User talk:Bduke

This page was last edited by 188.26.22.131 (talk | contribs) 9 years ago. (Update timer)

Welcome to my talk page. Click here to leave a new message at the end. You will be asked for a subject also. Alternatively, you can add your message at the end of the appropriate section listed in the index below. House Rules I will respond to a post you make here on this page. If I post on your talk page please respond there to make coherent discussions in one spot. Reply to comments using a colon(:) before the post.

Archives Welcome messages are archived at Welcome List of publications in chemistry deletions are archived at User talk:Bduke/chemistry pub deletions November 1st, 2005 - May 31st, 2006 Archive 1 June 1st, 2006 - December 31st, 2006 Archive 2 January 1st, 2007 - May 31, 2007 Archive 3 June 1st, 2007 - December 31st, 2007 Archive 4 January 1st, 2008 - June 31th, 2008 Archive 5 July 1st, 2008 - December 2, 2008 Archive 6 December 3, 2008 - June 30, 2009 Archive 7 July 1 2009 - January 2010 Archive 8 January 2010 - July 2010 Archive 9 July 2010 - February 2011 Archive 10 February 2011 - November 2011 Archive 11 December 2011 - June 2013 Archive 12 July 2013 - Archive 13

Bt.

Just a heads up. I have restored the anon editors restoration of the removal of Bt. from Baden Powell. For somewhat technical reasons surrounding the origin of Bt as an abbreviation not post nominal it is never used after peerages - since it is a qualifier of 'Sir'. As such official sources cease to use it upon the creation of a peerage. See [1] -v- [2] immediately either side of the creation or a contemporary example like The Duke of Westminster [3]Garlicplanting (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

ORCID

Hi,

If you have an ORCID identifier, please add it to your user page, using {{Authority control}}. See WP:ORCID for help. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2014

• In the media: Predicting the flu, MH17 conspiracy theories

• Traffic report: Sweet dreams on Halloween

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - November 2014

Delivered November 2014 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

02:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2014

• In the media: Amazon Echo; EU freedom of panorama; Bluebeard's Castle

• Traffic report: Holidays, anyone?

• Featured content: Wikipedia goes to church in Lithuania

• WikiProject report: Talking hospitals

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Chemical physics

Hi, Bduke! I've seen that you've contributed to chemical physics article. I ask to comment on the isssue of difference between physics and chemical physics on one hand and on the difference between chemical physics and physical chemistry on the other hand. I've seen somewhere a discussion on the delimitation between physics and chemical physics/chemistry and as a consequence of this delimitation (if a strict delimitation is possible) whether wikisources from chemical physics are allowed to be used for articles pertaining to pure physics.--188.26.22.131 (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I see no strict delimitation between chemical physics and physical chemistry. For example, I and many of my colleagues have published in both the Journal of Physical Chemistry, published by the American Chemical Society (ACS), and the Journal of Chemical Physics, published by the American Physical Society (JPS). Indeed I have had papers rejected by one and accepted with no change by the other, in both directions, without understanding why they were inappropriate to one and appropriate to the other. My first degree and doctoral degree are in Chemistry yet I was once a member of JPC but have never been a member of ACS, although I belong to the British and Australian Chemical Societies. People with a doctorate in chemical physics from a physics department and people with a doctorate from a chemistry department in physical chemistry or theoretical chemistry can be working together on the same problem. On your final point, there should be no ban on the use chemical physics sources for articles on physics. Such a restriction would be nonsense and imposable to enforce. Do you have an example where you think a chemical physics source is inappropriate? --Bduke (Discussion) 20:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I do not know personally any chemical physics source that is inappropriate/factual inaccurate. Nevertheless, I've heard some rumours about some wikipedians complaining about Peter Atkins's treatise on physical chemistry being (inappropiately?) used s source in pure physics articles instead of pure physics sources. This use of Atkins source was considered by some (wikipedians?) as a sort of attempt to confiscate the domain of a base academic discipline (physics) by a hybride academic discipline (physical chemistry/chemical physics), this substitution (base by hybride) of sources' domain on Wikipedia being unallowable, according to some opinions. I wanted to check these allegations but I didn't know where (on wikipedia) to look for.--188.26.22.131 (talk) 10:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from now. Yes, some people have complained about the book by Atkins being used as a source in some articles on thermodynamics. I disagree that these articles are pure physics articles. They are certainly not read only by readers wanting to know about physics. They are read also by readers who want to know about chemistry and engineering. I have taught thermodynamics as part of courses on physical chemistry to chemistry students and they do not understand the pure view of some physicists. Some of the articles on thermodynamics are classic examples of wikipedia articles that are only understood by the people who write them and are almost totally useless for readers. --Bduke (Discussion) 19:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you give a link to some of those discussions? I think that such views of pure/base disciplines are an effect of focusing too much on dividing the knowledge in boxes of academic disciplines, boxes with walls (quasi)impermeable to the transfer of information.

I want to ask if you know some other wikipedians who share your and my views on the uselessness of wikiarticles based on the misleading impression of pure disciplines. Knowing some wikipedians would be useful in order to avoid the possible accusation of marginal views.--188.26.22.131 (talk) 15:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

One more aspect I want to mention. This uselessnes of artificial division (a phrase from the first pages of Journal of Chemical Physics) between disciplines I think it is well attested in sources like many journals having two disciplines in their names such Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids, Chem Phys Chem and the like.--188.26.22.131 (talk) 15:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I thought you already had knowledge of discussions about this, otherwise why did you raise it? I thought you were referring to the discussion at Talk:Entropy (energy dispersal). Perhaps you could point me to some links that got you concerned about this issue. --Bduke (Discussion) 19:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The comments about Atkins have informally been brought to my attention, but not specific links. I had no knowledge of this particular entropy link that you've mentioned. I raised the topic because I saw recently on another language wikipedia this type of reasoning on the (strict) delimitation of disciplines. I think it should be countered.--188.26.22.131 (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I have also noticed your similar comments on talk:quantum chemistry.--188.26.22.131 (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)