Talk:Bates method/Archive 15

Passing GA

As should be clear, I'm passing the GA nom now. I've updated the GA header and article class, but I don't understand how to update the article history, so I'm leaving it for the moment. As I said in my review, the action here gives me concerns about article stability, but I believe it is a good article now, all things considered. Looie496 (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! With a few improvements to the "Underlying concepts" section, this could soon be a Featured Article candidate. PSWG1920 (talk) 05:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This really is awesome news. Pats on the back all round! Famousdog (talk) 08:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Eye illustration

This image, already in Wikimedia commons, might work as an illustration for the "Underlying concepts" section, if we label the relevant numbers (i.e. the ciliary muscle, lens, and extraocular muscles.) PSWG1920 (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The ciliary muscle doesn't show up quite as clearly as one would wish, but even so I agree with you that the illustration would work. Looie496 (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

i think it would be better to use this one so long as we change the background to white.... the twenty something circles that aren't relevant to this article are distracting. Good find PSWG! -- ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 01:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The copyright issue

On 1st March I sent an emal message to Israeli Channel 2, using the address rashut@rashut2.org.il, which I got from their website. The message said

"Hello

I'm sorry to bother you, but I wonder if you could tell me whether this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeIklOfaz_w represents a violation of copyright?

The reason I ask is that there is a dispute as to whether it is appropriate to use the link in Wikipedia.

I'd be very grateful for clarification"

and I signed it.

I have had no reply. I take this as showing that the copyright in this case is not seen by them as a sensitive issue. In the unlikely event of the copyright question being raised as a complaint against us, this message is evidence of our good intentions. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If you didn't get a reply, you can't draw any conclusions from that. It is legally meaningless. You can't even claim that the letter has been seen if it hasn't been acknowledged. Looie496 (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not a question of legality. We are not infringing any law when we give a web address, even if there is a copyvio at the address concerned. What we are discussing is the WP:ELNEVER stipulation that we should not knowingly do that. The crucial issue is "knowingly". There is a body of opinion in wp that youtube should always be assumed to be populated with copyvios. I think that opinion is exaggerated, and we should take each case on its merits. The issue here is whether there is a reasonable presumption of copyvio or not. Looking at all the circumstances, I think it is fair to assume not. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think you're right -- I don't see how we can be held responsible for merely linking to something on Youtube. My point was only that your letter has no impact on the situation. Looie496 (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

US copyright laws (which apply to Wikipedia) are very strict... don't assume that we can not be held responsible for merely linking to something on Youtube. In fact the law states the opposite... If we have any reason to think that the clip might be a copyright vio, then we are "knowingly" violating the law by linking to it. Blueboar (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I presume you mean federal law. Could you provide a link or a WP:RS to substantiate what you say? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

As Blueboar has not responded to that request after six days I presume he's not going to. Let me therefore spell out that his supposed summary of the legal position is seriously inaccurate. There is an accurate version at WP:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement on physiological plausibility

I see now that the current first sentence of the "Causes of sight problems" section is far too sweeping, especially considering the 53 year old source. "Medical professionals characterize refractive errors ... as "static, anatomic conditions" caused by "structural defect of the eyeball", which as such cannot be altered by relaxation or exercise." What is apparent is that there is consensus against Bates' specific model, and hopefully that is made clear enough in the "Accommodation" section. However, the majority viewpoint on the overall physiological plausibility of such methods is less clear. The AAO review, for instance, while concluding that the claims regarding "visual training for refractive errors" lack support from experimental evidence, does not comment on the physiological plausibility or lack thereof. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

AAO Review link - yet again

In regards to the re-addition of the AAO review to External Links: I recall attempting to explain this more than once, but I will do so again. Web pages which are already article references do not belong in External Links. The exact same page (not merely the AAO domain) as was added to EL is currently referenced five times in the article; once in the lead, thrice in "Claimed success", and once in "General Research". PSWG1920 (talk) 00:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted, PSWG1920. Your reasoning is absolutely correct. I'm not a big fan of inclusion of ANY external links if they aren't directly referenced in the article. Famousdog (talk) 11:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No, If you are really concerned about the quality of this article like me. You must see this is still the no 1 link of this whole article. But we will see what the Arbitration commitee decides. Seeyou (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Seeyou, let me get this clear...

1) you think the AAO report is "the no 1 link of this whole article."

2) you want a link to the AAO report included in the article.

Is that right? Good. Well...

1) the AAO report is cited several times in the article

2) those citations link to a reference in the reference section which provides a link to the report.

Which begs the question: what the ***k is the problem??? Famousdog (talk) 09:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Recreation of Natural vision improvement article

I thought this should probably be flagged here: Seeyou (talk · contribs) has recreated the Natural vision improvement article (which had redirected here), currently with just a quote. From edit summaries and his own userpage, this appears to be part of a plan for an arbitration case. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. --Ronz (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I have already weighed in with my opinion. Famousdog (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Seeyou (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I redirected the NVI page back here and included the material that Seeyou is sooooo desperate to include in the "Modern variants" section in a NPOV manner. Famousdog (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

As you alluded at Talk:Natural vision improvement, without at minimum independent evidence of Goodrich's notability, this is likely to be a problem. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

At which point I sigh heavily, knowing the desperation that is to come... Famousdog (talk) 10:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The link is now self-referential which is the worst of all worlds! Darmot and gilad (talk) 14:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Which link? Famousdog (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge See Clearly Method

Hi there, I'm proposing we merge the See Clearly Method page with this one, but I wanted to gauge opinion before I do anything. My reasons for proposing this merge are that the SCM page is currently orphaned (i.e. the only article that refers to it seems to be this one...) and much ofthe material could be editted down and inserted into the 'modern variants' section (which already simply duplicates the same material). What sayeth the editors? Famousdog (talk) 08:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, especially if we can't cite Visions of Joy for their opinion on the See Clearly Method. [1] [2] See Clearly Method could actually be expanded to report more details about its history and its creators, and more articles could probably be found to link to it. Moreover, at least two editors, SamuelTheGhost and Seeyou, have in the past objected to any mention of the SCM here. While I think it does merit a brief mention, I also think it's best to keep it mostly separate. PSWG1920 (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I've begun expanding See Clearly Method. While it still needs a lot of work, I hope it's becoming apparent why it should remain as its own article. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Famousdog just take a look at how many different forms there are for yoga. And they are all described seperatly ! Seeyou (talk) 10:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I might have found you on the web by the way famousdog :-). See [3]. Seeyou (talk) 10:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha! Very funny, but I'm afraid that ain't me. Famousdog (talk) 10:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I thought that my suggestion would receive this sort of response. Obviously, BM/NVI practitioners and advocates would want to distance BM/NVI from the SCM because the SCM actually had a legal injunction against its sale and admitting that they're basically the same thing would make promotion of BM/NVI criminal. However, I can see it would simply be more trouble than its worth to attempt to merge these two articles. The SCM page will just have to remain an orphan... Famousdog (talk) 10:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually I just linked Mariette Hartley, Fairfield, Iowa, and Thomas John Miller to it. As for the legal injunction, that was largely due to credit practices, which are really not relevant to the concept of vision improvement in general. PSWG1920 (talk) 14:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Seeyou's continued outrageous behaviour

On his talk page, Seeyou has listed the names of several editors of this (and other associated) pages under the heading "conflict of interest!?" in what I can only describe as a 'hit list'. This is quite outrageous behaviour and I think it deserves a lifetime ban. How can we go about this? Famousdog (talk) 11:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

If you feel strongly about this then you could either report it at WP:ANI, WP:WQA, or just leave a note for PhilKnight (talk · contribs), the admin who blocked Seeyou previously. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

That's it. I'm prepping an ArbReq. -^{(v\./v Cardmaker)} 19:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

PSWG1920, I'm disappointed that you have changed the infobox since I've never encountered a better candidate for being uncontroversially labelled 'pseudoscience' as the BM. Again, I reiterate my argument that referring to the BM as a alternative or fringe therapy implies it has some sort of therapeutic value. There is no evidence of this whatsoever (Seeyou's clear scientific illiteracy notwithstanding). Famousdog (talk) 11:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you. I think the very fact that there was no consensus on whether that infobox was even appropriate to keep in Wikipedia is grounds for removing it from an article any time you can come up with a different one. The concerns were mainly in regards to WP:NPOV#Impartial tone.

In regards to the Bates method's therapeutic value or lack thereof, it definitely does help many people to see better without corrective lenses. It is likely not, I now realize, to the extent or for the reasons which supporters claim. As is discussed in the "Claimed success" section. That doesn't mean it has no value, though you could argue that the downside is much greater than the upside. PSWG1920 (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Care to provide any evidence for that statement? Only joking... ;-) Famousdog (talk) 09:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

John Slavicek

I recently added this article from the Prague Post to the External Links. It concerns a man from the Czech Republic named John Slavicek who has written a book and made rather dramatic claims regarding vision improvement. The piece is at least somewhat critical, certainly not overly promotional. I'm wondering if it should be integrated into the "Modern variants" section. I've tried to think of a good way to summarize the source, and it seems rather tricky, so maybe it's best to leave it as an EL. PSWG1920 (talk) 06:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Christ. That guy's even more looney tunes than Bates! Frankly, I wouldn't give the nutjob the exposure, but it does adequately demonstrate that the Bates method is still being peddled in various forms. An EL is too neutral. I think a highly critical statement in the modern variants section should be included, if anything. Famousdog (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's off-topic and should be removed entirely. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I do think it's on-topic (for the "Modern variants" section), but simply sticking it in the External Links section is not a good idea, as doing so gives no indication of the article's content and it is not the Bates method itself. (Aside: there must be incessant jokes about 'double-blind experiments' here? :-)) Shreevatsa (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Trim it down to a sentence or two and emphasize the point of view of what experts the author bothered to interview. --Ronz (talk) 02:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be trimmed, but I did add more regarding the "expert opinion". PSWG1920 (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

(arbitrary unindent) It's a very poor source. No real experts were interviewed for it at all. Why does this deserve any mention in an encyclopedia article on the Bates method? --Ronz (talk) 01:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

In the past, some editors have expressed a desire to see the article cover the international impact of the Bates method. And this is a secondary (correct?) source, from the Czech Republic, covering an individual who practices a variant of it. It doesn't seem to be promoting him. The fact that no discernible experts were interviewed for it doesn't make the guy any less notable. Moreover, the reasons his book was rejected help to explain the establishment's problem with the Bates method. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The best way to 'trim' this section is to cut discussion of Slavicek's neighbour and other anecdotal evidence that he is citing. It is no better than customer testimonials and inadmissible as support of his methods. This would have the added effect of emphasising the more learned opinions of the bodies criticising him. Famousdog (talk) 10:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If we remove the mention of his neighbor, we should also remove mention of others indicating that he had greatly exaggerated their cases. Now, I could see excluding the neighbor anecdote if it was just Slavicek saying that, but the information comes from the Prague Post actually interviewing her. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

"we should also remove mention of others indicating that he had greatly exaggerated their cases" Why? It's clear that Slavicek's claims are not credible. But then again, why are we giving any weight at all to such a story?

I've gone ahead and trimmed back the treatment, contrasting some of his claims as did the author of the article. --Ronz (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I've (re)trimmed it. It is a "modern variant" that has been reported in a valid newspaper, so it merits a mention. Shreevatsa (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a modern variant by someone with zero credibility. This information is suitable for a Supermarket tabloid, not an encyclopedia article. --Ronz (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Shreevatsa. Your version looks pretty good. Ronz, my impression is that since this article is already about a fringe theory, credibility or lack thereof is not a factor in deciding who we cover. For example, are any of the "birthers" mentioned in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories credible? In that case credibility is a consideration only when you're trying to mention the citizenship issue in other Obama-related articles. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to say, I think Shreevatsa's edit is a nice compromise. Good work. Famousdog (talk) 10:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)