Talk:List of important publications in chemistry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Rules for inclusion

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 Chemistry
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.
List This article has been rated as list-Class on the quality scale.

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

[edit] New entry - 17th October 2007

Maybe we should include the standard Aldrich/Acros/.... guides which an organic chemist used virtually every day. Easier to use than the handbook, these guides contain essential data. (mp, bp, density, mol. wt etc..) Sikkema 11:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[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)

[edit] The criteria for entries

Please take a look at a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science pearls#Header template to all project list pages on rewording the template that generates the header to this list of publications to make the criteria for entries to the list rather tighter and better reflecting the notability criteria of WP. The motivation is to better take into account comments that have been made when some of these lists have been proposed for deletion. --Bduke 00:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categories of important publications

Please note Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls##Categories of important publications. Thanks, APH 10:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] list of academic best-sellers in chem

"Best Sellers in Chemistry, May 2006–present, as compiled by YBP Library Services" (the main library book dealer) http://www.libraryjournal.com/clear/CA6408230.html?nid=2673#news5

  • Periodic Table: Its Story and Its Significance

Scerri, Eric R. Oxford University Press 2007. 0195305736. $35.00

  • ACS Style Guide: Effective Communication of Scientific Information

Ed. by Anne M. Coghill American Chemical Society 2006. 0841239991. $59.50

  • CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics

Ed. by David R. Lide CRC Press 2006. ISBN 0849304873. $139.95

  • Molecular Organic Materials: From Molecules to Crystalline Solids

Fraxedas, Jordi Cambridge University Press 2006. ISBN 0521834465. $125.00

  • Chemical Element: A Historical Perspective

Ede, Andrew Greenwood 2006. ISBN 0313333041. $65.00

  • Colloidal Particles at Liquid Interfaces

Ed by Bernard P. Binks Cambridge University Press 2006. ISBN 0521848466. $145.00

  • Light-Associated Reactions of Synthetic Polymers

Ravve, A. Springer 2006. ISBN 0387318038. $99.00

  • Handbook of Single Molecule Fluorescence Spectroscopy

Gell, Chris Oxford University Press 2006. ISBN 0198529422. $95.00

  • Static Headspace—Gas Chromatography: Theory and Practice

Kolb, Bruno John Wiley 2006. ISBN 0471749443. $99.95

  • Ionic Compounds: Applications of Chemistry to Mineralogy

Yoder, Claude H. John Wiley 2006. 0471740462. $59.95

  • Elements of Molecular and Biomolecular Electrochemistry: an Electrochemical Approach to Electron Transfer Chemistry

Savant, Jean-Michel John Wiley 2006. ISBN 0471445738. $135.00

  • History and Use of Our Earth's Chemical Elements: A Reference Guide

Krebs, Robert E. Greenwood 2006. ISBN 0313334382. $75.00

  • Dendrimers in Medicine and Biotechnology: New Molecular Tools

Boas, U. Royal Society Chemistry 2006. ISBN 0854048529. $129.00

  • New Geometries for New Materials

Lord, Eric A. Cambridge University Press 2006. ISBN 0521861047. $140.00

  • Organofluorine Chemistry

Uneyama, Kenji Blackwell 2006. ISBN 1405125616. $179.99

  • Surface and Nanomolecular Catalysis

Ed. by Ryan Richards Taylor & Francis 2006. ISBN 1574444816. $169.95

  • Intermolecular Interactions: Physical Picture, Computational Methods and Model Potentials

Kaplan, I. G. John Wiley 2006. 0470863323. $165.00

  • Chemical History: Reviews of the Recent Literature

Ed. by Colin A. Russell Royal Society Chemistry 2005. ISBN 0854044647. $150.00

  • Name Reactions: A Collection of Detailed Reaction Mechanisms

Li, Jie Jack Springer 2006. ISBN 3540300309. $89.95

  • Structure and Chemistry of Crystalline Solids

Douglas, Bodie E. Springer 2006. ISBN 0387261478. $129.00 FWIWDGG 04:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Turbulent Mixing and Chemical Reactions ISBN: 0471981710

"The way in which reagents are mixed can greatly influence the yield and range of products formed by fast, multiple chemical reactions. Understanding this phenomenon enables chemists to carry out reactions more selectively, make better use of raw materials and simplify product workup and separation. Turbulent Mixing and Chemical Reactions presents a balanced treatment of the connection between mixing and reaction. It contains theoretical aspects, experimental methods and expected results as well as worked examples to illustrate problem solving. This book will be of interest to all scientists involved in chemical engineering, physical chemistry, and synthetic chemists in the fine chemical and pharmaceuticals industry."

I have removed the above entry from the page for now for several reasons:-

  1. It is not formatted correctly.
  2. The author is not given.
  3. The text reads like a publishers blurb and so may be a copyright violation.
  4. The "importance" section is missing, so it is not clear what criteria this entry is being proposed under.
  5. I am not sure it should go under "Foundations" although it is broad.

Please address these concerns before adding it back. Please discuss them here first. --Bduke 21:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

To the anon editor who keeps adding this - please register as a user. I have tried to contact you on your IP address talk page, but your IP address changes each time you logon. Please sort out what you want to do here and do not add it to the article. One issue is where it goes as well as the others I mention above. --Bduke 21:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New entry - February 20

[edit] Aquatic Chemistry, Chemical Equilibria and Rates in Natural Waters

  • Stumm, Werner and James J. Morgan.
  • John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 3rd Edition, 1996, ISBN 0-471-51185-4.

This entry is now for debate here whether it should be kept or deleted. The debate will close on March 2, 2007.

  • Keep. Seems a worthy first entry for Environmental chemistry. --Bduke 06:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems to have good reasoning on the importance criteria. Terri G 12:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Closed debate to keep article. Once again, there has been little interest in the debate, which is unfortunate. See discussion below which suggests we work on getting sources for entries rather than adding new entries. I agree with this. I will try to get some sources for all entries and I hope others will join me. That of course includes this entry. We need sources that point to the importance of the entry. Once we get sources for over 50% entries or so, I propose moving all other entries to here until sources are found, so the list is rock solid sourced. --Bduke 02:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The source for the Stockholm Water Prize is http://www.siwi.org/ (under "Stockholm Water Prize" and then "Laureates"). That should be an easy one to cite. ...seems like you've got a specific format you're following, but this will get ya started. good luck. Mfindley 18:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)MF

Many thanks. Done. The latest entry is the first to be correctly referenced! Can you help with any others? --Bduke 22:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Close, really close, but if I'm reading the link correctly the prize actually went to the individuals and not the publication. I didn't see a mention of the book at all, in fact. It would be like saying a book about acting written by a Oscar winning actor is a significant publication in the field of acting. CovenantD 23:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
The very last paragraph:
"They also established aquatic chemistry as a core discipline for limnologists, oceanographers, ecologists, soil scientists, and environmental engineers. They also co-authored the seminal book Aquatic Chemistry, which is used in education all over the world. Together, Professors Stumm and Morgan have had an enormous educational impact as research supervisors, teachers and intellectual mentors. Through their work, and their "academic children and grandchildren," they have laid a scientific and educational foundation that will reach far into the next millennium."
mentions the book and their enormous educational impact. I do not think it is big step to see that the book is part of that impact. It also describes it as seminal. We will be looking for others, but I really do think this reference supports the notability of this book. --Bduke 23:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I did miss that sentence (and I read it twice). I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing it out. CovenantD 23:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

This article appears to be made up entirely of Original Research. I can't find one reference to a noted authority actually stating these are important in the field. This talk page only reinforces the idea that this list is made of publications that Wikipedia editors think are important. Please find some sources that back up the claims. CovenantD 13:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You are partly correct, but it is better than the other similar lists. A consensus means it is likely to be notable. The first entry has its own article and that demonstrates notability otherwise the article would not be there. The articles on some of the authors also assert the books are notable, but that does need clarifying I agree. We need to write articles on the individual entries. Lists do not need citations if the entries have WP entries which assure notability and contain references. We will get there, but it will take time. I will try to write some articles on the entries and look for references that support the arguments used under the "importance" headings. A list of key publications in a field is extremely usefull to readers and hence encyclopedic. --Bduke 22:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not denying the usefullness or even the accuracy of it, merely the lack of supporting documentation. While having an article for each entry is good, that still doesn't negate the need for some supporting citations here. I might be willing go with a blurb in the intro that says to look at the individual articles, but that would mean that the entries without separate articles would need to be removed until those are created AND each separate article needs to be sourced also. Sadly, that is not the case even with The Sceptical Chymist which uses a lot of language like "masterpiece of scientific literature" without anything to support that. I'd suggest that you stop adding to this list, and creating new articles, and focus on bring the existing entries up to standards. That would give you a strong foundation on which to finish building the rest of the series. CovenantD 23:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New entry - 23 May 2007

[edit] An introduction to Medicinal Chemistry

Description: This publication provides a clear and comprehensive introduction to Medicinal Chemistry, principles in medicinal chemistry are discussed. Important aspects such as pharmacological effect, site/mechanism of action and mode of action etc, are also covered.

Importance: Overview of Medicinal Chemistry, drug design, site/mechanism of action.

This entry is now for debate here whether it should be kept or deleted. The debate will close on June 4, 2007.

  • Comment. In starting this debate I have a question. The "Importance" statement really does not state why this book is notable enough to be in the list of important publications. In what sense is this book more important than the average book on medicinal chemistry? I think I need an answer to that before deciding what I think about this entry. --Bduke 00:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I took a look at some reviews online, and indeed this does seem to be a good book, but not necessarily a "classic" like Jerry March. The close of the RSC review (second edition) seems typical: "This book can be warmly recommended to students as an affordable introduction to medicinal chemistry." Is that really enough? I'll ask around. Walkerma 02:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I am going to leave this discussion open for a while, as my question has not been answered by the editor who added the entry. If nothing happens in the next week, I'm going to delete the entry as I have seen no evidence that it is important. --Bduke 09:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Nobody has added anything further so I have removed the entry. It is kept at User talk:Bduke/chemistry pub deletions. --Bduke 00:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New entry June 11

[edit] On the Equilibrium of Heterogeneous Substances

  • Gibbs, Willard
  • Trans. Conn. Acad., Vol. III, pp. 108-248, 1876; pp. 343-524, 1878.

Description: paper applied the thermodynamic theory of steam engines to atomic level chemical reactions; i.e., it established equilibrium criteria necessary to predict the thermodynamic tendency of chemical reactions at constant temperature and pressure.

Importance: topic creator; historian Bill Bryson states, in his A Short History of Nearly Everything, that Gibbs’ Equilibrium paper is "the Principia of thermodynamics". In addition, this paper, in many ways, functions as the mathematical foundation of physical chemistry.

This entry is now for debate here whether it should be kept or deleted. The debate will close on June 22nd. 2007. --Bduke 01:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

  • It must be too early or too cold here. My brain is not functioning. We already have this entry under "Chemical thermodynamics". It can not be under both headings. It should only appear once. The debate should be about which entry is deleted. --Bduke 01:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

*Keep. This is a very valuable entry and should be kept with the reference added in the proper formal manner. --Bduke 01:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I propose we remove the Physical Chemistry one. This entry is Chemical Thermodynamics and does not underpin the whole of modern Physical Chemistry. --Bduke 01:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment 1: well I agree that it is redundant to have the same thing listed twice on this page. Certainly, Gibbs’ equilibrium is the core and bulk of chemical thermodynamics, yet in physical chemistry it forms 1/3 to almost half of any given textbook. In Peter Atkins’ 1999 Physical Chemistry, 6th Ed., for instance, the book is divided into three parts (1) Equilibrium (11-243), (2) Structure (283-679), and (3) Change (721-877). The first part is basically Gibbs’ Equilibrium paper. Note also that it is listed at List of important publications in physics. Hence, I guess it’s a tricky question. But whatever is done, I really don’t care, i.e. as long as no one takes this out of the chemical thermodynamics section. --Sadi Carnot 01:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment 2: To elaborate on my point, on page 98 of Lynde Phelps Wheeler’s 1951 biographical book Josiah Willard Gibbs – the History of a Great Mind, we find:
“ A Dutch physicist who according to his son came to an early appreciation of Gibbs’ work in thermodynamics was J. D. van der Waals, most widely known for the development of an equation of state for fluids which was the first to comprehend both the liquid and the vapor phase. It was for his attempts to extend the results of this characteristic equation to mixtures of several substances that Gibbs’ work furnished the key and contributed to his success. To van der Waals’ influence, together with that of chemist J. H. van’t Hoff, is to be attributed the inspiration which initiated the Dutch school of physical chemistry which has done so much to develop and apply Gibbs’ ideas. ”

I hope this shows that Gibbs equilibrium paper was central in both physical chemistry and chemical thermodynamics and thermal physics. --Sadi Carnot 02:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this should appear twice, and I also agree that chemical thermodynamics makes up a big chunk of a modern P-Chem book (though I confess I rarely look at the latter - I'm an organic chemist!). Surely if thermo is just a part of P-Chem, couldn't we just have this paper come under physical chemistry, and remove the separate heading for thermodynamics? Walkerma 03:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you are right. My thinking was that the other entries under Physical Chemistry were books covering the whole field. Like Atkins I see PChem as in three bits. Gibbs is central to just one of them. If we get rid of the thermo section, do we also get rid of the electrochem section as well? The remaining sections then do seems to cover the main sub-disciplines of chemistry. If we keep thermodynamics and electrochem, we are going to have to add a section on kinetics sometime. So my thoughts are: merge both therm and electro sections to PChem, or remove Gibbs from PChem and leave in thermo. I'm easy about either. --Bduke 04:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gibbs' Equilibrium founded both physical chemistry and chemical thermodynamics

The two of you are straining my head listening to your opinions of where Gibbs should be placed. If Wikipedia were restricted to a one-subject, one-person mentality, it would freeze-up. The two of you are going to have to fess-up to the reality that, sooner or later, this page is going to have to be broken up, connected by one main page, i.e. Important publications in chemistry (foundations), Important publications in organic chemistry, Important publications in inorganic chemistry, etc.

That Gibbs' Equilibrium is the founding paper in chemical thermodynamics is without question. In 1891, Gibbs Equilibrium was translated into German by Wilhelm Ostwald, who styled its author the "founder of chemical energetics"; or in modern terms the "founder of chemical thermodynamics" (a synonym of the latter). This picture has not changed to this day. According to Ott and Boerio-Goates’ 2000 textbook Chemical Thermodynamics – Principles and Applications, the books that founded modern chemical thermodynamics are the 1923 textbook Thermodynamics and the Free Energy of Chemical Substances by Gilbert N. Lewis and Merle Randall, two authors who spent 25-years doing reaction experiments and free energy calculations by the methods of Gibbs, and the 1933 book Modern Thermodynamics by the methods of Willard Gibbs written by E. A. Guggenheim.

That Gibbs' Equilibrium is a founding paper in physical chemistry can be discerned by the following logic. From the index section of John Servos’ 1990 402-page book Physical Chemistry from Ostwald to Pauling, the number scientists who have more than ten pages of entries are listed below, in ranked order of the number of pages on which their name is found:

  1. Arthur Amos Noyes (177)
  2. Wilder Dwight Bancroft (127)
  3. Gilbert Newton Lewis (114)
  4. Jacobus Henricus van't Hoff (68)
  5. Wilhelm Ostwald (153)
  6. Svante Arrhenius (49)
  7. Linus Pauling (47)
  8. Walther Nernst (45)
  9. Theodore William Richards (30)
  10. Willard Gibbs (28)
  11. George Ellery Hale (18)
  12. Charles A. Kraus (16)
  13. Harry Clary Jones (14)
  14. William D. Coolidge (14)
  15. Irving Langmuir (12)
  16. Harry Manley Goodwin (11)
  17. William C. Bray (11)

Those shown bolded (that I know of) are those who were made by Gibbs or who owe their significance to the Gibbs' Equilibrium paper. Moreover, to solidify my point, from page 103 of Wheeler’s History of Gibbs:

“ The recognition of Gibbs’ genius began only with the emergence of physical chemistry as a profession, which may be approximately dated from the appearance of the Zeitschrift fur physikalische Chemie, sponsored by Ostwald and van’t Hoff in 1887. From that time onward there has been an ever-growing volume of work published which has found its inspiration in Gibbs’ work in thermodynamics, and in particular in the applications of the phase rule to ever-widening fields of use. ”

I hope this clarifies the matter, yet again. --Sadi Carnot 10:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Chemical thermodynamics is part of physical chemistry not separate from it. As you indicated from Atkins' book, it is essentially one part out of three, although it is the oldest. Structure and kinetics are also parts of physical chemistry, but have developed more recently. We are not denying the importance of Gibbs. It is clearly important and I have thought so for nearly 50 years. I agree with the points you make. However it does not have much importance for structure and kinetics. Maybe we will have to divide this article (if it does not get deleted before it gets too large!) but right now we just have a simple decision - where do we put this - under Physical Chemistry, in which case I think we have to merge in the electrochemistry section also, as that is also part of thermodynamics really, or just have it under chemical thermodynamics. It is not that complicated. --Bduke 12:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Bduke, firstly, yes from a physical chemistry-point-of-view, chemical thermodynamics is part of it, but from broader perspective, i.e. “important publications in chemistry”, they are each their stand alone subjects, with their own unique set of founding papers. Second, from my point of view, I see that you are wishing to combine chemical thermodynamics, physical chemistry, thermochemistry, electrochemistry, chemical kinetics, and molecular structure into one confounded header (for the sake of page organization) and list all related or unrelated articles under this header? Am I right? --Sadi Carnot 13:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I am still in two minds about it. I'm inclined to keep the theoretical, quantum, computational section separate as that now impacts on organic, inorganic. medicinal chemistry and so on in a big way and people learn about these topics outside of physical chemistry courses. The choice is to either have separate sections and thus at some time add sections on kinetics and spectroscopy or to move pretty well all physical chemistry under that head. Chemical thermodynamics is generally taught in physical chemistry courses. It is very clear that we should not have the Gibbs entry twice. Where do you want to put it? You do not seem to be answering that. --Bduke 01:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not an easy decision. It seems clear the entry should appear once only. Sadi says "But whatever is done, I really don’t care, i.e. as long as no one takes this out of the chemical thermodynamics section". That agrees with my original view. Walkerma wants to remove the chemical thermodynamics section, but I do not believe there is consensus to follow that with merging other sections also to the P Chem section. I am therefore going to delete the entry in the P Chem section and note that doing so goes back to the situation before this entry was added for the second time, so supports the status qua.

This discussion is closed. --Bduke 07:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New entry, November 2007

Materials Science and Engineering: An IntroductionItalic text William D. Callister, Jr. Wiley, John & Sons,7st Ed, 2006. Description: Building on the extraordinary success of six best-selling editions, Bill Callister's new Seventh Edition of MATERIALS SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING: AN INTRODUCTION continues to promote student understanding of the three primary types of materials (metals, ceramics, and polymers) and composites, as well as the relationships that exist between the structural elements of materials and their properties. Importance: Introduction, Reference

According to our guidelines this new entry is now for debate here whether it should be kept or deleted. The debate will close on November 23, 2007. --Bduke 10:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. This entry clearly needs some editing if it acceptable. terms like "extraordinary success" are not appropriate. Capital letters should not be used. However, my concern is how does htis compare to the other books on material science. In what sense, does this stand out? --Bduke 10:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. IMO material sciences and engineering are not part of chemistry but a science (or engineering) in their own right. I see no need to include the book in this list. --Itub 21:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have closed the discussion as delete for this material. I have to agree with Itub, but also note that there is no support for this entry and as I commented above the entry is very POV. --Bduke (talk) 04:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggest removal of warning

I removed the header above the table of contents which advises people not to edit the article without discussing first on the talk page. See diff. I have since restored this header, but I would still suggest that it be removed.

User:Bduke sent the following message to my talk page:

I understand your point abut removing the header referring to the talk page, but it has been there for some time and it has, in my opinion, and I think in the opinions of some other chemists, helped to keep this list relatively sensible. Have you seen on the talk page how we debate new entries to decide whether they are to be kept or deleted? Other similar lists are much less fitting in with WikiPedia guidelines and several have been put to Afd, though most (all science ones) have been kept. I have been looking after these discussions for some time. I would have preferred it if you had raised the issue on the talk page, but let us see what others think about it. --Bduke (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have decided to restore the header and discuss it here. My basic argument is that such warnings not to edit the article are unusual, especially in cases where bad-faith editing is not expected. I am aware of warnings in "hidden text" on articles such as December 14 to ask people not to add their birthdays. I am also aware of the infamous disclaimer about the Bogdanov Affair. But these are exceptions.

I see that this article is very selective, and the insistence on discussing before adding new items ensures that nonnotable publications are not included. So I understand Bduke's point of view. But I would prefer that readers be invited to edit the page, and then revert the bad edits, like for every other page, or to convert the message into hidden text so that not all readers need to see it. (I think this may be a good compromise because hidden text does not interfere with the experience of casual readers, but it may still be somewhat effective in preventing bad edits.) Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I very much appreciate Shalom's actions in bringing the discussion here. He has given my view above. I would like to see the views of others before I add anything else, but the idea of hidden text should be considered, as of course should any other ideas for retaining the present quality of this list or, better, improving it. --Bduke (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with hiding the text. If anyone adds something without discussion, it can be reverted with a polite note pointing to the talk page. --Itub (talk) 09:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I am going to hide the text. Let us see how it goes. --Bduke (talk) 05:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the hidden text only appears when using Edit at the top of the article, but not when using Edit for one section. Earlier today I edited the (then empty) Polymer section by adding Flory's book, and did not see the hidden text. I have just now skimmed the talk page and discovered that I would have seen it if I had Edited from the top of the article. Dirac66 (talk) 04:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. That is why I wanted to keep it, but there seems to be a consensus that such warnings should not be on wikipedia article pages. --Bduke (talk) 07:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New entries, January 2008

There are two new entries on Nuclear Chemistry (the first 2 below). Their addition highlighted that the other two entries on this topic are rather weak. While they were discussed long ago and kept, they still have no section on "Importance", sharing this with the two new entries. I am therefore calling for a discussion whether all four of these entries should be kept or deleted under our guidelines. Nuclear chemistry is not my field but I propose that all four be deleted unless convincing "Importance" sections, with sources, are added during the discussion. --Bduke (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Karlsruhe Nuclide Chart, 7th Edition, 2006

  • Joseph Magill, Gerda Pfennig, Jean Galy
  • ISBN -92-79-02175-2, 2006

Description: Karlsruhe Nuklidkarte 2006 - A Record of Human Achievement in Nuclear Science 2006.

[edit] Radioactivity Radionuclides Radiation

  • Joseph Magill, Jean Galy
  • ISBN -3-540-21116-0, Springer, 2005

Description: The three "Rs" of nuclear science 2005.

[edit] Radiochemistry and Nuclear Chemistry

  • Choppin, Liljenenzin and Rydberg
  • ISBN 0750674636, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2002

Description: Very comprenhensive textbook on the subject.

[edit] Radioactivity, Ionizing radiation and Nuclear Energy

Description: Good basic textbook on the subject, ideal for undergrads.

[edit] Discussion on all four entries

  • Delete all four, unless convincing "Importance" sections, with sources, are added. --Bduke (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This is due to close on 15 January. I will leave it open until the end of the month to attract more interest, but if nothing changes, I will be removing all four of these entries. --Bduke (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • In spite of extending the closure of this discussion, no justification for these entries has been given. I am therefore moving them all to User talk:Bduke/chemistry pub deletions, although of course the information is also available above on this talk page and in the history of the main list. --Bduke (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New entry - Coulson's Valence

I have added this entry myself, so would someone else close it on January 28th. I do not know why it has been added earlier. The reference, that was first added to the article on Coulson is a wonderful account and is just the kind of verifiability that we need for entries here. It also verifies the importance of Pauling's Nature of the Chemical Bond and I have used it as a reference for that entry also. --Bduke (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Valence

  • C. A Coulson
  • Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1952.
  • The latest edition is called Coulson's Valence, 3rd Edition, Roy McWeeny, Oxford University Press, 1952

Description: A classic introduction to valence and the theory of chemical binding.

Importance: This book is credited with causing the expansion of interest in molecular orbital theory from the 1950s.[1]

  • Definite keep. Like you say, it is a wonder it was not added earlier. This is clearly one of the most influential books in the history of quantum and theoretical chemistry, together with Pauling's and Lewis's. --Itub (talk) 09:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Closing discussion as Keep after two weeks without comments. --Itub (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Polymer Chemistry entry

This new entry below has just been added and will, following our guidelines, be discussed here to determine whether it is kept or deleted. The discussion will end on March 1. 2008. --Bduke (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Principles of Polymer Chemistry

Importance: First major text on polymer chemistry; presents both organic and physical chemistry aspects.

  • Keep, but the importance section needs to be split into importance and description sections and probably expanded. It would also be great to have a reference that says this book is important. Bduke (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • As the editor who suggested this entry, I was unaware that this Wiki article works on different rules than the others, and intended the entry as a preliminary suggetion which others can improve. I have now expanded the "importance" section and added a "description" page as requested. Keep of course, provided I am eligible to vote on my own suggestion :-) Dirac66 (talk) 03:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I am closing this as keep, as there has been no opposition. Paul Flory is an important person in the field so it should be possible to find an independent source that states how important this book is. It would be nice if someone could find such a source. --Bduke (talk) 06:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

  1. ^ Textbooks as Manifestos: C. A. Coulson after Linus Pauling and R. S. Mulliken, Ana Simões A lecture by video and transcript by a historian of science that clearly and in detail discusses the importance of Couson's book in relation to the earlier work of Pauling and Mulliken.

[edit] Date for which edition(s)?

I would like to start a discussion on the question of what date should be given for each book: the date of the first edition and/or that of the current edition? At the moment the article mixes the two somewhat haphazardly and a consistent policy seems needed. My own preference is to give both, since the first edition is normally the historically important edition, while the current edition would be consulted by readers looking for an up-to-date version. For example, Cotton's Chemical Applications of Group Theory was indicated only as 3rd ed 1990, to which I have just added 1st ed 1963 which marks the beginning of this book's influence. What do others think? Dirac66 (talk) 03:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely. We are inconsistent and I support having both dates for the reasons you give. --Bduke (talk) 03:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)