Talk:List of further reading on physics

Inclusions
A brief look at the history of this page reveals repeated inclusion of a certain pseudoscientific book. The author in question has no publications in any peer reviewed journal. Other editors have removed it in the past but it has been included again, so I removed it. What should be done about it? Sayanchak 15:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know what to do. I edited twice, removing the entry to this book. Others have done the same (you and more two now). If he keeps reverting, I'll ask wikipedia for arbitration.Rafael.lopesdesa 21:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There has been already seven deletions of Guglinski's book reference by six diferent wikipedia editors. I don't want to begin a WP:EW and so I'm going to begin a process to resolve this dispute. Hopefully, this can be solved without having to appeal to arbitration. Following WP:DR, the first action would be to contact the recurring editor by his talk page. Unfortunately, he edits the page with the IP what makes impossible to contact him directly (I know the user is Guglinski himself, since he made it clear in other media). I'm hoping he reads this talk page. I'm WP:AGF by the user, but he has already broken the WP:TRR. I do not agree that his book is a general graduate reference. His book is a about an experimentally unconfirmed, logically inconsistent, mathematically absurd theory. The topic of cold fusion itself is controversial. So, I encourage him to add his book as a reference in Cold_Fusion, and only there. At the same time that I leave this message here, intending to talk about the issue, I'll ask for an admin intervention, letting them know about the breaking of WP:TRR and, if needed, WP:RPP. Rafael.lopesdesa 08:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Now the article is semi-protect. I really hope that this is enough to end this Edit War. As another idea, I encourage Guglinski to begin an article about his so-called theory. This would be better than continuing to edit this one. Rafael.lopesdesa 11:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought Wikipedia was not a place to publish new research, its an encyclopedia, not a journal. Gulinski does not have a single peer reviewed publication. Yet he claims that his book on this new theory is a graduate text. Sayanchak 20:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I would have no problem if he decided to create an article in Wikipedia about his thoery. I would still not agree that it has something to do with nature, but he is free to do so. My problem is that this list here is supposed to be a list of well established books about well established subjects. Therefore, his book doesn't belong here. I sustain my suggestion to keep this reference only in Cold Fusion, where it already appears. Rafael.lopesdesa 22:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was there seems to have been an out-of-process page move, so let's go with the new name for now. &mdash;harej (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Physics (further reading) → List of Physics recommended reading &mdash; To fall in line with WP:LISTNAME. Ash (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Note, the original move request was to change the name from "further reading" to "recommended reading" as well as fit with the standard LISTNAME format. The reason for moving to "recommended reading" is that this implied that a publication is recommended by an authority while "further reading" is just a list that anyone can add to without justification.—Ash (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)