# Talk:History of atomic theory

" [...] Dalton was mistaken about the formulas of these compounds, and it wasn't his only mistake. But in other cases, he got their formulas right, as in the following examples [...] "
Hi, I'm studying in physical science at the moment and became interested in these concepts. What are the other mistakes he made? If it's referring to the assumptions Dalton made in the following (non-example) paragraph, then I feel like this little offhand here is a bit detached. The three examples here are lengthy and separate the mentioning of the mistakes from the mistakes themselves.
Otherwise, if those are not what this bit is referring to, more info might be needed for clarification. 170.85.56.116 (talk) 14:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm a student with not much research on the subject yet, and I'm just sharing that that part interested and confused me a little. I can see that happening a lot considering this is a subject taught in high school, or at least my high school. 170.85.56.116 (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
I think this article goes into a depth beyond what is taught in high school. Kurzon (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
The article does indeed, yes! My point was that since this subject in general is taught in high school and those interested may want to learn more, wording like this may be a bit confusing (In a different way than going more in-depth of course) 170.85.56.116 (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Well the section does go on to discussing how Avogadro's principle made chemists argue over diatomic molecules. Kurzon (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Are you still in high school? Do you think this article lacks something? Kurzon (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
The law of multiple proportions by itself cannot reliably tell you the composition of a substance's molecules. That was a point I wanted to make. Kurzon (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
I agree with the original post. This sentence is very odd and unsourced. The sentence claims
In this particular case, Dalton was mistaken about the formulas of these compounds, and it wasn't his only mistake.  But in other cases, he got their formulas right,...
Then it goes in to three long paragraphs of cases he got right (I guess).
The presentation is confusing by starting with mistakes, then saying more to come, but switching to successes and going in depth.
Moreover, as I have pointed out before, we don't need to enumerate examples in an encyclopedia. We just need to know he had some successes and some failures and why. A brief mention of one example of each kind is fine if it illustrates the reason for success and failure. The "Why" is critical, the examples are not. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton: And other talk page watchers: following up from the previous archived review, I see that the article has been improved. There are some other uncited sections, and an unresolved "list should be prose" yellow banner at the top of "Discovery of the proton". Is anyone interested in addressing these concerns? If editors want to can add citation needed tags to the article where I think they are needed, if pinged. Z1720 (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I would be interested to resolve the issues here and your cn tags would be helpful. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:36, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
@Johnjbarton: Thanks for offering to address the concerns. I have added citation needed templates to the article, and there are also some from October 2024 that still need to be resolved. Please ping me when this is ready for a re-review. Z1720 (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
I made some progress but I've also found additional issues. In my view the sections on proton and neutron are far too long: these topics are for Atomic nucleus § History in my opinion. They are only marginally related to atomic theory. On the other hand many topics that should be covered here are not. These include Prout's hypothesis, Faraday's laws of electrolysis, Vortex theory of the atom, the topics covered in Bohr model § Background, the interplay between isotopes and history of atomic theory, interplay between valency and atomic theory, the key role of spectroscopy, esp. the Balmer series, and post QM atomic theory history. Of course not all of these need to be covered, but I don't think simply fixing the remaining cn tags would rate a GA article. I have a continuing interest in this article but an unable to focus on it just now. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
@Johnjbarton: Just checking in: you mentioned having an interest in the article but perhaps not the time/focus. Is this still the case? If so, would you like to bring it to WP:GAR, as you can explain your concerns more effectively than me? Z1720 (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
@Z1720 Because material here will need to be moved or deleted, I would want to allow time for other editors input. I don't expect to be able to be take on improvements until Nov. I would be able to contribute review feedback in the meantime. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I propose to alter the treatment of Dalton in this history:

Add a paragraph about Dalton's work prior to 1807 as he struggled with issues in mixtures of gases and his publication of the first ever table of atomic weights. From Hudson source.
Add a paragraph about Dalton's atomic symbolism. Also Hudson.
Replace the "carburetted hydrogen gas" example with water from the Hudson source, page 81.
Remove the overly detailed example on iron oxides. The Millington source concerns work of Proust and does not verify the content.
Repurpose the tin oxides per the Melson source to illustrate Dalton vs Proust.
Shorten the nitrogen oxides to be one example of Dalton's success per Hudson source.
Three detailed examples already appear in Law of multiple proportions and do not fit well here.
I think these changes would make the Dalton section cover more concepts and be more consistent with the rest of the article. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:13, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the following paragraph in the article is at every point incorrect:

At the beginning of the 20th century, Albert Einstein independently reinvented Gibbs' laws, because they had only been printed in an obscure American journal. Einstein later commented that had he known of Gibbs' work, he would "not have published those papers at all, but confined myself to the treatment of some few points [that were distinct]." All of statistical mechanics and the laws of heat, gas, and entropy took the existence of atoms as a necessary postulate.
The Luis Navarro source is primarily about the idea that "...the differences between the two formulations, as regards their objectives, are enormous".
Section 6 of the Navarro source debunks the idea that Einstein devalued his own work.
The last sentence is nonsense, per Navarro: "GIBBS already indicates, in the prologue of Elementary Principles, his intention to separate his formulation from any hypothesis about the constitution of matter..."
 Johnjbarton (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2025 (UTC)