Talk:Optical Express/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Initial Edit Escalation discussion

The Timeline section being added by conflict of interest editor maybe partly referenced but is not encyclopedic.Teapotgeorge^Talk 15:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

OK I give up... their marketing department wins the day!Teapotgeorge^Talk 15:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I've reported them for edit-warring - hopefully that will fix things. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

neutral point of view (NPOV) Please clarify why the 'Controversy' section fits under this guidance and not historical data. conflict of interest (COI) Rotsmasher have only edited this page and a direct competitor and as such is clearly in violation of this guidance. Verifiability The controversy section contains allegations and seems to be a personal attack on the business and an individual. I am providing factual, business information directly relating to the page, with verifiable sources. Beatthecyberhate (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

i not fully sure why. but your edits that you are makeing on the optical ecpress are not ok. so would you mind stoping it. than we can all relax. thanks --Iniced (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

If no one is fully sure why, then why are only the positive FACTUAL AND SUBSTANTIATED comments being removed? This is in contradiction to your unbias and impartial guidelines Beatthecyberhate (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia & of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is non-negotiable & all editors and articles must follow it. Beatthecyberhate (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you TeapotGeorge. So can I safely presume if I take your lead and insert additional copy in this format, it will remain on the page? The only objective here is to enforce NPOV not self promotion. Beatthecyberhate (talk) 16:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

As you have a conflict of interest it is safer to bring any further edits to the talk page for discussion first rather than add them yourself.Teapotgeorge^Talk 16:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Please edit: The company did not turn up to the courtcase and the £25,000 fine was reported widely.[8] to remove 'widely'. There was ONE local newspaper article which was however WIDELY inaccurate. Unfortunately I cannot locate an online reference to citate. Beatthecyberhate (talk) 08:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Can we add a section to list clinic locations as per other Wiki pages featuring multiples? Beatthecyberhate (talk) 08:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

"In 2004 and early 2005, OE acquired a duo of services previously..." This para has no citation. Also appears to have been added as a slight based on the laser technology used. OE replaced all the technology upon takeover, however competitors continue to use the criticised technology. What technology Boots used is irrelevant to OE. Beatthecyberhate (talk) 09:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

On another note, the length of description used for articles in the controversy section far outweighs the copy used in the history section leading to bias. Can we level the playing field? As previously mentioned, this is not about self promotion and no Wiki page would be better than one that is being used as a personal attack against a business by an individual with a grudge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatthecyberhate (talk • contribs) 09:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you add: A ‘flagship’ Sports Vision clinic was opened on 20th January 2011 in the company’s outlet in Renfield Street, Glasgow City Centre. Citation: http://www.optometry.co.uk/news-and-features/news/?article=2082 Beatthecyberhate (talk) 09:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you add: In 2010 they invested $12million (£8.1million) installing iFS femtosecond laser technology in all its laser clinics. Citation(s) http://www.optometry.co.uk/news-and-features/news/?article=1037 http://www.clickpress.com/releases/Detailed/231622005cp.shtml http://www.glassesdisplay.co.uk/archives/116 http://www.mynewsdesk.com/uk/view/pressrelease/5-deerdykes-road-optical-express-invests-12-million-to-enhance-patient-care-421562 Beatthecyberhate (talk) 09:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you add: They are in partnership with charity organisation The Caring City which values visual health as a route out of poverty. Citation: http://www.glasgowthecaringcity.com/projects/optical_express.htm Beatthecyberhate (talk) 10:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Further closures are ongoing during 2011. Source? Beatthecyberhate (talk) 10:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The content of this page has been escalated to Wiki mediation for violation of Community Standards guidlines as described by Wiki guidlines specifically conflict of interest editors and failure to comply with NPOV, Neutrality, Balance and Questionable sources. A request for an impartial contributor to edit the page and a block to avoid personal attacking has been made. Beatthecyberhate2 (talk) 10:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

So where is this request? I will be glad to take the job if you like. Sincerely, a friend to all, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi George. I've had that cuppa now, thanks. The article was escalated and picked up by OTRS agent, HJ Mitchell, whose view on the state of the article was not very complementary to those involved in its editing, as stated in various talk posts, and whom has assisted in the initial redraft of the article to bring it to a suitable standard - I would hope from an NPOV basis. While many edits from nuetrals have been fair and helpful, my concern and angst is that since then the same editors who were responsible for the state of the original article have, imho, systematically attacked the article and showing the same traits as before. This in turn encourages others with possibly more sinister motives to join the attack - and let's be clear that there was an attack. Again, in my opinion, if this is allowed to continue unchallenged the article will degenerate as it did before and possibly with more serious consequences. Any help you can bring order to this would be appreciated. I will be reviewing the changes made over the past few days and discussing any contentious that I disagree with below as Atama has suggested. I would be grateful if you and other nuetrals could provide guidance to me and the regular editors of this page. Many thanks. PKdundee (talk) 08:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

COIN thread

This article is being discussed at the conflict of interest noticeboard. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent Edits

Recent edits from OrangeMike and MikeWazowski on this page are blatant misuse of their responsibility and I will be striking a complaint to have the corporate sabotagers banned. They were responsible for the previuous version of this article being cited as "a pile of shit" by an OTRS agent and they are intent on reverting the article to its previous state, bit by bit. They have wrongly deleted a correction that other Opticians do not offer laser eye surgery - they imply they do by actions of deleting corrected copy, and have deleted a perfectly reasonable caption update on the image in their lazy and systematic abuse of this page. They have not taken the courtesy to discuss this before editing.PKdundee (talk) 17:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

As I stated on your talk page, in regards to other companies offering laser eye surgery, the reference you provided absolutely does not back your claim that other opticians do not provide laser eye surgery - all it says is (as of a year ago) Optical Express started offering it. Nothing more, or less. Please stop edit-warring over this. As for filing a complaint, file away. Just remember, your own actions will be scrutinized as well. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The actual text was along the lines of "Of the four leading UK high street Opticians, Optical Express is the only to provide laser eye surgery" and is as true as day follows night. Basic research of the other three providers would reveal that to be true. The reference reports authoratitively about the market, key companies, and the products and services they provide and have expanded into. None, other than Optical Express is recorded as providing laser eye surgery. It would be remiss of such a reliable Industry source providing a notable industry report to miss such a basic fact as not to report if a leading UK high street Optician offered laser eye surgery. One of the founding principles of Wikipedia is to assume good faith. If you are true to that you would acknowledge your error and revert the text as you found it.PKdundee (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Can any MPOV editor comment on this disputed text? Even the Wiki alert suggests "Format the lead. Create or improve the lead paragraph."...it has been de-hanced recently to appease. My view is that it is of Encyclopaedic interest to readers to mention that of the four big UK high Street Opticians, Optical Express is the only to offer Laser Eye Surgery, and that the very authoratative reference actually reveals this if read. Even assuming good faith, the statement is actually true. Further, I believe that the reference that reveals that laser eye surgery is dominated by three major players in the UK, and also states that Optical Express is the largest of the three and reports that it has more clinics than any other, is actually also an independent reference of encyclopaedic interest and systematically removed in a two-stage manouvre by SimpleBob abd TeapotGeorge. I have been accused of promotion, but these two facts are (1) true; (2) of encyclopaedic interest NPOV IMHO and; (3)well referenced from authoratative sources.PKdundee (talk) 08:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Help me understand the claim that Optical Express is the only provider of laser eye surgery. What is it that they do differently from the other companies, and why is what they do not laser eye surgery? --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 09:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

We have two further (original)references, on which I believe the original article text was based, from Mintel, 2010 that clearly report that:

- "Laser eye surgery, with penetration estimated at around 2% of the spectacle/contact lens wearing audience, has an improving image and trade sources estimate it could appeal to as many as 12% of those who need eyesight correction (in our survey 8% of those who wear glasses or contact lenses would consider laser). Optical Express is the only high street chain to have embraced this new technology to date." Mintel, Optical Goods and Eyecare, Market Intelligence, February 2010, Page 10

- "Optical Express has been growing its presence on the high street. Its spectacle ranges are reasonably priced and cover the mid-market. It is the only one of the major chains with laser eye surgery and it has also expanded into dentistry." Mintel , Optical Goods and Eyecare, Market Intelligence, February 2010, Page 58

Optical Express is one of the four big UK high street Opticians chains, who offer eye tests and retail prescription spectacles and contact lenses. Specsavers, Boots Opticians and Vision Express being the others. Laser Eye Surgery is not a procedure that one would normally associate with a high street optician as it could be seen as competing against long term customer sales of glasses and contact lenses. Optical Express has embraced this new technology while the others, for whatever reason, have not.PKdundee (talk) 10:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

To further explain, there are three main laser eye surgery chains in the UK (reference available), and OE is the largest of these (reference avail). While I have no public reference to cite, OE performs around 65% of all treatments in the UK. 35% is performed by the other main clinics - Ultralase and Optimax - and independents such as Moorfields. All I can say to support our market share size is that if you live in the UK and google "laser eye surgery", you will see that Google who are very strict on this matter, accept OE Adwords copy "The UK's No.1 laser eye surgery provider", and in Europe as "Europe's No.1 Laser Eye Surgery provider." The other two main UK providers only provide eye surgery and are not "Opticians" or operate, in the main, from "High Street" locations. That makes OE pretty unique in the UK market as it operates both a high street retail Opticians business and a laser eye surgery clinic business.PKdundee (talk) 11:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Google results are not authoritative in any way; Google are sellers of advertisements with purely commercial motives, not scholars or governments. --Orange Mike | Talk

True, and I'm not an advocate of Google in any way, but as anyone trying to make a "No.1" claim on Google will testify, we had to provide rock-solid proof for our "No.1" claim to be allowed, was my sort of point there. My other point was that as we are so far ahead in the UK, by default we are the largest provider in Europe even though we only have a handful of clinics in a few countries. My actual end point is that saying "we are the largest provider" is factual and well referenced and valuable to this article. I am not really sure why so many editors appear to be against that fact.PKdundee (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not really getting any resolution or direction on these valid points. The fact is that someone removed "fluff", "poppycock" and COI "promotion" that was written by research guru's MINTEL (I used their words verbatim) and replaced it with text that does not match the reference. As such it is now not exactly based on what MINTEL reported, but loosely based on what MINTEL reports. I fear TeapotGeorge will remove it unless it is corrected. I think if you read the two main threads in this section, you will understand that the editors appear to be applying double-standards and their claims, that references that are being used do not back up the OE claims, are simply misrepresentations of fact. The claims being made, and the text that they have removed, are verbatim of the references from well respected organisations. Gobsmacked. PKdundee (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you are getting resolution, just not the one you want. I'm sure this point has been made before, but I'll make it again - Wikipedia is not here to be a mouthpiece for your organization, reposting your copy verbatim. And on the verbatim note, perhaps you should read WP:COPYVIO - outside of short attributed quotes, we don't repost content verbatim from other sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks I will try and take that on board.PKdundee (talk) 22:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Can I request that a NPOV editor looks at the current article and addresses the point that in the EXPANSION sub-section the entries dated 2007-2008 are moved into the 2007-present section. I dread to do this myself.PKdundee (talk) 08:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Simple Bob handled this Failedwizard (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

sorry I edited the article and failed to put in descriptor...that I reinstated the broken reference link and put back the original text that was deleted because of a broken reference link. Sorry.PKdundee (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• SimpleBob: can you explain what you mean in your last edit "sorry but you are interpreting the source which is original research. Other chains use different brands of laser." Actually, they dont - AMO is the only supplier of Intralase equipment and all other clinics use the older FS60, except for Optimax who have only a couple of iFS(TM)150. Quote from adjudication/reference: "We noted that the complainant had acknowledged that the AMO iFS 150 Laser used by Optical Express for flap creation was the most technologically advanced available for that aspect of the procedure." and Point 14: "We noted that Optical Express had provided an e-mail from AMO, the manufacturers of the iFS 150, which included an assurance that Optical Express were the only corporate laser vision correction provider in the UK that had that technology in every clinic. We therefore considered that the claim had been substantiated and was not misleading." PKdundee (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You are using Wikipedia to promote your company by scoring points over its competition. That is a very clear conflict of interest. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 15:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, his edit was backed up by the source—it says:

14. [Complaint] Not upheld

We noted that Optical Express had provided an e-mail from AMO, the manufacturers of the iFS 150, which included an assurance that Optical Express were the only corporate laser vision correction provider in the UK that had that technology in every clinic. We therefore considered that the claim had been substantiated and was not misleading.

On this point we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 11) clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 18.1 and 18.3 (Comparisons with identified competitors and/or their products) but did not find it in breach.

Which seems to substantiate the claim that they're the only company using that laser. Whether it should be in the article is a matter for consensus. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand why every fact presented needs to be seen as promotion while similarly weighted facts presented to slight the company from the same referenced sources appear to be deemed acceptable.PKdundee (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent Edits (branched - watchdog issue)

Relating to the Watchdog entry, I named Prof.David Gartry as the expert witness that Watchdog introduced as being “from the Royal College of Ophthalmologists” , as per two references in that paragraph – and in so doing suggested that he was an independent authority with no agenda or COI. While he is probably a member of said organisation and I assume good faith in that, he is an employee of and therefore “from” a competitor clinic. I included a reference that linked to his profile page on the competitor site to back up the statement that Watchdog failed to declare this in their programme or their web site. This edit and reference was removed by MikeWazowski as being poorly structured and an invalid reference. Can an NPOV editor review this and perhaps suggest a way in which we can communicate this obvious COI on that programme?PKdundee (talk) 08:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It is common for NHS consultants (Gartry is a consultant and also the director of refractive surgery at Moorfields Eye Hospital in London) who does not work in the private sector. Are you saying that only NHS staff, or university teaching staff who have no other source of income should be allowed to make a comment on the practices of a commercial company? --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 09:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

While Moorfields is an NHS hospital, it offers laser eye surgery on a commercial (private) basis and Prof.Gartry is involved with this. I dont mind anyone making statements and offering their professional view but I do think his conflict of interest should have been stated.PKdundee (talk) 10:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm keen to keep to the sourcable facts - rather than 'Watchdog did not inform its viewers that their expert witness was an employee of a competitor clinic.[citation needed]' how about 'The expert witness that appeared on watchdog was also employed by clinic X as a Y.[citation needed]'? You'd need a second citation that supported the Gartry was the expert in the program, but that would certainly be vastly better than the current version. Failedwizard (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I've also just split this talk page section into two so that it is a bit more managable, I hope nobody objects... Failedwizard (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

that sounds reasonable except he is not employed by anyone else - the RCO is an optional membership organisation, pretty like a golf club, but obviously for the profession. I would rather it said "is employed by". The Watchdog page already referenced has a section on him as the expert witness and on the show, and the Moorfields Private Eye Clinic link references him as working there http://www.moorfields-private.co.uk/Consultants/davidsgartry .PKdundee (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk about massaging sources to meet your corporate aims - You say only that he is employed by the Moorfields Private Eye Clinic because you want to discredit his testimony against your company. You conveniently ignore the fact that he is an NHS consultant (in the hospital where the private clinic is located) and is director of refractive surgery in that same hospital, is a visiting professor at one university and professor at another university. These are all likely to be the reasons why the BBC engaged him - yet that doesn't matter to you because you only want to present one specific source. You really are behaving badly here and I suggest you stop editing the article before you get both your own account and the company's IP blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 15:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not contest that his references are impecible, however the "outspoken" view of this individual which was featured in Watchdog is that a surgeon should be seen before date of surgery and this is at odds with the majority of the industry that has similarly esteemed surgeons and practioners in the USA, UK and across the world; who practice that patients should only be seen before date of surgery if there are any issues identified at the initial consultation.PKdundee (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, PK - didn't quite understand the 'except he is not employed by anyone else' part... could you expand a bit... I thought he was and that was the point...Failedwizard (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake for not making that clear. You suggested wording 'The expert witness that appeared on watchdog was also employed by clinic X as a Y.[citation needed]'? where I suggested 'The expert witness that appeared on watchdog is employed by Moorfields Private Eye Clinic as a Consultant.[citation needed]', my meaning being that Moorfields is his only/main employer but if it makes sense to go with your wording I am not overly concerned. However, my concern is that once written, others will change it.PKdundee (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I think that's a lot better than the current setup - will change. Failedwizard (talk) 07:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately saying he was a consultant at a private clinic fails to point out that he is also a noted expert for other reasons, so I balanced this in the article. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 09:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, now - do we have any idea how we go about sourcing a reference to 'also made a public retraction at the end of its programme over comments it made during the programme'? I've got no idea at all... Failedwizard (talk) 09:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the contributions made by all are balanced and fairly represented now.PKdundee (talk) 10:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Expect for the citation re: TV programme which I have a copy of but can't publish as it is BBC copyright. But let me make a small edit as I have been informed they made a statement rather than a retraction.PKdundee (talk) 10:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I removed it for now as unless we can citate, it will be considered hearsay.PKdundee (talk) 10:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

They actually read out a statement that we had produced concerning allegations on the programme. We do not wish to publish this, as it was a communicatiuon to them, so best left out.PKdundee (talk) 10:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Incase anyone thinks I am being devious, during the programme Watchdog stated that Padraig Harrington was not treated by Optical Express, whereas they read out a statement from OE that he was treated. A sort of retraction, but it's not materially important. Just thought I would explain.PKdundee (talk) 12:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the following sentence "which competes with Optical Express, as a consultant." because it had no reference, I have been bizarrely accused by user: PKdundee of edit warring??Teapotgeorge^Talk 19:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I think 'as a consultant' was supported by the wider reference. Failedwizard (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I will get a reference in due course that supports "is a direct competitor of". The edit-warring comment was really to do with history of deleting everything and not just the unreferenced material. What I should have said in hingsight, though, is please assume good faith please don't start an edit war. Nonetheless, thank you for putting comment on the talk page. PKdundee (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Since TeapotGeorge's diligence has highlighted that most of this section is unreferenced, I have removed. There is nothing on the Watchdog website or anywhere else that supports these claims. As such, so that the item is not given too much undue weight I have also removed the COI text which is partly referenced.PKdundee (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Rotsmasher undid my perfectly valid deletion of unsubstantiated unreferenced hearsay - 07:06, 3 September 2011 Rotsmasher (talk | contribs) (16,939 bytes) (Undid revision 448114161 by PKdundee (talk) sneaky! get rid of the Watchdog criticism at the same time as the restPKdundee (talk) 12:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)) (undo)

There was nothing sneaky about it. There is no reference or evidence for this allegation. If there is can I request that he produce it please?

Similar to the removal of my unreferenced insertions, as it was Rotsmasher who originally introduced this claim without any reference, can I request that this be removed until he, or anyone else, provides such evidence that "the programme was critical of OE and particularly emphasised that in seven out of ten consultations, the prospective patient was not offered the opportunity to see the surgeon before the day of surgery.[citation needed]" In my investigation to find a reference to discredit the source of this allegation (the expert witness), I found no reference that supports that it was actually made.

Rotsmasher has also reintroduce the statement to discredit the expert witness, and on balance I dont think that's fair as there again is no evidence that the expert witness actually appeared on the programme.

My deletion of this whole allegation was to potentially correct a wrong that may have been done.PKdundee (talk) 12:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Watchdog reference is here [1] Teapotgeorge^Talk 12:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that PK has a point, I can't see how the reference supports the 'surgeon before the day of surgery' part. (but it certainly supports the Gartry part that got thrown out to) I'd have a look shortly and see what can be done Failedwizard (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/watchdog/2011/05/optical_laser.html that took me all of 2 minutes to find again. Funny PK had so much trouble..Rotsmasher (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Fabulous, I've popped that in. I'm reasonably happy with the watchdog bit now, how do others feel? Failedwizard (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, about the 'Funny' - Let's talk about edits not editors please. Both of you. Failedwizard (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I made the same genuine error as TeapotGeorge in that they appear to have two separate pages on this feature. I only need to find a suitable reference and request reinstatement of "is a direct competitor of OE" I will possibly find it on the Mintel reprot and if so will forward to OTRS for confirmation of its validity. Other than that it is accurate. Thanks.PKdundee (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The reference link is broken. Can this be fixed or the statement removed?PKdundee (talk) 22:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

It's been fixed - good catch :) Failedwizard (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

LEAD INTRO

The alert at the page header suggests that the LEAD should be improved. I would like to enhance the lead with added text referenced from credible sources, Mintel and Optician Online (I believe small snippets are covered under fair use). Thus the lead would read:

Optical Express is a retail optical services company in the United Kingdom and is part of the Optical Express Group, which operates in the optical, refractive eye surgery, dental, cosmetic and private healthcare industries. It is one of the four largest high street retail opticians in the UK, which, combined, account for 55% of the optical goods market, of which Optical Express has a 6% share.[1 - MINTEL ref] Optical Express experienced a 48% growth in UK retail distribution of optical goods and eyecare in the period 2007-2009, the largest increase of all the four large UK opticians. [2 - MINTEL ref]

Optical Express is the only of the four large UK high street Opticians to offer laser eye surgery. [3 - MINTEL ref] Laser eye surgery in the UK is dominated by three main players, Optical Express, Ultralase and Optimax accounting for around 80% of treatments and running some 80-85% of the clinics[4 - MINTEL ref], with Optical Express being the largest of the three. [5 Opticianonline ref]

I understand that many won't have access to MINTEL, (anyone who does can you confirm the following is accurate?), so I have taken out some excerpts of what has been said and placed it here so you can see the references to the above:

[1 - MINTEL Market Intelligence, Feb 2011 p.11] Pie chart "shares in sales of optical goods" showing Specsavers 23%, Boots/D&A 15%, Vision Express 11% and Optical Express 6%.

[2 - MINTEL Market Intelligence, Feb 2011 p.57] A table "FIGURE 28: RETAIL DISTRIBUTION OF OPTICAL GOODS AND EYECARE, 2007-09" whereby growth over the period is shown as thus: Specsavers (+7%), Boots/D&A (-6%), Vision Express (+13%), Optical Express (+48%), Independents (-8%), Supermarkets+Online (+23%)

[3 - MINTEL Market Intelligence, Feb 2011 p.10] Laser eye surgery, with penetration estimated at around 2% of the spectacle/contact lens wearing audience, has an improving image and trade sources estimate it could appeal to as many as 12% of those who need eyesight correction (in our survey 8% of those who wear glasses or contact lenses would consider laser). Optical Express is the only high street chain to have embraced this new technology to date.

[4 - MINTEL Market Intelligence, Feb 2011 p.43] Laser in the UK is dominated by three main players, Ultralase, Optimax and Optical Express, accounting for around 80% of treatments and running some 80-85% of the clinics.

[5 http://www.opticianonline.net/Articles/2010/11/26/26744/Ten+years+of+trends+in+UK+refractive+surgery.htm]:

"In 2004 Boots sold its laser interests to Optical Express, which today has the most clinics in the UK."

"Optical Express remains the largest group in the UK"

"Unlike in the past seven years, the UK's largest provider, Optical Express, declined to take part in the survey this year."

"Ultralase, the second largest group..."

"The third major group, London-based Optimax..."

Feedback welcome. PKdundee (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The nature of the claims that you are making ("largest", "only", etc.) should be avoided by someone with such a clear conflict of interest. They may be facts, albeit ones which can't be verified by people who don't subscribe to MINTEL research, but it would be much better if someone who didn't work for Optical Express added them - should they see fit to do that. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 16:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I have permission (license) to send the Mintel pages referenced above to named individuals. If anyone would like a copy and ability add the facts independently, I will be glad to provide a copy. My contact details should be easy to find given my declared COI on my profile page. PKdundee (talk) 23:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I have now forwarded the Mintel Report pages cited to OTRS for confirmation of their existence and accuracy. I therefore would like to suggest the following text to improved the lead section (as indicated by the Wiki template "Improve Article" prompt:

Optical Express is a retail optical services company in the United Kingdom and is part of the Optical Express Group, which operates in the optical, refractive eye surgery, dental, cosmetic and private healthcare industries. It is one of the four largest high street retail opticians in the UK, which, combined, account for 55% of the optical goods market, of which Optical Express has a 6% share. Optical Express experienced a 48% growth in UK retail distribution of optical goods and eyecare in the period 2007-2009, the largest increase of all the four large UK opticians.

Optical Express is the only of the four large UK high street Opticians to offer laser eye surgery. Laser eye surgery in the UK is dominated by three main players, Optical Express, Ultralase and Optimax accounting for around 80% of treatments and running some 80-85% of the clinics, with Optical Express being the largest of the three. [5 Opticianonline ref] Optical Express has performed over one million laser eye surgery procedures worldwide and has invested over £1million in technology in each of its clinics.

This may be considered overtly promotional by some editors, given previous objections, but is all documented facts as written by independent authoritative sources. PKdundee (talk) 12:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Cant this section be corrected and given the same respect to OE as other market-leading, successful, organisations are given in Wikipedia? I am sorry we are the "largest" of the providers, however is in not worth giving readers this "impartially" sourved information? PKdundee (talk) 22:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd be willing to support the suggested paragraph - does anyone have any issues with the proposed text? Failedwizard (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Percentages....

'account for 55% of the optical goods market, of which Optical Express has a 6% share. ' is a touch ambiguous to me, can someone with access to the ref check if this is 6% of the overall, or 6% of the 55% (i.e 3 and a bit % of the total)? Failedwizard (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

If I can get Mintel's permission to send the table (or pages in the report referred to) to HJ Mitchell (on an ITRS ticket), with his permission, he could clarify all the MINTEL statements. The 6% is the overall figure:

[1 - MINTEL Market Intelligence, Feb 2010 p.11] Pie chart "shares in sales of optical goods" showing Specsavers 23%, Boots/D&A 15%, Vision Express 11% and Optical Express 6%.

The above percentages, from the top 4, total is 55%. PKdundee (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

If you want to, you can send it to me via OTRS, so other OTRS agents can check it. And the ambiguity may be my fault—I was trying to polish up the prose a little and merged the sentences. I'm pretty sure it means that the four combined have 55% of the market, but OE individually has 6%. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you both Failedwizard (talk) 10:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I will send this Mintel report via OTRS on Monday.PKdundee (talk) 11:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

huh? why? Failedwizard (talk) 12:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I responded HJ's thread that said I could send it to OTRS agents to verify the Mintel data.PKdundee (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Can someone correct TeapotGeorge's latest edit. 14:03, 3 September 2011 Teapotgeorge (talk | contribs) (16,752 bytes) (I can't check the Mintel ref, but the ref further down the page says 56%) He changed the stat from 55% to 56%. The 55% stat is the correct market share stat for the optical market leaders (Mintel). The 56% stat he refered to a "later down" is for laser eye surgery market leaders(Mintel).PKdundee (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I have been asked to step back from the article, so someone else will have to do it for you. All good wishesTeapotgeorge^Talk 15:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

George, I see that you are contributing again. I genuinely do not mind this, and welcome the debate. The more editors/views the better as this page is being attacked. Can you correct as above? PKdundee (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Fly Tipping Case

I have a dilema and am asking for advice. The item below was added to the 'original' article. It was reported in a small local newspaper and I believe has undue weight on the page, especially given that other items including one which was charitable and reported in national UK press, featured in a UK documentary aired on a terrestial channel (ITV) and on UK TV news, was removed as being "trivial". Can I remove it, or can someone independent remove it as having undue weight and being a farce?

In 2007, the Optical Express store at Cross Street in Manchester was given the largest ever fine for city centre fly tipping by Manchester City council after a large amount of rubbish was dumped behind the store. The company did not turn up to the court case, and was assessed a £25,000 fine. An Optical Express spokesperson said 'This is a ludicrous case. We were never served a summons so it's hardly surprising we weren't in court. Our lawyers are lodging an immediate appeal.'[17]. A legal appeal overturned the decision and the fine was subsequently dropped.[citation needed]

Further, while I only have email corresondence from an independent legal firm that the case was never progressed following the legal appeal, there is no report as the authority buried it (excuse the pun) and had no requirement to inform anyone of its decision. I have sent the email to HJ Mitchell who can hopefully confirm its existence. Are there any suggestions how I can provide a suitable reference. Ideally, I would hope that the article can be removed as it is just as explained, quite ludicrous, and has undue weight in the section.

Any advise appreciated. PKdundee (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I have since deleted this. In due course I will be establishing the original sources who posted this rubbish along with other inaccurate allegations and request that they are banned incase they plan to repeat. Hoping for everyone's support because we have all spent a lot of time arguing over this.PKdundee (talk) 00:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

That sounds a bit threatening.Rotsmasher (talk) 07:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the removal, but Mike has reverted you (and I can't fault his rationale, to be honest). Let's wait for a consensus to develop before adding or removing anything controversial.

I tend to agree that the material should be removed or trimmed, though—it does seem to get a lot of weight in comparison to much more significant event in the company's history. For example, the amount of text on the acquisitions is about the same as that on this incident, and expanding from one store to dozens is easily the more important of the two. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Fly tipping is a very serious issue. The case has been called ludicrous by Optical Express and yet we are now debating it under that section heading here. Am I the only one who feels that subtlely the negative info on this company is being removed leaving a glorified company PR statement?Rotsmasher (talk) 07:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

No you're not the only one who feels that. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 07:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that I'd like to see a source about the legal appeal being successful (in which case I can see much stronger grounds for trimming or removing the section) otherwise I'd like to see it in.Failedwizard (talk) 10:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, it's really nice to see your development as an editor; you're using the talkpage much more effectively and that's making it much easier for us all to engageFailedwizard (talk) 10:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC).

I think I already sent the email from our solicitor handling that appeal to HJ Mitchell via OTRS so should be available to all OTRS agents. I can resend it on Monday. Thanks.PKdundee (talk) 11:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Out of interest, why are we making so much use of OTRS for the article? I've never seen it used in this way before...seams a bit unwikipediaish.... Failedwizard (talk) 11:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how other matters are dealt with, except perhaps that the escalation of this article was raised through OTRS for resolution.PKdundee (talk) 14:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I have sent evidence to OTRS of private communication between OE and our lawyers that confirms that the accusation of fly-tipping went to appeal of which the outcome was never communicated, and also confirms that there was no further action taken against Optical Express following the appeal. Since this story is ultimately misleading in that there was no basis for the fine, and was from only one local newspaper source, I would like it to be removed. At minimum, and since it has been given undue weight, it should be shortened and made clear that Optical Express was wrongly fined.PKdundee (talk) 12:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

:Can anyone at OTRS confirm evidence was received and either remove, or reduce the weight of, this rubbish. The council wrongly brougt charges that were subsequently dropped. I cant see the value of making such a big deal of this regional story covered by a local newssheet with an agenda to fill its pages with shock/horror/scandal entertainment pieces.PKdundee (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Patient Records dumped

I have deleted this item as the patient records were from a competitor store. If you read the article referenced, you will see that while the records were reported to be found at the back of an OE Store, it was a store manager of a rival store who was quoted as making the statement.

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/886571.print/

It is obviously another false slight against OE fromn the original article which I have always maintained had been written to be defamatory. Maybe editors accusing me of overtly COI should take note of what has been discovered in recent edits. Can I now have the COI tag removed from this page? PKdundee (talk) 00:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

That appears to be a typo in the Argus article. So you are saying that Vision Express carried their old records to your store and dumped them out the back eh? Their manager then made no mention of this when responding! Yet again you are trying to gradually remove anything negative about Optical ExpressRotsmasher (talk) 07:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

To take a balanced view, yes this isn't the best source, but I'll come back to that. I certainly don't think that you can have the conflict of interest tag removed because you *do* have a conflict of interest - this doesn't mean you have bias, but there is a clear conflict of interest - two different things.

Now, the reference: there's clearly a typo, and possibly the text gives the thing undue weight. In your position you can do some very sensible things to make provide evidence that the source shouldn't be used. I imagine you have access to store addresses so if you can tell us the address of the store in Brighton in 2006 (because if the quoted address turns out to be a different group that would give you a lot of support and I'd delete the text myself) - the other thing is that since your are an employee of OE you could ring the paper and get them to put a correction (if there is one) on its website, which the wiki community would certainly take notice of. Failedwizard (talk) 10:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why there is any confusion over the article. This map clearly shows that Optical Express is located on Western Road and backs on to Stone Street. The article looks good to me. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 10:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

That does look pretty definitive... It's just a shame the source article is badly written :( Failedwizard (talk) 11:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Please take a step back and view this on balance and without bias. You are now holding a kangeroo trial - the reference is flawed. It is hardly just a typo, it is a material and significant error on the reporters part. For the benefit of US editors, Vision Express is the third largest UK optical chain and there is often confusion between the two companies and high street optical chains are often located in the same area/street, sometimes next door to each other. Regardless, the inaccuracy of the article questions its credibility beyond a shadow of a doubt. What's to say that teh reporter didn't get confused and insert the location wrongly. I doubt if the Argus has any idea which version is correct, its a very small local newssheet. I would urge you to review the facts and view this nuetrally and review both the credibility of the article and its source. Whatever happens, I am sure the truth will out soon enough.PKdundee (talk) 11:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I am doing my best for you PK - help me help you. Give me some evidence (like for example, of OE and VE in Brighton in 2006) and I'll take the reference out myself (which is probably best anyway as it's getting harder and harder for you to move without being reverted) Failedwizard (talk) 13:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Appreciated. I know you are up against a lot of strong views to give me a fair voice. I can confirm that is the address and location of our store. However, it is not conclusive if the address is the correct location of the incident or not, or even if the incident occurred in the first place. The only fact is that this story has inaccuracies and no-one can be 100% certain which fact is correct and which is not. The source is of low quality (relatively) and could have been rushed together by a trainee journalist to meet a deadline and therefore full of inaccuracies. What's also certain is that if it was properly and diligently written and edited, as an encycleopaedic source should be, there would not be an error.PKdundee (talk) 13:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

What inaccuracies? Are you seriously saying that a long-established publication like the Argus would mix up Vision Express and Optical Express? Are you saying they are wrong and that the records weren't found in that street? Do you know it was a junior reporter? Your efforts to remove negative information from the article are so transparent that I'm amazed one admin has put up with your behaviour for so long. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 14:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not only saying that they would mix them up, I am saying they actually did mix them up - didn't you read their web page? How, where and when I dont know, I was only trying to put forward possible reasons as examples to highlight what issues might be. It could be that OE was the correct offender, but who can be 100% sure given their error.PKdundee (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I also want to point out, if anyone hasn't already, since late July Rotsmasher is the sole individual involved in the original posting of all negative messages on this page, including this rubbish inaccurately referenced comic piece. Has the penny dropped yet?.PKdundee (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's talk about edits not editors please. Both of you. Failedwizard (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec) The Argus clearly did mix the two up, because it calls the Optical Express manager the Vision Express manager. Still, from Google maps, the two don't appear to be close together and it's clearly Optical Express that was intended. Was there any coverage of this in the national news? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Unless the whole story was inaccurate. Say, for instance, the incident occured at Vision Express and the reporter who might possibly have used telephone comms for quotes, got it wrong and referenced the right store manager but the wrong store location and added detail of the "finder" to support the story. I'm not saying that's what happened, I am saying that's what could have happened. It is not conclusive what happened. I don't know if it was nationally reported.PKdundee (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• I just searched the Google News archives for "Optical Express Brighton" and "Optical Express records" and couldn't find a single mention of this incident. Has anyone managed to locate a source other than the Arger? If it's only been reported in one local newspaper, that would make a strong argument for its removal, imo. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I for one would be happy to see it go one local miss-reported article does not seem to be significant enough to warrant a mention.Teapotgeorge^Talk 15:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

if so can this inaccurate story be removed? PKdundee (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

: if so can this inaccurate story be removed? PKdundee (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Locations

MikeWazowski: We would argue otherwise as location is an important factor to many of our customers where location (or rather distance from home) is one of the most important factors when choosing laser eye surgery. In any case, many other WIKI pages citing organisations have ALL locations listed. Even so, there is no need to delete the whole section. It also is a very visible reference to the size and growth of Optical Express. Especially when so much has been made to chart the reduction in our Dental business. Hopefully the addition of locations gives the reader a better sense of perspective. User talk:PKdundee

This is not your company's personal advertising space, and you do not get to control the content. It is unreferenced and unnecessary, and it will be removed. MikeWazowski (talk) 07:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Although other articles we have taken reference from to build this page nuetrally have this information on their locations. That is unfair editing and at best not nuetral.PKdundee (talk) 07:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Third party references to these locations is easy to get if that is all that is needed to publish this info. Although as I said above, others in our sector are listing their locations without reference.PKdundee (talk) 07:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

One example is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultralase. Ultralase has a few locations. Please do not penalise us for being a larger organistaion. You might also argue that their list of services is unreferenced and "advertising" although I would not as it is a matter of fact as you would see if you visited their website. Websites are under juristiction of ASA and therefore if information is wrong it can be challenged there. Why does Wiki therefore not trust that what an organisation says on its website is factual and reference. PKdundee (talk) 07:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no encyclopaedic benefit to having every location listed. By all means, list the number of stores, number of clinics, number of each in each of the countries the company operates in—that has encyclopaedic merit, but listing every location doesn't help the reader's understanding of the company itself. I've also removed it from Ultralase. If there are any other examples you know of, I'll probably do the same to them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I added the Locations text as suggested but this was removed by MikeWazowski at 21:51 on 27/8/11. Also Simple Bob at 15:12 on the 28/8 removed flags:

- Topshop (who also have flag icons) actually mentions locations

- M&S who also mention locations

- Specsavers who list locations

- Primark (have a table with flags)

and that is only a small sample of organisations like OE.

I would lile to discus views on whether the revised content of the Location section should be reinstated as I believe it was unfairly removed ny MikeWazawski. I do not intend to request that each location is added, but personally I quite liked the flags and it took me some time to learn how to do that.PKdundee (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed the flags, I think. They're against our Manual of Style (NB: not exactly light reading, even for seasoned editors). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Can the revised (and reduced as suggested) text be reinstated - these don't have flags?PKdundee (talk) 14:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Advertising

Independent reference source for "New TV advert": http://www.retailgazette.co.uk/articles/01304-optical-express-launches-new-ad-campaign PKdundee (talk) 12:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Rotsmasher, what point are you trying to make?

This failure to adhere to ASA guidelines is contrary to section 7 of Standards for Laser Refractive Surgery by The Royal College of Ophthamologists published in July 2011.http://www.rcophth.ac.uk/page.asp?section=368&sectionTitle=Excimer+Laser+Refractive+Surgery

OE guidelines are set by the IMAB and all our surgeons are members of the General Medical Council. While our surgeons can be members of the RCO most choose not to. It is a voluntary body, setup and predominantly run by a competitor to OE. This is just gutter editing. It's obvious you wouldn't make a career in investigative journalism. I cant even believe I have to argue this point. Can someone with some sense remove it please?PKdundee (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence (grounds in edit summary). I would also judge the above comment a personal attack. I'd like you to stop that sort of thing :) Failedwizard (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it is important to clarify a few points The Royal College of Ophthamologists has a Royal Charter. Please read this reference.http://www.rcophth.ac.uk/page.asp?section=301&sectionTitle=Professional+Standards+Committee The Royal College of Ophthamologists is responsible for the post graduate medical examinations that allow a refractive surgeon to use the title consultant. In addition, protecting the public is a primary purpose of the college. Every surgeon you have working for you has to be a member of the General Medical Council by law. The IMAB is a totally unaccredited internal group created by Optical Express which has no offical mandate to set any standards that carry weight in law. The inclusion of the edit is warranted due to the serious nature of the breach of the Standards set by the college regarding advertisingRotsmasher (talk) 21:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I also belive that "This is contrary to Standards for Laser Refractive Surgery by The Royal College of Ophthalmologists published in July 2011.[35][36] " should be removed from the Watchdog item, on teh same grounds as above. The RCO is a self-accredited organisation and OE follows guidelines set by more stringent regulators.PKdundee (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Please read...http://www.rcophth.ac.uk/page.asp?section=26&sectionTitle=Legal+Notice

"We hope you will find the information on the website useful, but please remember that it is intended as general information only. It is not definitive, and our publication of it is not intended to create any legal relations with anyone. We aim to make the information as up to date and accurate as possible, but please be warned that it is always subject to change."

PKdundee (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

That is related to the website not being definitive... So one the one hand the RCO has a royal charter.http://www.rcophth.ac.uk/page.asp?section=305&sectionTitle=Governing+Documents On the other hand the IMAB has how many members who are members of the General Medical Council as a percentage of the total? So how many members that can actually perform laser eye surgery in the UK? Can you give me a citation for your more "stringent" standards?Rotsmasher (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but you keep massaging the truth: "created by Royal Charter in 1988". Most Colleges and Universities are created by royal charter (see Wiki) and does not signify a royal decree or support. It is simply procedural.PKdundee (talk) 08:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You didnt answer the questions. Your own website.http://group.opticalexpress.com/about-us/governing-bodies.html You name the RCO as one of these governing bodies. Many of your surgeons are members or fellows of the RCO. So your surgeons follow strict guidelines and standards for the practice of ophthalmology? So how does not seeing the surgeon until just before surgery and having adverts banned for being misleading fit with that? You are living in a dreamworld and using weasel words to try and argue your way out of this issue. Simply put. You acknowledge formally on your website that the RCO is a governing body. You state that your surgeons who are members of the RCO follow strict guideliners and standards when in two areas the company policy precludes them doing this. You have diminished the status of the RCO repeatedly on this page to give your arguments undue weight. Either change your website to make it clear your real opinion of the RCO or change your policies to actually follow their formal standards. The previous edit on advertising needs to be put back in as this issue is important and in the interest of Wikipeduia readers.Rotsmasher (talk) 09:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It would help if you read and understood what you were referencing - you are making quite massive mistakes in your reasoning. It says "OE surgeons that are members of the RCO..." What you refer to is not an OE guideline. I did not say that the RCO was not a governing body, but it is not the defacto governing body that OE itself promotes. However any of our surgeons can be members of the RCO and follow their guidelines. The surgeon is the qualified and skilled professional and has the authority to decide for themselves. I really dont see the link to advertising and the RCO, or indeed the IMAB for that matter.PKdundee (talk) 10:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I said "your surgeons who are members of the RCO". I think wiki admins need to reach a consensus on this.Rotsmasher (talk) 10:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Quick points, adminship isn't really relevant here, the admins enforce consensus of the community, admittedly people are unlikely to be made admin without distinguished service, but it's about the consensus, not some group of shadowy judges. I'm loosing track a little, but if you have a source that talks about the behavior of OE in relation to the rules of a governing body that is great, and will support your position, but one source that gives some rules and another that gives some behavior is in Original Research territory. Also I think its been mentioned on the COI noticeboard, but it would be great if you could use ':' to indent your talk page posts - it will make it much easier for the other editors to follow the conversation and encourage their participation. Failedwizard (talk) 09:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Failedwizard This is a suitable reference. Can you restore my edit?http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/watchdog/2011/05/optical_laser.htmlRotsmasher (talk) 11:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

In regard to their standards, the RCO state that: "They are not College regulations, but are intended to provide advice and assistance." Therefore the RCO is not saying that all their members MUST adhere to these standards. Also, these standards were updated in July 2011 after the programme was aired.PKdundee (talk) 13:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me just check what's happening here - I removed 'This failure to adhere to ASA guidelines is contrary to section 7 of Standards for Laser Refractive Surgery by The Royal College of Ophthamologists published in July 2011.[2] and your claim is that [3] supports it? (might need a pointer to the relevent paragraph for any other editors just browsing) Also, if you could indent your responses with colons (':'), where necessary that will make me a happy bunny. Failedwizard (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

No sorry, the section on watchdog where i had said that not seeing the surgeon before the day of surgery breached the RCO standards.. That has disappeared too.Rotsmasher (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It can't breach RCO standards because the standards by RCO's own admission are a guideline only, notwithstanding that OE does not universally adopt RCO guidelines, but those eof the IMAB. SO it cannot be accused of breaching a guideline that it does not support.PKdundee (talk) 14:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The documents in entitled "Standards" and was written in conjunction with the General Medical Council. Failedwizard wanted a reference which I have provided. The BBC Watchdog page is a valid reference to support my original edit. Whether your surgeons follow the guidelines of the IMAB is neither here no there as it is an internal Optical Express artifice with no accreditation externally.Rotsmasher (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so we're talking about a different thing, will have a look (I presume it's the one reverted by TG), but thank you for listening about the indentation, it makes life a lot easier :) Failedwizard (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

So to re-summerise, TG removed 'This is contrary to Standards for Laser Refractive Surgery by The Royal College of Ophthalmologists published in July 2011.' and you, (RS) claim is that [4] supports it? (might need a pointer to the relevent paragraph for any other editors just browsing), am I now clear on the facts? ({ {od}} (without the space) brings the indentation back if you need it to, it's quite cool to use) Failedwizard (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what the point is here? The implication is that OE activity was contrary to the RCO standards (which they themselves say is a guideline and not a definitive)? This is not correct. OE surgeons who are members of the RCO can choose, like any other RCO member, to follow the guidelines or not. How is this contrary?PKdundee (talk) 15:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Failedwizard you are clear of the facts. PKdundee we all have free will. Whether it is prudent or in the patient's interests to exercise that freewill to ignore guidelines drafted by a UK governing body for ophthalmology seems clear to me.Rotsmasher (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, getting somewhere. In my opinion, the watchdog reference [5] supports the 'contrary to Standards for Laser Refractive Surgery by The Royal College of Ophthalmologists' part, and I'd happily put that in. The date is part of the other reference that you originally posted with the edit and I think it would be unwikipedian to merge those together (there's a guideline for this but I can't recall it off-hand - anyone?). I think TG's reversion ([6], for those following at home) was entirely sensible and I would have done the same, but the problem was the sourcing rather than the content - RS just made it a bit difficult for themself. I'll make the change now. Failedwizard (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Made change and also took '(including all three main UK providers of laser eye surgery)' out earlier on to keep it fairly neutral. Failedwizard (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not nuetral to add this RCO statement and also not unbiased reporting to take out the fact that all three main providers of laser eye surgery do not support the RCO guidelines. The RCO is not a "UK governing body" it is an opt-in membership organisation where members can choose whether or not to ignore the guidelines. This is a fairly obvious misrepresentation and massaging of facts.PKdundee (talk) 16:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

You will notice that the reasoning was entirely based on what the sources say, you will also notice that '...the fact that all three main providers of laser eye surgery do not support..' wasn't in the article to start with and so can't be taken out. Failedwizard (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

And two wrongs don't make a right. This is misrepresentatitve of facts.PKdundee (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Foundations

I believe the Sunday Herald item has been given undue weight and position in the article. However I can't seem to edit it down to a suitable entry that will get across all points fairly. What about...

In 1998, following a takeover of debt-laden SpecialEyes, Optical Express had 32 court judgements for failure to settle debts owed to a number of companies. A senior financial analyst at the time commented that "since the company has been trading without interruption, most of these amounts must by now have been paid."[5]

While it records the court judgements (and some explanation what caused these), it explains what was said at the time in connection with the claims and takes away all of the sources and contradictory claims made by OE and PWC. The detail is in teh reference for those who want fuirther information.PKdundee (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC) I totally disagree. You are now linking the 32 judgements entirely with the SpecialEyes deal which is unlikely to be the case? Unless you can prove it? You are just gradually whittling away anything negative to leave a PR piece.Rotsmasher (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone independent have a view?PKdundee (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I like to think we are all independent. :) I'd be happy to support this, with the proviso that you give the full quote so

In 1998, following a takeover of debt-laden SpecialEyes, Optical Express had 32 court judgements for failure to settle debts owed to a number of companies. A senior financial analyst at the time commented that "It seems the company has a deliberate policy of only paying creditors on the issue of a statutory demand or a writ. Since the company has been trading without interruption, most of these amounts must by now have been paid."[5]

How does that sound to both of you? Failedwizard (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

But one individual is posting all the bad material and think should be considered a COI editor - personal vendetta - and refrained from making any further direct edits. They have not declared their interest in slighting OE, but this is the only page they are editing, and quite negatively. I cant see how that is considered fair or NPOV by wiki. Hey, but I am a newbie.

The proposed text still seems long and given undue weight. Yes it happened, but is hardly significant given the age and short-term of it. I would think that if there was an issue with undeclared debts, as there appeared to be, then of course a company who finds itself short of working capital might adopt a short-term "deliberate policy of only paying creditors on the issue of a statutory demand or a writ." So is systematic of the issue being made, so is it really necessary to labour and repeat and thus giving this item overdue weight?PKdundee (talk) 23:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

COI is a separate issue, I think it's for a new section at the very least and I don't think it would help you. Personally I think this whole thing would be much easier if the pair of you went of and got stuck in with *other* articles on Wikipedia for a bit and then came back.

The justification is very sweet but is not relevant here, sorry. We need to be citing sources and making sure that we don't selectively misquote sources. Let's get an opinion from Rotsmasher and any other editors that happen to be around and see what the consensus isFailedwizard (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough and agreed. All I want to do is get the article to an agreeable and balanced position, prevent future misrepresentations and undue weight. If Rotsmasher continues to add negative items, we will want to add positive to provide balance and keep the article under a NPOV policy.

There are still some issues to be resolved in the sectiona above, can anyone address these please? I think if no-one replies/has an opinion, then I am okay to edit myself.PKdundee (talk) 06:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the issue is significant and the paragraph is fine as it is. The whole debate on negative comments is falsely premissed. I dont view the comments as negative but as a required addition to a comprehensive article. I still think that Optical Express feel they should control the content of this article and unfortunately make it into a PR pieceRotsmasher (talk) 07:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Hardly significant and hardly worthy of the overdue space this item is afforded - the matter was, by independent report, settled before it was reported.PKdundee (talk) 08:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Can the item be edited as suggested by FailedWizard. The original is given undue weight.PKdundee (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Since 2007

I have issues with historic and recent postings in this section:

In October 2010 Optical Express offered shared venture partnerships (SVP) for many of their retail outlets. As of September 2011, Gloucester, Harrow and Wimbledon Optical Express stores have become SVPs.[30] [31] [32]

The reference is inconclusive that these are SVP stores and/or the trading companies do not have multiple stores. This is false information.

This is a sensible point - I took out the named locations Failedwizard (talk) 09:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Since 2007 Optical Express has been engaged in a dispute with Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) about VAT. A figure of £10.9 million pounds was quoted as the disputed amount. An appeal to the original case dismissal is scheduled for September 2011. [17][18] [19]

This is news, not worthy of being posted until the outcome.

Why is there anything wrong with news? We've got News_International_phone_hacking_scandal for example, which is full of news. Failedwizard (talk) 09:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The addition of "This is contrary to Standards for Laser Refractive Surgery by The Royal College of Ophthalmologists published in July 2011.[35][36]" to the Watchdog item has no bearing on this matter. The RCO is a membership opt-in organisation and therefore its guidelines are optional and on a per-surgeon basis. The RCO guidelines are not universally adopted by any of the three main UK providers.

I think (and I'm loosing track a bit) that you are already discussing this on a different part of this page. I think we should keep the conversation there. Failedwizard (talk) 09:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

There is an outstanding task to add that "Moorfields is a competitor to OE" in the Watchdog item and therefore would suggest the following wording:

...The expert witness that appeared on Watchdog...is also employed by the hospital's private clinic, a direct competitor to Optical Express.[37] http://www.privatehealth.co.uk/hospitaltreatment/find-a-treatment/laser-eye-surgery/featured-clinics/ ...

I believe it is worthy, fair and balanced, to note that the expert witness, however well qualified, has a clear conflict of interest.PKdundee (talk) 11:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Outstanding task? I think that this issue has been gone over in detail and looked at by a few editors now. The consensus appears to be that it's quite nice as it is. Failedwizard (talk) 09:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Referring to the section 'Recent Edits (branched - watchdog issue)':

I have removed the following sentence "which competes with Optical Express, as a consultant." because it had no reference, I have been bizarrely accused by user: PKdundee of edit warring??TeapotgeorgeTalk 19:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

you will see that it was a pending action to get a reference to support the deleted statement that Moorfields was a direct competitor to OE. I believe this to be a significant ommission in the current wording.PKdundee (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Which item is biased, inaccurately and falsely reported here - The report was not a report on Optical Express as is suggested in the item. It said it could not comment on an unverified report. OE did not refute the allegations. It did not know the details of the customers so it could not make any specific comment. Also, chains that came of worse had 4 visits, while those which had better results were based on 1 visit. The industry was hugely critical over the methodology adopted in this report. Please can this be corrected to be more representative of the report: NPOV: My suggestion, but please if anyone can suggest a balanced view...

"In 2011 the consumer magazine Which? rated UK Optical chains poorly. Optical Express, with four store visits, was the worst performing chain after an undercover investigation into the quality of general eye examinations. All optical chains reacted stating that the report did not represent a large enough sample of stores. Most of the chains critisised had only three or four visits, and number of visits was inconsistent across different chains. <<reference for visits - http://www.which.co.uk/news/2011/08/opticians-fail-the-which-eye-test-263296/>>"PKdundee (talk) 13:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

That's quite a reasonable suggestion. Personally, I thought the section (thanks in part to some work by teapotgeorge) was pretty good as it was, I've made some edits for clarity and I've changed the word refuted for something a bit more correct, but I think that it was reasonable solid. Happy for other opinions here. Failedwizard (talk) 14:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Charity(branched)

Can I have this new item added to balance the undue weight given to a host of negatives added by rotsmasher:

In January 2011 Optical Express reinforced its support of Glasgow Caledonian University's Centre of Excellence by donating the Oculus Pentacam worth £45,000 to optometry and dispensing optician students, becoming the first in Scotland to benefit from the state of the art eye diagnostic technology. The new equipment allows students in the Department of Vision Sciences the opportunity to use advanced technology as part of the four year optometry degree.

References

http://www.science20.com/newswire/glasgow_eye_students_make_it_first-75438

http://business.highbeam.com/3672/article-1G1-246809040/glasgow-eye-students-make-first

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-14209298/Glasgow-Eye-Students-Make-it.html

PKdundee (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

And another: In September 2011 Optical Express donated the use of their customer contact centre in support of the newly launched STV Appeal to collect public donations in support children in Scotland affected by poverty. http://campaigns.stv.tv/stv-appeal-2011/fundraising-heroes/business-supporters/269555-optical-express-helps-stv-to-support-children-in-poverty/ PKdundee (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

That sounds fair, will pop (a slightly wikified version of) it in... Failedwizard (talk) 14:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

When I say 'fair', I should also say that 'to balance the undue weight given to a host of negatives added by rotsmasher:' is not a helpful, or constructive, thing to be reading Failedwizard (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, content in, feel free to bring more, some things to bear in mind though - the same press release available from three different press release sites doesn't really qualify as three different references, and you're on thin ice with a press release anyway. I understand it's hard for you to switch from a marketing writing style to a neutral one, but I think that it will really help your editing (and this article) in the long run. However, I like to see companies doing nice things for charity and I think the best thing for you is to bring lots of new content. Failedwizard (talk) 15:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Can somone make minore edits to correct spelling? For instance "...Optical Express donated the Oculus..." ald need a line break between the two charity items.PKdundee (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• blush* Failedwizard (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikify...

I think that although the article has some issues, the wikify template is more-or-less not needed anymore, would anyone object if I removed it tomorrow? Failedwizard (talk) 15:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me, you've done some excellent work. I think the article is looking reasonably balanced at the moment.Teapotgeorge^Talk 15:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Can the COI also be removed? I am no longer contributing actively. Also it is factually incorrect as there appears to be two major contributors to the page with vested interest.PKdundee (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes you are. Also I have no vested interest.Rotsmasher (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

[7] is definitely contributing. RS's edits show an interest, and certainly one with an opinion that may be considered, in the fullness of time, weighing one thing with another and with full development of all issues, to be not entirely neutral, but COI requires an established link, which has not been found (and I haven't looked) in this instance. Failedwizard (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Then I can start to edit the page directly as that really is what the message is saying. Also, as pointed out in COIN, I will edit the page if Rotsmasher continues to be allowed as it is creating a complete imbalance. Atama suggested that was a fair request.PKdundee (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that you don't edit the page directly. What Atama suggested was 'I suspect what you mean is that since you've agreed to no longer edit the article directly, that it's only fair for the other person in the dispute to do the same. That's a reasonable request.' As in, (and I hope Atama forgives my paraphrase) it would be fair if Rotsmasher stopped editing the article directly as well (and I utterly agree with Atama here) Failedwizard (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikify tag removed.Failedwizard (talk) 06:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Archiving

Tomorrow, I'm planning on archiving everything upto the COIN notification (30th August) and then setting the bot (on a standard 30 day thing), any objections, let me know. The main purpose is to cut down the size and the secondary one is to draw a line under previous behaviour, we're stating to work together creatively and I'd like to keep that going. Failedwizard (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

can the location request be answered?PKdundee (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

let me be a bit more clear - I'll archive sections where the last message is older than 30th August, the location one would stay under the circumstances. Failedwizard (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

First threads have been archived and the bot is running on a 30-day cycle. Failedwizard (talk) 06:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Article Status

I wanted to get a status update on items on the page that are not resolved, while new information is being added and deliberated on. I have made several requests where there has been no response on the page. If they have been deliberated on, it would be good to know what has been decided and why. Specifically:

Locations were rewritten as suggested by an admin, an not unlike other organisations, but deleted. Can these be reinstated?

Thanks.PKdundee (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory. There is no encyclopedic value in a list of locations. If such lists exist in other articles, then suggest on the talk page of those articles that they be removed (disclosing your own COI, if they are competitors). --Orange Mike | Talk 14:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It would help if you looked before commenting. The initial posting was a list of locations. The revision listed the number and type of stores and clinics in each country. Is that invalid?

There are hundreds of more detailed store information examples, which I have not the time or inclination to edit, notably Tesco who think would be bemused if you deleted all of their content on the basis of your theory. A challenge that I doubt you will take up. If I did it, would I have your support when the arguments start?PKdundee (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Your primary purpose was to make the page so long that any negatives had to be scrolled up to be seen. Your blocked colleague "beatthecyberhate" et al previously attempted similar with a ridiculous unreferenced double spaced list taking several feet of space up!Rotsmasher (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at the Tesco page before you criticise please.PKdundee (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Good evening, I agree that there are a number of unclosed issues on this talk page. I would ask you to recognise that the rest of us are volunteers, we edit wikipedia for free and without a salary, and so can only devote a small proportion of our day to wikipedia, we also have many other wikipedia projects that don't involve this article at all. So, our time is very limited. There are several things that you can do to help us out with this.

• Something that slows me down a lot is having to track down interpretations on this talk page, I'm aware that both you at RS are working hard, and I'm very proud of the progress that you are both making; however, your editing is prone to accidental misunderstandings, for example, in this edit [8] you accidentally misunderstood that Atama was telling you the opposite of what you wrote, (for reference, the explanation was given here [9]). It took me quite a while to trace, and explain the misunderstanding. Because these misunderstandings are so common (on wikipedia generally, it's not just you) the only way I and the other editors can make progress is by checking your facts and pruning out places where there have been misunderstandings. This takes time. You can make this much faster for us if you include links to the differences as I have done in this paragraph. For example, when you say, 'rewritten as suggested by an admin'[10] tell us who and when with a link, then we can check it. When you say 'two editors agreed with the removal of this inaccurate story'[11] give us the two diff links so we can check in a couple of clicks. When you say 'removal of the fact that all three main UK providers who represent 80% of the market do not adhere to RCO guidelines'[12] we would love a link to which diff removed it (RS this all applies to you as well)

• The other thing that takes time is repeating ourselves: your last edit [13] looks to me like you might have accidentally assumed bad faith (bad wikiship I think), which you may recall from your own edits here [14] and here [15] and [16] and the next day [17]. This could be a really good article, and you and RS could be excellent editors who can start looking for consenus in a more obvious fashion than you already have. Help us to help you. Failedwizard (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your eloquent response Failedwizard, you have managed to convey everything I was thinking! I have 14,000 articles on my watchlist and I am not paid to edit any of them! All good wishes Teapotgeorge^Talk 17:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

In the interests of drawing a line - I've split the section into two (the rest is below) I'm doing by best to keep the issues seperate from each other but I'm aware that I'm getting a bit big for my boots, any complaints and I'll happily let the page grow organically. Failedwizard (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Remaining Issues

Sorry guys. I understand:

a

Lead Intro. On 10th September Failedwizard supported[18] the suggested para[19]. There were no objections. Can you insert this?PKdundee (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

b

Patient records dumped. On 3/Sep HJ Mitchell[20] and TeapotGeorge[21] agreed with the removal of this inaccurate story[22]. Can that be removed?PKdundee (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I dont agree. This is a serious breach of data protection and should remain in the article.Rotsmasher (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd be quite happy to see it replaced if there was a better reference.Teapotgeorge^Talk 20:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

There does not appear to be any other reference. The "serious breach" was inaccurately reported and it is not clear if Optical Express was the company involved. If this stays it damages the integrity and credibility of Wikipedia surely?PKdundee (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

TG has sensibly removed this, thought I'm assuming it will come back if another ref surfaces (well done on the diffs by the way, much much easier)Failedwizard (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

c

Foundations: on 10/Sept failedwizardsuggested revised wording on agreement that the original (current) had undue weight[23]. Can this be implemented?PKdundee (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The wording is fine as it isRotsmasher (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I dont agree. I believe it has undue weight and is actually not in a great place..."Foundations" surely not?PKdundee (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

d

Fly tipping. Evidence was provided to OTRS [24]. Can an admin confirm with them and reduce weight of this story?PKdundee (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Why not just add the evidence to the existing piece rather than reducing it?Rotsmasher (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It already has overdue weight for a trivial error on part of the Council or OE would have been fined. It was ludicrous as commented at the time - years ago (lol)...let it go Rotsmasher.PKdundee (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually the evidence that there was no fine, and the fact that this "ludicrous case" was only reported locally, probably warrants the deletion of this ludicrous post.PKdundee (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I can see the reasoning that if it the case where successfully appealed against it would be unfair to give any weight in article - I have no idea why OTRS are involved? surely putting a link to the court where the case was dropped or similar would be convincing enough for us? Failedwizard (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

There was no public record of the appeal. There was no public outcome of the appeal. All that exists is email communication from lawyers confirming that following the appeal no action was taken. This was sent to OTRS on request of HJ Mitchell because there is no other way of confirmation.PKdundee (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow... how strange, I thought that all court decisions had to be recorded, I have no idea what to do for a long term solution here (if we have to take OTRS word it might keep coming up)... have you considered a freedom of information request to the council? there are some sites that keep the results public and online. I think [25] does. I'm guessing here though... might be worth escalating to someone who knows about british legal system and also wikipedia - does anyone have any thoughts? (and should we do a RfC?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Failedwizard (talk • contribs) 22:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I think a data access request to the council would clarify the status of the appeal.Rotsmasher (talk) 06:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

e

I have a major issue with the status been given to the RCO on the Watchdog item and the removal of the information that all three main UK providers (who represent 80% of the market according to MINTEL) do not adhere to these "authoratitive UK-wide" (irony) RCO guidelines - so why is the RCO standards been given so much weight, and also the removal of "Moorfileds is a direct competitor of OE" text that clearly divulges the clear conflict of interest of the expert witness. I also beleive that the whole item has been given undue weight. Sorry I dont know what to link to here...it's just innacurate original reportage that is being copied...hence my "two wrongs don't make a right" statement. Actually. There is a discrepency here I need to investigate. Garty, in the Watchdog programme in April 2011, makes the statement that the critisised practice (as followed by all three major UK providers who carry out over 80% of all procedures according to MINTEL) is contrary to RCO guidelines ("so what" is my point), however the RCO (according to the reference) did not publish this guideline until July 2011. Garty also makes several statements on the programme to discredit OE that are contradictory to statements he made in the media. If anyone can help explain these inconsistences that would help.PKdundee (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, if your issue is that the BBC is not a reliable source, that's going to be tricky (particularly with the number of press releases cited in the article). However, if you can find a source that talks about the watchdog article then we can put that in too, but I don't think the watchdog reference is going anywhere, and you are pretty lucky that it's as low weight as it is now. I'm really happy that we can talk in terms of diffs now, that's excellent, you might also want to read up on Wikipedia:No_original_research - everything after 'There is a discrepancy' is OR (I think) and for all they are fun to talk about, they arn't what we do here. Failedwizard (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I am saying that the BBC is as culpable as NOTW for screwing up and they did here by allowing Garty, who is steeped in conflict of interest, to suggest that the practice adopted by OE, all other leading UK providers, and the majority, if not all, the leading worldwide providers is in some way diminished because it is contrary to a membership opt-in organisation's standards, which by their own admission on their website is a guideline only and not a directive, is quite bizzare.

If the post is going nowhere and the BBC wont be questioned, then all I can do is bring evidence to the table that discredits Garty's position as an independent expert witness, and on whose evidence and statement the Watchdog programme was based. But you have censored that by removing the perfectly referenced "Moorfields is a direct competitor to OE" text and removed that all main UK clinics (and 90% worldwide) do not follow the RCO standards.

Over 90% of worldwide providers adopt a two-stage process where a highly skilled optometrist makes the initial assessment of suitablity and recommends a treatment. A second and final assessment and decision is made by the ophthalmologist after referencing what the optometrist has recommended. As two highly skilled qualified professionals are involved, this gives the patient a better assessment. Also, the optometrist examines more eyes than the ophthalmologist and can detect other underlying conditions, and alternative treatments, that a surgeon may not.

The RCO system only requires that the surgeon sees the patient and makes one assessment, not two. The RCO approach is less comprehensive and why the majority of the leading providers across the world have adopted a two-stage assessment. Make your own mind up.

Garty made a number of statements on the programme that contradict statements he has made publicly in the media, and these compromise his motive and integrity. If that can be proven, and as the BBC programme claims was based on Garty's statements, will you take a different view on this item?PKdundee (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you might also want to read up on Wikipedia:No_original_research, 'proven' is irrelevant to wikipedia, we quote sources. Wikipedia dispenses previously published knowledge: everything we say must have been said somewhere else first. Failedwizard (talk) 23:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The standards document was updated in July 2011. It existed before.Rotsmasher (talk) 06:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Where was it before? That version should be linked to by way of reference. There is no indication on the July 2011 document what was updated.PKdundee (talk) 12:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

A copy of the 2009 document can be found on this page. It clearly advises that the patient needs to see the surgeon prior to the day of surgery.http://www.feoph-sight.eu/?cat=21 Rotsmasher (talk) 13:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

f

Teapot George asked for another reference that OE is one of the four leading UK hight street opticians[26]. This is in the original MINTEL reference [1] which I paraphrased[27] and emailed to OTRS for validation as many editors could not access MINTEL reports. Can anyone at OTRS conform this?PKdundee (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you need OTRS for that - just an editor with access to mintel - we don't all have to be able to access all references, and TG has made an edit to the section, so I think he's happy... Failedwizard (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I asked for another reference because the Specsavers and Vision Express articles give different percentages and both their references fail verification (dead link) Teapotgeorge^Talk 22:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the dead link in both cases - but the link is shoddy enough that I'm not included to take much from it anyway...:( Failedwizard (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks I tend to agree, it doesn't look like a reliable source! I'll see if there are others.Teapotgeorge^Talk 21:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Having looked again he does have a monthly column on the Financial Times, and he's a regular contributor to the Investors Chronicle and MSN Money website, so it's probably OK.Teapotgeorge^Talk 21:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)