Talk:Antoine Lavoisier

message: I feel that the article as a whole requires more citations for certain statements, such as his contributions to proving the law of conservation of mass. Perhaps also there should be a direct citation for the description Lavoisier's system of chemical nomenclature. I'm sure there are other examples of this in the article that I have not mentioned as well.
Also, and this may just be me, but I think the wording used in the chemical revolution section feels somehow biased? It isn't really biased in any way as far as I know, but statements like how Lavoisier's oppositions lacked evidence against him and statements about how precise he was in his measurements feel as though they were made in support of Lavoisier rather than remaining neutral. I also think the phrase "Pioneer of Stoichiometry" shouldn't be used for similar reasons, at least as a title. Maybe "Invention of Stoichiometry" or "Research on Stoichiometry" would feel more neutral?
Gabrielle16 (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation and Wording 

message: Change 55 elements to 33 as per the list here: https://archive.org/details/traitlmentairede01lavo/page/192/mode/2up 
The book Creations of Fire (1995) by Cobb also says that Lavoisier only lists 33 elements. TurnerValley (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: and thanks for the source! That section is lacking in references. small jars tc 17:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This needs more discussion; SmallJarsWithGreenLabels, you might want to undo pending consensus here. The list on p192 of that linked ref has many more than 33 entries. Are only some of them "elements"? Is there possibly a confusion between the modern definition of "element" and what that word was used to represent at that time? The subsequent sentence in our article likewise lists many more than 33 (and that longer list seems comparable to the linked ref), so it's a dual problem: it's not clear how the ref supports the claim, and it gave us two consecutive sentences that contradicted each other. Cobb's book (e-text , printed [) is 475 pages; TurnerValley, could you be more speciifc with your citation of it?  DMacks (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: this secondary source (just added) supports a figure of either 33 or 23 depending on the definition. 55 seems like the result of a typo. small jars tc 18:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2023 

message: please add his spouse to the infobox. His wife was really important in his life. Thank you for helping. Here is the line.
"|spouse      = Marie-Anne Paulze Lavoisier"
 He King Hung (talk) 10:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done, it is already there. --Mvqr (talk) 11:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry. Blind He King Hung (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2023 

message: The ISBN given for ref # 29 is not a valid ISBN. See https://isbnsearch.org/search?s=0582052940. Please remove the ISBN from the reference. Thank you. 76.14.122.5 (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the whole source as I cannot find it. I suspect that the actual source is "Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution", but I cannot access the book. Liu1126 (talk) 11:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

text: that edit of yours doesn't appear to have happened? I'm not sure Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution is the same thing. That is listed as a ref in the article, with an author of Simon Schama. The article has several other footnotes for Chronicle of the French Revolution (not Citizens:...) by Jacques Legrand with an ISBN 0582051940, one digit off-by-one. I will fix it. But we also do need a page-number, so I will tag it. Yay for checksum! Thanks for raising this concern, 76.14.122.5. DMacks (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as soon as the WP database error clears. DMacks (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

text: Probably another database error as I didn't check if the edit saved after making it. Been running into them all day for some reason. Liu1126 (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

text: Ok, it went through. The database error is known, they're working on it. DMacks (talk) 14:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2023