Talk:Chemical revolution

message: The phrase "Chemical Revolution" is still in use by some historians of science. If it's often not used the article should be more specific about who does/doesn't use it. Maestlin 15:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The new edit is a start, but there's still a long way to go. To be complete, the article should explain when the term came into use (was Kuhn involved?), when it stopped being common terminology among historians of chemistry, and point towards some of the relevant scholarship. I cannot answer the questions myself, but hopefully someone will read these notes someday who can. Maestlin 19:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why dyou think it's a stub?--XenoNeon (converse) 07:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't call it a stub, though it might qualify as one. I pointed out several issues that are raised by the bald statement: "Chemical Revolution is an uncommon term in modern day. The term is often only used by chemists and other figures in science." When I read something like that, I want to know why it was an important term at one time, why it stopped being important, and who was involved in making the changes. I think it's analogous to a scientific theory. If I read an encyclopedia article claiming that physicists no longer use the aether theory, that's not enough. The article should say a little about why they abandoned it, maybe describe a key experiment or two. Right now, the article on ChemRev just makes an unsubstantiated generalization. That's fine for a start, but someone out there can do better. Hence my comments. Maestlin 00:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. And it retains a stub. The edit I added provided a basis, and this article, having failed it's COTW, definitely needs to be an article which the HistSci project can work on. That edit, though unspecific, is meant to provide a basis.
You misinterpretated the comment I made. You were saying how the article can be improved, and that comment was to say 'And it is a stub for those reasons', I was not asking you why you thought it was a stub.--XenoNeon (converse) 20:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Rhetorical questions are sometimes hard to spot on electronic communication. Of course I know it is not a complete article yet. Some editors make suggestions on talk pages of articles, hoping to give some inspiration to later editors who know more about the subject. That's all I was doing. I was not grousing. Maestlin 17:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Do historians agree on what was and when the Second Chemical Revolution occurred?  In this link (From Classical to Modern Chemistry: The Instrumental Revolution By Peter J. T. Morris, Royal Society of Chemistry (Great Britain), Royal Society of Chemistry, Science Museum, Science Museum (Great Britain) Published by Royal Society of Chemistry, 2002 , 9780854044795), it appears that the Second Chemical Revolution happened in the mid-20th century because of improvements in instrumentation, but I thought the Second Chemical Revolution happened in the 19th century with the advent of the periodic table. Anyone know of a survey of the literature on these various Chemical Revolutions (what I will call "Second A" and "Second B" revolutions)?--Firefly322 (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Second Chemical Revolution

message: Unless their respective articles have the dates of their lives wrong, Jöns Jakob Berzelius and Antoine Lavoisier were not contemporaries. Berzelius's major contributions happened 10 to 20 years after Lavoisier was beheaded, i'm fairly sure of this.  And I think the article comment that they were contemporaries is an achronism if not a form of presentism. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Not contemporaries

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Chemical revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090426114135/http://www.wooster.edu:80/chemistry/is/brubaker/intro.html to http://www3.wooster.edu/chemistry/is/brubaker/intro.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I changed the order of Méthode de nomenclature chimique and Traité élémentaire de chimie to fall into the correct chronological publication order.  Méthode de nomenclature chimique was published in 1787 and Traité élémentaire de chimie was published in 1789.  Previously the Traité élémentaire de chimie was discussed prior to Méthode de nomenclature chimique.
ThisIsForHistory (talk) 16:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of texts published by Lavoisier

message: I will be adding sections for the scientists Humphry Davy, John Dalton, and Jons Jacob Berzelius below the Antoine Lavoisier section.  These scientists were around during the same time and also made discoveries and contributions to the Chemical revolution and deserve their own sections.  These sections are just beginnings and need to be added to and fleshed out more. ThisIsForHistory (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding more scientist sections

message: Four sentences have been added to the end of the first paragraph on Antoine Lavoisier to help clarify that he was not the sole individual to discover the law of conservation of mass, and that other individuals before him contributed to the theory and its fundamentals. More detail is planned to be added to further discuss the earlier contributions of scientists before Lavoisier and how their work influenced the development of the principal of conservation of mass. Charles Cooley (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions to Antoine Lavoisier Section