Talk:Combinatorial chemistry

message: Marj, i´ve read the article and maybe we can improve it. There is a "term" coined in the scientific literature called Virtual HTS, e. g.: testing all the library members against its molecular target (a enzyme or a membran protein in most of the cases) in a computer, before the synthesis.
Many things in the Combinatorial media are changing, specially the quantity of members in a comb. library, that is decreasing.
What do you think about it? --Cedric.graebin 16:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  improve it? 

message: Here is the text of a POV edit I am removing from the article.  Please comment.  If majority opinion supports inclusion, then it will get put back into the text.
:The first publication of a combinatorial library was by G. Pieczenik in 1987, with the publication of his foreign patent filings of the US patent 5,866,363 filed in 1985 with a disclosure document in 1983. http://www2.mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk/archive/g_pieczenik.html. Pieczenik worked with Bruce Merrifield and Fred Sanger, among other Nobel laureates.  A. Furka had a notarized copy of his idea of making mixed combinatorial libraries in 1982.http://www.chem.elte.hu/departments/szerves/szerves/Furka/ConcealedHTML.htm
#Remove: ~K 04:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truth or fiction?  Do we care? 

message: There ought to be some basic mathematical coverage on Combinatorial Chemistry.  For example, given M molecular types, there will be, abstractly: 76.166.236.65 (talk) 05:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: then why are you adding this information only to the discussion page, instead of including it? Do you want some one else to do it for you128.214.69.81 (talk) 08:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basics of Combinatorial Chemistry 

message: There has been large chunks of materials removed from the article. The comments were trying to justify some of them but as far as I see they were based on wrong assumptions. I am not involved in the discussion and not related to anyone here and called in as an arbitrator.
As far as I see (and I'm in a good position since I understand both English and Hungarian materials) Prof. Furka inserted large amounts of information and background on this part of chemistry which was either funded by him or considerably base on his work; he inserted references in a way scientific publication requires it (basically references every theory or method), and tried to reflect the science and history behind the topic from his view (since he's a human after all), with no visible outrageous bias. 
First batch of removals were removing the references with the "borderline spam" comment and I guess this was quite unjust. If you observe the references they follow the science publication way and if it's not proper for a wikipedia article the excess can be removed or gathered at the bottom, but not all of them and not with hostile comments.
Considering the patent issue and whether he or someone else have invented the topic: it is an important part of the article but it's not the central one. It is quite clear for me why it wasn't patented in Hungary in 1982 (the system in th so called "communist era" worked way different here) so I see why he tried to have some document to prove that he actually invented it, but it's way too much detail for a WP article, I agree. Still, it is a proof of timeline, so for me it's quite obvious that his work predated the patented methods in the US, and I see why someone would like to have this information, which may be one of his scientific breakthroughs.
The article could be wikified, and possibly some refs removed, and maybe some events trimmed (I've tried to trim the most obvious ones), but please refrain from mass removal and impolite comments. Wikipedia policy prefers to have external sources and references, more than ever. And Prof. Furka may be one who have created the science we're writing about, my guess he deserves some respect, applied with good wikipedian judgement, as we all probably prefer. :-)
Thank you. --grin ✎ 14:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removalism 

message: Note, I have no opinion on the scientific or historical claims being made in the following redacted material. The material was removed to Talk, because of issues with the way in which text and citations are being used to make the scientific and historical claims. This edit is purely procedural, and without bias as to how the argument finally settles (here or elsewhere).
1. Reference removed because its support for the very general statements being made in the lede could not be verified, and it was the only reference to currently appear in the lede. Critically, this citation is to a conference presentation, and not to a published, refereed source, and is of limited content and availability, and so not is a standard, reputable secondary source. It is not sufficient as a source to support a general statement in the lede—or for that matter, anywhere else in an encyclopedic article. The source was replaced, in the lede, with a  tag:
* Ref>Á. Furka, F. Sebestyén, J. Gulyás, Computer made electrophoretic peptide maps. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Biochem. Separations, Keszthely, Hungary, pp. 35-42 (1988).</ref>
2. Paragraph removed because of POV issues, and/or piecemeal approach to subject's founding and history:
The issues with this paragraph are as follows:
* Opening sentence: One cannot use a review article by an individual scientist to establish, at Wikipedia, that she or he (that same author) was the founder of the field; it requires several reputable independent secondary sources and even text books making this claim.
* Second sentence: One cannot use a patent by an individual scientist to establish, at Wikipedia, that she or he  (that patent submitter) was first to perform a particular procedure; it requires several reputable independent secondary sources making this claim.
* Next statement makes a further historical claim, but has sat unreferenced for more than a year.
* Next statement is a solid secondary source then appears citing Bunin-Ellman work; this was removed only because, i, to leave it would leave a single historical sentence remaining, and ii, even if all were left in, it would be a single reputable source, leaving sparse historical coverage in the field (1980s, jump, 1992, jump).
Bottom line, the whole article needs serious work, but this set of entries is so egregiously misguided in construction (Bunin-Ellman sentence excepted), that it had to be moved here, for discussion.
Note:  If this move is reverted and no serious chemistry and history work done on this section, I will call in Admins to review, because from my perspective, this addresses claims of primacy by persons living, and so it is both an important scientific POV issue, as well as being a BLP matter.
Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material moved to talk, for discussion 

message: …and a nightmare for any serious chemist to contemplate editing into a passable article, Sorry, one opinion. How it got here, no matter.  Where it goes—someone with expertise needs to come in and gut it:
* remove all unreferenced text to Talk;
* remove all primary referenced text, and all primary references, to Talk, and
then with what remains create a decent article outline and stub. If one comes to it to edit in this shape, one simply cannot easily begin to add good solid material from secondary and tertiary sources.  Until it is put into a form to receive good material, it will be any easy place to add further junk material, and will not easily be turned into a useful article.  Again, one opinion. Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Some unreferenced text was removed in a recent revision of this article. Does anything else need to be done here? Jarble (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: The whole article is a bloody mess 

message: Colleagues:  I was appointed the Founding Editor of the American Chemical Society's Journal of Combinatorial Chemistry (now ACS Combinatorial Science) and served in that capacity from 1998-2010.  .  I took on the role as Editor because the young field was not being represented by appropriate Reviewers; I felt this could only be remedied by starting a specialized journal.  Given the broad expansive of ideas, experiments, and inventions over the past 30 years, I certainly lay no claim to any special status in making indispensable contributions to this field; i.e., I'm not doing PR for a Nobel Prize canonization.  But history will show that advances in combinatorial chemistry led to enormous improvements in the discovery of substances with important properties.
I offer to write entries that represent timelines of published contributions and to try to place them into a context of 'importance'.  If those who make such decisions at Wikipedia would like to speak with me about my proposal, I can be reached at ACzarnik@unr.edu.
Anthony Czarnik
https://www.unr.edu/chemistry/people/anthony-czarnik
Tony (talk) 08:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  An offer to write an unbiased set of wiki articles to 'fix' the problems with the current Combinatorial Chemistry wiki article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Combinatorial chemistry. 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 http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160515025842/http://springerlink.metapress.com/openurl.asp?genre=journal&eissn=1573-501X to http://springerlink.metapress.com/openurl.asp?genre=journal&eissn=1573-501X
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050627080008/http://www.bentham.org/cchts/ to http://www.bentham.org/cchts/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified