[[Category:Wikipedia Mediation Cabal closed cases|]][[Category:Wikipedia Mediation Cabal maintenance|]]
Request details
Who are the involved parties?
Ronz
Hopefully famousdog and PSWG1920 will also contribute.
What's going on?
I have created this cabalcase for the following reason. It is about adding a link to the external links for further reading.
This link represents the current 2008 conclusion of ophthalmology today about the ability to improve eyesight naturally. The conclusion of the report :
There is level I evidence that visual training for control of accommodation has no effect on myopia. In other studies (level II/III evidence), an improvement in subjective visual acuity for patients with myopia who have undertaken visual training has been shown but no corresponding physiological cause for the improvement has been demonstrated. The improvements in myopic patients noted in these studies have been postulated to be due to improvements in interpreting blurred images, changes in mood or motivation, creation of an artificial contact lens by tear film changes, or a pinhole effect from miosis of the pupil. No evidence was found that visual training has any effect on the progression of myopia. No evidence was found that visual training improves visual function for patients with hyperopia or astigmatism. No evidence was found that visual training improves vision lost through disease processes such as age-related macular degeneration, glaucoma, or diabetic retinopathy.
When you compare all the references in the article this is the most professional and accurate one. So it is very strange the skeptics do not want it in the list.
Makes you wonder why.
Rons argument is that the link is not about the bates method. Not True. Bates is mentioned in the refereces of the report. And the argument itself is not an argument. What is also important to note : this article is not only about Bates method it also about natural vision improvement. The article subject is Bates method and it is Natural vision improvement. Natural vision improvement redirects to Bates method article as you can see below :
Again the argument of not Bates related is double invalid. Bates is mentioned in the references and the the subject of this article is also about Natural vision improvement.
The reason might be the report also shows positive results. Which is unique there is at this moment no other reliable source representing positive results. Maybe this is the real reason why the skeptics do not want it listed. It makes the unreliable testimonials much more acceptable. Note again a reliable source shows positive results. They could also very easily neglected this info, but they did n’t.
Another reason people reading this info might start asking questions to their opthalmologist. It is speculation but I think ophthalmology is involved in editing this article. I can’t prove it of course. Look for example how many edits PSWG1920 is making in this article.
Ronz on talk page : > hoping it might be used as a ref, but I don't see how. This also makes clear Ronz is not really involved in this article because he doesn’t even know the link is mentioned in the introduction and the paragraph ophthalmological research.
Note also : normally ophthalmology completely ignores W.H. Bates. Compare the link also with the link below currently accepted in the list the date 1952.
http://brain.berkeley.edu/pub/1952%20April%20Flashes%20of%20Clear%20Vision.pdf
Not really an easy to read document. Written by only one person. The AAO link represents the opinion of an institute and is much much clearer. So in my opinion a simple cabalcase.
What would you like to change about that?
Mediator notes
Other cabal cases. Which can be helpful to understand about what is really going on regarding this article. For example censor of the discussionpage. Or a blocked multiple IP Adress who added the E. Marg link.
Administrative notes
Informed Ronz see :
For the mediator in the past Ronz completely ignores cabalcases.
Discussion
Copy from the talkpage : ==>
Another one for Further reading
I removed the following, since it doesn't even mention Bates method by name. I read through it, hoping it might be used as a ref, but I don't see how. --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
[2] American Academy of Ophthalmology : Complementary Therapy Assessments: Visual Training for Refractive Errors 2008 Slightly to my surprise, I find myself in complete agreement with Ronz about that. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Absurd removal. Read the references. You will find W.H. Bates. This article is about the Bates method and / or Natural vision improvement. If there is a number one reliable link and source in this article. This is the source and this the link. Read also the paragraph unique in the paragraph opthalmological research in the archive. Seeyou (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC) I re-added the link. You both do not understand and know there is article bates method and there is a article natural vision improvement. If we editors say these subjects are different we have to change the article natural vision improvement. See the link :
Maybe it is a good idea to separate Natural vision improvement from the Bates method article. : - ). It is true Natural vision improvement and Bates method are not the same. See the available definitions of Thomas Quackenbush and Janet Goodrich. !Seeyou (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Instead of ignoring all other editors perspectives on the issue, in violation of WP:CON, please respect your fellow editors and follow WP:DR. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC) I do not understand can you explain ? Seeyou (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC) My initial inclination was to agree with Ronz and SamuelTheGhost here, but after some reflection I now tend to think Seeyou is correct on this. Natural Vision Improvement does redirect to Bates method, and the third section is Modern variants, so this article is not only about the Bates method per se. Now, there is some merit to the idea of making Natural Vision Improvement into a separate article, but quite a bit of overlap would inevitably occur, and content forking would be an issue. In light of that, the AAO report does seem to me to meet the Further reading section guidelines of "covering the topic beyond the scope of the article" and "having significant usefulness beyond verification of the article". So at this point my vote is to re-add it to Further Reading. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- * * copy of the talkpage * * * * * * * * * * * *
I'll explain my view. The AAO report is about "visual training". There's no coherence in the various techniques covered, and no indication that the training was carried out by people who believed in it or wanted it to work. Since an admitted key element in the Bates approach is the psychological one, the attitude of the teacher can be crucial. What was covered was a hotch-potch of methods, some of which might be benefical, some neutral, some harmful (by increasing "stress" in the Bates sense). Where statistically significant positive results were obtained the article uses weasel words to discount them. The "objective" criterion of whether you can see clearly is whether you can see clearly, not how it shows up on optometrists' instruments. The final conclusion, "There is level I evidence that visual training for control of accommodation has no effect on myopia" is just a lie, since the failure to find a significant effect is by no means a proof that no effect exists. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC) You are right, Sammy, the failure to find a statistical difference is not "proof". It is, however, "evidence" (or "support") for the lack of an effect, which is what the quote from the AAO report says! Let me reiterate: "There is level I evidence that visual training for control of accommodation has no effect on myopia" (my emphasis). Once again, science's major strength (its conservatism) is used against it! Famousdog (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- * * end of the talkpage * * * * * * * * * * * *
My reply : They are avoiding the subject completely and they completely ignore the mentioned facts and arguments. We wikipedia editors provide information for the public. Information based on reliable references. If there should be one reliable source regarding bates method or Natural vision improvement it is and must be Ophthalmology. And we have got one reference of ophthalmology and it is removed. Unacceptable. Seeyou (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- For the record. Seeyou has slandered SamuelTheGhost and Famousdog's very interesting discussion of what constitutes scientific evidence as "nonsense". This is not "nonsense," defining what we accept as evidence is crucial to accepting or rejecting Bates' hypotheses. More evidence that Seeyou only cares about his own opinion and has no respect for empirical data. Famousdog (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- See discussionpage of this cabalcase to read some common sense. Seeyou (talk) 10:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- (Sigh) Famousdog (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- See discussionpage of this cabalcase to read some common sense. Seeyou (talk) 10:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
You must be logged in to post a comment.