Talk:Chemistry

Origins of chemistry

Alchemical tradition Prechemical tradition Medical tradition Technical tradition Phlogistic tradition Joybubexe (talk) 11:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2023

124.104.9.39 (talk) 12:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Liu1126 (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: CHEM 300

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2024 and 26 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CoolChemist (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Ray1590.

— Assignment last updated by UBC24 AT (talk) 04:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

CHEM 300 Student's Project

Hello everyone! I have a plan to improve the subdisciplines portion of this article:

-         I’d like to include an example of each subdiscipline’s chemistry. For example, I would include a wet lab synthesis or even a minor reaction in Organic Chemistry, or something like a metallocentre species for Inorganic/Organometallic Chemistry

-         I’d add images about these examples, or even people/application/other appropriate illustrations about that specific subdiscipline to give it a face.

-         I’d clean up and add more than one citation for everything, so that each subdiscipline has more room to be discussed.

-         I’d add even more hyperlinks/referenced pages to make each subdiscipline more unique. I'd of course get good reliable sources.

Please let me know what you think!!!

CoolChemist (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)CoolChemist

I like the idea of illustrating topics (especially if they highlight a key distinguishing feathre), and the §Disciplines section seems like it could be better-organized or explained. And it is already tagged as needing better citations. Contrast that with the other sections, that have prose and representative images. But I fear this already-long article will become even more unwieldy if more detail is added to that list. See WP:SUMMARYSTYLE for general guidance about a hierarchy of articles. Please also think carefully about the audience of an article that is just "chemistry", the overall topic, and whether they would benefit from any technical detail at all. DMacks (talk) 04:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes! Making this less accessible and being more technical is NOT the goal! Thanks for the advice and the link to the summary style page, I had no idea it existed. CoolChemist (talk) 03:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Additions

I have to reiterate essentially the same concerns I've had with NedBoomerson's suggested additions to Matter: the prose is frankly idiosyncratic to the extent of being difficult to parse, and the stance is openly tendentious in its antimaterialism without clear committent to balancing different views proportionately to representation in sources as required by WP:NPOV. Remsense ‥ 论 13:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the kids deserve a toehold for idealism (on the internet.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chemistry&diff=prev&oldid=1245671040

now th3y wanna make a rule I can’t drop any toenail clippings?

I can’t “be me” anywhere on the planet, because if I say I’m an idealist th3y have the tyranny of the majority believing I’m the crazy one. Seriously, no exaggeration, I (necessarily have to) avoid real conversation everywhere my (obedient) life takes me--- because I am an idealist. ((24(*7x)365)2//2~. Th3y are denying me a single “legitimate” toehold (g%d s4v3 my t%e!!) to point to to say “idealism is a valid (given science remains a “work in progress”) hypothesis.”

If I could point to their “Wikipedia” and say “hey, you know, wikipedia tolerates the people knowing about the existence of thingks (sic) like the double slit experiment, non-equilibrium thermodynamics, and idealism,” then I could point people there and be like, “I know I’m weird, but … .”

Materialism reduces people (good and evil) to triviality.

Wikipedia reduces wikipedia to materialism?

Ever more your idealist,

[N<e#d](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXvmSaE0JXA&kesha+we+R+who+we+R)

P.S. most work-a-day people can tolerate hearing “science remains a work in progress”

P.P.S. and tay says her man brings the m4gic

al pura talk-matter page

NedBoomerson (talk) 01:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but to be blunt about it since I've hinted at it a few times now: it's not up to you to decide what Wikipedia should be telling the kids on a given subject if it diverges from balancing what the corpus of the relevant reliable sources have to say. Remsense ‥ 论 01:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but NedBoomerson's comment here makes no sense at all to me. I cannot parse what actually their position is, why they think certain content does/doesn't belong, etc. Wikipedia is not therapy--neither directly nor as support for any real-world discussion, except to the extent it is content based on our usual policies and guidelines (especially NPOV, DUE/UNDUE, RS/OR). DMacks (talk) 01:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to put words in their mouth, but from what I understand they feel discussions of the physical sciences are too exclusively physicalist—the way I say that sounds sillier than it is, as I do sympathize personally and think it is somewhat fraught to have all idealist discussion of Matter requisitioned off on Philosophy of matter, but I worry that they intentfully want to go above and beyond a proportional representation of different positions. Remsense ‥ 论 01:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

for those of us who did (have done, kiddos) our homework, Physicalism has been disproven;

if th3y care to join us in the phenomen4mics of morality,

<[%](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lt1u81dQf2U&&gungor+us+for+them+official+lyric)#

NedBoomerson (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)