User:Seeyou

"You cannot by reasoning correct a man of ill opinion which by reasoning he never acquired." He might have gone a step further and stated that neither by reasoning, nor by actual demonstration of the facts, can you convince some people that an opinion which they have accepted on authority is wrong. Quote W.H. Bates page 304 Perfect Eyesight without glasses.

Accommodation is a law as certain as the law of gravity. Yet most of us don’t trust the law because of self-doubt or confusion. You may wonder, Can I really become good at this. Will I be able to accomplish my goal Will I find succes. A more useful question is not Can I, but rather how can I. Progress is mechanical : If you practice something over time with attention and commitment to improve, you will. ^[1] Quote Dan Millman.

• [1] Is myopia hereditary ?

What is the statement of opthalmology ?

• [2]

Myopia is generally hereditary. Seeyou notes  : They don't say it's hereditary they suggest it is hereditary.

• [3]

Refractive errors occur when there is a mismatch between the length of the eye and its optical power. These mismatches usually originate during childhood and are thought to be affected by both hereditary and environmental influences. Seeyou notes  : They don't say it's hereditary they suggest it is hereditary.

• [4]

Myopia is Myopia is usually a hereditary condition that is detected during childhood and continues to worsen until it finally stabilizes, usually in adulthood. Seeyou notes  : They don't say it's hereditary they suggest it is hereditary.

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15008556

The increasing prevalence appears to be due to environmental changes involving near work, rather than to a genetic failure of emmetropisation ( = normal eye ).

The Bates method is not about science it is about politics. Quote from the talkpage of the Bates method article.

• [5]

• [6]

• [7]

For arbitration. Go to one of the biggest bookstore [[8]]. Do a search on Bates method. Check the selling rate. Unanswered Q : Why can't one of the biggest authorities menioned ?

See : [9]

List of Original research ( OR ) in the Bates method ant Natural vision improvement article.

Introduction. Since we wikipedia editors can be anybody. The only sources we can use for our articles are references. Books are in my opinion the best source since they can’t change after they are published. Websites are second best since the public can verify them very easily. Decisions on what should be mentioned must be based on references, arguments, weight, balance of sources ( skeptics versus advocates) , policies and guidelines. Publishing the opinion of a single editor or a group of similar editors should be unacceptable. In other words Original research should should be absolutly forbidden.

Original can be created very easy. See [10] an example of how easy original research can happen. May be this example should be used in a guideline.

Advice : Arbitrators, please focus on facts and behaviour of my felloweditors and me to improve the content of the articles.

If only one reference describing a subject is available. There does n’t have to be any discussion unless another reference is provided. The discussion is simple this source should be used. Since the Arbitration Committee will not make editorial statements or decisions about how articles should read ("content decisions"), and users should not ask the Committee to make these kinds of decisions, as it will not do so. I will give the example and then will ask a general question regarding the example.

Hopefully your answer will direct us in a direction so we can move on.

Note : It was Seeyou who initially wanted involvement of Arbitration. The argument of Jeske which led to this case is in my opinion invalid.

Q 0. Do you also state that seeyou accusses any of his felloweditors according to this reference [11]

The Original research problems connected to the behaviour ( meaning ignorance of references and sources and logic ) of my fellow editors.

The Natural vision improvement article is about Natural vision improvement. We have one source available describing NVI. Below the source and the definition.

According to Janet Goodrich :

Natural Vision Improvement : A lifestyle method of improving eyesight by wholistic means without the use of optical devices. The Bates method merged with modern theories of brain function, character and responsibility for one’s self and state of being..^[2]</blockquote

At this moment this is the only available reference. The reference makes clear the BM and NVI are not equal. By redirecting the NVI article to the BM article the suggestion is made NVI equals BM. This is Original research. Currently wikipedia states the BM and NVI are equal.

I have asked my felloweditors to provide an other reference. They did not provide.

• Q1.1. : When there is only one reference available and there are no arguments provided to neglect this reference, Can this reference then completely be ignored ?

• Q1.2.: Is it OR when the opinions of editor(s) are presented and notable reference(s), stating something different, are ignored ?

• Q1.3. : References regarding controversial subjects can have a advocate source and they can have a skeptic source. Should these source be equally balanced in a article or can only authority and skeptic sources be used ?

• Q1.4. :To determine which advocate source should be used. Are selling rates of a advocate book a valid tool to determine how much weight they should have to be used as for reference(s). (Some bookstore on the www show selling rates )

For further details / info history see [12]

Case 2 of x Showing Bates graphical explanation of his maintheory

[edit]

The picture below is published by Bates in his book : Perfect eyesight without glasses. It is present quite early in his book, since according to Bates patients ( today students ) only have to get rid of the tension of the external eyemuscles so the eye returns to it original normal perfect shape. ( emmetropic eye ). Later in his book he explains how patients can achieve this.

The picture which it is about. See this link [13]

The reasons why this picture can not become part of the article. See the discussion [14] There has also been a RFC request. See [15]

Read how the discussion went ! Focus on facts and real arguments. Suggestions about backgrounds.

To my feffoweditors, How can the public verify the background of a wikipedia editor ?

Seeyou’s opinion : Not really a high level discussion I am afraid. My felloweditors completely ignore Bates method of explaining and mix it with their opinion or understanding.

• Q2.1 : Should suggestions about the background of an editor become forbidden, because the public and felloweditors have no tool to verify if this is really true ?

To my felloweditors, Do authorities always speak the truth ?

However something positive resulted in the discussion. Seeyou and PSWG1921 agree on this :

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

See the last sentence [16]

Suppose this article was about someone stating our earth is flat and s/he would use a picture to show. Would this picture then also be ignored ? I don’t think so. The proof. See Flat_earth

According to [17] Describe the controversy An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. Remember to ask the question, "How can this controversy best be described?" It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all comers; it is our job to be fair to all sides of a controversy. The situation : A creator of a certain point of view or theory uses a image to explain his theory.

• Q2.2. : When is OR present in a article and when is no OR present in a article?

The situations :

• A. The editors create their own picture and show their picture in the article.
• B. The editors state they don’t understand the picture. ( Ronz)
• C. The editors use the exact picture of the creator to be as accurate as possible.
• D. The editors state it is to complicated to explain ( PSWG1921 )

Note : D is the current argument. Well we have an accepted authority regarding the subject of accommodation. It can be very easily solved by showing Bates picture and the authority picture. See both pictures [18] Note also the picture is correct about the shape of the eyeballs. A myopic eye and a farsighted eye have a differently shaped eyeball. Seeyou and PSWG1921 do agree on this. What is incorrect about bates picture can be explained textual with references. Note : Bates accommodationtheory is the most important part of his method. Myopia is the biggest problem today regarding eyesight. Do not underestimate the dangers of myopia.

• Q2.3. : Are wikipedia editors more or less forced to use the same picture, the creator(s) used, to avoid any form of bias, resulting in OR ?

Case 3 of x Showing Bates sunning picture

[edit]

The picture it is about. See : [19] Note : also the open eyelid sunning picture is accepted without any problems. This picture is correct but is far less interesting since open eyelid sunning is not found in any book about NVI or the BM published today. And Bates made a statement in his later Better Eyesight magazine. Quote Bates on 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.^[3]

Note Bates says : it is the light rays which benefit the eyes rather than the heat rays. Note : Bates talks about closed eyelids and he said it in 1924. His book promoting sunning was published in 1921. Note : also : Books published today about NVI or the BM do not show any picture regarding open eyelidsunning. Only closed eyelidsunning. The situation : When editors emphasize on information which can be very easily misinterpretted and can be very easy used to ridicule a subject and do not present the figure of his explanation of his maintheory.

• Q3.1. Does the article then show the wikipedia wished Neutral point of view ?

Note : There is also a danger in showing this picture on wikipedia. Some people have trouble reading, but blindly believe in Bates his theory. Seeyou’s question to his felloweditors : Why is the sunning picture accepted and why is fig 4 about bates maintheory unacceptable. My advice be short and very clear.

• Q3.2 : Can (dangerous) pictures be shown in wikipedia, or is it the responsibility of editors to act wisely regarding this danger ? ( Some people have trouble reading)
• Q3.3: Does a article show neutral point of view when some pictures can be shown and other pictures can not be shown ?

Case 4 of x mentioning the best found authority point of view in the external link section

[edit]

The link below can not be mentioned in the external link section. ( Source the American academy of Ophthalmology )

• [20] Visual training for refractive errors. Source the American Academy of ophthalmology.

The reason according to my felloweditors : it is already a reference in the article. Note : Seeyou introduced this link. This authoritylink ( represents at least say 1000 specialists ) regarding a controversial subject The link makes a lot of statements, provides a lot of date for further and future research and improvement of the article.

• Q4.1 : Is it logical to leave a very important authority link almost unnoticed regarding the subject. is it okay to leave this link hidden in a enormous reference list ?

Note : The link needs further investigation. Note : Ophthalmology states in their conclusion : no corresponding physiological cause for the improvement has been demonstrated. They might indirectly talking about the shape of the eyeball. So they might make indirectly state the Bates maintheory is not demonstrated. Quite an important link in my opinon. Note also they do not make a clear statement regarding the BM. They do not state the BM is pseudoscience. Pseudoscience was mentioned for quite a while in the header of this infobox.

Case 5 of x the header of the infobox

[edit]

This header has been changed very recently. See [21] Question to be asked : Is there a connection between this arbitration case ? Note the header is still OR since no reference is provided. Seeyou thinks after arbitration has ended the infobox will return to the headertext pseuoscience.

• Q5.1 Can the subject of any article given a label via the infobox, without provdiding the reference validating the given label ?

Past Progress with fellow editors

[edit]

Some examples of famousdog contributions to the bates method article.

• [22]

( scroll completly down, famousdog lists the batesmethod under Pseudoscience ! )

• [23]

( famousdog saying the mind is the brain ?! )

Take a look at this video on youtube : [24] Q : Did her mind change her brain or changed her mind her brain ? The essence of BM/NVI is about mind over body. Completely ignored by my felloweditors !

• [25]

( great contribution but \martin Garder was not an Optometrists or ophthalmologists but a popular American mathematics and science writer ) ( And there is / should be an authority regarding this subject. Unanswered Q : Why is ophthalmology so vague regarding the BM/NVI ? )

• [26]

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

• [27]

( famosudog editing published information )

• [28]

( famousdog showing no respect to an editor )

• [29]

( 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)

Arbitration

[edit]

The arbitration process within the Wikipedia community exists to impose binding solutions to Wikipedia disputes that neither communal discussion, administrators, nor mediation have been able to resolve.

The Committee accepts cases related to editors' conduct (including improper editing) where all other routes to agreement have failed, and makes rulings to address problems in the editorial community. However it will not make editorial statements or decisions about how articles should read ("content decisions"), and users should not ask the Committee to make these kinds of decisions, as it will not do so.

Q1 to Arbitration Committee : Does wikipedia represent the opinion of the dominant editors of an article or is the content of wikipedia articles based on written published reliable notable serious references which can be verified by anyone ? ( the opinion of the dominant editors of an article since none of them is able to provide another reference defining natural vision improvement ! )

Referecnes

[edit]

• quackenbush goodrich mansfield schneider result google : [30]
• vision therapy [31]
• healing crisis [32]
• agarwal [33]

Evidence about the real disruptive behaviour

[edit]

• [34]
• [35]

Was there really a discussion about content taking place. Money walks stupid talks.

If this article stays opinion based it will never reach a normal degree of quality.

1. ^ {{ | publisher=new world library, Novano California | title=Complementary Body mind mastery | Isbn 1-57731-094-2}}
2. ^ Goodrich, Janet. (1986). Natural vision improvement. Cellestialarts. p. 211. ISBN 0-89087-471-9.
3. ^ Quackenbush, Thomas R. (2000). Better Eyesight: The Complete Magazines of William H. Bates. North Atlantic Books. pp. page 299. ISBN 1-55643-351-4. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)