Talk:Glasses

Latest comment: 6 months ago by Not0nshoree in topic Contradiction?
Former good articleGlasses 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 19, 2006Good article nomineeListed
August 10, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
July 27, 2007Good article nomineeListed
September 15, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
June 16, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
May 29, 2011Good article reassessmentNot listed
Current status: Delisted good article

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)Reply

Where's the list of lense material types?

edit

If 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)Reply

Paralipomena by Johannes Kepler

edit

Hi 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)Reply

Temples

edit

There 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)Reply

Contradiction?

edit

The 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)Reply