Talk:Tibetan eye chart

message: Several sources have been added to the article (), yet I am not completely sure that they would count as reliable... In more detail:
# Brotherhood of Life (2001). Tibetan Therapeutic Eye Chart. .
#: The description on the "Google Book search" seems to indicate that its a chart itself (including instructions). Furthermore, "Brotherhood of Life" seems to be a bookshop... Doesn't look like a very reliable source, although maybe it might be good enough to give the shapes...
# Forleo, James (2008). Health Is Simple, Disease Is Complicated: A Systems Approach to Vibrant Health. North Atlantic Books. pp. 413. .
#: This one is a book, but the "Google Scholar" seems to find nothing else written by the author and that does raise suspicions that this one isn't going to be a reliable source either... Also much of the text provided seems to be instructions of use.
# Denton, Gail (2007). Brainlash: Maximize Your Recovery from Mild Brain Injury. Demos Medical Publishing. pp. 223-226. .
#: That's a little more likely to be a reliable source... It does seem to have a review, and even some sort of citation in a journal article (although, given that the conclusion of the abstract concerns the non-existance of standards of dealing with some sort of brain injury, or its definition, that might not say much). Still, the part of the book available through the "Google Book search" seems to have less than one half of a page dedicated to this eye chart. Even worse, that material only includes usage instructions (thus nothing to confirm that it was invented by monks). It also seems to note that there is another page (unavailable for preview) in appendix. Yet it looks like it's going to include the chart itself...
# Icon Group International, Inc. Staff (2008). Correctives: Webster’s Quotations, Facts and Phrases. pp. 424-425. .
#: It seems to reuse lots of Wikipedia's content. While the part of the entry itself (where citation would be expected to be provided) is not accessible through "Google Book search", it seems likely that it is going to cite this very article. Thus using this source would probably mean using the article to cite itself - and, as we know, Wikipedia, while useful, is not reliable.
# Angart, Leo (2008). Improve Your Eyesight Naturally: Easy, Effective, See Results Quickly. Saffire Press. pp. 89-90. .
#: Once again, "Google Scholar" only finds books by this author - no articles... Also, while "Google Book search" does find something about the eye chart in this book, it finds nothing about the monks. Thus it doesn't seem to support the statement "According to them, it can be used to [...]".
# Rotte, Joanna; Koji Yamamoto (1986). Vision: A Holistic Guide to Healing the Eyesight. University of Michigan: Japan Publications. pp. 147. .
#: The snippets available through "Google Books search" would probably indicate that there is one paragraph (three sentences) about the chart. The monks do seem to be mentioned, but the source does not seem to claim that "According to them, it can be used to train the muscles and nerves [...]"... The relationship with University of Michigan seems unclear, Amazon.com and "Google Book search" give the publisher as "Japan Publications". I failed to find out enough about authors or publisher to decide if the source can be considered to be reliable.
In summary, the sources recommending "alternative medicine" are a little unlikely to be reliable... And if there are some reliable sources on the subject, I would expect them to be related to cultural studies. After all, the really interesting questions are "When was this chart invented?" or "How is it related to the traditions and religion of Tibet?", aren't they? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, let's discuss the matter and we'll see. Could you please explain in a little more detail why you think that those sources are reliable? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since almost a month has passed without an explanation, I am going to tag those sources again. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

text:  It doesn't matter if they are reliable sources. Wikipedia is only claiming that the "Tibetan Eye chart was _allegedly_ created by Tibetan monks." A statement shouldn't be both alleged and from an unreliable source--that is redundant. Since this does not seem to be a scientific fact, I vote that we remove the "unreliable source" tags and leave in "allegedly."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.31.118 (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources