This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Electricity article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
Electricity has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-2 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Basic installation of electrical outlets Ty72corr ( talk) 18:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
|}
Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 20:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There's some uncited information being
And that's it. Should be relatively easy to fix unless other problems are noticed. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 00:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Edit in electricity 120.28.179.46 ( talk) 12:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
120.28.179.46 ( talk) 13:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
This is a synopsis of this page. It should describe some basic information about the page and give an idea about the content a user will find out the rest of the page. Geraldine Cuison ( talk) 16:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
It would be relevant to observe in the topic Cultural perception. Note: A heart which is in asystole (flatline) cannot be restarted by a defibrillator; it would be treated only by cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and medication, and then by cardioversion or defibrillation if it converts into a shockable rhythm. Source: /info/en/?search=Defibrillation 189.28.128.242 ( talk) 14:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
"According to a controversial theory, the Parthians may have had knowledge of electroplating, based on the 1936 discovery of the Baghdad Battery, which resembles a galvanic cell, though it is uncertain whether the artifact was electrical in nature."
According to a controversial theory the Great Pyramid of Giza was built by aliens, but we don't mention that. A large portion of the page on the Baghdad Battery is dedicated to explaining why the theory is disagreed with, because basically every modern archaeologist agrees that it's not a battery. It's a theory from the 1930s that even at the time stood on relatively tentative evidence but which today is pretty confidently agreed to be wrong.
So describing it as "a controversial theory" here is misleading, it implies there's at least a degree of mainstream scientific support for the theory still, which there is not. A better phrasing would be "a now discredited theory", or even to just omit the sentence (it's in truth not really relevant to a brief overview of the history of electricity). 2A02:C7C:C4CD:A500:FC26:956F:AE45:BBF8 ( talk) 19:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The second sentence of the Electricity article's History section claims that Ancient Egyptian texts refer to electric fish as "Thunderer of the Nile" in a (fair) misinterpretation of the text being cited, under cite note 2 of the article. The text from the citation states:
Long before the true nature of electricity was known, ancient Egyptians (2750 BC) revered the "thunderer of the Nile," the electric catfish Malapterurus electricus, as the protector of fish. [1]
The cited text does not claim that Ancient Egyptian texts themselves refer to electric fish as "Thunderer of the Nile," rather suggesting that the term was being used by the author as a synonym for the fish. To support this, the claim that ancient Egyptian texts used this name erroneously suggests that ancient Egyptians knew of a link between the electric fish and thunder, long before the nature of lightning was ever known to be caused by the same forces as the electric fish.
Please change:
Ancient Egyptian texts dating from 2750 BCE referred to these fish as the "Thunderer of the Nile", and described them as the "protectors" of all other fish.
to:
Ancient Egyptian texts dating from 2750 BCE referred to these fish as the protector of other fish.
I don't see the term "Thunderer of the Nile" as originating in the referenced document. For one thing, I find the same term describing the electric catfish Malapterurus, in an 1892 article of the The Eclectic Magazine written by John Gray McKendrick, its wording suggesting that the term is much older in origin. — BillC talk 08:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Electricity article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
Electricity has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-2 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Basic installation of electrical outlets Ty72corr ( talk) 18:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
|}
Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 20:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There's some uncited information being
And that's it. Should be relatively easy to fix unless other problems are noticed. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 00:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Edit in electricity 120.28.179.46 ( talk) 12:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
120.28.179.46 ( talk) 13:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
This is a synopsis of this page. It should describe some basic information about the page and give an idea about the content a user will find out the rest of the page. Geraldine Cuison ( talk) 16:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
It would be relevant to observe in the topic Cultural perception. Note: A heart which is in asystole (flatline) cannot be restarted by a defibrillator; it would be treated only by cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and medication, and then by cardioversion or defibrillation if it converts into a shockable rhythm. Source: /info/en/?search=Defibrillation 189.28.128.242 ( talk) 14:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
"According to a controversial theory, the Parthians may have had knowledge of electroplating, based on the 1936 discovery of the Baghdad Battery, which resembles a galvanic cell, though it is uncertain whether the artifact was electrical in nature."
According to a controversial theory the Great Pyramid of Giza was built by aliens, but we don't mention that. A large portion of the page on the Baghdad Battery is dedicated to explaining why the theory is disagreed with, because basically every modern archaeologist agrees that it's not a battery. It's a theory from the 1930s that even at the time stood on relatively tentative evidence but which today is pretty confidently agreed to be wrong.
So describing it as "a controversial theory" here is misleading, it implies there's at least a degree of mainstream scientific support for the theory still, which there is not. A better phrasing would be "a now discredited theory", or even to just omit the sentence (it's in truth not really relevant to a brief overview of the history of electricity). 2A02:C7C:C4CD:A500:FC26:956F:AE45:BBF8 ( talk) 19:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The second sentence of the Electricity article's History section claims that Ancient Egyptian texts refer to electric fish as "Thunderer of the Nile" in a (fair) misinterpretation of the text being cited, under cite note 2 of the article. The text from the citation states:
Long before the true nature of electricity was known, ancient Egyptians (2750 BC) revered the "thunderer of the Nile," the electric catfish Malapterurus electricus, as the protector of fish. [1]
The cited text does not claim that Ancient Egyptian texts themselves refer to electric fish as "Thunderer of the Nile," rather suggesting that the term was being used by the author as a synonym for the fish. To support this, the claim that ancient Egyptian texts used this name erroneously suggests that ancient Egyptians knew of a link between the electric fish and thunder, long before the nature of lightning was ever known to be caused by the same forces as the electric fish.
Please change:
Ancient Egyptian texts dating from 2750 BCE referred to these fish as the "Thunderer of the Nile", and described them as the "protectors" of all other fish.
to:
Ancient Egyptian texts dating from 2750 BCE referred to these fish as the protector of other fish.
I don't see the term "Thunderer of the Nile" as originating in the referenced document. For one thing, I find the same term describing the electric catfish Malapterurus, in an 1892 article of the The Eclectic Magazine written by John Gray McKendrick, its wording suggesting that the term is much older in origin. — BillC talk 08:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)