Talk:The Tao of Physics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ] |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics. |
|
Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify its strengths and weaknesses. |
|
[edit] Deletion proposal (not active)
The Tao of Physics was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. 14 votes to keep, 1 vote to delete. Postdlf 05:18, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Nomination: I actually own a copy. It's a book, and not great. Wikipedia is not a library catalog. — Bill 23:33, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I'd be inclined to keep a decent article on even a minor book, but that's not the question here. This book was a bestseller and remains popular. I've added indicia of notability to the article (publication in 43 editions in 23 languages, according to [1]). It always looked like schlock to me so I haven't read it, but widely read schlock is notable. JamesMLane 06:45, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep
- Keep It's a very famous book. Which of the criteria for deletion does it meet? I wish people would stop listing stuff like this because they personally don't think it should be in here. There are criteria - let's use them.--Tomheaton 18:51, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, and deal harshly with deletion trolls. Intrigue 20:21, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Does not meet Wikipedias definition for vfd criteria. (surprise surprise) GRider 21:22, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Reasonably notable book. Amazon.com sales rank 9166. First published 1972, still in print (thirty years!), in fourth edition. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 22:55, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) (Note: article says published in 1975, but abebooks claims to have one published in Boulder, CO. in 1972) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 22:58, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I added the "1975" based on several sources. One source, perhaps a comment on Amazon, said that it was originally published by a small publisher and did well through word of mouth, after which it was picked up by a bigger company. Conceivably it was obscurely available in 1972 with first "real" publication in 1975. I didn't happen to run across any such reference, though. JamesMLane 23:09, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- 1975 is probably right. Library catalog search of local library network shows 1975 as earliest date. FWIW here's the Abebooks search, on publication date of 1975 or earlier. There's only one listing for 1972 and it could easily be a misprint. [2]
- Misprint seems likely. The 1972 entry is a first edition published by Shambhala, and just below it is another first edition published by Shambhala dated to 1975. (Somebody tell Slashdot that we're not the only ones who make mistakes.) JamesMLane 15:52, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- 1975 is probably right. Library catalog search of local library network shows 1975 as earliest date. FWIW here's the Abebooks search, on publication date of 1975 or earlier. There's only one listing for 1972 and it could easily be a misprint. [2]
- I added the "1975" based on several sources. One source, perhaps a comment on Amazon, said that it was originally published by a small publisher and did well through word of mouth, after which it was picked up by a bigger company. Conceivably it was obscurely available in 1972 with first "real" publication in 1975. I didn't happen to run across any such reference, though. JamesMLane 23:09, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I read it in 1976, if that's any help... Fire Star 22:48, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Reluctant keep. It's enough of a bestseller to qualify, but it's lousy book. What little is worthwhile in it wouldn't make up a 5-page essay. Even in its slightly dubious genre, there is a better book called The Dancing Wu Li Masters. -- Jmabel | Talk
- Keep. Should never have been listed on VfD. -- Decumanus 19:05, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
- Keep. The book may be lame, but it was a best seller and remains popular (particularly among the New-Ageily inclined). — Gwalla | Talk 19:45, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Pretty well known, at least enough so that it rings a bell with many literate folk. - Lifefeed 20:06, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. It's kind of like Godel Escher Bach in terms of public visibility, even if it's not nearly as good a book. --Improv 14:07, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep c'mon now, stop wasting our time —siroχo 22:55, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep -- Cabalamat 22:07, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Tesla
Nikola Tesla is also noted as having embraced the similarities between science and Vedanta. Please don't delete the Tao of Physics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JadeBuddha (talk • contribs) 19:19, April 4, 2007 (UTC)
- No worries. It is an old discussion. --Blainster 18:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Summary
There isn't any summary/synopsis of the actual book. This article isn't very useful 72.177.115.251 08:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
