Talk:List of important publications in chemistry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for a list of important publications in chemistry, organized by field.

Some reasons why a particular publication might be regarded as important:

  • Topic creator – A publication that created a new topic
  • Breakthrough – A publication that changed scientific knowledge significantly
  • Introduction – A publication that is a good introduction or survey of a topic
  • Influence – A publication which has significantly influenced the world
  • Latest and greatest – The current most advanced result in a topic

There has been debate about policy for this page with a view to keeping it NPOV and the following items have received some support by consensus. If you want to edit the page please take note of these policies.

  1. Books for inclusion can be added in the usual Wikipedia way by anyone editing the page. However it is expected that each entry should give a brief description of the book and a statement of the importance of the publication. The importance could be further developed on the talk page.
  2. Where the editor has failed to add the description and importance statement, they will be advised to add these (if of course they are registed on Wikipedia and have a user talk page).
  3. Failure to add the description and importance statements after 7 days is reason enough for the entry to be deleted.
  4. New entries will be opened for debate on the talk page with Wikipedians asked to state whether the entry should be deleted or kept. This debate will be open for 10 days. The debate should centre around whether the entry can be included while maintaining the Wikipedia NPOV.
  5. Articles from journals or review books can be included but they should be of very great significance. Journal titles alone should not be included and will be deleted without debate. Journal titles should be added to List of scientific journals in chemistry.
  6. Books where the justification for inclusion is Introduction are particularly prone to being added not from a NPOV. The criteria above for publications that are regarded as important because of Introduction should be interpreted as "A publication that is a good introduction or survey of a topic and that has also made a significant impact on the discipline such as in the way it is taught, or perhaps in other ways."
WikiProject on Chemistry This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, which collaborates on Chemistry and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
??? This article has not received a rating yet on the quality scale.
??? This article has not received a rating yet on the importance scale.
WikiProject Physics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
Portal:Physics
 Physics Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.

Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Earlier comment to January 31st, 2006 archived to Talk:List of publications in chemistry/archive1

Contents

[edit] New entry and possible deletion - 7th February 2006

I will close this debate on February 17th. An earlier debate on "On the Equilibrium of Heterogeneous Substances' will be closed on February 11th. In future I will put all new entries under a dated heading as here.

The external link [Award-winning, NSF supported, nuclear chemistry tutorialfrom ChemCases.com] was deleted, but I have reverted the change to allow debate. We seem to have missed htis earlier. --Bduke 22:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. There is no assertion of any importance. --Bduke 22:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I had deleted it because it didn't even look like a "real" publication, but rather a link to a website. Itub 22:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Never heard of this dotcom, posted by an anon user, is this a vanity or commercial link? If it transforms the teaching of chemistry in the next ten years, then we can include it. Walkerma 22:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ~K 00:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This debate is closed. This link will be deleted. --Bduke 23:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Valence and the structure of atoms and molecules, Gilbert N. Lewis, New York, The Chemical Catalog, Company, Inc., 1923. has been added. It is up for debate. --Bduke 22:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. An excellent addition to the page. --Bduke 22:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Lewis changed the world in 1923. Walkerma 22:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This debate is closed. This new entry will be kept. --Bduke 23:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New entries and possible deletion - 10th February 2006

There are three new entries today:-

The Sceptical Chymist, Robert Boyle 1661

  • Keep. A true foundation.
  • Keep ~K 16:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Traité Élémentaire de Chimie (Elementary Treatise of Chemistry), Antoine Lavoisier

  • Keep. I vaguely suggested this earlier. It is truly the first modern chemistry textbook. After this Chemistry was modern.
  • Keep ~K 16:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

A New System of Chemical Philosophy, John Dalton, 1808 - 1827

  • Keep. Important.
  • Keep ~K 16:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I will close this debate on 20 February.

These new additions are great, but I hope people do not think that this page is only for very old and historic books or papers. There is plenty of stuff from the last 50 years which has really been important. --Bduke 09:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Would it make sense to have separate lists for historic books and for current ones? Lavoisier's and Dalton's books are very important in the history of chemistry, but most practicing chemists have never read them, and if they read them is mostly for recreation. On the other hand, books such as March's are in most chemist's desks and are used frequently for learning and reference. Itub 16:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
This page is part of the Science Pearls project and the purpose is to list publications that are important for chemistry. It does not mean that we read them in the same way. At least for now I think we should keep them together. It is a place where hopefully users can see the publications that have made chemistry what it is. --Bduke 23:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

On a different matter, I sometimes forget that I am 11 hours ahead of UTC so it looks above that I closed a debate on the 16th February, when here it is 10.30 a.m. on the 17th and the time I tidy up stuff. I'll try to wait a bit longer next time and close the debate on the right day, but it might be very early on the UTC day, --Bduke 23:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Debate closed on these three additions. All will be kept. I even waited until after lunch here so it is reaaly the 20th Feb UTC. --Bduke 03:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New entries - March 22, 2006

First, note that I wrote a template some time ago to flag new entries to show that we were debating them. This is now used for the first time. It sits, commented out, at the bottom of the page. To use it, move it to the appropriate point below the new entry, edit out the comment tags and change the date.

We have two new entries just added.

Supramolecular Chemistry - Concepts and Perspectives, by Jean-Marie Lehn.

  • Keep. Note that I have bent the guidelines a bit here. There is a "Description" section but no "Importance" section, although the former covers the importance. I have asked the editor who added this to split and expand what he wrote. This is an important entry and the first in this section. --Bduke 21:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The editor who added this entry has fixed up the "description" and "importance" sections. --Bduke 23:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Physical Chemistry by R. Stephen Berry, Stuart A. Rice, and John Ross.

  • Weak keep. This entry does open up the possability of all the other books called "Physical Chemistry" being added here, but it clearly is significant. A case could be made, however, for others. --Bduke 21:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Obviously, since I entered it. I actually think it should replace the Atkins book. If you are looking for an introduction and survey of physical chemistry that is suitable for advanced study, BRR is the best. Its only disadvantages are its size, and its ruinous cost. The first edition was available in a three-volume format that cut down on the size problem. I don't know if the second edition is. Tex 22:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. We are not only looking for introductions and surveys here. Atkins was added because historically it is important. The 1st edition had a massive impact and altered the way later texts were written. I agree in general about the latest edition of Atkins - there are several better books. --Bduke 23:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Please add you comments. This debate will close on April 1st.

Both enties kept after a disappointingly thin debate. --Bduke 22:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Future entry

It seems obvious to me that Lewis & Randall (revised by Pitzer & Brewer) should be added to the Thermochemistry section. Comments? Tex 01:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree. I would have added it, but I do not have a copy and so I do not have the details to hand. There is however a small problem. The revision is a better modern introduction, but the original was historical important. I suggest combining them. Add the original with a note in brackets that the revision is an important modern thermodynamics text. Go for it. What about "Chemical Thermodynamics" by McGashan (1979). It was very influencial in the UK but was it elsewhere? --Bduke 02:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point about the historical importance of the first version. Here in the States we haven't used the book you mention (McGlashan?) much. I think the most elegant book is Kirkwood & Oppenheim, which lays the subject out in an almost terse fashion. They define all the terms precisely, and derive all the results of chemical thermodynamics with the minimum of verbiage. Not for beginners! Over history, though, Lewis & Randall has had the most influence here. Tex 04:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Now I think about it more, I think a book by Guggenheim, McGlashan's mentor, was more significant. Add Lewis and Randall when you care to. I'll support it. --Bduke 05:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Standards in all the Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls articles

I have added the following to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science pearls and all the individual talk pages of the project. It may attract attention here.

List of publications in biology was put up for deletion at AfD but survived the process as there was no consensus. However, as someone who has been concerned with this Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls project for some months now, I am concerned. There is indeed a case that the material here is not free of a POV. How do we determine importance? Earlier this year the participants on List of publications in chemistry debated this and decided on two matters. First, they tightened up the criteria for inclusion, in particular insisted that publications that were important as an introduction had to have had a wider importance such as altering the way all future text books were written or altered the way the subject was taught. Second, they decided that all new entries should be raised for debate over a 10 day period on the talk page to determine whether they should be kept or deleted. Most existing entries were debated and several were deleted. This has worked reasonably well although it would be better if more people had participated. It is clear enough that it is not, for these articles, sufficient to allow anyone to add entries, as only very obvious nonsense is likely to be deleted. Each entry needs the consideration of several editors. I urge all interested in this project to look at what the chemists here have done and consider whether something similar or even better can be used on all pages in the project. --Bduke 09:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New entry - May 13, 2006

Science of Synthesis: Houben-Weyl Methods of Molecular Transformations, D. Bellus, E. N. Jacobsen, S. V. Ley, R. Noyori, M. Regitz, P. J. Reider, E. Schaumann, I. Shinkai, E. J. Thomas, B. M. Trost, Thieme: Stuttgart, 48 volumes, 2000 - 2009 (print and electronic version available).

Following our normal procedure this entry will be debated for retention or deletion with the debate closing on May 23rd. Please add you comments below. --Bduke 22:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Seems important and comprehensive. --Bduke 22:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Monumental. A compendium which has been a byword for many years. Tex 02:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Closed. Keep, obviously, but again the interest in this is disappointing. --Bduke 00:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Physical Chemistry" section does not contain most successful title on subject

I believe it should contain best selling book on physical chemistry:

Physical Chemistry: A Molecular Approach (Hardcover) by Donald A. McQuarrie, John D. Simon

Can you substantiate that it is the best selling book on Physical Chemistry? If so, for how long? Has it had an importance other than high sales? If so, add it to the article, but note our guidelines, and watch your talk page for the IP you are editing from as I may have to ask you for more details. I suggest you create an account. Every new addition is put up for debate as to whether we keep it or delete. My own view is that it is an excellent text but it has not had the same influence over a longish period as the two texts that are included. --Bduke 14:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New entry - June 10. 2006

According to our guideline the book below, which has just been added, is up for debate on whether it should be retained or deleted. Please give you opinion. The debate will close on July 20th.

Thermochemische Untersuchungen by Hans Peter Jörgen Julius Thomsen in German.

  • Comment. My concern is that this book is in German and this is the English Wikipedia. Should it not be on the equivalent article on the German Wikipedia and not here? Or, in the more than 1000 years since it was written, has it been translated> I'm not going to comment further at this stage. --Bduke 23:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I came across this in Smith's book The Science of Energy. Thomsen looks to have been applying the idea of conservation of energy since 1854 (year after principal work of James Prescott Joule) and is cited in that book as founder of Thermochemistry. Now you know as much as I. Cutler 23:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, it is clearly important but does it have a place here on the English Wikipedia? A difficulty is that not too many people comment on these entries. I'll see how the debate goes and then maybe try to drum up interest in commenting. --Bduke 23:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment I don't think the language should be a barrier for a nineteenth century publication (or particularly for English Wikipedia). I am a little concerned that I have never heard of it, but I would be willing to accept an assertation of notability. Physchim62 (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Closure. I have allowed this debate to extend a while as I have with the one below, but debate has not been extensive enough. I agree that the language is not a problem. However I do not think the required importance and significance has been demonstrated. I am deleting this entry but putting it with earlier deletions here in case we want to get it back again. --Bduke 05:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New entry - June 11. 2006

According to our guideline the book below, which has just been added, is up for debate on whether it should be retained or deleted. Please give you opinion. The debate will close on July 21th.

Principles of Polymer Chemistry (George Fisher Baker Non-Resident Lec), Paul J. Flory

  • Keep, but contitional on the addition of sections explaining the importance and description of the book. --Bduke 23:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This was added by an anon user. I have added a comment to the talk page of that IP, but there may be no response. This entry seems a good one. Could someone, more expert in polymer chemistry than I, add the description and importance sections if they are not added by the anon user in the next few days? --Bduke 00:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Closure. This entry was added by an anon editor and neither s/he or anyone else has added sections on importance and description. It should therefore have been deleted 6 days ago and I am deleting it now. Nevertheless it does appear to be notable, so I am saving the entry here in case some one wants to return to it. --Bduke 05:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New entry - August 24. 2006

I'm putting this here first, because it is a textbook, and I don't want to put it in the main article for it just to be taken out again. I am really not sure how widespread its use is, so please comment as to its inclusion. Latest edition is 8th edition.

Fundamentals of Analytical Chemistry

  • Douglas A. Skoog, Donald M. West and F. James Holler
  • Harcourt College Publishers, 7th edition, ISBN 0030059380

Description: A general textbook for an undergraduate course in analytical chemistry, with lots of worked examples and questions.

Importance: Has evolved with teaching style since the first edition in 1963, through to the current 8th edition. Therefore nominated due to Introduction and Influence, (if it is as widely used as I think). Terri G 11:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

  • As an introductory text, this book has clearly had some influence. Why not just put it into the article, and I will then follow the guidelines and put it up for debate as usual. It will not be "just taken out". The guidelines say we put it up for debate for 10 days. Currently I am doing that process. However, I am really on wikibreak as I fly across the word to London from Melbourne on Monday. Nevertheless I will follow the process even if it gets delayed by a day or two at times. --Bduke 11:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This book has now been added to the main page, so I am putting it up for debate - do we keep it or delete it? The debate will be closed on September 17 although I may have to leave it open for a few days as I am at a conference then. Please add your comments below. --Bduke 10:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. This is a popular book for teaching analytical chemistry, and has clearly had an influnece, but does it stand out? --Bduke 10:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. In view of the absence of comment, I am inclined to delete this entry, but I will leave it open until October 9 after I return home. We also need to discuss a name change in view of the name change for the Biology page after AfD debate. Come on, if nobody is prepared to comment is there any point in having this page? --Bduke 14:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment--A good textbooks is not enough. There are great many good textbooks, I think the criteria for "Introduction – A publication that is a good introduction or survey of a topic" needs to be interpreted as "the best current textbook" or a list like this will have little meaning. OK to delete it when you come back.DGG 16:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. If you look at the specific guidelines for this chemistry page at the top of this talk page you will see that the "introduction" one was modified earlier in the year to "A publication that is a good introduction or survey of a topic and that has also made a significant impact on the discipline such as in the way it is taught, or perhaps in other ways.". I think this is close to what you are asking for, but more NPOV. How do you interpret "best". "Impact" can be sourced to some extent. --Bduke 16:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I accept the correction--I did read too quickly.
But i was thinking of measuring "best" defined as most widely used. Your term "Impact", might mean about the same, the current single book, if any, book used by > 50% of the chem depts. as the text for the course. But that would have to be searched for properly--it should not mean "used by >50% of the people working on this page." I see you used '"best selling" in an earlier comment--that's another measure, but it might tend to emphasize the lower level books for non-majors.

There are very few books on the list where the eventual criterion is other than near-unanimous consent by those working here. (which does not mean I disagree).DGG 23:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

This debate is closed with the entry deleted. There is clearly no strong evidence for notability for this book that is stronger than that for many other books on analytical chemistry. --Bduke 00:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Related AFD

  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of publications in science is also on the hit list, and has only 2 days to go, I figure that if there is some debate about publications in biology, we should get them to at least hold on or vote to keep this up, as it directs to this page. I know this page seems to be safer than the biology page since we tightened up the quidelines, but perhaps we could tighten them further by requiring one of author, book title or theory to be linked to in Wikipedia? Terri G 14:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Having asked at the helpdesk I have removed the AfD tag as per their advice, thanks for everyone's quick replies though, I can't see how they could argue with that, at least until the decisions on the daughter pages are made. Terri G 09:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] looking at it again

I was a chemistry librarian for years and years, and the nature of the difficulties specified above about this list are the same as the ones in a chemistry library. As the criteria for the page specifies, there are a wide range of types of material, and the subject division (in either case) does not do them justice. This list is a combination of a list of historically important publications, (now useless as chemistry, but important for a chemst to know about), which would normally be listed under the history of chemisty or the history of special fields, classic textbooks that all chemists remember (if old enough, and thus the textbooks that one wants to include depends on one's age), current reviews that give the best general definition of the status of a field (and in chemistry these are likely to be review articles, not books, and change rapidly), and the latest work--which is more appropriate for Chem Abstracts than here. I know of no one, except a few chemistry librarians, who consider themselves compentent in all the fields of chemistry; unless one is studying the history of chemistry specifically, one is studying one of the major fields, and those articles are relevant. If one is looking for specific information, then articles on types of compounds etc are relevant. This is a useful list nonetheless--it should be very useful for division among the different subjects to make sure all the key books are included. I call attention to Resources for College Libraries, the successor to Books for College Libraries. It already has an article, Resources for College Libraries (RCL) Now it's being released, I'd gladly update it except that I was science editor for the new RCL, and Chemistry editor for the former BCL and one isn't suppposed to write about one's own project --though many Wikipedians do. DGG 01:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

If you keep a NPOV there is no problem in you editing that article. Go for it. Someone from the Royal Society of Chemistry is doing a spendid job right now on the articles on their journals. --Bduke 08:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title of this article

The AfD discussion on the "List of publications in Biology" lead to it being kept but moved to List of important publications in biology. Should we change the title of this chemistry article? --Bduke 00:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] yes

this is reasonably obvious, so I moved it. DGG 06:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It might well be reasonably obvious, but I think opportunity should have been given to debate it. --Bduke 07:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_important_publications_in_chemistry_dc20.html"