This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Glasses article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
Glasses was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Made an edit on Joseph Needham and also Britannica info contradicts current wikipedia page
edit- I made an edit earlier to correct what I find to be just misleading.
Joseph Needham was a scholar from many decades ago, with limited resources saying, and I quote “It has sometimes been stated that the invention of spectacles was Chinese. This (may, in part) have derived from a paper by Laufer. Digital page 152 https://web.archive.org/web/20160823000519/https://monoskop.org/images/7/70/Needham_Joseph_Science_and_Civilisation_in_China_Vol_4-1_Physics_and_Physical_Technology_Physics.pdf
He was clearly admitting speculation that some believed the Chinese made the spectacles because of one manuscript. He never even said that he knew that with full certainty that this manuscript was the very and entire reason why people were saying it.
Also, Britannica contradicts the Wikipedia article. It credits the earliest recorded comment on the use of lenses for optical purposes to Roger Bacon in 1268. Who was also the first European to describe in detail the process of making gunpowder. The Brtiannica also states that around 1268, "magnifying lenses inserted in frames were used for reading both in Europe and China at this time, and it is a matter of controversy whether the West learned from the East or vice versa".
Britannica typically askes updated actual experts in the field to write in their encyclopedia unlike Wikipedia, no offense. And so they are a very reliable and professional source so should the Britannica information about the early history of glasess be added in or not? https://www.britannica.com/science/eyeglasses 49.180.18.15 (talk) 04:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Where's the list of lense material types?
editIf there's a list of what materials are used typically for glasses frames, where's the list of typically used lense material ie glass, poly-carbonate. 101.182.26.66 (talk) 09:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Paralipomena by Johannes Kepler
editHi everyone I saw a brief discussion about this document by Kepler. In this article I was wondering is there any brief documentation what this document is so important and what is the importance is in the field of optics in the 1500's?
thank you TeddyRooFan1! (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Temples
editThere seems to be a contradiction in the article about the date of the introduction of temples, with the 18th century mentioned, but an El Greco in apparent contradiction to that.~~---- Richard Comaish (talk) 10:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Contradiction?
editThe subsections Yellow-tinted computer/gaming glasses and Blue-light blocking glasses appear to contradict each other. The former states these computer or gaming glasses can also filter out high energy blue and ultra-violet light from LCD screens.
while the latter says However, there is no measurable UV light from computer monitors.
(Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 03:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)