Talk:Eye movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Medicine / Ophthalmology (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Ophthalmology task force.
 
WikiProject Anatomy (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article has not yet been associated with a particular anatomical discipline.
 

Adding major section[edit]

I've created a psychology of eye movement section, which itself involves many subtopics. I've made a start on a daughter article—Eye movement in music reading, which is my area of expertise. I could also have a stab at an equivalent article for Eye movement in language reading, although I'm nowhere near up-to-date on that. Tony 11:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I have added some links to the psychology of eye movement section and will work on these new articles, as this is one of my main fields.--Hans-Werner34 (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The first of the detailed articles with examples on driving a car, walking and preparing food was deleted. So I stopped this project, and deleted the prepared links.--Hans-Werner34 (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't see where this happened. TONY (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

See my talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hans-Werner34 --Hans-Werner34 (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Got it. The only area I can identify myself with is this bit. TONY (talk) 15:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes of titles and boundaries: eye movement[edit]

Request for comment on page names[edit]

From Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreements
Talk:Eye movement (disambiguation)#Changes of titles and boundaries: eye movement
Disagreement between two editors on four talk pages about article names. 21:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Lets centralise the discussion here and please give me a little time to work out what is going on. It would help if you would both write two short paragraphs the first stating under what name the pages should be and a second explaining why. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


Are you some kind of self-appointed mediator? Hello. I love the way you prescribe what you want (two short paragraphs, is it?). This Chyranand person has launched in here and changed article titles without notice and without consultation or consensus. I question all of the changes. That's all there is to know. Your record in other places shows that you're likely to inflame a tense situation, not the opposite. TONY (talk) 09:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


Yes Tony I am a self appointed mediator because someone has asked for a Wikipedia:third opinion. If you do not want a third opinion I'll leave you two to sort it out on your own or by one of you taking it to a higher level of mediation. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


That shouldn't be necessary: when he comes back, tomorrow or Sunday, I hope that this can be resolved through discussion. The unpleasantness could have been avoided in the first place by not launching major changes without notice or consensus. I'm still annoyed that my time has been wasted in this way. What would be better is to bring in a few more content people; but psychology is very poorly served in WP. TONY (talk) 09:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


I have to thank you for withdrawing your indictments TONY. As I have stated before, since there is no additions to the discussions in the past year, I figured this was one of many articles that have been left abandoned; nevertheless you showed otherwise. To begin, my foremost objective is the disambiguation page. These articles are extremely specific in their content, and I find it difficult to imagine anyone without prior knowledge of its existence to be able to find it. Therefore the most likely route to these articles is through the disambiguation page. Since these articles are not likely to be named directly, a lengthy name is not barrier — however I do advocate "Eye movement in reading music" and "Eye movement in reading" (possibly "text" or "linguistic text").
"music reading" and "language reading" does pass, has been used in literature, and that believing that the music or the language is doing the reading is ridiculous. However, it is through subconscious corrections that this is achieved. Not all readers posses a natural understanding of English; for a Spanish-speaking user (where word order has little or no effect on the meaning of the sentence) learning English (in which it does) taking the title literally does pose a problem. Thus all I am really asking is to reorder the words, not reworking the entire title.
The word "language" appears transplanted, and at the onset of the article it is acceptable. However the article is no longer a stub and there is enough information to determine a more accurate title. "text" is perhaps the most appropriate, as the main figure shows, but I believe simply "reading" would be enough as the article Reading is directly linked to it for elaboration.
The article Eye movement (sensory) was derived because of its earlier categorization as "Sensory system – Visual system and eye movement", in addition that the article also details much of its function in the sensory system. It is also necessary because simply "Eye movement" is needed to be allocated to the disambiguation page. If there is a title that is more appropriate, then I would likely accept it.
"I'm still annoyed that my time has been wasted in this way." It's not wasted, at least I don't see it that way. Reverting changes is relatively easy - if you have not, then you may be interested in entering "my preferences", under the tab "Gadgets", and checking the tool "Twinkle"; there are other tools which facilitate other common and rhetorical tasks, and they are linked to their project page. Anyways, if you think your time is wasted, entertain on the thoughts of how I would have felt when you: reverted my changes, reverted my moves, indicted me as a vandal, indicted me as a sock puppet, demanded "to ascertain whether this user has been banned", marked my statements as "written so poorly", then demanded "you going to revert the change, or do I have to bother learning how to do so?", and so forth? ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)(user has returned - thanks)


  • The AllTheWeb phrase checker, like google, but word/phrase-oriented, yields this. "Music reading is a well-established compound item, analogous to "score reading" and "sight reading". As I pointed out above, full nominalisation would be necessary if the words were inverted, which blows it out. IMO, it significantly weakens the title, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it at the moment.
  • The phrase checker is less definitive for "language reading", but yields more than a million examples: many instances are double adjectives ("language reading achievement", which should have a hyphen, and "second-language reading"), whereas in the title, it's a compound noun. On second thought, those double-adjectives are usually part of the nominal group (noun), such as "foreign language reading" (three-word nominal group). "Whole language reading", the well-known and problematic method for teaching kids to read, suggests that "language reading" is well established in English. As for "text", that's still a problem, since that term can refer to any information, certainly music, and even paintings; this usage has been strengthened by the rise of the semiotics movement.
  • So no matter which choice, there's an issue. I suggest that the current "Eye movement in language reading" is the best of the options, since it's neat, short, will be readily understood, and avoids the category problem of just "reading". TONY (talk) 08:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


When appearing in context "music reading" posses the most relevance, especially when used to expand upon: sight reading, score reading, and other musical items. However when used as a title "reading music" posses the most relevance, especially since the article details the processes involved in reading or the cognitive process of acquiring information. Additionally in the first paragraph of the article states "...scanning of a musical score by a musician's eyes." in the second it details "the sequence of alternating saccades and fixations"; emphasis is placed on more of the processes involved in reading the music and less on the music. I do not believe that full nomination is necessary. From "Eye movement in the reading of the music", the article (grammar) "the" does not change the meaning when removed and the "of" becomes awkward thus yielding "Eye movement in reading music". However if full nomination is needed, redirects (and the disambig) can be used to help guide readers to this article.
If the current title is to be preserved, it would be helpful to provide a hyphen in between "music" and "reading" as it would further establish it as a compound item. I do not advocate this title, but it is possible. The search you provided used "reading music" as well as a compound item and is used more commonly than as a title than "music reading" (I also found it ironic that Wikipedia is the top result). Nevertheless I believe Eye movement in music reading should be categorized as a reading process, and less as a music item. And "Score reading" should be used to describe the more musical aspects of the possible article.
I agree that "text" is a problem and as you stated "...since that term can refer to any information, certainly music, and even paintings" (I'm a little distant about paintings though). Instead try "print" with "Eye movement in reading print", print is well understood especially with the establishment of printing presses and news papers. Its other uses are less ambiguous than that of "text" and especially of "language". I was about to place another proposal with having "text" enclosed in parenthesis thus resulting in "Eye movement in reading (text)", but things have changed.
You have not stated your new position on "Eye movement (sensory)", so I believe it holds right? At least until a better title can be composed. ChyranandChloe (talk) 01:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


"Eye movement (sensory)" seems wrong given the scope of the page. The section "Psychology of eye movement" could be removed, since it's just a stub; but I'm unsure about whether the rest neatly fits into "sensory". Don't be beguiled by categorisations; especially in psychology on WP, they can be ham-fisted. Input is required from more editors; I'll ask around, although unsure where until I think it through.

On the matter of inverting "music reading", I totally disagree with your arguments. It's grammatical and well-established in the literature; if it weren't, there might be a case. But there isn't. A hyphen would be wrong.

"Print" is not appropriate. And we talk of printed music, too. Under the circumstances, I wouldn't get worked up over the categorisation of music as a language in some circumstances: in this field, "language" is not confused with music. The opinions of others might be useful.

Since you're dealing as a second-language speaker with subtle matters of the English language, I wonder whether you've read MOS (on hyphens, for example); a spell-checker can be switched on for most browsers—I use one. It's "nominALise"; nominalisation, of course, exists in Spanish, but is used more readily in English than any other language I can think of, particularly in scientific and technical writing. TONY (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


This is one of the reasons why I asked for WP:3O in the first place. The hyphen was a proposal I though could lead somewhere, I didn't advocate it to be actually used, but hoped it had some potential of breaking the gridlock.
"reading music" is also well-established and grammatical, and I find it more appealing because it is descriptive both inside and outside the field. Additionally, I didn't find your search very well supporting, and it would be helpful if you reestablish it; please explain how full nominalisation is necessary if the words are inverted (I use the firefox-built-in spell checker which is not as expansive as the one on Wikipedia, but you understood it nonetheless). When you condense it requires too much assumption to understand your supporting evidence — and without a firm understanding of your supporting evidence it makes it very difficult to derive a very helpful response without simply jumping to contradictions (please view chart WP:DR#Discuss).
"Print" is neater than "language" as it is more confined to written symbols, rather than any system of communication. Within context with "Eye movement" this may not pose as great of a problem, but it is helpful nonetheless. As you said, more opinions will be useful if not necessary.
Moving content should not be a barrier (WP:IA), once an article is no longer a stub — there should be enough content to determine its position; for the content that does not conform, it is jettison into more stubs and perhaps: developed, reestablished, or merged.
Remember that the disambiguation page was and perhaps still is my primary objective; it's rather difficult when the main articles it disambiguates are not yet fully positioned. I have read the WP:MOS, "A hyphen can help to disambiguate[...]". I find categorization the least appealing, but for this group of articles and for the articles that are linked to them, unless they are clear with their content it will be difficult for them to develop — take Reading for example (look a few months into the history), when there is no clear definition of their content it becomes confusing on how it can be used; these articles are nowhere near the degree the article Reading was, but clarifying what they contain will significantly improve their usability in searches and of course disambiguations. We appear to be online at approximately the same time, would you care to move some of the chatting to WP:IRC? ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


I've asked quite a few people, but who knows: they don't all look active on a daily basis. Ophthalmology, anatomy, psychology ... Nothing yet. TONY (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


Tony do you want to hear my opinion? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 07:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


Not really. I have little respect for your opinion after several experiences at MOSNUM and MOS. I'm more interested in the opinions of those who are in this general area, or those who know the language well. As for Werner, well ... I didn't ask for his help, and he has actually improved the language article considerably. He seems to think I own it—I did start it, but it's not my field. TONY (talk) 09:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


OK, there is no point my adding a comment that might inflame the situation however unintentional that might be, so I've added an RfC template to this section this so that others will know of the dispute and can help to form a consensus. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


Good move, but why frame this as a dispute? It's not helpful. You seem to be more interested in self-training to be a mediator than allowing the issue to evolve naturally. I don't trust you at all in that role, because I've already had experience of your input in several debates. However, I don't mind if you hang around. TONY (talk) 13:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


Who is actually in charge here? I tried to help Tony with a psychology section on eye movements, but everything I wrote was deleted. The disambiguition page is completely chaotic. I'm a specialist in this field but have little experience with Wikipedia--Hans-Werner34 (talk) 08:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


No one is in charge see Wikipedia:Consensus --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


It does appear that H-W is blaming me for reverting his contributions. I can't locate the reversion, but I do remember querying poorly cited claims that he added, several times. Was it in the language one? TONY (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


Tony, why do you respond so poorly WP:AGF? When I first contributed, you assumed I was a vandal, then a sock puppet, then when I asked for a WP:3O you declined on it (without my consensus), now that we do have at least some form in the way of population to help resolve this — you shove them into an uncomfortable position (again). Anyway, now that we have a group let's keep it; they do not have to intensify to our partisan fissures, but they can at least keep this discussion in check by helping to examine our supportive reasoning.
Ok, Tony — if you can't locate the revisions, please don't try to make it into a case. Philip Baird Shearer posted our changes above: I created the disambiguation page; moved Eye movement to Eye movement (sensory), which we have largely accepted, but has yet to fully determine its outcome; moved Eye movement in language reading to Eye movement in reading, which you then reverted — I have supported my edits at least thrice against your use of mainly contradictions (see WP:DR#Discuss and above); we agreed on my minor changes to Eye movement in music reading which included the disambiguation link, and other syntax updates, but have yet to agree on its name.
Collaboration doesn't happen with contradictions, if this amount of experience is all we've got, then there isn't much we can do except to preform the edits we think are best; I much rather have one of your highly knowledgeable persons, but until this can be achieved: it's us. You need to provide me with complete rebuttals, I do not think your have intentions for prolonging this, but "no" isn't an answer: "why" is. I know my knowledge well enough to preform my edits, if you may please answer the questions in my previous post and rebuttal the ones left standing then you have a case if not all you've manage to establish is a road block in the path of progress. ChyranandChloe (talk) 01:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


Tony asked me to weigh in on the issue of re-naming. I don't think the article eye movement should have been moved to eye movement (sensory).
  1. eye movement is largely independent of (visual) sensation. The location in the brain and nerves involved in eye movement and visual sensation are different. The modifier "(sensory)" IMHO is inappropriate and confuses things. It appears to be created just to demote the article eye movement relative to the other ones related to music reading et cetera.
  2. I see Eye movement in reading and Eye movement in music reading as sub-articles. A google search suggests[1] that most people interested in reading about 'eye movement' are looking at it from a medical stand point, i.e. 'music reading' and 'eye movement in reading' are lesser interests.
Nephron  T|C 05:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


In keeping with the basic premise of keeping things simple, the article should be promptly returned to its original title. Perhaps a daughter article with the new title might be useful someday, but the current title for a parent article is just wrong, especially given the way search engines work. Ombudsman (talk) 06:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


I agree with Nephron, most readers searching "Eye movement" are searching for the article denoting the voluntary and involuntary movements of the eye, which is beyond the visual sensory system. During Nephron's search of Eye movement (minus that Wikipedia is the most visited), Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) the psychothearapy treatment and (for some reason only in Nephron's search) the popular culture item Rapid eye movement (movie) also appears to be well searched. I would much rather have Eye movement (sensory) be less confusing, but I do not think that it should take prominence over the disambiguation. As I have stated before, I would likely accept any name more specific and descriptive than Eye movement (sensory). To provide context, here are some trend and search data that may be helpful [2] [3].
I do not agree with Nephron that Eye movement in reading (+ language/text/print) or Eye movement in music reading (/reverse) should be subordinated to Eye movement (sensory). Of the two sets, they appear to be in entirely different fields of study (Eye movement: medical, the two: understanding reading print and reading music), and in a way that's one of the reasons for the disambiguation. Yes, the two articles receive less traffic, but under WP:NPoV (WP:NC and WP:MoS can apply as well) they cannot be arranged in a specific form of hierarchy specifying that Eye movement (sensory) is more important.
Tony, please relax. We appreciate your commitment to these articles, but our situation is my no means "urgent[ly]" as you have placed on Nephron's talk pagelink and Ombudsman's talk pagelink. I'm not here to troll, misinterpretly "command [of] the language"see previous, or assault your "castle"link; I simply want organize them in a less ambiguous manner. When I established the disambiguation I decided it would be helpful to rename some of the articles so they are more descriptive of their content, but instead I landed myself in the hostile territory of Tony's domain. Don't take it offensively Tony, but your actions are beginning to take the form of obsession and descent(again) — the first was when you declared my edits as sock puppetry, vandalism, and the like. When asking for opinions please try to be as neutral as possible, because when we fail to do so we fail to achieve users without a starting bias; I'm glad for the users who have come and their good faith, but I have to admit we still need PoVs. ChyranandChloe (talk) 18:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)(Note of Absence)


  • Don't tell me to relax; you're getting up my nose—I find such statements inflammatory in themselves. You come along and cause me a lot of trouble and wasted time. The most gauling thing is that with your far-less-than-perfect command of English, as amply evident here, you arrogate this role of changing title names and ignore the protestations of a professional writer/editor native speaker. Sorry to be blunt, but I wouldn't be doing that on the Spanish WP, even after 10 years of immersion in Spanish. And these changes are so unnecessary. Music reading, reading music? This ephemeral change has absolutely no advantage—it is far worse and not worth the effort and dislocation. It will happen over my dead body. No one else has raised an issue with "language reading". As I've pointed out, there's no perfect solution in terms of categorisation, but I find little wrong with the current name. TONY (talk) 02:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


I am a native speaker of English, and I am not from the Spanish Wikipedia. The conclusion, I believe, is misinterpreted; and the example in which you so heavily developed this on was only meant to amplify the subtleties of the languages. I apologize if I offended you, but the earlier comments still hold — the appearance of such aggressive responses is what supports it. I did not ignore the earlier protestations, but expected something more venerable (pretense speaks in content); you are the most knowledgeable in this field — but you act the least mature.
Nevertheless, I agree this is currently enough, unless someone else is willing to take the forefront and pursue a rename of Eye movement in music reading and Eye movement in language reading, I no longer challenge it. I will, however, defend the current revisions (e.g. disambiguation, Eye movement (sensory)) until there is something better. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Potential inaccuracies[edit]