Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Billsincl (talk | contribs)
10 edits
←Replaced content with 'Can laundry detergent cause skin irritation? I ask because lately when I stay with my girl friend, I itch like crazy after I crawl into her bed. It has got...'
Line 1: Line 1:
Can laundry detergent cause skin irritation?
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 24
|minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(45d)
|archive = Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot II |age=60 |dounreplied=yes}}
{{WikiProject Chemistry|class=Project|importance=NA}}
{| border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" style="margin: 0 0 0 0.5em; background: #FFFFFF; border-collapse: collapse; border-color: #C0C090;" align=right width=33%
! {{chembox header}} colspan=1 | [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Article alerts|Article alerts]]
|-
| {{:Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Article alerts}}
|}
'''Discussion of the WikiProject Chemistry''' - Please add your comment and discussion here. Older discussions are archived.
{{shortcut|WT:CHEMISTRY|WT:CHM}}
This discussion page is about the Chemistry project itself, for detailed, in-depth discussions about specific topics, you'd be best served at the talk page of the specific subject, e.g., [[wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Chemicals|Chemicals]], [[wikipedia_talk:chemical infobox|Chemical infoboxes]], etc. There is also an [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Image Request|image request page]] which might be of interest to you.


I ask because lately when I stay with my girl friend, I itch like crazy after I crawl into her bed.
== [[Special:ListFiles/Cuigy]] ==


It has gotten to where I have to sleep elsewhere. She insists that the sheets are freshly laundered.
Is anyone willing to re-draw these GIF images and upload them as SVGs or hi-res PNGs? Otherwise, it is probably best to convert them into PNG to enhance the thumbnail quality. --[[User:Leyo|Leyo]] 12:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
:I guess this means ''no''. --[[User:Leyo|Leyo]] 09:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


Just wondering if any of you have had this experienced, or know about what might be causing this.
== Peter Proctor and conducting polymers ==


She has a DOG that lies on the bed, but she covers it when we are not using it.
[[File:Gadget128.jpg|thumb|right|This image is everywhere]]


I don't think it's flea bites, but not sure.
There are a few editors who all edit the same topics, make the same spelling mistakes and have the same writing style and attitude. They gravitate around [[Peter Proctor]], [[John McGinness]], [[Conductive polymer]], [[Organic semiconductor]], [[Organic electronics]], [[Molecular electronics]], [[Polyacetylene]], [[Nobel Prize controversies]], [[Nanotechnology]], [[Redox signaling]], [[Oxidative stress]], [[Magnetic resonance imaging]]. They're unusually interested in both electrically conducting polymers and organic molecules, free radicals, antioxidants, and diverse medical topics.


[[User:Billsincl|Billsincl]] ([[User talk:Billsincl|talk]]) 21:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
They may not be as closely linked as it seems, but they're all giving Proctor and McGinness undue publicity on Wikipedia. I am concerned that Wikipedia is being distorted to reflect Peter Proctor's view that his old supervisor McGinness should have won the Nobel Prize. I feel there is a major [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] going on.

Does anyone else find they're reluctant to edit articles on conducting polymers because of these characters?

--[[User:Benjah-bmm27|Ben]] ([[User talk:Benjah-bmm27|talk]]) 01:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

:I have commented on this [[Wikipedia:Walled garden|walled garden]] previously. The main problem is that the supporting network of editors are vigilant and aggressive in defense of their hero [[John McGinness]] and now his student [[Peter Proctor]]. So one would need to deal with [[user:Drjem3]], [[User:Pproctor]], [[user:Clipjoint]], [[User:nucleophilic]], and probably more. They are upset about some Nobel prizes and trying to rectify the record by selectively dredging up historic content that seemingly diminishes the notability of the Nobels for conductive polymers and MRI. Again, there is not much that can be done without a community-wide effort with administrative help that can match their persistence and vigilance.--[[User:Smokefoot|Smokefoot]] ([[User talk:Smokefoot|talk]]) 18:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't done a fully comprehensive literature search, but I found the most cited review articles on conducting polymers using Web of Science and none of those reviews even cite McGinness/Proctor. If their discoveries were so important, why have they not been mentioned more in the literature? It seems it's not just the Nobel committee that's ignoring them. Take Proctor's most cited paper, for example: {{ cite journal | first1 = John | last1 = McGinness | first2 = Peter | last2 = Corry | first3 = Peter | last3 = Proctor | title = Amorphous Semiconductor Switching in Melanins | journal = Science | year = 1974 | volume = 183 | issue = 4127 | pages = 853-855 | doi = 10.1126/science.183.4127.853 }} It is cited 168 times (which is a lot by most chemistry standards), but none of them are the kind of wide-ranging, highly-cited reviews in top journals you normally find citing a genuinely groundbreaking paper. They're mostly biology journals and other miscellany. --[[User:Benjah-bmm27|Ben]] ([[User talk:Benjah-bmm27|talk]]) 15:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

:The Nobel overviews by Heeger, MacDiarmid, (not sure about Shirakawa) in ''Angew. Chem.'' do not cite McGinness or the literature (e.g. see paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 in [[Organic semiconductor#History]]) that PProctor cites to support the innuendo that these Nobelists were undeserving.--[[User:Smokefoot|Smokefoot]] ([[User talk:Smokefoot|talk]]) 18:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Here we go with [[polyacetylene]].--[[User:Smokefoot|Smokefoot]] ([[User talk:Smokefoot|talk]]) 14:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
:Help!--[[User:Smokefoot|Smokefoot]] ([[User talk:Smokefoot|talk]]) 14:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
::I have taken a look at this, and I am uncertain. The Nobel Prize is mentioned and it does seem to be disputed if the references 7 and 8 state so. I have a lot of time for Noel Hush's work, but I have not read that reference. --[[User:Bduke|<span style="color:#002147;">'''Bduke'''</span>]] [[User_talk:Bduke|<span style="color:#002147;">'''(Discussion)'''</span>]] 22:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I just read [http://dx.doi.org/10.1196/annals.1292.016 Hush's 2003 review] again. Hush spends one paragraph discussing McGinness, Corry, and Proctor's 1974 ''Science'' paper, saying it was a significant experimental observation. He does ''not'' say Heeger ''et al'''s 2000 Nobel Prize is disputed. If anyone wants a copy, I can email it to them. The other reference cited in [[Organic semiconductor#History]] is a [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4rFDAzo5lPQC&pg=PA264&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false short chapter] in a book by Inzelt. It simply states that there were many important discoveries before Heeger ''et al'' (as far back as 1834). Inzelt does not say the 2000 Nobel Prize is controversial or disputed. What more can I say? --[[User:Benjah-bmm27|Ben]] ([[User talk:Benjah-bmm27|talk]]) 23:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

:The Inzelt reference is "Historical Background (or there is nothing new under the Sun), Inzelt,G. "Conducting Polymers", (2008), chapter 8, pp.265-269.". The title itself reflects the controversy. Namely, that conductive polymers were discovered well before Shirikawa et al and that such polymers were even applied, etc.. He the proceeds to give examples. Does not mention McGinness et als work, likely because this was much later, apparently part of the wave of work that includes Shirikawa et al.

:Whether or not Shirikawa et al deserved the Nobel is another issue, though the citation does say "discovery", which is clearly wrong. BTW, WRT the Nobel, McGinness et al's main distinction is that they were apparently the last to report a highly-conductive polymer before Shirikawa et al, not that they got screwed out of a Nobel. In fact, they were not even close, as should be obvious from the cited literature. Admittedly, this makes a nice straw arguement. I will ignore the various ad hominems, etc. for the sake of civility. [[User:Nucleophilic|Nucleophilic]] ([[User talk:Nucleophilic|talk]]) 00:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's not get bogged down with talk of personal attacks and civility. The point is McGinness, Proctor etc do not deserve as much coverage as they current get in Wikipedia articles on conducting polymers. Let's focus on the chemistry our readers are actually interested in. No-one cares about melanins, they want polyaniline etc. See [http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/B914956M Heeger's recent tutorial review] for an update on the most important recent and current conducting polymers. --[[User:Benjah-bmm27|Ben]] ([[User talk:Benjah-bmm27|talk]]) 00:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
::Oh, well. I will move on. I am disappointed that so few editors see a disinformation campaign so clearly as do I. The Nobel is a Nobel, and that much trumps the rest, I guess.

:If you were a cancer specialist or dying with stage-4 [[melanoma]], or have (say) [[Parkinson's disease]], you would want melanin. BTW, polyacetylene (which is apparently made by some fungi) was allegedly known as melanin before it was known as polyacetylene. Apparently the same with the rest of this class of compounds.

:To clarify a point-- what McGiness et al did was report the first organic electronic device. Which is why their device is on the Smithsonian chips list. Again, they did not discover conductive polymers and they did not get screwed out of a Nobel. BTW, does Heeger's review refer to any of the prehistory cited by Inzelt, etc. ? Just asking. [[User:Nucleophilic|Nucleophilic]] ([[User talk:Nucleophilic|talk]]) 01:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

What I meant was, when people search Wikipedia for conducting polymers and their technological applications, they are unlikely to be interested in melanin. Yes, McGinness and Proctor reported melanin is a semiconductor and made a switch from it. It does still get a mention in reviews about melanin: [http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/anie.200803786 M. d’Ischia et al., ''Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.'' (2009) '''48''', 3914–3921]. But it's a very small part of the story, and off-topic for most readers. Heeger's review isn't about the history of the field, it's about the present and future. Web of Knowledge returned 61 hits for the topic "melanin AND conductivity", whereas "polyaniline AND conductivity" returned 6671 hits, i.e. one hundred times more. Polypyrrole got 4000, polyacetylene 1400, polythiophene 1300. We should focus on those. --[[User:Benjah-bmm27|Ben]] ([[User talk:Benjah-bmm27|talk]]) 10:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

:p.s. What Hush actually says is "Also in 1974 came the first experimental demonstration of an operating molecular electronic device that functions along the lines of the biopolymer conduction ideas of Szent-Gyorgi." That is not the same thing as "first organic electronic device". I have not been able to find a reliable source for the latter idea. --[[User:Benjah-bmm27|Ben]] ([[User talk:Benjah-bmm27|talk]]) 10:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

::From my research and some outside input: Melanins are polyacetylenes and vice versa. E.g., the architype, DOPA melanin (the stuff in skin cancer and the brain}, is a mixed copolymer of polyacetylene, polypyrrole and polyaniline. As noted, some fungi produce pure polyacetylene. Historically, the "play" was under the melanin rubrick simply because this was the only place polyacetylenes had any real world significance, particularly in agriculture and in medicine. So, by chance, some of the important work on conductive polyacetylenes was done under the melanin rubrick.

::This produced a "knowledge gap", where two distinct scientific fields were working on the same thing without quite realizing it. As your comments reflect, this is still the situation.

::Recently, conductive polyacetylenes have become very important outside any biological context. This does not change the history. Which is why this device is on the Smithsonian Chips list of key developments in solid state physics outside its origin in a cancer hospital. As for Hush, he does not mention a previous "operating electronic device" and IIRC, notes the materials characteristic [[negative differential resistance]], apparently the hallmark of an electronically-active compound. [[User:Nucleophilic|Nucleophilic]] ([[User talk:Nucleophilic|talk]]) 13:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

:::Another review article (Bettinger CJ, Bao Z. Biomaterials-Based Organic Electronic Devices. Polym Int.2010 May 1;59(5):563-567[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2895275/?tool=pubmed]}: Says: "...While the vast majority of natural biomaterials are insulating, there are a few notable examples of semiconducting biomolecules with potentially intriguing electronic properties. Perhaps the most widely studied naturally occurring class of semiconducting biomaterials are melanins, an ubiquitous pigment found within mammals.12 <I><B>In fact, some of the initial discoveries of semiconducting organic solids were made using melanin as a model material.13</B></I>... (emphasis-added) [[User:Nucleophilic|Nucleophilic]] ([[User talk:Nucleophilic|talk]]) 14:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

This is all OR unless you have a source that specifically states "melanins are polyacetylenes and vice versa". I noted melanin has a part in the history of conducting polymers, but it's a part that's currently overemphasised in our articles. There is this tangential structural and electronic analogy between polyacetylene and melanin, but it doesn't make them of equal importance. What other semiconducting biomaterials are there? The Smithsonian Chips [http://smithsonianchips.si.edu/proctor/index.htm entry] says at the bottom "For general reference only. The National Museum of American History and the Smithsonian Institution make no claims as to the accuracy or completeness of these references." It doesn't specifically state this melanin device was a big deal, it just says it was donated to them and has some spiel written by none other than Peter Proctor. --[[User:Benjah-bmm27|Ben]] ([[User talk:Benjah-bmm27|talk]]) 17:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

:R. Nicolaus: "The most simple melanin can be considered the acetylene-black from which it is possible to derive all the others..... Substitution does not qualitatively influence the physical properties like conductivity, colour, EPR, which remain unaltered."[http://www.tightrope.it/nicolaus/metadoc10.htm] "Acetylene-black" =polyacetylene.

:As for the Smithsonian, it is considered the primary US authority on the history of technology. My understanding is that most donations are requested. And of course they are not going to guarantee the "completeness" of anything. Can't prove a negative. As for the smithsonian chips list, see smithsonianchips.si.edu and see what kind of comapany the device is in.

:As for other semiconducting biomaterials, see Bettinger et al above. As some of the associated references show, melanins are currently under development as biocompatible electrode materials for medical applications (Bettinger CJ, Bruggeman JP, Misra A, Borenstein JT, Langer R. Biocompatibility of biodegradable semiconducting melanin films for nerve tissue engineering.Biomaterials. 2009 Jun;30(17):3050-7. Epub 2009 Mar 14. PubMed PMID: 19286252.) Ironically, this may prove to be the primary practical commercial application of conductive polyacetylenes, little else seeming to have worked out. So you can't really claim that they are "unimportant". [[User:Nucleophilic|Nucleophilic]] ([[User talk:Nucleophilic|talk]]) 20:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Nicolaus stuff on a random website = not a reliable source. Smithsonian website = not a reliable source. Your assertion of its importance = not a reliable source. Inferring notability from the other entries on the Smithsonian website = not a reliable source. I read Bettinger and it says "To date, most melanins including eumelanin are classified as ohmic materials due to the high degree of overlapping electronic structures, which is likely to be derived from the highly disordered chemical structure. The overall disorder of the structure reduces the potential for the use of melanins as active materials in devices such as organic transistors, for example." And my original point still stands: Proctor and McGinness get too much attention in Wikipedia articles. --[[User:Benjah-bmm27|Ben]] ([[User talk:Benjah-bmm27|talk]]) 21:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

:With due respect, arguable OR, and making up of rules. E.g., websites posted by recognized, published experts in an area are perfectly good sources. [[wp:reliable sources]] says "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

:I am informed that Nicolaus and his coworkers orginally defined the structure of melanin. e.g., Nicolaus, R; Piattelli, M; Fattorusso, E (1964) "The structure of melanins and melanogenesis—IV , On some natural melanins". Tetrahedron 20 (5): 1163–72. doi:10.1016/S0040-4020(01)98983-5. PMID 5879158) Anyway, the relevant cite of which the website is apparently a clone is Nicolaus, R.A., Parisi, G., The Nature of Animal Blacks. Atti Accademia Pontaniana XLIX, 197–233 (2000).
:Similarly, I cannot believe that you do not understand the significance of the Smithsonian imprimatur. I suggest you look it up. Likewise, the title of McGinness et al's paper is "Amorphous semiconductors..." I.e disordered ones. Which is the point--- These are not the same as crystaline semiconductors. Apparently, part of the "development" listed in the Noble citation is the special case of soliton migration in pure polyacetylene. This is a special case where the materials act like they do have long-range order. But even disorderd forms of these compounds can have conductivities of over 1S/Cm. In fact, this was shown in the 1960's. [[User:Nucleophilic|Nucleophilic]] ([[User talk:Nucleophilic|talk]]) 01:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The references for your argument are so fragmented, it constitutes [[Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS]]. You wouldn't cite the Smithsonian website in a review article in a scientific journal, would you? The Smithsonian is obviously a respectable institution, but that doesn't mean that every single page on its website is an appropriately authoritative source for a given claim. I cannot locate "R.A. Nicolaus, G. Parisi "The Nature of Animal Blacks". Atti della Accademia Pontaniana Vol. XLIX". WoK shows Nicolaus published from 1957 to 1980 - not an up-to-date source. I wasn't intending to get into the specifics of disorder and conductivity, I was providing a quote (in context) from your reference that says melanins are not the best choice for devices. For scientific claims, we prefer clear, unambiguous statements from independent authors in high-quality peer-reviewed journals, preferably recent reviews. I have serious doubts about the importance of McGinness/Proctor/melanins and I am seeking clarification from the most reliable and appropriate sources of information available. --[[User:Benjah-bmm27|Ben]] ([[User talk:Benjah-bmm27|talk]]) 09:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

:Why do I bother ? Anyway, you seem to find some reason to object to any citation, even ones that are very clearly within the bounds of [[WP:reliable sources]], which you clearly ignore. But, just in case, here is another one:

:Nature Vol. 248 April 5 1974, p475 ( News and Views )
:Semiconductors in the human body?
:from our Solid State Physics Correspondent
:Exerpt: "Now at least one biological material has been shown to have a strikingly large conductivity when correctly excited. McGinness, Corry and Proctor, of the University of Texas Cancer Center, Houston, report in Science (183, 853; 1974) that melanins can be made to 'switch' from a poorly conducting to a highly conducting state at fairly low electric fields (say from 10K ohm- cm to 100 ohm-cm at a field of 300 V cm-1). This remarkable phenomenon occurs both in melanin made synthetically from tyrosine and in that extracted from a human melanoma. The large conduction is not destructive in any way and is reversible;. According to some tests, conduction seems to be electronic rather than ionic." [[User:Nucleophilic|Nucleophilic]] ([[User talk:Nucleophilic|talk]]) 16:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, it supports what we agree on: McGinness, Corry and Proctor found melanin conducts electricity in a certain way. I am not trolling you. The problem with the current state of various Wikipedia articles is it gives too much emphasis to this work. --[[User:Benjah-bmm27|Ben]] ([[User talk:Benjah-bmm27|talk]]) 16:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

:A mention in the "history' section of about three (four?) articles is not a lot of "emphasis". Which history is supported by what few review articles there are on the history of the subject. If you can find other [[WP:reliable sources]], please post them. Otherwise, OR.

:Also, I have contributed to the policy articles in the past. What you claim is wikipolicy was not the last time I looked. Admittedly, this was a while ago.

:But, as I note, a quick glance at [[wp:reliable sources]] does show your assertions are not consistent with current guidelines. Whatever your undoubted contributions, you just can't invent stuff here and you have no more standing than any other editor. Likewise, I perceive some [[wikilawyering]]. But whatever. Some here even use these kind of disputes as an easy means to run up their number of edits, as if anyone cared. Not me, naturally. [[User:Nucleophilic|Nucleophilic]] ([[User talk:Nucleophilic|talk]]) 16:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

::You have also no more standing than any other wikipedia editor.--[[User:Stone|Stone]] ([[User talk:Stone|talk]]) 18:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

:::A given. Perhaps it was incivil of me to remind others of it. [[User:Nucleophilic|Nucleophilic]] ([[User talk:Nucleophilic|talk]]) 06:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

::In the history section of conducting polymere contains 2583 characters for the melamine story ( In 1963 Australians Bolto .... negative differential resistance.) While the Noble prize winning discover goes with 259 and the sentence that they did not quote the others and that it was not a real discovery. This is not the right proportion.--[[User:Stone|Stone]] ([[User talk:Stone|talk]]) 18:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

:::Two different issues seem to be confuted here. The major one is that highly-conductive organic polymers were discovered long before the Noble prize winners, as recounted by (e.g.) Inzelt, who devotes an entire chapter of his authoritative textbook "Conductive polymers" to this issue. See [[wp:reliable sources]] to see where this stands on the reliability scale. And nobody, including Inzelt, denies that the prize winners work was not a "real discovery" or that they made enormous contributions to the field, merely that it had been discovered before, several times. The second issue is that the last to <I>rediscover</i> highly-conductive polymers before the Prize winners were McGinness et al, who constructed an active electronic device, also amply documented in topline [[wp:reliable sources]]. Since such devices are where organic electronics is now going, this is quite relevant to the subject. If you feel that the work of the Nobel winners (further amply recounted in linked articles) is thus somehow slighted in the article, perhaps you should enlarge upon it. [[User:Nucleophilic|Nucleophilic]] ([[User talk:Nucleophilic|talk]]) 06:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not out to be pedantic about Wikipedia policy or rules, or to invent any. I am sorry you feel Wikilawyered, that was not my intention. I'm certainly not trying to rack up my edit count, I really don't care about that. I want to discuss the extent of McGinness/Proctor coverage in the articles I listed in my first post, above. I have tried to find a balanced view on their work by searching the literature, especially recent review articles about conducting polymers. Based on what we have found in our discussion here, I propose the following changes:

* Remove "McGinness, Corry, and Proctor pioneered much of the modern field of organic electronics and conductive polymers" from [[Peter Proctor#Organic Semiconductors and Conductive Polymers]] - this is an overstatement of their achievements.

* [[John McGinness]] uses [[Wikipedia:PEACOCK|flowery language]] and is too long. It uses a lot of words to describe a few things. It draws many connections between McGinness's work on melanin and the 2000 Nobel Prize, without any references that make such links. We should make this article more succinct and more accurately reflect the references' comments on the importance of McGinness's work and its similarity to the Nobel Prize work.

:I will look into this and make appropriate changes.

* [[Conductive polymer#History]] should cite more reviews than just Inzelt and Hush. I will find some.

:Hopefully, you can do so. IIRC, there is a reference to a book entitled "Organic Semiconductors" from 1964. So clearly there is a lot of "prehistory " here. Any review relevant to this discussion should cite this prehistory.

The quote "first experimental demonstration of an operating molecular electronic device" is out of context because it omits the qualifier that follows: "...that functions along the lines of the biopolymer conduction ideas of Szent-Gyorgi". The part about the 2000 Nobel Prize is not supported by the references: "The Nobel citation made no reference to Weiss et al.'s similar earlier work (see [[Nobel Prize controversies]]). Because of the numerous earlier reports of similar compounds, reviewers[who?] question the Nobel citation's discovery assignment." We must find a source for this statement or remove it. One of the five paragraphs in the history section describes McGinness's melanin device in detail, whereas the Nobel Prize-winning work is not described in as much detail, nor are any other devices given so much attention. Hence my claim of undue weight. I suggest trimming mention of McGinness to one sentence at most, and including plenty of other relevant history to give more balanced coverage.

:If you thnk the Nobelist's work is somehow slighted, perhaps you can enlarge upon it.

* [[Organic semiconductor#History]] contains much the same detail as above. Inzelt and Hush are mis-cited: "Because of the many previous reports of similar compounds, the "discovery" assignment ''[of the 2000 Nobel Prize]'' is contested.[11][12]" Article includes a photo of McGinness's device but not of any other devices. I propose removing the Nobel Prize controversy line and probably the photo.

* [[Organic electronics#History]] is the same story. "Because of the numerous earlier reports of similar compounds, reviewers have questioned the Nobel citation's discovery assignment." Does Inzelt actually dispute the Nobel? No. [[Organic electronics#Organic electronic devices]] devotes two of its three paragraphs to McGinness's conduction model and device. This is not a balanced history of organic electronics! Condense mention of McGinness to as short a line as possible and add much more detail about all the other history.

* [[Molecular electronics]] does not need the image of McGinness's device. It is not referred to in the text and is pretty irrelevant. Remove it.

* [[Polyacetylene#Conductivity and the Nobel Prize]] spends too many words disputing the 2000 Nobel Prize and far too few words describing it. "However, because of the numerous prior discoveries of highly-conductive polyacetylenes, their priority is disputed.[7][8]" Inzelt and Hush are again inappropriately cited to support this claim. Remove it. Add more about the Nobel work.

* [[Nobel Prize controversies#Chemistry]] goes into too much detail about McGinness's work and the fact that it was reported a few years before the prize winning work. The are no appropriate references that state there is such a controversy - it's all [[WP:SYNTHESIS]]. Remove it or find a better reference.

Any thoughts? --[[User:Benjah-bmm27|Ben]] ([[User talk:Benjah-bmm27|talk]]) 18:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

:I will make changes as appropriate. Definitely correct about the "flowery language". I have already started to make changes here. Also, Izelt does not question the Nobel prize, merely the "discovery" part of the citation. Like it or not, this is an important part of the history. [[User:Nucleophilic|Nucleophilic]] ([[User talk:Nucleophilic|talk]]) 06:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

== [[Phytosterol]] and [[Plant stanol ester]] articles ==

I am somewhat lost here with chemical classification. Phytosterol lists plenty of substances, not sure which really belong where. Plant sterol ester article is somewhat ambigous what it talks about (some allegedly natural substance or chemical product sold by Unilever). --[[User:Richiez|Richiez]] ([[User talk:Richiez|talk]]) 16:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

== Outdated articles? ==

Comments on
[[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Static_vs_dynamic_topics:_seriously_outdated_articles]] will be appreciated, so we can get a general perspective on this. Thanks. [[User:History2007|History2007]] ([[User talk:History2007|talk]]) 05:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
:I rambled-on for a while there, others' input definitely still needed. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 05:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

== Wikimedia Foundation endorsing Access2Research ==

Hey all

The Wikimedia Foundation has decided to endorse [http://access2research.org/ Access2Research] and its [https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/require-free-access-over-internet-scientific-journal-articles-arising-taxpayer-funded-research/wDX82FLQ?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl petition] to make research funded by the US government publicly accessible. This will be done by way of a blog post on Friday morning PST; as noted, we are not trying to speak on behalf of the community, but just the Foundation itself. You can read more in the [[Wikipedia:Access2Research|FAQ]], and leave any comments or questions you might have on its talkpage.

Thanks! [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 19:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

== Proposal to reclassify chemistry and molecular formula disambiguation pages ==

I have made a proposal at [[Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Category:Chemistry disambiguation pages and Category:Molecular formula disambiguation pages]] to reclassify pages in [[:Category:Chemistry disambiguation pages]] and [[:Category:Molecular formula disambiguation pages]] to set index pages, to more accurately reflect the relatedness of the articles listed on those pages. Please note that this change, if implemented, will not affect the substance of any of these pages, but will only entail switching the existing '''<nowiki>{{Chemistry disambiguation}}</nowiki>''' and '''<nowiki>{{MolFormDisambig}}</nowiki>''' tags for '''<nowiki>{{Chemistry Index}}</nowiki>''' and '''<nowiki>{{MolFormIndex}}</nowiki>''' tags to be created, modeled on the existing tags. Cheers! [[User:BD2412|<font style="background:tan">'''''bd2412'''''</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 18:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

== Contradictions in the [[Hyposulfite]] Article ==

There's a rather glaring contradiction in the article on [[hyposulfite]] ion. The lead sentence states that hyposulfite salts are not believed to exist, and cites a chemistry textbook. The remainder of the article discusses syntheses for zinc and cobalt hyposulfites, and cites a Chinese source. Obviously, either the initial statement or the syntheses are incorrect. Would someone be willing to take a look at this? The syntheses seem fairly specific and I'm inclined to think they produce the hyposulfites as advertised, but perhaps they're simply proposed routes? [[User:Ckalnmals|Ckalnmals]] ([[User talk:Ckalnmals|talk]]) 02:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
:The problem is probably that salts are not well characterized. Almost certainly SO<sub>2</sub><sup>2-</sup> is not known as a well defined dianion. I don't even think that salts of HSO<sub>2</sub><sup>-</sup> are well characterized. Organic derivatives ([[sulfinic acid]]) of the type RSO<sub>2</sub><sup>-</sup> are in better shape. But when covalency is involved, like "metallic salts" (= metal complexes), the situation becomes murky and things like M-SO<sub>2</sub>-M are known. But I will take a look at the article.--[[User:Smokefoot|Smokefoot]] ([[User talk:Smokefoot|talk]]) 03:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

== Improvements for [[Nucleophilic acyl substitution]] ==

I've been working on improving [[nucleophilic acyl substitution]] for several weeks, since it's one of the reaction classes listed on [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemistry/Worklist#Chemical_reactions]] as needing a full article. I've added a significant amount of content, including new figures, reaction schemes, and mechanisms. It's all posted to the article's [[Talk:Nucleophilic_acyl_substitution#Major_Improvements_Underway|talk page]], along with some known issues. The new content could use some proofreading/fact-checking. Comments and suggestions would be welcome as well. [[User:Ckalnmals|Ckalnmals]] ([[User talk:Ckalnmals|talk]]) 04:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

: I like the update, please put it into the article! --[[User:Stone|Stone]] ([[User talk:Stone|talk]]) 21:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

== [[User:70.137.141.29|70.137.141.29]] ==

This user is on a referencing mission, they insist overwritting perfectly fine APA citations with ISO styled references. If his aggresive editting isn't stopped, he may feel free to spill over into other articles. We can get involved before there is a chance to spread. One other thing he is doing, is to add spaces in the citation text, blowing up the citation template and making it cluttered. [[User:Plasmic Physics|Plasmic Physics]] ([[User talk:Plasmic Physics|talk]]) 09:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
:I might have crossed with that person (not sure - there was one engineer polishing refs in inorganic compounds). He didn't exactly follow "my" preferred referencing style, yet didn't do harm and was improving refs by cross-checking wrong titles, isbns, etc. Fighting spaces is same as fighting windmills - some regular editors introduce them without their will due to specific browser/text editor. [[User:Materialscientist|Materialscientist]] ([[User talk:Materialscientist|talk]]) 09:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
::OK, just keep an eye on him he is a by-the-book kind of editor, like I used be. He doesn't believe in debating unwritten policy. [[User:Plasmic Physics|Plasmic Physics]] ([[User talk:Plasmic Physics|talk]]) 09:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
:::I don't believe I've crossed paths with this editor either. What course of action would you propose if someone does encounter him/her? [[User:Ckalnmals|Ckalnmals]] ([[User talk:Ckalnmals|talk]]) 14:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I propose you let this engineer improve the refs by cross checking and proofreading against source, adding dois pmids isbn oclc, fixing to precise citation and don't bicker if hes using ISO style dates, as the examples (e.g. cite patent, cite web, etc.) use ISO style dates. Also I propose you refrain from referring to "unwritten policies" as these are totally intransparent to editors, if not put into the book. I also propose you follow style guides and do not gang up against people following the examples to the iota and do not call them "unprofessional". Also please read [[WP:OWN]]. Surprisingly it is not the students who factually know everything better, while the old farts don't know what they are talking due to senility. cheers.
[[Special:Contributions/70.137.146.143|70.137.146.143]] ([[User talk:70.137.146.143|talk]]) 22:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

[[Special:Contributions/70.137.146.143|70.137.146.143]] ([[User talk:70.137.146.143|talk]]) 22:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

:Try to keep a cool head here, friend. No one called you "unprofessional", at least not on this page. No one accused you of being a senile "old fart" either. The issue at hand here is stylistic, not personal. I can understand improving existing citations that are lacking information and/or are incorrect - in fact, I think it's admirable. Editing existing citations simply because they don't match your desired style, however, is harder to justify. From what I remember on the Wiki page about citing sources, there is no preferred or accepted style; as long as sources ''are'' actually cited, contain the appropriate information, and are cited consistently within the article, the exact citation style is irrelevant. [[User:Ckalnmals|Ckalnmals]] ([[User talk:Ckalnmals|talk]]) 03:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Re Unprofessional: see here, edit summary

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Aminoacetonitrile&diff=496362787&oldid=496359816

indeed the template params for cite web, cite patent and others are described as ISO dates, with the prospective advantage of automatic display conversion according to language / country std. That is why the the ISO format was used in the templates - it allows automatic substitution of month names, days etc. according to desired display fmt. I am aware that in prose this style is not to be used, as the automatic conversion is a nonissue there. It is not a question of style there, however, in articles with mixed styles from 10 editors I have allowed myself to convert everything to one style, like that resulting from cite pmid / cite doi and to fill in the missing bits and pieces - e.g. pmid, doi, isbn, oclc, correct authors, correct title, issue, fulltext url/pdf if available or even to substitute or augment the sources by refs if needed and proofread the citation against sources.
I do not like the attitude of fellow editor Plasmic, who already proposes to stop it "before it spreads". He does not own the articles. I am not a nuisance which has to be stopped, before it spreads. I perceive this style as uncollegiate. Look at those I have edited, then you see it is nice and professional work.( I am indeed a professional )
[[Special:Contributions/70.137.146.143|70.137.146.143]] ([[User talk:70.137.146.143|talk]]) 04:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

regarding "unwritten policies" this precludes the involvement of editors who are not "in the club" where people believe they can make unwritten policies. So this is obviously incompatible with logic and the concept of Wiki as an open and cooperative project. Thats why I reminded of [[WP:OWN]], we cannot use unwritten stds and local lingo, and we will not allow a small circle of insiders to take control by such unwritten rules.
Cheers.
[[Special:Contributions/70.137.146.143|70.137.146.143]] ([[User talk:70.137.146.143|talk]]) 04:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
:You misunderstand the situation with references on wikipedia - there are many styles and none is really preferred. Thus everyone (IPs, regulars, admins) can be reverted when attempting to impose their style over the previous one, provided that previous style is consistent and reasonably complete (I was reverted too :-P). There is a fine balance in what to consider an improvement to the previous code. For example, adding doi/isbn/pmid/titles/pages or repairing broken or mistyped ones is always an improvement. Reformatting plain refs into templated ones, or changing the authorlist style may be reverted. [[User:Materialscientist|Materialscientist]] ([[User talk:Materialscientist|talk]]) 04:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed I do not change style except for consistency, when it is mixed from several editors. Then unifying all refs to consistent style is an improvement.
[[Special:Contributions/70.137.146.143|70.137.146.143]] ([[User talk:70.137.146.143|talk]]) 05:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
:Well, then just take it with a smile - this is a wiki that anyone can edit, after all. A common example: an article was polished to some reasonable standard (say, [[WP:GA]]), then abandoned for a while, and newcomers added text with another style of reference formatting, English spelling, etc. Then some hardworking editor decides to cleans up the mess, arbitrarily choosing the style (he doesn't mind actually, he only aims to make it neat), and gets reverted :-D. Sigh. Checking past history helps avoiding that, and a friendly chat with a person who reverted you helps even more. More often the mess just piles up without any past order :-). [[User:Materialscientist|Materialscientist]] ([[User talk:Materialscientist|talk]]) 05:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

== List of scientific constants named after people ==

The [[List of scientific constants named after people]] may not be notable, according to a recent tag put at the top of the article. Apparently what is needed is a literature citation showing that the topic of scientific concepts named after people has received attention from the authors of refereed publications. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] ([[User talk:Michael Hardy|talk]]) 02:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

:I looked at the list, and while it certainly isn't anything special, I'd hate to see it disappear. My guess is that outside of Wikipedia, there are few - if any - places on the Web one could find such a list. And unfortunately, I doubt that anyone has put any effort into researching and/or publishing a list of eponymous constants either. While more developed, no one seems to have a problem with [[List of scientific units named after people]]. Also, the page in question is linked to in [[Eponym#List of eponyms]]. While the topic itself may not be notable, the article's content is. I think the list should be kept. [[User:Ckalnmals|Ckalnmals]] ([[User talk:Ckalnmals|talk]]) 02:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
:: I also think that this list is evidently informativ and really wonder why a physisist would want to get rid of it. We should keep it.--[[User:Saehrimnir|Saehrimnir]] ([[User talk:Saehrimnir|talk]]) 15:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

== First I thought it is a joke ... ==

Have a look at [[Alkaline water ionizer machine]] but also look at {{doi|10.1006/bbrc.1997.6622}}. --[[User:Stone|Stone]] ([[User talk:Stone|talk]]) 14:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
:It is definitely snake oil, none of it makes sense. It is a billboard for some crack pot invention, using non-relevant external resources. Just have a look at the references. It may as well be an article about the invention of a perpetual motion machine. [[User:Plasmic Physics|Plasmic Physics]] ([[User talk:Plasmic Physics|talk]]) 23:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
::Actually, the original version of the page, as posted several years ago, is quite good. It doesn't cite sources, but it does make clear that water ionizers are essentially snake oil, backed up by pseudo-scientific claims. In fact, the original intent of the article was to describe these machines as such, not to promote their virtues. [[User:Ckalnmals|Ckalnmals]] ([[User talk:Ckalnmals|talk]]) 13:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

== Beilstein/Gmelin ==

Hi folks,
Is there a canonical format for citing Beilstein and/or Gmelin and/or Reaxys as references? Thanks in advance. -- [[user:phoebe|phoebe]] / <small>([[user_talk:phoebe|talk to me]])</small> 16:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

== Radium ==

Hi I looked for a primary source for the melting point of radium. I was not able to find one on google scholar. There are two numbers 960°C and 700°C which are reported in several books and abstracts, but I could find no hint on the source of that numbers. If anybody has better database to look into would be nice. ( Gmelin, Beilstein or scifinder) Thanks --[[User:Stone|Stone]] ([[User talk:Stone|talk]]) 21:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
:According to SciFinder, radium has a melting point of 700°C. The citation states "Hazardous Substances Data Bank data were obtained from the National Library of Medicine (US)". Theodore Gray's www.periodictable.com also cites the 700°C figure, and all of the data on the site comes from Wolfram Research via Mathematica. Unfortunately, this doesn't really help with your search for a primary source - sorry! [[User:Ckalnmals|Ckalnmals]] ([[User talk:Ckalnmals|talk]]) 03:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

== OrganicBox templates up for deletion ==

Several OrganicBox templates have been nominated for deletion, see [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_June_21#Template:OrganicBox_tautomers]] -- [[Special:Contributions/70.49.127.65|70.49.127.65]] ([[User talk:70.49.127.65|talk]]) 04:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

== Category:Chemistry prefixes and suffixes ==

[[:Category:Chemistry prefixes and suffixes]] has been requested to be renamed to [[:Category:Affixes used in Chemistry]] -- [[Special:Contributions/70.49.127.65|70.49.127.65]] ([[User talk:70.49.127.65|talk]]) 03:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

:Apparently we are missing categorization for infixes... [[:Category:Chemistry infixes]] does not exist. [[Special:Contributions/70.49.127.65|70.49.127.65]] ([[User talk:70.49.127.65|talk]]) 03:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

== STOPCOCK ==

I don#t understand, why my supplement to this article was reverted, especially the reason "vandalism"?!?
I hope, You will correct again to my version.
Greetings -- [[Special:Contributions/217.227.252.16|217.227.252.16]] ([[User talk:217.227.252.16|talk]]) 05:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
:First, do not shout at us (using capital letters). Second, link to the actual article, which I guessed was [[Stopcock]]. Third, you were reverted by a bot, which gave you the opportunity to complain directly to the owner of the bot. Finally, I do think that your edit was not vandalism, but I also think that it did not improve the article. You removed material and links. Why do you think that improved the article? --[[User:Bduke|<span style="color:#002147;">'''Bduke'''</span>]] [[User_talk:Bduke|<span style="color:#002147;">'''(Discussion)'''</span>]] 07:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

== Catergories for discussion ==

There are discussions for the categories: [[:Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 25#Chemistry prefixes and suffixes|Chemistry prefixes and suffixes]], [[:Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 26#Chemistry prefixes|Chemistry prefixes]] & [[:Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 26#Chemistry suffixes|Chemistry suffixes]], that could do with your input. [[User:Brad7777|Brad7777]] ([[User talk:Brad7777|talk]]) 15:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

== [[Bath salts (drug)]] ==

Hi, would someone here who is a [[Chemist]], please review the article, [[Bath salts (drug)]], to confirm the chemistry aspect of what is being written is correct. Any further citations to clarify would be appreciated. Thank you. [[User:JunoBeach|JunoBeach]] ([[User talk:JunoBeach|talk]]) 10:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

== RSC involvement ==

Hi all - I work for the Royal Society of Chemistry and we recently had a few of our members trained up in wiki editing to encourage them to help the provision for chemistry articles here. At present a few of them have given me particular topics that they have expertise in, but before I sent them out I wanted to ask if there was a specific approach you'd like us to take or whether we should just set them free? - Cheers! --[[User:ChemWalker|ChemWalker]] ([[User talk:ChemWalker|talk]]) 10:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
:Although we generally assume good faith, for what reason would the RSC want to help Wikipedia except to promote RSC publications? I just see potential for serious and correlated conflicts of interest ([[WP:COI]]). Announcing your affiliation is a big first step in avoiding such conflict of interest, so thank you.
:But assuming good faith, here are some suggestions off the top of my head:
*Ideally new editors start slowly with small edits, and then announce intentions at this site about more serious plans (e.g. article creation, opinions about several articles) so that we could develop some consensus.
*My favored recommendation is to strive to to adhere to [[WP:SECONDARY]] - emphasize secondary sources - books and reviews, ''not journals''.
*If you are looking for topics, then seek high traffic articles that are deficient in supporting general citations and descriptions of basics. High traffic articles tend to be at the fringe of classical chemistry - polymers, cosmetics, plastics, paint, food. RSC is probably ideally suited to develop articles for famous (FRS's) chemists who lack articles. Within classical chemistry, Wikipedia is in pretty good shape IMHO.
--[[User:Smokefoot|Smokefoot]] ([[User talk:Smokefoot|talk]]) 13:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:15, 2 July 2012

Can laundry detergent cause skin irritation?

I ask because lately when I stay with my girl friend, I itch like crazy after I crawl into her bed.

It has gotten to where I have to sleep elsewhere. She insists that the sheets are freshly laundered.

Just wondering if any of you have had this experienced, or know about what might be causing this.

She has a DOG that lies on the bed, but she covers it when we are not using it.

I don't think it's flea bites, but not sure.

Billsincl (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry&oldid=500386623"