Talk:Bates method

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bates method article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24: 14 days

Bates method has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 19, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
December 3, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed
January 17, 2009	Good article nominee	Not listed
March 9, 2009	Peer review	Reviewed
April 6, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
Current status: Good article

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative medicine

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Bates Method Review

I believe that the article is very neutral and informative. However, there is always room for more information! Especially the topics that are shorter and passive. --157.252.162.94 (talk) 01:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One of the external links at the bottom needs to be updated. The Orfield article is now here. LaLeLiLou (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are likely a sock-puppet of Belteshazzar so we do not need to update anything. You are indef blocked here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Belteshazzar is still creating sock-puppets SixteenSquared and Small Jars Lack Gold although his tactic appears to now create throwaway accounts and not edit in months so it's not worth me filing an SPI. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have worked for me

(Title refactored, previously reading, "This is incredibly negative without any reason. I have improved my eyesight so much with the Bates method, I no longer use my glasses." --Hipal (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Research this in more depth before being discouraged. 31.60.2.187 (talk) 14:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's fantastic. I myself no longer have to wear my specs while driving, but I didn't use the Bates method, just the results of old age. I'm rather pleased that wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say, rather than some rando on the internetz. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 14:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This study found it was effective in elderly people: [1] 200.37.56.107 (talk) 03:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Roxy the dog, you're old? That's very disappointing. Drmies (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies In the Great Department Store of life, I'm in the elevator and the tinny little speaker is announcing, in that forced bright way, "Third floor, Senility, Dotage and Decomposition. Going Up" -Roxy the dog 19:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The citations in that paper are amazing.

My favorite part of that paper is where it explains "The eye is the sensory organ responsible for gathering visual stimuli to assist people in communicating with the world around them." and then cites that sentence to an electrical engineering textbook.

My second favorite part is the sentence "Eye exercises allow the eye muscles to move freely.", which is cited to a paper about designing robots based on insect physiology.

Most relevant is probably the line that says "Bates therapy is useful to restore visual acuity." that is referenced to a paper about gene therapy that doesn't seem to even mention the Bates Method.

What a joke. ApLundell (talk) 04:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

... but you did have an amusing few minutes doing due diligence, and I enjoyed your observations. Thank you very much. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 05:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My own favourite: "The Bates method has never been shown to improve eyesight in a substantial or long-term way" referenced to a paper on 'Effectiveness of slow back massage on quality of sleep among ICU patent’s [sic]'. -- Jmc (talk) 09:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "effected" to "affected" Undiine55 (talk) 22:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done: "Effected" WAS correct, compared to "affected" in this case. "A effected B" means that a caused b, while "A affected B" means that a had an influence on b. The intent here is the former.

That said, just saying "A caused B" is clearer and less prone to confusion, so I just did that. PianoDan (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd prefer to see us stick with 'effected', which signifies a directly applied action, while 'caused' can imply an eventually achieved result. -- Jmc (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]