Talk:Physics/Archive 3

message: I realized while writing the reply above, that there is a much more serious problem with the introduction. Three quarters of the introduction are cribbed word for word from Encarta's introduction to its physics article. A citation is provided, but this does not prevent this from being a copyright violation, since the copied text is not set off as a quotation. (Nor would it be acceptable for the introduction to a Wikipedia article to consist mainly of a quotation from another source.) No one can argue that taking a chunk of the introduction to an encyclopedia article and using it in the introduction to another encyclopedia's article on that subject is "fair use". This text must be removed, and may NOT be restored. --Srleffler 04:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I said the same thing a couple of months ago (see above) and it was just re-edited in.  This article seems to be suffering in the long term. SFC9394 23:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio

message: Applied physics is physics that is intended for a particular technological or practical use, as for example in engineering, as opposed to basic research. As such, the fields of pure physics should not go under a category with that name. Also, applied physics is not related to the dichotomy between classical and modern physics, which have not even been defined completely. The "Overview of physics research" needs to be directly after the "Introduction" section.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.224.247.234  (talk • contribs) .
:See the discussion at template talk:Physics in a box, for consideration of the details of what is in that chart. I happen to agree with you. The chart itself can be edited at Template:Physics in a box.--Srleffler 16:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with the article

message: I have heard a similar quote attributed to Heisenberg.  Wolfram's site http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Heisenberg.html also suggests there is an ambiguity of this quote.  Does anybody have an original source? --Bjsamelsonjones 18:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horace Lamb Quote 

message: Proposed deletion of the tables has put the article in a "larval stage." --68.224.247.234 01:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's growing now. Spiff 10:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of Information 

message: This seems a singularly poor choice of words.  David R. Ingham 04:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. However you look at it, it's either POV, or unencyclopedic tone. Easily fixed, however. --Srleffler 05:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "weaker sciences" in first paragraph of '''Introduction''' 

message: It appears that an anonymous editor completely re-wrote the article from start to finish. I'm posing the question here as to whether or not this user should be reverted, as the edits appear to be good, however the reinsertion of slight POV and the removal of a lot of text is extremely off. Ryūlóng 05:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a look at the discussion two sections above, and talk:physics/wip. Karol 11:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent questionable edit 

message: I have created a sandbox for some major editing at User:Tmcsheery/rewrite_of_Physics Please comment there, and I'll try to get the cleanup through the whole article. Only about 1/4 along so far. Tmcsheery 17:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Make sure you coordinate your efforts with physics/wip, as mentioned above, to avoid wasted effort.  --Michael C. Price talk 18:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Questionable Edit 

message: In the introduction, I had included a paragraph describing the significance of physics to modern ways of life and another on the relation of physics to engineering, technology, and applied sciences. However, they have since been removed. Their inclusion required some restructuring of the introduction, but no information previously displayed was removed. These additions, as I believe, were improvements to the article as it currently lacks sufficient discussion on these topics. Suppose one had never been informed of physics. If this were the only resource for one's information, one would not understand the significance of physics to engineering, technology, and medicine except in an understated way via the applied physics section. If their inclusion in the introduction section is contested, maybe they can be placed in the applied physics section. --68.224.247.234 21:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the importance of physics to mankind and its relation to engineering, applied sciences, and technology 

message: I've delisted this page from "Good Article" status, particularly for violation of attribute 5 (stability), but also for violating attributes 1b (logical structure) and 4a (NPOV).  See WP:WIAGA.  Gnixon 20:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Good article" delisting

message: I undid a revert by Karol of the edit by  203.99.195.4 68.224.247.234 because the edit seemed like a good one and no reason was given for reverting.  I thought using bullets in the list of central theories was particularly useful.  Gnixon 15:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for that, it got caught in a "batch revert", I think. Karol 08:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Central theories