Talk:Bates method/GA3

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
With some trepidation, I am going to try to review this article. I'll work my way through it, but there is one point I'd like to make at the start. The lead has a problem that is unfortunately common among articles that deal with fringe topics, which is that it is so careful to state that the method is not generally accepted, that it neglects to explain what the method actually is. I think that the paragraph about Aldous Huxley is not essential to the lead, but that it is essential to give some sort of overview of the methods that Bates recommended. I realize that the scattered nature of his ideas makes this challenging, but even so I don't think the lead will be adequate without it. Looie496 (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing this. In response to your concerns, I think that the method itself is adequately summarized in the first paragraph of the lead. The techniques were intended to undo a supposed habitual "strain" to see, and centered around visualization and movement. Anyone who wants to know about specific techniques can scroll down to the "Treatments" section.

I definitely think the paragraph about Huxley belongs in the lead. His case is probably the single most notable aspect of the subject, and the lead is supposed to summarize the article. PSWG1920 (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think that "visualization and movement" is descriptive enough -- you need to give the reader a more concrete sense of what the method involves -- say one sentence each for two of his most typical exercises. With over half the lead devoted to criticism, it should be possible to spare a little more space for description. Regarding Huxley, I'll buy what you're saying, but then I think you should make it more clear why his role is notable -- just using the method is not enough, you should make clear in the lead that he also advocated for it. Looie496 (talk) 03:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I've attempted to do both of those things. PSWG1920 (talk) 06:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(inserted) I'm happy with the lead now, and will move on to the body. Looie496 (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think A. Huxley belongs in the intoduction. Don't forget this article is about two differnt subjects. The Bates method and Natural Vision Improvement. Aldous Huxley is just one single person who also expermented with LSD ! This might very well explain his strange behaviour. ( It might also very well have influenced his eyesight, just like alcohol. ) Since Looie496 probably is not aware this article is also about NVI. You have got a strong live argument for a title change. The given only available definitions make clear the BM and NVI are not exactly the same. If Huxley stays his experimenting with drugs must be mentioned also. Original research is also not mentioning important details. In my opinion Woods is far more interesting to mention in the introduction, because the controversy is then immediatly explained. Less than 2 % are succesful. Seeyou (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looie496, what is your motivation to help improving this article ? I appreciate it, don;t get me wrong, just curious. Seeyou (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a neuroscientist and currently maintainer of WikiProject Neuroscience, and my interest is for Wikipedia to have good, useful articles about science-related topics. Huxley belongs because he is very famous as the writer of Brave New World and The Doors of Perception. Regarding NVI, I am not going to review the article on that basis. If an article on NVI requires different material than an article on the Bates method, it needs a separate article. I am going to review this as an article about the Bates method and nothing else. Looie496 (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great first problem found. Read the RFC about this subject. [1]. Seeyou (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm impressed. I have got a very interesting question for you. Q1: Do you think the mind can change the brain. Or do you think the brain can change the mind. Or do you think they are completly equal ? This is a very important question because in my opinion NVI is mind over body. And the mind plays a very important role in the NVI proces. Seeyou (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Q2 :Don't you think it is important to mention Aldous Huxley experimented with LSD since the early 50's. Seeyou (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, since NVI has its roots in (and some would say is simply a re-branding of) the Bates method (with a few minor changes), the current title should stick. Secondly, speaking as a vision scientist, the mind is the brain. So asking if "the mind can change the brain" is tautological. The mind can change the state of a person's vision by, for example, closing the eyelidss, sticking a finger in the eye, or putting on glasses. What you are actually asking is whether relaxation techniques can permanently alter conditions such as myopia or amblyopia. This is highly unlikely. Finally, Seeyou, your insistence on mentioning Huxley's LSD use seems to me to be an attempt to dismiss the valid and important concerns that observations on his eyesight raise. That's referred to as a "smear." Famousdog (talk) 13:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey this is strange. I ask a question to Looie496 and my friend famousdog answers. I hope Looie496 will answer my questions since s/he is doing the review. Seeyou (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Seeyou: (2) Re first problem: Whether NVI should redirect here is outside my mandate to consider. (2) Re I'm impressed: Stick to the topic, please. We are not discussing whether NVI is valid here, we are discussing the article. (3) Re Q2: Since Huxley wrote his book in 1942, I don't see the relevance of his later experimentation with hallucinogens (mainly mescaline rather than LSD, if I remember correctly). Looie496 (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether NVI should redirect here is outside my mandate to consider.==> Pity. FYI. I am going to ask the arbitration committee to make a statement regarding this subject. It will be the first subject in the list of Original research.

Looie496 said I'm impressed: Stick to the topic, please. ==> What is wrong in being honest ?Seeyou (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looie496 said : whether NVI is valid here, we are discussing the article. ==> Which is according to wikipedia also NVI. I admit it's complex, but it can be very easily solved when we don't allow original research.Seeyou (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looie496 said ; Since Huxley wrote his book in 1942, I don't see the relevance of his later experimentation with hallucinogens (mainly mescaline rather than LSD, if I remember correctly). ==> First Bias will be unevitable. Very clearly explained by retracer. Second Huxley is just one single person with a very serious eyecondition. Woods is far more interesting since woods involves 103 representative people. Also the Woods experiment explains the controversy. Very few people are succesful, Some even make their eyesight worse ! For ophthahlmology it is impossible to use these kind of results. So it explains why ophthalmology is n't interested. From the scientific and informative point of view Woods is far more interesting. And since modern BM/NVI teachers also mention nutrition as a factor for eyesight. Huxley's LSD experiment reveals the BM and NVI of today are unequal. Seeyou (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way as a neuro-scientist are n't you also interested in the mechanism behind NVI ? Shouldn't this subject also be mentioned in the article ? Seeyou (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accomodation

This section could use an illustration. Do you think this one would be helpful?
"Reaffirmed" is not the right word. How about "advocated"?
"which were not reproduced independently" is ambiguous. It could mean that nobody ever tried, or that people tried and failed. The reality, as I understand it, is that Bates's claims are inconsistent with experimental data collected by others, but it isn't clear to me exactly what this sentence is saying or how the source supports it. Also I'm not keen on the Quackwatch source -- the Duke-Elder textbook would be better.
There really must be a better source for the statement that many animals focus by changing eyeball shape. I can probably find a better one myself if you have problems here. Looie496 (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looked around a bit -- PMID 16172892 looks like a great source for this. Looie496 (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That illustration might work, but I'm not sure how much it explains. I'm not sure about "advocated", maybe just "affirmed"? The point is that that part was not Bates' own original idea. In regards to the "Quackwatch source", the source is actually a book (apparently now out-of-print) by an optometrist, Quackwatch is just reproducing a chapter from it. In regards to the statement about animals' eyes, that is actually a very recent addition to the article, and I'm not entirely sure if that's actually recognized as true. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the illustration would show readers the muscles that Bates is writing about. I see your point re reaffirmed -- the sentence felt awkward to me, so I think something should be done, but my solution might not be the right one. For the Quackwatch source, how about referencing the book and providing the Quackwatch site as url for it? For the eyeball shape, I'll look at the paper I pointed to the next time I'm in the lab -- can't download it at home -- and see whether it supports the statement in the article. (This is the sort of thing I enjoy.) Looie496 (talk) 02:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"how about referencing the book and providing the Quackwatch site as url for it?" That is exactly what the article is already doing. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Accommodation subsection is a bit tricky. There's a lot we could explain, but I really don't think it would be of interest to general readers. Summarizing, however, can be problematic as well, since explanations are left out. Maybe it should be condensed even further to avoid ambiguous statements. But then we shouldn't downplay the apparently faulty scientific basis for the Bates method (multiple editors previously expressed concern that the article was doing that, see here for example, and I did my best to fix that.) PSWG1920 (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty decent as is. I've been looking at Bates's book, and he spends infinite space on this topic, so I think it's appropriate for the article to deal with it. As I go on with the article, I'll think about whether it might be possible to be a bit more decisive here, given the far more detailed state of knowledge now than when Bates (or even Huxley) were writing. Looie496 (talk) 02:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Causes of sight problems

Sorry, I got distracted for a while; back in action now.

"Medical professionals characterize..." This sentence is very likely correct, but it cites a 1956 book and the quotations come from the 1940s. It would be nice to cite something much more recent, such as a modern textbook.
- If we can't find a current quality source for that, would it be better just to delete the sentence? It seems possible that that is so taken for granted nowadays that it's not often explicitly stated. Or maybe it is seen as less certain now, I don't know. PSWG1920 (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a copy-edit to the section, not changing the meaning of anything I hope. Looie496 (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Treatments

"first temporarily and then, according to him, permanently" I don't understand this -- doesn't it just mean permanently, in effect?
- I've removed that phrase. The intent was to reflect that Bates believed that improvement could go as quickly as it came, but maybe that was a bit too complicated here. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"However, the purported benefits..." I think the material from this point to the end of the paragraph should be moved later, as it talks about techniques that have not yet been described.
- Done. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Palming: I've modified the last sentence, which was not quite accurate.
Visualization: The first two sentences here are so poorly written that I can't understand them well enough to copy-edit them. The problem in the 2nd sentence is the word "poise", which I don't understand. The first sentence is simply ill-formed.
- I simplified the first sentence. As for "poise", that basically means relaxation. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Movement I don't know whether any sources discuss it, but it's clear that the "swinging" method is certain to activate the vestibulo-ocular reflex, which will cause the eyes to move counter to the head motion, in a way that can't be consciously controlled.
- I haven't seen any source which discusses this in connection with the Bates method. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sunning Perhaps this section should state a bit more strongly that all modern authorities consider that the UV exposure caused by staring directly at the sun can easily lead to permanent eye damage.
- Actually it may not be true that it can easily cause permanent damage. See the beginning of Sun#Observation and eye damage. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This may be OR, but it occurs to me that a couple of Bates's methods are likely to actually work, on a short-term basis anyway. Closing your eyes for a while is an excellent way to relieve eye-strain, especially if you've been doing a lot of close-up work. Also, staring near the sun or any other bright light will cause the pupils to contract, which will make the eye more like a pinhole camera. An ideal pinhole camera has perfect focus at all distances (its disadvantage is that the closer to a pinhole you get, the dimmer the resulting image). Thus, it seems possible that "sunning" may temporarily improve the sharpness of vision, at the cost of reducing the ability to see in dim light.
- These effects are noted, to the extent which they are sourced, in the "Claimed success" section. However, in regards to their relationship to specific techniques, it seems that many of the dots have been left unconnected by the sources we have, and WP:OR prevents us from connecting them ourselves. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "criticism" material from the first paragraph should be moved to the bottom here, perhaps in a section of its own. Looie496 (talk) 02:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems to be the same point raised above. If so, I have done that. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accomodation again

How about this for an illustration? (It's used in the ciliary muscle article.) Looie496 (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't appear to show the extraocular muscles. Any illustration for this section should probably show both the internal and external muscles of the eye. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last sentence

I don't understand what the final sentence ("It may further be necessary for a child at risk of developing lazy eye to wear the proper correction.") says that the sentence previous to it doesn't say. Looie496 (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Grierson source, the wearing of the correct glasses is only one of several conventional treatments for children who have conditions which can lead to amblyopia. The point is that an anti-glasses attitude can be particularly dangerous in this instance. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Passing

After another thorough reading, I'm going to pass this article now. I think it's still well short of perfect, and I have special concerns about its stability, but it is certainly useful and comprehensive, and I don't think it will lead any reader seriously astray -- so in my view it meets the criteria. Looie496 (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]