# Talk:Bates method

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)

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)
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)
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)

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

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)
This study found it was effective in elderly people: [1] 200.37.56.107 (talk) 03:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
User:Roxy the dog, you're old? That's very disappointing. Drmies (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
... 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)
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)

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

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)