Revision as of 14:26, 1 June 2009 editOrangemike (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators126,249 edits →Invisiblility: I'm reverting it← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:18, 2 June 2009 edit undoSteve Quinn (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers39,752 edits →Invisiblility: Inappropriate removal of researched material. This material was researched from reliable sources and is pertinent to the book. Material is exactly what this books aboutNext edit → | ||
Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
I constructed the whole section on Inivisibility from reliable sources other than book, and they are referenced with in line citations. Invisibility is the title and topic of Chapter 2 in "Physics of the impossible". I have paralleled this section with the discussion in the book, but I have used other sources. ] (]) 14:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC) | I constructed the whole section on Inivisibility from reliable sources other than book, and they are referenced with in line citations. Invisibility is the title and topic of Chapter 2 in "Physics of the impossible". I have paralleled this section with the discussion in the book, but I have used other sources. ] (]) 14:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
:I'm reverting it; if it's not from the book, it's not about the book. This is an article about a book, not about information and claims referenced by the book. --] | ] 14:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC) | :I'm reverting it; if it's not from the book, it's not about the book. This is an article about a book, not about information and claims referenced by the book. --] | ] 14:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
::Inappropriate removal of researched material. This material was researched from reliable sources and is pertinent to the book. The material that was reverted was exactly what this book is about. And the illustrations added enhance the value of this contribution to Misplaced Pages. <p>::According to Misplaced Pages guidelines | |||
"] are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made; if an article topic has no reliable sources, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it."<p> | |||
* '''Duke University researchers are reliable sources.''' | |||
* '''New York Times interviews are reliable sources''' | |||
* '''Any university research is a reliable source''' | |||
*'''I just found the same information in two other reliable published sources online.''' |
Revision as of 02:18, 2 June 2009
Books Start‑class | |||||||
|
WTF?
Class III impossibilities break current laws of physics and would require our society to redefine its beliefs about physics.
I didn't realize that redefining beliefs about physics has the power to reconfigure the operating principles of the universe. We've been doing it backwards this whole time. Let's all have a big postmodern group hug. --75.5.74.46 (talk) 05:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- An example of one that Kaku thought was Class III was invisibility. It was thought to be against some law or other, but apparently in recent years he's had to change the way he teaches his optics class due to new discoveries which modified the rules about the way light can be bent. Heavystones (talk) 01:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Tardis
Are the two blue tall boxes/booths on the cover supposed to be based on the Doctor Who Tardis or is this a coincidence? They definitely look quite similar to the Tardis from the TV series Doctor Who. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.115.144 (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I have the book now. They definitely are based on the Tardis.
Notability
Is there really a need for the notability box? Kaku is always mentioning his position on the New York Times book list, he seems to have been on there for months, and it's the best selling science book. Heavystones (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Background
The background section should be moved to the article about the author, Michio Kaku. I am moving the background information in the article to this talk page (this section) so anyone can move it to that article. Ti-30X (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
As a child, Dr. Kaku was immersed early on in the world of science fiction from its omnipresence in much popular culture. Inspired by shows like Flash Gordon, he soon realized that although the protagonist was always triumphant over whatever new evil emerged, the series had no premise without the scientist. Science always underlined and strengthened the plot; in his words, "without science, there is no science fiction." But reality insisted that science fiction was just that- fiction, nothing more than quips at the impossible. In order to further his fascination with the impossible, he decided that physics and mathematics were the best choices for study. With a background in physics, he might end up knowing if the seemingly impossible was or could be remotely real. Through hard work and dedication, his dream was realized, as he earned a scholarship to Harvard and pursued the study which he loved. He further notes that the impossible is often relative, as what was impossible a hundred or thousand years ago may be commonplace today. The supposed impossible has been proven true several times within Dr. Kaku's own lifetime, with plate tectonics and the KT extinction as examples. Thus, this led him to try to explain how today's "impossible" may eventually become the future's "everyday."
Redirect
I did the redirect because the title of the article did not match the title of the book, now it does. In addition, there were no citations or references anyplace in the article, and therefore did not meet the notability requirements. So, I re-wrote the intro - with references. One more thing, the reference section for this article had been removed and I restored it. Ti-30X (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I constest the speedy deletion
Author | Michio Kaku |
---|---|
Language | English |
Genre | Non-fiction |
Publisher | The Doubleday Publishing Group |
Publication date | 2008 |
Media type | Print (Hardcover, Paperback) |
ISBN | 978-0-385-52069-0 |
I redirected Physics of the Impossible to Physics of the Impossible: A Scientific Exploration Into the World of Phasers, Force Fields, Teleportation, and Time Travel. Hopefully this is acceptable. Have you seen the new article yet?
I did the redirect because the title of the article did not match the title of the book, now it does. In addition, there were no citations or references anyplace in the article, and therefore did not meet the notability requirements. So, I re-wrote the intro - with references. One more thing, the reference section for this article had been removed and I restored it.
Feel free to contact me at my talk page if necessary Ti-30X (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
By the way if you have any suggestions about the article please feel free to suggest. Hopefully now it meets notability requirements.
There is one more problem, and maybe it's not. When doing a google search "Physics of the Impossible wiki" it says recommended for speedy deletion. I am not sure what this means? Ti-30X (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Naming conventions for Misplaced Pages articles come down heavily on the side of the short title, so I've moved it back, while leaving the long title as a redirect. The article has no references to reliable sources (a book is not a source for itself), nor any evidence of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- I am temporarily placing the "info box" in this section.Ti-30X (talk) 05:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Invisiblility
I constructed the whole section on Inivisibility from reliable sources other than book, and they are referenced with in line citations. Invisibility is the title and topic of Chapter 2 in "Physics of the impossible". I have paralleled this section with the discussion in the book, but I have used other sources. Ti-30X (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm reverting it; if it's not from the book, it's not about the book. This is an article about a book, not about information and claims referenced by the book. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Inappropriate removal of researched material. This material was researched from reliable sources and is pertinent to the book. The material that was reverted was exactly what this book is about. And the illustrations added enhance the value of this contribution to Misplaced Pages.
::According to Misplaced Pages guidelines
- Inappropriate removal of researched material. This material was researched from reliable sources and is pertinent to the book. The material that was reverted was exactly what this book is about. And the illustrations added enhance the value of this contribution to Misplaced Pages.
"Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made; if an article topic has no reliable sources, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it."
- Duke University researchers are reliable sources.
- New York Times interviews are reliable sources
- Any university research is a reliable source
- I just found the same information in two other reliable published sources online.