Template:Did you know nominations/A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 11:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity

  • ... that in his 1953 book, E. T. Whittaker claimed that Henri Poincaré and Hendrik Lorentz developed the theory of special relativity before Albert Einstein? Source: Whittaker, E. T. (1953). "The relativity theory of Poincaré and Lorentz". A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity: The Modern Theories. Vol. 2 (2nd ed.). Thomas Nelson and Sons. p. 40. Born, Max; Einstein, Albert (1971). The Born-Einstein letters: correspondence between Albert Einstein and Max and Hedwig Born from 1916-1955, with commentaries by Max Born. Walker. Letter from Max Born to Albert Einstein on 26 September 1953. ISBN 978-0-333-11267-0. OCLC 243246354. Bridgman, P. W. (1956). "History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity. Volume II, The Modern Theories, 1900-1926. Edmund Whittaker". Isis. 47 (4): 428–430. doi:10.1086/348516. ISSN 0021-1753.
  • ALT1: ... that in his 1953 book, E. T. Whittaker claimed, contrary to scientific consensus, that Henri Poincaré and Hendrik Lorentz developed the theory of special relativity before Albert Einstein?
  • ALT2: ... that as part of a famous priority dispute, E. T. Whittaker's 1953 book claimed that Henri Poincaré and Hendrik Lorentz developed the theory of special relativity before Albert Einstein?
  • Reviewed: Exempt with one credit
  • Comment: Just passed GA a few hours ago

Created/expanded by Footlessmouse (talk). Self-nominated at 06:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC).

  • @Headbomb: I have added two alternatives (I read once we're not supposed to change the hooks after nominating but just append new ones). We are limited to 200 chars so it is a bit awkward to fit so much into one line, but I am open to suggestions. Thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Prefer the second personally, since the dispute article doesn't state what the scientific consensus is. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: None required.
Overall: Again, I prefer ALT2 Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)