Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Batesmethod of Natural Vision Improvement

Discuss here please
Can the lengthy discussions please be moved from the AfD to this talk page? --Ronz (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it should, as you look like an uninvolved user, feel free to do so. Make sure to leave their !vote and a pointed like {lengthy discussion moved to talk page}.  MBisanz  talk 05:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

POV Fork? (moved from main)
The following reference shows it is not a POV fork :

First Sentece of the Back cover. http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1556433514/ref=sib_dp_pop_bc?ie=UTF8&p=S0KI#reader-link

In Relearning to See the most thorough and technical description yet of Bates method of Natural Vision Improvement.

Read also the reviews below :

reviews of Bates original The Bates Method for Better Eyesight Without Glasses ( 1920 ! ! ) http://www.amazon.com/review/product/0030266300/ref=pd_bbs_5_cm_cr_acr_img?%5Fencoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

Reviews of Relearning to See ( 1997 !!) http://www.amazon.com/review/product/1556433417/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1_cm_cr_acr_img?%5Fencoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

The Batesmethod article represents bates orignal book of 1920 and not the Bates method of NVI today. The introduction shows it by mentioning bates controversial accomodation theory, overexpose vision to sunlight, even Martin Gardner statement etc, The link http://brain.berkeley.edu/pub/1952%20April%20Flashes%20of%20Clear%20Vision.pdf) ( 1952 !!! ) makes it also very clear this article is about the old Batesmethod is not about the current Batesmethod of Natural vision improvement.

Another argument Natural vision improvement was directed directly to the Bates method article. Dom't you think the public will be more interested in the Batesmethod of today.

Seeyou (talk) 07:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * References do not justify a fork intended to circumvent consensus on the base article, Seeyou. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 10:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The references indicate I am not the only one with my statement the Batesmethod of 1920 is not the same as the BM of NVI today.

The arguments again below The BM is not the BM of NVI :

The way the BM is being taught today. The thorough scientific explanations, for example the centralisation principle combined wtih scientific facts the way the retina is build. See fovea The string with beads. Explanation of Fussion

The open / closed eyelid sunning

The fact aurhorities / advoocates today do not fully agree with Bates about accomodation only by the extraocular musccles.

77 years time difference ! 1920 versus 1997 Etc, etc. See : The table of contents. http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1556433417/ref=sib_dp_pop_toc?ie=UTF8&p=S008#reader-link

I can not imagine any situation in which details are not important. Can you ? Except for this batesmethod article of course.

And I have not created the name BM of NVI as you can read on the backcover of Better Eyesight.

Seeyou (talk) 10:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I reiterate: SOURCES DO NOT JUSTIFY A POV FORK CREATED TO CIRCUMVENT CONSENSUS. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 19:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Method of Bates vs NVI's (moved from main)
Jéské, you are avoiding the subject of this discussion. It is true there is no consensus in my opinion in the Bates method article. But this discussion is about whether or not the Bates method of W.H. Bates is equal to the Bates method of NVI

The Bates method of NVI is also mentioned in another book. The title Restoring your eyesight by Doug Marsh. See also the yoga article. Here you will find a lot of different kind of yoga. I will repeat again the Bates method of W.H. Bates is not equal to the batesmethod of NVI described by T. Quackenbush. Look for example at breathing.Do a search in Bates book. You will breath mentioned 3 times !! In the book describing the Batesmethod of NVI you will find a complete chapter about breathing. Page 191. I hope I am making it clearer. Just compare the table of contents and you will see. Simply look at the facts. Seeyou (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But does it need another article, especially another article created by someone who has a beef with the running consensus on the original article? Think about it, Seeyou. -Jéské ( Blah  v^_^v ) 22:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Naming: NVI or Goodrich? (moved from main)
PSWG1920, We are editors not creators. The name is based on dominant literature of today. I have not found Modern Natural Vision Improvement movement or Janet Goodrich method anywhere. Have you ? I still have not read any valid solid argument for deletion. Can anyone give me just one ? Seeyou (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A Google search for "Janet Goodrich method" turns up 264 hits, including a site by that title apparently now run by her daughter. And remember, Goodrich trained Tom Quackenbush. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)