Talk:Electricity

message: Edit in electricity 120.28.179.46 (talk) 12:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 13:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2023 

message: 120.28.179.46 (talk) 13:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 13:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2023 (2) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Electricity Synopsis 

message: 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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defibrillation 189.28.128.242 (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural perception 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Baghdad Battery nonsense 

message: 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:
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:
to:
=== Response ===
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)
replies: text: The wording for this request may not have been clear enough. The term was being used by the author as a synonym for the fish, and this usage does not suggest that the synonym originated from ancient Egyptian texts. The current Electricity article outright claims that the ancient Egyptian texts refer to these fish as the "Thunderer of the Nile," and the cited source makes no such claim. 2605:8600:560:AB14:B5CE:3B7A:38D7:1F94 (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: . The source does not say the Ancient Egyptians called it that. I removed "Thunderer" completely because the nickname seems unnecessary. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2024 

message: 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)
replies: text: The wording for this request may not have been clear enough. The term was being used by the author as a synonym for the fish, and this usage does not suggest that the synonym originated from ancient Egyptian texts. The current Electricity article outright claims that the ancient Egyptian texts refer to these fish as the "Thunderer of the Nile," and the cited source makes no such claim. 2605:8600:560:AB14:B5CE:3B7A:38D7:1F94 (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: . The source does not say the Ancient Egyptians called it that. I removed "Thunderer" completely because the nickname seems unnecessary. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response