Talk:Fizeau experiment#Apparent original research

{{Article history

|action1=GAN

|action1date=00:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

|action1link=Talk:Fizeau experiment/GA1

|action1result=listed

|action1oldid=686038861

|action2=GAR

|action2date=21:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

|action2link=Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Fizeau experiment/1

|action2result=kept

|action2oldid=1267979282

|currentstatus=GA

|dykdate=26 October 2015|dykentry=... that the Fizeau experiment (setup pictured) was one of the key experimental results that shaped Einstein's thinking about relativity?|dyknom=Template:Did you know nominations/Fizeau experiment

|topic=Physics and astronomy

}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|

}}

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis

| age=2160

| archiveprefix=Talk:Fizeau experiment/Archive

| maxarchsize=100000

| header={{Automatic archive navigator}}

| minkeepthreads=4

| minarchthreads=1

| numberstart=1

| format= %%i

}}

Is the "Derivation in special relativity" correct?

What about this video that states that special relativity does not explain Fizeau experiment?

Youtube - Ask Us Whatever - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1o8Jhnfg-I&list=PLJ5NPQaqq3dMmQQFjNiq1Q1RBGo6319RV&index=79&pp=gAQBiAQB E9.3 - Confirmation bias in physics. The embarrassing Von Laue, Einstein, Fizeau blunder.] 2800:2131:5400:FB2:A5A8:26FE:B5E0:A625 (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

:See wp:Talk page guidelines: we can discuss the article here, based on wp:reliable sources. Youtube doesn't qualify. - DVdm (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

GA concerns: "Controversy" section

I am concerned that this article might not meet the good article criteria anymore, mostly due to the "Controversy" section. While the section describes various expert's disagreements with the experiment, it does not give any sources verifying this. Since this is historical information, and not mathematical concepts, their disagreements will need to be sourced (especially the block quotes). I also think the section should be remained as "Controversy" is probably against WP:NPOV (as explained in WP:CONTROVERSY) and I think another name might better describe that this section is describing the disagreement or opposition to the hypothesis.

Is anyone willing to address the above concern, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 03:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Proposal to delete the section "Controversy"

I have reworked the article to add a series of experimental confirmations of Fizeau's results into Confirmations. Each one has a comment about the issues Fresnel's partial aether drag model. This makes the Controversy redundant. It is poorly sourced, overly reliant on quotations and in my opinion it is confusing. I propose to delete it now.

As far as I can tell the word "controversy" here has two applications. First Fresnel's formula was successful while its physical model seemed inconsistent. That much is now captured in the Confirmations section. Second the historian John Stachel has claimed that other historians misread the history of the era, giving too little weight to the first controversy. I don't think this fine point of history belongs here and if it does one or two sentences is all we need. Stachel's history of the Fizeau experiment is excellent, but his evidence of a historical misreading is weak in my opinion. The other historians seem to just have different emphasis. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

:{{done}} I did this already. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)