Talk:Campani compound microscope

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Campani compound microscope article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 February 2017. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

History of Science

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Measurement (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Measurement, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.MeasurementWikipedia:WikiProject MeasurementTemplate:WikiProject MeasurementMeasurement articles

The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from Museo Galileo. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material . Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by VRT volunteers, under ticket number 2016062110008037.
This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia volunteer response team system (VRTS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-enwikimedia.org. Do not use this template to claim permission.

Lead/history pretty bogus

Not sure why the lead is even a history (way outside WP:MOS). As a history its a mix of pretty strange WP:YESPOV statements, some puffery, and just plain wrong statements, including mixing up the invention of the telescope ("Janssen's microscope produced in 1608").

I see this article was up for deletion and I agree with that in that:

there is no such thing as a "Galilean compound microscope" (no device is called that - that would be a beastie with a convex eyepiece and a concave objective.... we do not have that here),
no references are presented supporting the existence of a "Galilean compound microscope",
the attribution is totally wrong (attributed to Giuseppe Campani),
the article puts forward a mostly unreferenced history of Galileo's microscope (this article is about Campani's microscope).

If this is a specific notable device sitting in a museum then it needs references supporting that.

Have removed the spoof microscope history and tried to focus it towards the device (sources anyone?). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The history stuff was based on a proposal at the AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galilean compound microscope, that the article should be about Galileo's role in compound microscopes, and not about a museum piece. My feeling was that most of the keep !votes had that in mind, so I added a context section which could be developed towards that sort of article. The citations were there, feel free to ask about any of them. I do not have a strong opinion about the material (as you said, it largely duplicates material elsewhere) or about the subject of the article (except that the article should have a subject and by the end of the AfD there wasn't a consensus what that subject should be). Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article seemed clear (a device at the Museo Galileo), and that device only has one source (said museum's entry). The remainder of the article was speculation based on a claim refuted by the source (that this was a microscope built by Galileo).

The referencing in the old version was quite a bit off: Ref #1 claim of Janssen producing a microscope in 1608 doesn't fit what any historian says and the book is unreliable (not written by a historian), Ref #2 is wholly misquoted (that sequence of events was about the telescope, not the microscope). Ref #3 book is again unreliable (not written by a historian), makes claims based on Snijder tubes, and misses what most historians think - that Galileo's ochiolino was an improved copy of Cornelis Drebbel's compound microscope exhibited in Rome in 1624. Ref #5 misquotes Rustow, who notes this is a series of claims made by different people through history, not absolute fact as presented. It sorta goes on from there.

I read the AfD and there didn't seem to be consensus for an article about Galileo and the Compound Microscope. Since that history was off topic and a bit of a WP:CFORK I thought it better to delete it and focus the article to the device described. I note (also noted in the AfD) that this description of a single item at a museum was put up by that museum and may not be notable (other such entries have already been redirected). There may be a case to redirect this one as well (EDIT: but I will leave that to someone else to bring up for now). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]