Talk:Physicist

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

Additional text needed
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)

Rewrite
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. &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 23:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Study versus practice
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)

I had in mind the use of 'study' as in 'studying the subject at university'. So, a university/postgraduate student studying the subject would naturally be called a physicist, which I think is right. --MichaelMaggs 16:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

List of textbooks
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)


 * Yeah, I do think it's rather silly. &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 20:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You know there is already an article Physics/Further reading. That seems like the most appropriate place to merge this list.  &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 13:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

List of Important Physicists
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)


 * 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)

---[] Integration- This page is devoted to giving a brief introduction to major physics contributers. The scope of the page is brevity and of course the giants of the field such as Galileo, Newton and Einstein must be mentioned. But aside from a few exceptions all I see are white men. Unfortunately physics is a white-male dominated subject, which makes it all the more important to celebrate diversity within the field. Therefore I propose links to a few notable ethnic minorities and women be embedded within the contributers page, my suggestions include the following;

Emmy Noether - “who revolutionized the theories of rings, fields and algebras. In physics, Noether's theorem explains the fundamental connection between symmetry and conservation laws.” [Wiki]

Edward Alexander Bouchet- 1st black man to earn a PhD in physics. Overcame racial prejudice and financial uncertainty to pursue physics carrier.

Neil deGrasse Tyson- Major contributer to astronomy and astrophysics. More than 60 televised interviews, and a regular column in Natural History magazine. Currently the nations most recognized astrophysicist. [1]

Maria Goeppert-Mayer- “ Theoretical physicist, and Nobel laureate in Physics for proposing the nuclear shell model of the the atomic nucleus.” [Wiki]

[1] http://www.math.buffalo.edu/mad/physics/tyson_neildg.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claybro20015 (talk • contribs) 09:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Neil deGrasse Tyson is clearly not sufficiently notable for inclusion. What is "Currently the nations most recognized astrophysicist" all about? Which nation? OK, I know you mean the US, but wikipedia is an international project. That entry should go, and I will delete it unless others give better reasons for it. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  00:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


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

For starters, there are no clearly defined prerequisites for who is an who is not considered an "important physicist" on this page, granted I would not like to spam the page with every person to earn a PhD in physics, but Tyson expresses great passion for the subject, his books, commentary, and interviews are infectious due to his intense personality (something many physicists lack). I think due to his immense popularity, bringing attention to the area and motivating people to be more in tune to the science is an important contribution. Calling him the "nations most recognized astrophysicist" was insensitive and will change that. But please to avoid confusion in the future add a disclaimer to who and why you are considering someone an "important physicist." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claybro20015 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * 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)

Ok thanks for making that change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claybro20015 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

We have also Abdus Salam in the list of great physicists Danfarid133 (talk) 20:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of gallery "List of important physicists" and other edits
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)

It is a shame for me that this section has been deleted. I was thinking to create. Would that be pointless?-- 115ash →(☏) 14:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * 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)

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

Inappropriate external links removed
Removed almost all the links because they were un-encyclopedic: The guidelines above pretty much deleted all of them. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 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
 * 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)
 * 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)

Content dispute
Diverting discussion from here since the article talk page seems to be a more appropriate place.

Changes to the lead: The previous version states that a degree is necessary to be a physicist, but this is not proven - the only source is specific to America. The current version ("a scientist who has specialized knowledge in the field of physics") seems better to me, not least because it then includes individuals like Isaac Newton and Stephen Hawking. Nobody would argue that they're not physicists, but they do not/did not have physics bachelor's degrees: Newton's education was in mathematics and Hawking has a natural science bachelor's.

The other issue with the lead appears to be the inclusion of a sentence explaining that physicists can specialise in other areas, such as engineering. This seems non-controversial to me, especially since it's supported with reliable sources. Those sources are again only American, but since this isn't making a universal statement, that seems okay. However, I'm open to discussion on whether or not this should be in the lead or only detailed later in the page.

Education: I think the removal of the line "Physics is a liberal arts education for a technological society said Joseph Pimbley through Physics Today" is a good idea. For starters, it's been copied and pasted from the source and thus is in violation of copyright. Even more than that, however, is that the source itself uses it as a quotation, meaning that what we have here is a quotation of a quotation with no explanation or expansion. Can anyone link to the original? If we can see that, then we might be able to get a better idea of if/how this could be included.

Aside from that, the only other changes to this section are reformatting the text into new paragraphs and adding a citation needed tag. Any issues?

Employment/careers: I agree that there's no need for the vast majority of the list of occupations here. Only one or two need to be mentioned as examples. Similarly, the list of external links can be chopped further.

However, I strongly disagree that the addition of information about engineering is advocacy/advertising. A) It's directly supported by the sources, and B) the edits don't actually focus on engineering, but instead cover a wide variety of roles. My only concern in this area is that again, all the sources are American. I would like to see this information specifically listed as pertaining to the USA and try to get some other sources to get a more worldwide view.

Can we get a discussion going so we can try to obtain consensus? Marianna251TALK 22:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Since the IP editor in question is constantly change IPs and a second IP editor jumped in to war with the first its hard to know who is for what/where consensus is. One of these editors has wp:3rr'ed so this is probably an ANI/SPI situation first. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I've only just come across this issue, so I might be assuming too much good faith. You're right that it's hard to know where consensus is - the edit history is a mess - but since the page is fully protected at the moment, this seems a good opportunity to actually discuss the changes. Marianna251TALK 07:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Changes in the lead: Stephen Hawking (http://www.biography.com/people/stephen-hawking-9331710#early-life); Natural Science (a branch of science which deals with the physical world, e.g. physics, chemistry, geology, biology.) I don't see a problem here. Others I remember they were mostly self educated in the fields of physics. But the previous change that was made is at least sourced and not assumptions made as one pleases. Yes I too agree many of the content seems like original research already and I hope making changes somewhere could instigate more contributors to stick with the policies. As I said in your talk page the American sources cited are just simply links that doesn't reflect physicist as an engineer with an affirmative stand. There is no qualms in keeping "physicists can specialize in other areas, such as engineering."- that looks much more touch with reality but it should be linked properly with good background otherwise avoiding the information all together would be better for now. Education: Changing the Pimbley sentence to "Physics is a liberal arts education compared to technology related fields" will be good I guess, reading the linked material confirms it more. It is much more better than the "undergraduate physics curriculum is based on an intellectual ladder of discoveries and insights from ancient times to the present" topic sentence without a source. Employment/careers: Keep the ones that are sourced even if it only gives an American perspective but not not wp:crystal or as before said opinions. Overall if you look what I say is, it is about keeping the article rightly sourced WP:CS and not misguiding with assumptions and personal knowledge. A reader should be able to check the source and arrive at the same conclusion not confused. Thats all and there is nothing refutable per policies with keeping the article content rightly sourced or in progress to that level- Marianna251, I guess you as a active wikipedian will agree to this and do whats to be done.117.213.19.216 (talk) 11:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The article should describe a physicist. It should not read like an employment guide or try to promote the profession via citing prosaic Pimbley quotes (please see WP:NOT). Employment/careers should be trimmed out and the whole article should reflect reliable sources on "a physicist is". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

IP is a known disruptive editor
It occurred to me that the IP's comments/actions are disturbingly similar to an IP hopper/sockpuppeter who was hugely disruptive to the social work page (see Talk:Social work), and having checked WHOIS and geolocate, it looks like I was right - it's the same IP. Their conduct meant they've ended up at ANI at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive920#IP-hopping_vandal.2Ftroll_from_Kerala.2C_India_still_at_it._Need_a_permanent_solution. least] four times that I've seen and they show no signs of changing or acknowledging why they keep getting blocks and/or page protects to prevent them from editing. They're clearly WP:NOTHERE, and as such, I'm going to disengage from any further discussion. It's never worked before and it shows no signs of it working now.

If anyone other than the Kerala IP hopper wants to have a productive discussion, I'm open to it, but I've better things to do than beat a dead horse. Marianna251TALK 00:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ty for the heads up. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Huh, seriously now we are going to play the blame game. I saw your insult section and I was kind of with you on it Marianna251-Yes, I have only looked into what you have shown. But here you have just insulted me with this blame game than solving the problem which you initially reverted as original research without checking the summary and later whatever you have tried is simply to ascertain your position in reverting. This is evident in this (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=747512804&oldid=747512647) when we were trying to engage in a discussion. Later over here you polished it as "since the page is fully protected at the moment, this seems a good opportunity to actually discuss the changes" and now associating with a page that normally a physics graduate wouldn't have anything to contribute. This is really not like...and its painful. But in essence be civil (beat a dead horse) or ignore topics which you don't have anything to relate and contribute. Good day!117.215.194.133 (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Fountains of Bryn Mawr's suggestion ("a physicist is") is a good one for start.


 * You have a history of sockpuppetry, lying, edit warring, wikilawyering, vandalising other users' comments, and misinterpreting policies to fit your own agendas. You've made false accusations of racism, vandalised, trolled, and generally wasted everyone's time. The problem with all of these behaviours have been explained to you multiple times, but you're still engaging in all of them. There is no point discussing anything with you because it never gets anywhere. You also have a habit of making changes and then, when other users object and revert it, claim that they're the ones introducing new content. This means I highly doubt that your claim that you're going back to the "original" article is actually true. This comment just makes it plain that you're not ready to change your behaviour, so there's no point trying to have a discussion. Marianna251</b><b style="padding:2px; font-size:80%;">TALK</b> 18:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for notifying article Social Work it kind of helped me to understand the dark side of wiki-editing, it was also fun to read through it. If you ask me it is a wonderful display of egotism from both sides. The edits in that article are reverted for reverting and reasons stated, abuse of rights....etc.(I didn't go through it wholly) doesn't even have to do anything with the article itself. If I intended to edit in that article now I would simply remove the paragraph "example of fields" in the lead section because where did it come from and where are the previous troublemakers from both the side in dealing with uncited editing-Its all conspicuous. Rest I don't know about the subject to analyze it. But a stunning fact that is similar to your current actions and incidents in that article is WP:POV RAILROAD. Why is this done ?...


 * Above all this, it doesn't matter we are not discussing about social work article, we are not discussing somebody's edits for that i think its better to use their own talk-spaces. Here we are discussing about Physicist article and about its problematic content. If you have anything to contribute like for start formatting a good lead what "a physicist is" from reliable sources, removing wp:crystal "identified fields of careers" or reverting to sourced earlier content, removing engineering term used here and there and state that as you have previously reiterated "physicists can specialize in other areas, such as engineering." in an idea-wise definitive structure of paragraph, sourced rightly. ...I am all for engaging as such and not in.... Good day!59.89.236.93 (talk) 13:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup
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)

Suggestion
Please look into the following links:

Difference between a physicist and engineer ?


 * https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lkitoDyVWG0C&pg=PA208&dq=%22difference+between+physics+and+engineering%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi1u7Pc_JvQAhVBt48KHRqwANQQ6AEIIDAB#v=onepage&q=%22difference%20between%20physics%20and%20engineering%22&f=false
 * https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-5SZiAKpFwgC&pg=PA190&dq=%22difference+between+physics+and+engineering%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi1u7Pc_JvQAhVBt48KHRqwANQQ6AEIJjAC#v=onepage&q=%22difference%20between%20physics%20and%20engineering%22&f=false
 * https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=sJLsCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA110&dq=%22a+physicist+is%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwie_eSQ_JvQAhUXTY8KHdUZBgY4ChDoAQgfMAE#v=onepage&q=%22a%20physicist%20is%22&f=false

Who is a physicist ?


 * http://www5.hrsdc.gc.ca/NOC/English/NOC/2011/ProfileQuickSearch.aspx?val=2&val1=2111 (There is also a better formatted career division)
 * https://nationalcareersservice.direct.gov.uk/job-profiles/physicist
 * https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HQWNJyRV6kMC&pg=PA247&dq=%22a+physicist+is%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi9yMqc-5vQAhUEPo8KHa-fCuoQ6AEIKzAD#v=onepage&q=%22a%20physicist%20is%22&f=false (It addresses' User:Marianna251 point "then includes individuals like Isaac Newton...")
 * https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ARUm4RiA-6gC&pg=PR9&dq=%22a+physicist+is%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj_48af_JvQAhXBuI8KHeyXA6A4FBDoAQg6MAU#v=onepage&q=%22a%20physicist%20is%22&f=false
 * https://www.aps.org/programs/education/conferences/upload/Careers-In-Physics-Talk.pdf

Careers for a physicist ? (Not the detailed list...just whats appropriate for an encyclopedic content.)


 * http://www.augusta.edu/scimath/chemistryandphysics/documents/physicshandout.pdf
 * http://careers.queensu.ca/sites/webpublish.queensu.ca.cswww/files/files/Major%20Maps/2015/Engineering%20Physics%20WEB.pdf

External links


 * https://www.princetonreview.com/careers/116/physicist

Good day.59.96.166.198 (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Noting how a word is used is WP:OR. The secondary sources on "a physicist is" have already been followed. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I have also taken a whack at cleaning up the article. Kindly do check, everything is sourced and trimmed with the best intentions.117.213.18.84 (talk) 21:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Rolled some of this back, went against MOS WP:BEGIN, "Physics vs. Engineering" seems to be WP:OR (no sources covering people mistaking Physics for Engineering), odd unreferenced blanket statements inserted. There was history material in the education section, moved to origins. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

To Marianna2511 (answer is to below question/comment...)
Kindly do stay refrain yourself from engaging with railroading intentions and possible unresolved grudges or ... in a section I have started and keep it to this section of yours.
 * 1) Unproductive in the extend of reversion and the resulting faulty version. - So what were you referring to...
 * 2) Physics vs. Engineering - The section says the difference and that is justifying enough to be included and yes if you want to prove "the mistaking part" that should be sourced and if you want to contribute as such, its all good - "stay with the objective, don't divert and restate unrelated matters"
 * 3) You may see that not everything was unproductive Mawr updated the article (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Physicist&oldid=748396796) which helped to update it further (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Physicist&oldid=748875764) as such, If Mawr hadn't done this the second  update would have been more work and later the editor moved the history sections to the right place. - Accepting and appreciating all sorts of help is "act of good faith" and to build this forward there requires to be trust and not reversions of contributions which are double checked. - So what you are insinuating with "The page was protected to prevent you and the other IP from continuing to edit war - requesting that other editors continue your edit warring for you is highly counterproductive and most certainly does not constitute an "act of good faith". Please do not make similar requests again." clearly a sign of WP:NOTHERE to further make things worse for everyone and it is clear as daylight that you don't have a genuine interest in "improving the encyclopedic content (articles and media)" at least in this page.

Stop meddling with the page for fun: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Physicist&diff=749171640&oldid=749171620 I would also like to not reply anymore to your poison talk or such engagement, tiresomely tried - dropping the mic.117.213.17.23 (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC) V
 * Such an inappropriate rolling back was kind of an unproductive idea, but that was a good decision on moving history section where it was to be placed. Also removing exact readable definition link isn't explanatory and thereby establishing faulty lead it self...Physics vs. Engineering cites all the correct information, it isn't about mistaking but showing what is the difference - maybe the paraphrase is confusing to you, i guess...(check them: everything has been taken from the above, it was a harrowing work to check and recheck everything). Other links you have added back are duplicates and ...But its good to know that you know what blanket statements are, if so you would have reviewed and taken decisions appropriately from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Physicist&oldid=748875764 and disallowed earlier blanket injects - because this is was what I was talking from the start with Maria and you. It would be an action of good faith for collaborating if you would revert them as revision 748875764 and worked from there. I am all for integrating material taken from http://www.polymtl.ca/phys/en/physicist-engineer-profession in the right manner and I would also like to know what are your statements in considering "Physics vs. Engineering" as OR, I hope we can figure it out step by step.117.213.16.202 (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.17.23 (talk)


 * There is nothing inappropriate or unproductive in following Wikipedia's guidelines. has already explained why the "Physics vs. Engineering" section seems to be original research - there are no sources about people mistaking one for the other, which is what would be needed to justify such a section. If you have any sources like that, please share them.


 * Furthermore, I am disappointed that you would ask for a reversion to your earlier edit as an "act of good faith" to be "worked from there". The work Fountains of Bryn Mawr put in was working the page from that very same edit. The page was protected to prevent you and the other IP from continuing to edit war - requesting that other editors continue your edit warring for you is highly counterproductive and most certainly does not constitute an "act of good faith". Please do not make similar requests again. <b style="border:1px solid #613B3B; color:#FFF; background-color:#B38989; padding: 0px 2px;">Marianna251</b><b style="padding:2px; font-size:80%;">TALK</b> 20:49, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Please stop refactoring other users' comments. I have once again moved my comment to the correct place. Since you have such a problem with me I will bow out of the discussion, but please note that I will continue to revert changes made to other users' comments to change meaning/context that I come across - whether yours or someone else's - because it is pure and simple vandalism and you have been warned about it multiple times. To quote WP:TPO, "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page." I hope that is clear. <b style="border:1px solid #613B3B; color:#FFF; background-color:#B38989; padding: 0px 2px;">Marianna251</b><b style="padding:2px; font-size:80%;">TALK</b> 21:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Your answer was given and the discussion doesn't address you does it so it doesn't change any context, moreover your current talk is way "Off-topic posts" per WP:TPO. Your actions are more like vandalism's or in effort to instigate a similar response as you respond. So warning wouldn't mean much, it only totals to your intentions behind posting this warnings. At times it feels like we know each other in real life or online and we had a fight or something for this hatred approach...and no closure was there...I feel no need to engage as such...but for sometime stay away from responding directly to what i respond, start a new section as you feel to talk to others about your objectives and such (i might be powerless as an anon editor to prevent them)...if you have anything to talk about the content to be included, lets talk ...but after sometime...it seems we have started by you toeing on my feet since it was not expected.... It would be very appreciative if you could do avoid any response to mine for now. Thank you.117.213.17.23 (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Since this is triggering personal attacks/rants by 117.213.17.23 pushing us rapidly into a WP:DNFTT situation I have to agree with and bow out. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion with Fountains of Bryn Mawr continues below
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)

Huh, same here WP:DNR for tiring rants/attacks by registered editors.117.241.23.55 (talk) 06:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2016
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)


 * ✅.  Paine   u/ c  13:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2016
The changes made to this site made by Fountains of Bryn Mawr are once again INACCURATE. I am personally a physicist but I work in scientific software development. My Physics knowledge is used every day at my professional workplace. I am still first and foremost a Physicist, but I don't work directly in Physics, my job title is a Software developer!! Also, there are Engineering Physicists working in the field and they work primarily in Engineering not Physics!! So the statement "A physicist is a scientist who has studied physics and made it his or her profession." is NTO accurate. What of the retired Physicists they have no current profession!! This is important, as you can see from the following sources from the American Institute of Physics, Sources: https://www.aip.org/sites/default/files/statistics/phd-plus-10/physprivsect-chap11.pdf and https://www.aip.org/sites/default/files/statistics/phd-plus-10/physprivsect-chap7.pdf.

My colleagues and I are fed up with people redefining "Physicists" on this page to be something it is not. Particularly, the user "Fountains of Bryn Mawr", who from his profile seems is NOT qualified to make these statements. It seems there is an agenda on Wikipedia to keep everything "one way". This is being monitored and will eventually go out over social media, and possibly some of the mainstream media (scientific areas).

109.78.81.137 (talk) 11:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". BTW, a "retired Physicists" is a retired Physicists. "An Engineering Physicists working in the field Engineering" is an Engineering Physicists working in the field Engineering. Wikipedia is not a dictionary that defines them and we are not a lexicologist or a lexicographers who try to make up definitions. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Following on from 's comment, I don't see any contradiction between a physicist being a person who has studied physics and made it his profession and your description of your job. You studied physics and you use it in your job, even though your job title is different; this is exactly what the statement means. It defines you as a physicist. The statement is also explicitly supported by the sources, i.e. it is not the opinion of any editor and does not come from editors' personal experiences. Edits made from personal experience and not from sources constitute original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia.


 * More importantly, please refrain from making personal attacks on other editors, or making threats of off-wiki action. Threats are strictly prohibited and can result in you being blocked from editing. <b style="border:1px solid #613B3B; color:#FFF; background-color:#B38989; padding: 0px 2px;">Marianna251</b><b style="padding:2px; font-size:80%;">TALK</b> 13:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: Kindly remove http://www.engineergirl.org/cms/6071.aspx, it isn't informative an alternate previous link that can be used is http://www.augusta.edu/scimath/chemistryandphysics/documents/physicshandout.pdf I also think its better to stick with User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr initial suggestion (google books) on sourcing who a physicist is per sources (https://www.aps.org/programs/education/conferences/upload/Careers-In-Physics-Talk.pdf) to avoid future troubles and it should not matter whether it is a country specific definition, publication origin...etc. Also please look into the topic sentence in Physicist, it is bad please rewrite it closely to http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Product+Lookup/2B9A2F7B8FC4D75ACA2575DF002C1D8A?opendocument.59.96.166.198 (talk) 15:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

* Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.18.84 (talk) 06:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2016
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)


 * Comment - This has been asked an answered right above. Continued WP:ICANTHEARYOU is WP:DISRUPT and may lead to an editing block. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, the current version is better. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

*Comment - "My Physics knowledge is used every day at my professional workplace." - Explain this personal experience statement and if this could be aligned with sources we could further develop it in time. But if you are looking for personal identity affirmation other than published material definitions like "I am still first and foremost a Physicist, but I don't work directly in Physics, my job title is a Software developer!!" please check whether you are bordering Why Wikipedia cannot claim the earth is not flat unintentionally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.166.198 (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2016
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)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2016
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)


 * Symbol declined.svg Declined Repeated disruptive requests hatted. <b style="border:1px solid #613B3B; color:#FFF; background-color:#B38989; padding: 0px 2px;">Marianna251</b><b style="padding:2px; font-size:80%;">TALK</b> 18:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Edits made after the discussion was closed have been struck through. <b style="border:1px solid #613B3B; color:#FFF; background-color:#B38989; padding: 0px 2px;">Marianna251</b><b style="padding:2px; font-size:80%;">TALK</b> 21:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.18.84 (talk) 06:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2016
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)
 * "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)

Note
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)
 * 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)
 * 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 Deny recognition again.59.96.166.70 (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
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)

External links modified
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)

Concerning the aspect of the scientific revolution
I started editing this segment, because this part of the article mentioned the scientific revolution without being clear and especially without being even remotely 'complete'. For instance, the start of the revolution with Copernicus was not mentioned, the same goes for Brahe and Huygens.

Then I wanted to say something about the development of mathematics in relation to physics, which became more and more important during the scientific revolution, since nothing was said about that matter. The problem that I have with the version user:Qwerty123uiop made was that the mathematical aspect came completely out of nowhere. This is quite important for the essence of a physicist today (and during the course of the 17th century).

Also, I can understand the criticism about the length, but how else would you like to illustrate the development of mathematics? Also, the problem I have with the sentence: 'The mathematical treatment of physical systems was further developed by Christiaan Huygens and culminated in Newton's laws of motion' is a. like I mentioned, 'the mathematical treatment' comes out of nowhere (it's not explained why it's relevant), b. it highlights the mathematical treatment as such (when, if you talk about Huygens, I would say it's also an experimental approach, so not purely mathematical) and c. it suggests a continuity between the mathematics of Huygens and Newton, and although I know Newton was very much influenced and impressed by Huygens' approach & mathematics, there's also a fundamental difference, namely that Huygens used a purely geometrical approach and Newton used calculus. Though I'm not 100% sure about this last matter. Unless you have sources, I'm going to have to look this up... L. Yorick (talk) 23:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * To add to this: the article - for some reason - mentions the laws of motion by Newton specifically. I don't know why (that's to say: why has this specifically got something to do with a 'physicist'?), but the mention of Galileo before in combination with the scientific revolution, led me to illustrate the development. L. Yorick (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Greetings. This article is intended to give people an idea about the scope of what a physicist does and who physicists are.   It is not an article about the history of physics except to put physicists in the context of the whole of scientific endeavor.  The "scientific revolution" is a well-defined and well-known paradigm shift that developed in the 1600's.  There is a whole separate Wikipedia article on it (which perhaps should be linked in this article).   You wished to say something about the relationship of mathematics to physics, but that is not the aim of *this* article.   Check out the much longer article on the history of physics and you can read all about that.   Then, I hope you can see that mentioning Huygens at greater length than the other mentions makes the article unbalanced for no apparent purpose.   Surely he was an important figure, but not more so than a Galileo or a Newton, or any of dozens of others who get no mention at all.   There are other articles about individual physicists, and lists of prominent physicists, but again, biographies and listings are not what this article is for.   Would you therefore please revert your last edit?  Qwerty123uiop (talk) 00:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the same addition per WP:BRD and per Qwerty123uiop's points The sources being cited are thin and centered on Christiaan Huygens, not a general history of physics, so are somewhat skewed. This is really not an improvement. I would note a large volume of material on Christiaan Huygens was also added to History of physics which seems to be a tit-for-tat over bloated bio added because the article contains other over bloated bios... something to consider for cleanup but probably not this talk pages problem. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Qwerty123uiop, thanks for your reply. I have to say that I disagree with many things you pointed out, especially concerning the importance of Huygens. Apart from the fact that I dislike talking about the degree of importance (as it distracts from the essence of the scientific practice: it's always a social matter), Huygens was in many ways a greater physicist than Galileo and Newton, but that's not the point here. The point here is that the issue of mathematics comes completely out of nowhere. You said: 'You wished to say something about the relationship of mathematics to physics, but that is not the aim of this article'. Well, I would say it is. The relationship between mathematics, that's to say: the use of mathematics to explain physical phenomena, is very much intertwined and has a lot to do with the subject of this article: a physicist. Why isn't this explained in more detail? Also: I wasn't referring to Huygens alone: I was the one who added Galileo to this segment, and also mentioned the beginning of the scientific revolution with Copernicus.
 * I've added this to the sentence, if that's alright with you: 'The work on mechanics, along with a mathematical treatment of physical systems, was further developed by Christiaan Huygens and culminated in Newton's laws of motion and Newton's law of universal gravitation by the end of the 17th century.' L. Yorick (talk) 12:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As things look now, the article is back in balance, thanks.  Your recent streamlining has done it. Qwerty123uiop (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)