Talk:Microscope

Action

I have to read through the talk here to try and get something done about the future of this article. It seems that people agree on what should be done, it just needs doing!!

Here is an outline of what I believe a sensible solution is for the microscopy, microscope and all other related pages:

• Microscope and microscopy should become portal style pages, with summary articles and links to pages on the individual types of microscopy (optical, electron, etc.) and pages on the physical principles of basic microscopes (ie. optics, resolution, electron optics, etc.)
• Microscope should be written from a physical viewpoint, ie. the physics and history of microscopes, as microscopes are the actual instrument. Microscopy should be written from a more practical viewpoint, ie. the usage and reasons for usage of the different techniques.
• Optical microscope needs its own page, similar to electron microscope. Relevant information on individual optical microscopy instruments and techniques need to be moved to this page.
• Each individual microscopy technique and microscope type (eg. phase contrast, scanning electron, etc.) needs its own page, no matter how short - it is better to have a stub for expansion than a long and confusing parent article.

Finally and most importantly:

• microscope and microscopy should be kept short and simple. They are introductory pages to what is a very wide and in depth region of science. Detail should be confined to more focussed articles.

You have a week to make your comments, and, unless there are any major complaints, im going to get started! Zephyris 20:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This would greatly reduce the content of the microscope page and move large portions of it to the optical microscope page. Personally I think this is a good idea, but may upset the Wikipedia CD Selection and WikiProject on Physics projects...

Random reader says: I wish there was more detail on the microscope page as to HOW a microscope works.

Which type of microscope is of interest? For optical microscopes see Optical microscope#How a microscope works... - Zephyris _Talk 00:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Stereo microscope

I don't think a stereo microscope is the same as a binocular microscope. In a typical binocular microscope the light passes through a prism which splits the light. This would make each image to each eye-piece identical and not provide stereo vision.--Rjstott 11:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Good point and should be added to the article. However, I am not sure that "binocular" does not also include "stereo" microscopes which would require two oculars. Industry termionology is not very disciplined, but I like your explanation - Marshman 17:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Simple optical microscope

This article doesn't clearly explain how a simple (single lens) optical microscope works and *why* it makes things look bigger than they really are. I wish I knew...!

It needs a drawing to show that, such as those presented at lens (optics) - Marshman 17:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I've been studying microscopes and, from what I've seen, the image formed by the objective is REAL, not virtual. The eyepiece then forms a vitual image, which is focused at around 25 cm, not at infinity. Can someone check this info? Luke poa 13:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The image viewed by the eypiece is a virtual representation of the specimen being examined. Effectively the eypiece is examining an aerial image that is only made real if projected onto a screen. As there is no intermediate screen in the tube of the microscope, the image within the tube is referred to as a virtual image. Velela 13:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Microscope Objectives

From my experience with optical microscopes, I have heard of 200x objectives, giving up to ~2000x zoom, and do not have to be oil immersion (you do not need to alter your sample... at least this is true for the 100x lens I often use). I think the objectives section should be modified, perhaps into another section, as there are a lot of different kinds of objectives and properties (working distance, numerical arpeture, depth of field, immersion type, etc). muie!!

Timetravler or missunderstanding?

"He developed an occhiolino or compound microscope with a convex and a concave lens in 1609. Galilei´s microscope was celebrated in the ´Lynx academy´ founded by Federico Cesi in 1603." So his microscope was celebrated befor it was invetned? --213.67.162.238

I think that it's saying that the academy was founded in 1603 not that the microscope was celebrated then. Navilluss (talk) 05:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge with Microscopy

I would oppose any merge with Microscopy. A microscope is the instrument or the tool with which work is done. Microscopy describes the techniques for which a microscope is used. It would be like merging Automobile and Driving
Velela 17:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur with, second, and whatever other sort of formal grace is appropriate, Velela's opinion and conclusion.

--Erielhonan 05:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I oppose too. Microscopy should eventually be split into the various techniques much as welding has been (e.g., TIG welding, MIG welding, etc.). Right now there isn't quite enough material for that, but really DIC, fluorescence, confocal, two-photon, FRAP, FRET, etc. should get a full discussion on their own page. —BenFrantzDale 02:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that they are two different subjects and should not be merged. Merge template removed in line with general opinion. Snowman 11:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

So, consensus seemed to be to oppose merge and remove template - yet the template is still up.... Reversion of Snowman's edit by User:Sarah Ewart seems to be the "how" part - any one know the "why" part? (I suppose I could just ask the user who reverted - nah, too easy). MarcoTolo 02:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The history of the microscope reads like a thriller novel. You definitely must not merge with anything else! I agree that separate stories should be filled out about the various optical instruments created by van Leeuwenhoek and others. The great thing about van Leeuwenhoek was that he invented the thing to look at his own sperm! The British society was extremely jealous and kept asking for his microscope because his drawings were so cool. Jane 15:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Slicky post

Okay so i tried to cover some of the available microscopes and listed them. It is pretty useless to make articles for them all so i recommend to link them with appropriate good inet articles, and perhaps in addition wikipedias articles. Guys foremost wikipedia should be about giving knowledge, thus make sure u provide the best available sources to others, that is either make a damn good specific microscope article or link to a damn good article on the web. Thanks. Slicky 18:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

NOTE

Note: This article covers many techniques, which however contrary to possible belief, still only represent an excerpt of the microscope designs/techniques/principles that exist, and thus cannot be seen as a summary or comprehensive overview.Slicky 09:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Slicky - I'm not sure what this note means, or where it should be posted.... Could you help a slow editor (i.e. me) and interpret? -- MarcoTolo 17:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this article is intended to cover every conceivable sort of microscope, every technique used with any microscope, and the principles of operation of every microscope. You could write entire books on the subject. As an encyclopedia article, this is supposed to give the reader an overview and understanding of the subject in a fairly general way. Frankly, I think the article needs to be pruned down and reorganized. eaolson 18:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• "Hear, hear!" The entry is exceptionally long and needs a good trim. I assume that Microscope will end up as a "portal" entry, eventually, with a number of short decriptions and a Main article <here>–type format—at this point, however, the article is extremely unwieldy. That said, I don't have any concrete solutions to offer (I probably should of thought of that before I started writing, eh?). -- MarcoTolo 18:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Excellent stuff MarcoTolo, eaolson and Bookofjude this had become a sorry apology of an article. For what it is worth, I believe that further pruning is worth doing with the specilaised methods in their separate articles. I would restrict this to Conventional optical Microscope and its common variants together with Electon microscope and list all the rest in 'see also...

Velela 19:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I aggree with eaolson und velela, either there will be another article with somewhat like scientific use of the microscope or better yet an wikibook covering that topic. In the end wikipedia ain't really the right place for articles but merely for encyclopedic entries.Slicky 07:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Layout and order

There seem to be a lot of confusing and often contradictory editing of this article. My proposal is that:

1. It should start with a simple introduction (as we have) about the simple optical and the compound optical microscope, its history , how it works and a link to microscopy, all accompanied by the images relevant to those sections.
2. We should then have a section about the limitations and constraints of the optical microscope (including the optical limits on resolution) which can lead into topics on other types of microscope.
3. Detailed discussion of other types of microscope be limited to the Electon Microscope with only references to other types and links to other articles where practicable.

In this way we can create a high quality article of reasonable size that provides a robust introduction to the microscope and provides the links for the more intrepid enquirer. At present we have a mixture of leading edge research, images unmatched to text and little coherence. For a non-specialist reading this it makes little sense and the images in partuclar are most confusuing in their current context. Does this make sense? Comments and other suggestions welcomed. Velela 15:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

As I proposed above, and there being no adverse comments, I have greatly simplified this article. I have removed all the text and images relating to non optical microscopes and dumped it on the discussion page of Electron microscope which already dealt with many of the issues in the excised text. I would propose that the text on the discussion page is merged appropriately with the article Electron Microscope. The Microscope article is now much clearer and understandable but provides the appropriate link to the non optical microscopes. It also ensures that the relevant images accompany the appropriate text. Velela 20:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Good edits, I agree that the microscope article should cover only a general selection of information. Just to note that there is some info on the material to moved over to Talk:Electron microscope that isn't necessarily to do with electron microscopes - this may need a look? Mushin^talk 21:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't entirely disagree, but I think the article should at least cover non-optical microscopes. Perhaps in a fairly general way, but they should be here. I'd suggest the non-optical categories to include would be (a) electron, both scanning and transmission, and (b) scanning probe (AFM, etc.) Fairly broad descriptions with pointers to more specific articles would be sufficient. eaolson 21:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Despite my rather draconian edit, I do agree. However, I couldn't see the wood for the trees and would welcome some well measured inclusions of other types and/or links to other articles providing more detail.

Velela

I have reverted the reversion that Slicky made back to the readily understandable artic le concentrating on Optical Microscopes. There is a perfectly good article at Electron microscope that might benefit from additions, but the latest version by User:Slicky, is unccordinated, text is unmatched by images, and much makes too little sense. Please don't revert again without good reason and without a serious attempt to improve the article. Velela 16:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Slicky - articles have to be trimmed and cleaned regularly. To do this is not to 'destroy', it is a necessary part of keeping articles on wikipedia readable and concise. Mushin^talk 18:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Expansion

Look you guys i appreciate your input, but we cannot ignore the technological breakthroughs that have undergone. In reality the nanoscopes are what matters today, and push the envelope further each and every day. Without them my graduate research project as well as any technological forthcoming would be futile and we shouldn't ignore the fact that the classical optical microscopes belongs in a history section and be it even an own article. That is not to say that the principle shouldn't be explained but a page stuck full with 17 century photos doesn't belong to microscopy. Moreover microscopy is interchangeable with microscope whereas the first one refers to the underlying technique that is employed. Please give me your input on that matter. Sure WP should not be a crystal sphere or about orginial research but it should not be stuck in a 17th century knowledge-base either. Slicky 11:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

@Velela et al. If you cannot live with the article including recent information, and others feel the same way, then we will need another article. I suggest nanoscope, etc. But it is more reasonble to have a history of the microscope page instead. What i do not get is what bothers you so much about the site that you don't want to improve it. To me a microscope should be a survey of microscopes. Lemme know what you think. Also i put a lot of research into that matter, ultimately because i myself as a grad student in molecular biology have been working with SEM/TEMs at the university of vienna for quite some time and whilst it should not, i am of course a bit prejudices, so i apologize for that. What i had in mind is to give a survey to anyone who looks up the page, preferrably researchers/students and find about about the microscope that is best suited for their task. Sure there are better ways/ideas, but please lemme know of them and i sure will help you the best i can. In a way i also understand your worries, in that the average wikipedian looking up the term doesn't want to be overwhelmed with all that stuff and instead just wants to learn about the classic microscope that he or she may have at home. But wikipedia should also be for professionals, i mean just look at the math pages. Slicky 11:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Slicky - firstly you need to understand that you cannot just revert an article back to a previous state once more edits have been made. Even if the decision is made to merge this excised information back into the Microscope article, it must be done without throwing away edits made between the last revision and now. I have reverted your edit because of this.

Secondly, you say that wikipedia should also be for professionals and not just the 'average user'. However, wikipedia articles should never contain indiscriminate collections of information. In this case, a large list of unexplained technical data and specifications would be confusing to most readers. Therefore it is unacceptable in the present form; with no introductions or explanations, to be part of the article. Even if this information is put into the article, it needs to be cut down and simplified, with explanations of what these lists actually mean.

I quote the following from What is a good article?. "A good article is well written:

• it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to a non-specialist reader;
• where technical terms or necessary jargon appear they are briefly explained in the article itself (or, at the very least an active link is provided);
• it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together coverage of related aspects. Where appropriate (particularly for lengthier articles) it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is segmented into a proper system of hierarchical sections."

Please bear this in mind before making revertions based on what you think should constitute a wikipedia article, rather than what the vast majority of the wikipedia community thinks. Articles should be accessible to all levels of reader. By all means they can go into technical detail, as long as this detail is fully lead into and explained for the layman. As it is, the information you reinserted was not. Mushin^talk 14:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid I agree with Mushin. Reading this article isn't supposed to make one a microscopist. Filling it with huge amounts of jargon and acronyms for highly specialized microscopy techniques (I mean, friction force microscopy?) isn't useful for this article. Maybe the article is being visited by a kid from a third-world country that's never used a microscope before. It's necessary to start generally, and then get specific. The work that Slicky went to in his edits is appreciated, but they were highly uncategorized, rather unorganized, and the information was far too specialized for this general article. eaolson 04:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Correct and thus i myself placed a marker for cleanup and proof reading. I simply didn't have the time to do everything myself. However i agree with you at second thought that the microscope article itself should fit non-scientific and scientific people, especially science a scientist isn't likly to end up at the section microscope, considering that what he expects to find in this article is exactly what eaolson and others strongly and reasonable argued about.Slicky 07:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Sections, techniques?

Should Darkfield, Brightfield, phase contrast, oblique illumination, DIC etc. be included? And why does optic microscope redirect to microscope? Fad (ix) 00:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Problem

Some chav keeps inserting crap about elves, probably more, so should we protect the page, or not? --4.246.36.162 04:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've put this article on my watchlist. I'll try to keep tabs on it for a while. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 04:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

q fue brother qreis sexo dale mas duro papi "!!!!!!!!!

i'll take a wild stab and guess that this shouldn't be here, at the top of the second paragraph under the "Types" section. i don't know anything about editing wiki myself, just thought i'd point this out to someone who does.

216.99.65.64 20:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: "Observing tools" common template

There are lots of interesting stuff which allows to observe object optically and electrically, on different level of magnifying up to nanolevel - Atomic force microscope, Scanning tunneling microscope. It would be incredibly useful if all of them share the same template which would range all the possible devices from most-magnifying to least-magnifying; probable, there may be several levels/rows, to distinguish between optical ones and other kinds. Honeyman 19:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Fluorescence Microscopy

I do not understand why no one in the World has tried so far to "illuminate" the subject of Fluorescence Microscopy on these pages while is in fact the major tool in contemporary biological research. People with any knowldge about the subject are hereby urged to contribute. SD

See microscopy and fluorescence microscopy.

Does something seem wrong with this sentence?

I feel that this sentence does not sound right in some way... some help please?

The microscopes we use in school and at home trace their history back almost 400 years.

74.116.137.2 18:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it does seem weird. Maybe this sounds better to you:

"We can trace the history of the microscopes we use at school and at home back almost 400 years." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.178.186 (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

microbes

why do we call them microbes small objects of any kind?????:| —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.12.147.105 (talk) 04:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

New article pertaining to microscope photography

I migrating some information about micrography (pertaining to microscopes) from Micrography to Micrography (Microscopy). If this info belongs in an already-existing article, feel free to merge the information—I am not a microscope-savvy person. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

A few links to add at the bottom

{{editprotected}}

In the "See also" section, the Fluorescent microscopy link should be Fluorescence microscope and I think it's worth adding Confocal microscopy as well.

Does this page still need to be protected? It's been since April 21. That was quite a bad vandalism run, but if it's going to be protected long-term, a description in the talk page might be nice. 71.41.210.146 06:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

 Done -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Correction on infrared usage of microscopes and "diffraction coeficient"

The current page reads: "Infrared light is used to study thick slices of biological tissue because infrared light's low diffraction coefficient permits viewing deeper into tissue."

Suggested correction: "Infrared light is used to study thick slices of biological tissue because infrared light's low absorption coefficient permits viewing deeper into tissue."

Diffraction doesn't play a role in this example. In fact, the longer wavelength of the infrared light will worsen resolution due to diffraction. See, for example, wikipedia articles on Angular resolution or Photolithography. To be more precise, only some spectral windows in infrared enable this thick imaging. Other infrared wavelengths are associated with vibration-modes water absorption bands rendering a high infrared absorption coeficient. Fisico78 04:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Microscopic vs. Microscope

Please separate the two articles. Microscopic should not redirect here. Microscopic deals with physical length scales. see Macroscopic Katanada (talk) 06:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - do you want to give it a go ? Velela (talk) 09:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I will add it to my to-do list although it may be a while because I'm currently working on the Gas article and then moving to Ideal gas. Honestly, I was just in the process of re-writing 'gas' and I needed to use "macroscopic" and "microscopic" and then Macroscopic had an article and Microscopic redirected to this article and I don't think that is appropriate. --Could you get rid of the redirection for me and just make a little stub about it? I'll come back around and add more substance to it but in the mean time we have something there to hold some ground. Katanada (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

OK - I've done a stub (tempted as I was to make it only three words long to make it a literally microscopic stub!). Would welcome any expansion amendment , improvement etc. etc. Velela (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent!! Thanks a lot for the help. I will now attach the "Microscopic" link where I wanted to put it in my Gas article. I liked the example about the feet haha its kinda funny. Katanada (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

..

who made or invented the microscope —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.179.234 (talk) 09:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

It is not clear to me why this page is becoming a frequent target of vandalism Mgoodyear (talk) 01:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Specular microscopy

Is there a page on specular microscopy already, or it is needed to be created? --CopperKettle (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Microscopes

THi s is for everyone who wants to learn about how to make a microscopes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.125.24.251 (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Inventors name

In the text, one of the invetors is called Hans Janssen. All sources that I have consuloted give the name Sacharias Janssen (different spellings of Sacharias), no Hans. Cannot correct this as the article is blocked to editing. Lave —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.151.197.174 (talk) 11:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Better image for view through microscope

The only image currently on the page which is a through-microscope view is of a cigarette ash "half the size of an ant, as seen through a microscope". This doesn't effectively illustrate the capabilities or practical function of a microscope. An image of plant cells, micro-organisms, or a closeup of an insect, for instance, would better illustrate the concept and be more appropriate for the article.

If anyone has a better image, please add it. Dialectric (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Microscope

Who invented the microscope? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.227.211.203 (talk) 07:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

See Microscope#History.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   11:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Uncertainty about Inventors

In the text , it was given that Hans Lippershey and Hans Janssen are the early inventors of microscope, moreover proper citation was not given, but in the list of Timeline of microscope technology, it says, Dutch spectacle-makers Hans Janssen and his son Zacharias Janssen invented it. This is controversial. According to some websites:

• http://nobelprize.org/educational/physics/microscopes/timeline/index.html, Hans and Zacharias Janssen are the inventors, again uncertainty about Hans (Hans Lippershey? Hans Janssen? )
• http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/museum/janssen.html, Zacharias Janssen, probably with the help of his father Hans
• http://www.schools.utah.gov/curr/science/sciber00/7th/cells/sciber/cellhist.htm, Hans and Zacharias Janssen, Dutch lens grinders, father and son

If there would be no objections, the text need to be changed as Hans Janssen and his son Zacharias Janssen, please discuss.--Senthi (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 25 October 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Hi,

This article (microscope) is closed for editing. However, it has quite a few mistakes and omissions (a lot, actually; may be because it is protected). What (and how) can I do to suggest improvements?

For example, in Electron Microscope section it is wrongly stated that:

1. …STM is an electron microscope!!! Clearly, it should be removed.

2. …SEM is ”measuring reflection” of electrons (main mode of SEM has nothing to do with reflected electrons).

3. …TEM “passes electrons completely through the sample”, which is nonsense: complete transmission means invisibility.

These are just a few examples; much more should be changed/added.

Thanks

PS

Below I have copied a paragraph about electron microscopes:

Electron Main article: Electron microscope Three major variants of electron microscopes exist: • Scanning electron microscope (SEM): looks at the surface of bulk objects by scanning the surface with a fine electron beam and measuring reflection. May also be used for spectroscopy. See also environmental scanning electron microscope (ESEM). • Transmission electron microscope (TEM): passes electrons completely through the sample, analogous to basic optical microscopy. This requires careful sample preparation, since electrons are scattered so strongly by most materials.This is a scientific device that allows people to see objects that could normally not be seen by the naked or unaided eye. • Scanning Tunneling Microscope (STM): is a powerful technique for viewing surfaces at the atomic level. The SEM and STM can also be considered examples of scanning probe microscopy Vniizht (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've quick-fixed the errors you mentioned. This page is far from ideal, but once you become an autoconfirmed user (4 days, 10 edits), you'll be able to edit it directly. Materialscientist (talk) 22:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Pictures of old microscope cc-by-sa 2.0

see : http://www.flickr.com/photos/medicalmuseum/page98/ (if somebody want to import those pictures on Wikimedia commons... --Lamiot (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 April 2013

Additional resource link: www.olympusmicro.com 64.64.32.4 (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Water droplet microscope.

Did early microscopes use a droplet of water as a lens? I was told that this was the original type of microscope at school. There is no mention of the early water droplet lens type of microscope here. Did the water droplet microscope preceed the glass lens microscope? It does make some sense that glass lenses were created to make more reliable and permanent versions of the water droplet lens. There are many sites describing how to make a water droplet microscope on the web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.52.32 (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

This sentence no verb

In the section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microscope#History there is a "sentence" that reads:

Hans Lippershey (who developed an early telescope) and Zacharias Janssen (also claimed as the inventor of the telescope).

Would the person who contributed this please make this into a real sentence, with subject, verb, and object?

Thanks. Bill Jefferys (talk) 03:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I have improved this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.6.243 (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2015

i think is saw something wrong with your spelling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisgshort (talk • contribs) 19:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2016

Gerald wish (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2016

Please remove the discussion of the 2014 Nobel prize in the very first introduction of the page, or move it further down the page. While it is great to have such recognition, this is a page on microscopes, and through history there have been many Nobel prizes on this field. So if the article really needs to start with Nobel prizes (which it didn't previously) then it should start with the earliest ones. But in any case it should introduce microscopes, not Nobel prizes.

119.104.93.197 (talk) 09:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

•  Done - removed it since there was no reference as to why this belonged in a WP:SUMMARY article on Microscope, let alone the lead. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Closing this request to make it inactive. - a boat that can float! (watch me float) 17:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2017

can i 2600:1007:B02C:25E5:8CAE:AF1D:BC36:54DB (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Gulumeemee (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2017

"Other major types of microscopes are the electron microscope (both the transmission electron microscope and the scanning electron microscope), the ultramicroscope, and the various types of scanning probe microscope."

Please remove "the ultramicroscope" from this section. It's unsourced, undiscussed within this or its article and not confirmed in the article on the topic.

--2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:AB (talk) 10:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC) 2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:AB (talk) 10:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The Ultramicroscope text appears to be on topic and adequately placed in this article. -- Dane ^talk 20:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

It's unsourced and not mentioned further in the article. Do you have a source that says it's one of the major types of microscopes? If so, add the source to this and the Ultrmicroscopy article. If not, please remove it from the intro. --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:AB (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 15:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Great, five days, a dozen editors, and hours of conversation to remove one unsourced word from the lead of the article. @Dane, the text is not on topic, it's unsourced, and Wikipedia requires reliable sources, and it's not properly placed, as the lead covers material in the article, and ultramicroscope is not covered in the article. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2017

Also the text says "likely inventor," but the box lists an inventor. The inventor's identity is not know, I'm just likely, so this should be removed from the box.

--2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:AB (talk) 10:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC) 2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:AB (talk) 10:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Done - removed per 2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:AB, not supported by source (which only covers compound microscopes, we also have simple microscopes). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:AB (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2017

Please change the following:

"Scanning optical and electron microscopes, like the confocal microscope and scanning electron microscope, use lenses to focus a spot of light or electrons onto the sample X --> then analyze the reflected or transmitted waves"

Y--> "then analyze the signals generated by the beam interacting with the sample."

As this is not how these instruments work. You want sources, read the Wikipedia articles on the topics.

--2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:AB (talk) 10:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC) 2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:AB (talk) 10:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 17:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Clarified. --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:AB (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: Marking as answered DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 15:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2017

Please add fact tag after ultramicroscope until it is sourced or removed from the lead or discussed within the article.

X --> ultramicroscope

Y --> ultramicroscope

--2601:648:8503:4467:F8A3:878A:2E5F:4D3C (talk) 23:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC) 2601:648:8503:4467:F8A3:878A:2E5F:4D3C (talk) 23:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 15:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Article improvements

I would like to improve this article, but the need to edit request every change coupled with ignorant drive-by rejections of sound edit requests and even reversions (probably the "anything by an IP is vandalism" type) is locking this into a bad article.

Microscopes are important tools and have a well studied, if not always fully known, technological timeline outside of the topic of microscopy. This should be a much better article, not an article that no one is allowed to improve.

--2601:648:8503:4467:C160:6162:7443:F334 (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2017

X --> "The first microscope to be developed was the optical microscope, although the original inventor is not easy to identify."

Y --> "The earliest microscopes were single lens magnifying glasses with limited magnification. Compound microscopes, with more than one lens, arose sometime in the early 17th century in Europe, although the original inventor is not easy to identify. At this time, though, many limitations of early microscopes were due to technological problems in manufacturing lenses. The the best early microscopes came later in that century and for many years were the single lens microscopes being manufactured by Anton Leeuwenhoek, who taught himself to grind lenses capable of magnification over 200 times."

--2601:648:8503:4467:C160:6162:7443:F334 (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

On mobile, will add references, but since Wikipedia has declared ultramicroscope to be major without references, maybe I don't need any. 2601:648:8503:4467:C160:6162:7443:F334 (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Done - wording adapted and expanded with sources, thanks. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. The Leeuwenhoek needs reworded, but I see it is in the next paragraph, and I will expand and reorient it a bit. The technology should be about the quality of his lenses, not just their outright magnifying power, the former is the story of microscopes, the latter becomes the realization and quest for resolution.

Are my other edit requests too controversial? I thought material had to be cited, and the lead was about the Article? --2601:648:8503:4467:C160:6162:7443:F334 (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 15:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you a vandal and you're playing games here? --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Inventor

Per this edit, Wikipedia does not "add up" sources (A+B) to reach a conclusion (C) (see WP:SYNTH). Weight should be given to well researched academic works, anonymous websites should be probably discounted and, again, we do not "add up" multiple poor quality web sources. In general all views should be presented, and attributed, when possible (WP:YESPOV). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect statements here. Cornelius Drebbel as a likely inventor is followed by the source Albert Van Helden; Sven Dupré; Rob van Gent (2010). The Origins of the Telescope. Amsterdam University Press. p. 24 (footnote 64 - bottom of the page) and that note cites two further sources. Also on page 32. Also in another source in article: namely William Rosenthal, Spectacles and Other Vision Aids: A History and Guide to Collecting, Norman Publishing, 1996, page 391 - 392. Zacharias Janssen did not "claim to have invented the microscope". That claim was made by his son, Johannes Zachariassen, some 23 years after Zacharias Janssen's death, see: Albert Van Helden; Sven Dupré; Rob van Gent (2010). The Origins of the Telescope. Amsterdam University Press. pp. 32–36. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The Sources cited in this edit all come to the same conclusion that Zacharias Janssen was regarded by many historians as the likely inventor, so it is definitely not a cause of WP:SYNTH, with this accusation just being used to try and discredit the information.

The citation for Albert Van Helden; Sven Dupré; Rob van Gent (2010). The Origins of the Telescope. Amsterdam University Press. p. 24 is not evidence of Cornelis Drebbel's importance, as it is merely a footnote on the article which is not substantiated by any sources. Furthermore, the book actually attributes the invention to Lowys Lowyssen, not Drebbel, demonstrating that any claims that Drebbel was in inventor are believed to be incorrect by the writer.

The importance of Zacharias Janssen as the likely inventor is supported by numerous sources, while Cornelis Drebbel is for the most part completely unmentioned.

False accusations to discredit sources must be avoided and unsubstantiated claims should be removed from the article. EsEinsteinium (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see anything at the history of the microscope website about who the writers are. Is this a reliable source? --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The history of the microscope website is written by the History-of-the-microscope Non-profit organisation with the sole purpose of providing educational information on the subject. There are other sources which corroborate with its claims which it could be substituted with as a reference if necessary. EsEinsteinium (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Lowys Lowyssen is not put forward anywhere in the source as an inventor of the compound microscope (that source actually claims Janssen became a spectacle maker after 1616 when he inherited Lowyssen's tools, making Janssen's son's claims a lie). As for the rest of it, it is Wikipedia's policy to describe disputes, but not engage in them and avoid putting disputed claims in Wikipedia's voice (such as claiming one party is a "most likely inventor"). Drebbel has more than one source in the article and there are many many more out there[1][2][3][4]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Declaring yourself a non-profit and writing on a web page doesn't make a reliable source. Please post a different source. Thank you, --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 03:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I would second that, anonymous websites are at one end of the WP:RS scale and a university press published work by multiple historians with well referenced research is at the other. We have both cited here making opposite claims, we do not chose to believe one and discount the other. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 11:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

The Albert Van Helden; Sven Dupré; Rob van Gent (2010). The Origins of the Telescope. Amsterdam University Press. p. 24 citation has been removed as evidence of claims in regards to Cornelis Drebbel, as it is not evidence of Cornelis Drebbel's importance, but a footnote on the article which is not substantiated by any sources just briefly mentions him. This citation has been replaced by a more relevant citation from "Reading the Book of Nature in the Dutch Golden Age, 1575-1715" which directly refers to him as the inventor. EsEinsteinium (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The term "dubious" has been omitted from Zacharias Janssen's claim, as all claims in regards to the microscope's inventor are contested, and inherently there are sources which disagree with such claims. Only using such terms in regards to Janssen's claim breaches Wikipedia's policy to describe disputes, but not engage in them and avoid putting disputed claims in Wikipedia's voice. A more reliable citation has also been added to support Janssen's claim.

In regards to the 'Albert Van Helden; Sven Dupré; Rob van Gent (2010). The Origins of the Telescope. Amsterdam University Press. p. 24 there was some misunderstanding caused by the fact that the publication is actually refering to the invention of the telescope, not the microscope, contrary to what its usage as a citation suggested, meaning that it was the telescope, not the microscope, that it credits Lowys Lowyssen with being involved in the invention of, contrary to my prior post. I apologize for my part in misunderstanding. EsEinsteinium (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

In response to the heavy handed comment above, which at least looked at sources

Yet, unsourced and with no explanation or further discussion anywhere on Wikipedia, and now copied to thousands of Wikipedia mirrors, we declare, in the lead, that the ultramicroscope is one of the major types of microscope. Getting something wrong, synthesizing from existing materials is bad and must be corrected, but something made up can stay in the lead of the article.

Why?

--2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:C3 (talk) 21:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2017

X -->

Y -->

In addition to the false ultramicroscope comment, which registered editors are forcing upon unwary readers, other information in this article is wrong and unsourced.

--2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC) 2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 15:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

":That is the specific change, no template to template. Are you just playing with me? --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk)•

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Kharkiv07 (T) 01:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Ultramicroscope

You're kidding me? Please quote where it is in the article other than the lead that ultramicroscope is mentioned. Is there a hidden section, or am I being trolled? --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Signals generated by the beam interacting with the sample.

So, you don't believe that a scanning electron microscope uses an Everhart-Thornley or through the lens detector to capture the signal generated by the interaction of the beam with a reaction volume of the specimen?

Is this a time warp or something, your belief trumps science? Are you going to remove all that information from all the Wikipedia articles which describe exactly that, correctly, as how an SEM works? You're serious?

--2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment on ultramicroscope

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article contains this statement at the end of the lead section:

"Other major types of microscopes are the electron microscope (both the transmission electron microscope and the scanning electron microscope), the ultramicroscope, and the various types of scanning probe microscope."

The statement has no sources within the lead, and, as it does not appear elsewhere within the article, it has no sources in the article.

This unsourced statement is in a high visibility science article. I suggest it be removed.

• Comment: The identical sentence appears in this journal article: here. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, that's a Wikipedia mirror, their content is copied from Wikipedia. That is this article. ~~----

Thanks, --2601:648:8503:4467:F4B3:6D6C:9DCC:DC06 (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Simple. The applicable policy is WP:BURDEN. Your edit could not be reverted within policy. This is one of our most important policies, because the existence and use of reliable sources is the lifeblood of Wikipedia articles, and requiring verification through their use when content is challenged must be the default state of affairs. Anything else elevates and promotes the ability for anyone to include whatever they want without check.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand what your point is. I removed an unverified statement. That edit was reverted, and I was told I was edit warring and threatened with a block if I continued to try to remove an unveridiabled and unreferenced statement. So you're saying my edit was reverted outside of policy? Yes. How does your comment improve the article? I just want this article to be better, but no one seems to be editing anywhere on Wikipedia. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 01:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a minute to comment. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I saw your edits. Thank you. This is much more in line with writing an encyclopedia than someone returning bad content to make a point about an editor they don't like. Readers should be foremost. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 02:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I support removing the reference to "ultramicroscope" because the IP editor claims it isn't sourced and, while several regular editors at this page have had opportunities to prove them wrong, none have done so. The rest can stay since, per WP:OBVIOUS, there's no real reason to require sourcing for "an electrom microscope is a major type of microscope." (Further, OBVIOUS overrules every link User:Fuhghettaboutit lectured me with in that edit summary.) That said, I still think it should go because I don't believe someone reading this article is helped by reading something so elementary and unsubstantial. We don't have to source the claim that an electron microscope is a major type of microscope, but we don't have to include that fact because the rest of this article ought to make that clear anyway. CityOfSilver 02:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

This RFC is about removed a single unsourced, unverifiable word from the lead that is not discussed elsewhere in the article. To ignore the basics of microscopes in the lead of the article on microscopes requires a different conversation, not within the scope of this RFC, and it concerns me to try to make a major rewrite of the topic in a section on a single word that appears once and is unreferenced.. --02:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk)

Added sourcing to support the claim that an ultramicroscope is another type of microscope. -- Dane ^talk 03:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Your source doesn't say it's a "major type" of microscope. It supoorts what I said, "ultramicroscope, microscope arrangement."-2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Added failed verification template. You might consider that if it so hard to find something that you support or believe in on a topic this big, it might not be worth including in Wikipedia. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 03:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Dane, the burden of proof is on you to cite a reliable source which verifies it as a major type of microscope. So please do so. El_C 04:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Responding to the request for comments, but I'm not sure how this is a question in its current form. The cite in the article takes to an article about the ultramicroscope. Wikipedia itself has an article on it also: Ultramicroscope. However I don't know how much it is used now. Seems to have been superseded by the electron microscope. [5]. I suppose that's the main question to look at here. The instrument does exist, but is it still in use nowadays, often enough to be listed as one of the main types of modern microscope or is it mainly of historical interest? Hope this helps, maybe to clarify the question? Robert Walker (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is the question, is it one of the major types of microscopes. If you can't quickly find even a single source that names it in addition to light, electron, scanning probe, and x-ray microscopy, can it really be that major, is something I wish editors would consider. This is now a week and many hours plus a dozen editors, during which supporters of the ultramicroscope have not offered a source, but still, for some reason, demand it be included as a major type of microscope.

It's a badly written, unsourced, and inaccurate major article, so I personally think your taking the time to comment is positive. I hope you stay to improve the article.--2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

It's a real instrument for sure. Try google scholar [6]. But it seems to be not used much now, most cites are from decades ago. However there is a recent rather specialist approach also called ultramicroscopy which is used to image mouse brains [7]. It is definitely a real thing, but I'm not convinced that it is significant enough to mention in the lede of an article on microscopy. It's often very hard to get the attention of experts to an RfC, there are far fewer experts editing wikipedia than you might think, at least that's been my experience. And the ones who do, often edit wikipedia only occasionally. Robert Walker (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I haven't said it's not an instrument. What I've said is there is nothing that supports it being called, one of the "major types of microscopes are the electron microscope (both the transmission electron microscope and the scanning electron microscope), the ultramicroscope[1][not in citation given] and the various types of scanning probe microscope." along with electron and scanning probe microscopes.

--2601:648:8503:4467:DC06:E4F7:AC27:B7B9 (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Just gave it some more thought. The ultramicroscope is a specialist form of super resolution microscope (an optical microscope that goes beyond the diffraction limit of the best diffraction limited optical microscope of 200 nm). Also, that is an important class of microscope not mentioned in the lede.

So why not just replace "ultramicroscope" by "Super resolution microscopes" in the lede? I think that makes more sense of it. If anyone wants to mention it later in the article, it may belong under Optical or Superresolution. But you could just fix the lede first, and leave it to later, whether anyone thinks it needs to be introduced later in the article. Robert Walker (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Super resolution microscopy is a light microscopy technique, and light microscopes are already covered in the lead. It could be added parenthetically, however, I think it makes more sense to write the rest of the article then rewrite the lead. There are also ion beam microsocpes and x-ray microscopes, both probably more common than most super resolution techniques.

This RFC is about the inclusion of one word that is not supported by any references. Can we remove that word? If you want to replace it with something else, then open another RFC, and I will argue that x-ray and ion beam microscopy rather than a subset of light microscopy would be more reasonable. But I also argue that the time to pick that is after creating a good article. --2601:648:8503:4467:DC06:E4F7:AC27:B7B9 (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm okay with just removing it myself :). Or add in super resolution microscope (in brackets), x-ray and ion microscopy. The lede is meant to be like a shorter version of the entire article not a "taster" so it is rather on the short side for a wikipedia lede so it would be reasonable to mention those all. Robert Walker (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The easiest way to make it a shorter version of the entire article is to write the entire article first, then use it as a guideline to writing the lead. But, since the lead is all that anyone gets on their mobile web page, it shouldn't include unsourced, undiscussed misinformation, so, I would like to focus this RFC on that one questions. Dane and City are fighting hard to keep "ultramicroscope" in the lead. Can ultramicroscope as a major type of microscope bb removed from the lead? --2601:648:8503:4467:DC06:E4F7:AC27:B7B9 (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh sorry I read rather hastily. I didn't realize there was anyone who actually supported including it. Why not use the recommended format for an RfC? As it is, it would be very hard for a closing editor to work out what the conclusion is. That is unless we already have consensus. If not, it should be something like this (not an actual RfC just showing the markup):

=== RfC about the word ultramicroscope in the lede ===
Should the lede include the word "ultramicroscope"?
=== Survey===
(here participants vote '''suport''' or '''oppose''' )
===Threaded discussion===
You'll get more people take part as it's the expected format. If there is any question about whether we should remove it, that would be the way to make sure we are requesting comments in a clear unambiguous way. For a proper RfC also it is very important that the statement is neutrally worded, so that's why I put it as just Should the lede include the word "ultramicroscope"?" - then participants argue their case with a short statement in their vote in the survey section and in more depth in the discussion area. See WP:RFC Robert Walker (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

As the person who (long ago) added the mention of the ultramicroscope to the lede, I think there's been a dumpster fire here that didn't need 5 alarms. Simply move it out of the "major types" paragraph of the lede and move it on down to the existing section called "Other types". Sheesh. I would have put it there to begin with (which would have prevented this dumpster fire), but it simply didn't occur to me at the moment I added the mention that it doesn't necessarily count as a "major" type. I would point out that moving it down is the only appropriate move—not purging any linked mention from anywhere in the entire article. The only thing wrong with the current mention is it needs to be moved out of "major types" and into "Other types". Quercus solaris (talk) 22:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Why should it be moved to the body of the article? The article doesn't mention ion beam or x-ray microscopes. It's not an other type, it's a light microscope technique. --22:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I can see why the article is in such bad shape, now. --2601:648:8503:4467:DC06:E4F7:AC27:B7B9 (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Just to say, please don't take this personally. This is normal on wikipedia for the lede of a major article and Microscope has to count as one of the main articles on the topic of microscopy. It is normal to have an RfC on removing a single word from the lede if we don't have consensus. And these things can take ages to sort out. But if those who originally suggested it were happy for it to be removed from the lede and just added as a bullet point later in the article, well that sounds like a good compromise to me. For some background to help put this in perspective, see Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars Robert Walker (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

This should certainly be nominated for one of the lamest edit wars ever.

It's normal to argue that a statement with no sources anywhere online should remain in the lead of an article? That's ridiculous. --2601:648:8503:4467:DC06:E4F7:AC27:B7B9 (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

It does have sources, it's a genuine kind of instrument. See discussion above. It seems to have been a major type of instrument in the early twentieth century, as just about the only way they had to study many things that were smaller than 200 nm in diameter such as particles in solution, before the invention of the electron micrcoscope - but apparently not any more. I think it could be appropriate in a history section of the article + a history paragraph in a much longer lede, have said so in my RfC vote. Robert Walker (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on microscopes should mention all types of microscope. It shouldn't mention them all in its lede, but it should mention them in its body. If the "I can see now" comment was supposed to be some insult to me (?), it failed—I've never worked substantively on this article at all. As far as I recall, the only edit I've ever made to it was to add a mention of ultramicroscope because there wasn't one. GOD FORBID I put it in the wrong spot. So move it, and add the mentions of the other types too. Quercus solaris (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The "I can see now comment," was written before you joined the conversations. It's about the absurdity of a dozen people spending hours discussing the removal of a statement that's unsupported, undeveloped and has no policy or reference support whatsoever.

I have a book with 100 different types of microscopes; should we mention all of them? All of the different types of light microscopes alone, excluding super resolution techniques, would take about 5 long paragraphs to mention in the lead. Should we convert the lead to a list of different types of microscopes? It would be much longer than the existing article. --2601:648:8503:4467:DC06:E4F7:AC27:B7B9 (talk) 23:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

No insult intended, sorry. I have no previous connection with this article and just read the RfC rather hastily at first, skim read the discussion and missed the supporting comments which are much easier to see in the recommended RfC format. I try to respond to RfCs from time to time because I know that they often get few participants and that's my only reason for being here :). Are you the only one who supports ultramicroscope in the lede? If so, well maybe we have consensus? As for procedure, well a clear way to do it might be to add your Oppose vote in the RfC to say you also oppose it in the lede, saying you plan to add it later in the article instead and suggest in the discussion section of the RfC that we close it (which I guess is this discussion...). If we have clear consensus then there is no need to wait out for others to vote, but we can just close the discussion and do the edit. Robert Walker (talk)

Having the RFC is absurd, but necessary. Your or Quercus' participation is appropriate. --2601:648:8503:4467:DC06:E4F7:AC27:B7B9 (talk) 23:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Should "ultramicroscope" be included as a "major type of microscope" in the lead of the article?

Oppose

• Oppose There are no sources; it's unmentioned in the article. It takes 2 seconds to come up with 1000s of Google sources listing the light, electron and scanning probe microscopes as major types of microscopes, and it's been years originally and over a week since I first proposed it be removed without a single source naming it as a major microscope. If it's major, we wouldn't have to dig for ages to find one source. --2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:B1 (talk) 10:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC) 22:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose mention as a major type of present day microscope It is a genuine kind of microscope. From google scholar it seems that it was indeed a major type of microscope before the invention of the electron microscope.[8] [9] So it seems to be of historical interest. It could be appropriate to mention if we had a history section or a paragraph on history in the lede. But, as far as I can tell, it is not used much any more. Almost no recent cites, and what there is are cites to a different instrument of the same name[10]. It could be mentioned elsewhere in the article. If the lede goes into more detail it should mention the main types of microscope listed in the article, including X-ray microscope and super resolution microscope. It seems too soon to do a history section in the lede until we have one in the article itself. Robert Walker (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not a "different instrument of the same name," these authors used the techniques of the early 20th century ultramicroscope to define their illumination path for their mouse brain imaging. --2601:648:8503:4467:DC06:E4F7:AC27:B7B9 (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. Robert Walker (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

No problem. They don't describe it well or directly state that. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 01:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Note, I've amended my oppose as a result of finding out more. I oppose it as a major type of modern microscope on the basis of the evidence so far but will add a weak support as a historically significant microscope in a historical paragraph in the lede. Robert C. Walker (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Note I'm the same user as Robert Walker. I am currently signed in on my linked secondary account which I use when I need to take a wikibreak from discussions on my main account. Robert C. Walker (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per my two comments nearby above. Mention in the article somewhere, yes (under type of light microscope, other type, wherever); in the lede as a "major" type, no, because it is not a major type today. Quercus solaris (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The ultramicroscope exists and was the subject of a 2007 book called One hundred years of nanoscience with the ultramicroscope published by a reputable company Shaker Verlag. However, it is not a major type of microscope and so does not belong in the lead, in my opinion. The article will not be improved by making false and combative statements like "It's like Kafka. No one has even heard of an ultramicroscope; it's unsourced; it's not discussed anywhere else in the article; there are not realy sources on line about it." An accurate critique that avoids alarmist references to Kafka is vastly more likely to produce a positive result. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

  By the way, this book is just Zsigmondy's 1907 paper in German and English, with a biographical introduction, it is not a new book on the ultramicroscope, and that's in line with the type of material Shaker Verlag publishes in its regular house.--2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:54 (talk) 07:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

A positive result would be to improve the article rather than spending a week discussing the removal of unsourced information. There was no basis for adding the information to the lead and no references in a week to support keeping it. This is pure bureaucracy. Kafka.--2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

The main problems affecting this article in recent days have been your misrepresentations and your combativeness. Please correct your behavior. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

When someone bullies another user like City has been doing to me, it is disingenuous to call me off for not liking it. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

And before anybody asks the IP editor to ease up on these sorts of things, I agree letter-for-letter that my behavior was bullying. If you're concerned that I was doing that to a person who has this website's best interests in mind, look at their treatment of at least three different admins at RFPP. So weird. CityOfSilver 01:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. In the discussion above, I see no evidence to support its inclusion. Maproom (talk) 07:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. If something is stated as fact without sourcing, it must be non-controversial and unlikely to be challenged per WP:V. This conversation means it's controversial and that it's been challenged. This insistence that there's wiggle room, even though there's a big majority of people here who don't see it, just seems like an effort to lowkey violate a core policy. In the face of wide consensus, these weak rationales won't accomplish anything besides dragging this obnoxious dispute out. CityOfSilver 16:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, because it is not currently one of the main kinds of microscope in use. Also, the IPV6 user who is fanning all this drama should take a break and chill out. Also, it might be worthwhile for that user to create a username to facilitate collaboration with other users. --Slashme (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Support

• Support .... but... Whether one needs that reference in the lede is open to discussion, but given the citation that covers the other types, it definitely must not give the impression that ultramicroscope is included in that citation, whether a citation for ultramicroscope is obvious, necessary or not in that lede. The solution need not be to remove the statement, but to move the ref to before the mention of the ultramicroscope. Whether the ultramicroscope term itself needs a ref I discuss below. But I think that removal instead of finding a ref is a counterconstructive principle. JonRichfield (talk) 09:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

  There is no reference, because it's not true. --2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:B1 (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Please be a little more helpful with your antecedents 2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:B1. What's not true? JonRichfield (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

This RFC is about the inclusion of ultramicroscope as a major type of microscope, the equal of electron microscopes, light microscopes, and scanning probe microscopes. It's not a major type of microscope. It's a type of light microscope. The statement has been unsourced for a couple of years, and since requested last week no sources have been found. --2601:648:8503:4467:394B:B86A:CEDB:3CD6 (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

This is a pointless attempt to raise a question of English to an issue of substance. See what I say below in the discussion. And will you please choose a proper handle? Making us grope after the likes of 2601:648:8503:4467:394B:B86A:CEDB:3CD6 is not considerate if you have more than one or two items to to exchange. JonRichfield (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support. It is a major type of microscope. See here. I don't think this one is taken from WP. See this article and the sources it uses here. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

  That is a copy of the Wikipedia article. --2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:C0 (talk) 05:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I should have looked deeper at that, apologies. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• Your new source is a wiki, not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles, and it's about major types of light microscopes, not microscopes. --05:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:87 (talk)

  Interesting. That says that it's a kind of Dark-field microscopy. And reading the description it does seem that it may be a development of the Ultramicroscope although the wikipedia article doesn't have a history section. Robert Walker (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

  In addition to the source being a wiki, the page is about kinds of light microscope. The question here is about this article, microscope. Light microscope is a different article. --2601:648:8503:4467:D82F:EA1A:BEAB:EF93 (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• Weak support as a historically significant microscope See this article: The Invention of Immersion Ultramicroscopy in 1912 - The Birth of Nanotechnology? and other sources from google scholar. It's my view that

• This is a historically significant optical microscope

• Then why not add it to that article, optical microscope, instead of this one? --2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:B5 (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• It was a major type of microscope in the early twentieth century - after all its invention got its inventor a Nobel prize and they didn't have many types of microscope back then
• It does not seem to be a major type of modern microscope - at least if it is then nobody has shared any evidence yet that it is
• I think it deserves mention in the historical section, especially bearing in mind the importance of present day nanoscale microscopes, as the first microscope ever to go beyond the optical resolution limit to let experimenters view the nano world.
• I could be persuaded either way about a mention in the lede, but if it is mentioned, as a historical microscope, not a present day microscope on the basis of the evidence so far
• If it is mentioned in the lede then the lede should have a reasonably detailed paragraph on microscopes, as this is hardly the most important microscope every invented, but it does seem interesting enough that it deserves a mention in a long lede paragraph about the history of microscopy. I suggest that the controversial paragraph be rewritten as a short historical section. The lede is very short and it would be normal to have a short historical section in it. I drafted an example below #Suggested new second paragraph and recommendation Robert C. Walker (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• So if the lead contains a "not most important optical microscope," how many of the more important ones should the lead discuss, say half a dozen, plus the ultramicroscope? Certainly cryo-TEM, and HRSEM and HRTEM are more well known than the ultramicroscope, so 7 optical microscopes, and 5 electron microscopes, and 3 modes of scanning force microscopes, so about 15 microscopes in the lead?
• Also, now that you're supporting it in the lead, please provide a citation, and quite from within it to support your vote. Thanks --2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:B5 (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• It can be confusing to have a long discussion thread within the voting section for an RfC so let's continue this discussion under #Suggested new second paragraph and recommendation. I will post a reply there in detail. But just in brief here first, I did give a cite for its historical significance which is all I'm saying here. An instrument can be largely forgotten now and still be historically significant. And mine is a weak support, not a strong support :). Robert C. Walker (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• Your source still doesn't say it's a major type of microscope. It's not in there. You've provided walls of text about light microscopes all over the place. This statement in the lead requires a reliable source. --2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:B5 (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• It either States it or it doesn't. In this case, it doesn't. --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:AE (talk) 05:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Suggest we close this RfC by consensus, which you can do at any point, and remove the word from the lede and then it can be added later on where needed. Instructions on how to close an RfC here Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs - basically you just remove the RfC tag. You can optionally enclose it in a gray Archive top. Archive bottom which marks it as closed. Is there anyone who still needs to comment or can we just close it and do the edit right now? Although it seems a bit tedious perhaps, following protocol like this helps a lot by way of keeping everyone happy and on the same page :). Robert Walker (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The two supporters, User: CityOfSilver and User:Dane have yet to cast a vote. --2601:648:8503:4467:DC06:E4F7:AC27:B7B9 (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, okay then we need to wait for them. Robert Walker (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Robertinventor:I'm confused. What does the IP editor say I'm a "supporter" of? CityOfSilver 00:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Robertinventor: Never mind. I'm being characterized as supporting maintaining the word's presence in the lede even though the very first words in my vote were "I support removing the reference to 'ultramicroscope'." Jolly good, well done. CityOfSilver 00:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

You reverted the removal of "ultramicroscope" from the lead twice. Unless you were playing games, your actions to maintain the word in the lead seem to indicate you want it in the article. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@CityOfSilver: can you just do an Oppose vote then, to make it clear to everyone that you are in favour of removing it from the Lede? @2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D: the idea of the RfC was to resolve an edit war, and it gives people time to reflect and consider. It doesn't really matter now why they reverted, which could be for many reasons, they may not even remember, the main question is what the consensus is now. Robert Walker (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm no mind reader. City reverted the removal twice and accused me of edit warring by removing it during a discussion. So, it seemed he wanted it in, and it appears I was edit warring with someone else who wanted it in, according to City. Maybe City can find and notify the participants of the edit war. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Robertinventor and 2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D: I'm skeptical that a vote in the "oppose" section won't be translated by people to mean "support." I made it clear a while ago where I stood, and several people came along and chose to either ignore me or lie about what I'd said. (For example, the IP editor's claim that "it seemed he wanted it in" is a blatant lie. Claiming you have to be a mind reader to understand "I support removing the reference to 'ultramicroscope'" is so, so weird.) CityOfSilver 01:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not a lie. You reverted my removal of the word and prevented it from being removed from the article. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 01:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

My behavior prevented you from getting blocked. You still haven't thanked me for that. CityOfSilver 01:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@CityOfSilver: well it's just a suggestion. :). I'm another editor like yourself suggesting an idea. I think if you voted oppose and explain clearly what you mean - well of course others may interpret it anyway they like but as far as the RfC is concerned it would be an oppose vote signifying clearly that you want the word removed from the lede for now. And the closing uninvolved editor would count it as an oppose vote. The way it is going I expect it to be closed as an Oppose, but we have one support so can't just close it by consensus yet, so perhaps it needs to have an uninvolved editor close it and leave it to run its course, unless that vote gets changed of course. Robert Walker (talk) 10:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. Note that Ultramicroscope in the lede is entered as a link to the relevant article; IMO that is adequate in lieu of a ref, because although we cannot use WP articles to support points at issue, it is altogether valid to point at them as sources of confirmation of points of peripheral significance, in which such a main article should contain the full refs instead of cluttering independent articles with unnecessary overburden. Accordingly I do not believe that an explicit ref is necessary in this lede, as long as the word is not placed so as to imply inclusion in the rest of the list covered by the citation. In case anyone feels that a ref really, REALLY is essential, here is one, but...
  Mind you, we nowadays have other classes of microscope that also could be and sometimes are in fact referred to as ultramicroscopes, and IMO the ultramicroscope article itself needs updating JonRichfield (talk) 09:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

The ultramicroscope article doesn't say it's a major type of microscope. How can it support that statement here, if it doesn't say it? The primary source you cite doesn't say that, either. --2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:B1 (talk) 10:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Let's not be ridiculous 2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:B1 Gratuitous choice of an adjective not used in the source is in any case not grounds for deletion unless it is substantially misleading, and necessarily is a common consequence of paraphrasing. What next? Object to the word "very" where the source had said "truly"? And what would your basis of evaluation be for claiming that it is a "non-major type of microscope"? Why pick on the ultramicroscope for that complaint? Why are you not complaining that the source never said that electron microscopes, both the transmission electron microscope and the scanning electron microscope, are "major types of microscope"? From my first days with microscopes and my first readings about microscopes, ultramicroscopes were mentioned; for decades before the first electron microscope, and even longer before the first practical commercial electron microscopes, they were the major means for visualising objects below the resolution limits. Now, I have not the slightest objection to anyone removing the offending adjective if you feel particularly defiled by its presence, though I regard such a trivial objection as disruptive editing, but if that were represented as the operative basis for deleting the sentence, I'd say kick the RFC out and stop wasting our time. JonRichfield (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

It is substantially misleading. That is the statement of this RFC. Your personal experience is not a reliable source, but please feel free to provide one to support your claims. --2601:648:8503:4467:394B:B86A:CEDB:3CD6 (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

It is by no means misleading and your assessment of what counts as major as an issue is no more reliable or substantial than anything else or anyone else's. As I said, if anyone feels that the word "major" is the issue, remove the word. It won't ruin the lede. But as a matter of practice or logic, if your definition of "major" is use of light vs electrons, then scanning microscopes and STMs are not "major types" as opposed to transmission or other particle microscopes; and X-ray, UV, polarisation, and IR mikes are not "major". "Major" is an intensifier, not a quantifier, and no one has given you a mandate to limit its application to visualisation by particle- vs wave-based media. How classes of microscope are used in practice is a perfectly sound basis for speaking of them as major types, and when any particular class is suited for one type of application rather than another, that is a completely adequate criterion for calling it a different "major type", otherwise you would have to recognise that there is no major difference between my pocket lens, a Cooke-McArthur pocket model, a million-dollar clean-room job, and a telescope (all you need to do is turn it around) -- no "major" difference. (Not forgetting of course an ultramicroscope!) With equal justice you might claim that there is no "major" difference between a hammer, wrench, a chisel, and a screwdriver. Not one of these items is in general suited for the applications of any other, in spite of the fact that every microscope works by making small objects more effectively visualisable. Now one more time: if he term "major" brings you out in hives, my heart pumps custard for you, and I'll not contest removal of the offending word. In fact I'll happily support replacement of the entire sentence (in fact most of the article, which badly needs re-thinking and re-design), but it would be nice if a group of presumably educated adults could apply their skills, both innate and acquired, a bit more logically and constructively. Just for a start, a general article on a topic on so many major types needs a decent introduction section that does NOT belong in the lede. JonRichfield (talk) 05:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The statement about the major types of microscope being light, electron, and scanning probe, can be sourced, which is probably how it wound up there to begin with. The addition of ultramicroscope cannot. --2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:94 (talk) 06:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• 2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:B1 Sourcing nonsense does not make it encyclopaedic and does not make it relevant to the discussion. You can always find someone blethering on about his personal views of some date or other. Let's see you produce your 50+ types and see how you categorise them into those three types. Didn't you read what i had said about the arbitrariness of "major" and the extra types that could be listed as major types just offhand,not even trying? Let's import a bit of constructive sense into this discussion please. JonRichfield (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment There is a long list of optical microscopes in the template Optical Microscopy if you expand it - included below. We could include that list as separate items in the Optical microscope section. It doesn't include the ultramicroscope but it does include Light sheet fluorescence microscopy which if you click through explains that it is a development from the Ultramicroscope. So that would seem to suggest that if we include the ultramicroscope and are referring to the modern instrument, which was developed from it, it's better to call it Light sheet fluorescence microscopy]. Then, if we do include it, why not include this list as separate bullet points in the optical microscope section? Just an idea. Robert Walker (talk) 09:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• That's a list of microscopy methods, not microscopes. DIC and darkfield, for example, are optical light microscopy setups on compound light microscopes that have the correct components. Darkfield is also done on a TEM. --2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:B1 (talk) 10:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oh okay my bad, that makes sense. So I suppose we have to say a modern Ultramicroscope is an optical microscope set up to do Light sheet fluorescence microscopy? And you could also have a commercial instrument which is all set up to do it already. There is an actual commercial ultramicroscope available [11]. Perhaps though that list could be a basis for making a list of the main types of optical microscope? Or indeed, perhaps it makes more sense to have a list of the main types of optical microscopy instead? Robert Walker (talk) 10:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• There are 50 different microscopes manufactured by various countries all over the world that aren't even mentioned in this article, but hold a market value of billions of dollars and have thousands of Google hits each to research articles, technical specs, mentions in books, and vendors. Maybe you could explain why you want to give the ultramicroscope such prominence over far more common microscopes instead of developing an article on major types of microscopes? Thanks. --2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:B1 (talk) 10:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Ultramicroscope deserves as much attention as any of the types, but as a matter of simple logic, the neglect of over 49 other major types does not invalidate mentioning this type. You would seem to have the matter back to front. The proper solution would lie in a rewrite that puts the other 49-odd types into their proper perspective, and not in the lede. The whole article could do with a lot of rewriting, preferably in a context that bears in mind the content of related articles. Bickering over the lede is storm-in-teacup stuff. JonRichfield (talk) 05:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Also, although the original was a side illumination setup for optical light microscopy, fluorescent light sheet microscopes are fluorescent techniques. --2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:B1 (talk) 10:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• 2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:B1 while we are at it, could you please supply or refer us to your list of microscope types, and their descriptions if any? Apart from intrinsic interest it might be helpful in constructing a rational taxonomy of types of various levels of significance, and attributes of definitive significance. At present we are bickering about opinions such as whether microscopes that use light in different ways are (heaven help us!) "major types", while accepting that microscopes that use electrons in different ways are indeed "major types". And on what basis? Finding citations in works that happened to thumbsuck such claims? It is enough to give anyone the heaves.
  Isn't it? JonRichfield (talk) 07:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

  No idea what you're talking about. But feel free to propose whatever thumbsucking you want.--07:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:C1 (talk)

• Comment I've just been looking at Optical microscope and the lede doesn't mention the main types of microscope at all. That rather suggests, if we follow a similar pattern, that we don't need to go down to much detail of types of microscope in the lede. So what about going in the other direction. What about a paragraph like this to replace the last paragraph in the lede?:

"The first type of microscope to be developed was the optical microscope, starting with single lens magnifying glasses in the 13th century. The first electron microscope was developed by Ernst Ruska in 1931, which by using electrons in place of light, allows a much higher resolution. This was followed by other types of electron microscope and then eventually to atomic force microscopes which involve a fine probe which hovers close to the specimen and measures the interaction of the atoms of the tip of the probe with the atoms and molecules of the sample, to map it in 3D, and many new types of optical microscope, and X-ray microscopes"

I.e. to simplify the list to fewer types of microscope and also make it a brief history, and rather just a list of names, to actually explain any type of microscope mentioned in sufficient detail so the reader has a first taster of how they work. That way it is a proper lede as recommended in wikipedia, a miniature version of the article, rather than a teaser taster or a list of contents.

I agree that it's not quite the same as Optical microscope that you don't need to mention the types at all as an electron microscope is radically different from an optical microscope, and scanning probe microscopes are radically different yet again. If there is any other major type as radically different as those two, they'd deserve mention in the lede, but to have only the very broadest of divisions there. I think the subdivision of the electron microscope as "(both the transmission electron microscope and the scanning electron microscope)" is too fine a distinction for the lede. Instead, we could have perhaps a paragraph on the history of microscopy. So it's the idea of going in direction of fewer types, in a short history, with just a little more detail about each one, enough so the reader has a first idea of what they are, enough to get them started for the rest of the article (assuming a reader who knows nothing yet about the subject). That's my latest suggestion, any thoughts? Robert Walker (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The lead to this article needs rewritten completely, but so does the whole article. The suggestion about leads that Wikipedia gives is to write the article first. I agree with this suggestion.

I'm not sure why the lead to optical microscopes should name the main types of microscopes? Does the lead to lion discuss the main types of big cats? But the lead to big cats should mention the different types. This article is about microscopes, and mentioning different types in its lead seems appropriate, while mentioning different types of microscopes in the lead of the optical microscope article is off target, so I don't understand the relationship you are trying to prevent.

Your suggested lead, although I think it needs work, is more in line with the type of article this could usefully be. I agree that scanning and transmission in the current lead is overly fine. Still, it is taking about 6 weeks to discuss the unverified "ultramiceoscope," which is in the lead, but unsourced and not discussed in the article, so based on two months, thousands of words, and over a dozen editors to discuss one word, it might take 4 months and tens of thousands of words and a couple dozen editors to deal with scanning and transmission electron microscope. I suggest, instead of funding that, writing a solid introduction to microscopes, and a history of the different kinds, the Nobel prizes, etc., first. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:82 (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Well the article has been written, if in an early stage. My suggested second paragraph is based on the article as it is now. We could continue to work on the lede at the same time as the article. I think that would be the usual way to do it. As for the way that it takes so long to make decisions, that's just the downside of it being a community written encyclopedia with no "editor in chief". It's just how it works here. Nobody has come up with any way to make it more efficient, as the Lame edit wars entries show. The only way out of that is to just go to less popular areas of wikipedia and work on articles that get less attention. Now that this RfC has started I think we have to let it run its course. But it looks likely to be inconclusive, so maybe can revisit it after that and either just "be bold" and try editing the second paragraph with a new version, or do a new RfC. Although the article is no longer locked, I think it would be confusing to attempt to edit it right now when the RfC is about the existing version, without a consensus decision to do it. Sometimes in wikipedia what you need is patience, let everyone have their say, and if it is inconclusive, revisit the discussion a few weeks or months later. As you say, as the article itself improves it may become clearer to everyone what the lede should say. And meantime the RfC is only about the lede and there is nothing to stop editors from working on improving the article itself now that it's been unlocked again. Why not have a go at improving the rest of it yourself? Robert Walker (talk) 07:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The RFC is only about the one word in the lead, not the entire lead. It's not inconclusive, it's all opposes, of the two supports one says it should be sourced, which is in agreement with the opposes, and the other offers a Wikipedia mirror site as a source, making the RFC pretty conclusive.

I am flexible about using your suggested paragraph now (after the RFC) or later (after improving the article). I suspect this article will never be improved as the process itself seems to be against writing the encyclopedia, so a good lead would be useful for the reader, particularly mobile readers. We shouldn't have to have a discussion about whether an unsourced and unsourceable statement should remain in the lead of an article, but it cripples writing the text if every Wikipedia policy isn't one and must be discussed in a 30 day RFC to be implemented. --2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:76 (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:76: Yes that's true, we could just edit the lede and leave that word in place. It would actually make sense also. After all, though not important now, it is historically important. So, how about this?

"The first type of microscope to be developed was the optical microscope, starting with single lens magnifying glasses in the 13th century. In 1902, the Ultramicroscope was developed. This uses scattered light from the side, to illuminate individual particles which can be smaller than the resolution limit of optical telescopes, and so was the first microscope to go beyond the optical resolution limit, if only indirectly, as the nanoscale particles appeared in the microscope only as rapidly moving fuzzy dots. The first electron microscope was developed by Ernst Ruska in 1931, which by using electrons in place of light, allows a much higher resolution. This was followed by other types of electron microscope and then eventually to atomic force microscopes which involve a fine probe which hovers close to the specimen and measures the interaction of the atoms of the tip of the probe with the atoms and molecules of the sample, to map it in 3D, and many new types of optical microscope, and X-ray microscopes"

How does that sound? Maybe that will satisfy everyone, I can't see those who support mention of ultramicroscope complaining and as for those who oppose it, then it now makes sense, although not mentioned later in the history section, but it is significant enough to mention there as a historical instrument, as the only way to go to the nanoscale for more than quarter of a century.

I think the main thing with wikipedia is just patience. It doesn't solve everything but taking your time, being no hurry, can help with many situations. Just do other things here until the right time comes to move on in the locked discussion. But - I wonder, as you say, it would not remove the word from the lede. So perhaps I could just "be bold" and add it? Though there is no hurry, I could also just wait until the RfC is over, and then add it as a new paragraph. Perhaps that is best. 30 days passes quite quickly if you are doing other things. I am quite busy off wiki as well as involved in another discussion here on wikipedia and I only just noticed your comment, sorry. Robert Walker (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you cite a reliable source that discusses the history of microscopes in the same way you do: 13th century, ultramicroscope, electron microscope, scanning probe microscope, x-ray microscope? You have now made it more important with amount of text than light microscopes, electron microscopes, and scanning probe microscopes, so maybe a source that says it is the most important type of microscope ever built is in order. --2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:5D (talk) 02:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't mean it like that. Note that I am one of the Oppose votes for including it in the lede. I don't think it should be mentioned myself in the lede as a major instrument in the present day as it seems it is not. However it was a major type of microscope for three decades or so at the start of the nineteenth century. I think it is perhaps worth mentioning in a longer historical section later in the page. As for a mention in the lede as a historical instrument, I'm not sure about that, I could be persuaded either way. My suggested paragraph was meant as a compromise between both sides in the debate, not as my own view of what it should be. It could be expanded, the lede is very short, for a wikipedia article. It would be fine to add a bit more text on light microscopes and electron microscopes as well as add any more equally significant microscopes in the history of the instrument. The paragraph could easily be double this length without overbalancing the article at all. The lede probably needs extra paragraphs on other topics too. I hope that is a bit clearer.

On the historical significance of the Ultramicroscope, see "The Invention of Immersion Ultramicroscopy in 1912 — The Birth of Nanotechnology?" [12]. It was used to detect atoms by their effects on motions of minute particles of gold, and to detect the particles of gold themselves and estimate their size as 4 nm in diameter. This gave the first window into nanoscale physics two decades before the electron microscope. It lead to three Nobel prizes. This is the speech about Richard Zsigmondy's 1925 Nobel Prize [13]. So based on those sources, I think it's historical significance can't be doubted, that it was a major microscope of its day. But only for a few decades in the very long history of microscopes. From the conclusion of that article:

"Zsigmondy could only describe the colors of the Tyndall cones of the moving nanoparticles in written text, and there was no technology available until many decades after his death to prove his assumptions to be correct. He was awarded the Nobel Prize for both his descriptions of the colloids and for the innovative methods he introduced and utilized to make the nanocosmos visible. As a result of his inventions he was probably the first human being to observe nanoparticles moving by Brownian motion in solution, and to be able to control this process by changes in parameters such as concentration and particle coating. One might thus define this point in time as the foundation of the age of modern nanotechnology."

RfCs get closed by uninvolved editors so we can't really predict what the outcome would be. This RfC does seem to be very strongly weighted towards Oppose and it may well be that the closing editor decides that the word should be removed, if we don't decide that ourselves by consensus before then. So, yes you may well be right. Hard to predict. RfCs do need quite strong consensus to be closed in favour one way or the other so I think there is also a possibility that it gets closed as "non consensus". But the closing editor will not just count votes, but also weigh up the arguments and as you say, the arguments for keeping it do seem weak. And even on a vote count, it is nearly a consensus but not quite. We will just have to see what happens, unless we find some other way to resolve it ourselves in the meantime. Robert Walker (talk) 11:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

In summary: I gave a source that shows it was a major type of microscope in the early twentieth century. It doesn't seem to be one any more. I could be persuaded either way on inclusion of it in a historical section in the lede. If it is included, my suggested paragraph should be expanded to say more about the historical development of other types of microscope. I think it does deserve mention in the historical section later on. I am opposed to its mention as a major present day instrument in the lede. Robert Walker (talk) 11:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

This article appears to be all about the technique, even the title and major section are microscopy, not microscope, can you please quote a line you think says the ultramicroscope (not ultramicroscopy) is a major type of microscope, not method, and not light microscope, and not technology, and not timeline of microscopy.

As to the RFC you are the one fighting to keep it in the lead, who is worried you need to compromise be cause otherwise it would be "deadlocked." So, source away. --2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:B5 (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

First please note. I voted Oppose to its mention in the lede as a major type of present day microscope as I haven't seen any evidence of that at all yet. But I would support a statement that it was a historically significant microscope that deserves to be mentioned in the historical section and perhaps in an expanded historical section in the lede. So please don't expect any cites in support of it as a major type of present day microscope. However I found many cites for it as a major historical microscope during the first three decades of the twentieth century. Sorry for the broken link above. Here it is again, it is the most detailed cite I found. It shows that it is not a "microscopy method" but an actual microscope, patented in 1912 and has photographs of it. It's a free download available from the blue button at the top of the page. It should answer most of your questions. It's here The Invention of Immersion Ultramicroscopy in 1912 - The Birth of Nanotechnology? Thanks! Also, I'm writing from an alternative account for @Robertinventor: - the two accounts are linked together. I'm signing in as this alternative account for a few days in order to take a wiki break from a debate I got involved in on another totally unrelated topic. Robert C. Walker (talk) 15:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

So, this is an RTF about one word in the lead. What of this discussion has to do with this RFC? Can you move the rest to a different section of this talk page.

The citation you chose, of the "many cites," calls it a dark field optical microscopy method. What quote do you have that makes it a unique microscope, at the level of optical microscopes, electron microscopes, and scanning probe microscopes rather than an optical microscopy method? The patent application appears to be for an illumination method, but let's stick with reliable sources. --2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:B5 (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Well I'd have thought these two quotes are sufficient to show it was a major new type of microscope at the time. Your mileage may vary of course:

"2012 marks the centenary of the invention of one of the most remarkable techniques in nanoscience, one which has opened a new window to the study of colloidal solutions. This invention—the immersion ultramicroscope—may be said to mark the moment when modern nanotechnology began"

"technique in nanoscience," and "modern nanotechnology" I don't see "major new type of microscope," and this isn't the history of microscope technology or nanotechnology article.

"Over a three-year period, Zsigmondy developed the immersion ultramicroscope, jointly with Albert Winkel and Hermann Winkel, by designing an entirely new microscope stand (Figure 4 a, Figure 4 b) and two dedicated microscope objectives. In 1912, a patent was granted for their invention, which was exclusively designed to examine nanoparticles in aqueous solutions."

A new "microscope stand," and new "microscope objectives" are not microscopes. There is probably an article on microscope objectives. --2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:B5 (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes it could be a separate question, but I meant it as an idea for resolving this RfC harmoniously. It is strange for me to have someone asking me to defend use of the word "ultramicroscope" in the lede which I voted Oppose to. I do not defend it as a major modern microscope unless someone comes up with better evidence than we have yet. That is what the RfC was about. I do think it was a major historical microscope in the early twentieth century, which provided the first method anyone had to study colloidal particles of nanometer scale. You could call it a major new type of microscope stand together with a new type of microscope objective, more precisely, but you couldn't have a microscope without a stand and objective, and the technique was very innovative leading to three Nobel prizes. I don't think it would be necessary to start a separate discussion here to edit the historical section to add in a brief mention of the ultramicroscope if someone was inclined to do it - if anyone objected they could revert and ask for discussion, but why would they? As for editing the lede, I think we have enough RfCs open already. We could have a separate RfC about whether to mention the ultramicroscope as a historical instrument in the lede, but I think that would be confusing rightnow. It is not perhaps the most significant episode in the entire history of microscopes :). But interesting enough for a historical mention, as the first microscopic method for studying nanoscale physics. Robert C. Walker (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Now even you call it a technique.

You are now the one continuing to argue for ultramicroscope as a major type of microscope. If you oppose, why argue? --2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:B5 (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually on more reflection as a result of your questions, I'm going to amend my oppose vote. I think that it may be worth mentioning in the lede but only as a historically significant microscope, on the basis of the evidence so far. That may make the situation clearer and it would make my comments here consistent with my vote. So to summarize my view on it

• It is an optical microscope.
• It was a new design at the time and won its inventor a Nobel prize.
• The stand shines light at it from the side, and it observes scattered light against a dark background, unlike a normal microscope.
• The design also required a new kind of objective lens

One of its earliest uses was to study a kind of glass that has gold nanoparticles in it, which are only about 4 nm in diameter, and they used very bright sunlight to illuminate them, then it was possible to spot such tiny particles. They could see the particles moving as they were hit by nearby atoms, and the light was multi-coloured which gave them information about the size of the particles, something that back then they could do in no other way, so it was the first observation of nanoscale particles and it was done optically, and they were able to estimate the sizes of the particles. And they couldn't use a conventional optical microscope for the experiment but had to design a new microscope stand and new objective lens. It's all explained here: The Invention of Immersion Ultramicroscopy in 1912 - The Birth of Nanotechnology?

It's my view that

• This is a historically significant optical microscope

  This is not the optical microscope article. --2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:B5 (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

  Wikipedia has an article on optical microscopes. Why do you want it here rather than There? --2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:B5 (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• It was a major type of microscope in the early twentieth century - after all its invention got its inventor a Nobel prize and they didn't have many types of microscope back then
• It does not seem to be a major type of modern microscope - at least if it is then nobody has shared any evidence yet that it is
• I think it deserves mention in the historical section
• I could be persuaded either way about a mention in the lede, but if it is mentioned, as a historical microscope, not a present day microscope on the basis of the evidence so far
• If it is mentioned in the lede then the lede should have a reasonably detailed paragraph on microscopes, as this is hardly the most important microscope every invented, but it does seem interesting enough that it deserves a mention in a long lede paragraph about the history of microscopy. Robert C. Walker (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

So, why not write that lead to help me understand how you think the microscope article would b3 improved by discussing the historical significance of 15-20 microscopes, and, still looking for the source for your support. --2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:B5 (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Suggested new second paragraph and recommendation

"The first type of microscope to be developed was the optical microscope, starting with single lens magnifying glasses in the 13th century. In 1902, the Ultramicroscope was developed. This uses very bright light from the side, to illuminate individual particles as small as a few nanometers in diameter which appear as coloured dots moving due to Brownian motion against a dark background . It as the first microscope to go beyond the optical resolution limits. The first electron microscope was developed by Ernst Ruska in 1931, which by using electrons in place of light, allows a much higher resolution. This was followed by other types of electron microscope and then eventually to atomic force microscopes which involve a fine probe which hovers close to the specimen and measures the interaction of the atoms of the tip of the probe with the atoms and molecules of the sample, to map it in 3D, and many new types of optical microscope, and X-ray microscopes"

I recommend that if the ultramicroscope is included then more is written about other types of microscope too. I just touch on them here but the paragraph could be double the length and still be well within acceptable lengths for a historical section for a topic of such historical interest as the microscope. It's just a sketch. The ultramicroscope of course should also be added to the historical section. It was just for a short period of about three decades but it was of historical significance in retrospect as well because it was the first time that anyone directly observed nanoscale particles, and present day nanotechnology and nanoscale microscopy is of course of huge importance. So it is part of the history of present day nanoscale microscopes and I think it is therefore worth including in a lede for that reason.

Of course the non historical sections of the lede should also be expanded. It is very short for a lede at present. Robert C. Walker (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of inclusion of ultramicroscope as a historically significant microscope in the lede

First note it's only a weak support here. This is in response to: @2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:B5 and 2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:B5:

"So if the lead contains a "not most important optical microscope," how many of the more important ones should the lead discuss, say half a dozen, plus the ultramicroscope? Certainly cryo-TEM, and HRSEM and HRTEM are more well known than the ultramicroscope, so 7 optical microscopes, and 5 electron microscopes, and 3 modes of scanning force microscopes, so about 15 microscopes in the lead? Also, now that you're supporting it in the lead, please provide a citation, and quite from within it to support your vote"

I don't think it should go into that level of detail about types of electron microscope, optical microscope etc. If it is a historical paragraph then the ultramicroscope is significant as a microscope that historically, for a brief three decades, was the only way to "see" the nanoworld. They couldn't photograph it, with the technology at the time, but when illuminated from the side, with the bright light of full sunlight, the experimenters could see 4 nanometer sized gold particles against a dark background. They could also detect even smaller one nanometer particles by first depositing gold on them to make them a bit larger and so visible. They could see the jostling of them by brownian motion of surrounding atoms and they could see them as differently coloured which gave information about the size. Compared with what you can do with an electron microscope it was very rudimentary. But compared to what they had before, it was a revolutionary technological development as is clear from the Nobel prize speech. And it was a microscope, not a microscopy technique. I gave sources for all this already above but I'll give it again for reference - just quotes from the cite I gave above. There are other cites for ultramicroscope if you do a google search for it and its history but this is one of the most detailed and clearly set out.

"2012 marks the centenary of the invention of one of the most remarkable techniques in nanoscience, one which has opened a new window to the study of colloidal solutions. This invention—the immersion ultramicroscope—may be said to mark the moment when modern nanotechnology began"

"Over a three-year period, Zsigmondy developed the immersion ultramicroscope, jointly with Albert Winkel and Hermann Winkel, by designing an entirely new microscope stand (Figure 4 a, Figure 4 b) and two dedicated microscope objectives. In 1912, a patent was granted for their invention, which was exclusively designed to examine nanoparticles in aqueous solutions."

You have said in the previous discussion that to your mind this is just a new microscope stand, a new objective, and a new technique for microscopy combined together into a single package. I think that this is enough to be a new type of microscope. I don't think you can separate microscopes from microscopy completely like that. An article on microscopes is closely connected with the development of microscopy techniques, the two go hand in hand. It's more a matter of emphasis, but it would not be possible to have a decent article on the microscope that doesn't go into a fair amount of detail into what they are used for and how they are used. I think also that that is a failing of the present lede, that it just gives a list of names of types of microscope. A reader who is new to the subject will not know what those are. A brief historical paragraph like the one I suggested explains what they are as well as when they were invented, topics that will interest most readers who want to find out about microscopes and end up here.

I think that it is to go into far too much detail in the lede to go into sub types of electron microscope. That can come later in the article. We can go to the history article for the Electron microscope#History for a suggestion. So, perhaps expand that sentence like this:

"The first electron microscope was developed by Ernst Ruska in 1931, which by using electrons in place of light, allows a much higher resolution. This was a transmission electron microscope. It uses electrons which due to wave / particle duality can be used in place of X-rays or light. The electrons were focused using the electromagnetic lens previously developed by Hans Busch in 1926. The electrons are focused on a thin slice of the specimen pass through it, the resulting image is magnified by another electromagnetic lens system and the result is then recorded as an image that can record details down to atomic levels. The scanning electron microscope was developed by Manfred von Ardenne in 1937. This removes the need for a thin section by detecting the back scattered electrons, and may also detect scattered X rays, light produced and other signals produced during the interaction of the electrons with the specimen, and use these to build up a picture of the specimen."

"The scanning electron microscope was developed by Manfred von Ardenne in 1937. This removes the need for a thin section by detecting the back scattered electrons, ...." Source? --2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:B5 (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

And do the same with the atomic force microscope. Basically - for earlier forms of microscope one can go into a fair bit of detail but as you get to more recent microscopes then it is going to overwhelm the lede as well as become overly technical to say so much. Whatever we do, it's my view that any microscopes mentioned in this historical paragraph should be explained in enough detail so that the reader has some idea how they work. My vote is only a weak support for the ultramicroscope mentioned in the lede but based on the idea that the lede is like a miniature version of an entire article, then I think it makes a very nice transition from the optical microscope, and tells the story to the reader of our quest for more and more detail and is of especial interest as the first microscope to give us a view of the nanoworld. That then makes the electron microscopes even more interesting, in contrast to the ultramicroscope that attempted to view the world at a similar distance scale, but of course with much less details as just fuzzy coloured dots hinting at the presence of nanoscale particles in solution. It is just a suggestion. This is to explain my vote. Thanks! Robert C. Walker (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Source? Yours doesn't say it's a major microscope. --2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:B5 (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Please see #Updated version of the suggested historical paragraph for the lede below. Robert Walker (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Updated version of the suggested historical paragraph for the lede

As a result of criticism on my talk page by @2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:B5: I have fixed some issues with this paragraph though they say it is still inaccurate. Anyway this is the best I can do, and I thank them for helping to clear up some confusions with it:

"The first type of microscope to be developed was the optical microscope, starting with single lens magnifying glasses in the 13th century. In 1902, the Ultramicroscope was developed. This uses very bright light from the side, to illuminate individual particles as small as a few nanometers in diameter which appear as coloured dots moving due to Brownian motion against a dark background . It as the first microscope to go beyond the optical resolution limits. The first electron microscope was developed by Ernst Ruska in 1931, which by using electrons in place of light, allows a much higher resolution. This was a transmission electron microscope. It uses electrons which due to wave / particle duality can be used in place of X-rays or light. The electrons were focused using the electromagnetic lens previously developed by Hans Busch in 1926. The electrons are focused on a thin slice of the specimen pass through it, the resulting image is magnified by another electromagnetic lens system and the result is then recorded as an image that can record details down to atomic levels. The transmission electron microscope is restricted to electron transparent thin sections of up to 100 nm in thickness. The scanning electron microscope was developed by Manfred von Ardenne in 1937, and works in a different way, by detecting the secondary electrons, X rays, light and other signals produced during the interaction of the electrons with the specimen, along with back scattered electrons, and using some or all this information to build up a picture of the specimen. This makes it possible to image large objects of any thickness. This was followed by other types of electron microscope and then eventually to atomic force microscopes which involve a fine probe which hovers close to the specimen and measures the interaction of the atoms of the tip of the probe with the atoms and molecules of the sample, to map it in 3D, and many new types of optical microscope, and X-ray microscopes"

There, there might be many differing ideas about the amount of details to put in for each one. The electron microscope does seem to be worth describing in a little detail. Whether I got the details themselves right or not, I think this is about right by way of the amount of detail for the electron microscope, or possibly a bit less. The other microscopes mentioned may also need more details. And more types of microscope may be needed. It is not excessive in length for a wikipedia lede so we could go into a bit more detail.

This is just a suggestion to show the idea that it might work better in the led to mention a few types and go into more detail about each one rather than just give a list of names. I think it will also help the reader to use the historical approach as a gentle introduction to the topic for a newbie. I would expect it to be rewritten extensively if it is used in the lede.

The main point is that I think a list of names of types of microscope in the lede is of limited value. If the reader already knows about those microscopes, they don't need to be told about them. If the reader doesn't know about them, then a mere name, like "electron microscope" won't convey much - if you think of yourself as coming to this maybe as a high school student, or someone with no scientific training, who doesn't know what an electron microscope is and may not even have heard the term before. Many people simply won't have heard of an "electron microscope" and won't know what it is. They know what an electron is probably, and a microscope, but won't know what an "electron microscope" is. So what is the point in just including the name in a list in the lede without a short explanation?

So instead I think the lede should have a not too long list, and say enough about each one so that the reader has some idea of what it is, which then they can find out more about in the body of the article. Also for a newbie reader like that I think the historical perspective is a good way of introducing them, to focus on historically significant developments. If done that way, the ultramicroscope, in my view, does deserve mention, as a historically significant microscope. There are many things of great historical significance at their time that are no longer significant today. E.g. commercial sailing ships to take an example. It would be wrong to say that the Sailing Schooner is a major type of boat as the only ones today are historical replicas and such like. But historically it is one of the most significant boats in the history of sailing vessels. So it's like that. For three decades, which is quite a long time, then if you wanted to observe the nanoscale, the only way to do that was with an ultramicroscope. I think that makes it highly historically significant, enough so I have a weak support of a mention in the lede in a historical paragraph. Robert Walker (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

"The first type of microscope to be developed was the optical microscope, starting with single lens magnifying glasses in the 13th century."

• Unsourced.

"In 1902, the Ultramicroscope was developed. This uses very bright light from the side, to illuminate individual particles as small as a few nanometers in diameter which appear as coloured dots moving due to Brownian motion against a dark background[5] [6]. It as the first microscope to go beyond the optical resolution limits."

• Unsourced, undue weight for a single source speculative journal article, not in source cited, and original research.

"The first electron microscope was developed by Ernst Ruska in 1931, which by using electrons in place of light, allows a much higher resolution. This was a transmission electron microscope. It uses electrons which due to wave / particle duality can be used in place of X-rays or light. The electrons were focused using the electromagnetic lens previously developed by Hans Busch in 1926. The electrons are focused on a thin slice of the specimen pass through it, the resulting image is magnified by another electromagnetic lens system and the result is then recorded as an image that can record details down to atomic levels."

• Excessive detail, badly written.

"The transmission electron microscope is restricted to electron transparent thin sections of up to 100 nm in thickness."

• False. "Thin section" is a technical term in microscopy. It's used incorrectly here. Suspensions are a huge area of TEM.

"The scanning electron microscope was developed by Manfred von Ardenne in 1937, and works in a different way, by detecting the secondary electrons, X rays, light and other signals produced during the interaction of the electrons with the specimen, along with back scattered electrons, and using some or all this information to build up a picture of the specimen."

• Badly written, BSEs are a major signal, and this sentence reduces it to an afterthought. It's not "x-rays," it's "characteristic x-rays." It doesn't use this information to build a picture, some creates pictures. Some characterizes.

"This makes it possible to image large objects of any thickness."

• False. T

"This was followed by other types of electron microscope"

• What other types?

"and then eventually to atomic force microscopes which involve a fine probe which hovers close to the specimen and measures the interaction of the atoms of the tip of the probe with the atoms and molecules of the sample, to map it in 3D,'

• Really? Says who?

"and many new types of optical microscope, and X-ray microscopes"

• A lot more wring with this. I suggest that it is too badly written to even be rewritten and used as a starting point.

--2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:8F (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Just to say on the sources, I didn't bother to add sources as it is just a draft to show what would be said. There are many citations in the article itself that can be used. E.g. you say: "The first type of microscope to be developed was the optical microscope, starting with single lens magnifying glasses in the 13th century." that it is unsourced. If this was written in an article you'd add a cn tag. But on a talk page, it's not thought to be necessary to source everything you write :). It's easy to find sources but before working on it to that extent, we'd need to know if the idea itself is interesting. Anyway we've had a long conversation on my talk page, I will leave the rest of what you say to others here :). Just wanted to add a comment on sourcing as that hasn't come up in our conversation on my talk page. Thanks for your criticisms of my suggested paragraph! Robert C. Walker (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The ultramicroscope comment has been unsourced for a few years and now is leading to a 10,000 word, dozen editor, month long discussion. Please source it or remove it. --2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:8F (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

A discussion that you seem determined to fan into a flamefest. Just reading through these comments, I find yours the least collaborative and most provocative of all. Please think about how your words will be interpreted by your intended audience before pressing "save changes". What's your motivation for posting under an IP address anyway? --Slashme (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:8F and 2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:8F: Are you referring to its mention in my new draft paragraph for the lede, which you requested me to write to show the idea of how it would work? If so, it has a source which establishes the ultramicroscope as historically significant, for three decades of the nineteenth century, along with a cite about the Nobel prize for its inventor. I voted a weak support for its inclusion in a historical paragraph of this sort and I think the cites given are sufficient for a weak support. Of course your mileage may vary :). Robert C. Walker (talk) 03:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

If you wrote it at my request, I take it back. When I told you you shouldn't write it you didn't listen, so don't put the blame for this on me. You have one source, which doesn't say whay you think it does, it's an essay, the authors themselves are speculating, and you've made an original conclusion that because one article is written about it, it was novel for three decades for its resolution, and a Noble Prize is associated with it, that, as a microscope, it is more important than dark field, DIC, modern light sheet, infinite focus, STED, fluorescence, confocal, optical slicing, and everything else. The authors don't say that. You do. It's on3 essay. That's all. WP:OR Undue weight, etc., etc. --2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:77 (talk) 05:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:77: Well that is how I understood your comment here: [14]. Perhaps I didn't make it clear enough at the time? That is why I wrote that paragraph, in respond to your request, at least as I understood it. Robert Walker (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Then, please remove it and close this. It's bad. Thanks. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:65 (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd rather leave it in place for other editors to look at to see what they make of it. I have not changed my weak support of the idea of a historical paragraph like this, with the ultramicroscope mentioned. So why should I remove the paragraph which shows how it would work? If it is bad it will just get ignored or other editors will come in and say so. Although a mistake an editor makes in an article itself has to be corrected, a mistake on a talk page is usually left in place. Also in addition, as a matter of talk page etiquette, once a comment has been responded to, you are normally not meant to edit it. You can edit it or a short while if nobody has replied. Once someone has replied you can still edit it, but you have to use strike out and underline to show which words and sentences you removed or added. You can also collapse an off topic conversationWP:TPO. So in the circumstances even if I wanted to remove it, I can't really. It might get me into trouble to do so. See WP:REDACT. Robert Walker (talk) 00:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

You might find it helpful to read the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines Robert Walker (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Just so we're clear that you're fully responsible for what you wrote, it's not on me.

You might find it helpful to read Wikipedia:RS, and Wikipedia:OR. --2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:63 (talk) 03:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Yes I have made that clear all the way through. Yes I am aware of those guidelines. What I wrote on the ultramicroscope was based on reliable sources. The other sentences were just a "how you might do it" type examples and I simply looked through the articles here on transmission and scanning electron microscopes etc and then did my best attempt at condensing what they said in their historical sections + explanation of how they work to a single sentence, or a couple of sentences. It's not important whether I got it right as it was just to show the idea. Other authors could try their hand at condensing the material similarly into two sentences. There are loads of reliable sources on the origins of the optical microscope, and the two main types of electron microscope so there would be no problem sourcing those sentences to reliable sources if others here decided that my proposal was a good one and we were to work together to write a historical paragraph of this nature in the lede. The main problem wouldn't be finding reliable sources, but rather, finding an accurate way to condense it all down enough for a brief historical overview like this.

My main points, which have been rather obscured in this discussion, are:

• I have voted a weak support for mention of ultramicroscope in a historical paragraph in the lede
• The idea of the paragraph is that it should not consist of just a list of microscopes by name and the date they were invented. It should briefly also describe each microscope, how it works, sufficiently for a reader who doesn't know what an "electron microscope" is to have a very rough idea of what it is and how it works. So for instance, two types of electron microscope are probably sufficient, TEM and SEM, with accurate short descriptions of how they work, rather than a long list of names of all the main types of modern electron microscope with their dates of invention, which will mean nothing to the reader unless they already know what they are.
• As a history section, this paragraph should focus on historically significant developments rather than on the microscopes of most significance today. That's because of the intent to provide a very short history section in the lede. So in that sense the ultramicroscope is historically significant since for three decades in the early twentieth century, it was the only way to image nanoscale particles and to estimate their size, and it also gave observational evidence of atoms through Brownian motion. In this way it would sidestep this entire argument about whether the ultramicroscope is a major modern instrument. There is no evidence presented here that it is, as you rightly say. But it is, I think, of historical significance for a history paragraph in the lede. That's the reason for my weak support.

Hope that is a bit clearer now Robert Walker (talk) 11:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The suggested lead modification above does not seem to follow reliable secondary sources, seems to be a bit OR, and reads a bit off. Just following RS such as The Evolution of the Microscope by S. Bradbury, the historically significant development is the compound microscope, which the Ultramicroscope is a subtype (and not even mentioned in that source btw). A large portion of the suggested lead seems to be descriptive, not historiacal, that should be broken out. That description should be in the lead, but as description. Since this is a WP:SUMMARY article everything should be short and sweet, history should be minimal citations of the main points, and covered in maybe one or two sentences in the lead. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

It's never been unclear to me that this is original research on your part: "But it is, I think, of historical significance for a history paragraph in the lede." Wikipedia articles are not about what you think, they're based on what reliable sources have published. --2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:64 (talk) 13:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Fountains of Bryn Mawr: Okay, first, yes we should follow reliable secondary sources on the history of the microscope. If they don't mention the ultramicroscope then probably we shouldn't either. I would say that the ultramicroscope is more than a subtype of compound microscope, because it gave the first glimpse of nanoscale particles which none of the others did. I base that on the article I cited in the lede which presented it as a significant historical development on the way to the electron microscope and describes it as "The birth of nanotechnology?" in The Invention of Immersion Ultramicroscopy in 1912 - The Birth of Nanotechnology?. So, I think that is a WP:RS so it's not really fair I think to say that the suggestion is not based on WP:RS. It's certainly not just me expressing my own views on the topic. So it is not WP:OR to say that. It's a secondary source on the ultramicroscope. I am not sure to what extent it counts as a secondary source on the history of microscopy as it is putting forward a particular thesis according to which the ultramicroscope is of great historical significance. Hence my weak support.

On the length of the paragraph - the thing is that the current lede is very short. Some editors here have a preference for very short ledes that are "teasers" for the article itself. But that is not the recommendation in the guidelines. It's meant to serve as a small "stand alone" mini article for readers who only read the lede. See MOS:LEAD.

"The lead is the first part of the article that most people will read. For many, it may be the only section that they read. A good lead section cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article, but not by teasing the reader or hinting at content that follows. The lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view."

"The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.[1] The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Like in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the articl."

"As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate."

Based on those guidelines, then the paragraph I suggested would be appropriate and to have one of the four paragraphs in the lede devoted to the history of the microscope seems about right. There would be up to three other paragraphs of equal length in the lede covering other topics. Whether to mention the ultramicroscope would depend on how notable it is in the history of microscopy. I have weak support for its inclusion in a historical passage - in an expanded lede. I agree that it would unbalance the current very short lede to have such a long historical passage. Hope that is a bit clearer. I'm not sure why you think the descriptions should be separated out from the history, seems that they go well together, but if the electron microscope etc was already described in previous paragraphs, then of course it would be repetitive to describe it again. However, any microscope of only historical interest such as the ultramicroscope (if there was agreement to mention it) would of course have to be briefly described in this paragraph. Robert Walker (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be some confusion here. Reliable sources for an overall history paragraph would be published works by historians, who are experts in a field, which give an overview of the topic. A "secondary source on the ultramicroscope" is not a reliable source in that context, source is too narrow and probably comes from a certain POV. Saying that something is an important step in history based on "there is a book on it" and "its connected to a Nobel Prize" is a claim a historian could make, but a claim we as Wikipedia editors can never make (re: WP:V and WP:OR). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk)

Yes I understand that. But the link I gave was to a historical examination of the significance of the ultramicroscope, the author says

"2012 marks the centenary of the invention of one of the most remarkable techniques in nanoscience, one which has opened a new window to the study of colloidal solutions. This invention—the immersion ultramicroscope—may be said to mark the moment when modern nanotechnology began"

So it's the author of this paper who says it has historical significance, not me. It's not just a source on the ultramicroscope, it's also a source on its historical significance, which is why saying it is historically significant is not OR, on the other hand it is a source that's obviously focusing particularly on the historical significance of the ultramicroscope, hence my weak support. I have no axe to grind here, I am not advocating it to be included :). It's not like I particularly want the ultramicroscope to be included for some other reason, not like it's my favourite microscope or something :). Just presenting the situation as I see it. Weak support for historical section on the basis of an article that covers it as a historically significant microscope, but weak because that's just one author saying that. I voted just because @2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:B5: found my statement of a weak support in the discussion area inconsistent with my oppose vote and challenged me to explain, so the only way to make it consistent was to add a weak support vote - and then I did this lede again just to explain why I had a weak support of it as a historical instrument. :). I had no previous connection with this article and just came here in response to the RfC announcements. Robert Walker (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

"the invention of one of the most remarkable techniques in nanoscience" This is the microscope article, not the nanoscience article.

"may be said to mark the moment when modern nanotechnology began" This is the microscope article, not the speculative beginning of nanotechnology article.

This is one essay. It's speculative in nature, notice the author's question mark in the title: "The Birth of Nanotechnology?" For this journal, essays are peer reviewed, but not at the same level as research communications.

"Saying that something is an important step in history based on "there is a book on it" and "its connected to a Nobel Prize" is a claim a historian could make, but a claim we as Wikipedia editors can never make (re: WP:V and WP:OR)." I agree, but note there is no modern book on it; the only recent source is this one speculative essay. There are multiple books on fluorescence microscopes, which don't make the lead, yet founded a multi-billion dollar revolution in biology. Here are two such examples (1.2.) of microscope textbooks. Both have chapters on fluorescence microscopes, confocal laser scanning microscopes, two photon microscopes, and super-resolution microscopes. There are multiple books and chapters and review articles and papers on CLSM; we don't need editorial speculation to establish that these microscopes, with multiple books and book chapters and review articles written on them, are more historically significant according to the reliable sources than the ultramicroscope.

"As a history section, this paragraph should focus on historically significant developments (bold in original). This also isn't the Timeline of microscope technology article. Even there, a statement should be supported by more than the conclusions drawn by a single Wikipedia editor based on his interpretation of one speculative essay.

"Weak support based on a single article" is undue weight, the conclusions drawn by the supporter from a single speculative article are OR and don't belong on Wikipedia. --2601:648:8503:4467:6923:BBC3:3FDF:AEFE (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for comment on how a scanning electron microscope works

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article says, "Scanning optical and electron microscopes, like the confocal microscope and scanning electron microscope, use lenses to focus a spot of light or electrons onto the sample then analyze the reflected or transmitted waves."

I changed it to, "Scanning optical and electron microscopes, like the confocal microscope and scanning electron microscope, use lenses to focus a spot of light or electrons onto the sample then analyze the signals generated by the beam interacting with the sample."

This contradicts the Wikipedia article on Scanning electron microscopes (and all reliable sources), which says," The electrons interact with atoms in the sample, producing various signals that contain information about the sample's surface topography and composition."

Also, the major optical methods work differently, and this is a poor misrepresentation of both Confocal laser scanning microscopy and Near-field scanning optical microscope, but I haven't gotten near those.

Please discuss, and please provide references.

--2601:648:8503:4467:F4B3:6D6C:9DCC:DC06 (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I have noticed this RFC because it was mentioned at the Tea house. So I'm an uninvolved editor, but am not one of this article's participants (usually RFCs are to form concensus between those). But I agree with you that unless the article already covers other microscope technology the lead should not mention those, because the lead is supposed to be a summary of the content. The see-also section, or the category, may be a more appropriate way to access more microscopy-related articles, which are not currently covered in this one. As for your question about how to gather more attention to RFCs when noone participates, I'm not sure. It may be that bringing it up at the Tea house was a good idea, if this article's talk page is mostly dead. The RFCs are however also found in their proper category (i.e. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Maths,_science,_and_technology in this case), but I'm not sure how many patrol those. We also have the science reference desk (mostly to obtain information and references for topics) and the dispute resolution noticeboard (which can call for uninvolved editors). PaleoNeonate (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for treating me decently and addressing my questions and offering suggestions (also to the poster above, even if I did not understand his her point, for at least participating). --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 01:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

• In general, shift detailed text into other pages: The page "Microscope" should be kept short and simple. Also fringe models of scopes should be avoided here. For mainstream microscopes, explain them in other pages ("God is in the details, retained in subpages"). Otherwise, a major page (such as "Microscope") is victim to endless years of rewrites and text-deletions. When you turn your back, the crucial text (or photos), which you spent weeks/months to refine, will be removed within a few days, and no one will have time to check the results. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

  I would describe the basics, but in just a sentence or two, as this differentiates among the different microscopes, otherwise it's just a list. This RFC is about correcting misinformation, should there be no info on how a major microscope works? --2601:648:8503:4467:1956:5F67:33D7:70C9 (talk) 06:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

This article is unreferenced, badly written, poorly developed, full of misinformation, and, contradictory within it and within Wikipedia

I see why.

6 days, 10 hours, multiple editors and posts all over the place to remove one unreferenced word from the lead.

Good luck finding someone with knowledge of the topic who is willing to be treated like shit to fix this article. That someone is not me.

Good riddance. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 02:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hope you still reconsider. I only unprotected the article today. The RfCs have only been up for the day. I'd say give it a week before you throw in the towel. El_C 03:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

How? City admits he is playing games with me, willing to vandalize this article to make a point against me. Dane keeps inserting things that aren't there, even when he she provides the source.

Please add the template or tag that says it's not in the source to what he she just added. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 03:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

With a heavy heart, I fully protected the page for three days to prevent any further edit warring. But it hurtsted my soul a little bit. Anyway, hopefully, this is something the two (three?) of you can resolve here, on the article talk page, in the meantime. Also, the tag you're thinking of is the {{failed verification}} tag. [Never mind, I see that you have done this already.] CityofSilver and Dane: can you both provide reliable sources (preferably from 2ndry scholarly sources) that IP is requesting? Thanks. Addendum: Incidentally, I'm happy to lift the protection early, so let me know if you reach a breakthrough (I'll try to keep an eye anyway though). El_C 03:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Probably for the better. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 04:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@El C: It makes sense that if people are going to characterize me as a supporter of maintaining the word's presence in the lede, they need to square that with a previous message from me that started out "I support removing the reference to 'ultramicroscope'." CityOfSilver 00:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

We're having these walls of discussion and RFCs because you reverted my removal. Twice. That squares with saying you are keeping it in, as you are directly responsible. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone, but if I were to hazard a guess, I'd say the reverts were on procedural grounds: wanting to wait until the RfC is concluded before removal. Which, incidentally, is not necessary if the passage in question is particularly poorly sourced. Sorry, I haven't read everything concerning it to comment beyond that. El_C 05:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

No. For some reason Dane, who has had since the 26th to source it, wants it in the article. City admitted above he is bullying me to teach me a lesson, and admitted on a user talk page that he reverted me to violate Wikipedia's point policy to troll me to teach me a lesson.

I started the RFC long after City began his campaign of trolling, provoking and bullying me. Remember, he is admitting to bullying and trolling me. But, for whatever real reason, he reverted a legitimate edit twice to keep an unsourced and challenged statement in the article. He and Dane won't allow the unreferenced statement to be removed.

It's not poorly source, it is 100% unsourced and has never been sourced.

The article looks like it has been ignored for years. I have no idea why everyone is panicked about the removal of one unsourced word from the lead. This article needs a lot of work.67.180.57.221 (talk) 06:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

You say "admitted to bullying and trolling me", but we have no idea who you are. I saw this same claim on User talk:2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D, and now it's being repeated by User:67.180.57.221. There are edits from at least four different IP addresses in this discussion, so I don't know who is saying what. Are you the only anonymous user taking part in this discussion? Should we assume that all comments by anonymous users are from you? If you'll just make a username, you'll be even more anonymous than you are now, because no-one will be able to see your IP address, but at least we'll have a stable name to attach to your comments, and you can start to build up a reputation so that people can take you more seriously. Also, any claims of abuse that you make will be easier for admins to evaluate, so you're more likely to get redress. --Slashme (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

No one besides me is editing the article in an attempt to improve it other than the one lead paragraph to the history of microscopes section, so it seems I am all the IP editors. I edit on my mobile while travelling so my IP changes frequently. A number of editors are fighting tooth and nail to prevent every attempt I make at improving the article. I tried creating a user name but I was harassed worse than I am being bullied now. At some point, Wikipedia ought to figure out that the articles are more important than hanging out and playing games. At that point a user name might be worthwhile. But I don't really see that happening. Until then, a user name just makes me a target for more bullies. --2601:648:8503:4467:5520:C997:E664:CBDE (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear PI. Thanks for hanging in there. It is probably small comfort to know that your experience here is far from unusual when trying to apply real expertise to correct/improve articles on scientific topics of a more general nature, where the aphorism "a little learning is a dangerous thing" may apply. I experienced the same problem in the articles physics, chemistry, and resonance. I doubt that there is any solution to this problem within the Wikipedia model, which works amazing well for most topics, but poorly for topics of this nature. (Medicine may be a fortunate exception; a set of specific guidelines for reliable sources could be established for that field, but efforts to establish guidelines for editing scientific articles were blocked.) So I just gave up and focused my (occasional) efforts on the many articles begging for work on more specialized topics where it requires more effort to engage. Trolls don't seem to bother us there. Layzeeboi (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

It's like Kafka. No one has even heard of an ultramicroscope; it's unsourced; it's not discussed anywhere else in the article; there are not realy sources on line about it; they're not technical writers; but they're gonna die before they remove that one unsourced word from the lead of the article. I'll bring popcorn the next time I try to remove a single unsourced obscure word from an article.

We could have written 20 new articles on missing topics; rewritten this to featured article status, but, no, that word must stay here. --2601:648:8503:4467:DC06:E4F7:AC27:B7B9 (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 April 2017

2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The edit request is below, the text disappears when I post it. I tried twice. Someone needs to fix the template. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

1. Please add {{Refimprove science}} tag

2. In the history section, all of the subtitles should be microscope or microscopes, not microscopy. Wikipedia has separate articles on microscopy, but the instrument is a topic large enough for its own encyclopedia, and having an article on the instrument makes sense.

• X--> ==Rise of modern light microscopy==
• Y--> ==Rise of modern light microscopes==

• X--> ==Electron microscopy==
• Y--> ==Electron microscopes==

• X--> ==Scanning probe microscopy==
• Y--> ==Scanning probe microscopes==

• X--> ==Fluorescence and light microscopy==
• Y--> ==Fluorescence microscopes==

A section on super resolution microscopes and x-ray microscopes will be added with appropriate headlines.

--2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 19:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 April 2017

2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Actual edit request below. When I post the template the edit request disappears. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

• X-->
  Main article: Microscopy § Sub-diffraction techniques

Much current research (in the early 21st century) on optical microscope techniques is focused on development of superresolution analysis of fluorescently labelled samples. Structured illumination can improve resolution by around two to four times and techniques like stimulated Emission Depletion microscopy are approaching the resolution of electron microscopes.

• Y--> ==Super resolution microscopes==

Much current research (in the early 21st century) on optical microscope techniques is focused on development of superresolution analysis of fluorescently labelled samples. Structured illumination can improve resolution by around two to four times and techniques like stimulated Emission Depletion microscopy are approaching the resolution of electron microscopes. }} 2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Let me know if you approve of the {{main}} articles. El_C 19:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Super resolution should be a subsection of the History of microscopes, right after Fluorescent microscopes. Otherwise, not much changed! Thank you. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 April 2017

Please add in History section, after super resolution microscopes section:

X-ray microscopes

X-ray microscopes are instruments that use eectromagnetic radiation in the soft X-ray band to image objects. They are often used in tomography (see micro-computed tomography) to produce three dimensional images of objects, including biological materials that have not been chemically fixed. 2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 19:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Microscope versus microscopy

This article is about the instrument not the scientific discipline, microscopy, for which there already exists an article.

I would like to edit this article to reflect this, that it is the article it is, an article about the instrument, the microscope. There are already articles about most of the different types of microscopes, whether within a discipline article or within the specific instrument. This article should be an overall high level article about microscopes.

This sentence focuses on the technique: In the early 20th century a significant alternative to light microscopy was developed, using electrons rather than light to generate the image.

While this sentence is a lead in to a paragraph about a major development in the instrumentation: In the early 20th century a significant alternative to the light microscope was developed, an instrument that uses a beam of electrons rather than light to generate an image.

However, this change has been rejected.[15] I think that it will be easier to develop and add sources to this paragraph and section if the focus remains entirely on the instrument while leaving the technique to its own already extensive article. Opening the paragraph as a discussion about the method rather than the tool is incorrect.

An alternative, of course, would be to merge the articles.

So, should I start an RFC about making this article the microscope article, which it is, versus the microscopy article, which already exists elsewhere?

--2601:648:8503:4467:5520:C997:E664:CBDE (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Text and citations instead of a list

I suggest the article contain brief informative text with citations about the microscopes, rather than a list of the different types, linked, but with no discussion or reliable sources. This seems to displease City. If other editors think an RFC is needed on whether to write content with reliable sources or just list a bunch of microscopes, let me know.

--2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:77 (talk) 01:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

PCR comment I think content would be nice (as long as others are writing it :) ), but I am having a hard time from the history figuring out what the problem is. L3X1 (distant write) 02:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

It was a list of about 20 different types of SPMs, so I narrowed it down to the 3 most common and familiar types according to sources and added information about the different probes they use, the primary difference, and sources. City, as he admits above, is dedicated to bullying me, so he reverted the edit without looking at it. It has taken about 10,000 words and a dozen editors, and a month, to try to remove one word without a reliable source from the lead after City reverted me twice for trying to remove it, so I jumped to thinking he wants an RFC for every atrempt to improve and source this article. -2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:77 (talk) 02:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

If that is the case (the "conversation" on your talk page in incomprehensible to me), and RfC seems like a good idea. L3X1 (distant write) 02:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

It's probably necessary. He's stalking me and interfering with my editing and has been doing so for a long time, so no way anyone could understand. But, I will open another RFC, please participate about the content if you have a minute, as this article still needs a lot of work and has very few editors for such an important topic. I don't write well in English, so copy editing my contributions would also be useful.. --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:77 (talk) 03:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

RFC should article focus on instrument, microscope, or technique, microscopy

Should this article be about microscopes rather than microscopy? There is an article on microscopy, already. I am attempting to focus this article on the instrument itself, but this has been rejected.[16] I think that it will be easier to develop and add sources to this article if the focus remains entirely on the instrument while leaving the technique to its own article.

--2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:C2 (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Support making article about microscope

• Support An article on microscopy exists already. For the high level topic it makes sense to pull out a separate article on the instrument, which has an extensive history that could be written. --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:C2 (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support Strikes me as reasonable. An article focusing on the history and composition of the instrument itself would be an excellent companion to the one we already have about the history and divisions of the field sensu latu.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support but... The concepts and contexts of microscopes and their significance are far too wide for one article, or two IMO, but the implication is not that we can settle the problem by throwing articles at it. If we wish to achieve anything of a respectable standard we need to work out a practical, helpful structure for the set of articles involved, and handwaving about Microscope and Microscopy won't cut it. Nor will patching and faffing about with the wording of the current mess. I for one won't touch it before some properly identified team has been convened and the desired topics suitable defined and locked. JonRichfield (talk) 09:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support The tool (microscope) and the purpose for which the tool is used (microscopy) are in this case at least distinct enough that they should each receive their own article. --Joshualouie711^talk 14:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

An example of the problem is the fluorescent microscope history section. There are specific technological advances in the instrument that enable fluorescent imagjng, which has been ar9und since the early 20th century, but the section focuses on fluorescent microscopy rather than the instrument. It needs rewritten, but editors are not in agreement on the topic of this article.

Can the fluorescent microscope section be rewritten to be about the microscope? --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:C2 (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Your cited change wasn't rejected for reasons of scope, but for reasons of grammar. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

  That doesn't appear to be the case, as it says the change was not helpful. Not that it was badly written. --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:C2 (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Bad grammar isn't helpful. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• I take it you oppose spending time making this article technically correct, informative, and sourced on the topic of microscopes? There's a section above for your oppose. --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:C2 (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• I support motherhood and apple pie and oppose the beating of wives too. We already have separate articles on Microscope and Microscopy, so it's unclear what your change is intended to achieve. When your ungrammatical change was reverted [17] you seem to have taken that as a personal slight and are now attacking uninvolved editors as "opposing spending time making this article technically correct, informative, and sourced". As you evidently have the linguistic and rhetorical skills of a stroppy teenager, I'm puzzled as to how deep your technical knowledge will be to go along with that? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, you have nothing to contribute to the article. Got it. --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:C2 (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oh, I do see what you mean, I made a typo. Lol. The entire article is unsourced and contains incorrect information, and you're here about my typo. There are just so many ways this article could be improved if there weren't so many editors dedicated to impeding any and all improvements. --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:C2 (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

History of fluorescence microscopes

This section, Microscope#Fluorescence_microscopes, doesn't quite pretend to be about the instrument. There is plenty of material, sourceable, to talk about the microscope. The section should discuss the historical advances in the components of fluorescent microscopes, wide field versus confocal scanning, and how that leads to the common modern lab instruments today from the 20th century origins.--2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:C2 (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Remove "both types of electron microscope" from the lead

There is no need to list both types of electron microscope in the lead. The idea is to clean the lead out so that it is useful, as this is all that appears when mobile and tablet users access the page. This is a large audience.

• From this --> "In this way of grouping microscopes the most common (and the first microscope to be invented) is the optical microscope, which uses light to image the sample. Other major types of microscopes are the electron microscope (both the transmission electron microscope and the scanning electron microscope), and the various types of scanning probe microscope.[1]"

Why do we list both types of electron microscope? Is the average reading going to assume that by "electron microscope" we mean only one type rather than both major types? Should we list the major types of light (probably a dozen) and scanning probe (maybe the 3 most commone) microscopes in the lead also? Or can we just shorten the sentence:

• To this --> "In this way of grouping microscopes the most common (and the first microscope to be invented) is the optical microscope, which uses light to image the sample. Other major types of microscopes are the electron microscope, and the various types of scanning probe microscope.[1]"

User:Qzd disagrees with this change.[18]

• Or possibly this --> "In this way of grouping microscopes the most common (and the first microscope to be invented) is the optical microscope (including optical light, polarizing, phase contrast, epifluorescence, confocal, digital, and super resolution microscopes), which uses light to image the sample. Other major types of microscopes are the electron microscope (both the transmission electron microscope and the scanning electron microscope), and the various types of scanning probe microscope (including atomic force, near-field scanning optical, and scanning tunneling microscopes).[1]"

  Of course expanding the optical light microscope sentence with a number of different types also.

So, what's the consensus?

--2601:648:8503:4467:DC7F:C122:B217:7086 (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I cannot argue for any consensus, but also cannot support any debate with disruptive editing and wikiwarring from persons who do not wish to adopt any handles. The lede and large parts of the body of the article are an embarrassment, badly written and badly constructed. They need competent replacement from scratch, and the foregoing items are not it, either from the point of view of quality or content. JonRichfield (talk) 09:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Yet here you are, debating.

Please feel free to make a proposal to prohibit IP editing.

By all means, as you know the needed quality and content, edit! --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:5D (talk) 11:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

You say you don't want to create a username because then you'll get "bullied", but you continually flame everyone else, even people who agree with your proposals. You edit anonymously, so you have no stable IP address, and when we point out that it would be more convenient to communicate with you if you would make a username, you imply that we want to ban IP editing. You continually accuse others of acting in bad faith (e.g. accusing people of trying to keep misinformation in this article, just because they're engaging in the discussion that you started). You might be a technically competent and good editor, but this is a collaborative project, and you're not working collaboratively. --Slashme (talk) 07:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

What's to collaborate on? No one is improving microscope articles. Light, electron, scanning probe, they're full of unsourced misinformation. One of the EM articles has an incomprehensible five year old description of the wrong imaging technique. That ultramicroscope bit? No reliable source, but it takes 10000 words, 4 weeks, and a dozen editors to remove an unsourced claim. That's not collaboration. That's dealing with Randy in Boise. --2601:648:8503:4467:CC4:FFC7:3087:F815 (talk) 08:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I've made an attempt to use the concept of classification of microscopes to improve the lede somewhat. Now instead of talking about "both types of electron microscopes", it discusses transmission and reflection/fluorescence separately. In the process I removed the wording "electromagnet beam" that was added about a week ago. A beam of electrons isn't an electromagnetic beam, by the way. --Slashme (talk) 08:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

So much for collaboration.

"... generate images from the light or electrons that pass through a thin section of the sample (transmission electron microscopy or transmission optical microscopy)"

Word order inconsistency light/electron, then electron/light. It's not the electrons or photons that pass through that generate the image. It's the ones that interact with the sample.

"or from the results of illuminating the surface of the sample (reflected light or fluorescence in the case of a light microscope, and secondary electrons emitted by atoms excited by the electron beam of a scanning electron microscope"

SEMs don't generate images from the results of illuminating the surface of the sample, neither do fluorescence microscopes, although maybe you could say that with naturally occurring fluorescence. You also say "by the way the instruments gather data," then you don't mention the ETD or chips or anything that actually gathers data, just the secondary electrons for SEM, for example. Without a detector nothing is being gathered, and, for this article, it should be about image formation by the microscope, not the CCD or secondary electron detector. It's off target.

It's odd phrasing. Not sure where you're going with it. I am reverting for first part though. The electrons and photons that pass through are background. Also, "thin section" on Wikipedia is about petrographic thin sections, and in microscopy the sample, even though it may be thin, is not necessarily a "thin section." --2601:648:8503:4467:CC4:FFC7:3087:F815 (talk) 08:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Current:

"There are many types of microscopes, and they may be grouped in different ways. One way is to describe the way the instruments interact with a sample to create images, either by sending a beam of light or electrons to a sample in its optical path, or by scanning across, and a short distance from, the surface of a sample using a probe. The most common microscope (and the first to be invented) is the optical microscope, which uses light to pass through a samplpe to produce an image. Another type of optical microscope uses light to illuminate the sample surface, and, in this way, produces an image from the reflected or fluorescent light. Other major types of microscopes are the electron microscope (both, the transmission electron microscope and the scanning electron microscope) and the various types of scanning probe microscopes.[1]"

Alternative:

There are many different types of microscopes. The most familiar ones transmit either a beam of photons (optical light microscopes) or a beam of electrons (transmission electron microscopes) through a sample to form an image. Common optical light microscopes for materials science and the semiconductor industry send a beam of light to reflect off the surface of non-transparent samples to form images. Many advances have been made over the past two decades in fluorescence microscopes. A basic lab model uses an epi-illumination path to send a beam of light to excite atoms or molecules near the surface of the sample. The particles relax to their ground state and emit photons of longer wavelength that are recorded to create the image. Scanning electron microscopes similarly collect information of interactions from a beam of electrons being scanning across the surface of a sample. The electrons interact with the atoms of the sample causing electrons, x-rays, and other signals to be emitted from near the surface of the sample. Other microscopes scan a probe across and a short distance from the surface of the sample and create an image or map of the location and magnitude of an interaction between the probe and the surface.

--2601:648:8503:4467:941D:6EAC:64A2:EF15 (talk) 06:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

FWIW - Thank you for your comments - the "Current" lede (copied above) seems easier to understand; the "Alternative" lede seems much more technical - and less easy to understand - I would prefer the "Current" lede (or equivalent) over the "Alternative" one - IF Possible, the best wording(s) for the "Microscope" article lede may be wordings as non-technical, and as brief as possible - more detail re the wording may be found at associated wikilinks - this may make the "Microscope" article more accessible and useful to the average reader - after all => "Readability of Wikipedia Articles" (BEST? => Score of 60/"9th grade/14yo" level) - (also - see related discussion at => "Template talk:Nature timeline#BestWording") - Comments Welcome from other editors of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

References

I think b3ing incorrect makes the nont3chnical lead unacceptable. You imply that fluorescence is a subset of reflected light techniques. A lead should not establish misinformation in order to be less technical. --2601:648:8503:4467:29A3:AE8B:4BD0:8C1B (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Thin sections and fluorescent light

This sentence, "Another type of optical microscope uses light to illuminate the sample surface, and, in this way, produces an image from the reflected or fluorescent light." and the structure of the paragraph imply that fluorescence is reflected light microscopy technique. It's not. Epi-fluorescence may be the most common wide-field fluorescence imaging set-up, but it's not the only, and it shouldn't be divided out of transmitted light microscopes to imply that it is. Also, this is a huge gloss from illuminating the sample surface to producing an image from the fluorescent light. From what fluorescent light?

Also, editors keep focusing on thin sections, which is just one type of sample preparation for a variety of different types of microscopy, but it's not the only type of slide viewed with either transmitted photons or electrons.

--2601:648:8503:4467:941D:6EAC:64A2:EF15 (talk) 04:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)