Talk:Focus level

Potentially Misleading

From an encyclopaedic perspective, derived from the purpose of Wikipedia, there is a problem with this article.

The term 'focus levels' is widely used in optics, in relation to optical focus. In addition, the term 'focus' is used in cognitive science in relation to the capacity for 'attentional control'. There are other uses, with consensus based use in peer-reviewed literature, such as the use of 'focus' in linguistics.

An article entitled 'focus levels' should address the uses of such a term in disciplines for which there is authoritative and verifiable source support.

Or, it should concentrate on the one discipline within which 'focus levels' is most integral, so that someone searching for the term and reading the Wikipedia article, gains an accurate insight into the breadth and specificity of its use.

Instead, at the moment, the focus levels article is about the use of the term by a commercial company defined entirely in relation to the alleged efficacy of that product.

That is OK, given that the Company (Monroe Institute) is arguably notable, but only if the article on 'focus levels' is merged with the Monroe Institute page. Meanwhilethis page should provide readers with an accurate insight into the various significations of the term across disciplines UNLESS it is clear that one of those disciplines predominates, in which case a disambiguation and other uses set up would be appropriate.

Currently, the use of a page on Focus Levels to describe a single commercial use of the term is incredibly misleading to those seeking an understanding of 'focus', especially at a time when terms like 'focus', 'attention', 'concentration' are key to debates in the light of research into cognitive neuroscience and contemplative practice.

There is a similar problem with some other pages that appear to have some relationship to the Monroe Institute, where a term has been in some sense commandeered and represented as notable by way of its relationship to and use by a product, rather than by way of its use in disciplines supported by controlled experiment and peer-reviewed research.

This is not an attack nor an endorsement of the Monroe Institute, about which I know very little. But I do know enough about the aforementioned subjects to suggest that their significance is not that represented by the articles.

Being new to Wikipedia, I have created new articles, thoroughly expanded some stubs, and clarified potential confusion by creating one disambiguation page.

But I have not yet merged and though tit appropriate to express my views before doing so, in the hope that more experienced editors might guide me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prolumbo (talk • contribs) 23:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Tagging issues

I could lengthen this article substantially and plaster it with references, but the deletion threat inside the notability tag is a major disincentive to do so as wiki's notability rules for this sort of content are so loaded.

I'd be much happier editing if the existing article was merged into The Monroe Institute. Most of it can be shown to be highly relevant and notable there, but its a bit of a fish out of water on its own. K2709 (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Only The Monroe Institute and Soul retrieval link to Focus level. I agree that it makes sense to merge this article into The Monroe Institute. The content would be very relevant there and the Soul retrieval article would still link to that content because it is mainly about The Monroe Institute and links to it. I would do it myself, but I don't have the time for it right now. Waninge (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Definition of Term

I merged this with the Monroe Institute, and replaced it with a brief holding paragraph. My reason is that 'Focus level' is a term used throughout scientific and scholarly literature to describe an optical concept, whilst there is no reference at all in the literature to 'Focus level' in relation to the use of the term by The Monroe Institute. It is therefore unhelpful to anyone searching for information about the term. The reason for the brevity of the new content is that even in optics, 'Focus level' is a used loosely, and had different connotations and denotations when applied to the eye and to a lens, due to the former relying upon subjective reports of perception. It may be better to merge this totally with the 'Focus' or 'Optics' article. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and hope I have proceeded in the appropriate way. Prolumbo (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)