Talk:List of important publications in chemistry/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive to February, 2011. Early archives are at:

• Talk:List of publications in chemistry/Archive 1.
• Talk:List of publications in chemistry/Archive 2.

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)

Principles of Polymer Chemistry

• Flory, Paul J.(1953)
• Cornell University Press. 1953, ISBN 0-8014-0134-8.

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)

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)

Eliel's Stereochemistry

Suggestion for organic chemistry section: Ernest L. Eliel "Stereochemistry of Carbon Compounds" (1st edition 1962)

Current "edition" = "Stereochemistry of Organic Compounds" (1994)

Description: systematic and complete exposition of all aspects of organic stereochemistry

Importance: standard advanced text for organic stereochemistry Dirac66 (talk) 03:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added this entry so it can be debated here in the usual way, following our guidelines, to determine whether it is kept or deleted. The discussion will end on August 7, 2008. --Bduke (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The entry is:-

• Ernest L. Eliel
• 1st edition: 1962
• Current edition: 1994

Description: systematic and complete exposition of all aspects of organic stereochemistry.

Importance: standard advanced text for organic stereochemistry.

• Support entry. This is clearly a classic and should be included. However, it does need a third party source that says it is classic. --Bduke (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
• A possible third party source is the book review in Journal of Chemical Education for the current edition (or successor book). It does not use the word "classic", but does say that "The baby boom generation of organic graduate students learned most of what they know about stereochemistry from that text". Dirac66 (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Looks good. Let us see whether anything else arises. --Bduke (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion closed as keep. --Bduke (talk) 05:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Environmental Chemistry. Green Chemistry and Pollutants in Ecosystems

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 August 7, 2008. --Bduke (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Lichtfouse, Eric; Schwarzbauer, Jan; Robert, Didier (Eds.).
• Springer, 2004, 780 p. 289 illus., Hardcover, ISBN: 978-3-540-22860-8.

Description. Environmental chemistry is a new, fast developing science aimed at deciphering fundamental mechanisms ruling the behaviour of pollutants in ecosystems. Applying this knowledge to current environmental issues leads to the remediation of environmental media, and to new, low energy, low emission, sustainable processes. This book describes the state-of-the-art advances regarding the pollution of water, soils, atmosphere, food and living organisms by toxic metals, fossil fuels, pesticides and other organic pollutants. Furthermore, the eco-toxicology section presents novel bio-assays to assess the toxicity of various pollutants such as dioxins and endocrine disrupters within complex media. The green chemistry section highlights novel chemical reactions based upon environmentally friendly conditions. The analytical chemistry section describes very sensitive methods which trace the fate of pollutants in complex ecosystems.

Contents Analytical Chemistry (11 chapters), Toxic Metals (14 chapters), Organic Pollutants (10 chapters), Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds (6 chapters), Pesticides (7 chapters), Green Chemistry (9 chapters), Ecotoxicology (12 chapters).

• Comment. There are several problems with this entry. First, it has been added by the first author, so it is a conflict of interest. Second, there is no section on "importance". Given the COI, I think it needs a third party source that confirms it is notable and that needs to be added to retain the entry. Third, the "Contents" section should be deleted. My conclusion is delete this entry unless a suitable reference is provided to confirm its importance along with a section on importance. --Bduke (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Dear Doctor, I have indeed edited this book. I have also founded the European Association of Environmental Chemistry (EACE) in 2000, and organised the first international meetings (Nancy, 2000, Dijon, 2001). The book is the result of selected invited review papers from the Dijon meeting. It is important because 1) it is a first major achievement of the EACE. And 2) abridged papers from the book were later published in the scientific journal Environmental Chemistry Letters that I founded in 2003 with Springer. If you think that those arguments do not meet your importance level, feel free to delete the entry. Yours, Dr Eric Lichtfouse, INRA Scientist, Editor-in-Chief, Environmental Chemistry Letters, Agronomy for Sustainable Development.--Lichtfouse (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• These arguments may or may not meet the importance criteria, but that is not the point. The point is that they need to be made by a third party independent source, and not by you as you clearly have a conflict of interest which you admit to. If you could point us to such a source that would be helpful. Having said that it seems to me that it is going to be very difficult to justify inclusion. There are many organisations such as EACE. Are all their first publications notable? There are many issues of journals that publish papers from a conference. Does that make them all notable? This list has to be fairly small and thus include publications of major importance. We are slowly trying to improve it and cover all entries with good sources that attest to the importance of the entry. Wikipedia depends on sources. --Bduke (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose entry. Conference proceedings tend to be of transitory interest and contain papers of varying quality. This article should remain limited to (1) books and individual papers of historical importance, and (2) textbooks presenting a comprehensive and unified view of a subject and which are recognized as leading texts in the field.

As for individual papers, there are only three at present - by Mendeleev, by Gibbs and by Watson and Crick. One cannot really place this conference proceedings in the same league. However one could justify the inclusion of a few more landmark papers. For environmental chemistry, the paper of Rowland and Molina comes to mind. Dirac66 (talk) 02:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: I follow work in green chemistry, and this book has not shaken up the field in the way that books on this list are supposed to. It is ranked #1,085,850 at Amazon; I know chemistry books aren't bestsellers, but Nicolaou's 12 year old book "Classics in Total Synthesis" is still ranked #128,675. I'm sure it's a good book, but it's not "important" in the sense we mean it - that it has completely transformed our understanding of chemistry. I commend Dr. Lichtfouse for being "up front" about his entry - thanks! Walkerma (talk) 14:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion closed as remove this entry. Sorry, it is, as others have said, not notable enough in its impact for this list. --Bduke (talk) 05:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Rules for inclusion need revision

Since this list was started, the Wikipedia zeitgeist has changed significantly, particularly regarding the enforcement of the policies and guidelines on neutrality, verifiability, and notability. I was reminded of this because yet another relative of this article has been nominated for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in statistics). If we don't want this article to end up deleted, we will need to tighten up the inclusion criteria even further.

The list at the top of this page says that some reasons why a particular publication might be regarded as important are:

• 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

I think we should get rid of the introduction category, and to some extent the latest and greatest as well. This will mean removing most current textbooks. A possible exception are books that are in their umpteenth (possibly posthumous) edition, decades after the first edition, and which have been shown to be historical. Remember that Wikipedia is not a directory, and that includes not being a catalog of current textbooks. Furthermore, what the "standard" introduction is depends a lot on factors such as country and age, not to mention subjective preference; sometimes I find that a book that I thought was considered "the bible" on a topic is unknown in some other countries, or that I'd never heard of a book that someone else considers their bible. For example, of the three books currently in the physical chemistry category (Atkins, Berry, and Hinshelwood), I'm sorry to have to admit that I have only ever heard of Atkins. Yet I know people who consider McQuarrie (not on the list) to be their bible and wouldn't consider Atkins a good introduction (although they at least know of it and acknowledge that it is influential). The books we have listed for analytical chemistry, and especially for electrochemistry and medicinal chemistry are also a bit dubious. There are many other books on these topics in the market, and the descriptions we have don't provide any proof that these are special.

Instead, we should focus on truly historical works, and only list books for which we can cite a third-party reference that describes it as classic or historical. We should probably get rid of the "voting" scheme currently in use and just have normal discussions like most Wikipedia talk pages, basing inclusion or exclusion on assessment of third party references instead of "sure, I know that's the classic in the field!". --Itub (talk) 09:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It is good to have some input on this question. I think I agree with you. In particular I agree that every entry needs "a third-party reference that describes it as classic or historical" or at least highly notable in some other way. The other similar lists have become a mess, partly because the Science Pearls WikiPoject is inactive as a project. Can you help to search for these sources and then we can discuss removing some entries. I'll try to help, but I am busy writing a paper for a conference in September and it is of course late. I agree that "Latest and greatest" can go and I do not think we have anything under this heading. Th latest is always difficult to decide if notable. "Introduction" should be covered by "Influence" for the entries we really want. I suggest we delete these criteria in a week if no body objects. --Bduke (talk) 10:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that this article should concentrate on publications of historical importance, which can generally be classified as topic creator, breakthrough or influence.

However I would not change the review procedure as suggested in Itub's last sentence. I don't think it is really a simple "voting" procedure, as it is understood (I hope) that we are considering the validity of the points raised and not just the number of votes on each side. The words Support and Oppose (or Keep and Delete) permit a quick count, but presumably people can change their "vote" in response to counter-arguments, until the announced deadline. Also if opinions are divided, the discussion moderator (thank you Bduke for assuming this role) can exercise his judgment once the arguments are in. Dirac66 (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That's OK, I only suggested it because it feels odd to have "special rules" for specific articles. It's a bit unusual in Wikipedia. --Itub (talk) 11:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The special rule is not really recognized by Wikipedia, but represents an informal consensus of the regular editors of this article. The poll is useful in encouraging these editors to express opinions on new candidates for inclusion. In the past these opinions have helped to eliminate certain unsuitable suggestions, so I expect them to be useful in order to tighten the inclusion criteria in future. Dirac66 (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

New organic 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 April 1. 2009. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Classics in Total Synthesis

• K.C. Nicolaou and E.J. Sorensen
• Current edition: 1996

Description The synthesis of famous molecules done by the masters of organic chemistry

Importance standard text book for the study of total synthesis

• Comment. I am not an organic chemist and know little about books in the subject. I will therefore only comment and ask some questions. First, we have a set of rules or guidelines at the top of this page. The "importance" section for this entry, does not appear to come under any of these headings. We do not list standard text books unless that have had a particularly significant influence or massive impact on the teaching of chemistry. But is this book really just a standard text? Second, you will see discussion above about removing entries and adding sources. We have always tried to make this list of publications better than the lists for other disciplines. I suggest it is particularly important for new entries to have a reference to an independent source that talks specifically about the importance of the book and its impact on chemistry. Is this book notable? In other words, "Who has noticed this book?". --Bduke (Discussion) 23:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I teach organic chemistry at a US college, including an advanced course, and I would say that this book very quickly established itself as THE book to learn about synthesis at a more advanced level. I suspect every (post)graduate organic student keeps a well-thumbed copy in the lab or by her/his bedside. I would say that it's the most important book published in organic chemistry to be published in the last 20 years. Walkerma (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I wouldn't quite go as far as Martin, but then I'm an inorganic chemist who's taught in several European universities, so maybe the difference is there! Yes, it's an important book. Nicolaou is known as a master in his field – some might say obsessive, as total synthesis isn't nearly as fashionable now as it was fifty years ago – and the book describes the art behind the science. Why choose one route over another? After all, the number of possible routes to a complex organic molecule is as near infinite as makes no difference, but which one will actually work in a reasonable time (and resource) scale? On the other hand, I see Bduke's argument that there are no external citations to the book's influence: surely we must be able to find some. Physchim62 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
• I see I accidentally said that the discussion will be open until April 1st, when it should have been only for 10 days to March 1st. However, I will leave it open until April 1st as I am going on a break for a couple of weeks. If the references are not found by when I return, I will look myself. It looks like a keep, but the wording of the entry needs improvement and the reference would be good. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support I see I have just made the date cut. Nicolaou is the reigning expert and whether it's the best book or not, it is very influential and "important." But please, someone find an external cite! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sardino (talk • contribs) 18:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Close discussion. It is clear that there is consensus to retain this entry, but nobody has stepped forward to improve the description of the book. So, it is kept, and I will do what I can to improve the entry. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

New environmental 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 April 3, 2009. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

New entry in environmental chemistry - Molina and Rowland paper

Stratospheric sink for chlorofluoromethanes: chlorine atom-catalysed destruction of ozone Mario J. Molina and F. S. Rowland, Nature 249, 810-812 (1974)

Description: This paper warned of the danger of ozone depletion due to man-made chlorofluorocarbons. The main atmospheric sink for these compounds was identified as ultraviolet photolysis, liberating chlorine atoms which catalyze the destruction of stratospheric ozone and have the potential to significantly deplete the ozone layer.

Importance: Influence, as described in the presentation speech for the Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1995: “The findings presented by this year's laureates in chemistry have had an enormous political and industrial impact. This was because they clearly identified unacceptable environmental hazards in a large, economically important sector.” [1] Dirac66 (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. This is setting an interesting precedent in that I do not think we have another entry to a recent journal article. However, it sets the bar for such entries, which I welcome. I fully support this entry. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• I have closed this as keep, as there have been no objections. It should have been closed long ago. Apologies. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

New computational 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 July 26, 2009. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Essentials of Computational Chemistry

• Christopher J. Cramer
• Wiley 2006

Description: Thorough coverage of fundamentals and eclectic examples of computational chemistry.

Importance: Cramer's book encourages understanding and through seamless connections with the primary literature of a burgeoning and dynamic field. This text is, well, essential to that of the researcher requiring an accessible introduction to the fundamentals of chemical theory in addition to those looking for a source to proliferate their own understanding of advanced topics.

• I love this book and use it a lot, but I am not sure that it fits the criteria for inclusion. The editor who has added it has not addressed our criteria. Is it "Topic creator" , "Breakthrough" or "Influence"? I do not think it meets any of these, but I await the editor's response. At this point I am also concerned that the "Importance" and "Description" entries read as if they come from a publisher's blurb, so may be a copyright violation. They can of course be fixed and the "importance" entry needs changing anyway to reflect the criteria for entry. We are also really need an external source that points to the importance of this book. Is it more important than its competitors and if so, why? I reserve judgment for now. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• I also like this book a lot, but objectively it is just one among many computational chemistry books currently of the market. It is certainly not the first to be published, and I wouldn't say it is "The Standard Book" either. I don't think we should list it. (As a rule of thumb I don't think any textbooks first published in the last couple of decades are likely to have become "classic" enough to list here. --Itub (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
• The editor. who added this book, has removed it from the list, so this is a clear case of closing the discussion supporting that removal. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Old ones

The book of Julius Adolph Stöckhardt was for a long time the one and only book to start practical work in the field of chemistry. The Gmelin Handbook is another one for the foundations section of the text.--Stone (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If you have the details, add them. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

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 August 29, 2009.--Bduke (Discussion) 01:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Principles of Polymerization

• George Odian
• Wiley-Interscience; 4 edition (February 9, 2004), ISBN 0-4712-7400-3

Importance: A comprehensive resource of up-to-date polymer synthesis techniques.

Description: The revised fourth edition of this classic text and reference includes new and expanded coverage on a multitude of topics, including: metallocene and post-metallocene polymerization catalysts; living polymerizations (radical, cationic, and anionic); dendrimer, hyperbranched, brush, and other polymer architectures and assemblies; graft and block copolymers; high-temperature polymers; conducting polymers; and more.

• Please discuss here.
• My apologies. I added the above and the tag on the list itself when I was very busy intending to come pack to it. I then forgot. I will extend the discussion for another 10 days. First, the "importance" does not address the accepted criteria for judging importance. Second, I see not indication that this text stands out significantly over any other. I think I would need an independent source that enthused about the significance of this book to convince me that we should retain it. So, for now I do not think this entry should be kept. It was added by an IP editor on 6 August 2009. The editor has only made that edit and two more on 8 August. I have drawn attention to this discussion on the talk page, but of course he may never see it. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Having taught a polymer course a few times, I agree that this book is "A comprehensive resource of up-to-date polymer synthesis techniques." The question is whether it has had "a massive impact on the teaching of chemistry", which I presume is the only criterion to be seriously considered here. The fact of a fourth edition does suggest wide usage, but I agree that more evidence is needed. Dirac66 (talk) 00:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I am going to close this discussion by deleting this entry. It des not meet the guidelines, although I am sure it an good book. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

New organic Chemistry entry

Below is the first new entry we have had for over a year and that is a little sad as we should be encouraging editors to add new entries that meet the requirements. The discussion below will be closed on December 21st, 2010.

I note that this entry was added by an IP editor and it is their only contribution. I have informed him on his talk page, but of course he may not see it. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The Theory of Organic Chemistry: An Advanced Course

• Gerald E.K. Branch, Melvin Calvin

• New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1941, available online: http://www.archive.org/details/theoryoforganicc030901mbp

Description: Contains mechanisms, kinetics, energy relationships and wavemechanics.

Importance: One of the first texts on modern theoretical organic chemistry.

• Please discuss here.
• I do not think that "One of the first texts" meets our criteria for inclusion, but it could point to the book having an important influence on the teaching of theoretical organic chemistry or on later books. This however would need sourcing. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• I have extended the discussion period by a month to January 21, 2011, as there seems to be low interest in this list at present. The holiday period may partly account for the lack of interest. Please join the discussion, folks. I have also changed the discussion period in general to be a month, but allowed for closure after 10 days if clear consensus is reached. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
• Well, it is way over time to close this discussion. Nobody has come along to comment, not even the IP editor who added this entry. There are no arguments why this is any more notable or important than any other similar textbook, so I am closing this, as do not accept this entry. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)