Talk:Natural Vision Improvement

Proposed deletion

It seems to me, a long-time contributer to the wikipedia:Bates method article, that this article is being constructed as a POV fork to set forth the views of proponents of the decidedly-fringe theories of wikipedia:William Bates and their modern variants. I fully support deletion of this article in its current form. If, for example, quotes were provided by the many opponents or critics of the Bates method, therefore providing some balance, we could discuss retention of this page. Famousdog 09:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Famousdog what do you exactly mean by POV fork ?

to set forth the views of proponents of the decidedly-fringe theories of wikipedia:William Bates and their modern variants. No, no, no Skeptic qootes should must also be added. It is very important this article becomes balanced. I was hoping on some contributions from your site also. Will you help ? The problem in the current BM/NVI article it contains a lot of original research. ( by various means ! ) In an article with qoutes that is not a problem at all. Also this article will help the public to read less polarized and sometimes much clearer information. For example in my opinion when yuu don't know anything about a subject you want to know it's definition. Currently not present in the BM article, but present in this wikiqoute article. Seeyou 21:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You should know what a POV fork is since you've tried to create at least one before (The now deleted article 'Bates method of natural vision improvement') which was intended to be an alternative to the already existing article (wikipedia:Bates method) in which you attempted to put forward your own POV. That is a POV fork. I see you have added some token "sceptical" quotes (only one of which is actually sceptical regarding the BM), but this does not go anywhere near toward restoring any kind of balance. Clearly by "less polarized" you mean "my view, or the view of Bates-proponents." You say that the current BM article contains OR. Perhaps you'd like to clarify (on the BM discussion page, preferably) what you regard as OR? And finally... the 'definition' you provide is the view of one modern proponent of Bates' ideas (Quackenbush, I believe), so his definition of NVI reflects his opinion and his POV which seem to be entirely in correlation with yours. Famousdog 13:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

A lot of articles in wikipedia also have a link to a wikiquote article. Can you explain why the BM/NVI should not have one ? ( A balanced one off course. )When would the wikiqpote article be neutral according to you ? Take also a look at these articles : Jesus and homeopathy See their wikiqoute link. Why should n't the BM/NVI article have a quality wikiqoute article ? Seeyou 22:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Okey dokey. I think you are doing this for the wrong reasons, but I'll pay your game and try to add some balance to this page. Famousdog 14:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) I tagged this article for deletion first and foremost because of the poor quality of the quotes, and only remarked on the apparent POV as an afterthought. The remarks above reflect a misunderstanding of Wikiquote's purpose that I would like to clear up:
Wikiquote is not an appendix to Wikipedia. It is not an overflow bin for extended bibliographic reference materials or for elaborating details that do not fit an encyclopedic summary style. Wikiquote is a compendium of quotable quotes. It is the quality of the quotes, not the notability of their subject, that matters:
Why shouldn't topic X have a Wikiquote article if it has a Wikipedia article? Wikipedia presumes that if a subject is notable then there ought to be an encyclopedia entry because there will necessarily be sources of encyclopedic information. This does not imply a presumption that anything quotable has been written upon the theme of that subject.
Yes, do look at the Homeopathy article: It features quotable quotes by eminently quotable people. This article does not. No, do not look at the Jesus article: the suggestion that Janet Goodrich is as quotable as Jesus, or that her book title is as quotable as the Bible, is ludicrous. ~ Ningauble 15:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

See also Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Bates method, which may clarify the Wikiquote perspective on this. ~ Ningauble 16:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for injecting some much needed perspective, Ningauble. As far as I am concerned, both the Bates method and NVI wikiquote pages were created by Seeyou because he felt his perspective was being overshadowed on Wikipedia... Famousdog 10:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Split page

I removed material pertaining to the Bates method and William Bates to the newly-created Bates method page. Famousdog 14:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)