Talk:Chemistry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Chemistry is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
March 16, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted

	Chemistry Portal 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.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

WikiProject Echo has identified Chemistry as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Cantonese or Tagalog language Wikipedias.

	This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
	This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Additional information: B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. Feel free to make short comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. This article is a vital article. This article is one of the core set of articles every encyclopedia should have.

Archives

2004 – Aug 2006 Aug 2006 – May 2007, ~50kb

[edit] Created "Central science"

I have create a page called "central science". I think that some of the recent discussions on this page would be appropriate for this new page. The relationship between chemistry and physics as well as the relationship between chemistry and biology are both included by this term. M stone 23:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Some nice material but I think it should be merged into Chemistry as a section. The title is very POV - OK, our POV as chemists, but still POV. We call our subject the central science. I do not see others doing so. --Bduke 00:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agre with Bduke that this is better as a section of the chemistry article (although we can work on the central science article until some admin decides to deprotect the chemistry article). I must also say that the first two references you used, although they are very interesting and are potentially useful for this discussion, in no way support the sentence to which they are attached ("Chemistry is often called the central science because..."). The use the words "central science" once or twice, but they never explain why; they assume that the reader already knows that chemistry is called this way. If I may say so, I think the two references I added to the Chemistry article are much more relevant to this statement (if you want to check them out and don't have the books, you can view parts of one in google books and the other with amazon.com "look inside" feature [user account probably required...]). Of the two references you give, the first one would be more useful for a discussion of the role of chemistry in American society during the 20th century and possible role in the future, and the second is more relevant to the question of chemistry as a service science that we've been discussing above (called "back-office technical activity" in the title). --Itub 08:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to pipe in and express my support for the level-headed responsible editors such as Itub, Bduke et al. Regarding my take on this I would suggest that the fact that some physicists seem to think of chemistry as a subset of physics and that some chemists are afraid that they are becoming biologists or material scientists combined with the fact that these same extreme physicists don't claim biology to be a subset of physics since it is too much of a stretch is precisely the reasons why chemistry is commonly called the central science. I would note to the anon's that central does not mean superior just as they claim (with a little less validity) that being a subset is not inferior. Clearly both chemistry and physics are subsets of science. From a philosophical point of view, yes ideally if science could produce a single equation that could predict everything at every moment for all of eternity we would only need that equation but rather than having one science we would actually have none. It would be the end of science because science is a process of discovery. The tools and subdivisions of science will evolve and the more contributions that physics can make to chemistry the better but at this point it is really fairly limited in any predictive power and prediction and hypothesis testing are the core of all science.--Nick Y. 21:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This whole discussion is sort of moot isn't it? The goal of this portal is to provide the reader with a basic understanding of what chemistry is and what the people do whom busy themselves with it. Chemistry is everywhere, of course it is, but so is physics (and biochemistry etc.). So what's the point. There is no such thing as "in the middle", between biology and physics. If anything, all these disciplines are approaching each other rahter quickly. I know this, I'm a bio physical chemist myself Sikkema 21:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That article is basically pointless. The term is nothing more than a spin-off of Brown, LeMay, and Bursten’s popular textbook Chemistry – the Central Science, 1977 = 1st Ed, 2005 = 10th Ed.. Moreover, according to Feynman, “the theory behind chemistry is quantum electrodynamics”. Hence, one would be better to argue that QED is the central science. Moreover, once all the fundamental forces get unified, if ever, the new GUT will be the central science. I’m putting merge tags on these articles. --Sadi Carnot 06:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the meaning of "central" in this context. It doesn't mean "most fundamental", but something like "in the middle" (the most common example is "between physics and biology"). I suspect that the phrase predates Brown's book by decades, but I haven't found solid proof yet. :) --Itub 08:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Itub. The term is widely used in Australia where Brown et al's textbook is not particularly well known. It means that a whole lot of students have to learn chemistry to pursue their own discipline. It is is in the middle with relevance to many other disciplines. --Bduke 13:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bduke, at Eastern Kentucky University even the firefighters have to take chemistry(the school has a top ranked law enforcement/forensic science/firefighting departments)as do the engineers, medical students, etc. --PedroDaGr8 01:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Sadi Carnot that the term The central science is "basically pointless." References are provided to demonstrate that this term is a commonly used. A view that is supported by this discussion. Also it a term used to describe chemistry, which is not the same as being chemistry. Thus I do not believe The central science should not be merged and have removed merge tags. M stone 05:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I've readded the tags, as there is certainly no consensus that the article should not be merged. There are at least three people here who think the article should be merged. In case it's not clear, I'm one of them. I disagree with Sadi Carnot's view of the term, but I don't think it warrants a separate article. It's just a way of calling chemistry, a nickname if you will, and it can be addressed well enough in a section of the chemistry article. Would you create articles called "the science of life", "the science of the mind", "the only science", etc. just because other sciences are called those ways? --Itub 07:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• What's the harm in having the page? Wikipedia is not running out of space! Obviously it the term has been discuss in writing. If a term is commonly used and discussed in writing then why shouldn't it have its own page? Chemistry is too big to discuss all aspecs in detail. Having its own page does not exclude its discussion here. Plus this term is also relevant to the philosophy of chemistry. M stone 12:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

(unindenting) Not doing any harm is not a reason for keeping an article. The main problem is that the article as it exists doesn't really add anything that is not already in the Chemistry article, and is therefore redundant. If it were so much more detailed that it couldn't fit as a section of the chemistry article, and if it had proper references (see the comment I made above on May 7), I might be more inclined to keep it as a separate article. --Itub 12:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You raise a valid point that at this point The central science page is not adding much additional information. However, I think that you should you also consider that the article is 2 weeks old! Also I would add refs but I do not have access to those texts. It would be good if you could. I propose removing the merge tags and reevaluating the article in 6 months. If it has not grow into something more distinct then lets merge. M stone 20:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That's OK with me, I'm not in a hurry. :) But let's wait a few days to see if there are any other opinions. --Itub 08:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The central science

I have been away from this page for a few days, I may have been hard with my comments, but my point still stands. I don’t think that "The central science" should be an article. It reflects poorly on other articles, in that a reader doesn't really gain anything by it, and weakens our combined work here at Wikipedia as such. In other words, its like writing up an article on the most used adjective of any given article. If we use green chemistry as an example, according to Mstone’s logic, we could then find a reference for the The green science and then write up a stub for why chemistry is The green science. Then we could do this for the other branches of chemistry, e.g. The bio science to discuss biochemistry, etc. Then we could start up a Category:Most common adjectives used to describe the science of chemistry, or something similar. I hope this clarifies my point. Again, what is the point of this article. Is a student actually going to reference this article for a term paper? Note also that Mstone cares so much for this article that he doesn't even take the time to spell check a basic redlink: themodynamics? --Sadi Carnot 15:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Not only is it slightly arrogant, it is simply not true. The term central science should be abolished asap; it is not at all descriptive of mainstream thinking. See my remarks above. Sikkema 21:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not the place to fight for abolishing terms that are in common usage in the real world. Whether you think it is True is irrelevant; what matters is that we can verify that the term is used. See Wikipedia's verifiablity policy for details. --Itub 06:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the case with "the central science" is special. The term is very widely used, and this issue of "centrality" has been a matter of serious discussion among chemists and philosophers, as some of the references provided have shown. If Balaban and Klein (ref. below) decided to write a scientific article about it, it does not seem to me at all implausible that a student might want to write a term paper about it too. The topic is notable enough, and it is possible to write an article about it, although it requires quite a bit of research. My only objection was the length redundancy of the actual incarnation of the article, but I'm willing to give it time. --Itub 15:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting article about chemistry as the central science

I just found a very interesting article on this topic (but it requires subscription). Alexandru T. Balaban and Douglas J. Klein. Is chemistry 'The Central Science'? How are different sciences related? Co-citations, reductionism, emergence, and posets. Scientometrics 2006, 69, 615-637. doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0173-2 --Itub 14:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, very interesting indeed, you should subscribe wikipedia and write some remarks on itMissingdata1 (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fathers of chemistry

Note that the intro currently reads:

Geber (d. 815),^[1][2][3] Robert Boyle (1661), Antoine Lavoisier (1787) and John Dalton (1808) can be considered the fathers of modern chemistry.^[4]

Beyond this, I have seen others referred to also as the “father of chemistry”. Possibly we could do an article on this to clarify who the actual father is? Anybody have ideas or like this proposal? Personally, I would likely argue that Lavoisier is the father, and that other’s are subsidiary, but near-to-equal in importance. --Sadi Carnot 15:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I know of a lot more men (!) that merit inclusion: Mendeleyev, van 't Hoff, Fisher, Galvani, Berzelius, Avogadro, Lomonosov and Priestley.... It is therefore very dangerous to call someone "father". I would be in favor of deleting the whole sentence. As is the case with a lot of things, it gives the impression that, out of the blue, chemistry was born. This is of course absurd. Geber is a name I've never come across. Sikkema 21:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Who the father is is a mater of opinion, of course. However, I think it is true that Lavoisier is the one most commonly named as the father of modern chemistry, although Boyle and Dalton are also often named. However, it makes absolutely no sense to list Geber as a father of modern chemistry, so I have reverted the introduction to an earlier version where he is listed as the father of chemistry (not modern chemistry). I like the idea of an article about the father(s) of chemistry. --Itub 15:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as the intro to the chemistry article that could go, but in a stand alone piece, if we use published views of what chemistry historians think about the matter, Geber would merit inclusion. Also, there is some Arabic chemist (in Wikipedia somewhere) that I’ve read referred to as the “father of chemistry”. Also, to give a loose idea, Google search results for father of chemistry lists Boyle, Geber, Dalton, and Lavoisier, in that order. There’s also this talk-page/question-answer link: Who is known as the "Father of Chemistry"?, where a user says “it seems there are many fathers of chemistry. Things like this might justify the need for a short article on this topic. Just some loose ideas. --Sadi Carnot 15:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Geber merits inclusion, but he is not the father of modern chemistry any more than Archimedes is the father of modern mathematics, Aristotle the father of modern physics, or Hippocrates the father of modern medicine. :) --Itub 15:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

24.36.181.171 07:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)I think that putting Geber as the father of chemistry is a been misleading, since one cannot find any credible sources making this claim. Most ency. and books on science consider geber to be an alchamist.24.36.181.171 07:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chemical energetics external link

The link to the article through the External links is non functional, most likely bacause of the / after the url. I tried to repair it but cannot because it is protected. Can someone who has the rights do it?202.141.141.7 13:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Atom's Image

As you should know, electrons do not orbit around the nuclei, that's and old atomic model, electrons move in a miscellaneous way... We should find another atom's image or find another chemistry's symbol. A laboratory full of flasks, an erlenmeyer with a green liquid inside (yeah, that's something very cartoonish, but it's really a symbol), a molecule, etc --24.232.126.30 18:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I second the preceding comment. The first thing I thought when I got to the Chemistry page was "wow that image is just an atom, that would better fit the Atom article." Does anybody have an idea for an image or diagram that would better symbolize Chemistry?76.24.39.47 06:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chemical energetics & chemical energy

OK, Hallenrm has added a whole lot here, Sadi Carnot has moved it to chemical thermodynamics and Hallenrm has reverted, all with neither of you discussing these major changes on this talk page. Let us not have a revert war. Please leave it as it is and discuss the reasons for the changes you both want. My own thoughts start with the fact that these two sections are now quite a bit longer than any other section on a part of chemistry. Only more general sections are larger. They should be shorter. I am therefore inclined towards Sadi's solution of moving a great deal to chemical thermodynamics, but I would leave rather more than he did in the two existing sections. Can we have some general input here on this? --Bduke 05:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This article should be written summary-style, with the more specialized content moved to more specific articles. I agree with Sadi Carnot's edit, but it is certainly possible to leave a slightly longer summary. --Itub 08:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree, better summary is needed; I'll I did was cut-n-paste. --Sadi Carnot 21:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I indeed sensed that! That is the reason I have already trimmed the section that can be easily moved to the Chemical thermodynamics page. I also intend to trim the subsection here a bit further.Hallenrm 13:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hallenrm, you have reverted me three times now. The idea at Wikipedia is to work together. In any standard chemistry textbook, the energy sections are listed in the chemical thermodynamics chapter. The chemistry article is pushing 50 kb; the goal is to keep all articles at about 32 kb, the tension-span length of the average internet reader. I was attempting to reorganize the material you added in this direction. Now that you have reverted this, please go back and fix the changes you made, i.e. write a one to two paragraph summary (similar in size to the other chemistry article headers: “chemical bond”, “chemical reaction”, etc. (see: Wikipedia:Summary style), and move the rest of the energy material to other specific articles: spectroscopy, activation energy, bond energy, thermochemistry, chemical thermodynamics, free energy, etc. Thank you for your cooperation. --Sadi Carnot 21:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed heartening to know that you are aware of the 32 kB limit, I hope you also remember that I peorganized the Energy article just to that end, but you and your friends opposed it vehemently. you offered to write it afresh but disappeared from the scene after a straw poll. So far as I can see, your only intention is to interfere in my edits so that you do not face any competetion from me. Any way, as you can very well see from the above comments from Bduke your actions were hardly appropriate, I have already started pruning the energy section, and please at least remember how to count, I have not reverted you three times on this article, only once! Hallenrm 03:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quantum Chemistry

The section on quantum chemistry was very conspicous by its presence in the article, since other sub-disciplines of Chemistry cannot be accorded similar treatment (because then the article would become unduly long) I have merged it with rhe main article on quantum chemistry. If any editor has any objection to this edit, s/he is welcome to undo it.Vig vimarsh 03:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. The lead in Quantum chemistry may need a bit of effort, but I'm too busy to look at it now. I see there has been a small tweak since you added it. --Bduke 03:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I endorse your actions. I was thinking about bringing this up myself it was so glaring of an issue.--Nick Y. 18:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fathers(?) of Chemistry

Some editors have been lately insisting on using the term "three fathers of Chemistry". The term appears inappropriate to me, first of all the term father has its genesis in life sciences, where by definition there cannot be three fathers. Secondly, it sounds very male chauvennestic, because after all it is the mother who bears the pains of giving birth, not the father. The three esteemed scientist suffered those pains, so they should be called three 'mothers'. I donot know why the author of the book reffered to chose to call them the three fathers, but whatever be his reasons, fatherhood or motherhood of chemistry is not a fact in science and hence the usage of the term in the article can hardly be justified by just citing a reference.Vig vimarsh 07:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I entirely agree. It should be removed. I removed it earlier and thought I had a consensus wording, but it keeps getting put back. Would those who want to include, please tell us why. --Bduke 08:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

While I don't object with calling them "founders" instead, I disagree strongly Vig's argument. It just sounds like politically correct balderdash. The phrase "father of [a science]" has been in very wide use for centuries, and saying that they should be called "mothers" doesn't make any sense. I'm sure if they were women people might call them mothers, but the fact is that science was almost exclusively dominated by men at the time modern chemistry was "born". --Itub 10:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

While it may be debatable, whrther my arguments above "just sounds like politically correct balderdash" the fact remains that the term three fathers can hardly be justified on scientific grounds, and should have no place in an serious article about a science. I therefore agree with Bduke that it should be removed now, and in future too.Vig vimarsh 13:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

"Three fathers" is a metaphor; it does not have to be literally true. The term is justified based on usage and citations from the literature, not a pseudo-biological argument. --Itub

While I reject Vig's argument that they should be called mothers as original research and support Itub in saying that it is metaphorical and properly cited, I would be inclined from a editorial perspective to use the term "founders". Although "fathers" has some historical precedent I do not see it being overwhelming and I see no reason to reject a generic term on the basis of precedent that someone else used a more metaphorical term. "Mothers" can not be justified without some precedent, fathers is reasonable based on precedent but I place my editorial opinion in the "founders" column.--Nick Y. 16:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It was never my intention to argue that they should be called mothers. I only wanted to highlight that "three fathers" is an inappropriate term, which no serious editor would like.Vig vimarsh 18:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let's settle for "founders". But if you think it's too much for chemistry to have three fathers, you'll be surprised to hear how many the United States have! (See Founding Fathers of the United States) --Itub 19:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it more then fair to list Lavoisier as the Father of modern chemistry. I mean any article or book that is written about Lavoisier states that he is the father of modern chemistry. The same is not true for Boyle and Dalton but it is still mentioned. I think is is also worth mentioning that Geber is often refered to as an alchemist instead of a chemist. Therefore the label of father of chemistry that is given to him needs to be reviewd. I have not read a single book that calls him the father of chemistry. Only online websites about islam list him as the father of chemistry, and i doubt these websites are credible sources.24.36.181.171 07:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the comment just above from higher up as this is where the latest discussion is taking place. I also cleaned up headers where you accidentally introduced errors. There is also no need to sign at hte beginning of your comment as well as the end, so I have removed the one at the beginning. My comment is that the discussion is not whether Lavoisier was the father or founder of modern chemistry. His role was massive. The question is what term to use. The consensus above is to use "founder" not "father". You do not seem to making a case to replace "founder" with "father". You may be right about Geber, but my last edit only says that "some would also include" him with the others. I think that satisfies out "neutral point of view" policy. Bduke.

Again, although the point of Lavoisier being referred to many times as the "father of chemistry" is a valid one and should definitely make it into the Lavoisier article, we need not avoid generic terms. In this case, as is pointed out, we are also referring to others that don't have this metaphorical title as strongly attached. In referring to all three I think the generic is most appropriate. Yes, "three fathers" is not unprecedented but not strongly and we have reached consensus to use the generic term, which would be reasonable even if the precedent was strong since it is generic.--Nick Y. 17:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chemistry

Chemistry cannot be reduced to the interactions beetween electric charge among atoms. The solution to the Schrodinger Equation for a given protein for example still an elusive achievement. Furthermore, there is no known way yet to predict (from purely theoretical principles only) the reaction rates for a given particular chemical transformation beetween two species, no matter if we can predict the products that form. The past intent to consider chemical interactions as simple charge interaction among atoms or sub-atomic particles with classical physics methods failed (e.g. the atomic models of Bohr and Rutherford). Quantum Mechanics becomes prohibitively complex as more electrons are involved in atomic interactions, and this doesn't include further complexity as with bonding. Because of basic instrumentation needs and the Uncertainty principle, electrical charge interactions are primarily determined in chemical phenomena only after the basic materials of the assembled instrumentation are properly applied. This cannot be deduce merely from charges since those charges are determined based on element and compound information and the periodic table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.213.122.69 (talk)

I'm not sure how to find the author of the preceding comment, but it would be more helpful if you suggested possible revisions or improvements. wingman358 21:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a false argument. That one cannot solve a protein from first principles within a reasonable computational time is not a valid argument against electronic interactions being the 'stuff' of chemistry. Given infinite computational time, a solution (or set of solutions) could be found, and the rest as they say is a question of funding/engineering. While the properties of individual atoms can not and should not be dismissed from consideration of 'chemical transformations', atoms are ultimately the scaffolding upon which 'chemistry' occurs through the 'motion' of electrons. In some cases, such as with Hg+ and its relativistic effects, the scaffolding introduces some (severe) quirks to the behavior of the electrons, but in most cases the scaffolding can be given much less attention. Sorry that was longer than I intended. Also, the Born-Oppenheimer approx is valid so lets move on with our lives and leave nitty gritty atomic stuff to physic people and their toys.Dbuschho (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Antoine Lavoisier

I am getting a feeling that the user 24.36.181.171 is rather obsessed with Lavoisier, all his/her edits are centered around the contributions of Lavoisier and nothing else. If s/he continued like this very soon the articles will be swamped by info on lavoisier. Definetly the Chemistry article is not the place where all the achievements and contributions need be. I therefore am deleting his recent additions, please discuss Vig vimarsh 08:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

In looking at the recent history it does not seem that 24.36.181.171 is obsessed with Lavoisier as much as you make it sound. S/he has made several edits unrelated to Lavoisier that are genuine improvements. The Lavoisier contributions are generally pretty far up there in terms of importance and are reasonable although perhaps as an editorial choice may not be consensus or fit within the space limitations. I would encourage 24.36.181.171 to engage in a discussion here and perhaps register. Vig - I don't think your questions and actions are misplaced but I think that there is no real problem brewing. S/he just needs to engage and is likely very reasonable and un-obsessed.--Nick Y. 20:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that Antoine is directly called the "father of modern chemistry", while on the page that those words are linked to, there are actually four people listed under that category? Seems a little "obsessed" to me. This whole page seems very Lavoisiercentric. Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 13:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First Paragraph

Ok, I attempted to rewrite the first paragraph, as it really didn't sound good and was factually unsound, but I'm having trouble. I put in a definition based on a dictionary definition, but the second part sounds weird. I think that the opening is too focused on "the founders of chemistry", when it should be just more of an overview of what it is. Something about it just doesn't strike me right. I was thinking maybe we could take a leaf out of the physics page. Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 01:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Although I think your efforts are in the right direction, it seems to me that the open paragraph was much better a few months ago. If I remember correctly we reached a very nice consensus on the talk pages etc. SInce that time it drifted into being quite bad and you have righted the ship only partially. Here is my 24 July 2006 opening paragraph (short and sweet):

"Chemistry (derived from alchemy) is the science of matter at the atomic scale. Such matter includes atoms and collections of atoms (such as molecules, crystals, and metals) that constitute materials encountered in everyday life. Chemistry deals with the composition and statistical properties of such structures, as well as their transformations and interactions. According to modern chemistry, the physical properties of materials are generally determined by their structure at the atomic scale. Chemistry is, along with physics, one of the most fundamental natural sciences."

I see some areas of improvement in the current version especially in the first paragraph. I would advocate for cutting everything after the first paragraph as irrelevant to the opening of this article (maybe history of chemistry it would be a keeper) which should define the subject and as inconsistent and subjective (Physical chemistry is not delineated by type of material and analytical chemistry and nuclear chemistry are clearly required to complete the spectrum of super-subdisciplines but ...) but my point is such poiints should be dealt with below. Perhaps a note about that it is divided into subdiciplines with a link to below and that it has a long history and is related to alchemy with a link to the history section is apropos. If I have time I'll be bold and make the changes without objection.--Nick Y. 19:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, something about your definition strikes me as...off. I don't know. It seems to me that it's too specific. I guess it's my interpretation of the words "atomic scale". Because when I hear that, I think "size of an atom", and much of chemistry deals with things significantly larger. While every substance or chemical reaction does boil down to electron interactions and such, something tells me that chemists study the larger picture too. Webster's dictionary defines it as "a science that deals with the composition, structure, and properties of substances and of the transformations that they undergo ", which I think is the best definition I've seen. As for the whole alchemy/history thing, I don't really think it belongs in the opening. Maybe just one sentence in passing, but it doesn't deserve a list of notable people in the opening paragraph. We can stick all that in the History section. And I should also note that Modern Chemistry did not evolve directly from Alchemy, it was a blending of the Middle Ages' form of Alchemy and the Greek's "Natural Philosophy". Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 13:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the current first paragraph is very nice. Although I might have some minor suggestions and input etc. for the first paragraph my main point was to hack off everything after it, which is flawed and out of place.--Nick Y. 17:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

I'm not fond of the picture used to illustrate the article. First, it's just an atom, it'd be better on the atom page. Second, electrons don't "orbit" as they do in the picture. I think it's kinda misleading. I know exactly what picture I'd like for this page, but I can't seem to find it. Something along the lines of http://www.flickr.com/photos/skycaptaintwo/664439091/] or the like, some sort of close-up on a couple of flasks or something along the same lines. Thanks! Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 01:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but while I tried to view the picture, you have provided the link for, I was unsuccessful, rather I was led to the Google homepage. I would suggest that you post a more appropriate and interesting image that can survive. Thanks! Hallenrm 07:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That's weird, because when I click on it, it takes me to the page I intended, and it's not just my computer's cache. And I wasn't intending to use that picture, I'm not even sure it's under an appropriate licence, it was just the thing that came closest to the picture for which I'm looking. Plus, I think that picture is very interesting, much more interesting than the false depiction of an atom. Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 21:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how a picture of a few pieces of glassware can be more interesting or relevant to chemistry than the atom, which is arguably the most central concept in chemistry. However, the point remains that the current picture is a cartoon, and that it is difficult to have a picture of an atom that is realistic and illustrative at the same time. Someone suggested long ago using a picture of the periodic table. I think that would be much better, because the periodic table is characteristic of chemistry and is actually used by real chemists (unlike a cartoon of the atom). Another option would be a picture of a molecule, which again wouldn't be realistic but at least would be a picture that is used in the real world. Finally, yet another option would be to do the same as the physics article--forget about trying to find something that illustrates the entire science, but just something that looks cool (a levitating superconductor in the case of the physics article; we could use a dramatic reaction such as the thermite). --Itub 11:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I have an idea, How about a drawing of a tree. The trunk would represent the general chemistry, and its branches the various subdisciplines. Perhaps, they can tagged in the drawing.Vig vimarsh 07:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

While I see your point, and that does illustrate chemistry, I don't really think it's suitable for the article. It's the same problem as the atom picture, it doesn't really have anything to do with chemistry, it just illustrates it. In other words, the article isn't about cartoon trees. On the other hand, it is a nice drawing of a tree. Maybe we can find some other use for it? In the meantime, I'm So far, I'm liking the periodic table or the just 'artsy' picture the best. Although, we could use a picture of a molecule, as 3d representations are used by chemists on a regular basis. Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 17:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing personal (really!) but the first on the page, that chemistry tree, looks like something a bored student would draw during a lecture. Surely there are amazing pictures of crystals, flames, flasks, molecules, exploding hydrogen balloons, etc. that would be better to begin the article. Again, nothing personal, just a non-contributor's observation. 24.92.183.83 04:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The helix of DNA, or perhaps a protein, may be the only molecular structure most people recognize as having something to do with science. How about a nice image of a DNA segment, perhaps from molecular mechanics (etc.) software, to open the article? -- Astrochemist 11:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Chemistry studies how the structure of materials at the atomic level (bottom) relates with their observable macroscopic properties (top). The figure shows diamond and graphite, two very different substances; both formed of carbon atoms but with a different structure.

Most chemistry textbooks seem to have pictures of molecules on the cover, sometimes combined with pictures of materials or reactions. DNA is an option, but has the disadvantage that it is often more closely associated with biology. Perhaps we could do something like the allotrope picture of the right (the picture could perhaps be beautified, and the exact example replaced with something more "dynamic" that also depicts the idea of chemical reactions). --Itub 15:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I was browsing today and came across something akin to what I would like, but unfortunately, it's copyrighted, but if we could get something similar to this, I think the article would look great. Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 17:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Chemicals in flasks

There is a picture of that sort in the Commons already (Chemicals in flasks, right). But I'm still not convinced that pictures of colorful flasks or tubes are of any use. I'd much rather have something showing molecular structure or a chemical reaction. --Itub 11:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It may not be ideal, but at least it's better than that tree diagram we had for a while... I've added it for now, and the caption is just the opening sentence of the article, feel free to write a better caption though. Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 03:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definition needs simplification

The first line of the article should be simple and inviting. Not scholarly and insightful. Everyone who disagrees, say Naye! : * —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushal one (talk • contribs) 19:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Aye:

Naye:

The first line of every article should be as accurate and complete a definition as possible. The following sentences should be explanatory down to every level.--Nick Y. 17:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

In the Reference section on this page, item 15 reads:

1.^ Dr. K. Ajram (1992), Miracle of Islamic Science, Appendix B, Knowledge House Publishers, ISBN 0911119434. "Humboldt regards the Muslims as the founders of chemistry."

Is it possible that they mean to attribute this statement with "Holmyard" instead of "Humboldt"?

John Ray moonstroller@comcast.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.254.146 (talk) 07:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undecanol?

Template:Alcohols, is it missing Undecanol? Thanks, Marasama 06:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I imagine that's because there is no article on undecanol, and the authors of the template didn't want it to have red links. --Itub 07:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Article created.--Nick Y. 19:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool, that make sense... Thanks, Marasama 03:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology

The etymology of the word "chemistry" given here differs from the one in [[1]] Roger 21:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that Wiktionary is wrong. --Itub 05:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia is wrong about the ethmology of the word "chemistry". The word chemistry in Latin didn't have anything with ancient egyptians as when this word came to Latin people in Egypt didn't speak ancient Egyption, but they spoke Arabic. In addition, the word Chemistry came to Latin from the word Al-kimiya in Arabic. Moreover, the word Al-kimiya is not originally Arabic as it's adopted from old Persian after 6th century AD when Arabs took scientific terms from Persians. Arabs took the world Kimia in Persian as Kimia means Gold; Also, scinece of studying elements and turing them into gold was Kimia as well. In short, the origin of the word "chemistry" is not Egeption; however, it's Persian. Added by nshoara, 11 April, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.247.38 (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• This discussion really belongs in Chemistry (etymology). V8rik (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Organic Chemistry

Sorry, I noticed a big problem with the explanation of different fields of chemistry... Organic chemistry is not the study of organic matter, but rather the study of compounds containing carbon and hydrogen. Right? [[2]] - Guest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.52.74.82 (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It is the study of organic compounds. Most organic compounds have C and H, but not all. --Itub (talk) 08:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I think a valuable point is being made here. 'Organic chemistry is the study of organic matter' could be taken to refer to soils, for example. Further, my understanding of organic chemistry is that all organic compinds must contain C, but that not all C containing compounds are organic. For example, CCl₄ is organic, but NaCN is not. EdChem (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that organic chemistry is the study of compounds that contain carbon. See, for example, the introduction to this organic chemistry textbook (Basic Principles of Organic Chemistry). We could get more subtle than that, but I don't think that it is appropriate for this article's introduction. Shanata (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There are always some exceptions. The study of calcium carbonate, for example, is not considered to be organic chemistry. Generally we exclude those compounds that fit naturally into inorganic chemistry because of their similarities with other compounds. --Bduke (talk) 11:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess that I still feel that the brief definition given in the introduction of this page ('the study of organic matter') could be improved. Perhaps something similar to what's stated on the organic chemistry page, such as 'the study of compounds consisting primarily of carbon and hydrogen'? Shanata (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Basically, organic chemistry is the study of carbon containing compounds and others related to it (such as: Nitrogen, phosphorus,sulfur, oxygen and halogens.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonfangv8 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why Protected?

Dec. 25, why is this page protected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.120.178 (talk) 06:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] graphical convention

Shouldn't this article, and/or the legend of some of the images in it, point to Skeletal formula, or its redirection page Bond line formula?
--66.68.107.5 (talk) 02:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taxol structural formula

Is there some reason for the use of all the colours in the SF of taxol on this page? At first I thought it was supposed to indicate biosynthesis - as taxol is a derivatised terpene, the colours could have been intended to relate to the isoprene rule - but if so, it appears incorrect. EdChem (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it highlights the origin of the atoms in the Nicolaou Taxol total synthesis. However, I don't think it is a good idea to highlight them in this page! --Itub (talk) 10:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense - there is a b&w image at talk:Nicolaou Taxol total synthesis, maybe we should change it for that. (I'd boldly make the change, but haven't tried changing images yet.) I have made the change as the colour is certainly potentially confusing EdChem (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further reading section

The way the further reading texts are listed appear arbitrary to me. In particular, I note that the Claydon et al book is a fairly advanced organic chemistry text (although it does start at a more elementary level). I would like to suggest perhaps also adding more "general blurb" under "introductory university chemistry textbooks" 68.75.21.131 (talk) 13:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Partly this reflects different countries' systems - in the UK (where students specialize from age 16) books like Clayden and Shriver/Atkins might be used by incoming freshman, but in the US (where students don't specialize until college) they wouldn't use them until their 2nd/3rd years. But there definitely should be more examples of general chemistry. I also notice that someone here (certainly not me!) seems to really like Atkins...! Walkerma (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I can't edit - change needed

Why can't I edit this article? It says 'view source' at the top instead of 'edit this article'.

The change needed: "Chemistry can be called "the central science"" should be changed to "Chemistry has been called "the central science"". Thanks for giving me permission and all, but "has been called" is more accurate. 12.49.208.69 (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No mention of Greeks and Romans?

No mention of the Greeks and Romans in relation to Chemistry? Im surprised. Weren't they the first to distinguish the relation between acids and bases? Don't we still use this today?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A708257

http://misterguch.brinkster.net/acidtutorial.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtd00123 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: It is also significant to point out that many of the early "chemists" in the ancient Muslim and European world, including many of the ones listed here on this article, used theories and practices that are not considered scientific by today's standards. --Jtd00123 (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)