Talk:History of the telescope

message: The introduction is nonsense! George Washington has nothing to do with telescopes and didn't live in 1608!!!
Please correct the introduction. It makes no good image of Wikipedia!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.113.11.59 (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Necessary Edits

message: This does need more work, but I've quickie-cleaned it up today in quite a few places. Is the tone of it still so bad? Nov 21, 2007 -Rstevec
P.S. No more Belgian.
After a little more cleanup I've removed the "inappropriate tone" tag, but left the "expert help needed" tag. -Rstevec (talk) 08:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tone Improved

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

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

message: I removed the edits concerning Ibn Al-Haytham as the inventor of the telescope from the introduction. Firstly the introduction should be a summary of the article, not a place to add new information, referenced or otherwise. Secondly, I am surprised to see Oscar Marshall's "Alhazen and the Telescope" being used as reference for this claim since, in fact, Marshall makes it clear that "had he [Alhazen] possessed the imagination of a Galileo and applied his knowledge of optics towards building a telescope, the story of telescopic astronomy might have started six hundred years before Galileo," making it clear that he does not regard Alhazen as the originator of the telescope. Thirdly, in any quick summary of the history of the telescope it is surely correct to say that the telecope as we understand it really does begin in the 17th century. Finally this article has a section on the precursors to the telescope which already mentions Alhazen and his Book of Optics, which I am sure everyone would agree was an important and vital work in the history of optics. Singinglemon (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. No problemo. InternetHero (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

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

message: Dude (Fountains of Bryn Mawr), I worked a lot on that. I made a few mistake like "lenses that use mirrors", but I didn't change any positions at all: this was merely a grammar edit (that actually took some 2 hours). I hope you will reconsider. InternetHero (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored some of your grammar edits, although not those which seemed to be fairly neutral changes to the sentences. You spotted a few typos and some missing commas which others had missed. The attempt to add an extra sentence-and-a-half can't really be called "merely a grammar edit" though. Singinglemon (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

text: I realise that you don't understand, but I don't know how I can make it any clearer for you. The New York times is a verifiable and reliable source. However, since it only mentions the telescope very briefly, it is not a good source for this article. It WOULD be a good source for Al-Haytham. Again, it really comes down to WP:UNDUE. - DigitalC (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Honest Grammar changes

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

message: Saturn is a planet. It is named Saturn, not Saturns. Therefore, its possession of its satellites should be "Saturn's satellites", not "Saturns' satellites". I corrected this on the article, but was reverted, with the edit summary stating that it was "common". A quick google search turns up 209 hits for Saturns' satellites, vs. 10,200 hits for Saturn's satellites. It is obvious which is more common, as well as correct. DigitalC (talk) 00:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No arguement here. InternetHero (talk) 23:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Saturns' satellites vs Saturn's satellites

message: *This edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_telescope&diff=229494916&oldid=229126131) changed "His writings show that but for this confidence he would have arrived sooner at a discovery for which his mind was fully prepared." to "His writings show that with the exception of his bravura for this confidence, he would have arrived sooner at a discovery for which his mind was fully prepared.". Bravura is an adjective, not a noun. Either way, this sentence is extremely wordy. Any ideas how we can fix this sentence?
*I am also considering changing "Dollond was aware of the conditions necessary for the attainment of achromatism in refracting telescopes, but long placed implicit reliance on the accuracy of experiments made by so illustrious a philosopher as Newton." to "...made by Newton". Comments?
- DigitalC (talk) 01:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is what I was trying to tcontribute. Bravura isn't an adjective—its' a verb. InternetHero (talk) 23:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bravura isn't a verb. However, the usage which you used uses it as a noun, which it CAN be used, so I was wrong to think it is only an adjective (it can be used as an adjective as well). Either way, I still think this sentence is quite wordy. Do you have any suggestions on how to clarify it? What do you think about the proposal to remove "so illustrious a philosopher as"? - DigitalC (talk) 23:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I disagree. Bravura is having a false sense of confidence. If he is sensing it, it is a verb (an action). Please leave it, its looks and read better with flavouring of words. You don't need references for that. InternetHero (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It may look and read better to you, but I still find it incredibly wordy. You still have not responded to my proposal to remove "so illustrious a philosopher as", so I will likely be bold and remove it in a few days. As for Bravura, please see http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bravura. DigitalC (talk) 01:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Damnit, I'm an idiot. It was bravado I was trying to say. LOL. I don't rememeber saying, "So illustrious a philosopher." Remove it and if I disagree, I'll hit up you talk page. InternetHero (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Bravura]]

message: This edit added "With time and effort" to an existing sentence. Do we have a source that verifies this claim? In addition, it changed "It was not until 1891 that Michelson successfully used this technique for the measurement of astronomical angular diameters— the diameters of Jupiter's satellites (Michelson 1891)." to "It was not until 1891 that Michelson successfully used this technique for the measurement of astronomical angular diameters: the diameters of Jupiter's satellites (Michelson 1891)." with the edit summary including "colons are used to list while dashes are used top add singular clauses for effect". However, one cannot list one thing (in this case diameters), and it is a singular clause. - DigitalC (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're in need of a job my friend. I am trying to CONTRIBUTE. If you keep this up, I'll have no choice but to end my attempt at dispute resolution and try and contact an administrator. Your contributions to the usage of an apostraphe was very good. Why don't you accept me as a contributer to Wikipedia? I don't understand. InternetHero (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do accept you as a contributer to Wikipedia, and have tried to help improve your contributions. If it weren't for your recent grammar overhaul to the page, I wouldn't have had the impetus to do the same. While I corrected a lot of errors introduced by you during that overhaul, I also corrected a lot of errors that I would not have otherwise noticed. - DigitalC (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. InternetHero (talk) 23:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For God's sakes, the measurement is the list. You can't be that clueless... You must be just trying ot harass me. I'm taking a note of this. InternetHero (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edit

message: This] recent edit changed "[Al-Hayhtam's book] influenced European scientists such as Johannes Kepler and the work of Roger Bacon." to "[Al-Haytham's book] influenced European scientists such as Johannes Kepler—and the work of Roger Bacon who cites Al-Haytham by name (know as Alhazan)"
This was discussed above, in Talk:History_of_the_telescope#Honest_Grammar_changes 4 days ago, where I asked "Why is it important to note that he cites al-Haytham by name?" and noted that "We have already mentioned that al-Haytham's book influenced European scientists.". Any note that al-Haytham was also known as Alhazan (which is actually different than what it previously said he was known as) belongs on the al-Haytham article, not here. No direct response was given to my question, yet this was edited back in. This is an example of WP:IDHT, which is disruptive editing. - DigitalC (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ???/uhhhh, it's a "tinbit". It means it adds informtaion. Thats what the dash is for. I thought it was good when I 1st saw it. I didn't even write it the 1st time. I think this boils down to my contributions beng seen as disruptive. I don't see how this is possible since it was our editing which deleted it (along with another edit: "This was important to the history of optical telesope). I figured it was best to compromise so I left it. Again, I didn't completly write that sentence so I think it boils down to my right to edit here. Please try and regard this with generosity. Sincerely, InternetHero (talk) 04:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This has nothing to do with your "right to edit here". We have covered that before - anyone can edit Wikipedia. Higher levels of detail ("tinbits" if thats what you want to call them), such as what he was also know as, belong over at al-Haytham. History of the telescope is not a daughter article of al-Haytham, so I fail to see how WP:Summary_style applies here. - DigitalC (talk) 04:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand your arguement. You're saying that the guideline on summary styles prohibits me from contributing??? It's a tinbit—a piece of info/knowledge: easily read and very flavourful. Please remember to be bold! Sincerely, InternetHero (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I am saying that nothing is prohibiting you from contributing, as long as your contributions are in line with policy. Again, I'm sorry you don't understand, but I don't know how to clarify my position other than restating myself. I don't see how WP:Summary_style applies here. You brought it up, not me. DigitalC (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, but you don't make much sense in your arguements. No offence, but I think you're just some1 who—without a job—tries to "outsmart" other people to make themselves feel better. There are other ways to raise your self-esteem my friend. Try competing in something that you enjoy; I like to write music. Its not the summary style that I was referring to, it was the desired levels of detail found in that guideline. Summaries are short sections of daughter articles and vice versa. InternetHero (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And you don't understand that quoting a policy that doesn't apply, doesn't make sense? I will remind you to comment on the edits, not the editor. You have been warned about this previously. - DigitalC (talk) 22:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

text: TTT. InternetHero (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit - "who cites [[al-Haytham]] by name..." 

message: This is a good find by InternetHero, however it can only be used to reference the information contained within it. With regards to Ibn Sahl, this includes:
*"Ibn Haitham’s predecessor, 10th century Baghdadi mathematician Ibn Sahl, redefined the goal of this [mirror focusing] research more generally as constructing a perfectly focusing optical device. He pioneered the study of the lens, formulating the first geometric theory for lenses. Unfortunately, Ibn Sahl’s work was lost for centuries."
*"However, recently discovered manuscripts of his work, analysed by French historian of science Roshdi Rashed, leave no doubt that Ibn Sahl was the first to discover the elusive sine law of refraction."
*"Armed with this discovery, Ibn Sahl achieved a centuries-old goal by deriving the geometric shape of a perfectly focusing lens, otherwise known as an ‘anaclastic’."
*He "designed elaborate mechanisms for drawing his lenses and mirrors."
This material would be best suited to either the Ibn Sahl article or the History of optics article.
DigitalC (talk) 05:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I don't understand your comment. I am not making any claims in the article about this information. - DigitalC (talk) 07:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  UNESCO reference 

message: This edit added: "While possibly in Egypt, Alhazan once wrote: "If an object object is placed in a dense spherical medium of which the curved surface is turned towards the eye and is between the eye and the center of the sphere, the object will appear magnified."" to the article.
At what point will we accept that there is enough weight in the article towards al-Haytham? We already mention his contributions of the pin-hole camera and concave lenses, as well as about his book of optics. Why is there a need to add more? Is this not a direct violation of WP:UNDUE? 
- DigitalC (talk) 05:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The history section is a summary of the history of optics article. In that article there is currently 2 (large) paragraphs on Al-Haytham and 1 paragraph on Ibn Sahl. My edit on this article contained 4 sentences on Al-Haytham and 1 sentence on Ibn Sahl. Thats pretty fair my friend. InternetHero (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Undue Weight about al-Haytham 

message: Hi. I suggest a cleanup of the lead section because it has duplicates in the other sections. 
1) The 1st paragraph is ok. It gets it right to the point.
2) Zucchi is mentioned here already.
3) Chester Moore Hall is described here already.
4) That should probably stay.
5) The same exact sentence is found here.
Thanks for your time. InternetHero (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that the point of the lead? To summarize the important contents of the article. Looking at the lead section link you gave, it says, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." Deamon138 (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

text: For an article this size (about 50kB), 3 or 4 paragraphs is okay. Some of the paragraphs are too short, so maybe a couple should be merged together so to speak. Deamon138 (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup of Lead Section

message: Apparently a Catalan, Joan Roget, would be the inventor rather than Lippershey, according to new evidence published in the magazine History Today. News here --Purplefire (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved this citation down to External links since it has a single source and is not in part of the mainstream academic discourse seen in History of Telescope articles WP:RELIABLE. Being the work of one author makes it also single tiny-minority view WP:SOURCES. I have also moved the citation of Taqī al-Dīn to External links for the same reasons. Both may be to much of a minority view to be included in an encyclopedic article but there should probably be a link to the actual external source article. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds about right. If this generates enough academic buzz, we can always mention it at a later date. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: News about who invented it?

message: There are many "to do" items that need to be looked at that have come up in my searches and other discussions contributions by other editors and things I have found on the web.. These need to be followed up to see if they are significant, and sufficiently referred to in reference, as to be added to the History of the telescope: 
*Newton's first telescope according to Opticks, had a mirror of 2 inches diameter, the eyepiece was stopped down with a perforated disk to create an effective aperture of 1.3 inches.  The focal length was 6.25 inches (from a sphere of curvature of 25 inches not 24 as some say) giving a mirror f ratio of f3 and an effective f ratio of f4.8.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macgyver7 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, the achromatic telescopes of Fraunhofer and Steinheil may have to be added. Best regards, jan --84.132.192.24 (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes "to do" list

message: I noticed that History of astronomical interferometry, the main article for this section, has been deleted due to copyright violation. If any of the usual editors here would be interested in ressurecting it as a proper wikipedia article I'd be glad to try to help with the editing.Trilobitealive (talk) 04:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To keep this section style looking similar to that of the other sections I deleted the dead link in favor of . But I left the other dead link in the See also section to remind us that the other article is still needed.Trilobitealive (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: History of astronomical interferometry section and missing article

message: I was looking for some information about the history of the telescope, in regards to its use as a 'spyglass' rather than for astronomical purposes. Yet there isn't even a mention in this article of its terrestrial role! Both on the ocean and on land (for exploration, war, communication, etc.) Their size, number and types of lenses, frequency of use, the parallel development of binoculars, and so on. All of this would be useful to know, and is a rather egregious thing to exclude. Nemokara (talk) 03:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-astronomical history 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on History of the telescope. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090119004546/http://news.aol.com:80/article/old-moon-map-corrects-history/307394 to http://news.aol.com/article/old-moon-map-corrects-history/307394
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081013030537/http://www.nmt.edu:80/mainpage/news/2001/10aug03.html to http://www.nmt.edu/mainpage/news/2001/10aug03.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of the telescope. 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/20090311032203/http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/Astronomy/Equipementdevices/Telescope/Historyoftelescope/howtelescopeimproved/howtelescopeimproved.htm to http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/Astronomy/Equipementdevices/Telescope/Historyoftelescope/howtelescopeimproved/howtelescopeimproved.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nmt.edu/mainpage/news/2001/10aug03.html
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) 17:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have come across a depiction of a telescope in the ancient Halebedu temple in Karnataka, India. That the temple escaped depredation by Muslims and Western looters is because the local people buried the massive structure in sand and revealed it only after independence. The picture depicting the sculpture is produced below.
thumb|earliest depiction of telescope circa 1000 AD
:Wikipedia content is not based on individual editors interpretation of (images) (See WP:OR). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earliest sculptural depiction of a telescope. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on History of the telescope. 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/20130805001558/http://www.mtwilson.edu/Simmons3.php to http://www.mtwilson.edu/Simmons3.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19971021083400/http://www.mrao.cam.ac.uk/telescopes/coast/astronomy.html to http://www.mrao.cam.ac.uk/telescopes/coast/astronomy.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2309/page1.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080229172533/http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/courses/phys199epp/fall06/Powers-NYTimes.pdf to http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/courses/phys199epp/fall06/Powers-NYTimes.pdf
*Added  tag to http://etoile.berkeley.edu/~jrg/TelescopeHistory/Early_Period.html
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) 12:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Respected sir,
I read about the history of telescope in which it is stated that it first appeared in 1608 in Netherlands.
But in Hoysaleshwara Temple in Halebidu, a town situated in Karnataka and dates back to 12th century, we can clearly see in the stone carvings that there is a person who uses the telescope to see enemies.
But there is no such discussion about that in any section of the History of Telescope in wikipedia. So I request you to please include this statement too.
Thank you. Sk569 (talk) 12:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: . We don't include unsourced speculation. Please provide reliable sources.Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Telescope was not discovered in Netherlands. 

message: "Abul Hasan Ibn Ishaq (d. 890), though being a Muslim himself, originally came from a Christian family in Baghdad and was taught several languages such as Greek, Arabic, Aramaic and middle Syriac." http://kn-ow.com/article/how-muslim-invented-telescope-245/ References are included in the link.--KimYunmi (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems WP:FRINGE at best. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Telescope wasn't discovered in the Netherlands

message: The first sentence of the lead is a word salad. Perhaps it could be simplified to: “The earliest known telescope, was made in 1608 in the Netherlands, when a patent was submitted by Hans Lippershey, an eyeglass maker. “ 2601:147:C200:9DA0:80EF:516C:A913:72E4 (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perhaps simplify the first sentence