Talk:Questar Corporation

Pronunciation
Is it "Questar" to rhyme with QUE-STAR, or is QUEST-AR to rhyme with jester? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.100.89 (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Page needs moving?
There is nothing named "Questar Telescope". There is a Questar Corporation and that company makes a maksutov model called the Questar (Sometimes the "Questar 31/2" and the "Questar 7" though those names seem to be un-oficial). This page should probably be moved to Questar Corporation and re-writen to describe that corporation and the models produced there in. Halfblue 20:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Questar is Questar Telescope
Among astronomers, amateurs and professionals, the Questar is referred to as a Questar, much the same as a Rolls Royce is referred to as a Rolls Royce and not a car. There was already an article named Questar, so that is why I called it Questar Telescope. I'm open to suggestions, but the article is really about the telescope, not the corporation. Thanks :) Wmpittendreigh


 * The title it self is odd phasing since it seems to list it as an official title with two capitalized words. As I said the company is not called "Questar Telescope" and the model it self is called the "Questar". I have seen a lot of "Celestrons" being used... if you look up "Celestron" on Wikipedia it gives you the company. That gives you a president that Questar should probably be the same way, a page about the company listing their products --> "Questar Corporation". "Rolls Royce" takes you to Rolls-Royce Limited, the company name which again gives you a president. That would also separate it from the cartoon character. Their flagship product, the Questar 3.5", could have its own sub-heading on the page listing its attributes. Subheadings can be linked on Wikipedia via using the markup language Questar Corporation#The Questar 3.5 (BTW I used to work with a bunch of ex-Questar guys and even tore a few Questars apart. Don't think the bits and pieces i have will make a good photo but I think an advert photo can be used under fair-use. Will look into it.) Halfblue 03:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

All that really has to be done is to rename the page to "Questar (Telescope)." This follows established Wikipedia practice. See Merging_and_moving_pages for information on how to rename a page. algocu 21:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That would work except for one problem. "Questar" is not a telescope, it’s a brand name. And they make more than just telescopes (although most of their devices are "telescopic"). And the thing in (parentheses) should be descriptive of the item as well as a way to separate pages. If we were to name it what it really is that would be Maksutov (Telescope), but as you can see that page already exists. Halfblue 02:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Moves and edits
Re-arranged information on the page and added some content. Edited writing to reflect a more neutral point of view WP:NPOV. Moved page to better reflect content since it covers both one telescope design and the company as a whole (A company page could have been made but it would have been a candidate for merger almost immediately). Halfblue 03:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits
I am moving the below edits to this talk page. They have no citation and their promotional style creates POV and SPAM problem. They should be edited to be neutral in viewpoint and citations should be added before they are re-added to the article. Halfblue 01:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Since it is a complicated to make hand crafted instrument with industrial grade optics, and since they are made in relatively small production runs of telescopes and accessories, the Questar has always come with a high price tag. The design has been timeless with the basic concepts remaining almost static since its first production.


 * The Questar of the 1950's and early 1960's offered little capacity to employ third party accessories although the offerings of accessories made by Questar for the telescope made it among the most versatile and capable small telescopes one could own even into the 1970's. The Questar was among the first to offer a well integrated suite of optional accessories for their customers including: Drive Correctors, Off Axis Guiders, Piggyback Mounts, etc. as a catalog item for sale to all. There has been some criticism that the instrument is a "status symbol" that is too small, too expensive, and just plain too outdated for serious astronomical use - comments coming most often from those who have not spent time using a Questar.


 * open discussion with this editor over at User_talk:69.255.120.20. I'm not sure exactly was the story is but 69.255.120.20 works for company7.com which makes all those advert-edits and external link additions a serious WP:COI. (Requestion 15:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC))

Facts are not opinion or POV. My relationship to Company Seven and Questar have no bearing on the factual nature of the content and history corrections I offered to remedy those prior inaccuracies of the original Wikipedia article. And the linking to a page that hosts archival information and illstrated educational articles about antique instruments and accessories (with no hope of making sales of such) much as would a 'virtual museum' such as Company Seven's Library does, is doing the reader a service - think about it, is the reader better served or not by the omission of that link? And directing them to this library is even less related to marketing than pointing a reader to the factory web site for example. MCMC


 * Statements like: "design has been timeless" "offer a well integrated suite With its high performance (still the best of any 7 lb tracking telescope in the world)... ...a number of spectacular images are being produced by Questar owners... And so what is old is new again!" have no place in a Wikipedia article. They look like advertising copy, and Wikipedia doesn't advertise. Just unassertive, dry statements about the company and its telescopes are what we need. For a statement like: "There has been some criticism that the instrument is a "status symbol" that is too small, too expensive, and just plain too outdated for serious astronomical use - comments coming most often from those who have not spent time using a Questar." We need independant secondary sources for these examples. See WP:REF and WP:Weasel words. Regardless of Wikipedia policy which interdicts such hyperbole, these telescopes are interesting already, so we shouldn't have to hype them to make them interesting, IMO. --Fire Star 火星 21:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but why were statements suggesting the instruments are useless for astronomy allowed while comments praising it coming from an experienced user (who also added a link to one of many owners Questar sites showing great images) being deleted? It seemed that by persistent editing, and reediting we may all come up with compromises that are accurate and balanced. The article is now more accurate, and better organized, with notably more factual content because of my contributions over the past few days than it was before. MC


 * Thanks for your reply. A helpful consensus building tool is to list the recent statements in the article you object to (even if they currently aren't there) and explain why, and other interested users can also weigh in with their opinions and their own lists (if any). Again, IMO, the more info the better, as long as we present it in the traditional passive academic voice. --Fire Star 火星 01:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback from all here too, I wish I'd known earlier to check out the 'discussion' and 'history' pages. The whole thing had be quite confused. The article is really looking pretty good - there's lots of history I could add about the founder and owners after him - but I prefer to sit back and add my two cents as others contribute for a while. How does a contributor cite facts that one has learned from direct use of the equipment, or by discussions with people mentioned in these articles (several of whom are dead now unfortunately) in a way that is acceptable? I read some constructive criticism about "They have no citation and..." for example, and am not sure what Wikipedia requires.


 * Helping new Wikipedia users acclimate is one of my jobs, so I'm happy to answer questions to may have or at least refer you to someone who may know. You may ask me here, on my talk page, or if I am away for a bit as sometimes happens, you may use the help pages or add a question to the village pump. For your questions about citing our own experiences and citing the experience of others, the links at cite your sources and original research contain our applicable policies.


 * Here are a few more good links for newcomers:
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.


 * Regards, --Fire Star 火星 14:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the article back to an earlier version by me (and added parts of later edits) due to the re-insertion of promotional language. I have cited some of the problems on the editors talk page. The Company Seven external link is not the one I thought was "spammy" as much as the link to the Company Seven Questar product page and the in-line spam mention of Company Seven as a co-designer of the Astro 7 (something not supported by the text at either company's website). According to Questar and Company Sevens websites the "Astro 7" is a Questar product that Company Seven simple does custom modifications to. On that basis mention of Company Seven does not seem to cross the threshold re:Notability (organizations and companies).


 * I propose the re-adition of the Company Seven documents page external link:
 * *Archive of Questar literature and other interesting articles.
 * as a valid external link since that seems to meet the requirement of a page containing useful information that does not containing obtrusive advertising. But I can see that it is debatable since it does contain biased testimonials, thats not something the article would contain if it became a Featured article (WP:EL). Halfblue 04:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

1. I removed reference to the Questar Seven from the "Trivia" section. The developments of these instruments is not trivial but has been a substantially important product to governments and industry. The development of this also had something to do with dramatic management and personnel changes at the company in the late 1960's. This should be under a separate section "Questar Seven" just as "Questar 3-1/2". I reinstated the prior complete edit including the note that the Astro was a result of a cooperative effort between Questar and Company Seven (this is fact, not anything else) and it led to lighter weight developments including the move to the two titanium models. People who do not know the history of these products should stop changing these details since Fact is not Point of View anymore than History is Spam.

2. I also changed (for about the tenth time) another innacurate statement that all Questars are made to 1/8 wave. This is NOT correct, and is explained at Company7.com (should I reference that too?). When you know as much about the Questar as I do then you can challenge my technical corrections with some authority. Otherwise, cease and desist since innacturate comments do the reader a disservice and can be a basis for litigation. There, can I say this in any more succinct a manner?

3. Some editor has referred to the fact of the comparatively high cost of the telescope, and cite a reference to one amateur's web site too with the mention "being a "status symbol" that is too small and too expensive[3] for serious astronomical use". Why is that quote allowed while my comments that bring some balance to that viewpoint are not: "but these criticisms seem to miss the points that have contributed to the more than 50 year production success of the Questar - a record that is not equaled by any other telescope in production".

It is a fact that some say what was mentioned, but many others who own a Questar love them and use them for many aspects of Astronomy. I can cite many who use the Questar to contribute valuable astronomical data even in 2007 including: daily sunspot counts, eclipse data, occultation data, etc. This is aside from entertainment and the numerous web sites showing great images taken by these systems. So how can you argue with the success of what may be the longest running production telescope?

4. Reinstated the link *Archive of Questar literature and other interesting articles. since the content is mostly historic and informative about the company and the product. All content at that link is clearly identified by origin, etc. Most of the content is historic pertaining to the early history of Questar and its products going back into the 1950's. And it contains Questar literature too (just as your link to the Questar company web site would. Wikipedia articles are full of link to company web sites where one would be subjected to more propoganda than the interesting articles hosted by this restored link. This is very helpful to those who own new or used Questars, especially given the number of old ones coming up on eBay, etc. And this link has as much right to be listed as a helpful reference at the bottom of this article (if not more) than the links to other references - several of which contain amateurish opinion too and some with inaccuracies. If you have some other motive for pullng the link then lets discuss it openly.

Think of what we are trying to accomplish here before you edit....this is an exercise to serve well the overriding concern about being an accurate and informative reference for the reader.

Martin Cohen, CEO of Company Seven and representative of Questar Corp. (I did not wish to have to identify myself so clearly out of concern for appearing to be "spamming", but it appears to be time for all to establish their credibility in this discussion).


 * Hello Martin. Stop being so disruptive and stop adding that company7.com external link. You have violated the spam4 final warning several times now and your website going to be blacklisted and you are going to be blocked. (Requestion 19:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC))


 * Martin. I have reverted the page again with some edits. You seem to misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. At that blue link you will find a few pointers you should read up on. The pertinent ones here are "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FREE ADVERTISING SPACE" and "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A PLACE TO PUBLISH YOUR NEW IDEAS". The avenue you should take to change this page is to find an acceptable reference that supports your edit, the one caveat being > that source can NOT be you... all sources should be reliable (un-related) 3rd party sources. Citing Company Seven as a source as to how important (notable) Company Seven is violates every rule in the book (WP:POV, WP:COI, WP:SPAM, ect) as far as Wikipedia goes.


 * Some other points:


 * 1. "Trivia" does not mean un-important. It means it is a small (hopefuly cited) fact that does not fit in the current text of the article. Trivia additions may never fit. The "Questar Seven" may have some history re:Questar Corporation but that is not the threshold to add it to Wikipedia. The threshold is whether it is relevant (notable) in relationship to the whole wide world. The Seven is such a small production run it may not be notable at all on an encyclopedia other than to note Questar made one. And the addition that a retailer made modifications to a borderline notable product falls below the threshhold of NOTABILITY in my opinion.


 * 2. Re: 1/8th wavelength accuracy. Not sure what you mean here since your text matches the text that existed at the last revert. You may want to re-read the current edit. I have removed the statement since it is un-cited. It can be re-added if you have a valid third party source for this information.


 * 3. Re: "being a "status symbol" has been removed by me. Please read the current edit. As for other statements of usefulness... you have to cite it and that cite has to be neutral and authoritative... you can't quote you or the archives of a retail company... although you should be able to use that source to get to a more neutral original source.


 * 4. I agree *Archive of Questar literature and other interesting articles. should be added as I stated in a post above. Now the problem is you have set off everyone "spam radar". Spamming and people simply turning wikipedia articles into product advertisements is something that editors will delete with extreme prejudice. Your original edits were quickly identified as such and have been dealt with accordingly.


 * ID'ing your self as a CEO in a company selling Questar products means that you need to be self aware of what you add to Wikipedia re: WP:COI and WP:SPAM. You also need to keep in mind is Wikipedia IS NOT a place to promote a product. Halfblue 22:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, so Company Seven's web site is the one definitive and authoritative site about Questar that is good enough for Wikipedia to plaigerize without giving citation or proper attribution in clear violation of Company Seven's copyrights and "Site Terms of Use" as stated at . But policy will not otherwise permit a mention Company Seven in the article.

For example the opening facts of the Wikipedia article derive from Company Seven's Questar Index Page  nearly verbaitim:


 * Company Seven: "Questar's founder was Mr. Lawrence E. Braymer (b. 1901, d. 1965). A commercial artist by trade, Braymer developed the concept of a Maksutov-Cassegrain telescope noteworthy for its excellence of materials and craftsmanship and unprecedented ease of use."


 * Wikpedia: "Origins and history - Questar was founded in 1950 by Lawrence E. Braymer (born 1901, died 1965). A commercial artist by trade, Braymer set up Questar to develop and market Maksutov telescopes and other optical devices for the consumer, industrial, and government customers."

There is both some hippocracy and plaigerization at work here. The Questar article will read as pretty barren if the contributions from Company Seven and me are disallowed entirely. But to help us all follow Wikipedia guidlelines better, I hereby give Wikipedia permission to use the information from Company Seven assuming proper attribution are given. And futhermore, to assist and help Wikipedia comply with legal requirements, I added the proper citations to the article's statements about Mr. Braymer, and also about the ownership changes. I would not want you to be inconstent, or make some high school grade error of omission.

While the article will state "Since the telescope is made in a small production run by a relatively small company, the economies of scale have meant that the Questar 3-1/2” comes with a high price tag." How about pointing out the fact that it is not just economies of scale - the cost of the parts used to make a Questar are of such high cost of materials and craftsmanship (a Focus Rod for a Questar 3-1/2 is more than $80, the optics materials and figuring costs alone are more than the cost of many other complete small telescopes. You seem content to have the article characterize this as an over priced toy - so where is the balanced perspective that one should expect in an encylopedia?

You previously mentioned to me "Wikipedia IS NOT a place to promote a product" but neither is it a place to diminish a product or a company's contributions. In the article you mention "Also the basic design has been remained almost static since its first production. It's comparatively small aperture has led the instrument to be to criticized as being too small and too expensive[3] for serious astronomical use." You quote one amateur review, and yet you refuse to link to places where people rave about their Questar. Why will the article not mention the Questar 3-1/2 concept has remained static BEACAUSE IT WORKS WELL. The Questar 3-1/2 has been imitated by many, and is among the longest running telescopes in commercial production ever. Why can you demean the product as opinion that can be disproved by seeing the contributions made by these instruments at numerous web sites for example - and you allow no other view in the article as opinion?

And finally you finally agreed to allow the link to one site showing examples of what a Questar 3-1/2 can accomplish. But either you lack English skills or you have some other agenda since you keep naming it "Images of a Questar 3-1/2". So to save you the embarrassment I edited the links again to be:


 * Questar Corporation’s website
 * Archive of Questar literature and other interesting articles
 * Questar 3-1/2 owner's site Astrophotos taken by and images of a Questar 3-1/2" telescope

Facts are facts regardless of where they originate. Please read again the 4 points I wrote above. If we continue to disagree then maybe there is an independent auditor (so to speak) at Wikipedia who can be called in for another opinion.

Martin Cohen, May 15, 2007


 * 1 There is no "you". That means I am not the originator of this article. I am not the arbiter of what goes in this article. Me, you, and the whole wide world are the editors. Someone else originally put up this article. I and many other editors have come in and put in our two cents worth. Do not take anything I type as "Wikipedia" talking to you... it is not.... it is just little old me, some guy in front of a computer somewhere trying to help out.


 * 2 If you see plagiarism you may:
 * edit it so the wording is "original".
 * tag it with the Copy-Paste tag so another editor can clean it up.
 * allow it by putting a notice on your website along the lines of "We allow our material to be used by non-profits such as Wikipedia" (see:WP:COPYRIGHT since this is something you seem to want to do).
 * remove it.


 * Using your website as a source is allowable in any journalistic/academic publication. Plagiarizing is not. More at WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:SOURCE.


 * 3 The so far "banning" of your website was caused by your actions when you violated Wikipedia guidelines. I for one think it is a valid and useful source and I don't relish seeing a bunch of reference and external links going dead if Wikipedia administrators decide to ban your site. You really need to read up on policy and think three times about what you link to stop this from happening. Putting up justifications on talk pages does help. Wikipedia guidelines ask that you reach a consensus with other editors BEFOR you re-add external links. That is why I have not re-added them but put up my opinion on this talk page that I think they should be re-added. You have now violated that guideline again for (I have lost track of how many times).


 * 4 The price of a Questar. Knowing a great deal about the construction of Questars products the only way I can characterize it is "economies of scale". The parts for this item cost what they cost because they are made in small runs with the concurrently more expensive methods, i.e. the economies of scale of say, cast and machined parts over stamped and plastic parts. One method is not intrinsically "better" then the other but when you’re a small run company you cannot afford the setup and production run overhead of something like a stamped part. Making items in a small run also means you are locked into one design until the parts run out. Now my description of that is an un-cited "apple pie" description, a Wikipedia concept that you don't need a citation to describe something as obvious as an apple pie.


 * 5 Raves about Questar. They are fine as long as you follow WP:NPOV and WP:SPAM.


 * 6 "Images of a Questar 3-1/2". You need to check the link. It is a PICTURE of a Questar 3 1/2 (something the article needs BTW). External links should take a reader to further information about the topic in question. The astro photos section of that site have been removed several times because it does not contain further information ABOUT the Questar 3 1/2 and because it was originally added by the photographer in question making it a Conflict of interest.


 * Again please don’t take this as “me and you” reaching some agreement. What you and I say is not worth a bucket of warm spit if it also violates Wikipedia policy. Also there are other editors involved. Another editor will probably revert your Company Seven references because adding commercial links in a reference is still spamming. I (and other editors.. hopefully including you) will in the future make more edits to push this article further towards being truthful and factual.. I haven't done much of that right now because my "wikipedia time" is taken up removing spam content. All I can say is (again) ..stand back and look at what you are doing. If your primary concern is making this article more factual then please read and adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. If your primary concern is product promotion then you efforts are better spent somewhere else. Halfblue 14:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That's 3 final warning violations for User talk:69.255.120.20 so far. I have a spam backlog right now but the company7.com spamming is in my queue. Hopefully when the request finally gets processed this edit warring will end. I noticed that a whole lot of tags were recently added. Are all those facts being disputed? No point sourcing that many unless people are questioning them. (Requestion 20:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC))


 * It may be my bad. I was under the impression that any "fact" in a Wikipedia article needs a citation to back it up. So I dropped in the tags. I am not disputing them, I know a lot of them to be true (some I even added), but again I am under the impression I can't cite my self as a source although with a little work I can find some of them. Should I add a general "cleanup" tag instead?  Halfblue 03:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

My over riding concerns have been: Truth, Balance and giving credit if and when credit is due. I like the Questar and own one, and understand what it can and can not do. I just want to see more balance in the article, and facts. And sorry if I implied you copied the sections from Company Seven's web site without permission, I do not understand fully the Wikipedia system and thought the article might have had one moderator who would be responsible for that sort of thing. I noted the citations referencing those facts as having come from Company Seven have been deleted from the article - see why I am left wondering about the issues of balance and truth? Regards.


 * No problem on the "who copied this?" I am pretty sure it was done when someone created the article in a hurry or who also did "not understand fully the Wikipedia system" . It is not right re:Wikipedia policy at any rate and should be cleaned up. As far a balance it is covered at WP:NPOV. It gives the parameters as far as what Wikipedia considers "balanced". Halfblue 03:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

To avoid any appearance of impropriety I gutted the article removing any information provided by me, or obviously taken from copyright proteced sources.Martincc 17 May 2007 (UTC)