Talk:William Lipscomb

message: Chemists welcome to add, change, delete some items.  I do not have the chemistry background to get some items to professional quality.  And I want to quit the job of editing my father's page, which I have done with full disclosure on my talk page and using my real name, for potential conflict-of-interest reasons.  My thoughts on the page:
=== All text in all sections ===
Needs to be scrutinized by scientists and verified as, or changed to be, accurate, plus such changes as perhaps might lift the issue of my potential conflict-of-interest.
Credit: Unusual on this page is the names of about a hundred students and colleagues in the text and in references.  This normal scientific practice, unusual in an encyclopedia, gives proper credit to those who made discoveries.  An alternate treatment that omits these names, except as whole phrases are omitted, might give undue credit to Lipscomb but certainly take away credit from individuals who deserve it.  Of particular importance are the stories of the three-center two-electron bond, the Extended Huckel method, and low-temperature x-ray diffraction where there were particularly strong contributions from other laboratories.
Characterizations: I added just limited characterizations of individual research results of the Lipscomb group.  I avoid characterizations of the research that are broad or are of Lipscomb himself, such as one I found where Lipscomb is said to be, "... one of the founding fathers of protein crystallography in the North America."  Statements in these categories are overviews that may give context to a collection of results, but would have to be added by someone else.
All images (except in Large Biological Molecule ... section): Replace by same images, but file names to omit "Lipscomb" prefix (download, change file name, upload, link to).  Prefixes like this are a good way to organize files on a computer, but do not meet Wikipedia naming standards.  Images Ethane-barrier.png and Diborane b2h6 bonding diagram.png are online and ready to link to.  Need to do the same for others.
Possible individual issues to address:
=== Nuclear Magnetic Resonance and the Chemical Shift ===
What if anything did Lipscomb discover about NMR?  What is the significance of his work?
Checking dates it appears to me that Lipscomb publihed the first comprehensive theory of the chemical shift.  But I do not know this to be a fact, so I cannot add it to Lipscomb's page. - jslipscomb 27 June 2012.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jslipscomb (talk • contribs) 22:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is often dangerous to describe someone or something as the first. The article now cites Ref.15 published in 1966 on this point. However there were earlier theoretical treatments of chemical shift, including one as early as 1954 by physicist Charles Pence Slichter. Which papers could be considered comprehensive could be a matter for long debate. So I think we are better to say a comprehensive theory rather than the first and leave it at that. Dirac66 (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add, delete, changes needed 

message: What if anything did Lipscomb discover about NMR?  What is the significance of his work?
Checking dates it appears to me that Lipscomb publihed the first comprehensive theory of the chemical shift.  But I do not know this to be a fact, so I cannot add it to Lipscomb's page. - jslipscomb 27 June 2012.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jslipscomb (talk • contribs) 22:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is often dangerous to describe someone or something as the first. The article now cites Ref.15 published in 1966 on this point. However there were earlier theoretical treatments of chemical shift, including one as early as 1954 by physicist Charles Pence Slichter. Which papers could be considered comprehensive could be a matter for long debate. So I think we are better to say a comprehensive theory rather than the first and leave it at that. Dirac66 (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuclear Magnetic Resonance and the Chemical Shift 

message: Carboxypeptidase A: Needs verification.  Explanation of what Carboxypeptidase A does was written by me, because the Carboxypeptidase A Wiki page seemed to me to start off at too high-level for beginners.  My explanation needs verifying by a scientist, perhaps edited, and then maybe added to the Carboxypeptidase A page.  Another source to consider: the Carboxypeptidase page has a good first paragraph, but generalized and not specific to Carboxypeptidase A.
Aspartate carbamoyltransferase: Needs verification.  Explanation of what Aspartate carbamoyltransferase does was written by me, because the Aspartate carbamoyltransferase Wiki page seemed to me to start off at too high-level for beginners.  My explanation needs verifying by a scientist, perhaps edited, and then maybe added to the Aspartate carbamoyltransferase page.
All molecules: Need a sentence or two on what Lipscomb's group discovered for each molecule beyond just the structure.  Perhaps to make room the existing text on what the molecule does could be cut back.
Delete? Paragraph starting, "Lipscomb's group also contributed to an understanding of ...." lists comparatively minor results, which perhaps are not of sufficient interest for an encyclopedia.
-- jslipscomb (talk) 01:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large Biological Molecule Structure and Function 

message: I understand that a major editor here is the subject's son. I was asked to look over the article, but this is beyond my realm of understanding, so I am requesting an independent expert to verify this article. Phearson (talk) 04:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Many of the links are bad, too, but I'll leave them in case the editors want to tweak them or find the correct links (if any).   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.147.182 (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: COI & expert needed

message: I think this article would be better if jslipscomb could move most of the chemistry to the relevant entries and just leave this page as the biographical page for the person in question. I understand that Lipscomb was a Nobel Prize winning chemist, but this should really be about his life, achievements, etc; which can be verified using other than primary, or secondary sources. Or am I being an idiot? Skeptic sid (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. There is no reason to explain the chemistry here - rather the article should mention the different areas of his research and specific accomplishments.  Toddst1 (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this a biography of a person or chemistry?

message: I expanded Lipscomb's biography, adding sections on Early Years and on Educations.  Consequently I removed the expansion-required flag that had been put on the Biography section.  New material is sourced entirely from Lipscomb's extended autobiography, which is online for verification.  See reference on the William Lipscomb page.
jslipscomb (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Greetings, with your caveat about obituaries, I added the citation to Dr. Lipscomb's cause of death from http://www.nesacs.org/Noticeboard/2011/LIPSCOMB_CHEM_EDUCATOR(JUL2011).pdf ( which because it is a pdf, I did not make clickable link ).  I think even if it were rushed to print, it is highly likely that cause of demise is correct.  I have no relationship to Dr. Lipscomb of which I'm aware, I was reading random pages and came upon the biography.  Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Biography section expansion

message: Hello, as I am the one who tagged the article as being edited by a possible COI, I like to apologize if this has prevented any editors from contributing. I was responding to a request by another editor to check if there was any promotional content being added by the subject's relative. I was not able to determine that, as the science is beyond my understanding past an american high school diploma and a ISO certification in computer maintenance. To help signal to other editors of a potential problem, I tagged it, so that anyone looking through the tags of "COI" and "Expert Attention needed" may be able to in/validate the additions. At no time was there any restriction implied to COI editors as long as the material they added was not in dispute. The tagging was done as a protective/maintenance precaution. Phearson (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No apology needed, you were entirely right to tag the article. In fact, its the removal of the tag that I did under the auspices of WP:IAR :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

text: I'm cool.  The COI banner was a prudent measure until the page could be checked and either fixed or cleared.  But meanwhile, I just had to sit it out.  jslipscomb (talk) 22:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Apology