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 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)
- 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)
- 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)