Talk:Strabismus

message: The article reads as if the causes are understood, but research is ongoing. Only with very specific types have the causes been identified.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:45D0:5820:A3:88C8:AA14:6196 (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Causes

message: I edited the image caption, but I'm not sure what I put is exactly accurate either.  It could use some consideration.  Strabismus does not prevent my eyes from focusing on a single point.  I can still do that.  I can also focus them on different points, however, if I choose.  Maybe it does prevent for some people, so there's probably a better way of wording still. Chaleur (talk) 02:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Image Caption

message: I suppose that this page has been vandalized! I'm talking about the "alternative names" section at the start. If that is not vandalism, then it is at best a very unencyclopedic way to write an article (not necessarily because of the content, but at least because it shouldn't "switch tones" like that, between talking seriously and not so seriously. Leave the "synonyms" for the end of the article, at least.. user:guruclef
:The section has been cleaned up and remains stable at its current location. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 11:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the original post. The variants crossed-eye, lazy-eye and walleye should be changed to esotropia, amblyopia and exotropia, respectively. That said, lazy eye (amblyopia) itself is NOT a variant of strabismus. Amblyopia often causes strabismus, but not everyone with amblyopia has divergent or convergent eyes. Even the cited reference (Merriam-Webster) makes no mention of lazy eye or amblyopia.  Furthermore, there is no reason to call out the variants in the opening paragraph.  Variants are addressed in detail within the article.128.158.1.165 (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism?

message: "When strabismus is congenital or develops in infancy, it can cause amblyopia, in which the brain ignores input from the deviated eye although it is capable of normal sight." This is standard fare from the literature, I believe, although the description falls a little short of completeness. According to a pamphlet  from the American Optometric Association the "amblyopic eye is never blind in the sense of being entirely without sight." Further, the condition "affects only the central vision of the affected eye. Peripheral awareness will remain the same."
Those with strabismus and amblyopia report a variety of subjective experiences. As someone with divergent strabismus (one eye pointing out), I have a wider field of view and "better" peripheral vision than that of a person whose eyes point straight forward. It is possible the brain is "switching" between the images and thus "turning off" one of the eye. Even if this is the case, persistence of vision or some such effect leaves me with a continuous image from both eyes with no awareness of "flickering", loss of vision in one eye, or the like. There is some double vision (diploplia) near the center as well as weaker vision in one eye. 
To get to the point of this personal story as it relates to this article:
I've read posts at strabismus message boards that describe experiences similar to mine, but I've yet to find scientific literature that explains the subjective experience of the condition with great accuracy. As a child my ophthalmologist, one of the most prominent in the field at the time, *told* me what I was experiencing without asking me to describe what I saw. To this day I haven't met an ophthalmologist or optometrist who understands the subjective experience well, though certainly there must be a few doctors who have the condition themselves. Nonetheless I suspect that the literature is somewhat wanting. This article at Wikipedia may be a good place to collect and summarize information about those subjective experiences. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.113.111.37 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 30 January 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not without sources it isn't! The problem of the subjective experience not being adequately covered in the ophthalmology literature cannot be solved by Wikipedia, which itself depends on that literature. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 11:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I also have divergent strabismus, and I have exactly the same feeling. I *know* my weak eye is seeing everything, but it's not really focusing on anything. People find it odd when I say some things like "I'm looking at you with my left eye, and now I'm looking at you with my right eye!".—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Feliperijo (talk • contribs) 02:09, 6 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeap, that's what I did and told to my friends. And most of them, if not all, were confused and had no idea what I was talking about. In my opinion, this article is incomplete and certain parts are quite confusing. — Yurei-eggtart 16:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To the extent that it can be edited to reword and explain better without removing source information, and to add more sourced information, then just do it.  Wikipedia cannot be a repository of unsourced material about personal perception and anecdotes. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 11:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Curently the enforcement of the patch is being dropped. The 4-7 years old children, those supposed to wear those patches, are loking for every moment when they can free the dominant eye, being pressured by the other children (booing and/or feeling of being different) and by the fact that they can't really see with the other eye. The child is brought into wearing the patch for short periods of time, while distracting their attention and forcing them to use the invalid eye with a solicitng activity, such as Lego, in a familiar environment. Then, after a quite long accomodation period, the child is getting used with the patch and is wearing it without problems.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luci Sandor (talk • contribs) 14:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Eye patches are more a matter for amblyopia, so if eye patch usage is declining that would probably better be addressed at that article. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 11:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Eye patches

message: Would it be possible to redirect some search terms here, namely the ones stated at the beginning of the article: "heterotropia", "squint", "crossed eye", "wandering eye", or "wall eyed" since using this specific term may render some people from finding the article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mark272 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirects from other terms

message: * 85% of adult strabismus patients "reported that they had problems with work, school and sports because of their strabismus". 
* The same study also reported that 70% said strabismus "had a negative effect on their self-image" [1].
I have a quite severe exotropia (about 30 degrees) and I had no idea I was supposed to be so disturbed by it. For various reasons I swap which eye I am using depending on the task or situation, whcih also means that no one ever really knows where I am looking; for example in group situations sometimes someone will try to "catch my eye" when I am already looking straight at them. The descriptions above of seeing but not seeing with the eye I'm not "looking at" sound just like how I describe what I see.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.63.58.240 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you hate taking pictures? Don't you hate it when people look behind them while you're talking just because that they're confused of what exactly you looking at? Well yeah, one thing special about having strabismus is that you're able to control which eye to use. Other than that, it's been giving me much frustration, and I hate taking pictures. — Yurei-eggtart 16:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal experiences

message: I changed the text to its orginal text because it is a citation. What Morgan Wright is saying is personal opinion. ( a opinion which proves in my opinion you do understand the value of the published information ) To avoid everyone can say everything he or she wants the source should also be given so it can be checked.
By the way Morgan Wright a lot of people think that a for example a lazy eye is connected to being lazy. This is not true according most bates teachers. They say tensed eye is far closer to the truth. And relaxation is the thing to do. See Bates method in wikipedia. Why is the wikibook of W.H. Bates removed in this article ? I think articles should contain as many information as possibel as long as the published sources can be checked. Seeyou 21:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bates method

message: Of most famous persons there are so many pictures and often other cameraproducts available, that everybody can see, if not has seen, that the person has strabismus. Isn't it a bit like asking for sources about the statement, that plants are mostly green? James Blond 14:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the presence of strabismus is obvious to the casual observer, should this section even be here? I argue no. It's just feeding our obsession with celebrity. Get rid. Famousdog 14:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In support of getting rid of this section, there are some comment on Wikipedia not being an indiscriminate collection of information. See this page  here. I think the bit about the pitcher whose career was unaffected by strabismus is interesting and should be left, but the rest is just a pointless list. Anybody looking at Forest Whitaker can work out that he has strabismus. Famousdog 21:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The section (which I refactored above to clean up - it was incredibly redundant with itself from line to line - and added a few obvious missing names) should probably be moved to a Strabismus in popular culture article, which could also include material on the condition's depiction in fiction (e.g. May (film), and sometimes mis-depiction, as in the "Austin Powers" films and in Once Upon a Time in America, where it is depicted as an eyelid or eye socket problem), the history of perception of it (it was formerly considered something broadly okay to mock, well into Marty Feldman's time; cf. Young Frankenstein), the rather more recent perception of mild strabismus in both eyes being a hallmark of female beauty (cf. Bardot, Johansson, Thurman), and so forth.  Whatever the strict interpretations of some editors, not all users will agree that such material is by definition indiscriminate and cannot be encyclopedic if it is sourced, and will continue to add it to the main article over time, no matter how often it is deleted.  It is better to fork the articles, to keep the medical article about scientific facts, and the pop-culture article about the other stuff. This was done quite successfully with :Albinism and :Albinism in popular culture. PS: Each entry in the list would ultimately have to be individually sourced. The argument above that because some pics seems to show the condition clearly in this celebrity or that does not mean that it doesn't need to be sourced. A citation to a specific and very clear photo of known provenance (e.g. an official bio) could arguably be used as a source, but sources still have to be present, and textual sources would be much better. PPS: Many of their individual articles need updates, as few of them mention strabismus.— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 10:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Famous people with strabismus

message: Well, whether we like it or not, the term "lazy eye" is often confused with strabismus and this site provides information on both strabismus and amblyopia so I suggest we leave the link in. It can't really be considered "commercial" since it's run by the National Health Service in the UK. It is, however, annoying that the NHS is perpetuating confusion over the term "lazy eye". Famousdog 16:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the site, per WP:EL, actually provide material that is clearly of encyclopedic interest and use to our readers?  If our readers would be confused by the material there due to the ambiguity, or the site doesn't provide anything of use that readers haven't already derived from this WP article, then it should be removed.  If it doesn't have these faults, then it shouldn't have any issues under WP:EL or WP:SPAM. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 11:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NHS Lazy Eye site 

message: Is this term really used? Google only has 5 hits for the phrase. Vl'hurg talk 19:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not widely. I work in the field and haven't heard it. Frankly I'd delete the 'popular terms' section for the same reason I removed the 'celebrity strabs' section. It's too open-ended, just turns into a list and doesn't add anything to the reader's understanding of the condition. However, people do use these terms, so maybe it should stay. But feel free to get rid of the "one eye in York" exemplar. Famousdog 19:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the term. I agree that the whole section should probably go, although it might be useful to keep the first sentence (regarding the confusion with 'lazy eye') somewhere in the article. I don't really feel qualified to do this as I'm not an expert in the field. Vl'hurg talk 22:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Move most of it to the Strabismus in popular culture new article proposed above, and retain the "lazy eye" disambiguation, at the end of the lead section.  The most common non-technical terms, probably "wandering eye" and "cockeye", should probably also be preserved in the lead, in bold, the way we'd do with any other article. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 11:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One eye in York and the other in Cork 

message: Mention if strabismus is normal upon daydreaming, inattentiveness, falling asleep, etc. Jidanni 23:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about an ophthalmic disorder, not about "normal" eye conditions.  Not sure what you are talking about anyway; everyone daydreams, but our eyes do not randomly wander out of alignment with each other when we do so, even if they do wander to-and-fro, as a pair.  What you're talking about simply isn't applicable to this article. 68.35.40.113 11:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pft. Not true. Your eyes might not, but some do; you can't speak for 'our'. Passing strabismus IS normal in these situations for some/many. Just putting this on the record, as I know it can't go in without a source. 87.194.30.190 (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The original poster describes either an intermittent strabismus or a phoria.  Those are both medical conditions pertaining to this article.  Current efforts to update this article should/will include this information.Garvin  Talk 20:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

text: my lazy eye is no normal at certain times, but mostly when when i purposely make it blurry...but then sometimes go abroad again 197.184.180.249 (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Normal when very relaxed? 

message: Can I suggest that the following section is modified, as there is no such thing as "bilateral strabismus". 
"Strabismus may be classified as unilateral, bilateral, or alternating based on whether one eye or both eyes are affected. A unilateral strabismus will consistently have the same eye 'wandering'. Bilateral strabismus is a condition where both eyes are squinting at the same time; either convergently or divergently (both are subtypes of Concomitant strabismus)."
In strabismus, there is invariably one fixing eye and one squinting eye, although it is correct to say that some strabismic patients can alternate which eye they are squinting with in order to fix with their other eye. However, to say that both eyes can squint divergently or convergently is incorrect.
Suggestion for how this section should be revised:
"Strabismus may be classified as unilateral if the same eye consistently 'wanders', or alternating if either of the eyes can be seen to 'wander'. Alternation of the strabismus may occur spontaneously, with or without subjective awareness of the alternation. It may also be seen following the cover test, with the previously 'wandering' eye remaining straight while the previously straight eye is now seen to be 'wandering' on removal of the cover."
(Chrish62 (talk) 21:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bilateral Strabismus???

message: The link :
* Explanation of fusion or binocularity 
I am convinced a lot of people will appreciate the given explanation.
The argument for removal is complete nonsense read below.
See : guideline on external links,  
Linking to YouTube, Google Video, and similar sites
There is no blanket ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (which would happen infrequently). See also Wikipedia:Copyrights for the prohibition on linking to pages that violate copyrights. Therefore, each instance of allowance is on a case-by-case basis.
Like to hear other users about re-adding this great explanation of fusion. Seeyou (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically it's off-topic, self-published by someone with no expertise I could determine, promotes purchasing the entire video of which the linked video is only a portion, and contains what appears to be factually inaccurate information. --Ronz (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ronz,  sorry complete nonsense.
> Basically it's off-topic, Not true. People interested in strabismus will much more easy understand how a person uses his eyes in case of strabismus. People having strabismus can determine for themselves if they have strabismus.
> self-published by someone with no expertise. Everything explained is correct !!
You can check it for yourself  with your 2 index fingers or 2 pencils. Align your 2 index fingers in front of your nose. ( Alignment is important ). One index finger near the other index finger far. When you look at the near finger, 2 far fingers should appear. When you look at the far finger 2 Near fingers will appear.
> See also Wikipedia:Copyrights for the prohibition on linking to pages that violate copyrights. Not true as mentioned above ! I repeat : There is no blanket ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (which would happen infrequently). See also Wikipedia:Copyrights for the prohibition on linking to pages that violate copyrights. Therefore, each instance of allowance is on a case-by-case basis.
And all your other arguments. They are all fake !! There is no video which can be bought. The information is for free. I would really Like to hear othr users. And I want to hear arguments not just opinions Seeyou (talk) 11:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of youtube link about fusion

message: i am one with the same problem and all i need now is solutions in solving these problem. it makes me feel very bad and dirty amongs people. if some one knows of a way i can solve these strabismus problem please let me no in my mail... (removed by Famousdog)
:Speak to an optometrist or opthalmologist about your options. But please don't think that there is anything "bad" or "dirty" about having a strabismus. It's just a physiological problem, and depending on the severity, you may be able to correct it with surgery. Read the section of the article on treatment and prognosis. Famousdog (talk) 10:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  how caan it be solved  

message: I removed the following link: VisionSimulations.com | What the world looks like to people with various diseases and conditions of the eye because there is not even mention of strabismus, amblyopia, depth perception, etc. Maybe the content was removed? - CompliantDrone (talk) 07:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of link 

message: Convergence excess is a binocular vision disorder that results from a patient being more esophoric at near than at distance. However, the condition isn't a strabismus and shouldn't redirect to this page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.244.80.7 (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Convergence Excess shouldn't redirect here 

message: I admit it, I am an adult male who watches My Little Pony. As a character that was changed due to fan response, Derpy Hooves perhaps merits a mention on the Friendship is Magic page, but it does not belong on this page at all. It is not even possible to source it. I deleted it about a week ago and it was reverted within half an hour, so I am creating this section so I am not just engaging in a reverting war with the My Little Pony *chan horde. 173.73.14.83 (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your deletion. A while back we had a section for 'famous people' (i.e. f*cking celebs) with strabismus. It grew and grew and threatened to overwhelm the article, so it was ditched (see this discussion). If Forrest Whitaker doesn't get a mention on this page then an entirely fictional pony doesn't deserve mention either. Famousdog (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Derpy Hooves is not even remotely notable 

message: Would a section about strabismus in the arts be out of place? I'm thinking of Bronzino, ubiquitous gaze, maybe Cubist portraits. About Bronzino: When [] we look back up into the eyes of his sitters, we notice that they often diverge – so much so that the boy in the magnificent Portrait of a Young Man with a Book is routinely said to suffer from strabismus []. Yet this is a trademark of Bronzino's bourgeois portraits. Folklore traditionally frowns on divergent eyes. But in Bronzino, the presence of truant eyes is liberating as well as creepy. They imply the existence of secret niches for the imagination. As another aspect, some say Rembrandt had strabismus and that helped him transform 3D into 2D.--88.73.0.195 (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arts 

message: The redirects crosseyed, cross eyed and cross eye shouldn't redirect here- the ability to look towards the centre of your face voluntarily shouldn't be confused with the medical condition of a lazy eye.  Perhaps a separate article on going cross eyed is needed?
Also, is the term cross eyed ever used for someone with a lazy eye?  If so then perhaps a simply a disambiguator would be more appropriate i.e
Cross Eyed may refer to:
brief description of act of going crosseyed
the medical condition of strabismus
Some album by some prog rock band probably :p  — Preceding unsigned comment added by FinallyEditingWithAUsername (talk • contribs) 22:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cross Eyed 

message: The section Classification of Strabismus needs to be reorganised. The initial mode of classification contains much better structure whereas the latter classification contains more data. The latter can be merged into the former. It would be appreciable if somebody takes an initiative.
DiptanshuTalk 14:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tried to merge them but it looks a bit shabby. Also, further information needs to be added under the subheadings which are blank at present. Information may be available from the relevant pages of Wikipedia pointed by the hyperlinks. It would be appreciable if somebody takes an initiative.DiptanshuTalk 14:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification of Stabismus 

message: The intro section is clunky and lacks focus and direction.  While all the topics touched upon are accurate, someone not familiar with the subject may have difficulty taking it all in. I plan to review the article as a whole and update as necessary.  The intro section I will likely save for last.  Garvin  Talk 18:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro Section 

message: I have done some major additions to the article, and have come across a statement that would be highly interesting to include in the article, if it can be confirmed on the basis of a reliable source. The statement is the following:
:"Adults who lose vision in one eye tend to develop a divergent squint rather than a convergent one, whereas the opposite is true of children." (source: http://www.squintclinic.com/videos/type_of_squint/divergent_squint/secondary_and_consecutive_exotropias/)
I have tried to find a similar statement from authoritative sources on the Internet, but without success. Does anyone know whether this statement is correct (and provide a reliable source)? --Chris Howard (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strabismus after vision loss in one eye 

message: The sentence
 Diagnosis may be by looking at the light reflecting from the eyes and finding it is not centered the pupils.
is ambiguous and grammatically incorrect.  Would someone knowledgeable in this please correct it?
(Particularly, is it meant to be interpreted from the physician or patient's point of view?)
--RProgrammer (talk) 02:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks User:RProgrammer missing an "on" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks!  --RProgrammer (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing sentence at the start 

message: IMO this is simpler and says the same thing:
*"The eye which is focused on an object can alternate."
*"Strabismus may be classified as unilateral if the one eye consistently deviates, or alternating if either of the eyes can be seen to deviate."
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the second sentence occurs in the article below, is either sentence needed this soon during the article?  (just a thought.  No strong feelings either way as the quality of the article is only mildly affected.)Garvin  Talk 19:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That this occurs is a useful feature of this condition when present. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

text: Not 100% sure what's being proposed here. My guess is that the first, short bullet is meant for the lead, and the longer one is meant for the main article body.  They're not equivalent statements; the latter provides a lot more info.  Both have wording that seems fine to me, and they seem like they (or something like them) should be included.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  23:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes usually one puts a simpler overview in the led and a more complicated description in the body which is were we are at right now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: . Okeydokey.  I agree this is better wording that the original addition that caused this thread; that wording was a bit awkward.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  01:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Simpler

message: Belongs in the body not the lead IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical figures with maybe the condition

message: The psychological effects of strabismus on the patient and, in the case of a child, on the parents should not be underestimated. Superstition and folklore that label a squinter as being ‘‘shifty-eye’’, ‘‘evil-eyed’’, and ‘‘not to be trusted’’ and ‘‘apt to lie’’ are still strong in the allegedly enlightened world, especially in rural areas. 176.228.51.29 (talk) 12:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychological Effects of Strabismus 

message: Not exactly.  is derived from a verb; it isn't a verb itself. Wiktionary defines  as a squinting. —⁠71.105.198.152 (talk) 03:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: By my count, this article has 31 citations using , 13 using , and 1 using neither (untemplated citation), out of all the citations that have authors specified. Per WP:CITEVAR, this should be normalized to a single consistent citation style, but there is no clearly established one here already, just something of a lead for one over the other.  Does anyone actually care which form it is normalized to?  I prefer the  system because it is consistent with 90-something percent of our templated citations, produces better COinS metadata, is easier for readers to parse, is more consistent with our handling of names generally (MOS:INITIALS), more easily identifies particular notable authors to link to articles about, and permits us to give fuller author names when available instead of just initials (though I'm not sure the last two will apply to citations already present in this piece). I'm also skeptical that Vancouver system is being otherwise followed in all these citations with , making use of that style's author format likely to be extraneous in them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imposing a consistent citation style