Talk:Bates method/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

added link famousdog

Famousdog thanks for the link you added. [1]. In my opinion the second best of this article. Again my compliments. Seeyou (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

"Second best"? Hardly. In my opinion its actually a poorly formatted version of very short, and poorly written paper. However, it is the only direct attempt at a clinical trial of Bates' techniques that I am aware of, so I think its actually quite important. What I don't understand is: why you are so enthusiastic about it? The same puzzlement surrounds your enthusiasm about the Woods article, since both papers show fairly conclusively that Bates' therapies (Mohan) and vision therapy (Woods) have no statistically significant positive impact on poor vision. Famousdog (talk) 09:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
If something can happen to a single person. It can happen to all the others to ( if there conditions and other factors are equal ) ! The question is in what sense those succesful people differ in the unsuccesful ones. For example they might have practised more. Maybe their decrease in eyesight happened very recently. Maybe they wanted to improve for themselves. Maybe they were more motivated. Maybe they did n't drink alcohol or loads of coffee. etc. etc. It also proves why the BM/NVI is controversial. A issue of this article and sitll not solved. Seeyou (talk) 10:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bates method/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

With some trepidation, I am going to try to review this article. I'll work my way through it, but there is one point I'd like to make at the start. The lead has a problem that is unfortunately common among articles that deal with fringe topics, which is that it is so careful to state that the method is not generally accepted, that it neglects to explain what the method actually is. I think that the paragraph about Aldous Huxley is not essential to the lead, but that it is essential to give some sort of overview of the methods that Bates recommended. I realize that the scattered nature of his ideas makes this challenging, but even so I don't think the lead will be adequate without it. Looie496 (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. In response to your concerns, I think that the method itself is adequately summarized in the first paragraph of the lead. The techniques were intended to undo a supposed habitual "strain" to see, and centered around visualization and movement. Anyone who wants to know about specific techniques can scroll down to the "Treatments" section.
I definitely think the paragraph about Huxley belongs in the lead. His case is probably the single most notable aspect of the subject, and the lead is supposed to summarize the article. PSWG1920 (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't really think that "visualization and movement" is descriptive enough -- you need to give the reader a more concrete sense of what the method involves -- say one sentence each for two of his most typical exercises. With over half the lead devoted to criticism, it should be possible to spare a little more space for description. Regarding Huxley, I'll buy what you're saying, but then I think you should make it more clear why his role is notable -- just using the method is not enough, you should make clear in the lead that he also advocated for it. Looie496 (talk) 03:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
All right, I've attempted to do both of those things. PSWG1920 (talk) 06:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
(inserted) I'm happy with the lead now, and will move on to the body. Looie496 (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think A. Huxley belongs in the intoduction. Don't forget this article is about two differnt subjects. The Bates method and Natural Vision Improvement. Aldous Huxley is just one single person who also expermented with LSD ! This might very well explain his strange behaviour. ( It might also very well have influenced his eyesight, just like alcohol. ) Since Looie496 probably is not aware this article is also about NVI. You have got a strong live argument for a title change. The given only available definitions make clear the BM and NVI are not exactly the same. If Huxley stays his experimenting with drugs must be mentioned also. Original research is also not mentioning important details. In my opinion Woods is far more interesting to mention in the introduction, because the controversy is then immediatly explained. Less than 2 % are succesful. Seeyou (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Looie496, what is your motivation to help improving this article ? I appreciate it, don;t get me wrong, just curious. Seeyou (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm a neuroscientist and currently maintainer of WikiProject Neuroscience, and my interest is for Wikipedia to have good, useful articles about science-related topics. Huxley belongs because he is very famous as the writer of Brave New World and The Doors of Perception. Regarding NVI, I am not going to review the article on that basis. If an article on NVI requires different material than an article on the Bates method, it needs a separate article. I am going to review this as an article about the Bates method and nothing else. Looie496 (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Great first problem found. Read the RFC about this subject. [2]. Seeyou (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm impressed. I have got a very interesting question for you. Q1: Do you think the mind can change the brain. Or do you think the brain can change the mind. Or do you think they are completly equal ? This is a very important question because in my opinion NVI is mind over body. And the mind plays a very important role in the NVI proces. Seeyou (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Q2 :Don't you think it is important to mention Aldous Huxley experimented with LSD since the early 50's. Seeyou (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, since NVI has its roots in (and some would say is simply a re-branding of) the Bates method (with a few minor changes), the current title should stick. Secondly, speaking as a vision scientist, the mind is the brain. So asking if "the mind can change the brain" is tautological. The mind can change the state of a person's vision by, for example, closing the eyelidss, sticking a finger in the eye, or putting on glasses. What you are actually asking is whether relaxation techniques can permanently alter conditions such as myopia or amblyopia. This is highly unlikely. Finally, Seeyou, your insistence on mentioning Huxley's LSD use seems to me to be an attempt to dismiss the valid and important concerns that observations on his eyesight raise. That's referred to as a "smear." Famousdog (talk) 13:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey this is strange. I ask a question to Looie496 and my friend famousdog answers. I hope Looie496 will answer my questions since s/he is doing the review. Seeyou (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • To Seeyou: (2) Re first problem: Whether NVI should redirect here is outside my mandate to consider. (2) Re I'm impressed: Stick to the topic, please. We are not discussing whether NVI is valid here, we are discussing the article. (3) Re Q2: Since Huxley wrote his book in 1942, I don't see the relevance of his later experimentation with hallucinogens (mainly mescaline rather than LSD, if I remember correctly). Looie496 (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Whether NVI should redirect here is outside my mandate to consider.==> Pity. FYI. I am going to ask the arbitration committee to make a statement regarding this subject. It will be the first subject in the list of Original research.
Looie496 said I'm impressed: Stick to the topic, please. ==> What is wrong in being honest ?Seeyou (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Looie496 said : whether NVI is valid here, we are discussing the article. ==> Which is according to wikipedia also NVI. I admit it's complex, but it can be very easily solved when we don't allow original research.Seeyou (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Looie496 said ; Since Huxley wrote his book in 1942, I don't see the relevance of his later experimentation with hallucinogens (mainly mescaline rather than LSD, if I remember correctly). ==> First Bias will be unevitable. Very clearly explained by retracer. Second Huxley is just one single person with a very serious eyecondition. Woods is far more interesting since woods involves 103 representative people. Also the Woods experiment explains the controversy. Very few people are succesful, Some even make their eyesight worse ! For ophthahlmology it is impossible to use these kind of results. So it explains why ophthalmology is n't interested. From the scientific and informative point of view Woods is far more interesting. And since modern BM/NVI teachers also mention nutrition as a factor for eyesight. Huxley's LSD experiment reveals the BM and NVI of today are unequal. Seeyou (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
By the way as a neuro-scientist are n't you also interested in the mechanism behind NVI ? Shouldn't this subject also be mentioned in the article ? Seeyou (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


Accomodation

  • This section could use an illustration. Do you think this one would be helpful?
  • "Reaffirmed" is not the right word. How about "advocated"?
  • "which were not reproduced independently" is ambiguous. It could mean that nobody ever tried, or that people tried and failed. The reality, as I understand it, is that Bates's claims are inconsistent with experimental data collected by others, but it isn't clear to me exactly what this sentence is saying or how the source supports it. Also I'm not keen on the Quackwatch source -- the Duke-Elder textbook would be better.
  • There really must be a better source for the statement that many animals focus by changing eyeball shape. I can probably find a better one myself if you have problems here. Looie496 (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
    Looked around a bit -- PMID 16172892 looks like a great source for this. Looie496 (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

That illustration might work, but I'm not sure how much it explains. I'm not sure about "advocated", maybe just "affirmed"? The point is that that part was not Bates' own original idea. In regards to the "Quackwatch source", the source is actually a book (apparently now out-of-print) by an optometrist, Quackwatch is just reproducing a chapter from it. In regards to the statement about animals' eyes, that is actually a very recent addition to the article, and I'm not entirely sure if that's actually recognized as true. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought the illustration would show readers the muscles that Bates is writing about. I see your point re reaffirmed -- the sentence felt awkward to me, so I think something should be done, but my solution might not be the right one. For the Quackwatch source, how about referencing the book and providing the Quackwatch site as url for it? For the eyeball shape, I'll look at the paper I pointed to the next time I'm in the lab -- can't download it at home -- and see whether it supports the statement in the article. (This is the sort of thing I enjoy.) Looie496 (talk) 02:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
"how about referencing the book and providing the Quackwatch site as url for it?" That is exactly what the article is already doing. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The Accommodation subsection is a bit tricky. There's a lot we could explain, but I really don't think it would be of interest to general readers. Summarizing, however, can be problematic as well, since explanations are left out. Maybe it should be condensed even further to avoid ambiguous statements. But then we shouldn't downplay the apparently faulty scientific basis for the Bates method (multiple editors previously expressed concern that the article was doing that, see here for example, and I did my best to fix that.) PSWG1920 (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's pretty decent as is. I've been looking at Bates's book, and he spends infinite space on this topic, so I think it's appropriate for the article to deal with it. As I go on with the article, I'll think about whether it might be possible to be a bit more decisive here, given the far more detailed state of knowledge now than when Bates (or even Huxley) were writing. Looie496 (talk) 02:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Causes of sight problems

Sorry, I got distracted for a while; back in action now.

  • "Medical professionals characterize..." This sentence is very likely correct, but it cites a 1956 book and the quotations come from the 1940s. It would be nice to cite something much more recent, such as a modern textbook.
    • If we can't find a current quality source for that, would it be better just to delete the sentence? It seems possible that that is so taken for granted nowadays that it's not often explicitly stated. Or maybe it is seen as less certain now, I don't know. PSWG1920 (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I have done a copy-edit to the section, not changing the meaning of anything I hope. Looie496 (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Treatments

  • "first temporarily and then, according to him, permanently" I don't understand this -- doesn't it just mean permanently, in effect?
    • I've removed that phrase. The intent was to reflect that Bates believed that improvement could go as quickly as it came, but maybe that was a bit too complicated here. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • "However, the purported benefits..." I think the material from this point to the end of the paragraph should be moved later, as it talks about techniques that have not yet been described.
  • Palming: I've modified the last sentence, which was not quite accurate.
  • Visualization: The first two sentences here are so poorly written that I can't understand them well enough to copy-edit them. The problem in the 2nd sentence is the word "poise", which I don't understand. The first sentence is simply ill-formed.
    • I simplified the first sentence. As for "poise", that basically means relaxation. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Movement I don't know whether any sources discuss it, but it's clear that the "swinging" method is certain to activate the vestibulo-ocular reflex, which will cause the eyes to move counter to the head motion, in a way that can't be consciously controlled.
    • I haven't seen any source which discusses this in connection with the Bates method. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Sunning Perhaps this section should state a bit more strongly that all modern authorities consider that the UV exposure caused by staring directly at the sun can easily lead to permanent eye damage.
  • This may be OR, but it occurs to me that a couple of Bates's methods are likely to actually work, on a short-term basis anyway. Closing your eyes for a while is an excellent way to relieve eye-strain, especially if you've been doing a lot of close-up work. Also, staring near the sun or any other bright light will cause the pupils to contract, which will make the eye more like a pinhole camera. An ideal pinhole camera has perfect focus at all distances (its disadvantage is that the closer to a pinhole you get, the dimmer the resulting image). Thus, it seems possible that "sunning" may temporarily improve the sharpness of vision, at the cost of reducing the ability to see in dim light.
    • These effects are noted, to the extent which they are sourced, in the "Claimed success" section. However, in regards to their relationship to specific techniques, it seems that many of the dots have been left unconnected by the sources we have, and WP:OR prevents us from connecting them ourselves. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I think the "criticism" material from the first paragraph should be moved to the bottom here, perhaps in a section of its own. Looie496 (talk) 02:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
    • This seems to be the same point raised above. If so, I have done that. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Accomodation again

How about this for an illustration? (It's used in the ciliary muscle article.) Looie496 (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to show the extraocular muscles. Any illustration for this section should probably show both the internal and external muscles of the eye. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Last sentence

I don't understand what the final sentence ("It may further be necessary for a child at risk of developing lazy eye to wear the proper correction.") says that the sentence previous to it doesn't say. Looie496 (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

According to the Grierson source, the wearing of the correct glasses is only one of several conventional treatments for children who have conditions which can lead to amblyopia. The point is that an anti-glasses attitude can be particularly dangerous in this instance. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Passing

After another thorough reading, I'm going to pass this article now. I think it's still well short of perfect, and I have special concerns about its stability, but it is certainly useful and comprehensive, and I don't think it will lead any reader seriously astray -- so in my view it meets the criteria. Looie496 (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)"

Unclaimed reward?

Martin Gardner wrote: "For many years a Manhattan eye doctor had a standing and unclaimed offer of $1,000 to any patient with a refractive error who practiced the Bates system, and whose eyes showed organic improvement when tested by a competent doctor." If we could reliably come up with more details about this, it might well be worth mentioning here. Specifically, who was this doctor and what were the precise conditions for claiming the $1,000? PSWG1920 (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Upon further investigation, it seems to also be mentioned on page 49 of Philip Pollack's book. PSWG1920 (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Pollack is just quoting Gardner, as he so often does, and Gardner is spreading an urban legend. If he'd known any details, why didn't he give them? I'd be astonished if you managed to substantiate this story. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

RFC for creating a wikiquote article NVI

This RfC is closed per the consensus below. As a side note, while in the future, an RfC may be warranted on whether to include content from a "wikiquote article" in this Wikipedia article (though doubtful), a Wikipedia RfC on whether to create an article at Wikiquote is certainly not warranted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, Achieving consensus requires serious treatment of every group member's considered opinion [3]. I am not taken serious. I have asked constantly for argument(s) not even one is give. I think a COI [4] is present in this article. Hard to prove but is has to be considered. I will add this issue to the issues for arbitration committee. Seeyou (talk) 11:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Rather than (or at least before) arbitration, the correct place to report a suspected conflict of interest is the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Seeyou - two points. first, a silly point of convenience: please use wikipedia links for local content (e.g. [[consensus]] as opposed to external links (e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus], like you used above. easier to read.
second, it would help everyone if you listened just a little bit better to what people are saying. the main point of this discussion is that no one here really cares what happens on wikiquote. if you want to make a page there, go ahead; then come back here and discuss whether or not you can link to it from Wikipedia. that's just sensible, yah? argue all you want about things that need to be argued about, but don't stir up a fuss where a fuss isn't necessary. --Ludwigs2 20:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I will respect what the arbitration will say about the multiple issues of this article. This RFC reveals very clear there is no discussion taken place and this article is opinion based. Future will tell in which direction this article will go. Seeyou (talk) 08:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There is disagreement between me and one or two other editors about creating a wikiquote article Natural Vision Improvement.

Please provide your comment if you think whether or not a NVI wikiquote article would be interesting to improve the quality of this BM/NVI wikipedia article. See also discussions of the past. My opponent has given some argument. But I have n’t read any valid argument. In my opiniion Censor and Meatpuppets might be present.

Below the start of the wikiquote page. ( Note skeptic quotes are just as welcome as any other quote ! ) Note also original research is currently a problem in this article. In wikiquote article this can not happen. Unless the quote is created by a wikipedia-editor. This version is the one it is about [[5]]


  • 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.
    • "Natural vision improvement by Janet Goodrich, isbn = 0-89087-471-9 page 211"
  • Bates method : Natural vision teacher Thomas R. Quackenbush defines the Bates method thus:

    An educational program created by ophthalmologist William H. Bates, M.D., in which natural, correct vision habits—based on relaxation of the mind and body—are taught; optional self-healing activities and games are often included to accelerate integration and self-healing; commonly misunderstood as only "eye exercises"—even by many "Bates Method" teachers.

    • "Better Eyesight: The Complete Magazines of William H. Bates page 643 | isbn = 1-55643-351-4"
  • Improving vision naturally is an internal transformation, not a treatment, cure or makeover by external forces.
  • 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.
    • "Better Eyesight: The Complete Magazines of William H. Bates page = page 299 | isbn = 1-55643-351-4"
  • Martin Gardner about Perfect sight without glasses : a fantastic compendium of wildly exaggerated case records, unwarranted inferences and anatomical ignorance.
    • Fads & Fallacies In the Name of Science," by Martin Gardner, p. 231, Putnam, 1952
  • The only risk attributable to visual training is financial, as most health insurers do not cover these programs.
    • The American academy of ophthalmology.


In my opinion it is strange articles like below are accepted and a NVI quote article is not !

  • Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer [[6]]
  • 8_Simple_Rules [[7]]
  • One_Piece [[8]]

See : * [[9]] Wikiquote Seeyou (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment: This RFC has been opened in the wrong venue, and should be closed without action. Wikiquote forms its own consensus independent of Wikipedia. It is inappropriate to contest an action on one project through the procedures of another project. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Advice: (1) Anyone wishing to contest a proposed deletion at Wikiquote can do so by following the simple instructions on the proposed deletion notice. (2) Contributors to Wikiquote should familiarize themselves with its mission and its policies. The question of "whether or not a NVI wikiquote article would be interesting to improve the quality of this BM/NVI wikipedia article" displays a misunderstanding of its mission. (3) Contributors to all Wikimedia projects should assume good faith, and refrain from baseless allegations of puppetry. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Ningauble, thanks for your comment but since you are the one who has proposed the NVI wikiquote article for deletion. I like to hear some outside opinions. Seeyou (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Note also the wikiquote article is already made more promotional. To make sure the given arguments, given by the prodeletion editors, make sense. And the NVI wikiqoute article will probably be deleted soon. Ningauble here on this talkpage we are forced to discuss. Seeyou (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I am strongly inclined to remove this entire thread, as it has absolutely nothing to do with this article. The only reason I'm not doing so right now is to give whoever wants to a chance to move the material elsewhere -- although that can still be done after this is deleted. Looie496 (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I sympathise with your motives, but please do not do what you are "strongly inclined" to do. There are very few circumstances in which one is justified in deleting material (except one's own) from talk pages (except one's own), and this is not one of them. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • End this RfC. You cannot make a decision at Wikipedia about what to do at the completely separate Wikiquote website. If you want a Wikiquote page, then please discuss it at wikiquote.org WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
This is a RFC to invite any editor to comment whether or not they agree or disagree a wikiquote article would improve this article. Seeyou (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  • This article will clearly not be improved by adding an external link to a non-existent page.
  • Whether Wikiquote will accept this collection of "marketing material" is in doubt.
  • Please close this RfC until the page you want to link to actually exists. It is definitely premature. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

End the madness! This is totally inappropriate cross-project forum-shopping by Seeyou. I suggest another temporary block, so he can sit and think about what he's done. And as an aside: Many more people have heard of (and care about) Buffy and 8 Simple Rules than have heard of (or care about) the Bates method or NVI, that's why they have Wikiquote articles! Famousdog (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No this is revealing. Many controversial articles have a wikiquote article. Why can't the BM have one ?' Again any quote is welcome, skeptic ones also. I think you are afraid a wikiqoute article will reveal the overskeptic quality of this Original research article. Seeyou (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Seeyou: Whether or not Wikipedia editors want a Wikiquote page to exist is completely and totally irrelevant. Wikipedia editors can no more authorize the creation of pages on Wikiquote than we can authorize the creation of pages at WhiteHouse.gov. You must take this question to Wikiquote. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • After due consideration, the only meaningful thing I can dig out of this RfC is the possibility that NVI might make it easier for me to watch reruns of Buffy. since that seems unlikely on the face of it, and I can't find anything else relevant to me or to wikipedia, I have to second WhatamIdoing's call to end the RfC. nothing to see here, folks. --Ludwigs2 20:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Ronz, There is not provided a single argument which explains why the BM/NVI article can't have a wikiquote article !. If I am wrong list the argument(s) below. Seeyou (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Seeyou, once again, this is the argument: You may not link to pages that do not exist. Consider it a special case of WP:ELNO #16, which bans "Links that are not reliably functional" -- only in this case, the link is never functional, because the page does not exist. After you convince Wikiquote to have such a page (assuming you can: I have no idea what their standards are), then you can have a discussion here about whether this page should link to it.
Please pay attention to the very important sequence of these events: First create a page at Wikiquote. Second we can discuss whether adding the link to this article meets Wikipedia's standards. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Strain, lying, etc.

Here is a short piece which may be somewhat useful in the "Underlying concepts" section. It discusses, in some detail, Bates' views on "strain" and among other things, lying causing changes in refraction (a point which had been mentioned in this article previously but was removed due to a lack of sourced context.) PSWG1920 (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bates_method/Archive_13&oldid=791883113"