Myopia is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Obviously outdoor play will increase Vitamin-D synthesis in children.
There are even more research papers that link Myopia to low serum levels of 25(OH)D due to inadequate Vitamin-D.
A search for "Myopia Vitamin-D" on Google scholar, Pub-Med or Google traditional will find many published papaers that support a mention here of the simple remedy of increasing serum levels to reduce the prevalence.
Latest comment: 2 years ago16 comments8 people in discussion
To the editor Ruslik0:
Please refrain from deleting the latest and most important references to knowledge and comprehensive reviews published by renowned authors in prestigious journals.
You are doing a disservice to the readers and the general public.
This article about myopia needs a lot of improvement. Please do help, do not obstruct knowledge and science.
2601:647:5580:D20:5066:AD09:92B2:211 (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
An anonymous editor operating from different IP addresses persists in inserting a lengthy account of a recent literature review article, implying that the cause of myopia is now definitively established. I've no objection to the inclusion of a reference to this review, but IMO it needs to be more balanced, along the lines of "A single-author literature review in 2021 contended that "myopia is the result of corrective lenses interfering with emmetropization". I'd note here, though, that it appears to come dangerously close to stating that the cause of myopia is myopia. -- Jmc (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Disguising a hypothesis as fact is irresponsible, and phrases like “the cause of myopia was finally narrowed down to a single factor” and “The latest comprehensive article about “ do not belong here. Continually re-adding the material when different editors all agree that it doesn’t belong here is not the way to proceed and is likely to lead to a block. CV9933 (talk) 09:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
To the editor Ruslik0:
Please refrain from deleting the latest and most important references to knowledge and comprehensive reviews published by renowned authors in prestigious journals.
You are doing a disservice to the readers and the general public.
This article about myopia needs a lot of improvement. Please do help, do not obstruct knowledge and science.
2601:647:5580:D20:1017:DDBC:C750:AC9C (talk) 07:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
IMO the edit warring by the anonymous editor has gone on long enough, without any cogent attempt by them to justify their persistent edits. A block would seem to be the only course of action to bring an end to their campaign? -- Jmc (talk) 07:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Emmetropization is a concern for children/teenagers, since they are growing bodily. So, yeah, staying too close to their mobile phones instead of playing outside produces myopia in children—that's endorsed by eye doctors, so it's not controversial. But that is rendered a non sequitur for the adult eye. And if there is any emmetropization in adults, it is a slow process wherein slightly myopic people become emmetropic. Nothing too spectacular. It happens that at age 40 you don't need reading glasses, since being slightly myopic counts as natural reading glasses, but at 60 you do need reading glasses. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
No, staying too close to a phone or TV or a book does not cause myopia. And no, at 60 you do not have myopia, you have presbiopia, which has completly different reasons due to broken lens. Valery Zapolodov (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This article focuses far too much on causes of something that is inadequately described
It is important for a physics textbook description to be more paramount.
The third paragraph of the intro is woo.
The fourth paragraph of the intro mistakes increased detection for increased incidence.
The causes section is suspiciously eugenicist, and completely wrong.
Latest comment: 7 months ago11 comments7 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Well now. This article used to be entitled 'Myopia' until an editor decided to rename it 'Near-sightedness' after very little discussion - and certainly with no reference to this ngram. -- Jmc (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Move to Myopia, per Jmc and CV9933's analysis. A dip into Google Scholar suggests that myopia is most common in a corpus that includes (but is not strictly limited to) high-quality sources. I included LASIK in the search terms to limit the results (loosely) to topics related to this article subject. I got:
1,310 hits for [LASIK nearsightedness]
300 hits for [LASIK near-sightedness], with the hyphen
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.