension. The myopic eye becomes normal and the risk of retinal detachment is gone. This is prevention. What can the orthodox do for people with a high degree of myopia, which keeps on becoming higher and higher, to prevent retinal detachment ? Seeyou 22:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

And round and round and round we go... If you don't want to listen to any of my arguments, scientific evidence or experience and just keep making unsupported assertions, repeating old arguments made by quacks like Quackenbush and insisting that this is "political..." then go ahead. I'm not interested and neither is the Wikipedia arbitration committee it would seem. Just don't try to pass off your second-hand b*llsh*t as scientific fact. Famousdog 13:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As for that BBC story, I don't see your point. Its about patching and how it helps if administered properly. Patching the good eye releases the suppression on the bad eye, allowing the bad side of the visual system to develop more "normally". This is already widely known... Ophthalmologists have been patching for hundreds of years. Its the best therapy we have currently. How is that relevant to your assertions that Bates is cleverer than all the other vision specialists in the known universe? Famousdog 15:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply :

It is very clear to me and I think and hope to others reading between your lines. You are again walking away famousdog or AED, by not answering questions and not giving arguments on which your opinion about the BM is based..

To be honest I am not really interested in your answers. But this does not count for my question about retinal detachment and why high myopes have a greater risk to develop retinal detachment. It would be really helpful and supportive for this article when you would answer this very interesting and important question. ( If famousdog/AED does not answer this question read the wikipedia article about retinal detachment.)

It is also clear to me why you did not like to see the BM described as educational program. The orthodox do not give any education as far as I know. So educational would emphasize on a difference in favour of the BM.Seeyou 20:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I found this excerpt on the wikipage about Quackery regarding the reasons that quackery persists:

“

• Pride: Once a person has endorsed or defended a cure, or invested time and money in it, they may be reluctant to admit its ineffectiveness, and therefore recommend the cure that did not work for them to others.
• Anti-elitism: Quacks often portray themselves as members of the "common people" who care about those in need. The medical establishment is cast as an insular elite who care more about financial gain than healing the sick. In this case the quack's lack of medical certification is a valuable asset.

”

I think it explains a lot. Now please stop insisting that I am User AED. I am not. You are a f*ckwit for continuing to accuse me of sockpuppetry. Nobody else is remotely interested in this argument and I am sick of it. Regarding retinal detachment, I will not venture to theorise, as it is not my area of expertise. I very much doubt that it is your area of expertise either, so why don't you talk to somebody who does know about it? Why not add your theories to the page Retinal detachment and see what kind of response you get? This obsession is getting tiresome. Famousdog 13:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply

He who knows not, and knows he knows not. He is a child teach him

He who knows not, and does not know he knows not. He is a fool. Shun him

He who knows, and knows not he knows. He is asleep. Wake him.

He who knows, and knows he knows. He is wise. Follow him. Seeyou 20:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure... whatever. Famousdog 19:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep going, you're almost in breach of 3RR

Seeyou, whilst I have attempted to compromise and include your material, you are simply reverting my edits and this is getting f*cking tedious. Do it once more and I'll report you for 3RR. Any luck finding a citation for that research that Beresford mentions? No, I thought not... Famousdog 16:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

External links

Quite a few of the external links in this article violate the guideline on external links, in that they are primarily promotional, add nothing encyclopedic to the article, contain unverifiable research, etc. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor a clearinghouse for all links Bates-related or a substitute for Google. External links should be kept to a minimum (see WP:EL). Instead of fighting over expanding the external links section, the time would be better spent finding reliable sources among those links and incorporating the encyclopedic content from those sources directly into the article. MastCell ^Talk 22:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply :

It is interesting to see those testimonials really made some change to the external links. In my opinion a bit weak of our sceptics to remove them. It looks like they do not want to see there might be people who have really improved their eyesight. A lot of people will have trouble believing eyesight can improve naturally. The possibility and prove eyesight can be summarized in three words law of adaptation ! Only by saying this law is untrue you can say Natural vision improvement is impossible. Of course these testimonials can be fake, but I am also one of these persons successful in improving my eyesight. So for me it is very hard to believe these testiomonials are fake.. Also an argument to leave Meir Schneider’s site present is for example what health professionals like Creig Hoyt, MD, ( Chairman of the Ophthalmology Department and Director of the Beckman Vision Center ) say about Natural vision improvement. Again I find it very hard to believe this information is fake or not reliable.

So in my opinion the link :

Link 1. http://www.self-healing.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=35&Itemid=85 & link 2 http://www.visionsofjoy.org/testimonials.htm

should be listed.

Also link 3 :

http://www.visionsofjoy.org/visionlinks.htm A list of 100 worldwide Natural Vision Improvement websites should stay. This link provides interested people a worldwide help to find a teacher or information.

Problem for the NVI movement is there is not really a site which represents the NVI movement as a whole. The link : [http://www.visionsofjoy.org/visionlinks.htm A list of 100 worldwide Natural Vision Improvement websites was the best site I could find. Most sites pronote only themselves and product but site gives information of teachers and schools worldwide.

The other sites :

• Central-Fixation.com
• Imagination Blindness
• I-See.org
• Vision Improvement Site
• List of 100 worldwide Natural Vision Improvement websites

http://www.central-fixation.com Is okay but also available in link 3

http://www.iblindness.org is okay, but is also in link 3

http://www.visioneducators.org is okay offers worldwide links for teachers & teachertraining. The other link 3 contains more worldwide links.

http://www.i-see.org/related.html worldwide extra links. Should be in the list.

www.visionimprovementsite.com not in the list commercial site.

My conclusion to represent the unskeptic part of this article the following links should be listed :

Testimonials :

• what people say about
• testimonials

external links

• List of 100 worldwide Natural Vision Improvement websites
• www.i-see.org

Gladly read your feedback Mastcell. Seeyou 16:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

If your goal is to disprove the "skeptics" or demonstrate that the Bates method actually works, then I'd encourage you to find reliable sources supporting the method's effectiveness and cite them in the body of the article. Tacking on a laundry list of external links which explicitly fail the guidelines to try and make the point isn't appropriate. MastCell ^Talk 17:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, Seeyou, you are fighting this battle in the 'external links' section because you cannot win it in the text of the article by (as MastCell rightly says) citing reliable sources that demonstrate the effectiveness of the Bates method. Stating that you, personally, have improved your vision or think that some links are "okay" is hardly a sufficient criterion for inclusion. There are over 6 billion people in the world. You are just one. In addition, providing multiple links to the same web site (Visions of Joy, for example) is excessive. One link is sufficient. Famousdog 13:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Bates' technique

I find this section sketchy and inaccurate.

'Relaxation is at the core of the Bates method' - yes, but not just relaxation. What Bates described as 'mental control' is equally important. It is about a feedback mechanism between mental and physical relaxation, achieved by the use of memory and imagination. See the chapter on Memory and Imagination in 'Perfect Eyesight" by Bates.

> Chaper 13 & 14.. I will read these chapters and make notes. Seeyou 20:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

'Swinging involves deliberate movements of the body with relaxed awareness of vision...' - no. It is not about relaxed awareness of vision. It is about relaxed awareness of movement within the visual field. The point of swinging is to be aware that you perceive movement. And swinging as a technique goes hand in hand with shifting: see ibid, chapter on shifting and swinging.

It is about relaxed awareness of movement. > I fully agree. And the movement is oppostitonal of course. see ibid, What do you mean by ibid ? Seeyou 20:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

'Palming or cupping is one technique that advocates claim achieves relaxation' - but this article is not about what 'advocates' claim, is it? It's about the technique of Dr Bates. Dr Bates did palming, not cupping. It is simplistic to imply that palming is done to achieve relaxation by seeing black. Bates said that seeing black did not work for everybody. The point is to engage your imagination in a mental activity that you enjoy and that you can sustain while covering your eyes. This is what engenders the relaxation.

> I agree. And thank you for making this clearer.Seeyou 20:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Central fixation is not a technique, or part of a technique. It is the process whereby we find objects within our visual field, in conjuction with the perception of movement. For optimal image-building, the parts of the image have to be taken through the centre of the visual field, where the greatest clarity is obtained. Bates' point about central fixation was that if you try to stare at something, you inhibit the functioning of central fixation, slow down the movement of the eyeball, and prevent focal adjustment. This is why he said relaxation was important.

centre of the visual field, where the greatest clarity is obtained. > Using the fovea centralises where most of cones are located.Seeyou 20:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see this section on technique rewritten totally. I wouldn't mind having a go, but being new here, I just present my point of view for now. HappyHag 12:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

> Great. Just start and in case of problems don’t hesistate to ask questions to wikipedia or me (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seeyou )Seeyou 20:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Famousdog And / or AED ( Both Eye Doctors )

If the seeclearlymethod is equal to the batesmethod. The batesmethod is illegal. So then you can also delete or redirect this page to something else. maybe redirect this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophthalmology or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ophthalmology.Seeyou 20:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Other users and contributors, please be aware that User:Seeyou appears to be under the mistaken impression that I am the same person as User:AED. His justification for this is that we both seem to know a bit about ophthalmology/vision and AED seems to have stopped contributing around the same time that I joined Wikipedia. Having had many of his edits reverted by myself and others, Seeyou has now taken to accusing me of sockpuppetry rather than trying to be constructive. I took this to mediation, but alas, it was ignored. Nobody seems interested. I suspect that what I did to provoke this recent cyber-stalker outburst from Seeyou, was to redirect the See Clearly Method page to the Bates page. I did this because the See clearly method page was "orphaned" and I thought it would be relevant here. Seeyou clearly disagrees. Fine. I will not redirect this page again and instead, I'm sure that some editor will soon delete it because it is ORPHANED. Seeyou will no doubt then accuse me of having the page deleted or deleting it myself under another guise... and so on and so forth... Famousdog 15:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Fake argument removal

Find a Bates Method teacher worldwide

• Bates Method Teachers listed by country/area

This is not spam. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam. Seeyou 21:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Its a list of Bates practitioners advertising their services. How is it not spam? However, I will wait for somebody else delete it in order to keep you happy. Famousdog 21:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

A list is a list. It provides information. It does not fit any definition of spam I managed to find in a few minutes of Internet searches. Maybe the problem is more one of pseudosceptic prejudice. (RichardKingCEng 21:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC))

It is borderline spam, and definitely unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a directory or an indiscriminate collection of potentially "useful" information - it's an encyclopedia, and this link is not encyclopedic. MastCell ^Talk 22:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It is false that "A list is a list." On Wikipedia, lists of commercial providers are not mere "lists", they constitute advertising. Some commerical sites provide enough valid information to justify their inclusion in some people's eyes, but a mere directory does not. Also a site that has no information not available from non-commercial sources would not qualify. At the very least, Bates practitioners will have to develop a "cut-out" site that has actual unique and encyclopedic information or provide a link to such a page in the existing site. Tackiness doesn't help either. DCDuring 22:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen and the external link. I do not see much difference. In my opinion and I am very sure the interested public will be very happy with the teacher link.Seeyou 09:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It makes sense for an article about Volkswagon, the car manufacturer, to have links to the company's website, because the article is about the company. I would not consider this spam. What you are advocating is to add links to every car manufacturer into the article Automobile. A quick glance at this article shows that this behaviour is not viewed lightly! I would accept a link to the See Clearly Method website on the See Clearly Method page, because the article is specific to that company (except they don't exist anymore, so there's no point). You are making a category error, mixing up fruit with apples. Famousdog 13:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fake-arguments my dear friend look a these articles.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiatsu
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tai_chi

By the way I added the link Seeyou 16:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[Sigh] I don't see the connection. The Yoga page has no links to corporate sites (good), the Shiatsu page has several and is therefore poorly monitored and unencyclopedic (bad), and the Tai Chi article has links to some organisations and videos (possibly spam). So what? I reiterate: Wikipedia is not a collection of links it is an encyclopedia. Take the Encyclopedia Brittanica - does it have lists of all snake oil salesmen under the article Snake Oil? No. Famousdog 13:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course; this is Wikipedia; amateur defintions and pseudosceptisism rules. (RichardKingCEng 13:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

See Clearly Method Article Corrections Deleted

As the CEO of the American Vision Institute, Inc. and one of the creators of the See Clearly Method, I am deeply concerned that the article on the See Clearly Method misrepresents the American Vision Institute, the See Clearly Method, the doctors who created the See Clearly Method, and the State of Iowa lawsuit. Today, I posted a rewrite of the article stating the facts about these matters. Much to my dismay, the rewrite was promptly deleted and replaced by the previous inaccurate article. For the record, my rewrite is given below. It is my sincere wish that if Wikipedia considers my rewrite to be a conflict of interest, that a responsible person will render the material into a form that is compatible with Wikipedia's policies so that the article on the See Clearly Method is accurate and truthful. SMBeresford 22:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Steven M. Beresford, Ph.D. CEO, American Vision Institute

REWRITE POSTED 10/4/2007 AND DELETED SAME DAY

The See Clearly Method (SCM) was a program of eye exercises developed by a team of doctors from the American Vision Institute including Merrill J. Allen, O.D., Steven M. Beresford, Ph.D., David W. Muris, O.D., and Francis A. Young, Ph.D. The SCM was designed to reduce or eliminate dependency on corrective lenses and was sold to the public by a marketing company called Vision Improvement Technologies from 1999 through 2006.

The efficacy of the SCM was demonstrated in a clinical study that was submitted as a research paper for publication to the Journal of the American Optometric Association in 2005. Although the research paper was peer reviewed, the Journal declined to publish it. The American Vision Institute subsequently submitted the research paper to the Journal of Behavioral Optometry, which also declined to publish it. Finally, the American Vision Institute decided to publish the entire research paper on its website at www.visiontherapy.net. The main findings of the clinical study are summarized below:

30 subjects with common visual problems including asthenopia, myopia, presbyopia, hyperopia, and astigmatism were recruited from a public seminar and 21 completed a 6 week course of training using the SCM at home and in weekly group sessions. 19 subjects obtained improvements in unaided visual acuity, 19 obtained improvements in refractive error, and 16 reduced their dependency on corrective lenses so they no longer needed them or only wore them part of the time. 20 subjects expressed satisfaction with the materials provided and the improvement obtained.

In 2006, the Attorney General of the State of Iowa filed a complaint against Vision Improvement Technologies on the grounds that some customers were not getting prompt refunds. This complaint later expanded into a challenge of the SCM’s effectiveness, which bankrupted cost VIT more than $600,000 in legal fees and forced it to go out of business at the end of 2006.

The American Vision Institute alleges that the lawsuit was politically motivated and part of a concerted attack by the eye care establishment to suppress the SCM, and that the Attorney General may have perverted the course of justice by ignoring critical evidence supporting the SCM’s effectiveness. To clarify misunderstandings about the matter, the American Vision Institute issued the following Position Statement on its website at www.visiontherapy.net.:

Position Statement On The See Clearly Method

The American Vision Institute (AVI) was founded in 1979 with the goal of creating a program of therapeutic eye exercises that the average person could use to eliminate or reduce their dependency on corrective lenses. A team of world class optometrists and research scientists was formed and our work led to what became known as the AVI Program.

Optometrists and scientists who were publicly named as coauthors of the AVI Program included Dr. Merrill J. Allen, Dr. Steven M. Beresford, Dr. Mark S. Flora, Dr. Paul A. Harris, Dr. Robert M. Kaplan, Dr. Burton E. Worrell, and Dr. Francis A. Young. Advisory support was provided by Dr. W. Keith Wilson and Dr. Homer H. Hendrickson. We were deeply concerned that important information on eye exercises was being suppressed and were determined to discover how the techniques worked and make them more effective.

Regrettably, the eye care establishment bitterly opposed our work because it threatened to undermine the sale of corrective lenses. Over the years, we were subjected to threats, harassment, smear campaigns and other “dirty tricks”, which forced several members of the AVI team to resign.

In 1991, Dr. David W. Muris joined the AVI team and played an important role in taking the AVI Program to a higher level where most users could realistically expect to see the first signs of improvement within a week or so. Dr. Muris held the position of President of the American Vision Institute from 1996 to 2006, when he too was threatened with loss of license and forced to resign.

In 1999, the American Vision Institute created a product known as the See Clearly Method (SCM), which a company known as Vision Improvement Technologies (VIT) marketed from 1999 to 2006. During that time, VIT received hundreds of unsolicited testimonials from satisfied customers who eliminated or reduced their dependency on corrective lenses. In many cases, these customers expressed a very high level of satisfaction with the SCM and stated that they were glad to find a natural alternative to the deterioration they experienced with corrective lenses.

In 2006, the Attorney General of the State of Iowa filed a complaint against VIT on the grounds that some customers were not getting prompt refunds. This complaint later expanded into a challenge of the SCM’s effectiveness,which cost VIT more than $600,000 in legal fees and forced it to go out of business at the end of 2006.

AVI has concluded that the eye care establishment may have paid officials of the State of Iowa, by means of bribes or campaign contributions, to carry out a proxy attack on VIT. Our conclusion is based on the following facts:

1) The goals of the SCM were diametrically opposed to the goals of the eye care establishment, which is to prescribe and sell corrective lenses and keep patients dependent on these products.

2) We understand that fewer than a dozen Iowa residents had any difficulty obtaining a refund (due to VIT’s staffing problems) and these cases were quickly resolved when VIT was made aware of the situation. There were several other minor administrative problems and these too were quickly resolved.

3) In 2005, AVI wrote up an in-depth clinical evaluation of the SCM that proved its efficacy and submitted it to the Journal of the American Optometric Association for publication. Regrettably, the Journal refused to publish it. In our opinion, the Journal’s decision not to publish was made in order to avoid giving credibility to the SCM and to suppress the research findings.

4) AVI then provided the Attorney General with a copy of the evaluation but the Attorney General – who has no scientific credentials – simply ignored it and declared the SCM to be ineffective on the grounds that it did not comply with the Iowa law that health care products must be scientifically proven to be effective. He also ignored hundreds of unsolicited testimonials from satisfied customers.

5) Thousands of health care products that fail to comply with this law are routinely sold in supermarkets, drug stores, health food stores, and pharmacies throughout the State of Iowa. We fail to understand why the Attorney General singled out the SCM, unless of course he was paid to do so. It should be noted that corrective lenses also fail to comply with this law.

6) At the time, the Attorney General was running for re-election and the Governor of the State of Iowa was running for President of the United States.

7) We understand that the American Optometric Association spent more than $1.2 million on lobbying and campaign contributions in 2006.

In our opinion, the circumstantial evidence suggests that the Attorney General carried out a proxy attack against VIT on behalf of the eye care establishment. What really happened will probably never be made public. The fact remains, politics is a dirty business and politicians are notorious for trading favors for bribes, kick-backs and campaign contributions. Of course, we do not accuse the Attorney General or the American Optometric Association of engaging in such deplorable tactics. However, the motive and opportunity were present, so we suggest you read the research and draw your own conclusions.

Your statement contains essentially an attack and allegation of significant wrongdoing against the Attorney General. As such it is wholly inappropriate for inclusion anywhere on Wikipedia (including the talk page) unless backed by verifiable, reliable sources. Please see our policy on biography of living people, for example. If such sources exist, the information can be added to the article. However, Wikipedia is not a forum to advance your spin on the issue or refight it. MastCell ^Talk 03:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

For the ones unaware AED, famousdog, Mastcel & SMBeresford might be one person.

For the ones unaware of the total history of this article and discussion about this article. It is off course speculation, but there is a very big chance AED ( a eye doctor ), famousdog, Mastcel and SMBeresford in reality is one person. It is also possible AED is being paid by regular opthalmology. See for example how many edits AED has made in the past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/AED Seeyou 12:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Always refreshing to see a single-purpose account pushing a very distinct POV accuse others of a conflict of interest. However, if you feel that one or more editors are using multiple accounts abusively (as detailed in the sockpuppetry policy), you can open a case at the suspected sockpuppetry board. You will probably want evidence first, though. MastCell ^Talk 04:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

MastCell, are you me? I was quite surprised to find out that I was user AED! Now apparently I'm SMBeresford, which is strange since his posts have been very pro-SeeClearlyMethod, whereas I am a sceptic on that point. Frankly, I'm more of the opinion that SMBeresford is either Steven Beresford or Seeyou her/himself. Nice to see that Seeyou can't even get your name right Mastcel (sic)! People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones and I strongly suspect that Seeyou is indulging in a little sockpuppetry her/himself - since s/he can't make any useful edits. Famousdog 13:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

External links

So, according to WP:EL, the DA's court order goes too as it appears in a citation. But my point about the DMOZ list of vision links (not specific to this topic) is still relevant and I-See should be clearly labelled as promoting the bates method or NVI to avoid conflicts of interest. Famousdog 13:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Monkeys

I removed this section:

Additional evidence that the genetic theory is wrong comes from research where scientists deliberately created strabismus in normal monkeys by surgically reattaching an extraocular muscle to the wrong place. They found it difficult to create a permanent state of strabismus and all the monkeys spontaneously straightened their eyes within a few weeks.

Because it has been tagged for months (anything that simply refers to "scientists" without telling us who they are is to be mistrusted), it doesn't seem to be relevant to the preceding paragraphs (what "genetic theory"?) and its also a complete lie. Animal researchers routinely create strabismus in monkeys to investigate amblyopia. For example, there are several papers on strabismus and amblyopia published in the last decade by Kiorpes and Movshon in which they artifically induce strabismus in macaque monkeys. Famousdog 13:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent unusual activity

Just thought I'd flag some unusual activity on this page. Between 24-29th November 2007, there were several rather pro-Bates edits made by anonymous users whose ISPs are registered in Germany, Austria, Russia, France and the Netherlands. Maybe I'm being paranoid, but the fact that all users were anonymous, the edits were made within a short time period and they all seemed roughly in agreement with each other all made it seem quite 'coordinated'. Somebody may have requested help on an international mailing list (in which case this counts as Meatpuppetry and is frowned upon), or perhaps the one person acting alone has managed to fake their IP address. Either way, a little odd I think. Famousdog (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

For the objective reader part 1 of x

Some examples of famousdog contributions to the bates method article.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Famousdog&diff=128252617&oldid=95096585

( famousdog lists the batesmethod under Pseudoscience ! )

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bates_method&diff=99329620&oldid=99107773

( famousdog saying the mind is the brain ?! )

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bates_method&diff=174433324&oldid=174431966

( great contribution but \martin Garder was not an Optometrists or ophthalmologists but a popular American mathematics and science writer )

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bates_method&diff=167207674&oldid=167019914

( The genetic theory is the suggestion of the orthodox vision problems are genetic, but scientists still have not found any proof in our DNA )

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bates_method&diff=109306766&oldid=109306034

( famosudog editing published information )

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bates_method&diff=124083867&oldid=124052301

( famousdog showing no respect to an editor )

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=AED

( When you can make this amount of edits you are being paid. Does wikipedia really give objective information ?! Note these edits were done in less then a month !!! And look at what kind of articles these edits are made !)

Seeyou (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Paid editing is not a breach of any policy necessarily (but it does bring up a COI question). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, so... Where's your evidence of palm, greasing? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I resent the implication that I am being paid. In fact I am simply interested in this topic and have therefore made time in my (busy) schedule to make sure that this page is not hijacked by Bates practitioners and Bates advocates. Seeyou's behaviour amounts to harrassment, cyberstalking and clearly a personal attack. All of which are, I believe, discouraged on Wikipedia. Lets see if I that's enough to get you banned, since you haven't made a useful edit in MONTHS. Famousdog (talk) 14:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Gone to arbitration. Famousdog (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. See here. Famousdog (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The "fundamental principle" section

Removed this as per wp:quote. Quotation is too long (thereby lengthening an already lengthy article), is virtually stand-alone and doesn't really add anything concrete to the article. Its an instruction to "try it for yourself" and doesn't shed any more light on Bates' theories or method than material that is already in the article. If its necessary to have such unwieldy quotes to "understand" Bates' method, perhaps this quote could be moved to Wikiquote, and linked to from here. And finally, could all these anonymous users please get Wikipedia accounts rather than hiding behind a mask of anonymity!? Famousdog (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

For the objective reader part 2 of x

From the neutral point of view and the quality of this article it is important to give the explanation of the method of the point of view which refers to

• the advocates of the batesmethod,
• the skeptics and
• opthalmology.

See : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Npov

The neutral point of view The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular Seeyou (talk) 07:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

For the objective reader part 3 of x

It is of course speculation, but I think my friend AED/famousdag has chosen a new intelligent strategy to keep the quality of this article as low as possible. Please look at the edits by a or the editor(s) since 8 December 2007. Some edits are done by seeyou and my dear friend famousdog. The rest, a very big amount, are edits made by different IP addresses. But there is something strange going on with these IP-addresses. They are constantly different. They appear one, two or three times and then disappear. For example : block some IP addresses and / or use CTRL + F for the following Ip-addresses :

128.2.238.203 once

201.51.124.78 two times

85.214.83.197 three times

128.230.111.195 once.

and many many more.

Search the web for : Hide IP-Adress. And you will see this is possible.

Very smart of Famousdog, but also a bit weak to go undercover. By the way this also proofs famousdog is being paid for this work I takes quite some time to make those tiny edits.

For the skeptic reader

As you yourself admit, it is speculation. Considering that I posted the original warning that somebody might be using a fake IP address, it would be a bit stupid of me to adopt the technique myself. I am not, as Seeyou believes, a criminal genius and therefore don't actually know how to go about this, if it is indeed possible. Seeyou is being a sh*tstirring moron, yet again. Famousdog (using different keyboard and can't work out how to do the signature-symbol!)

For the objective reader part 4 of x

For those who are not convinced compare the 2 verssions of the arricle below.

Neutral point of view version :

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bates_method&diff=179548537&oldid=179548434

Vandalized version by fake multiple IP adresser and / or Famousdog.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bates_method&diff=179526835&oldid=179524809

For the skeptic

Its hardly vandalism to remove linkspam. Removing linkspam from commercial sites improves the NPOV status of an article, rather than making it POV. So get a f*cking grip, Seeyou and try making a constructive edit once in a while. Famousdog

For the objective reader part 5 of x

Look also at the other paragraphs for the objective reader. To understand and see what is happening. I hope an Administrator sees what is happening gives this article some kind of protection. Seeyou (talk) 12:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

For the skeptic

As my request for arbitration has been ignored yet again, I find this unlikely. Nobody cares! Famousdog

For the objective reader part 6 of x

to IP address : 125.116.17.28; 81.64.210.51; 80.249.115.146, and ... ,

• Reverted to more organized, less repetetive version
• Eye exercises are not the Bates method, and Gardner quote is already

in "Efficacy" section

• Previous version is overly repetitive and removes steps taken to organize article

I do not agree with your edit. It is important to explain there are three points of view regarding the batesmethod. All three opinions should be mentioned in the introduction equally because of the neutral point of view policy of wikipedia

If you are an anonymous user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. Registering also hides your IP address : - )

Seeyou (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

For the objective reader part 8 of x

The five pillars of wikipedia : See : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars Seeyou (talk) 08:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

For the objective reader part 9 of x

• This version is very NPOV accordig to multiple IP Address

There are three different parties. All three should be mentioned ! With their reference off course. The opthalmology reference is very important. If we did not have this reference the Batesmethod would still be quackery.

Can you reply in this discussuon page. Why can't you create a username and are you using multiple IP-adresses ? Or do you really want to make us believe you are different people. Seeyou (talk) 11:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

First, the Rawstron source is not about Bates. It does not mention him, any of his particular techniques, or his concept of undoing visual strain to improve eyesight. Second, the Gardner quote is already in the article, in the efficacy section. The opening had already described what the Bates method is and explained why it is controversial. Finally, if it is just the opening you are concerned about, edit that only. Your edits are undoing improvements made elsewhere in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.180.80 (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

For the objective reader part 10 of x.

to number xyz,

> First, the Rawstron source ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15825744 )is not about Bates. It does not mention him, any of his particular techniques, or his concept of undoing visual strain to improve eyesight.

That is true, And that is exactly the reason why it should stay. Don’t you think it is strange that ophthalmology does not say anything about Bates his method specific. This reference is the closest information about the Batesmethod I have ever read. If the batesmethod is quackery why does not ophthalmology say and explain it to the public ?!. The Batesmethod is almost 100 years old and still being taught and explained. New books are published etc. And ophthalmology only talks about exercises ! As long as there is no better reference than the current one it is very important these reference stays in the introduction. I don’t mind if this reference changes in future for a better reference. Main thing is ophthalmology is in the list with their opinion about eye-exercises. They are the authority ! Let the public determine by themselves what the batesmethod is. Maybe they think Martin Gardnes is right. ( I think he is partly right ) Maybe the batesmethod is only doing eye-exercises. Something even Batesteachers still think.

> Second, the Gardner quote is already in the article, in the efficacy section. Then it should be removed there. Gardner should be in the introduction. That is the neutral point of view policy of wikipedia !

> The opening had already described what the Bates method is and explained why it is controversial. ( The Batesmethod is controversial because ophthalmology indirectly says so. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15825744 )

In my opinion the introduction has become worse. The words chosen for example undo faulty vision habits instead of correcting faulty vision habits is stupid. It is suggesting the batesmethod is an instant solution. Correcting is much better and closer to the truth. Since if you do the right things, ant you do not want a quick fix for your eyes. You do not compensate your eyesight, you correct your eyesight by correcting your visionhabits.

> Finally, if it is just the opening you are concerned about, edit that only. Your edits are undoing improvements made elsewhere in the article In the past I only revised the introduction You ignored me. And you are a bit strange by using multiple IP-addresses. It creates diffusion. Gladly read your reply number abc. Seeyou (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Answer multiple IP addreses : ......

2 cases which should be discussed

To the multiple IP-addresses case 1, > moved Quackenbush quote to "natural vision improvement", since it is not how Bates himself defines his method). Fake-argument. Bates did not even call his method the Bates method. Authorities like Thomas Quackenbush have studied the material thoroughly ( Simply look into his books he constantly refers to what Bates wrote. ), and can perfectly define the batesmethod

It is absurd this definition is at the end of the article. THIS IS NOT THE NPOV POLICY OF WIKIPEDIA !!!!!!

Gladly read your reply on the discussion page Number xyz.

To the multiple IP-addresses case 2,

The chosen words undo faulty vision habits are not the right words. It is correcting faulty vision habits. To undo something is something else then correcting something. It is the mechanical explantion by mechanical people. You can also say people with a number. Gladly read your reply on the discussion page. Number xyz.

Anser Multiple IP addresses : ....

Seeyou (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Some Bates advocates have expressed the view that Quackenbush's work is off-base in some respects, and recommend just reading Bates' original book. At any rate, his definition of someone else's method is an interpretation, and best left to the section of the article which deals with Quackenbush's field, "Natural Vision Improvement". Just as the discussion of eye exercises is best left to the section which deals with eye exercises.

Look at the other part of the sentence you changed: "aims to undo what Bates claimed are strained vision habits." It shows that the Bates method is about undoing habitual strain. "Undoing" habits makes perfect sense. My concern is that "correct" as a verb would imply to many people an effort, whereas Bates was emphatic that seeing well required no effort and that effort to see is, in fact, the underlying cause of vision problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.154.233.179 (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the "undo"/"correct" discussion, I remember a similar argument with Seeyou over whether the Bates method was a "program" or an "educational program". It eventually lead to mediation, so prepare for a long fight, anonymous user. Part of the problem with this article is Bates' and Quackenbush's own vague use of terms like "strain" which leaves them open to far too much interpretation. But then again, I guess that's what I would say, being a "mechanical person" as Seeyou seems to be calling anybody who shows a shred of scientific rigour. Famousdog (talk) 11:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

For the objective reader part 11 of x

> It shows that the Bates method is about undoing habitual strain. No, it is not. According to Thomas Quackenbush his definition ( staying very close to Bates in his book with references ).The batesmethod is about relearning the correct vision habits. The result of this will be that the habitual strain will decrease. ( the word undo suggests to me you can do it instantly but in general it will take time for your eyes and you to adapt by thge law of adaptation. ). You skip a very important step ! When you just undo the strain you will not get there. Just undoing the habitual strain won’t do the job. The proof is in the article below.

Source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bates_method The concept that relaxing the extra-ocular muscles can reliably or predictably reduce refractive error has not been substantiated by patients whose muscles are loosened during strabismus surgery.

My concern is that "correct" as a verb would imply to many people an effort, whereas Bates was emphatic that seeing well required no effort and that effort to see is, in fact, the underlying cause of vision problems. When people are properly educated by a skilled batesteacher, correct will be absolutely no problem. In contrary it will make them understand what they should strive for. By changing :

• which aims to undo what Bates claimed are strained vision habits.

Into

• which aims to relearn the correct relaxed vision habits and reverse the habitual strain.

Our disagreement is n't there any more. I think / hope ?

Again It makes also clear the current position of T.Quackenbush his definition is absurd !

But we also got to respect what other people and especially authorities think of the influence of the external eye-muscles on vision. And they should all be in the introduction. The reason NPOV. I can not imagines the exercises of the rawstron reference for strabismus is not about the external eye-muscles so indirectly it is about Bates his method ! And thus should be in the introduction.

> whereas Bates was emphatic that seeing well required no effort and that effort to see is, in fact, the underlying cause of vision problems. So relaxation in combination with the correct vision habits should be the goal and should be mentioned in the introduction of this article. ( It is mentioned ) When you achieve this your habitual strain will decrease and the eyeball will gets its normal or improved shape. Making it possible for the ciliary muscle to project the object looked at on the retina. It takes time but it is possible. Many people have done it.

> Some Bates advocates have expressed the view that Quackenbush's work is off-base in some respects, and recommend just reading Bates' original book. Can you give a reference of this statement ? I am interested. I find Bates original book very hard to understand. Do they also give facts and arguments why ?

At any rate, his definition of someone else's method is an interpretation, and best left to the section of the article which deals with Quackenbush's field, "Natural Vision Improvement". We all interpret the mehod from a point of view and give it a name and description. Bates did not want people to call his method the Bates method. We did ! Bates called his method natures way of seeing. In other words

• W.H. Bates called it = = > Natures way of seeing
• We call it = = > Bates method
• We can also call it, if we want = = > Natural Vision improvement.

I do not see any difference all three descriptions can refer to the same way / system. ( By the way wikipedia’s aricle Natural vision improvement directs you to this article.) Gladly read your reply number xyz. Seeyou (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

A habit is, by definition, at least somewhat ingrained. Thus, "undoing" a habit does not imply that it happens instantly or quickly; if anything, the opposite. You say When people are properly educated by a skilled batesteacher, correct will be absolutely no problem. But there are likely people reading this article who are trying to improve on their own. I realize it is not a tutorial for doing so, but it shouldn't spread misleading ideas either. My concern is that "correct" as a verb will suggest effort to many people.

I also disagree with any talk of "relearning" correct vision habits. If your sight was normal before, the only thing you learned (if you believe we have any control over our sight) was how not to see clearly. That is what now needs to be unlearned from a Bates perspective. The criticisms of Tom Quackenbush, I have seen in two Bates forums: http://www.iblindness.org/community/ , and http://www.effortlessvision.com/forum1/ . If you're interested, go to those forums and search for "Quackenbush" or "Goodrich". Janet Goodrich taught Tom and he got many of his (questionable) ideas from her. She also apparently coined "Natural Vision Improvement". If I can find the right sources I will eventually expand the "Natural Vision Improvement" section to point out the discrepancies between that and Bates' approach, if no one else does in the meantime.

Since this article is about the Bates method, anything in the introduction should directly and unambiguously relate to Bates. Rawstron doesn't. That discussion can remain in Other Methods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.111.217.30 (talk) 05:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

For the objective reader part 13 of x

You must be very ignorant to deny this article is not being edited by skeptic editors. Skeptic editors ridicule the method also in this article. Just read these three edits :

Initinal info :

But he never renounced the claim, set forth in Perfect Sight Without Glasses, that looking directly at the sun even with open eyes could not cause irreversible damage.

Advocate edit :

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bates_method&diff=195631148&oldid=195461884

Skeptic edit by famousdog or AED :

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bates_method&diff=195653612&oldid=195631613

Seeyou (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

For the objective reader part 13 of x #2

You must be very ignorant to deny this article is not being edited by skeptic editors. Skeptic editors ridicule the method also in this article. Just read these three versions of explaining : THESE EDITS SIGNAL WHY THE NEUTRALITY OF THIS ARTICLE IS DISPUTED !

Initinal info :

But he never renounced the claim, set forth in Perfect Sight Without Glasses, that looking directly at the sun even with open eyes could not cause irreversible damage.

Advocate edit :

Skeptics often use open eyelid sunning to ridicule his method as is done above. However Bates did withdraw his claim regarding open eyelid sunning. Sunning : Let the sun shine on your closed eyelids for short intervals. Choose preferably the early morning sunlight. It is the light rays which benefit the eyes rather than the heat rays. The sun loses some of its effect when it comes through glass. </ref>

Reference :* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bates_method&diff=195631148&oldid=195461884

Skeptic edit by famousdog or AED :

Bates did temper his claims regarding open eyelid sunning in later editions of his magazine, Better Eyesight. Sunning : Let the sun shine on your closed eyelids for short intervals. Choose preferably the early morning sunlight. It is the light rays which benefit the eyes rather than the heat rays. The sun loses some of its effect when it comes through glass</ref>

Reference : * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bates_method&diff=195653612&oldid=195631613 Seeyou (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone see anything in the comments above that meet WP:TALK? I won't remove it again without some consensus. --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) Seeyou continues his policy of harrassment... again the sockpuppetry accusation comes up in his suggestion that Famousdog and AED are the same user. Dividing users into "skeptics" and "advocates" is divisive and unhelpful. Yada yada yada, we have said all this before... Famousdog (talk) 02:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

From the wikipedia article contact lens / contacts

Complications

Complications due to contact lens wear affect roughly 4% of contact lens wearers each year. Excessive wear of contact lenses, particularly overnight wear, is associated with most of the safety concerns. Problems associated with contact lens wear may affect the eyelid, the conjunctiva, the various layers of the cornea, and even the tear film that covers the outer surface of the eye. Seeyou (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This is off-topic waffle. I'd remove it but Seeyou will have a tantrum! What exactly is the point of it? Famousdog (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. This is your response to my arguing that contact lenses are "natural." Fine - poking yourself in the eye, looking at the Sun, doing that thing where you turn your eyelids inside out (yuck) are all "natural" because humans (who are natural results of natural selection in a natural universe) can, and do, do them. Whether they are good for you is a different matter. You have pointed out that contact lenses have some minor problems associated with them. Fine. They do. However, I was arguing that "unnatural-ness" is not a valid criticism of them. In the same way that it is not a valid criticism of homosexuality (another debate in which "naturalness" is often incorrectly and unfairly invoked). Famousdog (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Blindness is also a risk !

• http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1943434.stm

Seeyou (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Please explain why this discussion meets WP:TALK, otherwise it will be deleted as more of off-topic, promotional distractions that are all so common on this talk page. --Ronz (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Open proxies

Just a heads up, but in the last week, several identified Tor open proxies have been used to edit this article, which ought to be cause for concern:

• 140.112.96.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 217.157.63.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 217.198.148.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 219.232.228.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.155.229.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 80.126.121.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.64.210.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 82.237.39.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 85.17.45.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 85.31.186.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.136.70.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 88.191.38.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 89.37.216.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 99.246.150.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 202.38.124.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• 68.48.198.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• 80.249.115.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• 87.255.6.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• 88.167.101.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• 88.198.47.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• 89.123.10.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• 91.121.102.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already blocked)

There are a whole bunch of other IPs which are not obviously open proxies, but perhaps someone who knows what he or she is doing could actually check. --Calton | Talk 05:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank Christ somebody has finally noticed this. Dunno what a Tor open proxy is, but I hope we can stop whoever it is editing in this anonymous manner. Famousdog (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The Onion Router (Tor) is an anonymity network using different proxies that allows a user to act as if they had a different external IP address, which is useful if you're trying to get around censorship but useless if you want to edit Wikipedia, as open and anonymizing proxies are barred from editing. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus?

Okay. This is a f***ing joke. I've just reverted Seeyou's reversion for the trillionth time and I'm getting pretty f***ing bored with this game. MastCell, Jeske and myself seem to be happy with the version that Seeyou finds sooooooo offensive. That's 3 against 1, I reckon (ignoring any anonymous users) but I suppose Seeyou is just going to argue that MastCell and Jeske are my sockpuppets in the same way that I am a sockpuppet of AED and various other users... and so on and so on and so on forever and ever and ever ad infinatum... Mediation and arbitration have lead nowhere on this issue. Can we get Seeyou's disruptive account blocked PLEASE??? Famousdog (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest WP:AN/I and provide diffs showing a problem. This is beyond content to behavioral, and thus AN/I can now deal with it. And if he accuses ANYONE of being a sockpuppet, he'd better have the evidence to back it up, or else. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation case about introduction

I've opened the mediation cabal request that User:Seeyou filed here Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-07 Bates method and will be serving at the mediator of it, unless anyone objects. I've reviewed the diffs Seeyou provided and the current version of the article, as well as about the last month of talkpage contents. At this point I've noticed somethings that lead me to general comments.

• 1. Despite the length of the talk-age, I see very few WP:AGF discussions, and much pontificating, essying, and talking past other users.
• 2. I believe the article can use some stylistic improvments, as well as further sourcing of certain statements, to avoid non-NPOV, OR statements.
• 3. I do not see a previous WP:RFC or WP:3O filed in this matter. While I as a mediator can help bring disagreeing parties together, I feel that sometimes more registered voices will add to discussion.
• 4. I've seen at least a couple accusations thrown around wildly here and on other related pages. So I'll remind all involved parties of WP:CIVIL and that the mediation cabal process is 100% voluntary. In and of itself, this process cannot block, ban or censor a user. Also, all accusations of sock-puppetry, bad faith, or pov-pushing, should be clearly back up by evidence (diffs, page histories, etc) and taken to the proper forum, such as WP:SSP.
• 5. At this point, I would like the involved parties to state what they disagree with in the tone of the current version of it. Specifically, how version X is not WP:NPOV. I'm not looking for super-long quotes, more possibly several short descriptive sentences. MBisanz ^talk 20:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion

So I've heard from both sides on this matter, read into an interesting thing I'd never heard of before, and have some concluding opinions.

• 1. Mediation is not a process that blocks a user or automatically ends vandalism, those are things that are done in other forums. Mediation is a voluntary dispute resolution process that does not assess penalties to either party.
• 2. In reviewing this case, it seems there is an existing consensus among several users. This consensus is not to be taken lightly. Evidence of off-wiki support for a position, is not the same as on-wiki discussion. Further, as long as consensus is support by reliable sources and presented in a NPOV and does not violate a legal policy such as BLP, I am of the opinion that it should be given paramount respect.
• 3. Further, as an independent third party, knowing nothing of the topic at hand, but having a year of college bio, a year of college chemistry and half a year of physics, I am of the opinon that the current version [1] meets Wikipedia's standards for neutrally, factually, and fairly, presenting the topic at hand. While there could be some stylistic changes in layout, I do not see any disputable content.
• 4. In light of my inability (and unwillingness) to do what the parties seem to want, namely to block a user (WP:AN/I, WP:AN, WP:ARBCOM) or stop all vandalism (WP:RFPP), I am therefore closing this case.

MBisanz ^talk 18:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, MBisanz. Maybe now we can all get on with our lives. Famousdog (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The Reason : NPOV giving objective referenced information

The reason for creating this cabalcase is the batesmethod is presented from un unbalanced point of view in the introduction of the article. The current version is mainly sceptic. In the 3 party version an authority advocate of the Batesmethod ( Thomas Quackenbush ) was also given room to give referenced information. This article should strive to present its information as objective as possible. The authority on this subject should be ophthalmology. Indirectly they state the batesmethod is controversial. ( See the link (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15825744?dopt=AbstractPlus ). This is also the reason why the quackery links which were present in the past were removed, So at this moment the Batesmethod is not quackery anymore it has become controversial. ( Thanks to famousdog, I am serious ). The only way to be as objective as possible is to allow every single party to have their say about the batesmethod. Meaning the advocates of the Batesmethod, the sceptics and ophthalmology. The neutral version presents all points of view. In future they can off course be improved. The current version does not. In the 3 party version is also made clear bates thought the external muscles were the only muscles of the eye for accommodation. But not al advocates of the batesmethod believe Bates was right about his accommodationtheory. In other words the neutral version gives much more objective referenced and clear information. And improves the quality of the article. ( I also want to emphasize Mastcell and Jéské Couriano are not involved in editing this article when you look at their total edits of this article. Seeyou and famousdog are much more active. )

Neutral 3 point of view version :

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bates_method&diff=182792619&oldid=182773677

Vandalized version by Famousdog.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bates_method

Seeyou (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Although the Rawstron review cited by Seeyou is pretty damning of eye exercises generally, the Marg (1957) paper (http://brain.berkeley.edu/pub/1952%20April%20Flashes%20of%20Clear%20Vision.pdf) is damning of the Bates method specifically. There is little recent research from ophthalmology on the Bates method for the simple fact that most ophthalmologists agree with Marg that it is nonsensical pseudoscience and best ignored. Secondly, I would like to point out that Seeyou in the above post has once again accused me of vandalism. Finally, his statement "not all advocates of the batesmethod believe Bates was right about this (my emphasis)" demonstrates how much flip-flopping and vagueness there is among Bates advocates. Firstly, a practitioners belief should not come into a discussion on potentially saving somebody sight! If Bates was wrong about this one important fact, surely it throws his other theories into confusion. Concepts crucial to the Bates method (like "strain") are so poorly defined and open to interpretation, as to be useless. Famousdog (talk) 14:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point, Famousdog. If Seeyou really wants to include all perspectives of the Bates method in the introduction, a quote from Marg should be included.

By the way, admins, it looks like that important link was originally provided by an anonymous edit on December 24. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.240.216.135 (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Don’t be fooled

> (http://brain.berkeley.edu/pub/1952%20April%20Flashes%20of%20Clear%20Vision.pdf) is damning of the Bates method specifically. Yes it refers to the original old Batesmethod But the original batesmethod has developed itself into a new modern one. The Batesmethod nowadays has improved in many ways. Most importantly in its explanation. Janet Goodrich has for example been very important by introducing creative tools like the nosepointer, pencil, feather the beadgame etc. This appears to be a bit childish but is very helpful in understanding and teaching !. She also says in her book The original Batesbook has gathered dust on many bookshelves. In other words it is not a great book to read and to really learn and understand natures system. What I am trying to say is the Batesmethod Marg talks about is not the same as the Batesmethod nowadays. Teachers have developed many tools in explaining and giving instructions based on scientific facts.

> There is little recent research from ophthalmology on the Bates method for the simple fact that most ophthalmologists agree with Marg that it is nonsensical pseudoscience and best ignored. Looking at het rawstron review at least 44 scientists ignored Elwin Margs report. So that is not true. Recently I have heard there is also a German professor in ophthalmology who reports significant results in the effects of relaxation on cataract. See : http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/search/ref=pd_lpo_ix_dp_dn_de_uk_de?keywords=ilse%20strempel&tag=lpo%5Fixdpdndeukde-21&index=blended published in July 2002 !

Off course you will react with this is not Batesmethod, but again the Batesmethod is also about principles. The most important ones are relaxation and movement. This German Professor in ophthalmology emphasizes on the importance of relaxation !

> accused me of vandalism.. If you want, I will explain why, no problem.

> Firstly, a practitioners belief should not come into a discussion on potentially saving somebody sight! I am not a practitioner I am just an editor in this article. I just want to improve the quality of this article and to be objective.

> Concepts crucial to the Bates method (like "strain") are so poorly defined and open to interpretation, as to be useless. That is your opinion ntt mine.

Sorry famousdog I do not understand why the almost 60 year old reference of a single person has more weight then the 3 year old rawstron review linked to many researchers. The argument the rawstron link is about exercises and not about the Bates method is not valid, because the Batesmethod is also about principles ( movement and relaxation ). I can not imagine the exercises of the rawstronlink are not focussed on movement.

And it also appears to me the Elwin Margs report is put on the Berkely website just for this wikipedia article. I can not find a link on the website directly to the pdf file.( google idem ). In other words it is a created link. So it shows ophthalmology only wants to explain when they are forced to explain.

Gladly read your reply. Seeyou (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Onus is on the editor to provide reasons to change the consensus. I see none. Stop beating around the bush and provide sources that rebut the claims, please, or drop the stick. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe your looking for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and hasn't this article been there and been turned down? Did you ever think of running a WP:RFC? MBisanz ^talk 13:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Dispute about Introduction represent old 1920 Batesmethod or the Batesmethod of today

There is no consensus. The introduction of this article is not NPOV and does not represent the batesmethod of today. The batesmethod of natural vision improvement today is not the same as the 1920 batesmethod. The reason it’s explanation has improved a lot ! The introduction of this article should present the current batesmethod not the old one. The old batesmethod should be presented in the second, third or last paragraph.

( There are no articles in wikipedia representing the history of its subject immediately in the first paragraph ! )

The article Natural vision improvement ( which is also the batesmethod ) also directs directly to this article, When the introduction does not change Natural vision improvement will be misunderstood and misinterpreted by many people only reading the introduction about the old batesmethod and the old 1952 opinion of ophthalmology.

Some sources : The Batesmethod is updated and much better explained see the links below for verification :

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1556433417/ref=sib_dp_pop_bc?ie=UTF8&p=S0GA#reader-link ( See the backcover Presentation of the current batesmethod, The book is dated 1997 !!!! )

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1556433417/ref=sib_dp_pop_toc?ie=UTF8&p=S008#reader-link ( The table of contents : Chapter 9 and 11. Two important principles movement and relaxation.)

More recent studies by ophthalmology give the following results with these 2 principles of the Batesmethod.

Sources of Ophthalmology of this century are now in the last paragraph : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15825744?dopt=AbstractPlus may 2005 ( conclusion : As yet there is no clear scientific evidence published in the mainstream literature supporting the use of eye exercises in the remainder of the areas reviewed, and their use therefore remains controversial. http://www.augenarzt-betzdorf.de/therapieglaukom.php ( in German, translated  : in the book autogenic training in ophthalmology, the writers G. Kaluza and professor Ilse Strempel ophthalmologist of the university eye hospital Marburg, have developed a relaxationtechnique by which the eye-pressure significantly can be decreased. ( German In dem Buch „Autogenes Training in der Augenheilkunde“ haben die Autoren G. Kaluza und Prof. med. Ilse Strempel (Augenärztin an der Universitätsaugenklinik Marburg) ein Entspannungstraining entwickelt, wodurch nachweislich der Augeninnendruck gesenkt werden konnte.))

Neutral 3 point of view version representing the batesmethod of today :

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bates_method&diff=182792619&oldid=182773677

Current Unneutral version representing the 1920 batesmethod

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bates_method

Seeyou (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you withdraw the RfC. Everyone is going to see it as an attempt to make an end-run around the consensus currently in place and forum-shopping. Further, reading over your version, I see it is fundamentally biased and thus not up to Wikipedia standard, which requires we approach a topic with a very high degree of dispassion. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 17:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I've got to agree with Jeske that it does seem an RFC will go nowhere. So far this issue has been to 3O, medcab, medcomm, and rfar I believe, and has either been declined or a version substantially identical to this [2] validated as being the less non-NPOV of the options presented. Quite frankly, I don't see the WP:POINT being made here. There is a consensus among people who've edited the article as to the better version, several outsiders such as WJBscribe and Newyorkbrad seem to have at least looked at the issue in declining escalation, and haven't seen any abuse of minority position or fundamental content flaws. MBisanz ^talk 18:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The Bates method cannot itself be updated, since Bates isn't around to do it and hasn't been since 1931. Anything involving Goodrich's techniques, pro or con, belongs in the Other methods section. Since Rawstron doesn't address Bates, but rather "eye exercises", that too belongs only in "Other methods". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.97.114.200 (talk) 03:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Take for example a car A car is a tool / ( also a method ) to move yourself from A to B. When we nowadays talk about a car. We do not talk about a car of the past. We talk about a car today. When we talk about ophthalmology we do not talk about ophthalmology 100 or 60 years ago we talk about ophthalmology now. We named natures way to improve eyesight Batesmethod. We also named it Natural vision improvement. See wikipedia. By the way the first car was a coach with an engine. It has improved a lot since then ! The definition in the last paragraph is the definition of the batesmethod today. And it is Based on the literature available today.

> The Bates method cannot itself be updated, since Bates isn't around to do it and hasn't been since 1931. Can you explain to my why a car can be improved by technicians or ophthalmology can be updated or improved by new opthalmologists and the Batesmethod can not be improved by other teachers ? Again bates did not call his method Batesmethod he talkes about natures way to See. Seeyou (talk) 09:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

From Better Eyesight magazine:

The following, however, is a list of those who have taken courses of instruction in the Bates Method within the past few months. So Bates at least permitted his magazine's editor to use that terminology.

Vision improvement techniques could have advanced since Bates (though it is questionable whether they have become more effective), but that doesn't change what the Bates method is. There is the Other methods section, which can be made as expansive as you want. But leave the rest of the article, including the introduction, to discussion of Bates and his specific theories and treatments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.223.23 (talk) 09:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

> Vision improvement techniques could have advanced since Bates but that doesn't change what the Bates method is. It does,, the batesmethod of today is not the same as the old one. See the back-cover of Relearning to See. First sentence : In this groundbreaking presentation of the Batesmethod, … So the publisher speaks about the presentation of the BATESMETHOD. But when you read this book you wont find for example the controversial theory of the focussing mechanism, direct sunlight sunning, claim to use imagining black for narcoses. In other words based on this publication the Batesmethod has changed. Since we are only editors, we should provide only sourced information. ( And not mix it with our own opinions ). This recentb 1997 publication proves the Batesmethod has changed. Seeyou (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And round and round and round we go... please, somebody make it stop! Famousdog (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

A NPOV definition of the Bates method must be derived only from the works of Bates himself, as the introduction to this article is. The claim that anything else is the Bates method, is POV, whether it comes from a book or not. Such can be dealt with in the "Other Methods" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.149.160.175 (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)