Talk:Strabismus

Causes

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)

Image Caption

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)

Vandalism?

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)

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)

Comments

Resolved

 – Requests for addition of unsourced and apparently unsourceable material cannot be honored.

"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).

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)

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).

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)

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)

Eye patches

Stale

 – Personal observations that have garnered no further comment in over two years; off-topic anyway.

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).

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)

Redirects from other terms

Unresolved

 – Someone should check that all the applicable redirects are in place and working, then change this to "Resolved".

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).

Redirecting cross-eyed here would need the article to talk about volitional cross-eyeing. 114.60.107.139 (talk) 10:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Personal experiences

Resolved

 – General personal chat; Wikipedia is not a message board.

• 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).

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)

Bates method

Stale

 – Topic has garnered no further discussion in over 9 months.

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)

Eye surgery image

Resolved

 – Personal squabble that belongs in user talk, and fizzled out over 8 months ago anyway.

Honeymane, Its not "censorship" to have a link to this image rather than embedding it in the page. I think its better we have a link to this image rather than people (who may not have stomachs as strong as ours) stumbling across it. Good job Adam78. Famousdog 14:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It is censorship, just as making a nude image with black bars (etc) over her nipples or Vulva is censorship. As I said in the edit summary, Wikipedia does have a Content Disclaimer, if they see an image that shocks them it is there own error in judgement.

The Linking of Images in articles such as Penis, vulva, breast, List of sex positions has never been supported because this is censorship, we can't baby the world's people, someone is always going to take offense to an image. --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 03:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This is untrue; people don't have any problem or offense with 99% of the images in Wikipedia. The content disclaimer you cite doesn't extend to everything and anything, as it is clearly stated in Wikipedia:Image use policy ("Do not upload shocking or explicit pictures, unless they have been approved by a consensus of editors for the relevant article."). Note also that no one owns an article, therefore one should always work towards a compromise with the other editors, rather than appropriating an article.

The sex-related articles don't really belong here because no one visits those pages by chance but the topic of "strabismus" doesn't automatically involve surgery pictures. You can't see surgery images in the pages of breast, vulva, penis etc., can you? Adam78 08:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If people are revolted by a picture of a willy, then that's their own bizarre, Freudian problem. Surgical images are a different matter - they require a strong stomach and aren't really necessary for the casual reader (to whom Wikipedia articles should be aimed). How is this censorship when a link is provided which readers can choose to follow? If you care so much about cencorship (sic), why don't you learn to spell it properly? And finally, what exactly is your interest in strabismus, Honeymane, or are you just sh*t-stirring (whoops, censored myself) and trolling? Famousdog 14:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Trolling? Because I have raised this issue? if the image is so shocking and horrible that it must be kept from view, then remove it completely; as far as I can see it is not adding a great deal to the article.

calling someone a troll because they're the one's who are bring up the issue of a violation of Wikipedia's policies is a bad idea. People have tried before the do this 'link to image' thing on other pages related to sex, and have been told, no, you can't, it's censorship . Personal attacks are not a good idea on Wikipedia ether, so going after someone's spelling mistakes is a stupid idea on your part (which is ironic, because you are the one misspelling the word, not I).

*IF* an image is not necessary for the casual reader, it does not belong, linked to or other wise.

no, I don't have a great personal interest in the article, but I saw something that was a violation of wikipedia policy and I decided to investigate; seeing as there is nothing on the talk page, I assumed it was merely a new or such wikipedia who doesn't understand that wikipedia is not censored. --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 00:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Its not censorship, Honeymane. Whoever said it was is in error. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

then I am in error, but i still fail to see the validity of the image.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 05:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Strabismus is self-correcting?

Resolved

 – Famousdog (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This section was removed 26th March 2007:

Additional evidence against the genetic theory comes from research where scientists deliberately created strabismus in normal monkeys by surgical reattaching an extraocular muscle to the wrong place. To their amazement it was impossible to create a permanent state of strabismus and all the monkeys spontaneously straightened their eyes within a few weeks. .

I think without further documentation, this entry should be removed. Strabismus is not merely a problem of eye muscles, it is a neurological disorder as well. I've had this all my life and if it were a mere matter of a few exercises, oh, if only. Anonymous comment

That sounds like a very POV edit to me. The material is sourced, and while it needs some wording cleanup ("the wrong place"?), no sufficient rationale has been provided for removing it. It sounds to me like evidence that strabismus has both genetic and, in other cases, other causes; the material in question supports other causes while not actually arguing against the genetic cause. It simply needs rephrasing to stop asserting that it does argue against genetic causes. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The "source" (Beresford) is a book by a pro-Bates method author, the "scientists" who did the work he is referring to are not named (or cited) in said book, and finally, it is not true. Tony Movshon and Lynne Kiorpes (for example) have done much research on monkeys made artificially strabismic. The monkeys vision did not spontaneously correct itself. Movshon and Kiorpes work has been replicated by many other labs. Beresford is therefore an unreliable source and this issue is Resolved. Famousdog (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Found another source which describes the same observation. See this link : [1]. Being skeptic also involves to have an open mind. Famousdog I like to hear your arguments to not mention this information or Ronz. Seeyou (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting. Firstly, I'd appreciate it if you didn't imply that I don't have an open mind, since I think that counts as a personal attack. I am impressed that you have found this paper, since I don't think there are many reports of spontaneous recovery of eye alignment after surgical misalignment in the literature. The question is: What to do with it? One objection I had to the original paragraph is the reference to how this counts as "evidence against the genetic theory". The paragraph is vague as to what "genetic theory" it is referring to, and I fail to see how artificially inducing strabismus, then noting that it spontaneously recovers, has anything to do with genetics? In addition, the study you cite uses a muscle-tuck technique, not a surgical reattachment, so it clearly isn't the study discussed by Beresford in the original paragraph. I don't know whether these differences in technique may lead to different outcomes (since I'm not an eye surgeon), but it is possible that the muscle-tuck technique is more likely to spontaneously recover. That's just a theory, but its an important consideration if this is to be used as evidence for, well... whatever it is that is being discussed! Aside from (correct or incorrect) factual details, I just don't understand the point of this paragraph and would like to know what "genetic theory" Beresford is banging on about before I attempt to argue either way. Is that open-minded enough for you? Famousdog (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

OR : pro-Bates method author. Speculating no reference is provided.

Famousdog statement :

> the "scientists" who did the work he is referring to are not named (or cited) in said book, and finally, it is not true. Tony Movshon and Lynne Kiorpes (for example) have done much research on monkeys made artificially strabismic. The monkeys vision did not spontaneously correct itself. Movshon and Kiorpes work has been replicated by many other labs. Beresford is therefore an unreliable source and this issue is Resolved.

Famousdog argument became invalid. See the link : [2]

Famousdog does not understand what is meant by :

"evidence against the genetic theory".

Well I do. Beresford talks about this genetic theory in his book.page 26 :

Dramatic proof that poor vision is usually not inherited came from investigations of preindustrial societies such as North American Indians and Polenesian Islanders. Almost everyone in these societies except presbyopes had excellent vision and myopia was practically nonexistent. Eskimo families in the process of being assimilated into the American mainstream. This provided a splendid opportunity to test the genetic theory because the parents were illiterate, whereas their children were the first generation to go through school. According to the genetic theory the parents and childrens visual systems should have been almost identical with little or no myopia. Summarized 128 of 130 parents had excellent vision. On the other hand more than 60 % of the children showed significant amounts of myopia.

Beresford means by the Genetic theory, Eyesightproblems such as myopia and strabisums are genetic. And his stament is : this is not true.

Famousdog :

> and I fail to see how artificially inducing strabismus, then noting that it spontaneously recovers, has anything to do with genetics? I has not anything to do with genetics it proves the brain can change the alignment of the eyes. The problem of strabismus is located in the brain. And it shows there the body can heal itself. There is a mechanism ! Dan millman explained you the law of adaptation. You can read this law on my userpage.

[3] second paragraph.

Other sources about nonexistent genetic theory.

See : [4]

If you have time look at this video [5] NVI teachers talk about the nonexistant genetic theory. The nonexistent genetic theory should in my opinion be mentioned in the BM and NVI article, since a lot of peoply are still convinced it is true.

Seeyou (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The following statement by Famousdog was copied here by Seeyou from the arbitration case regarding Seeyou's outrageous behaviour

Um. I'm not sure whether Seeyou should be posting in the spaces reserved for the various parties' statements, but since the damage is done, I'll reply here. Seeyou complains that my speculation in the link he provides above is OR. Fine. In my defense, that speculation of mine was on a talk page, and is not present in the article. As far as I know, WP's restriction on OR only refers to material that ends up in the final article. If I am wrong, somebody please correct me on this. Secondly, Seeyou still has not made explicit the link between the Bates method and those experiments with monkeys (whoever did them and why). Frankly, it counts as totally inappropriate synthesis to say "monkeys straighten their eyes after surgery therefore the Bates theory is correct". Thirdly, Seeyou's link regarding his (own, personal and highly eccentric) definition of OR links to (another link... which links to) a discussion in which editor ReTracer gives his opinions on the page as a whole. ReTracer previously had very little to do with the Bates page and disappeared soon after posting this diatribe, the content of which several editors disagreed with! Which brings us to the heart of my problem with Seeyou. He has consistently failed to point to exact instances of OR (even when he claims to be compiling a "list" of them [6]) in the Bates method article, prefering instead to stamp around shouting "Original research, original research!" like some demented parrot. Prediction: Here I look into my crystal ball and predict that Seeyou will claim that my distinction between OR in talk pages and articles is a "fake argument" (one of his special phrases that I have previously explained is meaningless - there are good arguments and bad arguments, but not fake ones) or that I have changed my argument because my previous one is "invalid". It would appear that Seeyou cannot seem to deal with more than one argument at a time. Famousdog (talk) 09:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

End of copied statement

When you are able to understand what a a muscle-tuck technique is. I and the arbitrators who read this are absolutly certain you are able to answer the questions you asked Seeyou above. Seeyou (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I know what a muscle-tuck is, since I'm not a total imbecile. I'm saying that because the second study uses a muscle-tuck it can't be the same study that Beresford was referring to! The study discussed by Beresford used a reattachment technique. Now, lets assume we have two studies, one cited (by you) and the other simply mentioned without reference by Beresford. That's basically one study that shows that eye muscles can recover (by stretching, loosening or whatever) after an operation . Now... (sigh)... exactly what is the relevance of any of this to the Bates method? Famousdog (talk) 08:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks famousdog this is revealing. Seeyou (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No. It isn't. Famousdog (talk) 12:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Famous people with strabismus

Resolved

 – Move material to new Strabismus in popular culture article - which it appears was deleted as unencyclopedic

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)

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)

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)

Okay, this section is now taking over the whole article. If somebody wants to move it elsewhere, please do so, but this is unencyclopedic, celebrity-obsessed crud.

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)

NHS Lazy Eye site

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)

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)

One eye in York and the other in Cork

Unresolved

 – Partial split proposed.

Is this term really used? Google only has 5 hits for the phrase. Vl'hurg ^talk 19:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Normal when very relaxed?

Resolved

 – Not applicable.

Mention if strabismus is normal upon daydreaming, inattentiveness, falling asleep, etc. Jidanni 23:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Bilateral Strabismus???

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))

Removal of youtube link about fusion

The link :

• [7] 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)

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)

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)

how caan it be solved

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)

Removal of link

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)

Convergence Excess shouldn't redirect here

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)

Derpy Hooves is not even remotely notable

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)

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)

Arts

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.[8] 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)

Cross Eyed

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)

I think cross eyed/eye... etc should re-direct here. Having been, myself, a small child when surgery was employed to correct mine, as well as patch therapy and torturous day long eye exams every six months, I can tell you it was always verbalized to me as being "cross eyed" I would never have looked it up under the proper name because when you are a small child and the doctor is explaining it to you, you are told cross-eyed, and it tends to become the preferred phrase within your family and with your ophthalmologist. So as a sufferer I am saying I am not offended by the term cross eye, it's merely an easy layman's term that I think most people, including people who had the condition as small children, would use to look it up.71.198.198.145 (talk) 02:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I spent a long time Googling because the term I use, "herp derp", which is an informal synonym, is nowhere to be found in this article! Why is this term omitted from this article? 118.96.148.144 (talk) 15:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Classification of Stabismus

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. Diptanshu^Talk 14:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

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.Diptanshu^Talk 14:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Intro Section

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)

Strabismus after vision loss in one eye

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)

P.S.: By now I have found some articles on this (Havertape et al, see PubMed 11759769 and doi:10.3368/aoj.51.1.36, both of 2001) and will work it into the article. --Chris Howard (talk) 04:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Confusing sentence at the start

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)

Thanks User:RProgrammer missing an "on" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! --RProgrammer (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Why did you revert all of my changes?

I didn't notice the pronunciation in the infobox, but it was only (the least important) part of my two edits. And you could have deleted only the redundant pronunciation. Instead, you reverted all my changes. Please, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. 85.193.218.178 (talk) 11:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Why was this removed "Which eye is focused on the object in question can switch."?

I moved less commonly used synonyms "squint" to the infobox with the ref and formatted the refs in question

Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion the sentence you've restored is ungrammatical:

Which eye is focused on the object in question can switch.

"in question" can mean two different things:

1. something that is being discussed
2. in doubt; uncertain

Which one is our case? Anyway, in both cases the sentence seems to be ungrammatical. It starts like a question, and I would expect something like:

"Which eye is focused on the object depends on..."

Off course I guess that the focus can, for some reason, switch between eyes. But what about readability? This is not plain English 85.193.218.178 (talk) 05:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure we can change it to "sometimes one eye focuses on the object and sometimes the other eye can focus on the object". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

It would be a version for preschoolers, which was not my intention. I meant something like your sentence: "The eye which is focused on an object can alternate.", but couldn't find the right wording. Now the sentence is clear and looks perfect. Thanks. 85.193.218.178 (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for raising the concerns. I will be the first to admit that writing in easy to understand English is hard. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Simpler

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)

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)

That this occurs is a useful feature of this condition when present. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

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 ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  23:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

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)

. Okeydokey. I agree this is better wording that the original addition that caused this thread; that wording was a bit awkward.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Historical figures with maybe the condition

Belongs in the body not the lead IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Psychological Effects of Strabismus

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. תיל"ם (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Etymology

The term is from the Greek strabismós, meaning 'to squint'. Not exactly. Strabismós is derived from a verb; it isn't a verb itself. Wiktionary defines strabismós as a squinting. —⁠71.105.198.152 (talk) 03:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Imposing a consistent citation style

By my count, this article has 31 citations using |vauthors=, 13 using |last=|first=, 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 |last=|first= 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 |vauthor=, making use of that style's author format likely to be extraneous in them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)