Talk:Telescope/Archive 2

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

Adding BTA-6 to the list of notable telescopes.

--Korvin2050 (talk) 20:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

BALLS —Preceding unsigned comment added by WUTANG55 (talkcontribs) 17:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


I have fully protected this page due to the edit warring that has been going on. For the moment, I suggest some other form of dispute resolution than edit warring. I may have more comments later. Kevin (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have unprotected for now. I strongly suggest that you all stick to 1RR. Kevin (talk) 07:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolution has been tried with one of the editors involved[1] to no avail, and the next step recommended by those involved seems to be sanctions. It is obvious from the lack of participation (and the flat out ignoring) of the talk on this page since the article was protected that the editors adding the "pro-Alhazen" material have their own agenda. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Potential sources

I found a few sources relating to Al-Haytham and the development of the telescope. They may help in determining whether to include his role. Kevin (talk) 03:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

These (and/or similar) sources have already been discussed in extreme detail here and at Talk:Optical telescope. I am not sure what rehashing them is going to accomplish. We can either read the old talk or start a cut and paste debate here. I can give a "jist" of what we have here re the questions at hand:
  • Did Alhazen pay a pivotal roll in the invention of the telescope?
-Rebecca Stefoff says he was the first to write about optical theory (that means that he is the earliest known existant written record, not that he developed all of it.)
- Calvo Labarta is on the topic of Islamic Science, not telescope, and has that POV (WP:RELY)
- Vincent Ilardi says flat out no[2]
- Toby E. Huff talks about development, not invention, and shows a continuum of thinkers, not just Alhazen
- Sally Ganchy and Sarah Gancher is on the topic of Islamic Science, not telescope, and has that POV (WP:RELY) and discusses specifically how Alhazen contributed to the general scientific method, not any one invention (scientific method may be off topic for something that was invented by accident by optical craftsmen[3][4])
- Jacqueline De Weever is a typo, the book was "Book Of Optics"
And we have the general problem with the usability of these sources. I think I saw 20 different documentaries and overviews on the history of the telescope (this being the 400th anniversary of its invention) and Alhazen did not come up in one of them. Bolstering a "position" with a few vague outlying sources wile ignoring the overall scholarly record is ignoring WP:V and creating an article section by synthesis.
Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to drag up old history here. Kevin (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Meh. If a glass is 99.9999% full, it is NOT full. It's not a good idea to let yourself be purged into finding references that try to inhibit the goal of Wikipedia. Again, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Meh. InternetHero (talk) 00:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Fresnel imager

What do you think of adding Fresnel imager in the list? Since it can focus visible, UV and infrared light, i didnt know in which category it should go. It's a rather new type of telescope, but it looks very promising. Moumouza (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it would go under optical telescope since it focuses visible light. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking that it should go under the Other types of telescopes section, since it can work with light of any wavelength. Moumouza (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The article describes a Fresnel imager as viewing visual light and working into the IR and UV, which is the same description as an optical telescope (they do that to...especially if you put them in space). But it brings up another question, whats the def of an optical telescope? A telescope that works with visual light? A telescope that uses optical principles (optics) to form an image? I am not seeing a hard def on that. The Fresnel imager seems to be falling under "optical telescope" with both those defs... since it does both, but a better overall def for "optical telescope" may need looking into. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I added it under the Optical telescopes section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moumouza (talkcontribs) 22:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Relevancy of past discussions being re-discussed

There is hardly any relevancy pertaining to the title above. I have the right to edit and we've had a clear position aknowledged here in the talk-page: here, here, here, and here. InternetHero (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


Why is there no page or section for spyglass? spyglass just gives you a disambiguation with a refrerence to telescope but this page barely mentions them. There should be a page or at least a section on the old spyglass style telescopes used by sailors. (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It probably redirects here because of the nature of an encyclopedia, a spyglass's description and a telescope's description is exactly the same, an objective lens and an eyepiece. Spyglass is also slang for a telescope, which is again usually handled by redirect. The only difference in a def for a "spyglass" may be that a spyglass is collapsible and portable/concealable. Searching "A spyglass is" at Google books[5] brings up no hard def or further description that you could hang an article on. Google web brings up a little more[6] including this, that may be enough WP:V for an article. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Astronomical filters

I've added a paragraph to introduce the 'astronomical filter' in the optical telescopes section, and to link to the article of that title, which was previously orphaned. I feel it enhances the original telescope section on optical telescopes. Though I would imagine all telescopes benefit from filters, in some form or other, such as DSP (digital signal processing), but I thought I'd just stay with the intent of the author of the filters article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bathat (talkcontribs) 02:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

This added paragraph was Optical telescope material, but even there is was "advice" on using optical filters so falls under WP:NOTGUIDE so deleted it. It could probably go under the "Common tools" in Amateur astronomy, if reworded not to be advice. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Greek use of the word

The claim that "telescope" was used by ancient Greeks is a misnomer. In some translations the word is translated as [telescope]. The brackets indicating that this is a word that in modern terminology can be equated to a telescope. The actual Greek word used was dioptras (δίοπτρας). See for instance Jamie James, The music of the spheres: music, science, and the natural order of the universe, Springer, 1995, p 33 (footnote). [7] --AnnekeBart (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You beat me to this by seconds. In the actual source used the brackets are present. Another translation I find is 'surveying instrument'. Thanks for finding the Greek word. This claim is most frequently found on fringe pages, claiming that the Greeks invented the telescope (as did the IP). Dougweller (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I find it highly amusing that the usual suspects are here claiming that the professional translators have got it all wrong and that they know how to translate the word "telecope" better than professional translators. For anyone interested in actual history, Iamblichus used the word telescope in the 3rd century, "... sight is made precise by the compass, rule, and telescope." On and Doug, here is the word telescope without your beloved brackets (as if that actually matters) (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I find it rather sad that some here insist on violating WP:CITE (misusing sources) and do not know how to properly research any topic, leading to addition of fringe elements and unscientific material. The above mentioned source clearly states what the original word in the Greek text was (δίοπτρας). Not anywhere close to τηλεσκόπος (telescope). And if you do not understand the meaning of the use of brackets in translations, here it is: Whether you’re simply stating sic, translating a term, or adding explanatory text to the quote, enclosing it within the brackets tells your audience that the added text is yours and not part of the original quote. So yes, those brackets make a big difference in translations. Hope that helps you understand the issues a bit better. --AnnekeBart (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


We are told that Galileo greatly improved on the earlier designs. No details are given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

If you know of any details that should be included and can point to a reliable source, please let us know. Dauto (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I. Bernard Cohen spoke of a baffle introduced by Galileo. I will look for any source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Others deny that Galileo ever used a baffle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

"microscope" and "computer" claims

A major offshoot development of the telescope is the microscope, for magnifying small things.(Citation needed|reason=It seems that microscopes were developed before telescopes, so how are they offshoots of telescopes?|date=November 2011 note by KHirsch) Classical telescopes are an optical computer that form an image by replicating a Fourier transform in real-time using the same medium collected for processing and display output.(Citation needed|reason=I don't even know what this means, but even if true it doesn't seems inappropriate for an introductory paragraph. date=November 2011 note by KHirsch)

rm cited sentences above to talk. Claim in first sentence is dubious at best and the second is just WP:JARGON in an introduction. If it can be cited it may be worth adding, but probably only to the Optical telescope article. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


Wikipedia needs a page on the Dittoscope. (talk) 12:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you can provide some reliable sources? I just did a good faith search, and came up with only a few mentions here and there, but nothing that suggests coverage enough to warrant an entire article. It doesn't even appear that anybody has successfully implemented a dittoscope on a large scale. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 13:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Too short

This key article is sadly undeveloped. Why so? Zezen (talk) 09:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)