From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Glasses was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Fashion (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion 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 project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Medicine / Ophthalmology (Rated C-class, Mid-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.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Ophthalmology task force (marked as Top-importance).
WikiProject Glass (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glass, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of glass 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.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / Vital
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.


Oldest comments[edit]

The article on glasses was well written. I was unable to find any spelling or grammatical mistakes. I did find that in places it included information that was presented abruptly, or seemed to be non sequitur. For example in the history section of the article, it includes a few sentences concerning convex glasses and they the next sentence talks about the first correct publishing of why glasses work the way they do. But for the most part, this article was very thorough; I particularly appreciated the detailing of past hoaxes in the history of glasses. By and large the sources seem to be reputable, but there are some that seems less reliable than others. For instance, the College of Optometrists and there website is very informative and definitely is an authority. However, when the article discusses sunglasses, it references a website called “The Great Idea Finder” that does not seem to bear any seal of authority and who’s website is rather lacking. The illustrations certainly are useful for someone who is trying to understand what glasses are and how they have changed through history. But there could be more illustrations showing the various types of eyewear. For example, on the section for reading glasses, there is a picture of a pair of reading glasses, but on the section for 3D glasses, there are no examples, so someone who never saw them before may not discover what they look like from reading the article. HIST406-13rmalik (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Changes I made to errors in this article:

  • Nearsighted people see near and can't focus far; farsighted people see far and can't focus near.
  • Glasses are still made of glass; I always buy them because they don't scratch.
  • Nearsightedness, farsightedness, presbyopia, and astigmatism are not diseases.
  • Reading does not cause nearsightedness.

Ortolan88 16:32 Sep 29, 2002 (UTC), nearsighted, astigmatic, presbyopic, four-eyes since age 1947.

I've done a copyedit (look out for site/sight, folks), and added a note on prescription sunglasses. There should be something on continuous lenses as a form of bifocals, and maybe on scratch-resistant lenses. (By the way, Ortolan, age 1947?) Vicki Rosenzweig

Since age 7, which was 1947 too. I once saw a performance by fellow lensman John Sebastian who chatted up someone in the audience about glasses and asked him when he'd first worn glasses, "7", he said. Sebastian replied, "Heavy dues, man. Heavy dues." Ortolan88

I've moved the article, AFAIK Eyeglasses is a term not much used outside of the US.

Nearsighted and farsighted are US terms. In the UK we says short-sighted and long-sighted.

The article discusses prejudice against lenswearers at some length. Restored song quote on exactly that point. Relevant and encyclopedic. That myopic guy, Ortolan88 03:11 Nov 29, 2002 (UTC)

"Slang cheaters"? I've never heard that term. I don't think it's North American English. -- Wapcaplet 13:45 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I would have said it was American slang myself. "Specs" is a vastly more common than "Cheaters" in the UK. Calling "cheaters" British slang is misleading. I'm going to remove it altogether. Mintguy 21:22 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Cheaters is slang for over-the-counter / non-prescription reading glasses. The idea being you are cheating the system by refusing to go to a formal eye exam.Garvin Talk 03:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I've added a photo of my eyeglasses; it'd probably also be good to have a photo of someone wearing glasses. -- Wapcaplet 13:53 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

glasses vs spectacles[edit]

I don't really want to start an edit war, but I the word "spectacles" is infrequently used in the US and the usage is considered very quaint; it's often used for just that purpose (similar to an American telling another American that something is "in the boot of the car", we know what it means, but that doesn't mean it's used). Anyhow, let's break down frequency of use by location and try to agree on the best neutral formulation. First, I've read that plain "glasses" is the typical term used in both American English and British English, as in "I wear glasses". Is that correct?

Then, in order of usage:

  • American: glasses, eyeglasses, (much removed) spectacles, (much removed) specs
  • Canadian: glasses, specs, eyeglasses, spectacles
  • British: glasses, specs, spectacles, (is "eyeglasses" used?), cheaters?

My point is that the article should use the most neutral term, "glasses", the prevalence of usage should be correctly stated on the page, and the synonyms and slang terms should be a redirect.

FWIW, "Cheaters" is never used in the US. It's definitely not a US term (at least not today, Daniel Quinlan 01:10 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)). If you said you "forgot your cheaters", someone would have absolutely no idea what you meant.Daniel Quinlan 00:29 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

"Cheaters" is slang for over-the-counter / non-prescription reading glasses. The idea being you are cheating the system by refusing to go to a formal eye exam.Garvin Talk 04:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I would like to know exactly why, when, and by whom "cheaters" is used to mean eyeglasses. It is quite interesting. Maybe it relates to examinations in a certain way? wshun 00:46 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

"Cheaters" is slang for over-the-counter / non-prescription reading glasses. The idea being you are cheating the system by refusing to go to a formal eye exam.Garvin Talk 04:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I found a few internet references to "cheaters" as being a slang term from the 1920s (not entirely sure which places or where and how it originated), possibly through the 1950s along with the slang term "peepers" (either or both may be more of a pop culture term used in movies and songs, not sure). Neither are used today in the US. (There's also a Twilight Zone episode where a misunderstanding of the term "Cheaters" is a primary plot point.) Daniel Quinlan 01:09 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Okay, nobody disagreed with me in the many months since July informal polling on #wikipedia seems to agree that "glasses" is the most common term whereas "spectacles" (chiefly British) and "eyeglasses" (chiefly American) are uncommon on either side of the Atlantic, so I moved the article to Glasses. Redirects, of course, from the other less-common terms. I also changed the article to use "glasses" uniformly (it was a mix of the two terms before) except where "spectacles" made more sense. Daniel Quinlan 23:16, Nov 9, 2003 (UTC)

Daniel. You failed to fix the redirection pages when you made the move. Glasses is ambiguous. If you applied your reasoning for moving a well established page elsewhere then automobile would be at car, but it isn't at car because car is ambiguaous. Moving the page back. Mintguy 03:28, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hello Mintguy, seems like there's a difference between the two. I don't that that the nous "pants" would be ambiguous because of the verb "pant", anymore than "glasses" would be though to mean the plural of "glass". Just my two cents... -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 05:26, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
My apologies for leaving some redirects broken, I should know better. I agree with Bcorr that "glasses" is unambiguous. [[Glasses]] is not the same thing as [[Glass]]es. Also, automobile is a bad example for various reasons. And, I fixed the redirects. You could have just asked (especially given that it's been that way for over a month) instead of moving the page and making extra work. Thanks for spotting the error, though. Daniel Quinlan 05:45, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

Mintguy, you can't just move a page unilaterally. I discussed the move here, supported the move with a reasoned argument, evidence, and nobody objected for months. Then, the article was moved and remained stable for a month. You pointed out that I made a mistake moving it and I fixed it. If you want to move the article, I suggest you conduct a poll of people watching this article and ask what the most appropriate title is. I'll allow you to frame the question if you want, but in the meantime, I'm moving the article back to where it has been, without objection for over a month. Daniel Quinlan 08:25, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

Okay, apparently discussion is not favored method of interaction here, the page has been moved again with nary a comment, so I'll pose the vote.


Vote to last 24 hours. Ends at 08.35, 16 December 2003 (UTC)

Cheers. Daniel Quinlan 08:32, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

The article was at spectacles for a considerably longer time than a month. The article existed with broken redirects created by you for a month. Please leave the article where it was. You unilaterally moved the article without any kind of discussion. Mintguy 08:33, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I discussed it in July and again when I made the move in November. The broken redirects (which I fixed and apologized for) are not an argument for moving the article to a less appropriate location. I am following the Manual of Style, after all.

Glasses is by far the more common word in both AE and BE. I don't think the confusion with glass is likely as page titles are almost always singular, so people should not be linking to glasses when they mean glass anyway. Anyway, that problem is easily solved by having a disambiguation link to glass at the top of the page if people feel that would be necessary. Angela. 08:38, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

For the record, Mintguy moved this from "Eyeglasses" on 28 Nov 2002. While I support Glasses, I think we should leave the links the way they are. It is up to the author's disretion to decide what system s/he want to use in each individual article. --Jiang | Talk 08:38, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

When changing the articles that linked to this article, I took care to retain "spectacles" when the word was used in a historical context. I did change "rose-tinted spectacles" in a few places after a Google search showed that "glasses" was far more common than spectacles (as one would expect given contemporary usage in both the UK and the US). I also don't think it should be up to the "author" of an article to make all decisions about an article (I'm surprised you disagree after History of Greek and Roman Egypt). Daniel Quinlan 09:10, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

Glasses isn't just the plural of glass. For many years it glasses were a common synonym of for binoculars. If you read novels from te 19th century you will find binoculars referred to as glasses. As in opera glasses Mintguy 08:43, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

A "spectacle" is also an event or a public display, so the plural argument for glasses holds absolutely no water. I think other meanings are a bit aside the point as well, articles should be named for common terms, if there are synonyms that we actually need to worry about, then we can use a disambiguation link at the top, as Angela suggests. Daniel Quinlan 09:04, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)
As far as I know, 'glasses' is the most clear, all-encompassing word for the items in all International versions of English, including my native Australian English. I always thought that 'spectacles' refers only to those with prescriptions, whereas you can have other forms of glasses, such as sunglasses and opera glasses, as you have mentioned. If you wish to create a link to binoculars within the article to help those who only speak 19th Century English, go right ahead. But very few people anywhere these days says 'glasses' more than 'spectacles', so this article belongs at Glasses. Now, is there anyone *other* than Mintguy who opposes this article being at Glasses? - Mark Ryan 09:07, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Eyeglasses carries a more formal tone than just glasses and avoids possible ambiguity. Rmhermen 18:45, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

Eyeglasses is not used often in the UK. Just as spectacles is not used in the US. Daniel Quinlan 02:44, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)
I've never heard anyone use eyeglassess in the UK. Angela. 02:49, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I moved this back to glasses because Mintguy seems to be the only user in favor of spectacles. --Jiang | Talk 05:37, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Judging by the last few edits, it seems I'm not the only one who believes this should be at spectacles. Mintguy 18:38, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't see anyone else who seems to agree. Even so, every one of your reasons given for "spectacles" has been answered. I would like to just state for the record how much I strongly object to the article being titled "spectacles" and the almost universal use of the term "spectacles" in the article. In NA, this is a ridiculous word to use -- most people would be confused if you used it with this meaning. Just reading this article makes my ears and head hurt. Revolver 06:20, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Wow! I feel like I've uncovered an ancient tome from the deep deep past-- we are going in the time machine, all the way back to... 2003! So seriously what is the deal with this. Everyone basically agrees it's Glasses except one guy, it's even in the MoS as an example of a good neutral naming, and yet... what's the deal here? I moved it, and I'll change some instances of spectacles inside to glasses, though pardon me if I don't do everything, just get a start. D. G. 11:50, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
By the way, I think it's really neat how the only argument against glasses that held any water was the one that it had a slightly different meaning a hundred (plus a good bit) years ago. D. G. 11:52, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Should we link the Cambodian holocaust, in which everyone who wore glasses was murdered on the grounds that they were "intellectuals" and thus did no "socially useful work"? Or would that be too gloomy? --Uncle Ed 21:32, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Add it if it's true. Never knew glasses could be murderous. --Menchi 22:10, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sunglasses and ultraviolet radiation[edit]

Sunglasses are darkened spectacles that provide protection against bright visible and ultraviolet light. Due to changes in the atmosphere, ultraviolet levels are much higher than in the past and ultraviolet protection for eyes and skin is even more important.

I was hoping someone with more knowledge than I could weigh in on this. According to a paper in Geophysical Research Letters cited in a NASA press release, at the U.S. / Canadian border UV-B levels have increased about 4% per decade, and it's even less the closer to the equator you go (it's closer to 10% at the tip of Chile, though.) I don't have a political agenda — I care about ozone depletion as much (or more than) the next guy — I'm just not sure that, scientifically speaking, 4% (even 10%?) per decade qualifies as "much higher than in the past". Thoughts?    Joshuamcgee 03:17, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

It would be great to have some information on the history of eyeglasses (when were corrective eyeglasses first used)?

Phrasing in introduction[edit]

I'm confused by one of the sentences in the introduction: "Spectacles are more often called eyeglasses in North American English, glasses in North American and British English, and (rarely) frames or lenses." More often than what? If the sentence is correct as written, who calls them spectacles? -- Creidieki 04:38, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's correct. Who calls them spectacles? Mintguy, I guess. D. G. 11:51, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Does anyone have any idea what percentage of Americans require corrective lenses for vision problems? Even an estimate would be helpful. Thanks. doc4cons

Does anyone have any idea what percentage of Americans require corrective lenses for vision problems? Even an estimate would be helpful. Thanks.

Help! I'm seeing double. WHPratt (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Duplication of Terms[edit]

Sunglasses and safety glasses have their own mentions up top. No reason to also have a last paragraph about them, eh? -Fuzzy 13:20, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Safety glasses[edit]

I think two images is overkill. Further, the right image is very hard to see at that resolution and with that background color. Daniel Quinlan 23:47, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Point taken, those in the left hand image are the traditional safety glasses (complete with safety sticker even!) so they are the first and logical choice. However the second image shows the newer style that the original section made reference too. This style is in fact very good as they fit snugly reducing the likelihood of the murphys law chips slipping through the air gap the older style creates. On the one hand you have safety glasses that the old-timers would recognize, on the other you have the newer fandangled (but extremely good) ones.
I made the images small so as to not overwhelm the reader, would a different (black?) background for the second set make all the difference? . -- Graibeard 10:08, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


This seems really interesting, perhaps we could include some of it in the history section?

Van Eyks "Annunciation" 1430? Shows a cardinal? with spectacles.

Spectacles are mentioned in an 11th century Islamicate poem: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Chinese Emperor Taizu of Song in the 900s AD is shown in this [portrait] with what look very like lenses over his eyes. Close inspection of the portrait shows white and black edging around parts of the circumferences giving a very strong impression of glass. On the other hand, it is hard to detect any signs of frames to hold the lenses. Does anyone know if these were glasses? If so, it would be worth adding this protrait here and mentioning the fact (or the possibility) that he wore glasses. UBJ 43X (talk) 12:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Probably newish comments (some undated) formerly posted at the top of the talk page[edit]

"simple magnifying lenses for reading that are used to treat mild nearsightedness"

Do nearsighted people need eyeglasses for reading? More explanation seems to be called for.


I can't speak in general, but I'm shortsighted (about 2.5 / 3.5 ) and I prefer to use glasses for reading. Just feels more comfortable -- Tarquin

The quoted statement is perhaps a misconception. The common reason why older people often need some sort of magnifying lens for reading is because they have presbyopia (a condition where the lens of the eye has stiffened and has lost its ability to focus on close objects). Mrwojo

I personally use glasses when reading because, with the myopia and astigmatism, the letters are blurred unless I hold the document about 6 inches from my face. Like many people, I prefer to read at a further distance. However, like many near-sighted people, I do take off my glasses sometimes after a long amount of reading before settling on to more. For whatever reason, it feels like it reduces eyestrain to read without glasses for a while. My hypothesis would be that the muscles of the eye are stretching in a different manner. -Fuzzy 13:20, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Method of making glasses[edit]

Can anybody contribute content to the process of making glasses? What are the parts of a glasses called? How do you know the lens is mounted correctly? How do you know the frame is the right one for the patient? etc. --Christophe Cremault 13:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

talk a bit more about frames[edit]

hi, i need a bit more information about frames and how they're made, their history, who made them, ya know..stuff like that because i got a research to do about that, i hope someone reads this soon.. hope u could help.--

--Amoura 0 03:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Article Improvement Drive[edit]

Contact lens is currently nominated to be improved on Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. Please support the article with your vote. --Fenice 10:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


Anybody know a good image of a person wearing glasses to put in the article? Based on only the old art, the images don't indicate how they're worn. --Christopherlin 03:16, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) Agreed, the images should be replaced, even if with diagrams. (Perhaps a nomenclature-diagram would be good?) jazzle 18:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Good Article[edit]

The article was delisted from the Good Articles list because it had inadequate refercing. One reference and no footnotes is insufficient for an article of this size. Also, the article can be much broader. --GoOdCoNtEnT 07:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 22:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move[edit]

glasses to pair of glasses. Present title is ambiguous, as has been mentioned before. Voortle 04:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Oppose -- I think the qualifier "pair of" is too strange. I'd rather see a parenthetical. Dicklyon 07:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Why not just rename it to "Spectacles"? James F. (talk) 09:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    "Spectacles" sounds old-fashioned. "pair of glasses" seems best to me. Voortle 12:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Most people I know of call them glasses, but this could be a country specific thing. While spectacles could work, it is not used much these days. Eyeglasses might be the best choice if there is consensus to rename. Vegaswikian 00:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    "Eyeglasses" is laughably archaic in the UK, however. A very poor choice. How about we just keep it here? James F. (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I think "spectacles" or "eyeglasses" would be the best place for this article, but "pair of glasses" is too awkward. It would be akin to moving "pants" to "pair of pants", or "bread" to "loaf of bread". Luvcraft 03:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Of all the suggested renames, I like "eyeglasses" the best. --DDG 05:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I also like "eyeglasses." "Corrective lenses" is another possibility, but not vernacular. I do think "glasses" is the most commonly used term, but ambiguous. —pfahlstrom 17:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Counter-proposal: move glasses to eyeglasses. Dicklyon 18:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Support. Removes the ambiguity in the current title. Voortle 21:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't see a reason to change. There is no consensus above for a rename. Vegaswikian 05:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

List of famous people[edit]

If the list is meant to convey "people famous for wearing glasses", then many should be deleted. Bill Gates, for example, is a famous person who happens to wear glasses, but he is not famous for wearing glasses. Elton John, however, is known for his often outlandish eyewhere, so he should remain. Thoughts? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 01:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The list has gotten to be ridiculous. Certainly Bill Gates should not be on it, and many of the others, too. Maybe we could have a poll, and ask everyone for a shortlist of no more than 5 people from the list that they think are famous for wearing glasses, and see if there's any kind of consensus where we could draw the line. Dicklyon 02:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The entire concept of having such a list seems ridiculous in itself, to me. I'd rather look for a consensus on getting rid of the list altogether. Geoffrey Spear 15:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
So let's call a POLL. Please "* Support" or "* Oppose" removal of the list.
  • Support. Dicklyon 17:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Jewish humorists are not famous for being Jewish humorist, but for being humorist. Still they're on a Wp list and it's allways convenient and informative that it's there. As for African Americans it's no different. Famous natives of a town are not famous for being from that town, but still it is allways informative, that there's a section or a list about that. VKing (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Before putting the list back in it's former place, it's being completed some more here: [[1]]. --VKing (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Upside-down glasses photos[edit]

Why do the first two photos of glasses have them set up-side-down? I've never seen a photo of them like that before -- I don't even set my glasses down that way, even if it does make more sense. The photo is cleary a display shot -- to show someone what a pair of glasses looks like, not an "action" or "real world example" shot of someone who has taken their glasses off and put them down. Can we get these two replaced with right-side-up... err... correct-side-up photos so that we don't all look as if Wikipedia doesn't know which way up a pair of glasses are worn? Maybe there could be one up-side-down shot, but have it set upon a book etc. -- Soupisgoodfood 13:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, even though I do set mine down this way, that it's a terrible illustration. Dicklyon 14:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Seconded - there's no reason that the illustration should have them upside down. MrBeast 20:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Thirded - The strange pics were the first thing I noticed on the page! I would take a picture of my glasses for 'modern example', but my desk is so untidy! I don't have 'traditional' specs to take a pic of either... JaffaCakeLover 13:21, 5 March 2007 (GMT)

Rimless frames[edit]

I added a small note about rimless and semi-rimless varieties of glasses, since these styles are currently fairly popular. Feel free to remove if this variation is not notable enough to warrant a mention. --Muchness 11:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


Anyone know what people with bad vision did before glasses were invented, and why bad vision is so common? You'd think that over the course of human history the people who couldn't see would be less likely to survive and reproduce and pass on their poor vision genes. Anyone?

I've heard it speculated that myopia is common because it had some survival value for tool-makers. Groups of people with no myopics may not have had anyone focused on close work. I don't have a source handy, but you might be able to google one up. Dicklyon 04:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Paul Crocker invented the spectacles in 1202 in the hills of China. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


Is it a coincidence that when I looked up "glasses" on wikipedia, the font automatically changed on my browser to such a small size that I would need glasses to read the page?

Needs a little work.[edit]

I did some fairly large re-writes on this article, which hopefully more forth-coming since I would like to see this article back on "good" terms on Wiki. I'll update minor things off-and-on and add some references.

The only thing I truly question if the mentioning of VR glasses in the opening paragraph. If no one objects, I'll be removing it shortly as it's mentioned already further down. Reason turns rancid 22:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

high cost of glasses[edit]

I don't quite know how (or if) to wikify this thought, but it seems to me that eyeglasses , and in particular frames, are ludicrously overpriced - how on earth can a few cents of plastic or titanium (which is not that exspensive, google for Ti vendors) - be worth $150 or 200 or even 250 dollars -without the lenses, which is a whole other story. any help here ?Cinnamon colbert 23:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

As with anything else in the fashion industry, markups are simply a given fact. An example would be how could a few cents worth of cotton or wool be sold as a $200 party dress. The cost can also be compounded by designer names, versus more generic manufacturers, and also keeping in mind their medical usage. I don't really see the need to wiki this fact at present, but good point. Reason turns rancid 18:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be hard to add something about the high cost without then giving an opening for people to spam "Get glasses cheap here!" I agree that both the frames and lens are a racket but it'll be tricky to insert this into the article with citations and NPOV. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 22:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Passed[edit]

I have passed this article's GA because I believe it fulfills the GA Criteria. It's an excellent article, and really kept me interested as I read through it, something that doesn't happen too often when reading other GA nominees. It could do with a little more sourcing - consider going to WP:Ophthalmology if you want help taking it to FA, if that's one of the goals for this article. Overall, nice job! Cheers, Corvus coronoides talk 16:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


Sup Dues, i made a page over here, Flip-up glasses, and was wondering if youse could helps at it, eh ? Thanks in advance. Itler005 05:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


Due mostly to the fact that, in my own opinion, this page has become over-grown with images and examples, and also owing to the recent peer review, I have removed and/or reorganized many photos. They are/were all, for the most part, very good examples, but the article is simply over-crowded. If you have any suggestions for additions/removals/etc., please leave a note here first if you would be so kind. I'm hoping in the near future to expand this article by roughly 3 sections and will then have much more room for further photos. Thanks! Reason turns rancid 20:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


Shouldnt there be more on frames especially what they are made from.--MilesTerrex (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


I've put in a request for semi-protection. This page gets an unusual amount of attention from vandals compared to other pages I have been looking at recently. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 22:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and protected the page for 5 days due to the level of anon vandalism. Tiptoety talk 22:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Well NOW what do I do? Removing the vandalism on this page every other day was one of my most regular work-time hobbies. Maybe now I can actually make some progress on it during this window of opportunity. Thanks for the hand. Reason turns rancid (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The semi-protection just expired - I hope lack of a chance to revert vandalism did not affect your work too much. :-) I was hoping for a longer semi-protect interval but let's see what happens in the next week or so. BTW, then you very much for the audio edition. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 05:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I've put in a new request for semi-protection on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for protection. Moderate though persistent vandalism by unregistered users. Requesting two-week or indefinite semi-protection. The previous semi-protect was 5 days from 22:37 27 March 2008 to 22:37 2 April 2008 with vandalism resuming on 4 April. Since then the non-vandal edits are extremely difficult to locate in the history as nearly all of it is vandalism and reversion. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 00:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The following was left on WP:RPP
Semi-protected for a period of one month. After one month the page will be automatically unprotected. Jmlk17 00:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 00:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A mistake.[edit]

The term for long-sightedness is Hypermetropic, not presbyopic! presbyopia is the condition that comes with age when a person has both a distance prescription as well as a reading addition. i dunno how to change it on the actual page, but what is written there in the "invention of eyeglasses" area is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ST234 (talkcontribs) 12:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

  • You're absolutely right. I didn't catch that. Technically they correct both, but I clarified that a bit. Thank you. Reason turns rancid (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama[edit]

Does Barack Obama wear glasses? If he got elected President, would he be the first without? Something to maybe note in the article is that all of the 42 Presidents of the United States have worn glasses, although not necessarily in public. - Matthew238 (talk) 12:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If he doesn't use them yet, it's quite likely that he will.
Because in most cases it is simply a matter of too much strains in combination with too little rest for the eyes.
That very sensitive organs then easily will not be able to function quite perfectly any more.
After all most of the activities, they're used for nowadays in an industrialised society and especially in certain functions, are of an unnatural character. Reading for instance, especcially in artificial light and/or on a screen. And after the reading often don't follow many hours of rest in natural darkness, but hours of watching television or other cameraproducts.
After that even more rest is demanded; at first awoke and later on asleep. Sleeping immediately mostly naturally is not possible; but for that there's always a pill.
So some hours of sleepingrest for the eyes follow immediately anyway, but that by far is not enough.
And the next day things will go the same way.
After a while the consequences are undeniably there, but then still the decision to slow down doesn't follow.
O no, this warning light will simply be turned out by putting glasses on, after which all continues in the way, that allready led to these eye problems.
It's comparable with all those other body warning lights, that in this society use to be simply turned out, as soon as they start lighting up: meniscus, tonsils, appendix and in a way all inconveniences, that easily can be eliminated by use of farmaceutica.
Is it wonder that this materialistc society by now is on the edge of abyss?VKing (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
In a way use of glasses also can be compared with use of doping in sports: by use of unnatural means, one can come to results, one cannot, while using just ones own natural capacities.
As one of the undesired side effects of this firstly can be regarded personal health problems, caused by asking much more of oneself, than would have been asked, when one wouldn't have competed (on that level), because one didn't have the natural capacity for that.
For society an undesired effect might be, that as a result certain crucial functions are held by persons, who haven't really got all, what it takes for that, which especcially in crucial situations can lead to wrong actions and/or decisions.
Besides, whereas otherwise those (fine/sensitive characters), to whom certain unnatural developements in society would be to rude, as a result of which they would do what they can, to slow them down, or stop them, now they simply put glasses on and join the race, as a resullt of which, society more and more becomes like for instance a train, which has as good a no functioning breaks any more.
Indeed, society should be thus, that nobody would need to use glasses. VKing (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


Please post your comments about contributions of nanotechnology to glass and eyeglasses —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Invention of eyeglasses[edit]

There was a sentence in this section that said "While the exact date and inventor may be forever disputed, it is almost certainly clear that spectacles were invented between 1280 and 1300 in Italy" As well as being gramatically a nonsense (almost certainly clear?) it was followed by an external link, which looked as if it was supposed to be a reference, but went to a picture if cocoa butter and some advertising about corn oil! I've removed the link and corrected the sentence but as Roger Bacon is mentioned as a possible inventor the sentence sounds like someone's point of view to me. Richerman (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Wozniak section[edit]

Is this necessary at all? If we have a short section of people for wearing glasses, then it would be fine ina reduced form, but this section sticks out a lot to me as beimg ridiculous.-- (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's clearly a case of triviality and undue weight, and Apple fanwanking (and I say that as a die-hard Mac user). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Specwearing in different countries[edit]

It would be interesting, if the article would also offer information about the percentages of specwearers in relevant countries. What's the country with the highest percentage? Is it China indeed? Where is it lowest? An African country? --Natubico (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It says here that 300million people need specs in China and, for comparison, this says something about how many are worn in the US, so there's a start if you want to work out the percentages. I did once hear that it's odd that the Chinese never invented glass and yet they have the highest number of people requiring spectacles, but I don't have a reference for that I'm afraid. I think it was in a discussion on the radio about the book The Glass Bathyscaphe: How Glass Changed the World which you can read a bit about on Amazon here. In fact it does say in one of the reviews "There's a number of big holes and problems with the argument - for example, given the claims about myopia in China, how can we account for the success of Chinese astronomy?" which makes me think maybe my memory is serving me well for once! Richerman (talk) 00:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


I have removed redundant categories from the article. If (for example) Category:Corrective lenses is a subcategory of Category:Ophthalmology, and the former contains this article, then we do not add the latter. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Dubious text[edit]

There's a sentence under the Sunglasses heading that says "Some sunglasses with interchangeable lenses have optional clear lenses to protect the eyes during low light or night time activities and a colored lens with UV protection for times where sun protection is needed" What would your eyes need protection from in low light? Is this referrring to sunglasses with corrective lenses that can be changed for clear corrective lenses at night? If so, they're not protecting the eyes at night but correcting the vision. Richerman (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Glasses/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: Delisted[edit]

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I believe the article currently has multiple issues that need to be addressed, and as a result, I have delisted the article. The article has been tagged with needing additional references/clarification and there are other areas within the article that require citations. Add additional citations from a variety of sources to provide a balanced representation of the information present. Perhaps sources can be pulled from the main articles linked to within the article. Look to books, magazines, newspaper articles, other websites, etc. The lead should also be reduced to four paragraphs, see WP:LEAD guidelines. Although the article has been delisted, the article can be return to GA status by addressing the above points. Once sources are added and cleanup is done, I recommend renominating the article at WP:GAN. If you disagree with this assessment, a community consensus can be reached at WP:GAR. If you need clarification or assistance with any of these issues, please contact me on my talk page and I'll do my best to help you out. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 05:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This article does not meet B-class standards because it has large sections that name no references. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

LASIK promotion[edit]

" Wavefront guided LASIK surgery also corrects for the higher order aberrations."

This sentence seems to have nothing to do with glasses. Is there any reason to keep it in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Eyeglass Dependency[edit]

I've been hearing it dozens of times over in rumour: People claim that using glasses makes your eyes worse than if you did not use the glasses. Is this true? I know people that haven't gotten glasses because they claim that they don't want their eyes getting worse. It might be worth dispelling this rumour if it's not true. Gba111 (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

partial merge from Optician[edit]

I think the history section of the optician article currently contains a lot of information which seems more appropriate to this article. I suggest that it be given a short summary there and more detailed treatment here.--Aervanath (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The history at Optician has problems:
  • It is not a history of opticians, it does not even mention opticians until half way down the third paragraph.
  • Its just about eyeglasses, and opticians make more than just eyeglasses[2], especially pre 20th century.
  • It is totally un-referenced, a big problem because it is chalked full of un-verified claims.
It should probably be deleted at Optician and noted here in talk as an idea for future additions. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


many people want a certain design and let me tell you there are many! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

In Fashion[edit]

It has been very fashionable to wear many different kinds of glasses. Including in the 1950's,1960's & early 70's to wear brow line glasses, horn rimmed glasses or cat eye glasses. These kinds of glasses as of 2010 are making a come back in todays fashion. This might have something to do with the popularity of the T.V. show Mad Men. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke gober (talkcontribs) 20:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

General Critique of Article: Glasses[edit]

I am critiquing the article called “Glasses” which gives a description of what they are and describes their historical existence from its development into our current century. In focusing on the historical section and other aspects of this article I found that it was well written in that it explained briefly the history of glasses and gave numerous examples of the individuals, from many different places, which possibly invented or reinvented eyeglasses. Furthermore, the article provided great illustrations of many different types of eyeglasses that were worn by men to show how they looked and how they were exactly placed on the face. It described how not all eyeglasses were able to sit on the face alone and how some had to be held manually. Some of the images were of paintings while others were simple pictures of old-fashion eyeglasses of the type particularly worn in the Middle Ages.

In this article I have to notice whether or not the article has appropriate and complete sources to back up its claims properly. The article provides a good amount of creditable resources leaving the reader to see that the information given was not based on assumptions or misguided beliefs, but that it came from appropriate books, scholars, or people with knowledgeable background who have studied, critiqued the subject, and history of eyeglasses themselves. When reading an article of this size that not only presents historical but current data as well, one has to cover the subject correctly and thoroughly which it has done very well by noting specific inventors, types of glasses, even medical issues for what they were used for, and future creations. It leads me to believe it has not been marred by frivolous or spurious contributions although one cannot be absolutely certain but from what I have seen there appears to be none.

In comparing the treatment in Wikipedia to that in a conventional encyclopedia with this particular subject regarding the invention of eyeglasses, I found that although both are good sources for research, it appears that Wikipedia seems to be a much better way of gathering information about a particular subject. It not only gives good historical and current information, but also adds illustrations that can help better explain a topic because not all people are receptive to reading material or understand the information and prefer a more visual presentation with the reading. Concerning my research on technology of eyeglasses I couldn’t help but realize they some use one of two terms for glasses which are spectacles or eyeglasses which I have seen from previous discussion from users could be the same but also different at the same time. HIST406-10kabbott1 (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)kabbott1/10-3-2010

History - where's "Early developments"?[edit]

The history section is un-balanced and has a pretty massive hole in it - it spends way to much time on tit for tat claims of invention and totally misses actual development of eyeglasses, the part that would go between "Invention of eyeglasses" and "Later developments". Its a 350 year hole in the history where spectacle makers in Venice, Florence, and later in both the Netherlands and Germany developed the entire industry including all the technical means to perfect the positive lens, negative lens, and even invent the telescope. Refs like Renaissance vision from spectacles to telescopes By Vincent Ilardi are a good source on this. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds fascinating! If you have access to these sources, would you be interested in making a first pass at including this information? I think it would help the article, even in rough form. Joshua McGee (talk) 09:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


Is there somewhere in this article where we can redirect the title wire-rimmed to? If you do a search for "wire-rimmed" you get quite a bit of results, so there really ought to be a redirect for this relatively common term. I also notice there's a separate article for "Horn-rimmed glasses". -- œ 13:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Chinese "invention" of eyeglasses ?[edit]

I have read Joseph Needham's account of the history of eyeglasses in China, which is available on-line: Joseph Needham, Science & Civilisation in China (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1962), volume IV, part 1, pages 118-120.

According to Needham, the Chinese did not have eyeglasses when Marco Polo arrived in China (see footnote c on page 119). The Chinese did not invent eyeglasses; rather, they arrived in China from the West via the Middle East and via southeast Asia (Malacca) (see page 120). The earliest mentions of eyeglasses in China occur in the 1400s A.D. (see page 119).

Therefore I deleted from the article the claim that Needham proved that the Chinese had invented eyeglasses in the 11th century A.D., since Needham's own book refutes this claim.

Cwkmail (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Italian "invention" of eyeglasses ?[edit]

I have deleted the claims that eyeglasses were invented by either Fra Alessandro da Spina of Pisa or Salvino D'Armate of Florence. These claims have been exposed as hoaxes. The evidence will be found in:

(1) Edward Rosen (1956) "The invention of eyeglasses," Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, volume 11, pages 13-46 (part 1) and 183-218 (part 2).

(2) Vincent Ilardi, Renaissance Vision from Spectacles to Telescopes (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: American Philosophical Society, 2007), pages 13-18.

Cwkmail (talk) 07:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]


for dead URLs

This review is transcluded from Talk:Glasses/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC) I am quickfailing this due to the preponderance of citation needed templates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Project Critique[edit]

The Wikipedia article covering the history of eyeglasses is decent at best. It is well written enough to be passable but not especially well-written overall. From what I read, I found one typing error within a quotation, that is something that should not happen in an encyclopedic article. The sources, for the most part, at least in the section I read, are complete but are not all authoritative. Some of the sources are in fact generic web pages and not historical works. The history portion of this article is not very long but it is cover the subject matter to a sufficient degree. However, the illustrations and pictures are not very useful. There are a few pictures of historic pairs of glasses but the rest of the illustrations are of the glasses being used and they are illustrations, not pictures. I am not sure if the article has been marred by the amount of contributions that have been made but there have been a significant amount. I am not qualified to state whether or not the “frivolous” contributions are detrimental or not. This is part of what makes Wikipedia so useful and successful as an encyclopedic source. I think, in some respects, Wikipedia can be much more useful than a traditional encyclopedia especially because the traditional encyclopedia is printed and unchangeable while Wikipedia is open to contributions and improvements. The only thing I would improve about this article is maybe make it a little more in-depth but also to make better use of the ability to add illustrations and pictures. The ones being used in this article are meaningless and do not add much of anything to the overall content.

Arye Zucker 10/1/11HIST406-11aryezucker110789949 (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

aren't 3d glasses hide eyes better than other type of glasses?[edit]

if yes, then it should be written how it´s being achieved e.g. by some special material or chemistry? Or maybe there are type of glasses that hide your eyes (non-transparent) but let the wearer see the outside world with clear vision. Like Mirror Glasses. (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Glasses and Intelligence[edit]

Shouldn't the article address this stereotype? Whether they are or not, people with glasses look more smart.

Some sources: (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The parts of eye glasses[edit]

Perhaps one should add a remark about the screws in eye glasses. These are often forgotten. They usually contain screws to attach the foldable handles to the lenses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia History Article Critique[edit]

This critique is for University of Maryland course HIST406, and will therefore focus on the history section of the article. The article contains a reasonably good summery of the development of glasses and does a good job of not being overly long and verbose. The section is organized in three parts, precursors (to glasses) (5th century B.C. to early 13th century A.D.), the invention of glasses(late 13th century A.D. to about 17th century A.D.), and later developments of glasses (18th Century A.D. - present). Within each part, examples are listed in roughly chronological order, but are lacking in any sort of detail. Now this may be because detail simply does not exist, in which case the examples provided are serviceable, however some details on how glasses worked and the optics behind them would be very helpful, or at the very least a brief explanation of what optical effects are taking place when light passes through glasses. Furthermore, I cannot help but to feel that the history section is little more than a series of examples of glasses popping up in historical documents as opposed to a description on how glasses were developed, it would be very nice to have some connection between the examples so that I can get a better idea of how the glasses were linked, for example, when Alhazen's Book of Optics was mentioned, it was stated that it's translation from Arabic to Latin was "instrumental to the invention of eyeglasses in the 13th century". Now granted, verification is needed on that, and many of the examples are simply unrelated through anything other than the fact that they both deal with glasses, but connections like that are immensely helpful and help me draw a more complete picture of the development of glasses. Speaking of pictures, most of them are paintings of people wearing glasses. While this is certainly serviceable if no examples of glasses survive from the eras that the portraits were made in, but it would be preferable to see pictures of actual glasses from those times, as paintings often (though not always) leave out important details such as quality of glass and how the glasses were held. The two books listed in the Bibliography appear to be very authoritative and credible, but many of the references have incomplete citations and are missing vital information such as the author and publisher, as well as date accessed, so some of these references may have been changed or outright removed since they were used for this article and I would have no clue.

All in all, a reasonably good article with room for a lot of improvement.

HIST406-13sdehart (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


Live long and prosper

Bifocals and Ben[edit]

The kids book "Ben and Me" claims Benjamin Franklin invented bifocals.

True? or false?

If true should this snippet be under history or in the bifocal section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobPage47 (talkcontribs) 06:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

OTC Readers[edit]

This page contains information about over the counter reading glasses / magnifiers / cheaters... etc. This content may be better organized onto its own page. Garvin Talk 16:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Introductory section needs work[edit]

The intro contains various levels of specificity, delving into some points in detail while only summarizing others. I propose that this section be cleaned up.Garvin Talk 17:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Holding place for information to be moved[edit]

Eyeglass lenses are commonly made from plastic, including CR-39 and polycarbonate. These materials reduce the danger of breakage and weigh less than glass lenses. Some plastics also have more advantageous optical properties than glass, such as better transmission of visible light and greater absorption of ultraviolet light.[1] Some plastics have a greater index of refraction than most types of glass; this is useful in the making of corrective lenses shaped to correct various vision abnormalities such as myopia, allowing thinner lenses for a given prescription.

Scratch-resistant coatings can be applied to most plastic lenses giving them similar scratch resistance to glass. Hydrophobic coatings designed to ease cleaning are also available, as are anti-reflective coatings intended to reduce glare, improve night vision and make the wearer's eyes more visible.[2]Garvin Talk 22:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The American National Standards Institute has established standard ANSI Z87.1[3] for safety glasses in the United States, and similar standards have been established elsewhere.

In the United States, OSHA[4] provides guidance on the type of safety eyewear that should be used for a particular application.

Some safety glasses are designed to fit over corrective glasses or sunglasses. They may provide less eye protection than goggles or other forms of eye protection, but their light weight increases the likelihood that they will actually be used. Modern safety glasses tend to be given a more stylish design in order to encourage their use. Corrective glasses with plastic lenses can be used in place of safety glasses in many environments; this is one advantage that they have over contact lenses.

Worker safety eyewear is available in various lens colors and/or with coatings to protect or enable eyesight in different lighting conditions, particularly when outdoors.

Nylon frames are usually used for protection eyewear for sports because of their lightweight and flexible properties. They are able to bend slightly and return to their original shape instead of breaking when pressure is applied to them. However, nylon frames can become very brittle with age and they can be difficult to adjust.

Safety lenses are usually made of polycarbonate.[5] Polycarbonate and Trivex lenses are the lightest and most shatter-resistant, making them the best for impact protection,[1] though polycarbonate offers poor optics due to high dispersion, having a low Abbe number of 31. Safety glasses are also available in prescription form for those persons who need corrective lenses.[6] Depending on the particular area in which the individuals work, they may be required to wear side protectors additionally to safety eyeglasses.

In order to comply with the ANSI Z87.1 requirements, safety eyeglasses must pass the high velocity and high mass tests. Also, the lenses of protective goggles, faceshield windows and welding filters cannot be thinner than 3 mm, excepting high-impact lenses meant to be installed in prescription frames, which cannot be thinner than 2 mm.Garvin Talk 22:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Circular polarization may be used so the image separation is maintained even if the viewer tilts their head (although the depth effect will suffer as the head tilt increases), which would not be possible with the more usual linear polarizers. Garvin Talk 01:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Historical types of glasses include the pince-nez, monocle, lorgnette, and scissor or scissors-glasses.

Modern glasses are typically supported by pads on the bridge of the nose and by temple arms (sides) placed over the ears. CR-39 lenses are the most common plastic lenses due to their low weight, high scratch resistance, low dispersion, and low transparency to ultraviolet and infrared radiation.[citation needed] Polycarbonate and Trivex lenses are the lightest and most shatter-resistant, making them the best for impact protection.[1]

Though modern frames can be both lightweight and flexible, and new lens materials and optical coatings are resistant to breakage and scratching, glasses can pose problems during rigorous sports. Scraping, fracturing, or breakage of the lenses can require repair by an optician.Garvin Talk 04:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Abusive language[edit]

The introduction into the article leaps from a description, to a sentence of the names people call wearers of spectacles, which I think is out of place, but then in the last sentence of the introduction it starts using offensive language. ″Sometimes glasses are worn simply just for aesthetic or fashion purposes. If you wear them that way you might as well go jump in a hole.″

An article in Wikipedia surely should remain neutral and not judge people on the reason for wearing glasses.

Aethalides (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

That was vandalism by an IP editor, it has already been reverted. Just a few minutes before you posted, in fact. — Reatlas (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Accuracy of reference to Laufer stating eyeglasses invented in India accuracy?[edit]

Needham specifically stated in "Science and Civilization" volume 4:1 page 118 that "It has been stated that the invention of spectacles was Chinese. This in part, may have been derived by a paper by Laufer (16) inconsistencies, which were afterwards cleared up by Chihiu Khai-Ming".

Needham goes on show that in the document Laufer apparently used, the earliest and best manuscript of the 1240 Tung Thien Chhing Lue of Chao Hsi Ku did not have a reference to eyeglasses, and so Laufer was mistaken to imply that eyeglasses were invented in China.

This shows that Laufer is not reliable with regards to eyeglasses. In addition, Needham seems completely unaware of Laufer's claim that eyeglasses were invented in India earlier, but goes on to discuss on page 119 of how they were invented in Europe first. Given that fact, the statements attributed to Laufer with regard to India and the invetion of the eyeglass are not accurate. The referenced document for Laufer is in German, so whoever translated it into English made a mistake. The Laufer comments should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b c DeFranco, Liz (April 2007). "Polycarbonate Lenses: Tough as Nails". All About Vision. Retrieved 2007-09-01. 
  2. ^ DeFranco, Liz (May 2006). "Do You Need Lens Coatings?". All About Vision. Retrieved 2007-09-01. 
  3. ^ "Z87.1", (store), US: ANSI  Unknown parameter |titre= ignored (|title= suggested) (help).
  4. ^ OSHA .
  5. ^ "Safety Glasses and Eye Safety". Ask Doc (Q&A). All about glasshes. Retrieved 2010-06-14. 
  6. ^ "Choosing and Using Eye Protection". Eye safety. For your safety. Retrieved 2010-06-14.