Talk:History of the telescope

"Cutting"

I know it needs a lot of work I beginned some edits but found a conflict with you. Ericd 22:34 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)

I've cutted this part :

William Molyneux, in his Dioptrica Nova (1692), p. 256, declares his opinion that Roger Bacon (who died circa 1294) did perfectly well understand all kinds of optic glasses, and knew likewise the method of combining them so as to compose some such instrument as our telescope. He cites a passage from Bacon's Opus Majus, p. 377 of Jebb's edition, 1733, translated as follows:- "Greater things than these may be performed by refracted vision."

For it is easy to understand by the canons above mentioned that the greatest objects may appear exceedingly small, and the contrary, also that the most remote objects may appear justat hand, and the converse; for we can give such figures to transparent bodies, and dispose them in such order with respect to the eye and the objects, that the rays shall be refracted and bent towards any place we please, so that we shall see the object near at hand or at any distance under any angle we please. And thus from an incredible distance we may read the smallest letters, and may number the smallest particles of dust and sand, by reason of the greatness of the angle under which we see them. . . . Thus also the sun, moon and stars may be made to descend hither in appearance, and to be visible over the heads of our enemies, and many things of the like sort, which persons unacquainted with such things would refuse to believe.?

Molyneux also cites from Bacon's Epistola ad Parisiensem, "Of the Secrets of Art and Nature," chap. 5:- "Glasses or diaphanous bodies may be so formed that the most remote objects may appear just at hand, and the contrary, so that we may read the smallest letters at an incredible distance, and may number things, though never so small, and may make the stars also appear as near as we please." These passages certainly prove that Bacon had very nearly, if not perfectly, arrived at theoretical proof of the possibility of constructing a telescope and a microscope; but his writings give no account of the trial of an actual telescope, nor any detailed results of the application of a telescope to an examination of the heavens. It has been pointed out by Dr Robert Smith, in his Complete System of Oplicks, that Bacon imagines some effects of telescopes which cannot be performed by them, and his conclusion is that Bacon never actually looked through a telescope.

Giambattista della Porta, in his Magia Naturalis, printed in 1558, makes the following remarkable statement:- If you do but know how to join the two (viz.,the concave and the convex glasses) rightly together, you will see both remote and near objects larger than they otherwise appear, aiid withal very distinct.?

Wolfius infers from this passage that its author was the first actual constructor of a telescope, and it appears not improbable that by happy accident Porta really did make some primitive form of telescope which excited the wonder of his friends. Here, however, his interest in the matter appears to have ceased, and he was unable either to appreciate the importance of his discovery or to describe the means by which the object was attained. Kepler, who examined Porta?s account of his concave and convex lenses by desire of his patron the emperor Rudolph, declared that it was perfectly unintelligible. Poggendorfi (Gesch. der Physik, p. 134) throws considerable doubt on the originality of Porta?s statement.

Thomas Digges, in his Stratioticus, p. 359, published in 1579, States that his father, Leonard Digges, ?among other curious practices had a method of discovering by perspective glasses set at due angles all objects pretty far distant that the sun shone upon, which lay in the country round about, ?and that this was by the help of a manuscript book of Roger Bacon of Oxford, who he conceived was the only man besides his father who knew it. There is also the following passage in the Pantometria (bk. i. chap. 21) of Leonard Digges 1 (originally published by his son. Thomas in 1571, and again in 1591):- ?Marvellous are the conclusions that may be performed by glasses concave and convex, of circular and parabolic forms, using for multiplication of beams sometime the aid of glasses transparent, which, by fraction, should unite or dissipate the images or figures presented by the reflection of other.?

He then describes the effects of magnification from a combination of lenses or mirrors, adding:- ? But of these conclusions I minde not here to intreate, having at large in a volume2 by itselfe opened the miraculous effects of perspective glasses.?

It is impossible to discredit the significance of these quotations, for the works in which they occur were published more than twenty years before the original date claimed for the discovery of the telescope in Holland.

Ericd 23:02 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)

Another cut : Descartes, in his treatise on Dia?ptrks (1637), attributes the discovery to Metius "about thirty years ago," whilst Schyraelus de Rheita, a Capuchin friar, in his Oculus Enoch el Eliae (Antwerp, 5645), gives the credit to Lippershey about 1609. Peter Borel, physician to the king of France, publishied at The Hague, in 1655, a work De Vero Telescopli Inventore. He was assisted in its preparation by William Borel, Dutch envoy at the court of France, and the latter declares, as the result of patient investigation, that Jansen and his father were the real inventors of the telescope in 1610, and that Lippershey only made a telescope after hints accidentally communicated to him of the details of Jansen?s invention. But the most trustworthy information on the subject is to be got from the researches of J. H. van Swinden.5 Briefly summarized, this evidence is as follows. In the library of the university of Leyden, amongst the MSS. of Huygens there is an original copy of a document (dated 17th October 1608) addressed to the statesgeneral by Jacob Andrianzoon (the same individual who is called James Metius by Descartes), petitioning for the exclusive right of selling an instrument of his invention by which distant objects appear larger and more distinct. He states that he had discovered the instrument by accident when engaged in making experiments, and had so far perfected it that distant objects were made as visible and distinct by his instrument as could be done with the one which had been lately offered to the states by a citizen and spectaclemaker of Middelburg. Among the acts of the states-general preserved in the government archives at The Hague, Van Swinden found that on 2nd October 1608 the assembly of the states took into consideration the petition of Hans Lippershey, spectacle-maker, a native of Wesel and an inhabitant of Middelburg, inventor of an instrument for seeing at a distance. On 4th October a committee was appointed to test the instrument, and on the 6th of the same month the assembly agreed to give Lippershey 900 forms for his instrument. Further, on the I 5th December of the same year they examined an instrument invented by Lippershey at their request to see with both eyes, and gave him orders to execute two similar instruments at 900 forms each; but, as many other persons had knowledge of this new invention to see at a distance, they did not deem it expedient to grant him an exclusive privilege to sell such instruments. The dates of these documents dispose effectually of Borel?s statement that Lippershey borrowed the ideas of Jansen in 1610. They also prove that, whilst Metius was in possession of a telescope, with which he may have experimented, about the time when Lippershey presented his application for patent rights, yet he makes no pretension that Lippershey borrowed the invention from him. The conclusion is that Lippershey was the first person who independently invented the telescope, and ?at the same time made the instrument known to the world. The common story is that Lippershey, happening one day, whilst holding a spectacle-lens in either hand, to direct them towards the steeple of a neighbouring church, was astonished, on looking through the nearer lens, to find that the weathercock appeared nearer and more distinct. He fitted the lenses in a tube, in order to adjust and preserve their relative distances, and thus constructed his first telescope. But doubt may be thrown on this traditional account owing to the further statement that the image of the weathercock so viewed was seen turned upside down. All

---

In my opinion, it's should be better to delete and rewrite this one. -- looxix 01:42 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

I think it can be cuted a lot and then expanded. Ericd 08:12 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

Telescope is an object invented. The principles that make in possible (reflection, refraction, focusing of light, etc. were discovered, but not the telescope. One discovers something that exist in nature. Telescopes do not. --AstroNomer 07:25, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)

Belgian?

How can Galileo have heard a Belgian invented a telescope if Belgium and the concept of being "Beligian" did not exist then (unless of course he thought a Gallic tribesman from the first century BC had invented it).? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurian Legend (talk • contribs) 20:29, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Tone Improved

This does need more work, but I've quickie-cleaned it up today in quite a few places. Is the tone of it still so bad? Nov 21, 2007 -Rstevec

P.S. No more Belgian.

After a little more cleanup I've removed the "inappropriate tone" tag, but left the "expert help needed" tag. -Rstevec (talk) 08:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing

This article apparently goes back to the wild and woolly days (early 2000's) when people just grabbed passages from the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica and pasted them directly into Wikipedia. Perhaps someone who watches over this area could properly footnote the Brittanica passages? You can find them on Google. Opus33 (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

redo of page

I have edited this page from its original form[1] to this[2]. In my edits I tried to remove redundancy generated by allot of piecemeal editing and to improve the wording (there was a lot of Victorian and Edwardian terms that need upgrading) and also to fit WP:MOS and WP:INTRO. I have also removed portions that were irrelevant to telescopes, such as "observing tubes" and history of optics material. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ibn Al-Haytham

I removed the edits concerning Ibn Al-Haytham as the inventor of the telescope from the introduction. Firstly the introduction should be a summary of the article, not a place to add new information, referenced or otherwise. Secondly, I am surprised to see Oscar Marshall's "Alhazen and the Telescope" being used as reference for this claim since, in fact, Marshall makes it clear that "had he [Alhazen] 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," making it clear that he does not regard Alhazen as the originator of the telescope. Thirdly, in any quick summary of the history of the telescope it is surely correct to say that the telecope as we understand it really does begin in the 17th century. Finally this article has a section on the precursors to the telescope which already mentions Alhazen and his Book of Optics, which I am sure everyone would agree was an important and vital work in the history of optics. Singinglemon (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. No problemo. InternetHero (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with the "history of the telescope" beginning in the 17th century. To be absolutely fair, Galileo would of have had to have written, research, experimented, and created information on lenses and the laws of light. Without Al-Haytham, the telescope wouldn't have been produced in the 17th century. I don't have a reference proving this otherwise, but I have a reference proving that the telescopes' history directly dates abck to the 11th century—and Al-Haytham. Sincerely, InternetHero (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Below section has been moved to talk for better clarification. An object within a spherical medium at the spherical focus would be a magnifying glass or a microscope... not a telescope, so this is irrelevant to the article section "Pre-17th century telescopes?'. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

---

The earliest evidence of "a magnifying device, a convex lens forming a magnified image," dates back to the Book of Optics published by Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) in 1021. The properties of a magnifying lens became known to Europeans after the book was translated into Latin in the 12th century. Ibn al-Haytham described his magnifying lens as follows:

"If an 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 centre of the sphere, the object will appear magnified."

Early Optics

I've moved all the medieval precursors to the "Early optics" section. While I agree that the work of Alhazen, Grosseteste, Bacon, etc. on magnifying lenses were fundamental to the development of the telescope, I haven't seen any sources that actually claim they invented any telescopes themselves. The 16th century precursors, however, have at least been referred to as "telescopes" by some sources, so I've renamed that section to simply "16th century telescopes?" Jagged 85 (talk) 07:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources? Ah, the magic work my friend. This article from the NY-Times relates him.

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

This relates him.

A nice picture.

This article relates him.

This article mentions him.

This article mentions him.

Good stuff there. Sincerely, InternetHero (talk) 02:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Telescope for why these sources are not adequate. - DigitalC (talk) 04:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems your intent is to ruin my experience here on Wikipedia. I don't think it's a very good thing to do. You should be able to share experiences with other people in order to live life fully. I don't understand why you're following my contributions for Wikipedia and giving me the 'second-degree'.

An article from the NY Times fully justifies my addition to the article as well as some of the other references. I am merely trying to add light (no pun intended) and information to the (not this article) Optical telescope article... I have no intention to add more (I did like 2 hours of grammar, lol) to this article but on the Optical telescope page, I provided numerous references involving the information added. Sincerely, InternetHero (talk) 08:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not intent on ruining your Wikipedia experience. Hopefully you will become a collaborative contributor who is willing to listen to the opinions of other editors. I am not "following [your] contributions", other than the fact that obviously Telescope, History of telescopes and Optical telescope are all related, and you are pursuing the same edits at all three. DigitalC (talk) 00:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

A newspaper article isn't worth much as a source, writers can make all sorts of assertions in newspapers, without anyone being too bothered about the accuracy. Ideally, what you need are articles from refereed journals, especially if you are making a controversial claim. Failing that, references to reputable textbooks might be acceptable as well. Singinglemon (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. When you read the 2nd paragrpah on this page, it says:

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

That is my reason to disagree. I hope that doesn't offend any of you... InternetHero (talk) 01:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Honest 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). I hope you will reconsider. InternetHero (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I restored some of your grammar edits, although not those which seemed to be fairly neutral changes to the sentences. You spotted a few typos and some missing commas which others had missed. The attempt to add an extra sentence-and-a-half can't really be called "merely a grammar edit" though. Singinglemon (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I didn't "completely" add a sentence though—I added my Richard Powers reference. Anyway, the sentence that I put wan't made by me: it was made by Jagged85. Please start giving me the benefit of the doubt. Like I did: here (look at the edit-summary). I hope you can see my position now.

P.S. I also want to add the sentence Jagged85 and I put. Somewhere along these lines, it would say: "This was significant to the history of the 1st telescope." Does anyone disagree? InternetHero (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could draft the exact sentence that you want to add in, and where it will be added? - DigitalC (talk) 01:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Basically, the bolded part:

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—who cites Ibn al-Haytham by name (as Alhazen). These works were significant to the early history of optical telescopes.<ref>Richard Powers (University of Illinois),Best Idea; Eyes Wide Open, New York Times, April 18, 1999. (page 4)</ref>

Thanks for you time. InternetHero (talk) 01:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is it important to note that he cites al-Haytham by name? We have already mentioned that al-Haytham's book influenced European scientists. For the statement "these works were significant to the early history of optical telescopes, which part the reference do you feel backs up that statement? At this point, yes I disagree to the re-addition of this information. - DigitalC (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, if it causes you so much grief—I will revert my position. Please be advised that any more of these compromises I alone seem to induce has a fine line between the advent of me not being able to contribute at all—to any article for that matter. I hope this is not what you want. Thanks for you time. InternetHero (talk) 02:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not a matter of causing grief, it is a matter of following the policies of Wikipedia. You did not answer the questions I left for you above. Nothing here is preventing you from contibuting (in a positive manner) from this article, let alone any other article. - DigitalC (talk) 03:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

"Which part the reference do you feel backs up that statement?" Basically all of them therein. I also don't understand the direction of statements like these:

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 (Alhazan), 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)

I don't want to copy-paste here, but it seems I have to:

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.

Try and read these if you can. Using the latter, you'll see that information isn't blindly added: instead, the information must follow a call from ambiguity. I have a [reliable source] in the NY Times, but that doesn't override Wikipedia: Dispute resolution. As I said earlier, most people don't know that Al-Haytham is a fundamental precursor to the telescope. That is a call for knowledge my friend. InternetHero (talk) 04:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I have read WP:NOT#DIC previously, and don't see how it applies here. However, I agree what WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information - that is precisely why we don't add everything that is verifiable. I have discussed the NY times source previously, and if you bring it up again, I feel that it will be an example of WP:IDHT. However, I will explain again (even though you just quoted me above), that the NY times reference "mentions the telescope in only 1 short sentence". - DigitalC (talk) 04:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the fact that some people may not know "that Al-Haytham is a fundamental precursor to the telescope" is NOT a reason for inclusion within telescope. What would be a reason for inclusion is if there was a reference on telescopes (or, for History of telescopes a reference on the history of telescopes), that mentioned al-Haytham's importance. - DigitalC (talk) 05:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I diagree. If you have time, try and look at this page. The sentence that mentions the NY Times paper wasn't done in my best interest. Are you reading it properly? Try reading it again. Nevertheless, I don't feel you haven't refuted that particular reference or the other ones. Try reading this page. The NY Times article is in fact a reliable source, and I have no idea how your arguements against them should have any weight:

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 (Alhazan), 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)

It seems (by your logic) that I—as an editor that has the right to add information that she/he sees helpful and/or justified—musn't make descriptive claims of any can relating to a verifiable source. Sir, you're are misleading me in a circle of unrationality: Wikipedia NoR:

Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:

* only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and

* make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.

Furthermore, Reliable sources are as such:

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

I don't understand you're arguement. The article is fine the way it is—although, I liked my version better since it had a better structure. All I want to do is add a sentence and I think my arguement here has justified that right.

I have read WP:NOT#DIC previously, and don't see how it applies here. However, I agree what WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information - that is precisely why we don't add everything that is verifiable. I have discussed the NY times source previously, and if you bring it up again, I feel that it will be an example of WP:IDHT. However, I will explain again (even though you just quoted me above), that the NY times reference "mentions the telescope in only 1 short sentence". - DigitalC (talk) 04:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC) For the record, the fact that some people may not know "that Al-Haytham is a fundamental precursor to the telescope" is NOT a reason for inclusion within telescope. What would be a reason for inclusion is if there was a reference on telescopes (or, for History of telescopes a reference on the history of telescopes), that mentioned al-Haytham's importance. - DigitalC (talk) 05:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Different people have different levels of desired details my friend.

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 (Alhazan), and that he should be mentioned on telescope. DigitalC (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I can solve this arguement if you read the arguement above in coherence with mine found here:

The bolded word represents his intentions—centerfold. My "claim" has multiple references that are fully practical to Wikipedias' five pillars. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This all boils down to Mr. DigitalC trying to impose my "claim"; my claim—or better yet, "right" to edit according to the five pillars.

Thanks for your time. Sincerely, InternetHero (talk) 10:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of WP:NOT#DIC is that articles should not simply be a dictionary definition, and an article should not be created just to define a word (thats what Wiktionary is for). That does not apply to this article, or any other article where you have been repeatedly posting WP:NOT#DIC. Further, your "claim" does not have ANY references which support inclusion in this article, due to WP:UNDUE. Please refrain from calling me "Mr. DigitalC" in the future. DigitalC (talk) 01:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. This is the discussion page. You haven't refuted my "claims" (backed up by a ref. from the NY Times and six other websites), so there is only one other explanation. Thats what the talk-page is for. I don't care, I won't call you "Mr." anymore. InternetHero (talk) 23:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

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.

[3] [4]

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 NOT add a paragraph. His work deserves to be given a mention. 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)

Truce

I request what holds herein, friend. Good day. InternetHero (talk) 05:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Saturns' satellites vs Saturn's satellites

Saturn is a planet. It is named Saturn, not Saturns. Therefore, its possession of its satellites should be "Saturn's satellites", not "Saturns' satellites". I corrected this on the article, but was reverted, with the edit summary stating that it was "common". A quick google search turns up 209 hits for Saturns' satellites, vs. 10,200 hits for Saturn's satellites. It is obvious which is more common, as well as correct. DigitalC (talk) 00:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No arguement here. InternetHero (talk) 23:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Bravura

• This edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_telescope&diff=229494916&oldid=229126131) changed "His writings show that but for this confidence he would have arrived sooner at a discovery for which his mind was fully prepared." to "His writings show that with the exception of his bravura for this confidence, he would have arrived sooner at a discovery for which his mind was fully prepared.". Bravura is an adjective, not a noun. Either way, this sentence is extremely wordy. Any ideas how we can fix this sentence?
• I am also considering changing "Dollond was aware of the conditions necessary for the attainment of achromatism in refracting telescopes, but long placed implicit reliance on the accuracy of experiments made by so illustrious a philosopher as Newton." to "...made by Newton". Comments?

- DigitalC (talk) 01:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

That is what I was trying to tcontribute. Bravura isn't an adjective—its' a verb. InternetHero (talk) 23:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Bravura isn't a verb. However, the usage which you used uses it as a noun, which it CAN be used, so I was wrong to think it is only an adjective (it can be used as an adjective as well). Either way, I still think this sentence is quite wordy. Do you have any suggestions on how to clarify it? What do you think about the proposal to remove "so illustrious a philosopher as"? - DigitalC (talk) 23:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Bravura is having a false sense of confidence. If he is sensing it, it is a verb (an action). Please leave it, its looks and read better with flavouring of words. You don't need references for that. InternetHero (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It may look and read better to you, but I still find it incredibly wordy. You still have not responded to my proposal to remove "so illustrious a philosopher as", so I will likely be bold and remove it in a few days. As for Bravura, please see http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bravura. DigitalC (talk) 01:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit

This edit added "With time and effort" to an existing sentence. Do we have a source that verifies this claim? In addition, it changed "It was not until 1891 that Michelson successfully used this technique for the measurement of astronomical angular diameters— the diameters of Jupiter's satellites (Michelson 1891)." to "It was not until 1891 that Michelson successfully used this technique for the measurement of astronomical angular diameters: the diameters of Jupiter's satellites (Michelson 1891)." with the edit summary including "colons are used to list while dashes are used top add singular clauses for effect". However, one cannot list one thing (in this case diameters), and it is a singular clause. - DigitalC (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You're in need of a job my friend. I am trying to CONTRIBUTE. If you keep this up, I'll have no choice but to end my attempt at dispute resolution and try and contact an administrator. Your contributions to the usage of an apostraphe was very good. Why don't you accept me as a contributer to Wikipedia? I don't understand. InternetHero (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I do accept you as a contributer to Wikipedia, and have tried to help improve your contributions. If it weren't for your recent grammar overhaul to the page, I wouldn't have had the impetus to do the same. While I corrected a lot of errors introduced by you during that overhaul, I also corrected a lot of errors that I would not have otherwise noticed. - DigitalC (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool. InternetHero (talk) 23:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)