Talk:Gerard K. O'Neill

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleGerard K. O'Neill is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 19, 2009.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 16, 2008Good article nomineeListed
November 18, 2008WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
November 19, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
December 31, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Page move[edit]

Google test:
5,380 for "Gerard O Neill" -K
3,840 for "Gerard K. O'Neill"
   66 for "Gerard Kitchen O'Neill"

--Viriditas | Talk 05:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this move was a mistake. He is almost always referred to as Gerard K. O'Neill or Gerry O'Neill. Britannica calls him Gerard K. O'Neill. His name is Gerard K. O'Neill on his books. Also, there are other people named Gerard O'Neill, some of them published authors. The test above is faulty because it probably picked up a number of people with the same name. I propose a page move back to the old title. Wronkiew (talk) 05:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good reason to move the article back. This is uncontroversial, and I've requested it as such over at WP:RM. Viriditas (talk) 08:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O'Neill cylinder[edit]

This article should link to O'Neill cylinder somewhere. Thue | talk 23:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments[edit]

As requested by Wronkiew (talk · contribs) on my talk page, here are some comments/suggestions for improvements/queries for this article (based on this version):

  • Everything that's in the introduction should be in the body of the text, so it shouldn't need any references.
    The references in the introduction are for details which I thought needed to be referenced as per WP:LEADCITE. Wronkiew (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a couple of completely unreferenced paragraphs in "Space colonization", which I've marked. (you're very efficient!) Ideally, please check that everything is referenced.
    I considered this section to be a summary of later subsections, so I left out the references. I added general references to both paragraphs, but there may be some details which do not appear in the cited references. These are, however, referenced when they are repeated later in the section. Wronkiew (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has there been any work on O'Neill's space colonization ideas since 1986?
    Sort of. The most direct influence he had on space colonization work after his death (that I could find) was the SSI conferences. I added some more detail about it in the "Legacy" section. Wronkiew (talk) 06:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What happened to the newsletter mentioned at the end of the "Origin of the idea (1969–1974)" section?
    I was not able to find enough references to characterize his "newsletter", so I removed the term from that section. Wronkiew (talk) 05:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was he survived by his wife?
    Wife and children, added to the death and legacy section. Wronkiew (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selected papers: has he written many? If so, then say how many. If not (less than 20), then consider doing a complete list.
    I added a more complete list of papers, though there are a few that I do not have complete citation details for. Wronkiew (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selected patents: there's only 6, why not list them all?
    Done. Wronkiew (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a general rule, photo credits only go on the image pages, they aren't needed in the article.
    Removed. Wronkiew (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have there been any autobiographical/biographical books written about O'Neill?
    He did not write an autobiography, and I am not aware of any biographical books written about him. Wronkiew (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some sentences seem a little disjointed, e.g. the end of the first paragraph of the "Death and legacy" section.
    I fixed up the section and improved some other sentences that didn't flow well in the rest of the article. Wronkiew (talk) 05:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave the GA assessment for someone else (I've never done a GA review myself), but I think that the article is certainly GA-standard. Nice work! Mike Peel (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more quick comments:

  • How were his second and third books critically received? Were they popular, or ignored? Did they win any awards? The linked-to article on the second book really needs a thorough overhaul...
    • I added some information from reviews of the second and third books, and cleaned up the 2081 article. Wronkiew (talk) 06:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the high speed train system concept developed any further after his death?
    O'Neill's colleague started a company to develop the magnetic trains. Their installations haven't been very high speed, but they are based on the same idea. I added some stuff about it in the "Death and legacy" section. 16:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • What relevance does "The rocket stage re-entered the atmosphere in May 2002" have to O'Neill? Was this the part which contained his ashes?
    It was. I rewrote parts of this section to make it more clear where his ashes went and I removed some unnecessary detail. Wronkiew (talk) 06:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be worth clarifying whether he was survived by Tasha, or his ex-wife Sylvia, or both.
    Clarified. Wronkiew (talk) 06:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Peel (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth child[edit]

This came up at the FA review, he had three children with his first wife and was survived by four children. If anyone can get a source so that we can add the missing child into his bio a Barnstar awaits thee. ϢereSpielChequers 07:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But if it isn't in a reliable source or it doesn't name his mother then I will take it away. Wronkiew (talk) 07:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Found the fourth child, through the brother's obituary, and added the name and the reference. Alice (talk) 02:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gerard K. O'Neill/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'm taking over. Reyk YO! 07:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, I am passing this article as a GA. Here's why:

1) (a) The prose is lucid, gramatically correct and well-written. (b) I can see no obvious manual of style problems.

2) (a & b) The article is magnificently well-sourced. I can find not one instance where a possibly contentious statement hasn't got a source, or where the source doesn't back up the statement. Oodles of in-line citations as well.

(c) Neither can I find any original research or synthesis.

3) Definitely broad enough in its coverge of the subject. It's a lengthy article, but I didn't get bored from too many details when reading it, so I think the coverage is about right.

4) No problems with neutrality. This is not a hagiography or a smear page. The overall impression I get of Gerard O'Neill from reading it is mostly positive, but this is because the facts speak for themselves. I think the positives and criticisms documented in the article are stated neutrally and fairly. No worries here.

5) No evidence of edit warring or vandalism. Just a lot of improvements.

6) Pictures are generally fine. There's not too few or too many, and they illuminate the man and his work. Can't really ask for more than that. The only suggestion I'd make is to enlarge one or two of them slightly; they've got fine details that are hard to see.

Well done. This is a fine article and deserves its GA rating. Stone's suggestions have made it even better, but I think I'd have passed it anyway. Reyk YO! 01:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stone[edit]

  • The first paragraph of the introduction is a short of the introduction and most of the info given there is comming up a second time in the two following paragraphs.
    I have attempted to use summary style in this article. The first paragraph places the subject of the article in context, as is recommended by WP:BETTER. The remaining two paragraphs summarize the article. There is some repetition where necessary to allow the prose to flow smoothly. Is there something specific about the introduction that needs to be improved? Wronkiew (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No it is OK for me.--Stone (talk) 12:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For me a pioneer does something first, but he introduced new ideas without going into space himself.
    Changed to "space activist". Wronkiew (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was an only child and his junior by 21 years sound strange, but might be a standing expression I do not know.
    Rewrote to be more clear. Wronkiew (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the publication list necesarry? Most of them can be used as references for exaple his Storage-Ring Synchrotron paper from 1956 is mentioned in the text, but has no inline citation.
    I have attempted to include a bibliography as complete as possible, as recommended by the Manual of Style and Mike Peel's review. If the list grows too long, I'll break it out into another article and keep the most interesting ones in "Selected papers". Wronkiew (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The conferences attracted many who later became influential space activists. A name or two with citation would improve the sentence.
    I added names and a citation to the "Space colonization" section summary. Wronkiew (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • why is the libration points not called Lagrangian points?
    Changed to Lagrange points. Wronkiew (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • much more quickly quicker?
    Rewritten to eliminate "quickly". Wronkiew (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • first mass driver prototype was O'Neil the inventor of the mass driver?
    He was. I added some more detail to the "Private funding" section to explain his involvement. Wronkiew (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The overall text sounds very positive, but upto now no space colonisation programm was started, due to several severe probles within the concept. O'Neil was very positive that technical solutions for all problems could be found, whereas some people think that the creation of a sustainable biosphere might be a very complex problem. His misconception that launch costs would be low with the shuttle also make him look over optimistic.--Stone (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Over-optimistic" is probably a good characterization of him. I have a few notes about the technical challenges involved with creating a sustainable biosphere, but I didn't want to get too bogged down in the technical details in what is supposed to be a biography. I'll do some more research and see what I can come up with. Thank you very much for your feedback. Wronkiew (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem! But I liked the article.--Stone (talk) 12:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Another GA! --Stone (talk) 07:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

I have removed Category:Futurology since the article is not about futurology and he is not a futurologist and have removed Category:Space colonization for similar reasons. A mention in the Space colonization article may be all that is required. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about futurology cat, but the other one... perhaps you should take a while away from the wikipedia; I think you've been working too hard or something. We don't remove information from a category because it hasn't been included some place else, not if there's reliable sources in the article that make it valid in that category. If you do stuff like that, the Wikipedia would be soon empty. Basically words fail me, to the extent that I'm wondering whether your edits are well-meant.Rememberway (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please try and be civil. Do not make assumptions about my state of mind. Please focus on the issue. Do not overstate the case. Familiarise yourself with WP categorisation. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you're claiming that Gerard O'Neill isn't most known for his work on space colonization, or you're saying that his work on space colonization, that is referenced in this article isn't notable and therefore shouldn't be in the category?Rememberway (talk) 23:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still thinking that your edit is indistinguishable from vandalism. If an anonymous IP had done this, I would be checking his other edits and considering him for blocking if he'd done other edits. I'd like to believe you, but ultimately just because you state that it isn't doesn't mean it isn't.Rememberway (talk) 23:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can explain in more detail how this isn't significant to that category?Rememberway (talk) 23:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To call my removal of two categories as akin to vandalism is farcical. I have spent sufficient time on WP categorisation to be familiar with how articles should be categorised. Categories on a topic such as space colonisation or futurology should not contain biographical articles. As an example Category:Science does not contain articles about scientists. They are all place in Category:Scientists and its subcategories. Also, I am not claiming the Gerard O'Neill is not known for his work on space colonisation. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that at least sounds plausibly not deliberate vandalism, although it still doesn't make any ultimate sense. So you're saying that (essentially) you don't think that anyone should be in any category except a derivative of Category:Person. So you're essentially trying to force the category system to be a tree, instead of a directed graph? So you think that somebody famous for (for example) starting an entire field of endeavour, and that may have notable comments about that field, is not categorisable as being a significant part of that field?Rememberway (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think all biographical articles should be in subcats of Category:People but I think the vast majority probably should. Note that since there is a Category:Futurists O'Neill should not be in Category:Futurology {yet you keep on reverting it to that cat). I don't think he should be in Category:Futurologists since all he has done is to write one book on that theme. A few examples of people and topic categories that I came across are:
If there was a space colonisation proponents category O'Neill should be in it but such a category is a case of overcategorisation. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WTF?Rememberway (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category evolution does indirectly contain Charles Darwin.Rememberway (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category Printing does indirectly contain Johannes Gutenberg, in fact he has an entire subcategory, which is directly linked.Rememberway (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that's basically what you're saying, I'd like you please to point to the policy that says that, because I would want to amend it to not saying that; as far as I know there's no policy that says that, and last time I read it, it didn't say that.Rememberway (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no categorisation policy - there is only a guideline. Specific edits of the type that we are discussing are not outlined. The closest part of the guideline is probably "Each article should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs." -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and Gerard O'Neill is already noted in both this article and the space colonization article for being a significant theorist in Space colonization, as is (for example) Konstantin Tsiolkovski, which rightfully puts them on topic and in these particular categories; the people that come up with things are usually very much considered part of the overall topic that must be covered. Or would you want to remove the Wright Brothers from aircraft categories as well? Tell me, are there any other similar category removals that you have done anywhere else?Rememberway (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP behavioural guideline is to assume good faith. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, you were, and continue to be acting very strangely.Rememberway (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you have stated that is your opinion. Let's see what happens with the results at WP:AN/I to see what others think about my behaviour. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claenup tag[edit]

I have added the {{cleanup}} tag since I feel that there are two categories that are not appropriate for this article. (see previous section). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it because you are unable to point to any policy or guideline that their presence violates.Rememberway (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Video of o neill[edit]

hello i found this video do you think i can put it on this wiki page ? http://blip.tv/erik-down-under/the-vision-of-gerard-k-o-neill-4115006 are there some other video of him around on the net ? by the way this article is just beautifull, i hope i will learn to do that kind of things someday --Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reference about o neill[edit]

hello, i have googled this one with no success, does someone knows where to read this article in full ? i have tried nasa and aiaa ^ O'Neill, Gerard K.; Driggers, G.; and O'Leary, B.: New Routes to Manufacturing in Space. Astronautics and Aeronautics, vol. 18, October 1980, pp. 46-51. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaucouplusneutre (talk • contribs) 11:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Libraries are your best best. Other than that... maybe this will help. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lagrange Point Diagram[edit]

The Lagrange Point diagram should be corrected by moving L2 to be only slightly further from the Moon than L2 is. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Gerard K. O'Neill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gerard K. O'Neill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gerard K. O'Neill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gerard K. O'Neill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1975 interview with Isaac Asimov and Gerard K. O'Neill[edit]

A source to improve the article. This TV interview from 1975 has long been referred to, but the TV films had been (apparently) lost. References to the interview became almost mythical, since no copies were known. Well, a film copy was found; and the Space Studies Institute has done a re-recording and digital re-mastering; now on YouTube since 22 May 2018.

Here is the link: The Roundtable TV Interview, WNET New York, 1975; re-released by the Space Studies Institute on YouTube 22 May 2018. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gerard_K._O%27Neill&oldid=1217842395"