Discussion Wikipédia: Cabale de médiation / Études / 2010-11-21 / Masse Kendrick – Wikipedia – ecrire un livre de cuisine gratuit

salut! J'inviterai maintenant les trois parties à écrire de brèves déclarations à ce sujet. Je comprends que cela dure depuis assez longtemps et que vous avez peut-être écrit de nombreuses déclarations dans le passé – mais je veux que votre texte soit centré sur les domaines dans lesquels un accord est possible. S'il vous plaît rappelez-vous d'utiliser la civilité et l'ouverture d'esprit car nous pouvons utiliser cela comme un meilleur moyen de démarrer ce processus.

Après avoir lu vos déclarations et l'historique de l'affaire, je vais essayer de commencer la discussion sur les points de consensus possibles avant de passer aux grandes questions. À votre santé, Lord Roem (parler) 18h23, le 31 décembre 2010 (UTC)

Résumé du litige(modifier)

Le problème peut être réduit à la question de l’approvisionnement approprié et à la prise en compte des sources. Je pense que nous sommes tous d'accord pour dire que

(1) Les directives de Wikipedia s’appliquent, en particulier WP: SOURCE et WP: OU.
(2) Il existe plusieurs sources secondaires ((1)) qui définissent la masse de Kendrick comme "masse de Kendrick = masse IUPAC x (14 / 14.01565)" (essentiellement une procédure de mise à l’échelle de graphe) et indiquent la masse de Kendrick en unités de daltons (Da).
(3) Il existe une source primaire ((2)) qui rapporte la masse de Kendrick en unités Kendrick et utilise le symbole Ke, suggérant une unité de Kendrick.
(4) Il y a des directives générales pour la métrologie (ISO 31, Livre vert IUPAC, etc.) qui doivent être suivies dans la mesure du possible.

Le différend peut être réduit au poids relatif attribué aux 1–4 ci-dessus. Je dirais que 1> 2> 3> 4 par WP: PSTS et cela WP: POIDS suggère de donner à (2) une plus grande couverture que dans (3) dans l'article, mais que (3) devrait être mentionné (voir la discussion ici pour un exemple (3)). Je pense que Kehrli soutient que les conflits entre (2) et (4) devraient être résolus en faveur de (4) et que seul (3) devrait apparaître dans l'article. Je ne suis pas d'accord car (a) je ne pense pas qu'il existe un conflit et (b) même s'il y a conflit, le concept de "vérifiabilité, pas vérité" nous dit de garder (2) même si ce n'est pas le cas " sympa "du point de vue de la métrologie. Je pense que Nick Y. pourrait ne pas être d'accord avec moi sur (a) mais serait d'accord sur (b) et sur la nécessité d'inclure les concepts de (2) avec un poids approprié par rapport à (3). –Kkmurray (parler) 00h00, le 3 janvier 2011 (UTC)

Je suis parfaitement d'accord avec Kkmurray. Il fait remarquer que je pourrais ne pas être d'accord avec son point (a). Je suis effectivement d'accord, mais avec une conviction et une préoccupation limitées. Il peut y avoir quelques conflits mineurs, mais dans la plupart des cas il n'y en a pas. Je trouve simplement que le point (a) est discutable et distrait de la prise de décision éditoriale puisque le point (b) de Kkmurray est clair dès le lendemain, ferme le dossier complètement et aurait de toute façon priorité sur le débat au point (a). Le point de débat (a) valide la position de Kehrli selon laquelle nous devrions choisir la vérité, l’élégance et la cohérence interne plutôt que la vérifiabilité. Nous ne devrions même pas discuter des notations et des unités qui sont meilleures dans ce contexte. Si la notation qui prévaut sur le terrain est à mon avis horriblement défectueuse, je l'utiliserai néanmoins dans le contexte de Wikipedia. Je pourrais aller écrire un article * ailleurs * sur comment et pourquoi tout le monde devrait changer ses pratiques et ses notations, mais pas ici. Je fais exactement cela sur un autre sujet à publier dans la littérature primaire. Un jour, la notation, les unités et les pratiques en vigueur peuvent changer. Nous modifierons alors Wikipédia pour refléter l'utilisation en vigueur. La grande question ici est "vérifiabilité vs vérité". Kehrli constate de nombreuses incohérences dans la littérature scientifique. Il / elle formule ensuite un "meilleur" moyen et l’implémente directement dans Wikipedia dans l’espoir de persuader la communauté d’adopter une nouvelle approche. Il / elle a pris conscience des lignes de soutien, telles que la citation de la littérature, nécessaires pour appuyer son argument et rendre le conflit plus subtil. Cependant, une source qui soutient son opinion ne gagne pas plus de 20 sources. Je préférerais que Kherli réalise le but de wikipedia et contribue de manière constructive dans ce contexte plutôt que de trouver des moyens toujours plus efficaces de promouvoir son POV .–Nick Y. (parler) 17h58, le 6 janvier 2011 (UTC)

Je vais attendre la déclaration de Kehrli avant de poursuivre. Mais je tiens à remercier les deux parties jusqu’ici d’avoir expliqué la controverse succinctement. Lord Roem (parler) 01h56, le 7 janvier 2011 (UTC)

Résumé du litige par Kehrli(modifier)

1) D'un côté nous avons un Vocabulaire international de métrologie (VIM) qui est un consensus de la IUPAP (représentant tous les physiciens), le IUPAC (représentant les chimistes), le ISO (représentant le commerce et le commerce) et l'Organisation internationale de métrologie légale OIML représentant la loi. En d'autres termes: VIM établit une terminologie qui est le consensus de la science, du commerce et du droit.

2) De l’autre côté, nous avons un petit groupe de scientifiques qui continuent à utiliser un jargon ancien et dépassé dans un domaine scientifique restreint (environ 100 publications d’une cinquantaine de scientifiques). Vivant dans une tour d'ivoire, ils s'en moquent et ne connaissent probablement même pas le VIM.

3) Le jargon qu'ils utilisent n'est en aucun cas cohérent. Différents groupes utilisent un jargon différent. Les personnes du même groupe utilisent un jargon différent. Pire encore: dans un seul article, ils utilisent une terminologie contradictoire.

4) Parmi la centaine de publications, il en existe une ((4)) qui conserve la plupart du temps la terminologie VIM. Cette publication est également la publication la plus récente.

5) Les quelque 100 autres publications n’utilisent en aucun cas un "jargon commun". C'est plutôt comme si chaque publication utilisait son propre jargon.

6) La loi oblige généralement les personnes morales (telles que les entreprises, les gouvernements, les tribunaux) à utiliser la terminologie VIM. Les chercheurs universitaires ne le sont pas.

7) Toutes les règles pertinentes du manuel de style de Wikipedia favorisent l’utilisation de la terminologie VIM.

Basé sur ces faits, J’ai proposé une série de questions sur lesquelles nous espérons pouvoir trouver un consensus:

Existe-t-il des règles vérifiables concernant la terminologie en science quantitative, commerce et commerce?

Se mettre d'accord, il s’appelle le VIM (Vocabulaire international de métrologie). C’est le terrain d’entente commun de l’IUPAP, de l’IUPAC et de l’ISO. Kehrli (parler)
Certains scientifiques s'en tiennent-ils à la terminologie VIM en la matière?

Se mettre d'accord, dans cet article, ils font en grande partie: (5) Kehrli (parler)
Est-ce que la plupart des scientifiques dans ce domaine ne s'en tiennent pas à la terminologie VIM et utilisent leur propre jargon?

Se mettre d'accord. Dans de nombreux journaux, ils ne le font pas.Kehrli (parler)
Le jargon est-il au moins utilisé de manière cohérente?

Être en désaccord. De nombreux utilisateurs de jargon (également Marshall) ne l'utilisent même pas systématiquement au sein de la même publication. Kehrli (parler)
Wikipedia devrait-il utiliser l'une de ces terminologies de jargon simplement parce qu'il est utilisé de manière vérifiable?

Être en désaccord. Le fait que certaines personnes fassent quelque chose d'une manière vérifiable n'est pas une raison suffisante pour l'utiliser dans Wikipedia. Plus formellement: WP: VÉRIFIER est une condition nécessaire mais non suffisante. Cette erreur logique est décrite dans le condition nécessaire et suffisante article. Kehrli (parler)

J'espère que, en répondant franchement à ces questions, nous trouverons un terrain d'entente. Kehrli (parler) 11h03, le 9 janvier 2011 (UTC)

Merci pour votre déclaration et à tous pour vos commentaires à l’amiable jusqu’à présent. Je crois que le différend est réglé, mais j’ai une question à poser avant de poursuivre. Kehrli, la terminologie VIM appuierait quelle définition? Une unité de Kendrick ou le Dalton? Lequel est-ce sur le côté de? – Lord Roem (parler) 00h34, 10 janvier 2011 (UTC) Permettez-moi de reformuler. Que voulez-vous spécifiquement dans l'article basé sur les sources VIM? – Lord Roem (parler) 00h46, le 10 janvier 2011 (UTC)
Je viens de terminer la lecture de la page de discussion de l'article et je crois que je comprends beaucoup mieux les côtés maintenant. Je suis conscient que toutes les parties ont défini des voies pour parvenir à un compromis et j'encourage tout le monde à engager un débat sur chaque «liste de questions» proposée. En même temps, je vais aussi commencer un chemin. De cette manière, tout le monde aura l'occasion de discuter de chaque élément du différend, en commençant par les questions fondamentales. Si quelqu'un a des inquiétudes, des questions, etc. concernant ce processus de médiation, je vous prie de le préciser ici. Nous devons nous engager dans une communication ouverte, ce qui implique de garder le débat ici afin de pouvoir centraliser la discussion.
Enfin, je demande que nous gardions une approche "non interchangeable" des articles en litige pour le moment, quel que soit l'état actuel de ceux-ci, afin d'éviter toute flambée. Je sens tout le monde veut pour parvenir à un accord et donc ce processus peut très probablement être couronné de succès. À votre santé, Lord Roem (parler) 02h26, le 10 janvier 2011 (UTC)

Lord Roem, mon souci principal est que cela devienne extrêmement technique. J'aurais apprécié un médiateur possédant d'excellentes connaissances en métrologie, car au final, il s'agit de métrologie et non de chimie. Quel est votre domaine d'expertise? Vous devriez au moins lire le VIM afin de vous faire une idée des règles de terminologie dont nous parlons. Vous pouvez télécharger le VIM à partir d'ici: (6).
Kermit et Nick essaieront de décrire cela comme un conflit entre VIM et un seul papier par rapport à tous les autres. Ce n'est pas vrai, car ce qu'ils considèrent comme un jargon unique dans tous les autres journaux est en fait un fouillis de beaucoup de jargons différents incompatibles les uns avec les autres. Vos connaissances en métrologie devront devenir suffisamment bonnes pour y parvenir. Kehrli (parler) 11h32, le 10 janvier 2011 (UTC)

(En instance) – Jusqu'à présent, la discussion est restée relativement facile à mener et pour cela, j'applaudis toutes les parties. Par souci de divulgation, oui, je n'ai aucune expérience dans le domaine de la métrologie; néanmoins, je vois que les deux «camps» voient la question comme «quelle source devrait être utilisée» et WP: POIDS de celui-ci. Je crée personnellement des articles dans le domaine du droit.
Je souhaite lire encore une page de discussion avant de passer à l'étape suivante. – Lord Roem (parler) 15h46, le 10 janvier 2011 (UTC)

Les questions de Kerli reformulent mes points 4, 3, 2, 2 et 1 dans cet ordre, de sorte que je pense que le litige peut être réduit à l'attribution de leur priorité relative. Il semble que Kehrli soit d’accord avec le point 2 pour dire que toutes les sources secondaires et la plupart des sources primaires définissent "masse de Kendrick = masse IUPAC x (14 / 14.01565)" et utilisent des unités Da, mais que son interprétation du VIM et d’autres directives de métrologie générales ne mentionnant pas ou définir la masse de Kendrick (point 4) le porte à croire que ces sources ne devraient pas être utilisées dans l'article de Kendrick Mass. Cela semble donner à une source (Junnien 2010 – Question 2 de Kehrli et mon Point 3) un poids excessif, par opposition à WP: POIDS. Utiliser Wikipedia pour "corriger" les travaux publiés dans des sources primaires et secondaires en chimie de manière à ce qu'ils soient cohérents avec une interprétation donnée par les éditeurs aux directives générales en métrologie ne correspond pas à la WP: OU concept de non recherche originale. –Kkmurray (parler) 14h56, le 10 janvier 2011 (UTC)

Je suis d'accord avec votre point (1) et bien sûr, le VIM est une bien meilleure source que certains documents qui traitent de la chimie, pas de la terminologie. Kehrli (parler)
L'équation "Masse de Kendrick = masse IUPAC x (14 / 14.01565)" est un bon exemple de terminologie erronée: qu'est-ce qui Masse IUPAC? Où est-il défini? Où est la source? Quel est le sens de Masse de Kendrick? Selon la terminologie habituelle, ce doit être la masse de M. Kendrick, ce qui n’est évidemment pas le sens ici. Il n’est défini nulle part de manière propre et adéquate, sauf dans le dernier article que vous refusez. Votre point (2) est écrit dans un jargon tel que personne en dehors de la chimie ne peut même le comprendre. Je ne suis certainement pas d'accord avec cela parce que je ne peux même pas le comprendre. Tu ne peux pas non plus. Vous ne nous avez jamais dit l'interprétation de cette équation. J'ai écrit plusieurs centaines de mots à ce sujet, vous n'avez pas écrit un seul mot. Pas même un exemple. Bien sûr, VIM ne définit pas Masse de Kendrick parce que c'est un concept qui n'a pas de sens. VIM ne définit pas non plus Masse IUPAC, même si UICPA a co-écrit VIM. Pourquoi pensez-vous cela est? Parce que Masse IUPAC est un terme dénué de sens. Un concept erroné qui ne ferait que dérouter les lecteurs de Wikipedia. En utilisant ma terminologie, les lecteurs de Wikipédia peuvent rechercher les termes qu’ils ne comprennent pas. Ils peuvent le rechercher dans Wikipedia, dans VIM, dans le livre rouge de l'UIPPA, dans le livre vert de l'UIPPA. Ils trouveront des centaines de sources. En revanche, vos sources ne sont même pas accessibles aux lecteurs de Wikipedia sauf s’ils sont disposés à payer 20 dollars. Et s'ils payaient, ils ne trouveraient même pas ces termes définis. Aucune source du tout.Kehrli (parler) -Précédent sans date commentaire ajouté 21h50, 10 janvier 2011 (UTC).
Il est clair que les auteurs signifient que les unités utilisées dans la mesure, généralement Da, restent les mêmes après la multiplication. Kim et al. 2003 (7) est particulièrement clair à ce sujet. –Kkmurray (parler) 03h31, 11 janvier 2011 (UTC)

Lignes directrices pour ce processus(modifier)

1. N'oubliez pas d'agir dans bonne foi avec tous les participants à la médiation. Ce processus est destiné à encourager la discussion et le compromis, pas une méthode pour combattre les autres.

2. Soyez ouvert avec vos opinions et ne soyez pas timide – nous avons besoin d'une base pour faire confiance à tout le monde.

3. Reconnaître le but de la médiation – empêcher l'escalade.

4. Je vous demande de "regarder" cette page pour être au courant de toutes les nouvelles discussions, réponses, etc. – Précédente non signé commentaire ajouté par Lord Roem (parlercontributions) 22h11, le 10 janvier 2011 (UTC)

Gardant cela à l’esprit, commençons le processus.

J'ai essayé de formuler des questions du point de vue des deux côtés, afin de stimuler la discussion sur «l'argument central» de chacun. J'encourage tout le monde à discuter des deux ci-dessous. Une fois que nous aurons terminé ici, nous disposerons d’une meilleure base pour examiner les questions de poids. – Lord Roem (parler)

I. Le "VIM" établit-il une "unité Kendrick" par opposition à un Da?(modifier)

La raison pour laquelle je commence ici est qu’il semble y avoir un désaccord sur le point de savoir si l’une des sources indique même qu’il existe une "unité Kendrick". Avant de pouvoir procéder à la détermination de la poids des sources, nous devons déterminer ce que les sources disent. Cette question est penchée du pov de ceux qui affirment qu’il n’existe aucune unité kendrick dans le VIM. Cela devrait donner une chance pour une discussion détaillée de la source elle-même. Lord Roem (parler) 21h59, le 10 janvier 2011 (UTC)

La source VIM ((8)) ne mentionne pas la masse de Kendrick, l’unité de Kendrick ou l’unité de Dalton. Il "couvre les principes de base régissant les quantités et les unités" mais ne va pas au-delà des bases. –Kkmurray (parler) 04:06, 11 janvier 2011 (UTC)
Aucune source liée à "Kendrick ____" n'existe en dehors d'un très petit nombre de publications sur la spectrométrie de masse .–Nick Y. (parler) 18h45, le 11 janvier 2011 (UTC)
Le VIM énonce les règles fondamentales relatives aux quantités et aux unités. Ce n'est pas l'endroit pour définir les unités elles-mêmes. Par conséquent, l'unité de masse kendrick n'est pas définie dans VIM. Ni l'unité de masse daltons, ni la livre, ni la tonne, ni l'unité de masse atomique. Aucune unité de masse n'est définie dans VIM. Seul le kg est cité en exemple. Le VIM est comme une constitution: il définit les règles fondamentales. Vous ne trouverez pas de définition des panneaux de signalisation dans la constitution. Il est seulement important que tout panneau de signalisation ne viole pas la constitution. Malheureusement, la terminologie préconisée par Kermit et Nick viole le VIM. Cette violation est la raison pour laquelle le VIM est important dans cette affaire. Kehrli (parler) 21h52, le 11 janvier 2011 (UTC)
Kehrli, car il semble que le VIM ne définisse pas une "unité" kendrick – quelle source avez-vous qui la définit? J'essaie d'examiner les sources pour déterminer ce qu'elles disent réellement avant d'essayer de WP: WEIGH leur. – Lord Roem (parler) 21h59, le 11 janvier 2011 (UTC)
Il y a beaucoup de sources. Google pour le terme de recherche "Unités de masse Kendrick". Il y aura environ 10 journaux où les gens utilisent des unités de masse qu'ils appellent Kendrick. Ensuite, regardez aussi les références ici:Kendrick_unit # Définition. Kehrli (parler) 22h18, 12 janvier 2011 (UTC)

II. Y a-t-il un problème avec la source VIM?(modifier)

Cette question est du "pov" de Kehrli qui plaide pour la source VIM. Existe-t-il quelque chose qui indiquerait que l'utilisation du VIM est, à première vue, mauvaise? En d’autres termes, sans entrer dans les interprétations de la source elle-même ou de son poids, la source VIM est-elle une source «raisonnable» à utiliser? Lord Roem (parler) 21h59, le 10 janvier 2011 (UTC)

VIM est une source raisonnable dans le cadre des principes de base des quantités et des unités. Comme il ne mentionne ni ne définit la masse de Kendrick ou une unité Kendrick, il ne peut pas être utilisé pour soutenir l’existence d’une unité Kendrick par unité. WP: SYN, mais c’est une source raisonnable pour les définitions de base en métrologie. –Kkmurray (parler) 04h25, le 11 janvier 2011 (UTC)

VIM est une excellente source sur la façon dont les unités * devraient * être définies et si une nouvelle unité devait être créée, ce serait le guide principal. Si nous devions discuter de la manière de créer et de définir correctement l'unité Kendrick en tant que scientifique produisant une nouvelle unité utile, ce serait le meilleur endroit à regarder. Le problème avec VIM dans ce cas et avec l'édition de wikipedia de Kehrli en général est que définir correctement de nouvelles unités n'est pas ce dont il s'agit, pas plus que notre travail d'éditeurs de wikipedia est de peser sur des questions en discussion au sein de la communauté scientifique telles que comme la naissance d'une nouvelle unité. (Nous pourrions cependant faire un compte rendu du débat, mais ne pas y participer). Toute cette question est extrêmement naissante et ne gagnera probablement jamais beaucoup de toute façon. Si une nouvelle unité devait finalement être largement acceptée, ce serait dans des décennies et, à mon avis, jamais. Il y a beaucoup plus de débats ici sur ces questions que dans le monde entier. Kehrli a probablement réfléchi plus que quiconque à la définition correcte d'une unité Kendrick. Sa position est bien pensée, cohérente avec VIM et élégante, mais ne reflète pas l’usage dominant ni le statut actuel de la définition d’une nouvelle unité dans la littérature scientifique. –Nick Y. (parler) 19h27, le 11 janvier 2011 (UTC)
Je suis d'accord avec la déclaration de Kermit. Le VIM est le "recenseur métrologique commun" de la science, du commerce, du commerce et du droit. C’est donc une source essentielle de terminologie dans Wikipedia, qui ne vise pas exclusivement les chimistes. Les articles dans Wikipedia ne doivent pas être en contradiction avec la terminologie VIM. Il est évident que le VIM ne définit pas l'unité de masse Kendrick, de la même manière que la constitution ne définit pas les panneaux de signalisation.
Je suis fermement en désaccord avec l'affirmation de Nick: il donne l'impression que l'unité de masse Kendrick a été introduite et définie pour la première fois dans Wikipedia. C'est complètement faux. L'unité de masse Kendrick a été mentionnée dans plusieurs journaux il y a de nombreuses années. Pour donner un exemple, Marshall et ses co-auteurs ont écrit en 2001:

Toutes les valeurs de masse de Kendrick peuvent ensuite être balayées pour trouver chaque série d’ions différant de (par exemple) 14 000 ± 0,001 unité de masse de Kendrick. (Can. J. Chem. 79: 546–551 (2001))
L'unité de masse Kendrick a été introduite pour la première fois par Kendrick lui-même en 1963. Il l'a bien définie. Comme il était un homme modeste, il ne l'appelait pas Unité de masse Kendrick. Cela n'a été fait que plus tard par d'autres chercheurs, comme Marshall ci-dessus, afin de le féliciter. Kendrick n'a pas nommé l'unité, il a plutôt parlé de la CH2 Echelle de masse. Permettez-moi également de dire que les définitions de 1963 de Kendrick s'accordent beaucoup mieux avec VIM que le texte proposé par Kermit. Ceci est assez remarquable car le VIM n'existait même pas à cette époque. En d'autres termes, si Kermit s'en tenait à la terminologie de Kendrick, nous aurions beaucoup moins de problèmes ici.Kehrli (parler) 22h35, 11 janvier 2011 (UTC)
Seriez-vous en mesure de poster un lien vers le document Marshall et d'autres articles utilisant cette terminologie? – Lord Roem (parler) 22h38, 11 janvier 2011 (UTC)

Source Marshall(modifier)

Ainsi, la section applicable de la source Marshall dit:

Les données spectrales de masse ont été converties en masse de Kendrick
échelle pour faciliter la séparation et l'identification des
séries pseudohomologiques (c.-à-d. une série de composés différant
en masse de 14,01565 Da (CH2) d'un membre à l'autre
suivant). Dans l’échelle de masse de Kendrick (18), chaque valeur de masse est
multiplié par (14.00000 / 14.01565), de sorte que le Kendrick
la masse de CH2 devient 14.00000. Avec cette convention, les membres
d'une série homologue différant par des multiples de CH2
chacun a le même défaut de masse. Toute la masse de Kendrick
les valeurs peuvent ensuite être balayées pour trouver chaque série d'ions différents
par (disons) 14.000 ± 0.001 unités de masse Kendrick. le
le type pour chacune de ces séries est ensuite déterminé à partir de la valeur z
(CnH2n + z) pour localiser les porphyrines contenant V = O, Ni et Na
(voir ci-dessous).

Ma question à Nick et à Kkmurray serait donc la suivante: d’abord, croyez-vous que cette source puisse être utilisée pour dire l’existence d’une «unité kendrick» ou croyez-vous qu’il s’agit d’une extrapolation et b) avez-vous des problèmes avec la source Marshall?

Si nous pouvons explorer ces choses maintenant que la source a été identifiée, nous pourrons aller dans la bonne direction. – Lord Roem (parler) 23h15, le 11 janvier 2011 (UTC)

Kehrli interprète mal Marshall ici. Marshall utilise explicitement la masse de Kendrick en abrégé de la masse mesurée (généralement en unités de Da) multipliée par le rapport de la masse nominale de l'unité de répétition divisée par la masse exacte de l'unité de répétition. En d'autres termes, la "masse de Kendrick = masse IUPAC x (14 / 14.01565)" pour CH2 répéter des unités que l'on trouve chez Marshall et d'autres dans la littérature. On peut compter en unités (pluriel) de la masse de Kendrick mais l'unité (au singulier) généralement associée à la masse de Kendrick est Da, comme l'indique la définition de Marshall. Marshall ne définit pas une nouvelle unité de masse et cela se reflète dans son travail et dans les sources secondaires. Un article en libre accès de Marshall est ici: (9). –Kkmurray (parler) 03h03, 12 janvier 2011 (UTC)
Kermit interprète mal Marshall ici. Marshall écrit:

… différant par exemple de 14 000 ± 0,001 unités de masse Kendrick.
Si Marshall penserait que le l'unité (singulière) généralement associée à la masse de Kendrick est Da alors il aurait écrit:

… différant de (disons) 14 000 ± 0,001 unité de masse de Dalton.
ou

… différant de (disons) 14 000 ± 0,001 unité de Dalton.
ou

… différant de (disons) 14.000 ± 0.001 Da.
ou

… différant de (disons) 14 000 ± 0,001 daltons.
Je ne sais pas et je ne veux pas spéculer sur ce que Marshall voulait réellement dire, mais d'après ce qu'il a écrit, nous devons en conclure qu'il croit qu'il existe un Unité de masse Kendrick c'est différent de l'unité de masse de Dalton. Il n'y a aucune allusion à l'interprétation de Kermit. L'affirmation de Kermit est équivalente à l'analogie suivante: imaginez que quelqu'un écrit: ma masse est de 100 livres puis Kermit dit: cette personne voulait réellement dire que son poids est de 100 kg même si tout le monde voit qu'il s'agit d'une personne mince qui ne peut pas peser 100 kg. En fait, nous savons tous que la masse de 12CH2 n'est pas 14.000 ± 0,001 Da. Kehrli (parler) 20h41, 12 janvier 2011 (UTC)
Le mot "unité" peut signifier un élément d'un ensemble d'éléments identiques ou un standard de mesure. D'après le contexte et l'équation, il est clair que Marshall signifie le premier. Les sources secondaires citant la source principale de Marshall interprètent également le sens de Marshall. Par WP: PSTS nous ne devrions pas essayer de deviner ce que Marshall veut dire si cela a déjà été interprété par des sources secondaires (voir (dix)). –Kkmurray (parler) 23h19, 12 janvier 2011 (UTC)
L’unité de masse de Dalton est également un d'une collection de choses identiques. Par conséquent, je ne suis pas en désaccord avec votre interprétation. Mais je dis que l'unité de masse Kendrick est aussi une unité de masse. C’est tellement évident que nous ne devrions même pas en parler. On a:

la unité de masse atomique amu
la unité de masse atomique unifiée vous
la Unité de masse Dalton Da
la kg unité de masse kg
et le Unité de masse Kendrick Ke
Il n'y a aucune raison pour que les derniers soient traités différemment des autres.

Kendrick source(modifier)

Kendrick, dans son article où il a présenté ce que nous appelons maintenant la méthode Kendrick, a clairement indiqué qu'il considérait cela comme une nouvelle unité de masse. Il a écrit:

L'échelle de masse CH2: Messes on the O16 échelle (unités de masse atomique) et C12 l'échelle (U) peut être convertie en CH2 échelle en divisant par 1.0014361 et 1.0011178, respectivement.
Kendrick précise par la présente qu’il voit sa nouvelle balance de masse comme un ajout aux balances de masse existantes. En particulier, il précise que ce n'est pas à Dalton ou à vous. La terminologie de Kendrick est essentiellement conforme à celle de VIM. Il y a des erreurs:

1) il devrait être 16O au lieu de O16.
2) il aurait dû donner un nom à sa nouvelle unité
3) Il n'a pas explicitement dit quoi diviser. Il aurait dû écrire: … en divisant le facteur numérique par 1,0014361 et 1,0011178, respectivement.
Ce sont toutes des erreurs mineures. Il y a vraiment une raison maintenant de mal interpréter l'écriture de Kendrick d'une manière aussi grossière que celle des auteurs suivants. En particulier, il convient de mentionner que:

1) Kendrick N'A PAS dimensionné une unité existante, ce qui contredit extrêmement VIM
2) Kendrick N'A PAS introduit de Masse de Kendrick (ou une terminologie équivalente) qui contredit VIM
3) Kendrick N'A PAS utilisé le terme Masse IUPAC pour indiquer une masse en unités de Da ou u
4) Kendrick N'A PAS dimensionné une masse, modifiant ainsi la masse du CH2 molécule.
Toutes les erreurs vraiment graves ont été introduites plus tard, par d'autres scientifiques. Ils ont ainsi fait référence à Kendrick, ce qui est évidemment faux. C’est un fait regrettable que de nombreux chimistes ne font tout simplement pas attention à la terminologie. Nous savons tous que. Il est évident que l'article de Kendrick soutient mon point de vue beaucoup mieux que celui de Kermit et de Nick.Kehrli (parler) 11h01, le 13 janvier 2011 (UTC)

Source de Junninen(modifier)

Lorsque nous aurons terminé la discussion sur la source Marshall ci-dessus, nous devrions passer à la source Junninen. Dans cette section, nous devons déterminer a) si la source crée une définition d'une "unité kendrick" et b) si la source est, à première vue, raisonnable pour une utilisation dans Wikipedia. – Lord Roem (parler) 23h19, le 11 janvier 2011 (UTC)

Junninen écrit:

Il simplifie l'interprétation d'un spectre de masse organique complexe en exprimant la masse de molécules d'hydrocarbures en unités de Kendrick (où m (12CH2) = 14 Ke) au lieu de Dalton (où m (12C) = 12 Da) (Kendrick, 1963). Dans les unités Kendrick, tous les membres de la série homologue ont le même défaut de masse Kendrick …
C’est une définition claire, complètement analogue à la définition du Da par l’IUPAC, dans un bon journal. Et cela va dans le sens de VIM, la constitution. C'est aussi très récent. C'est la meilleure source de tous les temps.Kehrli (parler) 23h35, le 11 janvier 2011 (UTC)
La source semble définir une unité de Kendrick, bien qu’elle soit un peu oblique. Cela ne correspond pas à l’équilibre de la littérature dans le domaine. Mais, en tant que publication évaluée par les pairs dans une revue réputée (lien ici: (11)) c’est une source raisonnable à considérer selon WP: POIDS. –Kkmurray (parler) 03h38, 12 janvier 2011 (UTC)
Voici la définition de l'unité de masse atomique unifiée dans le Livre vert IUPAC:

u = mune(12C) / 12 (chapitre 3.7)
Voici la définition de l'unité de masse Kendrick dans l'article de Junninen:

m(12CH2) = 14 Ke
Simple math apporte cette équation sous la forme suivante:

Ke = m(12CH2) / 14
Ceci est exactement équivalent à la définition officielle par l’UICPA de l’unité de masse atomique unifiée u.
Maintenant, j'aimerais voir la source de Kermit qui montre que la définition de Ke est un peu obliquement.
Conclusion: cette définition est très cohérente avec la publication la plus importante sur la terminologie dans le domaine. L'affirmation de Kermit n'est pas basée sur des sources et est assez étrange. Kehrli (parler) 20h15, 12 janvier 2011 (UTC)
N'utilisons pas le langage 'scandaleux' ici.
Kkmurray, voudriez-vous s'il vous plaît poster soit ici soit sur ma page de discussion les sources que vous utilisez pour indiquer votre unité de mesure indiquée? Comme il semble qu'il y ait une source qui pourrait être amenée à dire qu'il y a une unité Kendrick, regardons maintenant de l'autre côté avant d'appliquer un facteur de «pondération» à l'article. Lord Roem (parler) 20h22, 12 janvier 2011 (UTC)
Je pense que nous sommes tous d'accord pour dire que vous pouvez trouver des sources qui disent Masse IUPAC de CH2 = 14,0157 Da et masse de Kendrick de CH2 = 14,0000 Da même si cette terminologie est, à proprement parler, illégale. (Il est illégal de perdre son temps avec les unités, après tout. Je me demande ce que Kermit dirait s’il découvrait que, dans sa station-service, le propriétaire aurait redimensionné le gallon à un volume plus petit. Le fait est que les définitions officielles des unités ne peuvent pas être manipulées. C'est pourquoi nous avons NIST et ses normes.) Nous n'avons même pas à chercher une source ici. Comme je l'ai écrit ci-dessus: presque tous les jargons possibles et impossibles en chimie se retrouvent dans la littérature. C'est pourquoi je pense que nous pouvons choisir en toute sécurité le jargon qui correspond également au VIM, au livre vert de l'IUPAC, au livre rouge de l'UIPPA et aux normes ISO 8000. Nous pouvons encore mentionner une autre terminologie. Et c'est ce que j'ai fait dans l'article Kendrick (unité). Kehrli (parler) 21h56, le 12 janvier 2011 (UTC)
… et maintenant nous arrivons au coeur du différend. Devons-nous ignorer la grande majorité des sources parce que nous les jugeons "illégales" (ou fausses sources) en faveur d'une ou deux sources plus proches de VIM (vérité)? Et par ignorer en moyenne donner zéro poids, comme si personne n'avait jamais utilisé Da. Ou devrions-nous refléter les éléments vérifiables et remarquables, correctement pondérés pour refléter la pratique réelle (c'est-à-dire la réalité). La réalité sur cette question particulière est que: la plupart ne la définissent pas comme une unité en soi, il existe très peu de personnes qui la définissent comme telles mais elles existent, dans certains cas, elle est mal définie et sujette à interprétation. . La notabilité de tout ce problème est faible. La notabilité des sources qui définissent l’unité comme une unité en soi est faible (sauf le document Kendrick original, qui n’est pas tout à fait clair non plus et ne définit certainement pas une «unité Kendrick» en tant que telle). Junninen est une source valide. Il s’agit d’un document bien rédigé, clair et plus conforme aux principes de VIM (ce qui est bon). Est-ce la seule source ou source principale que nous devrions examiner? Non.–Nick Y. (parler) 17h26, le 13 janvier 2011 (UTC)
Nick raconte l'histoire comme s'il y avait une source (Junninen) contre toutes les autres sources. C'est loin de la vérité. Le fait est qu'il y a à peine deux articles qui utilisent la même terminologie. La terminologie de nombreux articles se chevauchent, mais il est juste de dire que quelle que soit la terminologie que nous utilisons, elle contredira toujours la plupart des articles quelque part. Ce n'est pas une surprise car la plupart des journaux se contredisent. Même Junninen a une terminologie contradictoire. Il y a environ 10 papiers qui utilisent Unités de masse Kendrick. Il y a environ 5 articles qui utilisent la graduation de Dalton (illégale). En outre, il existe au moins 1 000 sources de terminologie interdisant la mise à l'échelle de Dalton et permettant Unités de masse Kendrick. Comme je l'ai écrit ci-dessus, la publication originale de Kendrick ne comprend aucune mise à l'échelle de Dalton. Selon chaque métrique que vous utilisez, la mise à l'échelle de Dalton est du côté des perdants. En dehors des sentiers battus (hors du monde de la chimie), la mise à l'échelle des unités n'est pas acceptable. Si Wikipedia était destiné aux chimistes, nous pourrions discuter de l’inclusion ou non de la mise à l’échelle de Dalton. Puisque Wikipédia est destiné au grand public, il n’ya tout simplement pas de question: la mise à l’échelle de Dalton n’est pas acceptable. C'est le jargon illégal de quelques chimistes ignorants. Kehrli (parler) 21h05, le 13 janvier 2011 (UTC)

─────────────────L’exercice ci-dessous (des sources d’affichage de chaque côté) a pour objet de permettre d’évaluer s’ils sont a) de bonnes sources en soi et b) s’ils disent réellement ce que dit le rédacteur en chef. Nous devons ramener le différend au cas par cas. Je peux comprendre vos préoccupations, mais nous devons examiner chaque la source citée ci-dessous pour le côté opposé de l’équation (sans jeu de mots) comme fondement de la peser les articles. Pour pouvoir présenter des idées de compromis, j'ai besoin de connaître les sources énumérées par Kkmurray ci-dessous, le cas échéant, avec lesquelles vous rencontrez des problèmes. Cela donnera à Kkmurray et à Nick une chance de répondre directement à vos préoccupations au lieu de tourner en rond, comme tout le monde le fait actuellement. Alors … je demande à toutes les parties de porter leur discussion sur les sources de définition "Pro-Da" (faute d'un meilleur mot), énumérées ci-dessous par Kkmurray. Once I see how everyone feels about using these sources, it will be much easier to forge a proposal that all parties would be satisfied with. À votre santé, Lord Roem (parler) 21:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Reom, unfortunately I do not have access to most of these journals. I cannot possibly give a balanced comment based on the short citations. However, what I can say clearly is that according to what Kermit calls the original definition(The Kendrick mass is obtained by multiplying the observed mass by the ratio of the nominal mass of CH2 divided by the exact mass of CH2), the formula must read:

Kendrick mass = IUPAC mass * (14 Da / 14.01565 Da)
This means all papers that write:

Kendrick mass = IUPAC mass * (14/14.01565)
are using self-contradicting terminology, because they use a mixture of dimensionless masses and dimensioned masses. We can rule them out as reliable sources.
More importantly: none of these papers are about terminology. They are all about chemistry. Our discussion, however, is not about chemistry, where we all agree. It is about terminology. So we need to consider literature on terminology. We need to look into the VIM, the IUPAP red book, the IUPAC green book, the ISO 80000 standards and all the books about metrology.
I would like to give an analogy: Assume cooks would be as negligent as chemists and most of them would misspell potato. Imagine we would have a discussion on how to spell potato in Wikipedia. All English dictionaries, of which there would be 20, would insist on potato. However, a large number of cooks would bring out their recipes and cook books (of which there would be 2000) and would argue that there is a majority of 900 cook books that spell potatoe. 300 would favor potado, and 800 would go for potato. Which spelling should go into Wikipedia?
I also have to say that Kermit played his cards well. Suddenly he argues a different line: the Kendrick mass unit is no longer defined by the definition Ke = m(CH2)/14. He now uses nominal mass in his argument. In his article Kendrick mass he did not do this yet. A smart move. This obfuscates that a new unit is introduced. Unfortunately it also obfuscates the fundamental principle of the Kendrick analysis. Also, the basic problem remains: it is not legal to manipulate units. If some scientists do it in their ivory towers, that's bad enough. It really should be avoided to have this nonsense in Wikipedia. We need the Kendrick mass scale as it was introduced by Kendrick, and which implies Kendrick mass units. Kehrli (parler) 23:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I have a few questions then for all editors, primarilly to Nick and Kkmurray — What is your take on Kehrli's statement that the other sources violer VIM and other rules? And to Kehrli, do you have a source that actually says that the usage of this scaling is 'illegal'? In other words, how can we prevent the reader from thinking its improper extrapolation? – Lord Roem (parler) 00:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I've looked at the VIM document and I don't see how the Kendrick mass procedure described in the sources is a violation of it. In a Kendrick mass analysis, a set of physical quantities (mass) is multiplied by a number. The number is obtained by dividing the nominal mass of F by the exact mass of F. The unit part of the physical quantity is not being manipulated, the numerical part is. If Kehrli could provide the specific section number and concept that the sources violate, that would help my understanding of this. I also don't understand how Kendrick's use of the word "scale" can be used to infer that a new unit was defined. A section number and concept would be helpful here as well. When Kendrick used the word scale, he may not have meant "quantity-value scale" in a rigorous sense, he may have meant "a calibrated line" as on a plot or a graph. –Kkmurray (parler) 03:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

We do not have any sources that say that any of these definitions violate VIM. The violation of VIM by these sources is currently unverifiable. What my take or Kehrli or kkmurray's take is irrelevant. We might be able to reason out a yes or no but that would be a novel conclusion unsupported by any source. Nevertheless I will discuss briefly. I am personally uncertain which view of the Kendrick procedure is less in line with VIM, creating a new unit unnecessarily for what amounts to an ad hoc procedure or scaling to adjust the mass defect slightly for convenience and clarity. I work with several ad hoc scaled unit systems, some of which are very flawed but simplify discussion greatly. Some of these even contain approximations, that is two values are set to be equal that are not. I seriously doubt we could fit some of these into VIM and maintain usability since they are fundamentally wrong. VIM is for defining a new unit. If a new unit is not being defined then VIM does not apply. We as scientist are free to have informal but useful discussions/tools using approximations that violate ALL the rules as long as it is somehow informative. My primary take on this claim, however, is that it may be an appropriate minor footnote if verifiable. It should not drive content. Content should be driven by practice and the actual state of usage in the literature within the discipline and area being edited. Kehrli above makes the point that there are actually many different definitions that are somewhat contradictory. Why not report "there are many different definitions in the literature that are somewhat contradictory. The most common procedure is… ".–Nick Y. (parler) 16:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Nick that VIM and other documents are not sources for the Kendrick mass article directly, but instead they should inform WP:UNITS which in turn can guide the content of the article. Further, VIM is more akin to the Federalist Papers than the constitution; it is a BIPM "Guidance Document" not a set of inviolable rules. However, I think that we need to identify the specific points of VIM and other documents that are at least purported to apply if we are to avoid synthesis (per WP:SYN) of VIM with Junien and any other "contrary" Kendrick mass definitions. Further, VIM seems to form the basis of Kehrli's objections to the "Original" and "General" definitions so these arguments must be made clear. That said, I have continued to look at the cited metrology sources and have not found anything that would indicate that the Kendrick mass procedure is in any way incorrect. The IUPAC Green Book cited above is available on-line here: (12) so we can all consult it. As with the VIM, it would be helpful if Kehrli would point out the specific page number and section where the appropriate guidelines are listed. Finally, I disagree with the statement that there are "many different definitions that are somewhat contradictory". The definitions are clear although the concept may be confusing much as the concept of dollars constants in economics can be confusing even when clearly formulated. But overall, Nick Y. is correct: this is about sources, weight, and no original research. –Kkmurray (parler) 19:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Quick note: I was not actually stating the "many different definitions that are somewhat contradictory" as my position or text that I would want to include in the article but rather a *reasonable* position that one might take; this is as opposed to rejecting the whole body of literature because there are some contradictions internally or with VIM. I actually don't see that many contradictions and when there is some poor choice of language the point remains clear and consistent with other source to me. –Nick Y. (parler) 21:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I want to wait for Kehrli to explain where and why he finds the Da sources to be "illegal" under VIM. After that, and discussion there, I will offer proposed compromises for discussion. – Lord Roem (parler) 17:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I looked at an additional metrology source, the IUPAP red book (available here (13)), and did not find anything that would suggest that the Kendrick mass definitions violate VIM. After reading these documents and re-reading Kehrli's statements at Talk:Kendrick_mass (especially (14)), I think that I can more clearly identify Kehrli's misconception and point out how the metrology argument for a Kendrick unit is flawed. As Kehrli points out, a physical quantity is a property that can be measured and expressed as a number and a unit, for example an ion with a mass of 100 Da: the number is 100 and the unit is Da. The misconception comes from the assumption that, in the scientific literature, Kendrick mass is intended to represent a physical quantity and is something that can be measured. It does not; il est obtenu from a physical quantity, but is not meant to represent anything in the real world. For the 100 Da ion above, Kendrick mass = 100 Da x (14/14.01565) = 99.888 Da. The 99.888 Da does not imply that the ion is suddenly 0.1% lighter or that the Da unit is 0.1% larger, in violation of physical reality or VIM respectively. A new Kendrick unit is not needed to "fix" the quantity calculus. The so-called "Kendrick mass" is an abstract quantity that is obtenu from a physical quantity and it would be a confusing and trivial exercise if not for the utility of Kendrick mass defect plots in helping identify similar compounds from mass spectra. –Kkmurray (parler) 16:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

────I will organize and primary and secondary sources on Kendrick mass and post below. –Kkmurray (parler) 23:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Da sources(modifier)

Please list here sources indicating the usage of Da instead of Ke.

Based on the discussion here, I will try to craft compromise proposals for discussion later this week. – Lord Roem (parler) 22:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

──

Definitions of Kendrick mass, called the "Original Definition" and "General Definition" are given below with a corollary on units that follows from the definitions. The sources are listed in chronological order, indicated as primary or secondary, and with notes indicating which of the definitions and/or corollary the source supports. This is not an exhaustive list of sources but includes key primary source, a majority of the secondary sources, and many recent sources. Par WP:WFTE, I have included two sources that appear to run counter to the definitions and corollary below. To the best of my knowledge these are the only "contrary" sources in the peer reviewed Kendrick mass literature.

Definition of Kendrick mass:

(1) Original Definition (CH2 groupe fonctionnel) : The Kendrick mass is obtained by multiplying the observed mass by the ratio of the nominal mass of CH2 divided by the exact mass of CH2:

Kendrick mass = IUPAC mass x (14/14.01565)

(2) General Definition: The Kendrick mass for any functional group F is obtained by multiplying the observed mass by the ratio of the nominal mass de F au exact mass de F

Kendrick mass = observed mass x (nominal mass F)/(exact mass F)

(3) Corollary: if (as is typically the case) the IUPAC mass/observed mass is reported in units of Da, Kendrick mass is reported in units of Da.

Sources

  • Kendrick, Edward (1963). "A Mass Scale Based on CH2 = 14.0000 for High Resolution Mass Spectrometry of Organic Compounds". Analytical Chemistry. 35: 2146. doi:10.1021/ac60206a048.
"Masses on the OI6 scale (atomic mass units) and C12 scale (U) can be converted to the CH2 scale by dividing by 1.0014361 and 1.0011178, respectively"

Primary Source – Kendrick's original article. Observed masses are multiplied by a number thus the unit associated with the observed mass is retained. No "new" unit is mentioned or defined.
  • Qian, Kuangnan; Rodgers, Ryan P.; Hendrickson, Christopher L.; Emmett, Mark R.; Marshall, Alan G. (2001). "Reading Chemical Fine Print:  Resolution and Identification of 3000 Nitrogen-Containing Aromatic Compounds from a Single Electrospray Ionization Fourier Transform Ion Cyclotron Resonance Mass Spectrum of Heavy Petroleum Crude Oil". Energy & Fuels. 15: 492. doi:10.1021/ef000255y.
"Kendrick mass = IUPAC mass × (14/14.01565)"

Primary Source – Original definition, first use
  • Hughey, Christine A.; Hendrickson, Christopher L.; Rodgers, Ryan P.; Marshall, Alan G.; Qian, Kuangnan (2001). "Kendrick Mass Defect Spectrum:  A Compact Visual Analysis for Ultrahigh-Resolution Broadband Mass Spectra". Analytical Chemistry. 73 (19): 4676. doi:10.1021/ac010560w. PMID 11605846.
"Kendrick mass = IUPAC mass × (14/14.01565)"

Primary Source – Original definition
  • Kujawinski, Elizabeth B.; Hatcher, Patrick G.; Freitas, Michael A. (2002). "High-Resolution Fourier Transform Ion Cyclotron Resonance Mass Spectrometry of Humic and Fulvic Acids:  Improvements and Comparisons". Analytical Chemistry. 74 (2): 413. doi:10.1021/ac0108313. PMID 11811416.
"Kendrick mass = (observed mass) (nominal mass of CH2)/exact mass of CH2"

Primary Source – Original definition with terms stated explicitly
  • Hughey, Christine A.; Rodgers, Ryan P.; Marshall, Alan G. (2002). "Resolution of 11 000 Compositionally Distinct Components in a Single Electrospray Ionization Fourier Transform Ion Cyclotron Resonance Mass Spectrum of Crude Oil". Analytical Chemistry. 74 (16): 4145. doi:10.1021/ac020146b. PMID 12199586.
"For example, elemental compositions assigned to peaks at 406 Da suffice to identify members of the same homologous series at masses differing by integer multiples of 14.000 00 Da in Kendrick mass (e.g., 322, 504, 588, and 644 Da), because those compounds differ only in their number of CH2 groups."

Primary Source – Kendrick mass reported in Da units.
  • Kim, Sunghwan; Kramer, Robert W.; Hatcher, Patrick G. (2003). "Graphical Method for Analysis of Ultrahigh-Resolution Broadband Mass Spectra of Natural Organic Matter, the Van Krevelen Diagram". Analytical Chemistry. 75 (20): 5336. doi:10.1021/ac034415p. PMID 14710810.
"The Kendrick mass defect of points along a trend line represents a characteristic difference in the elemental formula (e.g., CH2, COO, H2, H2O, etc.). If we label these trendline variations as F, then the following equations can be used to define the Kendrick mass defect for any F trendline.
Kendrick mass (F) = observed mass × ((nominal mass of F)/(exact mass of F))"

Primary source – Original source for General Definition of Kendrick mass expression. Note that the General Definition is not compatible with a Kendrick (unit), which is only applicable to F=CH2.
  • Davies, Geoffrey F.; International Congress of Ophthalmology Glaucoma Society; Ghabbour, Elham A. (2003). Humic Substances: Nature's Most Versatile Materials. Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis. ISBN 1-59169-015-3.CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (lien)
"KM=IUPAC Measured Mass x (14/14.01565)"

Secondary Source (Book) – Original Definition and abbreviation KM.
  • Marshall, Alan G.; Rodgers, Ryan P. (2004). "Petroleomics:  The Next Grand Challenge for Chemical Analysis". Accounts of Chemical Research. 37 (1): 53. doi:10.1021/ar020177t. PMID 14730994.
"Kendrick mass = IUPAC mass × (14/14.01565)"
"First, compounds of the same class and type but different number of CH2 units are separated by 14 Da in nominal Kendrick mass, but zero difference in Kendrick mass defect, and thus fall on a single horizontal line."

Secondary Source (Review) – Original definition and Kendrick mass reported with Da units.
  • Wu, Zhigang; Rodgers, Ryan P.; Marshall, Alan G. (2004). "Two- and Three-Dimensional van Krevelen Diagrams:  A Graphical Analysis Complementary to the Kendrick Mass Plot for Sorting Elemental Compositions of Complex Organic Mixtures Based on Ultrahigh-Resolution Broadband Fourier Transform Ion Cyclotron Resonance Mass Measurements". Analytical Chemistry. 76 (9): 2511. doi:10.1021/ac0355449. PMID 15117191.
"Kendrick mass = IUPAC mass × (14.00000/14.01565)"

Primary Source – Original definition
  • Zhang, Li-Kang; Rempel, Don; Pramanik, Birendra N.; Gross, Michael L. (2005). "Accurate mass measurements by Fourier transform mass spectrometry". Mass Spectrometry Reviews. 24: 286. doi:10.1002/mas.20013.
"Kendrick mass = IUPAC mass × (14.00000/14.01565)"

Secondary Source (Review) – Original definition
""In 1963, Edward Kendrick proposed a mass scale that is based on the mass of CH2 (14 u by definition) as an alternative to the IUPAC mass scale, which is based on the mass of 12C (12 u by definition) (Kendrick 1963). Such a scale effectively converts the mass of CH2 from 14.01565 u (in IUPAC 12C scale) to 14 u (by definition). "

Secondary Source (Review) – Note that unified atomic mass unit (symbol: u) and Dalton (symbol: Da) are equivalent. This article is explicit in indicating that the unit associated with Kendrik mass is u or equivalently Da.
  • Mopper, Kenneth; Stubbins, Aron; Ritchie, Jason D.; Bialk, Heidi M.; Hatcher, Patrick G. (2007). "Advanced Instrumental Approaches for Characterization of Marine Dissolved Organic Matter:  Extraction Techniques, Mass Spectrometry, and Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy". Chemical Reviews. 107 (2): 419. doi:10.1021/cr050359b. PMID 17300139.
"In brief, the measured mass is converted to a “Kendrick mass”, where the mass of -CH2 is defined as 14.000 Da, instead of the IUPAC mass, 14.01565 Da"

Secondary Source (Review) – This article is explicit in indicating that the unit associated with Kendrik mass is Da. It also defines the term "IUPAC mass": the observed mass in Da.
  • Panda, Saroj K.; Andersson, Jan T.; Schrader, Wolfgang (2007). "Mass-spectrometric analysis of complex volatile and nonvolatile crude oil components: a challenge". Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry. 389 (5): 1329. doi:10.1007/s00216-007-1583-6. PMID 17885749.
"IUPAC mass measured by MS is multiplied by a factor of 0.99888 (14.00000/14.01565, i.e., the ratio of nominal mass and accurate mass of CH2)."

Secondary Source (Review) – Original definition in words; note that some authors use accurate mass and exact mass interchangeably.
  • Marshall, A. G.; Rodgers, R. P. (2008). "Mass Spectrometry Special Feature: Petroleomics: Chemistry of the underworld". Actes de l'Académie nationale des sciences. 105: 18090. doi:10.1073/pnas.0805069105.
"Kendrick mass = SI mass x (14.00000/14.0565)."

Secondary Source (Feature) – Original definition; note that SI mass is used in place of IUPAC mass; however it is clear from the above that the unit associated with Kendrick mass is identical to that associated with SI mass, IUPAC mass, or observed mass.
  • Headley, John V.; Peru, Kerry M.; Barrow, Mark P. (2009). "Mass spectrometric characterization of naphthenic acids in environmental samples: A review". Mass Spectrometry Reviews. 28 (1): 121. doi:10.1002/mas.20185. PMID 18677766.
"The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) mass scale defines 12C as having a mass of exactly 12 Da. The Kendrick mass scale essentially uses a mass scale where CH2 has a mass of 14.00000 Da, instead of an IUPAC value of 14.01565 Da. To convert an IUPAC mass to the Kendrick mass scale, the following equation is used:
Kendrick mass = IUPAC mass x CH2 value on Kendrick scale / CH2 value on 12C scale
Kendrick mass = IUPAC mass x 14:00000/14.01565"

Secondary Source (Review) – Original definition; explicitly states that Kendrick mass has unit Da.
  • Reemtsma, Thorsten (2009). "Determination of molecular formulas of natural organic matter molecules by (ultra-) high-resolution mass spectrometryStatus and needs". Journal of Chromatography A. 1216 (18): 3687. doi:10.1016/j.chroma.2009.02.033. PMID 19264312.
"For the case of molecular formula determination the now-called Kendrick mass (KM) of a mass spectrometric signal is calculated from the detected mass according to Eq. (1):
KM=massdétecter (14.00000/14.01565)"
"If the Kendrick mass defects of molecules are plotted against their integer mass it rapidly becomes obvious that series of alkyl homologs arrange along horizontal lines with a nominal mass spacing of 14 Da"

Secondary Source (Review) – Original definition; symbol for Kendrick mass is KM. Unit associated with Kendrick mass explicitly indicated as Da.
  • Laskin, Julia; Laskin, Alexander; Roach, Patrick J.; Slysz, Gordon W.; Anderson, Gordon A.; Nizkorodov, Sergey A.; Bones, David L.; Nguyen, Lucas Q. (2010). "High-Resolution Desorption Electrospray Ionization Mass Spectrometry for Chemical Characterization of Organic Aerosols". Analytical Chemistry. 82 (5): 2048. doi:10.1021/ac902801f. PMID 20146449.
"For the O-Kendrick diagram, the Kendrick mass (KMO) is calculated by renormalizing the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) mass scale to the exact mass of oxygen using eq 1:
KMO=observed mass x (nominal mass of O/exact mass of O)"

Primary Source – General definition, oxygen atom
  • Ohta, Daisaku; Kanaya, Shigehiko; Suzuki, Hideyuki (2010). "Application of Fourier-transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry to metabolic profiling and metabolite identification". Current Opinion in Biotechnology. 21 (1): 35. doi:10.1016/j.copbio.2010.01.012. PMID 20171870.
"Kendrick mass = IUPAC mass x 14/14.01565

Secondary Source (Report) – Original definition
  • Nguyen, Tran B.; Bateman, Adam P.; Bones, David L.; Nizkorodov, Sergey A.; Laskin, Julia; Laskin, Alexander (2010). "High-resolution mass spectrometry analysis of secondary organic aerosol generated by ozonolysis of isoprene". Atmospheric Environment. 44: 1032. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.12.019.
"Any combination of atoms can serve as the base for calculating Kendrick mass (KM). The Kendrick mass defect (KMD) is then defined as the difference between the nominal mass and KM. For example, if formaldehyde is used as the base, KMCH2O and KMDCH2O are obtained by setting the molar mass of CH2O to exactly 30 amu.
KMCH2O = mass x (massCH2O)/massCH2O
Square brackets refer to the nominal mass obtained by rounding the mass to the nearest integer. "

Primary Source– General definition for F=CH2O; note amu is used incorrectly. This is a common error; the authors mean u or Da.
"Kendrick mass = measured IUPAC mass × 14.0000"

Primary Source – Original definition
  • He, Huan; Emmett, Mark R.; Nilsson, Carol L.; Conrad, Charles A.; Marshall, Alan G. (2010). "High mass accuracy and resolution facilitate identification of glycosphingolipids and phospholipids". International Journal of Mass Spectrometry. doi:10.1016/j.ijms.2010.10.014.
"Second, for lipids not included in the above databases, multiplication of each mass in Dalton by the factor, 14.00000/14.01565 yields so-called 'Kendrick mass'.
Kendrick mass = IUPAC mass × (1400000/14.01565)

Primary Source – Original definition and indication of what is meant by "IUPAC mass".
  • Taguchi, Vince Y.; Nieckarz, Robert J.; Clement, Ray E.; Krolik, Stefan; Williams, Robert (2010). "Dioxin Analysis by Gas Chromatography-Fourier Transform Ion Cyclotron Resonance Mass Spectrometry (GC-FTICRMS)". Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry. doi:10.1016/j.jasms.2010.07.010.
"The industrial fire sample was expected to contain various polychlorinated compounds, so a mass scale reflecting the substitution of 35Cl for H was chosen. This will implicitly make the mass change associated with this substitution equal to 34 Da, instead of 33.960128 Da, as it would be in the IUPAC mass scale. Therefore, the functional form of eq 1 used in this study can be found below, eq 2.
MNouveau = MIUPAC · (34.000000/33.960128) = MIUPAC · 1.001148 (2)

Primary Source – General definition for F=Cl; unit explicitly indicated as Da.
  • Lu, Mang; Zhang, Zhongzhi; Qiao, Wei; Wei, Xiaofang; Guan, Yueming; Ma, Qingxia; Guan, Yingchun (2010). "Remediation of petroleum-contaminated soil after composting by sequential treatment with Fenton-like oxidation and biodegradation". Bioresource Technology. 101 (7): 2106. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2009.11.002. PMID 19942431.
"Measured masses were converted from the IUPAC mass scale (CH2 = 14.01565 Da) to the Kendrick mass scale (CH2 = 14.00000 Kendrick mass units) (Kendrick, 1963)"

Primary Source – Per WP:WFTE, this source does not follow the Original Definition and seems to suggests a "different" unit. They do not use a symbol or shorthand and they do not mention "Kendrick mass units" elsewhere in the article.
  • Junninen, H.; Ehn, M.; Pet j , T.; Luosuj rvi, L.; Kotiaho, T.; Kostiainen, R.; Rohner, U.; Gonin, M.; Fuhrer, K. (2010). "A high-resolution mass spectrometer to measure atmospheric ion composition". Atmospheric Measurement Techniques. 3: 1039. doi:10.5194/amt-3-1039-2010.
"Thus, it is possible to recognise patterns of compounds belonging to the same family by finding a series of peaks differing by 14.01565 Th. It simplifies the interpretation of a complex organic mass spectrum by expressing the mass of hydrocarbon molecules in Kendrick units (where m(12CH2)=14 Ke) instead of Dalton (where m(12C)=12 Da) (Kendrick, 1963)."

Primary Source – Per WP:WFTE, this source appears to define a Kendrick unit with symbol Ke. The authors do not explicitly state that they are formally defining a new unit and it is not clear whether they mean Ke to be a shorthand notation or to stand side by side with Daltons, kilograms and meters.
  • D’andrilli, Juliana; Chanton, Jeffrey P.; Glaser, Paul H.; Cooper, William T. (2010). "Characterization of dissolved organic matter in northern peatland soil porewaters by ultra high resolution mass spectrometry". Organic Geochemistry. 41: 791. doi:10.1016/j.orggeochem.2010.05.009.
"This method assigns a Kendrick mass to all peaks on the mass spectrum, with a simple calculation converting the measured IUPAC mass (based on 12.00000 Da) to a new mass based on CH2 = 14.00000 Da (Kendrick, 1963).
Kendrick Mass=IUPAC mass×(14/14.01565)"

Primary Source – Original Definition and Kendrick mass explicitly in Da.
  • Ohta, Daisaku; Kanaya, Shigehiko; Suzuki, Hideyuki (2010). "Application of Fourier-transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry to metabolic profiling and metabolite identification". Current Opinion in Biotechnology. 21 (1): 35. doi:10.1016/j.copbio.2010.01.012. PMID 20171870.
":Kendrick Mass=IUPAC mass×(14/14.01565)"

Secondary Source (Perspective) – Original Definition
  • Lee, Hyeyoung; An, Hyun Joo; Lerno Jr., Larry A.; German, J. Bruce; Lebrilla, Carlito B. (2010). "Rapid profiling of bovine and human milk gangliosides by matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry". International Journal of Mass Spectrometry. doi:10.1016/j.ijms.2010.10.020.
"The measured masses were then converted from the IUPAC mass scale to the Kendrick mass scale by the multiplication of the mass values with 14.00000/14.01565, in which the mass of the CH2 is taken as integer 14 mass units (37). KMD was calculated by the subtraction of NKM from the Kendrick mass. Afterwards the calculated NKM and KMD were plotted and displayed.

Primary Source – Original definition in words.
  • Ehn, M.; Junninen, H.; Pet j , T.; Kurt n, T.; Kerminen, V.-M.; Schobesberger, S.; Manninen, H. E.; Ortega, I. K.; Vehkam ki, H. (2010). "Composition and temporal behavior of ambient ions in the boreal forest". Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions. dix: 14897. doi:10.5194/acpd-10-14897-2010.
"This is best done by changing to the Kendrick mass scale (Kendrick, 1963) where the mass of 12CH2 is defined as 14.0000. In other words, the measured mass of an ion is divided by m(12CH2)/14, and thus (CH2)n will always fall exactly on integer masses.

Primary Source – Inconclusive; this is the group of authors that "defined" the Kendrick unit above, yet they do not mention it in this article.
  • JURGEN H. GROSS (2010). Mass Spectrometry: A Textbook. Berlin: Springer. ISBN 3-642-07388-3.
"The Kendrick mass scale is based on the definition M(CH2) = 14.0000 u. Conversion from the IUPAC mass scale to the Kendrick mass scale is achieved by multiplying each mass by 14.00000/14.01565 = 0.99888. The intention of the Kendrick mass scale is to provice an effective means of data reduction …"

Secondary Source (Book) – Original definition; explicitly defines Kendrick mass with unit u, which is equivalent to Da per the above.

Kkmurray (parler) 18:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Please supply the source of this definition. Kendrick himself did not use this definition. Pleas ealso supply a definition of the term IUPAC mass. Kendrick did not use this term either Kehrli (parler) 13:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
The sources are those listed above. What is meant by "IUPAC mass" is clear: the measured mass in Da units. See Mopper 2007 above for example. The measured mass in Da units is multiplied by a number and the product is a quantity with units Da. –Kkmurray (parler) 21:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Why the terminology of Kmurray contradicts VIM(modifier)

In this section I will explain (once more) why the terminology proposed by Kmurray contradicts VIM. However, before I can do that I have to receive a proper definition of the term "IUPAC mass" and "Kendrick mass". I have asked for this multiple times but always got weasel answers. Once i have the definitions, I would like the sources of these definitions.

definition of IUPAC mass(modifier)

definition of Kendrick mass(modifier)

Proposed Compromise(modifier)

Discussion has minimized for the past several days – so I have drawn up a compromise to discuss that will bring us into the result-oriented mindset.

Please state your willingness to support it and/or problems, concerns, with it.

Merge(modifier)

1. The content of Kendrick (unit) will be merged into Kendrick mass.
2. Kendrick mass will use Daltons as it currently does but will note in a single sentence in the lead: "In other instances, scientists have used a 'Kendrick unit' in Ke to measure kendrick mass."
3. There may be another mention later in the article, citing the Junnien source.

Please discuss, Lord Roem (parler) 17:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I support this compromise. Merging Kendrick (unit) into Kendrick mass will require removal of some original research, but the balance indicated by points 2 and 3 is appropriate. –Kkmurray (parler) 03:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Soutien – This is essentially what should happen. Point one Strong Support given the removal of OR as suggested by points 2 and 3. Point two Weak Support – The use of the plural here is misleading. Yes, plural usage of the number of times it has been inferred (with generous interpretation) to be a unit is appropriate but use of 'Ke' is irrefutably a singular instance. Also this is generous weighting as it stands but reasonable and thus a compromise position. Point three Weaker Support – doesn't seem necessary but I guess generosity shows good faith. Overall I support the compromise, but I would actually like to see this be generalized and explained. I am not nearly as concerned about this issue as the next and the next and the next. An analysis by Kehrli of what is or is not "illegal" based on VIM should not be an issue in the future and quickly dismissed. If there is a primary or better a secondary reference or review that specifically points this out, a *mention* in Wikipedia *may* be merited. There are other edits in other related areas that fall within this wider scope that are currently outstanding. I would like to see a philosophical agreement here: "Violation of VIM or any other guidance document must be verifiable to be mentioned." That is sources specifically stating this fact, not the guidance document itself plus an argument about what was intended by primary sources and how to reconcile or interpret the two. In the absence of such verifiability the prevailing usage, units and abbreviations etc. as used in the literature of the field should be used. The above compromise on this one issue is within the scope of this as there is indeed at least one source that mentions Kendrick units as a concept. There may be some issues of weighting but not by miles. The weighting suggested on this particular issue is quite reasonable, if not absolutely accurate.–Nick Y. (parler) 04:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

why this so called "compromise" is not acceptable(modifier)

To (1): "Kendrick mass" is a fuzzy concept. As far as I know the term "Kendrick mass" is nowhere properly defined. I have asked for sources of a definition of "Kendrick mass" multiple times and I have never received an answer. Until I get a properly sourced definition of the term "Kendrick mass" I cannot possibly agree to a merger. As a compromise we can have a redirect from "Kendrick mass" to the main article.
To (2): Redefinition of the official unit Dalton to a new value is something I will never agree to because it is not legal. In the same way I will never agree to a redefinition of the kg to a new value (unless it is backed by BIPM). I will not agree to illegal actions. Kehrli (parler) 12:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Question to Lord Roem(modifier)

My Lord, how on earth can you come to the conclusion that redefining the Da is a viable option? This blows my mind. It really makes me think that my skills for arguing for something need strong development. I am loosing here a very simple and obvious case, once again. Could you please give a detailed account of your line of thought? Kehrli (parler) 13:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I would be glad to explain my thinking here.
You have demonstrated with the Junnien source that 'Ke' est something that is used for this measurement. The other parties agreed to this point. Then the question is what weight shall it be given? When compared to the vast literature base, it appears that usage of 'Ke' is far less used than Daltons for this type of measurement. To mesh these two ideas in a way that keeps their meaning 'alive' is keeping an article using Daltons while at the same time noting 'Ke' as usage in some other (and rarer) instances. From my neutral view, it appears both sides are somewhat right. But whether one source and an argument that Dalton usage is 'illegal' can justify using 'Ke' as the primaire notation, strikes me as still difficult to understand. Maybe if you could cite where in the VIM and other 'constitutional' documents it indicates that Daltons/scaling can be illegal, I would better understand. And if you could you give an understanding of either a) someone in the field calls Daltons illegal or b) more sources using 'Ke' as a measurement, I think everyone would be on better ground for discussion.
The compromise I offered I feel is fair with the discussions and sources presented. If you disagree with it, then we need more discussion. I ask that you read my paragraph above to help me better understand your case. Meilleures salutations, Lord Roem (parler) 18:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Lord Roem, you seem to think that this discussion is about using Ke or Da. This is a oversimplification. There are many more aspects.
A) The question which units to use is only a minor aspect of the whole discussion
B) You seem to completely miss the point that even when it comes to the units, there are three different choices:

Kandrick mass units: consistent and used by approx 10 sources
Unitless: this is arguably the most common use, and half way consistent. Murray in the Kendrick mass article used this unitless terminology. It is only recently that he weaseled to Dalton mass unit.
Dalton mass units: is probably less common than unitless and not consistent at all
According to your arguments you would have to propose the unitless version. But it seems that you did not even consider this one. Pourquoi est-ce? Kehrli (parler) 18:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
The sources presented by the parties have been in usage of Dalton and Ke (Junnien). Your main problem with the current usage in the article is that it is 'illegal' scaling under VIM and other primary rules in this field. I am very interested in seeing the quote from VIM/source that says this. This is then the direction we should move the discussion. Lastly, you have seemingly proposed usage of Ke from the Marshall and Junnien source. I have just now heard about a unitless version. – Lord Roem (parler) 19:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
It is evident that I picked the sources in a way to show that "Kendrick mass units" are common usage. It is also evident that Murray has picked his sources to show that Dalton units are common. Murray, since he has an affiliation at an university, has easy access to all journals. His pick of papers, however, is highly biased. Not only the sample is biased. The portion he cites is also biased. He will cite the passage of a paper that supports Da usage, but will omit the passages that support other usages. Unfortunately most papers are not at all consistent in what they support. Hence, you should not be distracted by his biased sample of publications. You should make your own research and not trust the biased sample.

Just to illustrate my point: from Marshall, Fuel Chemistry Division Preprints 2003, 48(1), 14:

Analysis was performed by convertion of IUPAC measured mass to the Kendrick mass scale (CH2 = 14.00000 instead of 14.01565 Da) to facilitate identification of homologous series. Kendrick mass is obtained by multiplying the IUPAC mass with 14/14.0156.
Here the Kendrick mass of CH2 is dimensionless.
Here the same thing in another paper of Marshall (Can. J. Chem. 79: 546–551 (2001)):

In the Kendrick mass scale (18), each mass value is multiplied by (14.00000/14.01565), so that the Kendrick mass of CH2 becomes 14.00000.
No wonder Murray did not cite these two papers.
It is very evident that it is not legal to "scale" units. Imagine the following situation: you drive on a highway with 120 mph where only 80 mph are allowed. A police officer pulls you over and gives you a ticket for speeding. Now your response is: "Officer, I just scaled the miles to double their initial value. Therefore I was only driving 60 mph, not 120 mph." Do you think this would fly? No way. But this is exactly what what you do by scaling the Dalton. I am not an expert at law. You are. So you find out where exactly in the law it states that scaling of units is illegal. It must be somewhere. Otherwise not a single speeding ticket could be issued. I can give you a hint though: here you have an article about Metrology#National_standards. Every country maintains an agency that defined standards. In the US this agency is NIST. The definition of the Da by NIST is here: (15). Now you show me where NIST defines the "scaled" dalton. I pay you a thousand buck if you can produce this scaled definition. It is as evident that you won't find it as it is evident that thee is no scaled mile that will save you from speeding tickets.
Once the term "IUPAC mass" and "Kendrick mass" is defined, I can show where it contradicts VIM. Is it not strange that I have to define and source all my statements, whereas from Murray you accept definitions without asking for any sources? Pourquoi donc? Kehrli (parler) 20:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

──────────I asked him above, under "Da sources", which he listed. I did the same for you in the discussion over Marshall and Junnien. – Lord Roem (parler) 23:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW: in his current article Kendrick mass Murray does not even use dalton units on the Kendrick mass. He uses the dimensionless notation. It is only during this mediation that he weaseled from unitless to Da. But I am sure he will weasel back to unitless as soon as we find that scaling Daltons is not acceptable. Kehrli (parler) 21:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Daltons are not illegal per se(modifier)

Lord, you wrote:

And if you could you give an understanding of either a) where someone in the field calls Daltons illegal …

I never claimed that Daltons are illegal. I just said that it is illegal to scale them (= redefine them). When used according to the NIST standard (Da = m(12C)/12), daltons are perfectly ok. It is just not ok to change their definition. In the same way as it is not ok to change the value of a kg or a mile. Look, this is exactly my initial fear: your expertise in metrology is not sufficient to mediate this case. I can try to translate this into your field of expertise: I imagine that the term "murder" has an exact definition in the legal terminology. If now somebody comes and redefines the definition of "murder", the legal system would no longer work. Assume I would redefine DUI as murder. Can you imagine the mess? This is about what Murray is doing here. Kehrli (parler) 21:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not pushing Ke as a primary notation(modifier)

Lord Roem, you wrote:

And if you could you give an understanding of either b) more sources using 'Ke' as a measurement

I never stated anywhere that Ke should be used as a measurement.

But whether one source and an argument that Dalton usage is 'illegal' can justify using 'Ke' as the primaire notation, strikes me as still difficult to understand.

If you or Murray or anyone else has a better symbol for the Kendrick mass unit I am happy to use it. The Ke is not at all my "primary" notation (whatever this should mean). It is the only symbol for the Kendrick mass unit that I found in the literature. If you found another one I would be excited to know about it. There is just one thing: we cannot use Da, because it is reserved for the Dalton mass unit which is defined differently. Kehrli (parler) 21:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Please compare apples with apples(modifier)

Lord Roem, you wrote:

The sources presented by the parties have been in usage of Dalton and Ke (Junnien).

If anything, you should compare the use of Kendrick mass units with the use of Dalton mass units. Not all people that used Kendrick mass units also used the symbol Ke. You have to search for Ke, Kendricks, Kendrick units, Kendrick unit, Kendrick unit of mass, and so on. These are all synonyms. Then do the same for Dalton mass unit. Kehrli (parler) 21:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The story of little boy and the sloppy chemists(modifier)

Lord Roem, it seems that you are missing my points completely. I will try to explain why the terminology used by Murray is fundamentally flawed. Please read the following story slowly until you understand it completely. Do not hesitate to ask questions if something is not clear.

Assume your mass is 80 kilograms = 176.36981 pounds. Now let us look how you would state this fact in formulas. One way to express this is:

m(Roem) = 80 kg = 176.36981 lbs

Ici m is the symbol for mass, kg is the symbol for kilogram, and lbs is the symbol for pound.
Please note that Roem has only one mass m(Roem) and this mass is the same whether it is expressed in kg or in lbs.

Now here is the way sloppy chemists express the same thing: first they create two masses for Mr Roem. The first one they call kg mass and write:

kg mass = 80 kg

Next they create a second mass and call it lbs mass. They then continue to write:

lbs mass= 176.36981 lbs

Next they forget that the two masses are actually the same. In other words, they forget that Roem's body does not actually change its mass when expressing it in kg or in lbs. Expressed in math they forget that

kg mass = lbs mass

Having forgotten this basic fact, they wonder: hmm – how do I get from lbs mass to kg mass? They then come up with the following formula:

kg mass = lbs mass * 80/176.36981

Now, magically, Mr Roem would have two different masses, the kg mass being only about half as much as the lbs mass. This, of course, is pure nonsense. Both masses need to be the same. As stated before:

kg mass = lbs mass
80 kg = 176.36981 lbs

What happens is the following: since the kg is approx. double the mass of a lbs, the numerical factor in front of the kg must be approx. half the factor in front of the lbs, so that the product on both sides are the same. So we already see that the sloppy chemists have it completely wrong. But it gets even worse:

For some reason the sloppy chemists decide that for simplicity they prefer to have a single mass unit only. Hence they decide to get rid of the kg and instead scale the lbs to the former value of the kg. Hence they write:

80 lbs = 176.36981 lbs

Proudly they pat each other on the back. That looks really simple. Then, a 6th grade pupil passes by. He looks at the equation and says: hey you guys, what are you doing? Every 6th grader can see that this formula is wrong. The chemists look at the equation and are stunned, at first. Then the brightest of the sloppy chemists gets it and answers: boy, you don't understand! The lbs on the left side are scaled. The boy goes: Scaled lbs? My teacher never mentioned such a thing. The chemists reply: well, do you have a source that forbids scaling lbs? The boy: non. The sloppy chemists: see? And if you still doubt we can also have a vote. The brightest of the sloppy chemists: this is so brilliant we should put it on Wikipedia.

Does this story sound familiar?

The important point is that there is a long chain of errors that the sloppy chemists commit:

1) they introduce two masses where there is only one
2) they name the two masses inadequately
3) they forget that the two masses are equal
4) they come up with a wrong formula to relate the two masses
5) they eliminate the second mass unit and replace it with a scaled unit

All papers except the Junninen paper make error 1) to 4). Many papers, but by far not all, then in addition make error 5). You are currently only looking at error 5). Note that the original Kendrick paper did not make any of these errors! Still, most papers cite Kendrick when they la source their mistakes. That's how sloppy chemists are.

Kehrli (parler) 22:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me respond. I think what Kkmurray and Nick are trying to say is that your argument that scaling is 'illegal' has not been shown support. You may be perfectly correct in every aspect, but it needs the appearance of being verifiable. For everyone's benefit, you need to explain scaling is illegal. I completely understand your law hypothetical, but law and science are different organs in the body of the world. A sentence from VIM or some document to support your claim, I feel, is required to at least défi the breath of evidence for the Dalton (or "scaled" dalton). – Lord Roem (parler) 23:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Lord Roem, I now have shown below what you requested, namely where the terminology of Murray contradicts the VIM and the IUPAC rules.
On a second note: this is not about science vs. law. This is about terminology and metrology. It is about the question what terminology should be used on Wikipedia. Should we use a terminology that is verifiably wrong, based on fuzzy math and not understandable to the general public or should we use terminology that is well sourced, according to the consensus of science, law, trade and commerce and in accordance to the laws of physics and math. This is a no-brainer. Kehrli (parler) 01:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
The problem comes from the incorrect assumption that Kendrick mass is a measured quantity rather than a quantity obtained by multiplying a measured quantity by a number. The definition indicated in the majority of the sources indicates that Kendrick mass is not a measured quantity, thus the fallacies suggested by Kehrli are not applicable. The Da unit is obviously not "scaled" and the Kendrick mass is not intended to indicate a quantity that can be measured thus no false equivalence is suggested. –Kkmurray (parler) 02:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Here goes the weasel again. Suddenly the Da is no longer "scaled". Fact is: you are using two mutually incompatible definitions for the same thing. The Da cannot possible be at the same time m(C)/12 and m(CH2)/14. This is a no-brainer. Kehrli (parler) 01:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I would reiterate here that in all likelihood even a reasonably supportive quote from VIM or other such document for this supposed illegality would probably not be sufficient verifiability since we will have to interpret it and then apply it to this particular situation. What is really needed to tip the scales in the other direction would be a direct statement actually saying that the Kendrick Mass is "illegal" in the literature, perhaps in a review etc., so that someone else is doing the interpreting and applying. Also with respect to Kkmurray's supposed biased sampling of the literature I have similar access and even a quick search comes up with similar results. With respect to the unitless notation: perhaps there is room to mention that this is also used on occasion as Kehrli has done a good job of pointing out these sources. Lord Roem – Kehrli will continue to persist in trying to push for "truth" which is a neat clean internally and externally consistent definition that is everything it should be despite what the current usage is. You need to clarify what the purpose of Wikipedia is and is not and what verifiability means. You have made it quite clear what the problem is here and the hurdles needed to forward his/her argument along but have not explained why. The arguments now being put forward by Kehrli are reasonable arguments in another venue, but here what matters is verifiability. Wikipedia is not a primary source. It is not a secondary source. We summarize and report, thats it. No improvements in the process please. The place for improvement and arguments for improvements is out there in the body of the scientific literature not here on Wikipedia. –Nick Y. (parler) 03:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Nick, all my terminology is 100% verifiable. There is not a single term that does not have a source. Give me an example of what you think is not verifiable and I will show you the source. Also, as I have shown below, my terminology is in line with Kendrick's original paper, whereas your's is not. Kehrli (parler) 01:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Talking about verifiability: I have still not received a definition of the term IUPAC mass et le Kendrick mass from you, not to mention a source for this definition. My terminology is therefore more verifiable than yours. Kehrli (parler) 01:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Sloppy chemistry uncovered(modifier)

Here is a definition given by Murray:

The Kendrick mass is obtained by multiplying the observed mass by the ratio of the nominal mass of CH2 divided by the exact mass of CH2:

Kendrick mass = IUPAC mass x (14/14.01565)

He indicates Kendrick himself as source for this definition. Let's have a look at what Kendrick actually wrote:

THE CH2 MASS SCALE: Masses on the O16 scale (atomic mass units) and C12 scale (U) can be converted to the CH2 scale by dividing by 1.0014361 and 1.0011178, respectively.

Now let's compare the two definitions based on the chain of errors that I have given above:

1) they introduce two masses where there is only one
2) they name the two masses inadequately
3) they forget that the two masses are equal
4) they come up with a wrong formula to relate the two masses
5) they eliminate the second mass unit and replace it with a scaled unit

1) Murray introduces two masses, IUPAC mass' and Kendrick mass, whereas Kendrick does not.

2) Murray names the two masses in an inadequate way. Kendrick did not use the term IUPAC mass' nor Kendrick mass

3) Murray forgets that the two masses are equal. Kendrick does not.

4) Murray presents a formula that Kendrick has never written in this way.

5) Kendrick never scaled an existing unit, Murray did.

Even though Murray makes more or less the exact opposite of Kendrick, he claims Kendrick as his source!! Is this not amazing? Roem, what do you say about this sloppy way of sourcing?

What did Kendrick really say and mean?(modifier)

Kendrick says:

Masses on the O16 scale (atomic mass units) and C12 scale (U) can be converted to the CH2 scale by dividing by 1.0014361 and 1.0011178, respectively.

Murray's interpretation of this sentence is the following:

Masses on the O16 scale (atomic mass units) and C12 scale (U) can be converted to the CH2 scale by dividing la masse by 1.0014361 and 1.0011178, respectively.

My interpretation of Kendrick's definition is:

Masses on the O16 scale (atomic mass units) and C12 scale (U) can be converted to the CH2 scale by dividing the numerical factor by 1.0014361 and 1.0011178, respectively.

Quite obviously, Kendrick made an ambiguous statement. A statement that, unfortunately can easily be misunderstood by sloppy chemists with lack of knowledge in metrology.

Here is a short insert about ambiguous statements:
Look at the statement "Tom smells like a dog". This might mean: "Tom has the ability to smell like a dog" (his sense of smell is as good as a dog's) and it also might mean: "Tom's body smells like a dog". The statement for itself is quite ambiguous. However, in 99% of the cases the context will make it clear. For example, if Tom is returning all sweaty from a workout, it is obvious that the second meaning was intended. On the other hand, if the statement is made after Tom just discovered a truffle, the first meaning was intended.

Hence, let's look at the context of the Kendrick definition. Then the case becomes clear. If interpreted in Murray's way, the Kendrick statement becomes meaningless and leads to FIVE really bad errors that all contradict basic principles of metrology. If interpreted in my way, the statement makes sense and is in line with almost all metrology rules. Now go figure what the correct interpretation is.

Conclusion: Kendrick's paper is NOT a source for Murray's statement. It is actually the exact opposite: Kendrick's paper is backing my interpretation as it is written in the article Kendrick (unit)

Where exactly is the contradiction to metrology literature ?(modifier)

1) the error of the two masses(modifier)

Unfortunately, Murray still has not supplied a proper definition of the terms Kendrick mass et IUPAC mass. For whatever reason Roem does not ask him for this definition either. On the other hand I need to have a definition in order to prove it wrong. So here are my definitions:

IUPAC mass is the mass of a molecule indicated in daltons or unified atomic mass units.
Kendrick mass is the mass of a molecule indicated in Kendrick mass units or what Kendrick called the CH2 scale.

Do we really have two masses? NO, of course not. In the same way as Roem's mass does not change when indicated in kg or lbs, the mass of any molecule does not change when indicated in IUPAC scale (Daltons) or CH2 scale (Kendricks). THERE IS ONLY ONE MASS. Période. This single mass can be indicated in different units. That's trivial. Having two masses, or for that matter, for any unit a different mass contradicts the VIM which says:

1.24
quantity calculus
formalism for algebraic manipulation of symbols representing quantities
REMARQUE
In this formalism, equations between quantities have the advantage over equations between

numerical values of being independent of the choice of units (see ISO 31-0:1992, subclause
2.2.2).

In other words: using two different masses IUPAC mass et Kendrick mass for indicating the same mass is not according to VIM.

2) the error of inadequate names(modifier)

le IUPAC Green Book states the following:

The value of a physical quantity can be expressed as the product of a numerical value and a unit:

physical quantity = numerical value x unit
Neither the name of the physical quantity, nor the symbol used to denote it, should imply

a particular choice of unit.

Hence, the term IUPAC mass is against the rules of IUPAC because it is meant to imply dalton units.
The same argument holds for the Kendrick mass. We don't need these two names because there is only one mass and we can call it just Masse. Note that Kendrick did not have two masses, nor did he use these silly names.

3) the error of making the two masses unequal(modifier)

If you you are introducing two masses (which is wrong, as we have seen above) you could still avoid damage by realizing that the two masses are equal. Then you would only contradict rules of terminology, but not rules of logic, of physics and of basic math. Unfortunately sloppy chemists did not cut this corner. They came up with the interpretation that a molecule changes its mass only by indicating the mass in a different unit. What Kendrick actually meant is that the numerical factor in front of the unit is changing. This factor must change if the unit changes, because the product of the factor and the unit must remain the same if the mass is required to be the same. Having the mass of an object change by just applying different units is of course absurd. It contradicts physics. I am not increasing the solar mass by a factor of 1000 just by By indicating the mass of the sun in g instead of kg. I do not loose weight just by using a different unit. That would be nice, but not realistic. I do not get richer by indicating my savings in cents instead of dollars. That is all very obvious nonsense. But it is exactly what is claimed by Murray and all other sloppy chemists producing the formula:

Kendrick mass = IUPAC mass * (14 Da / 14.01565 Da)

The same sections cited above from VIM and IUPAC green book contradict this view.

4) error of wrong formula(modifier)

If you you are introducing two masses (which is wrong, as we have seen above), the correct formula would be:

Kendrick mass = IUPAC mass

The following formula is definitely wrong, as we have already argued above:

Kendrick mass = IUPAC mass * (14 Da / 14.01565 Da)

Conclusion(modifier)

Murray's misinterpretation of Kendrick's statement makes the statement completely meaningless. Therefore it is safe to believe that Kendrick's ambiguous statement should be interpreted in the way explained in the article Kendrick (unit)

Kehrli (parler) 22:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Again, the problem comes from the incorrect assumption that, in the "Original Definition", Kendrick mass is a quantity that can be measured rather than a quantity obtained by multiplying a measured quantity ("IUPAC mass") by a number (14/14.01565), hence the notation "Kendrick mass = IUPAC mass x (14/14.01565)" seen in the multiple sources above. The quantity calculus of this approach is consistent with VIM/Green Book/Red Book, etc. One source, Junien, seems to indicate that Kendrick mass is a quantity that pouvez be measured and is reported in a new kendrick unit with symbol Ke. The "Junien Definition" quantity calculus is also consistent VIM/Green Book/Red Book, etc. However, the "Junien Definition" is ne pas consistent with the "Original Definition". Because of this, if one starts with Junien's assumption that Kendrick mass is a quantity that pouvez be measured and applies this assumption to the "Original Definition", one ends up with the "two mass" or "scaled unit" problems pointed out by Kehrli above. This merely points out the fundamental difference in the two starting assumptions: Kendrick mass is non plus a measured quantity ("Junien Defintion") ou Kendrick mass is obtenu from a measured quantity ("Original Definition"). The two definitions are internally consistent but inconsistent with each other. Both are sourced, thus the issue is what weight to give to each in the Kendrick mass article. Over the past decade, dozens of peer reviewed primary and secondary source articles in the top scientific journals in the world have used the Kendrick mass = IUPAC mass x (14/14.01565) definition and have explicitly indicated that the unit associated with Kendrick mass is Da. This definition cannot be given zero weight and remain true to the principles of WP:VERIFY. –Kkmurray (parler) 04:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Do you have any source that states that the quantity "Kendrick mass" cannot be measured? I don't think so. Kehrli (parler) 21:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Do you have a definition of the term "IUPAC mass"? As long as "IUPAC mass" is not defined, Kendrick mass is not defined either. Kehrli (parler) 21:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Here: (16). –Kkmurray (parler) 23:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
That is what I thought: no viable source for the "IUPAC mass" and therefore no source on "Kendrick mass" because it relies on the definition of the IUPAC mass. Thereby we have answered the question which terminology has better sources.Kehrli (parler) 08:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that we have answered the outstanding questions regarding the sources and clarified some issues regarding their relation to the Kendrick mass article. This being the case, we can return to the issue of assigning due weight to the sources per WP:NPOV. –Kkmurray (parler) 16:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Kkmurray, what exactly is "IUPAC mass" when referenced in your sources? – Lord Roem (parler) 17:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The "IUPAC Mass" is the observed mass (sometimes called the measured mass): the mass that is measured in the experiment. The procedure reported in the sources above is to use a mass spectrometer to obtain a mass spectrum. Peaks are identified in the mass spectrum and associated with masses that are typically reported in the mass unit Da. The sources that use the "Original Definition" typically call this set of observed masses "IUPAC mass". The sources that use the "General Definition" typically call this the "observed mass". There are other equivalent notations. For each of the set of measured masses, the "IUPAC mass" (or equivalently the observed mass) is multiplied by a number. For the -CH2 functional group (F= CH2) this number is (14/14.01565). For other functional groups F in the "General Definition" this number is the (nominal mass F)/(exact mass F). The sources define "Kendrick mass" as the product of the observed mass, which they typically call the "IUPAC mass", and the number (14/14.01565), hence the equation "Kendrick mass = IUPAC mass x (14/14.01565)".
The definition of "IUPAC mass" is indicated several places above. For example.
  • (17) – The definitions and many of the above quoted sources clearly indicate what is meant by "IUPAC mass":
Kim 2003 is explicit: "Kendrick mass (F) = observed mass × ((nominal mass of F)/(exact mass of F))"
kkmurray (19:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)), — (continues after insertion below.)
This is NOT a definition of IUPAC mass. Pardon. Kehrli (parler) 23:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Mopper 2007: "In brief, the measured mass is converted to a “Kendrick mass”, where the mass of -CH2 is defined as 14.000 Da, instead of the IUPAC mass, 14.01565 Da" – in my notes I indicate "It also defines the term 'IUPAC mass': the observed mass in Da."
kkmurray (19:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)), — (continues after insertion below.)
This is NOT a definition of IUPAC mass. Pardon. Kehrli (parler) 23:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Panda 2007: "IUPAC mass measured by MS is multiplied by a factor of 0.99888 (14.00000/14.01565, i.e., the ratio of nominal mass and accurate mass of CH2)."
kkmurray (19:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)), — (continues after insertion below.)
This is NOT a definition of IUPAC mass. Pardon. Kehrli (parler) 23:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Reemtsmal 2009: "IUPAC mass measured by MS is multiplied by a factor of 0.99888 (14.00000/14.01565, i.e., the ratio of nominal mass and accurate mass of CH2)."
kkmurray (19:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)), — (continues after insertion below.)
This is NOT a definition of IUPAC mass. Pardon. Kehrli (parler) 23:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • (18) – I indicate what is meant by IUPAC mass here: "Marshall is explicit in using Kendrick mass as a shorthand for the measured mass (typically in units of Da) multiplied by the ratio of the nominal mass of the repeat unit divided by the exact mass of the repeat unit. In other words the "Kendrick mass = IUPAC mass x (14/14.01565)" for CH2"
kkmurray (19:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)), — (continues after insertion below.)
This is NOT a definition of IUPAC mass. Pardon. Kehrli (parler) 23:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • (19) – When asked, I again responded: What is meant by 'IUPAC mass' is clear: the measured mass in Da units."
kkmurray (19:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)), — (continues after insertion below.)
This definition does contradict the IUPAC green book and VIM! And it is YOUR definition. Please supply a proper source. Kehrli (parler) 23:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • (20) – I indicate again that the sources indicate " a measured quantity ("IUPAC mass") ".
kkmurray (19:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)), — (continues after insertion below.)
This again is YOUR definition. Please supply a proper source. Kehrli (parler) 23:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Is this definition sufficiently clear? –Kkmurray (parler) 19:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Your definition is not clear at all, but more importantly, it is YOUR definition and it is NOT YET properly sourced. Please supply a source where it says something like: The IUPAC mass is defined as a mass in Da units or something alike. What you supplied so far is your POV. Kehrli (parler) 23:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────── I understand much better. Merci. Lord Roem (parler) 21:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Roem, I hope you realize that Murray did not supply a proper definition nor a source. The term IUPAC mass seems not to have a proper definition. The swamp of weasel words of Murray cannot cover this up. Also, his claim that the quantity "Kendrick mass" cannot be measured is not sourced either. Don't let him BS you. Also note that in his article he promoted a unitless Kendrick mass. Now suddenly he promotes it in Da units. His terminology is full of errors. Kehrli (parler) 23:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Measured and observed masses(modifier)

Hi Roem, this is a short explanation about measured and observed masses. It seems that Murray does not understand this concept clearly and therefore makes strange statements that are difficult to understand and sometimes wrong.
Every physical body has a physical property that is called mass. This mass can be measured. Physical properties that can be measured are called physical quantities. So mass is such a quantity. The mass of a body is always determined by a measurement. In case of molecules, there is a special issue: molecules consist of atoms as their building blocks. There are a very limited number of different atom types, and two atoms of the same type have, to very large accuracy, the same mass. The mass of all atoms is known, which means: has been measured before. Hence, if you think you know the atoms in a molecule you can "calculate" the mass of the molecule from the previously measured mass of the building blocks. This is what chemists call a calculated mass. On the other hand they can measure the mass (more exactly, the mass/charge, but this is a different story) of the molecule. If this measurement agrees sufficiently well with the "calculated mass" this will indicate to the chemist that he postulated the correct molecule. This calculated mass compares to a situation where you measure the individual suitcases on the check-in to calculate the mass of your total luggage.
Now consider the claim of Murray: he measures the mass of a molecule and then converts this measurement into a different mass scale. This of course does not turn the measured mass into a calculated mass in the traditional sense. If you measure your suitcase on a scale which shows results in kg and then convert the result into lbs, your suitcase' mass would still be measured. Murray's indication that this now is a calculated mass is, how should I say, unusual and not based on sources. Chemists use the term "calculated" only when they calculate the mass from known building blocks. But in fact also the "calculated masses" are measured in that sense that the building blocks have been measured before.

There are instances when you can truly calculate a mass. Most famous example: E = mc^2 allows you to calculate the mass of a body if you know its energy.

Kendrick mass analysis works with both, measured and calculated molecule masses. Usually you do it with both. The so called Kendrick mass is only an intermediate step in calculating the Kendrick mass defect (KMD). And usually you want to compare your measured KMD with "calculated" KMDs in order to confirm your postulated building blocks.

This excursion shows once again that Murray's knowledge has serious limits when it comes to metrology. And he will tell you strange things with a straight face without having any sources. Kehrli (parler) 00:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems like you think I am making a decision or something. I would ask that discussion be directed at the other party, as my purpose is simply to guide through the different areas of discussion and T'aider reach a compromise vous tous can live with. I understand your disagreement with his explanation, and I do see what you are saying. But I have a thought on turning this around to a more productive area. Kehrli, is there any agreement you could support that would in en tous cas concede points (or weighting of the arguments) to Kkmurray's side? All parties do appear to be trying to come to a decision, but we keep going in circles. Lord Roem (parler) 01:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I tried to make compromises with Murray many times before. But he is mean spirited character that is not interested in compromises. He even had two sandboxes of mine deleted where I was working on an article, during a time when I was absent on Wikipedia. He misquoted a famous mass spectrometrist who later came to Wikipedia to correct him and wrote this into an article. In the mean time Murray has removed this part again. The tragedy is that he is mean spirited to me, but in fact he wants to do good things for the community here. And I respect all the effort that he is puts in. Unfortunately he has the extremely narrow point of view of a chemist and does not realize that this is not a chemistry Wikki and that the terminology here should not include chemistry jargon that is completely out of line with the rest of the world. He is right, though, that a lot of chemists are extremely sloppy with their terminology and that bogus terminology is very common in chemistry (and science in general). But there are other examples. There is Kendrick himself that did not use strange concepts like "IUPAC mass", and scaling of units. There is Junninen who got it right. And there is the wider consensus laid out in VIM, ISO, IUPAC green book and so on. He ignores all these facts completely. He does not give in an inch, even if he has no sources. He never admits a mistake. Sometimes I wonder whether he is autistic. It is difficult to make a compromise with someone who does not care writing wrong "facts" as long as they can be sourced. Kehrli (parler) 01:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
To your question about conceding: I already included all his terminology in my article. Look it up. I would also be ready to extend this part. We could even add scaling of Daltons, which is an absolutely horrible mistake in the point of view of metrology. On the other side: the method he describes has so little to do with what Kendrick wrote and what Junninen wrote that maybe we should just keep it as two separate articles. He seems to have a real issue with the "Kendrick mass unit" (which is sourced from many articles) and even more with its symbol Ke (which is sourced in only one article). In my point of view this fear of a what he thinks is a new unit is completely irrational. One more unit – so what? On the other hand he does not mind redefining an existing unit. Redefining an existing unit is totally absurd. Imagine the lawyers would decide to redefine the kg? It is completely amazing that there are chemists that actually think this is possible and publish it. It sure hurts my trust in science. Kehrli (parler) 01:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Let's not accuse each other of things. Let's also stop right now bringing up past disputes. You need to come here in mediation with an understanding that all parties are just trying to act in good faith. Calling their arguments 'absurd', 'irrational', 'horrible' is not the way to go. Please stick to substantive discussion, not ad hominum conflict. Lord Roem (parler) 02:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest that we define the scope and purpose of what we are discussing. I suspect that Kehrli on the one hand and Kkmurray (and myself) on the other hand are working towards completely different purposes and see the scope of the articles, discussion about the articles and even this discussion as completely different in scale. Kehrli's scope is much grander and more expansive than ours. I think ultimately this is the root of the problem. My purpose is to summarize important aspects of science in an accessible manner that accurately reflects the prevailing consensus within the discipline at hand. (or perhaps that accurately reflects the lack thereof but instead accurately reflects the state of the debate/controversy) I would ask the others to define their purposes as well.
A little reflection on truth, science and this conflict: Science is filled with historical artifacts that really should be redefined. Science moves slowly in making such corrections. Many such corrections are never made. For example, the Kilogram is currently defined by a physical object that is known to be losing mass. This is such a problem that it will be fixed. The new definition has essentially been agreed upon, but not implemented. Of course we are all for correcting errors, misnomers etc, or creating a better system of nomenclature, units etc.. Accurately reporting on such processes moving forward is something I find to be in the scope of Wikipedia and valuable. Contributing to such processes in the Wikipedia namespace I find to be antithetical to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a debate forum. These debates as to what is best should be saved for elsewhere. If everyone has it wrong, if the prevailing consensus/definition is wrong, if the prevailing definition is ridiculously poorly conceived, incomplete or insufficient, by all means go advocate for making it all better, just don't do it here. In this case the prevailing definition says "IUPAC Mass" but doesn't define this nested term as well as perhaps it should. It is the prevailing definition nonetheless. We very explicitly should not fix this. We report the prevailing definition, and there is no controversy of any notability on this subject. –Nick Y. (parler) 03:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

In principle I agree with Nick, but I think he is misstating the facts:
1) Again he claims that I am advocating a new terminology instead of writing what is already there. This is not true! I am only promoting a terminology that is already there. It is sourced in Kendrick and Junninen (and others). The scientific dispute has happened (see review process of the Junninen paper, which is openly accessible), and it was decided. This all happened outside Wikipedia. Now we should just write according to this new consensus.
2) Whereas in my article I present both sides, the article from Murray presents only one side of the story. Whereas Nick claims Accurately reporting on such processes moving forward is something I find to be in the scope of Wikipedia and valuable. he is actually doing the opposite: he wants to suppress the latest progesses and avoid reporting from them. If he would sincerely believe what he says, Nick would have to promote my article.
3) Nick also claims that he wants: to summarize important aspects of science in an accessible manner. Well, using the outdated, inaccessable jargon of a small group will not be accessable to most readers. In my article I summarize the the important aspects of this field of science in a language that is accessable to all. Then I also discuss the jargon that is used within this small scientific community. I am trying my best to explain this jargon to people that are not familiar with it, which is not simple because this jargon is so much in contradiction to the consensus terminology.
4) Nick claims that he promotes a style that accurately reflects the prevailing consensus. So why is he then pushing for an outdated consensus? A consensus that has been overcome in a recent review process? Whereas I can prove that the new terminology is the result of intensive discussion, the old terminology seems to be a rather random artifact of sloppy chemists misquoting the original paper. They are quoting Kendrick for things he never wrote! Nick, the prevailing consensus has changed and you are trying to suppress this fact. Please read the review process of the Junninen paper. It is all in there.
Here is my purpose: My purpose is to summarize important aspects of science in an ACCESSIBLE manner, that accurately reflects the prevailing consensus within the discipline at hand. (or perhaps that accurately reflects the lack thereof but instead accurately reflects the state of the debate/controversy) using a terminology that Wikipedia readers can understand and avoiding jargon that is not accessible to them. Kehrli (parler) 08:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Here is where I see our differences:
1) I disagree with "promoting a new terminology" in Wikipedia namespace at all. We report not promote. A review process constitutes neither a controversy nor a scientific consensus, nor is the review process of a single paper notable. We here should be particularly behind the curve as these changes progress.

Ok, promoting was the wrong word. I was only reporting what is happening. And I am reporting it in a consensus terminology, not in jargon. Kehrli (parler) 16:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
2) This appears to reflect a difference in where in the change curve we should be. I say as a encyclopedia we should deal primarily with the well established rather than the cutting edge. You see the weighting should be weighted towards the new and cutting edge. I think we should wait until this shows up in secondary sources before we as an essentially tertiary source should report on it. That is a notable publication should contain an article stating that this issue is controversial before we should even consider reporting it. Now don't get me wrong that change should not take place, it just shouldn't involve Wikipedia taking any sort of active role and giving more weight to issues than is reflected in the primary and secondary sources.

It already is in secondary sources. Kendrick 1963 is the primary source and Junninen is citing it. Kehrli (parler) 16:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
3) I think there is perhaps a place for your contributions here. Let us explain the Jargon that is the prevailing terminology in an accessible manner, but without trying to change it. What is meant by "IUPAC mass"? Well let us look at all of the sources and see what the consensus is and report a reasonable interpretation of the majority. I'd say something like it is the molecular mass reported in Da as measured by a mass spectrometer. I think this is clear.

This comes close to my definition given above, except that "as measured by a mass spectrometer" is not necessary nor true since mass spectrometers measure mass/charge, not mass. Kehrli (parler) 16:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
4) The prevailing consensus is not the same as the most recent discussion. There is far more extensive recent discussions about changing the definition of the Kilogram and I am 101% in favor of this change. Do I therefore change the definition of the Kilogram on the Wikipedia page. No. Am I suppressing this change? No. I am letting the process of change occur outside of Wikipedia and only reporting the change. Wikipedia is just not a place to promote new terminology. It is a place where we might report on new terminology if notable and reasonably if not full established.

I agree 100% with you on the kg example. The time to change it on Wikipedia is when the official definition by the BIPM changes the definition. In case of "IUPAC mass" and "Kendrick mass" the official BIPM rules as well as VIM, ISO, IUPAC and IUPAP rules argue against what YOU think is the current consensus definition. In addition, YOUR definition does not even have a single source. All you have is some papers using this term in an inconsistent way. THERE IS NO PREVAILLING CONSENSUS. The prevailling consensus in the scientific community actually is that there is only one mass for a single molecule, e.g. that there is no need for having two names for the same thing. It is only the jargon of a small group of chemists that contradicts the prevailling consensus. Fact is: Kendrick did not use the term IUPAC mass nor Kendrick mass. He did it right. The method he presented in his paper has not much in common with the methods cited by Murray. He does not have two names for the same mass. He does not scale units. Maybe we need two articles, one about what Kendrick did and one about what some of the following sloppy chemists did. Kehrli (parler) 16:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Nick Y. (parler) 15:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
This little exercise was helpful but I suggest we move on as suggested by Kkmurray below. Just a couple of notes for you: By consensus I mean the most commonly used, not the most correct or consistent with anything else. Secondary sources is plural and I mean several not two. I agree that there is no really well established and widely accepted definition however the definition you are espousing is by far in the minority in number of publications. The other definitions are pretty closely aligned if slightly inconsistent and "sloppy".–Nick Y. (parler) 03:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

───────────────

Lord Roem, first I'd like to pause and express my thanks for guiding us this far. As you say, we have been going round and round but even so we have been able to make some forward progress. First, we have been able to table the VIM argument. First because it is not a primary or secondary source for Kendrick mass and second because both the Kendrick unit and Dalton unit approaches (I'll use "Kendrick unit" and "Dalton unit" as shorthand for the two sides of this compromise) are consistent with VIM. Second, we have been able to establish sources for the Kendrick unit and Dalton unit sides. We have established the Junninen paper as indicating a new Kendrick unit with symbol Ke. We have established that no other sources define a new Kendrick unit. We have noted that some sources us the word "unit" ambiguously, but that none can be said to introduce a new "Kendrick unit" or symbol. We have established that dozens of primary and secondary sources use the Dalton unit approach. We have established that these sources use the Dalton unit with symbol Da for the quantity that the sources call "Kendrick mass". We have established that the sources use the term "IUPAC mass" as a shorthand for the masses measured in the mass spectrometry experiment (the "observed mass"). We have established that, with the Dalton unit approach, the Kendrick mass is obtained from the product of the observed mass quantity (the "IUPAC mass") and a number obtained from the ratio of the nominal mass of the functional group of interest F to the exact mass of the functional group F and that when F=CH2, this number is 14/14.01565=0.99888. We have established that, with the Da unit approach, the product of "IUPAC mass" and this number is called "Kendrick mass", is reported with Dalton units Da, and that this quantity calculus is consistent with VIM. We have established that the Kendrick unit and Dalton unit definitions are not consistent with each other and Kehrli has shown that if the assumptions of the Kendrick unit approach are applied to the Dalton unit approach, several logical inconsistencies arise. Thus, of the two tasks before us, identifying sources per WP:PSTS and achieving balance per WP:WEIGHT, we have successfully accomplished the former.

If we are now to move on to the issue of the weight to be given to the two sides in the Kendrick mass article, several questions must be asked of Kehrli. First, are you willing to negotiate the question of weight in good faith, your accusations of bad faith above notwithstanding? Second, do you fully understand the Dalton unit approach as indicated in the equation "Kendrick mass = IUPAC mass × (1400000/14.01565)" above? In other words, do you understand what it is that you are compromising with? You have stated that "IUPAC mass is not defined" even though the definition of this term was pointed out to you several times. You seem to be arguing based on the misconception that the authors of the Da unit sources intend Kendrick mass to represent a quantity that is measured in the mass spectrometry experiments, which is obviously not the case as you demonstrate yourself when pointing out the resulting inconsistencies. For the Dalton unit articles that you do have access to, can you see, given the additional explanation above, that they are at least internally consistent even if you do not agree with the approach and the notation? It is essential that you fully understand the Dalton unit approach if we are to move forward toward compromise in assigning weight to the sources. –Kkmurray (parler) 16:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The formula "Kendrick mass = IUPAC mass × (1400000/14.01565)" already is in my article. The compromise you require is already in place since months. Kehrli (parler) 05:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I am glad to hear that you agree that both sides must be represented in the Kendrick mass article. We now need only agree on due weight for each side. The proposed compromise of Lord Roem is 1) merge Kendrick (unit) à Kendrick mass, 2) in the article lead cite the majority view of the "Dalton unit" approach and note the minority view of the "Kendrick unit" approach, and 3) include an additional mention of the Kendrick unit approach in the article body. Can you offer any good faith objections now that your concerns regarding sources and definitions have been addressed? –Kkmurray (parler) 14:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I have posted both sides in my article a long time ago. Maybe you should read it. Let us skip the discussion about (1) for now. We can do it later. Please let me know where you disagree with my article that summarizes both point of views. Kehrli (parler) 17:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Compromise point (1) can't be separated from the others. Par WP:NPOV, to avoid the appearance of bias in article titles "alternative names should be given due prominence within the article itself, and redirects created as appropriate." The compromise proposed by Lord Roem is based on the greater prominence of the "Dalton unit" side compared to the "Kendrick unit" side and compromise points (1), (2), and (3) all reflect this greater prominence. Once we agree on the issue of weight, we can move on to creating an article in which each side is given due weight. Will you now support the compromise? –Kkmurray (parler) 19:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
As I just said: let us do (1) later, we will find a solution. My proposal on the weight: 1) People should be able to understand the article. 2) Explain what Kendrick's intention and solution is. 3) Show different terminologies that have been used over the years. 4) Indicate the terminology according to the international consensus. Kehrli (parler) 19:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

─────────────────────────

Kehrli, I think you are missing KKM's point/issue. In a world where your côté is more of a minority view, how can you justify a completely separate article for the 'Ke' notation? Do you still contend your usage is more common? Lord Roem (parler) 22:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the Ke notation? Kehrli (parler) 08:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems you want to keep your article fully intact, instead of merging it with the other one where Da is used. Lord Roem (parler) 12:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

How do you get this idea? This is not what I wrote. As Kermit requested, I made a list of priorities (weights) that an article should address. Kehrli (parler) 16:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

By weight, I meant the fair representation of viewpoints in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint as described in WP:WEIGHT. The three compromise points cannot be separated because they all relate to the issue of due weight. –Kkmurray (parler) 20:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Kermit, that is too generous from you. Selon WP:WEIGHT your fringe view of metrology would not deserve any mentioning at all on Wikipedia. I would not go so far. I think in this case the fringe view actually deserves some mentioning because it is, after all, used by some sloppy chemists in the field that do not know better. Kehrli (parler) 19:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Can I take your response as an indication that you will not support Lord Roem's compromise? –Kkmurray (parler) 18:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Lord Roem, how do you get the idea that mine is a minority view? Kehrli (parler) 22:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I think I've already explained this – but the compromise states what all sides seem to have presented here: that Dalton is the usage in most sources, while "Ke" is utilized in fewer sources, but is still used. The merge proposal I have presented maintains a fair balance of weight in my opinion. Lord Roem (parler) 23:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I have already explained that (1) the unitless version is probably even more common and also more correct and use din Kermit's article, (2) there is no source for the idea that the Dalton version is more common, (3) the Dalton version contradicts the international consensus on metrology. Therefore you compromise has no base. Kehrli (parler) 22:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
We've been around the circle more than twice. And I've been through this entire process in the past and no matter what happens Kehrli persistently refuses to accept usage as a factor in due weight. His/her goal is always to correct the world as it stands. If one person got it "right" then we should go with what is "right". Others are misguided and should preferably be ignored altogether. Fringe views are defined by how incorrect they are not how uncommon. Kehrli is confident in his/her righteousness and will thus refuse to compromise. What he/she fails to understand is that being right is largely irrelevant and prominence is contextual and need not be in harmony with other contexts. This position is fundamentally incompatible with WIkipedia.–Nick Y. (parler) 18:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Nick, according to WP:WEIGHT your fringe view of metrology would not deserve any mentioning at all on Wikipedia. It is not me that refuses WP:WEIGHT. It is you. Kehrli (parler) 22:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Kehrli, is there any compromise you would agree to that did not maintain your current article in its current form? Lord Roem (parler) 18:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Sure, I gave my suggestion above. Kehrli (parler) 22:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

─────────────────────────

Kehrli you are repeating objections that have been addressed at length above. You are unwilling to support the proposed compromise or offer good faith objections that are consistent with the principles of WIkipedia. I agree with Nick Y.; this has moved from a content dispute to a disruptive editing issue. –Kkmurray (parler) 01:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

As parties to this mediation do not feel it can proceed with new progress, I will be closing the case. Lord Roem (parler) 03:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
D'accord. I appreciated your efforts Lord Roem on this issue. Merci. Also, Kkmurray I applaud your efforts and patience to try to resolve this as a content dispute. Unfortunately, it has been clear to me from the beginning that this would be the outcome. Ultimately, Kehrli will need an authoritative and emphatic explanation of weight with some teeth in order for any progress to be made.–Nick Y. (parler) 14:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed also and also thanks to Lord Roem for guidance and Nick Y. for helping advance the discussion. Thanks too to Kehrli for negotiating in good faith on at least some of the mediation issues. We achieved significant agreement on sources but the process broke down on the application of due weight. Arbitration appears necessary but the effort here will make it easier to separate content and behavior issues in that process. –Kkmurray (parler) 16:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


#ecrire un livre sans experience
#écrire un livre en ligne gratuit
#ecrire une source d’un livre

Laisser un commentaire