Talk:Naked eye

message: I have the ability to use my eye's as a microscope unaided, at a distance of either -mm to + metres, i can see things way smaller than what can be seen with the Naked Eye, Beyond the dust and lint that floats within the fluid of the eye. If you too have this ability i would like to hear from you.. simon.rimmer@bigpond.com
Mr. Rimmer's impressive skills aside, I do think this article would benefit from the addition of additional data surrounding near objects and the limits of vision seeing small items.  I know that often you hear of near-microscopic elements being "barely visible to the naked eye," and it might be interesting to list some of those things or discuss them. It would help balance the macroscopic focus of the article, perhaps.  --Coppercable (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small Objects and Maps should be amended 

message: The number of stars in section Naked Eye and Astronomy has to be wrong. 2500 stars would be as far apart in the sky as a thumb's width at arm's length. Those who have spent a night at the Grand Canyon or the Rockies, know that the human eye is capable of seeing many more stars than that. It's a pity that I'm now in a light polluted city, or I'd make an estimate of the number of stars one can see.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwrede (talk • contribs) 08:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen the figure of about 6000 naked eye stars, but I don't know if that is for dark skies or not. Wschart (talk) 04:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: SIMBAD shows that there are about 5519 stars visible to the 6th magnitude. -- Kheider (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of stars visible 

message: There's a lot of interesting stuff here.  Probably much of it is correct and some of it is garbage -- but which is which?  There are some really bad (non-)sentences and careless phrasing (the outstretched thumbnail? Ouch!). One really should have knowledge of the subject matter to tackle this (= my excuse for not trying to do some fixes myself).  - Hordaland (talk) 13:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and no.  The most distant object that most normal people are going to see (without binoculars or a telescope) is the Andromeda Galaxy at 2.5 million light-years, which is a function of the light gathering ability of the eye. -- Kheider (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So long as a handful of photons can hit our retina, we can process it as "light". So in that sense, sure, we can see for millions of light years. However, our ability to distinguish what an object is or how many lights there are (two headlights, or the trillion stars of Andromeda) depend on their inherent brightness and distance (we can see a candle light at 30 miles (in perfect conditions), but a galaxy of stars at greater distances). The question, "how far we can see," is incredibly dependent on the variables. That fact needs to be explained, otherwise the question is meaningless. Coinmanj (talk) 05:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs {copyedit} and {citations} 

message: I'm not sure that in its current form the information about light pollution fits this article.  Unless there are some specific links to why this influences "naked eye" visualization, other than making it harder to identify certain constellations at night, then I recommend removing this section.   --Coppercable (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environmental and Light Pollution appropriate? 

message: See the article on Thomas Harriot. This notes that Harriot was using a telescope before Galileo.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 12:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harriot 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Naked eye. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921050820/http://www.hurtlingrock.com/naked-eye-astronomy.html to http://www.hurtlingrock.com/naked-eye-astronomy.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041222221642/http://pvs-hawaii.com/voyages/rapanui_naked_eye.htm to http://www.pvs-hawaii.com/voyages/rapanui_naked_eye.htm
*Added  tag to http://home.etu.unige.ch/~alvarra0/Roberto_ALVAREZs_Personal_Page/About_Me_files/Eye_project.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The first paragraph states:
> Naked eye, also called bare eye or unaided eye, is the practice of engaging in visual perception unaided by a magnifying or light-collecting optical instrument, such as a telescope or microscope. Vision corrected to normal acuity using corrective lenses is still considered "naked".
This does not seem like a correct description: it makes it sound like "naked eye" is used to refer to the practice, when it is really used in context (e.g. in "can be seen with the naked eye") to refer to the eye itself, without visual aid. Of course the distinction is a bit subtle, but I find the current description misleading. For example a more correct description would be: In astronomy, the Naked eye, also called bare eye or unaided eye, refers to the human eye unaided by a magnifying or light-collecting optical instrument, such as a telescope or microscope. The practice of engaging in visual perception without such aids may be referred to as viewing something "with the naked eye". Vision corrected to normal acuity using corrective lenses is still considered "naked".
Cstanford.math (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading opening definition: the naked eye is not a practice