Talk:Bates method/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Interesting video for free

Since we are all so interested in improving this article. Let's listen to a advocate of the NVI/BM or BM/NVI. Check the link below.

[1]

May be some subjects are mentioned which should be mentioned in the article as well. Subjects like hereditary ( 250 children in Alaska 40 % myopic, parents traditional lifestyle no myopia ), too long eyeballs, multiple personality and difference in eyesight, helmhotz, ( 80 % cornea 20 % ciliary muscle and lens ), Size of myopic and farsighted eye, Hunter is looking for what is not there. used lenses for 20 years. etc Seeyou (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Meir Schneider again

I'd just like to say that I currently don't see any major obstacles to passing this article for GA, but this Meir Schneider stuff worries me. I feel that this article should be governed by MEDRS, and the sources for that aren't even close to adequate. I really don't even think they meet the weaker WP:RS. Looie496 (talk) 01:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If you mean the Israeli news broadcast, I would agree with you that that does not make a good source for the body of the article. Nonetheless it seems rather significant in relation to the article's subject, which is why I originally placed it in External Links. That type of situation is precisely what WP:EL is for. But then look what happened. Since the Feedback from Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Youtube_link_where_we_cannot_find_any_copyright_info was invoked as "consensus" against this link, I decided to try something which was suggested there, namely using it as a reference instead. But my preference would be to have it in External Links. PSWG1920 (talk) 02:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Here's my take, I guess. It would be reasonable to mention Schneider as one of the people who is currently pushing a variant of the Bates method, and it would be reasonable to use the Israeli news item to establish notability. However, if this was done, I think it would be important to point out that there are no independent sources to back up his claim of having been blind as a child. (Unless there are such sources; I haven't seen any mention of them.) I'm really still not comfortable with discussing him at all, because of the lack of trustworthy sources. Looie496 (talk) 04:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Which is exactly why I originally placed the link to the news segment in the External Links rather than mentioning Meir Schneider in the body of the article! PSWG1920 (talk) 04:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
"I feel that this article should be governed by MEDRS, and the sources for that aren't even close to adequate." I have similar concerns. If we use a lesser source, then try to qualify it with notes, we're skirting on WP:OR or WP:BLP issues. --Ronz (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Again, this would be of little concern if the source in question were used as an External Link. To be clear I do not really want to use the Meir Schneider news segment as a reference for the body of the article. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
But we've already ruled out it's appropriateness as an external link, or so I've thought. As far as I'm aware, we don't make exceptions to WP:ELNEVER #1 for "fair use criteria", nor has the material been determined to meet any "fair use criteria." --Ronz (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
"Fair use is the right to use copyrighted material without permission or payment under some circumstances." [2] From WP:ELNEVER: "Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked." By definition, this cannot apply to a link to a fair use reproduction.
As to whether fair use criteria is actually met in this instance, I guess there's no point in discussing that further until we're on the same page regarding the first point. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't think it is fair use. How do we determine if it is? --Ronz (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
See above, to begin with, and read this . PSWG1920 (talk) 01:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
This is not getting us anywhere. I simply don't see any arguments for it being fair use, only that it somehow it is fair use. But more importantly, I don't see any exceptions to ELNEVER regardless. --Ronz (talk) 02:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
No exception is required when the circumstance in question already falls outside the scope of the rule. We could further discuss whether this reproduction actually meets fair use, but we still don't seem to be on the same page regarding whether that matters. PSWG1920 (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's our place to decide legal issues like this. --Ronz (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
"Deciding legal issues like this" is routinely done with non-free content used in Wikipedia, and permitted, see Wikipedia:Non-free content. And if anything, that is more serious, because in those cases non-free content is actually being copied into Wikipedia from the original source. PSWG1920 (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
And the difference is, as you point out, that this content is not in Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
And if anything, that makes it less serious as far as Wikipedia is concerned. And the very fact that the use of non-free content is ever permitted in Wikipedia demolishes your notion that it's not our place to decide these issues. PSWG1920 (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
And now you deleted it with no explanation, despite the fair use rationale provided in the edit. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you try yet other WP:DR method. --Ronz (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I will assume, then, that you're sticking to your above statement "I don't think it's our place to decide legal issues like this"? PSWG1920 (talk) 00:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm asking again, seek yet another dispute resolution approach, or respect the consensus of the dispute resolution attempts to date. --Ronz (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not see a consensus against the link. Besides myself, SamuelTheGhost and Zappernapper both expressed support above for keeping it. No one has yet offered an argument against this reproduction being fair use. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
How about counting each and every other editor in each and every other dispute resolution approach? Perhaps because all those viewpoints were for not including the information? Does this sound like respect for WP:DR and WP:CON? --Ronz (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Most of those responses were ambiguous. Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_24#Youtube_link_where_we_cannot_find_any_copyright_info Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Linking_when_adherence_to_copyright_is_uncertain. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I would further point out that at the time of that feedback, there was no fair use rationale next to the link. So it's a different situation now. PSWG1920 (talk) 05:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The facts concerning Schneider

I'd like to follow up on Samuel the Ghost's comment in the RFC, but I don't want to interpolate there. He wrote, "Schneider had congenital cataracts followed by botched operations as a small child which left his eyes full of scar tissue". The problem is that we have no evidence beyond Schneider's own claims for that assertion, or any other assertion regarding Schneider. He also writes, "if the story was grossly wrong, there must be people alive who would say so". Maybe so, but would any writer care enough to publish their claims? Looie496 (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said, "the only source of information is Meir Schneider himself." That clearly qualifies everything else I say about him. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

RFC : PSWG1920 provide a reliable source for the infobox header

I have provided one stating controversial. Ronz attempts can not be taken seriously. Seeyou (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I really do not care what the infobox header says. I originally added the one in question just for the sake of having an infobox. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Strange you don't care. These edit reveals you did care. [3].
By the way I do care about this article. We should not allow any original research. Sammy, Famousdog what is your opinion regarding the title of the infobox ? I might then be able to skip this subject for the arbitration committee. ( But it don't think Ronz is going to cooperate. Look also how fast Ronz reverts any of my edits ) Seeyou (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose The header is clearly justified by sources in the article. Looie496 (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the Arbitration committee will agree. You know there is a authority regarding this subject. A authority which might be represented by some editors in this article. Since you have time to contribute to this discussion. There is above still a question to you unanswered. Can yuu answer this question. Below here in this paragraph. [4] Famousdog Sammy I know you understand the original research problem.Seeyou (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The infobox header should be "Alternative Medicine". That is clearly accurate and to the point. All the other suggestions that have been made are tendentious. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Following Sticky Parkin's recent revision to the article's category, I'd amend that to say "Manipulative therapy". SamuelTheGhost (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose The Bates method is pseudoscience through and through - unless you believe in it! Alternative medicine implies it is medicine. Manipulative therapy implies it is therapy. These are clearly unproven. I can think of no more appropriate title for the infobox than the current one. Famousdog (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Meir Schneider yet again: RFC

Let's stop the edit-warring and try to come to a consensus, shall we? I'll make a proposal, and interested parties can indicate whether they support or oppose it, with brief justification please.

Proposal: Add an external link to a Youtube version of a BBC news story concerning Meir Schneider.

  • Oppose Shouldn't link to youtube in general, and none of the "facts" concerning Schneider's story are validated by reliable sources. Looie496 (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support It's probably true that "none of the "facts" concerning Schneider's story are validated by reliable sources", but that is why this is being used as an External Link and not as a reference for the body of the article. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:ELNEVER and WT:EL discussion linked above. It's a video clip with all copyright information removed from a copyrighted work. The clip does not contain the copyright information. --Ronz (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment: No indication that "copyright information" was removed per se, most likely it just didn't appear in this segment. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Rather week support for the following reasons:
    • The alleged copyright issue is a non-problem, for reasons I have explained. The conditions of WP:ELNEVER do not apply.
    • The details of his case don't fit the BM paradigm very well. This isn't a case of "strain" causing refractive error - Schneider had congenital cataracts followed by botched operations as a small child which left his eyes full of scar tissue.
    • As with all the other BM success stories, there is no independent confirmation available (though no refutation either, and if the story was grossly wrong, there must be people alive who would say so). But still, the only source of information is Meir Schneider himself. The TV clip is enthusiastic ("inspirational") but short on factual detail. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose the link to the Youtube clip (as a copyright vio and also as there is no way to tell whether the clip has been altered from the original, or if the original contains material that placed the clip a different context) ... but would Support linking to a copy of the original BBC broadcast that is hosted by the BBC (if such can be found). Blueboar (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I've mentioned the discussion here Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Bates method / Meir_Schneider Nil Einne (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose I originally became aware of this discussion because of the bizzare attempt to make a fair use claim for an external link and although I've just became aware that the youtube account belongs to Schneider or his organisation I'm still not convinced of the copyright questions have been sufficiently answered. Regardless, I don't care any more about the copyright issues here since there is a far greater problem. The video provides absolutely zero value to the reader and instead simply serves as advertising for a fantastical unproven claim. If the video provided some critical discussion/analysis of the claims or at least some discussion of how Schneider was allegedly cured and the secrets behind the Bates method used or heck even a shred of evidence from a third party of the claims perhaps there would be some merit but there is none. Instead the whole story is just Schneider repeating his story in an emotional/inspirational way (i.e. devoid of any useful information), with no apparent independent verification of the basic facts (there is a 'doctor' quite but it's not clear from me reading the subtitles that the producers even asked for independent verification from a doctor who had diagnosed and treated Schneider that he really had the condition and that they had no idea how he was cured). For example, from the discussion above it appears Schneider's condition was allegedly caused by "Schneider had congenital cataracts followed by botched operations as a small child which left his eyes full of scar tissue". I don't know where this information comes from, but definitely not the clip as this isn't mentioned in any way there. The fact that the video is lacking in such basic details is further evidence that it of no use. The only thing this video is useful for is as an excellent example of an unsuitable external link. The idea that 'if it was all complete bull someone should have came forward' is always problematic on wikipedia since it presumes 1) Someone actually remembers the guy 2) No one has came forward. In any case, it's not one we have to worry about in this instance since it's not that we're using a claim mentioned in a reliable source in the article, instead simply discussion an external link to a video which almost definitely doesn't satisfy RS requirements. There are plenty of proponents of nonsense which no one has bothered to debunk, it doesn't mean they're all true. To put it a different way, the video can basically be summed up in one sentence: "Scheinder claims his blindness which had been declared untreatable by doctors was cured by the Bates method, but provided no independent verification of his claims and owns a centre where he promotes such treatments." We don't need a video to say that. (Incidentally did he really say 'cell phones' in the video or is that jus a translation error?)Nil Einne (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
The information about Schneider's congenital cataracts came from the book he wrote. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I meant to clarify this originally, but forgot. The broadcast is not from the BBC, as is erroneously stated at the top of this thread and has been repeated in subsequent comments. Rather it is from Israel's Channel 2, which is why it is in Hebrew. I believe that bolsters the case for fair use here since it is being transformed in that English translation is provided. However, from recent comments I do now see why there might be a problem separate from copyright. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose YouTube is a haven for quacks who can't get their wacko theories out by any other media. It is a wholly unreliable source since there is no peer review process. The copyright issue is secondary in my opinion. Famousdog (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)