Talk:Physics/wip/leadvote

This vote is now closed. Please express any opinions on the Physics article lead at the article review page. Thank you. -- Krea 14:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Physics WIP Lead Proposal Vote

The problems of a definition/lead section for the Physics article are numerous. Approximately 70,000 words in 2 months were ploughed into the problem - and still no consensus was reached. In effect there is no right answer to what Physics is. It is a word that is open to interpretation depending upon what angle is taken. Thus the new aim here was not to produce a lead section which can cover every base, but instead one that covers the majority of the bases for the majority of people - hence the call for votes.

The opportunity to submit lead proposals has been open for just under two weeks, and three have been submitted. If more than three were lodged then an internal vote would have been taken to reduce the number to 3. The three proposals are linked below, with the voting space below that. Editors may either support a proposal or comment on another proposal. Only registered editors may vote, and only accounts older than 4 days may vote.

---

Lead Proposal 1 | Lead Proposal 2 | Lead Proposal 3

---

Voting

add either Support or Comment and please sign

Lead Proposal 1

• Support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 268.163.81.194 (talk • contribs) 2:19, 21 December 2006 The most accurate.
• Support Beltho The most comprehensive of the three 19 December 2006
• Support Nick Mks 18:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Although I would perhaps like to see the 3rd paragraph moved up and fleshed out a bit, while the last two paragraphs could be moved to the main part of the article. O. Prytz 19:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support : by far the most precise and clear explanation. Lead 3 is not clear at all and it seems to me that his author does't have a clear understanding of what physics is. Poppypetty 00:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support: Addresses most of the topic in brief. Lead 2 is too brief and Lead 3 seems too vague. --Moralis 02:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support : Well, i like the last sentence. The thing should give a little history and then explain the branches, including biophysics. They need to re-cast that whole second paragraph User:Anon (UTC)
• Support: It is the most comprehensive of the three. Agree with Moralis' comments about the other two. I would lose the third paragraph and the emotive-type language like "are of such significance" (para.2) I would also lose the last sentence of the first paragraph, as that applies to the scientific method generally, not just to physics. The last paragraph is also not necessary in the lead. BenC7 04:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support: Murray Langton 14:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support: perfect Askin 17:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support: it's more clearly expressed than proposal 3, which seems to rush through concepts (such as universal truths, predictability) only to save space. I don't think this lead is too large, for a topic as broad as Physics. — Daniel Mahu · talk · 18:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I think the second and third paragraphs will confuse introductory readers, and should be discussed elsewhere. -sthomson 21:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support: BSVulturis 22:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support: Samohyl Jan 06:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I would support this one if the second half of the second paragraph and all of the third paragraph were removed. They don't really add anything important to the intro. Kaldari 07:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Qualified support: I could support this as is, as the best of the three. However, I think that the third paragraph should be moved up to open the first paragraph. Treating matter, energy, space, and time - concepts which in their modern form were at least partially invented by physics, esp. energy - as the wellspring of physics seems to me to be losing perspective. If we're taking those as pre-given, why not fields, forces, and hamiltonians?--Homunq 19:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support: Lebroyl 21:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Qualified support This seems the most comprehensive, and very simply explains what physics is, rather than just mentioning its component parts. But because it is the introduction, I'd suggest replacing words such as "applicability", "model the behaviour", "characterisation" with slightly simpler words in each context which explain things. I know these are the best to describe these concepts and anyone who's read scientific papers will be familiar with them, but they do seem likely to confuse a casual reader... Mostlyharmless 23:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support: Rohit Gupta 08:50, 15 December 2006 (IST)
• Support: --shenron 11:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC) While I dont like how Proposal 1 is written, it is far more specific and well defined than the other two, and I just found those to be a little too conceptual.
• Support* Menkatopia 14:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support* Though I agree with some of the above comments that field-specific jargon should be kept to a mimimum in the introduction. #2 is much too perfunctory and 2/3 of #3 is the least-needed parts of #1... Liffer 22:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support -- I have an associate degree in physical science and have maintained a life-long interest in the subject. I like the definition in this proposal because it is clear and precise. The other definitions are too vague or wishy-washy. Wikipedia is at its best when it finds consensus, not when it simply reports on semantical disagreements. Option 2 is a wishy-washy attempt at non-definition. Option 3 is too vague as the phrase "understand nature" is misleading, since "nature" includes biology, the environment, medicine, etc. * --Lenehey 21:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support* LordHarris 12:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC) Though perhaps too long, it is more comprehensive and detailed than the others
• Support*-- While not perfect, it is the most comprehensive of the three. The writing style is clear and concise. I do not find that this lead has any useless or non-essential information.Bobzchemist 16:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support This version seems to illustrate physics from a more rigorous and less equivocal sense. Someone reading this version will be more familiar with the subject of physics while the other two versions may lead some people confused. --ScienceApologist 22:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support I like this lead because it is clear and precise, and has solid, definite content. I can't support Lead 2 because it jumps right into fluffy philosophical debate rather than actually stating what physics is. Lead 3 is attractive since the first paragraph is written in more accessible language than in Lead 1, but the statement that the goal of physics is to "understand nature in terms of simple and universal truths" is not concrete or specific enough - this could refer to any of the natural sciences. HEL 18:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Lead Proposal 2

• Comment: This does not comply with WP:LEAD. There should be no separate "introduction" section—the lead is the introduction. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 05:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: In defence of the lead author, introduction chapters are in use in other articles (Chemistry for example), and has already been agreed upon as the first chapter for this WIP - the idea being that Physics is such a rich field that there is little hope of fully outlining (with any depth) the complete extents of the science in the confines of a lead section. LEAD is only a guideline and not necessarily suited to all articles. SFC9394 19:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support: the two alternatives are too long. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The intoductory section must convey the essence rather than quibbling about ideas that are of no relevance to the casual reader: "classical" vs. "modern" is too esoteric for a newspaper reporter on a deadline or an eighth-grader whose homework assignment is due tomorrow. This proposal still needs a bit of work, but is a better starting point than the others.-Arch dude 01:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support: Arch dude has articulated my opinion quite well. I don't need to elaborate. Karlhauth 00:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support: This version far more accurately and succinctly describes the situation and the definition. I would favor these two paragraphs to start, and then possibly some more text as in the other versions, possibly separated into a new section with a new header. I would put discussions about what is modern physics and what is classical physics in the later section, not in the first two paragraphs, which should be closer to this version. I favor something like an abstract and an introduction. Although this is not exactly dictated in the MOS, I feel that for technical subjects like physics, it is entirely appropriate and useful. I will also note that although it is true that in most cases physicists make mathematical laws etc, I do not think this is required, so it should not be in the first two paragraphs. Such descriptions about the kinds of activities that go in physics can be later in the text, like in the introductory section.--Filll 16:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentI am somewhat surprised that after so long, such a major article like physics is still struggling at this stage with its lead. And I am a bit taken aback at the drawbacks I still see in all three proposed leads.--Filll 12:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support: Concise. The other two are too long. Silent reverie86 18:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support: per Filll. frummer 23:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Lead Proposal 3

• Comment. Except for the first sentence, which is too much about the ideal of physics and too little about the reality, this is a concise and well-balanced lead. Among the choices, the first sentence of Proposal 1 is probably the most accurate. However, I would prefer the first sentence make the distinction that physics is both a "science" in the sense of a body of knowledge/field of inquiry and a "science" in the sense of an academic discipline. If it starts off with getting that across, a lot of the ambiguity and seeming contradiction of trying to define physics disappears.--ragesoss 01:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• IMO, this one makes more sense too for it is englobing the whole article as for #2, it is too vague for the article and #1, too long and would need to be axed down. Lincher 02:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. This is, as stated above, a very well-balanced lead for the article. #2 is too vague and uninformative, and #1 is too long. #1 doesn't get across the same message as #3 does; it probably would normally confuse the average reader, and we don't want that, do we? It takes too long to, essentially, get nowhere. Split Infinity ^(talk) 02:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional Support I concur with all of the above: #1 is overspecific and #2 is too vague. I think the best lede overall is #3, though the first sentence should be rewritten to be more like that of the first, but which addresses alternative definitions. -- Rmrfstar 02:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Also, the last sentence of the first paragraph could be refined a bit. Split Infinity ^(talk) 04:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Best of the three options, but needs work to comply with WP:LEAD—"The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article." All I see here is definition; little of history, future direction, etc. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 05:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

At this point (given the amount of effort and contention put into this intro), I don't think compliance with LEAD just for the sake of compliance is worth it (it's just a guideline). If there is any case where LEAD might not be feasible, this is probably it.--ragesoss 05:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support: I think it does rather stand on its own as a concise version of the article; perhaps lacking somewhat in the nuances of the fundemental level of physics, as well as the more philosophical side of physics, as a 'body of knowledge'--I suppose that's what ragesoss was referencing to. Upon re-reading, some more thoughts: "Physicists create theories to describe the underlying laws of nature in a predictive way, and state their theories in the language of mathematics to make them succinct and precise." Seems like this sentence can be editted to include something to reference the fact that physics describes how the universe works, through the laws of physics. (Seems like a lead of physics should include the laws of physics.) I also agree with ragesoss in saying that the first sentence of lead 1 is the best; physics is, after all, mostly a study about the interactions of energy, forces, space and time, which really should be in the first sentence rather than the third or fourth, as it is most important. Retroactive comment: ragesoss just mentioned a point about LEAD, which I agree with, once more. Eirein 06:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I like this one, except the use of the word "truths" in the first sentence, which seems a little awkward and maybe even a tad dogmatic. What about "concepts" or some other word. Or perhaps it could be rephrased in a different way. Or maybe you could borrow some wording from Proposal 1's first paragraph which I also like. Kaldari 08:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment If "invariants" were used in the place of "truths", might that might satisfy the readership's requirement for accuracy? --Ancheta Wis 09:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support LukeSurl 16:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional Support Of the 3, this is the best, but I do agree that the first sentence needs to be replaced with the first sentence found in the first, which is the most traditional definition... and then reword the third sentence.. I do like the idea of "forces" in addition to matter, energy, space and time but it would probably make the first sentence to wordy. delton 16:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC), Changed to support, delton 22:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Best of the three options. Covers in simple terms what defines physics. raina_noor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raina_noor) 15.32, 12 December 2006 (EST)
• Support The other two are non-starters ... the first gets into a debate about the philosophy of science right away (leave it for later!) and the second is too short and doesn't say much and also gets into a debate. Leads should be simple, factual, and declarative; only #3 comes close. Wasted Time R 22:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• conditional support, provided the first sentence is reworked to resemble the first proposal's more closely. In my opinion it sums up the article in a much less hand-wavy fashion. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 23:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Now, if you're all just going to praise it through a comment, it would be nice if you just put Support instead. Just a suggestion. :) Also, I'd like to say that this lead is very concise, and in that manner it appeals to me; we don't need a long, drawn-out explanation of physics to serve as the lead. That would just scare the reader away. Split Infinity ^(talk) 05:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops, nearly didn't notice that I only gave a comment. ;) Thanks for pointing it out. Eirein 06:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment+SupportI like 3 because it has sufficent detail to cover the main components. BUT It seems very strange that there is no mention of gravity under classical physics, and also no mention of chaos theory (neither classical nor quantum, but currently influential). there is also no mention of determining the fundamental constituents: particles, fields. User: Kornbrot 22;25 GMT 13 Dec 2006
• Support Of the 3 choices. #3 is best. The first one is too convoluted and disorganized, second too sparse. Marcsin 17:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support per Marcsin and others. CloudNine 18:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support: A kinder, gentler new lead. Well Done. Thanks to those who created all three candidate leads. CoolMike 23:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support: A difficult choice but I go for the third one, although the first one is great too, but I guess I had to make a choice Snailwalker | talk 13:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support: Reasons above. \/\/slack (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support, while 1 is the most thorough, it is a little dense and would need some reworking as outlined by many users above. This version seems to fix most of those issues. With slight modifications, as mentioned above, this version seems to me to be the best out of the 3 options.--Andrew c 23:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. This is more descriptive than 2 while avoiding 1's useless digression into the accuracy of the term "law". I prefer the position of the lead sentence in 1, though. NatusRoma | Talk 00:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Among these three, I think proposal #3 is the best. However, I agree with many others that the first sentence should be changed to something closer to proposal #1's. As a side note, why have the distinction between classical and modern physics in the lead if it has "limited current significance"? Until now, I never knew about this distinction in physics. Plus, isn't any modern science different than any classical science? --Muéro^(talk/c) 05:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. A better definition, as well as more concise and readable. I particularly like the first sentence exactly as it stands. (Although I really don't like the bold text around classical and modern physics.) -- Fropuff 07:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support I think this took the stronger elements of proposal one and added a more inviting lead paragraph. There are still some things to debate I feel but this is a good way to start things off. Joshua Davis 20:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support The first one wastes too much time discussing the scientific method. I don't give a damn about the scientific method. If I wanted to learn about that, and whether "laws" are really unbreakable laws in the everyday english sense of the term, and about experimentation and falsification, and prediction being the practical side of science, I would go to a page on the scientific method, not to the physics page. I'm not very much a believer of the OCD philosophy "a place for everything and everything in it's place," but it's ridiculous to have all that excess stuff in there about the nature of science, when the article is supposed to be exclusively about what differentiates physics as a branch of science. -Monk of the highest order^(t) 06:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Qualified support - suggest that the first sentence or two be replaced by something more like the first sentence or two of Proposal 1. Otherwise, I go with this proposal. Metamagician3000 06:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support this is clear and comprehensive without digressing into the scientific method (1) or definitional relativism (2) Tomato 14:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support I just skimmed quickly through all of the proposals, but number three seemed to flow better - it starts off in non-technical terms and then builds into a more detailed description, which I liked. --Salsa man 19:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Reads off better than the #1. Sandstorm6299 23:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support with the qualification that I agree with User:ragesoss. The first sentence would be improved it it made "the distinction that physics is both a 'science' in the sense of a body of knowledge/field of inquiry and a 'science' in the sense of an academic discipline. If it starts off with getting that across, a lot of the ambiguity and seeming contradiction of trying to define physics disappears." N2e 14:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support This is by far the best alternative. Proposal 1 is cumbersome and verbose, and proposal 2 is (IMO) too simplistic and not sufficiently encyclopedic in style. Sswitcher 15:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Qualified support, based on most other #3 supporters' arguments. #1 is too wordy, especially about the scientific method. #2 is just barren. I think #3 is the best written, hitting the most relevant points the most efficiently. I also support the previously-stated idea of moving part/all of #1's intro sentence to #3. G Rose 08:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Allthough lead 1 is certainly more precise, I vote for the conciseness of lead 3. --Donar Reiskoffer 10:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Proposal #1 is too much, #2 is too little, #3 is just right, reads well, and represents physics most accurately Dlmason 04:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support Okay not perfect - but does not waste time on scientific method best discussed elsewhere - a link could be added to the laws of physics I suppose. And though the 2nd Proposal may want to cover all the definitions of Physics, this covers the basics well enough and misses out nothing of great import. Lethaniol 13:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support, with one minor nitpick, "classical physics" should not be described in the past tense, as it still exists. StuRat 09:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

---

As of 16:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC):

Proposal 1	Proposal 2	Proposal 3
20 votes (including 2 qualified)	5 votes	28 votes (including 2 conditional and 2 qualified)