Talk:Blindness

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

Removing National Federation of the Blind from See also[edit]

To editors who are so adamant about removing National Federation of the Blind from the "See also" section:

  • How many organizations of the blind (not organizations for the blind) in the English speaking world do you think exist, such that adding all of them would make an endless list? Of those that you know of, how many have articles in Wikipedia? How many of such organizations is too many for "See also"?
  • Do you think other articles that have nothing to do with the organized blind are more important than such an article, such as "Night blindness", "Snow blindness", "color blindness", "Stereoblindness", or "Inattentional blindness"? Do you think having links to these other articles add more to the article that would enable the reader to understand blindness? If so, please explain why. And give us some details, not just a casual opinion. And if these other articles are not more important, then why did you decide to let them remain in the article?
  • If you insist that a link to any organization must be removed, does that mean you would also insist that a section in the article concerning similar organizations should be removed? If so, why. And again, give us details in your explanation.

65.41.234.70 (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the fact that I'm blind, I've had relatively little interest in this article (or blindness articles in general on Wikipedia). I know that certain parts of this article need to be trimmed or cleaned up, and I've had relatively little interest in this until now. I'll try to clean up the see also and external links sections, per Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Graham87 01:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You said "these organisations only serve a tiny proportion of the world's blind people". First of all, we're not talking about all the blind people in the world. We're talking about the English speaking world. And secondly, what proportion would that be? Please back up your claim.
You failed to addressed two of my questions: 1. Why has the NFB link been targeted for removal and not such riculous links as "Inattentional blindness" which has nothing to do with blindness per se. you say you'll some day get around to cleaning up the See also section, but why was the NFB link chosen right now instead of the links that have little, if anything, to do with actual blindness? 2. Do you object to a section on organizations (I realize this is not an article on the organized blind, but the organizations pertaining to blindness have considerable relevance to the article?
As for "spam magnet", that doesn't completely apply here. We're talking about the largest organization of blind people in the world, not the "Elm Street Blind Club".
And I have a final question that I did not state earlier: What is the limit on the length of "See also" items? Again, please be specific rather than just providing a casual opinion. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 02:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Graham87 - there is a rather a cruel irony that the see also section is far too big in this article - as this is an online encyclopedia - I fail to see why see also should have organisations from any one country in the see also - the article is meant to be universal - this is not wikinorthamerica pedia - and we try hard to make sure of that in guidelines provided in WP:NOT - if there was an article that was an overview of blind organisations and their politics in the USA - fine place for the items to be mentioned - here not SatuSuro 02:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But this IS the English Wikipedia, so I am only concerned about organizations in the English speaking world. As for why the NFB should be singled out among the others, if we argue that the See also section is already too long, then we should restrict the organizations listed to the largest ones. And the largest one in the English speaking world is NFB. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 02:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are at the wrong place with the wrong argument - if you wish to have an article about organisations - that is totally different from what this article is about - read WP:NOT and WP:UNDUE - and think - big is nothing to do with what this article or its main information is about SatuSuro 05:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And you have avoided one of my questions. I am creating a separate section in this article first. See my comments below. 65.41.234.70 (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The English Wikipedia is not just concerned with the English-speaking world; it is meant to represent all viewpoints. IMO the only organisation that might deserve a mention in the see also or external links sections is the World Blind Union, since it is the world's largest blindness organisation. Ideally articles should have no see also section, since they're just a lazy way of linking to related topics; read our featured articles and you'll see why. However that might not be practical here. I'm editing the page as we speak to remove the need for some of the items. Graham87 03:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned up the section so it now only contains articles related to permanent blindness that are not mentioned in the body of the article. Graham87 03:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I've also radically shortened the external links section. I'll add World Blind Union to the see also section. Graham87 03:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because everyone has totally ignored my question (after it was asked twice) about whether a small section in the article pertaining to major organizations is acceptable, I must assume that either there are no opinions or that there are no objections. A section on organizations (of reasonable length, and including organizations of and for the blind) is quite relevant to blindness. If other editors add to the section such that it requires a separate article, then I'll move it to another article. But the way things usually work on Wikipedia is that a section in a relevant article is first added, and then if necessary a separate article is created. A section on organizations also fits into the concept that ideally there should be no See Also section that has been espoused in this discussion. Quite frankly I consider it absurd that the article can have sections on "Metaphorical uses" and "Blindness in animals" if there are serious objections to "Blindness organizations". So before you object, consider what is best for the article, not whether you win or lose this argument. I am proceeding with creation of the section when I have time. If you object please set up an RfC because three editors cannot achieve a reasonable consensus. 65.41.234.70 (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the creation of such a section; my "spam magnet" comment was probably a bit harsh, but I still have reservations about it. A starting point could be these lists from the World Blind Union. If we create such a list, we should only list organisations which have a national or nearly national presence; when I say "nearly national" I'm specifically thinking of Vision Australia, which doesn't do much work where I live in Western Australia due to the weird blindness-related politics here. And which nations should we list? The National Federation of the Blind, the American Council of the Blind and the Royal National Institute of Blind People are quite important, at least in the anglosphere, while the Belize Council for the Visually Impaired is not. How about the in-between cases? I know that, if such a section were created, people would start adding their own countries and organisations; I'm afraid of reinforcing the systemic bias of Wikipedia by just including English-speaking nations, or only developed countries. I would feel bad reverting a well-meaning editor from, say, Thailand, who added a mention of his/her blindness organisation.
There aren't any such lists at articles about similar disabilities like mental retardation, epilepsy, autism, or hearing impairment. Now that you mention it, The "metaphorical uses" section is not that appropriate here since Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The "in animals" section could be tucked away and moved to the blind animals article, perhaps in the same way that epilepsy links to epilepsy in animals. This article hasn't had a fresh critical reading for years, and much of it dates from 2004 or 2005, when Wikipedia's standards were much more lax than they are now. IMO it should be treated in much the same way as a medical article, and it might be worth asking people from the medicine WikiProject to read through it an offer some ideas about the page. Graham87 15:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ with some of your perceptions and conclusions about other articles. The Mental Retardation article has sections that subsume similar information, including mention of organizations, in sections on Management, History, and Society and culture. The Deafness article and Deaf culture could be one article except for the fact that the amount of information requires separate articles; the fact that that amount of info is not yet written into the Blindness article to require a separate article in no way negates the importance of including it in Blindness until such quantity is added. The same applies to autism in that there is a separate article Sociological and cultural aspects of autism that contains such information; it's only the amount of info included that prevents it from being included in the Autism article. Please don't create a Catch 22 situation by saying to either create a separate article on blindness organizations or do nothing. Things rarely happen that way on Wikipedia because article are always a work in progress. As I have said already, a small section on organizations is appropriate for the Blindness article for now. It may later be split off into a separate article. No logic has been presented here that would negate that.
I also will take issue with you that the Blindness article should be treated soley as a medical article. Yes, medical aspects are important, but to limit it to that flies in the face of the purpose of this encylopedia to provide comprehensive discussin of a subject. And again, maybe some day the medical aspects and other aspects may form separate articles, but until then let's try to see the forest despite seeing the trees (no pun intended). Deafness, mental retardation, and a host of other "medical" conditions involve far more than a medical understanding. If that was the case, there would be no need for special educators, rehabilitation workers, and many other specialities; there would only be physicians. I'll again ask the two who disagree with me here to post an RfC if your disagreement is strong. There's no reason someone can't begin an organizations section unless or until a consensus develops otherwise. And incidentally, if an RfC is set up, it needs to go in the "Society, sports, and culture" area. If you want to also include it in "Math, science, and technology" that's fine, but this is more than a science issue. Thank you. 65.41.234.70 (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking about it, I would be happy with a paragraph or two describing how services are provided to blind people in general terms, without naming organisations. It would describe the role of blindness agencies and what services they generally provide (i.e. Braille and talking book transcription, occupational therapy, vocational education, etc) with sources. This could fit in the management section, whose current content could be safely nuked, since it's just an incoherent mishmash of info about rare treatments for blindness. IMO the management section of this article should be more like the equivalent section in the autism article.
I'm not too sure about removing the section about metaphorical uses of blindness; maybe the section could be expanded and generalised to cover things like controversy about terminology for blind people. The mental retardation article talks extensively about terminology. I don't think the section about blindness in other animals is too useful at the moment; perhaps it only needs be mentioned in the see also section. Graham87 10:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reconsidering, although I completely fail to understand the obsession with not mentioning organizations. I'm not talking about an endless list. I'm referring a mention of a few major organization in a brief discussion of services for blind people as well as blind consumerism. The "spam magnet" issue is really not relevant. Lots of articles attract spam. I suspect this one will attract less than most because so few people have an interest in the topic. And if mention of a few organizations leads to an editor making a lengthy list, that can always be dealt with in the same way that most things are managed on Wikipedia, namely other editors providing editorial oversight. That's especialy true now that your concerns have been expressed here. Frankly, I think intentionally NOT mentioning a few organizations gives a very biased impression (not necessarily intended) that the organizations are not important, or that the organizations have some sort of unacceptable purpose so that mentioning them might bias the article. I want a well-rounded, complete article. Just as the medical aspects of blindness are relevant so that the American Medical Association is mentioned, there is no reason major organizations can't be mentioned in the context of other issues. It makes no sense. I still plan to add the information, whether as part of other section(s) or in a separate section. Thanks for your discussion. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think we're in basic agreement here now, and this discussion has brought out how much is missing in this article. What I really didn't want is a sentence (or a whole section!) like "Organisations for the blind include this one, that one, the other one, etc. ..." which would inevitably expand into an endless list. It'd be far better to discuss them in an appropriate context, in terms of their beliefs, historical achievements, or roles in the blindness community. BTW, is there a good reason that you haven't created an account? It requires no personal information, and makes certain tasks, such as adding external links and watching articles for changes, far more convenient. Graham87 02:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think we have general agreement. I edit anonymously because I have found from years of experience that anonymous editors are treated much better on Wikipedia, except when some registered editors assume anons don't know anything about editing. I actually think Wikipedia should require registration, but until it does I'll stay anonymous. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 03:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed non-notable literary references[edit]

I have removed edits made by a blocked editor promoting a non-notable article written by Jacob M. Appel. To readd this info, please discuss here first and provide links to significant independent news coverage to help with verification. Flowanda | Talk 08:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legally Blind is at 20/400[edit]

According to the World Health Organization the definition of blindness specifies visual acuity less than 20/400 and/ or remaining visual field less than 10 degrees in the better seeing eye.[1] This is in contradiction to the American Foundation for the Blind's 20/200 definition.

Yes different places/organizations use different definitions.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://www.aoa.org/documents/CPG-14.pdf

Suggested Addition - Use of smartphones/cameras?[edit]

As a legally-blind user, might I suggest the addition of the use of the camera application on various smart phones and their zoom functions in order to quickly see things far away? In the past, I've also used this trick when using traditional, point-and-shoot digital cameras. Thank you! - BlindWolf8 (talk) 05:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds pretty nifty, but probably too specific for this general article ... and I can't imagine you could easily find a reliable secondary source for it. Graham87 15:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Balance disorders?[edit]

Are blind people any more susceptible to disorders of balance or increased experience of dizziness? This area of research looks interesting: "We also conduct world-leading research into the mechanisms underlying the generation of sound from the ears (‘otoacoustic emissions'), the processes involved in age- and inflammation-related hearing loss, how echoes could be used by blind people to ‘see' (human echolocation) and new diagnostic tests for the balance part of the inner ear (the vestibular apparatus).[1]. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about blind people in general, but blindness can have so many causes, and these can lead to their own problems (e.g. preterm birth). Prompted by this message, I've just copied a bit of text from the human echolocation page to the "Mobility" section of the blindness article. Graham87 15:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a very useful addition. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Childhood blindness[edit]

I have created an article Childhood blindness which is an important contributory cause. Seeking participation into the article build up. DiptanshuTalk 19:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2015[edit]

I want to add a meshID to the infobox. Alneet (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Kharkiv07Talk 15:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and added the meshID. Graham87 02:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Hearing loss which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blindness&oldid=1200172393"