Talk:Bates method/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

"Ineffective" and sources

WP:IMPARTIAL says "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view." I even made an experimental modification to this, which was reverted. Calling the Bates method "ineffective" would thus seem to clearly go against policy. It could be called "fringe" or "unsubstantiated", or more words could be used. Belteshazzar (talk) 04:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a discussion.

I don't see how this is an issue of tone, if the alternatives are removing the word completely, or using words with altogether different meanings. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 04:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

"altogether different meanings" is the point. "unsubstantiated" or "fringe" does not take a point of view. Belteshazzar (talk) 04:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

It is "ineffective" (and potentially dangerous) according to our sources, so Wikipedia says that too, in order to be neutral. We don't misrepresent reality and for fringe/pseudoscience topics like this it is necessary to be up-front and plain. Alexbrn (talk) 06:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The article can and should report what reliable sources say, but according to NPOV the article itself shouldn't take a side. If that's wrong, then WP:NPOV and in particular WP:IMPARTIAL should be modified, as I experimentally did and was reverted. Belteshazzar (talk) 06:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

It is wrong. Wikipedia does not give "both sides" of an issue when it's a question of fringe vs reality. See WP:GEVAL. To get this changed, initiate a discussion at WT:NPOV. See also WP:CGTW#8. Alexbrn (talk) 06:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I actually tried to modify the policy to make it OK to call the Bates method "ineffective". I will make no further attempt at changing policy, but if it doesn't change, the article itself should not label the Bates method as "ineffective". Belteshazzar (talk) 07:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

What we have is good and neutral. Reality is not a point of view, and Wikipedia will not misrepresent reality. Alexbrn (talk) 07:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Simple matter. If the method is ineffective (and it is, as the evidence plainly shows), then that's a matter of fact, not opinion, and needs to be stated as such. - Jmc (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Even looking at it from that angle, it is not a simple fact that the Bates method is ineffective. It may clearly not do what it is claimed to do, but if you read the Aldous Huxley and especially the "Anecdotal Support" sections, it is clear that some people do get improvement of a kind. Belteshazzar (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

We need to base out content on reliable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The sources in the "Anecdotal support" section do appear to be valid, and affirm a kind of improvement that may result from some aspects of the Bates method. Belteshazzar (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

You're confusing anecdotes with evidence. By such means every means of woo "works" from faith healing to homeopathy. On Wikipedia, we need better sourcing. Alexbrn (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The "Anecdotal support" subtitle is actually misleading, as some of the sources appear to be scientific studies. Belteshazzar (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Just going through them now. Crap so far. What do you think meets WP:MEDRS? Alexbrn (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if any of it meets MEDRS. The purpose of the section seems to be to document historical anecdotes on why people may have thought it works. I'm not sure how to do this without going into WP:OR, or violating MEDRS. If there are scholarly histories of Bates method, those might be used. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know enough to say for sure, but some of those sources appear to be high quality and do appear to specifically address the Bates method or related methods. Even being dated doesn't necessarily undermine a source, as later researchers may have had little to add. Hopefully editors who previously worked on that content are still watching this page and will weigh in. Belteshazzar (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Hipal: Quite. We'd some some decent sources to accord WP:DUE weight to such anecdotes. Alexbrn (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I just found this, though I'm not sure if it's any better than some of the ones you removed. Belteshazzar (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that one out. Maybe use it with care? It does use this Wikipedia article as a source... --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

If the age isn't a problem, Philip Pollack's book could probably be cited more than it is currently. It may be the only full-length book ever published that is specifically critical of the Bates method. Also, the Elwin Marg article is still available in the web archives. Newer sources are of course preferable, but if Wikipedia articles cannot make inferences that are not explicitly made by a valid source, such material might be helpful. Belteshazzar (talk) 04:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

We're WP:NOTNEUTRAL. We do have a POV, see WP:QUACKS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Aside from POV issues, it would appear to be inaccurate to simply call the Bates method "ineffective". Unless you discount many of the sources which were recently removed, which is now the larger issue. Belteshazzar (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

We follow reliable sources. These say the Bates Method is ineffective & dangerous, so Wikipedia does too. Alexbrn (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I fail to see that Belteshazzar has made a case to support his/her assertion that "it would appear to be inaccurate to simply call the Bates method 'ineffective'", -- Jmc (talk) 03:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

It's clear from Elwin Marg's report that some people have gotten improvement of a kind as a result of practicing such methods. "Ineffective" should at least be qualified. Belteshazzar (talk) 03:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Again, I fail to see that Elwin Marg's report does anything but substantiate the lede statement that "The Bates method is an ineffective alternative therapy aimed at improving eyesight." -- Jmc (talk) 03:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Taken at face value, that statement suggests that the Bates method never in any way improves eyesight. Belteshazzar (talk) 03:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Precisely. -- Jmc (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

But Elwin Marg's report suggests that such methods often do improve eyesight, albeit not in the way claimed. Belteshazzar (talk) 03:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

"often do improve eyesight"? Quote? -- Jmc (talk) 07:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

"Le Grand21 has presented evidence which indicates that some sub- jects are able to invoke accommodation in a negative direction. For example, a myope or an emmetrope made optically myopic with con- vex lenses can, in some instances, decrease his myopia with effort. Changes up to three diopters in a negative direction determined by skiascopy (taking ordinary accommodation to be positive in direction) were reported in five subjects. A summary of his results are seen in Table 1 .21* 22

"FLASHES" OF CLEAR VISION IN MYOPES-MARG TABLE 1 RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION OF LE GRAND Refractive Negative Lens Before Flash krror Accom- Fixating Visual Subject Age (Sph.) modation Eye Acuity A 24-26 plano 2.50 + 4.00 20/100 to 20/67 B 24-26 plano 2.25 + 3.00 20/100 to 20/67 C 24-26 plano 2.25 f 3.00 20/100 to 20/67 D 24-26 - 4.00 2.75 none 20/100 to 20/67 E > 26 -5.50 2.75 none 20/25* *Subject E, skilled in the Bates method, can maintain this acuteness of vision several minutes in contrast to the other subjects who can hold their flashes for only a few 'seconds. If these results could be confirmed,' they would demonstrate a mechanism whereby myopes trained by the Bates method obtain flashes of clear vision. Furthermore these results would lead one to expect that myopia of up to three diopters could be compensated for by negative accommodation much as hypermetropia, may be compensated for by positive accommodation."

This shows that calling the Bates method "ineffective" is too simplistic. Belteshazzar (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

We follow reliable sources I'm afraid, by which this is ineffective nonsense. Probably time to drop the WP:STICK now. Alexbrn (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Elwin Marg's report *is* a reliable source by any measure other than the date, and the date doesn't really matter for these purposes, as recent sources confirm such phenomena even if they don't explicitly link it to the Bates method. Belteshazzar (talk) 05:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Did you see my comments on this subject at FTN? Which bit of "no" dont you understand? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 05:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

It would be better to say that the Bates method is ineffective (or "never shown to be effective", but that's a different issue) insofar as treating refractive errors or more serious vision problems. That would accurately reflect the sources. Belteshazzar (talk) 06:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello?? I'm right here!! -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 06:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I could say the same thing to you. Belteshazzar (talk) 06:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Except multiple experienced editors with thousands and thousands of edits are all telling you the same thing, and you, with 48 edits worth of experience are Not Listening. That sort of behaviour gets you shown the door. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 06:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

My biggest concern is what was removed here. I agree that "Anecdotal support" was a bad subtitle, however. Belteshazzar (talk) 06:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

What do you think that multiple experienced editors with thousands and thousands of edits are doing wrong? Have you read WP:IDHT I wonder? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 07:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

A single editor gutted that section. Belteshazzar (talk) 07:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

So what? What do you think that multiple experienced editors with thousands and thousands of edits are doing wrong? Have you read WP:IDHT I wonder? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 07:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

A single editor gutted that section. Belteshazzar (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Look here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I can say "Open the door" in Arabic. Cant write it though. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 08:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately this discussion has gotten muddled. The biggest issue now is the sources removed here. Due to the earlier subtitle "Anecdotal support", there seems to have been a perception that these sources were being used to support the Bates method, which they weren't. At least some of those sources do appear to be decent and basically on-topic. Belteshazzar (talk) 09:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

What "decent source" has been removed? Alexbrn (talk) 09:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The first three look pretty good. Belteshazzar (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

First three what? Alexbrn (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Sources that you removed here, in the order which they appeared. Belteshazzar (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I "removed" no decent sources. If you think I did be very specific, as this is beginning to look like trolling. Alexbrn (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Annals-Academy of Medicine, Optometry and Vision Science, American Academy of Optometry. Belteshazzar (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

My edit was good, and some of the sources were not "removed" from the article but remain cited elsewhere, just in an honest manner (unlike from where I cut the citations). If you have a specific proposal, make it. But it seems you'd be best of just reading WP:1AM right now. Alexbrn (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The three sources I mentioned do not appear to still be cited elsewhere in the article. My proposal for now would be to restore them to where they were. As for "one against many", that is at least partly a result of the muddled discussion. Belteshazzar (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

You're wrong. I shall not reply further to your comments unless new sources are produced. Do not mistake my lack of response for agreement. Alexbrn (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

How about this source? Belteshazzar (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Source for what? It in no way opens to question the lede statement that "The Bates method is an ineffective alternative therapy aimed at improving eyesight." -- Jmc (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

It talks about blur adaptation, although it cites some of the sources which were recently removed from this article. Belteshazzar (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

And "ineffective" isn't the issue anymore. The more important issue is the references which were removed. Belteshazzar (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

If you still mean [1] their use appeared to have been synthesis (WP:SYNTH) since not directly about the Bates method. A plausible argument seemed to be that people may have attributed other causes to the method, as well as temporary conditions that naturally resolved, but that was citing Gardner which is still in use and summarized elsewhere. —PaleoNeonate – 00:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Gardner also apparently discussed an improvement in visual resolution after glasses are left off for a while. I didn't attempt to restore that Gardner reference, but if there is no other viable way to source that here, Gardner could be used. As for pseudomyopia, I think that is the same thing as "negative accommodation", which is discussed by a few sources in relation to the Bates method. Belteshazzar (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

And if we strictly cannot extrapolate on any source to draw conclusions regarding the article subject, then the Drexler reference probably has to be removed from the end of the Accommodation section. Belteshazzar (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I took my copy of Gardner down from the shelves. Belteshazzar's reference to "an improvement in visual resolution after glasses are left off for a while" is possibly a misunderstanding of Gardner's discussion of a patient who is sold glasses without really needing them, and whose eyes adjust to such glasses. On removal of the glasses, the patient's vision "is noticeably poorer". The patient them performs a half-hour of exercises and is tested again. "Naturally his vision has improved. What he fails to realize is that the same improvement would have occurred without the exercises, as the eyes slowly adjusted to seeing without the spectacles."

It's worth noting that, more generally, Gardener says, "The original Bates work is a fantastic compendium of wildly exaggerated case records, unwarranted inferences, and anatomical ignorance." -- Jmc (talk) 04:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Sounds like the same basic concept discussed here, but perhaps to a greater degree if the lenses were too strong. But if WP:SYNTH prevents us from citing that paper here, maybe this one, which cites it, could be used. Belteshazzar (talk) 04:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

An editorial. Usable, if at all, only to support mundane claims. Alexbrn (talk) 05:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:PARITY might apply here. And since it is apparently OK to synthesize sources to a limited extent, we could perhaps combine those two. Belteshazzar (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:PARITY is irrelevant here. It is for opening the door to criticism of fringe theories where none exists in orthodox RS. Alexbrn (talk) 02:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

This is a criticism of the Bates method, because the improvement is not seen as an actual change in refractive error. Belteshazzar (talk) 02:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The way you used it was pushing a false, fringe view. Alexbrn (talk) 03:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

It is not false that such "blur adaptation" often happens after glasses are removed. I actually considered restoring a bit more of what was prevously there, saying that one who removes his glasses and practices the Bates method might not realize that simply leaving the glasses off would have had the same effect, but that might still be original thought. Belteshazzar (talk) 03:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

You put, in Wikipedia's voice, "Research has confirmed that when nearsighted subjects remove their corrective lenses, over time there is a limited improvement". I'm not sure whether you're POV-pushing, incompetent or trolling but either way I think we're fast approaching the point where you will need to be sanctioned. Alexbrn (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

That wording was there previously. It could be changed, although it does appear to be a true statement. I take it the problem is "confirmed" making it sound like a part of the Bates method was confirmed? Belteshazzar (talk) 03:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The statement "Research has confirmed that when nearsighted subjects remove their corrective lenses, over time there is a limited improvement" is quite simply not true and has no place in this article; see my citing of Gardner, above. I concur with Alexbrn's speculation that Belteshazzar is "POV-pushing, incompetent or trolling". Just look back to see how lengthily Belteshazzar has persisted in beating a poor, long-dead horse beyond all reason. -- Jmc (talk) 07:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The quoted statement is basically true, but was perhaps poorly phrased (not originally by me, as it was already in the article until Alexbrn removed it here). It did correctly note that the improvement was not due to a change in refractive error. Belteshazzar (talk) 07:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The next point to reintegrate regards pseudomyopia. For starters, see page S67 of this report. Belteshazzar (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that is something to start from. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

"For starters, see page S67 of this report" - "Anecdotal reports" ??? -- Jmc (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

It says "The anecdotal accounts of ‘improvement’ or reduction of myopia may be related to pseudomyopia". That fits with the section theme "Misinterpreted evidence in support of the method". Belteshazzar (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

That fails MEDRS. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Once again, WP:PARITY. Belteshazzar (talk) 03:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Howso? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 04:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Ideal sources may not have bothered to critique the Bates method in detail. WP:PARITY addresses that kind of thing. Belteshazzar (talk) 06:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

And the source under question does little more than mention it exists. This is why I said it's nothing to start from. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Pollack's book discusses pseudomyopia here. Belteshazzar (talk) 10:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

per WP:BATTLE

Belteshazzar, you need to move on. If you think Wikipedia is some kind of objective knowledge database, then you are simply wrong. It's just a bunch of random people, who have spent many, many years to push their subjective narratives. You stepped on some old user's toe and now you get dogpiled, everyone tries to gaslight you or use beaurauratic terms to shut you up. They are in charge here. Just accept it. The people who wanted to gather knowledge are gone for years. Now the other types rule Wiki. Just help advance another project instead of Wikipedia otherwise you'll be wasting your energy to fight against people, who don't care about truth. As a corollary: It's unwise to trust this site on history, politics, sociology, culture and so on. When your friends or family mistake this site for truth, help them find a better, less corrupt source of knowledge. --82.206.29.66 (talk) 03:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC) We kowtow to mainstream science, mainstream scholarship and Ivy Plus. This isn't a secret, we want everybody to know it. So, yeah, if by "mainstream history" you understand "disinformation", then, yes, indeed, Wikipedia is a platform for disinformation. Only that historians who live by publish or perish agree with our choice, not with yours. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC) Just 6 minutes after I posted my comment Tgeorgescu read, wrote, proofread and posted his answer. Although Tgeorgescu hasn't participated in this discussion for two weeks... Belteshazzar, this is actually a good demonstration on how it works. This talk page is on watchlists of several people, who are often ′friends′. Whenever they see dissent, one will squash it as quickly as possible. That's how these dogpiles happen and why everyone seems to be on the same page. That's how subjective narratives can replace knowledge. Simple deletion of viewpoints, removal of sources and group bullying against people who protest. That's how they reach the ′mainstream′ viewpoint. When all undesired sources are removed they can simply declare their viewpoint as ′mainstream′ and when people attempt to add the sources back one by one they'll simply declare them fringe and remove them every single time. If you keep protesting they'll just make a democratic vote and win, because you are alone and they have a group - a corrupt clique - to defeat the opinions they dislike. --82.206.29.66 (talk) 05:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC) From your position it might seem so, that's what all WP:FRINGE WP:POV-pushers say. From our position: show us the WP:SOURCES that your position is WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP and we'll accept it. What we don't do is WP:GEVAL to WP:QUACKS and WP:MEDRS. If it fails the WP:CHOPSY test it is definitely fringe and we'll treat it on a par with flat Earth and Moon landing conspiracy theories. It is a fair game in the sense that the WP:RULES are clear in advance, for everybody to see. But it is not a level playing field between mainstream medicine and quacks. If you do WP:SOAP for altmed, we will show you the door. There isn't any other moral choice for Wikipedia to make. These being said, we never declare a position to be mainstream in lack of proper evidence. So yes, we can be persuaded by evidence, but not by POV-pushing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC) Belteshazzar, this is another example of the process. When the first ′argument′ doesn't work, they'll just throw a bunch of WP:SOMETHINGS at you. The purpose of it is to demoralize you, to make you lose interest, because no new user will read several articles of rules and guidelines just to protect a tiny bit of truth. That's how they keep the new users out. They want to stay the authority, who can dictate truth. The second reason for it is simply the veneer of objectivity, when in fact every single one of them know they are guilty of ′fudging′ objectivity to reach their desired result. They'll grind you down just to push their worldview. Nepotism, beuraucracy, bullying, oppression of dissent, fake democracy, fake objectivity, eradication of ′wrongthink′... Does it sound like a utopic vault of knowledge or a fascistic state? The easiest way is to just walk away and remind people about the corruption and lies here. --82.206.29.66 (talk) 07:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC) Godwin's law. Anyway, one impeccable WP:MEDRS reference from your side would be worth ten thousand words. It would be your silver bullet. WP:CITE such source or quit whining. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC) My intention is to help Belteshazzar realize what kind of group he is dealing with. ′To avoid future discussions′ if you want to phrase it positively. Or ′walk away and never look back′. A good example of this is how Tgeorgescu is saying: ″If it fails the WP:CHOPSY test it is definitely fringe and we'll...″ Well this WP:CHOPSY test might seem pretty important until one realizes this is just an essay which was written by Tgeorgescu himself. He uses it quite often to bully other users into submission. Often he sneaks it in after or between real guidelines, so users won't check. Quite manipulative. Just as I said before: The desire for power trumps truth and so he uses this fake rule and fake objectivity and as the rest just does every trick to remove dissent and push their worldview. --82.206.29.66 (talk) 07:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC) You've again mistaken Wikipedia for a democratic society where social freedom, personal expression and the liberty thereof are values placed above all other. In such a society McCarthyism is a malignant prejudice designed to silence opinions and constrain political thought. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. A book. An online repository. The people who are making it are doing a job. They're working and they are adhering to a basic set of management principles. If this were a company, like the marketing department of coco cola for example, it would be perfectly reasonable for the company to have principles, which say, "no - we don't want that". And to enforce them if employees persistently acted in contrary. For some reason, because a group of editors have objected to your contributions and you have found no support, you accuse the project of being Machiavellian, whereas the reality is that your content has been looked at (ad nauseam) and has been rejected. You are required to disclose COI here. Just like you are required to sign NDAs or exclusivity contracts if you work for coco cola. In fact the only real difference between this organization and a company is that we don't fire or sue people when they come into the office and spend all day bending the ear of everyone they meet, telling colleagues what a bunch of pigs we and the company are for not seeing eye to eye with them. In a nutshell - its OK for Wikipedia to have policies, its OK for Wikipedians to decide they don't like certain content and its OK to exclude that content from our pages. Edaham (talk) 04:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC) You mistook Wikipedia for a country. I wouldn't want to live in a country governed like Wikipedia. But I like Wikipedia, because it isn't a country, it is an encyclopedia. The deal you get is the deal everyone gets: WP:CITE WP:Reliable sources for WP:Verifying your claims, in this case your sources have to pass WP:MEDRS. And WP:CHOPSY and WP:ABIAS are pretty good explanations of how the WP:RULES work, CHOPSY and ABIAS aren't part of the rules and I never claimed they were. If you can't abide by WP:MEDRS, you lost. As simply as that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC) I didn't mistook Wikipedia for a country. I pointed out how you operate. Deep down you know what you do is evil. A disservice to humanity as you are poisoning culture and knowledge with your subjective narratives, which you dress up as objectivity. You know you should be ashamed and all your post-rationalization won't help your conscience. So why are you still arguing with me? You know sneaking in your WP:CHOPSY is manipulative and you know nobody is fooled by 'I didn't claim it is a rule', when your intention was clear by simply grouping it with the rest. I don't even expect you to admit anything. Admitting being evil requires more. Someday you'll just regret having lied constantly to the entirety of humanity for no good reason but petty, self-serving hunger to propagate your opinions. --82.206.29.66 (talk) 08:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC) Why would be "altmed practitioners are scum" a disservice to humanity? Jimbo made it clear that that's the line we should be toeing. Quacks only sell false hope and if their "treatments" aren't dangerous, then avoiding real, evidence-based treatments is definitely dangerous. Like that quack from India who was apprehended giving urine to drink in order to immunize against coronavirus. Our house, our rules, in this case abide by WP:MEDRS or be gone. WP:MEDRS is non-negotiable. Maybe you should create your own encyclopedia called Quackopedia. To put it simply, Wikipedia does not believe in free speech. It does not believe that all opinions are equal, nor that they deserve equal respect. And Jimbo has released the hounds against those who promote altmed inside Wikipedia. That should be extremely clear to everyone. You're not welcome here. Promoting quackery is not welcome here. If you disagree with that, you have the right to leave. You cannot persuade us to accept quackery. Wikipedia spits in the face of quacks and altmed practitioners. Are we are proud of that. There is no reason to feel sorry or ashamed about that, there is no reason for me to think that I will come to regret it. It's not a lie, it's not being dishonest, it is simply who we are. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for quacks. We chose our side and you chose yours. We simply do not get along with you. We chose the side of mainstream science, you chose the side of altmed. And we fight against altmed with much honesty and integrity: our position is coherent and evidence-based, we don't have to bend the facts in order to suit our agenda. The very idea that Wikipedia would have to show respect to altmed practitioners is freaking ridiculous. About science not being the Absolute Truth see https://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm . Since the beginning of modern science, humanity chose for the stance that some views are more objective than others. There is no way of undoing this stance without denying the whole enterprise of modern science. And people endorse modern science every time they sleep in modern buildings, every time they drive automobiles, every time they enter planes, trains, trams or buses, etc. You also endorse modern science by using a computer, smartphone or tablet. You work under the assumption that a clique of bad-faith editors would be against you. Well, that would be an easy one: call for arbitration and bad-faith users get topic banned. But this is not the case: the WP:RULES of Wikipedia are against you, you're fighting against the policies and guidelines of the encyclopedia, not against a clique. All admins are biased against you, not just a handful of editors. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

[2] Personally, I would be happy with an opening sentence even less verbose than the current one, simply removing "ineffective". But since there is widespread agreement that that belongs, the rest of the sentence should be changed to make it more accurate. This paper and sources it cites make clear that the Bates method is not totally ineffective at improving eyesight, though it may indeed have no effect on actual myopia, etc. Belteshazzar (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of what the opening sentence should say, I'm pretty sure that Quackwatch is not a valid source for such an affirmative statement. I tried to replace it with Grierson, which appears to be as strong a source as any which specifically addresses the Bates method. Grierson opens the section with a measured statement that stops short of summarily labeling it as ineffective, but does say that basic ophthalmic and optometric opinion is that it doesn't do what it is claimed to do. Belteshazzar (talk) 05:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I would be happy with an opening sentence even less verbose than the current one Let's stick with that please, or at least not make it longer. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you think that Quackwatch is an acceptable source for such a statement? Belteshazzar (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The source is good for this purpose. Alexbrn (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Quackwatch has been discussed many times on multiple noticeboards. It's reliable. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

From the discussions I can find, it appears that it depends on what Quackwatch is being cited for. A blanket label of "ineffective" is a strong claim. Belteshazzar (talk) 02:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

... which of course, is supported by our sources, as we have been telling you all along, but you are not listening. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 06:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Then perhaps we should cite a different source for the opening sentence, assuming that a better source exists which clearly supports it. Belteshazzar (talk) 06:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

See! -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 06:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Belteshazzar: Quackwatch is a good source for quackery, so is appropriate here. The claim that something doesn't work in unexceptional; it's the default assumption. It's claims that something does work which are exceptional, and for which our sourcing standards and consequently higher. Alexbrn (talk) 06:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Citing old sources for authoritative statements

[3] That statement is based entirely on sources from 1943 and 1957. No doubt the statement is basically true, but so was the statement about pseudomyopia. That originally had a source from 2007 which was deemed unacceptable. Since a 1943 edition of The British Medical Journal is still cited in that same section, I thought perhaps this would suffice for pseudomyopia. Once that was rejected, I removed the following paragraph to be consistent. My preference would be to make some mention of pseudomyopia and also keep the point about vision changing for the better with age or in cycles (and maybe restore a few other things which were removed from that section). But either way, we should be consistent about the sources. Belteshazzar (talk) 00:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no equivalence of sources here. The BMJ source in the deleted paragraph which I restored was a review by the eminent ophthalmologist Sir Stewart Duke-Elder, while the reference to pseudomyopia inserted by Belteshazzar was to a letter by one Margaret Dobson, of no lasting (and perhaps even contemporary) reputation. -- Jmc (talk) 08:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

By that reasoning, do you think this edit was wrong to remove the reference to an "ancient primary source" by Elwin Marg, who seems to have a lasting reputation? Belteshazzar (talk) 08:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Since an author's lasting reputation matters here, we should reintegrate Elwin Marg's "flashes of clear vision" into that section. Such occurrences are clearly a big reason for claimed improvements. Belteshazzar (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I raised this valid point here, got no response, restored the reference in question, and then got reverted because it "must be discussed in Talk before further substantial edits". Looks like this person was right. Belteshazzar (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

You have made a very difficult situation for yourself here at this article, and pointing out the comments of the ip makes it worse still. Are you here to improve this encyclopedia, or just WP:BATTLE? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Improve the encyclopedia. That's why I pointed out that if an author's lasting reputation matters, the source in question should qualify. Belteshazzar (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

if an author's lasting reputation matters Seems irrelevant. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Not according to Jmc's comment just above. Belteshazzar (talk) 23:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems I need to clarify my comment about equivalence of sources. The two sources cited were (1) a review solicited by the journal and (2) an unsolicited letter; the reputation of the writer of each is a secondary matter.

Incidentally, I find the statement in the Marg reference that "There are conceivable uses for [the Bates technique] by those, such as Aldous Huxley[,] where no optical device ... will help" puzzling, since Huxley employed "optical devices" (including magnifying glasses) and by his own account was helped by them. -- Jmc (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The point is that old sources are being cited authoritatively. Gardner from 1957 is also cited in this same section (and possibly could be replaced by Pollack, but that is from 1956). The Margaret Dobson letter may not be citable here, but the Elwin Marg report surely should be. Belteshazzar (talk) 04:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)