Talk:Physicist

message: This is the talk page for physicist. Please use it only for relavant discussions. Karol 13:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I've added enough text to almost raise this article from the level of a stub, but it still needs information about physicists in the fields of mechanics/forces, electro-magnetism, and relativity/theoretical physics. -- EncycloPetey 06:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional text needed

message: So, I started to rewrite the article along the lines of chemist because I didn't think that this needed to duplicate subdiscipline discussions at physics and I think chemist does a good job of talking about the job rather than the field.  I also thought this'd be a good place to discuss trends in physics employment and demographics of the physics community.  This is, of course, by no means done, and I welcome any help or input into what this article should be.  — Laura Scudder ☎ 23:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: I actually think that "study" is a bit of a loaded term.    Physicists in industry have a bit more of a reputation for "studying" problems instead of solving them.   So put me down for disliking "study." Nonetheless, the article continues to have more serious deficiencies than the choice of a single word.    I'll try to improve it when I have a chance!   Alison Chaiken 15:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Study versus practice 

message: It seems to me that the list of textbooks does not really belong here, although it is useful information that is worth keeping in a more relevant location.  The books might be relevant in physics but I don't see why they should be in physicist.  Anyone in favour of moving them to a new article?
As an aside, there must be hundreds of "graduate level" physics textbooks in every different area of physics.  Is it really worth making an attempt to list them all here?
Greg 19:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I do think it's rather silly.  — Laura Scudder ☎ 20:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: You know there is already an article Physics/Further reading.  That seems like the most appropriate place to merge this list.  — Laura Scudder ☎ 13:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of textbooks 

message: In the list of important physicists Lene Vestergaard Hau stands out very clearly as an outlier. The track record of the rest of the physicists listed involve fundamental breakthroughs in theory or experiment, frequently leading to a Nobel Prize. Perhaps the best way to appreciate the context is to note that Wolfgang Ketterle is on there for creating the first BEC, while Lene Vestergaard Hau is listed for an experiment which was one of many demonstration made using BEC's. If the criteria for this list is several high impact Nature papers and one very high impact (>2000 citations) then the list would have to be increased by about an order of magnitude. I'd like to propose deletion, does anyone object to this?
--Nwalkthisway (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Tesla also comes under "outlier" with no "fundamental breakthroughs in theory or experiment" ....another candidate for deletion. Per WP:LIST (and WP:Source list) the  "List of important physicists" should have a lead paragraph defining the criteria for the list. "highly influential and important" is not a criteria without references. Before we get into pruning the list I would see if there is a neutral method of inclusion, required at WP:LIST. I think the real course of action would be to delete the list if no one can find a reliable inclusion criteria. I tagged the list for cleanup. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Who??? - DVdm (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

text: Apart from self-references, there's as good as nothing in Google Scholar and Google Books. Let's remove. - DVdm (talk) 08:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Important Physicists 

message: This revert was for many reasons including the nonconstructive move of deleting the lead, insertions that seem to have been made from a nationalistic (Italian) POV, and the insertion of general WP:PEACOCK/puffed up language/redundant description ("extraordinary", "sparked a great amount of scientific excitement", inserting "inventor of radio" where it already says "his pioneering work on long-distance radio transmission"). 
The insertion of Italian physicist Emilio G. Segrè in those same edits brings us to a bigger problem that makes all my blah blah blah above null and void. Although he was a Nobel laureate his inclusion seems to have been a nationalistic add (someone's POV). I see debate above with more opinion on who to add to this "List of important physicists". That is contrary to guidelines WP:Source list "Lists, whether they are stand-alone lists (also called list articles) or embedded lists, are encyclopedic content just as paragraph-only articles or sections are. Therefore, all individual items on the list must follow Wikipedia's content policies". The galley on this page has been tagged for being a list without "clear inclusion or exclusion criteria". We have Henry Cavendish but we don't have Robert Boyle. We have questionable adds David Bohm, Lene Vestergaard Hau, Emmy Noether, Nikola Tesla, Edward Alexander Bouchet but we don't have Nobel laureate Vitaly Ginzburg. I am not expressing my opinion on the addition of those people, just saying there should be no opinion at all, "important" implies a POV and we must follow WP:NPOV. I see no way this list cold ever have an inclusion criteria other than listing "Laureates of the Nobel Prize in Physics" and that section already exists. Inserting people because they are popular or  (a good example for some reason?) is not a criteria that could conform to Wikipedia's content policies. The list also has no limit. We already have an encyclopedia full of physicists called Wikipedia so there is no reason to follow the ultimate result of duplicate it in some manner in this article. Because of these problems I have deleted the list/gallery, the problem has been tagged for a year and a half so it is well past time for a cleanup. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There is History of Physics, it has the same gallery and has the same problems. It could be conformed to a source like The Oxford Guide to the History of Physics and Astronomy to remove POV/bias and may be a good place for a collage. There is also Portal:Physics, portals seem to be more "promotional" and it, or maybe a created Portal:Physicist, may be a good place for a collage, but don't quote me on that, I know squat about Portals. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of gallery "List of important physicists" and other edits 

message: Substituted at 02:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Removed almost all the links because they were un-encyclopedic:
*Links here should describe a physicist (none of them do at this point)
*Excessive links - Articles should not contain linkfarms (WP:LINKFARM)
*How to links - Wikipedia is not a directory or a "how to become a physicist" WP:NOTHOWTO. 
*WP:ELNO #11, Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites not written by a recognized authority.
*WP:ELNO#13, Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: a physicist
*WP:ELPOINTS #4, avoid separate links to multiple pages in the same website
*See also links do not belong in external links, see WP:ALSO
The guidelines above pretty much deleted all of them. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed more, Wikipedia is not a directory of Physicist associations. Linked websites should further describe a physicist. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

text: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Marianna251#Hello_there  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.19.216 (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate external links removed 

message: I have taken a whack at cleaning up the article per consensus on this talk page. Opinion of constantly rotating edit warring anonymous IPs  Not done:. Sorry, can't even identify who you are so you are out of consensus discussion for now. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: I am taking a break, hopefully we can work on these issues...consider kindly those suggestions...when you revert just post them here the content you have  reverted so that it wont be in long listed history.117.213.17.23 (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion with Fountains of Bryn Mawr continues below

message: Someone severely defaced this page recently, and changed a lot of things. One of them was Defense in the Career section. This should be Defense (Military) as it originally was. Someone changed that to Defense (Army) which is not accurate.
Also, please re-add "Computing" (it was also removed) to the career category section. Sources: https://www.aip.org/statistics/pie and http://www.aps.org/careers/statistics/bsprivatesec.cfm.
51.37.27.106 (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: .  Paine  u/c 13:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2016 

message: This phrase is inaccurate: "A physicist is a scientist who has studied physics and made it his or her profession." Being a Physicist has NOTHING to do with a profession at all. One can be an expert and trained physicist, without having a profession as a Physicist. Some trained Physicists for example work under various other job titles, such as "engineer" or Engineering Physicists working in Engineering, for example. You cannot be a trained Physicist one moment, and then not a Physicist another moment because simply your profession/job title is now "Engineer". The above statement implies this. This is ridiculous. :-)
Source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/physicist
109.78.81.137 (talk) 15:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, the current version is better. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2016 

message: Citation number does not link anywhere,it should be linked. Also, citation 2 is not really an accurate citation since there is no mention of "profession" in ANY reputable definition of Physicist, thus the reference that "and made it his or her profession" is inaccurate, irrelevant, and not even linked correctly with valid citations.
Sources: References, mentioned on the page, Citation 1 and 2.
109.78.75.28 (talk) 11:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2016 

message: This statement is inaccurate: 
"The field generally includes two types of physicists: experimental physicists who are concerned with the observation of physical phenomena and experiments, and theoretical physicists"  
There are also Applied/Engineering (Industrial) Physicists, which actually are in the majority. Sources: http://www.aps.org/careers/statistics/bsprivatesec.cfm and e.g. https://www.aip.org/sites/default/files/statistics/phd-plus-10/physprivsect-chap7.pdf
109.78.75.28 (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Declined Repeated disruptive requests hatted. Marianna251TALK 18:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Edits made after the discussion was closed have been struck through. Marianna251TALK 21:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2016 

message: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:117.213.18.84_and_User:109.78.9.237_reported_by_User:Fountains_of_Bryn_Mawr_.28Result:_Page_protected.29  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.18.84 (talk) 06:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion 

message: It is really interesting how you are purposefully deleting Applied and Engineering Physicists, with reputable cited sources. The references to "Applied Physicist" and "Engineering Physicist" should be put back. why did you simply delete them? Theses are two major general types (Engineering Physics and Applied) of Physicists you have simply removed. It seems it is not "fair" game putting in reputable sources, and accurate, well-rounded information. I request that you please return the references I added to show an accurate view of Physicists, and what they do (both pure AND Applied). 
78.152.242.29 (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "Applied Physicist" and "Engineering Physicist" is described in both versions. Referencing an example of one or the other is WP:OR. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2016 

message: The recent work is good and the further improved content address' every questions that is there till to the moment, so its a good edit and moreover satisfies verifiability and no original research, that is enough. The content Mawr earlier reverted also wasn't per any consensus, it was an independent work - it had good elements and some choppy edits. The current recommendation for WP:BRD is a form of WP:LAWYERING and a ruse than anything, you may also see discussion done by this person and events of being straight up uncivil without any triggers, so any discussions would not be worthy.
But I also have to come clean about the edit. I am not comfortable with the unreferenced explanation about Physics "the exploration of the interactions of matter and energy" but I have seen it in a blog somewhere and it looks to much artsy. The update "knowledge in physical laws and experimental understanding of the same" is made from https://books.google.com/books?id=ARUm4RiA-6gC&pg=PAix and it too isn't perfect. Plus I know it was clear with the new edit that a specialist/scientist and "specialized knowledge in physics=a particular topic in physics" are two things and to put so is a wrong paraphrase of the source. Certain links were removed from the current edit because those were linked from promotional sites where content editors write, not academicians; one was a site with academic fees and the other didn't even have a quality statement but it was a good site for promoting engineering. The Physics vs. Engineering was a title I saw in one of the google book texts, if the new one "distinction" reduces any competitive feel, it is all good I guess. I would also like to see a discussion or a statement whether including history section is in any way WP:CONTENTFORK, I am not sure how it works with histories. In case of irrevocable problems, I also think it is better to leave updates and fixes in the hands of active physics project members to develop the article in a more logically and source wise correct way. There are many registered PhDs in the project who work within the field and I think they might have a better access to sources.59.96.166.70 (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you be willing to say this "recent work" is your work? With contractually changing IPs edit warring and changing material that is here or not here by consensus (by the editors who are willing to identify themselves here) there is going to be a certain amount collateral damage as seemingly disruptive edits are reverted. You may want to consider establishing an account so you can be counted. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You know every recent Indian ip is one person so far, i am not sure where you are leading with this and reverting it with your fellow partner in crime with this dishonest sneak move. So get over it with this role and answer for your own deeds or don't...those who have eyes can see who is disruptive by reverting sourced content. If you cant play by the community rules and there is this certain need to ascertain who is charge in wikipedia project, this sort of silly games work. That's it Wikipedia:Deny recognition again.59.96.166.70 (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Physicist. 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:
*Added  tag to http://ptonline.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_56/iss_9/46_1.shtml
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120716114825/http://ptonline.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_54/iss_4/36_1.shtml to http://ptonline.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_54/iss_4/36_1.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Physicist. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170820112851/http://careers.queensu.ca/sites/webpublish.queensu.ca.cswww/files/files/Major%20Maps/2015/Engineering%20Physics%20WEB.pdf to http://careers.queensu.ca/sites/webpublish.queensu.ca.cswww/files/files/Major%20Maps/2015/Engineering%20Physics%20WEB.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified