Talk:Telescope/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Contents

Old comments

Problem: a statement under "X ray and gamma ray telescopes" says that the Earth's atmosphere is opaque to these parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. However, cosmic gamma rays are very high energy and routinely pass through the atmosphere. They can be detected at the Earth's surface. Can you explain your "opaque atmosphere" statement, clarify it, or correct it? 24.8.181.28 01:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)KPN

I have remove the following statement, which I think correspond not to spherical aberration but field curvature. -- looxix 19:33 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

Some schmidt cassegrains have intentional spherical aberration, and compensate with a film-holder that stretches the film into a mild spherical shape.

The Telescope mountings para is largely incomplete lacks equatorial and meridian mount. Ericd 01:47 Apr 22, 2003 (UTC)

I am not conviced by :

"The phenomenon of optical diffraction sets a limit to the resolution and image quality that any telescope can achieve. We still do not know when this limit will be reached, but most astronomers believe we will reach it sooner or later."

IMO diffraction occurs with a small apertures and research telescope have large apertures.

But, I'm not a specialist. Ericd 17:56, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

You can read about the influence of diffraction on resolution limits at the [link provided at the bottom of the page, but I'll clarify in the article. Nixdorf 23:08, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Would anyone be interested helping with a Wikipedia:WikiProject Telescopes and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Space Telescopes? Should a telescopes template include space telescopes? It/they could be modeled after the following articles:

--zandperl 15:23, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)


The article doesn't seem to mention photography through telescopes. I'm not sure if it should, but I was looking for that. --blades 10:05, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Synthetic aperture vs adaptive optics

It is my understanding that synthetic aperture refers to a technology for radio telescopes, while adaptive optics is an entirely different technology used for optical telescopes. But this article seems to use synthetic aperture for both. (It might even be using the term to cover interferometry, in one instance). Am I mistaken - does synthetic aperture apply to optical telescopes ? -Willmcw 06:47, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Umm, I am not an expert, but yes, both techniques are applicable to optical telescopes. Both are important and should be described. Briefly:

Adaptive optics refers to a set of techniques for distoring the received wavefront to correct for measured distortions along the optical path (e.g. effects of the atmosphere). They are being used with great success in many new telescopes.

Synthetic aperture refers to a set of techniques for combining information from several telescopes at one time or the same telescope at different places, for instance, to approach the resolution of a much larger physical telescope (one with a larger aperture). Synthetic aperture techniques have been employed for many years, with great success, in so called "sideways looking" radar and sonar systems, for instance. Optical and radio telescope arrays are synthetic aperture techniques. --AJim 04:58, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just linking the existing entry on Aperture Synthesis (AS) to the this discussion. AS as used in the Very Large Array allows the VLA to operate in at least 4 different modes (1) giving astromers varying magnification capabilities. A similar optical configuration is demonstrated in the Very Large Telescope. This last case also uses Adaptive optics to cancel out atmospheric distortion to near exoatmospheric levels and aperture synthesis of up to four stand-alone telescopes.

A "third" technology being implemented in the James Webb Space Telescope boasts some interesting benefits. Active Optics allows the development of super-lightweight mirrors which can be collected together to perform as one larger unit. The JWST primary mirror is a system of eighteeen smaller mirrors (1.3m) which are phase-synchronized to produce the capabilty of a single larger unit. Just to quantify the gain, the JWST as reported by NASA, will be equipped with a primary mirror that has a diameter of 6.5m versus Hubble's Primary Mirror (2.5m)(2), yet 1/10th the weight. In fact, "if Hubble's [primary] mirror were scaled to match [that of the JWST] it would be unlaunchable. There isn't a launch system capable of supporting a [payload of the required size and in weight]"(2).

COMPARING THE THREE

Active Optics systems differ from both synthetic apperature and adaptive optics. As noted above, "adaptive optics" are used to correct some depreciation of information collected by the mirror. "Synthetic Aperature" systems rely on comparing the collected information derived from two (or more) spatialy distant observation points (OP); these calculations are greatly affected by the know position and inter-relationships of the OPs. SAs also allow obersavation systems to retrieve information from obscured points of interest (e.g., clouds covering the Martian surface) by way of differential measurement. "Active" optics allow a system of mirrors to integrate into one larger unit and provide faster correction capabilities.


(1) - 'NRAO Very Large Array: Configurations'

(2) - 'NASA's James Webb Space Telescope Information Website'.

--'User:CSR' 15:12 UTC, 051202

Largest Telescope in 19th Century

I'm not sure if it's true, but I've often heard that the Ross Castle Telescope in Birr, Ireland was the largest telescope for over 50 years (which 50 years is disputed :)). This information is on the Birr page in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birr). Perhaps it would be good to explain how the 91-cm refracting telescope at Lick Observatory be bigger than the 72-inch reflector at Birr?

Good catch. It may take some careful research and writing, but the difference may be between whether the telescopes are usable for science. There have been several large telescopes that were not usable. I understand that the Birr telescope was marginally useful, but someone else may have better information.-Willmcw 19:41, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Suggested changes

If no-one has any objections, I will copy the section "Famous optical telescopes" to the optical telescopes page, and alter the section on this one so it lists "Famous telescopes" (including non-optical telescopes e.g. Chandra, the VLA and ALMA). This would make the section better matched to the article. Rnt20 11:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Only astronomical?

The opening sentence -- 'A telescope is an astronomical tool' -- is incorrect. Astronomical telescopes are, it seems, the most interesting in terms of large-scale progress, but historically, telescope uses features more strongly in military and navigational contexts (then, as now, that's where the best funding tended to come from). The opening paragraph should therefore not define telescopes as purely for astronomy, but instead indicate that this article is primarily about astronomical telescopes - and perhaps it would be worth indicating where to find articles about other kinds of telescopes (such as hunters' binoculars, photographers' telephoto lenses, opera glasses).

--69.177.103.38 22:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

This can be done. --Excaliburo 15:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


Euro50

I just read a Swedish newspaper article on the Euro50 telescope project, planned by a multinational consortium (Finland, Ireland, Spain, Sweden and the UK). It has no WP article yet as far as I can see, but there is a website devoted to it here, in case anyone is interested in writing something about it. up◦land 10:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Largest Optical Telescope

Aloha,

I would note that SALT (South African Large Telescope) is, I believe, a fixed-altitude design like the Hobby-Eberly telescope in west Texas. They're based on the Keck design, but with no up-down tilt, using a movable secondary mirror or prime focus instead, and I have heard that this limits their use to spectroscopy, as opposed to actual photometric imaging. Also, if SALT is identical the HET design, it may use an "oval" mirror, 11m by 9m, as opposed to Keck's "round" 10m diameter one. (I put the words in quotes because all are made of hexagonal segments.) Since HET is only 9m across in one direction, it has been considered "smaller" than Keck.

GTC in the Canaries is has a full altazimuth mount, I think, and at 10.4m would definitely surpass the Kecks size-wise. Bold text

Leonard Digges

His invention of his telescope (1570s according to article) doesn't match his age, he died more than 10 years before in 1559

Copyright Violation in Types

Last night I tagged the entire types section as a copyright violation. There were two brackets on the end, and when I Googled the text, it came back (word for word) to a Galileo website. Nwwaew 11:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"Telescope" and "Optical telescope"

These two articles seem to overlap and contain redundant sections in respect to each other. It looks to me like large sections of Telescope should be moved off to Optical telescope for the following reasons:

History - this section is about the history of optical telescopes only-- it should be moved off to Optical telescope.

Types of telescope - this section is about types of optical telescopes only-- it should be moved off to Optical telescope.

Imperfect images - this section is about the image properties of optical telescopes only-- it should be moved off to Optical telescope.

Famous optical telescopes - By definition this should be moved off to Optical telescope.

I will take a whack at this soon unless there is outcry to the contrary Halfblue 05:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


I did a cleanup of the page.

  • Focused article towards "telescopes" in general.
  • Moved stuff related to Optical telescopes off to Optical telescopes
  • Cleaned up redundent "See also" links and expanded "Famous telescopes" list and alphabatized.

Halfblue 00:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems a bit confusing at first

Regarding the suggestion of this article having a history section, I was just thinking the same thing and decided to look into it. It seemed to odd that such an article could have had something like the history overlooked. It used to have such a section like this, but the article was over-lapping with Optical telescope, and most of the content went there. While I guess that is a good move, it makes me wonder if Optical telescope should occupy the article title of Telescope, due to the general reader likely assuming that is what the article is about. Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 01:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Great minds think alike, I guess. I'll leave this up to others to decide, as I don't know a whole heck of a lot about the subject, but it seems like some form of history section, maybe even just a brief one with a link to History of telescopes, would be appropriate. I do agree that the word "telescope" is probably more strongly associated with the optical variety. Thanks for looking into the matter. --Bongwarrior 01:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I did that original move of all content over to Optical telescope since it was a logical move given that we had two articles- Telescope and Optical telescope and we had whole sections in Telescope like Famous optical telescopes. I did not question why there are two articles. It's a good question. At this point this article is like a massive disambiguation page linking out to all the sub topics, Optical telescope being one of them. And maybe that is the way it should be, there are alot of "telescopes" out there. Adding even just a history to this page may get cumbersome since the question would be "whose history do we add?" - Just Optical?, Radio?, Gamma Ray?. I would suggest that an explanation could be added to the intro as to how these things got named "Telescopes" with maybe a link such as (see also:History of telescopes). Good information on where the word came from at [4] and [5]. Halfblue 04:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles for creation needs your input!

Hi there! An anonymous contributor has made a proposal in today's (27 May) entries that I believe requires an expert's opinion. If this is no longer today, you can find it at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2007-05-27. I'd appreciate it if you could review the request, and either accept or decline. Alternately, if you are uncomfortable with the process at WP:AFC, please let me know here or on my talk what you recommend and I will do the grunt work! Thanks again for your help.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 21:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This issue has now been resolved.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 01:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Eye damage

If someone were to look through the eyepiece of a telescope aimed at the sun on an overcast day (during the day) with a UV index of 1, but the person had his/her eyes shut while doing it (and did it for a few seconds), would the person's eye(s) be damaged by the sunlight or UV rays? Latitude0116 (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Was the telescope really "Galileo Galilei's instrument"?

The telescope article implies that Galileo Galilei invented the telescope. According to the Hans Lippershey article and the Galileo Galilei article, among others, Galileo was the first to use the telescope to look into space, but he modeled his telescope after a telescope already in use by the Dutch government. KayaKai (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there needs to be a history section, summarizing History of telescopes. Crum375 (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The history section had problems. It did not fit the article because the article is an overview all types of telescopes. "History" only covered Optical types and is a redundant version of what already appears at Optical telescopes. I have removed the section and intergrated some content into intro to fix problem noted by KayaKai. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand, but a brief overview of the foundations for this invention — and it's future-classes, should be noted.[6] Does that seem reasonable to you guys? Well, let's stop beating around the bush and just merge the two articles. Almost every main article of common interests has a history section. Is not the telescope as fundamental as any other invention? InternetHero (talk) 21:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
The concept of an overview article is that it sends you to a specific article for what you are looking for. So no, the main article would not have a history section; it would be contained in the relevant article such as History of telescopes. Please also see your talk for other reasons why this material is not suitable for inclusion here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
You're, right. I do think that "an instrument" in the form of a magnifying device is what a telescope ecompasses. To be fair, my edits conform to that idea, so just added it to the summary instead. The sources are well established already and it looks like you're new to Wikipedia so I will try to help you out with the rules. Try this website: [7]. InternetHero (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
hmmm... don't see how my edit record could be called "new". The article is Telescope. The contributions of Ibn Sahl and Ibn Al-Haytham belongs at History of optics, and History of telescopes (in a balanced fashion). Adding two paragraphs in a three paragraph intro at Telescope brings up WP:UNDUE problems. We are talking about the telescopes here, optical, radio, UV, etc. An intro should summerize the article, not make unsubstantiated blanket statements on topics the article is not about (WP:INTRO). http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/courses/phys199epp/fall06/Powers-NYTimes.pdf is a single newspaper article that gives opinion but that is not the same as a reliable source. As far as rules.. please keep in mind WP:3RR. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
No problemo. I will just add the information about the telescope in regard to Al-Haytham. The telescope is a device to magnify distant objects, but simply stating that a radio, or electromagnetic telescope contradicts the foundation of the latter is highly dubius. I see no argument here, but rather 'an agreement to disagree'. InternetHero (talk) 13:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I have re-edited the intro and added a history section. Intro now summarizes article (WP:INTRO). Ibn al-Haytham is pre-telescopes and more related to history of optics so did not cover him. Leonard Digges, and Taqi al-Din mentions have thin references and are WP:UNDUE. They are covered in a more detailed balanced fashion in History of telescopes which is now linked. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 04:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:INTRO: "It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any."
I don't see why your opinion contradicts someone like Richard Powers... I am going to revert back to my edit now. I hope we don't need an admin. InternetHero (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not make POV edits. Absolutely no reliable sources state that Ibn Al-Haytham invented the telescope in "the beginning of the 13th century century" Not even the Richard Power ref. And one Richard Powers ref does not "fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". Controversy is handled in History of telescopes... within reason and reliable sources. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I changed it a little to fix it. Actually, I have about 3 secondary sources and one tertiary source I just found. Al-Haytham was very instrumental to the telescope and its history/summary. I'm sorry, but "Fountains of Bryn Mawr hasn't wrote any books nor is he respected to the likes of Richard Powers. Until F of BM actually becomes her/his own source to directly refute my arguement, I have absolutly no intention of leaving such innaccuracies to this article. InternetHero (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
"Being your own source" is directly contrary to the official English Wikipedia policy of WP:NOR. The source is not in question. It's use is. The addition of Al-Haytham is not a summery of History of telescopes. Singling out Al-Haytham in the total history of people who contributed to the history of optics is WP:UNDUE. Sources cited don't support this POV (see: Talk:History of telescopes#Ibn Al-Haytham). And previous editor should see WP:CIVIL. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
LOL. The summary defines he telescope as an insturment that magnifyies istant objects. The first man to do this was Al-Haytham. I think you are a racist person. If someone like Richard Powers writes that Al-haytham has a history with the telescope, then nothing YOU can say will refute that unless you become more respected than him. This is laughable... InternetHero (talk) 02:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Richard Powers

Does "Fountains of Byn Mir" override the opinion of the great novelist, Richard Powers??? I'm just wondering since I just thought that if you provided a reference, you are able to post on Wikipedia as long as it is verifiable and according to the other three pillars. Why does "Fountains of Byn Mir" think his opinion overrides a person like Richard Powers??? Richard stated that Ibn Al-Haytham was fundamental to the telescope and his research laid the foundatinos for telescopic technology. Read CAREFULLY:

So did Ibn al-Haytham's optics. His work on refraction and lenses led to the development of the telescope and microscope. Once these devices threw open their portals onto the invisible, there was no looking back. Van Leeuwenhoek's (1632-1723) "tiny animalcules" revealed the living world to be stranger than any natural philosopher could have guessed.

The reference. InternetHero (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Addition to the Summary or Chapters

I can add it to the summary, but it looks nicer in the chapter since the microscope article has the same editor-style. There are radio telescopes and electro-magnetic telescopes, but they're all instruments used to magnify objects. Simply stated, Al-Haytham made an instument to magnify objects.

Anyway: WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary:

Although articles should begin with a definition and description of a subject, they should provide other types of information about that subject as well.

[8]:

Definitions are too narrow if they exclude some things that they should apply to; they fail to describe some members of the word's extension. Here is an example of a narrow definition: 'piece of furniture' means 'object used to sit on'. Of course, some pieces of furniture are not used to sit on; for example, we put objects on them (like tables) or in them (like a chest of drawers) or we put our feet on them (like footstools), and so forth. So even though some pieces of furniture are objects that are used to sit on, not all furniture is. We need a broader definition: we might add other qualifying characteristics, like 'used to put feet up on' or 'used to put household objects on', for example. That would make the extension of the definition bigger — that is, the definition would apply to more things, and more of the things that we use the word 'furniture' to describe. We might also choose to entirely rewrite the definition, since "laundry lists" of seemingly disparate characteristics strung together by 'or' are probably not truly describing a single concept.

Thanks for your time. InternetHero (talk) 09:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You keep missing the point of WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:INTRO, and WP:SOURCES. Quoting one novelist (Richard Powers) as a reliable source to back a claim the an single individual (Al-Haytham) made a more significant contribution than all the other people listed in History of optics violates all those guidelines. You have now been reverted by three different editors on this. You should start listening to them. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That's the POINT. Al-haytham WAS that important. I think I'm going to get an administrator now. You're not a reliable source nor do you have any respect to the likes of Richard Powers. Your opinion on this matter is conflicting with a credible and reliable source who has written novels extensively. What, may I ask, have you done? Why do you think your opinion overrides a respected author??? This boggles my mind. InternetHero (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Discuss the content, not the contributors. Editors don't matter, edits do. Please stay away from anything resembling personal attacks. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 20:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
If this guy is that important, there should be a mention of him in the article, however, his coverage needs to be relative to his importance in the subject matter. Useight (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I need to ask a question of you, InternetHero: Does Richard Powers have any published non-fiction works on astronomy, telescopes, or anything closely related to those? About sourcing, it'll take more than just Powers to verify this lofty claim. This is of interest, but it merely says that he laid the foundations of modern optics, not the development of the telescope. If anyone could locate the book Ibn Al-Haytham: First Scientist by Bradley Steffens (Morgan Reynolds, 2006) that may also be helpful. A Google Books search yields little to nothing relating Al-Haytham to the telescope - only to optics in general. InternetHero, you'll need to provide a source other than Powers (even if he does satisfy the criterion I asked a question of above) in order to refute the fact the well-known books on the history of the telescope (example) mention nothing about him. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
That's not to say that Al-Haytham doesn't deserve a passing mention in relation to optics - he does regardless of whether another source can be found. However, to warrant the lofty description he holds in the text right now, more is needed. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

Going back only the last 24 hours, I found these: InternetHero added the content here, here, and here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr removed the content here and here. I also note a conversation happening in the edit summaries including an uncivil comment. There was plenty more edit warring if I go back more than one day. This needs to be sorted out on the talk page rather than on the article. Useight (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I was contacted by InternetHero - I have no idea why; possibly because of my involvement in the Islamic astronomy article(?) Anyways, to tell the truth, I have little expertise in this area, to tell the truth, though I'm sure that InternetHero's replacement of a paragraph with different one with no overlap was inappropriate - if it turns out that the events that you mention warrant inclusion in the article, please add them on instead of replacing existing content, InternetHero. Anyways, is it possible for you (InternetHero) to please present the sources that you say back up your claims? (By the way, Useight, would a full protection of the article be warranted in the meantime? I don't often work with page protection, so I'm not sure...) Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, missed the section with the argument above. I'll take a look. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I've just gone ahead and let both sit in the History section now. Should make everyone happy. Some sources besides Richard Powers would be nice, though, since only using him does seem kinda' odd. Anyways, I hope this is a workable compromise. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 22:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I really don't think it is - inclusion of the other paragraph isn't the main issue. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, point, but it at least gives us something people won't hate for a while. So we can calmly discuss things here. I'd personally not mind a mention of Al-Haytham here, but mostly it should probably be at history of optics instead. Can we deal with my version temporarily? --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 22:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I too was solicited by InternetHero to intervene on his behalf. After reviewing the History entry, I find it lacking unity of voice and self awareness; furthermore, the flavor of the Ibn al-Haytham references does not merely inform but provides an assessment -not in keeping with WP:NPOV, and, with such, weighs the section WP:UNDUE.Mavigogun (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The Telescope#History section should be a summary for History of telescopes. There are 3 sentences at HOT on al-Haytham. There have now been 2 sentences added to the main article, yet the lead of HOT doesn't even mention al-Haytham. I believe it may be undue weight to be putting such an emphasis on al-Haytham in the main article. DigitalC (talk) 00:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

So did Ibn al-Haytham's optics. His work on refraction and lenses led to the development of the telescope and microscope. Once these devices threw open their portals onto the invisible, there was no looking back. Van Leeuwenhoek's (1632-1723) "tiny animalcules" revealed the living world to be stranger than any natural philosopher could have guessed.

The reference.
I agree that the rather strong conviction were unjustified and unwarranted. I diagree to "a passing mention" as that would qualify as being an overly narrow definition since most people recognize a telescope as the one found in schools—not high-tech laboratories. To be absolutely fair and justified, both the 11th and 17th centuries were instumental to the history of the telescope: without the the European lensmakers and craftsman, the telescope might not have been invented: without the Arab glassmakers and researchers (especially Al-Haytham), the telescope might not have been invented. I think—and hope—everyone can agree on this. InternetHero (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Please read the entire article, History of telescopes. Telescope#History should be a concise summary of that article. There is only a few sentences about al-Haytham on History of telescopes, and it seems like undue weight for him to be mention in Telescope#History. Until there is a concensus to put that information in, you should decist from edit warring it in. - DigitalC (talk) 03:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. As a foundation, Al-Haytham has more to do with Bacon or Keppler—the filling of that foundation has more to do with the latter individuals. I can add it to the summary if you wish since this subject is pretty ambiguous.
See: "[9]".

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage or jargon guide. Wikipedia articles are not: Dictionary definitions. Although articles should begin with a definition and description of a subject, they should provide other types of information about that subject as well. Articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content, if possible. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic topic, such as old school, Macedonia (terminology), or truthiness. Articles about the cultural or mathematical significance of individual numbers are also acceptable.

See: "[10]".

Definitions are too narrow if they exclude some things that they should apply to; they fail to describe some members of the word's extension. Here is an example of a narrow definition: 'piece of furniture' means 'object used to sit on'. Of course, some pieces of furniture are not used to sit on; for example, we put objects on them (like tables) or in them (like a chest of drawers) or we put our feet on them (like footstools), and so forth. So even though some pieces of furniture are objects that are used to sit on, not all furniture is. We need a broader definition: we might add other qualifying characteristics, like 'used to put feet up on' or 'used to put household objects on', for example. That would make the extension of the definition bigger — that is, the definition would apply to more things, and more of the things that we use the word 'furniture' to describe. We might also choose to entirely rewrite the definition, since "laundry lists" of seemingly disparate characteristics strung together by 'or' are probably not truly describing a single concept.

Wikipedia is a beautiful thing here, so lets not make an attempt to ruin it for us: I withdrew my unjustified edits. Sincerely, InternetHero (talk) 04:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I see no relevance of your discussion of definitions here. I don't understand why you are intent on copy-pasting that in multiple locations, but no one else is discussing definitions here. If you still don't understand why it is inappropriate for there to be more on al-Haytham here, please read WP:SUMMARY and WP:LEAD. - DigitalC (talk) 05:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

2 cents mode When we look at a referenced "telescope history" article such as this[11], Ibn al-Haytham is not mentioned at all. Wikipedia articles are derived from these sources, not from someones point of view as to what an article should include (the idea being "don't make stuff up"). To include Ibn al-Haytham in a summery of telescope history, there would have to be citation of him being included an an article such as this. To say "Ibn al-Haytham worked with lenses (with a citation), and telescopes contain lenses (with a citation), means therefor Ibn al-Haytham is uniquely related to the history of telescopes" is, (a) creating material by synthesis, (b) a logical fallicy, and (c) short changes everyone else in the history of optics. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

penny change The referenced article is a wonderful example of an adeptly constructed essay -thanks! We would do well to measure ourselves against such. The included sketch of an early instrument is the sort of material I would expect in support of a claim of contribution.Mavigogun (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Al-Haytham did develop optics. Optics are used for telescops. OK. Newton did develop physics. Do we mention him in every article about a device that is based on his theories? No. They should both be treated equally. Honor the contribution to optics. Tell briefly the history of optics in the history of telescopes with a more detailed article in optics(or a spinoff). But in this article on the telescope, cut the history to the essential. Who developed the first telescope, how did it work. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


History structured as Argument

The structure of the History section opening is contrived as an argument or explanation of content, not as a clear presentation of data. The section then continues to ponderously list subjective milestones in telescope technology. At this time made minor edits of syntax, not content.Mavigogun (talk) 05:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Example:
The history of the telescope dates back to the their invention in the beginning of the 17th century century.
This is redundant to the later statement:
the earliest known working telescopes in the modern sense were refracting telescopes that appeared in the Netherlands in 1608
And this is posited:
In the history of optics, the properties of lenses and mirrors as image forming devices had been known since antiquity and had been studied widely in the centuries preceding the telescopes development. Although there were some recorded instances of pre-17th century middle eastern and European opticians creating devices that could have functioned as telescopes,
Q: What was the actual function of these referenced devices -as paper weights? If they were employed to not only distort light but contributed to creating a coherent image not normally visible at distance to the naked eye, then what were they? Is it suggested that they merely acted as lenses -like spectacles? If in fact the device imparted the ability to view far-off happenings, why was it not widely adopted at the time? Surely it would have posed a significant advantage... IF it did so, why is it not cited here? Do the references substantiate or make clear the claim, or do they not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavigogun (talkcontribs) 06:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The pre-17th century telescopes mentioned all have one significant attribute. Their "invention" was discovered after the fact. The person doing the inventing did not think that what they discovered had any useful relevance or had no inclination, or way to publish the results. Some descendant, some researcher, or maybe even some national countryman recalled something or looked at a historical document and said "hey... it looks like this guy invented a telescope here". So they are all problematic to include in a historical summery because they may be too historically insignificant. It brings us to the current editing problem... check the history and talk page of these articles and you will see a whole series of (nationalistic?) edits along the lines of "hey.. include our guy". I noticed the HOT article sections derived from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition feature just one pre-17th century telescope citation, a British (go figure) inventor, Leonard Digges. I left Diggs in when I cleaned that article up because there were enough other citations to at least describe a controversy. I think we need to stick to other published articles on the history of the telescope by reliable sources as to what would be included in a short synopsis. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed changes to history summary

The current version:

The history of the telescope dates back to the Middle Ages, when Ibn al-Haytham, Robert Grosseteste and other scientists studied magnifying properties of lenses. Although there were some recorded instances of pre-17th century Middle-Eastern and European opticians, including Leonard Digges, Taqi al-Din and others, creating devices that could have functioned as telescopes, the earliest known working telescopes in the modern sense were refracting telescopes that appeared in the Netherlands in 1608.

brings us back to the WP:UNDUE, it weighs the atribution to a few induviduals at the expense of a whole lot of others. And it doesn't even match an article such as this[12]. I would sugest changing it to summerize History of telescopes by simply using that articles summery intro:

The properties of lenses had been known since Antiquity, and magnifying lenses had been widely studied during the Middle Ages and the centuries preceding the modern telescope's development. However, the earliest known working telescopes in the modern sense appeared in 1608.

Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

What you say about relative fairness is on point. In the second example I would prefer the replacement of ambiguous dating diction; the subjectivity of 'antiquity' isn't all that useful an indicator. Also, the tense should be the past-continuous, not past perfect (unless the knowledge stopped!), at the start.Mavigogun (talk) 23:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The subjectivity of relevance of contributers is massive; a prime example for me is the Wright brothers credit to aviation: on a basis of function, their early attempts sucked and and were only nominally vehicles- but they were INTENDED to be; while Lilienthal's glider performed better, yet arguably had less ambitious design goals. While intent is relevant, it seems fallacious to put early experimenters in optics into the category of two guys walking down the street in opposite directions, one with chocolate, the other with an open container of peanut butter, not watching whence they go- because there was no 'By god!' moment of peanut butter cup discovery. Do we need to outline a history of New World discoveries -or even a history of the development of chocolate from cocoa when depicting the peanut butter cup history? Luckily, there are guidelines in place to settle weather or not it is appropriate to do so -otherwise we are stuck with Italian Patriots overburdening the article with phrases like "Were it not for the contributions of some Industrial Western Europeans and Ancient Americans to the development of chocolate, there would be no modern peanut butter cup. In fact ancient Mayans had all the ingredients for this confection, and are rightly credited with with Chewy Chocolate Chunk Double Fudge Cookies as well. We call these early contributers 'Polygluttons' for their eclectic knowledge of food -what are now known as 'Epicureans', 'Gourmands', and 'Food-Scientists'- since they applied rationalizing to what they understood about what they ate. Doret would create the first hard chocolate in Turin of the 1800's, and in notes left by his son, was inclined to eat it while tossing back a peanut.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavigogun (talkcontribs) 15:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually like the article the way it is now. I also liked the analogy of the peanut-butter cup found above, but unfortunately that analogy is a bit misleading. The comparison to which Al-Haytham contributed to the telescope is relative to the contribution Albert Einstein gave to the Atomic bomb. Einstein wasn't directly involved, but he sped up the process tremendously.
To leave out Al-Haytham probably wouldn't turn as much heads as the outcasting of Einstein from the Atomic bomb article, but that is only because people have very little knowledge of Islamic techonology and its tremendous impact on the modern age. That is probably what's going on here, so I'll state the reason why Al-Haytham should be mentioned.
1) He defended the thesis of rectilinear propagation of light. His camera obscura was implemented to provide experimental evidence for this statement.
2) He contended that magnification was due to refraction: the bending of light rays at the glass-to-air boundary and not, as thought before, to something inside the glass.
3) He made the link between glass curvature and magnification. He is then credited with discovering that the magnifying effect takes place at the surface of the optical element rather than within it.
Not a reliable reference, but most of it is accurate (4.7)
His work in catoptrics, concave and (to a lesser extent) convex lenses, and the 1st magnifying instrument (magnifying glass) proves that he is fundamental to the telescope and the concept of magnification in general. To not mention him is absurd. A good reference. Sincerely, InternetHero (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Please don't post the same response in multiple spots on the discussion page. To mention Al-Haytham would be absurd, because he did not build a telescope. He should be mentioned over at the history of optics. For the record, Atomic bomb redirect to Nuclear weapon, where there is no mention of Albert Einstein. - DigitalC (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Ya, you're right. I thought Einstein had a lot more to do with the atomic bomb than a simply letter. FYI, you shouldn't delete other peoples edits though. Anyway, the problem with what you're saying is, is the fact that without Al-Haytham the telescope, or modern civilization for that matter, wouldn't be where it is right now. In fact along with Al-Haytham, Galileo and others studied and completed the works of "unknown" authors for far too long. That might be another problem. Gotta love the Germans :) Sincerely, InternetHero (talk) 01:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The deletions were well within policy. According to your logic, we should also include mention to the Phoenicians, as without them, the telescope or modern civilzation wouldn't be where it is right now. That is, they were the first to discover glass making. - DigitalC (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Not a very good arguement. Anyway, I have a reference relating the two. Sincerely, InternetHero (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

DigitalC makes a pertinent and astute point: that the contemporary product of human achievement is the result of the aggregate of human knowledge; it is speculation to imagine a lack of development for the lack of a single individual -they are/were, after all, a product of that same aggregate -and surely NOT THE LAST.

InternetHero undermines the argument for inclusion by interjecting the belief that 'Islamic Science' is widely devalued or poorly understood; these larger social issues are independent and only act to add noise, consume energy, cause derision on what should be a relatively dry, straight forward discussion of an article. A purpose/agenda is better served by adopting a neutral point-of-view. Imagine an argument that the contributions of Jewish Scientists are under represented by the current form of the Nuclear Bomb article; better, list and debate the reasons for including the contributions and be prepared to accept differing opinions and CONSENSUS. This is not the venue to express that ideas are absurd, stupid, without value.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavigogun (talkcontribs)

Please present that reference. The "first steps for learning optics" source you posted did not mention the word telescope in the entire document, and neither did the muslimheriage source. - DigitalC (talk) 05:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia articles are NOT based on the opinion of a set of editors. They are based on reference to other published articles/reliable sources in print or on the web. For a summery such as this, editors should cite "history of telescope" type articles to see what to include. Wikipedia does not exist for single editors to correct a perceived oversight in the scholarly record. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The concept of the poorly understood authors of the great works of Islam was intended not to be related to my discussion. It was merely a theory on why you guys don't know Ibn Al-Haytham. You guys aren't at all giving me the benefit of the doubt.
I reverted my fisrt opinion in hopes that Wikipedi could become likeable for all of us, but you guys don't understand some things... That is why I mentioned the German TV show (>_<)
The reference. It's about 3/4 down. "Sincerely", InternetHero (talk) 01:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

My arguement to include Ibn-Al-Haytham (Alhazan)

Your arguments:

1) The antiquity of lenses and their properties have no direct link to the telescope and if we mention Al-Haytham, we have to mention Ibn Sahl or Abbas Ibn Firnas; that would be undue weight.

Not really. The lenses used to lead up to the telescope are closely related, but do not warrant a complete overview of their long-ago founders. In comparison, Al-Haytham developed and described: lenses, scientific methods, mathematical calculations (angles/incidents) on refraction, magnifying instruments, translated books, spherical and parabolic mirros, spherical abberation, the reason behind magnification (the point of impact magnifies, not the travels inside the lens), catoptrics—and pretty much the laws of light, and most importantly: he influenced the many great European minds later on.

2) The properties of the telescope don't use Al-Haytham's research.

Nonsense. I suggest you read on the effects of refraction and the development of modern lenses which Al-Haytham described in his book, "the Book of Optics."

3) We shouldn't mention him because he didn't develope a telescope.

Good point. That adds ambiguity to the article. Ambiguity must adhere to the Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary article clause. Nevertheless, I have a reference stating that his research directly contributed to such developments.

My argument:

1) Shown in my 1st answer. TTT.

2) With all do respect, can you provide me with a reference directly stating that he didn't have a relation to the telescope.

References directly relating him to the telescope: WP:QS

This article from the NY-Times relates him.

This essay relates him (6-7th paragraph).

This relates him.

A nice picture.

References mentioning him:

This article relates him.

This article mentions him.

This article mentions him.

Thanks for your time. Sincerely, InternetHero (talk) 06:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


The 1st article makes assertions without illustrating bases for assertions, nor does it provide references; while the content may or may not be TRUE, Wikipedia does not contend to address truth. The article also contends that Al-Haytham is responsible for all works undertaken employing the scientific method, which it credits solely to him.
The 2nd article also is inclined to indulge in fantasy depictions of Ibn Firnas's glider- of which there have been no plans provided; this article does not meet the credibility threshold. It also cites anecdotally based web references.
The 3rd article relates a poetic description of an account as fact- that Ibn Fernas constructed a glider from feathers; of the account, one contemporary poet wrote, in verse, that he covered himself in feathers; the writer then relates this as method and fact. A quote from another author, 800 years later, relates this same information as a story filled with supposition. The article also relates, inaccurately, that he was the first to discover 'rock crystal'- as apposed to the first in his region to devise a way to grind rock crystal, which is what he is typically credited with. The willingness of the drafters to relay information of this quality causes the article to fall below the credible reference threshold.Mavigogun (talk) 08:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The above comments edited by InternetHero, who amended the edits with, 'You're acting really funny. You're arguements don't even make sense. We're not talking about Ibn Firnas here.' -The comments are contrived to speak to the quality of the articles as a hole; my knowledge of Ibn Firnas gave me greater insight into the standards of the authors than did my limited knowledge of Al-Haytham. Likewise, the struggle you are engaged in on the Internal combustion engine article regarding including Al-Jazari in the description of that topic speaks to a passion for Arabic history (as indicated on your user page) that appears to be superseding the adherence to a neutral point of view and undue weight principle of the specific topics.Mavigogun (talk) 14:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The first article mentions the telescope in only 1 short sentence. Putting this onto the main article of telescope would be undue weight. This has been mentioned to you time & time again. DigitalC (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The second article states "European scholars studied these ideas, which led to lenses for telescopes, magnifying lenses, and eyeglasses." - This does NOT support your claim that more emphasis needs to be made of Al-Hazen, and that he should be mentioned on telescope. DigitalC (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The third reference states: "indeed, it is Ibn al-Haytham’s description of the magnifying glass, which made eyeglasses, telescope and microscopes possible." - Great, I agree, but per WP:UNDUE, such information should be at the article on himself, and over at History of Optics. It does not warrant inclusion here, nor at eyeglasses, nor at microscope. DigitalC (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The fourth reference does not have any mention of al-Haytham and the telescope.
  • The fifth reference again does not mention al-Haytham together with the telescope. It states "The results obtained were re-elaborated by the Islamic mathematician Ibn al-Haytham (965-1039), whose Kitab al-Manazir constituted the reference text for the perspectivist tradition of optics in the 13 th century." This does NOT support inclusion of al-Haytham into this article.
  • The sixth reference states "Arab scientist Ibn al-Haytham aka Alhacen or Alhazen writes about the effects of pinhole, the optics of concave lenses and refraction in his Book of Optics or Kitab al-Manazir.", in a website entitled "Telescope Timeline". However, for us to present al-Haytham, and not Seneca the Younger, who described "how a glass globe that is filled with water has a magnifying effect", or that "Vikings on Gotland in Sweden [used] Visby lenses of rock crystal for magnifying", would again be UNDUE weight. DigitalC (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears here that there is a strong POV-push to get a certain POV included in the article. We should be following the sources, and not attempting to impart any POV into the article. If other articles on telescopes (in general) mention al-Haytham (not just in passing), that would suggest he should be included in the article here. However, this does not seem to be the case. DigitalC (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not compelled to answer any of those as they do not stimulate me to apply new information. TTT = To The Top. Sincerely, InternetHero (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) user self redacted comment replaced and stricken for continuity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavigogun (talkcontribs)
Just note that continually adding this information to the article (or other related articles), while ingoring the input (and consensus) of other editors is disruptive editing, which can lead to a ban. Please also see WP:IDHT. DigitalC (talk) 04:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I liked the article the way it was (I said that before up above which was ignored so I thought you were going to revert the current version). I didn't even change the part about the history. I merely changed the grammar. I am actually very good at grammar. Too bad I'm not "allowed" to edit here... "Sincerely," InternetHero (talk) 08:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why your grammar edits were reverted, (although I did disagree with some of it I wouldn't have reverted the whole thing). However, I don't think anyone has stated that you are not "allowed" to edit here, just that you must follow policy when you do edit. I don't understand why you keep posting TTT (to the top) at the end of your edits. Can you explain? DigitalC (talk) 00:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. Some of them were good, but as LifeBaka did: they can be changed. I just didn't want my work to be seen as 'disruptive'. It didn't take me that long (the history of telescopes one took some 2 hours+), but it was out of a good-intentions, and my time isn't completely invaluable. I am a janitor for now, but I intend to design video games for a living. You? InternetHero (talk) 01:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Grammar changes

Dude (Fountains of Bryn Mawr), I worked a lot on that. I made a few mistake like "lenses that use mirrors", but I didn't change any positions at all: this was merely a grammar edit (that actually took some 2 hours). Here's my shining moment I guess: I almost know the complete uses of punctuation-colons, commas, periods, semi-colons, indents, dashes, brackets, and the sequencing of clauses. I'm actually pretty good (maybe a 3 or 4 out of 5) in grammar. I hope you will reconsider. InternetHero (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC) I hope you will reconsider.

History Section a Mess

The opening line of the history section is an independent statement, not tied to history of the telescope, and need to be tied in:

'In the Middle Ages Ibn al-Haytham, Robert Grosseteste and other scientists studied magnifying properties of lenses such as the laws of refraction.'

Read alone, one wouldn't be able to place it as relating to the history of the telescope. The second sentence is also not a statement of history, but an argument of relevance:

'Although there were some recorded instances of pre-17th century Middle Eastern and European opticians—such as Leonard Digges, Taqi al-Din and others—creating devices that could have functioned as telescopes, the earliest known working telescopes in a modern sense were the refracting telescopes that appeared in the Netherlands in 1608.'

The clause and argument, while abstractly informative, aren't on topic; more pertinent would be why several inventors were simultaneously developing similar devices. If the answer is that there was a contemporary popular resurgence in the work of Ibn al-Haytham or Robert Grosseteste, then that contribution would be topical.

I suggest a brief illustration of the environment that contributed to the invention of the telescope, and removal of the qualified statements about why Ibn al-Haytham isn't credited with being the inventor.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavigogun (talkcontribs)

Recent edit

I made this recent edit, which removed the following text:

The reference used for this section ([13]), does not mention Robert Grosseteste or Mansur Abdul-Hakim Blackman. It also fails to mention the middle ages. It doesn't mention "magnifying properties", nor "astronomical". As such, this reference fails to verify the claims made in the section. - DigitalC (talk) 01:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The part about Robert is from another editor, but to prove to you that the other statements are incorrect would be a waste of time. That is easily verifiable. To help you try and distinguish "theories" from easily verifiable facts, please see this. InternetHero (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
If you disagree, please show me where in that source any of those words are mentioned. - DigitalC (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
O.K. I confess: I know nothing about that Robert guy, but are you saying that I need a reference to prove that Al-Haytham worked during the middle ages???? Also, why would you just delete a referenced addition in respect to Al-Haytham—including the reference??? <--- This is what I am talking about. InternetHero (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I deleted unsourced material. Yes, you need a source to say "In the Middle Ages...". You also need a reference to state that "they did not create telescopes in the modern sense of the word.". Everythign in Wikipedia should be verifiable. This is part of WP:V. DigitalC (talk) 23:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand: complete nonsense. InternetHero (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
verifiability is one of the core policies of Wikipedia. I'm sorry that you don't understand this. From WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.". - DigitalC (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Again, I don't understand your arguement. Theres a thing called easy verifiability. InternetHero (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The material that you want to add is currently unsourced/unverified. From the page you just linked, "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources". Until you have reliable, published, secondary sources saying what you want to add, it should not be added to the article. - DigitalC (talk) 23:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense. It is established without any further verification that Ibn Al-Haytham was alive in the Middle Ages. You may be new to Wikipedia so try reading these two guidelines. Good day. InternetHero (talk) 08:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion from history of the telescope

I realise that you don't understand, but I don't know how I can make it any clearer for you. The New York times is a verifiable and reliable source. However, since it only mentions the telescope very briefly, it is not a good source for this article. It WOULD be a good source for Al-Haytham. Again, it really comes down to WP:UNDUE. - DigitalC (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. If that is your only arguement, then I think we have a problem. Please see these two pages. In addition to those, I will add some more:

1) He defended the thesis of rectilinear propagation of light. His camera obscura was implemented to provide experimental evidence for this statement.

2) He contended that magnification was due to refraction: the bending of light rays at the glass-to-air boundary and not, as thought before, to something inside the glass.

3) He made the link between glass curvature and magnification. He is then credited with discovering that the magnifying effect takes place at the surface of the optical element rather than within it.

4) He is credited with making the first instrument to magnify an object (not a far object---that would have required more implementations of his research, as well as the Europeans').

5) His investigation of glass and water lenses led to the creation of mathematical formulas that allowed advancements in refining the shape of lenses. European scholars studied these ideas, which led to lenses for telescopes, magnifying lenses, and eyeglasses.6th para

6) His work in refraction and the laws of light and lenses led to the inventon of the microscope and telescope. 4th page 1st para.

[14] [15]

The lenses used to lead up to the telescope are closely related, but do not warrant a complete overview of their long-ago founders. In comparison, Al-Haytham developed and described: lenses, scientific methods, mathematical calculations (angles/incidents) on refraction, magnifying instruments, translated books, spherical and parabolic mirros, spherical abberation, the reason behind magnification (the point of impact magnifies, not the travels inside the lens), catoptrics—and pretty much the laws of light, and most importantly: he influenced the many great European minds later on.

I made it clear in the compromise I made to intend to NOT add a paragraph. His work deserves to be given a mention, though. Please try and use Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. InternetHero (talk) 00:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

1) This belongs at History of optics
2) This belongs at History of optics
3) This belongs at History of optics
4) This belongs at History of optics
5 & 6) "European scholars studied these ideas, which led to lenses for telescopes, magnifying lenses, and eyeglasses.", "His work in refraction and the laws of light and lenses led to the inventon of the microscope and telescope." I am not debating the truth of these statements, I am stating that it is undue weight to put it in Telescope#History, because Telescope#History needs to be a summary of History of telescopes. Mentioning it in Telescope#History would be putting undue emphasis on his contributions, over others. We already have a mention of here, which summarized the fact the European scholaris studied his ideas- "The effects of pinhole and concave lenses were described by the Arabian astronomer Ibn al-Haytham around 1020. The Latin translation of his main work, the "Kitab al-Manazir (Book of Optics)", influenced European scientists such as Johannes Kepler and the work of Roger Bacon." - DigitalC (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
As for dispute resolution, that may be the next step. The neutrality noticeboard or WP:3O might be helpful. DigitalC (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
This comment was copied here from Talk:History of the telescope by InternetHero. For clarity, when I say "We already have a mention of [it] here", I am referring to History of the telescope. - DigitalC (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes it was. It belongs here; the history of the telescope article is fine (by my standards). InternetHero (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

From WP:3O: I think that it is clear that the telescope did not spring into being fully formed without a great deal of preliminary work to understand the behavior of light, how to grind lenses, &c. Given space and detail-of-presentation constraints, it would be inappropriate to include these early physicists as more than a cursory non-exhaustive mention in the summary here. They are properly treated at the detailed article. This version adequately treats the pre-"true telescope" era, though a link to History of optics would not be out of place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldereft (talkcontribs)


Cool. Thanks a lot. At 1st, I wanted to add a paragraph but I made a compromise; I concluded to add a sentence instead. I take it from: "Given space and detail-of-presentation constraints, it would be inappropriate to include these early physicists as more than a cursory non-exhaustive mention in the summary here," that I can add my contribution now? A sentence is all I wanted. InternetHero (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I would reason that when Eldereft states "This version adequate treats the pre-"true telscope" era", that he means that it is fine the way it is. - DigitalC (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
That is related to the fact that he did not see the applicatino of Al-Haytham being in the article. If he was included before hand, he probably would of had said same thing. IMO, thats what he means by: "Given space and detail-of-presentation constraints, it would be inappropriate to include these early physicists as more than a cursory non-exhaustive mention in the summary here". The concept of "early physicists" apply to the ones that are in there right now. He probably doesn't know the subject very well so he figured that was what I was trying to add.
Henceforth to brew some light (no pun intended) into the history summary, I propose adding this short sentence:

During the Middle Ages, the descriptions of Ibn Sahl, Robert Grosseteste, and Ibn Al-Haytham made monumental advances in not only the understanding of light and the law of refraction, but also the magnifying properties that abide by those laws.[2]

What do you think, User:Eldereft? InternetHero (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, in addition to the sentence not making sense (how is a description of someone going to make advances?), it lacks a reference that backs up these claims. Who says that these advances are monumental? Again, the reference you used does not mention Ibn Sahl or Robert Grosseteste, and does not mention the Middle Ages. - DigitalC (talk) 22:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry that this is late in coming, I was offline yesterday. If it matters, before reviewing History of the telescope and related material as background to this dispute, my native knowledge of the subject was in the range of what would be expected of any hobbyist. The name Ibn Al-Haytham did not ring a bell, but on reading his article I was reminded that he had been treated by a documentary I saw once (in the style of Connections, though it may have been something else).
The article that this section is summarizing devotes just shy of 400 words out of 49 kB to the topic of the development of the physics necessary before anyone could even consider building a working prototype. I am sorry, InternetHero, but adding that sentence here would be far more weight than the subtopic requires. The development of optics is absolutely critical to telescopes, but should be treated in detail at History of optics. I will even go so far as to say that that article should be linked from this section; I just added it to the See also list, but it really should be mentioned in the article instead. A link from this section to Timeline of telescope technology, which devotes a sentence to Ibn Al-Haytham, would also not be amiss. I would not deem such a link necessary, though, since an interested reader can easily find it from History of the telescope.
To be absolutely clear, this article is about telescopes, a topic intimately related to but ultimately separate from the development of optical theory and technology. The present mention of the pre-true telescope era suffices for an article on telescopes, as it establishes that there is some "fuzziness" in the precise date of first construction without delving into extraneous details. We should direct readers to History of optics, but not duplicate that article here. - Eldereft (cont.) 12:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Best summation and assessment of the issue to date; for the purpose of establishing consensus, I voice agreement with Eldereft- particularly the above passage about what the article is ...and is not. Mavigogun(cont.) 13:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your imput. Unfortunately, I have to disagree with you. Especially from this sentence: "To be absolutely clear, this article is about telescopes, a topic intimately related to but ultimately separate from the development of optical theory and technology." You see, the foundation for the telescope found in classrooms was made by Al-Haytham. He is to telescopes what Al-Jazari is to the piston engine. Without them, both of the inventions would be severly compromised. That's what I meant by Eldereft potentially not knowing the subject very well. If it's a concensus you want, I will create one. Sincerely, InternetHero (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The theory on which an invention is designed is not the invention itself. Would you deem it proper for Transistor to recapitulate Fermi–Dirac statistics and Diffusion equation? Both of those represent absolutely critical theoretical work necessary before transistors could be developed and rationally designed, but do not directly deal with the actual focus of the article. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, yes, Fermi-Dirac statistics should probably be mentioned. I think it's entirely proper that major antecedent ideas should be mentioned. These inventions don't come out of a vacuum. I utterly draw the line with so-called InternetHero when he rewrites histories as if some guy invented something he clearly didn't. But provided everything is in its correct context, that kind of history is IMO highly desirable in an article.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 20:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Al-Haytham and other matters

Before I try and gather a consensus, I want introduce to you the controversies of the relation between Islam and European science and inventions.

How this relates to the article: the Lead Section: Levels of desired details.

We know the arguements against me: that Al-Haytham doesn't closely relate to the telescope.

I have 3 credible references stating the complete opposite, but that doesn't seem to matter.

I think it is purely a manner User:DigitalC, User:Mavigogun, User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr, and User:Eldereft thinking an extra sentence to the article would harm it more than do what an encyclopedia is supposed to do, which is to create an encyclopedia. Remember that Wikipedia is NOT a dictinary. Probably most importantly though, many of the references to which the other editors feel is verifiable—and of content to their repetoir, is also free of mentioning Al-Haytham. I think that is the conflict of interest here. I am nothing without a consensus but before I go on that crusade, I want to end this with dispute resolution or possibly an administrator.

The UNDUE weight arguement is completely unsubstantial: Wikipedia NOT excludes this arguement:

(NOT) Dictionary definitions. Although articles should begin with a definition and description of a subject, they should provide other types of information about that subject as well. Articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content, if possible.

I also feel that this also excludes the UNDUE arguement in the summary style.


We know my arguements:

Ibn al-Haytham was the first to study lenses and their application in optical instruments. Indeed, it is Ibn al-Haytham’s description of the magnifying glass, which made eyeglasses, telescopes and microscopes possible. 6/10 down The lenses used for the telescope were derived from his research and mathematical calculations.6th para His overall work in the field of refraction led to the inventions of the telescope and microscope.4th page - 1st para

And this:

1) He defended the thesis of rectilinear propagation of light. His camera obscura was implemented to provide experimental evidence for this statement.

2) He contended that magnification was due to refraction: the bending of light rays at the glass-to-air boundary and not, as thought before, to something inside the glass.

3) He made the link between glass curvature and magnification. He is then credited with discovering that the magnifying effect takes place at the surface of the optical element rather than within it.

In conclusion, I think that our misunderstanding can be explained here—which is also copied below.

Thus, in respect to the issue debated here, it is no surprise that such successors, whilst benefiting from Islamic learning, still chose to obliterate their debt, and re-write that history in the ways indicated above.

Such observations are not conjured up by the present author to pursue his own agenda. They can be found amidst some of the best but often inaccessable, and thus obscure Western historians, or men of renown. Thus, Glubb states: (pg. 3-5th para) "The indebtness of Western Christendom to Arab civilisation was systematically played down, if not completely denied. A tradition was built up, through propaganda and censorship, that the Muslim imperialists had been mere barbarians and that the rebirth of learning in the West was derived directly from the Roman and Greek sources alone, without any Arab intervention." Draper, too, notes: "the systematic manner in which the literature of Europe has contrived to put out of sight our scientific obligations to the Muhammadans (Muslims). Injustice founded on religious rancour and national conceit cannot be perpetuated forever... The Arabs has left his intellectual heritage on Europe, before long, Christadom will have to confess." (pg. 4-3rd para) From this alone, it seems extremely odd how, instead of gratitude, Western historians, including Albornoz and Spanish historians of his ilk, deny the Islamic influence. (pg. 6-2nd para) At the Council of Lyon, Pope Innocent III made it clear that his (Frederik) association with heretics (to Frederik they were simply scholars or learned men) had cause Frederik's own heresy. (pg. 8-1st para)

In French Aldo Mieli's work on the role of Islamic science in the awakening of modern science, as the title suggests is a 'must'. In Spanish, there are escellent works by Vernet and Millas Valicrosa, and of course Castro. Then, of course, there are the many works and articles, which either this author has not cited, or failed to access, or are even difficult to access with thousands of them, many gathering dust in the depth of libraries for decades- or over a century- and containing by far the best information of all on the subject. Modern works filling the shelves of libraries, and the readily available volumes on the history of science, in their overwhelming majority have very little to offer since the history of science and civilisation continues to be classically and Eurocentrically driven. (pg.13-Bottom)

Al-Haytham. (pg. 10-2nd para | pg. 12-3rd para) Reference

"The mystery is why the debt the West owed to Muslim scholars was then overlooked: acknowledged at all, the Abbasids are normally credited with nothing more than acting as the guardians of Greek science."(Page 2-11th para) Sincerely, InternetHero (talk) 09:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The question of the contributions of bigotry, prejudice, and ignorance to the formation of the opinions of your peers is not on topic. This is not a venue for the correction of perceived social ills; digressing in this manor is unproductive -to your point, and the artcle as a hole.
Shortcuts:

Mavigogun (talk) 10:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

InternetHero, please re-read the sentence you have bolded from WP:NOT#DIC, and explain how this article can be considered to "contain nothing more than a definition". As for you ending this with dispute resolution, you just tried that over at WP:3O, and now seem to be ignoring the opinion that came back. - DigitalC (talk) 11:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbitray section break

History of the telescope should be summarized in Telescope#History. The current telecope article is nealy 14kB, so it is able to take more information. I believe that the current status of the History section doesn't summarize the input of scientists in antiquity e.g. Al-Haytham. It does need a sentence mentioning something to do with antiquity. I'm not bothered if you mention Al-Haytham in that sentence or someone else, just so long as antiquity does get a mention as it deserves too. Some people on this page have raised the issue of undue weight. I agree. But personally, the History section in this article could be longer (remember this article is only 14kB, that;s not much really), so if a sentence on antiquity is mentioned, the input of those already mentioned could be expanded a smidgen too. Especially the third paragraph about modern day telescopes. Basically, looking at this article, there's lots of room to expand, so what's the problem? Deamon138 (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article could use a little more prose, it seems a little short compared to the length of its lists. Perhaps a little more information about Ibn al-Haytham and his contribution to optics could be added to the history section. However, it would have to be very brief, no giving undue weight. Also, for full transparency, I was canvassed to come here and voice my opinion. Useight (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
InternetHero, anyone remotely interested in the history of science is familiar with the fact that the Islamic world was a center of learning during the European historical period of the Middle Ages. It is not appropriate to use this talk page as a soapbox for your personal opinion of the educational establishment. If you consider that Telescope#History should also summarize History of optics, please make your proposal in a new section below for discussion and consensus. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Useight, that's what I said, just a little info on antiquity that summarizes the info in History of the telescope. At the moment, that article isn't adequately summarized. Deamon138 (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
We already have information in Telescope#History the summarized the developments in the middle ages (for the record, the term Antiquity does not apply here) - "Although there were some recorded instances of pre-17th century Middle Eastern and European opticians—such as Leonard Digges, Taqi al-Din and others—creating devices that could have functioned as telescopes, the earliest known working telescopes were the refracting telescopes that appeared in the Netherlands in 1608." - DigitalC (talk) 04:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


There was an interesting article published in an academic journal over fifty years ago that specifically deals with the importance of Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) to the development of the telescope:

O. S. Marshall (1950), Alhazen and the Telescope, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Leaflets 6: 4-11

According to Marshall, the telescope was an off-spring of the spectacles, which itself was an off-spring of Alhazen's magnifying lens. Marshall also mentions the contributions of Kepler and Scheiner to the improvement of the telescope, and how they were also influenced by Alhazen. The article even speculates that Alhazen may have been capable enough to build a telescope himself if only he had any interest in doing so. There are also a few general works on the history of the telescope which deal with the contributions of Alhazen and the medieval optical tradition to the development of the telescope, such as:

King, Henry C. (2003), The History of the Telescope, Courier Dover Publications, ISBN 0486432653 

Given the importance of Ibn al-Haytham and the early spectacle-makers to the development of the telescope, I agree that their work merits inclusion in the article, but I also agree that they shouldn't be given any undue weight, so I think only a sentence on them should be enough.

Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

He did build observatories and devices for assisting with recording positions of things in the sky and things like that, and it's entirely possible that he looked at the sky through magnifying devices, but he obviously never found anything new that way otherwise it would be recorded; I don't think the magnifications he obtained were sufficient to see the moons of Jupiter or whatever.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. The magnifying lens and spectacles in the Middle Ages were not sufficient enough to be able to see from huge distances away, which is probably why astronomers back then never saw any use in them. Jagged 85 (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Huzzah! That's all I wanted. To show my good faith, you guys can write the sentence. Now I can go back to my opriginal plan of expanding the microscope article. I KNEW Al-Haytham NEEDED to be included in the article and that was my reasoning behind all this. I tried different angles (the lead section or desired levels in the summary style, but I don't think I was being disruptive. User:Chovain is trying to get me viewed as a disruptive editor but I hope it doesn't go through.
Anyway User:Useight, I was going to "canvass" you're opinion on the point of the other editors not being very arguementative in the talk-page, thus, me seeing fit seek "easy verifiability" in an authorative-means. Nevertheless, I reverted that course of action. I remembered this:

"I'm happy to help anyway, but it could look like a backalley way of getting things done. - User:Lifebaka"

Anyway, I especially thank Mr. Jagged 85 for his very constructive addition to this discussion. I as well think a short sentence would merit this article in the summary for the history of the telescope article. I didn't want to add it in the lead section because it looked stupid there. InternetHero (talk) 01:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I have read through "Al-Hazen and the telescope", but have not yet had time to read "The history of the telescope". Nothing in "Al-Hazen and the telescope" convinced me that any special mention of al-Haytham should be made on telescope. A link to History of optics, from Telescope#History would be a much better solution. - DigitalC (talk) 05:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I think an excellent case has been made for including a short statement concerning the contributions of the Islamic developments that led up to the invention of the telescope, and I am baffled by the arguments of editors who seek to exclude such important and interesting material from wikipedia. Mmyotis (^^o^^) 23:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent Edit by User:InternetHero

This edit introduced 2 new sentences to the beginning of Telescope#History, some of which is NOT a summary of History of the telescope. It changed the paragraph from not mentioing al-Haytham, to mentioning him three times (more than Newton or Galileo). InternetHero has misrepresented himself on this page, stating that "To show my good faith, you guys can write the sentence", that "A sentence is all I wanted.", and misrepresented his edit by including "per unofficial consensus" in the edit summary. There is no "unofficial" consensus here on adding this material, and there cannot be a clear consensus until an edit is proposed on the talk page. - DigitalC (talk) 01:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Gosh DigitalC, you could have simply moved it in here and begun the process of working toward consensus. Now, please try to relax and work with the other editors here. You could start by making some constructive suggestions as to how you think this edit could be improved:
During the Middle Ages, the descriptions of Ibn Sahl,[3] Robert Grosseteste,[citation needed] and Ibn Al-Haytham[4] made monumental advances in not only the understanding of light and the law of refraction, but also the magnifying properties that abide by those laws. [5] Credited with Al-Haytham's vast knowledge of optics, the story of the telescope could have started with Al-Haytham had he possessed the craftsmanship and imagination of a Galileo.[6] In addition to Alhazan (known as his latin name),[7] some instances of pre-17th century Middle Eastern and European opticians—such as Leonard Digges, Taqi al-Din and others—creating devices that could have functioned as telescopes, the earliest known working telescopes were the refracting telescopes that appeared in the Netherlands in 1608.
Thanks. Mmyotis (^^o^^) 16:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, that edit took some time to finally see what I should include. Wikipedia is here for everyone so if you see some inherent problems in the 2 sentences, please feel free to cooperate. InternetHero (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
The telescope article is a good article as it stands. Your change, while reasonable, isn't worth edit waring over. I recommend patience. Let people make their suggestins and reach consensus with the rest of the editors before modifying the article. That's my suggestion. Mmyotis (^^o^^) 20:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Duly noted. InternetHero (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, since an improved (and sourced) version has been posted here, I will note that it still needs further improvement. We now have 4 mentions of al-Haytham, in contrast to one mention of Gallileo. If that isn't undue weight, I don't know what is. - DigitalC (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I also oppose the addition of "Credited with Al-Haytham's vast knowledge of optics, the story of the telescope could have started with Al-Haytham had he possessed the craftsmanship and imagination of a Galileo". Is it not extremely unencyclopedic to be adding that perhaps the history of the telescope could have started with al-Haytham if only he had Galileo's imagination and craftsmanship?
Finally, this sentence, "In addition to Alhazan (known as his latin name) some instances of pre-17th century Middle Eastern and European opticians-such as Leonard Digges, Taqi al-Din and others-creating devices that could have functioned as telescopes, the earliest known working telescopes were the refracting telescopes that appeared in the Netherlands in 1608." is grammatically incorrect, and minimizes the historical impact of the first known functioning telescopes. - DigitalC (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
1) There are 3 clauses in respect to Al-Haytham and they are found in two sentences: one in relation to magnification and refraction: one in relation to the O.S. Marshall reference, and another in respect to adding a tinbit of information (in the West, Al-Haytham was known as Alhazan). Indeed the latter could be trimmed but I kinda like it. There is only 1 sentence dedicated to him and the other is shared between the other masters (indeed I wasn't able to find a reference for Robert-G yet). The summary found at the history of the telescope article in respect to the history of optics article (which has 3 large paragraphs on both Ibn Sahl and Alhazan) has 4 sentences attributed to Al-Haytham and one sentence attributed to Ibn Sahl. Thats pretty fair my friend. Galileo Galilei is mentioned like 10 times further down.
2) Perhaps.
3) Now thats what an encyclopedia IS. We're here to provide information as quoted in the encyclopedia article. Try to assume good faith. InternetHero (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time following you here. Are you stating that grammatically incorrect sentences that downplay the historical impact of the first known functioning telescopes IS what an enyclopedia is? - DigitalC (talk) 03:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

New addition of antiquity

I think the addition should include Al-Haytham and not Abbas Ibn Firnas because although Abbas made colorless glass, theres no evidence supporting that he made astronomical observations with magnifying instruments.

In contrast, Al-Haytham: "(He) correctly explained the apparent change in the shape in the sun and moon as they approach the horizon and showed the necessity of allowing for astmospheric refraction in astronomical observations." Reference: 2nd para.

In addition, Al-Haytham: "If an object object is placed in a dense spherical medium of which the curved surface is turned towards the eye and is between the eye and the center of the sphere, the object will appear magnified." Reference: top quote.

In addition: "From this consideration of the writings and scientific contributions of Alhazan, it is evident that had he possessed the imagination of a Galileo and applied his knowledge of optics towards building a telescope, the story of telescopic astronomy might have started six hundred years before Galileo." Reference: Page 9-2nd para.

In addtion: "It is of record that the famous Kepler digested Reisner's translation which we have mentioned. Kepler conceived the optical construction which gives an inverted imgae, and Scheiner made the first telescope which incorporated this inverting-imgae principle suggested by Kepler." Reference: Page 6-2nd para

I think the sentence should relate to the latter quotes with a hint of the his descriptions of magnifying properties (found at the glass curvature). What do you guys think? Happy Drinking. InternetHero (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think, as usual, that your ideas are bad. This isn't an article on astronomy, it's an article on telescopes. Al-haytham is only notable here to the extent to which he contributed towards telescopes.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Is there a dispute over Al-Haytham's contribution to optics? I believe his contributions are established; the question is: who, for what contribution, is appropriate to mention, as an aside, here. Perhaps the article would be better served by a direction to the history of optics, where the many contributers could be addressed at length, and where the dubious task of arbitrating relative importance could, if appropriate, be undertaken (better yet, delineate the contributions there and let the reader judge).Mavigogun (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, he more or less invented optics, so he probably deserves a mention on that ground, and a link out to the history of optics could be in there as well. I don't see that he is notable for anything else in this article scope though. Contrary to InternetHero, so far as I am aware there's no evidence that Al-Haytham ever successfully or usefully magnified the sky or, for that matter, long distant objects.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 00:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Well some info on antiquity has been added, which is good, now maybe we should work on expanding the later parts of the history to more adequately balance the weight of the History of the telescope article? Deamon138 (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Parenthetical Phrase, use of Comma

The sentence is structured so that 'who were spectacle-makers in Middelburg' is a parenthetical phrase; for more, see Comma (punctuation), and more at English grammar.Mavigogun (talk) 11:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a comma is warranted where you mentioned. I think you might be confused over the parameters of a parenthesis and its sub-category of, "Any phrase that interrupts the flow of the main clause:
My father, chewing with unbridled fury, ate the bagel (free modifier).
My father, in a fit of rage, ate the bagel (prepositional phrase).
My father, with no regard for his health, ate the bagel (adverbial phrase).
My father, despite his lack of teeth, ate the bagel (adverbial phrase)." Indication (you can't use Wikipedia as a reference, btw).
[16] "The comma is often used to separate two independent clauses (a group of words that can function as a sentence) that are joined by a coordinating conjunction (for, and, nor, but, or, yet, and so, when they are used to connect; the acronym FANBOYS can be used as a memory aid). Some people feel this is obligatory, while others prefer to use the comma only when not doing so would lead to a different reading." I don't think it would be beneficial to interrupt the flow of that particular sentence. InternetHero (talk) 22:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see anyone trying to use Wikipedia as a reference for the article. Linking to other articles for informational purposes is NOT frowned upon. - DigitalC (talk) 23:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I've replaced the comma, as Mavigogun says use of a comma there is equivalent to use of parentheses and is perfectly correct. I think it's grammatically correct without the comma also, but I'm not 100% certain that it still is, but it's certainly harder to read that way.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 00:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Duly noted. InternetHero (talk) 00:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I also think both versions are okay. Deamon138 (talk) 01:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(unofficial) 8/5 consensus

I hope we can start being civil here. In regards to my edit being reverted, I will list the consensus parameters:

For

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Against

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

As you can see, an 'unofficial' consensus has been made. Indeed User:Mmyotis has made a good point in regards to the transperency of the 'against' arguements. Lets try and make Wikipedia enjoyable for everyone. Sincerely, InternetHero (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't checked all those links out (nor can I really be bothered tbh), but I reckon there was consensus for including something. InternetHero, while a "count" of those for and against can be an indication of consensus, to tell if there is consensus, there has to be a system of good reasons. So for instance, 3v2 would indicate to you that the threes have it, but in this example, the twos might have the better reasons. Anyway, I reckon there was a consensus anyway, but a consensus to add SOMETHING. Therefore, we need to work out together exactly what we are going to add. Deamon138 (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
No problem. InternetHero (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
InternetHero has stated that there was an "unofficial" consensus for his edit, which was then reverted (see above). No edit was proposed to gain concensus, and some of the "For" votes specifically mention a qualified support based on [[WP:UNDUE|weight]. - DigitalC (talk) 01:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Protected why?

Why has this article been protected from editing? The editor who asked for the protection was the one who started the "edit war" (if you can call it that, it seems like it ended ages ago). Deamon138 (talk) 01:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I support InternetHero's call for page protection. This way, edits can be proposed on the talk page to gain concensus. Indeed, InternetHero was involved in an edit-war that broke 3RR, but a slow "edit war" is continuing, in that unsourced material that is inserted into the article is being removed and re-instated. - DigitalC (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
FYI, there was a WP:RFPP here. It's since been removed. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know... I'm trying to do things "officially". Should I not do that next time? InternetHero (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. If both you and DigitalC think page protection was justified, then that is fine by me. Deamon138 (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to ask for it to be unprotected unless DigitalC sparks up a discussion. His current reason for leaving out the sourced content is: "an encyclopedia isn't for adding information that downplays the invention of the telescope". It's found at the bottom of this page (it's located here). InternetHero (talk) 04:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Please do not misrepresent me. My reasons against the proposed edit above are that it violates WP:UNDUE and includes grammar and spelling errors. - DigitalC (talk) 05:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Please do no not unprotect this article until this discussion has been resolved. - Eldereft (cont.) 14:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed new addition

InternetHero and Mmyotis have proposed this addition:

Straw Poll of Support

Oppose per WP:UNDUE, as discussed below. - DigitalC (talk) 05:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

For Looks like a great paragraph: great grammar, punctuation---the works!! :-) InternetHero (talk) 05:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

  • (e/c)As I mentioned when this was discussed above (WP:IDHT?), this is a classic case of undue weight. We have four mentions of al-Haytham, compared to one mention of Galileo, in a section on History of the Telescope. In addition, as I stated when this was discussed above, it also includes unencyclopedic content. Finally, the last sentence is gramatically incorrect. - DigitalC (talk) 05:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • What is meant by "the descriptions of..."? This is quite vague. - DigitalC (talk) 05:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The sentence "In addition to Alhazan (known as his latin name)..." implies that Alhazen (note the spelling error in the proposed text, as well as the grammatically incorrect "known as his latin name") created devices that could have functioned as a telescope. There is NOTHING in the reference that backs up this statement. - DigitalC (talk) 05:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • We should be following the sources in crafting any proposed addition. There is nothing in the source used for Ibn Sahl that says he made "monumental advances", nor does it mention "magnifying properties" in relation to Ibn Sahl. - DigitalC (talk) 05:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Indeed, closer inspection of the source used for al-Haytham in the same sentence reveals that it does not use the POV term "monumental advances" , and does not use the term magnification in relation to al-Haytham. This is a failed verification.
Its pretty common stuff, See: easy verifiability. InternetHero (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no such policy as easy verifiability. - DigitalC (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Several Issues

While acknowledging Al-Haytham's contributions to optics, I judge expounding on those contributions in this venue -with this degree of prolixity- to be overburdening, and adds radically undue weight when paired with the characterization of Al-Haytham as the defacto creator of the Telescope.

Focusing on the Marshal reference and the speculation that -had Al-Haytham had gifts in excess of those that he did- he could have created something that he did not, is a miss characterization of Marshal's speculation. Marshal used the modal 'might' -not 'could' -the difference is speculative possibility verses ability. Ether way, the assertion is pure speculation and fancey -no mater how well referenced. In another context, Marshall's words might be of value; however, this is not the place for such assertions -especially when presented as fact.

The root problem with the addition is that it is construed to make assertions of relative value and over reaching speculation -rather than presenting material from which the reader may make their own judgment. Such position advocacy would be well placed in an article in which the subject was the dispute, controversy, or criticism; here, we are better served by adhering to a neutral point of view.

Asserting that the devices created by pre-17th century opticians could have functioned as Telescopes is to suggest that either the makers did not appreciate the possible application of their devices, or that we don't know if they could have functioned in that way at all. Which was intend to be suggested? Regardless, the result of such an assertion is to reduce the contributions of those credited later -and is appropriate, if adequately supported by references (which it is not). I don't support engaging in such speculation.Mavigogun (talk) 10:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Alternate Proposal

This proposal attempts to incorporate comments made thus far.

  • During the Middle Ages, Ibn Sahl,[8] and Ibn Al-Haytham[9] made advances in our understanding of optics that were essential to the development of spectacle quality lenses and the telescope. In particular, Al-Haytham developed the law of refraction, discovered the magnifying properties of lenses, and experimented with cylindrical, concave, and parabolic mirrors. His work was known in Europe and was a necessary predecessor of the telescope.[10] [11] The earliest known working telescopes were the refracting telescopes that appeared in the Netherlands in 1608. Mmyotis (^^o^^) 17:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Looks good, but how about this version?
I'm a bit confused on what to do with the last sentence, though. InternetHero (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I see two problems with the last sentence. The first is grammatical. Perhaps you meant to write:
  • Although some pre-17th century Middle Eastern and European opticians-such as Leonard Digges, Taqi al-Din and others-created devices that could have functioned as telescopes, the earliest known working telescopes were the refracting telescopes that appeared in the Netherlands in 1608.
The second is that your claim that "opticians-such as Leonard Digges, Taqi al-Din and others-created devices that could have functioned as telescopes" seems dubious and is unsubstantiated. Mmyotis (^^o^^) 19:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
O.K. No problemo. The reference for Taqi al-Din making a telescope is here, but I couldn't find any for Leonard Digges. I'll try to find some for him as well.
The dash is purely to personal liking. However, most people use the insert button to add dashes. InternetHero (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the general concept of this (the one in this section) paragraph to the one above; I agree that the one above gives undue weight. InternetHero's modification is an improvement, I think, but it'll need to substantiated. Nousernamesleft (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hows about this?
The quality of Wikipedia depends on the reliability of the information it contains. Reliability depends on verifiability. Editors are expected support their facts with reliable sources so that the facts can be verified. Regarding your inclusion of Leonard Digges[citation needed], find a source for his contributions to the development of the telescope, and we can consider it for inclusion. Until then, you have no grounds for including him.
Regarding Taqi al-Din, his reported instrument, and the likelihood that his work contributed to the development of the telescope, this is what your source has say:

At any rate, this is a topic that needs to be investigated carefully, [in order to] state whether such an invention was really made in Ottoman lands, [whether] Taqi al-Din’s instrument attracted the attention of his contemporaries, and most of all, [whether] it was transmitted… to Western Europe by the end of the 16th century.

In other words, the souce itself notes that the evidence is weak and questionable. It does not carry sufficient weight for inclusion in this article.Mmyotis (^^o^^) 00:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Mmyotis that we should attempt to find a better source for Taqi- al-Din, and a source for Diggs. However, I think that the wording used in this proposed edit is much better and much more NPOV. - DigitalC (talk) 01:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I favor the version proposed by Mmyotis that starts this section -it is carefully worded and seems to not be over-reaching. I have one question regarding the statement that Al-Haytham 'discovered the magnifying properties of lenses': it implies that before Al-Haytham, magnification was totally unknown; was this the case, or did he investigate and delineate the reason for some properties while discovering others? Also implied is that he discovered, in toto, all magnifying properties of lenses: is this the case, or has the work since been expounded on?Mavigogun (talk) 04:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, this (translated) quote from Seneca the Younger (4 BC - 61 AD) implies that al-Haytham was certainly not the first to discover magnification: ""Letters, however small and indistinct, are seen enlarged and more clearly through a globe of glass filled with water."" (as referenced in Timeline of telescope technology - though I do not have access to the actual reference). There is also speculation the Vikings could have used lenses to make a telescope [17]. The source for Ibn Sahl states that HE "...pioneered the study of the lens, formulating the first geometric theory for lenses.", and that he"...was the first to discover the elusive sine law of refraction. This makes the law of refraction, together with the law of reflection – first given in full by Ibn Haitham – probably the oldest dynamic laws formulated for nature.". Basically, it is VERY hard to say that al-Haytham was the FIRST to discover the magnifying properties of lenses, but his work was extremely important to optics, and very important to magnification. More was learned about refraction (Eg: Snell's law, Isaac_Newton's_early_life_and_achievements#Newton.27s_theory_of_colour). This is why it is very important to follow what the sources say. - DigitalC (talk) 08:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
As a follow up, it is sourced that Seneca's statement "...is the first known written description of a lens used for magnification and/or visual correction". "...the quote from Seneca... ...occured more than two millenia after the first Egyptian lenses were employed..."[14]

(outedent)The (modified) proposed text currently states that al-Haytham developed the law of refraction. Yet, the source for Ibn Sahl says that HE was the first to discover the law of refraction. The sourced for this sentence doesn't mention the law of refraction. Usually the discovery of the sine law of refraction is attributed to either Snell or Descartes, from what I know (this could be because (according to the source used for Ibn Sahl) Ibn Sahl's works were lost for centuries). - DigitalC (talk) 09:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hows about this? I just added a reference and took out Digges for now.
This version ignores the problems raised above. - DigitalC (talk) 03:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Not only does it not address some of the above issues, it reintroduces problems alleviated by earlier versions. I suggest we focus on addressing any reference issues in the version first proffered by Mmyotis at the beginning of this section.Mavigogun (talk) 05:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Richard Powers (University of Illinois),Best Idea; Eyes Wide Open, New York Times, April 18, 1999. (page 4)
  2. ^ Richard Powers (University of Illinois),Best Idea; Eyes Wide Open, New York Times, April 18, 1999. (page 4)
  3. ^ Designing the perfect lens
  4. ^ Physics and Optics
  5. ^ Richard Powers (University of Illinois),Best Idea; Eyes Wide Open, New York Times, April 18, 1999. (page 4)
  6. ^ [1] Page 9, 2nd paragraph. I'll change it to the normal refrence style once a consensus has been achieved.
  7. ^ [2] 2nd paragraph.
  8. ^ a b c d e f g h Designing the perfect lens
  9. ^ a b c d e Physics and Optics
  10. ^ a b c d Richard Powers (University of Illinois),Best Idea; Eyes Wide Open, New York Times, April 18, 1999. (page 4)
  11. ^ a b c d e Marshall, O. S., Alhazen and the Telescope, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Leaflets, 1950, Vol. 6, p.4
  12. ^ [3] 2nd paragraph.
  13. ^ Dr. Hüseyin Gazi Topdemir (2008-06-30). "The Nature of Light and the Mechanisms of Vision". FSTC Limited. Retrieved 2008-08-15. 
  14. ^ Guenther, Arthur H. (2002). International trends in applied optics. Bellingham, Wash.: SPIE Press. pp. 630–631. ISBN 081944510X. OCLC 50143963 81053669. 
  15. ^ Dr. Hüseyin Gazi Topdemir (2008-06-30). "The Nature of Light and the Mechanisms of Vision". FSTC Limited. Retrieved 2008-08-15. 
  16. ^ Turkish timepieces (middle of the 9th paragraph--ill put the other style later

Too much POV on Europeans

Why isn't the Father of Optics included? Or the book of Optics? It is clear to me that Islamic Scientists did invent them and yet there is no mention, only on European invention. I haven't seen such a badly written article since the early days of Wikpedia. What do you propose we get rid of and add to this?Lord of Moria Talk Contribs 14:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

"I haven't seen such a badly written article since the early days of Wikpedia." That's a bit of an exaggeration. Clearly you have not hit Special:Random enough recently. The article could be improved sure, but it has more weight to Europeans, solely because they are the ones that invented and perfected the telescope. Deamon138 (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
This is an article on the Telescope, not an article on the History of optics. You may be interested in reading the rest of this talk page for more. - DigitalC (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Just join the consensus. DigitalC's arguements aren't worth the merit, so just try and add to the sentence. Anyway, DigitalC, you have won. I am not going to contribute to Wikipedia anymore since users like you (who obviously has issues) have ruined it for me. It a GREAT grace sine over the weeked I found a GF. HUZZAH!! I hope you learn to be more civil in the future, It may help you out. Cheers my friend. InternetHero (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Deasmon138 they did not invent the the telescope, clearly the Arabs did. InternetHero you cannot give up. If you give up then only the biased people will be left on Wikipedia. Fight it and discuss it. And I have hit the random page. But for such an article to have the bias this has and what history outlines is a violation Wikipedia NPOV rule. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) Talk Contribs 16:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Reading through the History of optics article clearly states that the Islamic world invented the telescope. There is also a reference on it from the Book of Optics. So clearly it should be given credit. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) Talk Contribs 16:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh an if anyone would like to know. Here it is: Topdemir, Hüseyin Gazi (1999), Takîyüddîn'in Optik Kitabi, Ministery of Culture Press, Ankara (cf. Dr. Hüseyin Gazi Topdemir (30 June 2008). "Taqi al-Din ibn Ma‘ruf and the Science of Optics: The Nature of Light and the Mechanism of Vision". FSTC Limited. Retrieved on 2008-07-04.) Lord of Moria (Avicenna) Talk Contribs 16:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, Al-Haytham did build observatories but there is no written record of a telescope. His disciple wrote some treaties on astronomy but they were burned by a "holy-man". In respect to Taqi Al-Din, he did build a rudimentary telescope. Don't worry we have won. I can tell coz every admin---who are usually good people---that has seen this page agrees with us. Currently, the other 3 members of the POV-consensus hasn't been here---maybe out of guilt. Thats not what we're here for, but it has to be done. InternetHero (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with you in some ways. I did feel insulted by user: Deamon138 and user: DigitalC's comments but this is no place to dicuss that. Why didn't you raise this issue before? With WP: ISLAM or WP:HISTORY or even with the admins? I do see more fighting here and quarrals which seem unjust. I'm raising the issue with an admin. Clearly you feel bullied. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) Talk Contribs 19:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know you could do that!!! I will do it my friend. I got admnis b4 and they agree with me. They can only do so much, though. InternetHero (talk) 20:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Dude---Daemon138 is actually pretty cool, though. He's just a particular person, but he agrees that we should add the fundamentals. InternetHero (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
LOTRrules you must be about the only person that finds that Internet'Hero' is acting in good faith in the wikipedia, and frankly I'm surprised that there's as many as one given his edit history. Feel free to comment at the RFC: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/InternetHero I guess.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 00:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know abou that. The only reason you hate me is because I have friends who plays tricks on me and stuff. Other than that, I think you hate me because you tried to revert my edit on the internal combustion engine page and it didn't work. You guys have to spend your time more constructively. I am 23 and I have a night shift job 3 days out of the week and I just started helping my friend with his lawn maintenance company. I got to school in the fall so I've got better things to deefnd my self against, "he said I need a job--wanh, wanh,". The probably: "he said I need a job again, and sais I said wanh wanh". Thats why I think they're just children/teenagers. You guys need to go play or something. Good day. I said good day. InternetHero (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection?

InternetHero asked me to unprotect the page, because (according to him) the dispute is resolved. Everyone agree? · AndonicO Engage. 21:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that we have reached a concensus on the exact change to install into the article, but InternetHero has stated that he is retiring from Wikipedia, which suggests that likelyhood of edit warring on this article is less. - DigitalC (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The issue approaches resolution- but is not there yet; prematurely unprotecting would negate the good work that has been done and bolster opposing partisans -who would take the action as an endorsement of their particular position.Mavigogun (talk) 05:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree since this article is biased. I'm not being rude or biased myself, but the most important people in history are not even included in the history section. It is just one short introduction and furthermore Egyptions, Islamic Golden Age scientists and even Gallileo is not included, in the intro to history which it should briefly and provide citations. Does everyone agree with this? If yes then we can collaborate together. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) Talk Contribs 17:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

There is like a 9 to 5 consensus. So I think we won. The arguements above aren't very intelligent. It's probably not the actual representation of their minds' but for now, they're stuck with hate as a prerequisite for motivation. Its sad really. Their grammar is really bad as well so I think we're dealing with hate---not true thoughts. InternetHero (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Also the arguments above do seem unjustified. There is more quarral with "undue weight" than actual history. This is appalling. I have never seen such disruptive edits and pointless arguments. Everything will be balanced when every bit of information is added here and in the right places. There is also too many bulleted links to other pages, why have them? Minimize them. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) Talk Contribs 19:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You have provided tons of sources that are genuine which have been shunned. Frankly I can already see some of them as bad editors or relatively new to Wikipedia. Talk to me sometime if you need advice. Looks like you could use some friendly advice. Also please do not leave. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) Talk Contribs 20:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The more I look at this page the more I realise how they have ganged up on you. As a new editor I am shocked and are still being. I've looked at their talk pages, their histories, the discussions above and frankly they are being hollow and ignorant. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) Talk Contribs 20:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help man. You're pretty cool. I never like LOTF, though. ;-) But don't call them names and such; I don't think it will help with what we're trying to contribute. Umm, O.K. I won't give up :D. I'm going to get an admin for the Norse colonization of the Americas. InternetHero (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
In reply to rfc, commented here. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 22:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a Chat room - Address Specific Article Proposals

This is not a venue for speculation on user behavior, motivations, commentary on character, or work/controversy on other articles unrelated to tasks addressed by this talk space.Mavigogun (talk) 05:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Mmyotis Proposal Revisited

Trimmed repetition, integrated with remainder of paragraph:

While mindfull that this is an article on the Telescope and that information regarding history should acts as a gateway to the History of the telescope article, I question whether Ibn Sahl is marginalized, or if the mention is proportional; also, is the expounding on Al-Haytham's mirror research topical/should it be removed? Little detail is given to those credited with making the first device, by contrast; I favor the brevity of this draft, as well as the recognition without speculative attribution -and would further favor the removal of the mirror references as being significant but possibly superfluous to the citing.Mavigogun (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe the second sentence should be removed, for two reasons. The first is that it doesn't match with the facts that I have read - that is, al-Haytham did not develop the law of refraction, ibn Sahl did. The second reason is that it then puts more emphasis on al-Haytham than anyone else in the paragraph. - DigitalC (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
After dispensing with the detail and value attribution of the second sentence:
The paragraph acts as a good starting place for anyone interested in investigating further the contributions of all named, and (subjectively) does so without speculation -while still attributing elemental importance to the work of Ibn Sahl and Ibn Al-Haytham without marginalizing the contributions of either. Mavigogun (talk) 04:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm inclined to trim the 'also known as Jacob Adriaanszoon', as that information would better be included at Jacob Metius.Mavigogun (talk) 04:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree, I had removed that earlier, but it was reinserted. - DigitalC (talk) 04:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
With the extraneous 'Adriaanszoon' portion removed:
Also changed 'this' to 'these' to indicate non-singular/non-collaborative nature of constructions.Mavigogun (talk) 06:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Looks good to me. - DigitalC (talk) 06:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

4 Day commentary

I suggest that we leave this item open for comment for another 4 days, the 25th of August; if at that time there are no unresolved disputes, we return to normalized editing.Mavigogun (talk) 13:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks good and appreciate the way you guys hung in there to work things out. Mmyotis (^^o^^) 16:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it looks good too. Maybe after this we should add a little more on Galileo, and then add more detail on the other two paragraphs, to keep it in line with a summary of History of the telescope. Deamon138 (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
What about the speculation that Al haythan invented it? Lord of Moria (Avicenna) Talk Contribs 19:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Please read the exhaustive discussion of that subject on this same talk page; the condensed version would likely not satisfy your scrutiny. To point: unsubstantiated speculation in the context of this summation amounts to undue weight that, in effect, marginalizes the well documented evidence of those normally attributed with the invention. That is an over simplification of a complex argument that has been addressed at length; one would be best served to become familiar with that discussion and direct comment to those involved.Mavigogun (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Also change Middle ages to Islamic Golden Age, it is a significant period in the history of the world. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) Talk Contribs 19:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

We use a common calender to refer to the dates in the article -1608 CE for the creation of the telescope by the Gregorian Calander, as apposed to the 1017 AH using the Hijri- so to are there common -although greatly subjective- generalizations of era; many overlap. It would seem to me that the term 'Islamic Golden Age' might be both accurate and innocuous; my only reticence is that it may serve as a beach head for the expression of an agenda beyond the purpose of this article- or that using the term, while specifically topical, over a more common signifier may be serving such an agenda. Again, it seems innocuous and texturally appropriate; given the great deal of advocacy editing in this sphere, I am tentatively supportive of the suggestion.Mavigogun (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The two Islamic scientists were born before what is considered the Middle Ages. Take for example the first one 940-1000 AD. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) Talk Contribs 19:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The categorization is a loose one, and easily fits the time period in question -400's to early 1500's.Mavigogun (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
From Middle ages: "The Middle Ages are commonly dated from the fall of the Western Roman Empire (or by some scholars, before that) in the 5th century to the beginning of the Early Modern Period in the 16th century...". So it certainly doesn't appear that they were born before what is considered the Middle Ages. I don't object to the use of Islamic Golden Age at this stage, because it too looks correct. However, I agree that it could serve an agenda over a more commonly used term. - DigitalC (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Lets jsut add the freaking paragraph already. Your arguements against the latter are meaningless in relation to logic. The best sentence was the on Mmyotos has put up. InternetHero (talk) 01:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
We might also indicate period with 'In the 10th-11th century': the span of both the Islamic Golden age and Middle Ages are considerable; such a description would give greater specificity to the chronological relation of the developments. I support unlocking and use of whatever is least contentious. Mavigogun (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Seems to be a good change - it certainly makes it more precise. - DigitalC (talk) 03:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I propose unlocking and making this related history edit:

I'm not sure how to go about requesting the return to normalized editing.Mavigogun (talk) 03:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not clear why you don't add Islamic Golden Age to the article. It doesn't let the reader go off at a tangent. It provides more information and a further link. Lets stop bickering and unlock the article and someone please add the link. 10th to 11th Cent. seems to bland. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) Talk Contribs 16:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The main reason for 10th to 11th Centuries instead of Islamic Golden Age is because the former is more specific (spans two centuries), while according to the IGA article, the latter is too vague (it spans 8th to 16th Centuries). Deamon138 (talk) 18:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
As per the discussion here, I have again removed the extraneous Islamic Golden Age reference.Mavigogun (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

History Section, Paragraph 1

{{editprotected}}

I request that the first paragraph of the history section be replaced with the following text, and that subsequent paragraphs/work on that section be addressed separately so that granularity will allow for targeted review of content- contentious issues not acting as a 'poison pills' for edits that would otherwise be uncontested:

Mavigogun (talk) 10:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The protection of this article has expired; no assistance is now needed to edit the page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong wikilink

The link to "Leonard Digges" should be corrected to Leonard Digges (scientist), rather than Leonard Digges, which is a disambiguation page. — Twas Now ( talkcontribse-mail ) 01:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We know exactly which Leonard Digges we want the link to point to, so it shouldn't go to the DAB page. - DigitalC (talk) 02:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

More Content Improvements

Telescope#History should be a summary of what is in History of the telescope.

Further facts that could be included to improve this section:

  • Gallileo's instruments were the first to be named "telescopes"
  • Johannes Kepler was the first to advance the idea of using two convex lenses and Christoph Scheiner was the first to construct a telescope of this form
  • Chester Moore Hall determined in 1733 that by combining two lenses formed from different types of glass, he could create an achromatic lense to reduce chromatic aberration—which led to a boom in the construction of large refracting telescopes in the late 19th century.
  • In 1897 the refractor reached its maximum practical limit with the construction of the Yerkes Observatory's 40 inch (101.6 cm) refractor.
  • The 20th century saw the construction of much larger reflecting telescopes such as Mount Wilson Observatory’s 60-inch (1.5 m) reflector in 1908 and the 100 inch (2.5 m) Hooker telescope in 1917.

Thoughts? DigitalC (talk) 00:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a bullet-point format such as the above would be easiest to access, least cumbersome. I have 2 concerns: that the endeavor not become a point for point summation of every aspect of the History article -requiring judicious restraint- and that, as the scope of the article is not terrestrial-optical-specific, included are other milestones- such as the Large Array or Hubble. I raise these issues more to illustrate the natural progression of this course of action, rather than out of any great concern; still, I recall some heady discussion regarding undue weight. Keep in mind that what is significant to one editor or user (interferometry) might not be to another (interferwhat?)- so the criteria for inclusion needs be consistent...Mavigogun (talk) 05:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Retained text from recent edit

Removed the following text from the lead paragraph- it is interesting, but misplaced in the lead:

...for Galileo's instrument at a banquet held April 14, 1611 by Prince Federico Cesi to make Galileo a member of his Accademia dei Lincei.Mavigogun (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Date Convention

The 10th-11th century period indicator is used in the history section because it is more specific than the commonly used 'Middle Ages' -or 'Islamic Golden Age' label -both of which are superfluous; there is no need to describe the date- it is not the subject of the article; there might be cause for describing the 1608 date as 'the age of Enlightenment', however, given that this section is subservient to the central subject of Telescopes (as apposed to 'History of the Telescope'), such a description would be burdensome. Recent edits adding the IGA reference may serve to expound upon the gravity of Islamic culture -but that is not the subject of this article, and is likewise an impeding burden.Mavigogun (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note, the article currently implies that Lippershey et al. either knew about or were at least in the intellectual tradition of Al-Haytham et al. Is this supported by the references? We might be either selling the Netherlanders short or overstating their grasp of optics. History is full of starts and stops (and devoting a modicum of space to documenting some certainly belongs in the main History article and might not be out of place in this summary section), and we should avoid oversimplifying the narrative. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
It isn't "burdensome". The Islamic Golden Age hyperlink serves as a gateway, a further link for the reader to click on and find out more. Plus it was in the actual Golden Age Period and many sources from childrens books to adult books on the IGA cover this, and credit the IGA period to have advanced knowledge in optics. Lord of Moria Talk Contribs 11:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
The IGA is tertiary to this article; users interested in either of the related contributers will find links to the IGA from those article pages- where the subject relates directly to the article subject. Inclusion here amounts to promotion of a particular contextual view of history. LOTRrules reasoning for inclusion here speaks to serving a purpose separate from the subject of this article, an agenda with a distinct perspective. LOTRrules: why are you not advocating for linking out to the age of Enlightenment? Was the change in consciousness embodied by this era not key to the subject developments of this article? Due -and undue weight- may only being judged objectively; subjectively, nothing is EVER undue.Mavigogun (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
It isn't "undue weight". The Age of Enlightenment started in the 18th Century not the 16th, even the article states this. Al-Haytham was working in the period of the IGA, ie during it. Your basis for argument seems to concentrated on one line; the IGA is something of which still should be given merit in the article. If the AOE did start in the 16th I'd clearly validate its inclusion as the build up to creation of telescopes, since it doesn't, and telescopes were being made before the 18th Century, it doesn't merit. In addition the AOE was clearly a proposition of philosophical change, a phenonmenon that occured which doesn't include vast inventions and development to objects, but only to human reasoning and thinking. The IGA merits, therefore, as this is also called the Islamic Renaissance: a period where both Islamic studies and, later, the European studies ammounted to many discoveries in the development of technology, ie the European Renaissance. This lead to many inventions. I'm only adding things which are valid and genuine. On a brief note I'd appreciate it if you didn't SHOUT at me. Lord of Moria Talk Contribs 17:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with including the widely accepted descriptor of Islamic Golden Age to designate the period in which Ibn al-Haytham's advances were made. The purpose of an encyclopedia article is to inform the reader. The advantage of a wikipedia article is that it offers the opportunity to increase our knowledge through the ready availability of wikilinks to ancillary subjects. Although I support LOTRrules' edit, I do not support his methods. He needs to respect the wiki process and work toward consensus on the talk pages when an edit is reverted by another editor. This question was raised six days ago and he has not bothered to support his edits on the talk pages until today. Such behavior is disruptive and I can understand Mavigogun's frustration. That being said, the insinuation that LOTRrules is serving an agenda outside of this article is unhelpful. We need to reach consensus by first determining whether an edit conforms with wikipedia policy and then using the guidlines to develop wording that is agreeable to all the editors involved. Ad hominem comments about other editors serve only to make the process more difficult. Mmyotis (^^o^^) 02:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I have previously tried to get the IGA line in and it was accepted, however I did not realise, nor do I believe, I was being disruptive. I apologise if I appeared that way, but Mavigoguns comments/edits seem arbitrary. It sounds extrenuously pedantic when you fight over one hyperlink. I just think it makes the article more informative. Lord of Moria Talk Contribs 11:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Undue balance

I have removed the below to talk because it is not a synopsis of the summery at history of the telescope (WP:UNDUE). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

In the 10th and 11th centuries, during the Islamic Golden Age, Ibn Sahl[1] and Ibn al-Haytham[1][2] made advances in the physical and mathematical understanding of optics that were essential to the development of spectacle quality lenses and the telescope. There is some documentary evidence, but no surviving designs or physical evidence, that the principles of telescopes were known to Leonard Digges,[5] Taqi al-Din[6] and Giambattista della Porta[7] in the late 16th century.

I don't see that it violates the WP:UNDUE. It is essential to have it there as it explains the history and the lead up to the invention of the telescope and even references are applied to state that it is true. We have previously agreed that it is notable. See the archive for detail. Regrads. Lord of Moria Talk Contribs 15:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Since I was part of "previous" discussions I do not see what "agreement" you are pointing to. The "essential" work of explaining what lead up to the development of the telescope is dealt with in History of the telescope and History of optics. WP:UNDUE does not deal with whether something is "true", it deals with whether something is given undue weight. If you look at a history of optics article such as this[18] you will see at least 10 different individuals cited as significant, why are we only citing one? As user Eldereft pointed out above, Al-Haytham is cited in a way that implies that he was the direct progenitor of the telescope. What standard text books make this link? (reliable source). Leonard Digges, Taqi al-Din and Giambattista della Porta are not in the summery at HOTT, neither is Al-Haytham, and Taqi al-Din as a telescope maker seems to be a minority citation, again not in a reliable source. Bringing them all together and citing multiple sources with no supporting reliable sources that make these connections is creating an article section by Synthesis. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't add "undue weight". And it certainly doesn't imply that Al-Haytham invented it, iot explicitly states this, he worked on the optics and made developments there which were later used by Galileo and the likes from the Book of Optics. As such it should be included, after all it just fact, it in no way implies "he invented it". Regards, Lord of Moria Talk Contribs 22:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Al-Haytham did work on optics, and so did many other people in the history leading up to the invention of the telescope. The claim "Ibn Sahl[3] and Ibn al-Haytham[3][4] made advances in the physical and mathematical understanding of optics that were essential to the development of spectacle quality lenses for telescopes." has no reference by a reliable source on telescope history. Citing just one or two people out of the history of optics is: #1 off topic - this is the history of the telescope we are talking about, #2 Un-referenced, and #3 Undue since it does not summarize the introduction at History of the telescope. A perusal of "History of telescope" articles as found by Google[19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] Does not support the text as written above since Al-Haytham is only mentioned in passing in some instances (as one of many many progenitors of the telescope) and not mentioned at all in others. I have re-written the section citing some of this material. It is better cited at History of telescopes where it belongs. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi. This guy Richard Powers indefinetly proposes that its not undue weight. Heres the reference. 23rd paragraph. A responce to this would probably equate to the following parameters: "Fountain of BM is prosing that lenses and math aren't used for the telescope". InternetHero (talk) 01:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I've added on the information. Also Foutains stop edit warring as suggested by the user on my talk page. You know the rules. Besides for the last time it does not add undue material. We have discussed this in the past. Look at the archive. The first sentence on says Al-haytham paved a way forward for the telescope while the majority of the credit is given to the Dutch. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 Talk Contribs 18:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing personal attacks from an anonymous IP to a Wikipedia talk page, maybe you want to read the behavioral guideline some time? Try the part that starts with No personal attacks. And maybe try reading the above talk to see where the problems are in the inference that only Al-haytham paved the way for telescope development. As for previous TALK, all I see is a big ol' POV Push, (and a hint at who Mr. anonymous IP is) but maybe its my lying eyes. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
This is InternetHero. As for UNDUE weight, I refuted his arguements a long time ago with this sentence: "The history of the telescope article has a paragraph on Al-Haytham and the math, lenses, and another paragraph on our friends Leonard and Al-Din stand there as well. This article has 3 sentences on the latter."
Later. Take a break from it. Its not very important. We already had a discussion and a clear-enough consensus. Unless he gets at least 11 people, he hasn't the right to delete additions/contributions. 24.138.145.57 (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Why this is WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV has been discussed above. Failing to cite any "history of telescope" articles as references that state that Ibn Sahl and Ibn al-Haytham were "essential to the development" above all of the other people mentioned in History of optics brings us to WP:V. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The article says that it was the "advances in the physical and mathematical understanding of optics that were essential' not the people. Please try to be accurate when representing what the wiki articles states. You discredit your own arguments when you aren't able to do that. Also, some very good arguments have been made which show that the section you keep trying to delete, which was created through the consensus efforts of a number of editors, is neither undue nor POV. Please stop deleting properly sourced consensus based material. If you think the material should be removed, reach a consensus here on the talk pages, and then make the change. That's the wikipedia process. Mmyotis (^^o^^) 22:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, that isn't the wikipedia process. Please see WP:BRD. There is no consensus to add that material to the article, and the concerns have been detailed on this talk page and others. DigitalC (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
You are not fairly representing the facts. The material was a part of this article as agreed through yourself as well as a number of other editors back in August. Everyone was happy until the consensus material was deleted on October 19th. The lack of consensus is with the deletion of material, not with the addition of it, and the individual or individuals responsible for the repeated deletions should instead be working toward a compromise. Mmyotis (^^o^^) 03:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Redirected from another (new) discussion placed below

Undue and Minority

There is some documentary evidence, but no surviving designs or physical evidence, that the principles of telescopes were known to Leonard Digges,[8] Taqi al-Din[6] and Giambattista della Porta[9] in the late 16th century.

The above paragraph has two problems: it is not part the summery at History of the telescope, and Taqi al-Dins connection to the telescope has only one source, the work of Hüseyin Gazi Topdemir, making it a tiny minority view and not part of the larger scholarly discourse WP:SOURCE. Even Hüseyin Gazi Topdemir says there is "confusion concerning a part of (Taqi al-Din's) explanation"[26]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion in the right heading. It confuses things. ANyway, we alreaqdy had a HUGE discussion over this---to which you failed to be a part of, so I think this isn't very productive. InternetHero (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Real world may keep editors from participating in such "discussions". And sometime editors just "walk away" from fruitless discussions. But: "Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." WP:UNDUEWEIGHT Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Pay telescopes

Would like to see some mention of "pay-per-view" telescopes, the coin-operated variety often seen at monuments and vistas. If a similar article already exists, could someone point a redirect (Pay telescope) its way? — Nahum Reduta [talk|contribs] 11:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they're are any (articles on it that is). Perhaps you could add a section yourself? サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 Talk Contribs 16:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Done, on Optical telescopes#Pay telescopes. - NR

Proposed additions to article

Add section for thinking and automated telescopes such as RAPTOR that discover anomalies much more efficiently than those that are human operated. (comment by User:Stlwebs moved by Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC))

Such an addition, if referenced, could be a good addition but I would suggest adding it to Optical telescope since it pertains more to them. Telescope is more of an overview. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

MEDCABAL

I am tired of watching this slow edit war and wasted verbiage. Getting a third opinion worked by some definitions, but not the most useful one. Would anyone else be interested in consulting the mediation cabal? - Eldereft (cont.) 05:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It may help, but the forth item in "How to list a MedCab request" requests that editors "have a good understanding of the Wikipedia's principles, especially regarding the proper weight of information". That has not been exhibited and is kind of the linchpin of the problems above. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I realize there is some irony in what I'm about to say, still, I think it needs to be said. Wikipedia works through the process of consensus. In difficult cases, MedCab can be a great help and I support Eldereft's suggestion wholeheartedly. Negative comments about the ability of other editors to comprehend wikipedia policies are counter productive and reflect poorly on the commentor's own ability to remain neutral and seek consensus. If Fountains of Bryn Mawr honestly wishes to resolve these issues, I suggest that they embrace the wikipedia policy of assuming good faith and express positive support for the MedCab mediation process. Mmyotis (^^o^^) 16:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I have always wished "resolve these issues" but "Good faith" is no longer assumed. The editors making these changes have expressed that they edit from a bias as cited here[27] and implied on this users page[28]. I don't think these editors have a problem understanding policies, they just seem to have other priorities that run counter to Wikipedia policy. I think MedCab can help but it will be running up against advocacy. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia, but I think it's good to have it on here. I didn't even know the muslims invented the lenses and mirrors, etc,. 69.159.15.211 (talk) 01:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm the top guy and I just made an account. Boomshakalakaboom (talk) 01:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello there and welcome to wikipedia. Muslims did discover a lot of things. But sadly the facts on this article are rather biased. Some people can think they can delete anything and then have it their own way. If you want to find out more things Muslims invented have a look at the articles on my userpage (they are mentioned in the box thing) Leave me a message sometime. A good place to start with the Ancient Muslim civilisation is the Islamic Golden Age. Until I came here I knew nothing about it save tid-bits. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 Talk Contribs 21:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy

I know people are allowed to edit here, but should I not base my project on the page?? I'm kinda confused here. its ok, I'll go on the Encyclopedia Brittanica, coz I don't know what really going on here. Boomshakalakaboom (talk) 01:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Undue balance (2)

So, while the article is protected this week, would anybody like to hammer out some sort of consensus on whether 10th and 11th century mathematicians are so prominent to the development of telescopes that they should be mentioned in the summary paragraph here? Of particular interest would be the level of treatment from impartial high quality sources discussing telescopes. Also relevant are how they figure in History of the telescope. Personal comments on other editors are, as always, irrelevant. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I would think it would be WP:UNDUE weight to mention them, but perhaps someone could show, using high quality sources discussing telescopes, that they deserve the weight. DigitalC (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Before we start talking about weight and what should be included in the article, I'd like to understand what editors think about the statements themselves. Here is what we had in this article on the 18th of October:

In the 10th and 11th centuries, during the Islamic Golden Age, Ibn Sahl[1] and Ibn al-Haytham[1][2] made advances in the physical and mathematical understanding of optics that were essential to the development of spectacle quality lenses and the telescope. There is some documentary evidence, but no surviving designs or physical evidence, that the principles of telescopes were known to Leonard Digges,[10] Taqi al-Din[6] and Giambattista della Porta[11] in the late 16th century.

Are there any editors here who question the accuracy of these statements, or take issue with the reliability of the sources that have been used to support them? Thanks. Mmyotis (^^o^^) 22:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Not really, but that's not enough. The article is on telescopes, not the history of telescopes. Adding them here is simply undue weight. We're not going to list all the things that lead up to the telescope when we have an entire article for that purpose. What the heck would be the point???- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
No, of course not. We need to include material about the makeup of a telescope. Last time I checked, the laws of light and refraction---along with the mathematical calculations, and lenses---makeup the telescope. If it weren't so, a telescope could consist of a hollowed out reed brush. InternetHero (talk) 03:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I think this statement is relevant and does not violate WP:UNDUE. My reason is that this section should be a summary of the history of telescopes. And this sections fits in nicely. It is neither too long or tedious. It was well known that the crusaders took knowledge from the Islamic Empire, and one of the most influential books at the time was the Book of Optics; which is what the Europeans studied. From that they derived the telescope. The sections does not go into tedious detail at all and most certainly does not violate the policy. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 Talk Contribs 16:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the input LOTRules and InternetHero. For now I'd like to give editors a little more time to respond to my questions about accuracy and reliability of sources before moving on to the seemingly more contentious question of relevancy. Mmyotis (^^o^^) 16:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent) re: the statements themselves

In the 10th and 11th centuries, during the Islamic Golden Age, Ibn Sahl[1] and Ibn al-Haytham[1][2] made advances in the physical and mathematical understanding of optics that were essential to the development of spectacle quality lenses and the telescope.

Very questionable. There are no reliable sources contained in that section. And it is totally unreferenced as to the claim "were essential to the development of spectacle quality lenses and the telescope". Not to mention the fact that it ignores the whole history of optics, ignores 200 years of spectacle development (a significant step cited by what appear to be reliable sources[29][30] [31]), and reaches a conclusion that is not in other history of telescopes overview articles[32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38].

"telescopes were known to Leonard Digges,[8] Taqi al-Din[4] and Giambattista della Porta[9]"

Source problems re: Taqi al-Din, this is is a single source minority view. Accuracy problems re: Giambattista della Porta, he may not be talking about telescopes at all[39] .

Re: WP:UNDUE All these people are footnotes to the history of telescopes, have problems being accurately attributed or are not something you would include in a short summery of significant developments, but can (and are) accurately covered in History of the telescope (or soon will be if we can get back to editing ;)). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to stop comparing this article tot he history of telescopes. I have seen you deleting vast amounts of info in that article on Ibn-Haytham. Stop doing this, as you discredit your own argument. Stop comparing them too. That article differs from this one. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 Talk Contribs 17:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Please refer to Wikipedia:Summary style re: keeping summary articles and detailed articles synchronised and avoiding of POV forks. Re: "deleting vast amounts of info", you may want to simply read WP:NPOV and WP:V. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
He tried that bit before. I'll look on the archive to find my refuting arguement for that. InternetHero (talk) 02:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
See: "[40]".

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage or jargon guide. Wikipedia articles are not: Dictionary definitions. Although articles should begin with a definition and description of a subject, they should provide other types of information about that subject as well. Articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content, if possible. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic topic, such as old school, Macedonia (terminology), or truthiness. Articles about the cultural or mathematical significance of individual numbers are also acceptable.

There. See you LOTRRules. InternetHero (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i Designing the perfect lens
  2. ^ a b c d e f g Physics and Optics
  3. ^ Richard Powers (University of Illinois),Best Idea; Eyes Wide Open, New York Times, April 18, 1999. (page 4)
  4. ^ Marshall, O. S., Alhazen and the Telescope, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Leaflets, 1950, Vol. 6, p.4
  5. ^ Galileo's Telescope - by: Albert Van Helden
  6. ^ a b c Topdemir, Hüseyin Gazi (1999), Takîyüddîn'in Optik Kitabi, Ministry of Culture Press, Ankara 
  7. ^ Giambattista della Porta, (2005), Natural Magick, page 339. NuVision Publications, LLC.
  8. ^ Galileo's Telescope - by: Albert Van Helden
  9. ^ Giambattista della Porta, (2005), Natural Magick, page 339. NuVision Publications, LLC.
  10. ^ Galileo's Telescope - by: Albert Van Helden
  11. ^ Giambattista della Porta, (2005), Natural Magick, page 339. NuVision Publications, LLC.

Accuracy and reliability

If we can't reach consenus on the question of accuracy and reliability of the section under contention, then the question of weight is irrelevant. I've therefore copied the comments on accuracy and reliability here so they can be discussed first and without the distraction of other arguments. Please try to stay on topic. Thanks. Mmyotis (^^o^^)

Before we start talking about weight and what should be included in the article, I'd like to understand what editors think about the statements themselves. Here is what we had in this article on the 18th of October:

In the 10th and 11th centuries, during the Islamic Golden Age, Ibn Sahl[1] and Ibn al-Haytham[1][2] made advances in the physical and mathematical understanding of optics that were essential to the development of spectacle quality lenses and the telescope. There is some documentary evidence, but no surviving designs or physical evidence, that the principles of telescopes were known to Leonard Digges,[3] Taqi al-Din[4] and Giambattista della Porta[5] in the late 16th century.

Are there any editors here who question the accuracy of these statements, or take issue with the reliability of the sources that have been used to support them? Thanks. Mmyotis (^^o^^) 22:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Not really, but that's not enough. The article is on telescopes, not the history of telescopes. Adding them here is simply undue weight. We're not going to list all the things that lead up to the telescope when we have an entire article for that purpose. What the heck would be the point???- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
In the 10th and 11th centuries, during the Islamic Golden Age, Ibn Sahl[1] and Ibn al-Haytham[1][2] made advances in the physical and mathematical understanding of optics that were essential to the development of spectacle quality lenses and the telescope.
Very questionable. There are no reliable sources contained in that section. And it is totally unreferenced as to the claim "were essential to the development of spectacle quality lenses and the telescope".
"the principles of telescopes were known to Leonard Digges,[8] Taqi al-Din[4] and Giambattista della Porta[9]"
Source problems re: Taqi al-Din, this is is a single source minority view. Accuracy problems re: Giambattista della Porta, he may not be talking about telescopes at all[41] . Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Maybe mentioning Leonard and Taqi can be exclusive to the optical and history of the telescope articles, but I think that Muslimheritage.com is a viable reference. It's even been on internation television: British television found here. Here's the O.S. Marshall reference, though: Page 8, last paragraph. The "Physics and Optics" article is good as well.
Maybe we should be talking about a consensus as well? InternetHero (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I am in full support of the addition of Islamic Golden Age paragraph. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 Talk Contribs 00:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
It is not a matter of "support". This is NOT a consensus item. This edit needs prevalence in reliable sources, not prevalence among editors WP:UNDUE. I would suggest following Mmyotis's lead in using this section to supply reliable references, Then we can follow up any WP:UNDUE questions. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Yep. I'm all for that 'provide refs here' bit. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 Talk Contribs 01:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Last time I checked, the "consensus" rule overides the other policies. InternetHero (talk) 02:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
There's no consensus here though.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Please also note "Policies and guidelines document communal consensus rather than creating it" (wp:consensus, at the top). i.e. there is already consensus that an article meet WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR. So you have to meet that consensus first, before you can claim some further consensus here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Your "consensus" argument is somewhat undermined by the fact that back in October you yourself ignored the existing consensus version of this article and, without discussion, tossed out the wording that a number of other editors, with much sweat and effort, achieved collaboratively back in August. Mmyotis (^^o^^) 23:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Just to give you an example of this. The Sky at Night the UK astronomy programme just recently had a program on the history of telescopes.[42] They never mentioned Ibn al-Haytham and I don't think they mentioned Taqi al-Din at all either, they just went straight to the actual first working practical telescopes and went on from there. I don't think we're being unreasonable here in any way, and none of us are clamouring to remove it from the history article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Compare the situation with Camera#History. In that case there's a much, much more direct connection to Ibn al-Haytham than there is with telescope, in every way. A camera obscure is not precisely a camera as you think of it, but it has many of the features. With telescopes we don't have any evidence of that degree of invention of telescopes.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
My "tossing out the wording that a number of other editors" was because they did not meet WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR. You cannot have a consensus that ignores those policies and consensus guidelines, unless you are planning to change those core policies first. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
You make this claim as if it is a fact, but it is not. It is your opinion, and as such it is an opinion that ignores the fact that a consensus was reached through the collaboration of a number of editors all of whom have their own opinions.
There are reliable sources that document the connection between the work of Ibn al-Haytham and Taqi al-Din and the development of the telescope, and they were provided in the section you deleted. There was no original research; at least, you have not yet documented any here.
The bottom line is that there is no concrete justification for keeping the information you deleted out of this article. If there is a POV issue, it lies in the fact that you are trying to force your opinion into this article by refusing to allow a section that was created through the process of compromise and accomodation to stand while working toward a new compromise that is acceptable to everyone. Mmyotis (^^o^^) 18:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
"Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors" WP:UNDUE. "The bottom line" is that none of the editors involved were bothering to show prevalence in reliable sources, they were just quoting single sources that were off topic (an article on Ibn al-Haytham is not an article about the history of the telescope by definition), and some sources (such as Powers) were unreliable as used by consensus guidelines. That is the definition of creating an article by Synthesis. Have a look at the bottom of the section Talk:Optical telescope#Is this the best way to resolve the dispute? where I have listed the reliable sources on the history of telescope/optics that have been used so far in these articles and see what the prevalence in reliable sources is. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The undue weight policy is intended to help editors decide how to deal with fringe theories. In this case we are not discussing how to handle a fringe theory, but whether or not to include a set of non-controversial facts. WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and its concern with prevalence in reliable sources is not relevant to this discussion. Mmyotis (^^o^^) 23:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE is not a fringe theory policy, it covers all Wikipedia content, fringe theory is just one extreme example given. It is a major part of WP:NPOV and goes hand in hand with WP:V and WP:OR in this case. Fringe theories are handled at Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed - undue weight is part of the NPOV policy; WP:FRINGE is a guideline expanding on the policy as it relates to fringe theories. - Eldereft (cont.) 03:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
You have misunderstood my point. Both WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV are about viewpoints. They are intended to insure that articles fairly represent all significant viewpoints. But, unless I am mistaken, this discussion is not about viewpoints or fairness, it is about facts and whether or not to include certain facts in an article. Encyclopedias are intended to provide information on certain subjects and you are arguing that there is a reason that we should not include the information on Ibn al-Haytham and Taqi al-Din. What is the policy that supports your argument for not including the information on Ibn al-Haytham and Taqi al-Din? If you honestly believe WP:NPOV applies, then please demonstrate how. Mmyotis (^^o^^) 10:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
You know, the more you argue like this, the more I begin to wonder whether the history of telescope article is also over-representing the contributions of Ibn al-Haytham to telescopes. Telescopes were invented when the technology in lenses had advanced to the point where high quality lenses were suitable to make telescopes. Ibn al-Haytham, so far as I am aware never described anything remotely like telescopes, whereas other later writings did talk explicitly about these devices. The kind of argument you're making, that a general discussion and creation of physical principles should be mentioned everywhere the principles were used, would lead to Newton being mentioned in practically every single case of a mechanical device mentioned in the Wikipedia. I think that would be.. unreasonable. And I extend this unreasonableness to precisely the same argument you are making.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 05:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
If Ibn al-Haytham had left explicit writings clearly describing telescopes, this would be very different. But he simply describes magnification- something that can be done with a single lens. A single lens is never correctly considered, so far as I am aware, to be an optical telescope.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 05:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Really, adding him to this article would be claiming false credit for him for something he never did, and there is a strong argument for removing him from the history article also.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 05:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Your statements are disengenuous. First, the material in question includes reliable sources which specifically draw the connection between the Islamic contributions to optics and the development of the telescope.
Second, perhaps you should re-read the material under discussion:
"In the 10th and 11th centuries, during the Islamic Golden Age, Ibn Sahl[1] and Ibn al-Haytham[1][2] made advances in the physical and mathematical understanding of optics that were essential to the development of spectacle quality lenses and the telescope. There is some documentary evidence, but no surviving designs or physical evidence, that the principles of telescopes were known to Leonard Digges,[3] Taqi al-Din[4] and Giambattista della Porta[5] in the late 16th century."
Your suggestion that this somehow claims false credit for something Ibn al-Haytham never did is an outright lie.
Third, there is no reasonable argument for censoring the material from the article. Mmyotis (^^o^^) 06:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

In the 10th and 11th centuries, during the Islamic Golden Age, Ibn Sahl[1] and Ibn al-Haytham[1][2] made advances in the physical and mathematical understanding of optics that were essential to the development of spectacle quality lenses and the telescope. There is some documentary evidence, but no surviving designs or physical evidence, that the principles of telescopes were known to Leonard Digges,[3] Taqi al-Din[4] and Giambattista della Porta[5] in the late 16th century

How about this then? When considering whether something is important enough to go here, or whether it should be summarized away, I consider the fact that this is a summary-style part of another article. What I usually do then is copy the introduction from the other article here. But when I just went across there just now; none of this was considered important enough to be in the lead there either. So it's definitely, doubly not suitable to be here which has even less space.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not currently an involved editor in that article so I can't comment on its deficiencies. I am interested, however, in this article, and in hearing reasons why the information under discussion should not be included in it. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information. As a user of Wikipedia, I personally would be very interested in seeing this interesting information included in the text of the article. That is my argument for including it. Your comment, that the information is not important enough to be included, is extremely unsatisfying. Arguments about the "importance" of factual information (as distinct from those about the importance of minority viewpoints) are not consistent with the purpose of an encyclopedia, and there is no wikipedia policy that supports it. Mmyotis (^^o^^) 15:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
The material in question is included in an article, and that article is History of the telescope. The reasons why not to include it here is contained in WP:SUMMARY, specifically Avoidance of POV forks which takes you back to WP:N WP:NPOV. "importance of factual information" is consistent with the purpose of an encyclopedia and is covered at WP:UNDUE, namely the word "prominence". You have to assess prominence in reliable sources on the subject, in this case, reference works specifically about the history of the telescope. Assessing prominence by saying "hey, I have sources in articles other than "history of telescopes" and it should be included" is building an article by Synthesis. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
It would be helpful if you explained how you think the guidelines apply when you wikilink them. What exactly do you see in WP:SUMMARY that you think is relevant? I ask because I don't see any relevancy. As I already pointed out, this is not a POV issue, we are discussing the inclusion of a relevant and referenced fact. WP:N specifically states: These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles. In other words, it does not apply. In fact, neither WP:SUMMARY nor WP:N contains a justification for censoring facts from articles.
You've deleted material that was produced through the wikipedia process of consensus editing. In all these months since you have not offered even one suggestion toward a compromise, nor raised any demonstrably legitimate objection to the material you deleted. How about we just return the deleted sentences to the article and move on to another subject? Mmyotis (^^o^^) 05:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
WP:SUMMARY has to do with sections that are summaries of other articles (which this is). That is the relevance. You may read my comments here and at Talk:optical telescope for my reasons and suggestions and legitimate objections. Also look at the duplicate section at Optical telescope where most relevant sentences are double or triple referenced to reliable secondary sources (the criteria we should be meeting). If you chose to ignore all of that there is nothing more I can do for you. Re: compromise - those compromises have already been stated at Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Content should meet those guidelines first before we start "compromising" here. Re:"WP:N... my bad.... WP:NPOV. For the relevant content policies see': Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, and What Wikipedia is not. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you keep saying that WP:SUMMARY applies, but when I ask you to demonstrate how it would prohibit the material you've deleted you ignore me. Look, I'd like to reach some agreement on this issue, so let's work together in good faith to reach some understanding. I've read the guidline and I see nothing that supports your contention that the material can or should be deleted. If you think WP:SUMMARY supports your case, then paraphrase the relevant portions and explain how.
And yes, you keep saying that WP:NPOV applies, but it seems clear it does not. We are not talking about facts that are in contention. There is no "other side" claiming that these islamic investigators did not do the work or have the influence that I and other editors have documented in this article. I have stated this numerous times and you have never contradicted it. Doesn't that mean you agree with me? Mmyotis (^^o^^) 02:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
The applicable section of WP:SUMMARY, which I have cited several times, is the one on the Avoidance of POV forks. I and many other editors have pointed out that the summary that is being "pushed" here does not match the summary at History of telescopes, nor is it an accurate summary of the entire article, nor is it even backed up by reliable references. It is being skewed to support a POV (clearly stated by LOTRrules directly below these post BTW). As such it is a POV Fork, re: "A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts."
Re: WP:NPOV, content forks specifically relate to WP:NPOV. And you keep missing the fact that Wikipedia has many interlocking core content policies. You cannot simply meet WP:V by cite "facts" to reach a novel conclusion using sources not directly related to the article's subject because you then run into WP:OR, namely WP:SYNTH. I have seen no reliable (and/or reliably quoted) sources that support the POV that is being pushed. It is not my job to disprove it, it is the other editors job to prove it. And since we do have sources that say specifically that "Islamic investigator" (and all other optical theory for that mater) DID NOT have anything to do with the invention of the refracting telescope[43] then we again follow WP:SYNTH re: "sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion", then it should not be included at best and is WP:OR at worst. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
If we're talking about theoretical considerations, with perhaps some practical work as well Leonard Digges (scientist) has a very much better claim as I understand it, his writings clearly describe optical telescopes, and only some doubts about whether there is an exaggeration of how well his instruments work in practice prevents him from firmly taking the outright claim to have invented everything.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Leonard Digges may or may not have invented a telescope, the claims are made from analysis of his sons writings and other second hand sources[44]. The problem is it is more of a footnote in history (covered in History of the telescope) than a summary citation because no one knew about it at the time - i.e it did not contribute to the historical development of the telescope. What Digges created is so sketchy it is hard to even include him along with the well know theoretical work of Bonaventura Cavalieri, Marin Mersenne, and James Gregory. We may want to watch out for cultural bias in attributing a major roll in the history of telescopes to Leonard Digges because he is English and he gets major play in the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, an English publication used as a source for Wikipedia articles. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh for goodness sakes Fountains of Bryn Mawr Mmyotis has a point. You're searching very hard and finding something in the policies which isn't there. It is just one line of interesting fact. Does it bother you that much? LOTRrules Talk Contribs 21:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
We all know for example that Al-Haytham is regarded as the worlds first scientist and the Father of Optics. IF the policies you quote are in any way supportive of your stance, which they aren't, then clearly there is something wrong with the policies. It's just common sense. LOTRrules Talk Contribs 21:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I came here thinking I had to find a point, but there doesn`t seem to be anything worth discussing here. Let`s just add the literature already. InternetHero (talk) 03:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. LOTRrules Talk Contribs 18:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, right.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Discuss. We have made our points already a million times. Discuss. 216.223.90.33 (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
It's simply an extreme case of undue weight. There's very few sources that cover this, and all the ones that do are much longer. This is supposed to be a quick summary of the other article only, and they're just not notable enough in the context of a quick summary. Even the mention in history of the telescope is far far briefer in percentage terms.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Add to that the fact that not a single reliable source has been put forward to directly support the information as it is presented. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Telescopes? Really? We've had to protect telescopes because of edit wars? Now I have seen everything. Ikilled007 (talk) 10:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
References: Designing the perfect lens (bottom of 6th paragraph) Physics and Optics(pg 5, 2nd paragraph) NY Times: Best idea; Eyes wide closed(pg 3, 3rd paragraph) Ending InternetHero (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Please read WP:RS some day and you will save us allot of trouble. "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand WP:RS". So in other words.... these general opinion pieces on the subject of Islamic contribution may by be reliable if cited as opinion in relation to say, Alhazen's history and his work on optics, but these are not authoritative, fact checked, and scrutinized sources that specifically deal with the history of the telescope----> 'the subject at hand'. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Meh---how can the NY Times not be a reliable source? Meh. InternetHero (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

When they change their name to "The New York History of the Telescope" they will be perfectly fine. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I see the edit warring over this paragraph has started again. Kevin (talk) 03:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it has been quite this long because one editor invloved is blocked indefinitely[45]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

camera obscura

i don't see any reference to the camera obscura. should it be included as an example of a telescope? Bob Emmett (talk) 04:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

We tried that already. For some reason the invention of the lens and paracmeters of convex and concave properties as well as the magnyfying properties of such devices don't compare to the limited space we have in terms of history. The history as far as this article is concerned, is concerned with non-history. InternetHero (talk) 09:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The simpler answer is that the camera obscura, like many other early optical devices, is not a telescope since it lacks the one key invention, the eyepiece lens[46]. Could be added to History of the telescope.Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)