Talk:Glasses

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Glasses has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 27, 2007 Good article nominee Listed September 15, 2007 Peer review Reviewed Current Status: Good article

	Fashion Portal This article is within the scope of the Fashion WikiProject. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. Thanks!
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article is on a subject of high-importance within fashion.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This article is part of the WikiProject Ophthalmology, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to ophthalmology on Wikipedia. To participate, visit the project page.

This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

Additional information: GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale. Feel free to make short comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images. This article is a vital article.

Contents 1 History 2 Ironic 3 Oldest comments 4 glasses vs spectacles 5 Vote 6 Holocaust 7 Sunglasses and ultraviolet radiation 8 Phrasing in introduction 9 eyeglasses 10 Duplication of Terms 11 Safety glasses 12 History 13 Probably newish comments (some undated) formerly posted at the top of the talk page 14 =Method of making glasses 15 talk a bit more about frames 16 Article Improvement Drive 17 Images 18 Good Article 19 Proposed move 20 List of famous people 21 Upside-down glasses photos 22 Rimless frames 23 Needs a little work. 24 high cost of glasses 25 GA Passed 26 Flips 27 Images 28 Frames 29 Semi-protection 30 A mistake.

[edit] History

Anyone know what people with bad vision did before glasses were invented, and why bad vision is so common? You'd think that over the course of human history the people who couldn't see would be less likely to survive and reproduce and pass on their poor vision genes. Anyone?

I've heard it speculated that myopia is common because it had some survival value for tool-makers. Groups of people with no myopics may not have had anyone focused on close work. I don't have a source handy, but you might be able to google one up. Dicklyon 04:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ironic

Is it a coincidence that when I looked up "glasses" on wikipedia, the font automatically changed on my browser to such a small size that I would need glasses to read the page?

[edit] Oldest comments

Changes I made to errors in this article:

• Nearsighted people see near and can't focus far; farsighted people see far and can't focus near.
• Glasses are still made of glass; I always buy them because they don't scratch.
• Nearsightedness, farsightedness, presbyopia, and astigmatism are not diseases.
• Reading does not cause nearsightedness.

Ortolan88 16:32 Sep 29, 2002 (UTC), nearsighted, astigmatic, presbyopic, four-eyes since age 1947.

---

I've done a copyedit (look out for site/sight, folks), and added a note on prescription sunglasses. There should be something on continuous lenses as a form of bifocals, and maybe on scratch-resistant lenses. (By the way, Ortolan, age 1947?) Vicki Rosenzweig

Since age 7, which was 1947 too. I once saw a performance by fellow lensman John Sebastian who chatted up someone in the audience about glasses and asked him when he'd first worn glasses, "7", he said. Sebastian replied, "Heavy dues, man. Heavy dues." Ortolan88

I've moved the article, AFAIK Eyeglasses is a term not much used outside of the US.

Nearsighted and farsighted are US terms. In the UK we says short-sighted and long-sighted.

---

The article discusses prejudice against lenswearers at some length. Restored song quote on exactly that point. Relevant and encyclopedic. That myopic guy, Ortolan88 03:11 Nov 29, 2002 (UTC)

---

"Slang cheaters"? I've never heard that term. I don't think it's North American English. -- Wapcaplet 13:45 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I would have said it was American slang myself. "Specs" is a vastly more common than "Cheaters" in the UK. Calling "cheaters" British slang is misleading. I'm going to remove it altogether. Mintguy 21:22 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

I've added a photo of my eyeglasses; it'd probably also be good to have a photo of someone wearing glasses. -- Wapcaplet 13:53 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

[edit] glasses vs spectacles

I don't really want to start an edit war, but I the word "spectacles" is infrequently used in the US and the usage is considered very quaint; it's often used for just that purpose (similar to an American telling another American that something is "in the boot of the car", we know what it means, but that doesn't mean it's used). Anyhow, let's break down frequency of use by location and try to agree on the best neutral formulation. First, I've read that plain "glasses" is the typical term used in both American English and British English, as in "I wear glasses". Is that correct?

Then, in order of usage:

• American: glasses, eyeglasses, (much removed) spectacles, (much removed) specs
• Canadian: glasses, specs, eyeglasses, spectacles
• British: glasses, specs, spectacles, (is "eyeglasses" used?), cheaters?

My point is that the article should use the most neutral term, "glasses", the prevalence of usage should be correctly stated on the page, and the synonyms and slang terms should be a redirect.

FWIW, "Cheaters" is never used in the US. It's definitely not a US term (at least not today, Daniel Quinlan 01:10 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)). If you said you "forgot your cheaters", someone would have absolutely no idea what you meant.

Daniel Quinlan 00:29 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I would like to know exactly why, when, and by whom "cheaters" is used to mean eyeglasses. It is quite interesting. Maybe it relates to examinations in a certain way? wshun 00:46 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I found a few internet references to "cheaters" as being a slang term from the 1920s (not entirely sure which places or where and how it originated), possibly through the 1950s along with the slang term "peepers" (either or both may be more of a pop culture term used in movies and songs, not sure). Neither are used today in the US. (There's also a Twilight Zone episode where a misunderstanding of the term "Cheaters" is a primary plot point.) Daniel Quinlan 01:09 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Okay, nobody disagreed with me in the many months since July informal polling on #wikipedia seems to agree that "glasses" is the most common term whereas "spectacles" (chiefly British) and "eyeglasses" (chiefly American) are uncommon on either side of the Atlantic, so I moved the article to Glasses. Redirects, of course, from the other less-common terms. I also changed the article to use "glasses" uniformly (it was a mix of the two terms before) except where "spectacles" made more sense. Daniel Quinlan 23:16, Nov 9, 2003 (UTC)

Daniel. You failed to fix the redirection pages when you made the move. Glasses is ambiguous. If you applied your reasoning for moving a well established page elsewhere then automobile would be at car, but it isn't at car because car is ambiguaous. Moving the page back. Mintguy 03:28, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hello Mintguy, seems like there's a difference between the two. I don't that that the nous "pants" would be ambiguous because of the verb "pant", anymore than "glasses" would be though to mean the plural of "glass". Just my two cents... -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 05:26, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

My apologies for leaving some redirects broken, I should know better. I agree with Bcorr that "glasses" is unambiguous. [[Glasses]] is not the same thing as [[Glass]]es. Also, automobile is a bad example for various reasons. And, I fixed the redirects. You could have just asked (especially given that it's been that way for over a month) instead of moving the page and making extra work. Thanks for spotting the error, though. Daniel Quinlan 05:45, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

Mintguy, you can't just move a page unilaterally. I discussed the move here, supported the move with a reasoned argument, evidence, and nobody objected for months. Then, the article was moved and remained stable for a month. You pointed out that I made a mistake moving it and I fixed it. If you want to move the article, I suggest you conduct a poll of people watching this article and ask what the most appropriate title is. I'll allow you to frame the question if you want, but in the meantime, I'm moving the article back to where it has been, without objection for over a month. Daniel Quinlan 08:25, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

Okay, apparently discussion is not favored method of interaction here, the page has been moved again with nary a comment, so I'll pose the vote.

[edit] Vote

Vote to last 24 hours. Ends at 08.35, 16 December 2003 (UTC)

• Glasses: Daniel Quinlan, Angela, Jiang, Mark Ryan, Mrwojo
• Spectacles: 207.44.154.35
• Eyeglasses: Rmhermen

Cheers. Daniel Quinlan 08:32, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

The article was at spectacles for a considerably longer time than a month. The article existed with broken redirects created by you for a month. Please leave the article where it was. You unilaterally moved the article without any kind of discussion. Mintguy 08:33, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I discussed it in July and again when I made the move in November. The broken redirects (which I fixed and apologized for) are not an argument for moving the article to a less appropriate location. I am following the Manual of Style, after all.

Glasses is by far the more common word in both AE and BE. I don't think the confusion with glass is likely as page titles are almost always singular, so people should not be linking to glasses when they mean glass anyway. Anyway, that problem is easily solved by having a disambiguation link to glass at the top of the page if people feel that would be necessary. Angela. 08:38, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

For the record, Mintguy moved this from "Eyeglasses" on 28 Nov 2002. While I support Glasses, I think we should leave the links the way they are. It is up to the author's disretion to decide what system s/he want to use in each individual article. --Jiang | Talk 08:38, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

When changing the articles that linked to this article, I took care to retain "spectacles" when the word was used in a historical context. I did change "rose-tinted spectacles" in a few places after a Google search showed that "glasses" was far more common than spectacles (as one would expect given contemporary usage in both the UK and the US). I also don't think it should be up to the "author" of an article to make all decisions about an article (I'm surprised you disagree after History of Greek and Roman Egypt). Daniel Quinlan 09:10, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

Glasses isn't just the plural of glass. For many years it glasses were a common synonym of for binoculars. If you read novels from te 19th century you will find binoculars referred to as glasses. As in opera glasses Mintguy 08:43, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

A "spectacle" is also an event or a public display, so the plural argument for glasses holds absolutely no water. I think other meanings are a bit aside the point as well, articles should be named for common terms, if there are synonyms that we actually need to worry about, then we can use a disambiguation link at the top, as Angela suggests. Daniel Quinlan 09:04, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

As far as I know, 'glasses' is the most clear, all-encompassing word for the items in all International versions of English, including my native Australian English. I always thought that 'spectacles' refers only to those with prescriptions, whereas you can have other forms of glasses, such as sunglasses and opera glasses, as you have mentioned. If you wish to create a link to binoculars within the article to help those who only speak 19th Century English, go right ahead. But very few people anywhere these days says 'glasses' more than 'spectacles', so this article belongs at Glasses. Now, is there anyone *other* than Mintguy who opposes this article being at Glasses? - Mark Ryan 09:07, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Eyeglasses carries a more formal tone than just glasses and avoids possible ambiguity. Rmhermen 18:45, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

Eyeglasses is not used often in the UK. Just as spectacles is not used in the US. Daniel Quinlan 02:44, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)

I've never heard anyone use eyeglassess in the UK. Angela. 02:49, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I moved this back to glasses because Mintguy seems to be the only user in favor of spectacles. --Jiang | Talk 05:37, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Judging by the last few edits, it seems I'm not the only one who believes this should be at spectacles. Mintguy 18:38, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't see anyone else who seems to agree. Even so, every one of your reasons given for "spectacles" has been answered. I would like to just state for the record how much I strongly object to the article being titled "spectacles" and the almost universal use of the term "spectacles" in the article. In NA, this is a ridiculous word to use -- most people would be confused if you used it with this meaning. Just reading this article makes my ears and head hurt. Revolver 06:20, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wow! I feel like I've uncovered an ancient tome from the deep deep past-- we are going in the time machine, all the way back to... 2003! So seriously what is the deal with this. Everyone basically agrees it's Glasses except one guy, it's even in the MoS as an example of a good neutral naming, and yet... what's the deal here? I moved it, and I'll change some instances of spectacles inside to glasses, though pardon me if I don't do everything, just get a start. D. G. 11:50, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

By the way, I think it's really neat how the only argument against glasses that held any water was the one that it had a slightly different meaning a hundred (plus a good bit) years ago. D. G. 11:52, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

[edit] Holocaust

Should we link the Cambodian holocaust, in which everyone who wore glasses was murdered on the grounds that they were "intellectuals" and thus did no "socially useful work"? Or would that be too gloomy? --Uncle Ed 21:32, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Add it if it's true. Never knew glasses could be murderous. --Menchi 22:10, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

[edit] Sunglasses and ultraviolet radiation

Sunglasses are darkened spectacles that provide protection against bright visible and ultraviolet light. Due to changes in the atmosphere, ultraviolet levels are much higher than in the past and ultraviolet protection for eyes and skin is even more important.

I was hoping someone with more knowledge than I could weigh in on this. According to a paper in Geophysical Research Letters cited in a NASA press release, at the U.S. / Canadian border UV-B levels have increased about 4% per decade, and it's even less the closer to the equator you go (it's closer to 10% at the tip of Chile, though.) I don't have a political agenda — I care about ozone depletion as much (or more than) the next guy — I'm just not sure that, scientifically speaking, 4% (even 10%?) per decade qualifies as "much higher than in the past". Thoughts?    Joshuamcgee 03:17, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

---

It would be great to have some information on the history of eyeglasses (when were corrective eyeglasses first used)?

[edit] Phrasing in introduction

I'm confused by one of the sentences in the introduction: "Spectacles are more often called eyeglasses in North American English, glasses in North American and British English, and (rarely) frames or lenses." More often than what? If the sentence is correct as written, who calls them spectacles? -- Creidieki 04:38, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's correct. Who calls them spectacles? Mintguy, I guess. D. G. 11:51, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] eyeglasses

Does anyone have any idea what percentage of Americans require corrective lenses for vision problems? Even an estimate would be helpful. Thanks. doc4cons

Does anyone have any idea what percentage of Americans require corrective lenses for vision problems? Even an estimate would be helpful. Thanks.

[edit] Duplication of Terms

Sunglasses and safety glasses have their own mentions up top. No reason to also have a last paragraph about them, eh? -Fuzzy 13:20, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Safety glasses

I think two images is overkill. Further, the right image is very hard to see at that resolution and with that background color. Daniel Quinlan 23:47, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Point taken, those in the left hand image are the traditional safety glasses (complete with safety sticker even!) so they are the first and logical choice. However the second image shows the newer style that the original section made reference too. This style is in fact very good as they fit snugly reducing the likelihood of the murphys law chips slipping through the air gap the older style creates. On the one hand you have safety glasses that the old-timers would recognize, on the other you have the newer fandangled (but extremely good) ones.

I made the images small so as to not overwhelm the reader, would a different (black?) background for the second set make all the difference? . -- Graibeard 10:08, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History

This seems really interesting, perhaps we could include some of it in the history section? http://www.florilegium.org/files/DISABILITIES/15C-Eyeglsses-art.html

Van Eyks "Annunciation" 1430? Shows a cardinal? with spectacles.

[edit] Probably newish comments (some undated) formerly posted at the top of the talk page

"simple magnifying lenses for reading that are used to treat mild nearsightedness"

Do nearsighted people need eyeglasses for reading? More explanation seems to be called for.

S.

I can't speak in general, but I'm shortsighted (about 2.5 / 3.5 ) and I prefer to use glasses for reading. Just feels more comfortable -- Tarquin

The quoted statement is perhaps a misconception. The common reason why older people often need some sort of magnifying lens for reading is because they have presbyopia (a condition where the lens of the eye has stiffened and has lost its ability to focus on close objects). Mrwojo

I personally use glasses when reading because, with the myopia and astigmatism, the letters are blurred unless I hold the document about 6 inches from my face. Like many people, I prefer to read at a further distance. However, like many near-sighted people, I do take off my glasses sometimes after a long amount of reading before settling on to more. For whatever reason, it feels like it reduces eyestrain to read without glasses for a while. My hypothesis would be that the muscles of the eye are stretching in a different manner. -Fuzzy 13:20, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] =Method of making glasses

Can anybody contribute content to the process of making glasses? What are the parts of a glasses called? How do you know the lens is mounted correctly? How do you know the frame is the right one for the patient? etc. --Christophe Cremault 13:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] talk a bit more about frames

hi, i need a bit more information about frames and how they're made, their history, who made them, ya know..stuff like that because i got a research to do about that, i hope someone reads this soon.. hope u could help.--

--Amoura 0 03:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article Improvement Drive

Contact lens is currently nominated to be improved on Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. Please support the article with your vote. --Fenice 10:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Anybody know a good image of a person wearing glasses to put in the article? Based on only the old art, the images don't indicate how they're worn. --Christopherlin 03:16, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) Agreed, the images should be replaced, even if with diagrams. (Perhaps a nomenclature-diagram would be good?) jazzle 18:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article

The article was delisted from the Good Articles list because it had inadequate refercing. One reference and no footnotes is insufficient for an article of this size. Also, the article can be much broader. --GoOdCoNtEnT 07:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of famous people

If the list is meant to convey "people famous for wearing glasses", then many should be deleted. Bill Gates, for example, is a famous person who happens to wear glasses, but he is not famous for wearing glasses. Elton John, however, is known for his often outlandish eyewhere, so he should remain. Thoughts? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 01:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The list has gotten to be ridiculous. Certainly Bill Gates should not be on it, and many of the others, too. Maybe we could have a poll, and ask everyone for a shortlist of no more than 5 people from the list that they think are famous for wearing glasses, and see if there's any kind of consensus where we could draw the line. Dicklyon 02:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The entire concept of having such a list seems ridiculous in itself, to me. I'd rather look for a consensus on getting rid of the list altogether. Geoffrey Spear 15:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

So let's call a POLL. Please "* Support" or "* Oppose" removal of the list.

• Support. Dicklyon 17:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Upside-down glasses photos

Why do the first two photos of glasses have them set up-side-down? I've never seen a photo of them like that before -- I don't even set my glasses down that way, even if it does make more sense. The photo is cleary a display shot -- to show someone what a pair of glasses looks like, not an "action" or "real world example" shot of someone who has taken their glasses off and put them down. Can we get these two replaced with right-side-up... err... correct-side-up photos so that we don't all look as if Wikipedia doesn't know which way up a pair of glasses are worn? Maybe there could be one up-side-down shot, but have it set upon a book etc. -- Soupisgoodfood 13:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, even though I do set mine down this way, that it's a terrible illustration. Dicklyon 14:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Seconded - there's no reason that the illustration should have them upside down. MrBeast 20:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thirded - The strange pics were the first thing I noticed on the page! I would take a picture of my glasses for 'modern example', but my desk is so untidy! I don't have 'traditional' specs to take a pic of either... JaffaCakeLover 13:21, 5 March 2007 (GMT)

[edit] Rimless frames

I added a small note about rimless and semi-rimless varieties of glasses, since these styles are currently fairly popular. Feel free to remove if this variation is not notable enough to warrant a mention. --Muchness 11:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needs a little work.

I did some fairly large re-writes on this article, which hopefully more forth-coming since I would like to see this article back on "good" terms on Wiki. I'll update minor things off-and-on and add some references.

The only thing I truly question if the mentioning of VR glasses in the opening paragraph. If no one objects, I'll be removing it shortly as it's mentioned already further down. Reason turns rancid 22:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] high cost of glasses

I don't quite know how (or if) to wikify this thought, but it seems to me that eyeglasses , and in particular frames, are ludicrously overpriced - how on earth can a few cents of plastic or titanium (which is not that exspensive, google for Ti vendors) - be worth $150 or 200 or even 250 dollars -without the lenses, which is a whole other story. any help here ?Cinnamon colbert 23:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

As with anything else in the fashion industry, markups are simply a given fact. An example would be how could a few cents worth of cotton or wool be sold as a $200 party dress. The cost can also be compounded by designer names, versus more generic manufacturers, and also keeping in mind their medical usage. I don't really see the need to wiki this fact at present, but good point. Reason turns rancid 18:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be hard to add something about the high cost without then giving an opening for people to spam "Get glasses cheap here!" I agree that both the frames and lens are a racket but it'll be tricky to insert this into the article with citations and NPOV. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 22:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Passed

I have passed this article's GA because I believe it fulfills the GA Criteria. It's an excellent article, and really kept me interested as I read through it, something that doesn't happen too often when reading other GA nominees. It could do with a little more sourcing - consider going to WP:Ophthalmology if you want help taking it to FA, if that's one of the goals for this article. Overall, nice job! Cheers, Corvus coronoides _{talk 16:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)}

[edit] Flips

Sup Dues, i made a page over here, Flip-up glasses, and was wondering if youse could helps at it, eh ? Thanks in advance. Itler005 05:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Due mostly to the fact that, in my own opinion, this page has become over-grown with images and examples, and also owing to the recent peer review, I have removed and/or reorganized many photos. They are/were all, for the most part, very good examples, but the article is simply over-crowded. If you have any suggestions for additions/removals/etc., please leave a note here first if you would be so kind. I'm hoping in the near future to expand this article by roughly 3 sections and will then have much more room for further photos. Thanks! Reason turns rancid 20:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frames

Shouldnt there be more on frames especially what they are made from.--MilesTerrex (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection

I've put in a request for semi-protection. This page gets an unusual amount of attention from vandals compared to other pages I have been looking at recently. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 22:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and protected the page for 5 days due to the level of anon vandalism. Tiptoety ^talk 22:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well NOW what do I do? Removing the vandalism on this page every other day was one of my most regular work-time hobbies. Maybe now I can actually make some progress on it during this window of opportunity. Thanks for the hand. Reason turns rancid (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The semi-protection just expired - I hope lack of a chance to revert vandalism did not affect your work too much. :-) I was hoping for a longer semi-protect interval but let's see what happens in the next week or so. BTW, then you very much for the audio edition. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 05:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I've put in a new request for semi-protection on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for protection. Moderate though persistent vandalism by unregistered users. Requesting two-week or indefinite semi-protection. The previous semi-protect was 5 days from 22:37 27 March 2008 to 22:37 2 April 2008 with vandalism resuming on 4 April. Since then the non-vandal edits are extremely difficult to locate in the history as nearly all of it is vandalism and reversion. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 00:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The following was left on WP:RPP

Semi-protected for a period of one month. After one month the page will be automatically unprotected. Jmlk17 00:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 00:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A mistake.

The term for long-sightedness is Hypermetropic, not presbyopic! presbyopia is the condition that comes with age when a person has both a distance prescription as well as a reading addition. i dunno how to change it on the actual page, but what is written there in the "invention of eyeglasses" area is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ST234 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• You're absolutely right. I didn't catch that. Technically they correct both, but I clarified that a bit. Thank you. Reason turns rancid (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)