Talk:Eyepatch

Sprite jokes have absolutly nothing to do in particular with eye patches in general. This does not belong here, it belongs in an article about sprites.Removed Completely

the guys in knight riderhad a patch !! 216.113.96.83 14:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Fictional eyepatch wearers

This section definitely needs cleanup. There is no justification for a complete list of fictional characters with eyepatches within this article. I see no reason why that list should exceed the length of the list of famous real people with eyepatches (which I might note makes no attempt to be complete). --207.171.180.101 19:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This section is unencyclopedic and should be removed. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 07:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Done. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone else has reverted. I have no time to argue it out currently. Will leave this note to show potential for future consensus. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to agree that the list does not serve a purpose. I would not expect to see a list of notable wearers of some item of apparel in that encyclopedia entry. Maybe if it were limited to a few characters, or those where the eye patch was important, the list would seem less useless. For one, if the character in question doesn't even have a page, they aren't important enough to warrant inclusion. The list should be, at most, as long as the non-fictional characters list. --74.78.103.230 (talk) 21:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed. I'll be stalking it to see if it returns. Absolutely full of nerd references, not notable characters. Patricoo (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Eyepatch in Sailors section (and Pirates)

This is an excellent section, and serves as a very informative paragraph, but the grammar and sentence structure is rather sloppy. If some sentences could somehow be merged, altered, or corrected for gramamar and better flow, it would make this already informative paragraph easier to follow.

Also, it should be noted that non-stereotype pirates and privateers often did wear eyepatches for actual reasons.

We must recall the actual pirates, not the stereotypes. Treasure wasn't the onlt thing pirates were after. In many case, pirates would seize entire ships if they wanted and/or needed them. When fighting or attempting to seize another ship, shanghai a passenger, or steal items for their wealth or their country's wealth (like in privateers), it was very common to suffer severe damage in an eye. Sword or not, daggers and other pointy items can gouge an eye severely, thus disabling is ability to see. Add the fact that pirates often held their "booty" for ransom instead of killing it (all the more fear), and an eye could and probably did get severely damaged in lieu of rescuing a captive. Pirates were known to strike fear into other vessals and their crew, more often with privateers to make other nations fear their homeland.

In short, the "peg legs", eye patches, hooks, ect. all served as Prosthesis for a damaged limb or other organ.

Eye patches may have served as a cover-up of a gouged eye, not just because it's ugly, but also because it would prevent any blood from flowing down their face and inhibiting their senses all the more. In piracy and sailing in general, it pays to be on alert for the unexpected.


74.184.65.160 (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

There needs to be another source for this--Mythbusters confirmed that using an eyepatch to preserve night-vision was _possible_, but it didn't confirm it as a historical fact. Txmy (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Any indication that sailors or pirates actually wore eyepatches?

I've never seen any historical evidence that sailors or pirates wore eyepatches any more than the population at large. I had always assumed this was a Hollywood invention like peg legs and talking parrots on the shoulder.

Since this takes up an inordinate amount of the article, wouldn't it be worthwhile to put some substance behind it? Something that is, other than a misleading claim about what a TV show "proved" (they didn't prove it btw, they said its plausible but unsupported by historical evidence). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otterfan (talk • contribs) 21:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)