Talk:Bates method/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Proponents in Infobox

What is the point of removing all proponents other than Bates himself from the Infobox? How is it undue to list them? I guess I could see removing Mansfield and maybe Corbett, but MacFadden, Hauser, and Huxley are all notable in their own right. Belteshazzar (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a discussion.

If you guess you can see removing at least some, then you see my concern.

It would be helpful to find some policy-based guidance on how to use "proponents" (some discussion or use in a GA-quality article).

My rule of thumb: In general, if material in an infobox detracts or confuses the notability of the topic of the article, it should be removed. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

How does this detract or confuse the notability of the Bates method? Belteshazzar (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

By definition: UNDUE information presented with the same weight as aspects of notability. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

How is this UNDUE information? Belteshazzar (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

If you guess you can see removing at least some, then you see my concern. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I can see de-listing Mansfield and maybe Corbett because their only notability is directly connected to the subject. That is not the case with Huxley, Hauser, and MacFadden. Belteshazzar (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

That is not the case with Huxley, Hauser, and MacFadden Irrelevant. I wrote, "...if material in an infobox detracts or confuses the notability of the topic of the article, it should be removed". --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Not sure how this detracts or confuses the notability of the Bates method. Not even sure how a list of proponents can do such a thing, unless the proponents themselves are clearly non-notable. Belteshazzar (talk) 02:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Please revert. Edit-warring at this stage in a discussion is grossly inappropriate. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I was simply restoring what clearly belongs in the infobox. Otherwise it wouldn't ask for "original" and "subsequent" proponents. Belteshazzar (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Please revert.

Clearly belongs Not remotely true. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Then why does the Infobox template have those categories? Belteshazzar (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Please revert. See my very first comment [1]. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't remotely see how this "detracts or confuses the notability of the topic of the article". Belteshazzar (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Please revert. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Here are two proponents, mentioned in Gardner's chapter, which might actually be inappropriate to include: Daniel A. Poling, A. E. van Vogt. Unlike with the others, their public association with the Bates method seems to have been somewhat fleeting. Belteshazzar (talk) 00:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm started at discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Bates_method to get some review, as I believe Belteshazzar should be blocked or banned at this point. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

In case there is anyone who still has this page on their watchlist but doesn't normally pay attention, it is only fair to highlight this in an edit summary. Belteshazzar (talk) 22:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Belteshazzar, actually if anyone is trying to get you banned, it's you. Guy (help!) 13:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I hope you read my response on that thread. Belteshazzar (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Please revert your expansion of the infobox as a demonstration that you're now willing to work cooperatively with others. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I only expanded the Infobox by adding Gayelord Hauser and Jacob Liberman, and Liberman has already been removed. The others had been there a long time, and you removed them. Belteshazzar (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

It appears you're unable to work cooperatively with others. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Even if I did revert, I would probably end up using an edit summary that you would not like, as happened not too long ago. Belteshazzar (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like you are no longer objecting to having the content removed, so I've gone ahead and removed it. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I do object to removing it, as Hauser was a prominent proponent who is obviously notable. My point was that if I reverted to show I could cooperate, I would have made clear in the edit summary that I was only doing it because of you, and that didn't make you happy last time. Belteshazzar (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

And I object to including it because:

Infoboxes are easily abused

The way to prevent infoboxes from being misused is to keep them focused on notability of the subject of the article

I've provided an alternative way of addressing this dispute (by looking for related discussions or GA use), which have been ignored

Placing entries of different prominence together with equal weight is a POV violation

You agreed that some should be removed

Apologies if I missed something. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

There don't appear to be any other GAs on alternative therapies. There may have been discussions about this kind of thing somewhere, but finding them sounded like a daunting task, and even then it is not certain that any such discussion would be helpful here.

I agreed that Mansfield could be removed from the Infobox, mainly because he doesn't have a biographical article in Wikipedia. I don't quite buy that "Placing entries of different prominence together with equal weight is a POV violation" in this case. Some of the proponents are more notable than Bates himself! Hauser and MacFadden are well-known in the field of alternative health. Belteshazzar (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Notability elsewhere on other topics isn't relevant here, and detracts from the notability of the topic of this article.

Using this gives less than 50 articles. I wouldn't be surprised if none are GA quality. That should be a red flag. Looking through a few, use of the "proponents" entry seems very rare. Another red flag. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just scrap the "subsequent proponents" list then. I still think we should keep MacFadden in "original proponents", unless we scrap that also, as MacFadden appears to have been instrumental in getting this out there. Gayelord Hauser and Jacob Liberman could be linked in "See also" at the end if not in the body of the article. Belteshazzar (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Belteshazzar, it's a parity thing. You need articles on the Bates method that identify these people as prominent proponents, not articles on them that mention the Bates method. Guy (help!) 22:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Hauser appears to meet that criteria, as he is characterized as the "all-time low" Bates method promoter in Gardner's chapter, and is also mentioned in the Quackwatch article. Macfadden is also mentioned in both. Belteshazzar (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

MacFadden has reliable sources that mention his quackery and involvement with the Bates method, I will add a sub-section about him in the "After Bates" section. I will attempt this shortly. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

MacFadden was actually involved quite early on, although he apparently split with Bates after 1920. He is currently mentioned in the "Early history" and "Treatments" sections. Belteshazzar (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I created a category for the bates method [2], if you have reliable sources you can expand the category. I have not seen many sources mentioning Jacob Liberman's involvement with the Bates method but there are many on Hauser. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I have added material on MacFadden and his involvement with Bates, its in the early history section. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

National Myopia Prevention and Control Workgroup

To clarify, is this source completely unacceptable, or was the problem the way it was used here? Belteshazzar (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

See the edit summary. The source is not about the Bates method. Alexbrn (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

So surely this source should not be cited in this article, correct? Belteshazzar (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

You're heading for another block. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

If I actually remove that source from the article, maybe. But it definitely should be removed per Alexbrn's reasoning. That one actually doesn't appear to mention the Bates method at all, whereas this one does at least mention it. Belteshazzar (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

One was a speculative reference to pseudomyopia, the other is a wholly mainstream and uncontroversial reference to an explanation of how the eye works. The difference looks clear to me. Guy (help!) 00:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

If sourced speculation is a problem, we should probably remove Lancaster and Duke-Elder's thoughts about Aldous Huxley. In regards to "mainstream and uncontroversial", mainstream optometry recognizes that pseudomyopia responds to therapy or lifestyle changes. This source simply says that reported improvement "may be related to pseudomyopia", which is not a leap at all. Belteshazzar (talk) 00:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I think a block or ban is best at this point. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Note that I added to my response above after Hipal made that comment. Belteshazzar (talk) 04:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Here we go again <sigh> -- Jmc (talk) 09:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

This is also mentioned in Pollack's book. What put me off about that reference is that it says pseudomyopia is "comparatively rare", which I'm not sure is still the case. But the fact is that pseudomyopia is a long-recognized phenomenon that is known to respond to therapy or lifestyle changes. This source's reference to pseudomyopia is less speculative than the ideas from Lancaster and Duke-Elder regarding Aldous Huxley. Also, the source contains more about the Bates method than does one which is cited in an above section. Belteshazzar (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm struggling to understand the continued objection here, unless we're at a point where editors assume that anything I do is wrong. As a review article, the source appears to be of fairly high quality. My most recent edit accurately reflected what the source said. The argument against it seems to be that it is not primarily about the Bates method or that its statement about pseudomyopia is speculative, but other references in the current article go against such standards even moreso than this one would. If necessary, this reference could be supplemented by Pollack's book, which again is cited elsewhere in the current article. Belteshazzar (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Belteshazzar, only when you're pushing WP:SYN, as you are here. Guy (help!) 16:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The source explicitly says that anecdotally reported improvement could be related to pseudomyopia, so it's hard to see where the synthesis is. In any event, the use of this source in the Accommodation section appears much closer to violating WP:SYN than this one does. Belteshazzar (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I suggest taking this article off you watchlist, and leave it be. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

This person was definitely right. Belteshazzar (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Belteshazzar, you've been warned about discretionary sanctions in this area, and blocked at least once, and you choose to go with that? I would suggest that approach is unwise. Guy (help!) 17:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd be happy to be proven wrong, and for 82.206.29.66 (talk · contribs) to be proven wrong. But I've made valid arguments and been told to walk away. Belteshazzar (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually I can see where you're coming from, Belteshazzar. The source says some anecdotal reports of improvement from alternative treatments may come from pseudomyopia, and later lists the Bates Method among such treatments. So you infer from that, that the source means what your edit says. On the other hand, this could be viewed as synthesis. Alexbrn (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The source, and my edit, don't even say that such methods are an actual cause of any reversal in pseudomyopia, just that apparent improvement might be related to pseudomyopia. If a valid source directly stated that such methods might sometimes improve pseudomyopia, that would be grounds for greater changes to this article. Belteshazzar (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

In plain English I suppose what is maybe meant is that some people think their short-sightedness gets better after one of these treatments because they were never short-sighted in the first place, but had temporary impaired vision due to eye-strain or somesuch (i.e. pseudomyopia) that fixes itself anyway. But since the source mentions the Bates Method exactly once, in a table cell, it's hard to know what, if anything, is meant, or is relevant. Alexbrn (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm with Alexbrn on this one: "it's hard to know what, if anything, is meant, or is relevant." The source's link between pseudomyopia and the Bates method is tenuous in the extreme. The entry for the Bates method in its Table 3 doesn't even mention myopia. Any reference worth citing would need to explicitly state that the Bates method's claim of successful reversion in myopia can be directly attributed to pseudomyopia. This source doesn't do that and so, shouldn't be cited. -- Jmc (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

There is a source which does just that, but which I now realize is not acceptable here. It's a real shame that no valid source quite makes this point, which has often been made in casual discussions. Belteshazzar (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

This is a case of a good source almost saying something, and a problematic but basically credible source actually saying it. Belteshazzar (talk) 00:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

If it is important that a valid source explicitly connect something to the Bates method, and not just to vision improvement in general, that calls the General research section into serious question. One source mentions Bates only in a footnote, and the other doesn't mention Bates at all, at least in the available summary. Should that section be removed? If not, we should reconsider the logic regarding the pseudomyopia reference. Belteshazzar (talk) 05:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if it's the case here (I have given up looking at this issue in despair), do be aware that there is an asymmetry in Wikipedia's treatment of fringe topics whereby per WP:PSCI it is necessary to present the mainstream view around fringe topics. In many other areas on Wikipedia this might be viewed as off-topic, OR, or synthesis but for fringe topics it is (unusually) necessary. Alexbrn (talk) 07:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

It may likewise be necessary to mention a reason why such a method might sometimes seem to work. Belteshazzar (talk) 08:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Possibly, but it would seem the consensus here is that there is insufficient sourcing to mention pseudomyopia. Alexbrn (talk) 09:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Just to reiterate my previous comment that I'm with Alexbrn on this one. -- Jmc (talk) 09:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Bear in mind that some people reading this article may think they have gotten improvement or that someone they know has. Such exclusions will deprive such readers of alternative explanations for this improvement. Then again, such readers may be turned off by "ineffective" at the top, so perhaps there's not much additional harm done. Belteshazzar (talk) 12:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)