Talk:Natural vision improvement

Redirect to BM article

I have deleted the redirection to Bates Method, because the bates method is limitted to only what W.H. Bates has written and published about improving eyesight naturally and natural vision improvement is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeeYou (talk • contribs)

Presently, this just a few things about Bates and an indication that some modern systems of vision improvement evolved from the Bates system. This is all completely suitable for the Bates Method and belongs there. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Dpbsmith. Since Seeyou thinks that Goodrich's definition of NVI renders it wholly separable from the Bates method lets look at the evidence. "A lifestyle method" - this could mean anything - "improving eyesight" - very dubious - "wholistic means" - undefined, as with most 'wholistic' therapies - "without the use of optical devices" - well, I guess that bit's true! - "The Bates method merged with modern theories of brain function" - Which theories? How modern? Accepted theories or just handwaving vagueness that sounds about right? - "character and responsibility for one’s self and state of being" - the usual 'complementary therapy' disclaimer that blames the victim for their failure to show any improvement after applying the suggested techniques. In other words, there is nothing here beyond Goodrich's own assertion that her "method" is any different from Bates' version. I strongly suggest that this page is redirected back to Bates method. If Seeyou can come up with any explanation, evidence or sources that demonstrate exactly how Goodrich's method is unique, then perhaps we could add a small section on the Bates method page. Famousdog (talk) 12:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that rather than redirecting, it might be better to put this page (and Natural Vision Improvement, different only due to caps and which still redirects to Bates method) up for deletion, in light of this edit summary, for example. Maybe we shouldn't have a "Natural vision improvement" page redirecting to Bates method. PSWG1920 (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with that suggestion. I would much rather that people looking for information on NVI (a term they may have heard in a variety of disreputable self-publications) are directed to a page that clearly (and impartially - despite Seeyou's unsubstantiated protestations of POV and OR) outlines the origins and development of this "therapy". Famousdog (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, good point. I guess things shouldn't be inferred from redirects. PSWG1920 (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have got challenge for both of you. What is Original Research ? Seeyou (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research mentions nothing about redirects. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

My friends. It would be very interesting if you could provide another reference defining Naturral Vision Improvement. Seeyou (talk) 08:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This is just getting ridiculous, so I have moved this quote to the "Modern variants" section of the Bates method article and NPOV'd it. Perhaps that will make Seeyou happy, but I very much doubt it, and Ronz probably won't be too pleased either... Famousdog (talk) 11:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Fellowedtiors of the BM article when you undo my revert Arbitration will decide whether or not your edit is Original research or legal. See also my userpage [1] Seeyou (talk) 06:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Shut up about arbitration, Seeyou, and file the goddamned request already. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 21:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jeske, If there is a conflict of interest. Which parties do you think might be involved in editing the BM or NVI article ? Of course it is speculation we can't prove it, but it should be considered and acknowledged. Seeyou (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Ram, it, Seeyou, and file your damn Arbitration request you keep alluding to. I am not your adjudicator, especially since I am not neutral where YOU are concerned. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 21:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Lets just calm down for a second. Seeyou, you appear to be gathering "evidence" for an Arbitration request, but have not filed one. Please do so and then we can move on. If you are not going to file a request then stop threatening to do so and accept that the weight of opinion regarding whether the NVI page should redirect to the BM page is very much against you. As far as I am concerned, consensus has been reached a long time ago by everybody but you. I don't believe that there are any other editors that share your opinion that NVI is anything other than a "modern variant" of the BM. If there are, let them speak now or forever hold their peace... Famousdog (talk) 10:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement primary source

PSWG1920 statement on case 1 : The short answer is that Goodrich's book is a primary source for this subject [2]. Assume this discussion was about defining the law of gravity (Newton's law of universal gravitation ) Isaac Newton being the primary source. Would it be a problem we would use the primary source exact statement. Plain nonsense. If you could provide another source before Janet Goodrich providing a definition we would really be discussing. Even if you could provide one after Janet Goodrich. I would be open for discussion. Seeyou (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

When someone pushes you pull

A strong argument the BM does not equal NVI is the fact that you won’t find any open eyelid sunning in Janet Goodrich book about NVI. You also won’t find any in Thomas Quackenbush book. TQ who speaks about the Bates method of NVI. In other words the Bates method in the definition of J. Goodrich is another BM than the one presented here [3] in wikipedia. Because open eyelid sunning it here being present as a very important part of the BM. If you really want to suggest NVI and BM are eqaul my felloweditors your only chance is to start with provdiing some real arguments. Otherwise OR for the Arb. Com is very very clearly present in this article. Seeyou (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Seeyou. Those small, relatively insignificant differences between NVI and BM that you have pointed out make NVI a "modern variant" of the Bates method. That's why it is discussed in the "modern variants" section of the Bates method article, where this page redirects. In fact, if you look carefully at my edit history, I actually tried (unsuccesfully) to introduce a discussion of Goodrich and "her" method in that section. Regardless, it does not need, require, or justify an entirely new article that would probably just reproduce a lot of the material in the BM article. Famousdog (talk) 09:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Flat on your tummy then.

Famousdog the BM is ridiculed regarding open eyelidsunuing. See reference below the reference [4]

This is simply another book trotting out a variation on the Bates method, which has been thoroughly discredited since the 1920s as a waste of time and effort. This sanitized version of Bates won't harm your vision, unless you follow some of Bates original suggestions like staring at the Sun (!), but it also is unlikely to help improve your vision. Harmless pseudoscientific rubbish, I'm afraid.

Open eyelid sunning is not part of NVI. And you call this insignificant. Why is it then present with an image in the BM article ? Clear OR when the statement of wikipedia is BM and NVI are equal. Fact ! When this stays igored OR is present. And is this the only difference ?

Oh and why did you ask to merge the See clearly method with the BM article ? Is it because it shows the behaviour of the dominant editors in these articles. See [5]Seeyou (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)