Refractive indices of the aquaeous and vitreous humours

The refractive indices of the aquaeous and vitreous humours are not relevant to underwater vision. The critical difference between viewing in air and in water is at the interface, the cornea. Once the light enters the cornea, the refractive properties of the remaining parts of eye are the same in air and in water.Robert P. O'Shea 07:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not merge

The topics should stay separate - the merge is not required as the topics are disparate. Visual perception is about photochemistry, neurological and psychological aspects of vision in humans. Underwater vision is a physical concept of visual distortions expected for aquatic life and divers - it is of sufficient scientific interest to deserve its spot on Wikipedia. EyeMD T|C 11:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biological variations

Luria table removed

I just noticed a few edits back that a table was removed by an IP editor claiming that "A quote that large is plagarism, sourcing doesn't change that". It is worth noting that the work was a direct quote from Luria and therefore copyright free. Luria was a US Navy employee and this work was performed during the course of their team's research at the US Naval Submarine Medical Research Laboratory. Quoting US Government work with a proper citation is not plagarism or a violation of copyright. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've put it back. Since plagiarism is passing off someone else's work as your own, text which is attributed cannot be plagiarism. As you rightly point out, Gene, this sort of US Government work does not attract copyright, so there's no reason for us to exclude the text. Good catch! --RexxS (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Table of Light Absorption in pure water

Were values in Table of Light Absorption in pure water read off the graph http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/education-and-outreach/additional/science-focus/ocean-color/images/spectral_light_absorption.gif on http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/education-and-outreach/additional/science-focus/ocean-color/oceanblue.shtml? If so, there's not enough information (no ticks on Depth axis — can't believe this came from NASA) to give such precision. If not, please reference it. cmɢʟee୯ ͡° ̮د ͡° ੭ 17:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea as I could not find anything at those links. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B-Class review

B
  1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional.

    2. Looks OK. checkY
  2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.

    3. Looks OK. checkY
  3. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.

    4. Looks OK. checkY
  4. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.

    5. Looks OK. checkY
  5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.

    6. Adequately illustrated. checkY
  6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.

    7. Looks OK. checkY

Looks OK, Promoting to B-class • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear wording regarding near-sighted people

A very near-sighted person (eyesight abnormality resulting from the eye's faulty refractive index due to which the distant objects appear blurred) can see more or less normally underwater.

How is this meant? Can they "see normally", like a normal (not near-sighted) person would underwater? Like a normal person would see when not in water? Or can they see like they normally would, being underwater not having any effect on their vision?

Option (b): more or less like a person with normal vision would see when not in water. In other words, a very near-sighted person can generally focus unaided on more distant objects when underwater than they can when on the surface. --RexxS (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fast reply. Do you know a concise reference for this? 88.66.78.116 (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't, I'm sorry. It's pure synthesis: myopia results in the focal point for distant light being in front of the retina; the cornea and water have refractive indices close to each other; having the cornea in contact with water means that the refraction it produces is diminished (i.e. it moves the focal point further away). The result is that a myopic eye in contact with water will probably have its focal point for parallel light quite close to the retina, and is likely to now be within range of the eye's accommodation. --RexxS (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article on an aspect of marine biology so human-centric?

This article is absolute garbage. Why is an article about something that marine life are known for so ridiculously human-centric? Aside from the single bit on fishes this article somehow extensively talks about the limitations of human underwater vision and all about diving goggles and stuff.

Go look at the article for night vision. That article is all about how it works in animals because humans don't have it. That's how this article should be but it isn't.

When people think of looking up an article on underwater vision, they probably want info on marine biology and how underwater vision works on marine life, yet instead they get this.

Please, make this article better. This is ridiculous. 2001:44C8:41C4:F2C1:2028:6B20:8681:B0CA (talk) 11:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While some of your criticism is fair, your demands are not binding on anyone, and your attitude is frankly offensive. If you provide links to good sources we can use, someone may take them up. On Wikipedia we are volunteers and we write about what we choose and feel comfortable with. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to rename:

As the comment above points out, the actual topic of this article is not underwater vision in general, but specifically human vision underwater. I propose a rename to "Human vision underwater" or something similar. I do not think this would be controversial, but there is a question of whether there should be a redirect from the current name. From a practical point of view I think the redirect is useful to avoid breaking links, but after the bot fixes it will be appropriate to create an article on the broader topic, when someone gets round to it. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of the broader topic

Possible refs for broader topic

Allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Underwater_vision
No tags for this post.